Anti-warming nonsense neutered
Posted by Ken Parish on Tuesday, March 25, 2008
 |
For some reason, Saint decided to include an anti-global warming rant in today’s Missing Link. It’s part of an “interview” between warming denialist Institute of Public Affairs shill/scientist Jennifer Marohasy and denialist pundit Michael Duffy:
Duffy asked Marohasy: “Is the Earth still warming?”
She replied: “No, actually, there has been cooling, if you take 1998 as your point of reference. If you take 2002 as your point of reference, then temperatures have plateaued. This is certainly not what you’d expect if carbon dioxide is driving temperature because carbon dioxide levels have been increasing but temperatures have actually been coming down over the last 10 years.”
You can see how Marohasy manages to utter at least the first two sentences with a straight face by examining the graph at right. 1998 is the peak of a very large El Nino spike, but global average temperatures kept climbing both before and after it. Picking 1998 as the commencing year is also blatantly dishonest.
You can, however, see that the last two years have registered very slight falls in average temperature. Does that mean Marohasy has a genuine point? In fact, if anything it reinforces the fact that human-generated greenhouse gases continue to exert a significant upward impact on global climate. The last two years have seen the combination of a significant La Nina event (which has a downward impact on global temperature just as an El Nino has an elevating impact) and the bottom or solar minimum of the 11 year sunspot cycle. These are two major drivers of climatic fluctuations, so you would expect to see a major fall in global average temperatures back towards the 1960s average if, as the denialists assert, increases in human-generated atmospheric greenhouse gases are having little or no impact on climate.
Instead, the fall has been tiny and the cumulative increase caused by the increasing atmospheric concentration of CO2 and the like remains starkly evident. Indeed it was the undeniable reality of the miniscule scale of the flattening and drop, when it should have fallen markedly if the denialists were right, that two or three years ago convinced me personally of the reality and scale of global warming having previously been moderately skeptical of major warming claims.
People like Marohasy, however, are unconcerned with making objective assessments of the evidence. Their game is to use whatever superficially plausible arguments they can in an attempt to mislead people who can’t or won’t examine the evidence for themselves and prefer to see the broad scientific consensus (that human-generated warming is a reality and a serious threat) as merely the self-interested exaggerations of a small group of unprincipled grant-seeking scientists being touted by a sinister conspiracy of lefties and greenies intent on undermining capitalism (or some such bizarre fantasy).
ShareThis
This entry was posted on Tuesday, March 25th, 2008 at 10:15 PM and filed under Climate Change.
Follow comments here with the RSS 2.0 feed.
Post a comment or leave a trackback.
Shorter Marohasy:
I was on the radio and I put one over Michael Duffy, Christopher Pearson wrote about me in his column and I got lot lots of praise from other bloggers.
Hope you’ve retired to a safe distance now that the blue touch paper is lit, Ken.
Posted on 26-Mar-08 at 12:18 am | PermalinkShe does it deliberately, with the full support of the IPA and a few ventures into astro-turf green groups funded by mining and timber companies. Also, she isn’t dumb and rarely (if ever) responds to debunking efforts on her own blog. It’s a campaign of corporate sponsored misinformation. I suspect she doesn’t believe any of the bullshit she espouses, but it pays the bills. Where someone like Tim Blair or Andrew Bolt push out garbage for contrarian reasons, Marohasy is a different animal altogether.
Posted on 26-Mar-08 at 1:06 am | PermalinkDuffy’ll give anyone who disputes global warming uncontested air time. I think he’s more like Bolt that Marohasy, though (assuming DR is correct about her motivation).
Posted on 26-Mar-08 at 1:34 am | PermalinkMarohasy is a shill, plain and simple.
Posted on 26-Mar-08 at 1:37 am | PermalinkGummo’s words are not a direct quote - I did not write that.
Ken seems to not have a very good understanding of the available global temperature data. My interview was about the latest satellite data and I put this in context again here: http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/002863.html
As regards the other comments, including from Ken, personal attacks won’t progress your understanding of this important issue.
In conclusions, I am continually amazed at the extent to which some of the supposidely ‘wise old men’ of the Australian blogosphere are so superficial and unnecessarily nasty when it comes to issues on which they have strong opinions.
We can all have our own opinions, but not our own facts.
Posted on 26-Mar-08 at 3:19 am | PermalinkJennifer, dear, Gummo’s words were not intended to be a direct quote, but rather a precis.
Oh, and I’d bet Ken’s understanding of the data is deeper than yours, or at least deeper than that implied by your stated position.
Posted on 26-Mar-08 at 3:34 am | PermalinkGummos word appeared as a quote and may have been intended as a smear.
As regards the temperature data, lets discuss - but first I would like an apology. Indeed I see little point in having any discussion if those who read this blog consider me nothing more than a shill and denialist.
Posted on 26-Mar-08 at 3:50 am | Permalink(This is fun.) I doubt you’ll get an apology from anyone, Jennifer. You’re widely perceived as either a fool or a rogue, and thus not entitled to an apology in either case. Try reading some of the peer-reviewed climate science literature with an open mind (or even looking at Tim Lambert’s blog, or Real Climate) to understand why so many people have this perception. If you’re incapable of that, you’re correct - there’s no point in discussing anything with you.
Posted on 26-Mar-08 at 4:00 am | PermalinkI think I’ll bookmark this page as a useful reference for when the annual temperature averages spike upwards again - noise in long-term trends being what it is - and we start hearing about all the short-term natural influences on the climate that might be responsible for the increase.
Posted on 26-Mar-08 at 4:21 am | PermalinkJennifer Marohasy wrote:
You first. You ought to be ashamed of yourself.
Posted on 26-Mar-08 at 4:23 am | PermalinkIf you refer to the effects of the 1998 el Nino then you should also include the effects of all the other el Ninos in 1986-1987, 1991-1992, 1993, 1994, 2002-2003, 2004-2005 and 2006-2007.
Records of ENSO events can be viewed on
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ensoyears.shtml
Posted on 26-Mar-08 at 4:25 am | PermalinkI don’t think apologies as such are really relevant given the heat this sort of issue generates from all sides (read almost anything by Bolt or Blair if you want to see ad hominem sledging at its best/worst). Nevertheless, if Jennifer asserts that she sincerely believes all that she has written on this subject and is happy to argue the science, then I would be churlish not to accept at least her sincerity. Therefore, and speaking only for myself, I’m happy to withdraw the word “shill” if that will assist in any way in encouraging a genuine exchange of information and arguments on this critically important issue. I frankly doubt that that’s what we’ll get, but I live in hope.
Posted on 26-Mar-08 at 4:33 am | Permalinkrog,
All of those El Nino effects would have been factored into the annual averages already shown in the graph, wouldn’t they? They would have had the same effect on the five year average too - the line would have wobbled a bit without significantly altering the long-term trend.
Funny thing about trends - you don’t know where they’re going until they’ve already got there. Especially in the short-term. That’s not always the best time to find out.
Posted on 26-Mar-08 at 4:39 am | PermalinkIf all the ENSO events had been factored in - what explains the sudden variation post 1944ish?
ENSO records start 1950 - what if they had started 1880?
Its a can of worms, NOAA predict a continuation then weakening of the current la Nina and some discussion as to its extending thru 2008. The US are usually ahead of Australia with their predictions
Posted on 26-Mar-08 at 5:06 am | PermalinkWhoops, should have checked - the sudden variation may have been when ENSO records started and were factored in.
