Monbiot on Plimer

> Plimer by James Delingpole, a man who knows -- and cares -- less about science than I do about Formula One

Ah, projection again.

Why is he amazed that _The Spectator_ would run a complete pile of poop as a cover story? Has he never read that magazine?

It's extraordinary the positive coverage this book has gotten. Why does a book that has been totally discredited get such approving coverage? Is it Plimer's 'professor' title? Is it desperation from the denialists to get support from someone with a scientific background? (but in mining geology?) Is it Plimer's pugnacious attitude to people he doesn't like? Bizarre.

One of the things Monbiot says in the article is "What this story shows is that climate change denial is a matter of religious conviction." Yes! It always amazed me that the denialists could cheerfully trot out the claim that AGW is some kind of religion, whereas it is so obvious that the reverse is true. In the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary the denialists cling to their belief that everything is just fine. I don't know whether it's a complicated form of projection or simple chutzpah, but it has got to be one of the stranger things to surface from the murky swamp of denialist thought.

> Why does a book that has been totally discredited get such approving coverage?

Because it says that it isn't people's fault.

Because people with a lot of money can pay for all the positive press they can afford.

Because people hate anyone smarter than they are or anything that says the are wrong.

Because there are a huge group of people trained by the media not to think for themselves, but let the pundits tell them what's going wrong and that they just have to repeat it.

You know. Like Ray.

Once again, I'm reminded of The Second National Risk and Culture Study: Making Sense of - and Making Progress In - The American Culture War of Fact. It covers the presentation of and reaction to information about several social issues, global warming being one of them.

When presenting information on a social issue, people tend to evaluate the accuracy of that information based on how well it lines up with their pre-existing ideological biases. And of course, as soon as you attach information to ideology, you reject the former about as often as you reject the latter (i.e. not very).

While not quite as widespread or applicable as Dunning-Kruger (especially because it focused on America, where the culture wars wage on - it may be applicable in areas strongly influenced by American media such as Canada, but I suspect it's weaker in Europe), this paper should probably by read by everyone involved in this sort of discussion.

Thanks for that ref Brian - while I enjoy ripping holes in the denialists as much as anyone else here, it's good to see that there are people working out constructive ways to overcome these cultural blockages.

Continuing Brian D's theme, Pure Poison cites some interesting work on overcoming myths and spin in the media [here](http://blogs.crikey.com.au/purepoison/2009/07/09/myths-and-distortions/).

Sure am looking fwd to all the Boomer and older denialists dropping off their perches.

Then progress can commence.

Hey Timbo, what's with all the typos?

Tim M

Re 5, that's very interesting, but I noticed that the survey questions apparently used to classify subjects included a question about global warming. If that's the case then I don't know that the classifications can be used to predict views on AGW.

===============================================

Initially, the cultural values of all subjects were measured using
two scales corresponding to âHierarchy-Egalitarianismâ and âIndividualism-Communitarianism,â respectively (Kahan et al. 2007a).

===============================================

From Kahan et al 2007a Appendix B (Survey Items):

==================

1. Environmental Risks

ENVIRON Environmental pollution is a serious risk to public health in our country.

GLOBWARM Global warming poses a serious danger for the future of our planet.

NUKES It is dangerous to live near a nuclear power plant.

==================

Looks like you can comment on Delingpole's work [here](http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100002691/memo-to-pri…).

I didn't say it was necessarily predictive. The paper as a whole seems to hinge more on classification than prediction.

That said, there are conditions where information was presented to different groups in each side, one group getting affirming info and the other getting challenging info. In the case of global warming and individualists, one group of individualists got an IPCC summary with "this means we should regulate pollution better" and a different group of individualists got "this means we should deregulate/encourage nuclear power". I should note the second group, even if they were classified as individualists via (in part) a question on global warming, ended up endorsing the summary once it was presented in a way that affirmed their ideology. The "left" groups presented with the nuclear version lessened their opposition to nuclear power once it was presented in a way that affirmed their worldview.

The point wasn't to see views on GW across ideologies. It was to see how people would react to information based on how it was presented in relation to their ideology. This can't be determined without figuring out ideology in the first place.

A useful service might be to enumerate, in one place, the various reviewers/commentators/bloggers who have *recommended* Plimer's book, and where they did so.

Plimers success just follows the success of Erich Van Daniken and others. In the 70s popular media and popular science looked at Van Danikens books with interest. It sells papers and makes TV shows.

Van Daniken tried to prove that humans weren't capable of building pyramids through their actions and achievements.
Plimer is just feeding the same myths, by suggesting that humans can't change the climate through their actions and achievements.

They are both saying humans are stupid and they can't do as much as they claim. In many respects they are pessimists (about humanity) and revisionists.

Brian D:
>In the case of global warming and individualists, one group of individualists got an IPCC summary with "this means we should regulate pollution better" and a different group of individualists got "this means we should deregulate/encourage nuclear power".

Globally the two 'groups' do not 'exist'. Or rather there is a greater fragmentation of ideas than you suggest.

The groups are more accurately defined:

1. Environmentalists that want cuts in emissions but have had to take a pragmatic approach to nuclear energy recently, due to the fact that the situation is more dire than the last IPCC report suggested and politically it is a slow process to get people to cut emissions.

2. Environmentalists that have stuck with the no nuclear approach because they see nuclear energy as passing the 'buck' onto future generations rather than dealing with our own faults and problems today.

3. Enthusiasts of nuclear energy that are now just using the excuse of global warming to promote what they always wanted, that is more nuclear energy. (I actually know one semi-retired nuclear energy scientist in the UK, who actively campaigns against wind farms and acts as a consultant for anti-wind groups.)

4. Others that pick and choose from 1, 2 and 3.

If Plimer's booksales are any indication, the punters are indeed interested in what he has to say, as evidenced in last night's standing room only climate debate sponsored by the Aust. Inst. Geoscientists in Perth.

One pertinent comment received afterwards

"Just wanted to say what a fantastic event it was last night. Well Done! I was thoroughly entertained by both the speakers and the audience members. It was so interesting to note the different opinions on a topic I had though was universally accepted".

####@anu.edu.au

> One pertinent comment received afterwards

And is that genuine?

I don't think so. It's easy to say "Well, I thought it was all settled, but this opened my eyes" if you don't mean it. After all, it gives the impression that this work is somehow valid without actually saying that it is. After all, we have no record of the quoted person ever saying that AGW was settled, do we.

Shorter Louis Hissink:

Consensus isn't science... except when it is!

Also, last night felt good, therefore global warming is a myth.

Louis Hissink :

One pertinent comment received afterwards

Yes, pertinent alright. Shows there's plenty of gullible unskeptical people around.

BTW do 2 "Marks" post comments on Deltoid?

Cripes, if Marohasy goes away Hissick and Bird may start posting here. There goes the S/N

re: #20

ELi, the burrow may not have this, but Firefox+Greasemonkey + Killfile works pretty well here, if people can be persuaded not to feed the trolls.

Meanwhile: what's the matter with Rabett Run?
"bX-6vix0l" : that's like an error code from the long -ago mainframe days.

re: #13 OPaul UK

You might want to look at earlier post here. See if you disagree with my models of science, pseudo-science, and anti-science.

From there, I repeat that I think von Daniken is pseudo-science and Plimer anti-scienice. Both sell, albeit for different reasons.

Louis,
Some of my work colleagues from the GSWA were at that 'debate' organised by the AIG. They said it was rubbish. The guy they got to debate the 'pro-AGW' stance was useless.

Neither debater acually knew what they were talking about and there wasn't actually a 'debate'. Just to men with opposing views unable to adequately justofy their position.

BTW did you ask Plimer about plate tectonics? He would have given you a masterclass...

I went to Plimer's talk in Kalgoorlie last night. He basically gave his standard presentation with all the disproven graphs and half-truths. Similar to his preso that's available on youtube. I got to ask two questions: I first explained that Plimer has omitted to explain the full details of the greenhouse effect that he says doesn't exist. I went into detail about spectral overlap between CO2 and H20 and how the CO2 in the higher,dryer part of the atmosphere is not "saturated" with radiation. I explained how the saturation limit moves up and traps more energy in the atmosphere as CO2 concentration goes up. He agreed that there was such a thing and that I was correct but, get this, he says "but the common punter doesn't know that". He said he looks at the radiosonde data which doesn't show the temperature increase as the models predict (I know, that's nonsense too). He says he would rather look at measurements than worry about the theory!!

I then got another question in and challenged him on the fact that he goes to great pains to discredit the terrestrial temperature data but then goes and uses the same data to correlate with the sun cycles. I also raised the issue that if the heat island effect (his favourite hobby horse, it seems) is such an issue, why are the greatest temperature anomalies in the far northern hemisphere where there is low population? To the first part of the question he replied that we don't have to discard all the data, but we must just be "suspicious" of data that has to be "corrected". In response to the heat island question he blathered on about some cop in Myaree that had to take measurements and they were wrong or something. Bit pathetic. Oh, and I shouldn't worry about maps which show red bits and yellow bits because they're suspect. Unfortunately I didn't get any opportunity to respond with more questions, but I'm hoping the more reasonable people in the audience got the point that he's dodgy.

I must say though, he is an excellent speaker. It's a pity he has chosen to obfuscate and present stuff which I think he knows is wrong. He would be an excellent asset on the side of real science. Sad, really.

John, we're back. Blogger had a brain fart.

I must say though, he is an excellent speaker. It's a pity he has chosen to obfuscate and present stuff which I think he knows is wrong. He would be an excellent asset on the side of real science. Sad, really.

Yes, it is pretty sad. He is an excellent lecturer, when he knows what he is talking about. It is a pity he has blown his previous good reputation in this way.

Some advice for anyone considering "debating" Plimer:

Don't.

To do so just gives him oxygen. His scientific credibility is now zero following publication of Heaven & Earth. Debating Plimer is about as productive as debating "Ray" in the Monckton thread.

I wonder if Dr Jennifer Marohasy, now that she has left the Institute for Public Affairs, could apply for a professorship at the University of Adelaide? She should be eminently qualified. The University of Adelaide could set up a Department of Climate Change Denialism to build on their growing reputation in this field. Or how about a joint Center of Excellence with James Cook University, home of Bob Carter?

Most universities have a Code of Conduct that requires the highest
standards of scientific integrity.

There's one thing you can guarantee about con men: they are all good speakers.

Just saying that to remind people that saying "they're a good speaker" doesn't really prove anything about their knowledge or reliability.

And in the case of Plimer, we know what the knowledge is like...

> BTW do 2 "Marks" post comments on Deltoid?

> Posted by: Marion Delgado

I didn't think that Mark was a particularly uncommon name, Marion...

To do so just gives him oxygen. His scientific credibility is now zero following publication of Heaven & Earth. Debating Plimer is about as productive as debating "Ray" in the Monckton thread.

Or public debates with creationists.

Mark.....

"There's one thing you can guarantee about con men: they are all good speakers.
Just saying that to remind people that saying "they're a good speaker" doesn't really prove anything about their knowledge or reliability."

The U.S. is finding that out the hard way.

Mark #1 didn't seem like later Mark, is why I asked :)

dhogaza,

"Or public debates with creationists."

