I received an email-based interview request on climate a while back from Esquire Middle East. I have decided to include my whole response below. The questions they ask are nearly as informative as anything I say, as they betray that the editors of the publication have pretty much bought into not only global warming alarmism, but all the memes alarmists use to discredit skeptics. Its pretty clear all they know about the skeptic’s position is what they hear from alarmists about skeptics. Anyway, I responded to this from a hotel room in Kentucky and didn’t give it my best but I think it may be interesting to you. The questions are in bold, my answers in normal font.
Do you believe that global warming and climate change are a grave problem to the world at the moment ?
IF NO
What gives you reason to believe that global warming and climate change are not really happening?
I don’t deny they are happening, and neither do any other science-based skeptics. Alarmists like to tell the public that skeptics are taking these positions, in order to discredit them. The climate is always changing without any help from man — a good example is the drying up of North Africa over the last centuries. The period from 1600-1800 was among the coldest in the last 5000 years, so it is natural we would see warming in recovery from this.
Is there any scientific evidence to support that global warming and climate change is not really that harmful
I wrote a 90-minute presentation on this so it is hard to be brief. But here are a couple of thoughts1. I don’t deny greenhouse gas theory, that man’s CO2 can cause some incremental warming. The greenhouse gas theory has to be real, or the world would be much colder right now. No, what I deny is the catastrophe, that temperatures a hundred years hence will be five or ten degrees Celsius higher due to man’s co2
Interestingly, I think most everyone on the scientific end of the debate agrees that the direct warming from man’s Co2 acting alone will be relatively modest – on the order of a degree Celsius by the year 2100 according to the IPCC. Yeah, I know this seems oddly low — you never hear of global warming numbers as low as 1 degree — but it is actually a second theory, independent of greenhouse gas theory, that drives most of the warming. This second theory is that the climate is dominated by strong positive feedbacks that multiply the warming from CO2 many fold, and increase a modest 1 degree C of warming from man’s CO2 to catastrophic levels of 5 or even 10 degrees.
The example I use is to think of climate as a car. Co2 from man provides only a nudge to the car. The catastrophe comes from a second theory that the car (representing the climate) is perched precariously on the top of a hill with its brakes off, and a nudge from CO2 will start it rolling downhill until it crashes at the bottom.
When people say the science is settled, they generally mean greenhouse gas theory. But that means only the nudge is settled. What is far from settled is the second theory of strong net positive feedback in the climate, ie the theory the climate is perched on top of a hill. It is unusual for long-term stable but chaotic systems to be dominated by such strong positive feedbacks. In fact, only the most severe contortions allow scientists to claim their high-sensitivity models of catastrophic warming are consistent with the relatively modest warming of the past century.
2. The amount of unusual climate change we are seeing is GROSSLY exaggerated. We seem to be suffering under a massive case of observer bias in assessing any current effects of climate change. Extreme events, which have always existed, are used by both sides of the debate as supposed proof of long term global trends. But there is little useful we can learn about trends at the tails of the distribution, and it turns out that the means of key weather events in the US, from droughts to wet weather to tornadoes to hurricanes, show no meaningful trends.
We have this incredible hubris that by watching a chaotic system for about 20 years, we fully understand it. But climate has 30-year cycles, 200 year cycles, 1000-year cycles, etc. We don’t even know what is normal, so how can we say we are seeing things that are abnormal. We have seen a lot of melting sea ice in the Arctic, but we think we may have seen as much in the 1930’s, but we didn’t have satellites to watch the ice. And Antarctic Sea ice has been higher than normal while Arctic has been below normal.
Hurricanes are another great example. Al Gore swore that Hurricane Katrina was man-made, but it turns out there is actually a declining worldwide trend in hurricane and cyclone activity and energy, so much so that we hit the lowest level in 2009 since we started measuring by satellite 30 years ago.
Or take sea level rise. Sea levels are rising today and glaciers are shrinking. Sea levels are rising because they were rising in 1950 and in 1920 and in 1880 and in 1850. Sea levels have been steadily rising 1-3mm a year since about 1820 and the end of the little ice age. Ditto glacier retreat, which began around 1800 and has continued steadily to today, though the pace of retreat has slowed of late.
Imagine we wanted to look at customer visitation at a local restaurant that just closed after 60 years in business. If we watched for only a few hours, we might miss the huge variability of the crowds from early morning through each mealtime rush. Watch only for a day, and we might miss the seasonal variation, as vacationers pack the restaurant in March. Watch for just a year, and we might have missed the long, slow decline in visitation that eventually led to the restaurant closing. In climate, we are trying to decide if there is a long term decline at the restaurant after watching for the equivalent of only a few hours.
The reporting on whether manmade climate change is already happening is just awful. We see something happen that we can’t remember happening in the last 20 years and declare it to be “abnormal” and therefore “manmade.” Its absurd, and amazing to me that we skeptics are called anti-scientific when the science being practiced is so awful. The problem is that for academics, who are always scrambling for funds, climate change has become the best source of money. So you can’t just say you are studying acne, you have to say you are studying the effect of manmade climate change on acne. Essentially, we have told the academic world that they can get much more money for their work if they claim to see climate change. So is it any surprise they find it under every rock?
Are most scientists wrong?
I find judging science by counting scientists to be unproductive, so I have no idea. I will say that a lot of folks who sign petitions in support of the alarmist position have not really looked carefully at the science, they are merely showing support because they have been told skeptics are a bunch of religious fundamentalist anti-science types, so they want to express their support for science. It is ironic, as we found in the Climategate emails, that in fact they are supporting bad science, a small core group of scientists who have resisted normal scientific process of sharing data and replication
For some reason, we love to scare ourselves. Or, more likely, many people, particularly younger folks, like to feel that there is some way they can save the world, to deal with their own feelings of insignificance. And one can’t save the world unless it is in crisis. Every generation has these crises, and they are almost always overblown. Look at Paul Ehrlich — he has been wrong about 20 times. He said a billion people would die of starvation by 1980. He is just about never right, but people still lap up every thing he says. Because folks like him give people a sense of mission. And when you demonstrate to them that there is no crisis, they are not relieved (as one would expect someone to be when they find a crisis does not exist) — they are angry that you took their mission away from them.
What do you think is causing temperature changes on a scale never seen before?
Wow, you really are brainwashed. You have an assumption that we are seeing temperature changes on a scale never seen before, and so skeptics must start from this. But in fact the runup in temperatures from 1978-1998 that is the main “proof” of global warming is similar in scale and slope and duration to at least two other temperature increases between 1850 and 1950 which most definitely were not of anthropogenic origins. See here: http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2010/03/oh-maybe-ocean-occilations-are-important.html. There are many issues with which reasonable people can disagree, but your contention about temperature increases being unprecedented is simply wrong and accepted as wrong by about everyone.
What did you think to the results of Copenhagen?
