The omniscient Maurice Newman

Maurice Newman is the head of Tony Abbott’s Business Advisory Council, a group established to meet three times a year with senior members of the government and “help guide programmes and policies that are sympathetic to the needs of both small and large businesses in Australia”.

maurice-newman-headware

Image courtesy of uknowispeaksense.wordpress.com

The 75-year-old former stockbroker, banker and chair of the ABC and the ASX, has apparently also become a self-appointed expert on climate change regardless of the fact that he has absolutely no scientific qualifications whatsoever.

In 2010, Christopher Monckton and James Hansen both toured Australia. Monckton is a fruitcake with no scientific qualifications at all. He is paid by people like Gina Rinehart to promote climate change denial. Hansen is an American adjunct professor in the Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences at Columbia University. He is best known for his research in the field of climatology, his testimony on climate change to congressional committees in 1988 that helped raise broad awareness of global warming, and his advocacy of action to avoid dangerous climate change.

Maurice Newman was the chairman of the ABC at the time. He believed that climate sceptics and denialists didn’t get a run in the media. Monckton was given extensive national coverage on television, radio and online. Hansen did one interview with Philip Adams. Monckton was discussed 161 times on the ABC while Hansen was only mentioned nine times.

In an interview with the Australian in December last year Mr Newman argued Australia had fallen “hostage to climate change madness”. He said climate change policies have been a major factor in the collapse of Australia’s manufacturing sector. He accused the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change of “dishonesty and deceit” as it focuses on “exploiting the masses and extracting more money” in a climate crusade.

“The scientific delusion, the religion behind the climate crusade, is crumbling. Global temperatures have gone nowhere for 17 years. Now, credible German scientists claim that ‘the global temperature will drop until 2100 to a value corresponding to the little ice age of 1870’.”

Firstly, to correct Mr Newman, the period known as the little ice age ran from about 1645 to 1710 – 1870 was a later, lesser period of lower temperatures.  Secondly, cherry-picking data from short time periods, or using a very hot year as your base comparison, are sceptics’ tactics that have been exposed and refuted.

He appears to be referencing the work of Horst-Joachim Lüdecke and Carl-Otto Weiss, who say natural processes including solar activity are driving climate change. They are members of an advisory board of the European Institute for Climate and Energy (EIKE) – a German group of climate change skeptics that argues freedom, not the climate, is at risk. The group lists Lord Christopher Monckton as one of their Advisory Board members and they teamed up with the Heartland Institute to host a combination conference in 2012.

The only way to blame the sun for the current rise in temperatures is by cherry picking the data. This is done by showing only past periods when sun and climate move together and ignoring the last 35 years when the two are moving in opposite directions.

A comparison of sun and climate over the past 1150 years found temperatures closely match solar activity (Usoskin 2005). However, after 1975, temperatures rose while solar activity showed little to no long-term trend. This led the study to conclude, “…during these last 30 years the solar total irradiance, solar UV irradiance and cosmic ray flux has not shown any significant secular trend, so that at least this most recent warming episode must have another source.”

On Tuesday night, Mr Newman chose to share some more of his ‘wisdom’ with us when he said on Lateline that “there is no empirical evidence to show that man-made CO2, man-made emissions are adding to the temperature on earth”.

When Emma Alberici asked why he was so convinced that the IPCC, which collates the science from 195 countries, 97% of climate scientists, and nineteen academies of science across the world were wrong he said

“I just look at the evidence. There is no evidence. If people can show there is a correlation between increasing CO2 and global temperature, well then of course that’s something which we would pay attention to. But when you look at the last 17.5 years where we’ve had a multitude of climate models, and this was the basis on which this whole so-called science rests, it’s on models, computer models. And those models have been shown to be 98 per cent inaccurate.”

Contrary to Mr Newman’s assertion, there is a raft of evidence showing continued warming.  Satellite and surface measurements find less energy is escaping to space at CO2 absorption wavelengths. Ocean and surface temperature measurements find the planet continues to accumulate heat.

When pressed to answer the question “who is it that’s influencing you so that is so convincing you otherwise?” he said

“Roy Spencer, who’s carried out a thorough review of all of the models and the empirical data which against both land-based and satellite-based measuring. And they were found to be wrong.  There’s a study that came out from NASA in the last few weeks which says that the impact of CO2 on the upper atmosphere brings about a cloud and the result of that is a bit like our own body temperature moderating as a consequence of perspiring. So you get an albino effect which reflects sunlight.”

This transcript came from the Lateline website.  As a few commenters pointed out, Mr Newman used the correct phrase ‘albedo’ not ‘albino’.  Thanks to those who drew my attention to this.

Roy Spencer is a research scientist at the University of Alabama who believes that the “theory of creation actually had a much better scientific basis than the theory of evolution” because the DNA molecule could not have happened “by chance”. He also told a US Senate Committee that if he was placed in a debate, he would be able to offer more scientific evidence “supporting that life was created” than an opponent could offer that life had evolved.

There are two major questions in climate modeling – can they accurately reproduce the past (hindcasting) and can they successfully predict the future? Models have successfully reproduced temperatures since 1900 globally, by land, in the air and the ocean but are unable to predict recent warming without taking rising CO2 levels into account. Noone has created a general circulation model that can explain climate’s behaviour over the past century without CO2 warming.

In July 2011, a paper co-authored by Roy Spencer was published in the journal Remote Sensing. His paper looked at a potential connection between clouds and global warming. The paper received significant media attention, and climate change skeptics claimed that it “blow[s] a gaping hole in global warming alarmism.”

Within three days of the publication of Spencer & Braswell’s paper, two climate scientists (Kevin Trenberth & John Fasullo) repeated the analysis and showed that the IPCC models are in agreement with the observations, so refuting Spencer’s claims.

Andrew Dessler, a climate scientist and Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at Texas A&M University whose research subject areas are atmospheric chemistry, climate change and climate change policy, said of Spencer’s work

“[This] paper is not really intended for other scientists, since they do not take Roy Spencer seriously anymore (he’s been wrong too many times). Rather, he’s writing his papers for Fox News, the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal, Congressional staffers, and the blogs. These are his audience and the people for whom this research is actually useful — in stopping policies to reduce GHG emissions — which is what Roy wants.”

In response to the flawed peer review that allowed the publication of the paper, the Editor-in-Chief of Remote Sensing stepped down. He had this to say:

“After having become aware of the situation, and studying the various pro and contra arguments, I agree with the critics of the paper. Therefore, I would like to take the responsibility for this editorial decision and, as a result, step down as Editor-in-Chief of the journal Remote Sensing.

