Hey, remember how Monckton got published in a UFO magazine? Well, now he's in a Larouche publication, Executive Intelligence Review (see cover to right), being interviewed about the IPCC plan to RULE THE WORLD.
However, they are not concerned
with whether there is a problem or not. They
merely wish to pretend that there is a problem, and try
to do so with a straight face, for long enough to persuade,
not the population, because we have no say in
this, but the governing class in the various memberstates
of the United Nations Framework Convention on
Climate Change: That they should hand over their
powers as government to the United Nations or to a new
agency, or possibly just to the existing climate panel,
merely restructured a bit. So that we would no longer be
free to decide what our currency would be, or how much
of it there should be, or what we could burn, or what we
could do. These things would be dictated to us by the
dictators at the center.
The Larouchite who interviewed him reckons that Monckton is correct but hasn't yet realised that Prince Philip and Prince Charles are the puppet masters controlling the IPCC.
Other Moncktonian gems from the EIR interview:
And it works no better than their attempts to ban DDT,
which led to the deaths of 40 million children in the
poorer countries. A totally unnecessary ban. DDT is
not dangerous! You can eat it by the tablespoonful - do you no harm at all. But they invented a scare that
it causes cancer, which it does not. They invented a
scare that it might thin the eggshells, which it does
not - unless you happen to deprive the birds of calcium
in their diet, before you do the measurement,
which is how they got the bogus result they based it
on.
The use of DDT against malaria is not banned. The LD50 (quantity that kills half of test subjects) for DDT is 200 mg/kg for monkeys (closest analogue to humans). So for a 75 kg person that's 15g, or one tablespoon. A 50% chance of killing you does not, to me, seem to be the same as "no harm at all". And DDT does thin bird shells
Same with HIV, where, as with any other fatal,
incurable infection, it should have been treated as
what's called a notifiable disease, carriers isolated immediately
to protect the rest of the population. This was
not done. The result? Twenty-five million dead, 40 million
infected and going to die, and heaven knows how
far the epidemic will continue to spread.
Yes, that's Monckton's infamous plan for the life imprisonment of anyone who is HIV positive.
Kofi
Annan has just issued a bizarre, bogus report stating
that 300,000 people have died already as a result of
global warming or climate change per year, and more
deaths are possible. But the policies that he's advocating
to solve this will kill billions of people, and will
eclipse that, even if it were true.
That must be Monckton's one millionth wild exaggeration.
- Log in to post comments
Tim,
It needs to be said: thanks for bringing these gems to our attention. There's little on TV or radio to match them for sheer comic lunacy. I think that even the late, great, Spike Milligan would've struggled to top them.
*self-confessed genocidalists Prince Philip and Prince
Charles, along with their lap dog Al Gore*
Comedy gold!
Another thought: if Monckton were actually dangerous and evil, as opposed to barking mad and in need of treatment, I would **demand** that he eats that **tablespoonful of DDT** in public.
every thing he said is insane.
the paper looks like a pretty, hm, special publication.
the paper looks like a pretty, hm, special publication.
Posted by: sod | June 16, 2009 3:08 PM[kill]â[hide comment]
Well, LaRouche is a pretty special man.
Does anyone know much about his grandfather, the first Viscount Monckton? The Wiki article says
*Monckton served as advisor to Edward VIII during the abdication crisis, having been his Attorney-General since 1932*
That doesn't sound like *part of the effort by anti-fascists to crush the Hitler project in Britain*, does it?
It references 'The life of Viscount Monckton of Brenchley' by Frederick Winston Furneaux-Smith.
I think it was here that I once asked LaRouche deputy Marjorie Mazel Hecht if she could enlighten me about the source of this bizarre fixation on the British crown and random British philosophers. I find it hard to imagine Prince Charles with an eyepatch and a white cat. And, c'mon -- Bertrand Russell??
She seemed reluctant to give up the key.
Didn't Monckton do a drive by a while ago? Put up a smokescreen and left rapidly before anyone could ask him unpleasant questions about his lies and distortions.
I think the "Obama's Nazi Healthcare Plan" article trumpeted on the cover might be interesting, too, but I ain't going to go read it.
7 guthrie,
Yes, but Munchkin never has any intention of answering direct questions. He just likes to make a pompous, borderline-psychotic announcement and disappear.
Ooh, excellent - the IPCC New World Order! Will they be handing out uniforms? How about flags? Red and black would be good with hammer / eagle / wind turbine motif.
~~~
Obligatory reading for all fans of Discount Monckton, if you've not already seen it: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/may/06/observerreview.climat…
re: #7 guthrie
Recent drive-by: yes, see the thread containing why Texas is not Scotland, even when a peer visits.
10 David,
Obligatory? I'll top that with the *essential* [Case Of The Missing Curry](http://hot-topic.co.nz/monckton-the-case-of-the-missing-curry/)
DavidCOG
I thought the Observer interview with Monckton was being kind even though the writer obviously thought Monckton was barking.
TrueSceptic, I think if Spike was still alive he would give up at Monckton and go hide at his parents house in Woy Woy. BTW what was the Goon show character voiced by Sellers who was real smooth and always cooking up surreal scams, his sidekick was Moriarty voiced by Milligan. Now that goon Show character fits Monckton like a glove.
But, let me suggest an ever greater pinnacle of absurdity. Imagine if the four denialists that walked with Fielding into Penny Wong's office the other day had been replaced by Monckton. Just imagine it, can you imagine the look on Wong's face after 5, nay 2 minutes of Monckton.
Ahhh just remembered, the character was called GrypePipe Thin, I think. Monckton down to a t.
As a Scot, living in Scotland, I'd like to say that madmen like Monckton who are hellbent on driving us towards massive temperature rises, can get lost. Talk about how warming wil be good for scotland ignores the geology, geography, and problems we are already having with torrential rain. We'll survive better than a lot of people, but I'm sure golf fans will miss the royal and ancient.
13 Jeremy,
Yes, but Grytpype-Thynne sounded suave, no matter how mad the scheme. Munchkin sounds mad, no matter how suave he tries to seem.
Has Monckton ever demonstrated the lack of toxicity in two tablespoons of DDT by eating them himself?
14 guthrie,
But if global warming is a fraud, how can it get warmer anywhere? It's been cooling since 2002, dontcha know?
I wish I could get the hang of this doublethink.
Comedy gold. He's the gift that keeps on giving. Is he the guy who invented the unsolvable puzzle that got solved in 3 months?
16 Grendel,
As I said earlier, if he weren't mentally ill, I'd demand that he eats that tablespoonful (or 2) of DDT in public.
That applies to all the DDT liars/deniers who claim that DDT is not toxic to humans.
18 mikey,
7 months according to [this](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternity_puzzle), and it wasn't that easy. I would never accuse Munchkin of being stupid, just of being highly delusional.
This is pure madness. Everyone knows that the British Royal Family are in fact alien shape changing lizards.
So is Boxcar Willie and George W Bush.
It is worth remembering that Ian Plimer quotes extensively from Monckton to conclude his book Heaven and Earth, pages 489 to 492.
You are judged by the company you keep.
21 albi,
Of course. AGW is just one of many tricks the Illuminati use to control us. It all makes sense now.
For anyone who thinks Icke is being unfairly ridiculed, go to his [website](http://www.davidicke.com/index.php/) and decide for yourself.
22 Dirk,
Is there no denialist tripe, no matter how farcical, incompetent, or dishonest, that would be too poor even for Plimer?
Perhaps 'The Great Heaven and Earth Swindle' would be a better title?
re: #14 guthrie
[Off-topic humor...]
(Sorry, I couldn't resist, knowing you lived there :-)).
I was supposed to play at St. Andrews on a visit about 10 years ago. The rains were already torrential, which didn't stop some Scots colleagues of mine, although we wimp Californians begged off.
Although, now that I think of it...
Some of my ancestors were Scots, but they accepted Pennsylvania weather, BUT:
a) The SF Bay Area generally has a mild climate. One of the rainiest places (40-80"/year, and even gets snow occasionally, compared to the ~30" that most of us in the hills here get) is a little town called:
Bonny Doon
b) Some of the fiercest weather I've ever seen in New Zealand was in the South of the South Island, facing the Southern Ocean, not noted for its balmy qualities. It has towns like:
Invercargill
Dunedin
Glengarry
Balclutha
These face the Southern Ocean, not known for its mildness.
c) This seems like a pattern, perhaps:
when Scots emigrate, do they *look* around the world for wet&cool? :-)
"Aliens, bio-duplication, nude conspiracies... Oh my God! Lyndon LaRouche was right!"
No, sometimes they go for wet and frigid - look at the 19th-century Scottish settlements in the Northwest Territories, ie. the Red River Colony. Unimprovable climate - floods all spring, clouds of mosquitoes in what there is of the summer, and then a winter of really Martian hostility. Even hardened Canadians quail at the thought of Portage and Main on a January night.
The balmier Scottish colonies in the Dominion are places like Nova Scotia, whcih is north of Maine, which I am given to believe is considered to be one of the colder states in the Union.
Great takedown. The Larouchies like to set up shop on my campus right near our building from time to time, so I get to hear the "Godwin"ing arguments all the time. It's ironic to me that they can poison the well of British scientists by lumping them in with British imperialism, but don't do the same for their prized German mathematicians and scientists when it comes to the Nazis.
Also ironic: I particularly enjoyed the last sentence which, I have to admit, went over my head the first time.
_That must be Monckton's one millionth wild exaggeration._
There are basically two types of people in this world.
Those who know little and know that they know little. And those who know little and don't know that they know little.
The climate skeptics belong to the first group, and the AGW believers to the latter group.
Re: Ray #29
Actually the difference between climate skeptics and AGW believers is more like this:
Climate skeptics: are convinced that they are right, and that all the experts are wrong. No amount of evidence would convince them to change their point of view.
AGW believers: believe that the most sensible answers come from asking the experts. If the expert consensus changes, then so will the AGW believers.
#29 Ray
I know several Nobel physicists, some additional members of the US National Academy of Sciences, and various other climate researchers. I see such people a few times/month.
Oddly, they *all* accept AGW.
I have met people who:
a) Had never read a climate book by a real climate scientist.
b) Had never read a climate article in a credible peer-reviewed journal.
c) Had never attended a lecture by a real climate scientist or even ever met one.
d) When urged to do any of the above, and given recommendations, said they already knew enough, although they would not explain their sources.
e) And certainly knew, with utter certainty, that AGW was a hoax.
See Dunning-Kruger Effect: even truly severe afflictions can be cured, if someone so desires. (Of course, most DK-afflictees do not so desire).
Ray:
So which group does Monckton fit into when he says:
Earth's weather is controlled by our nearest star, the Sun.
Nothing mankind can do will affect global warming, since it
is not an effect of mankind's actions. If Earth is really
undergoing a continuing warming event, there are factors
that will come into play that may not be expected. I see
no remarks anywhere about these factors. The first factor
is evaporation, a cooling process. As Earth heats up,
evaporation will increase. The second factor follows
evaporation. The most effective "greenhouse gas" is water
vapor. As water vapor increases, the greenhouse effect
will increase. Water vapor at altitude will crystallize
into snow to descend to earth. An Ice Age will begin. No
matter what Monckton says, or what global warming adherents
spout, nothing can be done to stop the process. Only the
Sun can put a halt to global warming.
"Earth's weather is controlled by our nearest
star, the Sun. Nothing mankind can do will affect
global warming..."
Sigh. Another day, another bonehead.
By the way Ray, which of these groups do Larouchites fit into? Considering your comment was in a thread motivated by a Larouchite publication, you could make it relevant by saying how it applies to Larouchites.
It didn't take very long for the troll to show how ignorant he is. Saying "weather" instead of "climate" in his first sentence immediately shows how ignorant he is of the difference between weather and climate.
I love it.
Monckton + LaRouche + "Obama's Nazi Healthcare Plan"
That is as much info as you need to know that this 'journal' and anything in it is a complete waste of time, and probably border line psychotic.
Radiorick's Fifth Law of Thermodynamics:
"The Laws of Thermodynamics zero to three are hereby repealed, and the Fourth Law of Thermodynamics will be instantly repealed the minute it is elucidated".
<"The first factor is evaporation, a cooling process. As Earth heats up, evaporation will increase........The most effective "greenhouse gas" is water vapor. As water vapor increases, the greenhouse effect will increase. Water vapor at altitude will crystallize into snow to descend to earth. An Ice Age will begin" - Radiorick.
I call Poe.......please god.
From the interview: "But why does this fail, even if they [the greens] are eventually granted the authoritarian powers that would be necessary to enforce the sterilization of the male population, or to enforce a one-child policy?"
Oh no, the greens want to hurt our willies!
(Obs! Irony)
"Radiorick's Fifth Law of Thermodynamics:" - BernardJ
Don't laugh.
Now that I know where Radiorick has been grazing, his brand of stupid is all too understandable. Does this sound similar?
"I would then explain that according to a new theory dubbed the âSaturated Greenhouse Effectâ developed by a Hungarian physicist (Ferenc Miskolczi) adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere will not impact global temperatures because the atmosphere will compensate by reducing specific humidity at critical altitudes. Indeed Dr Miskolczi acknowledges the potential warming effect of carbon dioxide but, through the development of a new law of physics, can explain how changes in the concentration of other greenhouse gases have offset the impact of the additional carbon dioxide....the really good news could be that the critical regulating greenhouse gas, water vapour, is unlikely to ever be limiting because there is just so much of it on planet earth. "
I'm sure you can guess where this came from.
There's actually a Billy Connolly routine about that... When the first Scots colonists landed in New England, they met a chap who said "Come on guys, I know a place where it's even colder," and they all moved to Nova Scotia.
Even Scotland is getting too warm now. If this keeps up, I'm going to have to move to Scandinavia.
RE #25 and 27 - IIRC the red river settlements were more made out of desperation and lack of knowledge of the area, and they may not have picked them if they had had any choice about it. But yes, I think in many cases the Scots went "We'll take this area, you lot seem happy enough with the warmer bits further north".
At least here in the UK LaRouche isn't really known about at all.
Jeremy C writes:
Gritpipe-Thynne.
Radiorick writes:
And the Earth's orbit. And Milankovic cycles. And the effects of changing greenhouse gases, surface cover, clouds, etc., etc., etc.
Wrong. It's caused by the release of greenhouse gases by human technology.
Evaporation is cooling, yes, but since, as you point out, water vapor is the most effective greenhouse gas, the biggest effect of more water vapor in the atmosphere is warming.
Water cycles in about nine days, on average, and usually descends as rain, not snow.
We can switch from burning fossil fuels and chopping down forests to using renewable sources of energy and growing more forests.
Not really. The sun's output just doesn't vary very much on a human time scale.
Oh gawd, can his understanding of population biology be any more absent?!
Where one male is capacble of easily fertilising more than one female, it is the females in the population who dictate the rate of increase/decline. In these instances males are little more than decoration, and even removing a significant proportion of them will have little effect on reproductive rates - it would just result in a smaller group with large smiles on their faces. A vast majority of males would need to be targeted before reproductive rates nose-dived, and I doubt that even in the most fevered of conspiracy theories Monckton could ascribe this sort of wholesale intent to "the Greens".
Of course, Monckton probably assumes that monogamy and fidelity would be the order of the day, but he obviously has no idea of the power of the reproductive drive, nor of the fallibility of human scruples.
There are much more efficient ways of lowering reproductive rates that "sterilising the males".
It all makes sense now...
Pork-barrel
Alternative Energy Impresarios
| |
Kofi Maurice | People Who
Annan ------- Strong --- Osamabamarama --- Don't Pay Taxes
| \ | |
| \ Algore ---- James "Dr. |
Jacques \ the Strangelove" |
Chirac Fat / Hansen |
(?!?!?... / |
don't ask) ---- Prince --- Lenin's ---------------- Kim
Charles Ghost Jong-il
Radiorick.
A question...
What happens to the energy represented by the heat of vaporisation that causes the "cooling process" of evaporation?
Eh?
Climate skeptics: are convinced that they are right, and that all the experts are wrong. No amount of evidence would convince them to change their point of view.
Posted by: Dirk Hartog | June 16, 2009 10:48 PM
That's odd. I get a very similar impression of you AGW adherents. No amount of reasoning will cause you to have any doubts.
If someone who is not a climatologist, like Professor Plimer or Monckton, expresses doubt about the significance of man-made CO2 emissions to climate change, he is dismissed on the grounds he is not a climatologist and therefore cannot know what he is talking about.
If I quote someone who does have qualifications related to climatology, such as Roy Spencer with a Ph.D in meteorology, who works with NASA and collects climate data from satellites and who has puplished a peer-reviewed article on Negative Feedback, which explains how a slight warming can be followed by a slight cooling as increased cloud cover (resulting from the greater evaporation from the slight warming) stops more radiation from the sun reaching the earth,.. then he is simply dismissed as telling fairy tales.
One can't win with you guys. You have the certainty of a religious zealot.
A skeptc (or sceptic) on the other hand is simply someone who is inquiring, reflective and doubting.
Here's the Oxford English Dictionary definition of sceptic.
One who doubts the validity of what claims to be knowledge in some particular department of inquiry
As you should be able to see from this definition, a sceptic is definitely not someone who is convinced he is right, as you claim in your post.
"No amount of reasoning will cause you to have any doubts. " - Ray
Ray, we have doubts,and we are very open to reasoning.
However, cherry-picking data, re-stating long disproven theories, quoting hyper-marginal figures with kooky ideas, misunderstanding basic science and arguing from mistaken assumptions, do not qualify as 'reasoning'.
As I understand it, Obama aims to ensure universal health coverage in the USA. In a nation of 300 million, there are almost certainly some nazis, whose health would be benefited by Obama's plan.
So "Obama's Nazi Health Plan" is surely just a factual description.
I have never seen the Duke of Edinburgh in the same room as a lizard. Makes you think, eh?
"No amount of reasoning will cause you to have any doubts. " - Ray
Ray, we have doubts,and we are very open to reasoning.
However, cherry-picking data, re-stating long disproven theories, quoting hyper-marginal figures with kooky ideas, misunderstanding basic science and arguing from mistaken assumptions, do not qualify as 'reasoning'.
damn double post
> If someone who is not a climatologist, like Professor Plimer or Monckton, expresses doubt about the significance of man-made CO2 emissions to climate change, he is dismissed on the grounds he is not a climatologist and therefore cannot know what he is talking about.
A lie. He's roundly and robustly dismissed because his understanding is wrong, the papers he cites don't support his position, the figures have been cherry-picked, the evidence is incorrect/out of date/fraudulent etc etc etc. Plimer has been systematically taken apart on the *science*, not on personality or background.
> As you should be able to see from this definition, a sceptic is definitely not someone who is convinced he is right, as you claim in your post.
Indeed. And yet so many of those that proclaim themselves "skeptics" are skeptical only of one particular viewpoint, and blindly accepting of anything that contradicts that.
Perhaps such adherents could consider labelling themselves as something other than "skeptics" - as you've quite correctly pointed out, they're clearly wrong in doing so.
Ray: You make the argument "I call myself a sceptic. This is what the dictionary says under 'sceptic'. Therefore I win. QED", and then you wonder why people don't take you seriously? Well, you've convinced me, global warming is a religion/scam/hoax/conspiracy (delete as appropriate).
Oh, wait, no, you're full of it. Words aren't always used according to their dictionary definition, and 'AGW sceptic' has come to mean, in common usage, someone who does not 'believe' in AGW. And the fact is that, if you look around on the web especially, most AGW 'sceptics' do not take a position of "I'm not sure what's happening" but one of "AGW is WRONG and climate scientists are LYING for financial gain, oh and Al Gore is fat!", backed up by various extremely spurious scientific arguments and no evidence of genuine 'scepticism' (i.e. doubting their own position) as per the definition you quote. Look at the Monckton quotes - he's not saying "climate scientists *might* be wrong", he's just outright saying they're wrong, and then making some completely evidence-free assertions about how much damage and suffering greenhouse gas reductions will cause.
But since you're a real sceptic, unlike all of us True Believers, I assume you're as sceptical of, say, Monckton's and Plimer's claims as you are of any pro-AGW claims? You have carefully scrutinized the evidence for what they're saying, you have read anti-AGW blogs and posted critical questions in their comments, as befits a true independent thinker? Oh.
Ray: You make the argument "I call myself a sceptic. This is what the dictionary says under 'sceptic'. Therefore I win. QED", and then you wonder why people don't take you seriously? Well, you've convinced me, global warming is a religion/scam/hoax/conspiracy (delete as appropriate).
Oh, wait, no, you're full of it. Words aren't always used according to their dictionary definition, and 'AGW sceptic' has come to mean, in common usage, someone who does not 'believe' in AGW. And the fact is that, if you look around on the web especially, most AGW 'sceptics' do not take a position of "I'm not sure what's happening" but one of "AGW is WRONG and climate scientists are LYING for financial gain, oh and Al Gore is fat!", backed up by various extremely spurious scientific arguments and no evidence of genuine 'scepticism' (i.e. doubting their own position) as per the definition you quote. Look at the Monckton quotes - he's not saying "climate scientists *might* be wrong", he's just outright saying they're wrong, and then making some completely evidence-free assertions about how much damage and suffering greenhouse gas reductions will cause.
But since you're a real sceptic, unlike all of us True Believers, I assume you're as sceptical of, say, Monckton's and Plimer's claims as you are of any pro-AGW claims? You have carefully scrutinized the evidence for what they're saying, you have read anti-AGW blogs and posted critical questions in their comments, as befits a true independent thinker? Oh.
Grr. Sorry for the double post.
A thought experiment:
You - a layman - go to see your doctor for a regular checkup despite feeling healthy. Thanks to the advances in modern medicine, he diagnoses you with cancer that, if left untreated, will be fatal. He recommends a course of chemotherapy.
Do you:
a) Accept his diagnosis, as an expert in his field, with years of rigorous evidence backing up the efficacy of the treatment, and begin the course of chemo at the earliest opportunity.
b) Proclaim yourself skeptical of his diagnosis, and seek a second opinion - after all, you feel fine, and what do these so-called "experts" know?
If you answered b), you go and see another doctor. He comes to the same conclusion as the first.
Do you:
a) Accept his diagnosis, as an expert in his field, with years of rigorous evidence backing up the efficacy of the treatment, and begin the course of chemo at the earliest opportunity.
b) Proclaim yourself skeptical of his diagnosis, and try to find some evidence that would contradict his closed-minded quasi-religious stance?
If you answered b), you go on the internet and download some material that indicates that cancer does not exist, or if it does it is part of a government conspiracy to force people to spend money on unnecessary treatment, or that cancer has probably happened to people with no ill effects for thousands of years and is actually beneficial. Armed with this contradictory literature, you demand your doctor rethink his diagnosis. Your doctor patiently explains everything that is wrong and incorrect with your information, and reiterates the seriousness of your condition.
Do you:
a) Accept his diagnosis, as an expert in his field, with years of rigorous evidence backing up the efficacy of the treatment, and begin the course of chemo at the earliest opportunity.
b) Insist his elitist response has merely reaffirmed that you were correct to doubt his integrity in the first place, and as such you remain skeptical of his diagnosis, modern medicine in general, and seek a second opinion from an alternative source.
If you answered b), you go and see a holistic nutritionist. He says your energy is out of balance and that you need to eat raisins and avocado for a week.
Do you:
a) Proclaim yourself skeptical of his diagnosis, as it is contrary to all previous expert opinion on your condition, and no evidence exists in scientific literature about the existence or balance of bodily "energy", or the effectiveness of dietary changes in improving said energy.
b) Accept his diagnosis, because it sounds better than the others, and fits with your worldview that so-called experts represent a self-interested cabal marginalising anyone that dares contradict their orthodoxy.
If you answered all b), congratulations - you're now ready to go out and fight for truth, justice and the "skeptical" way.
One who doubts the validity of what claims to be knowledge in some particular department of inquiry
anybody who is a sceptic (in contrast to just calling yourself a sceptic), would find about a million things to be sceptic about in that piece by Monckton. (the one that is the topic of this topic..)
your replies here do not contain a single word of scepticism towards the things that Monckton claims in the interview.
you are not a sceptic.
I'd expect a Viscount to hunt stags (just to keep up appearances, if nothing else) and to understand why they hunt stags, and why doing so doesn't cause the deer population to crash ...
There's a reason why I use the term "sceptics" in quotes or the term AGWSceptics. True scepticism is never practised by these people. They believe any old garbage, no matter how contradictory, trivially stupid, or dishonest, that supports their beliefs. They simply don't have a clue about critical thinking or how science actually works. They just assume that anything that disagrees with their (invariably right-wing) view of the world can't be right.
Their "scepticism" is not even aroused when some fantasist tries to reinvent basic arithmetic or deny the laws of thermodynamics. They prefer to believe the most paranoid conspiracy theories in preference to mainstream science. There is no limit to their credulity. There is no limit to their arrogance in thinking they know better than people with decades of experience in the subject and the scientific papers to prove it. They can have the Dunning-Kruger effect explained to them and yet think it doesn't apply to them.
That is why they are denialists and arrogant ignoramuses, not sceptics.
Dave @59:
You get my vote for post of the year so far on Deltoid. That made my day :)
One must marvel at people who deny that DDT is toxic. The skull and crossbones on the old DDT containers was there for a reason. We know that one cup of prepared DDT kills kids -- a five-year-old kid thought the milky solution might be tasty as it dripped from a tank. Fatal.
And even today, DDT is a common suicide poison in Asia. Does Monckton think Asia doesn't exist? Does he know that DDT is poisonous, but hope to hoodwink everyone else? Is he just a blazing misanthrope?
64 Ed,
Lord Munchkin is a brazen liar, highly delusional, or, most likely, somewhere between the 2. No one could tell such lies and expect no one to notice without also being delusional.
64 Ed,
PS, I note that my old mate Graeme Bird chipped in on that thread. He's a laugh, isn't he?
Regarding Roy Spencer:
1) Just publishing an article, even peer-reviewed, doesn't make it true, it has to stand up to repeated scrutiny. Peer-review just says "We don't find anything absurdly wrong, and it might be interesting." See howto learn about science.
2) Spencer & Christy's satellite analysis work at UAH long contradicted the groundstations, the ocean heat content measurements, and also the other major satellite analysis, RSS. Some radiosonde data agreed with UAH.
2) Turns out, UHA was *badly* wrong, including some *serious* bugs in their code (sign reversal of diurnal drift), and their newer reanalyses look more consistent with the rest. Also, the radiosonde data was found to have problems with spurious cooling. UAH is still a little lower, and *maybe* they have a better approximation than RSS, but based on following this for years, and reading actual papers, a rational observer would tend to bet on RSS.
3) Sometimes a scientist will get committed to a position based on some data or their analysis thereof, and the data turns out to be bad, or their analysis in error, and they even agree to that (as Spencer & Christy have).
Good scientists change their minds, but some (and even sometimes otherwise good ones) then spend a lot of energy trying to show they weren't so wrong. Fred Hoyle hung on to steady-state cosmology long after the evidence for big-bang was very strong.
4) Hence, if Spencer publishes good work, people will look at it, but his track record hasn't been so good of late.
4) Spencer has been involved with Tech Central Station, Heartland Institute, George C. Marshall Institute, entities that do not do science, but certainly do anti-science. He writes (in his book) about avoiding hurt to the poor, but then helps *Heartland*.
The latter has taken money for decades from cigarette companies, whose business plans depend utterly on addicting children while their brains are developing, and of course, in practice, this much more strongly affects poor/lesser-educated people. Somehow, Spencer manages to ignore this.
5) Finally, of course, Spencer is a vocal *creationist*, which might seem orthogonal, but it doesn't argue well for his ability to keep belief systems from overriding actual science.
Belief in one flavor of anti-science doesn't necessarily imply belief in other flavors, but it doesn't help one's credibility.
Laugh in that crazy, loon-like fashion that gives sane people chills on foggy nights, yeah. Three people contacted my by e-mail to say they wouldn't write on a thread he was on because they feared he'd stalk them.
I laughed at first. He's as nutty as they come.
You know Bird uses a photo of Wisconsin Sen. Joe McCarthy as his avatar. Bird claims to like the liar, drunk and misanthrope. I was in Appleton, Wisconsin, last week, and checked to be sure: McCarthy's grave is undisturbed. He's still seriously dead, still six feet under. Thank the gods.
68 Ed,
That's one reason I don't use my real name.
All the same, I find him funny. Try [The Extended Bird](http://notahedgehog.wordpress.com/2008/12/25/the-christmas-spirit/) for the full effect.
Ray:
Dirk was referring to people who call themselves skeptics of climate science. He wasn't referring to real skeptics.
BTW, I see you like using OED definitions. Have you thought about getting the OED updated to include your new definitions of ad hom? A self-described skeptic such as yourself should have no trouble getting it modified.
Has Monckton ever demonstrated the lack of toxicity in two tablespoons of DDT by eating them himself?
What do you think caused the mental condition he so obviously exhibits?
@ 67
1) Just publishing an article, even peer-reviewed, doesn't make it true, it has to stand up to repeated scrutiny. Peer-review just says "We don't find anything absurdly wrong, and it might be interesting."
Indeed. Passing peer review is no guarantee of validity. It just admits the work to the highest level of the debate.
Of course I can't answer in detail all the refutations to my definition of 'skeptic'. It would take far too long, and I have practical matters to attend to, such as the slashing of all the tall grass on my block before the fire season arrives.
On this blog I feel like Daniel being thrown into the Lion's den.
However, there are a few bizarre responses to my position of skepticism which I should address. Someone brought in the analogy of a doctor diagnosing one as having cancer which may need chemotherapy treatment.
This is a totally inappropriate analogy. The diagnosis and treatment of cancer is a science that has been tested time and time again. There's strong experimental evidence for the accuracy of the diagnosis and the efficacy of the treatment.
Since doctors and specialists are fallable just like the rest of us, it's always advisable to get a second or third opinion. However, whatever the consensus of opinion, there's still a risk that recommended procedures will not have the desired effect. Doctors, especially in the USA, pay very high insurance premiums to cover themselves for mistakes.
When it comes to climate change, caused by anthropogenic influences or not, we simply don't have the benefit of true and tried experimental results. A more appropriate analogy would be the long-term effects of diet and exercise.
One might equate a reduction in CO2 emissions as equivalent to eating a sprig of broccoli every day. Broccoli apparently contains anti-carcinogens. Could one therefore claim if one were to eat a portion of broccoli every day one would never get cancer?
Can one claim that, if one exercises every day one will live longer? One can claim that full cream milk and eggs will raise one's cholestral level, whilst ignoring the counter-balance of HDL, and the counterbalance of plain exercise.
The fundamental problem of dietary effects on our health, longevity and well-being, is that we can't apply the proper scientific procedures of 'fasifiability'. We simply can't get people to relive their lives with a different diet in order to be sure what effect a different diet will have.
There are so many, many influences that affect our health and well-being, we simply can't always isolate the effects of one change in diet, except perhaps when it's extreme, such as an excessive intake of alcohol.
It is likewise with climate change. Climate is always changing, for better or for worse, with or without anthropogenic C02 emmissions. Trying to isolate the specific contibution of man-made gasses is like trying to gauge the effect of a sprig of broccoli added to one's daily diet.
Ray says :
"This is a totally inappropriate analogy. The diagnosis and treatment of cancer is a science that has been tested time and time again. There's strong experimental evidence for the accuracy of the diagnosis and the efficacy of the treatment."
And the effect of CO2 on radiation is even better tested. Has better evidence.
Gas laws too.
And radiative equations.
Quantum physics for the line-by-line radiative model not as much as the above two, but more than cancer treatment.
And all the other physics that goes into climate models.
So why are you so skeptical over it and not the cancer/doctor thingy?
Ray, would I be correct in saying your position is that it is, and always will be, impossible to know what causes the climate to change?
I'm beginning to believe that you AGW adherents just don't understand the fundamental principles that underlies all science. Refutability, falsifiability, experimental evidence and feedback.
An example that springs to mind is the Apollo 11 landing on the moon. There was some uncertainty as to the thickness of the interstellar dust on the moon. Certain calculations on the eath had estimated that the thickness of dust on the moon might be several metres deep, which would be a problem for any moon landing.
In fact, the dust thickness was minimal. This experimental feedback caused a reassessment of the scientific formulas that had previously been in place. This is how science works.
With climate change predictions, there's little possibility of such a feed-back because the time scales are so great. So it's mostly guesswork. Don't you guys realise this?
I'm beginning to believe that you AGW adherents just don't understand the fundamental principles that underly all science. Refutability, falsifiability, experimental evidence and feedback.
An example that springs to mind is the Apollo 11 landing on the moon. There was some uncertainty as to the thickness of the interstellar dust on the moon. Certain calculations on the eath had estimated that the thickness of dust on the moon might be several metres deep, which would be a problem for any moon landing.
In fact, the dust thickness was minimal. This experimental feedback caused a reassessment of the scientific formulas that had previously been in place. This is how science works.
With climate change predictions, there's little possibility of such a feed-back because the time scales are so great. So it's mostly guesswork. Don't you guys realise this?
Ray posts:
Have you ever heard of "statistical analysis?"
Here's an example:
http://www.geocities.com/bpl1960/Correlation.html
Ray:
1. The loose dust on the Moon is very thin. The regolith is several meters thick. BTW, we knew about the relative depths as soon as Surveyor landed on the Moon in 1959, a decade before Apollo 11.
2. There is good climate data back to about 1850 and proxy data for well before that. There is, in fact, an entire field called "paleoclimatology." So it's not "guesswork" at all.
Will you for God's sake crack a book before pontificating about a subject you've apparently never studied?
Ray:
1. The loose dust on the Moon is very thin. The regolith is several meters thick. BTW, we knew about the relative depths as soon as Surveyor landed on the Moon in 1959, a decade before Apollo 11.
2. There is good climate data back to about 1850 and proxy data for well before that. There is, in fact, an entire field called "paleoclimatology." So it's not "guesswork" at all.
Will you for God's sake crack a book before pontificating about a subject you've apparently never studied?
> Of course I can't answer in detail all the refutations to my definition of 'skeptic'.
I don't think anyone's refuted anything as basic as the definition of "skeptic" so much as the honesty/accuracy of applying said term to the vast majority of anti-AGW proponents that label themselves as "skeptics", largely due to the high degreee of selectivity commonly on display (ie. skeptical only of one specific viewpoint, and accepting of anything that appears to oppose it). This is particularly egregious because the implication is that those that do accept AGW (ie. virtually all climate scientists) are derelict in not showing sufficient skepticism - an implication that is inaccurate, and insulting, but is nevertheless there.
> On this blog I feel like Daniel being thrown into the Lion's den.
Appeals for sympathy will get you nowhere. Especially as you practically hurled yourself into the lions den, rolled around in barbecue sauce and called the lions a bunch of idiots (metaphorically) :D.
> This is a totally inappropriate analogy. The diagnosis and treatment of cancer is a science that has been tested time and time again. There's strong experimental evidence for the accuracy of the diagnosis and the efficacy of the treatment.
Aside from the fact that you're wrong to imply that there is a lack of experimental evidence for AGW (as has been pointed out in another response), it's an entirely appropriate analogy and in fixating on the medical aspect you missed the point I was trying to get across. The issue is the flagrant abuse of the term skeptical as used by someone with a highly selective and prejudiced opinion, as coupled with an inherent mistrust of a majority (evidence-based) view as elitist.
> A more appropriate analogy would be the long-term effects of diet and exercise.