*shrug* Copenhagen had little to do with climate and was much about lesser developed nations trying to extract money from wealthier nations. Climate was just a pretext — do you really think Robert Mugabe or Hugo Chavez care about climate change?
Why do governments seem so concerned with the issue?
The fear of man-made catastrophic climate change gives government officials their best leverage since the repudiation of communism to substantially increase the power of themselves and their government.
If fossil fuels will run out anyway, surely we should move to find alternatives. Why not now?
You are welcome to. Entrepreneurs around the world have been trying to do so for decades. Wealth beyond measure is there for the person or company who is able to do it. What are you going to do to speed it up if such a huge incentive already exists? The government sometimes feels like it can just have its way and wish things into being. It never works.If the technology is not ready, no amount of government prodding or mandating will make it ready. All we will get is more wasted spending and more dead-end technology investments and more public funds poured into the hands of the politically connected. Why hurry if we are not ready? There are still fossil fuels for decades. Why increase the costs to every consumer to hurry this transition to no purpose?
There are perhaps a billion people in the world, particularly in Asia, on the verge of emerging from poverty. They are only able to do so by burning every fossil fuel they can get their hands on. The alternatives that exist today are rich people’s toys, expensive sources of power that we can afford because they ease our guilt somehow. The poor don’t have this luxury.
Even if it is not guaranteed that manmade emissions are to blame, wouldn’t it be wise to act anyway? It’s a hell of a gamble to our children’s future.
Should we spend a trillion dollars on space lasers in case of an alien invasion of Earth? Why not, its a hell of a gamble to our children’s future. We can’t go pre-emptively fix every low-probability problem just because someone claims it might be a catastrophe. Why fix a hypothetical environmental problem when there are 10 other real ones impacting people today that we are ignoring.
The statement you are making only makes sense if the transition if free or low cost. But substantially eliminating fossil fuel use is tremendously expensive. In fact, it is more expensive at this point with current technology than anything the world has ever done. Folks who claim the costs are low are either ignorant or lying. Every major economy will see trillions of dollars of lost output. But forget the rich nations. Remember the billion people emerging from poverty. Strong world action will essentially consign these people to stay in poverty. Do you want your kids 1 degree cooler at the cost of putting a billion people into poverty? It is not the simple question you make it out to be.
Don’t we have a duty to protect or planet for future generations?(i.e. save it from deforestation, pollution etc)
Sure, but as I stated above, we have all kinds of duties to future generations, and not all of them have to do with the environment. But I would argue that the current obsession with small changes to trace levels of CO2 in the atmosphere has in fact gutted the environmental movement. Nothing else is getting done. Take deforestation. My personal interest is in protecting wilderness, and my charity of choice is land trusts that preserve the Amazon. But do you know the #1 cause of deforestation in the Amazon over the last decade? It was the Brazilian ethanol program, which is supposed to be fighting CO2, but now has been shown to do little or nothing for CO2 and it is incentivizing farmers to clear the Amazon to plant more switchgrass and other ethanol crops. Ditto in the US, where ethanol programs are raising food prices and adding to deforestationI would argue that CO2 is not even in the top 10 worst environmental problems in the world. Take clean water in Africa, which I do consider a top 10 problem. The only way Africans are going to get clean water is from using cheap energy to pump and treat water, cheap energy whose only really realistic source is from fossil fuels.
My prediction– 10-20 years from now, environmentalists are going to look back on the current global warming hysteria as the worst thing ever to happened to the environmental movement.
Further comments
Again, this is very off the cuff. I really delve into the science here: http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2010/01/catastrophe-denied-the-science-of-the-skeptics-position.html
SOME CONCLUDING THOUGHTS
OK, so every one of these questions are probing – they are hitting at perceived weaknesses in the skeptic’s position. Fine, it is good when the media is critical. But compare the questions above to the total softballs lobbed at alarmists.
IF YES
How bad is climate change at the moment?
What did you think to the results of Copenhagen?
Is it increasing at an uncontrollable rate? Or is there still a chance to reduce climate change and alter its predicted course of events?
Do you have any comments on the recent e-mail leak scandal that was publicized?
What do you think about the rising levels of climate change skepticism?
How could and/or will climate change or similarly global warming affect the Middle East region in particular the Arabian peninsula?
What about other vulnerable countries?
What can the average citizen do more or less to help reduce climate change and its impact?
What do you predict will happen to major cities in the world if the problem of global warming is not addressed immediately?
How will an increase in global warming change the earth’s natural weather activities i.e. how will people and animals be affected, ecosystems, the weather….
How can we move forward on this issue?
Are you confident we can find a solution?
What are the chances of a new technology saving us? (for example, carbon capture)
Is carbon trading effectively passing the buck? Does it actually help
Only one is arguably critical — the one about the CRU emails — and look at the softball way in which it is asked. The journalists here make no secret of which side they are one.
I think Hunter (The Troll) is an AGW plant. Not designed to win any arguments, but to stop people wanting to engage. It is a way of diverting reasonable discussions which could lead to a better understanding of the skeptic position. It is a strategy that seems to work.
Hunter [the troll’s] verbal abuse tactic is obvious.
He has no understanding of climate and seeks to close any discussion which he cannot win with abuse. Since he cannot make logical arguments and defend them he knows he will lose all arguments so he seeks to end the discussion with abuse.
Small gramatical errors become evidence of brain damage etc. He is really pathetic.
It works [to end the discussion] , but nothing worthwhile is learned.
I suggest everyone just ignore the ranting Hunter. I’ll engage in conversations with some that may use ad hominems or strawmen to attack the arguments of skeptics, even if they come off fairly disingenuous. Some of them are that way because they don’t really know what they are doing and why it is faulty. And some are even extremely stubborn in allowing some sort of logical discussion, but on occation something does get through even if they don’t agree and choose to ignore most of the argument (see Waldo). While others there is no hope, they are so wrapped around DAGW that logical conversation is impossible. Shills is this way, as is this Hunter. Shills’ only redeming quality is that he makes his personal attacks and displays ignorance in a slightly less flagrant manner. Actually, come to think of it, that’s a bad thing. At least Hunter is so obvious with them one doesn’t need to read beyond the first line to know he’s a complete hack.
Contrary to what Hunter [the troll] says the earth’s climate is a negative feedback system.
A true positive feedback system would run away since warming would cause more warming which would cause more warming etc. No climatologist seriously thinks that is the way the climate works.
The paradox is that without a true positive feedback system there is no amplification of CO2’s puny warming. [1 ° C pr doubling of CO2]. Without the phony amplification there is no crisis.
A negative feedback system is one in which a perturbation in one direction causes a reaction which causes the system to go in the other direction. The 1998 overshoot caused the 1999 and 2000 undershoot which were followed by another overshoot. Climatologists and anyone that knows anything about feedback knows this describes the earth’s climate system.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.C.lrg.gif
On short and long time cycles a negative feedback system rebounds from a perturbation by rebounding toward a “set point” so that when the Maunder Minimum was over and sunspot cycles returned the temperature rebounded toward the previous temperatures.