Posted on 26-Mar-08 at 5:07 am | PermalinkActually Ken you should have done your homework, 1998 is the point of reference that the head of the IPCC remarked on as being the start of the temperature “plateau”
The fact is - it hasnt warmed since 1998 (see above graph).
Posted on 26-Mar-08 at 5:47 am | PermalinkTrue, but neither will paying attention to you.
Posted on 26-Mar-08 at 6:49 am | Permalinkrog
The graph shows a clear continuing warming TREND post 1998 (that being the appropriate way of examining the data). It’s true (as the primary post indicated) that if you cherry pick the commencing date for a graph and ick the peak of the 1998 El Nino then you can say, as Marohasy does, that there has been no warming since 1998. But that is a spurious/meaningless/dishonest point. It’s the trend line that counts.
I’ll be interested in what Jennifer has to say about satellite records, because my understanding is that they now largely mirror the surface record. OTO there is some recent data indicating that ocean temperatures haven’t risen as one would have expected over the last decade (or however long they’ve been measuring them). That would actually be quite a valid point for Jennifer to make, because it actually isn’t explained by the current state of scientific knowledge whereas the surface record is exactly what one would expect (contrary to what Jennifer claims). OTO all it really says is that there are still lots of things we don’t fully understand about the way earth systems interact; it certainly doesn’t cast doubt on the reality of human-generated globalw arming. Similarly, my reading suggests that the role of cosmic rays on cloud formation is a remaining area of some uncertainty that Jennifer could legitimately deploy (although the research is heavily disputed). Thus there certainly are some remaining areas of uncertainty, but they’re not the ones Jennifer claims.
Posted on 26-Mar-08 at 6:53 am | PermalinkI think Jennifer Marohasy is irresponsible for making these claims which provide doubt about the case for the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis where none are suggested by the data. It is irresponsible because it fuels the passions of denialists who are looking for doubt.
If you have a story Jennifer you should present it and otherwise retract the initial suggestion. On the face of it it seems erroneous.
I still don’t understand why you choose a spike in 1998 and then referred to a trending downwards from that spike. The series has had quite high variance of its history since 1860 and picking a particular spike as a base period for comparisons over a 10 year interval is difficult to understand.
An excellent clearly-presented and well-written post Ken.
Posted on 26-Mar-08 at 7:34 am | PermalinkI find these ‘debates’ endlessly fascinating, while also being monotonously boring. One believes what one believes. Science, in the matter of global warming, has been prostituted both by the UN and by those who claim to deny. For mine, I believe because fifty years on this planet tells me climate has changed. Winters are not as cold, summers are frequently warmer and storm activity which used to occur with clockwork-like regularity, no longer happens. Sure, my bit of the globe is very small, but my perceptions are all that matter to me. Isn’t that what this issue is all about anyway? Perceptions?
Posted on 26-Mar-08 at 8:08 am | PermalinkInformation putting Rog’s points about La Nina in some more context can be found here: http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Correlation_Last_Decade.pdf . Scroll down to second last graph.
As regards the issue of satellite data raised by Ken, well our ability to measure global temperature is improving all the time because of the satellites. The interview I gave with Michael Duffy was prompted by my attendance at a climate conference in New York where Roy Spencer told us about the latest findings from the NASA Aqua Satellite. This satellite was only launched in 2002 and collects data not only on temperatures but particularly on temperature anomalies and the hydrological cycle - including water vapour and cloud formation and evolution (so relevance here to the cosmic ray theories - an issue Ken also raises).
In short, the currently accepted theory is:
1. The most prevalent greenhouse gas is water vapour
2. As temperatures rise, the oceans warm up and release extra water vapour
3. This water vapour then absorbs energy and radiates some of it to the ground, thus helping global temperatures to rise even more.
So the idea is that the warming effects of carbon dioxide will be amplified by increasing water vapour.
But this is NOT what the latest data from the Aqua satellite shows, it shows that water vapour and high altitude cloud cover don’t necessarily increase when there is warming. Rather weather processes limit the total greenhouse effect in proportion to available sunlight. This can happen in a variety of ways through the hydrological cycle, for example low level clouds release water vapour from the atmosphere when it rains.
The new data from the Aqua Satellite was probably the most important issue discussed at the conference. The findings were part of a presentation by Roy Spencer who leads the team analysing all the data from NASA’s Aqua Satellite.
Posted on 26-Mar-08 at 8:20 am | PermalinkKen,
I found this NPR story on those ocean temperature findings via a post on one of those Bolted on denialist sites.
What’s missing from the reporting of these findings there - and in other places where they’re being hailed as evidence that the IPCC got it wrong, is usually this bit:
Summary: the ocean temperature hasn’t risen enough that we can account for sea-level rises entirely through thermal expansion of the water, ergo we’re getting increasing levels of meltwater from somewhere, but buggered if we know where.
That doesn’t sit too comfortably with the oft repeated cry that the glaciers aren’t really melting.
The other nuance that’s ignored is that this might point to a slow down in the rate of warming, which is nowhere near the same as no warming at all.
Posted on 26-Mar-08 at 8:36 am | PermalinkJust for fun I’ll throw this into the mix:-
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88520025
Posted on 26-Mar-08 at 8:38 am | PermalinkGummo beat me to the punch by two minutes. Bummer.
Posted on 26-Mar-08 at 8:40 am | PermalinkThere she goes again. More graphs, more obfuscation and cherry picking. What really irks me about the whole denialist manifesto is that it continues to muddy the debate about what (if anything) should be done - about the right and wrong approaches to the problem. If they weren’t all so busy denouncing the vast leftist conspiracy, they might have something interesting to contribute to a solution (or better yet, propose a market so they can bet against it so we can get some liquidity). No, obviously it’s much easier to simply deny and when caught, point to the extreme green solutions as unworkable Stalinist plots to steal your car. Scientific skepticism is fine and more than helpful, These amateur theatrics are just making the nuttier solutions get more air time than they deserve. i.e. Jennifer, it’s just counter productive - give it up while you still have a shred of credibility left.
Posted on 26-Mar-08 at 9:39 am | PermalinkFrom Terje’s link. … very interesting.
Dave:
Cut it out.
How the hell do you have a debate if everyone agrees?
And how exactly do you know it’s more economically worthwhile to mitigate with a sledge hammer rather then do other things, such as reforest, remove height restrictions in cities, price the road system on a usage basis, allow the introduction of nuke without the zealot like restrictions, remove subsidies on smelting industries such as aluminum, or introduce a carbon tax in lieu of an income tax. How about moving income taxes to a land tax arrangment making the use of land more efficient. It’s not obvious that we need to suffer any pain in the process of pricing carbon. In fact, with effective policies we could raise our standard of living with less carbon by implementing sound market based policies.
There are a lot of us who are legitimately concerned this issue is being abused from a financial point of view. Pricing carbon ought to be a revenue neutral action, but it doesn’t look likely so excuse us for thinking it’s a con…. not the science but the actions being introduced.
And by the way I think Jen is doing a decent job even if you don’t agree with her.
Posted on 26-Mar-08 at 10:03 am | Permalink#21 Jennifer Marohasy said:
“In short, the currently accepted theory is:
1. The most prevalent greenhouse gas is water vapour
2. As temperatures rise, the oceans warm up and release extra water vapour
3. This water vapour then absorbs energy and radiates some of it to the ground”
The hell it is. The currently accepted theory is that increasing concentrations of absorbing gases - CO2, water, whatever - will warm the earth.