Seems to me from your comments across the blogosphere you would prefer not to have any kind of debate with anyone, ie you just know you are right.

> I didn't think that Mark was a particularly uncommon name, Marion...

> Posted by: Mark

No, *I'm* Mark!

There's one thing you can guarantee about con men: they are all good speakers. Just saying that to remind people that saying "they're a good speaker" doesn't really prove anything about their knowledge or reliability.

The U.S. is finding that out the hard way.

They found out by November last year.

Shorter Dave Andrews:

Logic and evidence is decided by whether you can wow an audience.

Dave Andrews (33): Seems to me from your comments across the blogosphere you would prefer not to have any kind of debate with anyone, ie you just know you are right.

Now why does that sentiment ring bells with me? Which of yer reg'lar crowd on here would I have had that thought about...? Ummm... no, no, don't tell me. But yes, of course, Ray! And your good self of course! Silly me.

> No, I'm Mark!

> Posted by: Martacus

And so's my wife!

> The U.S. is finding that out the hard way.

> Posted by: Betula

Yup, then the US voted him out.

>>dhogaza:
"Or public debates with creationists."

>Dave Andrews:
Seems to me from your comments across the blogosphere you would prefer not to have any kind of debate with anyone, ie you just know you are right.

dhogaza's right. Debating professional bullshitters (one of which, sadly, Plimer has become) in front of lay audiences is a no-win situation for scientists. Undeserved credibility is conferred upon the Hamms, Gishes and Moranos of the world, and laymen are mostly ill equipped to understand the arguments.

Your charge that dhogaza would "prefer not to have any kind of debate with anyone" is not at all borne out by what I have seen here and elsewhere. Not to put too fine a point on it, it is a lie.

Debates:

See why live science/anti-science debates are dumb over at RC.

It's not just a question of debating Plimer, or Monckton, or anyone in particular, but rather that a verbal debate in front of a general audience (or over radio) is totally weighted towards aside that wants to promote confusion above clarity, can cherry-pick charts, etc.

It might be possible to do a plausible debate via a blog moderated by a rational third-party, spread across weeks, with the ability to point at sources, and time for the audience to check things. The RC post points at an example of such a few months ago.

Of course, if I were an anti-science advocate, I'd much prefer a live debate.

40 John Mashey,

You are right, and let's be clear about this: the anti-science advocate has no reason at all to be honest or obey any normal rules of decency. Throw as many lies and personal attacks as possible into the "debate" and the opponent has no chance of actually "debating" the subject at all. This is what Munchkin did to Littlemore, wasn't it?

Why on earth anyone thinks that complex science can be decided in this way is a mystery to me.

I meant 41, of course.

Dirk #27:

As a proud graduate of Adelaide University, I beg you to not consider Plimer's shoddy scholarship to be indicative of the institution's credibility. It's a fine university. Sir Douglas Mawson belonged to Geology department long before Plimer arrived and subsequently lost the plot.

The University's code of conduct is here.
But would you seriously want the University to attempt to apply it in this circumstance. Imagine the uproar! The code speaks of professionalism, integrity and objectivity. But it also talks of freedom of inquiry and expression. There is no way that the argument against him could be won, and it would do terrible damage to the institutions reputation to attempt it, while at the same time adding fuel to denialist complaints of suppression.

re: #44 Craig

Yes. In particular, tenured (and especially emeritus) professors can pretty much do almost anything.

Most professors, even most emeritus ones, do good work for a long time, sometimes an amazingly-long time. Many are still as sharp as ever, and keep contributing to their field in one way or another.

But most good, even excellent universities have a few who they'd rather wish they didn't. [I've spoken @ hundreds of universities, including Adelaide, so I think I have a decent sample.]

And surely, Adelaide's Barry Brook makes up for Plimer.

Re: Craig Allen #44

The code you link to does talk about freedom of expression, but also makes it clear that academic staff should stay within their areas of expertise and "that they will observe the highest ethical and professional standards".

In Plimer's case, he is way outside his area of expertise (as determined from his refereed publications), and his capacity as a scientist would seem to be roughly equivalent to that of a bottom-quartile freshman student.

The University of Adelaide Code of Conduct is worthless if Plimer can get away with writing anti-science such as Heaven and Earth. What next? A Professor from Medicine claiming that iridology can diagnose all illnesses?

The University of Adelaide may well be a prestigious university, but one thing for sure, its reputation isn't advanced by having Plimer on the staff. If I was a proud graduate of the University of Adelaide, I would be writing to their President (or whomever the right person is), to complain about the situation. This isn't an example of legitimate intellectual debate, it is about a member of faculty who is publishing complete and utter rubbish.

Re: Craig Allen #44

The University's code of conduct is here. But would you seriously want the University to attempt to apply it in this circumstance. Imagine the uproar!

Actually, I would like them to apply it to Plimer. It would show that the University of Adelaide had some integrity. Otherwise, to whom does the Code of Conduct apply? Only those people whose cases won't cause negative publicity?

> But would you seriously want the University to attempt to apply it in this circumstance.

Yes.

> Imagine the uproar!

That would be WHY. If people SEE that a code of conduct works, then they'll believe the people operating under that code more robustly.

> The code speaks of professionalism, integrity and objectivity. But it also talks of freedom of inquiry and expression.

> Posted by: Craig Allen

But it's an inquiry to ask "Can I see your wife's underwear?". "Cor, she's got a great arse!" is an expression.

You are allowed freedom of expression UNDER the auspices of professionalism, integrity and objectivity.

Else all you're doing is rating freedom above the freedom that makes it all worthwhile: the freedom to take the consequences.

And the consequences for the University is that they are being seen as weak and feeble and that statements from emeritus professors do not have to be professional, objective or have any integrity behind them.

The University of Adelaide is going to have to decide who is working for whom.

Plimer is getting a paycheque...not a blank cheque.

Craig Allen:

My sympathies. And I would like to do the same for the University of Alaska, Fairbanks, quite a brilliant science school for its size. Gerhard Kramm and (crank edition) Syun-ichi Akasofu are in no way representative.

Mark @ 39.....

"Yup, then the US voted him out."

This is Mark, responding to my comment that "The U.S. is finding that out the hard way" in relation to his other comment...

"There's one thing you can guarantee about con men: they are all good speakers. Just saying that to remind people that saying "they're a good speaker" doesn't really prove anything about their knowledge or reliability"

In other words, Mark is saying people were conned by Bush's good speaking skills........

In addition, Bush couldn't have served another term anyway, so "voted him out" doesn't even make sense.

Confused....yet entertaining.

Bush "speak" [sic] was calibrated to pull of [a con job](http://www.realchange.org/bushjr.htm). The success was to make people think he was somthing other than a rich kid from the super elite, one of the most powerful and priviledge in the world.

It worked. And Bush got a huge policy agenda through that served his super elite class.

I don't think Bush was as [impared as Reagan](http://www.nytimes.com/1994/11/08/science/doctor-s-world-reagan-and-alz…).

> In other words, Mark is saying people were conned by Bush's good speaking skills........

> Posted by: Betula

No, they were conned by his idiocy into thinking he was a good ole boy.

Just like them.

Whereas if it hadn't been for his parentage (see how you have a royalty too...) he would have been flipping burgers for a living, rather than in charge of a nuclear power.

Marion Delgado,

I would highly appreciate to find the link to your publication record so that the people here have a chance to compare your publication record with those of Syun Akasofu and mine.

For your information: The building of the International Arctic Research Center at the University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF) has been named Syun-Ichi Akasofu Building. Believe it or not, I would never name a dog house Marion Delgado Building because I like dogs very much.

Since Syun Akasofu is a friend of mine, I would like to list his awards and honors:

1976 - Chapman Medal, Royal Astronomical Society
1977 - The Japan Academy of Sciences Award
1979 - Fellow of the American Geophysical Union (AGU)
1979 - John Adam Fleming Medal, AGU
1980 - Named a Distinguished Alumnus by UAF
1981 - Named one of the "1,000 Most-Cited Contemporary Scientists by Current Contents
1985 - First recipient of the Sydney Chapman Chair professorship, UAF
1985 - Special Lecture for the Emperor of Japan on the aurora (October 3)
1986 - Member of the International Academy of Aeronautics, Paris
1987 - Named one of the "Centennial Alumni" by the National Association of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges
1993 - Japan Foreign Minister's Award for Promoting International Relations and Cultural Exchange between Japan and Alaska
1996 - Japan Posts and Telecommunications Minister Award for Contributions to the US-Japan Joint Project on Environmental Science in Alaska
1997 - Edith R. Bullock Prize for Excellence, University of Alaska
1999 - Alaskan of the Year - Denali Award
2002 - Named one of the "World's Most Cited Authors in Space Physics" by Current Contents ISI
2003 - Order of the Sacred Treasures, Gold and Silver Stars by the Emperor of Japan

Your opinion about me is so important to me like a dog's barking to the moon.

Dr. Kramm,

In his own field of solar physics Dr. Akasofu is a solid scientist. In climatology, as I have so often said, Akasofu-san wa bakayaro des'. No matter how good your qualifications in field A, if you've never studied field B, you should refrain from pontificating about it, and he who does so is a baka. His explanation that global warming is caused by the sun simply does not hold up to any rational analysis.

http://BartonPaulLevenson.com/Sun.html

Dear Gerhard Kramm,

Syun-Ichi Akasofu's work on the magnetosphere and related areas is impressive and my hat is off to him. However, I was only able to find a single paper he co-authored that was related to climate, it was about [seasonal CO2 uptake by arctic sea ice](http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2004/2003GL017996.shtml). Akasofu puts his idea on [temperature cycles onto his web page only](http://people.iarc.uaf.edu/~sakasofu/pdf/two_natural_components_recent_…), instead of publishing it. There is a technicality within that pdf, that I have stumbled across; could you as a colleague of his please help and clear it up?

In his memo he writes that his figure 2a is a smoothed version of the 5-year average in Hansen et al 1999, which is depicted in his figure 1a. Here is a [properly scaled overlay](http://i44.tinypic.com/33pf41z.png) of the two plots. I have no idea, which smoothing algorithm would result in the shift of the 1900 and 1940 peaks and which would account for the huge difference between the original data and Akasofu's smoothed version in the period 1915 to 1935. As he makes repeated and prominent use of figure 2a, could you please inquire, which algorithm was used to obtain this graph? TIA.

"a building was named after him" must be one of the best cases of appeal to authority fallacy on the web.

Kramm keeps reposting that biographie, but prefers to mention the apperance of Akasofu in the "great global warming swindle".

when i first read anything from Mr Kramm [here](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/03/remember_eg_becks_dodgy.php), he was trying to use the inability of most posters here to read German, to sow doubts about Rahmsdorf by linking to a Spiegel article.

i am not impressed.

sod | July 15, 2009 6:00 PM,

again, the article in the German Magazine Der Spiegel about Rahmstorf's behavior cannot be assessed as a support of him.

The Spiegel-authors Hein and Becker stated the following: "Seine Thesen gelten als richtig, sein Laden als das Referenzinstitut für das gesellschaftliche Leitthema Klimawandel."

It is carefully written by these Spiegel-authors to avoid any trouble with Rahmstorf.