Negative feedback processes like clouds and water vapor and rain tend to amplify the negative feedback effects ! In this case they added extra warming. In other circumstances they could cause cooling.
To claim that any warming observed was due to CO2 is evidence of sloppy thinking.
I just wanted to post this so others might understand. Hunter’s rants won’t stop information exchange.
His motives are apparent to all of us.
In repy to NETDR- completely ignoring all feedbacks, radiation doesn’t increase directly in proportion to temperature, it increases as the fourth power of temperature. If the sun’s output increased to 1.001 in watts, the earth’s temperature would increase roghly to 1.00025 in degrees Kelvin, neglecting any feedbacks.
You might find this of interest:
http://www.john-daly.com/miniwarm.htm
and this
http://www.sciencebits.com/OnClimateSensitivity
Cont…
5. “you seem utterly oblivious to the fact that the climate has no equilibrium state, and climate variables do not oscillate about a central value.” HAHAHAHAHA! ok. If you only understood how this statement utterly annihilates your own CAGW postition, you’d douse yourself in gasoline and set yourself on fire out of sheer embarrassment for actually having made this statement. Unfortunately, you are apparantly too stupid to see the contradiction. Think about what you just said.. then go punch yourself in the testicles once you have figured it out.
6. “It would be just as stupid to describe the little ice age as a recovery from the mediaeval warm period.” This is about the only correct thing in your whole vulgar, ignorant rant. Except of course that life LIKES warm, and in terms of “optimal” living conditions warm is better, and since better = good and “recovery” implies moving from a worse condition to a better one.. “Recovery” = good.
7. “Obviously, you don’t know what evolution is or how it works.” Once again, get ready to punch yourself in the testicles, as apparently YOU don’t understand evolution. Polar bears don’t live on the equator because they are NORTH AMERICAN BROWN BEARS that *adapted* over a short period of time (ref: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/03/100301141848.htm)
(ref: http://www1.voanews.com/english/news/science-technology/Polar-Bear-Fossil-Traces-Origin-to-Brown-Bears-86392697.html)
If someone were to transplant a polar bear to equatorial zones… they’d do just fine. You see, moron, it’s NOT *BECAUSE* of the cold that polar bears thrive, it’s DESPITE the cold. Time to go back to elementary school and learn the difference and relationships between Evolution, Adaptation, and Natural Selection.
SO, your attempt at arguing that Planetary life doesn’t prefer warm over cold… total FAIL.
You truly are and ignorant twit who just posts for the sake of spewing venom. What happened, were you not breast fed or something?
8. Respect. Sorry pal, you don’t get to try to point fingers at me because I called you a “troll”, as you so obviously are. YOU don’t make the rules. Check your very first post on this thread, then look at all the rest. *YOU* came here with disrespect, and you got it back in return. You don’t like being called a “troll”… STOP ACTING LIKE ONE!
Doc
Hunter (The troll),
Wow. Where to begin? I guess I’ll take it in the same order that you post:
1. Calling *me* illiterate because I have a hard time piecing together *YOUR* crappy middle school grammar, and lack of simple English skills is… well, ironic. (look that word up)
2. “Are Volcanoes Cyclic?” I’d ask what that has to do with the discussion, but I have a better answer: Speaking of Fuckwits … YES THEY ARE.
(ref: //volcanoes.usgs.gov/yvo/about/history/cycles.php)
(ref: http://www.physorg.com/news142778457.html)
(ref: jgs.geoscienceworld.org/cgi/content/abstract/128/4/311)
3. “Are long term solar changes cyclic?” Once again, speaking of illiterate fuckwits, YES, THEY ARE.
(ref: http://www.tmgnow.com/repository/solar/lassen1.html)
(ref: http://www.stat.psu.edu/reports/2005/tr0504.pdf)
(ref: http://www.springerlink.com/content/v658447r1k162hjv/)
(ref: ncse.com/rncse/18/5/long-term-solar-oscillations-age-sun)
4. “Is atmospheric composition cyclic?” Wow, believe it or not… strike, fucking, three as guess what? THERE *ARE* atmospheric composition cycles. (In all honesty, I didn’t know that either, but… well, *I’m* not the one who looks ignorant for not knowing it, and YOU are since you brought it up.)
(ref: orion.it.luc.edu/~mschmel/Handout3.pdf)
(ref: http://www.atmo.arizona.edu/students/courselinks/fall05/atmo551a/pdf/CarbonCycle.pdf)
(ref: http://www.docbrown.info/page21/GeoChangesANS01.htm)
(ref: http://www.iac.ethz.ch/education/master/curriculum/modules/com)
Hunter (The troll),
Wow. Where to begin? I guess I’ll take it in the same order that you post:
1. Calling *me* illiterate because I have a hard time piecing together *YOUR* crappy middle school grammar, and lack of simple English skills is… well, ironic. (look that word up)
2. “Are Volcanoes Cyclic?” I’d ask what that has to do with the discussion, but I have a better answer: Speaking of Fuckwits … YES THEY ARE.
(ref: http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/yvo/about/history/cycles.php)
3. “Are long term solar changes cyclic?” Once again, speaking of illiterate fuckwits, YES, THEY ARE.
(ref: http://www.tmgnow.com/repository/solar/lassen1.html)
4. “Is atmospheric composition cyclic?” Wow, believe it or not… strike, fucking, three as guess what? THERE *ARE* atmospheric composition cycles. (In all honesty, I didn’t know that either, but… well, *I’m* not the one who looks ignorant for not knowing it, and YOU are since you brought it up.)
(ref: http://orion.it.luc.edu/~mschmel/Handout3.pdf)
I have about six references per point but there seems to be a limit on the number of links. Look it up yourself.
Cont…
Hunter (The troll),
Wow. Where to begin? I guess I’ll take it in the same order that you post:
1. Calling *me* illiterate because I have a hard time piecing together *YOUR* crappy middle school grammar, and lack of simple English skills is… well, ironic. (look that word up)
2. “Are Volcanoes Cyclic?” I’d ask what that has to do with the discussion, but I have a better answer: Speaking of Fuckwits … YES THEY ARE.
3. “Are long term solar changes cyclic?” Once again, speaking of illiterate fuckwits, YES, THEY ARE.
4. “Is atmospheric composition cyclic?” Wow, believe it or not… strike, fucking, three as guess what? THERE *ARE* atmospheric composition cycles. (In all honesty, I didn’t know that either, but… well, *I’m* not the one who looks ignorant for not knowing it, and YOU are since you brought it up.)
I had a ton of reference links, but apparently the filter on this site doesn’t like them, so look it up yourself.