With this step I would also like to personally protest against how the authors and like-minded climate sceptics have much exaggerated the paper’s conclusions in public statements…”

Our Prime Minister is getting his climate change advice from an aging stockbroker who gets his ‘scientific facts’ from some guy in Alabama who doesn’t believe in evolution.  It shouldn’t be a surprise that Tony has appointed executive chairman of Manufacturing Australia Dick Warburton, another sceptic who does not believe that man-made emissions are causing global warming, to head up the review of the Renewable Energy Target.

We then hear that the Commission of Audit were unable to assess the Coalition’s $3.2 billion Direct Action Plan because there is no plan yet. Tony Shepherd said

“The Commission of Audit couldn’t really look at it because we didn’t have a policy to look at. If they had a policy and it was out there we would have had a look at it, but in the absence of any detail we couldn’t.”

Clive Palmer declared this week that his Palmer United Party would not back the “hopeless” policy and he threatened to reconsider his position on the carbon and mining taxes if the government does not bring direct action legislation to the Senate for debate.

All I can say is, more strength to your arm Clive. We’ll make you an environmentalist yet!

 

Advertisements


Categories: Environment

Tags: , , , , , , ,

162 replies

  1. The Escalator graph shows it well I think ME

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=47

  2. We are aware that a whopping 3% of climatologists disagree with the other ‘not so significant’ 97% of climatologists.

    Science deniers must wet themselves when they find one of the 3% willing to support their ideologies.

    One such is Judith Curry, like others before her if one does some research a link to Heartland eventually turns up.

    http://blog.heartland.org/2011/02/climatologist-judith-curry-sticks-up-for-heartland-other-warming-skeptics/

    No further discussion will be entered into by yours truly, I am one of those convinced by evidence that climate has been and continues to be impacted by human pollutants.

  3. Thank you all for some sanity. Great posts. The nail is in the coffin and the denialists floundering in a morass of irrelevancy.

    Anthropogenic Global Warming is scientifically proven.

    It has been verified and falsified at a statistical level thus disproving the null hypothesis.

    In short it is statistically significant therefore proven.

    Why the hell would you destroy billions of peoples lives (Bangladesh alone would be a disaster of epic proportions)?

    What if their is an undetected tipping point and warming is accelerated e.g. permafrost methane emissions.

    Why would you play Russian roulette with the biospheres?

    You are a bunch of unethical fear mongers with little regard for the future of our children.

    If the science were wrong by some unforeseen miracle it would not matter.

    If you are wrong, which you are, you are condemning vast number of citizens to lives of distress, poverty, hardship and death while eventually making the planet uninhabitable.

    This is beyond a joke. Try a course in propositional logic.

    Your futile ignorant arguments are for ignorant fools who have no grasp of ethics or social responsibility.

    In short you are a bunch of egocentric pathological narcissists.

    You should be ashamed of yourselves.

  4. Michael Post gobbled up by the nasty spam man. Understand no probs.

  5. Same thing is happening to me on John Lord’s story Stephen

  6. Kaye Lee

    Apologies for double entry – please the delete whichever post you prefer.

    😦

  7. That’s my fault, diannaart. I saw that a number of comments had been caught up in spam so I released them all.

    Stephen I couldn’t see yours there. Just diannaart’s and Kaye’s.

  8. Michael

    In light of my devastating intellect I missed “further comments”. One is humbled.

  9. Thank you Michael

    🙂

  10. Kaye Lee I have often used that animated graph as well.

    Another thing that irks me with the deniers is their claim, with no or discredited evidence, that the models haven’t followed the observations or reality. Nothing could be further from the truth, and indeed if the models have veered from the observations it has been that the model has been conservative and the warming has trended worse.

    One example is the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (GFDL) Simulation of Early 20th Century Global Warming that shows recent climate modelling fairly accurately matched observations. Earlier 20th century global warming has been more circumspect.

    But if you look you can find many cases where the modelling has been accurate within the probabilities given and have been incrementally improving with the increases in technology and computing power. And as they have been getting better, along with the significant increase in observed data, they show the trend for global temperature is increasing and humans being a contributor.

  11. Möbius Ecko, I agree it can be frustrating to try and communicate with disbelievers. I look on them as strawmen, they are not going to change their view, but somebody who is unsure about what’s happening can match you comments against those of the disbeliever. The disbeliever has few up to date references, so where possible I try to provide a reference for the present.
    I find that when they can’t match it, they start to become abusive and start to score home goals.
    For that reason I try to remain respectful towards them; most of the media is very ordinary in Australia anyway and so they obtain repeated poor information which they regurgitate back.

  12. Thanks Keith, that’s a good way of looking at it and a reason not to stop posting counter arguments with the current facts and data available. At a scientific level the discussions are more complex but it’s worth following them as they link to good data and the latest research and findings.

  13. “CAGW does not even have the status of a theory – it is a hypothesis.”

    Firstly, to make sure everyone’s clear, “theory” and “hypothesis” here refer to “scientific theory” and “scientific hypothesis”, which are different from the everyday meaning of the words. A scientific theory has the support of so much evidence and for so long despite concerted attempts to break it that no scientist seriously expects that new evidence will cause it to be significantly modified, let alone rebutted. A scientific hypothesis has good evidence supporting it already, although not as strong as a theory.

    Secondly, requiring “the status of a [scientific] theory” is not necessary for decision making – and requiring it before making decisions is really stupid. (“High proof” fallacy all over again – foolish when driving, foolish when considering taking up smoking, foolish when considering bushfire insurance, foolish when messing with the atmosphere…)

    Thirdly, over the last few years “CAGW” is a term almost exclusively employed by denialists as a strawman rather than a scientific term. It’s usually another “tell” that those using it aren’t operating from a good understanding of the scientific literature. (I have yet to see someone who uses it point to a scientific definition, for fairly obvious reasons. Ironically recent climate science research is raising more strongly the possibility of very bad outcomes that some might term Catastrophic…)

    Often the aim of invoking the “CAGW” as either strawman or an inappropriate high proof bar seems to be to try to AVOID factoring in (let alone discussing or challenging) what we know from science about the possibility of undesirable outcomes, their likelihoods of eventuating and the level or uncertainty involved in that analysis. They usually hope they can knock down the strawman and then pretend that means there are no risks of very bad outcomes. It’s easy to see this is fallacious.

    Fourthly, much (but not all) of the time those saying “CAGW isn’t proven” or words to that effect are implicitly or explicitly asserting that they are *completely* confident of the outcomes of changing the atmosphere, and those outcomes are all just fine. In other words they assert that scientific understanding isn’t sufficiently certain to act against human induced climate change – but is completely certain to not act against it. You can’t have it both ways, and in most cases their argument falls to pieces without having it both ways.

    If someone wants to argue that evidence indicates that we should do nothing to mitigate the risks of human induced climate change, be my guest! But you’ll need to argue *from* the evidence rather than dismiss it or cherrypick it, and you’ll need to take into account current scientific understanding of future outcomes complete with uncertainties about severity, impact, timing and likelihood of occurence rather than requiring high proof.