Here’s the thing. The only gas increasing in concentration is CO2, in large amounts, about 50% over the last century. Water vapour? Not so much.
You elide too much Jennifer. Just enough to avoid me accusing you of blatent dishonesty, but too much nonetheless.
Posted on 26-Mar-08 at 10:59 am | PermalinkWhat JC said. I’ve never entered into any of the various global warming threads, either here, at Catallaxy, or at Blair’s. I’m making an exception in this case because the level of vituperation is unusual for Club Troppo. Much of the animus directed at people like Jen seems to come about not because people disagree with her science, but because they disagree with (a) her politics or (b) her sources of funding (all of which are disclosed).
Now I may be one of Ken’s ‘moderate libertarians’, but as far as I am concerned, attacks on funding sources are either neither here nor there. How many people here are paid by the state? If you are, may I call you a state sponsored shill?
For those of you who’ve never taken risks, attacking a corporation for funding denialists undoubtedly makes you feel good about yourselves. You don’t imagine that you could ever be in the position of the corporation, either as an owner, director or major stock-holder, let alone as an employee.
There is another issue, which JC raises, and on which I don’t have the expertise to comment in any detail. That concerns our response to global warming. Many of the responses seem to be in the form of empty symbolism, like Earth Hour. Blair and Jason are spot on about this - it’s like peeing in a dark suit, feels good but doesn’t show. Other responses seem to come from people who are simply opposed to economic progress - the ‘hairshirt crew’ as Jason calls them. To my mind, that’s an entirely separate issue, and worth debating on its own merits.
Posted on 26-Mar-08 at 11:48 am | PermalinkKen,
You are not being very honest by using the graph that you used in your post but then again what does honesty have to do with climate alarmists?
So let’s look at a better graph shall we which focuses on the two satellite records which are the most reliable sources of temperature data available:
http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/MSUvsRSS.html
It certainly appears to support Jennifer’s assertion and contradicts the claims by alarmists of an “accelerating warming”!
The shame of it all is that the lies being propagated by the alarmists are diverting focus and resources away from legitimate environmental and humanitarian problems! You should be ashamed of yourself!
Posted on 26-Mar-08 at 2:13 pm | PermalinkMy comments are here here
An extract:
Ken Parish criticised Marohasy for her misrepresentation of the temperature record. In her response, Marohasy pointed to this article to support her assertion that the claim that global warming had ended was not even controversial. The second paragraph of the article states:
This seems to me to be both hard to miss and easy to understand. Marohasy surely knew that her assertion was false.
Posted on 26-Mar-08 at 4:00 pm | PermalinkThe Disinformation Cycle…
Thanks to Drudge and Instapundit another round of “global warming stopped in 1998 is making the rounds of the blogs. It’s only been a few months since the last time and yet you only have to look at a graph……
Posted on 26-Mar-08 at 4:06 pm | PermalinkWhat skepticlawyer said.
Jennifer may have any number of reasons for writing what she does, including sincere belief. After all it seems more likely to me that the average socialist twerp is writing for a socialist magazine because of the convergence of opinion, rather than that the average socialist twerp is putting on an act.
Likewise with Jennifer.
So I don’t see why her arguments have to be attacked with such venom. I am rather suprised to see Ken offering ‘they did it first’ as pseudo-justification!
And I emphatically second skepticlawyer’s (and Tim Blair’s and Andrew Bolt’s and Instapundit’s and everyone else’s) concerns about the impossibility of believing people whose actions are almost wholly irreconcilable with their stated beliefs. Most prominent global warmeninists strike me as being like Elliot Spitzer, or like a Catholic priest with a harem, if you prefer.
So whilst I am happy to assume that there is a risk, and even a significant one, I cannot possibly endorse a ‘we should do everything within our power’ approach to combating what remains, to me at least, merely a risk. Nor can I understand such assuredness that the risk is so incontrovertible that it is offensive merely to dispute it.
Posted on 26-Mar-08 at 7:45 pm | PermalinkOn that basis I’ve decided to reject the heliocentric, Copernican view of the solar system: I’ve noted that even avowed heliocentrists are wont to speak of the sun rising and setting, when really they should speak of the rotation of the earth bring the sun into view on the eastern horizon and then the opposite happening in the evening if they’re to remain consistent with the beliefs they profess.
Hell, I might even go the whole hog, and join the Flat Earth Society - I’ve noticed that people who avow a belief that the Earth is spherical, speak and behave in daily life as if it were flat. Obviously these people are not so convinced on this point as they profess.
Posted on 26-Mar-08 at 8:21 pm | PermalinkIf we kept the time span selected by Ken but instead charted the absolute global temperature rather than the temperature anomaly and if we put the left hand scale in Kelvin rather than in Celcius and if we put the origin in it’s proper place, then wouldn’t it look a lot like temperature platued around 1850. I’d love to see a chart drawn from that somewhat broader perspective. It would really annoy the chicken littles but surely thats half the point of putting things in perspective.
Posted on 26-Mar-08 at 8:35 pm | PermalinkIt is very interesting to see how Tim Lambert approaches this issue – a man who once accused me of academic misconduct. He has changed the diagram that he uses to illustrate his point. In his commentary on Jennifer Marohasy he uses this diagram
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/03/the_disinformation_cycle.php
It looks a bit cluttered.
Previously he had used this uncluttered diagram
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/12/a_picture_is_worth_a_thousand_2.php
He used it more than once
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/04/a_picture_is_worth_a_thousand.php
Here is what that picture looks like now
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/
Looks like a plateau to me – consistent with the ABC story.
++++++++++++++++
Posted on 26-Mar-08 at 8:49 pm | PermalinkKen - can you provide a source for your diagram in the main post please?
JC wrote:
I know JC - why you took 3 paragraphs to agree with me is strange though. The problem isn’t with arguments over approaches (that’s fine), the problem is with those who refuse to engage in the debate over approaches as they are too busy denying there is a problem in the first place. You might agree with Ms. Marohasy’s approach, but it goes well beyond scientific skepticism and clearly she isn’t the usual kind of knee-jerk contrarian idiot that espouses this rubbish.
skepticlawyer wrote:
If you have to. “Following the money” is a perfectly legitimate exercise in the case of people involved with blatantly dishonest astro-turf groups. The Australian Environment Foundation is a case in point. Are the skepticlawyer and JC defending this kind of “ends justify the means” dishonesty simply because they don’t agree with the anti-development arm of the green movement?
Posted on 26-Mar-08 at 8:55 pm | PermalinkWell, that’s my day planned for me. I’ll just take all those old university textbooks on microbiology, biochemistry, physiology, pharmacology and immunology, pile them up in the backyard and toss a match into the middle of the pile. After all, if something isn’t visible on the largest possible scale - if you actually have to do some investigation and analysis to find it - it’s clearly of no significance whatsoever.
Posted on 26-Mar-08 at 8:55 pm | PermalinkSinclair Davidson wrote:
So does 1880, 1900, 1940, and 1960 Sinclair. Does that mean the graph will magically flatline now? How did you discern that?
Posted on 26-Mar-08 at 9:01 pm | Permalinkglobal warming may be a problem … who really knows? But what we do know and what scares the heck out of me is the massive extinction phase we are currently experiencing. Beats the extinction phase that saw the dinosaurs (and 80% of other species)go west. Most due I suspect to habitat destruction. Global warming gets the press and diverts our attention from what is a real problem for the very basis of life itself.