Cont…
1. Yes, you are illiterate. You failed to understand a very simple statement. Your problem, not mine.
2. Wrong.
3. Wrong.
4. Wrong. What a fucking idiot.
5. Do explain further.
6. Wrong. Life likes the conditions it has adapted to, not ones it has never experienced. Pretty fucking obvious when you think about it.
7. Duh. Do brown bears live at the equator?
8. Call me a troll, if you like. Why would I give a shit? I’ll call you a paedophile granny-raping shit-eating retard in return. Isn’t this fun?
Doc_Navy,
I like your rant against hunter there. Very entertaining.
The most interesting part of much of this climate debate for me doesn’t really center around what the climate is going to do but what its effects on life will be.
The DAGW advocates like to spew about how we’ll see X number of extinctions or Y human deaths from Z amount of warming, but they don’t care talk about A number of species that diverge and thrive or B number of human lives saved or improved in some way.
For life in general, you’re absolutely right, warm = good. Life generally doesn’t do well with frozen water or temps that come even close to freezing water. Enzymes aren’t active, even diffusion is slow, membranes are rigid, etc. And considering that our planet contains much more area where temps are at or below freezing are normal vs. where temps are high enough to hinder life (we’re talking 110+ at minimum), it should be pretty obvious life has more to lose from our planet getting colder than warmer. Plus, warmth generally means more H20 in the air. Outside of non-freezing temps, the next thing life needs is plentiful water. As the Earth warms more water evaporates from the oceans. Meaning more rainfall on land. Yeah, sure warming could cause certain areas to have less H20 because global trends don’t necessarily transfer to micro-climates, but on average it will mean more rain. Then of course, warmer temps also mean milder winters or longer spring-falls seasons. This mean longer growing seasons. Combined with more water, this leads to better life for humans, along with pretty much every other organism. (And gosh, wouldn’t longer growing seasons and northern expansion of greenery mean more CO2 consumption?)
Then we have these extinction issues. Well, we’re coming out of an ice age and are likely leaving a cold period that’s lasted millions of years. Life adapted to colder climates in that time period. This is why, for example, we don’t have 2 ton sauropsids anymore. They simply can’t be that big on a cold planet and be “cold” blooded (or “lukewarm blooded”). Anyway, so as we leave this cooler period, we should expect that species that have adapted to specialize in cooler climate to die, while those that can handle it will live, even thrive as they replace the dieing species. This idea that polar bears going extinct is a bad thing is just totally bogus. Eventually all species will go extinct or diverge into a new species that can deal with current conditions, what ever they are. This is not good or bad, its just life and its natural, we can’t fight it.
And on a bit of a tangent, environmentalists fancy themselves liberals right? To fight for today’s living organisms is one of the most pure “liberal” tenets right? Unfortunately, it is, in truth, a conservative ideal. To be conservative is to resist change. This is how we define conservatives, they resist change to give gay people rights of marriage, or legalize abortion, or give women and black people votes, to allow divorce, etc. Well our environmentalists are fighting to resist an even more unstoppable force than social progressivism, evolution. Polar bears will likely die or adapt to likely become unrecognizable as polar bears (no more white fur for sure) as the Earth inevitably warms in the next how ever long. It is an unwinable fight. Or at best, its an unnecissary fight, as polar bears may be perfectly able to adapt to warmer climates, but just haven’t needed to until recently.
In the end the Earth will get warmer with our without anthropogenic GHGs. History has shown that much to be true. Unfortunately for DAGW advocates, history has also shown that life, and especially human life (notice how the great cultures of the past have occurred during relatively warm periods?), thrives in warmer climates. So even if AGW is happening, I have an extremely hard time believing its a bad thing for us in particular, and life in general. In deed, instead of dangerous (or catastrophic) anthropogenic global warming, it may truly be “beneficial anthropogenic global warming”.
ALAN
THANKS FOR THE LINKS.
Actually I knew about the 4 th power problem but Hunter didn’t so I let it slide. [sneaky ?]
Using the Stefan-Boltzmann equation again (E=kT^4) , the likely warming resulting from a +1.5 wm-2 energy flux increase can be calculated by increasing `E’ in the equation from 387 wm-2 (the present mean flux at earths surface) to 388.5 wm-2 , (the expected flux after a CO2 doubling).
This method gives a warming of +0.28 C for a doubling of CO2.[without the mythical feedbacks]
So even Dr Hansen’s estimate if 1 C for a doubling of CO2 is too high ?
Thanks again.
Actually, if CO2 blocked 3.7 watts, as stated by the IPCC, surface radiation would increase by 3.7 watts. According to Trenbeth’s figures,
the earth’s surface gets about 490 watts/ square meter, and radiates away 390 in sensible heat, 100 in convection and the latent heat of vaporization.
With no greenhouse effect, the earth would get about 240 watts. We get an additional 250 watts from the greenhouse effect, but 40% of that, 100 watts, goes into latent heat. If 40% of that 3.7 watt increase goes into latent heat, we’d get a temperature increase of
(392.92/390.7) = 0.41C with a doubling, still small, and that’s before taking into consideration the increased albedo from that increase in clouds from the 78 watt level to the 79.48 watt level in latent heat of vaporization.
Alan
The difference between 1.5 W/m-2 and 3.7 W/m-2 illustrates the lack of agreement on even the basic facts of the debate.
Which is correct ?
As you stated:
“that’s before taking into consideration the increased albedo from that increase in clouds from the 78 watt level to the 79.48 watt level in latent heat of vaporization.”
The effect of clouds is where the real body is buried and the models are inadequate to calculate this [it is even more complex than simple albedo change]. There are even experiments which suggest that the overall feedback is negative.[Lindzen and Choy 2009] In this case the increased albedo would make even the “Gray body” estimate too high.
I don’t know exactly why the cooling effect of the Maunder Minimum [LIA] was so great if the temperature difference was as the 4 th power of radiation. Whatever the cause, when the minimum was over the earth slowly returned to it’s pre LIA warmth. It is hard to believe it is a coincidence.
The climate alarmists attempt to claim that all warming since the invention of the thermometer was caused by CO2 is plainly wrong.
****”on occation something does get through even if they don’t agree and choose to ignore most of the argument (see Waldo)”
Hmmmm…I’m trying to remember what I “ignored,” Wally…
There was the discussion about the CRU investigations in which we disagreed on how damaging the lack of professional statisticians was to the science (but in that case I followed the investigators and not your dismissal of the entire report, so ignored nothing)…
Or perhaps there was a post directed at me to which I did not respond? Please remember that sometimes there are a great many posts and I can’t possibly respond to them all. Be fair.
****”The climate alarmists attempt to claim that all warming since the invention of the thermometer was caused by CO2″
Is that what they claim? This comment, and ones like it, are why a number of us do not believe you are an engineer, netdr. Why does your moniker link back to CS?
waldo [or pseudo hunter]
What you believe is your problem.