Well if you prefer... take my post above, and replace all occurences of "cancer" with "heart disease", and "chemotherapy" with "improved diet and exercise". Does that change the point in any way at all?
> It is likewise with climate change. Climate is always changing, for better or for worse, with or without anthropogenic C02 emmissions. Trying to isolate the specific contibution of man-made gasses is like trying to gauge the effect of a sprig of broccoli added to one's daily diet.
Okay, you just compared testing the efficacy of lifestyle changes on a large population in clinical trials, with the long-term study of climate, without any real justification for doing so beyond your assertion that they are both subject to many factors.
Plus your "extra sprig of broccoli" analogy isn't correct because you can't really quantify the effect of dietary "anti-carcinogens" in the human body except statistically in a large population, whereas you can measure the effect of increased concentrations of CO2. It would be better (but still wrong) to think in terms of a single M&M added to the diet weekly (ie. a monotonically increasing input of M&Ms). That way you'd be increasing the fat/sugar intake in a minute way every week, such that we can measure the fat deposits remaining in your body. Of course, fat can come from other sources, and in the short term, fluctuations thanks to varied diet/exercise would overwhelm the contribution of that little extra M&M. However, we'd have an understood scientific basis for anticipating a long-term trend towards obesity, and while effects would not be measurable initially, over a lifetime you'd get pretty fat.
But then, Al Gore is fat, so AGW is false. Damn, I invalidated my own argument... :)
I'm beginning to believe that Ray has, for the first time in his life, put these words together in a sentence: Refutability, falsifiability, experimental evidence and feedback.
Ray doesn't seem to be able to apply them to climate science so instead lets talk about the moon.
Thanks BPL for actual facts.
True Sceptic,
Many, many thanks for the Bird posting and link. As one of belonging to the select group who has been screamed at online by our little tweeter, hmmm that makes me part of, perhaps, 50% of the human race, I am amazed at Birdy's wide influence. The killer for me in your link was Bird's own post - I take it that was him. BTW Jo Nova writes approvingly of Bird......!
Are we sure Bird is not a modern day but offensive version of Ern Malley? - sorry to all non Australians on this site for the obscure historcal reference.
No Former Skeptic, Ray topped Dave's post 59 with his post at 73. I wouldn't have thought it possible but he managed it.
Ray says : "This is a totally inappropriate analogy. The diagnosis and treatment of cancer is a science that has been tested time and time again. There's strong experimental evidence for the accuracy of the diagnosis and the efficacy of the treatment."
And the effect of CO2 on radiation is even better tested. Has better evidence.
Gas laws too.
And radiative equations.
Quantum physics for the line-by-line radiative model not as much as the above two, but more than cancer treatment.
And all the other physics that goes into climate models.
So why are you so skeptical over it and not the cancer/doctor thingy?
Posted by: Mark | June 18, 2009 3:50 AM
Why? Because there are so many variables. Climate science is like Economics, described as the dismal science. Why? Because its impossible to take into consideration all the factors that may impinge upon the calculations. Climate is a chaotic scenario. We're simply out of our depth.
Climate is a chaotic scenario. We're simply out of our depth.
So we will never hear anything from you about how the temps are dropping, etc?
Can we say *anything* about future climate trends?
"Climate is a chaotic scenario. We're simply out of our depth."
So we cannot say summer is warmer than winter?
When you want to go to a warm summer holiday destination, you pick the Artic Winter because you can't say what the weather is going to be like because it's all chaotic?
Must be "exciting" living in your household...
I'm beginning to believe that Ray has, for the first time in his life, put these words together in a sentence: Refutability, falsifiability, experimental evidence and feedback.
Ray doesn't seem to be able to apply them to climate science so instead lets talk about the moon.
Thanks BPL for actual facts.
"Especially as you practically hurled yourself into the lions den, rolled around in barbecue sauce and called the lions a bunch of idiots (metaphorically) :D."
Nah, more like kicked the biggest one in the family jewels.
@Ray #85:
Hmm. Explain why the Earth's global mean surface temperature is not somewhere between -18C and -25C (its black-body temperature, depending on the albedo value taken) - without reference to a greenhouse effect. Climatologists can't - but when they include a greenhouse effect the numbers work out. Paleo-climatologists also seem to get it roughly right when calculating what global mean temperatures would be from measurements of greenhouse gas concentrations and comparing that to other indications of global temperature. When did climate become so chaotic that the climatologists' equations no longer hold true?
"Especially as you practically hurled yourself into the lions den, rolled around in barbecue sauce and called the lions a bunch of idiots (metaphorically) :D."
Nah, more like kicked the biggest one in the family jewels.
"It would be better (but still wrong) to think in terms of a single M&M added to the diet weekly (ie. a monotonically increasing input of M&Ms)."
No, you'd have to put one M&M in on day 1, 2 M&M's in on day2, 3 on day 3 and so on.
Now, nobody will tell you one M&M is bad for you, but do you think that maybe some day the number of M&M's you're eating is going to get unhealthy?
Now remember that CO2 resides for centuries to millenia and we're adding to that noticeably each year.
Ray,
Only slightly >90% of patients with final stage melanoma will die from it. That is despite our scientific understanding of what we think it is, we don't understand why it is so lethal, yet some have spontaneous remission.
This is the same odds with which that you would have us risk the worlds future.
Ray:
It is utterly untrue that we don't have observations of climate change. (Experiments are just a way of setting up observations that don't occur naturally.) For a start, the obvious example is 20th century warming. James Annan wrote a paper summarizing the various observations that can be used to estimate climate sensitivity. (Summary of the paper here.) The other two main observations are the difference between the relatively stable climate before 20th century warming and the stable climate at the time of the last glacial maximum, and the effect on global temperature of volcanic eruptions. Annan shows how these observed climate sensitivities can be combined with each other to obtain a result with less uncertainty.
Anti-climate science credulists like Ray like to pretend that the only source of information about climate sensitivity is computer-calculated models but they're not interested in the facts.
Mark @ 91
> No, you'd have to put one M&M in on day 1, 2 M&M's in on day2, 3 on day 3 and so on.
That's what I was trying to say (although I had it weekly), obviously not clearly enough ;)
"Climate is a chaotic scenario. We're simply out of our depth." - Ray
Let me correct you Ray.
"Science is complex and difficult. I'm simply out of my depth."
Ray:
Ray's approach to uncertainty is to assume what he wants to believe. i.e. he says climate sensitivity is uncertain therefore we should assume that it's very low so that we can keep increasing atmospheric CO2 as much as we feel like. By the way, climate sensitivity is not as uncertain as he would like us to think.
Warning all, don't follow the link in [#69 TrueSkeptic], don't don't don't...I did - aarrrgh! :shock: Too much, TrueSkeptic, too much for the soul to bear. Need a lie-down to recover.
It's unlikely that Monckton = Bird, which in itself is scary as that means there is not just one, but two such...aarh...eccentric individuals upon the planet.
Ray sez
To join in on the dog pile, and to take my role as worlds biggest pedant seriously, but you've really got no idea what you are talking about. A system showing "chaotic" behavior or not has nothing to do with the number of variables. A three variable lorenz attractor is chaotic. Chaos is related to the sensitivity of a system to changes in initial conditions. If you're going to bandy words about, take the trouble to learn what they mean.
To a more substantive point, Ray seems to be of the opinion that we are ignorant of the climate system. To be fair, there is a lot we don't know. However, the climate, the atmosphere and the oceans are controlled by well understood physical laws and it is very possible to use them to understand and even predict future states of the climate. For example, simple models taking into account variations in the Earth's orbit and outgassing of CO2 from oceans is all that is required to understand a substantial part of the Earth's climatic history (in particular ice ages and deglaciations).
In the current context:
-We know (through quantum mechanics, atomic physics and lab experiments) that CO2, Methane, NOx and other gasses are transparent to incoming sunlight (shortwave radiation) and opaque to outgoing heat (long wave radiation);
- We have a very good idea (through the computations using of the laws of thermodynamics and radiative transfer, lab experiments and field measurements current and past climates) of their effects on the Earth's radiation balance;
- Using well understood hydrodynamic and thermodynamic equations, we can predict changes in the atmosphere and oceans and test these against field observations and (once again) lab experiments. To date, predictions such as stratospheric cooling, tropical expansion and polar amplification have been handled well by models.
In short... I really don't think you've studied this much. Perhaps it's time to crack a book? Perhaps one that's not Heaven and Earth?
"Climate science is like Economics." - Ray
Not so much. Climate is physically deterministic. Economics is determined by the vagaries of human decision making.
"Climate is a chaotic scenario. We're simply out of our depth." - Ray
Weather is chaotic. Chaos Theory was developed by studying the weather. Climate is the averaging of the strange attractor bound chaotic states of weather. Similarly the toss of a single coin is chaotic, but averaging the repeated tossing of the coin allows us to predict the fairness of that coin.
It is true that there might well be emergent weather states that we will only realize as the climate is driven to a higher energy state. That we can't predict such catastrophic changes, I find less than reassuring.
I'm beginning to believe that you AGW adherents just don't understand the fundamental principles that underlies all science. Refutability, falsifiability, experimental evidence and feedback.
And when pretending you're smarter than the rest of us fails, there's always playing the victim and pretending you're "Daniel in the lions' den."
Climate is a chaotic scenario. We're simply out of our depth.
First Ray pretends we can all be certain that AGW theories are wrong. Then, when his assertions are disproven, he suddenly reverts to pretending no one can ever know nothin' 'bout nothin'. Sorry, Ray, but just because your head's in a fog doesn't mean the rest of us are as impaired as you.
This hypocritical doubletalk, combined with his brief flash of crybaby-victim mentality, pretty much flushes Ray's credibility down the toilet.
Well, RSS didn't start generating their product until 2004 (roughly, AFAICT), and if I'm not mistaken, since the RSS guys were heavily involved in uncovering the series of errors that led UAH to conclude that global temps were cooling, not warming, they began doing so because the UAH product had so many problems.
It still potentially has problems. DeepClimate has a discussion of a strange annual cycle in the UAH product that is the source of the divergence of UAH from RSS, GISS, etc. I've linked to his latest post on the subject, and it references two earlier discussions (with links to the original Tamino posts that trigged the discussion).
The Viscount seems to be following the lead of Fred Singer, who has cited as peer-reviewed climate science paoers papers by a Polish radioligist in other LaRouce organs.
At least that is what one gathers fromthe interviews Fred gives to the magazines of more respectable organizations, , like the John Birch Society - those desiring further astonishment need but Google .
Climate is a chaotic scenario. We're simply out of our depth.
Which is why we should ignore what we do know, refuse to listen to experts, and pretend that willful ignorance is bliss. 'Cause obviously, when you have a "chaotic scenario," the only sensible thing to do is assume that everything will turn out fine.
Hilarious! Thanks for a good laugh.
If I get into a discussion with someone quoting Monckton approvingly, I'll direct them to this post.
A summary of Ray's argument: "I don't understand these things therefore no one else can. QED they don't exist."
Which is evidence of nothing other than the Dunning Kruger pandemic.
~~~
Jeremy C:
> I thought the Observer interview with Monckton was being kind even though the writer obviously thought Monckton was barking.
I thought it skewered him rather stylishly. The journo doesn't come across as a vicious bully, and Monckton hoists himself with several of his own petards. And it's a dangerous game to play in Olde England when you're up against a litigious little monkey like Monckton whose got the archaic British libel laws at his disposal.
93 Chris,
"Anti-climate science credulists". I like it!
76 Ray,
*With climate change predictions, there's little possibility of such a feed-back because the time scales are so great. So it's mostly guesswork. Don't you guys realise this?"
What we realise is that you have no idea what you are talking about and of how understanding of complex natural systems is obtained.
Care to support your claim of "mostly guesswork"?
I refer you to the fallacies of the Argument From Ignorance and the Argument From Incredulity.
83 Jeremy,
It was fun. I "know" GMB only because I've waded in the Marohasy Bog. Those quotes were all from threads I participated in and a few were directed at me.
I'm sure the GMB posts at Not A Hedgehog were from him. He keeps a lookout for being mentioned anywhere. He even joined the JREF Forum (as GMB) after (I think) I mentioned him there. His ASS extends to denial of a huge proportion of 20C science.
97 Donald,
You obviously do not know of Louis Hissink. Despite being a geologist, his ideas on science (and politics) are much the same as GMB's. He's more polite, that's all.
John Mashey:
re #31:
In another venue, and thus I won't say anything identifying, I encountered this. The person in question was in a science related profession and believed firmly they had done yeoman's work for over a year researching carefully everything to do with climate change and it was merely "hand-waving" due to "models" which after all are not science. The person furthermore maintained that Patricia C. Frisch's ArXiv.org-ed article on the Local Bubble "explained" climate change (My PDF from there hadn't got the word "climate" in it once).
It's probably obvious to anyone who's ever seen me comment anywhere that I long ago lost what little patience with denialists I once had, but in this venue it was not an apt time to be confrontational, so I wasn't, just made a mild demurral to the usual statement that most climate scientists were, in effect, frauds.
I will say that, since there wasn't a gaggle of mutually reinforcing denialists, the person in question came off a bit strident, precisely because I didn't debate.
More and more we're in a post-debate world on the science, I think, and descending to a battle over old ground is just sharing the delusion. We're in a hot debate world on the solutions.
This is a Bird quote. I learned something from it. Blogscience, which surpassed Old Science in importance a couple of years ago, has in turn been superceded by ... YouTube Science!
It's an exciting age we live in.
re: #111 dhogaza
But, YouTube comments are still 500 characters, so we have at least one more step:
TwitterScience ... 140 characters at a time.
Shit! Of course!
"E=mc^2" fits with a lot of "neener-neener I'm the smartest phys in the world!" stuff.
Clearly, if twitter would've been enough for Einstein, Twitter-science should rule the world!
Wow, the more I think about it, you're a genius, Mashey!
Twitter's the perfect medium for the most persuasive of denialist arguments:
"Al Gore is fat!"
Genius, pure genius.
I hope you don't go over to the dark side! :)
(this is really too funny, if you think about it, but could turn out to be true)
#109 TrueSkeptic: I am aware of the individual you mention, and yes he is more polite; but then, from what I saw of Bird's posts around the place, that isn't setting the hurdle very high :-)
The UnOz today has a neato (not) article from the chaperones of Steve Fielding. If these guys continue on the path they are, well kiss goodbye to scientific processes whenever a scientific discovery or theory has political implications. We Ozzies are importing the "Raygun"-ite approach to science; I believe the expression most apt here is that we are poisoning the well. Unfortunately there is only one well and we all drink from it.
In this day and age, who would want to be a scientist? All the public argument is off-putting, I would imagine, to the youth trying to pick their university degree.
Especially disappointing is the manner in which people who apply a sceptical approach to science, but fail to test whether their sceptical point of view on a given problem is warranted. With that step missing, they are doing the equivalent of voting without first thinking through how their vote may affect their lives.
Personally, I chose a maths science degree as my first choice; science was my passion so it was a simple decision for me at that time. So I endep up doing a lot of pure and applied mathematics, and physics as part of a BSc (Ma.) Hon. [NOTE: Ma. means mathematical sciences, not masters], then later on a grad dip in IT/software engineering, and some finance at Securities Institute (just something to do, it wasn't high powered or anything). Even back then it was a bit of a struggle to pay my way, and that was before HECS ramped up. In the current day I doubt that the choice of a science degree is a wise one, I hate to say. Yet, without at least some exposure to the analytic approach of science, the day might arrive when society draws the curtins on science. We have already drawn them in a bit: we openly accept homeopathy, crystal healing, and myriad other items as "complementary medicine", to the extent that some doctors will encourage patients to give it a try.
For me a maths science degree was the correct choice but that choice was made in a different environment to the current one. A number of consequences flowed from that choice though, especially regarding total earnings.
Donald, I sympathise. As an Arts graduate, I can suggest that what you describe is the triumph of the post-modernists. What started as Trotskyist literary criticism has somehow become the argot of the age - all opinions have become equally valid, it's only the volume that matters. This too will pass, if the history I've spent my intellectual life devoted to is valid. The coming environmental storm will sweep the present intellectual vapidity away and clear thinkers will become valued resources. Sadly, in any age the glittering prizes go to the toadies and those happy to prostitute their talents to maintenance of the stautus quo.
It is utterly untrue that we don't have observations of climate change. (Experiments are just a way of setting up observations that don't occur naturally.) For a start, the obvious example is 20th century warming. James Annan wrote a paper summarizing the various observations that can be used to estimate climate sensitivity. (Summary of the paper here.) The other two main observations are the difference between the relatively stable climate before 20th century warming and the stable climate at the time of the last glacial maximum, and the effect on global temperature of volcanic eruptions. Annan shows how these observed climate sensitivities can be combined with each other to obtain a result with less uncertainty.
Anti-climate science credulists like Ray like to pretend that the only source of information about climate sensitivity is computer-calculated models but they're not interested in the facts.
Posted by: Chris O'Neill | June 18, 2009 6:32 AM
Chris,
I'm not pretending anything. I've spent all my life surrounded by fairly sophisticated scientific devices, or items of technology designed and built from a specialised understanding of scientific principles in many disiplines.
I have great confidence in all of these devices; motor cars, TVs, hi fi amplifiers, computers, blu-ray players, digital cameras etc.
I'm not at all skeptical that my plasma TV will work when I turn it on, or that my compact flash card will record data about the picture I've just taken after pressing the shutter.
Furthermore, I don't need to spend hundreds of hours reading about the science and technology that produces such items in order to have confidence in them, because I know that the science at the basis of such technology has been tested continuously over many decades.
There's a continuous feed-back between theory and practice. The proof of the pudding is in the eating.
This is not the situation with climate science.
To get back to the medical analogy, climate science is like being offered a new drug for your cancer (or whatever) that has never been tested even on rats, mice or monkeys, never mind humans.
When the doctor tells you that there's a wide consensus amongst the scientists who developed the drug, that it will work and that it will have no undesirable side-effects, do you say, "That's fine then. As long as there's a good consensus amongst the guys in the lab that the drug will work, I'll take it."
Or do you perhaps express a degree of skepticism?
The latest reports I hear on the radio and TV is that the climatologists already appear to have got it wrong. The global warming and melting of ice etc is happening at a greater rate than predicted.
Of course, I realise that most AGW adherents on this blog will probably automatically assume that the climatologists have simply underestimated the effects of anthropogenic CO2 emissions.
As a skeptic, I think it may be possible that they've underestimated the non-anthropogenic effects, the natural climate variability, and that they simply don't fully understand the processes.
"As a skeptic, I think ...
Posted by: Ray"
Well twice wrong and in so few words!
How come you're not skeptical that you've got it wrong instead?
"There's a continuous feed-back between theory and practice. The proof of the pudding is in the eating.
This is not the situation with climate science."
This IS the situation with climate science. You don't see it because you aren't looking for how it works, you're looking to see what you can fail it with.
This is denialism at work. Denialists are screaming that we're experiencing global cooling, which disproves AGW, or that it's warming faster then predicted, which disproves AGW, while ignoring the fact that long-term trends are matching actual model projects when uncertainty (error bars) are taken into consideration.
Etc etc. Doesn't matter what the data is, it disproves AGW.
Ray's no skeptic, he's a denialist, out and out.
Ray @117
Can you answer a few simple questions:
1) What books have you read about climate science?
a) By real climate scientists?
b) By others?
Which do regard as especially credible?
2) Do you attend lectures by real climate scientists, ask them questions, talk to them?
Who? Which do you find especially credible?
[I understand the geography issue,m this is easier for some of us.]
3) How about magazines/journals?
a) Pro-Am, like Scientific American, i.e., written by scientists and science journalists for science-interested laypeople?
b) Pro-Pro, like Science or Nature, of which the earlier pages overlap with Pro-Am, and the later pages are professionals writing for each other, as they do in, say AGU publications.
4) If not those, what *are* your sources? You disagree with {US National Academy of Sciences, NASA, NOAA, AAAS, UK Royal Society, etc, i.e., essentially all relevant professional societies and research organizations,}, so you must read something or talk to *somebody* to support your beliefs. Can you say who?
I'm taking a short summer course on vector calculus and differential forms. Were I to explore the proofs looking for contradictions of every theorem before accepting that the theorems in the book are with very high certainty correct, I wouldn't have the time to get through this course with an 'A'.
Shorter Ray: Them scientists are wrong. I seen it on TV.
Please, can people avoid whacking Ray unnecessarily.
We *don't* know he gets his info from TV.
I'm continuing to research the origin&flow of ideas, and since Ray's differ strongly from people I usually talk to, I've asked him nicely to tell us where he gets his.
a) He may well have sources unknown-to-me, that will cause me to revisit my views or at least hard questions. If so, I will learn something.
b) He may have unknown sources, that will not cause me to change my views, but will shed light on the information of flows. If so, I will be alerted to some new ones.
c) His sources may be long-familiar ones. If so, I will at least have another sample.
d) And possibly, the dialog may encourage him to read something from which he might learn.
So, if Ray is still around, really, I am interested in any answers to #120.
Hi everyone,
Ray writes well and is polite. While we all believe that his skepticism is mis-guided, let's not make any snide or dismissive comments (this isn't direct at the most recent comments, just the overall tone of several responses in this thread). Ray deserves a polite response. The danger with not being polite is that some people reading the thread will have the automatic response "polite equals right, rude equals wrong" regardless of the science.
And Ray, thank you for clearly explaining your thoughts. I hope that you take the time to read more of the real science behind climate change. If you are a true skeptic, then apply this skepticism to what you are being told by the anti-AGW crowd - you will find that every argument they use against AGW is wrong.
Regards, Dirk
Dirk,
Thanks for you post. It helps to be reminded of such things from time to time.
Ray:
So your view is that the only observational evidence sufficient to prove climate sensitivity is to run an experiment in which we turn up the CO2 level high enough for the weather noise to be insignificant and only then can we be sure that high CO2 will cook the climate. Pretty much what we're doing now. Great idea Ray. I'm sure we'll be able to reverse it if we don't like the outcome. In fact we have been running that experiment for a while now so we do have a result with a moderate level of accuracy. In any case you don't seem to understand that it is not necessarily experiment that is necessary to test hypotheses, it is observations. It was observation of the speed of light that tested classical mechanics. It was observation of the planets that tested Kepler's laws and Newton's laws and Einstein's laws. There is nothing inherently special about observations that come from artificially set up conditions.
Don't believe everything you hear from the media, Ray. It takes at least 30 years of data to establish a change in the climate. "latest reports", whatever they are, are not going to have much effect on 30 years of data.
self-described
which means you think their range of estimates are PROBABLY correct. What is the correct course of action if they are PROBABLY CORRECT?
I think Chris's response right at the end there is why Ray isn't real.
If Ray were genuine he would have been less certain we should do nothing and we knew nothing if he'd also believe "it may be POSSIBLE...".
However, an astroturfer would use "it may be POSSIBLE..." so that
a) they can't be told that's wrong
b) they look like they're being "even handed"
and won't sweat that that doesn't mean we know nothing and should do nothing until it's a lot later.
Over in Mahohasy world Janama was moaning that Deltoid has been censoring him. I tried to mollify him by saying that someone even less able to assess data and apply logic than him has taken up the challenge here on Deltoid. Go Team Ray, the 'longer Janama'!!!!!!
Over in Mahohasy world...
... Cohenite says that he is still working on the problem BernardJ set him.
I'd imagine the brains trust argument is going something like this...
Cohenite: OK, anyone know how to do regressions?
Louis: statistics? That's a leftist plot to install a UN led one-world government.
Janama: Add the numbers and divide by ENSO.
Cohenite: No,I think that should be PDO. If you don't account for decadal stochastic influences in the series, it will be wrong, just like AGW. I just read a really great paper on it in a leading climate research journal, E&E.
Janama: surely the MWP makes those numbers incorrect?
Louis: don't forget the plasma...
Janama: the numbers are actually just a model, probably a computer model, so they're definitely wrong. And the oceans are cooling.
Drongo: yep, no sea level rise and the globe has been cooling since 1998. Forget statistical analysis, you just need common sense to analyse the numbers - and common sense says that the earth is cooling.
Cohenite: OK, does anyone know what a regression is?.....I'll see if there is a paper by Quirk and Mclean on this.
Janama: do the numbers model the clouds? If they don't, it's all wrong....and models are wrong anyway.
Louis: forget the numbers, it's a letist-UN plot to destabilise the currency.
Cohenite: OK guys let's take a break.....some important news, a new chapter of the Climate Sceptics is opening in Nigeria. However, they need some start-up financial support, but they will be able to repay us quickly once they are up and running....they've kindy provided their bank acct detauils. All in favour say 'Aye'...
All: Aye!
And the slightly more readable version,
Over in Mahohasy world...
... Cohenite says that he is still working on the problem BernardJ set him.
I'd imagine the brains trust argument is going something like this...
Cohenite: OK, anyone know how to do regressions?
Louis: statistics? That's a leftist plot to install a UN led one-world government.
Janama: Add the numbers and divide by ENSO.
Cohenite: No ,I think that should be PDO. If you don't account for decadal stochastic influences in the series, it will be wrong, just like AGW. I just read a really great paper on it in a leading climate research journal, E&E.
Janama: surely the MWP makes those numbers incorrect?
Louis: don't forget the plasma
Janama: the numbers are actually just a model, probably a computer model, so they're definitely wrong. And the oceans are cooling.
Drongo: yep, no sea level rise and the globe has been cooling since 1998. Forget statistical analysis, you just need common sense to analyse the numbers - and common sense says that the earth is cooling.
Cohenite: OK, does anyone know what a regression is?.....I'll see if there is a paper by Quirk and Mclean on this.
Janama: do the numbers model the clouds? If they don't, it's all wrong....and models are wrong anyway.
Louis: forget the numbers, it's a letist-UN plot to destabilise the currency.
Cohenite: OK guys let's take a break.....some important news, a new chapter of the Climate Sceptics is opening in Nigeria. However, they need some start-up financial support, but they will be able to repay us quickly once they are up and running....they've kindy provided their bank acct detauils. All in favour say 'Aye'...
All: Aye!
Michael, it was hilarious, even in the less readable form.
Best post of the thread.
Except you didn't make it up, did you? That's a cut-and-paste straight from Marohasy's blog, isn't it?
Ray, many of us agree with John Mashey
(Posted by: John Mashey | June 19, 2009 9:25 PM)
Deltoid is a fractious site but you can be taken seriously if you have some source for your beliefs. John asks the right questions there. We've all had to answer them for ourselves as we started learning about this area.
131 dhogaza,
It's the Marohasy **Bog** ;)
Michael's posts (129-130) are just too much like the real thing, aren't they? :D
Michael wins teh internetz!
I'll try to answer some of the derisive remarks made about my attitude of scepticism, without taking the longer route of addressing each individual post.
As a skeptic, of course I'm skeptical about some of the views expressed by Plimer et al. I'm not into the right/wrong, black/white scenario that many posters on this blog seem to suscribe to.
The foundation of all skepticism in science is an understanding, rightly or wrongly, that the argument, theory or prediction being made is not proven by standard scientific methodolgy, as expressed by philosophers of the scientific method such as Karl Popper.
Plimer and Monckton's arguments are also not proven, and therefore any true skeptic should be skeptical also of their conclusions on this issue of AGW.
It could be said that the true denialists here are the AGW adherents who are in a state of denial about the uncertainty of the science which has been summarised in the IPCC reports, an uncertainty which it seems clear to me is being covered up and downplayed for political purposes.
One thing that many people seem to hate is uncertainty. It's probably the main reason why religions are so popular. Religions offer certainty in relation to matters that cannot be proved, such as 'life after death'. Living with uncertainty seems difficult and intolerable for many people. The certainty of a lie would seem to be preferrable than the uncertainty of a truth, for many.
Now it's true we have a huge dilemma regarding the uncertainty of the role that mand-made CO2 emmisions may have on our climate. It's not possible to construct exact, real-world, miniature replicas of our planet with climate and observe what happens as we increase CO2 to excessive levels, then decrease it to pre-industrial levels and observe the variety of positive and negative feedback that may take place with regard to severity of storms and frequency of droughts etc. It seems we have to rely upon computer modelling. That does not inspire much certainty in my opinion.
Evidence for such lack of certainty can be found in recent comments from the climatologists themselves who have contributed to the IPCC reports. Consider the following comments from Professor Chris Field, of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
"Global warming is likely to accelerate at a much faster pace and cause more environmental damage than previously anticipated. There's a vicious-cycle component to both the tundra-thawing and the tropical forest feedbacks, but the IPCC fourth assessment didn't consider either of them in detail. That's basically because they weren't well understood at the time."
Do you see here already an admission that the IPCC predictions in the past have been inaccurate due to a lack of understanding? The question arises, to the skeptical mind, what else do the climatologists not understand?
Is it possible at the end of the next 10 year period there will be an inexplicable cooling and re-freezing of the tundra which will have to be explained by another lack of understanding, such as; 'the role of negative feedback was not well understood at the time'?
Now I understand that a lot of you black and white bloggers can think only of two approaches to this dilemma. We either do something, or we do nothing.
Let me use the sinking of the Titanic as an analogy. There was a certain hubris that the ship was unsinkable. The capacity of the lifeboats was extremely limited, sufficient for only a third of the total number of passengers (sufficient only for the First Class passengers). However, the lifeboat capacity was within the regulation of the times. The ship is unsinkable so no worries.
How should we manage the uncertainty of climate change? Should we kid ourselves about the nature of the uncertainty and try to build an unsinkable Titanic, or should we ensure that we have adequate lifeboat capacity?
Well, clearly we should do both if we have the resources, but before we attempt to build an unsinkable ship, we should ensures that we have adequate lifeboat capacity.
For the benefit of those who are struggling with the analogy, adequate lifeboat capacity means accepting that disasters are inevitable and taking measures to protect ourselves in the event of such disasters.
Shorter Ray:
I see you've replied to my points. But I feel insulted by your replies, so I'll simply respond to them by repeating my previous talking points.
Also, my verbiage is a lot more precise than all the computer models in the world! Therefore, we know that mitigation is more expensive than adaptation! Don't trust the computer models, trust me!
Oh, and Karl Popper.
Ray: You flatter yourself if you think you are a skeptic. A true skeptic would think 'What else has been overlooked?' not 'Perhaps it will all work out fine.'
Shorter Ray:
I see you've replied to my points. But I feel insulted by your replies, so I'll simply respond to them by repeating my previous talking points.
Also, my verbiage is a lot more precise than all the computer models in the world! Therefore, we know that mitigation is more expensive than adaptation! Don't trust the computer models, trust me!
Oh, and Karl Popper.
Posted by: bi -- IJI | June 20, 2009 11:34 PM
Refutation of bi--IJI's shorter version of me.
Don't trust me. Trust your basic common sense or nous.
As Einstein said, don't trust any theory that cannot be explained in ordinary language.
The current economic crisis occurred because of the complexity of the financial mapipulation which was beyond the understanding of ordinary people.
Do not be fooled by complex arguments.
You just don't get it. No one gets to call themselves a skeptic. It's like someone telling others they're honest. Believe it not liars have been known to tell others that they're honest. Your whole attitude smacks of hubris and arrogance.
If you're not skeptical about Plimer's use of Beck's graph or Plimer's belief of an iron-based Sun or a whole host of other things then you are not a skeptic.
No Ray, you are totally, utterly wrong. We do not have to rely upon computer modelling AT ALL to know it is VERY likely that the world will warm up a serious amount as a consequence of the amount of GHGs we are generating. What happened to you when I pointed out James Annan's paper that showed that using just observations gives a 95% confidence range for climate sensitivity of 1.7 deg C to 4.9 deg C per CO2 doubling with a most likely value of 2.9 deg C? Computer models just reduce this range to 2.0 deg C to 4.5 deg C so computer models don't make much difference to our expectations.
So sure, there is a 2.5% chance of less than 1.7 deg C ultimate warming from a doubling of CO2 IF WE COMPLETELY IGNORE COMPUTER MODELS. So the question Ray, is do we get on the plane with a 97.5% chance of crashing? Or are you going to ignore that question?
Ray, what you fail to grasp is that in your analogy the lifeboats represent the capacity of Earth's active carbon cycle sinks, while the Titanic represents more carbon dioxide than the atmosphere has contained for at least the last 2 million years. True hubris is the sceptic band rearranging the deck chairs as it contends that adding that CO2 will not have serious consequences.
The skeptic does not contend that CO2 will not have serious consequences.
The skeptic argues the case is not proven.
For all I know, we're all doomed whatever we do. I recall James Lovelock during an interview claiming it's probably already too late.
If it is too late, then we'd be completely silly to spend our valuable and limited resources trying to fight the impossible. We'd be much better off trying to mitigate the effects of the impending disasters, which means of course, not reconstructing cities like New Orleans which are below sea level.
James Lovelock is completely in favour of all-out development of atomic power as our best chance of averting total calamity.
If it's already too late, or close to being too late, then a 20% reduction in CO2 emissions is just pissing in the wind.
Ray,
One key aspect of skepticism is that you have to be able to realize the limitations of your own knowledge.
For example, I know very little about medicine. If someone (analogous to Plimer, Monckton, etc) wrote a book that said "neurofibromatosis does not affect endoneurial fibroblasts", I wouldn't be able to judge whether this was likely to be true.
Suppose further that every medical expert I asked about the book immediately fell about laughing and said "of course, neurofibromatosis affects endoneurial fibroblasts, that's obvious! To say overwise is absurd!".
What should a rational person do at this stage?
There is only one sensible position: to realize that you aren't sufficiently qualified to have a useful opinion. You should either trust the medical experts, or perhaps study for a degree in medicine yourself and learn enough to be able to make an informed judgment.
And if the people claiming that "neurofibromatosis does not affect endoneurial fibroblasts" have never published anything in the medical literature, have no relevant qualifications, and are associated with lobby groups that stand to benefit from fibroblast sales, then perhaps, just perhaps, you might get an inkling of a suspicion that their opinions aren't particularly trustworthy.
Now, with climate change we have the situation where the views of Plimer, Monckton, Carter, Evans, Kininmonth, etc, are diametrically opposed to those of the experts. Furthermore, you don't even have to be an expert to see the problems with Plimer et al - their arguments are so ludicrously erroneous that an undergraduate degree in physics is more than sufficient. In fact, anyone who can understand a simple graph can shoot down most of the arguments.
So, if you can't see the obvious screaming absurdity of Plimer et al's arguments, then you simply do not have sufficient knowledge to justify being sensibly skeptical. At this point you should either trust the experts or start learning about the subject.
Regards, Dirk.
re: Ray #135
Sigh. Is it impossible to get answers to my few simple, non-derisive questions from #120? Maybe just list your top 3-5 favorite climate science books from your bookshelf?
re: quote from Chris Field:
The interested reader might check the original Stanford press release from which Chris's quote is taken. Is Ray's interpretation appropriate?
The skeptic argues the case is not proven.
the sceptics don t know anything about science.
Newton s law is NOT proven either.
Shorter Ray:
I know that my verbiage is more precise than all the computer models in the world, and I know that mitigation is more expensive than adaptation. Why? I just know!
Therefore, the computer models are wrong! Don't trust the computer models!
Well, you shouldn't trust me either. But you should trust my common sense. EINSTEIN!!!
"Do you see here already an admission that the IPCC predictions in the past have been inaccurate due to a lack of understanding?" - Ray
No Ray.
The predictions are posed in terms of confidence levels. Suggesting that if predictions fall out side these confidence levels, then they are all wrong, suggets that you don't understand this.
No Ray.