Posted on 26-Mar-08 at 9:03 pm | PermalinkDave R:
Go to this link, scroll about 1/3 of the way down and take a look at the chart that shows 200 years of global temps.
http://www.weatherquestions.com/Roy-Spencer-on-global-warming.htm
What do you see?
1. I see the current steepness as no different that than the rise for about 1500 years ago
2. The current level of warming doesn’t seem to fit the rhetoric of the alamrmists side.
Posted on 26-Mar-08 at 9:06 pm | PermalinkNo, because you have absolutely no way of judging a person’s motivation in these circumstances. Jen and other people like her could actually believe what they are saying.
Furthermore if you apply your argument to one side you ought to be honest and do it for the other side too. Government funding on climate research has gone up by multiples since the scare. Climate science departments that were once the nerdiest of the nerdy are suddenly cast into the limelight. Why is oodles of government money less corrupting than money from Exxon say that may be supporting people who actually believe their own stuff?
Posted on 26-Mar-08 at 9:16 pm | PermalinkDavid - plateau is consistent with the facts as Jen stated on ABC radio. I cannot say if magic is involved or not, I don’t want to pass judgement on your religious beliefs.
Posted on 26-Mar-08 at 9:20 pm | PermalinkJC wrote:
Flat earthers and young earth creationists seem to have sincere beliefs too JC - that doesn’t make them right or worth listening too.
What makes you think that government (which one? the US government?) has any interest in the outcome? Clearly, the Lavoisier group for example have a vested interest in delaying any action on global warming as it directly affects their clients businesses (hence the efforts at greenwashing). As far as I can see, there isn’t a government in the world who will benefit from global warming being some kind of elaborate and vast conspiracy. Who could believe that governments are so competent and capable that they could instigate and continue something like this?
Are the green groups competent, capable and sufficiently funded to pull the wool over our eyes in a vast global conspiracy instead? Is Bob Brown secretly pulling the strings of research institutions across the globe?
Posted on 26-Mar-08 at 9:30 pm | PermalinkThese dates don’t show plateaus. They show temporary trend reversals. However it would have been a little too much if Jen had suggested that we were witnessing a temporary trend reversal. Plateau sounds a lot more conservative and appropriate.
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/
How much CO2 would that release?
Posted on 26-Mar-08 at 9:34 pm | PermalinkLet’s clear this up right now. Marohasy says “plateau” and Sinclair says “yep” and what exactly does that mean when, pretty clearly, the global average temperature fluctuates but is clearly trending up. Does this latest plateau indicate that global warming has now officially stopped? Does is indicate that Marohasy, while not exactly telling porkies, is allowed to be a little liberal and extremely selective with the facts?
What, if anything, is the significance of this much vaunted plateau Sinclair, given the overall trend in the graph and the undisputable fact that the same “plateau” has occurred multiple times, with each recovery indicating a new high? Here’s a hint: read Ken’s post again.
Posted on 26-Mar-08 at 9:38 pm | PermalinkNowhere near enough to have a significant impact on the 4.5 billion year cooling trend in global atmospheric temperatures, Terje. Don’t sweat it.
Posted on 26-Mar-08 at 9:44 pm | PermalinkI don’t understand what ‘officially stopped’ actually means. Sounds very strange.
Ken took exception to what Jen said
and provided a graph. Tim Lambert also took exception and provided a graph - but if you look at an updated graph that Tim has previously shown you can see a plateau - which is what Jen said. Her statement is consistent with the facts as they now stand - a scientific approach to things I might add. Now we can debate what will happen in future - but that is opinion and not fact.
Posted on 26-Mar-08 at 9:50 pm | PermalinkOK, perhaps “shill” is too harsh, given that her funding sources are known.
But I’ve read her stuff on occasion. Either she is simply too dumb to realise that she’s talking nonsense - which I don’t believe - or she’s dissembling.
Posted on 26-Mar-08 at 9:51 pm | PermalinkSinclair, you didn’t answer the question. If that graph was of the SPI futures, would you say overall that the “plateau” had any significance whatsoever, or would you say rising trend?
Posted on 26-Mar-08 at 10:00 pm | PermalinkI never said it makes them right, Dave. I said it doesn’t make them autmoatically corrupt in the cash for comment sense. It certainly doesn’t make them any more corrupt than universities seeking government dollars for climate research.
Depends what you mean by the “US Government”. The administration seems to talk through both sides of it’s mouth and isn’t that sincere for the most part. However they are throwing oodles of cash towards research. They have no real way of controlling where the cash is going. Lots of money goes to groups the US administration doesn’t support. The Goddard institute is one example.
Then there are state governments funding state run universities. The private universities aren’t exacly short of cash either. Harvard’s loot is about 30 billion for example.
Really? I saw Hugh Morgan leading a syndicate trying to influence the previous government on giving away nuke power licences to a group he and a few others support. And since when is this group the be all and end all of the right wing? Does the Australia Institute speak for all the left? Hope not.
Listen to Garnaut’s comments recently? He’s advocating selling carbon credit licences at an auction and the government pockets the cash. He calls this “revenue” and he’s suggesting ways the 20 bill can be spent. So saddling the economy with $20 billion of costs suddenly morphs in a “revenue gain”. Excuse me while I laugh. If the government was sincere in its efforts the overall consequence ought to be revenue neutral.
Well no one seems to be too worried about 20 billion bucks hitting the government coffers over the next few years. I haven’t seen anyone raise this as an issue.
900,000 people voted for the Green party at the last election, dave. Every single one of its polices… every single one of their economic policies would have a negative impact on living standards. Until they got heat they were even after cancer sufferers as the party platform advocated banning all imports of nuclear isotopes, finding alternatives to nuclear medicine (possibly hot rock therapy?) and closing down nuclear waste dump sites that hospitals use to dispose of such waste. That policy was mysteriously removed from the Green party’s website. However I assume it is still active as I never saw any evidence that policy has been retracted..
Posted on 26-Mar-08 at 10:07 pm | PermalinkIf it was SPI futures, or temperature anomalies, since 2002 I would say plateau (or even falling - certainly down from 1998) if it were 1980 to 2007 I would say rising, but coming off a peak. Jen said “If you take 2002 as your reference…”. What Jen has said is consistent with the graph Ken posted and the series of graphs I linked to - now you want to argue that it’ll get worse in future. That is an interesting argument, yet there is little evidence that humans are any good at forecasting the future.
Posted on 26-Mar-08 at 10:14 pm | Permalink“Listen to Garnaut’s comments recently? He’s advocating selling carbon credit licences at an auction and the government pockets the cash.”
He’s saying nothing of the kind. In fact Garnaut proposes that revenue from sale of carbon licences be used to compensate low income earners and other vulnerable losers from the price increases that will (designedly) result.
Posted on 26-Mar-08 at 10:16 pm | Permalink“if it were 1980 to 2007 I would say rising, but coming off a peak.”
Precisely, which is why Marohasy is being misleading and deceptive in trying to get people to focus on the extreme short term when both the 1998 peak and the slight fall of the last 2 years are entirely consistent with current scientific orthodoxy on global warming (contrary to what Marohasy asserts).