If the entire .7 C rise in 100 years is not caused by CO2 then CO2’s effects are truly tiny. Even the whole amount is not enough to be a problem without significant acceleration in the future. “Positive feedback starts tomorrow” is like “Free beer tomorrow”.
Conversion to alternate energy, and soot cleanup, can be accomplished without tens of trillions of dollars in unnecessary taxes.
A little clarification here- Pseudo hunter, that should be “Turing Test”, NOT “Touring” Test- Named after Alan Turing.
Contrary to pseudo-hunter’s assertion, it doesn’t make any difference whether you take log 10, log e, log 13.5, or whatever- they’re all equivalent.
Assume the effects of doubling CO2 are logarithmic, and there are no feedbacks, and a doubling raises temperatures X°.
ln 2 = 0.693147 ln 1.05 = 0.04879 0.04879/.693147= .070 so a 5% increase will increase temperatures by 0.07X.
log 2= 0.30103 log 1.05 = 0.021189 0.021189/0.30103= ,070 so a 5% increase will increase temperatures by 0.07X regardless of whether you use log 2, log 10, or log 12.3456789- all logarithmic scales are equivalent
Why does you moniker link back to CS, netdr?
It is always wonderful to see the stupidity rise up a notch. Just when I think it’s not possible, someone posts something yet more inane. Alan McIntire, choosing a different base makes a very significant difference, in fact. In the equation F = 5.35 × ln (C/C0), you will quite obviously get the wrong answer if you don’t know what ln means and use the wrong base. I pity you for being so stupid.
I don’t pity you quite as much as I pity netdr, though, who ineptly tried to use that equation, but used the wrong base and then inserted his own bizarre multiplication factor. He actually calculated (wrongly) that a 5% rise in CO2 concentrations would cause a 0.68°C rise in global temperature, but was too stupid to even realise what he was calculating, let alone that he’d fucked it up.
He also appears to think he has to type in the name of the website he’s reading into the comment form box. hen asked before why his name linked to http://www.climate-skeptic.com, he had no idea at all and seemed totally bewildered. This is yet another indicator of a very inadequate mind.
Obviously the 5.35 is a fudge factor.
They wanted an answer of 3.7 watts with a doubling,
so they plugged in 3.7/ln 2 and got 5.35.
Read earlier versions of the IPCC report, and you get different fudge factors.
use base 10 and you get a fudge factor of
3.7/log 2 = 12.29, so
12.29 = log (Current CO2/original CO2).
As I stated previously, doubling CO2 should raise temperatures X.
Assuming no feedbacks, and a logarithmic effect on temperatures, both assumptions being questionable, you get an increase in temps of
( Log 1.05/Log2)*X for an increase of 5% rather than a doubling, and the answer works in any log base you choose.
Sorry to have missed the fun.
Hunter(troll)
1. Whatever. Your “simple english” is really exactly that. Simple. Like the kind a junior highschool kid would use. Sorry, that’s not my problem. It’s on you, the writer, to be clear; not me, the reader, to have to translate your true meaning out of junior high scribblings.
2. Google, “volcanic cycles”. (If you can figure out how to type it.) Read. Punch yourself in the testicles for looking like a fool.
3. Again, the internet IS your friend. Google, “Long term Solar cycles” or you can use your EXACT phrase, “Long term solar changes” read… after icing your aching testicles…punch ’em again. Hang your head in shame.
4. As I said before, you brought this one up. I just looked it up to see if you were wrong… and you were. There ARE cycles in atmospheric composition. I didn’t know that, so.. bonus, *I* learned something. Too bad nobody can say the same thing about you. I’ll be magnanimous (I know, big word. Don’t strain yourself) and give you the search string so maybe you might learn something too. (ref: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=atmospheric+composition+cycles&aq=f&aqi=g-sx1g2g-m1&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai= )
5. I shouldn’t HAVE to explain… and using your own logic from earlier, if you can’t figure it out on your own, you have no right to have an opinion about Climate Change. Sucks having your own words handed back at you, doesn’t it?
6. You’re funny when you try to twist your logic to make an argument against something that is a fact prima facie. (look that phrase up.. it’ll make you look smarter)
7. No they don’t, but that is besides the point. You asked, “Why don’t polar bears live at the equator?” as some sort of hypothetical proof that destroys the strawman argument you put in my mouth concerning Natural Selection. I answered your lame question… with facts. Polar Bears don’t live on the equator because, well.. they’re *POLAR* bears, and if someone were to transplant a polar bear subpopulation to the equator, the cuddly little guys would do just fine, in fact, they’d probably thrive. Cuz.. you know, warmer is better.
8. So, umm… am I a pedophile and an attracted to children, or am I a ” Gerontophile” and like raping grannies? See, they are usually mutually exclusive sexual disorders. If you are going to toss out vulgar epithets, and crass sexual accusations, might want to at least SOUND like you know what you are talking about.
Finally, I guess I will continue to label you a “troll” for as long as you present positive evidence to that fact. Honestly, all the swearing and sexual stuff really makes you look yobbo, mate.
Doc
Waldo,
You ignore pretty much all the evidence against DAGW. You may think you deal with it, but in reality you don’t. Attacking authors, the location of publication, or falling back to what you think a majority of scientists might say, is not “dealing” with an argument, at least not rationally. And after your faults being explained to you so many times, and you continuing this behavior, I’m left concluding that you truly just want to ignore the evidence that supports our argument. You likely do this because you can’t understand it, or because you have some personal bias that has abolished any rational thinking you might be capable of.
Woohoo Alan D. McIntire! Didn’t think it was possible, but you’ve upped the stupid level again. “They wanted an answer of 3.7 watts with a doubling”. Hahahaha! Classic. Possibly even better is “12.29 = log (Current CO2/original CO2)”. Thanks for a good laugh!
Doc_Navy, you hapless little shit:
1. No, if you can’t read, that is in fact most definitely your problem.
2. Still wrong.
3. Still wrong.
4. Yes, still wrong. A rather spectacular misunderstanding, it seems. I think you’ve read the words “carbon cycle”, and thought, in your simple-minded way, “Aha! A cycle! I must show off my new found knowledge on the internet!”. Neither global volcanic activity, nor long-term solar variation, nor atmospheric composition vary in a cyclic matter.
5. How interesting! You can’t even explain what you found so amusing. I am, of course, very surprised!
6. Looks like it bears repeating then: “Life likes the conditions it has adapted to, not ones it has never experienced. Pretty fucking obvious when you think about it.”
7. See previous point. Only someone with abysmally low intelligence could imagine that polar bears would “probably thrive” at the equator.
8. I’ll continue to call you a paedophile granny-raping shit-eating retard for as long as you come across as such. Isn’t this fun.
pseudo-hunter, learn something about logarithms.