I criticized the paper of Rahmstorf et al. published in Science in 2007 because this paper is not in agreement with commonly accepted scientific standards. Following these standards, it is forbidden to suppress observations to obtain a better agreement between model simulations and observations. Obviously, you are unable to recognize these scientific standards.

Rahmstorf is an employee of the Potsdam-Institut fuer Klimafolgenforschung (Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research). This notion is a contradiction in terms. Climate is the result of a statistical description of the weather at a given point or region for a given period usually 30 years. Consequently, this result is based on the distribution of atmospheric field quantities like pressure, temperature, humidity, net radiation, precipitation, cloudiness etc. observed during such a period of the past. One obtains mean quantities, variances, covariances and higher-order statistical quantities. None of these statistical quantities has any impact of the distribution on which they are based.

For comparison: The statistical result of an average age has no impact on your age.

Some couple of years we had temperatures below freezing point in June. Even we tried to protect the plants in our gardens, a lot of annuals were destroyed. It was not very helpful to us that the mean temperature for that June was slightly higher than normal.

So much about climate impact research. This is only a big bluff, and Rahmstorf is strongly involved in it.

My publication record can be found on my web site. Many of my papers are available and can be downloaded for personal use. In the case of recent papers there exists open access. Feel free to read something about my scientific work.

Dr. Kramm

In the case of recent papers there exists open access. Feel free to read something about my scientific work.

Oh, don't worry. [Some of us already have](http://tinyurl.com/ntdyep).

I don't suppose you can pay me for my wasted afternoon reading your "work"?

Care to translate that Gerhard?

"Seine Thesen gelten als richtig, sein Laden als das Referenzinstitut für das gesellschaftliche Leitthema Klimawandel."

Quite the compliment

"His theories are known to be correct, his lab (shop in the original) is the go-to place for climate change issues, the foremost question for our society"

I criticized the paper of Rahmstorf et al. published in Science in 2007 because this paper is not in agreement with commonly accepted scientific standards. Following these standards, it is forbidden to suppress observations to obtain a better agreement between model simulations and observations. Obviously, you are unable to recognize these scientific standards.

you started your post with this claim about the Rahmsdorf paper, and then linked to the Spiegel article. 99% of those who read your post, would come to the conclusion, that the Spiegel article supports the claims you made about Rahmsdorf and his article.

but the [article](http://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/natur/0,1518,505095,00.html) does not support your point. instead, it agrees with the scientific position of Rahmsdorf. "Dass Menschen für den Klimawandel entscheidend mitverantwortlich sind, bezweifelt fast niemand mehr."
(nearly nobody doubts that mankind is mostly responsible for climate change)

it agrees with the rahmsdorf position on denialists. "Der Film von Günter Ederer, der als "Aufklärung" über die Klimahysterie angekündigt wurde, gab unter anderem dem US-Forscher Fred Singer die Gelegenheit, seine altbekannten Thesen zu verbreiten. Singer wurde dem Zuschauer als renommierter Klimaforscher vorgestellt. Unerwähnt blieb, dass er jahrelang Geld von Ãlkonzernen bekam und früher die Existenz des Klimawandels ebenso bestritt wie den Zusammenhang zwischen FCKW und dem Ozonloch."
(paraphrasing: the Spiegel also noted that a denialist piece attacked by Rahmsdorf, did not mention Singers relation to the oil industry)

it disagrees with the methods he is using to contradict those denialist positions, because they might actually strengthen them. "Wie Rahmstorf einer marktschreierischen Minderheit ermöglicht, sich als verfolgte Speerspitze des kritischen Journalismus darzustellen "
(Rahmsdorf is giving a vocal minority the possibility, to claim to be persecuted by journalists)

For comparison: The statistical result of an average age has no impact on your age.

so you think a "population age impact centre" doesn t make any sense in western countries these days?

or did you just chose a very bad example by chance?

Some couple of years we had temperatures below freezing point in June. Even we tried to protect the plants in our gardens, a lot of annuals were destroyed. It was not very helpful to us that the mean temperature for that June was slightly higher than normal.

your argument only makes sense, when you focus on YOUR garden. all over the world, the majority of gardens were too hot, not too cold.

Sorry sod, your translation went astray (native speaker here).

>Wie Rahmstorf einer marktschreierischen Minderheit ermöglicht, sich als verfolgte Speerspitze des kritischen Journalismus darzustellen

>How Rahmstorf enables a ballyhooing minority to pass themselves off as the persecuted spearhead of critical journalism

Not a very flattering characterization of the "skeptics". The only criticism levied against Rahmstorf in that Spiegel article is that he enables "skeptical" journalists and op-ed writers to depict themselves as victims and hence to increase their undeserved public standing.

Sorry sod, your translation went astray (native speaker here).

sorry for taht. my german is also quite good, but it was a pre-first-coffeee translation.

and i was trying to be as neutral as possible. i didn t want to have any bias in the translation.

Rahmstorf is an employee of the Potsdam-Institut fuer Klimafolgenforschung (Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research). This notion is a contradiction in terms. Climate is the result of a statistical description of the weather at a given point or region for a given period usually 30 years. Consequently, this result is based on the distribution of atmospheric field quantities like pressure, temperature, humidity, net radiation, precipitation, cloudiness etc. observed during such a period of the past. One obtains mean quantities, variances, covariances and higher-order statistical quantities. None of these statistical quantities has any impact of the distribution on which they are based.

do you guys notice, that Gerhard Kramm is denying the existence of all and any feedback mechanisms?!? positive ones and negative ones?!?

so the average global temperature has no influence on average global temperature?

how much sea ice is left, will not influence other climate factors?

landuse changes due to temperature changes will not have an effect on temperature?

if he can publish this break through in climate science in a real paper (sorry, E&E doesn t qualify), i will personally construct a "Kramm Building".

Shorter Gerhard Kramm:

Appeal to authority is wrong, unless it's my authority. Also, this German quotation (which you probably can't read) agrees with the science of global warming, but that only serves as further evidence that Global Warmists Are Sending Out Inquisitor Ninjas To Suppress Debate.

Dr. Kramm. Have you enquired after bluegrue's question at #56 yet? I too would be interested in the answer.

Interestingly, looking up Marion Delgado on Google scholar generates this hit: http://www.wpunj.edu/newpol/issue41/Lemisch41.htm I was unaware of the origins of said handle. Check out paragraph four, but remember - Weather is not climate ;)

Gerhard Kramm:

Puh-lease. Don't go down that "my views count because I have published peer-reviewed papers in the empirical literature". But if you want to go down that road how many papers have you listed on the Web of Science and over how many years? Moreover, how many citations are there of of your work? I found that you had 22 articles on the WOS with 292 citations since 1989. Is this correct? Most climate scientists who roundly disagree with you would have far more than that. Heck, I have 85 srticles on the WOS (writing as a population biologist) with 1400 plus citations since 1993 but I shouldn't have to wave that canard around to make me a 'credibale voice' in the debate on climate change or its effects. I enjoy reading Deltoid because most of the posters here - including Marion Delgado - have very valuable things to add to the discussion.

The bottom line is that the vast majority of scientists are in broad agreement over the issue, and the empirical evidence in favor of AGW is strong and growing. Your views are on the outside, and are getting pushed farther and farther into the fringe.

Actually, Kramm's views are already well past the fringe and deeply into lunacy where climate science is concerned. He's a familiar figure from Eli's "Rabett Run," where he rabidly defends Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner's crackpot paper "disproving" the greenhouse effect.

Mark.....

Let me get this straight.....

First, you claim people were conned by Bush's good speaking skills..... then, when I call you on this this, you try to cover your tracks with this gem.....

"No, they were conned by his idiocy into thinking he was a good ole boy." "Just like them."

So now your saying Bush disguised his good speaking skills as bad speaking skills to get idiots to appeal to his idiocy?

In reality, isn't it clear that you are choosing not to disguise your idiocy to appeal to yourself?

Don't worry Betula, we understand.

And BTW, how is the George W Fan club going? He was a great guy wasn't he? Got all those excellent policies through, and no one in the big media ever made a point of his rich and powerful class cos, he sounded nothing special, like the people who continue to to think he was swell.

Don't worry though Betula, I'm sure his legacy will not be near as bad a Hilter's. Though more suffering will likely become evident in decades to come.

But you keep rooting for GWB like the little trooper (storm) you are.

;)

> "No, they were conned by his idiocy into thinking he was a good ole boy." "Just like them."

> So now your saying Bush disguised his good speaking skills as bad speaking skills to get idiots to appeal to his idiocy?

> Posted by: Betula

He was an idiot.

And his team marketed him not as an idiot but as a good ole boy.

As long as they controlled the media well enough his idiocy would seem like just normal good ole boy bluntness.ic

Which was wrong. He was an idiot.

But I guess that you don't see that since he could well be smarter than you...

Janet.....

Pointing out the absudity of Mark suggesting Bush had good speaking skills is hardly a ringing endorsement for Bush.

Could you please show me a comment where I defended or "rooted" for George Bush.....

Thanks.

Weaselling out of things is what separates us humans from the animals. And the weasels...

Isn't that right Bet?

sod | July 16, 2009 8:14 AM

I recommend to take, at least, a 101 level class on statistics to learn what it means.

Barton Paul Levenson | July 17, 2009 5:59 AM

obviously, Joshua Halpern aka Eli Rabett is the your favorite "physicist".

Meanwhile, I read the comments on the paper of Gerlich and Tscheuschner (2009) authored by Rabett and his bunnies (see http://groups.google.com/group/rabett-run-labs/files?upload=1 ).

If you agree with this comment, then go back to a graduate school.

Shorter Betula:

Bush couldn't have been a con man, because he didn't have good speaking skills. This should not be construed as a defence of Bush.

Shorter Gerhard Kramm:

You can't use a person's track record to estimate his future performance, because his past performance has no effect on his innate potential. Anyone who doesn't understand this profound principle (especially when I write it using pompous mathematical jargon) should take Statistics 101.

Jeff Harvey | July 17, 2009 5:38 AM

I assume that you are a proper biolist because to write more than 80 papers in your field is not so simple, but you are neither a trained theoretical physicist nor a trained theoretical meteorologist or physical oceanographer. Therefore, your insides into the energetics of the atmosphere may be rather inadequate.

Believe it or not, Marion Delgade's contributions to the discussion of climate change are only personal attacks against Syun Akasofu and me. He called us, for instance, right wing people. When he disagrees with Akasofu's contributions or those of mine, he may write comments on these contributions. This is the commonly accepted way in science. But his behavior is like that of a small dog which is barking up the moon

Mark @ 73

That's a first. I haven't seen that done before.....

Your response doesn't answer my question, and in not doing so, manages to answer itself.

Classic.

Shorter Gerhard Kramm:

I ignore all your scientific questions about our work, because I don't care a darn thing about your "opinions"! Akasofu has a building named after him! Therefore everything I say is absolutely correct!

Shorter bi....

All con men have good speaking skills. All con men don't have good speaking skills. This is a defense of Bush.

bluegrue | July 15, 2009 5:57 PM

In 1999 Syun Akasofu became the director of the new International Arctic Research Center (IARC). It is his baby. He was still working hard to keep this institution running. During that period he only published mainly in his field of geophysics (upper atmosphere).