    The trouble is that uncertainty about risks is no-one’s friend. If we are LESS certain about the severity of a potential outcome, then it could turn out much worse than cases where are are MORE certain. And if there are risks that are completely unacceptable, best practices in risk management (at a corporate, personal, state or global level) dictates that we move heaven and earth to prevent them from occurring.

  14. “A hypothesis as the basis of an argument from authority is simply an act of faith”.

    This does not describe my position so that characterisation does not apply.

    Firstly note that *I* was not making an argument from authority in the sense that that term usually means – picking a person (or group), suggesting they are an authoritat-IVE source of information on a topic (often by citing their “credentials”), and asking people to believe their claims BECAUSE they (allegedly) only make authoritative pronouncements. The fact that authoritativeness does not follow from appropriate credentials is obvious because any number of counter-examples exist. Hence that form of argument is clearly invalid.

    What I did point out was that – even if we simply treat that form of argument as valid for the purposes of discussion – if we deploy it correctly we MUST conclude that when a strong expert consensus exists on a given question, then it IS the only “authority” with regard to that question. If the logic says that an individual with appropriate credentials is an authoritative source, then a heavy majority of all such credentialed individuals must be even more so!

    To reiterate, pointing out the inevitability of that logic does not mean I am arguing by appeal to authority myself.

    Secondly, my appeal to strong expert consensus (even if you wish to incorrectly dub it “an argument from authority”) does not have a hypothesis as THE BASIS of the argument.

    The core basis of the appeal to strong expert consensus is the EVIDENCE underlying the conclusions. That evidence has generated a heavy expert consensus, despite many well motivated experts having a great deal of opportunity to show the consensus position is significantly misguided. An argument based on the weight of evidence is the very opposite of “an act of faith”.

  15. Interesting isn’t it????

    The way deniers effortlessly chop back and forward between [a] there’s no solid evidence of climate change, to; [b] climate change is not due to human activity, to; [c] it’s not financially viable to try and halt it.

    Hmmm. Oh… FFS… just pick one damn position, dig a foxhole, and have the courage to defend it!!!!

  16. They can’t do that mars08 because they didn’t choose the war. They are repeating what they have been told by their ‘generals’ who have a strategy to employ just like telemarketers. They just jump to the next quote from Jo Nova or Lord Monckton or some other nutcase without having any idea what they are talking about, How can you dig a foxhole in quicksand?

  17. As the Escalator graph illustrates, contrarians frequently exploit favourable noise in the signal (especially average surface temperature reconstructions) to claim that the underlying warming trend has stopped, or hasn’t risen as fast as expected, only to be proven wrong when the noise turns unfavourable again (as it must in the end). That kind of “signal analysis” would get you a failing grade in an undergraduate engineering class. And as can be explained on various blogs (try Tamino’s “Open Mind”) there’s no evidence from a proper signal analysis that the underlying trend has stopped, or even significantly slowed down.

    But maybe thinking like that is too complicated! Here’s another easier to understand way of looking at it. One of the biggest sources of “noise”, i.e. a factor that affects surface temperatures but doesn’t cause a long term warming or cooling trend itself, is the ENSO cycle which every few years brings either La Nina and El Nino conditions shifting the global temperature up or down quite a bit while those conditions persist.

    So what do we see when we look at the surface temperature trends for only La Nina years? And for only El Nino years? And for only the neutral years?

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=67

    Has the surface warming stopped or continued?

    (And all of that disregards the fact that the surface temperature doesn’t reflect all of the extra energy that the climate system is accumulating. Relying on that kind of omission to argue that the climate system is no longer accumulating excess heat energy would get you another failing grade…)

  18. “How can you dig a foxhole in quicksand?”

    FTW, as I believe the young ones twitter these days.

  19. Here you go Shaun , sorry our pleasant discourse was discontinued ,but some of us actually have to work and sleep !
    I must say that I cannot accept your kind offer to be your bitch a I am not inclined that way , but anyway ,would that not upset your favourite sheep?

    http://petesplace-peter.blogspot.com/2009/05/list-of-prominent-scientists-skeptical.html

    for your information , the number of people who are pro or con is irrelevant to an argument ,what is important is who is right.
    Behaving like sheep in a group think of “woe is me the sky is falling down” ,is hardly fitting for an intelligent person.
    I could recount the number of previous consensus which have been disproved ,and are now laughable to imagine they ever held sway , but I,m sure you know them already.
    So seriously , you need to take your strawman out for a walk or something, the rancid odour of your putrescent ,adolescent fumbling appear to be all over it.

  20. “…the number of people who are pro or con is irrelevant to an argument ,what is important is who is right.”

    Firstly to be be accurate, we’re not talking about “who is right” here since we’re talking about science (and so many errors of logic flow from making that mistake). We’re talking about which position is most strongly supported when ALL the evidence is taken into account.

    So this quote is true, but not very helpful for most people – on most questions, not just climate science. The same considerations apply to medicine, law, engineering, aviation – any complex field where one does not have the expertise oneself.

    In the case of climate science, if you’re a publishing climate scientist who is aware of sufficient breadth of the evidence that matters to the question at hand, then you can and should go figure out what the evidence indicates. But without those skills and that knowledge of the evidence, you *can’t* figure it out. You might tell yourself that you can, but you’d be kidding yourself. The celebrated research of Dunning & Kruger is relevant here – and it demonstrates that you can even be highly skilled and knowledgeable in a related field – like some of the people on your list are, Andy – but you can still fool because you’re not an expert in the field that matters – like some of the people on that list have done, IIRC.

    In addition, this line of argument when deployed by a contrarian is almost always a red herring. Almost always the person saying doesn’t have the skills and knowledge and hasn’t tried to figure it out for themselves, but they haven’t done the next best thing either and indeed they’re arguing against doing that!

    The next best thing is to try and figure out which position is most strongly indicated by the evidence, and that can only be done by consulting the relevant set of experts. When there’s a consensus of those experts behind one position characterised by two thing – a large majority of the experts agree, and there’s good evidence for it after concerted investigation – then that’s the one that’s most likely to be backed by the evidence.

    The tactic that responds to this by pointing out past consensus positions that have subsequently been shown to be flawed usually relies heavily on examples that lack one or other of those dimensions. But even if the examples are valid, they are typically embedded in an argument that (again!) relies on invalidly insisting on “high proof”. The goal here is to find the best evidence-based position given what we know so that we can make the most informed decisions. Pointing out that sometimes we have to make decisions in the absence of complete knowledge is (a) pointing out the bleedingly obvious(!) and (b) not a valid reason for arguing that we should “defer a decision”. “Deferring a decision” *IS* a decision – a decision to continue with “business as usual” – and since that is being made now, it is made with incomplete knowledge. Since we must decide without complete knowledge, the best strategy is to be as informed as is *currently* possible. The contrarians generally want decision makers to exclude some of what we know from the decision making process, which is incredibly foolish.