The predictions are posed in terms of confidence levels. Suggesting that if predictions fall out side these confidence levels, then they are all wrong, suggets that you don't understand this.
Posted by: Michael | June 21, 2009 4:52 AM
Michael,
I've never suggested anyone's views or predictions are all wrong. I wrote they appeared to be inaccurate due to a lack of understanding of certain issues and processes, according to Chris Field.
So the skeptic is skeptical that we can keep increasing CO2 without harm.
The big IF
.
You're right Ray, the self-described skeptic assumes it's too late. Is this your self-fulfilling prophesy strategy? i.e. keep on generating CO2 to make certain that it will be too late.
Shorter Ray:
I'm not suggesting that anyone's predictions are all wrong. I'm just suggesting that we should throw all the predictions away, which isn't the same thing.
Also, I just know that mitigation is more expensive than adaptation.
Ray writes:
<<>>
Context, Ray, context. Einstein said that in an argument that people shouldn't believe quantum mechanics.
So, if you can't see the obvious screaming absurdity of Plimer et al's arguments, then you simply do not have sufficient knowledge to justify being sensibly skeptical. At this point you should either trust the experts or start learning about the subject.
Regards, Dirk.
Posted by: Dirk Hartog | June 21, 2009 2:15 AM
I do trust the experts, and I assure you if all the experts were to agree on this issue, it's very unlikely I'd be questioning the case for AGW.
I'm questioning it, not because I have any special knowledge on climate matters, but because I smell a rat.
I sense a process of intimidation, censorship and ridicule which discourages dissenters. If I were employed as a climatologist and had serious doubts about the interpretation of the data being gathered by my organisation, I would certainly not go public with my views if I wanted to retain my job.
My guess is, quite a few climatologists privately hold serious doubts about the role of man-made CO2 emissions, but see no point served in sacrificing their carreers.
I'm afraid I can only trust what makes sense to me, and that's all I could expect of anyone.
If I visit the doctor who prescribes an antibiotic for some infection he has diagnosed, I generally don't say, "Wait a while. I'll read a few books on the immune system and see how this antibiotic is manufactured and how it's supposed to work. If I'm confident the science is sound, I'll return for the prescription."
However, if the doctor prescribes a drug which is in the news with reports of serious side-effects which are beginning to be noticed and with calls from certain quarters that the drug should be banned , I would question why the doctor was prescribing such a drug.
When academics who have been considered sane enough to be the head of a university department, and other highly qualified individuals with a Ph.D in meteorology, for example, express a dissenting viewpoint about AGW and are pilloried and ridiculed for doing so, I can use my intelligence to discern there's something more than the bare science at issue.
The skeptic argues the case is not proven.
You misunderstand the nature of scientific reasoning.
And real-life risk assessment.
Sorry, I lost the quote there. It was Ray's Einstein quote:
<<>>
Which, of course, was said in a context of arguing against the reality of quantum uncertainty.
Ray:
>I've never suggested anyone's views or predictions are all wrong. I wrote they appeared to be inaccurate due to a lack of understanding of certain issues and processes, according to Chris Field.
That's the definition of all human knowledge. We don't know everything. But then since we don't know everything, then all science should be ignored!
That's the recipe for returning to caves.
The only way that your views could be implemented is if science that is politically unpalatable is ignored. eg. censorship of unpalatable ideas.
Shorter Ray:
It doesn't matter that Plimer's and Monckton's arguments are transparently stupid! If they're mocked, it's merely an indication that there's a huge worldwide Marxist Warmist New World Order conspiracy!
Ray said:
>I'm questioning it, not because I have any special knowledge on climate matters, but because I smell a rat.
I sense a process of intimidation, censorship and ridicule which discourages dissenters.
Interesting. Climate scientist Jim Salinger gets the sack, but Plimer is free to publish fictions.
So where is the intimidation and censorship?
It seems that Plimer and Monckton et al are getting a solid peer review! And their ideas are failing to stand up to even the mildest scientific scrutiny.
Ray:
>My guess is, quite a few climatologists privately hold serious doubts about the role of man-made CO2 emissions, but see no point served in sacrificing their carreers.
NZ scientist Jim Salinger sacrificed his career for being a mainstream scientist.
In the US Rep Paul Broun is trying to stop funding of climate science and climate programs. eg. censorship of mainstream science.
The call for censorship is largely from right wing conspiracy theorists.
Paul (UK):
> Climate scientist Jim Salinger gets the sack, but Plimer is free to publish fictions. So where is the intimidation and censorship?
Of course, the censorship is so secret that nobody actually knows anything concrete about it, and the very information about censorship is being heavily censored, which of course 'proves' that the censorship is extremely widespread! The less evidence there is of censorship, the greater the chances that there's active censorship going on! Pure logic!
By Ray's logic too, if Monckton's whackjob conspiracy theories are being mocked, the mocking somehow counts as 'evidence' that Monckton's theories are correct.
Ahem.
Okay, I'm an idiot. (Cheers from the skeptics. "He admitted it! Ha!") I was using the wrong HTML quote syntax.
Here's Ray's Einstein quote:
Ray, as a skeptic, what do you think needs to be investigated in Plimer's blog-produced paper?
As a skeptic, what do you think needs to be investigated in the idea that mitigation will be more costly than adaption?
Or are you a credulous?
Re: Ray #151
Are there any experts that disagree with AGW? The vocal anti-AGW "experts" are either unqualified, haven't published in the field, are paid by industry groups, or have "gone emeritus". And sometimes all of these simultaneously.
That is absolutely not how things work. There have been numerous cases of errors in data being found by experts employed within the relevant organisations. There is a constant process of evaluating data products and comparing with models, theory, and other data sets.
If an expert climatologist could disprove AGW they would rush to publish the proof. This would be the highlight of their career and they would be in the running for a Nobel Prize. Seriously. This talk of "sacrificing their careers" is just a misunderstanding of how science works. Science really is about searching for the truth. If a PhD student or a young postdoc found a serious problem with a crucial data set, they wouldn't be scared of losing their job, they would be excited to be the first person to find it.
That isn't enough. Plenty of ex-heads of University departments "go emeritus". What you have to look for is evidence of recent relevant publications in top journals in the field - that is what being an expert is all about. It rules out Plimer, Carter, etc.
That doesn't include Kininmonth, by the way, he doesn't have a PhD. Hasn't published anything either. Nor has Evans. Nor Monckton.
Can you name any "expert" who disagrees with AGW?
Can you give a single cogent argument against AGW from any source whatsoever?
The most inflammatory language is coming from the dissenters. Have you read what Plimer has written in The Australian? He claims that there have been no scientific criticisms of his book. In fact, there have been numerous reviews by relevant scientists, and they are uniformly critical of the science in the book.
That's the definition of all human knowledge. We don't know everything. But then since we don't know everything, then all science should be ignored!
Posted by: Paul UK | June 21, 2009 6:47 AM
I've never written or implied that climate science, or any science, should be ignored because our understanding is not complete. Where did you get that idea from?
Some of you guys have some very odd reasoning.
What I've opposed is the notion that the science is settled.
I've got no affiliation with companies involved with exploiting fossil fuels. I've got no reason to oppose a reduction of GHG emissions. In fact I'm very much in favour of the development of clean and renewable energy sources, provided we don't expect the poor, the starving and the disadvantaged to pay for them.
What I'm concerned about is that the wealthy will attempt to justify increased energy costs, which they can easily afford, which will flow on, however, to those who can't afford them and cause their dire plight to be even worse.
Shorter Ray:
1. I never said we should ignore all the science. I'm only saying that we shouldn't trust any of the science. This of course means we should ignore all the science, but if you reach that conclusion, it's your fault, not mine!
2. I know that mitigation is more costly than adaptation. Don't take my word for it -- however, anyone who disagrees with me obviously hates poor people.
3. Monckton's being mocked, therefore he must have a point.
Can you name any "expert" who disagrees with AGW? Can you give a single cogent argument against AGW from any source whatsoever?
Posted by: Dirk Hartog | June 21, 2009 8:06 AM
Yes. Check out the site of Roy Spencer Ph.D.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/04/in-defense-of-the-greenhouse-effect/
"I've never written or implied that climate science, or any science, should be ignored because our understanding is not complete. Where did you get that idea from?
Some of you guys have some very odd reasoning." - Ray
Ray, I think it comes from this,
"vidence for such lack of certainty can be found in recent comments from the climatologists themselves who have contributed to the IPCC reports. Consider the following comments from Professor Chris Field, of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
....
Do you see here already an admission that the IPCC predictions in the past have been inaccurate due to a lack of understanding? The question arises, to the skeptical mind, what else do the climatologists not understand?"
That you confuse expressions of probability with "a lack of understanding" and being "inaccurate", claims which are themselves an inaccurate description and show a very clear lack of understanding. Your implication is that anything less than 100% certainty is wrong. Well, you're wrong.
Shorter Ray:
I've not read Spencer's writings, but my Common Sense⢠says he's right.
Roy Spencer who believes that the earth is young, that dinosaur records are wrong?
THAT Dr Roy Spencer?
Ah, well, obviously a learned scientist...
With friends like him, Pielke doesn't need enemies.
PS, Ray, Dirk asked for a COGENT example.
Roy's site doesn't have it.
Re: Ray #164,
For some relevant comments on Spencer, re-read John Mashey's comments above in #67.
The particular page on the website you link to is saying something uncontroversial about the greenhouse effect.
From reading a few pages on the site, it is clear that Spencer believes that almost all climate change is simply due to natural chaotic processes. He doesn't need the sun or any other external forcing agent (e.g., cosmic rays) to change the climate. This puts him way out on a limb with respect to the other anti-AGW people. If Spencer is right, then not only are all the expert climatologists wrong, but all the Plimers, Moncktons, etc are wrong too.
I will leave it to experts to make any additional comments on Spencer's research.
Call be a skeptic, but I'm not inclined to trust the opinion of Spencer when he has said "I finally became convinced that the theory of creation actually had a much better scientific basis than the theory of evolution" (Wikipedia).
Yes Ray, it's called personal political or religious bias.
Ray sez:
Roy Spencer is an "intelligent design" creationist (or a "cdesign proponentsist" as they prefer to be known). This alone should lead you to apply a skeptical approach. You seem happy to do that for mainstream scientists. He may be a damn fine satellite met, but I've seem him do some, really , really stupid things in the past. Behold the idiocy:
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/07/28/spencers-folly/
Ray sez:
Your sense is, I'm afraid, not worth a great deal. Saying something doesn't make it true, and without some evidence of wrong doing on behalf of the global climate science community (which, BTW, is not some monolithic structure. We're out there in our various fields and sub-fields, attending different conferences, publishing in different journals, getting into nasty arguments at presentations and hitting bars in different cities) I'm more than happy to pass this point off as another Monckton inspired bizzarre conspriacy theory. James Hansen's little run in with the Bush Jr. administration ought to convince you that if any censorship has occurred, it may not be in the direction you seem to think.
I also "sense" a process of intimidation and sensorship and, (overwhelmingly) ridicule towards HIV -> AIDS denialists. Likewise cdesign proponentsists. Are their views to be given weighting simply because they are ridiculed by mainstream scientists?
Here's an alarming thought. What ever ridicule has occured of AGW denialists, at least some of it may have been well earned. I refer you to Roy Spencer's idiocy I linked to above.
The theoretical underpinnings of global warming have been around for a long time... dating back to Fourier. Numerous laboratory experiments, field observations, and (oh noes!) models have confirmed much of our theory regarding the climate system. AGW is built upon bedrocks of quantum mechanics, hydrodynamics and thermodynamics.
If you really want to find about this stuff, I really recommend Spencer Weart's "the discovery of global warming". I found it a great read.
So far, for my simple questions, Ray has yet to deliver a straight answer, but we can infer that the list contains:
- Roy Spencer's website.
On the other hand, Ray has managed to partial-quote a member of the US National Academy (Chris Field) in such a way to reach a conclusion quite opposite what Chris said in that press release, much less what he says in person.
This discussion is reminiscent of the interactions with "Climate Agnostic @ Brave New Climate. See #50, #51, but there's more in that thread.
"Climate Agnostic"(sic) at least recognized my question, rather than ignoring it, although the answer to the usual "what books have you read" question was fascinating:
"It probably wouldnât be any good telling you which books I have read because you would either agree or discredit them depending on your point of view."
Hopefully, Ray will soon reply to my simple questions.
123 John, 124 Dirk,
I refrained from saying this earlier but subsequent posts have confirmed what I thought.
Because someone writes well and is polite, that does not make them any less wrong but you seem to be saying that we should cut them extra slack. I'm sorry but I see this as a form of snobbery.
We have seen the inevitable CT claims and links to Roy Spencer's site. Tell me why post 62 does not apply in this case.
As for asking which books have been read, that is missing the point IMO. The real question should be: given that you (Ray) have no real knowledge of the subject, why do you, for **no good reason** choose to believe the denialist nonsense and ignore the mainstream consensus, or at least say, "I don't know where to find the truth, please help".
173,
Oops.
...for no good reason choose to believe the denialist nonsense and ignore the mainstream consensus, when you could instead say, "I don't know where to find the truth, please help".
> Ray sez:
>
> I sense a process of intimidation, censorship and ridicule which discourages dissenters...
Worse for Ray is that you see lots of intimidation, censorship and ridicule to discourage the AGW proposals.
See Shrub's dismissal of any senior staff who said that maybe Global Warming was right.
See the incessant ad-hom against an entire group, INSISTING that they are all lying to defraud the public just to get a grant.
And when someone brings them up short, they cry and complain about how bad done by they are and how this proves there's a conspiracy against them.
Poor dears.
re: #173 TrueSkeptic
*I* didn't say to cut someone some extra slack....
But, you might think more about what I'm doing in this thread and why... that might make a nice puzzle.
If you haven't already, read:
what to do about poor science reporting, but especially look at comment #27 about long games.
Then, read the first paragraph under 1.1 of How to learn.....
Then, look at scales and reasons for anti-science beliefs, although the former needs better articulation plus the negative end of the scale, and I have a few more items under PSYCH. As it happens, this thread is helping me fine-tune that, in conjunction with a bizarre, but instructive episode @ Skeptical Inquirer 2 years ago.
Ray's ripped this page out of the creationist playbook in regard to why biologists accept evolution.
No one is trying to get Spencer fired.
On the other hand, there's an active effort underway, led by Anthony Watts, to get James Hansen fired from NASA.
There were written requests to Naomi Oreskes employer asking that she be fired after she published her work showing the widespread consensus among climatologists that AGW is true.
McIntyre tried to get Lonnie Thompson (of ice core fame) disciplined by his university.
Ray is either ignorant or lying.
Re: TrueSceptic #173
Extra slack in the sense that we should just politely respond with scientific arguments, and not to resort to name-calling or being dismissive, etc.
There are a large fraction of people who don't have the scientific knowledge to understand AGW, but who do so on the basis of emotive factors such as "which scientist is more polite", "which scientist agrees with my politics", and so on. In debates between "skeptics" and real scientists, the real scientists will often score poorly with the public if they show any arrogance. And the decks are really stacked in favor of the "skeptic", who isn't constrained by reality or logic, and can use all manner of debating tricks.
In the case of Ray, I would think that a jury of non-scientists would say about this thread "Ray is just calmly asking quite reasonable questions, and yet he is being attacked; perhaps AGW is more a religion than a science after all".
The take away message should be "Ray is polite, but he clearly doesn't have the scientific understanding for his skeptical opinion to have any weight".
re: #177 dhogaza
And to add to the list:
a) The mid-1990s personal attack on Ben Santer.
b) Barton's hassling of Mann, as commented on by Don Kennedy.
c) And then there was Fred Singer's threatened lawsuit against Naomi Oreskes/Science magazine for her review of Mooney book.
In the case of Ray, I would think that a jury of non-scientists would say about this thread "Ray is just calmly asking quite reasonable questions, and yet he is being attacked; perhaps AGW is more a religion than a science after all".
Dirk, in general i sort of agree with the point you made. but talking about ray, you are wrong.
even a jury of non-scientists would start their look at this discussion on our side. (the "Obama nazi health plan" will convince 90+% of the people, that there is only one side to choose in this discussion)
and the claim about Ray being polite is simply false. this is how he started this discussion in post #29:
There are basically two types of people in this world. Those who know little and know that they know little. And those who know little and don't know that they know little. The climate skeptics belong to the first group, and the AGW believers to the latter group.
176 John,
OK, I conflated your post with Dirk's but you did say
*Please, can people avoid whacking Ray unnecessarily.
We don't know he gets his info from TV.
I'm continuing to research the origin&flow of ideas, and since Ray's differ strongly from people I usually talk to, I've asked him nicely to tell us where he gets his.*
I just think that not everyone gets the same "nice" treatment.
178 Dirk,
*The take away message should be "Ray is polite, but he clearly doesn't have the scientific understanding for his skeptical opinion to have any weight".*
Ray is actually quite insulting about climate science and anyone who accepts the consensus.
I wish that your idea worked but how do we show that someone doesn't have the scientific understanding when they refuse to accept the validity of the science, to the extent of trying to redefine science. In the end, it's invariably a matter of arguing the validity of sources and science is rarely discussed.
Yep. Shorter Ray: I win, I've trolled them for _days_ and caught everyone but that Mashey fellow, who I'm ignoring.
re: #181 TrueSkeptic
Urging people to be nice to Ray is not equivalent to urging them to be un-nice to others, which I think is rarely productive.
Some people enjoy mud-pig-wrestling, and it can sometimes be good practice. Each to their own.
My personal preference, from ~25 years' experience with on-line posting, is to give anyone the benefit of the doubt, up to the point where they convince me no benefit is gained from ever reading their posts. [That doesn't mean I disagree, just that reading their posts is not useful.] I may hang in there quite a while if I think some insight can be gained from the discussion. For example, see comments on why some technically-experienced people disbelieve climate modeling.
Then: Killfile (real or virtual) forever, even if this works less well for blogs than for USENET. Occasionally, it only takes one post, but that's fairly rare.
One for John Mashey: in studying where people get their information, I think it may well be worth looking at the available pictures, as well as text.
There are always some folks who just don't read, but do like to look at pictures, and who draw their conclusions. Ahem.
I've started making a habit of checking "Images" whenever I'm doing a Google or Scholar search.
And so far, the first few pages of image results for climate-related searches -- very consistently -- are like this example:
http://images.google.com/images?tab=si&sa=N&q=GISP+dust+sunspot+count
re #185 Hank
Yes, good reminder, thanks. I rummage amongs images on occasion, but your URL did take me into one or two new alternate universes,
As for asking which books have been read, that is missing the point IMO. The real question should be: given that you (Ray) have no real knowledge of the subject, why do you, for no good reason choose to believe the denialist nonsense and ignore the mainstream consensus, or at least say, "I don't know where to find the truth, please help".
Posted by: TrueSceptic | June 21, 2009 2:14 PM
I believe neither the denialists nor the AGW aherents. I tend to believe only scientific principles that have been tested and verified time and time again.
The strength of my believe in such principles is proportional to the strength, repeatability and consistency of the verification process, and the efficacy and flawless working of the technological products resulting from such scientific principles.
Got it!
You would agree that Isaac Newton was one of the greatest scientists of all time, wouldn't you? Or, would you like to discredit his scientific theories on the grounds that he was a very religious man, believing in a fairly literal interpretation of the Bible.
Here's what he wrote towards the end of his life. Something for you to contemplate upon.
"I do not know what I may appear to the world; but to myself I appear to have been but a little boy, playing on the sea-shore, and diverting myself, in now and then finding a smooth pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me."
I've not read Spencer's writings, but my Common Sense⢠says he's right.
Posted by: bi -- IJI | June 21, 2009 8:46 AM
You should read his writings, BI--IJI. Don't rely only upon your common sense. He's got lots of articles on his website that express uncertainty about the AGW position. Spencer doesn't seem at all dogmatic to me. Seems quite a reasonable sort of bloke.
"I do not know what I may appear to the world; but to myself I appear to have been but a little boy, playing on the sea-shore, and diverting myself, in now and then finding a smooth pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me."
A wonderful quote, and one I think you'll find nearly all scientists familiar with.
Let's say that in some alternate universe, Isaac Newton discovered a physical law that seemed to strongly predict a massive worldwide catastrophe.
After he discussed this with the brightest minds of his age at the Royal Society, and answered the toughest objections they could muster, the entire Society became convinced that he was right, and a serious crisis was likely to occur.
Should he tell the King?
Should he pray?
Or should he go on collecting pebbles?
p.s. don't even think about stealing my steampunk novel idea.
re: 179:
Interesting to see the links in this article to the astro-turf organizations the Science & Environmental Policy Project and the Global Climate Coalition. It takes a long time for their influence on people like Ray to fade away.
That's great Ray, but what use is that in deciding whether we crank up the CO2 in the atmosphere or try to keep it down? I think I can tell you. It's completely useless. Let us know when you have something to say is not absolutely useless.
Let's say that in some alternate universe, Isaac Newton discovered a physical law that seemed to strongly predict a massive worldwide catastrophe.
After he discussed this with the brightest minds of his age at the Royal Society, and answered the toughest objections they could muster, the entire Society became convinced that he was right, and a serious crisis was likely to occur.
Should he tell the King? Should he pray? Or should he go on collecting pebbles?
Posted by: theo | June 21, 2009 10:02 PM
He'd probably have a nervous break-down. Isaac Newton believed in God and the Devil. After formulating his laws of motion and gravity, he recognised that there was a huge conundrum regarding the stars and planets.
If every 'body' exerted a force of attraction on every other 'body', in proportionto their mass and inversely proportional to the square of their distance apart, it follows that the entire universe should gradually collapse upon itself.
Newton believed it was the hand of God that prevented this happening. God kept the universe in balance.
Newton would likely have considered any notion than man could control the climate of the planet as being totally absurd, even heretical.
That's great Ray, but what use is that in deciding whether we crank up the CO2 in the atmosphere or try to keep it down? I think I can tell you. It's completely useless. Let us know when you have something to say is not absolutely useless.
Posted by: Chris O'Neill | June 22, 2009 12:58 AM
In situations where uncertainty prevails, it's best to take the Middle Way. Don't go to extremes. Try not to increase CO2 emissions, nor to reduce them in panic mode.
The best chance of keeping CO2 emissions the same is to set modest reduction targets like 15% or 20% by 2020.
It's extremely unlikely that such reduction targets will be met, but quite likely that there'll be at least no increase.
In order to save face, the government can fudge the figures and pretend that the target has at least 'almost' been met, although in practice emissions will have remained the same, world-wide.
Is that useful enough for you?
I tend to believe only scientific principles that have been tested and verified time and time again.
I suspect that there are plenty of things you believe happily, without question, that are less tested and verified than AGW.
Also, you seem to believe that everyone is required to conform to your personal level of ignorance in order to be a realist: since you're unconvinced about AGW, you expect everyone else to be, too.
But the plain fact is, some people know more about the climate than you do. And this doesn't mean they lack humility, or are zealots. They may know very well what they don't know, and be open to disconfirming evidence, while still knowing far more than you. That being the case, your stance seems rather arrogant.
Do we really need to mention Monckton? I just laugh at the mention of his name. A colleague pointed out an article written by Monckton a year or so ago and I dearly wished that it were submitted to a scientific journal so that there would be some chance that I could review it and write a scathing and demeaning review; it is truly rare to have such a report written by such an incomparably incompetent imbecile. In that particular article I don't believe Monckton got a single fact right - quite an achievement when you consider that most of his facts could be checked by looking up reports from reliable sources on the internet such as the NOAA, WMO, USGS, etc. I really don't expect Monckton to improve in his dotage and I certainly wouldn't waste time reading any of his articles (unless of course I had a compelling urge to refute him - quite a trivial though time-consuming task).
Ray:
If you say so Ray.
What an incredible ignoramus you are Ray. No wonder you get sucked in by climate science denialism. It was Newton who showed that his law of gravitation AND his laws of motion TOGETHER were responsible for keeping the planets in their orbits.
Sure if you say so Ray. You're no skeptic Ray. Any genuine skeptic would drop Beck's graph faster than the time it takes to say, "what a load of crap". All you can do is make excuses for how you're oh so skeptical when it suits you. I'm sorry Ray, but genuine skeptics don't get to choose when they are skeptical and when they are gullible.
> In situations where uncertainty prevails, it's best to take the Middle Way. Don't go to extremes. Try not to increase CO2 emissions, nor to reduce them in panic mode.
It is human nature to believe that in a controversial area, the best option lies somewhere in the middle of two extremes. This is just the way we are wired up.
However, this is very rarely the case. In the vast majority of instances, one option is pretty much right, while the alternative is wrong. Believing that you are taking an intellectually rigorous approach by splitting the difference between two options is absurd. This is especially the case when the anti-AGW "side" is presented as a unified front when in fact it is deeply fragmented and full of contradictory attacks on AGW (it's the sun! it's the clouds! it's cosmic rays! there's no warming! there's cooling! mars is warming! warming is good! CO2 is good! its been warm before!). It means that all that is necessary to discredit a scientific position is to throw out as much uncorroborated and unjustified smears as you can, as publicly as possible, and let humans' tendency to be balanced to do your work for you. Monckton knows this - he's far from stupid, and this kind of tactic is endemic in politics (hell, elections have been won by convincing everyone that the issues are too complex and boring, thus ensuring a low turnout among swing voters). Its a great tactic as well, because you also get to paint your opponents as intellectually weak for not accepting that a compromise should be reached and a middle ground sought. This is great because it ignores all the maths, all the evidence, everything, disregards all the science and just appeals straight to human nature - all while claiming to be more intellectually honest and open than the majority of climate scientists! Astonishing, audacious, offensive, and proven time and again to be very effective as a debating technique.
What you don't seem to understand is that there really isn't a middle ground. The call from the anti-AGW camp is to little or nothing the present situation, irrespective of the justification they use to reach that conclusion. By not accepting the IPCC findings, for whatever reason, you are actually doing precisely what its opponents want you to do. So in claiming to take a "balanced middle way", you're actually "firmly on the anti-side". If you really were as pro-scientific method as you claim, you would be reluctant to reach that conclusion without first falsifying every piece of research, every paper, all the findings that the IPCC reports are based on.
> Is that useful enough for you?
Your suggestion is entirely political and has no bearing on the *science*. What does the *science* predict will happen if we fail to meet even the modest goals you stipulate?
Ray:
This tells us absolutely nothing about the likely consequences of our actions.
Thanks for the worthless platitude.
It showed us that you're an ignoramus who's not very good at getting the point but we already knew that so it wasn't useful at all.
> In situations where uncertainty prevails, it's best to take the Middle Way. Don't go to extremes.
Well, the middle way is to say that the doubling of CO2 will produce about 3C warming. That's the middle way.
"It will cause NO warming" is far, far, FAR over on the extreme of possibilities.
So why is Ray going there?
Ray posts:
Check out my demonstration that Roy Spencer is a liar:
http://www.geocities.com/bpl1960/Spencer.html
Ray writes:
Interesting, considering that Newton himself was a heretic (Arianism). He also spent quite a bit of time trying to turn lead into gold. He would likely have considered any notion that man could not turn lead into gold by alchemical means as being totally absurd, even heretical.
further re 202, Isaac Newton in his later years was SERIOUSLY into Alchemy.
Just goes to show that just because you did great work in the past doesn't mean all your work in the future is going to be great or even mediocre...
Shorter Ray:
1. I've not read Spencer's writings, but you should. Well, maybe I have, but I don't understand a word of what he says, but he sounds nice, so he must be right.
2. According to my understanding of Isaac Newton's work, his 'laws' require divine intervention to work, so they're not really 'laws'. According to my understanding of Newton's work, he'd have agreed with me that global warming is a myth. Therefore, according to my understanding of Newton's work, I'm right.
3. The most important thing in dealing with global warming is how to allow governments to 'save face'.
What an incredible ignoramus you are Ray. No wonder you get sucked in by climate science denialism. It was Newton who showed that his law of gravitation AND his laws of motion TOGETHER were responsible for keeping the planets in their orbits.
Posted by: Chris O'Neill | June 22, 2009 4:10 AM
Dear me! You've certainly lost credibility on this issue, Chris O'Neill. Are you a teenager still at school? You seem to have the know-it-all attitude of a teenager.
It's common knowledge that Newton's concept of a static universe was deeply flawed.
It's true that the motion of the moon around the earth, and the earth around the sun, can be explained by Newton's laws of both gravity and motion, but I'm talking about the universe, including the stars.
It was very apparent to Newton that a finite number of stars would eventually collapse to the centre of the universe through the force of gravity.
Newton had no satisfactory explanation for why this hadn't already or wouldn't eventually happen.
Here's what Stephen Hawking had to say on the matter during a speech in 1988 which you can find at http://www.ralentz.com/old/astro/hawking-1.html.
As you may or may not know, Stephen Hawking occupied until recently the same chair as Isaac Newton, the Lucasion Professorship of Mathematics at Cambridge, arguably the most famous academic chair in the world. Is he an ignoramus too?
"Another difficulty with the idea of a static universe, was that according to Newton's Law of Gravity, each star in the universe ought to be attracted towards every other star. So how could they stay at a constant distance from each other. Wouldn't they all fall together. Newton was aware of this problem about the stars attracting each other. In a letter to Richard Bentley, a leading philosopher of the time, he agreed that a finite collection of stars could not remain motionless: they would all fall together, to some central point. However, he argued that an infinite collection of stars, would not fall together: for there would not be any central point for them to fall to. This argument is an example of the pitfalls that one can encounter when one talks about infinite systems. By using different ways to add up the forces on each star, from the infinite number of other stars in the universe, one can get different answers to the question: can they remain at constant distance from each other. We now know that the correct proceedure, is to consider the case of a finite region of stars. One then adds more stars, distributed roughly uniformly outside the region. A finite collection of stars will fall together. According to Newton's Law of Gravity, adding more stars outside the region, will not stop the collapse. Thus, an infinite collection of stars, can not remain in a motionless state. If they are not moving relative to each other at one time, the attraction between them, will cause them to start falling towards each other. Alternatively, they can be moving away from each other, with gravity slowing down the velocity of recession."
"Despite these difficulties with the idea of a static and unchanging universe, no one in the seventeenth, eighteenth, nineteenth or early twentieth centuries, suggested that the universe might be evolving with time. Newton and Einstein, both missed the chance of predicting, that the universe should be either contracting, or expanding. One can not really hold it against Newton, because he was two hundred and fifty years before the observational discovery of the expansion of the universe. But Einstein should have known better. Yet when he formulated the General Theory of Relativity to reconcile Newton's theory with his own Special Theory of Relativity, he added a so-called, 'cosmological constant'. This had a repulsive gravitational effect, which could balance the attractive effect of the matter in the universe. In this way, it was possible to have a static model of the universe."
Einstein later said: "The cosmological constant was the greatest mistake of my life." That was after observations of distant galaxies, by Edwin Hubble in the 1920's, had shown that they were moving away from us, with velocities that were roughly proportional to their distance from us. In other words, the universe is not static, as had been previously thought: it is expanding. The distance between galaxies is increasing with time.
What more can I say! You might also be interested in the following excerpt from Wikipedia on Newton's religious views. He apparently calculated that the world would end in 2060. If you are a teenager, you might live to see it.
Though he is better known for his love of science, the Bible was Sir Isaac Newton's greatest passion. He devoted more time to the study of Scripture than to science, and he said, "I have a fundamental belief in the Bible as the Word of God, written by those who were inspired. I study the Bible daily."[8] He spent a great deal of time trying to discover hidden messages within the Bible. After 1690, Newton wrote a number of religious tracts dealing with the literal interpretation of the Bible. In a manuscript Newton wrote in 1704 in which he describes his attempts to extract scientific information from the Bible, he estimated that the world would end no earlier than 2060.
I think we could say that Isaac Newton's strange religious views did not prevent him from doing some brilliant science, so in this respect I don't see why Roy Spencer's religious views should invalidate his opinions on climate change.
"I think we could say that Isaac Newton's strange religious views did not prevent him from doing some brilliant science,
Posted by: Ray"
They did when they had him chase after the non-scientific alchemical goals of his later life.
And someone who can say, with a straight face that the Bible has more factual accuracy in it than science has demonstrated the easy ability to ignore science if it doesn't match their preconcieved ideas.
Ergo, we need to see better proof from Roy that he isn't just following religious dogma.
Newton didn't when he considered that there was no need for a god to keep the heavens up there, that there was a rule rather than intent that made things fall.
Newton did when he thought that he could turn lead into gold with chemical reactions.
Interesting analogy.
Because, you see, people who focus on the possible adverse consequences of medications are at an elevated risk of the [nocebo effect](http://tiny.cc/XHpMU). If they do not have a nuanced and properly guided explanation of the 'science' behind the medication, their expectations overpower their capacity for an appropriate biological response.
Similarly, many AGW denialists and contrarians focus on the caveats provided by climatologists, physicists, and other scientists, throw in their own ideologies and motivations, and manifest these in an internal narrative that overpowers (at least, to their own perceptions) the objective truth of the science.
The result of this voodoo vulnerability is the nocebo version of scientific understanding.
Everyone else is having fun with this, so I'll have my turn too.
So, imagine a situation where one's society maintains a slavery system, and there is debate amongst the citizenry about the morality of having slaves. Is the answer here to "take the Middle Way. Don't go to extremes.", and halve the average number of slaves allowed per citizen?
Or consider the CFC impact on the ozone layer. Some people disputed the science - and some still do! Should we simply have made refrigeration units half their previous size?
Sometimes there is no real choice, except where those in denial manufacture one in their minds.
Ray @ 205
I'm amazed once again at the time and effort you'll put in ignoring questions of substance in order to hammer on trivial matters, and continuing to take the thread off-topic. And by amazed, I mean utterly unsurprised and deeply bored. This is how Greig ended up with his own thread, and I have no desire to help you get one of your own.
You've pretty well ignored some very patient, helpful and good-natured responses. You have proven repeatedly that you regard your own gut feeling or political leanings as more important than diligent research and scientific evidence. You have shown that you lack the ability to differentiate between science which can stand up to scrutiny, and science which cannot, while at the same time lacking the humility to defer to someone with a greater understanding. You avoid answering difficult questions in favour of a smokescreen of shallow talking points and facile arguments.
I have little choice but to conclude that your intent is neither to add to the sum of knowledge, nor to learn from that which is available - merely to waste time. I would only hope that you were graced with sufficient self-awareness to be embarrassed to have claimed to hold a skeptical viewpoint.
To sum up the original topic: Monckton is once again wrong on several subjects and in such an extreme manner that it would be laughable, were it not that it once again provides him with the oxygen of attention he so desperately seeks. You've failed utterly to support any of his arguments, or refute any criticism of him. The end.
@Ray #205:
At #193 you said:
Then at post #205, you quoted Stephen Hawking talking about Newton:
Do you understand that it's not unreasonable to see some contradiction between these two accounts of Newton's position?
Dear me, Ray (205) points to Hawking and claims support for his statement. But lose the trailing period that breaks his pointer and read what Hawking said. Ray's got it wrong.
A finite collection of stars could not remain motionless.
They move.
No problem.
Ray:
Looks like you don't like being caught out Ray.
This is what you actually said:
He wasn't talking about the planets.
This provides zero information as to what we should do and amounts to cranking up the CO2 in the atmosphere. It amounts to deciding on the course of action while ignoring any source of information whatsoever. We can do better than ignoring all sources of information without running an experiment with the earth. By the way, it is not necessary to ignore observations that don't come from experiments to be a skeptic. It is however, necessary to be able to realize the defects in Beck's graph to be a skeptic, something you don't appear to have done.