Many of IARC's scientists, however, published papers to climate change. Akasofu knows these papers. As the director of IARC he had always the opportunity to become a co-author, but he declined. After his retirement from the post as director of IARC in 2007 he focused his own work more on climate change.

I considered your comparison of the two figures. You are right, there is a mistake. I recommend to send your figure to Syun Akasofu so that he may improve his manuscript. Probably, he did not arrange this figure. If you can agree, I will talk to him in this matter, too.

Petula,

A good speaker isn't necessarily someone who speaks well.

For example; Ronnie Raygun, like Bush the Younger, spoke reassuring lies appealing to the ignorant, selfish and existentially anxious identity of far too many Americans, combined with fearful, grossly exaggerated hyperbole and sabre-rattling directed at any convenient bogeyman du jour, making them good speakers.

Obama, OTOH, speaks well formed complete sentences, employing coherently reasoned arguments combined with evidential fact, and delivered with consummate rhetorical skill.

I hope (with little confidence) this helps clarify your thoughts.

> I considered your comparison of the two figures. You are right, there is a mistake. I recommend to send your figure to Syun Akasofu so that he may improve his manuscript. Probably, he did not arrange this figure. If you can agree, I will talk to him in this matter, too.

Feel free to simply pass the image on, I don't need to be involved in this. Use it as you see fit.

P.S.: I simply have nothing to add apart from the observation that there is that mismatch. I appreciate that you asked.

I recommend to take, at least, a 101 level class on statistics to learn what it means.

i am not a statistics crack, but i am rather sure that i would pass statistics 101. (mathematics major)

you made this claim:

"Climate is the result of a statistical description of the weather at a given point or region for a given period usually 30 years. Consequently, this result is based on the distribution of atmospheric field quantities like pressure, temperature, humidity, net radiation, precipitation, cloudiness etc. observed during such a period of the past. One obtains mean quantities, variances, covariances and higher-order statistical quantities. None of these statistical quantities has any impact of the distribution on which they are based."

please explain what effect this has on climate feedbacks!

you are saying: an increase in mean temperature over 30 years (trend) will not have an effect on the distribution of temperature during those 30 years.

this sounds blatantly false to me.

talking about your example of population age, it will of course have an economic effect which will influence the (maximum) age of individuals!

Now I'm not a statistitian, and neither do I have anything more than A-level mathematics, but doesn't a small increase in the mean of a normally distributed variable lead to a much larger effect at the extremes, e.g. a relatively small increase in the mean surface temperature could be expected to lead to a large increase in the number of very hot days, even with the distribution preserved?

Dear Betual,
I donât know where I could have gotten the idea that you are a George Bush apologist?. Perhaps it was the way you tried to pardon Bushes war crimes by [citing the crimes of Clinton]( http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/07/warbloggers_predictions_of_coa…) and Bushes enablers is the Democratic party?

I guess I might have judged you a bit on your pasting (without attribution) pages and pages from the right wing apologist cite [âFree Republicâ]( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Republic). The Free Republic site being a tool to coordinate attacks against opponents of the criminal wars of aggression.

But please set me straight Betula, did Bush Get it right on Iraq, the Economy, the Inequality and the Environment?

Betula's favourite source:

Conservative Free Republic blog in free speech flap after racial slurs directed at Obama children. âA typical street whore.â âA bunch of ghetto thugs.â âGhetto street trash.â âWonder when she will get her first abortion.â These are a small selection of some of the racially-charged comments posted to the conservative Free Republic blog Thursday, aimed at US President Barack Obamaâs 11-year-old daughter Malia after she was photographed wearing a t-shirt with a peace sign on the front.

Though this may sound like the sort of thing one might read on an Aryan Nation or white power website, they actually appeared on what is commonly considered one of the prime online locations for US Conservative grassroots political discussion and organizingâââand for a short time, the comments seemed to have the okay of site administrators.âââVancouver Sun

LB...

"Obama, OTOH, speaks well formed complete sentences, employing coherently reasoned arguments combined with evidential fact, and delivered with consummate rhetorical skill."

Yes, uh, I'm quite uh, familiar with uh it. Uh, it's name is uh TOTUS.

What uh, would he do uh without it. Uh.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hIeyG_pzsSw

Shorter Betula:

Clinton also lied on Iraq. Bush can't be a con man, he doesn't speak well. Obama needs a teleprompter, he doesn't speak well, he is a con man. I'm not defending Bush.

Some advice for anyone considering "debating" Plimer:
Don't.
To do so just gives him oxygen. His scientific credibility is now zero following publication of Heaven & Earth. Debating Plimer is about as productive as debating "Ray" in the Monckton thread.
I wonder if Dr Jennifer Marohasy, now that she has left the Institute for Public Affairs, could apply for a professorship at the University of Adelaide? She should be eminently qualified. The University of Adelaide could set up a Department of Climate Change Denialism to build on their growing reputation in this field. Or how about a joint Center of Excellence with James Cook University, home of Bob Carter?
Most universities have a Code of Conduct that requires the highest standards of scientific integrity.
Posted by: Dirk Hartog | July 11, 2009 6:20 AM

But at least I always stick to the facts as I see them, or understand them, which is all one can ask of anyone. I'm rather dismayed that so many poster on these blogs seem to think that a convincing argument is to call someone an idiot, or a fraud. Senator Fielding and Ian Plimer are certainly no idiots or frauds.

Many of us are genuinely concerned that the case for AGW really isn't proven. However, the case that our climate is always either cooling or warming does seem to be proven. Identifying the reasons and causes and being certain about them is the problem. For example, as recently as today I came across the following news report, dated 16th July 2009.

Heat released by industry and other human activity â rather than carbon dioxide (CO2) â is the main anthropogenic source of âglobal warming,â according to a new study by scientists at LuleÃ¥ University of Technology in Sweden.

The full report is at http://www.epmag.com/WebOnly2009/item42502.php

Is such a claim likely to be true, or even partially true. I certainly wouldn't know. I presume that the scientists who did the study know more about what they're doing than I do. This why I try to maintain a position of pure skepticism. It's very easy, especially for people in search of a new religious faith, after their traditional one has been destroyed by science, to find that the AGW cause fits the bill.

AGW has got all the hallmarks of a religious faith, the main one being its transcendental nature; ie. the opportunity to work for a cause that is bigger than oneself and more important than oneself. It's not difficult to appreciate what a great sense of purpose and satisfaction anyone might find in a belief that they were working and arguing to actually save the planet with life as we know it from destruction. Wow!! Wow!!

Secondly, you have the endorsement of science itself. The same science that caused serious doubts about your traditional religious faith is now supporting a new faith, backed by scientific consensus, but unfortunately not backed by unanimous scientific consensus, which leads to the third point.

Any religion worth its salt must be beyond proof or disproof. It cannot be falsified, but neither can it be proved. Voila! You've got your new religion.

When you criticise peoples' religion, as I seem to be doing occasionally on this site, I guess one has to accept a bit of vitriolic abuse. Hopefully, it's not as serious as the consequences of criticising a Muslim's faith.

I recently came across an interesting article in the July issue of National Geographic. The cover story is about the demise of that great civilization of the Khmers at Angkor in Cambodia. For the benefit of those who don't know about Angkor, it was a the most powerful empire in the region, that lasted from the 9th to 15th centuries. They did a huge amount of building of hundreds of massive temples that rival anything found in ancient Egypt, and constructed an elaborate network of canals and reservoirs. It's an amazing place.

However, in the 16th century the whole city did a vanishing act, until it was rediscovered by the French in the 19th century, overgrown by jungle. How did such a civilization just disappear? Was it really just because they were attacked by neighbours, such as the Thais? Did the population become unwilling workers, perhaps, as their religion gradually changed from Hinduism to Buddhism?

These people left virtually no records of their demise. What's left of their civilization is just a massive amount of elaborate stone carvings on hundreds of temples, and a few inscriptions.

Okay! I'm coming to the point. Recent studies of tree rings in the area now uncover some interesting facts. To quote from the article: "The po mu trees told a stunning story. Sets of constricted growth rings showed that the trees had endured back-to-back mega-droughts, from 1362 to 1392 and from 1415 to 1440. During these periods the monsoon was weak or delayed, and in some years it may have failed completely. In other years, megamonsoons lashed the region."

In short, not only were the Vikings of Greenland a victim of The Little Ice Age, but also that great Khmer civilization of Angkor. And the main point? Anthropogenic greenhouse gasses had nothing to do with either event.

Shorter Ray:

1. Global warming may be caused by heat from man-made industry rather than man-made carbon dioxide. Therefore, global warming isn't man-made.
2. Climate has changed in the past, therefore man-made global warming is a myth. Similarly, people have died naturally in the past, therefore murder is a myth.
3. When people dispute my claim that global warming is a religion, which I prove by assuming at the outset that global warming is a religion... it only serves as further proof that global warming is a religion! Therefore, global warming is a religion.
4. Conclusion: Plimer is absolutely right on everything he says.

> a relatively small increase in the mean surface temperature could be expected to lead to a large increase in the number of very hot days, even with the distribution preserved?

> Posted by: Jody Aberdein

Yes it can. But not in all situations, the distribution has to depend on the mean. This isn't the case for measurement errors on a pipette, for example.

Vikings in Greenland from 1000 AD, but abandoned Greenland by 1350 (too cold). So lets pick every warm event in history and pretend it happened at the same time.

Or we could pay attention to the facts and recognise warming in Angkor while cooling in Greenland should not be counted the same as warming at the same time.

BTW Ray there was a warming in Europe in the Medieval, it is accounted for by an extended period without major volcanic eruptions. Is that the same reason for current global warming. No, there is very strong evidence that current warming due to the growth of gases that have the physical property of slowing the escape of heat.

It is utterly fascinating that somebody (in this case Ray in #92) can claim that a hallmark of a religious faith is to "have the endorsement of science itself".

It is utterly fascinating that somebody (in this case Ray in #92) can claim that a hallmark of a religious faith is to "have the endorsement of science itself".
Posted by: Lars Karlsson | July 19, 2009 5:28 AM

It is indeed fascinating, but at least I have attempted to explain it. This endorsement is not that of true science, but tentative science open to dispute because the conclusions and predictions cannot be proved. They are beyond the principle of falsifiability.

This why there are so many reputable scientists who are skeptical.

No, Ray, the reason why most denialist scientists are on that side is

a) they don't get any climate research and want that money
b) they can get lots of money on the lecture circuit talking to the converted
c) they get paid to do so (with the bonus that they don't have to worry about being correct)
d) they just want the attention

Ray writes:

>They are beyond the principle of falsifiability.

Ray what is your basis for this claim? I believe you are again talking nonsense. So back up your claim and provide some evidence that you are really a skeptic rather than a pseudo-skeptic nonsensne spouter.

Several points:

Gerhard: Your views on climate change are, as BPL said, on the fringe and are getting pushed farther out there. I also note on your web site that you post the "10 favorite papers written by yourself". Since you have only 22 according to the Web of Science, methinks you don't have that large of a crop to select from. Some advice: before claiming that your qualifications give you credibility in the debate on AGW, check out those of researchers like Susan Solomon who really do publish and get cited in very large numbers and who support the broad consensus over AGW.