Posted on 26-Mar-08 at 10:19 pm | PermalinkJC wrote:
I don’t hear that argument when we’re talking about other things the government manages on our behalf (like, say, radio spectrum). Garnaut might be influential, but he isn’t evidence of a global conspiracy. This is all starting to sound like that “who killed the electric car?” thing, only it’s a right wing version.
Posted on 26-Mar-08 at 10:20 pm | PermalinkHm,
Could we have that graph re-plotted over a 400,000 year timescale please? (Or 5,000 years for Creationists)?
Seems to me that looking at a 150 year snapshot (out of your choice of the above), is less statistically meaningful than taking a ten year snapshot out of 150 years. Specifically, it does not address what may or may not have been warming/cooling periods in the past. For example, if the present roughly .5 degree anomaly is the highest over the long term, it supports AGW, if it is not, then we can go back to looking at things like habitat destruction as having a higher priority. imho.
Posted on 26-Mar-08 at 10:24 pm | PermalinkSinclair Davidson wrote:
We’re not talking chicken entrails here Sinclair. Humans are actually extremely good at forecasting the future where a reasonable model can be constructed. You don’t land on the moon with guesswork and selective statistics. i.e. it isn’t economics we’re talking about, it’s science.
Posted on 26-Mar-08 at 10:28 pm | PermalinkBut that’s exactly my point, Ken. Revenue neutral that is equitable would be looking to compensate everyone who loses out as a result. I wouldn’t have thought the idea was to make this thing into another welfare funding base.
Revenue neutral would mean that the pricing mechanism is used to move us away from carbon and compensate everyone while attempting to dissuade carbon emissions. No one should be better or worse off.
And why is a 20 billion heist considered a revenue raiser? 20 billion reflects added costs burden to the economy. It’s not revenue: it’s a cost.
What happens to the rest of the money that isn’t used to fund the not se well off?
Posted on 26-Mar-08 at 10:39 pm | PermalinkWho says? Not from me or any other LDP supporter. The spectrum ought to be open to anyone.
1. Garnaut was tasked with handing out a report to align the economics with the science. We seemed to have ended up with Garnaut giving us his science views and a new redustribtion scheme.
2. The government wants to make petrol cheaper by introducing a new prices watchdog but wants to make it more expensive at the same time.
Am I being too cyncial here, Dave?
Posted on 26-Mar-08 at 11:00 pm | PermalinkOperative term being ‘where a reasonable model can be constructed’.
I’m just not convinced that landing on the moon is an equivalent problem to forecasting the climate in 2200 or even next week.
Posted on 26-Mar-08 at 11:04 pm | PermalinkJC wrote:
All I’m saying JC is that wherever conspiracy is mooted, it’s usually incompetence instead. I’d agree that the mixed messages on petrol pricing are confusing although that’s evidence to me that the government is acting like a startled bunny in the headlights.
That’s the kind of thinking that got us into trouble in the first place. Not everybody can use the radio spectrum all at once without interfering with other users, and apparently the atmosphere can only take so much released CO2 without problems occurring. What happened to property rights?
Posted on 26-Mar-08 at 11:09 pm | PermalinkSinclair Davidson wrote:
Are you talking about the weather or the climate Sinclair? The “reasonable model” is well open for debate, but unfortunately that’s not what Marohasy is attacking here. She’s selectively taken a small part of a much larger graph as some kind of evidence that the temps. have reached a plateau, with the implication being that we don’t need to worry about the future and that climate change is therefore a sham.
If I was long SPI futures, that graph would give me absolutely no reason to panic if I intended to keep them for 20 years. If I only intended to keep them for 6 months, I might be worried. In this case, we’re not talking 1 year or 20 years, we’re talking 100 and in that case, my long SPI futures are looking pretty damned good.
Posted on 26-Mar-08 at 11:16 pm | PermalinkWho says that opening the spectrum to market forces would adversely effect property rights. Whay is the current system of rent seeking offering a better outcome?
Posted on 26-Mar-08 at 11:18 pm | PermalinkIt does seem just a bit disingenuous to want to focus on a single peak in ‘98 to construct an argument for cooling. Or do some people really not understand trends?
Posted on 26-Mar-08 at 11:24 pm | Permalink“Revenue neutral that is equitable would be looking to compensate everyone who loses out as a result.”
But that would completely negate the purpose of an impost intended to send a price signal and induce people to change their behaviour. There would be no point whatever in a carbon tax or emissions permits if everyone (not just the most vulnerable) was fully compensated for their price effects. Why would anyone then change their behaviour at all? Permits/carbon taxes are intended to push up the price of products/services generating atmospheric CO2, thereby giving consumers an inducement to shift to cleaner products/services and producers the incentive to change to cleaner production methods.
Posted on 26-Mar-08 at 11:33 pm | PermalinkJC wrote:
to which I replied:
Not everybody can use the radio spectrum all at once without interfering with other users
then JC wrote:
Do you want to restrict access somehow or not i.e. should the radio spectrum be usable or just a big mess? Why don’t I organise a party in your front room while you’re trying to watch the TV?
Posted on 26-Mar-08 at 11:40 pm | PermalinkDavid you’re going OT. You have failed to demonstrate that what Jen said is incorrect, so let me leave you with this thought, “Scientific skepticism is fine and more than helpful …”. That’s advice I intend to take.
Posted on 26-Mar-08 at 11:41 pm | PermalinkKen
Think of what a carbon tax would do rather than a cap and trade/carbon license system in terms of behaviour.
Putting a price on carbon through a carbon tax (c)would be revenue neutral if the tax was offset through income tax cuts. The expectation would be that people would begin to move away from carbon intensive energy as new tech was introduced (think nuke).
In other words you wouldn’t have to make people less well off overall. You are only trying to change behaviour.
Posted on 26-Mar-08 at 11:45 pm | PermalinkSinclair
As I’ve explained (but you’ve repeatedly ignored, presumably because you know it’s right), it is (barely) possible to defend the first two sentences of Marohasy’s quote in the primary post, though only if you confine your gaze rigidly to the very short period after 1998. However, even you concede that the bigger picture shows an ongoing warming trend. And the last sentence of Marohasy’s quote is misleading on any view:
In fact it’s exactly what you would expect given the large El Nino in 1998 coming on top of solar maximum and the La Nina in 2006-7 coming on top of solar minimum. This in no way contradicts or undermines current scientific understandings. Marohasy seems to rely on the ignorance of people who don’t (or more accurately won’t) understand that global warming science doesn’t deny the existence of a range of other influences on climate, notably including solar activity and the ENSO cycle. The fluctuations of those cycles cause short term peaks and troughs in the temperature graph, but the trend is inexorably upwards as even Sinclair reluctantly acknowledges. And there is no plausible explanation for that general upward trend than human-generated atmospheric CO2 (because neither the solar cycle nor ENSO have been getting more intense).
I should add one small caveat to that, which is the possible effects of cosmic rays on cloud formation. That research is hotly disputed but has not on my reading been completely discredited. It could conceivably be a factor that might indicate than the proportionate influence of increasing CO2 levels on the evident ongoing warming trend is a little less than the current mainstream IPCC view assumes.
Posted on 26-Mar-08 at 11:54 pm | PermalinkSinclair Davidson wrote:
“I did not have sex with that woman” - B. Clinton - technically it was correct because the vagina wasn’t used.
Same deal for Bubba, Sinclair?
Posted on 27-Mar-08 at 12:02 am | PermalinkDave:
The specturm could allow rather players more than restrict entrants. Sell the various parts of the spectrum but certainly don’t restrict it to a bunch of rent seekers.