The implied idea - that even a finite collection of stars would have to fall together - is also wrong, actually, because, as Hank Roberts said, "they move." It would depend on whether the initial impetus was great enough to overcome gravity (clearly it was), and on the curvature of space (estimated now to be open).
Why does Ray think that "doing nothing" is "Keep Pumping Out CO2"?
Pumping out CO2 IS DOING SOMETHING.
So how about *NOT* doing it?
Nah, he wants to make up whatever statement will at that time make his delusionary religion in The Free Market (or the belief that Environmentalists All Hate Us, whatever) correct.
Nothing about truth, justice or the american way. Just HIS way.
Also, Einstein's cosmological constant was not entirely wrong, either. The expansion of the universe is the dead opposite of a binary yes/no question, because that it is expanding is less important than at what rate, and with what eventual outcome. Just as Zwicky discovered dark matter before people got credit for it, Einstein could have stuck to his cosmological constant guns (albeit adjusted to fit an expanding universe) and "discovered" dark energy.
This is what you actually said:
After formulating his laws of motion and gravity, he recognised that there was a huge conundrum regarding the stars AND PLANETS.
He wasn't talking about the planets.
Posted by: Chris O'Neill | June 22, 2009 1:42 PM
Dear me! You think the planets will continue orbiting the stars as they crash into each other? You think the planets are outside the universe?
In situations where uncertainty prevails, it's best to take the Middle Way. Don't go to extremes. Try not to increase CO2 emissions, nor to reduce them in panic mode.
This provides zero information as to what we should do and amounts to cranking up the CO2 in the atmosphere.
Being obviously older and so much wiser than you, I've given you a prediction of what I think will likely happen. Attempts to reduce the rate of CO2 emissions will results in a realistic scenario of no increase in the rate of emissions, in practice, taking into account all the cheating that will occur.
The total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, in terms of ppm, will continue to rise for the forseeable future as we insist on economic growth. Measures to plant new forests, reduce deforestation etc, will of course slow that rate of increase of CO2.
Hopefully, if and as alternative energy sources become more efficient, the actual of CO2 emissions will begin to decrease more rapidly, after 10 or 20 years, whilst we are still able to maintain a reasonable economic growth due to the efficiency of the clean energy plants.
If the more alarmist predictions of the AGW adherents prove to be correct and Roy Spencer et al prove to be wrong, then clearly we're stuffed.
I see no possibility of being able to avoid climatic catastrophe. None whatsoever.
But we can protect ourselves from the ravages of storm and drought, provided we have the energy resources to do so.
We can all be thankful Ray is not King of the World.
Alleluia!
Roy Spencer's been wrong many times before.
Go read about the history of the satellite temperature record, and how the proud claim by UAH a decade ago that "the world is cooling, not warming", that "the satellite record proves cooling and is far more reliable than the ground station record", and that they provided "the wooden stake through heart of AGW".
Go see how that turned out. And, no, I'm not doing your homework for you. This is the chance to prove that you're a climate skeptic, not a flat-out denialist.
Anyone THAT wrong for THOSE reasons ought not to be presumed to be correct when they claim to have proven all the rest of climate science to be wrong, too.
Who says the stars would crash into each other?
This would be another one of your self-descriptions like self-described skeptic.
The issue was about the predictability of AGW, not what to do in the complete absence of information about the greenhouse effect.
Spence has already been proven wrong and a fraud here, here, here and here.
And denying the climate science helps to ensure this.
Is this the same person who wrote:
Even ignoring the host of other problems that Ray ignores, just because cities can pay for the energy it takes to desalinate their water supply, it doesn't mean farming can afford to do the same even at the existing cost of energy.
By the way:
I guess that means that when one of Ray's technological products breaks down, it means he no longer accepts the laws of physics that the product was based on.
Who says the stars would crash into each other?
Posted by: Chris O'Neill | June 22, 2009 11:36 PM
Newton's law of gravity do, as applied to a static universe. Haven't you heard? The universe is expanding. Newton didn't know this. He was unable to provide a rational explanation as to why the stars would not collaps onto each other in his model of the universe, so he invoked the powers of God.
In fact, he did attempt a sort of rational explanation by suggesting that the universe was infinite and contained an infinite number of stars. But the flaw in such a proposal was obvious. If the universe were to contain an infinite number of stars, then every part of the nightsky would be convered by starlight. There would be no black areas at all. This is clearly not the case. This was known as Olber's paradox.
If you take the trouble to read the extract from Stephen Hawking's speech I posted earlier, you will see that, even when we ignore the Olber's paradox, the presence of an infinite number of stars in an ifinitely large universe would still not prevent the stars from collapsing upon themselves due to the force of gravity.
Even ignoring the host of other problems that Ray ignores, just because cities can pay for the energy it takes to desalinate their water supply, it doesn't mean farming can afford to do the same even at the existing cost of energy.
Posted by: Chris O'Neill | June 22, 2009 11:36 PM
The abilitly to adapt to change is a fundamental principle of Darwinian evolution. As the climate changes, the farmer has to change the type of crop he grows. You don't attempt to grow rice where water is scarce.
I'm all in favour of bold ideas. Tow icebergs from the antarctic. Build huge flood-mitigation dams in areas that are prone to flooding. Build 2000KM concrete water pipes from one end of the state to the other. Build refrigeration windmills that use their energy to condense water vapour from the atmosphere. Build atomic power stations for the sole purpose of operating gigantic desalination plants.
If you have the energy supplies, you are limited only by your imagination.
> Newton's law of gravity do, as applied to a static universe.
OK, let's do some maths.
What is the accelleration rate of, say, Andromeda galaxy if the only net force on it was our galaxy?
Now, how far away is Andromeda?
Now given Newton's laws of motion, s=1/2 at^2, solve for t=10 billion years and see how much closer Andromeda gets.
Compare with the distance away it is.
Do you really not care if you're showing yourself a moron?
Also, Ray, even in a static universe, Newton knew that the planets went round the sun.
Now, if that centripetal acceleration is equal to the gravitational attraction, what's the net effect on Earth?
None?
Isn't that a static universe?
But also doesn't have Earth crashing into the sun.
Do you think that maybe Newton knew about Newton's Laws of Motion? At least as well as he knew Newton's Law of Gravitation?
(this is why I used Andromeda, it's not orbiting us)
> If you have the energy supplies, you are limited only by your imagination.
>
> Posted by: Ray
And if you have a GOOD imagination, you can imagine how to do all that extra stuff with less energy.
Ray writes:
It's not his religious beliefs we object to. It's his assuming that they allow him to put aside well-validated science in favor of pseudoscience. Creationism is an alternative theory of biology aimed at discrediting evolution; by noting that Spencer is a creationist, we point out that he is a devotee of bad science. The fact that his motivations are religious have nothing to do with it. I happen to share Spencer's religious beliefs, but I'm still appalled at his creationism and think it reflects badly on his ability to do good science.
Mark, I appreciate your intent, but actually, the Andromeda galaxy DOES crash into the Milky Way on a time scale of a few billion years. Its radial velocity toward us is positive at a few hundred km/s, and the two galaxies are anticipated to merge about three billion years from now.
> Mark, I appreciate your intent, but actually, the Andromeda galaxy DOES crash into the Milky Way on a time scale of a few billion years.
I know, BPL.
Yet somehow this hasn't happened yet.
Therefore Ray's inane ravings about how all the stars would crash in to us is really quite stupid. Andromeda (home of billions of stars) IS.
Veerrrryyyy sssslloooowwwwlllyyyy.
Heck, Barnard's star is whistling towards us at a rate of knots. It'll miss by quite a long way in human terms, but galactically, very close indeed.
> It's not his religious beliefs we object to. It's his assuming that they allow him to put aside well-validated science in favor of pseudoscience.
Aye, he can have religion, he can have his faith and his beliefs.
He can't have his own facts.
And that's what Roy is trying to have. He's demonstrated that facts are far less important to him than his beliefs. Ergo, if he "believes" AGW isn't real, he isn't going to see if he's right. He's right. All he's going to do is tell others.
And because he's right, anyone who doesn't agree is wrong. Wrongheaded. Lying even.
Now if he had some proofs, heck, even a theory that was testable and not already failed those tests, this would be looked at.
But based on past examples, Roy Spencer will take his beliefs over facts.
Monckton has been outclassed and trumped by the Professors Stanley Feldman and Vincent Marks:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1194589/Turkey-Twizzlers…
They have written a 'Guiness Book' of denialist facts. All neatly collated into one volume called "Global Warming And Other Bollocks: The Truth About All Those Science Scare Stories"
@Ray #219:
No, he didn't; as you admit in the next sentence, "he did attempt a sort of rational explanation by suggesting that the universe was infinite and contained an infinite number of stars". That explanation was wrong - but so what? You have not established that "he invoked the powers of God"; to the contrary, you have established that he invoked an explanation that was in fact wrong.
Does it not bother you that you can contradict yourself within the space of ten words and not realise it?
@Mark #221:
A static (ie without expansion) Newtonian (absent dark energy or any other relativistic effects) universe will over time collapse under the effect of gravitation. It doesn't matter what bits of matter within that universe are orbiting about which other bits - given time, it will collapse. Ray is right on this point - but wrong on everything else.
"A static (ie without expansion) Newtonian (absent dark energy or any other relativistic effects) universe will over time collapse under the effect of gravitation."
Uh, an orbit has the gravitational acceleration pulling it into the orbited planet EQUAL to the cetripetal one pulling it out.
How will gravity make it fall in?
Pictsies?
For all I know, we're all doomed whatever we do. I recall James Lovelock during an interview claiming it's probably already too late.
If it is too late, then we'd be completely silly to spend our valuable and limited resources trying to fight the impossible.
This is the root of Ray's denialism in a "nut" shell: he'd rather see total failure than take any responsibility for any success. He's not a skeptic, he's a coward. It's perfectly okay for billions of innocent people to die or be displaced, as long as Ray and his family and friends don't have to do any work, admit any error, or change any part of their own precious lifestyles.
@Mark #229:
Add a third body.
"A static (ie without expansion) Newtonian (absent dark energy or any other relativistic effects) universe will over time collapse under the effect of gravitation."
Try this counter-example: A universe consisting of 2 stars orbiting each other. At what number of stars does the universe suddenly go from stars not collapsing together to stars collapsing together?
Ray:
The vast majority of species that ever existed are now extinct and the vast majority of all the organisms that ever existed have no living descendents? What ability to adapt to change did they have?
This uses more energy to transport water than desalination. Consequently it is far too expensive to be used for farming.
So you actually don't mind carbon-emitting energy being more expensive as long as nuclear energy is available. Takes a long time to get your position out of you.
Raging Bee:
Yes, this is one of the defining characteristics of denialism.
> Uh, an orbit has the gravitational acceleration pulling it into the orbited planet EQUAL to the cetripetal one pulling it out. How will gravity make it fall in? Pictsies?
>
> Add a third body.
>
> Posted by: Robin Levett
Uh, Mars has two moons. The Sun has 8 planets.
The earth has HUNDREDS of satellites.
They all seem to want to stay up.
If you're on about the three-body problem, what happens is that the TOTAL energy remains. So if one body pulls another closer to it, another body will be further away from the CoG and will speed up.
If the bodies deviate too much from a separate orbital, this is liable to see one body thrown out.
As they think may have happened in the dim past of the Solar System (and may well happen again to Mars in the dim future).
So, no, gravity isn't making them fall in. If they are separate enough for the three-body-problem not to be a problem, they won't fall in.
PS the only "falling in" the three-body does is because they have physical extent. I.e. they can't get arbitrarily close. But if they are far enough away not to touch, they won't stop their dance.
Gravity won't make them squoosh together. It makes them dance.
@Mark:
Just time for a quick comment now, a longer one later perhaps.
In the meantime could you clarify something; is your point that a universe consisting of a two (or n) body solar system won't collapse, and therefore the proposition that a static universe will collapse is wrong in that case; or that this is generalisable so that the proposition is wrong in every case?
Ray said:
>The abilitly to adapt to change is a fundamental principle of Darwinian evolution. As the climate changes, the farmer has to change the type of crop he grows. You don't attempt to grow rice where water is scarce.
That has f all to do with Darwinian evolution.
In fact what you describe is design. A religious POV.
Adaptation in your view means knowledge of something happening and making changes to alleviate the impact it would have on humans.
That is the same as cutting back on GHG emissions.
As we know we are affecting climate change, we stop GHG emissions, we don't carry on. That is called adaptation and change.
> In the meantime could you clarify something; is your point that a universe consisting of a two (or n) body solar system won't collapse,
Nope, such a system if it were distant enough would be unable to meet.
Their orbits may be parabolic.
Tell you what, why not write a quick program with two masses 10000 units apart and of 1 units in size. Give them some mass and calculate their attraction toward each other. Give each a random small amount of kinetic energy (to simulate the real situation where you haven't got perfectly stationary objects and cannot make it fit to the n'th decimal place).
Run the simulation of their movements under self attraction.
They won't hit each other.
If they are in orbit around a common centre, they will never hit each other DEFINITE.
Well, not in the lifetime of the protons they are made of.
> The abilitly to adapt to change is a fundamental principle of Darwinian evolution
And takes thousands of generations.
We've got two or three tops.
Quick, Ray, grow a pair of gills! Hang on, I'll stick your head in this bucket of water to help....
gurglegurglegurgle...
I'll wait until he stops blowing bubbles. He'll have adapted to the new watery environment by then...
Heck, what am I talking about. In the Newtonian universe, it's all clockwork.
There's no gravity waves that remove energy from a rotating binary system.
And the orbit of Pluto and all the other planets will NEVER move out of their orbits.
In a Newtonian Universe.
Later on, some people come up with chaos theory and how it applies to complex problems, but that's after Newton.
And so doesn't count.
So the categorical answer to Robin's qquestion is: No, they will NEVER fall in and collide.
@Mark:
So your position is that however many bodies there are in the Universe, and whatever their starting position or velocity, that universe will never collapse?
> So your position is that however many bodies there are in the Universe, and whatever their starting position or velocity, that universe will never collapse?
>
> Posted by: Robin Levett
In the clockwork universe of Newton's time, yes.
@Mark #241:
4 bodies of equal mass on the vertices of a regular tetrahedron. Nil velocity. They won't collapse?
@Mark #241:
...Hell - 2 bodies of equal mass, nil velocity, arbitrary distance - that universe won't collapse?
re: #227 Paul(UK)
Discussion of British silliness at least seems germane to the original topic, unlike crashing cosmologies
Thanks for the pointer; several more examples for my big list.
For all, as best as I can tell:
Stanley Feldman is an Emeritus Professor @ Imperial College, anaesthetics researcher for many years, got MBBS in 1955, so he's probably in mid-70s. IC has strong climate science researchers, like Jo Haigh, currently Physics Department Head and others at its Grantham Institute, like Sir Brian Hoskins.
Vincent Marks is Professor Emeritus Of Clinical Biochemistry @ University of Surrey, has done a lot of diabetes research. Google Scholar finds articles as far back as 1961 that look like his.
It is unclear why emeritus medical reserchers, who may well be qualified to talk on their own subjects, suddenly become qualified to opine with certainty on climate change...
but perhaps they've studied up. Maybe they talked to the world-class climate folks at IC...
or maybe they obtain their climate views from that other London researcher, endocrinologist Klaus-Martin Schulte...
Oh shit, time to batten down the hatches and prepare to be boarded:
Hansen arrested in coal mining protest
see lead thread at
http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/
> 4 bodies of equal mass on the vertices of a regular tetrahedron. Nil velocity. They won't collapse?
Nil velocity is impossible.
Conservation of angular momentum.
Read up on it.
Then work out what happens to even a small velocity when you move 10 billion times closer.
And check up on the real motions of some stars. IIRC Barnard's star is moving 10.3 seconds of arc each year.
> ...Hell - 2 bodies of equal mass, nil velocity, arbitrary distance - that universe won't collapse?
In the impossible event of nil velocity? Yes.
But as mentioned before, that's impossible.
It's as likely the two masses will never meet because the Great Green Arkleseizure will eat one on it's way past to get its hankie.
@Mark #246:
So any two bodies (alone in a universe) of arbitrary non-zero mass and initial (non-zero) velocity and position will either enter a stable orbit around the centre of mass of the system or will diverge forever? You seriously make that claim?
> You seriously make that claim?
Yes. According to the clockwork universe that Newton knew about, they would make an orbital if their kinetic energy were less than the gravitational potential energy well they were sitting in. If their kinetic energy were higher, they would have escape velocity (you have heard of that, haven't you? It's about 11kps for earth, IIRC).
You know what "escape" means, don't you?
And if they were not bound (i.e. KE higher than PE) then even in a current universal model they would not strike each other.
Do you have some problem with this?
Would you like me to go through the maths?
Maybe Tim could help.
Here you go, some help on the maths.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angular_momentum#Conservation_of_angular_m…
http://fis.cie.uma.es/old/docencia/2003-04/C105/links/uwinnipeg/mod_tec…
and a longer version if you can handle it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kepler's_laws_of_planetary_motion
And with pictures on the two-body problem:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-body_problem
PS the reason why Rocket Science is "Rocket Science" is because it's REALLY HARD to make one object in space hit another object in space when it's even only millions of miles away and you don't have to worry about the thing you're sending moving everything else around).
It gets a *little* bit easier if you have a jet, but stars don't come with many of them attached. And where you'd put the steering wheel and the fluffy dice is anyone's guess...
Streuth!
So many rays and so little light.
Please Tim, a new thread for Ray or at least retire this thread; it has passed its use-by date.
@Mark:
Still trying to find my jaw - it's on the floor here somewhere, I'm sure it didn't enter orbit when it dropped. Nor is there a golf ball still in orbit around the Moon.
Is there any place in your physics for a concept such as "orbital velocity"?
Rocket science, by the way, is easy; chuck something out the back and you move forward - it's rocket engineering that's difficult.
> Still trying to find my jaw - it's on the floor here somewhere, I'm sure it didn't enter orbit when it dropped.
Uh, did you read that maths?
I'm afraid all you are saying is in a Victor Meldrew voice "I Don't Believe It!!"
What is your problem?
In what way does "orbital velocity" say I'm wrong?
Your golf ball isn't far away from the earth, so it isn't germane to this scenario. It isn't about the same size as the earth.
You DO know there are objects much the same size as the golf ball orbiting the planet don't you? Being golf-ball sized is no magical thing.
If something is very far from the earth and falls, it will gain velocity. Oh, look. Velocity. Just like "orbital velocity". So if it's going real fast, like, say, 15kps, before it gets to earth, then it will have *escape* velocity.
What does "escape velocity" mean? It means "enough velocity to escape the earth's gravitational field.
But if it escapes the earth's gravitational field, it leaves the earth.
Which isn't "falls into the earth".
So how does "orbital velocity" apply here? This is two objects quite a distance apart. Not a golf ball you had on the surface of one and wellied a long way away.
Leave your jaw where it is. You've dropped your brain somewhere and finding it will be of greater importance.
When you find your brain, consider this example.
Replace the earth with a black hole of the same weight. It's REAL small, so they are separated by a long distance compared to the size of the objects. This makes it germane to our scenario. Your jaw drops RIGHT OFF your face at this. Literally off.
It falls down. But as it falls, conservation of angular momentum means that it's 24-hour spin around the earth's centre of mass gets faster and faster as it falls.
Which means it flys PAST the black-hole earth.
It then describes a highly elliptical orbit with one focus being the black-hole earth and it's outer orbit maximum from that focus being where your jaw was before it dropped. About 6,000 km.
@Mark:
The orbital velocity of an object for these purposes is (by definition of an orbit) that velocity at which the gravitational force acting on the object and the "centrifugal force" of the object exactly balance.
The Schwarzchild radius of an object of the Earth's mass is c9mm. For my jaw to enter into a circular orbit around the "Earth as black hole" at say 1cm from its centre (ie 1mm above its surface) it would have to acquire enough kinetic energy (KE) by conversion from potential energy (PE)(by falling from 6*10^6 metres) to give it the orbital velocity necessary to maintain that orbit. (This is best case for you - an elliptical orbit of the same energy would have a perigee within the circular orbit). IF it doesn't acquire enough KE, it will continue to fall into the centre of the Earth.
Orbital velocity for a circular orbit is given by root(G(M+m)/r) where G is the gravitational constant, M and m the masses of the two bodies, and r (in metres) is the radius of the orbit from the centre of mass of the system. For these purposes, we can assume that the centre of the Earth is the centre of mass of the system.
KE is 1/2mv^2; the KE of an object in orbit is therefore 1/2m*G(M+m)/r, or Gm(M+m)/2r. For an object in orbit at 1cm from the centre of the mass, the KE is Gm(M+m)/.02, or 50Gm(M+m) or 50GMm + 50 Gm^2.
The magnitude of my jaw's PE at a height of 6*10^6 metres (neglecting my own height) is given by GMm/R, or GMm/6*10^6.
So, which is greater; the PE available to give my jaw orbital velocity at a radius of 1cm - GMm divided by 6 million, or the KE required to maintain that orbit - 50GMm + 50Gm^2. I don't think I actually need to calculate further - do I?
If I am at a Pole, there is no additional KE from rotational velocity; but even at the Equator, the additional KE thereby provided is insignificant.
Robin.
This is what was asked about:
> A static (ie without expansion) Newtonian (absent dark energy or any other relativistic effects) universe will over time collapse under the effect of gravitation.
And the answer is "no".
There aren't many stars sitting on the earth's pole, so why you think this is proof that the answer should have been "yes" eludes me.
Sitting on the pole of the earth (or on the equator) you are very close already. Read back and you'll see:
> If they are separate enough for the three-body-problem not to be a problem, they won't fall in.
and
> Nope, such a system if it were distant enough would be unable to meet.
See a common thread? Distance. Distance compared to the size of the objects. Check up on what limits on the Ideal Gas Laws there are and why they turn up: The Ideal Gas Law assumes that they are so small that they only undergo one collision at a time and that they occupy no space themselves in the volume. Increase the density of particles and this starts to break down.
Next: Read up on Conservation Of Angular Momentum. You seem to have missed out on that in your post.
> For my jaw to enter into a circular orbit around the "Earth as black hole"
Uh, an orbit isn't only possible with a circle. In fact there aren't ANY orbits that are circular in real life, since the CoG of the system isn't in the centre of the star in the middle...
Halley's Comet has a highly elliptical orbit, for example. Comets from the Oort cloud do to.
Think of your bestubbled jaw "doing a Halley" around the black-hole earth.
@Mark @258:
Your failure to understand the relevant physics is clearly demonstrated by this post.
I gave you your best option - a circular orbit; it keeps the minimum distance of the orbiting body from the orbited body at a maximum. A highly elliptical orbit with the same energy as the circular orbit would have the orbiting body closer, at closest approach, than the circular orbit. (BTW - I even gave you all the gravitational potential energy, even though not all of it would have been converted at 1 cm above the centre of the black hole.)
It is true that no orbit is truly circular about the orbited body, because both bodies orbit around the centre of mass of the system; but for the system under discussion (jawbone/Earth), the difference between the centre of mass of the system and of the Earth is insignificant, even on the millimetric scales we were using.
You made the claim that "any two bodies (alone in a universe) of arbitrary non-zero mass and initial (non-zero) velocity and position will either enter a stable orbit around the centre of mass of the system or will diverge forever?" That is the foundation of your claim that Newton, Einstein and Hawking (and the rest of the cosmological community) are wrong about whether a static Newtonian universe would collapse. The case of divergence forever is irrelevant - that is an "expanding" universe.
I have demonstrated that an arbitrary mass at rest (or even with a tangential velocity of 1,600km/hr) one Earth radius from an Earth-mass black hole will fall into that black hole - it will not - cannot - orbit. It has insufficient gravitational potential energy to do so - as does the stellar material that powers Sagittarius A*?
Smaller size (as opposed to mass) of objects is irrelevant, as is greater separation. They just make the universe last longer, they don't stop it collapsing.
> Your failure to understand the relevant physics is clearly demonstrated by this post.
Your inability to read baffles me.
> A highly elliptical orbit with the same energy as the circular orbit would have the orbiting body closer, at closest approach, than the circular orbit.
Correct.
> You made the claim that "any two bodies (alone in a universe) of arbitrary non-zero mass and initial (non-zero) velocity and position will either enter a stable orbit around the centre of mass of the system
Yes the will. As long as, as has been the case ALL THROUGH THIS THREAD:
> such a system if it were distant enough
> I have demonstrated that an arbitrary mass at rest (or even with a tangential velocity of 1,600km/hr) one Earth radius from an Earth-mass black hole will fall into that black hole - it will not - cannot - orbit.
Actually, no you haven't.
You left out conservation of angular momentum.
I *did* ask you to read up on it, I *did* mention it several times and I *did* send you several links (that this system modified, but you can google them in fifteen seconds).
I even gave you explicit instructions on what happens.
And yet you *still* left it out.
Go and put your angular momentum in.
> Smaller size (as opposed to mass) of objects is irrelevant, as is greater separation. They just make the universe last longer, they don't stop it collapsing.
Nope, it makes it so unlikely the objects will actually meet close enough to collide inelastically that the probability can be ignored.
@Mark:
Go ahead - tell me the angular momentum (with respect to Earth) of an object at the Pole.
Again - tell me how angular momentum will give my jaw (even if it starts with a tangential velocity of 1600km/hr) the KE necessary to remain in orbit around the Earth as black hole. I'll wait. Conservation of energy considerations say it can't - that's what my post was about.
> Go ahead - tell me the angular momentum (with respect to Earth) of an object at the Pole.
Well, if you're within 10m of the pole, that would be non-zero. I=wr^2 = 2*pi/(24*60*60)*100.
And as I said before, there aren't that many stars on the earth's pole.
And the pole IS rather close to the earth. You know, like, ON it.
Actually, it's a bit more complicated, since the pole isn't at the centre of the earth, but it isn't zero, so you aren't 10m from the CoG, but 10m from a point 6000km from the CoG.
And getting a star at 4 light years within 10m of the polar axis is going to be quite some trick...
(remember: we don't have many stars 4Ly away, and none of them are over either pole)
Maybe one question to ask Robin: do you think you can drop a golf ball on to a 9cm target 100m below you?
If not, how do you expect to drop one on a 9cm target 6,000,000m below you?
@Mark:
Again - tell me how angular momentum will give my jaw (even if it starts with a tangential velocity of 1600km/hr) the KE necessary to remain in orbit around the Earth as black hole. I'll wait. Conservation of energy considerations say it can't - that's what my post was about.
You answered neither part of my post #261; but while you made an attempt at answering the first part, you totally ignored this part.
You are aware, are you not, that angular momentum of a two-body system can be conserved through a collision between those bodies; the merged bodies will simply speed up or slow down their rate of spin to conserve momentum.
#264: If the 9cm target has Earth mass (or even if not, provided it has some mass and I am "dropping" the golf ball), then I have no doubt I could drop a golf ball onto it from an arbitrary distance. It might spiral around a little, but it would eventually hit. It's like dropping the ball down a funnel with the target at the bottom. In fact, if it were Earth mass I could throw it in any direction I liked as hard as I could, and from 6*10^6 metres it would inevitably hit.
This is a serious question, Mark; to what level have you ever been taught any physics?
> If the 9cm target has Earth mass (or even if not, provided it has some mass and I am "dropping" the golf ball), then I have no doubt I could drop a golf ball onto it from an arbitrary distance. It might spiral around a little, but it would eventually hit.
Well go to the top of some building a few stories high (you probably won't find one 100m tall). Have someone down there put a bowl down. Get a golf ball and cover it with some paint.
Drop it.
You won't hit it.
And I studied Physics with Astrophysics at University.
Where we learned that there aren't any stars on the north or south pole...
> You are aware, are you not, that angular momentum of a two-body system can be conserved through a collision between those bodies;
Yes. I even mentioned it. That sort of collision would be an *inelastic* *collision*. you may be able to see those words if you search on this page.
M'kay?
But that DOES rather require that the two bodies ACTUALLY HIT.
Now you seem to believe there is no problem hitting a 9cm object from 100m or even 6,000,000m, so this may be where you're going wrong.
Try that trick. See if you can.
...and how did we shift from talking about the Discount Munchkin to orbital physics? Can you guys talk about this in the open thread instead?
> Former Skeptic | June 24, 2009 1:20 PM
Ray started it, and his thesis is that Newton did something or other, therefore AGW is wrong.
Robin doesn't understand what he does not understand. This is not a good start to wisdom...
@Mark:
I don't know whether you want to take this to the open thread, but...
Among other things: You still haven't explained how conservation of angular momentum does anything other than turn the jaw-Earth approach into a spiral. You haven't explained where my jaw gets the KE from to enter a stable orbit about the Earth mass black hole. You haven't explained why we must believe Newton, Einstein and Hawking all got it wrong and you got it right.
You say my jaw enters a stable elliptical orbit having dropped from 1 earth radius toward an earth mass black hole. Show your workings. I showed, I thought, that the energy simply wasn't available to it; if I'm wrong, it would surely be trivial for a BSc in Physics and Astrophysics to show this - assuming you ever looked outside the star toward orbital mechanics.
Robin Levett
What does this have to do with Newtonian physics?
> What does this have to do with Newtonian physics?
>
> Posted by: Chris O'Neill
I wonder myself, Chris.
Robin, pick up a clue-by-four. Hit yourself until enlightenment.
> You still haven't explained how conservation of angular momentum does anything other than turn the jaw-Earth approach into a spiral
Why would it make a spiral? Where does the energy go that reduces the velocity so that the object spirals in?
The reason why I haven't explained why is because it can't happen. It's the same reason I haven't explained why the price of tomatoes has gone up and the price of tobacco tin lids has gone down.
Maybe Robin is starting a new meme: the Chewbacca OFFENCE.
Ray started it, and his thesis is that Newton did something or other, therefore AGW is wrong.
Robin doesn't understand what he does not understand. This is not a good start to wisdom...
Posted by: Mark | June 24, 2009 1:37 PM
It's true. I did start it; but not in order to demonstrate that AGW is wrong. I don't even think it's necessarily a matter of right or wrong, but merely a matter of degree. Any additional warming that may result from anthropogenic influences, as Plimer claims, may simply be trivial and not worth all the fuss.
Someone asked me if I could name just one qualified climatologist who is skeptical of the conclusions in the IPCC reports. I named Roy Spencer.
Immediately his credibility was attacked on the basis that he is a creationist. Not only that, his creationist views were ridiculously distorted and confused with those of certain Christian fundamentalists who believe the earth is young and Dinosaurs walked with man.
This was your response, Mark.
Roy Spencer who believes that the earth is young, that dinosaur records are wrong?
THAT Dr Roy Spencer?
Ah, well, obviously a learned scientist...
Posted by: Mark | June 21, 2009 8:52 AM
Now, it's quite clear to me that Roy Spencer does not believe the earth is young and that dinosaur records are wrong, so where you get that idea from is a complete mystery. Roy is simply concerned that there's a lack of fossil records to demonstrate conclusively the process of one species evolving into another. This lack of evidence has often been described as the 'missing link' in the theory of evolution. For example, if the theory of evolution is true, we might expect to find some hominoid species in some remote forest, somewhere, that is more intelligent than a chimpanzee but not quite fully human.
However, let me say that I am personally far less skeptical about the theory of evolution than I am about AGW. I appreciate that any creature half-way between ape and man would tend to compete for the same resources as humans and would be very quickly wiped out, considering our aggressive nature.
Nevertheless, such 'apparent' lack of fossil evidence for the intermediary stages, caused the leading evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould, to advanced a theory of âpunctuated equilibriaâ to explain this. In this theory, evolution leading to new kinds of organisms occurs over such brief periods of time that it was not captured in the fossil record.
Roy Spencer has attempted to explain this lack of intermediary fossil evidence through the concept of 'intelligent design'.
I brought Isaac Newton into the discussion, and Einstein, because both of these great scientists believed in an intelligent creator. Newton himself saw the flaw in his model of the universe (even if Mark doesn't) and sought a solution by invoking the powers of God. Einstein was unable to accept the modern theory of qunatum mechanics because the theory offended his religious sensibilities. Quote: "God does not play dice".
Whilst I sometimes wonder myself how it is possible for a scientist to believe in the scientific method and simultaneously hold a religious belief in a supreme creator, it does seem to be a fact that a good proportion of scientists, world-wide, do hold religious beliefs. One survey I came across indicated, from a poll, that 7 percent of 'eminent' scientist in America believe in God, and 40% of 'less eminent' scientist believe in God. On that basis, Roy Spencer is not excluded from the echelons of eminence on the grounds of his belief in 'intelligent design'.
Spencer's an OEC not a YEC, but he's still a C.
Roy's a liar. Cretinists have been making this claim for well over a century now. Repeating it endlessly doesn't make it true. We continuously add to the fossil record, which is full of transitional forms.
Gack. What else can be said?
@Mark:
Do keep up, Mark. We are postulating a jaw at one Earth radius from an Earth mass black hole. For your maximum advantage, we are assuming that the jaw has a velocity of 1,600km/hr normal to a line drawn between the centre point of the black hole and the centre of mass of the jaw.
There is nothing holding the jawbone up save the centripetal effect of that velocity. Since that is insufficient (the velocity required to hold it in a circular orbit at that height above the black hole is of the order of 27,000km/hr) gravitational attraction will cause it to fall towards the black hole. As it falls, the gravitational potential energy will be converted to kinetic energy; so it will travel faster and faster toward the centre of mass of the jaw/Earth mass black hole system. Conservation of angular momentum will mean that its angular velocity (normal to the line between the two bodies) will increase; so that as it falls it it will travel faster (expressed in degrees/second) around the black hole. The combined motions downward and rotationally produce a net spiral.
If that is not what will happen - in your view - explain why.
I can't bring myself to comment on this, either. What a waste ...
Ray - this is an extraordinarily stupid statement. Please don't come back until you can tell us why this is true.
@Ray #274:
Newton yes; Einstein quite expressly not.
Robin Levett:
I can recall that all of the orbits produced by Newton's laws were conic sections. A spiral is not a conic section AFAIK.
Of course, Ray is too dishonest to mention that it was pointed out that Spencer has been proven wrong and is a fraud here, here, here and here.
@Chris:
Indeed; but since my point is that my jaw will not enter a (stable) Newtonian orbit, because it cannot acquire enough kinetic energy (by conversion from gravitational potential energy) to counterbalance the inward gravitational force...
I'm willing to be corrected, if I can be shown where I'm wrong, but Mark seems remarkably unwilling to do this.
@Chris:
...and since Newton, Einstein and Hawking all believed that a static Newtonian universe would collapse to a single body, whereas Mark says that his argument means that it would not, I think I'm entitled to assume I need not just accept his word as a BSc.
I see in this blog a terrible confusion about the nature of skepticism. Some posters seem to think that in order to be skeptical you need to be fluent in the priciples of advanced mathematics, or some other discipline, or very talented and have degrees in many disciplines.
Not true! Skepticism can result whenever something that is claimed by so-called experts, does not gel with one's own knowledge and experience. An example might be the opinion of one's local doctor that jogging is harmful (that is, an opinion from the doctor rather than a personal diagnosis).
Doctors may get quite a few visits from joggers who have injured themselves by excessive jogging in order to lose weight. The data needs to be interpreted. People who are overweight and not used to exercise, may harm themselves if they take up jogging too vigorously. Again, use your nous. Let common sense prevail.