The 1996 IPCC report gave a factor of 6.3 ln (CO2/CO2 original), giving 4.367 watts for a doubling, so the figure is OBVIOUSLY a fudge factor. When the IPCC figured that a doubling would result in only a 3.7 watt incrrase, the multiplier factor was changed- in the 2001 report.
I discovered where Hansen got that large feedback factor.
http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/
~wsoon/ChristopherMonckton08-d/Hansenetal84-climatesensitivity.pdf
If my link doesn’t work, do a google search on “Hansen climate sensitivity” and you’ll quickly come across his 1984 paper.
Specifically check out equations (6) through (12) and the related commentary.
Here’s a puzzle for everyone reading this:
find the mistake- it involves only simple algebra.
hint: see
http://www.sciencebits.com/OnClimateSensitivity
****”Waldo,You ignore pretty much all the evidence against DAGW.”
Oh, so we are back to this are we? On a number of different occasions, Wally, you have accused me, more or less, of being dense because you’ve failed to convince me of some point which you seem to feel is apparent. I will not insult you with the same sort of rhetoric here, but I will say that we have been around this tree a number of times…and it’s not me who is either unable or unwilling to grasp a simple concept. So –
Allow me to retort: I do not ignore the qualified voices – Pielke in particular; I used to be a believer in Lindzen but recent criticisms of his work have thrown doubt over his objectivity and motives; Singer is undeniably brilliant but he has unfortunate ties to Big Oil; then there is Botkin – who I really like, and Easterbrook, Lomborg and others who I find convincing if maybe not the final voices in the debate.
So no, you are simply and plainly wrong there.
Who I do ignore are the snakeoil salespeople of the deniosphere. I am not willing to put my trust there. And as my presence on CS should demonstrate, I ignore as little as I can.
I might suggest that it is you who is ignoring the evidence you don’t like such as the reconstructions of people like Keith Briffa or Wahl and Ammann or even the fact that codes and data are freely available online.
Waldo,
We’ve been around this tree so many times because your idiocy has yet to end. How many times have you attacked the author and not the arguement or the data? The answer is nearly every time.
“Allow me to retort: I do not ignore the qualified voices – Pielke in particular; I used to be a believer in Lindzen but recent criticisms of his work have thrown doubt over his objectivity and motives; Singer is undeniably brilliant but he has unfortunate ties to Big Oil; then there is Botkin – who I really like, and Easterbrook, Lomborg and others who I find convincing if maybe not the final voices in the debate. ”
This is your flaw. It doesn’t matter if you are skeptical of someone’s motives or not, what matters is the substance of the argument. This is exactly what I mean when I say you ignore the skeptical argument. You in fact, just admitted you do so unless it is coming from someone you trust. And of course how you gain and loss the trust of certain individuals is highly nebulous.
“Who I do ignore are the snakeoil salespeople of the deniosphere. I am not willing to put my trust there. And as my presence on CS should demonstrate, I ignore as little as I can.”
This totally hypocritical, to the point of irony even. How are you listening to what is said in the comments section and by Meyer if you relegate use to the status of snakeoil salespeople? You and logic are as oil and water.
“might suggest that it is you who is ignoring the evidence you don’t like”
Bring me whatever evidence you like, and lets see just how I ignore it, shall we. This is essentially what I asked before. For you to pressent me with a paper (or papers) that support DAGW. You gave me nothing of the sort. If there is something from Braffa, or others, you think I’m not understanding, by all means, post it, explain how it ties into the larger argument. You, the one making the argument for DAGW, have the burden of proof. Not I. You make the claim, you prove it.
Hunter (troll),
What’s “Pretty fucking obvious when you think about it.” is that you don’t realy know anything. Tell you what… If I’m so wrong, how about a reference that proves it?
For every reference you find that says there are no long term solar cycles (And we’ll go by the definition of “long term” that the folks studying the Sun go by), I’ll find three that say otherwise, m’kay?
Same with volcanic cycles. cuz, you know… there’s no such thing as a “volcanic cycle” or a volcano that erupts in a cyclic fashion or geysers that are so cyclic that you can almost set your watch to them.. no sir. Doesn’t exist.
As for atmospheric composition cycles… well, if you understand the papers that are there to be read.. I can’t help you. (by the way.. the carbon cycle IS a cycle that affects the composition of the atmosphere. Just to let you know. So is the biogeochemical cycle, something you would have read about on the first fage of the first listed paper.)
Here’s an interesting workshop by a PRO-AGW group that has a focus on your non-existent cycles in atmospheric composition. (Ref: http://www.agci.org/programs/past_scientist_workshops/about_the_workshop/sciSess_details.php?recordID=179)
Look let’s just get honest here… you are trying (in vain, I might add) to argue that cycles don’t really exist in a system made up of various… CYCLES! Next I suppose you are going to say that there are no lunar cycles (you’ve already tried to say that there are no Solar ones.), No seasonal cycles, no weather pattern cycles, no oceanic temperature cycles… seriously, what do you think, that everything is just a random walk? You need to get back on your medication.
I can play your stupid little game too, you know. You are wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, and incredibly wrong.
Try putting out something that supports WHY I’m so wrong. Besides, because you say I am.
Only someone who’s entire family has the combined IQ of a ping pong ball would try and argue that life based on carbon, left-handed amino acids, and the Krebs cycle would try an postulate that cold conditions are equally capable of supporting life as warm. (Here’ the main reason… Energy. Warm has more, cold has less. It’s physics, man.)
By the way, here’s a question for you… why is ALL life based on left handed proteins? If Evolution works as you think is does, shouldn’t something, somewhere on this planet have evolved the ability to use right-handed proteins? Considering that chemically both left and right handed proteins occur with equal chance and ease.
Yes, this is great fun. Of course, between the two of us… I have a feeling that I come off a little more reasonable and stable.
Doc
It is interesting that the two trolls are so good at misleading and hiding at the same time.
My little shadow literally offers nothing but displays that show a desperate need for him/her/it to receive long term and powerful psychiatric help.
And Waldo, well- good ol’ Waldo wouldn’t know an original thought if hunter(troll) slapped him in the face with it.
Doc, you fight the good fight very well. But then using facts truth and integrity always puts those like hunter(troll) in a bad light.
Wally, you are far too patient. Waldo is worth ignoring completely, after you finish laughing at him/her.
I wonder if Hunter (the fool) is claiming their are no cycles knowing full well he’s wrong, or if maybe he thinks by cycles we mean only of the very simplistic form of y=A*sin(B*t + C), where A, B and C are constant with respect of time. When of course you likely have cycles built on cycles where we have something much more like y = Sum[An*sin(Bn*t + Cn)] where any An, Bn, Cn could be functions dependent on time, as well as other factors. Regardless of which it is, DAGW advocates tend to very simplistic in their thinking.
****”How many times have you attacked the author and not the arguement or the data? The answer is nearly every time….what matters is the substance of the argument”
And now we’re back to this.