Posted on 27-Mar-08 at 12:02 am | PermalinkKen,
You don’t appear to have listened to my radio interview, read my blog, or my contributions to this thread - your post and continuing comments are a rehash of what ‘the warm-aholics’ might have been talking about some time ago. You need to do a bit more reading - and get yourself up to date, including with the latest in ENSO trends. I’ve already provided a link - see above.
You, and some of your readers, might also ponder “Ignorance isn’t what you don’t know - its what you do know that aint correct”.
Posted on 27-Mar-08 at 12:08 am | PermalinkIgnorance is what you don’t know. What you don’t know that ain’t correct is something else.
Let’s not further confuse the issue with facile attempts to extend ordinary usage through folksy proverbs.
Posted on 27-Mar-08 at 12:20 am | PermalinkKen - your point seems to be that Jen should take a longer time frame. That is your opinion. You are entitled to that opinion. Your argument is that she said something wrong in the sentences that you quoted - in particular the first two sentences. Nothing in those two sentences is factually incorrect. Your argument is that there are other reasons for what we observe than Jen suggests. That’s fine. It is up to you to make those arguments (and to be fair you have suggested some and David suggested others - David, I do think he had sex with that woman even though her vagina wasn’t involved) but I don’t think your graph illustrates that point. It seems to me you’re annoyed because someone has the gumption to question the AGW dogma.
Posted on 27-Mar-08 at 12:33 am | PermalinkJennifer
I have certainly read the material you linked. All you have done is provide graphs which focus on the short term temperature changes since 1998 and stretch out the horizontal axis in order to minimise the evident ongoing warming trend since 1998 (and slight cooling in the last two years). To be fair, the graph I used (not with any intention to bloster the pro-warming argument but simply because it was the one most readily available on the ready reference site Wikipedia) could fairly be argued to err in the opposite direction and thereby almost obliterate the slight cooling of the last couple of years). Your stretched, short term graph in no sense negates the accepted science, nor does a quote from Rajendra Pachaudri treating denialist canards far more politely than they deserve.
I must, however, express grudging admiration for the extraordinary ability of the miniscule group of denialists to muster a chorus of approving comment box voices when someone like me dares to publish a post which merely presents the almost universally accepted state of scientific understanding on global warming. From reading this thread, someone without any background in the issues might well gain the utterly misleading impression that these are controversial and hotly disputed propositions about which no-one can know which side has the correct story. No doubt that impression isn’t accidental.
Posted on 27-Mar-08 at 12:35 am | PermalinkI quite like that last para, Ken.
This sterile debate has been quite amusing. Thankfully, irrelevant.
The worst problem with denialists is that I really really wish they were right.
Posted on 27-Mar-08 at 12:49 am | Permalink“AGW dogma” is in fact the broadly accepted international scientific understanding based on 30 years of painstaking research and observation. We’re not talking here about a tiny group of self-interested ratbag scientists (at least not on the mainstream side) but of generally accepted scientific orthodoxy. That doesn’t necessarily mean that orthodoxy is never wrong (viz Galileo etc), but to be taken seriously (except appaently by “libertarian” wingnuts) when challenging heavily-researched scientific orthodoxy you actually need hard rigorous analysis, not the sort of spin, flim-flam and cherry-picking graphs in which Jennifer specialises.
Posted on 27-Mar-08 at 12:52 am | PermalinkYes, I agree the AGW dogma is the scientific consensus and all that. But I’m intruigued by your response - if this all about ‘libertarian wingnuts’, a miniscule group - why do you care so much? As wilful suggests all we denialists are ‘thankfully irrelevant’.
Posted on 27-Mar-08 at 1:01 am | PermalinkPerhaps it’s a mental illness on my part. Perhaps too, I’m both fascinated and bemused as to why people like you and some other libertarians who manifest in other respects a highly developed and entirely rationalistic ability to assess facts and reason to a supportable conclusion, exhibit such an extraordinary blind spot when it comes to AGW.
The best explanation I can find is that you see AGW as such a potentially powerful weapon in the hands of socialist nanny staters (who I agree need to be closely watched) that you would rather deny the force of the scientific evidence and grasp at any straw that might allow you to deny reality, than to look constructively for ways of addressing the problem that don’t threaten individual freedoms or the market economy.
Posted on 27-Mar-08 at 1:15 am | PermalinkSinclair Davidson wrote:
I’m not going to speak for Ken, but the problem here isn’t so much libertarian wingnuts, it’s powerful vested interests who are deliberately spreading disinformation. That you and your ilk are mindless cheerleaders for these people is neither here nor there, other than to demonstrate your mindlessness on this issue. Like Ken says, what’s making it impossible to engage your rationality on this issue Sinclair? I suggested earlier than it’s pure reactionary contrariness to Greens. Get over it.
Posted on 27-Mar-08 at 1:27 am | PermalinkThis is an interesting post about the importance of selecting appropriate time periods for determining climate trends.
Posted on 27-Mar-08 at 1:38 am | PermalinkKen,
You are being disingenuous.
I have provided two links. I suggested again, click on the following and scroll down to the last and second last graphs. http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Correlation_Last_Decade.pdf
Given you have made me the butt of this blog post I suggest you at least put some time aside to study the graphs and read the accompanying text. There is no cherry picking and the last and second last graph extent to 1900 and 1950 respectively.
I will now provide a third link
Posted on 27-Mar-08 at 1:38 am | Permalinkhttp://www.weatherquestions.com/Roy-Spencer-on-global-warming.htm
Again no cherry picking. Just an explaination as to why there has been no warming over the last 10 years given carbon dioxide levels have been rising. Again information provided by a climate scientist and in this case the fellow incharge of analysis of data from the NASA Aqua Satellite.
I’ve just noticed a new trend that disproves the rising sea-level theory being put about by the AGW alarmists and warm-oholics.
Since mid-morning, here in Darwin, the sea-level has dropped 2-3 metres.
Posted on 27-Mar-08 at 1:56 am | PermalinkI confidently predict, that if this trend continues, the oceans will be empty by sometime next week.
Any more and I would be quick to get to higher ground if I were you, Michael. Fast!
Posted on 27-Mar-08 at 2:00 am | PermalinkI’ve probably come too late to give my usual speech about civility and administrative viiiiolence. But please consider yourselves so lectured at and try to remain as polite as possible.
Love,
The Local Oppressor.
Posted on 27-Mar-08 at 2:07 am | PermalinkJacques:
I was only joshing around, if that was directed to me.
Posted on 27-Mar-08 at 2:08 am | PermalinkAmazing to me that an ABC interview on Michael Duffy’s program should arouse such a debate!
We should all be grateful to Michael Duffy. With the ABC being consistently accused of left-wing bias, Michael Duffy’s show gives the opposite bias.
No surprise that he gets people like Jennifer Mahorasy on - with her links to the Institute of Public affairs, and her devious ant-environmental bias.
I didn’t realise that anyone took her seriously. I thought that listeners to Counterpoint, such as myself, enjoyed the bit of light relief from the facts.
At the same time, Michael Duffy has a pleasant manner, and plays wonderful jazz.
Why don’t we all relax, and let the right wing have its ABC time?
After all, when it comes to global warming, the denialists are having a hard time getting anyone to take them seriously. So - let em rave on. More jazz please, Michael.