When people try to bamboozle you about a general issue with mathematics that you don't understand, be skeptical. I'm reminded of a story about an investment corporation whose chief executive officer badgered his employees about their reluctance to invest in Enron. It went something like this: "I told you to investigate the possibility of investing in Enron over a month ago. They're making money hand over fist. What's happening?"
Answer: "Dear Lord and Master, we have investigated the possibility of investing in Enron, but we simply can't understand how they are making their profits. You have instructed us to never trust a company if we can not understand how they are making their profits."
Some time later Enron collapsed.
This principle is valuable for everyone. If it can't be explained, it may be humbug and bullshit. Don't trust it.
Okay! Back to Monckton's interview, the subject of the thread. You all will have gathered by now that I largely agree with Monckton's views. Why?
Because I understand the fundamental role of energy costs in our societies. All past civilisations that were great were great because they could harness energy supplies. Ancient civilisations, such as the Greeks and the Romans, employed slave labour, and spoils of war. That's being 'energy efficient'. Labour merely for the cost of very basic food and lodging is why China has a huge trade surplus and why we, in the West, are benifiting from low-cost products. By Western standards, China employs slave labour. We criticise the fact and rail against it, but we still buy their products.
When I see TV ads in Australia urging people to switch off their lights and buy 'energy-saving' bulbs that use up to 1/5th of the power of a conventional bulb but cost 10x as much, I begin to be skeptical.
First of all, if I economise on my electricity bill, and everyone economises on their electricity usage, it's quite possible that an extra coal-fired power station may not have to be be built, for home power usage, and therefore less C02 emissions arte produced. Wow! What a nice rosy feeling! We've achieved something simply by economising on our electricty bill.
Let's look at the reality.
Everyone's heard of the adage, "Look after the pennies and the pounds will take care of themselves". Minimising wastage and being efficient are standard practices for any businees and any person who seeks to become wealthy.
Does the average person work out how long their $10 energy saving bulb lasts, compared with a 50 cents conventional bulb? Do we even have official statistics on this issue? Does the average person work out what the total cost of their solar hot water heater is over a 15 year period, including maintaince costs and 'booster' costs?
The fundamental economic reality here is extremely nebulous. If you do succeed in reducing your electricity bill by awareness of wastage and switching lights off at every opportunity, you'll have money to spare at the end of the year. Let's say $400 off your annual electricity bill.
What do you do with that $400 saving? Well, you could give it to a bank which invests in a new coal-fired power station in China, or you could buy a digital camera which requires the same amount of dirty energy you've just saved. Back to square one.
Robin Levett:
And what, pray tell, is stopping it from being in a (stable) Newtonian orbit.
> Indeed; but since my point is that my jaw will not enter a (stable) Newtonian orbit, because it cannot acquire enough kinetic energy (by conversion from gravitational potential energy) to counterbalance the inward gravitational force...
FFS. You ARE an idiot. Grade A++
Force and energy are different things.
Energy = force x distance.
So if you're running a circular orbit, there is not distance travelled (you have to use the distance in the direction of the force) then there's no energy gained or lost.
So there's no need to counterbalance gravitational FORCE by ENERGY, because they're DIFFERENT.
And a spiral (like you get when rolling a marble down a funnel) happens ONLY because it's losing energy through friction and air resistance (well, some deformation of the funnel too, probably).
> Skepticism can result whenever something that is claimed by so-called experts, does not gel with one's own knowledge and experience.
And what if it doesn't gel with one's own preconceptions? Most (the VAST, VAST majority) of denialists who say "I'm just skeptical" HAVE NO KNOWLEDGE OR EXPERIENCE relevant to the thing about which they are "skeptical".
They accept the paper that says the Hockey Stick graph was incorrect, but do not accept the paper that says the Hockey Stick graph is right. They don't accept the report from the NAS that says the conclusions are right.
But *NONE* of them have done the maths themselves.
So what possible knowledge or experience could the support of the hockey stick reports and papers not be gelling with?
PS what's this "so called experts" thing?
What is it that lets you say whether someone is an expert or merely a "so called expert"?
And surely Plimer, Pielke (Jr and Sr), Monkton (DEFINITELY), Lindzen and so on are all heavily in that "so called expert" category?
I mean, especially monkton. You treat his works as if he knows what he's doing (is an expert) but he isn't. He hasn't even trained for it!
Shorter Ray: science schmience, let's talk about economics! I know all about economics!!
Ray, the economists don't agree with you on the economics and the scientists beg to differ on the science. Maybe even the politicians don't all believe that you're de man! But I can't prove that you're not an intellectual powerhouse like having Einstein, Newton, Hayek, Mandela and Keynes all reincarnated in the one small but perfectly formed package, so I shall assume that you are.
Or not. For my tastes Ray you'd be just a tad insufficiently sceptical of claims made by delusional blowhards, mate, so you'd lose my vote.
On the other hand if it simply can't be explained to the uneducated, the dopey, the delusional or to those whose income depends upon them not understanding it .... so what, Ray?
@Mark:
Thanks for the endorsement.
I do realise that force and energy are two different things - it's a pity that you can't follow my shorthand.
Force acting on a mass produces acceleration in the direction of the force. Gravitational force acting on a mass will accelerate the mass towards it. If the mass has velocity, it is convenient to consider that that velocity will produce a notional "centrifugal force" acting on the object countering the effect of gravitational force. That is the convenient way that we started out this discussion, by reference to centrifugal force.
Where the bodies in the gravitational system are of sufficiently different mass (as with the jaw-Earth system we are talking about here) it is also convenient to consider the heavier as fixed, and the lighter as moving with respect to it.
If the notional centrifugal force is greater than the gravitational force - that is the velocity of the lighter mass is sufficiently high - then the lighter mass will escape the gravitational field.
If the notional centrifugal force is less than that such that it is exactly the same as the gravitational force, then the mass will enter an elliptical orbit (although the balance between the forces may vary along the orbit as the lighter mass's orbital speed varies in accordance with Kepler's laws, the effect of the forces balances out over the course of the orbit). The mass' orbit has an energy associated with it - the sum of the mass's KE and PE at any point along the orbit will remain the same. The mass' PE at the orbit's apogee is converted to KE at the perigee, and then back to PE as the mass climbs back to apogee, as a result of the gravitational acceleration applied to the mass.
If the notional centrifugal force is less than gravitational force, I say that the mass will not enter an orbit, but will continue to fall in the direction of the gravitational force until it eventually encounters the surface of the body producing it. Its original tangential velocity will however cause it to continue to rotate around that body, producing a (segment of) a spiral.
The mass's KE varies with the square of its velocity. The velocity produces the notional centrifugal force. We know the PE of a mass at a given height above the central body; and (if we know its velocity) its KE at that point. The sum of those energies sets the maximum orbital speed that the mass can reach, being the square root of (that sum divided by the mass). That in turn sets the maximum notional centrifugal force acting upon the mass. It is in that sense that I refer to energy as counterbalancing gravitational force.
> I do realise that force and energy are two different things - it's a pity that you can't follow my shorthand.
Well that's no form of shorthand that means anything other than what you want it to mean. Making it *quite* hard to understand for anyone not you.
> If the notional centrifugal force is less than gravitational force
it will descend. And the notional centrifugal force will increase. And at some point be as great as the gravitational one. And at that point, it will no longer fall in. Yet it will still have excess kinetic energy.
The ONLY special thing about an orbit is that the total of KE and PE is constant.
If you have a bound system (where you still have a negative energy pool) then the energetic equipotential is a conic section making a closed loop. NOT A SPIRAL.
If you have an unbound system (where the total energy content of the duopoly is positive) then you have a parabolic section which leaves the system tending to a separation beyond infinity.
> If the notional centrifugal force is less than gravitational force, I say that the mass will not enter an orbit, but will continue to fall in the direction of the gravitational force until it eventually encounters the surface of the body producing it.
And the chances of any star getting that close to the earth is (literally) astronomical, EVEN IF you disregard the fact that we are in an orbit around the CoG of the Milky Way.
You also don't seem to know what a black hole's size is.
It isn't the Schwartschild radius. That's just the radius within which at which no information can reach infinity.
It isn't a surface.
And if you don't have to go to infinity, then your information can still leave and get to its destination.
I.e. the closer you get to a black hole, the further away its event horizon gets (since the photons closer in cannot get to infinity, but they CAN get to you, closer than infinity.
@Mark:
Well, the steps in the logic are all there in my earlier posts.
More later.
@Ray: "Roy Spencer has attempted to explain this lack of intermediary fossil evidence through the concept of 'intelligent design'."
I'd suggest you (and everyone else) have a look at the post titled 'A tangent to the Great Accommodationism Debate'
here: http://kenmacleod.blogspot.com/
Particularly the quote starting "Years ago I was fighting the good fight of creation on the Internet. I argued that evolution was impossible, for it required that the genetic code had to be changed to make new kinds of animals."
> Well, the steps in the logic are all there in my earlier posts.
In shorthand?
> More later.
No, please. You're an idiot and haven't a clue. You're trying to get me to wrestle you in mud and I'm getting dirty and you're getting excited.
And I bet you haven't tried to drop a golf ball in a bowl from dour stories up, have you...
Ray:
What a self-righteous hypocrite. Imagine Ray trying to lecture anyone on skepticism after all the unskeptical crap he's written on this blog.
By the way, since Ray is such a fan of Stephen Hawking, here's another quote he can make use of:
Ray defends Roy thusly:
Roy is simply concerned that there's a lack of fossil records to demonstrate conclusively the process of one species evolving into another.
In that case, Roy is simply ignoring the evidence and what it tells us. So now we have Ray the global-warming denialist citing Roy the evolution-denialist as an "authority." Which puts us well past "skepticism," and on to "kicking an obvious idiot to the curb."
@Mark:
No.
Tough. You've been sufficiently insulting - and I'm sufficiently interested in the topic - that I'm not going to let go.
Your original claim was that Newton, Einstein and Hawking were wrong in their view that a static Newtonian universe would collapse. You say that because you argue that any two body universe resolves itself into an orbital pair with no collision (although you do arbitrarily mandate that the two bodies may not be at rest, so it's not quite "any"). You say that that is generalisable to a universe of an arbitrary number of bodies.
That being your argument either:
1. You are wrong on the two body = an orbital pair claim;
2. You are wrong that the result is generalisable;
3. You are right and N, E and H are wrong.
It is surely trivially true that you are wrong on the two body claim in two specific cases - those being (i) where the bodies start at rest with respect to one another; certainly where they are also at rest with respect to space (remember that Newton posited that absolute positions could be defined for bodies); and (ii) where the bodies start with relative velocities directly along the line joining them (even if the speeds do not match). Those two resolve to a single case, of course, if you accept (i) as a special case of (ii). There is probably also a third (or second), where the bodies start with movements on intersecting courses at speeds that mean they arrive at the intersection simultaneously.
So far, in response to my position that my jaw has insufficient energy at one Earth radius (PE converting to KE at perigee) to remain in a stable Newtonian orbit round the "Earth as black hole" - because it cannot reach sufficient orbital velocity, you have essentially said "it will go into an elliptical orbit" (which is simply restating your claim) and "remember conservation of angular momentum" (which is irrelevant if my jaw is at what would have been a Pole, since the axis of its rotation would coincide with the axis of rotation of the Earth as black hole).
You have said (@ #290) that:
And this is precisely the point where I need clarification. I tried to treat this as a question of conservation of energy; and assumed that at any given distance from the centre of the system the least energetic orbit (and hence the lowest orbital speed required to maintain the notional centrifugal force to remain in orbit at that distance) was circular; which had the benefit of making the calculation easier. Was that assumption wrong? Was there a problem with my maths? Can the problem be treated as a conservation of energy one? If so, why, what and why respectively?
I do have some rough understanding of the topic. The Schwarzschild is the closest analogue in a Newtonian universe (in which black holes don't exist, remember) to the surface of the black hole, and is referred to as its size (as opposed to mass) in most sources I have seen. I assumed you weren't trying to sneak in a point mass, with which Newton definitely would have had trouble. Newton wasn't one for singularities.
Ray @283 :
> Not true! Skepticism can result whenever something that is claimed by so-called experts, does not gel with one's own knowledge and experience.
Damn that satnav and its relativistic corrections - I have no direct experience of relativity, and I don't understand the mathematics behind it, ergo I should be skeptical that such a thing could ever work.
> When people try to bamboozle you about a general issue with mathematics that you don't understand, be skeptical.
Remember this people. Maths is hereby outlawed in all scientific endeavours. Any attempt to explain it means you are automatically invalidating your own argument, and have no credibility. The lowest common demoninator wins.
> Okay! Back to Monckton's interview, the subject of the thread. You all will have gathered by now that I largely agree with Monckton's views. Why?
And then you proceeded to talk about... random stuff? Saving money and buying cameras? Is this what you propose to replace the maths with - spurious anecdotal nonsense?
Plus, I don't quite understand how you arrived at that $400 figure, I really didn't follow the maths. I'm sure you know that means that I can immediately disgregard everything you said.
Thank you.
> Your original claim was that Newton, Einstein and Hawking were wrong in their view that a static Newtonian universe would collapse.
Nope.
You asked would a universe that was static collapse.
It won't.
One reason is the exact same way as the solar system didn't collapse and Newtonian mechanics would say it will never collapse.
You then started asking about putting two bodies in space whether they would collapse.
Now if you want to start changing your statements of what you want answered, stop yibbering on like a loon about how the answers to your earlier form won't fit as answers to your new questions.
> The Schwarzschild is the closest analogue in a Newtonian universe (in which black holes don't exist, remember) to the surface of the black hole
In the same way as energy is the closest analoque we have to an epiphany in sociology.
I.e. NOT AT ALL.
> and is referred to as its size (as opposed to mass) in most sources I have seen.
It's size is the same as its mass. Potatoe potatoh.
And that still doesn't make it a surface.
"But that's what I read"
Well you've read different now.
If you don't know if I'm right, read up on it, but stop posting inane drivel until you've checked.
@Mark #298:
At #228 I said:
Ray had quoted Newton on the claim that such a universe would collapse, and Newton's fudge of an infinite universe; and Hawking explaining that that fudge doesn't save the static Newtonian universe from collapse (he deals with this in Brief History too). Einstein added the cosmological constant to save a static relativistic universe from collapse.
You responded (#221):
and then (#241) in response to my question:
You said:
You can perhaps take the time between now and my next post to explain how all of that differs from my comment:
It was Chris that introduced the two body system, and you that claimed that the outcome was generalisable.
Robin Levett:
No, the notional "centrifugal force" is produced by the acceleration, not the velocity.
You have no idea what you are talking about. The notional "centrifugal force", whose magnitude equals the mass multiplied by the acceleration, is always equal to the gravitational force. For your example, the object starting at 1 earth radius with a velocity of 463 m/s normal to the gravity vector would follow an elliptic orbit with a periapsis at 10.92 km from the black hole where it would have a velocity of 270,000 m/2 (as long as my calculations are correct).
These values are easily calculated using the Vis-viva equation.
By the way, one part of Hawking's "Origin of the Universe" speech says:
So the point was they can't be motionless relative to each other AND not fall together. Newton's mistake was to believe there was a condition for which the stars could be motionless relative to each other AND not fall together. This was his infinite number of stars hypothesis.
By the way 2, I think Hawking was just using Newton's hypothesis as part of an introduction to the concept of an expanding universe.
> Thus, an infinite collection of stars, can not remain in a MOTIONLESS state. IF THEY ARE NOT MOVING RELATIVE TO EACH OTHER at one time, the attraction between them, will cause them to start falling towards each other.
And a phrase I think that Robin is blind to is this:
> start falling towards each other.
Just because they started doesn't mean they'll finish falling towards each other.
>You said:
> > In the clockwork universe of Newton's time, yes.
> You can perhaps take the time between now and my next post to explain how all of that differs from my comment:
> > Your original claim was that Newton, Einstein and Hawking were wrong in their view that a static Newtonian universe would collapse.
Yes. I can. The clockwork universe had no chaos. therefore it was predictable. Positions could be assigned with indefinite accuracy at one point and the result was deterministic.
Like clockwork.
This has nothing to do with your second statement.
And that's the difference.
> It was Chris that introduced the two body system, and you that claimed that the outcome was generalisable.
So you didn't post #243
> @Mark #241:
>
> ...Hell - 2 bodies of equal mass, nil velocity, arbitrary distance - that universe won't collapse?
>
> Posted by: Robin Levett | June 23, 2009 4:53 PM
?
@Mark #303:
Of course I did - but after Chris's post #232, and indeed your #229.
More later.
> Of course I did - but after Chris's post #232, and indeed your #229.
So what does Chris having posted it have to do with anything.
You posted it.
And I answered.
Completely unrelated to the ongoing discussion, but apropos of the main article here, SPPI (no I will not link) just posted a handful of new "articles" on their website, including two by Monctkon:
"Twisted Science, Crooked Policy" (on the latest White House climate report)
"âGlobal Warmingâ is No Global Crisis, Major Talking Points"
and several others of similar quality (who can resist "Climate Change Regime is Immoral", for instance?)
They even have a post on "The Wong-Fielding Meeting on Global Warming"
It's almost like they're trying to be the anti-Deltoid! Except of course, no comments. On the other hand, perhaps that's another respect in which it's the opposite of Deltoid...
Arthur, thank you. Pure comedy gold (from Monckton's "Twisted Science" at SPPI):
Best laugh I've had all week!
Plus, I don't quite understand how you arrived at that $400 figure, I really didn't follow the maths. I'm sure you know that means that I can immediately disgregard everything you said.
Posted by: Dave | June 25, 2009 10:43 AM
I've got no idea what your problem is or why you should have any difficulty whatsoever in following my maths. This is what I wrote: If you do succeed in reducing your electricity bill by awareness of wastage and switching lights off at every opportunity, you'll have money to spare at the end of the year. Let's say $400 off your annual electricity bill
The expression 'let's say $400' means, '$400 for example'. In other words, $400 seems a reasonable amount that an average family might expect to save if they become energy conscious and attempt to reduce wastage. It's a figure I use for illustrative purposes only, to demonstrate a principle. The principle is not affected by the precise amount. The actual savings will vary considerably depending on household size and individual circumstances. For some people the anual savings in electricity costs might be $211.57. For others it might be $827.89. It matters not what the precise amount is.
The principle I'm trying to get accross here is that we live in a consumer society where everyone has a certain income at his/her disposal which he/she spends on goods and services that he/she needs or desires.
It matters not if one person wishes to luxuriate in a brightly lit dwelling where the lights are on 24 hours a day in every room, and another person wishes to live in total darkness when the sun sets. People spend the money at their disposal on what interests them. The person who enjoys brightly lit rooms pays a huge electricity bill and as a consequence has less money to spend on other things, such as digital cameras, or their children's education.
The priciple here is that everything we buy, whether food, digital cameras, education for our children, or lights blazing all night long in our house, requires an equal amount of energy in proportion to their cost (approximately; no need for arguments that $100 of aluminium requires more energy to produce than $100 worth of books. It's understood there can be distortions in the free-market system whereby the true cost of energy input is diguised by government subsidies and not reflected in the price tag.)
To get back to a major point that Monckton made in his interview, a point which is realy, really serious; perhaps too serious in relation to the juvenile attitudes expressed by many posters in this blog.
Poverty and over-population is a huge problem for our planet. Both poverty and over-population are very closely linked. One results from the other. People who are poor see an economic sense in having as many children as possible. Firstly, a good proportion (or should that be bad proportion) of their children are likely to die of disease and malnutrition whilst young and never reach maturity to be of use to their parents.
Secondly, when you're poor and your government doesn't provide unemployment benefits, or pensions or free medical assistance, you need to rely upon your offspring for your future security. If you are lucky enough to own a small plot of land, having lots of children will ensure that at least some othem will be available, when they become strong enough, to till the land.
One of Monckton's points is that the best way to reduce overpopulation is to raise the living standards of the poor and remove that economic insecurity which is at the basis of overpopulation. I agree completely. You know it makes sense! Fair shake of the sauce bottle, mate!
So what happens as a result of these carbon trading schemes, if they are passed into law? Energy costs go up, stupid.
What happens to the poor? They become poorer, stupid.
What happens when they beome poorer? They produce more children, stupid.
Need I continue?
Seems that we have censorship in place on this site.
Correction! I failed to see my last post when I opened the blog, and assumed that my controversial post with unassailable arguments had been censored.
Apologies to Tim lambert.
I'd like to add that I'm very pleased that the Australian senator, Steve Fielding, has opposed the Rudd government's carbon trading scheme.
I think it's very revealing that Steve Fielding is probably one of the few members in the senate who has a degree in engineering.
Most politicians have qualifications in art, law, economics, even politics. Few have qualifications in science. Penny Wong has a degree in arts and law. She's probably very unqualified to have an opinion on scientific methodology. She relies upon consensus. The majority is right.
Anyone who knows anything about science must surely realise that the majority is not necessarily right, perhaps even rarely right.
Ray gives us is unassailable arguments :
Ray in response to your unassailable arguments , Iâd make three short points:
1) Firstly, how many planets are needed to provide the âWestsâ consumption rates for the entire population? (Please insert straw-man argument here accusing me of not caring for the most disadvantaged).
2) Secondly, The answer to the above question should lead a humane fair minded person, to questioning if perhaps we in the west need to reduce the amount of consumption and pollution in order to allow a Fair shake of the sauce bottle for the least advantaged. (Please insert debunked and autistic trickle-down economics argument here).
3) Thirdly, the rich paying more to internalize (pay closer to the) real costs the costs of consumption and pollution, will reduce the externalized cost burden we foist on the most disadvantaged (bottom billion). Hence this is a vital step for providing better opportunity and justice for the least advantaged. (Please find some rationalization to change the topic here).
re: #312 MAB (and anyone else)
I'm curious:
a) Does Monckton have a history of leading efforts to help the poor of the world?
Anyone have any references?
OR
b) Is this a recent passion, i.e., of the form:
"We can't limit CO2 or the poor of the world will suffer?"
Given Monckton's well-known political associations, I conjecture b) may be possible, but if so, he's late to the game, and much less sophisticated than Lomborg.
Thanks for the link John, full of enlightening stuff!
I commend it to other readers.
Ray sez:
So what you're saying is that you disagree with the notion that green house gases accumulating in the atmosphere will cause the average temperature of the planet to rise due to the fact that these gases are opaque to outgoing thermal radiation because.... you don't like the potential consequences of such a theory being true?
Have I got that right?
If I do have that right... geeze Louise...
Do you see any relation, at all, between the fact that you don't want to use fluorescent light bulbs and have some notion of "economic reality" and the fundamental physics of radiation in the atmosphere?
I'm loath to use the word dumb around here, as it's generally counter productive... but...
Oh well, I suppose that if you polled 1000 climate change deniers, you'd probably find 90% of them formed their opinion on global warming for the same reason.
> What happens to the poor? They become poorer, stupid.
>
> Posted by: Ray
Uh, they're becoming poorer ANYWAY, Ray. They've been getting poorer ever since corporatism took over.
And it's not nice to call them stupid, either.
And when cities are flooded, what will happen to the poor? They'll be SECOND in line to the rich people for the land still available to live on. When there's less land for food, food will become more expensive (supply reduces, demand stays same, price goes up) and since the poor spend more of their money on essentials like food, the change will have a greater effect on them than the rich (you could downgrade from caviar to chicken eggs, but there's not much downgrade from a loaf of economy sliced bread).
John Mashey:
> a) Does Monckton have a history of leading efforts to help the poor of the world?
I don't know about Monckton, but as far as the Heartland Institute is concerned,
1. The poor = very pitiful people who must be taken care of.
2. People who are already essentially net tax consumers = lazy welfare-junkie bums who should simply be ignored.
3. People who don't pay taxes = AAAAAAARGH!!!!! DIRTY HIPPIEZ!!!!!!
It's all in the framing. My friends.
Ray @ 308:
> I've got no idea what your problem is or why you should have any difficulty whatsoever in following my maths.
Sorry, nope, didn't understand the maths behind the followup either. And as you know, by your own logic that means your argument is invalid, because you're unable to make it without "bamboozling me with mathematics I don't understand". Or actually in your case, just making stuff up that looks right to you.
Or perhaps you don't understand the wider point I'm trying to make?
Ray in response to your unassailable arguments , Iâd make three short points:
1) Firstly, how many planets are needed to provide the âWestsâ consumption rates for the entire population? (Please insert straw-man argument here accusing me of not caring for the most disadvantaged).
2) Secondly, The answer to the above question should lead a humane fair minded person, to questioning if perhaps we in the west need to reduce the amount of consumption and pollution in order to allow a Fair shake of the sauce bottle for the least advantaged. (Please insert debunked and autistic trickle-down economics argument here).
3) Thirdly, the rich paying more to internalize (pay closer to the) real costs the costs of consumption and pollution, will reduce the externalized cost burden we foist on the most disadvantaged (bottom billion). Hence this is a vital step for providing better opportunity and justice for the least advantaged. (Please find some rationalization to change the topic here).
Posted by: MAB | June 25, 2009 11:45 PM
Dear me! We're talking about a serious issue here and all you can do is make fun of it. Shame on you!
Poverty is no fun. Such people are disenfranchised, have no power, influnece or say in their destiny. They are desperate; at their wit's end, and you want to raise energy costs!
Well, expect a third world war, you dopes.
Ray, thank's for not letting me down and filling-in erroneous arguments anticipated for points one and three.
I assume by your nonsense response you have nothing serious to advance in regards as to how to improve the opportunities for the least advantaged?
You see rich people really should be paying closer to the full cost of what we consume. Its only fair that we reduce the externalised costs that we foist on the least advantaged.
He's good at following the cue, isn't he.
> Poverty is no fun. Such people are disenfranchised, have no power, influnece or say in their destiny. They are desperate; at their wit's end, and you want to raise energy costs!
So what we need is to tax the rich to pay for solar power. And tax the rich again to replace the few trains that aren't electric to electric locomotives. And tax them a little more to get the bus fleet and the transport trucks changed to carbon-neutral fuels or electric engines.
This will then remove all the CO2 requirements for the poor, apart from those rich enough to afford their own cars. And they can hardly be thought of as being at their wits end.
It's the obvious conclusion of Ray's saintly stance on the poor.
And those changes will have a trickle-up power to the rich: their workers won't need increased payments, since all their needs to travel are now renewable-sourced and moving transport of food off to cheaper electric vehicles (being unchanged by oil price rises) reduces the cost of the very basic necessities that make the greatest change to the relative affluence of the poor.
It also makes the food sourced by the rich people cheaper.
"Poverty and over-population is a huge problem for our planet. Both poverty and over-population are very closely linked".
This is comic level book analysis. I don't suppose Ray thinks that western countries are over-populated. But every country in the developed world maintain large, ecological deficits. In other words, there's no way England, the United States, Japan, Germany et. al. could sustain their economies based on resources contained within their own borders. This is why our overconsumptive deficit economies are utterly dependent on cheap capital and resource flows from the poor-less developed countries.
The fact is that the developed world alone (representing 16% of the planet's population) consumes more than the planet can sustainably produce (or about 80% of the Earth's resources). In essence, the global ecological commons are being plundered to support the lives of the privileged few. The truth is that any question on population MUST invariably incorporate per-capita consumption. That is, how much land is needed to support the resources consumed and wastes produced by a given population? At the heart of the poverty question lies the vast inequities in the way that the planet's fragile resources and wealth are distributed. As I have explained in the Greig thread, there's no way we can tackle poverty without acknowledging that much, if not most of the planet's ecological destruction is directly attributable to the lifestyles of those in the developed world. Its us who are driving biodiversity loss, as well as collapses in fisheries and the depletion of groundwater supplies, because to a large extent we export our damage to sustain our lifestyles at home.
I acknowledge that there is no easy solution to the 'equity dilemma'. But to come on here parading the myth that it is the poor who are destroying the planet because of burgeoning populations in the developing world takes remarkable hubris. This myth has been dispensed with time and time again. I am just sorry that Ray has to dredge up this discredited canard once again.
Jeff, get with the program, when people say "it's the population", it's ALWAYS *someone* *else* who they're talking about.
Never them.
Ray posts,
What if the money collected is rebated back to the poor in particular? Would you still object then?
What if the higher cost of energy results in people using less of it? Do you know how a market works? What usually happens to production of a commodity when you lay a tax on it?
What if there are costs to letting energy continue to cheap--e.g. to the environment?
So what you're saying is that you disagree with the notion that green house gases accumulating in the atmosphere will cause the average temperature of the planet to rise due to the fact that these gases are opaque to outgoing thermal radiation because.... you don't like the potential consequences of such a theory being true?
Posted by: ChrisC | June 26, 2009 3:22 AM
Completley untrue, but I understand your confusion. There are many greenhouse gases that may increase or decrease for many reasons and causes that may be interrelated. For example, we have situations of positive feedback and negative feedback. In negative feedback, an increased warming causes increased evaporation of the lakes and oceans, which in turn causes increased cloud cover over our planet, which in turn reduces the amount of heat radiation reaching the earth's surface, which in turn causes a slight cooling effect to counteract the predicted warming.
Since I don't have a Ph.D in meteorology, I can't argue in detail the merits and the pros and cons of such arguments. However, as a skeptic, I see a degree of uncertainty about such matters.
There would appear to be other issues such as a tendency for plants to grow more profusely as a result of an increase in CO2, thus sucking more CO2 from the atmosphere and mitigating the effects of our contribution to the atmospheric increase in CO2. There are natural balances that tend to 'kick in'.
It just seems to me that the disastrous consequences of our anthropogenic contribution to the amount of carbon in our atmosphere, are not certain and are not inevitable. That's my honest opinion, qualified or not.
However, I do know from direct experience and knowledge of history, that there are some very real and serious catastrophes that beset our planet, that are absolutely awful and real and certain, and which I would describe as being far worse that a category 4 cyclone or a 10 year drought.
They are the terrible tragedies and obscenities of war and the desperate plight of the genuinely poor who have to scramble over rubbish tips in search of something of the slightest value to sustain them.
Ray posts,
So what happens as a result of these carbon trading schemes, if they are passed into law? Energy costs go up, stupid.
What happens to the poor? They become poorer, stupid.
What if the money collected is rebated back to the poor in particular? Would you still object then?
What if the higher cost of energy results in people using less of it? Do you know how a market works? What usually happens to production of a commodity when you lay a tax on it?
What if there are costs to letting energy continue to cheap--e.g. to the environment?
Posted by: Barton Paul Levenson | June 26, 2009 11:27 AM
First of all, as has been mentioned before on this blog, you don't solve problems by throwing money at them. I'm not only skeptical of AGW. I'm also skeptical of the processes of aid to third world countries.
Without a clear plan in relation to the goals of such aid, and without the personnel with the expertise to implement that clear plan, one is again just pissing in the wind. The money is wasted. The corrupt get wealthy and the problems are recycled. No real progress is made.
Whether you are dealing with your own family, or the whole country from the perspective of the politician, there are priorities that have to be organised. One rarely, if ever, has the resources to tackle every problem. Some problems are relegated to the bottom of the list and rarely get attended to, in any effective way. Poverty is one of them. Drugs are another problem which we insist on not solving. It's more important to maintain a certain moral position in relation to illicit drugs that solving the problem. Maintaining that moral position that drug usage is wrong, is considered a greater priority than solving the problem.
Now you don't have to be a rocket scientist to understand that the illicit drug problem is not likely to ever be solved with such an arrangement of priorities. Likewise with the poverty problem.
I notice that the US house of reps has passed the new energy bill (cap and trade). Maybe it will also be passed in the senate. It will be interesting to see what effect that will have. 17% below 2005 levels by 2020 and 83% below by 2050. Wow!
Don't get me wrong. If the US could achieve that, or close to it, without the country plunging into deep recession, that would be truly great. If the US gets China to manufacture most of the energy efficient devices, then the US just might reach that goal. But I'm just a little hazy on the consequences of a 5 trillion dollar US trade deficit.
Weirdo Ray, if you're a skeptic, why aren't you skeptical of your ideas?
> In negative feedback, an increased warming causes increased evaporation of the lakes and oceans, which in turn causes increased cloud cover over our plane
Is that so? Here's a thought experiment.
If it's a clear night, is it warmer or colder than the same night the next day but with clouds?
Ray has not checked AT ALL whether clouds are ever a positive feedback.
This, in case anyone is wondering if Ray has something, is how you can tell he has nothing.
Ray seems to have confused "Doesn't know science" and "Disagrees" with "skepticism".
A common mistake on the less intelligent, there was even a Monty Python sketch about it (and argument is not just a repeated refutation of anothers' statements).
Of course, those people were *educated*. Even though in the arts in the main, they still were educated and knew a scam artist like Ray when they heard him.
BPL:
> > So what happens as a result of these carbon trading schemes, if they are passed into law? Energy costs go up, stupid.
> > What happens to the poor? They become poorer, stupid.
> What if the money collected is rebated back to the poor in particular? Would you still object then?
Then it's "wealth redistribution", which is also wrong.
Of course, the "poor people" who really matter are those who are poor enough to worry about "trade deficits" and stuff.
Shorter Ray:
1. Global warming isn't a problem, because God (or some other unknown cosmic force) will save us from it. I know it.
2. Poor people are... poor. Poor people do... things that poor people do. If poor people become poorer, then... they do more of the things that poor people do. Therefore, mitigation is more expensive than adaptation.
3. As a skeptic, ...
4. As a skeptic, ...
5. As a skeptic, ...
6. As a skeptic, ...
7. As a skeptic, ...
8. As a skeptic, ...
9. As a skeptic, ...
10. Well, as a self-proclaimed skeptic, I proclaim myself to be a skeptic! Woohoo!
BJ, actually your shorter version of Ray sounds like Max Anacker in this thread...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2009/06/climate_me…
Repeated time and time again, even though links to the 2006 paper on observational evidence of CO2 climate sensitivity and the 1930's dustbowl and the 35000 deaths in Europe from heat in 2008, etc.
Just repeating "As a rational skeptic".
Some people don't know what the difference between "Skeptic" and "Denial" is. A skeptic isn't sure of anything, a denialist is sure it isn't THAT reason.
Weirdo Ray, if you're a skeptic, why aren't you skeptical of your ideas?
Posted by: Mark | June 27, 2009 11:45 AM
I'm skeptical of everything, including your ability to read my posts.
I've written time and again that I simply don't know who's right on this issue of AGW. I find a certain logic and sense in both sides of the argument. If the issue were not heavily politicised, and if the science of climate change were merely a set of theories which could be applied to the production of an advanced piece of technology, say a refraction-free lens made of artificial materials, or a super fast quantum computer, then I would tend to side with the consensus of scientific opinion as regards the correctness of the theories, and I would consider the eventual construction and successful working of a prototype product as being 'proof of the pudding'.
Here's a thought experiment.
If it's a clear night, is it warmer or colder than the same night the next day but with clouds?
Here's a thought experiment for you. If it's a clear day in heat of summer, is it warmer or colder the following day if the sky is covered with cloud?
Shorter Ray:
'Global warming' is a suspicious theory because
1. it can't be used to create new-fangled technological mega-gizmos, an
2. there are some politicos who don't like it.
Now I don't know which 'side' of the 'debate' is right, but I know that mitigation is more expensive than adaptation. As a skeptic, I know that I'm a skeptic.
Ray, continuing with his comic book level analyses, writes:
*I'm also skeptical of the processes of aid to third world countries. Without a clear plan in relation to the goals of such aid, and without the personnel with the expertise to implement that clear plan, one is again just pissing in the wind. The money is wasted. The corrupt get wealthy and the problems are recycled. No real progress is made*.