    So to that aim, instead of acknowledging the logic of strong evidence-backed expert consensus, they often continue by either cherrypicking someone whose contrarian opinion they like and calling them an authority (thereby falsely implying that their opinion is authoritative – see upthread for examples), or by invoking a massive conspiracy theory to “explain” why the vast majority of people with relevant expertise disagree with the position they tout. In my experience with contrarians if you point out the flaws in their argument persistently enough and for long enough and they don’t give up on the conversation, most of them will reach a point where they imply a huge hidden conspiracy.

  21. Lotharsson

    Give him time. It shouldn’t be long now. In the end, conspiracy ideation is the inevitable position for these people as there can be no other when the science isn’t on their side and they have to rely on a ragtag bunch of non-experts, not quite experts and alleged experts for them to pin their own (ironically) “appeal to authority” on. The obvious reason, to deniers, why this ragtag bunch cannot get into the peer reviewed journals is because everyone is conspiring against them or the whole scientific community is suffering from “groupthink”. The latter argument is of course preposterous as it shows a complete ignorance of the way scientists actually think.

  22. To be fair, the contrarians *DO* get into the peer-reviewed literature from time to time. The problem is that they almost always get slapped down hard with strong rebuttals inside of a few months (which is fairly quick for science and indicates that the flaws are pretty obvious to some of the other experts). Some of the most visible contrarians have published some of the worst climate science papers ever.

    In light of that it’s got to be one hell of conspiracy theory that says either:

    1) the guys who manage to publish things that are (mostly) quickly shown to be way off base actually have a better understanding than the rest of the field (who somehow manage to publish things that mostly survive post-publication scrutiny).

    2) The editors (and the peer reviewers) of ALL the journals are only letting the bad papers from contrarians get published and rejecting the good ones to make them look bad.

    Number (1) is a doozy. The contrarians’ superior understanding apparently applies to the whole field…

    …except their own papers. Which, of course, clearly makes them authoritative when they make pronouncements that go against the consensus…oh, wait.

    Number (2) implies that the editors and peer reviewers have a better understanding of the field than the contrarians.

    Whoops!

  23. G’day All,

    Rubbish AndHurl, absolute rubbish, it is not “people” it is scientists that can replicate and observe the work of fellow scientists that is meaningful. It is not “opinion” it is observable facts. And I have offered you the chance to provide your “reputable” scientists that can provide clear evidence of their work in disproving AGW and you have failed once again, hiding behind BS words and shifting focus, I did not “offer” you for you to be “my bitch” you are already because you have failed to provide any form of scientific credibility to your argument, show the scientists that back your fallacious contentions.

  24. G’day All,

    And just so you don’t think I don’t care AndHurl here is a list or ORGANISATIONS” (i.e. many scientists that know AGW is real) that matches your individual, so called scientists,
    http://opr.ca.gov/s_listoforganizations.php.

    Now, stump up your next credible scientist so that we can exhaust your list of BS and demonstrate to all and sundry how empty your scientific assertions are.

  25. Firstly Kaye Lee, it IS a well know fact that the empirical temperature rise has not accorded with the model projections (As per Spenser, according to 95% of the models the empirical record is /wrong/). There is absolutely no reason for me to bend over backwards to prove something that is a matter of common knowledge (or should be common knowledge to the reasonably well informed).

    The argument is /not/ about whether the temperature is rising – the temperature of the world has probably been rising since the end of the little ice age (although there are measurement problems with both the terrestrial and satellite records that raise questions of reliability). It is about whether the ‘projections’ (really, one should day ‘predictions’ but CAGW proponents are shy of saying that word because it implies a standard of judgment) of CAGW match up to the observations record. They do not. Therefore pretty much everything you have said is irrelevant to my argument. You continue the meme of the warming ‘going into the oceans (one of the ‘saving’ supplementary hypotheses that I mentioned: a claim that is not sustained by the empirical data on ocean heat).

    As for what Hansen ‘actually says’ he ‘actually says’ what I quoted:

    “The 5-year mean global temperature has been flat for a decade” – which is the fact you asked me to provide a source for.

    As for your comment: “Note that the 10 warmest years in the record all occurred since 1998.” That does NOT mean that it has ‘significantly’ warmed since 1998. A plateau can be at the same level or thereabouts – alternatively you can deny Hansen’s observation that the temperature record has been flat for a decade (obviously what you are trying to imply by this comment is that the world has continued to warm, which flies in the face of what Hansen actually said).

    As for: Cowtan & Way (2013) [plucked no doubt from ‘skeptical’ science] this is an attempted reconstruction of the temperature record – not an actual measurement of temperature. Using algorithms to create data where there is none is something that can never be empirically confirmed (the original data /does not exist/). Given the theoretical biases of /all/ scientists (theory dependence of observation) something that cannot be empirically confirmed should /always/ be treated as conjectural, not (as you do) as ‘proof’.

    Moreover, even Cowtan & Way admit that there results are only preliminary:

    “preliminary global temperature reconstructions presented here, by highlighting the potential scale of the bias in the short-term temperature trends, will provide an impetus for other groups to look at the problem using more sophisticated tools, including climate and reanalysis models.”

    In other words, even they admit the limits of their own analysis.

    In sum Cowtan & Way is not a sound basis for an argument that the empirically observed pause should be disregarded because: (1) the results are preliminary; (2) there is no consensus in the field (note e.g. Hansen’s disagreement); (3) the results are conjectural.

  26. Stephen Tardrew
    April 25, 2014 • 10:29 am
    If you are wrong, which you are, you are condemning vast number of citizens to lives of distress, poverty, hardship and death while eventually making the planet uninhabitable.
    —————————————–

    Actually Stephen, it’s catastrophists like yourself who are doing irreparable damage to the third world by denying them a cheap source of power (industrialization elevates people out of poverty) or the growing of biofuels instead of food, etc.

    [It appears my other comment, though successfully sent, has not appeared].

  27. So-called “catastrophists” are doing irreparable damage to the third world by denying them a cheap source of power? Catastrophists are to blame for doing irreparable damage to the third world?

    Are we sure?

  28. Here is a film clip that gives a great overview on how climate change works, it neatly pulls apart common arguments that anthropogenic disbelieves use.

  29. “it’s catastrophists like yourself who are doing irreparable damage to the third world ”

    Ummm….you might want to consult the third world about that. They are kind of worried about rising sea levels and drought and more intense cyclones and flooding.

    Oxfam predicted that world hunger would worsen as climate change inevitably hurt crop production and disrupted incomes. They suggested the number of people at risk of hunger might climb by 10% to 20% by 2050, with daily per-capita calorie availability falling across the world.