Moreover, I am used to personal attacks since Bjorn Lomborg published his error-filled tome in 2001 and I co-reviewed it in Nature. But the main point is that your views, like his, fall outside of the broad scientific consensus on such subjects as human-mediated climate change (your area of expertise) and a range of other processes (which Lomborg covers in his book). Each and every day the evidence accrues as to the human component in the forcing of climate. I don't know what your politics are, but many of those most prominent in denail are associated with corporate funded think tanks and astroturf lobbying groups that are distorting the science to promote a political agenda. Those scientists who appear on lists or petitions attacking the consensus on climate change must realize that these petitions are often set up, promoted and distributed by the same generally conservative think tanks. Hence why Marion makes allegations of this kind. If I were you and the other so-called small band of denialists I wouldn't allow my name to appear on petitions ostensibly set up by those pushing for a clear business-as-usual agenda.

As for Ray's statement: "This why there are so many reputable scientists who are skeptical". Speaking as a scientist who actually does a lot of science, Ray, what do you exactly mean by 'reputable'? Those names who appear on petitions set up by corporate funded think tanks? To me a reputable scientist is one who does intensive research in a field, publishes their results in rigidly peer-reviewed journals, and viligintly refuses to be associated with any groups (especially those where profot margins are concerned) that will use their name to promote a political agenda. The truth is that reputable scientists are always sceptical - that is how science advances. However, by scpetical you actually mean in denial over the causes and consequences of AGW. Isn't this correct? Now that is an entirely different ballgame. Very few reputable scientists (see my description above) are denialists.

My last quation for Ray is this: Are you yourself a scientist? If not, what gives you the confidence to know the relative number of those clearly in denial over AGW? Speaking 'from the inside', I can tell you that the number in most fields is exceedingly small.

Shorter Ray:

1. Climate scientists acknowledge that there are uncertainties surrounding climate science. Therefore, climate scientists are religious zealots.
2. Conclusion: Plimer is absolutely correct in absolutely everything he says.

Janet.....

You seem to have failed to show me a comment where I defended George Bush, other than to show that I cited crimes of Clinton......so I understand your frustration.

Don't get me wrong, you have a knack for assumption and accusation that is quite commendable, though a little hard to follow.....but I think I've figured it out..

Using your logic @ 89...... since I am currently visiting this site, I can somehow be associated with every bloggers comments on this site, as can you....

I'm going to refer to this as "Janets law @ 89", and it will state that "anyone who watches,reads or links to a source of information, is hereby associated with, and assumed to be defending, all information generated around that source, yet at the same time, can be assumed to be defending the opposite of all generated information, when the need fits"

It's quite simple really, and it can be applied to most anything. Here are a few examples....

1. I recently watched "Old Yeller". Using Janet's law @ 89, I agree the dog should have been shot, therefore I hate Dogs and I'm defending all Dog killers.

2. I recently linked a YouTube video showing Biden joking about Obamas teleprompter....Using Janet's Law @ 89, I am now associated with all comments ever posted on every YouTube video, and I'm defending Ronald Reagan.

3. I read parts of "An Anarchists Cook Book" while in college. According to Janet's Law @ 89, I am an Anarchist.

4. Janet linked us to her "favourite source", The Skeleton Closet @ 52.
We find on this site (under Al Gores skeleton closet) this statement......
"One thing is, like several of this year's candidates (notably George W. Bush), Gore has grown up in that protected, distorted world of wealth and privilege that makes it so difficult for him to understand normal people and normal life"

Janet, according to your own logic @ 89, by linking us to that site, you are comparing Al Gore to George Bush....

Shame on you!

Shorter bi @ 91....

Joe Biden joked about Obamas need for a teleprompter, Biden is defending Bush. Bill Clinton lied, Clinton is defending Bush. Lincoln was shot, Lincoln was defending Bush.

Betula,

One might think when Obama pauses while speaking off the cuff, he is thinking about what he is saying before he speaks.

Unfortunately, Betula doesn't think except to mimic right wing talking points, so this wouldn't occur to him.

I hear Obama likes spicy brown mustard on his gourmet hamburgers, too.

Shocking!

Betula, Hand waving, might work with your pals at Free Republic, but not here.

You somehow forgot the key difference between this site and your favourite site, that being you agree with the mob at Free Republic. You agree soooo much that you copy and paste their work and try to pass it off as your own.

And hand waving and attempt at distraction was also your tactic to try and shift blame from Bush his enablers (and his shadow-men) for the hundreds of thousands killed in the criminal Iraq invasion.

The crickets are chirping in response to my invitation to set me straight:
> But please set me straight Betula, did Bush Get it right on Iraq, the Economy, the Inequality and the Environment?

While the crickets chirp, readers might conclude, my judgement of your support for Bush is correct.

Betual certainly went to some effort to attempt to shift discussion away from the travesty of the Iraq war. It must take some real effort to gather [all those quotes](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/07/warbloggers_predictions_of_coa…) whilst leaving out the assessment of Hans Blix, and the whistle blowers on the military-intelligence-political complex?

Betual, how did you feel when millions around the world marched to say, we donât believe the lies put forward for this war?

If you want to believe those who [will profit form war](http://www.spinwatch.org.uk/-news-by-category-mainmenu-9/149-iraq/908-i…), your cherry picked quotes might help your aims. But if you want to consider a wide scope of relevant background you might pay attention to those going out on a limb (at great personal cost), and those who have been show to be accurate.

Rod Barton quit in disgust after the [CIA censored a crucial WMD report]( http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/2005/s1300705.htm), leading to deletion of central facts and conclusions.

That means paying attention to what Andrew Wilkie, Scott Ritter and David Kelly each had to say about the faulty the invasion story whilst it was being swallowed by the media-political-profit complex.

As for Ray's statement: "This why there are so many reputable scientists who are skeptical". Speaking as a scientist who actually does a lot of science, Ray, what do you exactly mean by 'reputable'? Those names who appear on petitions set up by corporate funded think tanks? To me a reputable scientist is one who does intensive research in a field, publishes their results in rigidly peer-reviewed journals, and viligintly refuses to be associated with any groups (especially those where profot margins are concerned) that will use their name to promote a political agenda. The truth is that reputable scientists are always sceptical - that is how science advances. However, by scpetical you actually mean in denial over the causes and consequences of AGW. Isn't this correct? Now that is an entirely different ballgame. Very few reputable scientists (see my description above) are denialists.
Posted by: Jeff Harvey | July 19, 2009 8:29 AM

Jeff,

My experience on this site has informed me that whatever scientist one quotes in support of an opposing view will be immediately villified and denigrated on all sorts of matters that are not related to climate science.

If I quote, for example, the views of Roy Spencer who is a very highly qualified meteorologist with a Ph.D, who is involved with the analysis of satelite data on climate matters, the immediate response on this site will be to attack Roy Spencer's religious views. What more proof do you require that AGW (as expressed on this site) is a religiou matter?

My last quation for Ray is this: Are you yourself a scientist? If not, what gives you the confidence to know the relative number of those clearly in denial over AGW? Speaking 'from the inside', I can tell you that the number in most fields is exceedingly small.
Posted by: Jeff Harvey | July 19, 2009 8:29 AM

I'm not a professional scientist, earning a living as such. But my education was largely scientific and I believe I understand well the principle of falsifiability. If you cant't think of a way of falsifying your theory, it's not scientifically secure.

Of course one can't expect Politicians, such as Penny Wong, to understand this. Their expertise is in Law and Arts. Senator Fielding, with a degree in Engineering, would better appreciate the true scientific implications of the AGW argument. (But of course, he's described as an idiot.)

The bodgy scienctific conclusions of the IPCC lend themselves to a new religion for those who have lost their religious faith due to other scientific discoveries. The power of science which has demolished the historical truth of the scriptures written by sages who were clueless of scientific matters, is now presenting itself as a religious certainty with regard to AGW.

But let me say, I don't really believe that the scientists behind the research are nearly so certain. The certainty is politicised in order to get action.

Jeff,

Ray doesn't need evidence, he "believe[s]".

And here we finally have Ray's definition of "proof".
Forget the overwhelming evidence of AGW, Ray has proof of something:
>If I quote, for example, the views of Roy Spencer who is a very highly qualified meteorologist with a Ph.D, who is involved with the analysis of satelite data on climate matters, the immediate response on this site will be to attack Roy Spencer's religious views. What more proof do you require that AGW (as expressed on this site) is a religiou matter?

Ray, great to see you are so skeptical. It sure takes rock hard evidence to convince you. Did the critics of Spenser use his creationism in response to your arguemnt from authority?

Ray, I'm waiting for you to backup your calim [from earlier:](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/07/monbiot_on_plimer.php#comment-1…)

>Ray writes:

>>They are beyond the principle of falsifiability.

>Ray what is your basis for this claim? I believe you are again talking nonsense. So back up your claim and provide some evidence that you are really a skeptic rather than a pseudo-skeptic nonsensne spouter.

Did the critics of Spenser use his creationism in response to your arguemnt from authority?
Posted by: Janet Akerman | July 20, 2009 12:23 AM

Yes they did. They demonstrated a complete lack of scientific rigor and enquiry, by lumping all creationist views as endorsing the view that dinasaurs walked with man, and that the earth is only 6,000 years old.

Anyone who has visited Roy Spencer's site would understand that he is not a creationist in the fundamental sense, as Isaac Newton probably was, but thinks that a theory of intelligent design could explain the lack of definitive proof for Darwin's theory.

I don't agree with him on this issue. But I refrain from misrepresenting his views in order to attack them.

This practice of misrepresenting the views of others in order to refute the sense and intelligence of their argument, is a practice employed by scoundrels

Ray,

If you are applealing to Spenser's authority, then his authority is the issue you've put on the table. His belif in creationism is a legitimate questions when considering his authority.

Instead of appealing to Spensor's authority, you should stick with his arguments on the the issues. I know that critics of Spenser here have dealt with the [errors and poor practice](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/roy_spencer/) that has influenced Spenser's claims.

Ray writes:

Senator Fielding and Ian Plimer are certainly no idiots or frauds.

Ray, Ian Plimer thinks the sun is made out of iron.

Ray writes:

Senator Fielding, with a degree in Engineering, would better appreciate the true scientific implications of the AGW argument.

One possible definition of a pseudoscientist: Someone who thinks engineers are scientists.

Ray,
If you are applealing to Spenser's authority, then his authority is the issue you've put on the table. His belif in creationism is a legitimate questions when considering his authority.
Instead of appealing to Spensor's authority, you should stick with his arguments on the the issues. I know that critics of Spenser here have dealt with the errors and poor practice that has influenced Spenser's claims.
Posted by: Janet Akerman | July 20, 2009 3:13 AM

Janet,

I appeal to no-one's authority. I try to work things out for myself, something that seems almost impossible for most constributors to this blog.

We're all under the influence of our up-bringing, and a whole host of other influences. People hold views that are conditioned by their experiences.

Know that conditioning and you can manipulate them.

I'm not interested in manipulating people, just telling the truth as I see it.

I'm always open to correction on my views. But so far most of the corrections on this site take the form of ad hominem attacks.