Christina Macpherson http://www.antinuclear.net
Posted on 27-Mar-08 at 2:24 am | PermalinkBefore I read the IPCC Summary for policymakers I was agnostic on the issue, not really caring about it all. There are good reasons not to despoil the environment totally unrelated the AGW and even good reasons to tax carbon and the like unrelated to AGW. The evidence in the Summary is poor and the presentation is poor - yet a lot of socialist nanny staters will (metaphorically) die a ditch to preserve the AGW story.
Posted on 27-Mar-08 at 2:36 am | PermalinkIt was directed at everyone. It’s more fun that way.
Posted on 27-Mar-08 at 2:44 am | PermalinkKen
“Miniscule group of denialists”? [74]
Hie yourself down to your local power generator (Trevor Horman might be your man), and have a look at the dials spinning round. Then graph that trend. On the basis of what people actually do, it is believers who comprise the miniscule group.
Then consider that the only reason water consumption is flattening out in most cities is because of mandatory water restrictions - not because anybody believes in AGW. In fact, Perth, Mel, Syd, Bris, Adel are all building desal plants requiring lots of lovely energy to power up! In Darwin and Alice Springs, people are using huge amounts of water (no restrictions!).
Skepticlawyer has it absolutely right, people are quite happy to say that they believe in AGW since it somehow makes them feel good. However, ask them to give up their trip to Bali, or Buenos Aires next year, and see how far you get.
Next, you bag people for looking at ten years out of one hundred and fifty and claiming ‘Aha! A trend!’ Yet that one hundred and fifty years is such a small teensy itty bitty microscopic (ok, Marks, we get it) of even modern geologic time, that the same argument you use against others can easily be directed backwards. 150 years out of a few hundred thousand is an interesting minute slice, but not a statistical proof you could hang your hat on in a serious debate. No way. That is not related to denial, merely to adequacy of data.
Posted on 27-Mar-08 at 3:00 am | PermalinkJennifer Marohasy wrote:
Have a look at the astro-turf group running “our Jen’s” conference:
Big Tobacco ran out of dough, so now we’ll take Exxon’s cash
Who’s being disingenuous again Ms. Marohasy? Why, it’s you! Golly what a surprise.
Posted on 27-Mar-08 at 3:24 am | PermalinkRome will never need a fire brigade as long as it has an Emperor who can play the fiddle!
Posted on 27-Mar-08 at 3:33 am | Permalink“Your crowd never had any evidence in the first place. And now the dream is over.”
That’s obviously correct, because a single article in the popular press (which you obviously have not read — try reading the last few paragraphs before jumping to such strong conclusions) based on a single source of data told you so.
Posted on 27-Mar-08 at 3:46 am | PermalinkThat NPR story has already been discussed Mr/Ms Nock.
Posted on 27-Mar-08 at 3:46 am | PermalinkOooh! Oooh! A rare bird! I guess the discussion is finished.
Posted on 27-Mar-08 at 3:50 am | PermalinkSinclair Davidson claims:
Unfortunately, Davidson seems to lack the mathematical background to understand the SPM. Details here.
(Note to moderators: you need to delete comments from Bird and his sock puppet AJ Nock, or he will wreck the discussion.)
Posted on 27-Mar-08 at 4:13 am | PermalinkI had alread deleted Bird’s comments (because he’s permanently banned from troppo and knows it very well) but I hadn’t realised that AJ Nock was one of his pseudonyms.
Posted on 27-Mar-08 at 4:17 am | PermalinkTim, I salute you, and admire your patience. It’s like trying to kill a hydra by cutting off its heads.
Posted on 27-Mar-08 at 4:25 am | PermalinkBut the average policy maker doesn’t?
Posted on 27-Mar-08 at 4:49 am | Permalink#51 “That is an interesting argument, yet there is little evidence that humans are any good at forecasting the future.”
Geez, that’s good. Think of all the money we’ll save on things like the ABS or any research that starts from trends, thanks Sinclair you’re a life saver.
Posted on 27-Mar-08 at 4:58 am | PermalinkSL says:
” … as far as I am concerned, attacks on funding sources are either neither here nor there. How many people here are paid by the state? If you are, may I call you a state sponsored shill?”
You are being disingenuous, SL. Jen Marohasy would be kicked into the gutter by the IPA if she didn’t engage in generic denialism such as she does, on issues ranging from the state of our river systems to climate change. Public servants- for the most part- have far greater independence.
Marohasy’s routine largely consists of leaping on any piece of supposed evidence that supports her denialism then failing to retract her assertions once the evidence is discredited, as with this case- http://allocasuarina.blogspot.com/2007/05/marohasy-gets-it-wrong-again-once-again.html
Jen Marohasy is generally as predictable and reliable a source of information as Lord Haw-Haw.
Posted on 27-Mar-08 at 7:41 am | PermalinkAhem. Are you talking about me again Ken?
No doubt that’s because I don’t bother reading too much on this.
So here are(honest but dumb) questions:
Posted on 27-Mar-08 at 8:05 am | Permalinka) what is currently the most accepted theory?
b) on what basis has this been identified as the most accepted theory?
c) who are its main supporters and who are its main critics? Are they people that matter/should know/have influence/have interests to protect…?
No one answered this yet?
Surely Sinclair Davidson realizes that these are graphs from two independent research groups? He found one - CRU. The other is NASA GISS. http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
Sinclair wants to imply that using two graphs from different sources is equivalent to academic misconduct? Perhaps Sinclair should study up a bit to come up to speed on this subject before making silly comments.
Posted on 27-Mar-08 at 9:03 am | PermalinkKen says
And for bloody good reason too , ken.
Canadian Broadcasting Corp was reporting the other day that there are food/grain shortages developing in Europe because the world’s largest food exporter- the US- is offering more incentives for US farmers to grow corn for ethanol instead of growing crops for food in the quest to increase the use of biofuels.
This alone could turn out to be one of the biggest human disasters this century as a result of badly thought out policy that was made to demonstrate the US government amongst other things was doing something to cut down emissions. A severe drought in one of the food growing areas could actually drive our food supply over the cliff over the next few years as we’re actually hanging in there by a thread at the moment
Posted on 27-Mar-08 at 9:50 am | PermalinkI’m not at all claiming this constitutes academic misconduct - I’m simply disclosing the history between Tim Lambert and myself.
Posted on 27-Mar-08 at 10:13 am | PermalinkOnly if by “disclosing” you mean “misrepresenting”. Sinclair knows full well that I did not accuse him of academic misconduct. As for the graphs, neither GISS nor CRU shows global warming ending in 1998. It doesn’t matter which one you use. I put the GISS one in my post because I’d already uploaded it for an earlier post.
Posted on 27-Mar-08 at 10:30 am | PermalinkUS agricultural policy is about winning elections through buying off agricultural states through utterly bananas subsidies, programs, grants, buy ups, sell downs and other Congressional hijinks. Corn-for-biofuels is just the latest episode. The environment has nothing, whatever, to do with this policy. Australia’s “biofuels” industry policy is just vote-buying in marginal sugar-growing constituencies.
I don’t mind bashing bad policy, JC, but let’s agree that the motivation isn’t AGW.