    Developing country scientists and commentators have welcomed the IPCC report, which they said backed their own observations.

    “The IPCC makes the case that climate change is real and happening much more strongly than before. We are already seeing the effects of climate change in Bangladesh and across south Asia. It’s not news to us. Most developing countries are facing climate change now. They do not need the IPCC to tell them that the weather is changing”, said Saleemul Huq, director of the International Centre for Climate Change and Development, based in Dhaka.

  30. warmists, alarmists, catastrophists, credentialists….the names keep coming but the science is sadly absent.

    If someone could provide credible evidence that AGW is not happening/harmful it would be welcomed by the world. The researchers would win Nobel prizes and be set for life. Even if they had a credible lead to follow, the fossil fuel industry would give them endless funds to pursue their research. If such scientific research exists I would like to see it. It would be helpful if you provide links, and perhaps look first whether the research has already been refuted.

  31. Kaye Lee: Rather than posting a huge slab from Wikipedia about Judith Curry, how about you read what climate scientists have to say about her and her work…Criticisms from climate scientists”

    http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Judith_Curry
    ————————————————————————-

    And just who are the contributors to Curry’s ‘laundry list’ at Laundry list at http://www.sourcewatch.org/?

    -Coby Beck, whose ‘claim to fame’ in climate science and politics is “How to Talk to a Climate Sceptic”

    http://www.cobybeck.com/

    -Tim Lambert, computer scientist (Deltoid)

    And the others? Well, it’s not my responsibility to check out the quality of /your/ sources.

  32. Kaye Lee: warmists, alarmists, catastrophists, credentialists….the names keep coming but the science is sadly absent.

    If someone could provide credible evidence that AGW is not happening/harmful it would be welcomed by the world.
    ——————————–
    Really Kaye Lee, spare me the melodramatics. ‘Denier’ is a far worse epithet than anything I have used (which are simply descriptive tags without moral opprobrium attached). Also: I am not the one who put a tin foil hat on a picture of Maurice Newman.

    Again you miss my point: CAGW is simply a hypothesis or conjecture. There is no evidence that is /is/ occurring. The warming we were promised is simply not there.

    As for me not relying on science, that is just hyperbole on your part.

    As for the third world: I don’t think you have a good grasp of third world/UN politics.

    Now, I hope my missing post appears.

  33. Thank you Kaye.

    By the way your Lordship I am not a catastrophist but a rationalist and realist. Just labeling others does not make for facts or truth. I don’t wear blindfolds and wishfully hope that it is all going to go away. Facts are facts. Massive numbers of impoverished people will suffer. Try systems theory and projective modelling to determine probability pathways. Then er on the side of precaution to prevent severe disruptions. See no need for the scary fairy word catastrophe.

    None of you denialists have answered ShaunJ’s challenge because you can’t. Shaun has set you a task that you refuse to meet because you are peddling absolute rubbish.

    Your list is miniscule and Shaun’s rather extensive don’t you think. All this selective prejudice is not going to cut the mustard.

    You belong to a small minority which makes you statistically insignificant. You know that maths thingy. The number don’t lie.

    I have contributed more to the third world and those living hardship than you will ever do so don’t play the superior prat with me sunshine.

  34. Kaye Lee: warmists, alarmists, catastrophists, credentialists….the names keep coming but the science is sadly absent.
    ————————–

    Yes, nice level of discourse you maintain here:

    “ShaunJ
    April 25, 2014 • 2:00 am
    …fwit AndHurl … you have lost already moron”

    ShaunJ
    April 25, 2014 • 2:04 am
    “…So come on dickwad AndHurl, … come on dick”

    ShaunJ
    April 25, 2014 • 2:09 am
    “OMG, poor old AndHurl (the Fwit) has gone on home”

  35. How very odd. Both of those people were quoting climate scientists. If I linked to a scientific paper would you attribute that paper to Kaye Lee and then check my credentials?

    Tim Lambert: ““Tamino has written a detailed review of the [Montford] book with particular emphasis on two of the three main critiques that Curry identified. The response from Curry was perplexing. Instead of thanking Tamino for addressing the main critiques that she had identified, Curry wrote that the cons for Tamino’s review were: “numerous factual errors and misrepresentations, failure to address many of the main points of the book…” Pressed to identify these errors, Curry instead moved the goalposts, coming up with nine different “key points” of the book. When Gavin Schmidt demolished these, rather than concede that some, at least, were wrong, Curry asserted that Schmidt’s rebuttal was full of logical fallacies (though once again without identifying any of them at all)”

    Coby Beck: “…Examples of the unreliability of Curry’s blog publications are illustrated by Michael Tobis and James Annan, who both showed basic flaws in her understanding of uncertainty and probability, or at least an irresponsible level of sloppiness in expressing herself. Arthur Smith pointed out an under-grad level misunderstanding in her own field’s basic terminology,”

    Michael Tobis holds a doctorate from the University of Wisconsin – Madison in Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences and is editor-in-chief of Planet3.0

    “It’s one thing to tolerate cranks. … It’s another thing entirely to encourage them and agree with them. Crank: ‘There are many forcings and some are known to be underrepresented in the modeling such as aerosols / clouds and black soot.’ curryja: ‘very true, same goes for solar also.’ … [I]f you buckle down and try to understand what she is saying (instead of just nodding in enthusiastic agreement with the “not the IPCC” position) it is incomprehensible.”

    James D. Annan is a scientist involved in climate prediction. He was a member of the Global Warming Research Program at Frontier Research Centre for Global Change which is associated with the Earth Simulator in Japan.

    ” “…she apparently conflates the concept of evidence for and against the proposition “most of the observed warming was very likely due to the GHG increase” with an estimate of the proportion of warming that was due to anthropogenic vs natural factors. This seems like a rather elementary point to get confused over … Note that in the very first premise of her argument, she only assigns 70% probability to the fact that surface temperatures actually show a warming at all! This is the warming that the IPCC famously called “unequivocal” in their 2007 report. As far as I can tell, at this point she is simply so far out of touch with mainstream climate science that her analyses aren’t worth the time it takes to read them. End of story.”

  36. Those crazy, bleeding-heart hippies over at the IMF think that pricing carbon emissions is a good idea and want to “promote greener growth”. Bloody alarmists!!!!

  37. There is no argument left for climate change.

    There are tens of thousands of independent peer-reviewed studies, across multiple scientific disciplines, authored by thousands of scientists over many decades, all contributing to our collective understanding of the science and comprehensively supporting AGW as incontrovertible fact.

    Until such time as the deniers are able to provide a corresponding number of peer-reviewed studies that posit a plausible alternative theory, their words should be considered nothing more than that – uneducated conjecture and opinion, without foundation and merit; to be thoroughly ignored.