Ray,

Spencer is an outlier. The very fact that most of the prominent sceptics can be counted on one hand should be enough evidence of this. For every Spencer, Lindzen, Baliunas, Soon, Singer, Balling and Michaels there are hundreds if not thousands of qualified climate scientists with very different views to theirs. Te very fact that we know many of the denialists by name shows how often they are quoted in the corporate maninstream media. Moreover, you should check the number of recent peer-reviewed publications by many of the so-called luminaries amongst the denialist camp. You'll find that most of them hardly publish anyhting nowadays and instead rely upon think tanks and astroturf sites to maintain their status. The very fact that its primarily the same names amongst the most prominent of the denialists that were around 10-15 years ago should give some indication how small their number really is. Back in the 1990s, a memo was leaked from the American Petroleum Society in which concerns was expressed that the anti-AGW lobby was effectively using up its credibility by relying on the same scientists to promomote the argument of denial. The memo went on to state that the APS should aim to recruit a new generation of what they termed as 'independent scientists' to promote the views of the fossil fuel industry which was clearly not interested in the science but in maintaining the status quo. More than ten years later and yet we still see the same names (I listed some of them above) being used to downplay the human component in the current warming. A few new ones have been added since, but the denial camp still relies primarily on the same people. This should be enough to suggest that there really aren't that many 'reputable' scientists in the denial camp. And as I said above, many of those on the recent petitions hardly publsih anything in the empirical literature.

Your point regarding the principle of falsifiability is a red herring. Very few theories or hypotheses in earth science (esepcially in environmental science) are iron-clad. As scientists, we set up hypotheses and then test them. Even if the hypothesis is accepted, the results of individual experiments do not necessarily constitute a general rule and thus all empirical results of experiments should be treated with some caution. But the fact is that, although science has never advanced by consensus, public policy must be based on it. Rarely is empirical evidence of a process absolute. However, this in no way precludes the fact that there is high statistical probability that a process is due to a specific causal factor. On this basis we are certain beyond a reasonable doubt that the current warming is due primarily to human forcing, and that the consequences of inaction may have serious consequences for the health and vitality of our global ecological life support systems and, ultimately, for us. On this basis it is prudent that action is taken to reduce the impact the human combustion of fossil fuels is likely to have across the biosphere. Using your falsibility argument, we'll wait until kingdom come and beyond before we act, and by then it will be way, way too late.

One way to prove AGW false would be to remove CO2 from the atmosphere.

If the temperature goes down, then AGW from CO2 is true. If it doesn't, then AGW from CO2 is false.

Ray, I'm waiting for you to backup your calim from earlier:

Ray writes:
They are beyond the principle of falsifiability.
Ray what is your basis for this claim? I believe you are again talking nonsense. So back up your claim and provide some evidence that you are really a skeptic rather than a pseudo-skeptic nonsensne spouter.
Posted by: MAB | July 20, 2009 12:29 AM

I would have thought this is obvious. There are two issues. One, a slight rising in temperature that rivals the temperatures prevalent in the Medieval Warming period, and (2) how much of this repetition of the Medieval Warming period is due to our C02 emissions?

That's the $64,000 question which has not be answered conclusively.

If you want to predict that sea levels will rise 1 metre (in 50 years, whatever), you have to demonstrate that you understand precisely and exactly all the influences, without exception, that affect climate change.

There's no such claim, even from the IPCC.

Spencer is an outlier. The very fact that most of the prominent sceptics can be counted on one hand should be enough evidence of this .
Posted by: Jeff Harvey | July 20, 2009 5:11 AM

Well, Jeff, thanks for at least a rational response.

Not necessarily. When there's a powerful consensus in place it sometimes takes a lot of courage to speak your mind, even in Australia. In China, you're in jail.

I recall many stories in Australia of 'whistle blowers' losing their jobs and credibility. On this site alone, I've been called an idiot and a moron many times. If I were a renouned scientist questioning the case for AGW, I would certainly be reluctant to post my views on this site. It would be like casting pearls before swine.

I'm new to this climate debate. I've got a lot to learn. But I smell a rat already.

So to clarify Ray,

You are not claiming that AGW is "beyond They are beyond the principle of falsifiability"

This is a claim you disagree with and did not make? We wouldn't want anyone to be confused about your bold claims.

Ray writes:
>If I quote, for example, the views of Roy Spencer who is a very highly qualified meteorologist with a Ph.D, who is involved with the analysis of satelite data on climate matters, the immediate response on this site will be to attack Roy Spencer's religious views. What more proof do you require that AGW (as expressed on this site) is a religiou matter?

Janet Akerman writes:
>Did the critics of Spenser use his creationism in response to your arguemnt from authority?

Ray writes in reply:
>[Did the critics of Spenser use his creationism in response to your arguemnt from authority]â¦Yes they did [emphasis added]. They demonstrated a complete lack of scientific rigor and enquiry, by lumping all creationist views as endorsing the view that dinasaurs walked with man, and that the earth is only 6,000 years old.

Janet Akerman writes:
> If you are applealing to Spenser's authority, then his authority is the issue you've put on the table. His belif in creationism is a legitimate questions when considering his authority.
>Instead of appealing to Spensor's authority, you should stick with his arguments on the issues. I know that critics of Spenser here have dealt with the errors and poor practice that has influenced Spenser's claims.
Ray responds:
> I appeal to no-one's authority. ..

Ray go back and read this conversation again.

Then Ray kindly backup your claim, and provide the "many stories, as in:

>I recall many stories in Australia of 'whistle blowers' losing their jobs...

Or is this more pseudo-skeptical rubbish?

Janet asks....

"But please set me straight Betula, did Bush Get it right on Iraq, the Economy, the Inequality and the Environment?"

This is classic..... you accuse me of defending Bush without evidence, so you ask me to defend Bush in an attempt to prove your false accusation correct?

Janet, I would gladly answer the question, if rephrased, perhaps to something like this.......

Betula,

I realize I haven't questioned the facts you presented, but rather questioned your motives for presenting them.

My assumptions and accusations are a direct result of my ideological blinders that tend to obscure and repel reality while creating frustration and confusion.

At the risk of waking up from my dream like state, I will attempt to lose my blinders and would like to ask you the following question.......

Respectfully, Janet.

Go ahead, give it a try.

Jeff,

Don't be fooled by Rays foe skepticism, [here is](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/06/moncktons_vision_of_the_future…) a little background on Ray that may save you wasting any time with him.

And here are some [other choice](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/06/moncktons_vision_of_the_future…), quotes that might help you judge if Ray is trying to [waste time](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/06/moncktons_vision_of_the_future…).

Betula Darlin,
Did you miss the evidence on which I based my judgement of your support for George Bush? Fortunately I can link you back to it, [here]( http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/07/monbiot_on_plimer.php#comment-1…) and [here]( http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/07/monbiot_on_plimer.php#comment-1…).

See darlin, you accuse me of making an assumption about your support for Bush, but I expose you for apologetics for Bushes war crimes with your hand waving, and attempt at distraction.

Chirp, chirp.

Now I notice Observa has some [interesting questions]( http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/07/monbiot_on_plimer.php#comment-1…). How did you feel when millions around the world saw through the lies, and marched in protest?

Chirp, chirp.

There are two issues. One, a slight rising in temperature that rivals the temperatures prevalent in the Medieval Warming period, and (2) how much of this repetition of the Medieval Warming period is due to our C02 emissions?

20th century warming is significantly greater in amplitude, modality and global homogeneity than the [MWP](http://planetsave.com/files/2008/09/0901pnas2.jpg). It rivals any rate change in global temperatures since the end of the last [ice age](http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Holocene_Temperature_Variati…) and the maximum temperatures of any interglacial in the last [3 million years.](http://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/d/d3/Five_Myr_Climate_Change_Rev…) 20th Century warming and the MWP simply aren't comparable.

20th Century warming is likely all due to human generated greenhouse gas and land use change [plus](http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/ipcc2007/fig614.html) some small amount of cooling that has been averted. The climate has been generally cooling since the Holocene Maximum as the procession of the Earth's axial tilt has moved in relation to the obliquity of the Earth's orbit, fluctuating by relatively small variances due to slight differences in sunspot cycles, the stochastic clustering of explosive volcanic events, and small albedo changes, either natural or due to human activities.

Shorter Ray:"Nobody opposes the consensus because brave people are afraid to work in climate science. I am not an idiot."

Ray.

Can I point you in the direction of this site?: http://www.eecg.utoronto.ca/~prall/climate/

You may find it handy in your quest for determining who the rat is in this quote "I'm new to this climate debate. I've got a lot to learn. But I smell a rat already."

Google scholar may help you too...

Janet says....

"Did you miss the evidence on which I based my judgement of your support for George Bush?"

I saw your evidence, that's why I'm questioning your judgement.

According to you, linking factual information about someone other than a republican, is an indicator of support for George Bush, as long as that information counters a belief or exposes hypocrisy.

I understand your judgement is impaired by, well, your judgement, so I won't ask you again to show me where I indicated support for Bush, lest the question itself be misconstrued as support for Bush.

As for your favorite site (The Skeleton Closet) comparing Al Gore to George Bush, I feel your pain, but that is an issue you are going to have to deal with yourself.

The little comfort I can offer you is the one thing I learned from you..... since we are both visiting Deltoid, you must assume we are of the same mindset.

At least we'll always have that.

Betula, who would want anything off you except your absence?

Go find a place where Shrub Is God and Obama is The Black Satan and feel all comfy.

At least give us that.

Betual,

[Rien à dire?](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/07/monbiot_on_plimer.php#comment-1…)

#86

sod,

a feedback process is a physical process. It is described by physical equations, but not by statistical results that are derived on the basis of past observations.

#113

Dear Barton Paul,

please do me a favor and describe a physically adequate experiment that may be used to prove the so-called atmospheric greenhouse effect by empirical evidence. There is an urgent requirement to establish such an experiment because the so-called atmospheric greenhouse effect is only related to a hypothesis. As long as this hypothesis cannot be verified by empirical evidence it will be still a non-proven hypothesis without any scientific meaning.

#60

Dear Joshua,

you are not a native speaker even you are familiar with the German language. A adequate translation into English would be:

"His theses are considered as correct; his lab is reputed to be the leading institute for the central theme of our society: climate change."

This is the opinion of the two editors (in German: Redakteure) of the German Magazine, Der Spiegel, carefully expressed to avoid any trouble either with Rahmstorf or persons who do not agree with the editors' opinion.

News media people are trained to use such soft formulations for protecting themselves and their employers against any kind of attack. Supermarket tabloids, for instance, would struggle to survive if they would write their stories (even accurate) in such a plain language as used in science.

Note that in the German language the word "These" means a statement that demands the proof of the truth.

> please do me a favor and describe a physically adequate experiment that may be used to prove the so-called atmospheric greenhouse effect by empirical evidence.

> Posted by: Gerhard Kramm

Yes. Burn 10 billion tons of fossil fuels for 80 years.

It's a common denier meme: show me empirical evidence!

But anything which isn't an actual world being actually forced through extinction isn't for them evidence.

Why do you need empirical evidence?

Prove 1+1=2

I DEMAND IT.

Prove it.

1 + 1 = 2

+++++++++++++++++++

There is evidence that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

There is no evidence that this doesn't work in the real atmpsphere.