First of all, let's dispense with tyhe term 'aid'. Aid usually means loans with massive strings attached - for example the privatization of public servcies, natural resources etc. In Latin America and Africa, aid usually ends up in loans that must be paid back with interest - and that interest comes in the form of structural adjustment. Patrick Bond dispenses with the frivolity of the term aid in his excellenbt book, "Looting Africa"The Economics of Exploitation". The second crucual aspect is that aid usually leads to development whose proceeds are mostly appropriated by the rich. For decades the model has been promised by western governments and commerical elites to which they are beholden to improve the lives of gthe poor but it rarely does. The biggest victims of World Bank/IMF (in other words US Treasury) structural adjustment programmes are the poor, who see their wages slashed, social security nets eliminated, local environments ravaged, and unions oblioterated in order to ensure that cpaital flows remain to the north. Finally, western governments actively support the 'corrupt wealthy'elites in the south. We help them into power and have long supported limited top-down forms of democracy. This explains in part the overt hostility on the part of western governments and the MSM to the likes of Chavez, Morales, Correa and others who for the first time in generations are taking away some of the wealth form where it is concentrated and are using it to create some small measzure of social justice.
Just thought I'd mention this piece of bollocks from Ray:
Even just the stations operated by Scripps Institution of Oceanography have a very wide geographic distribution. They, along with all the other CO2 measuring stations away from human contamination around the world are very consistent in their measurements of atmospheric CO2.
Ray writes:
There is no CO2 fertilization effect outside the lab, because CO2 is not the nutrient available in least supply (Liebig's Law of the Minimum).
The sources and sinks for CO2 have been extensively explored. You don't seem to realize this--one more indication that you have never looked into the science behind this issue.
Please read the AR4 report before you post again.
Jeff writes:
In Chavez's case, social justice seems to include shutting down opposition newspapers and changing the laws so he can hold power indefinitely.
Here's a news item that's not too old, December 2008.
WASHINGTON â A United Nations climate change conference in Poland is about to get a surprise from 650 leading scientists who scoff at doomsday reports of man-made global warming â labeling them variously a lie, a hoax and part of a new religion.
Later today, their voices will be heard in a U.S. Senate minority report quoting the scientists, many of whom are current and former members of the U.N.'s own Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
About 250 of the scientists quoted in the report have joined the dissenting scientists in the last year alone.
In fact, the total number of scientists represented in the report is 12 times the number of U.N. scientists who authored the official IPCC 2007 report.
Did you get that? 12 times the number of U.N. scientists who authored the official IPCC 2007 report!!
Am I dreaming, or is this consensus which many of you guys consider so persuasive, beginning to crumble?
BLP,
While Chavez fails to renew licences for media supporting an (illegal) Military Coup; Murdoch is way more effective, he just buys all the media then controls the message.
A few posts ago, someone asked me if I could name a single qualified climatologist who was skeptical of the consensus view of anthropogenic warming. I named Roy Spencer who was immediately derided.
In connection with the current 'cap and trade' climate bill that is being considered by the US senate, a few more highly qualified scientists have been brave enough to publicly state their opinion in opposition to the bill.
You'll notice that there are quite a few Ph.D.s in this list, and many of the disciplines are related to climate change. Professor Ian Plimer is listed, of course, as is Roy Spencer.
I'm sure you can find one or two scientist here to deride. Dig up some dirt or misrepresent their religious views.
SYUN AKUSOFU, PH.D UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA
ARTHUR G.ANDERSON, PH.D
DIRECTOR OF RESEARCH, IBM (RETIRED)
CHARLES R.ANDERSON, PH.D
ANDERSON MATERIALS EVALUATION
J. SCOTT ARMSTRONG, PH.D
UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA
ROBERT ASHWORTH
CLEARSTACK LLC
ISMAIL BAHT, PH.D
UNIVERSITY OF KASHMIR
COLIN BARTON
CSIRO (RETIRED)
DAVID J. BELLAMY, OBE
THE BRITISH NATURAL ASSOCIATION
JOHN BLAYLOCK
LOS ALAMOS NATIONAL
LABORATORY (RETIRED)
EDWARD F. BLICK, PH.D
UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA (EMERITUS)
SONJA BOEHMER-CHRISTIANSEN, PH.D
UNIVERSITY OF HULL
BOB BRECK
AMS BROADCASTER OF THEYEAR 2008
JOHN BRIGNELL
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHAMPTON (EMERITUS)
MARK CAMPBELL, PH.D
U.S. NAVAL ACADEMY
ROBERT M. CARTER, PH.D
JAMES COOK UNIVERSITY
IAN CLARK, PH.D
PROFESSOR, EARTH SCIENCES
UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWA, OTTAWA, CANADA
ROGER COHEN, PH.D
FELLOW,AMERICAN PHYSICAL SOCIETY
PAUL COPPER, PH.D
LAURENTIAN UNIVERSITY (EMERITUS)
PIERS CORBYN,MS
WEATHER ACTION
RICHARD S. COURTNEY, PH.D
REVIEWER, INTERGOVERNMENTAL
PANEL ON CLIMATE CHANGE
UBERTO CRESCENTI, PH.D
PAST-PRESIDENT, ITALIAN GEOLOGICAL SOCIETY
SUSAN CROCKFORD, PH.D
UNIVERSITY OFVICTORIA
JOSEPH S. DâALEO
FELLOW,AMERICAN METEOROLOGICAL SOCIETY
JAMES DEMEO PH.D
UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS (RETIRED)
DAVID DEMING, PH.D
UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA
DIANE DOUGLAS, PH.D
PALEOCLIMATOLOGIST
DAVID DOUGLASS, PH.D
UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER
ROBERT H. ESSENHIGH
E.G. BAILEY EMERITUS
PROFESSOR OF ENERGY CONVERSION
THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY
CHRISTOPHER ESSEX, PH.D
UNIVERSITY OFWESTERN ONTARIO
JOHN FERGUSON, PH.D
UNIVERSITY OF NEWCASTLE
UPON TYNE (RETIRED)
EDUARDO FERREYRA
ARGENTINIAN FOUNDATION FOR
A SCIENTIFIC ECOLOGY
MICHAEL FOX, PH.D
AMERICAN NUCLEAR SOCIETY
GORDON FULKS, PH.D
GORDON FULKS AND ASSOCIATES
LEE GERHARD, PH.D
STATE GEOLOGIST, KANSAS (RETIRED)
GERHARD GERLICH, PH.D
TECHNISCHE UNIVERSITAT BRAUNSCHWEIG
IVAR GIAEVER, PH.D
NOBEL LAUREATE, PHYSICS
ALBRECHT GLATZLE, PH.D
SCIENTIFIC DIRECTOR, INTTAS
(PARAGUAY)
WAYNE GOODFELLOW, PH.D
UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWA
JAMES GOODRIDGE
CALIFORNIA STATE CLIMATOLOGIST (RETIRED)
LAURENCE GOULD, PH.D
UNIVERSITY OF HARTFORD
VINCENT GRAY, PH.D
NEW ZEALAND CLIMATE COALITION
WILLIAM M. GRAY, PH.D
COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY
AMERICAN ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE
KESTEN GREEN, PH.D
MONASH UNIVERSITY
WILL HAPPER, PH.D
PRINCETON UNIVERSITY
HOWARD C. HAYDEN, PH.D
UNIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUT (EMERITUS)
BEN HERMAN, PH.D
UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA (EMERITUS)
MARTIN HERTZBERG, PH.D.
U.S. NAVY (RETIRED)
DOUG HOFFMAN, PH.D
AUTHOR, THE RESILIENT EARTH
BERND HUETTNER, PH.D
OLE HUMLUM, PH.D
UNIVERSITY OF OSLO
A. NEIL HUTTON
PAST PRESIDENT, CANADIAN SOCIETY
OF PETROLEUM GEOLOGISTS
CRAIG D. IDSO, PH.D
CENTER FOR THE STUDY OF CARBON DIOXIDE
AND GLOBAL CHANGE
SHERWOOD B. IDSO, PH.D
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE (RETIRED)
KIMINORI ITOH, PH.D
YOKOHAMA NATIONAL UNIVERSITY
STEVE JAPAR, PH.D
REVIEWER, INTERGOVERNMENTAL
PANEL ON CLIMATE CHANGE
STEN KAIJSER, PH.D
UPPSALA UNIVERSITY (EMERITUS)
WIBJORN KARLEN, PH.D
UNIVERSITY OF STOCKHOLM (EMERITUS)
JOEL KAUFFMAN, PH.D
UNIVERSITY OF THE SCIENCES,
PHILADELPHIA (EMERITUS)
DAVID KEAR, PH.D
FORMER DIRECTOR-GENERAL,
NZ DEPT. SCIENTIFIC AND
INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH
RICHARD KEEN, PH.D
UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO
DR. KELVIN KEMM, PH.D
LIFETIME ACHIEVERS AWARD,
NATIONAL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
FORUM, SOUTH AFRICA
MADHAV KHANDEKAR, PH.D
FORMER EDITOR, CLIMATE RESEARCH
ROBERT S. KNOX, PH.D
UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER (EMERITUS)
JAMES P. KOERMER, PH.D
PLYMOUTH STATE UNIVERSITY
GERHARD KRAMM, PH.D
UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA FAIRBANKS
WAYNE KRAUS, PH.D
KRAUS CONSULTING
OLAV M. KVALHEIM, PH.D
UNIV. OF BERGEN
ROAR LARSON, PH.D
NORWEGIAN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE
AND TECHNOLOGY
JAMES F. LEA, PH.D
DOUGLAS LEAHY, PH.D
METEOROLOGIST
PETER R. LEAVITT
CERTIFIED CONSULTING METEOROLOGIST
DAVID R. LEGATES, PH.D
UNIVERSITY OF DELAWARE
RICHARD S. LINDZEN, PH.D
MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE
OF TECHNOLOGY
HARRY F. LINS, PH.D.
CO-CHAIR, IPCC HYDROLOGY AND
WATER RESOURCESWORKING GROUP
ANTHONY R. LUPO, PH.D
UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI
HOWARD MACCABEE, PH.D,MD
CLINICAL FACULTY, STANFORD MEDICAL SCHOOL
HORST MALBERG, PH.D
FREE UNIVERSITY OF BERLIN
BJORN MALMGREN, PH.D
GOTEBURG UNIVERSITY (EMERITUS)
JENNIFER MAROHASY, PH.D
AUSTRALIAN ENVIRONMENT FOUNDATION
JAMES A MARUSEK
U.S. NAVY (RETIRED)
ROSS MCKITRICK, PH.D
UNIVERSITY OF GUELPH
PATRICK J.MICHAELS, PH.D
UNIVERSITY OFVIRGINIA
TIMMOTHY R.MINNICH,MS
MINNICH AND SCOTTO, INC.
ASMUNN MOENE, PH.D
FORMER HEAD, FORECASTING
CENTER,METEOROLOGICAL
INSTITUTE, NORWAY
MICHAEL MONCE, PH.D
CONNECTICUT COLLEGE
DICK MORGAN, PH.D
EXETER UNIVERSITY (EMERITUS)
NILS-AXEL MÃRNER, PH.D
STOCKHOLM UNIVERSITY (EMERITUS)
DAVID NOWELL, D.I.C.
FORMER CHAIRMAN, NATO
METEOROLOGY CANADA
CLIFF OLLIER, D.SC.
UNIVERSITY OFWESTERN AUSTRALIA
GARTH W. PALTRIDGE, PH.D
UNIVERSITY OF TASMANIA
ALFRED PECKAREK, PH.D
ST. CLOUD STATE UNIVERSITY
DR. ROBERT A. PERKINS, P.E.
UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA
IAN PILMER, PH.D
UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE (EMERITUS)
BRIAN R. PRATT, PH.D
UNIVERSITY OF SASKATCHEWAN
JOHN REINHARD, PH.D
ORE PHARMACEUTICALS
PETER RIDD, PH.D
JAMES COOK UNIVERSITY
CURT ROSE, PH.D
BISHOPâS UNIVERSITY (EMERITUS)
PETER SALONIUS M.SC.
CANADIAN FOREST SERVICE
GARY SHARP, PH.D
CENTER FOR CLIMATE/OCEAN
RESOURCES STUDY
THOMAS P. SHEAHAN, PH.D
WESTERN TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
ALAN SIMMONS
AUTHOR, THE RESILIENT EARTH
ROY N. SPENCER, PH.D
UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMAâHUNTSVILLE
ARLIN SUPER, PH.D
RETIRED RESEARCH
METEOROLOGIST, U.S. DEPT.
OF RECLAMATION
GEORGE H.TAYLOR,MS
APPLIED CLIMATE SERVICES
EDUARDO P. TONNI, PH.D
MUSEO DE LA PLATA (ARGENTINA)
RALF D.TSCHEUSCHNER, PH.D
DR.ANTON URIARTE, PH.D
UNIVERSIDAD DEL PAISVASCO
BRIANVALENTINE, PH.D
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
GOSTAWALIN, PH.D
UNIVERSITY OF GOTHENBURG (EMERITUS)
GERD-RAINERWEBER, PH.D
REVIEWER, INTERGOVERNMENAL
PANEL ON CLIMATE CHANGE
FORESE-CARLOWEZEL, PH.D
URBINO UNIVERSITY
EDWARD T.WIMBERLEY, PH.D
FLORIDA GULF COAST UNIVERSITY
MIKLOS ZAGONI, PH.D
REVIEWER, INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL
ON CLIMATE CHANGE
ANTONIO ZICHICHI, PH.D
PRESIDENT,WORLD FEDERATION OF SCIENTISTS
Did you get that? 12 times the number of U.N. scientists who authored the official IPCC 2007 report!!
[here](http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_…) is a link to that report.
just taking random statements from random "scientists" is a different thing, than having them participate in writing a report.
i simply love this downplaying of the number of scientist participating in the IPCC reports. (focus on "lead" authors only, just look at the summary for policy makers, dismiss the "political" reviewers) while at the same time accepting every idiot who signs a denialist list. (as always, some people will be very surprised to find their name on this one..)
Ray @ 339:
> Am I dreaming, or is this consensus which many of you guys consider so persuasive, beginning to crumble?
Just putting the term "650 leading scientists" into google is enough to turn up links from *months* ago comprehensively debunking your last ridiculous post, including posts *on this very blog*.
As a "skeptic", one would have thought you would have *at the very least* done that, rather than credulously accepting that drivel.
Perhaps the time has come for you to accept that you are "in denial". If only someone could arrange an intervention.
so is Ernst-Georg Beck on that list? you bet!
German scientist Ernst-Georg Beck, a biologist, authored a February 2007 paper entitled 180 Years of Atmospheric C02 Analysis by Chemical Methods that found
levels of atmospheric CO2 levels were not measured correctly possibly due to the fact
that they measurements did not fit with hypothesis of man-made global warming.
so yes, if "school teachers" are leading scientists, you have a list...
ps: jennifer marohasy is in the list you copy pasted above. are you trying to be funny?
Thanks Ray,
Where are getting [this stuff?](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/12/more_on_inhofes_alleged_list_o…)
> The sources and sinks for CO2 have been extensively explored. You don't seem to realize this
>Posted by: Barton Paul Levenson
No, he DOES realise it. He also realises that this doesn't support his argument.
"Ignoring" doesn't mean "fails to realise".
Denialists are getting desperate. They don't care any more if their arguments don't work, it's sufficient that arguments are made, no matter their worth.
Desperation.
> I'm skeptical of everything, including your ability to read my posts.
Let us have five minutes silense for the LOLcats who died after Ray posted that.
Side splitting irony.
Ray said:
Why consider just summer? Here's a thought experiment for you. If it's a clear day in cold of winter, is it warmer or colder the following day if the sky is covered with cloud?
And here's another thought experiment for you. If it's a clear day in heat of summer, is it warmer or colder that evening if the sky is covered with cloud?
Oh, and with respect to your "thought experiment", do you understand the fatal flaw in your comparison of a cloudy summer day to the mechanism of non-water GHG warming? Hint: clouds are droplets of liquid, and are not gaseous...
Oh, and [Bellamy](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/03/david_bellamy_rejects_peer-rev…), amongst many of the others, is not a climatologist. More importantly though, do you actually know how many scientists were referenced in the fourth IPCC report?
Ray could possibly profit from a visit by OBVIÃUSMAN!
Umm, Ray, Richard Courtney does not have a PhD. Thats one error I spotted within a second of looking at it.
re: #334 Jeff
On aid:
Chavez I'm not so keen on (plusses & minuses), as an instance of the typical "oil curse", as per Michael Klare, recommended. Replacing bad A with different B doesn't guarantee that B is uniformly good. A while back at JQ, I mentioned Terry Karl, a very insightful & articulate person, and a *useful* political scientist.
Her talk on the "resource curse" and the micro-mechanics of its effects was quite enlightening. See The Paradox of Plenty, and she has a shorter version of the talk here, first ~25 minutes.
For anyone interested in development in general, I strongly recommend:
Making World Development Work - Scientific Alternatives to Neoclassical Economic Theory, ed Gregroire Leclerc, Charles A. S. Hall, 2007.
I have a long review there. Try to get your local libraries to order it. (It's big and expensive enough that one would expect only fairly dedicated studiers to buy.)
I'd summarize:
the road to hell is paved with *both* good and bad intentions.
If someone has a history of actually trying to do something for "the poor" in less-developed countries, whether or not their ideas are optimal, one can actually believe they believe what they are saying.
Ex: Norman Borlaug, Doctors without Frontiers, (to pick someone local) Jenna Davis.
When libertarian/conservative thinktanks and allies thereof suddenly start saying "Don't do X, it will hurt the poor of the world", let us say there might be an element of skepticism about the real priority of helping the poor, as I noted in here.
Re: Ray #341,
Rabett has turned his eye to CATOs latest
 (wrong url on previous comment) This
Rabett
has turned his eye to CATOs latest
Ray, the majority of the people on your list are NOT climatologists. Just with a cursory glance I saw two astronomers (Akasofu and Boehm-Christiansen) and a physicist. Having a Ph.D. doesn't make you an expert on climate science, it depends on what the Ph.D. is IN.
Bernard,
Clouds, despite being made up of droplets of liquid water (or ice), do indeed have a greenhouse effect, and a strong one (Hadley CRU's model uses 130 m^2/kg for low and middle clouds and 65 m^2/kg for high clouds, for everything from 4 microns up). But in practice, their greenhouse effect is usually outweighed by their albedo effect, at least for low and middle clouds.
Shorter Ray:
To show what a skeptic I am, I'll simply cut and paste the names from the Cato Institute's Orgone Petition!
Remember, do not even try to criticize of any of the statements of any of the people listed in the Orgone Petition. Any criticism, no matter how well-grounded in science and logic, is obviously proof of an Inquisition-like conspiracy to suppress the Galilean truth. This is the spirit of skepticism.
"A few posts ago, someone asked me if I could name a single qualified climatologist who was skeptical of the consensus view of anthropogenic warming....
You'll notice that there are quite a few Ph.D.s in this list, and many of the disciplines are related to climate change.
...I'm sure you can find one or two scientist here to deride. Dig up some dirt or misrepresent their religious views." - Ray
hhmm, "related to climate change". Like the way night is related to day?
"one or two" not to deride would be the challenge, once you get rid of all the non-scientists in the list.
But it's always jolly good fun to take a look at the menageries put together by the Ray's.
I thought I'd pick one close to home, and the non-specific PhD (deliberate, I presumed) caught my eye - "KESTEN GREEN, PH.D MONASH UNIVERSITY"
So, what's the "related" PhD?
Let me build it up. Victoria Uni, Wellington..... Victoria Management School.....Thesis - Forecasting Decisions in Conflicts.
Very interesting I'm sure, but SFA to do with Climate Science.
Though Kesten is not without his own delusions on the topic, having published the must-read "Global Climate Change: Evidence on Causes and Effects".
This neat summary, from the first paragrapgh of this thoroughly researched paper, can save you all a lot of wasted time reading those silly science journals,
"Scientists disagree over what causes the Earthâs climate to change because the mechanisms are unknown or poorly understood, and data are sparse and unreliable. The situation, which could reasonably be characterised as ignorance, provides fertile ground for speculation and thereby for diverse theories to emerge. One theory about
climate change, that mankind is causing the Earth to warm dangerously via the emission of carbon dioxide and the âgreenhouse effectâ, has achieved prominence due to widespread support from politicians and from pressure groups that oppose modern day human activity."
Indeed.
Barton.
It was the albedo aspect of clouds that I was getting at in my response to Ray. I was hoping to elicit from him an acknowledgement that clouds have a variable impact on the passage of EM radiation in terms of reflection versus retention of EMR. However, I suspect that even if he had acknowledged such, he would have predicated it with some comment to the effect that water is a much more 'significant' GHG than is CO2.
You have piqued my curiosity though... Could you provide a reference to a concise precis of the factors that determine the variability in albedo values for clouds?
Ray @ 341
> I'm sure you can find one or two scientist here to deride. Dig up some dirt or misrepresent their religious views.
Congratulations, once again you've managed to answer b) to the first three questions of my hypothetical situation in post 59.
You've basically disregarded all reasonable questioning directed your way, gone on the net, grabbed the something that looks like it might fit, credulously accepted it, thrown it up here without pausing for thought or basic fact-checking (or to even do sufficient due diligence to determine whether or not this forum is already well familiar with this garbage), and pre-emptively dismissed all criticism that might ensue as grubby and elitist.
I wonder how well this chimes with your original oh-so precious dictionary definition of "skeptic".
BPL @355
Akasofu was eminent in aurora physics, which I guess might be grouped within space science or atmospheric science, which I wouldn't usually label as astronomy.
Akasofu seems a sad case, as he retired after a long productive career and ~then went off wholeheartedly into AGW anti-science of notably poor quality, especially for a well-published natural scientist.
Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen (she of Energy and Environment fame, read Thacker's comments) is in the Geography Department @ Hull, although I see she's now listed as Emeritus Reader (i.e., in US terms Associate Professor Emeritus, or Oz/NZ Senior Lecturer Emeritus, I think).
Both are on Heartland's Global Warming Experts' list.
But in any case, as you say, neither is a climate scientist.
It was the albedo aspect of clouds that I was getting at in my response to Ray. I was hoping to elicit from him an acknowledgement that clouds have a variable impact on the passage of EM radiation in terms of reflection versus retention of EMR. However, I suspect that even if he had acknowledged such, he would have predicated it with some comment to the effect that water is a much more 'significant' GHG than is CO2.You have piqued my curiosity though... Could you provide a reference to a concise precis of the factors that determine the variability in albedo values for clouds?Posted by: Bernard J. | June 29, 2009 10:32 AM
Bernard,
I've never claimed to have any special knowledge about climate matters. In fact, until a few months ago I assumed like most of you on this blog that the science was settled and that anyone who disagreed with the predictions in the IPCC reports were either self-interested people aligned with the fossil-energy industries, or simply clueless fools.
I began to have doubts about the soundness of the science for the case of AGW after hearing an ABC radio interview with Professor Plimer claiming that the case for AGW was much exaggerated. I'd heard of Ian Plimer previously in connection with his law suit against a scientist who claimed to have evidence that some fossilised structures on Mt Arafat were the remains of Noah's Ark.
As a geologist and paleontologist, Professor Plimer was so outraged at the unsoundness of the evidence which was being claimed as scientific and being used to support the theory of 'Intelligent Design', that he took the 'Intelligent Design' scientist to court, paying the court costs himself, I believe. Such actions would imply that Ian Plimer is a scientist with integrity, which is why I paid attention to his views on climate matters during the ABC interview.
It's interesting that both Roy Spencer and Ian Plimer would seem to hold a similar degree of skepticism on the AGW issue, yet both would be diametrically opposed on the issue of 'Intelligent Desgn'. However, having read Roy Spencer's views, I get no impression that he may be manipulating scientific evidence on climate matters to support a theory of Intelligent Design. Rather, I get the impression he is using the theory of Intelligent Design to fill in the gaps in the fossil record which would prove conclusively the Theory of Evolution.
If and when such gaps are filled, I think Roy Spencer would ditch his theory of Intelligent Design.
I'm reminded of the recent controvery regarding the discovery of Homo Floresiensis in Indonesia. A few more discoveries like that might cause Roy Spencer to change his mind about Intelligent Design. I get a sense that skeptics tend to have an open mind, unlike most posters in this blog who create the impression of being fanatics.
The issue of negative feed-back of cloud cover I got from Roy Spencer's site at http://www.drroyspencer.com/
Briefly, this is a short extract from his site on the matter:
Research published by us since the IPCC 2007 4th Assessment Report (IPCC AR4) suggests that a major problem exists with most, if not all, of the IPCC modelsâ cloud parameterizations. Cloud parameterizations are greatly simplified methods for creating clouds in climate models. Their simplicity is necessary since the processes controlling clouds are too complex to include in climate models, and yet those same parameterizations are critical to model projections of future global temperatures and climate since clouds determine how much sunlight is allowed into the climate system. Significantly, all 21 IPCC climate models today decrease global average cloud cover in response to any warming influence, such as that from anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions, thus amplifying the small, direct warming effect of more CO2.
In stark contrast, though, new analyses of our latest and best NASA satellite data suggest that the real climate system behaves in exactly the opposite manner. This error, by itself, could mean that future warming projected by these models has been overstated by anywhere from a factor of 2 to 6.
Some of you have asked for references to the views of 'real' climatologists who disagree with the IPCC assessments, implying that they don't exist and that all contrary views are from non-climatologists quoting non-peer reviewed articles.
There's a rather expensive book called: Climate Change Reconsidered
The 2009 Report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) is the most comprehensive objective compilation of science on climate change ever published. It offers a âsecond opinionâ to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), published in 2007. Unlike that report, Climate Change Reconsidered finds global warming is not a crisis, and never was.
Here's another extract from their site at http://www.nipccreport.org/
The scholarship in this book demonstrates overwhelming scientific support for the position that the warming of the twentieth century was moderate and not unprecedented, that its impact on human health and wildlife was positive, and that carbon dioxide probably is not the driving factor behind climate change.
The authors cite thousands of peer-reviewed research papers and books that were ignored by the IPCC, plus additional scientific research that became available after the IPCCâs self-imposed deadline of May 2006.
What I would urge you to do is consider all the evidence as a jury would in a court case. Is there any reasonable doubt that the case for AGW is proven? I think there is.
why would anyone possibly think there is some natural, nonbiological negative feedback mechanism holding the planet at the current temperature, when for the majority of its existence the planet was much warmer; until the carboniferous period, in fact, by what i suppose must appear as a remarkable coincidence to those who did not "drink the koolaid". perhaps the dropping temperatures induced the plants to store up carbon underground to provide heat in the future, thereby lowering carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
Ray,
Who are the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC)? Who do they represent? Who funds them? Why do you use this book as response to those who ask you for publishied peer reviewed science?
Wow. Ray thinks that the "Theory of Intelligent Design" (?!) is suitable matter to "fill in the gaps" of evolution.
Ray, if you think that 'Intelligent Design' is a scientific theory that can be considered alongside evolution, then no wonder you're swallowing a lot of the anti-AGW nonsense.
Wow. Ray thinks that the "Theory of Intelligent Design" (?!) is suitable matter to "fill in the gaps" of evolution.
Ray, if you think that 'Intelligent Design' is a scientific theory that can be considered alongside evolution, then no wonder you're swallowing a lot of the anti-AGW nonsense.
Posted by: Michael | June 30, 2009 2:46 AM
We've already been through this. Where have I written that I think that intelligent Design is suitable matter to fill in the gaps of the theory of evolution?
Obviously some of you guys have difficulty with English comprehension? I disagree with the theory of Intelligent Design just as I disagree with the religious views of Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein, but I don't try to argue that the scientific work of these great scientists is worthless because of their religious views.
Both Newton and Einstein came across difficulties in their scientific work which they were unable to solve or explain and relied upon religious explanations to 'fill in the gaps, as it were.
In fact, Einstein was born after the publication of Darwin's Origin of Species, so it's difficult to appreciate why he would come up with a statement almost 100 years later, in denial of the Theory of Quantum Mechanics, that "God does not play dice".
Bernard J. writes:
Concise? Ouch. It depends on such things as the mean particle size and the size distribution. In general you can assume that the lower down a cloud is in altitude, the higher its albedo will be. For further details see Houghton's "The Physics of Atmospheres" or some such book.
Who are the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC)? Who do they represent? Who funds them? Why do you use this book as response to those who ask you for publishied peer reviewed science?
Posted by: Mark Byrne | June 30, 2009 12:08 AM
Mark,
Some of these question will be answered if you visit their website at http://www.nipccreport.org/aboutNIPCC.html
I don't think you are going to get a comprehensive list of scientists who have contributed research to the project.
Here is a brief introduction explaining why some scientists have asked not to be named.
NIPCC traces its roots to a meeting in Milan in 2003 organized by the Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP), a nonprofit research and education organization based in Arlington, Virginia. SEPP, in turn, was founded in 1990 by Dr. S. Fred Singer, an atmospheric physicist, and incorporated in 1992 following Dr. Singerâs retirement from the University of Virginia.
Originally called âTeam B,â NIPCC was created to provide an independent âsecond opinionâ on the topics addressed by the initial drafts of the IPCCâs Fourth Assessment Report. When the Summary for Policymakers of that report was released in February 2007, âTeam Bâ met again, this time in Vienna, changed its name to NIPCC, and started work on what would become this report.
A score of independent scientists from around the world began to share their research and ideas with Dr. Singer, as they continue to do. Some of these scientists have asked not to be named in NIPCC reports for fear of losing research grants and being blacklisted by professional journals.
As I understand, the views expressed in the NIPCC reports are based on peer-reviewed research. Did you not read my previous post?
I quote again, from the NIPCC website:
The authors cite thousands of peer-reviewed research papers and books that were ignored by the IPCC, plus additional scientific research that became available after the IPCCâs self-imposed deadline of May 2006.
Ray: "I've never claimed to have any special knowledge about climate matters. In fact, until a few months ago I assumed like most of you on this blog that the science was settled and that anyone who disagreed with the predictions in the IPCC reports were either self-interested people aligned with the fossil-energy industries, or simply clueless fools. I began to have doubts about the soundness of the science for the case of AGW after hearing an ABC radio interview with Professor Plimer claiming that the case for AGW was much exaggerated. I'd heard of Ian Plimer previously in connection with his law suit against a scientist who claimed to have evidence that some fossilised structures on Mt Arafat were the remains of Noah's Ark. As a geologist and paleontologist, Professor Plimer was so outraged at the unsoundness of the evidence which was being claimed as scientific and being used to support the theory of 'Intelligent Design', that he took the 'Intelligent Design' scientist to court, paying the court costs himself, I believe. Such actions would imply that Ian Plimer is a scientist with integrity, which is why I paid attention to his views on climate matters during the ABC interview.
OK. Ray, humour me here. Like you, I am not even related to anyone who knows anyone who is remotely related to a climate science type of any description. Hwever, what interests me here is not necessarily science credentials but the process of logic. You point out that Plimer's POV aroused your suspicions regarding the validity of AGW theory, and that his credentials (in your view) lent his POV some weight. Fair enough. For those of us not intimate with the science of climate, the inputs, feedbacks, forcings and their inter-related mechanisms and the role of anthropogenic emissions in changing those mechanisms, that's a reasonably sound standpoint.
What I don't get is this: if your scepticism/ doubts/ reservations/ inquiring mind (delete or fill in as appropriate) were so aroused, by what stroke of reason do you then fail to apply the same standards of scrutiny to Plimer, Spencer, Watts and company, particularly given the detailed criticisms of the fundaments of the scientific bases of all these people from multiple sources? As you point out, Plimer's apparent integrity (and I don't doubt he has that in geological circles) was one of the factors that got you thinking. How is it then, that now that the integrity of Plimer (and Spencer, Watts etc.) in the domain of climate science is in question that you fail to apply the same demanding criteria to these people (given the innumerable refutations of their arguments seen here and elsewhere) that you applied to climate scientists in the first place?
In short, this: if something in what Plimer et al. said convinced you to be sceptical in the first place, how is it you are not equally sceptical of Plimer et al. given the reams of criticisms their statements have since generated?
Ray (368): I don't think you are going to get a comprehensive list of scientists who have contributed research to the [NIPCC] project.
So, applying the same rigour and logic with which you scrutinise IPCC reports, why would you not be at least as sceptical of an organisation (NIPCC) that neglects to name contributory authors, especially given that the IPCC does?
Secondly, if you're also going to use someone's integrity as a validation of your acceptance of someone's POV (as you say you did with Plimer), then why would justified scepticism of Singer's integrity not arouse your suspicions?
(And by "justified", I mean: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=S._Fred_Singer
and:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Heidelberg_Appeal)
Sorry, scrub the closing parenthesis in the last link of my last.
Steve:
> In short, this: if something in what Plimer et al. said convinced you to be sceptical in the first place, how is it you are not equally sceptical of Plimer et al. given the reams of criticisms their statements have since generated?
To preempt Ray's answer - what Plimer et al are peddling is doubt, and it is completely unnecessary for them to win every (or indeed any) arguments or present research that stands up to scrutiny. In a contrived three-way choice, Plimer's argument prevails 66% of the time.
a) You believe truth of the situation lies nearer those critical of Plimer, and accepting of the IPCC assessment report.
b) You believe the truth lies nearer to Plimer's take that there isn't a problem, and if there is it'll be good, or its happened before, or whatever it is he argues depending on which page you look at.
c) You believe truth of the situation lies nearer the middle. Plimer also wins here, because one part of his thesis (and anti-AGW rhetoric in general) is uncertainty and doubt. By falling somewhere in the middle, you're effectively *still* buying Plimer's argument, even if you don't explicitly say so.
So even if Ray were to protest that he is equally skeptical of both sides, that's still just accepting Plimer's representations - because he doesn't care about being 100% right, all that he cares about is that you *don't* accept the IPCC assessment.
And *this* is why actually getting people to open their eyes is so damn hard. Taking the middle road is easy - you can disengage your brain, while still claiming you're more "skeptical" and intellectually superior to those who have fallen nearer to one of the extremes. Explaining to someone in that situation that they're wrong is a sisyphean task, because to them *you are an extremist religious zealot and they are a high-minded moderate*. Having really crazy people on the anti-AGW side really helps them, because it makes the range of opinion wider, thus making the perceived middle position seem ever more reasonable.
What they don't seem to understand is that the IPCC assessment report *is the moderate, watered down position*.
Ray,
You have only told me what the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC)tell you about themselves. [Would you be interested in a bridge I've got for sale? Great views of the Opera House.]
Serious people are looking for credible peer reviewed work.
Eg. Ray, you mention one person and its [Fred Singer](http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=S._Fred_Singer). Do you know who that is?
Dave has it right in 372. If someone were to say that 2+4=4 and someone else were to say, no it's 5, you wouldn't feel OK taking the middle road and saying "Well, maybe it's somewhere in the middle", would you.
Denial only requires that you DON'T believe one is right. You don't have to have a replacement, just deny that the answer is the one put forward.
"It's somewhere in the middle"?
OK, so I want to kill you. You don't want to be killed. Shall we compromise on me cutting your leg off?
Or are you going to be selfish, close-minded and authoritarian and not accept the compromise position?
See how rediculous that idea can be? Sometimes one answer is right and that's it. Not the middle way, not the compromise, but one is right and all others wrong.