What am I supposed to attack, Wally? Let me re-post something: “Mr. Meyer’s post up-top is a plaint about a magazine article in which the deniosphere gets a dose of its own medicine; the next post is about lawyers and flood claims which somehow equates to Al Gore’s movie; the next post is a 100 word-ish summary of Monkton at Heartland [unbiased sources there!]; after that is a cross-posting from another blog; after that, an excerpt from USA Today about lion warning calls which also somehow relates to AL Gore; and finally a picture of a park which Mr. Meyer oversees.” What science should I, or anyone, attack?
There is very little science on this blog unless you count the repartee taking place overhead [and I must admit, the “punch yourself in the testicles” motif, while extremely juvenile, is kind of funny] which has become so ridiculous it is amusing. There is very little actual science here, Wally.
And this is what bothers me. This site proposes all sorts of very inflammatory stuff with very little substance while maintaining the guise of scientific objectivity. It’s kind of like reading Conservapedia. I am happy to let the scientists debate, Wally, that’s the whole point. The deniosphere is simply the spread of bad intentions.
And again, be fair: I am reading papers as I can, as you can tell, but it is slow going for me with a good deal of backtracking – my last selection seems to have bored you.
But if you want to knock them out of the water, how about this stuff?
http://www.pewclimate.org/federal/congress/testimony/gulledgej/examining-hockey-stick-controversy
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/ammann/millennium/CODES_MBH.html
Which brings me back to the put-your-money-where-your-mouth-is-problem.
You are the one who has variously claimed you understand the statistical problems better than the climate scientists, and you have even gone so far as to claim your evaluations are on a par with the climate science professionals.
Okay. Prove it.
Write a paper and put it out there for peer review. Obviously this will take a while but I suspect I and the others will be around for the next year or so, and obviously this will require that you reveal you actual identity (which is never a good idea online) but you are also very fit so have nothing to worry about. Go ahead – be that rogue scientist who blows the whole DAGW scam. Otherwise you too fail to deal with the science involved.
Waldo,
Save the reposts, I’m not reading it. You can reread my response to your previous bouts of idiocy if you like.
And yes, your previous paper bored me because I specifically asked for something peer-reviewed, from which you were using to support your DAGW beliefs. That paper did not appear to support such a thing. And to condense our conversation, you asked me if I find the paper valid. Well, yes (and before you try any trickery here, this does not mean I believe what ever interpretation you might have of it is valid). It is mostly a reporting of temp measurements. Now, we could dig ourselves into just how they come up with the forcings for the various factors, but we might as well go to the primary lit where those forcings were described. This paper just references them and uses them in their temp comparisons. Or to put slightly differently, this is perfect example of a extremely small incremental gain in knowledge article.
As for your two hockey stick sites, I don’t care to critically evaluate them. We’ve been over this ground before, and frankly others have blasted the hockey stick to pieces far better than I could through this text box. I suppose you know were to find those.
“You are the one who has variously claimed you understand the statistical problems better than the climate scientists, and you have even gone so far as to claim your evaluations are on a par with the climate science professionals.”
Hahaha, when they create something like the hockey stick, yeah, pretty sure there waldo.
“Okay. Prove it. Write a paper and put it out there for peer review.”
Isn’t this why we were to go through peer-reviewed lit that supports DAGW? I’ve already explained I don’t care to go through the trouble to write a climate science paper. I have better things to do. I simply can’t write a primary research paper for every topic I’m interested enough in to educate myself in that subject. Plus, as I’ve also said, even if my knowledge of the field and scientific abilities are better then their’s, retooling to do primary research in a new field is costly and time consuming. My life couldn’t handle the uprooting.
“Go ahead – be that rogue scientist who blows the whole DAGW scam. Otherwise you too fail to deal with the science involved.”
Oh the naivete. The whole is blown open and expanding as we speak. Further, writing a primary research paper is not the only way to “deal with the science.”
You know what, maybe I was wrong. Maybe you aren’t an idiot. Maybe you’re just so naive of this subject and how to actually “deal with the science” while also holding such strong opinions regarding this subject and the scientific process in general, that you just come off as an idiot. Though, some might call that idiocy I guess. Oh well.
Cop out, cop out, and a cop out.
Wow, waldo, that new low for you. Which is a difficult thing to do.
Doc navy – are you going to stop digging any time soon? Apparently not content merely to say something so stupid as “Global climate has historically run in CYCLES of various types, lengths and causes”, you now feel you have to believe that every climate influence is somehow cyclic.
No, global volcanic activity does not vary cyclically. No, long term solar variations are not cyclic. No, atmospheric composition does not vary cyclically. You have been confused by the word ‘cycle’ and thought that it meant ‘cyclic’.
And what can anyone say, really, if you want to persist in believing the natural selection somehow selects for traits which aid survival in conditions which have never existed. Nothing to say except that you’re an idiot.
You never did explain what you found so funny about the simple statement that “the climate has no equilibrium state, and climate variables do not oscillate about a central value”. People who laugh at nothing at all are generally regarded as simpletons. I think calling you a simpleton drastically overestimates your intellect though.
It is a perfect micro-model of CAGW that our true believer trolls are unable to converse honestly.
Is it possible to summarise the debate at this stage by defining the top three reasons supporting AGW and the top 3 reasons against it.
Hunter(troll)
I think this convo has pretty much run it’s course.
You keep declaring some sort of ultimate victory without EVER having established why? It kinda makes you look like one of those poor kids at a special olympics competition who LOST the race but not only doesn’t know it; they think they won, and stand there at the end of the track jumping up and down screaming “Yeah! Yeah!”.
Here’s a clue for you: wipe the drool off your chin, go back to elementary school and relearn your basic maths, and biology, ice your swollen testicles, mate. You are looking dumb.
Lastly, I don’t know if others have pointed this out, but you have a real bad habit of putting words in other people’s mouths, and you seem to like strawman and red herring argumentation… ALOT.
Finally, think about this…how can you make arguments for AGW using words like “unprecedented”, “catasrophic”, or “tipping point” if you have no baseline or some sort of “equalibrium”? To even be able to say that “temp X” is bad because it’s higher than “temp Y” you have to have a baseline to start from. What is “optimal”? I will agree with you that there is no one central temp with perfect sine wave like cycles pirouetting around it, that is true.
That said, if there are no cycles, and there IS NO baseline, and there is no “equalibrium state” and the climate has just had a non-cyclic, random walk in temperature AS -YOU- IMPLY…
***How can you POSSIBLY say that the curent temp rise starting in 1980 or even any temp rise, is the result of mankind or even slightly linked to CO2, (which apparently ISN’T a random walk) and that it’s all going to be catastrophic?***
Get it? Mystery explained? Good. The gasoline is in the shed, get to it.