There are calculations based on the basic physics that do.

Look for the 1956 apers by Gilbert Plass:

Plass, G.N. (1956a). "The Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climatic Change." Tellus 8: 140-54.

Plass, G.N. (1956b). "The Influence of the 15 Band on the Atmospheric Infra-Red Cooling Rate." Quarterly J. Royal Meteorological Society 82: 310-29.

Plass, G.N. (1956c). "Infrared Radiation in the Atmosphere." American J. Physics 24: 303-21.

Plass, G.N. (1956d). "Carbon Dioxide and the Climate." American Scientist 44: 302-16.

Plass, G.N. (1956e). "Effect of Carbon Dioxide Variations on Climate." American J. Physics 24: 376-87.

Plass, G.N. (1959). "Carbon Dioxide and Climate." Scientific American, July, pp. 41-47.

Got any proof that these calculations were wrong?

> a feedback process is a physical process. It is described by physical equations, but not by statistical results that are derived on the basis of past observations.

> Posted by: Gerhard Kramm

My god! How did you manage to fake it through college with THAT limited an understanding?

How do you determine the feedback strength you idiotic faux professor???

1) If it's simple enough, calculation

(note: even then you MUST prove it correct by measurement. Guess what: statistics used there you moron)

2) If it isn't simple or is emergent, experiment

Oh, look. Statistics again.

How did you manage to fake your way with that level of inexcusable idiocy?

Rather than distract from the demolition of Kramm's "argument". I'll reply to Darlin Betula back at the [Warblogger's posting](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/07/warbloggers_predictions_of_coa…).

Gerhard Kramm is suggesting (@133) that use of neutral language by news editors is evidence that ??? what is it evidence of??

Gerhard Kramm writes:

please do me a favor and describe a physically adequate experiment that may be used to prove the so-called atmospheric greenhouse effect by empirical evidence.

John Tyndall did lab work to show that water vapor and carbon dioxide were greenhouse gases back in 1859.

Back-radiation from the atmosphere can be measured with a device called a pyrgeometer (google it).

The sun only provides enough energy to warm the Earth to 255 K. Earth's mean global annual surface temperature is 287-288 K.

#57 sod, #58 Dr Gerhard Kramm:

Bitte erlaube mich ein herzliches Dank auszusprechen für die indirekte Link nach Dr Rahmstorf's Schreiben in der Frankfurter Allgemeine. Leider sind solche gutgeschriebene und wohldokumentierte Beiträge zur Verteidigung der Wissenschaft und gegen der Unsinn auch heute noch hochrelevant.

http://www.faz.net/s/RubC5406E1142284FB6BB79CE581A20766E/Doc~EC09932113…

Nochmals Dank!

Further to Barton's reference to [Tyndall's work](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Tyndall#Main_scientific_work) over 150 years ago, I suggest that Gerhard Kramm Google 'carbon dioxide greenhouse experiment' or some such, and see just how many people, even at high school level, routinely demonstrate the effect.

If Kramm is serious in his babbling about "empirical evidence", I can only assume that he has as much genuine scientific understanding as [Piers Akerman](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/07/piers_akerman_takes_denial_to.p…].

It seems that the Denialists' rhetorial vehicle for promoting the science for their case is still up on blocks, with its donk swinging from the rafters...

I want some empirical evidence that Pissing in the river upstream is bad.

It can't use "statistics" since that's all maths lies.

It can't use microscopes since they don't show how the wiggly things in the water do any damage whatsoever.

And anything else you can think of, that won't be evidence either.

All I want is proof!

I just want to be able to reject anything I don't like as not proof. Is that too much to ask???

#134

Mark,

I beg your pardon, but, obviously, you are not familiar with physics and the standards in science. Any hypothesis (even it is based on theoretical considerations) formulated in physical disciplines demands an experimental proof. Until today there is no experimental evidence that the so-called greenhouse gas-temperature hypothesis is true.

#135

Mark,

obviously, you have no inside what a feedback process is. That is your problem, but not mine.

#138

Barton Paul,

I beg your pardon, but your statement is entirely inaccurate. Tyndall found that water vapor and carbon dioxide absorbs infrared radiation. So far, so good. Then he speculated that changes in the atmospheric composition with respect to these two absorbers may explain the climate variability of the past. A speculation is not a proof.

In 1859 Tyndall was not familiar with Kirchhoff's law published in 1860. During that time Tyndall also did not know the Stefan-Boltzmann law published 20 years later by Stefan (1879) and theoretical derived on the basis of thermodynamic considerations by Boltzmann (1884). Tyndall passed away before the radiation laws of Wien (1896), Rayleigh (1900, 1905), and Planck (1900,1901) were published.

Currently, the best explanation of ice ages is related to the astronomical theory of Milutin Milancovitch pubslisched in 1920.

#140

Bernhard J.

Science is not based on wishful thinking.

sod, feedback process is a physical process. It is described by physical equations, but not by statistical results that are derived on the basis of past observations.

this claim is complete nonsense Gerhard!

you brought up the example of an ageing population yourself. obviously the age of a population has a feedback on economics and on the age again. the statistical effect is obvious. a population with an average age of 12 will have a different economic output that one with an average age of 32 or one with 63. the feedback is obvious. please try to (exactly!!!) describe the physical EQUATIONS of this underlying process!

Until today there is no experimental evidence that the so-called greenhouse gas-temperature hypothesis is true.

there are a lot of simplyfied examples of the greenhouse effect.

feel free to build a 10 km column experiment to test the real effect.

you are aware of the databases and the calculations of temperature on different planets, all based on the well established greenhouse effect of CO2???

Tyndall found that water vapor and carbon dioxide absorbs infrared radiation. So far, so good. Then he speculated that changes in the atmospheric composition with respect to these two absorbers may explain the climate variability of the past. A speculation is not a proof.

the claim that this is speculation is idiotic. the effect of CO2 and water is well known,. it is a simple matter of calculation, to understand the effect on our planet.

your complete reliance on experiments puts you limits of understanding physics at the level of a 12 year old.

> Tyndall found that water vapor and carbon dioxide absorbs infrared radiation. So far, so good. Then he speculated that changes in the atmospheric composition with respect to these two absorbers may explain the climate variability of the past. A speculation is not a proof.

Heck, even Billy Bob thinks that H2O has such an effect.

When "professor" has less knowledge of a subject than the Billy Bob's of this world, you wonder where the "professor" got his education.

> Science is not based on wishful thinking.

> Posted by: Gerhard Kramm

Indeed, so stop hoping CO2 has no effect and prove that the small scale lab experiments do not continue into the realms of the earth's (or other planets) atmosphere.obviously,

> you have no inside what a feedback process is. That is your problem, but not mine.

> Posted by: Gerhard Kramm

I'm afraid it is YOU who do not know what a feedback process is.

An Op-Amp has a feedback process. Doesn't lead to infinities.

Despite your hope that it does.

> I beg your pardon, but, obviously, you are not familiar with physics and the standards in science.

I'm not familiar with YOUR world's standards of science. I'm vastly more proficient with this real world's standards than you, however.

> Any hypothesis (even it is based on theoretical considerations) formulated in physical disciplines demands an experimental proof.

And that proof doesn't have to be "show me the earth under any conditions"

We do not "prove" that the sun weighs how ever much it does. We do not get out a pair of cosmic weighing scales.

Yet you would demand this, since you demand not proof that the effect is real and then go from that to the result (the sun produces enough gravity to keep the earth going round in 1 year and we know from small scale measurements of solid weights and torsion bars what the proportionality constant is, yet we do not know that this really applies to an incandescent plasma).

> Until today there is no experimental evidence that the so-called greenhouse gas-temperature hypothesis is true.

> Posted by: Gerhard Kramm

There is.

The temperature this year and for the last five years has been above any temperature before 1998.

CO2 is at a higher level than it has ever been since 1998.

There is your proof.

Stop wishing it away and deal with the science.

Gerhard Kramm writes:

I beg your pardon, but your statement is entirely inaccurate. Tyndall found that water vapor and carbon dioxide absorbs infrared radiation. So far, so good. Then he speculated that changes in the atmospheric composition with respect to these two absorbers may explain the climate variability of the past. A speculation is not a proof.

Oh, good grief. Do I have to draw you a diagram?

Greenhouse gases mostly let sunlight pass.
The sunlight warms the Earth.
The Earth radiates infrared.
Greenhouse gases absorb infrared.
Greenhouse gases radiate infrared.
Some of that goes back down to the Earth.

That's how the greenhouse effect works. You've got both sunshine and "atmosphere shine" warming the surface, and BTW, the latter is actually larger than the former -- 333 watts per square meter compared to 161.4. They measure atmospheric back-radiation with a device called a pyrgeometer (google it), and it's really there. Atmospheric back-radiation = the greenhouse effect. Case closed.

#146

sod

using a pseudonym and stating

"the claim that this is speculation is idiotic. the effect of CO2 and water is well known,. it is a simple matter of calculation, to understand the effect on our planet.

your complete reliance on experiments puts you limits of understanding physics at the level of a 12 year old."

is not in agreement with any scientific standard.

My education is well documented. For instance, I earned my doctoral degree in meteorology (magna cum laude) at the Department of Physics of the Humboldt-University of Berlin, Germany. This is a world renown institution (see http://www.hu-berlin.de/ueberblick/geschichte/nobelpr_html ), but not a community college. My papers are well known. Where is your education documented and where are your papers listed?

#147, #148

Mark

Are you a scientist educated in atmospheric physics and chemistry? Have you any knowledge in atmospheric energetics including atmospheric dynamics, turbulence, cloud physics, and radiative transfer? Please list your papers so that the common readers have a chance to evaluate your reputation.

#149

Barton Paul

Sorry, you are a programmer, but not a scientist.

Shorter Gerhard Kramm: I am an Authority, and you are Not. Therefore, AGW is bunk (per valde superbia).

So, Kramm is dismissing the scientific arguments of others by appeal to authority (or lack thereof)? And also arguing that those same others don't understand how science is done?

WTF?

Gerhard Kramm writes:

Sorry, you are a programmer, but not a scientist.

I'm certainly not a practicing scientist at the moment, despite my physics degree. But what in my post was incorrect, GK? Care to specify, so I can see what my scientific errors were?

#151

Brian D

your words are those of a scientific retard. A scientific authority does not use a pseudonym.

#152

Lee,

I have enough scientific arguments. However, I do not further discuss science with people who act like snipers using pseudonyms. Authority begins with your own name, but not with a nick name.

#152

Dear Barton Paul,

I beg your pardon, but your arguments are incorrect. First, only the divergence of the radiation flux can change the internal energy (and in a further step the temperature) of a layer of the atmosphere, but not the radiation flux itself. This is a fundamental consequence associated with the first law of thermodynamics.

Second,the radiation flux across the entire atmosphere has to be calculated using the radiative transfer equation and by integrating over all wavelengths.