Posted on 27-Mar-08 at 11:56 am | PermalinkI couldn’t agree more Jacques. Andon the wider point of Sinclair’s and other contributions, I think the most constructive suggestion to come out of thei fairly pointless exchange came from commenter Steve on Tim Lambert’s thread:
If only people like Sinclair would take it to heart, we might get a lesser number of the silly biofuels subsidy policies and many more policies that will address the real problems in a way that is economically literate and freedom-enhancing. Mere mindless opposition is indeed mindless when the problem is a real one.
Posted on 27-Mar-08 at 12:09 pm | PermalinkThx Ken (and Steve),
My sentiments entirely. And you didn’t even mention banning plastic bags.
Posted on 27-Mar-08 at 12:30 pm | PermalinkJacques:
I didn’t say the push for Biofuels has only comes from the desire for less emissions (as though that could be possible with corn) I said ”
amongst other things was doing something to cut down emissions.
Posted on 27-Mar-08 at 12:45 pm | PermalinkAnd Ken , fair enough in terms of what that dude is suggesting, but why shouldn’t left leaning think tanks and voices to the government also adopt that approach. The right doesn’t have a monopoly on decent policy. Good policy is free to anyone to apply.
Well , it’s actually not. Humphreys wrote a decent paper on the carbon tax.
Posted on 27-Mar-08 at 1:04 pm | PermalinkActually yes, Humphreys’ carbon tax suggestions are very impressive, and fit in with what Steve said above in Ken’s quoted excerpt - with which I agree, by and large.
That doesn’t neutralise the economic concerns Sinclair has with aspects of the environment movement; nor does it excuse the constant accusations of corporate shilling directed at people outside the state-funded establishment.
Posted on 27-Mar-08 at 4:02 pm | Permalink“nor does it excuse the constant accusations of corporate shilling directed at people outside the state-funded establishment.”
This is a classic strawman. The accusations have nothing to do with whether or not people are outside a state-funded establishment but with the nature and/or sincerity or otherwise of their arguments. In Sinclair Davidson’s case it’s conceivable that he’s entirely sincere and just hasn’t taken the time to comprehend the strength of the scientific case (being an economist) and is reacting against (arguably) dubious economics in some pro-warming materials like the Sterne report. Moreover, he isn’t “outside the state-funded establishment” at all. As for Jennnifer Marohasy, having read her arguments (i.e. evasions) on this thread and her own blog I’ll just let them speak for themselves. Whatever some of the wishful thinkers on this thread may try to assert, it just isn’t possible to maintain the argument either that warming isn’t occurring or that it isn’t caused to a significant extent by human agency. There is no longer a scientific controversy about this, just a miniscule group of very loud (and in some cases well funded) deniers some but not all of whom are perfectly reasonably described as corporate shills. They seek to maintain an aura of doubt about the fundamental propositions where none exists (as opposed to matters of detail about the exact interaction of climatic systems etc and therefore the precise proportionate contribution of human activity to measured and ongoing warming). There are certainly many things (e.g. “feedback” effects including in some cases whether they are positive or negative in sign) still not well understood that may affect the picture in a positive or negative direction, perhaps even dramatically, but the existence of both warming and a degree of human agency really is not now a matter of scientific dispute despite what some on this thread seem determined to continue believing.
Posted on 27-Mar-08 at 4:18 pm | PermalinkFor saint
a) what is currently the most accepted theory?
That there is ongoing warming and that there is a very high probability that human agency is a significant (but not the only) causative factor.
b) on what basis has this been identified as the most accepted theory?
A huge range of research by many thousands of climate scientists throughout the world. It is the accepted and undisputed scientific orthodoxy (just as evolution is, except amongst a tiny group of “intelligent design” ratbags). In particular much of the measured ongoing warming (as described in the primary post) can have no other cause than human agency because no other influencing factor (e.g. solar activity, El Nino/La Nina) is increasing in a manner that could even conceivably explain it. No-one (not even denialists) disputes that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, that the greenhouse effect exists (otherwise earth would be like Mars), or that atmospheric CO2 levels are increasing rapidly as a result of human activity. The denialists rely on an ever-changing selection of arguments/theories to deny what would ordinarily seem to be the logical consequence of these facts that they don’t deny.
c) who are its main supporters and who are its main critics? Are they people that matter/should know/have influence/have interests to protect…?
There are (as I understand it) no anti-warming papers being published in any reputable peer-reviewed scientific publication anywhere in the world. The denialists self-publish or publish in non-peer-reviewed fringe publications. The existence of warming and its human agency is a long way beyond the point where you can meaningfully refer to “supporters” and “critics” as if there was actually a contest. There isn’t. All there is (as I observed in the comment to Helen) is a miniscule group of very loud (and in some cases well funded) deniers. A few are superannuated scientists, others are driven by fundamentalist christian beliefs while still others are indeed funded by oil and mining companies to maintain an aura of doubt. In some cases (e.g. the recent “conference” that Jennifer Marohasy attended) they are funded by “thinktanks” which actually not only generate their funding from oil and mining companies but also from tobacco companies who pay them to maintain arguments that smoking isn’t harmful.
Posted on 27-Mar-08 at 4:51 pm | Permalink[...] to the disgust of many, debate on climate change here at Troppo has gone backwards about half a decade, David Jeffery and Robert Merkel take a look [...]
Posted on 27-Mar-08 at 6:12 pm | PermalinkKen - thanks. OK in a real hurry this morning so some thoughts out of order
From what I understand on this thread alone is that there is disagreement on
(a) “ongoing warming” and how it is measured/how we determine what is a “norm” or acceptable range of variation
(b) whether any variation - assuming one has agreed on (a), is a cause for alarm or part of a natural cycle of warming and cooling over time (where we can expect the odd ice age etc here and there)
(c) the extent to which humans are a causative factor (note: noone but a tool would suggest humans have no impact on “the environment” in some way but I am not about to stop breathing to eliminate my contributions of CO2 and water vapour to global warming)
(d) whether the key contribution to global warming is CO2, water vapour etc (surely that is important if we are talking responses, policy etc. If, for example it’s water vapour that’s the key culprit should we be pulling all stops to reduce CO2?)
(e) the impact of global warming on climate change (will we burn in hell or freeze like hell etc etc) I don’t think even scientists are near understanding what is a very very very complex and in some ways still unpredictable set of processes
Frankly, whatever consensus there is (and I don’t expect unilateral agreement on all minutae) seems a bit fluid. And yes I was hoping for some names of institutions, people, etc.
Anyway, I am glad you raised the topic of “fundamentalist christian beliefs” etc because I think this topic generates the same sort of nonsense in popular circles and sometimes also in academic and science circles as weel.
Those who know me (or have read my blog) know I have a pathological distaste for “creation scientists” and also the “science disproves there is a god”: both a guilty of extremely bad theology and bad science. And both are lunatic fringe IMHO, who thanks partly to their self-promotion and a stupid MSM have had a disproportionate amount of attention. Much of the same dynamics apply to this topic.
However, what that nonsense and the nonsense over climate change do is also raise some particular questions about “the philosophy of nature” for want of a better term, and in my opinion, also exposes a lot of neo-pagan thought.
Anyway, work beckons.
Posted on 27-Mar-08 at 7:11 pm | PermalinkOK Saint. I erroneously assumed that your questions were an honest request for information rather than a mere rhetorical device from a right winger with a closed mind and no interest in the facts. I won’t make the same mistake again. After all the nonsense posted on this thread, and given the seriousness of the issue, I have no remaining patience or even civility with this sort of game-playing.
Posted on 27-Mar-08 at 7:52 pm | Permalink