  38. Lord Jim, your post was caught up in our spam folder.

    Says to me that our spam filter is working rather well.

  39. Good point, Kaye Lee

    If someone could provide credible evidence that AGW is not happening/harmful it would be welcomed by the world. The researchers would win Nobel prizes and be set for life. Even if they had a credible lead to follow, the fossil fuel industry would give them endless funds to pursue their research.

    All the money and power of the fossil fuel industries is not used to further credible. peer reviewed scientific research into climate and long term effects of pollution – why not?

  40. Same reason I don’t have a cholesterol test or a stress test or go to the optometrist. If you don’t do the test then you don’t have a problem

  41. Actually kaye lee what i expect in relation to comments on judith curry by climate scientists, are actual comments by climate scientists, not second hand reports Coby beck & tim lambett.

  42. Lord Jim

    You’re really trying to choke me up now. I just don’t know whether to laugh or cry. I think the former is in order.

  43. Michael Taylor: the title of this blog piece (omniscience…) is unwittingly ironic. It’s only the religion of Cagw and its worshippers that pretends at omniscience. The refusal to even admit the existence of an empirical pause in warming is a perfect example of such religious thinking.

    As for your comment about the spam filter: dont worry, i return your contempt equally.

  44. Really stephen, you dont think that primary and secondary sources should be distinguished? (i assume your comment was directed at this issue)

  45. “It is about whether the ‘projections’ (really, one should day ‘predictions’ but CAGW proponents are shy of saying that word because it implies a standard of judgment)…”

    No.

    Quite apart from the sloppiness of using a term “CAGW” that is ill-defined, and AFAIK not defined at all by climate scientists, this statement embodies a fundamental error. Projections ARE NOT predictions, and any “logic” that treats them as such is invalid. For example:

    “it IS a well know fact that the empirical temperature rise has not accorded with the model projections”

    Well, one has to understand what model projections ARE before one can analyse that question. Almost everyone that claims the models are out of sync with reality has not done so, and that apparently includes you.

    First hint: the projections assume a forcings trajectory at the time they are made. How does that relate to the forcings trajectory that eventuates after they are made? Why does this question matter? Are there other factors whose trajectory is similarly relevant?

    Second hint: to what extent do you expect a projection of a signal – in any field including (say) engineering, not just climate science – to predict – not project – the outcome of noise processes? Why does the question matter? How does the answer affect the process of analysing the question of whether the projections are realistic or not?

    Having hopefully got that far, do you think that climate scientists got the answers to all of the (fairly straightforward) questions above wrong, or that these questions have never occurred to them, or…?

    Jim, you have revealed that your claims of certain facts are – in *fact* – based on an erroneous understanding that invalidates the logic you use to reach your conclusions. That includes your assertion that “The warming we were promised is simply not there.” If one has misidentified what was “promised” one’s conclusion that it has not been delivered is not valid.

    And yet you claimed your “facts” so *confidently*! Perhaps it would be smart to step back and reassess how you reach your positions, in light of the fact that you have clearly been using unreliable methods to reach conclusions and attribute way too much confidence to them? Are there other facts that you are confident of for similar reasons that may not actually be facts?

  46. “It’s only the religion of Cagw and its worshippers that pretends at omniscience.”

    Which is why the IPCC reports are just full of expressions conveying different levels of uncertainty, and the denialists are so completely confident that there is nothing to worry about.

    Oh, wait…

  47. And that is the point Lotharsson.

    I know why I am fighting so hard for urgent action on climate change – the risk is too great to ignore, the possible consequences too devastating, the evidence overwhelming, and the cost of delay is increasing

    Unless you have a vested interest in a short term grab for cash from a dying fossil fuel industry, why on earth would you be against stopping pollution and moving to renewable energy and sustainable practice even if you disagree about AGW?

  48. “The refusal to even admit the existence of an empirical pause in warming is a perfect example of such religious thinking.”

    One has to define “warming” and “pause” first, and one has to do it correctly in the context of a noisy signal and the inherent uncertainties in measurements of the noisy signal. You haven’t done so yet. If you do, you might find that acknowledgement is forthcoming, depending on the definition.

    I once saw a commenter at Deltoid spend page after page after page of comments ducking and weaving whilst asserting “there is a pause”, but refusing to define “pause” – let alone produce a robust definition suitable for applying to a noisy signal.

    Worse still, exactly like that commenter, you’ve gone straight from “there IS SO an empirical pause” to something like “that means the science is wrong” which you appear to use to imply “so we should do nothing except business as per usual”.

    I pointed out above that you base the middle part of that chain on at least two significant errors, and the last part of the chain is a really foolish conclusion. None of that would be invalidated if we agreed on a definition of “pause” and “warming” that let us agree that “there is an empirical pause in warming” (so be careful what you wish for on that front!)

    It’s rather interesting that you’re going into bat for the first part of the chain but appear to have totally ignored the massive flaws in the rest of it. Perhaps, as appeared to be the case with that other commenter, that’s the whole point of focusing on the first part? To try and get people to ignore the problems with the rest and just accept your “conclusions” regardless?

    Or is it simpler than that – you simply don’t comprehend the problems with how your conclusions are reached?

  49. “I return your contempt equally”.

    Oh, I doubt it.

  50. Contrarians tend to focus on attacking models, typically based on the line of thinking that if they can show the models are “wrong” we can all relax and continue with business as usual (and arguably because model results are easy to misrepresent or misunderstand to ordinary people).

    I pointed out above that this line of thinking is fallacious because uncertainty in knowledge of risks favours action rather than inaction. But equally importantly a strong case for concern arises from the evidence accumulated by climate science if we completely discard climate models.

    I also project that these points will never be acknowledged by most contrarians 😉

  51. Lotharsson: “It is about whether the ‘projections’ (really, one should day ‘predictions’ but CAGW proponents are shy of saying that word because it implies a standard of judgment)…” No. Quite apart from the sloppiness of using a term “CAGW” that is ill-defined, and AFAIK not defined at all by climate scientists,”
    ——————————————————————-

    Actually there is a definition of AGW that distinguishes it from CAGW: it is simply the (logarithmic) warming effect of co2 sans the theoretical feedbacks.

    ——————————————————————-
    Lotharsson: “this statement embodies a fundamental error. Projections ARE NOT predictions, and any “logic” that treats them as such is invalid. For example:

    “it IS a well know fact that the empirical temperature rise has not accorded with the model projections”

    Well, one has to understand what model projections ARE before one can analyse that question. Almost everyone that claims the models are out of sync with reality has not done so, and that apparently includes you.

    First hint: the projections assume a forcings trajectory at the time they are made. How does that relate to the forcings trajectory that eventuates after they are made? Why does this question matter? Are there other factors whose trajectory is similarly relevant?