Dave (372) - I entirely understand all of the points you raise, and I agree with you. But in this (uncommon) instance I tried to set aside my own values, judgements and assessments, and tried to put myself in the frame of mind that said "If I, like Ray, was genuinely sceptical, why would I not extend that mindset to everyone who claimed to have some expertise in the domain of climate science? If I were truly a sceptic, why wouldn't the repeated, rational and justified criticism of Plimer's assumptions, justifications and flawed logic sow even the first seed of doubt in my mind?"
Dave: So even if Ray were to protest that he is equally skeptical of both sides, that's still just accepting Plimer's representations - because he doesn't care about being 100% right, all that he cares about is that you don't accept the IPCC assessment
For the purposes of my post (and for any genuine discussion Ray might want to enter into as a result), I decided to set aside my own views on what Ray's motives might or might not be. The fact is, the only motives I can reasonably attribute to him are the ones he discloses or, at the outside, the ones a reasonable person might infer from scrutiny of multiple posts of his. Behind that, what motivated my original query were three factors:
1) my own continuing enquiries into the science underlying the theory of climate change (and no, I'm not saying this is laudible in any sense, just what anyone would do if they were interested);
2) developing an understanding of the principles underlying statistical testing and significance (I've just finished a 100-level degree unit in basic statistics, and I will be 50 next year. Some might view that as sufficient grounds for declaring someone as medically insane); and
3) an (occasionally patchy) understanding of the rules of internally consistent logic (not to mention its by-product, scepticism).
Dave: "What they don't seem to understand is that the IPCC assessment report is the moderate, watered down position."
Well exactly. Anyone with both sides of their brains still talking to each other would, in all reason, on examining the IPCC process, conclude that its conclusions are, at best, a political (in all senses of the word) compromise. How do I recognise this is so? My stock-in-trade is as an ecologist, and after 15+ years I can spot one such at 500 yards.
Shorter Ray:
My (non-)arguments have been shot down, namely that...
1. mitigation is more expensive than adaptation
2. the namelist which I simply lifted from the Cato Institute ad is indicative of how 'skeptical' I am
...so I figured I'll just throw out another non-argument -- the NIPCC 'report'!
As a self-proclaimed skeptic, I hereby proclaim myself to be a skeptic.
"Obviously some of you guys have difficulty with English comprehension? I disagree with the theory of Intelligent Design..." - Ray
Ray,
It isn't a theory, so stop calling it one. At least not in the sense that evolution is a theory.......though maybe it is in way that the tooth fairy is a theory in relation to dentistry......
Ray,
It isn't a theory, so stop calling it one. At least not in the sense that evolution is a theory.......though maybe it is in way that the tooth fairy is a theory in relation to dentistry......
Posted by: Michael | June 30, 2009 9:14 AM
I would maintain that my use of the word 'theory' in connection with Intelligent Design, is in accordance with at least one of the definitions of 'theory' in the Oxford English Dictionary.
Here's definition #6. "In a loose or general sense: A hypothesis proposed as an explanation; hence, a mere hypothesis, speculation, conjecture; an idea or set of ideas about something; an individual view or notion."
But I understand your point that the speculation and conjecture of the...err..hypothesis of Intelligent Design should not be elevated to the status of a scientific theory.
Ray,
Likewise, neither should your uneducated and uninformed speculation about what is known and not known about the climate be elevated to the status of rational skepticism.
Further to anybunny's post #354: This link details the research those on both sides of the debate have published http://www.eecg.utoronto.ca/~prall/climate/
An eye-opener for some I'm sure...
Ray,
Likewise, neither should your uneducated and uninformed speculation about what is known and not known about the climate be elevated to the status of rational skepticism.
Posted by: luminous beauty | July 1, 2009 10:56 AM
I see! I'm beginning to understand better the attitude of some of you guys. You think that skepticism is a matter of status; that rational skepticism is a scientific theory; a means of explaining something. That it might be 'cool' to be a skeptic, like wearing a designer T-shirt. Or perhaps you think that one can only be skeptical about some claim or theory after having personally read and scrutinised all available data in all related disciplines, and checkked all such data and measurements for possible errors.
Perhaps you also think that science is a matter of consensus. "Hands up all those climatologists who think that man-made gases are a serious threat to our climate!" The majority says, yes it is a threat. The majority must be right.
I merely consider skepticism as a normal attitude of mind that any good scientist should have. Someone once counted the references to uncertainty in the 2007 IPCC report. There are over 400 of them apparently.
One of the reason why so many scientist who are not climatologist are skeptical about the claims in the IPCC report for policy makers is because, as scientists, they can recognize that the complexity of the subject does not lend itself to certainty. As a result, even the best scientific practices on climate change matters cannot lead to any certainty, no matter how many peer reviews. The claims that anthropogenic emission are the major cause of climate change in our civilisation are a matter of tentative deduction. They may be right. They may not.
People love stories and many people in particularl like scary stories. The newspapers thrive on bad news and exaggerations. Governments also find it very useful to have an external threat to keep the population under control. It enables them to justify unpopular measures. The recent riots in Iran are a case in point. The dictatorship Ayatollah claimed that the unrest and dissatisfaction with the election results, from the Iranians themselves demonstrating peacefully in the streets, was engineered by the evil West and the evil British in particular. Such claims (which one has to be skeptical about, of course) make it easier to justify bringing in the riot police. The tragic consequences of a number of civilians being beaten to death can be considered as casualties of war with those evil Westerners.
Monckton is concerned about this aspect on the AGW adherents. He sees the political process of turning 'uncertain conclusions' about climate change into 'certain conclusions' as being a dangerous tool in the hands of governments. Already, I notice from talk-back radio, there are many people living in parts of Australia that are still in drought, probably the longest drought in their living memory, who seem convinced that the drought will not break until governments start tackling climate change.
Ray,
IPCC and uncertainty.
You are right, they are not 100% certain. They are "only" 95% certain. A one in twenty chance that they are wrong.
Ray, would you bet _everything you own_ on one spin of a roulette wheel? I'll let you pick 2 numbers, that'll give you a slightly better than 1 in 20 chance.
Would you do it?
http://www.daycreek.com/dc/images/1999.pdf
If one studies figure 3 in the above pdf of Antarctic drilling results one can see indeed that there's a correlation between temperature and CO2 and methane concentrations. That fact seems fairly conclusive.
However, reading that graph from the right to the left, from the period of 400,000 years to the present, it is not at all clear which follows which. Does CO2 & CH4 follow temperature rises, or vice versa. It makes a huge difference to the case for AGW.
Considering the imprecision of such data, I can readily appreciate the following introductory statement in this pdf. The italics are mine.
"There is a close correlation between Antarctic temperature and atmospheric concentrations of CO2 and CH4 (refs 5, 9).
This discovery suggests that greenhouse gases are important as amplifiers of the initial orbital forcing and may have significantly contributed to the glacialâinterglacial changes."
Let's consider those words in italics. How close is close on a graph with 10,000 year increments? 10,000 years is about the duration of the entire civilization of mankind. In our present situation, we're worried about the effects of increased GHGs over a 20 year, 50 year and 100 year period.
There are so many points on that graph where increases in GHGs seem to have followed increases in temperature. Even where there appears to be an exact correlation, you only have to out by an amount of 50 or 100 years for the case supporting AGW to collapse.
Of course, I realise this is only one facet of the evidence, but I get the impression that the other evidence is similarly uncertain.
Ray, IPCC and uncertainty. You are right, they are not 100% certain. They are "only" 95% certain. A one in twenty chance that they are wrong.
Ray, would you bet everything you own on one spin of a roulette wheel? I'll let you pick 2 numbers, that'll give you a slightly better than 1 in 20 chance.
Would you do it?
Posted by: stephenk | July 1, 2009 11:26 PM
Good point and an excellent example of the scaremongering that goes on regarding AGW. I thought the certainty was described as 90%, not 95%, but let's not quibble.
I understand that so-called certainty refers to anthropogenic emmisions having a dominant role, ie. greater than 50%. 90% or even 95% of 51% is less than 50%, so that description allows for the possibility that anthropogenic gases may not quite be the dominant factor in climate change.
Factoring in the inevitable politicisation and exaggeration in such wording, in order for politicians to take the climatologists seriously, then the odds in favour of AGW are not nearly as high as you claim. That estimated 90% probability is not a mathematically derived probability, as is the case when you spin a coin you can expect heads approximately 50% of the time.
Factor in also the probability that climate change, whether through anthropogenic causes or not, is not going to be disastrous for everyone, then your roulette analogy is very far-fetched.
Here's what a science writer called McClean had to say about the IPCC processes.
McLean writes, âThe IPCC would have us believe that its reports are diligently reviewed by many hundreds of scientists and that these reviewers endorse the contents of the report. Analyses of reviewer comments show a very different and disturbing story.â
In Chapter 9, the key science chapter, the IPCC concludes that "it is very highly likely that greenhouse gas forcing has been the dominant cause of the observed global warming over the last 50 years". The IPCC leads us to believe that this statement is very much supported by the majority of reviewers. The reality is that there is surprisingly little explicit support for this key notion. Among the 23 independent reviewers just 4 explicitly endorsed the chapter with its hypothesis, and one other endorsed only a specific section.
Moreover, only 62 of the IPCCâs 308 reviewers commented on this chapter at all.
As with other chapters, simple corrections, requests for clarifications or refinements to the text which did not challenge the IPCCâs conclusions are generally treated favourably, but comments which dispute the IPCCâs claims or their certainty are treated with far less indulgence. In a related finding, McLean observes, âThe dominance of research presupposing a human influence also means that the IPCC editing teams are likely to consist of people predisposed to view the situation in that light.â Adds McLean, âThe problems continue into the authorship of these reports.
According to IPCC documents, scientists are nominated by governments or explicitly invited by scientists already associated with the IPCC. What a wonderful way to position scientists who support a government agenda on climate and then fill out the IPCC with like-minded individuals.â Concludes McLean, âThe IPCC reports appear to be largely based on a consensus of scientific papers, but those papers are the product of research for which the funding is strongly influenced by previous IPCC reports. This makes the claim of a human influence self-perpetuating and for a corruption of the normal scientific process.â
Scepticism is a "normal attitude" that "any good scientist [has]".
You obviously have no operational familiarity with the scientific process, or you would understand how scientists test their ideas, and how the process of peer-review attempts to find the weaknesses in methodology, analysis, and interpretation. You obviously have no operational familiarity with statistical analysis, and with null hypotheses, and how 'certainty' is actually quantified to a greater or lesser extent.
And if you are so sceptical, how is it than in your very next two sentences after trying to teach scientists how to suck eggs, you blithely accept that there are "over 400" of these mysterious things called "uncertainties" without stopping to either substantiate the count of these entities, or indeed what they actually are?
Turnip.
Further, you say:
prior to saying:
Erm, Ray, isn't the report that you quote reflecting (by the very words you italicised) the degree of uncertainty that you claimed, immediately prior, climatologists are not taking into account, but that non-climatological scientists perceive (bold)?
And what is your basis for supposing that climatologists do not consider the inherent uncertainty in the data and analyses (on those intermittent occasions when you actually acknowledge their uncertainty, that is)?
Ray, the temperature increase preceeding GHG rise is well understood science. It has nothing to do with AGW, because the mechanisms are completely different. Your 'point' is nonsensical.
Go get yourself an education.
ray: "Does CO2 & CH4 follow temperature rises, or vice versa. It makes a huge difference to the case for AGW."
Well no, Ray, it makes no freaking difference whatsoever to the case for AGW. What makes a difference is if the relationships as observed are consistent with the models, when one inputs the relevant solar forcing changes that drove the initiation of the glacial transitions. (yes, they are.)
Whether initial delta CO2/CH4 leads or lags initial delta temperature DOES make a difference to the ability to use this factoid to attempt to bamboozle people - as ray here illustrates very well.
Ray is uncertain of what the unknowns are, but he DOES know that they will ONLY reduce AGW.
Strange set of beliefs...
Ray @385: I understand that so-called certainty refers to anthropogenic emmisions [sic] having a dominant role, ie. greater than 50%. 90% or even 95% of 51% is less than 50%, so that description allows for the possibility that anthropogenic gases may not quite be the dominant factor in climate change.â
Ray, this is pure... pure... pure... well not to worry. But let me see if Iâve got this right. According to your... your... (sorry, your post seems unaccountably to have disabled my ability to think straight, such is its novelty) arithmetic, anthropogenic sources cannot account for more than 48.45% of emissions. So if (hypothetically) the IPCC had estimated the anthropogenic proportion of emissions at 25%, they would have to be 194% confident, correct?
Do you know, Iâve never seen an analysis like this anywhere in the scientific literature, but then I suppose thatâll be because itâs been suppressed. I wonder why.
Ray: an object lesson in how to draw an exact line from an unwarranted asumption to a foregone conclusion.
Ray writes:
You don't understand what "scientific consensus" means. It's not a majority vote. It's a general recognition of what works and what doesn't, reflected in how many papers get published on a given subject. The scientific consensus and peer review are how modern science works, and it has been a fantastically productive system. People who complain about them generally have a pseudoscience axe to grind. You could even say that a clear indicator that you're talking to a pseudoscience believer is if he starts complaining about peer review or the scientific consensus.
Ray writes:
Please read:
http://BartonPaulLevenson.com/Lag.html
According to your... your... (sorry, your post seems unaccountably to have disabled my ability to think straight, such is its novelty) arithmetic, anthropogenic sources cannot account for more than 48.45% of emissions. So if (hypothetically) the IPCC had estimated the anthropogenic proportion of emissions at 25%, they would have to be 194% confident, correct?
Posted by: Steve Chamberlain | July 2, 2009 6:09 AM
Well, it certainly seems as though my post has disabled your ability to think straight. Sorry about that! However, I would suggest that the IPCC report for policy makers has had something to do with that.
I have never stated or implied that anthropogenic sources cannot account for more than 48.5% of emissions. I have stated and implied that the verbal description (from the IPCC) that anthropogenic gases have a dominant role can mean that as little as 51% of climate change is due to man-made emissions, since 51% dominates 49%.
How certain is the IPCC that man's contribution to climate change is greater than 50%? They are apparently 90% certain, a figure no doubt plucked from the sratosphere.
Any percentage above 50% can be described as a dominant role. 90% of 51% = 45.9%; And, 90% of 100% = 90%.
If the IPCC had estimated the anthropogenic role in global warming as being 25%, they would not have simultaneously been able to describe that role as dominant. Got it?
> How certain is the IPCC that man's contribution to climate change is greater than 50%? They are apparently 90% certain, a figure no doubt plucked from the sratosphere.
And that assumption is no doubt pulled from the opposite of the stratosphere so you can make the assertion...
PS We humans are the dominant species.
Yet by mass we have nothing NEAR the number of even redwood or oak trees. By count, we have nothing like even the most humble insect species.
Yet we're still dominant.
Please read:
http://BartonPaulLevenson.com/Lag.html
Posted by: Barton Paul Levenson | July 2, 2009 7:18 AM
Okay! I've read it. Thanks for the link, Barton.
Here are my comments, for what they're worth.
First, your introduction:
A common argument of global warming deniers goes like this:
Analysis of Greenland, Siberian and Antarctic ice cores shows that, although temperature and carbon dioxide correlate over long periods of time, temperature appears to lead CO2 by an average of 800 years. Cause and effect can't reach back in time, so clearly temperature is the cause and CO2 the effect, not vice versa. Therefore, we don't have to worry about carbon dioxide causing global warming.
A denier might say that, but a skeptic such as myself would say there's something else going on here which perhaps we don't fully understand.
Now, you've provided the explanation that changes in the earth's orbit accounts for much of the change in temperature but not all. You've suggested that an initial increase in temperature results in the oceans releasing CO2, which in turn casues a further increase in temperature, as a result of the greenhouse effect, which in turn causes a further increase in CO2, and so on.
I understand this could be described as positive feedback.
You might be right, but it's still speculation, isn't it? No matter how sophisticated your mathematical calculations, unless you have identified all causes and influences of climate change, including negative feedback as well as positive feedback, there's still a degree of uncertainty about this, isn't there?
In fact you more or less make this point yourself when you write:
"Something amplifies the temperature swing. The most likely candidate is carbon dioxide, which is a greenhouse gas."
By the way, I notice that Roy Spencer has something to say on this issue at http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/06/ice-ages-or-20th-century-warming-it…
I'm a fairly humble sort of person. I admit I don't know who's right, but I reckon I can discern when something is definitely proved or not.
How certain is the IPCC that man's contribution to climate change is greater than 50%? They are apparently 90% certain, a figure no doubt plucked from the sratosphere.
PS We humans are the dominant species.
Yet by mass we have nothing NEAR the number of even redwood or oak trees. By count, we have nothing like even the most humble insect species.
Yet we're still dominant.
Posted by: Mark | July 2, 2009 8:39 AM
Dear me! Who said anything about mass? I never mentioned mass in my post, or even volume. Climate is always changing regardless of our activities on the planet.
The IPCC report reckons that our GHG emissions are the dominant cause of any current warming trends. 'Dominant' means an influence on climate change which is greater than 50% of the sum total of all the causes of climate change, doesn't it?
> 'Dominant' means an influence on climate change which is greater than 50% of the sum total of all the causes of climate change, doesn't it?
>
> Posted by: Ray
Nope, it means that nothing else comes close.
Sun: no more than 30% (upper 95% confidence limit) and that's in second place...
> I'm a fairly humble sort of person.
Wipes tears from eyes.
> I admit I don't know who's right,
You do seem to know who's wrong, though.
> but I reckon I can discern when something is definitely proved or not.
> Posted by: Ray
Evidence proves otherwise, Ray.
Ray rambles:
You're showing ever greater misunderstanding about the processes of science.
If there is 'uncertainty' about an interpretation, the most [parsimonious explanation](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor) is accepted as the most appropriate one. You discount such parsimony and favour other (Denialist/Contrarian) explanations, on the basis of what seems "right" to you.
Oh, and just so that you know, science does not "prove" anything. It supports or it refutes, but it does not "prove".
Thus, your abilities to discern "when something is definitely proved or not" are hardly anything to be even humble (gack!) about.
Wurzel.
Ray, Did you read the link I gave in #292? I'd be interested in your thoughts on it...
It was pointed out to me by a friend over dinner this evening that I might have caused offence by my comparisons of Ray to members of the root vegetable group.
If such is the case, I sincerely apologise, and I will in the future endeavour to restrain myself from offending neeps and subterranean brassica stores by comparing them to Ray.
Ray,
Tell me, has Spencer *proved* that some unknown forcing is necessary to explain the Vostok record? All I can see is a conjecture that there is an unquantified possibility of uncertainty (if one constrains the variables to only Milankovich cycles and CO2 and CH4, conveniently ignoring all the other variables we know about) that might allow some unknown, unspecified, and unphysical *internal* forcing that might account for something or other in some imaginary universe where Roy Spencer gets to decide what is plausible, what is included and excluded from analysis, and how it is interpreted.
Call me skeptical.
Bernard,
Don't forget to apologize to the soil in which root crops grow.
Ray writes:
"Proof" is for mathematics and formal logic. Science can never prove anything. It can only disprove things. But when a theory has survived every experimental and empirical test thrown at it for 150 years, it becomes perverse to withhold at least provisional assent.
"Proof" is for mathematics and formal logic. Science can never prove anything. It can only disprove things. But when a theory has survived every experimental and empirical test thrown at it for 150 years, it becomes perverse to withhold at least provisional assent.
Posted by: Barton Paul Levenson | July 2, 2009 3:50 PM
Barton,
Such a pity you weren't around at the beginning of the 20th century to advise Albert Einstein of this fact. I believe the maths he used for his first theory of relativity 'proved' (or at least strongly implied) that the universe is expanding.
Since he was, shall we say, philosophically inclined to believe in a static universe, he distrusted the maths and threw in a constant to make his theory conform with his concept of a static universe. You could have saved him some embarrassment, if you'd been there.
I understand your point that science can only disprove things. I've read some of Karl Poppers writings and I think I grasp the concept of falsifiability.
Which theory are you referring to, that has survied every empirical test thrown at it for 150 years? That CO2 is a greenhouse gas? Climatology as a scientific discipline is fairly new, isn't it?
My concern about this whole issue of AGW is that there are so many factors and influences affecting climate change, so many different explanations for the observed effects, and such a lack of precision about the significance of any anthropogenic contribution to climate change, that the case for AGW does not seem proven.
What I propose is the following experiment. We continue more or less as we are for, say, the next 30 years (or would 50 years be better?), but try to make sensible changes such as developing an affordable and useful electric car because we're running out of oil. We try to clean up our act regarding industrial pollution because it creates smog in our cities which is not good for our health. We try to change our farming practices so they have a less harmful effect on our environment, perhaps moving towards eating more kangaroo meat instead of beef and mutton, for example.
In short, we acting sensibly, showing respect for our environment, as we should be doing irrespective of any AGW considerations, and try to make a gradual transition towards less reliance on non-renewable energy resources but without dislocating the economy.
During the 30 year (or 50 year) period, we observe any increase in catastrophic weather patterns which may be unprecedented. Perhaps we'll notice a greater frequency of category 5 cyclones or a greater frequency of record-breaking temperatures. Perhaps The Esplanade in Surfers Paradise will begin to be frequently flooded with sea water during high tide. Most of the posters in this blog will then start screaming, "We told you so! Why didn't you listen to us?" However, the case for AGW will still not be proven.
In order to be sure that such increases in catastrophic weather events are caused by our GHG emissions rather than natural causes, we'll have to go back in time 30 years and do everything again except this time we'll all do are untmost to reduce our CO2 and CH4 emissions as fast as possible.
We'll probably need a world dictatorship to enforce the stringent policies required to reduce our emissions to any significant degree that is likely to make a difference, especially if the 'dominant' role played by man-made gas emissions (as described by the IPCC) is dominant only in relation to each of half a dozen other natural causes.
If, during the course of this second attempt, we observe less frequent occurrences of category 5 cyclones etc., then the case for AGW will be proved.
On second thoughts, maybe there's a flaw in this argument. Can anyone see it?
Yes. I've got it! In order for the case to be really proven, our behaviour during the repeat of the 30 year period would have to be approximately the same with regard everything except the level of our GHG emissions. Somehow, I just don't think that would be possible, knowing what I think I know about human nature. But maybe that's just quibbling.
Eg. Ray, you mention one person and its [Fred Singer](http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=S._Fred_Singer). Do you know who that is?
Ray write:
Ray, who decides what sensible is?
Can you prove that we are running out of oil? I donât think we will ever run out of oil
How do you know there is more pollution now than in the past?
Can you prove smog is bad for our health?
What on earth do you mean by âshowing respect for our environmentâ? This is a nonsense use of words that means nothing and hence leads to acting the same.
What do you mean by dislocating the economy? You mean without giving 12 trillion dollar to bankers?
Rays Great argument:
Shorter Ray: AGW can never be proven, thus no matter the risks nor the weight of evidence we should continue spinning arguments for inaction until we can prove AGW with 100% certainty (which cannot be proven.).
Another Shorter Ray:
I propose an experiment to prove AGW, which also requires time travel for the planet, and which will not prove AGW. In fact I propose writing a stream of consciousness that shows the type of logic rely on.
Bottom line, make no policy change that would that Roy Spenser or Ian Plimer would disagree with.
And Fred Singer,
You can rely of Fred Singer and time travel to justify a 30-50 year experient to ingore the most compentent adivce and overwhemling evidence which indicates massive reductions in CO2e are necceary to avoid pulling the trigger of turning our carbon sinks into carbon sources.
And Fred Singer,
You can rely of Fred Singer and time travel to justify a 30-50 year experiment to ignore the most competent advice and overwhelming evidence which indicates massive reductions in CO2e are necessary to avoid pulling the trigger of turning our carbon sinks into carbon sources.
Ray (391), my mistake, you obviously donât do tongue-in-cheek. Or irony. Nor, going by this...
How certain is the IPCC that man's contribution to climate change is greater than 50%? They are apparently 90% certain, a figure no doubt plucked from the stratosphere. Any percentage above 50% can be described as a dominant role. 90% of 51% = 45.9%; And, 90% of 100% = 90%
... statistics either. You are either revealing genuine ignorance in repeating this mathematical balderdash (in which case do yourself and everyone else here a favour and get familiar with the subject before typing any more asinine rubbish), or egregiously repeating what you know to be a lie. Going by the number of times you type this drivel my moneyâs on the latter.
On the off-chance youâre just genuinely ignorant, a 90% confidence level refers to the degree of confidence in the procedure that resulted in the figure or statistic quoted. It HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH A PROPORTION OR A PERCENTAGE â GOT THAT??? Your â90% of 51%â âargumentâ is complete bollox, the sort of error a schoolboy would wet themselves laughing at. To repeat this 3rd grade maths error over and again shows either a terminal lack of familiarity with statistical terms (or at the very least abject failure to read footnotes 6 & 7 on page 6 of ar4-wg1-spm), or a blind determination to try to fool others.
Shame Tim doesnât have a Stupid filter on this site, then we wouldnât have to put up with this level of witless inanity every time you post.
Ray: Ab initio, ad sepulchrum, stupid.
Here's the link I fluffed above:
http://web.mac.com/statsmonkey/APStats_at_LSHS/YMS2e_files/Chapter10.pdf
Steve Chamberlain (#411), your link didn't work again. [Here](http://web.mac.com/statsmonkey/APStats_at_LSHS/YMS2e_files/Chapter10.pdf) it is.
Will the Rays of this world read it?
Alas, no.
Ray:
> Which theory are you referring to, that has survied every empirical test thrown at it for 150 years? That CO2 is a greenhouse gas?
Oh sweet Darwin, will you please at least google Arrhenius?
> What I propose is the following experiment.
Its a good job you weren't in charge of the moon landings.
"Since we can't precisely model the gravitational effect of every single body in our solar system, we're just going to fire a rocket and hope for the best."
Gaz (412), thanks. I think by that point the needle on my brain temperature gauge was pointing to the red bit where it says "Caution. Extreme overload. Evacuate".
Will the Rays of this world read it? Alas, no.
Sigh...
Dave -
But don't you know, Arrhenius was part of the Vast Left Wing Conspiracy To Take Away Americas Cars.
Ray writes:
No, not even remotely. Climate science is older than quantum mechanics or relativity.
Aristotle divided the globe into frozen, temperature, and torrid zones c. 300 BC.
Torricelli invented the barometer and noted the decrease of pressure with altitude c. 1600. Continuous temperature records began to be taken in central England c. 1650.
Jean-Baptiste Joseph Fourier proposed the existence of the greenhouse effect in 1824.
Louis Agassiz demonstrated that there had been ice ages in the 1850s. John Tyndall identified the major greenhouse gases in the Earth's atmosphere as water vapor and carbon dioxide in 1859.
Svante Arrhenius proposed the theory of anthropogenic global warming and made the first estimate of temperature increase under doubled carbon dioxide in 1896.
Aldrich Dines came up with the first detailed energy budget for the climate system in 1917.
Hulton devised the first theoretical structure for a radiative-convective model of the atmosphere in 1931. G.S. Callendar noted the increase of carbon dioxide since the 19th century and again proposed AGW in 1938.
Smagorinsky et al. wrote the first tentative general circulation model of the Earth's atmosphere in 1955. The same year, Hans Suess detected the radioisotope signature of fossil fuel CO2 in year, confirmed more strongly in a paper with Roger Revelle in 1957. In 1956, Gilbert N. Plass definitively answered the "saturation" argument against AGW (though the clinching data had been acquired in the 1940s). In 1958, regular CO2 observations began at Mauna Loa observatory in Hawaii.
I'll stop there since that roughly covers the field for the two millennia before my birth in 1960.
Ray writes:Climatology as a scientific discipline is fairly new, isn't it?
No, not even remotely. Climate science is older than quantum mechanics or relativity.
Aristotle divided the globe into frozen, temperature, and torrid zones c. 300 BC.
Posted by: Barton Paul Levenson | July 3, 2009 7:38 AM
Barton,
Did you miss the scientific discipline bit? This is why I'd like to put such phrases, sentences or paragraphs in bold. But I've been criticised for doing that, so I've refrained.
The ancient Greeks did not know about the scientific method. They should be revered for pioneering a skeptical and questioning approach. However, because they did not 'hit upon' the scientific method as we now understand it, they accepted as reasonable a whole lot of tripe, such as the theory that we see because of our eyes project a beam of light upon the object we are looking at.
For the benefit of others, I'll copy and paste a brief description of the scientific method, which I think is reasonably comprehensive, although you may wish to add to it or amend it.
"Science is the study of the physical world, but it is not just a topic, a subject, a field of interest. It is a disciplineâa system of inquiry that adheres to a specific methodologyâthe scientific method.
In its basic form, the scientific method consists of seven steps:
1) observation;
2) statement of a problem or question;
3) formulation of a hypothesis, or a possible answer to the problem or question;
4) testing of the hypothesis with an experiment;
5) analysis of the experimentâs results;
6) interpretation of the data and formulation of a conclusion;
7) publication of the findings.
One can study phenomena without adhering to the scientific method, of course. The result, however, is not science. It is pseudoscience or junk science."
Probably the first true scientist in the history of humanity was a Moslem. He lived over a 1,000 years ago when we in the West were drowning witches, burning heretics at the stake and trying donkeys in court for sodomy.
He 'falsified' (disproved) many of Aristotle's theories, and got a head start on Isaac Newton.
His name? Abu Ali al-Hasan, or, ibn al-Hasan, or, ibn al-Haytham, whatever transcription you fancy.
What is also remarkable is that he was apparently a devout Muslim, unlike Omar Khayyam, who was a bit (or a lot) irreverent.
This is another reason why I do not discount Roy Spencer's arguments simply because he has a penchant for Intelligent Design.
Torricelli invented the barometer and noted the decrease of pressure with altitude c. 1600. Continuous temperature records began to be taken in central England c. 1650.Jean-Baptiste Joseph Fourier proposed the existence of the greenhouse effect in 1824.Louis Agassiz demonstrated that there had been ice ages in the 1850s. John Tyndall identified the major greenhouse gases in the Earth's atmosphere as water vapor and carbon dioxide in 1859.Svante Arrhenius proposed the theory of anthropogenic global warming and made the first estimate of temperature increase under doubled carbon dioxide in 1896.Aldrich Dines came up with the first detailed energy budget for the climate system in 1917.Hulton devised the first theoretical structure for a radiative-convective model of the atmosphere in 1931. G.S. Callendar noted the increase of carbon dioxide since the 19th century and again proposed AGW in 1938.Smagorinsky et al. wrote the first tentative general circulation model of the Earth's atmosphere in 1955. The same year, Hans Suess detected the radioisotope signature of fossil fuel CO2 in year, confirmed more strongly in a paper with Roger Revelle in 1957. In 1956, Gilbert N. Plass definitively answered the "saturation" argument against AGW (though the clinching data had been acquired in the 1940s). In 1958, regular CO2 observations began at Mauna Loa observatory in Hawaii.I'll stop there since that roughly covers the field for the two millennia before my birth in 1960.Posted by: Barton Paul Levenson | July 3, 2009 7:38 AM
These guys were not climatologists. They were mostly mathematicians, physicists and chemists. Some of them got a bit close to being climatologists, such as Smagorinsky and Roger Revelle. I say this not to diminish in any way their achievements, but just to get the facts straight.
Ray has read what the scientific method is.
Pity his comprehension of such is not engaged...
What I propose is the following experiment. We continue more or less as we are for, say, the next 30 years (or would 50 years be better?), but try to make sensible changes such as developing an affordable and useful electric car because we're running out of oil. We try to clean up our act regarding industrial pollution because it creates smog in our cities which is not good for our health. We try to change our farming practices so they have a less harmful effect on our environment, perhaps moving towards eating more kangaroo meat instead of beef and mutton, for example.
the 30 (50!!!) idea is simply stupid. you definitely< should look at the calculations. it makes a 3°C change basically inevitable, and a bigger change likely.
such an experiment is simply STUPID!
the science of climate is old. as is the scientific method. those scientists who agree with the theory have been using the scientific method all along. you are a denilaist, if you8 disagree with this!!!
Ray:
You don't need to be a climatologist to do climatology, a distinction that Ray is too dumb to realize. BTW, medieval Chinese scientist Shen Kuo (1031-1095 AD) theorized that climates naturally shifted over an enormous span of time, after observing petrified bamboos found underground near Yanzhou (modern day Yan'an, Shaanxi province), a dry climate area unsuitable for the growth of bamboo trees.
Ray is too gullible to care that Spencer is a fraud.
Shorter Ray:
The first True Scientist⢠was a Muslim. Therefore, by the scientific method, it follows that Roy Spencer's theories have validity. Here is the detailed proof.
> 2) statement of a problem or question;
Question: Is Spencer a climate crank?
> 3) formulation of a hypothesis, or a possible answer to the problem or question;
Hypothesis: Spencer is not a climate crank.
> 4) testing of the hypothesis with an experiment;
Experiment: Look for the first True Scientistâ¢, for some arbitrary designation of the word "True".
> 5) analysis of the experimentâs results;
Results: The first True Scientist⢠was a Muslim.
> 6) interpretation of the data and formulation of a conclusion;
Conclusion: Therefore, Spencer is not a climate crank. Quo errat demonstrator.
> 7) publication of the findings.
Abstract: We present a proof that climatologist Roy Spencer is not a climate crank. Our novel contribution is the use of Ray's extension of the scientific method, which examines the validity of Spencer's theories using the properties of the first true scientist. ...
Ray writes:
The Witch Trials were largely confined to the Renaissance, roughly 1450-1650 AD. By and large the Christian theologians of the middle ages did not believe in witchcraft, as is clear from contemporary documents such as the laws of King Coloman or De Tonitruorum.
Your point about Aristotle is correct to some extent; he certainly favored pure reason over empiricism. But his division of the world into climate zones was certainly based on the empirical observations of travelers. And once you get to Fourier and Agassiz, you are definitely dealing with modern, quantitative science. This makes climatology, as I said, older than either quantum mechanics or relativity. It is not a new field.
Ray writes:
Probably the first true scientist in the history of humanity was a Moslem. He lived over a 1,000 years ago when we in the West were drowning witches, burning heretics at the stake and trying donkeys in court for sodomy.
The Witch Trials were largely confined to the Renaissance, roughly 1450-1650 AD. By and large the Christian theologians of the middle ages did not believe in witchcraft, as is clear from contemporary documents such as the laws of King Coloman or De Tonitruorum.
Posted by: Barton Paul Levenson | July 4, 2009 6:40 AM
That's even worse! 200-400 years after the first true scientist (born in Basra, now in Iraq) had published his experiments debunking many of Aristotle's theories, we in Europe were still burning witches and heretics.
Your point about Aristotle is correct to some extent; he certainly favored pure reason over empiricism. But his division of the world into climate zones was certainly based on the empirical observations of travelers. And once you get to Fourier and Agassiz, you are definitely dealing with modern, quantitative science. This makes climatology, as I said, older than either quantum mechanics or relativity. It is not a new field.
Posted by: Barton Paul Levenson | July 4, 2009 6:40 AM
When I say 'climatology' is a new discipline of science, I mean that the people you quoted who made observations about climate are not described as climatologists, just as Professor Ian Plimer is not.
The point I'm trying to make, which I think is very valid and pertinent, is that the science of climate prediction is relatively new and requires an input from many disciplines, including inputs from scientists like Fourier and Agassiz.
It could best be described as a 'soft' science like economics and medicine, although of course it relies upon input from the hard sciences, so it should perhaps be considered as a mixture of both hard and soft sciences.