Doc
Barg,
That sounds like an interesting proposition. Let’s see, as I see it the top three arguments FOR AGW are:
1. CO2 is a greenhouse gas and there has been a rise in it since 1850 but particularly since 1930…which corrolates with the western industrial revolutions and also a 0.6C/century rise in global temps. (logical error: Corrolation is not causation. Scientific method 101)
2. Incredibly expensive and complex GCM’s (General Circulation Models) cannot explain these rise in temps after the input of all known natural forcings. Put simply, after accounting for everything we can think of…without Man, we can’t explain it. Therefore, it is mankind’s fault. (Logical error: Argumentation from ignorance/Occam’s razor. Which is more likely: A science that is still in it’s nascent infantcy has, in less than thirty years learned *EVERYTHING* there is to know about the Global Climate, and all it’s inner workings and details OOOORR, Climate scientists are human, driven by human emotions, temptations, and subject to human weaknesses, and they are missing/don’t fully understand something?)
3. This rise in temperature is catastrophic and totally proven in nature because… well, because we say so. You are too stupid to understand it anyway, and frankly we know best. If you are not a Climatologist, don’t even bother speaking… unless it’s to support us, then it’s ok. Now, open up those wallets and fund my next project so I can scare you some more. (logical Error: None. I welcome my new insect masters.)
Those sound about right?
Doc
Ha ha ha!
“you have a real bad habit of putting words in other people’s mouths”, you say.
And yet what do we have in your very next sentence? “how can you make arguments for AGW using words like “unprecedented”, “catasrophic”, or “tipping point” if you have no baseline or some sort of “equalibrium”?”
Had I even used those words, I would have spelt them all correctly. But I didn’t. You are putting words into my mouth.
And obviously what I said about equilibrium went in one ear and out the other. Yet again you fail to understand really simple things. There is rather a huge difference between an equilibrium state and a baseline. Your inadequate mind lets you down, again. When are you going to shut up?
With all due respect, Barg, as has been demonstrated amply on these boards, no one here understands things well enough to complete your lists – at least not accurately (including me) – and there will simply be more of the sort of amateurish, uncited, antagonistic babble we’ve become accustomed to.
On a lighter note, as I’ve posted before, the deniosphere is getting media-slapped in turn:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/
I don’t like Maher but this is yet another example of how things are turning.
Hunter(troll),
That was the OBVIOUSLY “royal” use of the word you. As in “you, those who agrgue for AGW”, not YOU as in Hunter(Troll), and you called *ME* a “fuckwit” for supposedly not understanding simple english. Sheesh.
Well, I certainly hope you would have spelled them correctly, as supposedly you are smarter than me, but nevertheless, I type fast and made an obvious spelling mistake.
The fact that you called me on it puts you in a difficult position, as from now on, ANY TIME you misspell something it becomes proof positive that YOU are a mental deficient. (Did I spell that correctly?) If that is the sum total of your basis for declaring victory… well it’s pretty weak.
You know..maybe you are right.. maybe I DON’T understand anything… hmm… Maybe you should enlighten me. I think EVERYONE here would absolutely LOVE to see you actually present a real argument, with an actual point, supported by verifiable information. Right now, all we’ve gotten is “I’m right, you’re wrong… nyah, nyah, (insert curse word here)”
So.. you have any, umm… actual information to pass? Or is the only thing you are passing merely, gas?
Doc
Arrgh, these dyslexic fingers! I curse you.
That would be “Argue”, not “agrgue”… don’t want to offend your sense of spelling etiquette.
Doc
Waldarg,
See #3 on my post above.
Where would you like me to place your larvae children, Oh Master?
Doc
Well Doc, I wouldn’t have used the word “stupid” – clearly you are not – but the rest of that I couldn’t have posted more frankly. I’d say you’ve got it pretty accurate there.
Then again, since you obviously take umbrage at deferring to the experts, I’d challenge you to do the same thing Wally will not: peer-review it. Prove your point. Put your money where your mouth is. It is fairly easy to come here and posit all sorts of double-talk, then play the martyr while calling people names, but can you convince those scientists with the training and expertise in the subject? Or is it better to trade infantile insults and argue over spelling?
Doc, regarding the use of that “you” it should be pretty obvious you weren’t directly talking about Hunter(troll).
Here’s your quote for reference: “Finally, think about this…how can you make arguments for AGW using words like “unprecedented”, “catasrophic”, or “tipping point” if you have no baseline or some sort of “equalibrium”?”
In particular you said, “how can you make arguments.” Hunter(troll) does not make arguments. So it is impossible you are actually referring to him.
So, let me get this right, one side says the planet is in dire peril and the other says no, the consequences of trying to save the planet in dire peril will put millions of people in dire peril. Such an important watershed moment in world history yet all the blogging “experts” would rather engage in mud wrestling. Perhaps Nero’s higher priorities were justifiable after all.
Wally,
Thank you.
You know.. I had my wife and 12y/o son read my post just to make sure I wasn’t being vague with the you/you vs you/AGW proponents thing. They got it. (Full disclosure, they know me, and propbably find it easier to understand my speaking/writing nuances.)
It’s nice to know that there’s at least one other unrelated person out there who read it and understood it.
I guess I’m not crazy. 🙂
Doc.
PS. You are exactly right, and understood the unspoken message in my “enlighten me” challenge. He DOESN’T make arguments… only obscenity laden pronouncements.
Barg,
Actually, I think you have it only partially correct.
One side (the CAGW, Warmalists) say that the planet is in dire peril caused by our own “irresponsible” actions, and we MUST do something, anything RIGHT NOW… no matter how much it costs. Don’t think about it, just ACT NOW!! (kinda sounds like an infomercial featuring Billy Mays, doesn’t it?)
The other side (Everybody else) says, “mebbe we should, you know, be sure this is actually happening the way you guys are selling it to us before we go committing trillions of dollars to fixing a likely non-existent problem, the magnitude of which (if true) is akin to trying to sweep the waves back into the sea with a broom. On top of that, adaptation is probably a better option than mitigation.”
You see… it is the implaccable “Either you’re one of us, a true believer, or you are a hellspawn DENIER!” attitude of the PRO-AGW advocates that has created the mudslinging situation you bemoan. Consider the treatment that Dr. Judith Curry is getting from the “consensus establishment” (of which SHE’S A MEMBER OF!) because she has the audacity to actually engage with the Deni.. err, Skeptics.
you see, it’s NOT the skeptics who won’t try and have a scientific discourse with the other side, or a debate, or even acknowledge that the other side has a valid viewpoint.
Think about it.
Doc
Ha ha, nice attempt at digging yourself out there, Doc Monkey. “Royal” you? And yet you used that “royal” you in a sentence where you directly quoted me (albeit with misspelling for good measure). Either way, you’re putting words in people’s mouths, even as you protest about people putting words in other people’s mouths. It’s always amusing when people contradict themselves so drastically, and especially comical when they can’t even see it.
And you’ve bred? I pity the poor offspring and hope it didn’t inherit too many fuckwit genes.