    Second hint: to what extent do you expect a projection of a signal – in any field including (say) engineering, not just climate science – to predict – not project – the outcome of noise processes? Why does the question matter? How does the answer affect the process of analysing the question of whether the projections are realistic or not?
    ——————————————————————-
    To which I would say:
    1. Yes, obviously a model makes assumptions about forcings.
    2. A projection is a species of prediction. If it was not it would have no utility whatsoever.
    3. If you are simply trying so say that the models use assumptions about what forcings will be, assumptions that do not necessarily accord with the actual empirical event, yes obviously. Does that mean an almost exponential increase in co2 and no temperature increase is not damaging for the hypothesis that co2 causes catastrophic global warming. No.
    4. If you mean that there are ‘other factors’ that are relevant as to why the ‘projected’ warming has not occurred. I say: if the ‘science is settled’ those ‘other factors’ (e.g. heat going into the ocean) should have been, where possible, plugged into the prior ‘projection’, not supplied as an ad hoc ameliorative after the event.
    5. ‘Other factors’ are simply used as fudge factors to make models agree with the known temperature record.

    ——————————————————————-
    Lotharsson: Having hopefully got that far, do you think that climate scientists got the answers to all of the (fairly straightforward) questions above wrong, or that these questions have never occurred to them, or…?
    ——————————————————————-
    What I think is that certain climate scientists, groups and individuals need to be less censorious and more open to the prospect that their conclusions are wrong.

    ——————————————————————-
    Lotharsson: Jim, you have revealed that your claims of certain facts are – in *fact* – based on an erroneous understanding that invalidates the logic you use to reach your conclusions.
    ——————————————————————-
    Actually Lotharson, what you are essentially saying is that CAGW is unfalsifiable (that might not be quite fair, but it’s more or less accurate). All one needs to do is identify the appropriate model ‘fudge factors’ and CAGW can always be ‘on the horizon’.

  52. Michael Taylor
    April 26, 2014 • 12:17 pm
    “I return your contempt equally”.
    Oh, I doubt it.
    ——————————————-
    A simple: “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it” would have sufficed.

  53. Energy Independence
    Preservation of rainforests
    Preservation of flora and fauna
    New and better jobs in sustainable technologies
    Increased jobs in environment renewal
    Livable cities
    Clean water and air
    Healthier populations
    ….

    What if global warming is a great big hoax and we create a better world for nothing?

  54. Point taken, Lord Jim. I accept that.

  55. “Actually there is a definition of AGW that distinguishes it from CAGW: it is simply the (logarithmic) warming effect of co2 sans the theoretical feedbacks.”

    That wasn’t what I asked you to define. It’s very interesting that you refuse to define the strawman you so confidently assert is made of straw. Readers might care to speculate as to why that is…

    Notably, your red herring isn’t even a definition of AGW that scientists use, and for good reason! We know that many feedbacks exist and we have a number of disparate lines of evidence about their total magnitude in the long term.

    And since I’m addressing your red herring: do you *truly* want to appear stupid enough to insist that when we want to measure or project how much human influences have warmed the climate that we insist on excluding all feedbacks that operate in response to … well, to human influences? Would you acquit the arsonist who threw a lit match into tinder dry bushland on the basis that he didn’t cause the resulting bush fire, just the ignition of the match?

  56. “Does that mean an almost exponential increase in co2 and no temperature increase is not damaging for the hypothesis that co2 causes catastrophic global warming. No.”

    (1) “Almost exponential” is an almost entirely meaningless term. The rate of annual CO2 emissions is going up but not dramatically. Over the time period you appear to be talking about a linear approximation to atmospheric CO2 is pretty good, even more so since the forcing is logarithmic in that concentration. Here’s roughly the last 20 years of CO2 concentration:

    http://woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1994/plot/esrl-co2/from:1994/trend

    Anyone else see an “almost exponential” rise? Anyone but Lord Jim that is?

    (2) You ignored my point (as projected!)

    (3) You continue to raise straw men via undefined terms (albeit here it appears to be a slight variation from the acronym you have been using).

    (4) The “damage” depends on “the hypothesis”, which in this case also depends on the definition of “catastrophic global warming”, a definition that you refuse to supply. You appear to be wedded to “a hypothesis” about short term surface temperature outcomes that climate scientists have not advanced (and that can only be “damaged” by ignoring the influence of other factors). That is yet another example of you appearing to claim “facts” that are not factual.

    If you (choose to) understand what the scientists *actually* say, you’ll find it a lot harder to dismiss what they say or allege “damage” based on recent surface temperatures. You appear to be choosing not to understand…and readers might be tempted to think the reason is obvious.

  57. “I say: if the ‘science is settled’ those ‘other factors’ (e.g. heat going into the ocean) should have been, where possible, plugged into the prior ‘projection’, not supplied as an ad hoc ameliorative after the event”

    (1) Many of these were not possible at the time because current knowledge wasn’t known then, unless you happen to have in your possession a time machine, so your objection is invalid on those grounds. Furthermore computational capacity is *always* insufficient to incorporate everything known at the time into any model of a complex system, so even where factors were historically understood to a sufficient level for modelling purposes, they couldn’t always be incorporated.

    One has to understand what a model is and is not, and what it is useful for and what it is not useful for, and how to use and not use the results. Your arguments, like so many contrarian tilts at models, appear to be based on misunderstanding these things.

    (2) Factors (known well or very little) that can’t be modelled at the time contribute to “noise” in the model output. That makes it very relevant that you ignored my point about projecting realisations of noise processes. Did it go over your head or can your argument not withstand an honest answer to it?

    (3) “The science is settled” is rarely what scientists say because they are careful with caveats and uncertainties and current limits on knowledge, so sheeting it back to them is fallacious.

    When most people use it, it’s not used to mean that all processes are completely understood and characterised with high accuracy. It means (or should mean) that understanding is *sufficient* that the risk of very undesirable outcomes cannot be ruled out.

    And in this case it’s worse than that: very undesirable outcomes cannot even be ruled “unlikely” any more, and some of them are pretty much in the “likely” bucket with the major remaining uncertainty being not if they will occur, but when.

    Unfortunately, nothing you have written challenges that. And I say “unfortunately” without a hint of sarcasm because I’d REALLY LIKE someone to be able to successfully challenge it. That would mean we can all relax about the whole thing! But “successful” means mounting a robust evidence-based argument which you have not done, and neither have even the most highly credentialed contrarian climate scientists.

  58. “What I think is that certain climate scientists, groups and individuals need to be less censorious and more open to the prospect that their conclusions are wrong.”

    (1) The calls to be “less censorious” come almost exclusively from those that can’t mount a robust evidence-based case – as you have delightfully illustrated.