Unfortunately, there is no conservation equation for radiation intensities. This means that one needs boundary conditions. At the earth's surface there is only an energy flux balance, but not a radiation flux balance. The net radiation is a part of this energy flux balance. The atmospheric fluxes of sensible and latent heat are, by far, not negligible. The included soil heat flux is of about 10 to 15 percent of the net radiation. Note that in the case of our moon this soil heat flux compensates the emitted radiation flux on the dark site of the moon. If we would ignore the soil heat flux in our calculation the surface temperature of the moon's dark side would be nearly identical with the temperature of the space, but not of about 130 K

At the top of the atmosphere there is, if at all, only a radiation flux balance on a long-term basis. This means there is no radiation balance on a daily, monthly or seasonal scales. The temperature of the thermopause, for instance, can increase up to 1800 K or so. The number density is very small. The mean free passes are very long. What consequences has the thermopause termperature for the radiative transfer calculation? Are you sure that the scientific community understand this exactly? There is, for instance, no possibility to use Planck's radiation formula as a source function in the radiative transfer equation because aloft a height of 60 km above ground because the assumption of local thermodynamic equilibrium cannot further be justified. Consequently, the boundary conditions commonly used by radiative transfer calculations have to be scrutinized carefully.

Third, it is well known that immediately after sunset the net radiation becomes negative. The emission by the earth's surface is much larger than the down-welling infrared radiation. Consequently, the earth's surface temperature begins to decrease. Neither the soil heat flux now directed upward nor the downward directed sensible heat flux are able to compensate this effect. The formation of temperature inversion is mainly the result of this negative net radiation. This means that the atmosphere is unable to prevent cooling of the earth's surface.

Fourth, the IPCC claims that the anthropogenic radiative forcing since 1750 amounts to 1.6 W/m^2, on average. This value cannot be justified on the basis of geophysical processes. Simple uncertainty calculations using Gaussian error propagation principle shows that the degree of uncertainty is so large that this anthropogenic radiative forcing is only noise. This is a crudely estimated house number, but nothing more. If you have a degree in physics, then you should be familiar with uncertainty calculations. This is essential in physics.

Fifth, climate projections provided by General Circulation Models (so-called global climate models or GCMs) are based on conservation equations. However, cloud microphysical processes, turbulent transfer and radiative transfer processes have to be parameterized to solve the entire set of partial differential equations numerically. These parameterization schemes are huge sources of uncertainty. Please, take a look on Roger Pielke's weblog (http://climatesci.org/2009/07/24/a-new-paper-a-case-study-on-wintertime…). Kramm and Herbert (2009, http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOASCJ/2009/00000003/0000… ) showed that four different parameterization schemes provided such a huge scatter in the results that we have to expect that the degree of uncertainty in this matter is of about 20 to 25 percent. In the case of geophysical processes such a degree of uncertainty is not so bad.

kind regards

Gerhard

Gerhard, what you wrote is a lot of hocus pocus.

you made a simple claim above:

Until today there is no experimental evidence that the so-called greenhouse gas-temperature hypothesis is true.

so i have three simply questions. yes or no will do.

does CO2 have a greenhouse effect on our atmosphere?

are there feedback effects on the climate? does one typically base such effects on statistical values? (let me remind you, that you denied the existence of such effects in post #58)

do you think that the statistical property of age of a population can have an effect on the future age that population?

Kramm:

Third, it is well known that immediately after sunset the net radiation becomes negative.

Where I live this normally starts happening (the temperature starts going down) before sunset.

#157

Dear Chris,

of course, this is possible because the formation of temperature inversions will start when the net radiation becomes negative. This can occur before sunset. It depends on the location. I described the situation as I observed during field campaigns in the middle of Europe. In Interior Alaska where I am living the situation is quite different. Especially in the period from November to February the incoming solar radiation is relatively small so that the net radiation keeps negative during daytime.

Over wet soil covered with shrubs or trees former colleagues of mine observed negatives (downward directed) sensible heat fluxes even during daytime in summer because huge portions of incoming solar radiation were converted into latent heat because of the vaporization of water.

#156

sod

the fundamental laws of physics cannot be denoted as a lot of hocus pocus.

Carbon dioxide absorbs and emits infrared radiation (see also Kirchhoff's law and read Einstein's paper on derivation of Planck's radiation law, also described in many textbooks on atomic physics and radiation). The notion greenhouse gas is, indeed, hocus pocus.

A statistical result like a mean value is based on a distribution already observed in the past. Such statistical results have no effect on the distribution itself. It is simple to show that different distributions can provide the same mean value. This is true also in the case of the globally averaged near surface temperature. Note that in statistics it is indispensable to distinguish between random errors and procedural errors. Only the former can be handled using statistical methods.

Feedback processes are physical processes. During my engineer's thesis nearly 37 years ago I simulated the heart action on an analog computer. One cannot do this without understanding what a feedback mechanism does mean. To solve ordinary differential equations on an analog computer it is always necessary to connect the outputs with the inputs either directly or in the case of higher-order ODEs over several integrator steps. The feedback equations used in "climate science" are poppycock. They have a poor physical basis.

Engaging further with Gerhard Kramm is just a waste of time, and I encourage others not to give the impression that he has something meaningful to say. He cannot even get himself to the level of more "respectable skeptics" and there are only two options for his online behavior, as well as his defense of pseudo-science like G&T--- ignorance or scientific fraud. My guess is a heavy combination of both. In fact he will never even be able to communciate the science as efficiently as "programmers" like Barton Paul Levenson (who does a great job by the way) or even to other pseudonym posters who could just read the wikipedia page on the greenhouse effect and have a more complete understanding of what is happening.

The fundamental physics behind the greenhouse effect (and what a greenhouse gas is) is not in question. Such discussions can be found in most elementary atmospheric science books right up to graduate and professional level material. The fact is that when an absorbing atmosphere is present, the average emission temperature of the planet is less than the surface value, and the loss of energy by the planet is therefore much less efficient than the surface emission. Another aspect of the greenhouse effect as outlined by BPL is the downward emission of terrestrial radiation to the surface. In other planetary applications one can have a significant greenhouse effect from scattering of radiation as opposed to absorption. In all cases, whether it be the Faint Young Sun paradox, the evolution of Earth's climate over geologic time, early Mars, the climate of Venus, etc, the greenhouse effect (usually CO2 as well) is a very big player and comes with enormous predictive and explanatory power. Such predictive and explanatory power also demonstrates the intellectual bankruptcy of those who say we can't make predictions about the effect of rising CO2 levels on temperature, those who deny a greenhouse effect period, and the like.

Despite Kramm's experience simulating heart action nearly 4 decades ago, he is also wrong with his understanding of the error in radiative forcing and his opinion that the "equations" (maybe be more specific?) of climate feedbacks is poppycock. Real discussion of these topics on forcings can be found for instance in Myhre et al 1998, Collins et al 2006, and the IPCC reports. There is also extensive literature on feedbacks (see Bony et al 2006 for a good summary), and we can understand climate change through standard forcing and feedback concepts, indicating that nothing is substantially wrong with the physics of energy balance.

Gerhard, it is good that you are a practicing scientist. We may all hope that one day you will have practiced enough to get something right.

The notion greenhouse gas is, indeed, hocus pocus.

this is simply false.

A statistical result like a mean value is based on a distribution already observed in the past. Such statistical results have no effect on the distribution itself.

you are fighting a straw man there. the mean value of course will have an effect on later values, not on the ones beforehand.

are you claiming that there is no auto correlation in time series analysis?

this would make you position even more absurd!

The feedback equations used in "climate science" are poppycock. They have a poor physical basis.

that is false of course as well. the sea ice feed back for example is pretty good understood.

but there is no need to look at the climate. you brought up the example of an aging population yourself. i will repeat my question:

do you think that the statistical property of age of a population can have an effect on the future age that population?

It is amazing, well, ok, maybe it isn't, how many denialists get all crotchety of the use of the word greenhouse without quotes around it. I've specifically used it as 'greenhouse effect' when writing about AGW, and had someone go "ah ha, its not like a real greenhouse therefore you are wrong." So I said "Thats why I put quotes around it, because I knew someone would complain about it. You do know why the quotes are so used?"

And so on. Their self centredness is incredible.

@Gerhard Kramm:

Oh please - the old "GCMs can't parameterize clouds" canard. I notice that you don't post at Realclimate as it is a treasure trove of [information]( http://tinyurl.com/5v2f3b) on [models](http://tinyurl.com/a5ka6t) that destroys the straw man you posited on #155.

Scared of what Schmidt et al. will do to you? Grow a freaking pair and post the sh*te you dump here at RC. I dare you, but I guess you'll pussy out because you know you are WRONG.

The last time you tried [taking on people who knew calculus](http://tinyurl.com/ntdyep) you tried [every weasel way](http://tinyurl.com/lk5c6d) to escape acknowledgment of [your numerous high-school level mistakes](http://tinyurl.com/ng94g9) and you finally took your toys out and [left without even an apology](http://tinyurl.com/njn6lh).

In Duae Quartunciae's words - you demonstrate [a lack of integrity](http://tinyurl.com/nd9lpz). I would go further and think you have a serious ego issue. Not as big as Motls' that requires professional psych help, but it's getting there. At least you contributed to the mirth of everyone who read your stupidity.

And you take the tacit approval of your paper by RPSr. as some sort of vindication? Oh please. RPSr. is so entrenched in his meso-scale/regional climate worldview that whenever he tries to shift out of this scale, he gets [laughed at](http://tinyurl.com/mjdf7y) by [all and sundry](http://tinyurl.com/l4t4e5). (Oh wait - it applies to you too!)

And his recent foray into micro-meteorology with WTFWatts is pathetic. How he can assume the Monin-Obukhov ST can be applied to urban surfaces when all urban climate textbooks show otherwise? If I did that, one of my old Ph.D. comm members - a VERY well-known urban micro-meteorologist with more first-rate publications than you and RPSr. combined - would have thrown me out of the program.

Three words that applies to RPSr.: Dunning. Kruger. Effect. Pay attention Gerhard. It applies to you too.

> Carbon dioxide absorbs and emits infrared radiation

It does indeed.

But if it hits another molecule before it can emit IR, this can result in an INELASTIC COLLISION.

Now, someone who's done physics until 15 years old will know what an inelastic collision is.

Yet you don't.

Funny, eh?

> A statistical result like a mean value is based on a distribution already observed in the past.

Nope, temperature, as anyone who did physics up to 18 years old will know, is a statistical mean velocity of a gas molecule in the bulk.

Does temperature only exist in the past?

> The feedback equations used in "climate science" are poppycock.

Ah, just saying it is proves it?

Poppycock.

> of course, this is possible because the formation of temperature inversions will start when the net radiation becomes negative.

Doesn't require a temperature inversion.

Just Energy out > Energy In.

Or do you think the day doesn't get dimmer until twilight has started?

Peter Taylor's book Chill needs a response. All the deniers are roaring about it like lions. Apparently Taylor has asked Monbiot to debate with him and Monbiot has gone quiet.
Can someone take a look at Chill and see if it has Plimeroid flaws?

@ Captain Black:

I haven't read Taylor's book, but the PDF he had on his website didn't seem to have anything other than the usual denialist talking points. Mostly cosmic rays and conspiracies IIRC.

He commented here on [open thread 27](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/05/open_thread_27.php#comment-1743…) but did not respond when asked to support his claims. Also mentioned in #33, 34 and 47 of [open thread 41](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/open_thread_41.php#comment-2275…).