The mistake that most posters in this blog make, is believing that climatology is a 'hard' science like Physics. I sense here, in this blog, a rabid dogmatism that asserts that the science is settled and anyone who questions it is in a state of 'denial', or just plain weird. This is religion; not science.
I don't mind (too much) being called weird or stupid. I'm mature enough to understand that such insults are usually projections onto others of one's own subconscious fears about oneself, which one doesn't want to confront.
> I don't mind (too much) being called weird or stupid.
>
> Posted by: Ray
Just as well, Ray.
You ARE stupid:
> most posters in this blog make, is believing that climatology is a 'hard' science like Physics.
It IS physics. It's a mistake to believe that it isn't. It's stupid to say it isn't physics. And it's denialist crap to say so and use this as the reason why it's not right.
See, you are stupid.
I don't mind (too much) being called weird or stupid.
Posted by: Ray
Just as well, Ray.
You ARE stupid:
most posters in this blog make, is believing that climatology is a 'hard' science like Physics.
It IS physics. It's a mistake to believe that it isn't. It's stupid to say it isn't physics. And it's denialist crap to say so and use this as the reason why it's not right.
See, you are stupid.
Posted by: Mark | July 6, 2009 3:56 AM
The Physics of climate change is no more certain than the mathematical formulas of Professors Robert Merton and Myron Scholes who won Nobel Prizes for their fool-proof and shock-proof valuation of derivatives and options.
We all know what's recently happened to the economy, don't we?
You guys are behaving like lambs for the slaughter.
> You guys are behaving like lambs for the slaughter.
>
> Posted by: Ray
Well you're killing us, Ray.
I need to catch my breath, now...
> The Physics of climate change is no more certain than the mathematical formulas of Professors Robert Merton and Myron Scholes who won Nobel Prizes for their fool-proof and shock-proof valuation of derivatives and options.
Scholes et al were modelling the STOCK MARKET. Where "rational actors" with "full information" act to their own self best interest. I.e. they can look at what's going on and change what they are doing based on what they THINK is going to happen.
This is not physics. That you "think" it is shows how little you care to know or think for yourself.
Climate science doesn't assume that the ice sees the warming air and decides to drop down to avoid melting. It assumes that the elements will act under the forces they experience without knowing the future and being unable to counter it.
That IS physics.
Ray writes:
Correct Ray, relying on your interpretation of "sense" in place of data is more like religion than science.
Ray,
In case you aren't clear on the point, just saying 'I disagree' doesn't rank as a rebuttal, much less a refutation.
Shorter Ray:
Economic models suck, therefore by my perfect skeptic logic, I can predict with 100% accuracy that efforts to stop global warming will kill the economy.
Also, according to the scientific method as interpreted by me, anyone who criticizes me is obviously wrong. This is the spirit of skepticism.
And he talks about a lamb to the slaughter, lots of laughs!
Ray says
Are you mature enough though to understand, Ray, that you project onto others your own lack of comprehension of the hard science involved in the study of climate? No you're really not, are you.
He's never studied it rigorously nor worked in the field and he'll stand for none of that nonsense that appears in the peer-reviewed literature. Why, it's just like economics. Yes of course Ray, whatever you say champ!
It's why you're categorised as undeniably "delusional", Ray.
> In case you aren't clear on the point, just saying 'I disagree' doesn't rank as a rebuttal, much less a refutation.
> Posted by: luminous beauty
Unless you're rerunning a Monty Python skit...
Ray:
I sense here a rabid denial of reality by someone who deliberately ignores the science such as James Annan's derivation of climate sensitivity based purely on observations and instead makes ignorant, rabid and dogmatic claims such as:
That someone who makes such rabid and dogmatic claims accuses others of being rabid and dogmatic demonstrates their enormous hypocrisy.
One must distinguish what part of the science is settled and what part is unsettled and what significance there is in the difference. That the greenhouse effect is real and that humans have added greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, raising the global temperatures by 0.75C or so during the 20th century is settled science. That warming will continue if we continue to pollute the atmosphere is likewise certain. Exactly what effects this will have on a chaotic weather system are not as settled, but effects of one kind or another, mostly disruptive for living organisms, are certain.
Do you believe the unknowns concerning the Higg's boson might upset the settled science of the quantum model so much that your computer will cease functioning?
Ray writes:
1896 is relatively new?
Please read Hartmann's "Global Physical Climatology" or Goody and Yung's "Atmospheric Radiation" and then try to make the same claim.
Here's a good one for the dinner table. What does the stockmarket and climate change have in common?
Answer: Stochastic variability.
Ray,
What does every data series that's ever been have in common with every other data series?
Ray,
What does every data series that's ever been have in common with every other data series?
Posted by: luminous beauty | July 6, 2009 8:23 PM
Inaccuracy and uncertainty, to varying degrees; climate change being high in the range of both factors.
Why are the deniers so in love with the term 'stochastic'??
I think it's because they don't really understand what it means.
Ray:
Stochastic variability is what weather and the stockmarket have in common. Ray still does not understand the difference between weather and climate and probably never will. Climate change has the equation:
Climate change = Climate sensitivity x Climate forcing
What similar equation does the stockmarket have?
> Inaccuracy and uncertainty, to varying degrees; climate change being high in the range of both factors.
> Posted by: Ray
Repeating it doesn't make it true, Ray.
And inaccurate doesn't mean wrong. Uncertain doesn't mean wrong. Do you have the figures on the inaccuracy of climate change? The values for uncertainty?
Since those give you how much you have to follow the results.
Do you HAVE those numbers, Ray?
Ray crows:
Oo, clever you - you found a new word.
The problem is, that whatever source you pilfered the 'stochastic' meme from, forgot to mention that climatological (and ecological, for that matter) stochastic events are not modified by human psychological irrationality in the same manner that stockmarkets are.
Your point is fallacious, and if you don't understand why then you need to garner a year (or several's) worth of education in each of undergraduate climatology, ecology, and economic psychology.
Bernard (442), not to mention statistics
Stochastic is derived from the Greek word 'stochastikos' meaning: skillful in aiming.
Wake me up in 30 years time and tell me whether your 2009 predictions on climate change were accurate.
Helpful attitude Ray,
Wake us up when you've got something to contribute.
> Wake me up in 30 years time and tell me whether your 2009 predictions on climate change were accurate.
> Posted by: Ray
How about HAnsen's prediction on the effect of a large volcanic eruption on global temperatures in his 1981 paper?
15 years ish later, one happened.
The prediction was pretty good.
Even with a crude (by today's standards) model.
Or were you sleeping?
Ray:
As if that's possible.
Ray,
What is inaccuracy and uncertainty in a data series called?
(Hint: stochastic variability)
Such a Sophist you are. From the Greek, meaning wiseass.
Ray's 'education' tells him that:
Apparently, he is blissfully unaware that the scientific/statistical usage, including the context to which he referred without any functional understanding, is [defined](http://www.thefreedictionary.com/stochastic) thus:
Whether they are, or not, will not reflect 'stochacticity' in prediction, but may reflect stochasticity with respect to random impacts upon the final trajectory.
Ray, you do a better job at showing the world what a nong you are, than anyone else here could. Nota bene: claims of Socratic irony are not going to fly...
Are you mature enough though to understand, Ray, that you project onto others your own lack of comprehension of the hard science involved in the study of climate? No you're really not, are you.
Posted by: jemima | July 6, 2009 9:34 AM
No! I'm afraid not. My understanding is that only 'something' can be projected. To project a 'lack' of something is synonymous with projecting nothing. A projection of nothing is no projection at all.
In other words, that which is 'lacking' in a projection, is that which is not projected.
Perhaps you can enlighten me as to how it is possible to project a 'lack' of something, from a scientific point of view.
Ray: Wake me up
As if that's possible.
Posted by: Chris ONeill | July 7, 2009 8:19 AM
Don't you worry, Chris. The collective sound of millions of AGW believers falling flat on their face in a few years time (I hope not a few decades), will be loud enough to wake the dead.
There'll be lots of opportunities for Ph.D. theses in the future, on the topic of how it was possible for so many to be so duped about AGW.
Even the quintessential Australian skeptic and atheist, Phillip Adams, is a believer in AGW. Dear me!
Keep your pseudo-sceptic faith Ray, it seems easier for you than dealing with the science.
Ray's 'education' tells him that:
Stochastic is derived from the Greek word 'stochastikos' meaning: skillful in aiming.
Apparently, he is blissfully unaware that the scientific/statistical usage, including the context to which he referred without any functional understanding, is defined thus:
stochastic 1. Involving or containing a random variable or variables. 2. Involving chance or probability.
Wake me up in 30 years time and tell me whether your 2009 predictions on climate change were accurate.
Whether they are, or not, will not reflect 'stochacticity' in prediction, but may reflect stochasticity with respect to random impacts upon the final trajectory.
Ray, you do a better job at showing the world what a nong you are, than anyone else here could. Nota bene: claims of Socratic irony are not going to fly...
Posted by: Bernard J. | July 7, 2009 9:57 AM
I'm very puzzled why so many of you in this blog show such a lack of understanding of fundamental scientific principles. You obviously know some science, but you seem to be attributing exaggerated degrees of certainty that are not justified by the observations, the modelling and the interpretation, with regard to climate change.
Are you all just teenagers with the hubris, arrogance and certainty flowing from your hormonal changes? Or perhaps this unsubstantiated certainty in the pronouncements of scientists is a consequence of all the marvelous items of modern technology which really do work and take up most of your activities.
I would point out that all these products of science and technology which you enjoy are a result of very stringent empirical testing at all levels. The final product is a result of many, many mistakes and adjustments and fine-tuning. This continual feed-back process with modern products takes place here and now, within a very short time-frame.
Climate change is in a different ball-park. It involves predictions well into the future which cannot be proved, only deduced. We don't have the luxury of finding out 'for real' if a projected sea level rise in 50 years time would in fact happen if we don't reduce anthropogenic GHG emissions.
Apparently, he is blissfully unaware that the scientific/statistical usage, including the context to which he referred without any functional understanding....Whether they are, or not, will not reflect 'stochacticity' in prediction, but may reflect stochasticity with respect to random impacts upon the final trajectory.
Posted by: Bernard J. | July 7, 2009 9:57 AM
Here, Bernard, you are revealing your religious tendencies of accepting issues as being either black or white, right or wrong. This is not science.
Whilst stochastic variability may be more frequently associated with weather, the assumtion that it has nothing to do with climate will probably be one of the reasons why you all will fall flat on your collective face at some time in the future. Have a read of this published paper from A.A. Tsonis and associates.
http://www.uwm.edu/~aatsonis/2007GL030288.pdf
Here's a selective quote expressing the gist of it.
These shifts are associated with
significant changes in global temperature trend and in
ENSO variability. The latest such event is known as the
great climate shift of the 1970s.
Such shifts are associated with
significant changes in global temperature trend and in
ENSO variability. We also find the evidence
for such type of behavior in two climate simulations using a
state-of-the-art model. This is the first time that this
mechanism, which appears consistent with the theory of
synchronized chaos, is discovered in a physical system of
the size and complexity of the climate system.
The more involved I become in this blog, the more convinced I become that religion is playing a strong part in the case for AGW. Personal insults, although they are like water off a duck's back because I'm anonymous, tend to confirm this view.
The overwhelming evidence points to the [extreme risk](http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/assessments-reports.htm) of climate change.
Rays response: We are not able to prove 100% the effects of climate change before they happen, therefore the case for or AGW is disproved and the collective sound of millions of AGW believers falling flat on their face in a few years time (I hope not a few decades), will be loud enough to wake the dead.
Ray, shouldn't you be accusing those of delaying action in face of over-whelming evidence of religious adherence? Our position is supported by very strong evidence. Your argument is trusting (faith) that the evidence will be wrong.
You do prattle on a bit don't you Ray?
Ray
Jemima
Ray
Wikipedia suffices I think, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection
If you say so Ray.
Ray:
A lack of understanding of fundamental scientific principles that would lead someone to say bollocks such as:
and to not realize why Beck's graph is total garbage.
Ray puzzled by a lack of understanding of scientific principles? What a hypocrite.
> Perhaps you can enlighten me as to how it is possible to project a 'lack' of something, from a scientific point of view.
> Posted by: Ray
Easy.
You don't know how climate works, so you think that nobody knows how climate works.
OR
You lie cheat and steal and have no moral compass. So you suspect everyone of not having a moral compass.
OR
You know nothing Ray, but you still manage to put an awful lot of words out about it.
..and to not realize why Beck's graph is total garbage.
Ray puzzled by a lack of understanding of scientific principles? What a hypocrite.
Posted by: Chris O'Neill | July 9, 2009 12:11 AM
Nope. Genuinely puzzled. I've never come across any scientist with such an attitude as yours, separating data and statistics into categories of 'total garbage' and 'not garbage'.
You sound like some fanatic to me.
Ray, shouldn't you be accusing those of delaying action in face of over-whelming evidence of religious adherence? Our position is supported by very strong evidence. Your argument is trusting (faith) that the evidence will be wrong.
Posted by: MAB | July 8, 2009 10:56 PM
Nope. Tackling real and present problems is better policy than spending valuable resources on imaginary, uncertain and probable problems. That's just plain common sense.
Ray,
How do you judge a real and present problem? With evidence? That is what we do.
Nope. Genuinely puzzled. I've never come across any scientist with such an attitude as yours, separating data and statistics into categories of 'total garbage' and 'not garbage'.
the [Beck graph](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/03/remember_eg_becks_dodgy.php) is just the best example of garbage "science" used by denialists.
the graph is contradicted by common sense, by hard facts, and by every scientist out there.
but i am curious Ray:
why does the graph change completely, when accurate measurement begins?
where does the CO2 go, during those massive changes in a short time?
why does the ice core data show the same development that the modern data does? and no wild spikes?
Ray
No! I'm afraid not. My understanding is that only 'something' can be projected. To project a 'lack' of something is synonymous with projecting nothing. A projection of nothing is no projection at all. In other words, that which is 'lacking' in a projection, is that which is not projected. Perhaps you can enlighten me as to how it is possible to project a 'lack' of something, from a scientific point of view.
Wikipedia suffices I think, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection
Posted by: jemima | July 8, 2009 11:04 PM
Nope. The wikipedia entry you refer to does not explain how it is possible to project a 'lack' of something onto someone else, which is what you accused me of doing.
the Beck graph is just the best example of garbage "science" used by denialists.
I've never quoted the Beck graph to support any of my opinions. Climate science is fraught with uncertainty on both sides of the argument. My hope is that common sense will prevail.
_Nope. Genuinely puzzled. I've never come across any scientist with such an attitude as yours, separating data and statistics into categories of 'total garbage' and 'not garbage'._
Strange Ray, how would scientist cope without discerning which data a statistics are inappropriate or distorted of erroneous? How would we have progress if not by employing discernment.
"Nope. The wikipedia entry you refer to does not explain how it is possible to project a 'lack' of something onto someone else, which is what you accused me of doing.
Posted by: Ray"
You don't understand.
This is a "lack" of understanding.
Yet you also assume that others lack understanding in climate science.
This is a projection. You project your lack of understanding and your penchant of still pontificating about things as if you did on others.
You are projecting your lack on to others.
It seems you lack understanding here too...
> I've never come across any scientist with such an attitude as yours, separating data and statistics into categories of 'total garbage' and 'not garbage'.
> Posted by: Ray
Ah, I think I see where Ray's problem is.
He's a frigging idiot.
Ray writes:
>Climate science is fraught with uncertainty on both sides of the argument. My hope is that common sense will prevail.
And Ray will use his faith to discern for the world what common sense is.
Ray, we'll stick with evidence rather than your pronouncements.
Mark,
I think he's earned that label.
I've never quoted the Beck graph to support any of my opinions. Climate science is fraught with uncertainty on both sides of the argument. My hope is that common sense will prevail.
you did not get the message. the Beck graph is FALSE: there is no uncertainty involved. it is simply FALSE.
the "uncertainties" are strongly concentrated on your side of this argument. the claim, that there are similar uncertainties on both sides of the argument is simply FALSE.
Ray,
A lack of something is something.
This was discovered by some Indian guy about 2500 years ago and translated into mathematical notation about 900 years later.
When this discovery was smuggled into Europe in about 1202, it began the transformation of the superstitious nonsense that passed for knowledge into the science we know today.
What do we call this great discovery, Ray?
If you don't know the answer, then know this; a persistent lack of comprehension is equivalent to a boatload of stupid.
That you don't understand something Ray (in this case a Wikipedia entry) means neither that nobody could understand it, nor that people must take the time to try to explain it to you. Perhaps you need to accept that there are things you'll never understand?
> The collective sound of millions of AGW believers falling flat on their face in a few years time (I hope not a few decades), will be loud enough to wake the dead.
Careful Ray. Your "even-handed, on the fence, oh-so-rational moderate skeptic" mask is slipping.
Yup, he's definitely NOT predicated to think it will turn out one way or the other, he's just currently "unconvinced".
Psssh.
yeah.
Reading the recent post on Monbiot's article led me [to this](http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2009/mar/04/climate-change-c…). And I thought of our dear Ray. Especially with I read this:
>How on Earth do we sum up such dim-witted obstinacy in a single phrase?
>Climate change fact-ignorers? A little too cumbersome I think. Climate obfuscators? Better, but still not quite right. Climate change creationists. A suggestion from a friend that I believe sums them up perfectly. Although people have linked the two groups before, as far as I can see no one has used the phrase before.
>Think about it. They operate in very similar ways. They have a fixed position and ignore evidence that does not fit their case. And they cherry-pick shreds of data that do appear to back them up.
>They play up the "it's just a theory" debate just like the creationists and they paint themselves as valiant scientific mavericks who are supposedly ignored and vilified by the establishment.
AHAHAHA. Ray genuine? Some who says bollocks such as:
thinks he's genuine? What a joke.
This is utter nonsense, because there is no such difference. For instance: you need to build a new levee to protect a recently developed coastal area. It needs to last at least 50 years. How high do you build it?
Is anyone already missing Deltoid's little ray of sunshine? Don't fear fans he'll be back, nicely rested and ready for more ideological battle, come Monday! Ray posts only as a professional and only during normal business hours. Why, if he worked weekends as well he'd need to charge someone penalty rates!
Yes Ray takes his weekends off, enjoying a well-deserved break from the dirty work of dealing with you mewling UN-loving envirosocialist rabble all week long.
This is utter nonsense, because there is no such difference. For instance: you need to build a new levee to protect a recently developed coastal area. It needs to last at least 50 years. How high do you build it?
Posted by: Deen | July 10, 2009 4:55 AM
Firstly, if you think there's a danger from rising sea levels, it's not sensible to develop low-lying coastal areas, just as it's not sensible to build in a flood plain.
What seems truly crazy to me is to insist on development in problem areas and then hope that disasters can be prevented by spending huge amounts of resources trying to change the climate of our planet.
Dykes and levees have always been needed throughout civilization, in areas subject to flooding. If you are going to insist on development in such flood-prone regions, then you need lots of cheap energy to build adequate levees. How high? Much higher than the highest flood on record.
Cheap energy can come in the form of cheap labour. China pays the same price for oil and coal as everyone else when they buy it on the world market. But their manufactured goods are very cheap because their labour costs are low. Low labour costs are equivalent to cheap energy.
On the 7pm news this evening, I witnessed Al Gore making pronouncements about lots of new jobs being created in the environment and renewable resources sector as a consequence of our tackling the AGW problem.
That's probably true. New industries create new jobs. They require people with new skills.
However, what is quietly brushed aside and never mentioned, is 'how many old jobs are lost?'.
Those who are good at maths and understand that the concept of zero probably had its origins in India, should also understand that, if 5 new jobs are required to produce the same amount of solar energy as can be produced by coal-powered stations employing one or maybe two people, then those 5 new workers should be paid 1/5th or 2/5ths the wage of the coal employees they replaced, in order for the energy cost to the public at large to remain the same.
A fundamental principle behind our prosperity is that you don't create wealth by doing things less efficiently, but by doing things more efficiently. Employing, say, 5 people to produce a million watt hours from solar energy or wind power, when you could employ just one or two people to produce a million watt hours from burning coal, is doing things less efficiently. The consequence of this is less prosperity.
If you AGW adherents are genuine and serious about reducing anthropogenic GHG emissions, then I'm afraid you will probably have to accept a substantial pay cut, in real terms.
Furthermore, since one cannot reasonably expect the desperately poor, or even the moderately poor, to accept any pay cut whatsoever, the pay cut of the wealthy and the reasonably well-off, will have to be substantial if we are to seriously tackle AGW.
Hands up all those earning between $50,000 and $100,000 per year who are willing to accept a 50% pay cut to save the planet! Hands up all those who are earning more than $500,000 who are willing to accept a 75% pay cut!
See what I mean?
Shorter Ray:
Based on figures that I've just made up, fixing the problem will be too expensive. Therefore the proper thing for skeptics to do is to ignore all the evidence to the contrary.
Ray, you don t understand economic basics.
you are ignoring the external costs of fossil fuels.
3 high tech jobs might be better than 5 low tech ones.
the numbers you made up are simply stupid.
Ray, you don t understand economic basics.
you are ignoring the external costs of fossil fuels.
3 high tech jobs might be better than 5 low tech ones.
the numbers you made up are simply stupid.
Posted by: sod | July 11, 2009 12:59 PM
Well, I think I do understand basic economics and I'm trying to explain it to you.
Our economic prosperity is based upon the production of goods and services as efficiently as possible.
The production of energy is at the basis of all economic activity.
Sitting at my computer, typing this post requires energy; energy to produce and transport the food I eat; energy to process and cook the food I eat; energy to build the house I'm sitting in; energy to build the computer I'm using; energy to mine the minerals from which my computer is made; energy to build the factories where my computer was assembled; energy to fuel the car of the manager of the plant which manufactured my motherboard; energy to produce the bicycles of the Chinese workers who cycle each day to the factories that manufactured my CPU; energy to produce the clothes I'm wearing, etc, etc, etc.
You think of it, energy was required to produce it. Nothing moves in our civilization without an energy cost. Even the homeless living on the streets require clothes, bags and blankets which were manufactured using energy. If those homeless people avail themselves of soup from the charity kitchens, then those kitchens require energy in order to operate, and the people who work in those kitchens require energy to support their life-style.
You should be getting the picture that supplies of energy are our life blood in a modern society. If you want to escape from this situation, you would have to become a 'hunter-gatherer' like the Australian aboriginals used to be.
The increasing prosperity of average citizens in the West, during the past century or so, is due to our harnessing and using the abundant supplies of energy resources, such as coal and oil, and inventing and improving machines that can more efficiently use such energy resources.
The motor car and steam engine were vastly more efficient than the horse and carriage; the tractor and combine harvester were vastly more efficient than the oxen and plough.
Computerised banking is vastly more efficient than old-fashioned banking based on clerks, personal transactions, and paper records only, for everything.
In other words, our increasing prosperity has been based upon rewarding and encouraging efficiency in all matters.
When we do this, there are always winners and losers. But on the whole, the winners outnumber the losers. For example, if we sack 1,000 car workers in order to install a robotised work flow on the factory floor, thus saving costs and producing cars that are not only cheaper but perhaps more consistent quality-wise, then large numbers of people benefit from the lower price and beter quality.
In an expanding, growth economy, the sacked workers get a good chance of being re-employed elsewhere.
This is my view of basic economics. If I'm an idiot, then give me the courtesy of explaining the flaws in my view, as I've tried to do for your view.
The process which is now being promoted to tackle so-called AGW, turns this basic economics on its head.
Carbon trading is designed to penalise and discourage current efficient means of producing energy (through taxation), and subsidise inefficient means of producing energy (solar power, wind power, wave power etc etc) in the hope that such 'clean power' methods will eventually become as efficient as, and hopefully even more efficient than, current methods.
Well, it seems clear to me that a certain degree of religious faith would be required to expect sauch an outcome.
Ray, if you ignore profoundly significant, but externalised, factors when indulging in your arithmetic, you are bound to come to such seductive, and completely unsupportable, conclusions.
You see, if the cost of "employ[ing] just one or two people to produce a million watt hours from burning coal" does not account for the downstream cost of responding to the damage caused by burning coal, it might appear 'more efficient'. However, if the real costs are factored into the debt incurred by those benefiting from burning coal, then "employing, say, 5 people to produce a million watt hours from solar energy or wind power" might be a 'no-brainer', to turn that rather distasteful phrase.
It seems that today's Western consumers are not only infatuated with credit card debt, but with environmental debt as well. But hey, it's easy to palm the repayments off to the future generations - they're not here to quibble about it, are they?
For you information, 12 years ago I left my well-paying work in biomedical research in order to study, and then to work, in ecological science. I did this purely because I believe in the importance of the work that I do. In that time I have taken about an 80% loss of earnings, through being a student and through the pittance that ecologists are paid by comparison to my previous profession.
I have now 'lost' close to half a million dollars in potential earnings, and yet my quality of life is better than it has ever been. There is much that we think we need that we do not, there is much that we can use differently or more efficiently, there is much that we can do for, and produce for, ourselves: and I do all of this because I genuinely intend to do my best in acheiving my part in treading lightly on the planet.
Taking a small cut in income is not difficult for any but the lowest of earners, and I say this as someone who has gone from comfortable 'middle class', to technical 'poverty' on the pay-scale.
So don't try you moral blackmail on me. Instead, you might explain to us what you are doing to be less of a boil on the backside on the biosphere.
You see, if the cost of "employ[ing] just one or two people to produce a million watt hours from burning coal" does not account for the downstream cost of responding to the damage caused by burning coal, it might appear 'more efficient'. However, if the real costs are factored into the debt incurred by those benefiting from burning coal, then "employing, say, 5 people to produce a million watt hours from solar energy or wind power" might be a 'no-brainer', to turn that rather distasteful phrase.
Posted by: Bernard J. | July 12, 2009 9:50 AM
Well, Bernard, that's certainly a valid point which I don't want to disparage.
There are often unknown and unquantifiable consequences of our actions, even on a personal level.
When the advocates of using atomic power claimed it was just as cheap as coal but much cleaner, the atomic power deniers, those who had an emotional objection and fear of atomic power generation, tended to emphasise that the unaccounted cost of disposal of atomic radioactive waste would, in the long run, make it more expensive than coal.
In rebuttal, the atomic power advocates claimed that the health costs of pollution from coal in the air we breathe, in our cities, plus the annual loss of life of workers in coal mines around the world, is far greater than any harmful radiation effects from buried atomic waste.
It's really impossible to get any reliable certainty on such issues. Someone claims that encapsulating atomic reactor waste in Synroc, and then burying it in a geologically stable arid region, miles away from any population, is totally safe.
Others have a totally irrational response (in my view) and claim that such buried waste can never be safe because it's toxic for 100,000 years and there might be an earthquakle followed by a flood during that 100,000 year period.
You should have gathered by now that I'm a rationalist.
But I have some feelings and intuition. The case for AGW is beginning to smell like a dead rat, to me.
On Beck. The paper is crap because
1. It is internally inconsistent, requiring impossible fluxes of CO2 into and out of the atmosphere as the Beck roller coaster goes up and down.
2. It relies on measurements from poorly sited locations that sampled polluted local conditions.
3. Many of the measurements were incompetently designed and carried out, including those by Nobel Prize winners.
These issues are explored in a way even Ray can understand here, and in more detail here
Makes ya wonder if Andrew Watts will be 'validating' these data, and the conditions in which they were derived, in the same fashion that he 'scrutinises' the surface stations...
I dare him.
Computerised banking is vastly more efficient than old-fashioned banking based on clerks, personal transactions, and paper records only, for everything.
we just saw this during the collapse of the financial system.
i think the technical aspects of banking are just another good example of externalised costs.
When we do this, there are always winners and losers. But on the whole, the winners outnumber the losers. For example, if we sack 1,000 car workers in order to install a robotised work flow on the factory floor, thus saving costs and producing cars that are not only cheaper but perhaps more consistent quality-wise, then large numbers of people benefit from the lower price and beter quality.
you should do some serious reading on economic theories. if nobody has the money to buy those cheaper cars (because not having a job means not having money), then you are not going to sell them.
Carbon trading is designed to penalise and discourage current efficient means of producing energy (through taxation), and subsidise inefficient means of producing energy (solar power, wind power, wave power etc etc) in the hope that such 'clean power' methods will eventually become as efficient as, and hopefully even more efficient than, current methods.
again: the "efficiency" of the fossil fuel energy is a FAKE. we are paying the additional price when fighting environmental problems and wars in the middle east.
When the advocates of using atomic power claimed it was just as cheap as coal but much cleaner, the atomic power deniers, those who had an emotional objection and fear of atomic power generation, tended to emphasise that the unaccounted cost of disposal of atomic radioactive waste would, in the long run, make it more expensive than coal.
well Ray, why not give that speech about "emotional objections and fears" in Chernobyl? they are still looking for workers to build the new sarcophagus. i think people without fear and emotional objections are exactly what they are looking for. bring your kids along!
Ray posts:
<<>>
In what way is wind or solar less efficient than fossil fuels? And does it really matter how much solar power is not used by a solar power or a concentrator? I mean, it's not like they're wasting sunlight, is it? What does efficiency even mean in such a context?
"not used by a solar CELL," I meant. Must remember to preview...
Just in case anyone might be confused (how could that happen?): "feelings and intuition" are what we all have filling in the holes where we have no science. The aim of an education in the sciences is to transform students' prior intuitions into real knowledge and understanding.
It would be impossible to learn any science if you placed too much stock in intuition, or if you were to begin from a position of heartfelt belief that you were a bright, bright little spark who already knew it all better than your teachers.
On top of that some sciences are just more difficult to get to grips with than others.
Intuition in science is what you get after a lot of learning and experience in an area. Sort of like plumbing or carpentry.
In what way is wind or solar less efficient than fossil fuels? And does it really matter how much solar power is not used by a solar power or a concentrator? I mean, it's not like they're wasting sunlight, is it? What does efficiency even mean in such a context?
Posted by: Barton Paul Levenson | July 12, 2009 3:38 PM
Generally, efficiency is described by the dollar value applied to a product or service.
Energy (electricity) that is sold for 20c per kilowatt hour, in a competitive market, is clearly being produced more efficiently than energy which is sold at 50c per kilowatt hour. If it wasn't, the folks charging 20c per kilowatt hour would soon go out of business.
In a monopoly you can charge whatever you like. However, the free market benefits us all because it rewards and encourages efficiency.
Subsidies encourage and reward laziness and the staus quo. Charles Darwin would have understood this principle perfectly.
Let me say, I'm very much in favour of legislative restrictions on practices which harm our health. Cigarettes should be taxed into oblivion (but not banned), and industries which pollute the local atmosphere with obnoxious gases that harm human health should be taken to task and heavily fined.
CO2 is not an obnoxious gas. Plants need it and we need it. There's no scare about toxicity to humans (or any other creature) from increased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Neither 385ppm nor 585ppm is going to affect our health, chemically.
If it is possible to produce a solar voltaic system which, without subsidies, is as efficient as a coal-powered station, or even nearly as efficient (let's not quibble), then I would approve.
Intuition in science is what you get after a lot of learning and experience in an area. Sort of like plumbing or carpentry.
Posted by: Eli Rabett | July 12, 2009 11:47 PM
Intuition occurs frequently irrespective of one's learning and experience in plumbing or carpentry, or any other area.
It's a great source for inspiration and ideas, but not scientifically reliable.
> In what way is wind or solar less efficient than fossil fuels?
> Posted by: Barton Paul Levenson
It's inefficient for his thesis that we should not move away from fossil fuels because we'd have to go back to the stone age.
The existence of wind/solar makes that theory less than 2% effective unless it can be shouted down...
>In a monopoly you can charge whatever you like. However, the free market benefits us all because it rewards and encourages efficiency.
>Subsidies encourage and reward laziness and the staus quo. Charles Darwin would have understood this principle perfectly.
Ray, I'm skeptical of these arguments. Unregulated markets lead to oligarchies (media and energy), duopoly (groceries), and barriers to new entrants. They lead to "too big to fail" (financial). They lead to coal getting more subsidies than renewables. They lead to strategic acquisition of patents for "disruptive technology" (advanced NiMH) . They lead to concentration of ownership, concentration of wealth, and purchasing of the political process.
In fact there is no such thing as a free market. Someone always has to chooses which bits are open to markets and which are open to policy, transparency, secrecy or manipulation.
So I'm afraid if you are hoping for so called free-markets to solve our problems you'll need to need to specify a heap of detail for what you mean. Without the detail its just a phrase that is practically meaningless.
You could start by explaining your understanding of the way free market efficiency resulted in the US banking system being bailed out to the tune of 12 trillion dollars. Pretty efficient eh?
Then we can discuss enternalities.
Ray,
Intuition without knowledge and experience is ignorance, a fact that you demonstrate to us daily.
Shorter Ray:
"You guys and all the scientists are wrong. I know this because I'm a rationalist, and I have intuitions of dead rats."
Ray, 'rationalist' and 'rat' share the first three letters, but they aren't related concepts.
Oh, and Ray, if free markets are such wondrous things and need to be left unfettered - why did you argue above about the utility of subsidies for the coal industry?
Ray, I'm skeptical of these arguments. Unregulated markets lead to oligarchies (media and energy), duopoly (groceries), and barriers to new entrants. They lead to "too big to fail" (financial). They lead to coal getting more subsidies than renewables. They lead to strategic acquisition of patents for "disruptive technology" (advanced NiMH) . They lead to concentration of ownership, concentration of wealth, and purchasing of the political process.
In fact there is no such thing as a free market. Someone always has to chooses which bits are open to markets and which are open to policy, transparency, secrecy or manipulation.
So I'm afraid if you are hoping for so called free-markets to solve our problems you'll need to need to specify a heap of detail for what you mean. Without the detail its just a phrase that is practically meaningless.
You could start by explaining your understanding of the way free market efficiency resulted in the US banking system being bailed out to the tune of 12 trillion dollars. Pretty efficient eh?
Then we can discuss enternalities.
Posted by: MAB | July 13, 2009 9:41 AM
I'm not advocating unfettered behaviour free of all regulation. It's understood that we need laws that apply in all areas of our life. If self-regulation worked, we could disband our police forces, armed forces and judicial system, and save heaps of money, especially on lawyers' fees.
The free market arrangement I'm advocating is simply one that encourages efficient production of goods and services and particularly the efficient production of energy because that underpins everything else.
Raising the cost of energy has a flow-on effect that raises the cost of everything as certainly as night follows day. There's no getting away from it.
It is certainly desirable that we gradually move towards a state of using clean and renewable energy sources. However, we stand a better chance of achieving such an outcome if we have a vibrant economy. Rather than tax current efficient methods of producing energy in oder to subsidise current inefficient methods of producing energy, we should set aside surplus funds to assist research into the most promising alternative methods of producing energy so that eventually such alternative methods can compete in a free market with coal and oil.
One such promising alternative technology is the use of Australia's plastic-money printing presses to print polymer solar collection cells. This would seem to me to be the Holy Grail of solar electricity production; cheap solar panels as thin as an Australian banknote, that can be plastered over large areas, covering the entire roof of one's house and electric car, and perhaps even covering our swimming pools and reservoirs that provide our water supply, thus reducing the effects of evaporation.
Ray writes:
>The free market arrangement I'm advocating is simply one that encourages efficient production of goods and services and particularly the efficient production of energy because that underpins everything else.
What is the detail of this "*free market arangement*" that you are advocating? Who gets to decide on the structure of the markets? Who gets to tinker with the rules? Are our elected leaders permitted to put a price on carbon?