    (2) Scientists are open. That’s exactly what one opens oneself up to when you publish in the peer-reviewed literature (and speaking of models, many of them can be downloaded for free). Anyone, scientist or otherwise, credentialed or otherwise, can publish a paper calling a scientist’s work bullshit – as long as they can mount a robust evidence-based case!

    What scientists are NOT willing to entertain is ignorant opinion or arguments that aren’t grounded in the evidence and logic, (especially after the first dozen times they have been presented). This is not being close minded, it is being scientific.

    And I am open too! As I keep pointing out I’d be deliriously happy if we found out our concerns about human induced climate change were misplaced! But I won’t cheer on happy fantasy bullshit based on false “facts” and fallacious logic (especially since that kind of thing is being deliberately used to delay action which only increases the severity of the problem and the eventual cost to fix it).

    (And it’s a lovely irony that the denialists call for more openness but are hardly ever open to the possibility themselves. Or as I say at Deltoid with only a hint of exaggeration: “it’s always projection”.)

  59. “what you are essentially saying is that CAGW is unfalsifiable (that might not be quite fair, but it’s more or less accurate).”

    (1) You are putting words into my mouth. Please don’t misrepresent my position! I don’t know what you mean by the term “CAGW” and I don’t use the term. Hence there’s no way I can “essentially say” that it is unfalsifiable because I don’t say ANYTHING about it.

    (2) If you care to define the term “CAGW” we can talk about whether your definition matches what the scientists say, and *IF* and only if it does, then we can discuss falsifiability. However I project that you won’t do that because you won’t like the resulting discussion.

    Or to put it another way: be careful what you wish for: you can’t escape basic physics by defining terms like CAGW, and you can’t escape a science-based case by raising a strawman case instead.

  60. Lord Jim
    Judith Curry said this about her Sourcewatch profile:
    “There is a section on criticisms from climate scientists, citing devastating critiques from the likes of William Connolley, Michael Tobis, James Annan, and Thingsbreak(!)
    This reflects the true democratization of the blogosphere, which I am all in favor of. Now I’m not really a snob about all this, but I would have preferred the criticisms to be from the likes of Gavin Schmidt and Joe Romm, who have more stature.”

    Well Joe Romm is not a climate scientist but his credentials to speak in this field are good enough for Judith Curry and most sane persons but perhaps not for you?

    Romm is a Fellow at American Progress and is the Founding Editor of Climate Progress, which New York Times columnist Tom Friedman called “the indispensable blog” and Time magazine named one of the 25 “Best Blogs of 2010.” In 2009, Rolling Stone put Romm #88 on its list of 100 “people who are reinventing America.” Time named him a “Hero of the Environment″ and “The Web’s most influential climate-change blogger.” Romm was acting assistant secretary of energy for energy efficiency and renewable energy in 1997, where he oversaw $1 billion in R&D, demonstration, and deployment of low-carbon technology. He is a Senior Fellow at American Progress and holds a Ph.D. in physics from MIT.

    Of Judith Curry Romm says:
    “My one-time lecture-circuit companion, Dr. Judith Curry, Chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at Georgia Tech, has now taken the crown as the most debunked person on the science blogosphere, which is quite a feat considering the competition. But she invites debunking by her tendency to make scientific-sounding pronouncements without having actually read the relevant literature, and then backing down the minute she is challenged by someone who has or who has actually contributed to that literature.”

    Romm continues:
    “… and then there’s her tendency to libel people.” In an interview with Eric Berger of the Houston Chronicle she dismissed Romm and Gavin Schmidt from Real Climate as follows: “Oh yes. Those guys are directly involved in Climategate so that’s not a huge surprise.”

    Not. I pointed out to Berger that just because he’s publishing an interview doesn’t mean he is free to print comments that he knows to be false and libelous.”

    Romm comments:
    “… notwithstanding Curry’s effort to smear me (and Schmidt) and doubly notwithstanding the fact that the people who actually were directly involved in Climategate have all been vindicated by multiple independent investigations — I was not directly involved in Climategate. And notwithstanding the implication of Berger’s note, I was not indirectly involved — unless writing about it constitutes involvement, in which case both Berger and Curry were involved in Climategate. Let’s call it non-guilt by non-association with people who weren’t guilty of anything.”

    James D. Annan is a scientist involved in climate prediction. He was a member of the Global Warming Research Program at Frontier Research Centre for Global Change which is associated with the Earth Simulator in Japan. In 2014 he left Japan, returning to the United Kingdom as a co-founder of Blue Skies Research.

    Annan said of Curry:
    “She’s really building up quite a history of throwing up vague or demonstrably wrong claims, then running away when shown to be wrong. … If she ever deigns to address the substantive point on probability, maybe she can let me know, but I’m not holding my breath. Her main tactic seems to be throwing up layers upon layers of an increasing shaky edifice as quickly as possible hoping that no-one will notice that the foundations are collapsing as quickly as people can read.”

    Mark Boslough is a physicist. He is a member of the technical staff at Sandia National Laboratories, an adjunct professor at University of New Mexico, and a Fellow of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry. Asteroid 73520 Boslough (2003 MB1) was named after him. Boslough is a vocal critic of pseudoscience and anti-science and has written about climate change denial in the Skeptical Inquirer in reference to “Climategate” conspiracy theories. He is also active in uncovering scientific misconduct.

    Boslough says of the science of climate change denial (or more politely contrarian climate science):
    “There is no consistent contrarian science, and there is no defining contrarian ideology or motivation. Some are sincere. Others are angry at their lack of funding. Some appear to be envious of the IPCC scientists’ success, and others have found a niche that gets them attention they would not otherwise get. Only a few appear to be motivated by politics. No single label applies to them, and I found myself referring to them as “contrarians/skeptics/deniers/enablers/provocateurs/publicity-seekers”.

    The one common thread I found among them was the fervent belief that “Climategate” was a conspiracy and that the IPCC is rigged. This faith-based belief seems to be unshakable, and is the antithesis of true skepticism. Those I met were uniformly cynical about the honesty and motivations of mainstream scientists. If I were forced to use a single label, I would be inclined to call them “science cynics”.

    Is that you Lord Jim? A science cynic?

  61. Jim, Dr Milne gives a very good account of what comprises science and what does not, reference above.

    Here is a film clip about Greenland where it is acknowledged that climate change is happening; its pretty up to date (2013)..

    Climate change disbelievers, say models do not accurately portray what is happening; there are quite a number of glaciologists who believe that models are behind in what’s happening in the Arctic region.
    Disbelievers do not countenance the Polar Vortex hypothesis; but whenever it is mentioned there are pretty well always comments about the Arctic area being warm in comparison to past years. Temperatures have been slowly increasing since satellites have been used from 1979.

  62. Er Michael my comment seems to have been swallowed by the spam monster. Can you retrieve it?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: