In a rehash of last year’s laughable list of 400 ‘prominent scientists’ dispute climate change, Senator Inhofe has produced an updated list that now includes 650 scientists who dispute climate. As I explained last year; expertise matters, not everyone’s opinion is equally valid, and Inhofe’s list is short on people who’s expertise is actually relevant.
I wasn’t going to write anything about this year’s list, but Tim Lambert over at the Deltoid blog came to the realization that Inhofe’s list, is actually less honest than another famous anti-scientist list of ‘dissenting scientists’:
Inhofe’s list of 650 scientists that supposedly dispute the consensus on AGW reminded me of another list: The Discovery Institute’s list of scientists who dissent from Darwinism, so I thought I’d compare the two lists.
First, numbers. The Discovery Institute’s list has 751 names, while Inhofe’s has only 604. (Not “More Than 650” as he claims — there are many names appearing more than once.) [SD: Not all people listed on Inhofe/Morano’s list dissent to the consensus on climate change, yet the title is a count off erveryone listed in the list, thus the discrepancy between Tim Lambert’s count and Morano’s.]
Second, how do you get on the list? Well, you have to sign up to get on the Discovery Institute’s list, but Inhofe will add you to his list if he thinks you’re disputing the global warming consensus and he won’t take you off, even if you tell him to do so. Yes, there is someone less honest than the Discovery Institute.
Those that remember my brush with Marc Morano (Inhofe’s spin doctor) know that the lists of ‘dissenting research’ he posted here weren’t actually dissenting. Some of them even explicitly acknowledge climate change and say we are already feeling it’s impacts. So it should come as no surprise that Inhofe’s new list is full of people that don’t actually deny climate change.
Attached to the list was a a study that presumably (according to Inhofe) claimed that the sun is responsible for climate change. [SD: The study wasn’t actually attached to the list, I was confused because it was sent in the same email as the list] If true this would be in direct opposition to two recent studies, that conclusively show that the sun is not responsible for the current warming trend. When the lead author was asked if her study claimed that human-caused emissions were not the major factor driving the temperature record in the past century? She replied:
We did a strong differentiation between preindustrial (1250-1850) time and the last 150 years. In the preindustrial time we found a strong correlation between the solar activity proxy and our temperature, suggesting solar forcing as a main force for temperature change in this time. However, the correlation between the solar activity proxy and Altai temperature is NOT significant anymore for the last 150 years. In this time the increase in the CO2 concentrations is significantly correlated with our temperature.
Surely we can expect a correction to Inhofe’s obvious error any day now… right?
You know you’re scraping the bottom of the barrel looking for dissent when the creationist cranks at the Discovery Institute are behaving with more integrity than you.
[ScruffyDan: Since this is VERY long comment (or more accurately a long copy/paste job), I am going to reply in line]
Dan,
I understand you enjoy attempting to smear any dissent, but your latest blog post http://www.scruffydan.com/blog/?p=1922 makes several serious errors of fact that you need to publicly correct.
[You of all people have no leg to stand on when accusing people of smearing. But what exactly was hurtful to you? The worst offender in my post is the world laughable, used to describe last years list. But if you follow the link and read what I wrote then you can easily see why I would call a padded list with a distinct shortage of relevant experts which included people who don’t actually dispute the consensus. Laughable. Perhaps I should have used the word insignificant.]
Fist of all you glowingly cite Tim Lambert’s Deltoid blog as though he has done some kind of ground breaking work investigation the Senate report of over 650 (and rapidly growing) scientists dissenting on man-made warming claims. (See full report here: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2674e64f-802a-23ad-490b-bd9faf4dcdb7 )
You may want to rethink your reliance on Lambert embarrassing rants.
Lambert, the “computer scientist” fails basic arithmetic. The poor hapless math challenged Lambert has now claimed twice that the Senate report of 650 plus scientist actually included only 604 scientists! ( http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/12/more_on_inhofes_alleged_list_o.php )
Lambert even linked to another blog noting the report had well over 650 scientists in one of his blog entries claiming there were only 604 scientists! Perhaps when Lambert figures out how to do simple addition, he may be able to improve his ability to run a smear blog more effectively. Until Lambert takes remedial arithmetic, my suggestion for you is to avoid cut and past critiques from Lambert.
So to repeat, you are spreading falsehoods that the Senate report does not contain 650 plus scientists. (in fact, we are now nearing 700 scientists)
To paraphrase your snarky comment: “Surely we can expect a correction to Scruffy Dan’s obvious errors any day now… right?”
[As you clearly pointed out, the report contains scientists who aren’t actually skeptical of climate change, thus the list of those who are skeptical are only a subset of the total number. Either way I have added that correction to the post, to make it more clear.]
#
Second, you imply that the Senate’s 650 plus scientist report featured a solar study that the authors of the study objected to.
You even link to comical Joe “global warming may cause bridge collapses” Romm of Climate Progress (See: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/08/07/ex-clinton-official-did-global-warming-contribute-mn-bridge-collapse ) to further explain how our Senate report was in error about the solar study. Romm made so many errors in his piece, it is hardly worth responding.
[Funny how you seem to have enough time to respond on my insignificant blog, yet you seem content to ignore the supposed errors Romm made when interviewing the lead author of the study in question. Seems to me that you are avoiding the people who might do the best job of debunking you]
But, just to be clear, this solar study and the author Romm is communicating with was not and is not in any way part of the 650 dissenting scientist report. It was simply part of our routine news round up of articles in a blog post.
[Given that your email to me was formated with your interpretation of the solar study as a subheading of the list heading, it is easy to see how someone who hasn’t gone through your maze of links to determine what you are actually referring to and fact check (always a necessity when dealing with you, as you have shown yourself to be very dishonest) could make the mistake. Thankfully someone is going through your entire list, and lmaking it crystal clear why this list is meaningless.]
Romm also mistakenly tried to say our EPW website wrote the analysis of the solar study. In fact, our Senate website only reprinted an excerpt of physicist Dr. Lubos Motl’s long analysis of the solar study. Romm apparently did not notice the weblink to Motl, nor the word EXCERPT before Motl’s quotes.
[ Ok so you didn’t write that dishonest interpretation of the study, but you saw fit to publish it and use it as evidence against the consensus on climate change. From where I stand there is little difference between the two, but if it makes you happy I’ll note that in my post.]
Here is our Senate website report that included Motl’s quotes (way down the page)
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2158072e-802a-23ad-45f0-274616db87e6&Issue_id=
And here is a direct link to Dr. Motl’s analysis of your study: http://motls.blogspot.com/2008/12/eichler-et-al-half-of-recent-warming.html
The EPW blog post (not the Senate’s 650 Scientist Report) included the authors own words noting that “only up to approximately 50% of the observed global warming in the last 100 years can be explained by the Sun.” Repeating, contrary to Romm’s assertions, our EPW news roundup did include the author’s conclusion about their study’s findings on the impact of the sun.
[perhaps you missed the point where the lead author of the study states that “uncertainties of our data” do not allow it to be used to give an exact percentage for how much solar activity was responsible for the warming in the past century. Other recent studies have concluded that the Sun’s contribution to recent warming is “negligible.” Yet that didn’t stop you from writing the headline “Half of warming due to Sun!”. I’m sure it was just an honest mistake that you dropped ‘only up to’ from your headline, and completely omitted any mention that the methods used in the study do not allow it to be used to give an exact percentage. In fact I’m sure this whole list if yours is just a series of honest mistakes]
To paraphrase your snarky comment: “Surely we can expect a correction to Scruffy Dan’s obvious errors any day now… right?”
[I Have made it clear that the study was not part of your list, just part of the same email]
As for studies showing linkage to temperature and solar activity. Keep in mind, as Real Climate even acknowledged recently, there are hundreds of factors that influence climate, so it is not simply CO2 or the sun. Here is but a very small sample of solar studies.
[No one is saying that the CO2 and the sun are the only two forcing. As for what Real Climate has to say on the matter, I know they certainly do not agree with you.]
Peer-reviewed study finds that the solar system regulates the earth’s climate – The paper, authored by Richard Mackey, was published August 17, 2007 in the Journal of Coastal Research – Excerpt: “According to the findings reviewed in this paper, the variable output of the sun, the sun’s gravitational relationship between the earth (and the moon) and earth’s variable orbital relationship with the sun, regulate the earth’s climate. The processes by which the sun affects the earth show periodicities on many time scales; each process is stochastic and immensely complex. (LINK) & (LINK)
[ Published in the Journal of Coastal Research? Were the relevant journals full? One of the easiest red flags to spot when citing peer-reviewed research is whether or not an article was published in a relevant journal. What do the editors of the Journal of Coastal Research, know about the link between climate change and the sun? What to the peer-reviewers of that journal know? I think such matter are well out of their league. ]
Danish National Space Center Study concludes: “The Sun still appears to be the main forcing agent in global climate change.” The report was authored by Physicist Henrik Svensmark and Eigil Friis-Christensen. (LINK) Several other recent scientific studies and scientists have debunked a media hyped UK study alleging there has not been a solar-climate link in the past 20 years. UK Astrophysicist Piers Corbyn confirmed the Danish study and also debunked the “No Solar-Climate Link Study” on July 14, 2007. Excerpt: “[The study claiming to prove a] ‘refutation’ of the decisive role of solar activity in driving climate is as valid as claiming a particular year was not warm by simply looking at the winter half of data. The most significant and persistent cycle of variation in the world’s temperature follows the 22-year magnetic cycle of the sun’s activity,” Corbyn, who heads the UK based long-term solar forecast group Weather Action, wrote. (LINK) Other studies and scientists have found also confirmed the solar-climate link. (LINK) & (LINK) & (LINK) http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=84E9E44A-802A-23AD-493A-B35D0842FED8
#
[ This paper wasn’t published in any peer-reviewed journals as far as I can tell, and as I have told you that means it doesn’t pass the minimum standard required for entry into the scientific debate.]
Third, you imply that the 650 plus dissenting scientists have a number of people demanding to be removed.
Surely you can do better than to name just one scientist out of now nearly 700 scientists?
[ George Waldenberger (the man in question) asked to be removed from your list last year, and yet he is still on last years list, AND this years new list. It sure speaks volumes about your integrity. For the record this is what he said last year: “Take me off your list of 400 (Prominent) Scientists that dispute Man-Made Global warming claims. I’ve never made any claims that debunk the “Consensus”. You quoted a newspaper article that’s main focus was scoring the accuracy of local weathermen. Hardly Scientific … yet I’m guessing some of your other sources pale in comparison in terms of credibility. You also didn’t ask for my permission to use these statements. That’s not a very respectable way of doing “research”.”]
You only cite one, Meteorologist George Waldenberger. Below is a note I wrote to Waldenberger back in 2008. It has still not been confirmed that he was indeed the author of the request to be removed. Note that Waldenberger views are clearly skeptical. See below:
Full note reprinted to George Waldenberger:
—– Original Message —–
From: Morano, Marc (EPW)
To: George Waldenberger
Sent: Sun Jan 13 00:48:05 2008
Subject: Re:
Dear George,
Thank you for you note. We currently have you in our Senate Report under the criteria of scientists who “voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called consensus” on man-made global warming. The report does not allege you believe we should “ignore” climate change, rather it simply states you “expressed skepticism about whether mankind was driving climate change in 2007.”
That assertion in the report is followed by a long series of your quotes in which you state in part (your full section from the report is below), “The question is what type of role do we take in that warming. Is it all natural fluctuations or are the increased concentrations of carbon dioxide part of this? And that’s a subject that’s up in the air.” In the linked article (Sioux City Journal – April 11, 2007), you also opine about the intensity of hurricanes and global warming and state, “And that’s an item of debate as well.” You bluntly assert that both the hurricane connection to warming and CO2’s impact on global temperature are still “debatable.”
You clearly articulate that you do not agree with former Vice President Al Gore (who claims we=2 0face an urgent “climate crisis”) or the UN IPCC (where multiple UN leaders say the climate debate is completely over – UN leaders say it is ‘completely immoral’ to question the IPCC ‘consensus.’ See: http://www.upi.com/International_Intelligence/Analysis/ 2007/05/10/analysis_un_calls_climate_debate_over/6480/
And the UN says it is ‘criminally irresponsible’ the urgency of global warming. See: http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/globalwarming/2 007-11-12-united-nations_N.htm )
The Senate report further quotes you stating: “So the debate now goes into, well, what does that mean? Are things going to keep going in the direction that they’re going or does increased carbon dioxide sort of fertilize the air and does that create more plants which in turn digest more carbon dioxide and create more oxygen? You know, there’s a wide variety of ways we can go from here. So the debate then becomes: What do we need to do now?”
The fact is, you recognize that there is a “debate.” Gore and the IPCC leaders do not recognize the need for the “debate” about climate that you so eloquently lay out.
Your statements about these climate feedbacks further separate you from Gore and the UN IPCC views. You assert that CO2’s stimulating impact on plant growth can be a negative feedback which directly limits CO2 levels. This is a significant point which runs directly counter to man-made climate fears.
Indeed, many of the latest research trends indicate that plants are absorbing far more CO2 than IPCC figures anticipate, partly perhaps because deforestation rates have been overestimated. Here’s an article that supports your thoughtful views on the subject: Excerpt: Claims that tropical forests are declining cannot be backed up by hard evidence, according to new research from the University of Leeds. “Scientists all over the world who have used these data to make predictions of species extinctions and the role of forests in global climate change will find it helpful to revisit their findings in the light of my study.”
Full Report here: http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-01/uol-nce0 10708.php
Also, please keep in mind the Senate report is not a “list” of scientists, but a report that includes full bio of each scientist, quotes and links for further reading. The reader is not looking at your name on a long list, but actually reading your words and understanding all of your intended subtleties and caveats about climate change. The report even quotes you saying man-made global warming “seems to be a reasonable argument.”
Again, I thank you for writing me. If you would like to further discuss, please respond or call me at 202-XXX-XXXX.
Sincerely,
Marc Morano
Communications Dir. (Minority)
U.S. Senate Environment & Public Works Committee
Below is your full entry from December 20, 2007 Senate report: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minor ity.SenateReport
Iowa Meteorologists George Waldenberger and Gary Shore expressed skepticism about whether mankind was driving climate change in 2007. “Well, I went to school at UCLA, a big climate school. And it isn8 0t really an issue as to if the global climate has been warming,” Waldenberger said on April 11, 2007. “It has over the past 40 years. The question is what type of role do we take in that warming. Is it all natural fluctuations or are the increased concentrations of carbon dioxide part of this? And that’s a subject that’s up in the air,” Waldenberger explained. Meteorologist Gary Shore, agreed with Waldenberger. “There’s definitely global warming,” Shore said on April 11, 2007. “No question about that. And it seems very likely that what we’re doing has some part of that, some impact; but as to exactly how much of it is us and how much of it is other things, nobody knows,” Shore explained. Waldenberger further commented, “But you know carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas just like water vapor, which is actually the most efficient greenhouse gas. And that’s why we’re actually 60 degrees warmer than we would be without water vapor in the air. So if you’re talking about the greenhouse effect, that’s very real, and we need it to survive. But as far as carbon dioxide concentrations increasing over the last 100 years, they have about 30 percent. And temperatures have increased about a degree on average across the entire globe over the last hundred years as well. So it seems to be a reasonable argument.” “So the debate now goes into, well, what does that mean? Are things going to keep going in the direction that they’re going or does increased carb on dioxide sort of fertilize the air and does that create more plants which in turn digest more carbon dioxide and create more oxygen? You know, there’s a wide variety of ways we can go from here. So the debate then becomes: What do we need to do now?” he added.
#
Finally, you may also be interested in this latest development:
Politically Left Scientists Now Rejecting Climate Fears – http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.Speeches&ContentRecord_id=B87E3AAD-802A-23AD-4FC0-8E02C7BB8284
To paraphrase your snarky comment: “Surely we can expect a correction to Scruffy Dan’s obvious errors any day now… right?”
[A correction of what exactly? That someone wants his name off the list, because you have twisted his words, yet 1 year later his name still appears on the list. As George what you cite is hardly a scientific source, and if that wasn’t enough he isn’t much of a relevant expert. He is a TV weatherman, not a climatologist. Though we all know how you deniers get all confused between weather and climate.]
If you wish to continue attempting to discredit the Senate 650 Dissenting scientist report, I suggest you avoid cutting and pasting and links to Lambert and Romm.
Quite simply, they are not the path to effective critiques.
[I think your list has been properly discredited already, and unless yo do something outrageously dishonest or really funny I doubt I’ll cover the list again]
Sincerely,
Marc Morano
U.S. Senate Environment & Public Works (Minority)
U.S. Senate Minority Report Update: More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims – http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2674e64f-802a-23ad-490b-bd9faf4dcdb7
[ I’ve made all the corrections required, now it’s your turn… don’t worry I wont hold my breath.
What makes you think that a list such as your is any indication of any dissent in the scientific community? If you wanted to actually cast doubt on the notion that scientists (who have the relevant expertise) dispute the climate change consensus, they must do a proper literature review, and then have that review submitted for peer-review. Clearly you haven’t done that, clearly your list is meaningless, clearly your list is an attempt at generating headlines, and conning people into thinking there is debate in the scientific community when we both know there isn’t one.
What really makes this whole thing funny, is that by your logic there exists a debate on evolution within the scientific community because there exists a list that is both longer than yours and which requires that people actually request to be added to it that challenges evolution. I think we can both agree that there is no debate on evolution taking place within the scientific community, so if their list is insignificant surely that means that you list is also insignificant]
Last year, the “400 List” was dealt with in similar fashion as this year’s “650 List”. Next year, the anticipated “1,000 List” will likely receive the same shrill commentary. Unfortunately, no one scientist’s lifetime is sufficient to master all of the disciplines that have a role in climate science. The scientists on the “650 List”, like the scientists of the so-called “consensus”, have different specialized fields.
Dismissal of these or any other scientist for the reasons stated in the article reflects the arrogance of the author’s viewpoint. Moreso, it’s an act of an orthodoxy desparate to maintain the prohibition on dissenting scientific views.
I’m confused here. First you imply that you accept the Morano/Inhofe’s list, then you claim that there exists a prohibition on dissenting scientific views (though you provide NO evidence to support that claim).
Which is it? It cannot be both. Either there are 650 scientists who genuinely dissent form the consensus on climate change or a prohibition exists on such views. You can’t have it both ways.
But more importantly you completely missed the point. The people on the list (those that genuinely dissent to the consensus) simply don’t have the relevant expertise. As I said in my post “expertise matters, not everyone’s opinion is equally valid, and Inhofe’s list is short on people who’s expertise is actually relevant.”
In short these lists are completely useless, and that is why they receive such ‘shrill commentary’ as you put it.
If someone wanted to actually cast doubt on the notion that scientists (who have the relevant expertise) dispute the climate change consensus, they must do a proper literature review, and then have that review submitted for peer-review. The most recent such publication that I am aware of was done in 2004, and found NO peer-reviewed literature that disputed the consensus.
Have things changed since 2004? Not based on my reading of the scientific literature, but perhaps a proper literature review would say otherwise.
One thing is clear, Morano/Inhofe’s lists do not cast doubt on the consensus (much like the Discovery Institutes’s list doesn’t cast doubt on the evolution consensus), and both Morano and Inhofe are dishonest players in this debate.
Did the vaunted AGW models predict the cooling of the last ten years or so? Or did they predict the opposite?
Did the AGW knuckleheads predict the great enlargement of the Arctic sea ice? Or did they predict the opposite?
Is Jim Hanson cooking the books? Or are the knuckleheads just knuckleheads who can’t properly gather data?
Has man thrived during warmer periods or colder periods on this sometimes frigid snowball you call Gaia? Or do the knuckleheads think Eskimos define the apex of human civilization just because they invented particularly yummy pies?
Who will be the last AGW knucklehead standing?
That frozen Che-loving Canadian over there, that’s who!
For god sakes, the world has NOT cooled since 1998! Anyone who makes that claim either has no clue what he is talking about or is a liar. Take your pick.
As for what the models predicted since 1998, that is easy. Nothing, they predicted nothing. The simple fact is that 1 decade is to short a time scale for any significant trend in the current models. A couple of preliminary models with decadal scales have been created (though they are still have significant issues), and guess what they show? A temporary plateau of temperature (until 2010 or so) and then a rapid increase in temperatures.
What the hell are you talking about? Are you talking about the fact that the minimum summer ice extent for 2008 was slightly higher (though still well less than would be expected given recent trends) than the record shattering 2007 minimum sea ices extent?
Or are you talking about this great enlargement of the Arctic sea ice?
Either way there exists a very clear DOWNWARD TREND.
So the fact that errors were found and corrected (something that happens with all large data sets) is an indication that Hansen is cooking the books? Obviously logic isn’t your strong suit.
You’re really scraping the bottom of the barrel here. But perhaps this will answer your question
If you want me to actually take you seriously you need to stop repeating fully debunked denier talking points. As it stands you just sound like a knucklehead.
“Talking points?” Talking points?
Well, you certainly should know talking points.
AGW, it is becoming clearer and clearer, is a huge fraud. Once, I even though that maybe there may have been a case made for man-made global warming (not that I think GW is a bad thing — on the contrary, I think it would be a good thing, on the whole), but we can now see from the pat responses countering and dismissing each and every piece of negative evidence as blasphemy, that the cultural left is selling us a bill of goods. Are any of you stopping and saying, well, that’s interesting: the world, in fact is not heating up. Who says carbon dioxide warms the planet? Are the models tainted by bias? Are they really testable?* I can now say, based on the spitting, screaming, hysterical responses of every true believer, and the cries that it may all ready be too late, that AGW is pure flim-flam.
And, Dan, you may be one of the last to realize this, but AGW is dying as a scientific theory. Quickly.
It’s da sun, cher, da sun.
____________________
This quote of yours I really love: “As for what the models predicted since 1998, that is easy. Nothing, they predicted nothing. The simple fact is that 1 decade is to short a time scale for any significant trend in the current models.”
I other words: “No the models are not testable.” How convenient. “But, really, we MUST act now to stop that which we cannot prove with our only piece of evidence, our models, until .. well … until 2109. At least.”
Really says who? Certainly not the IPCC the National Academies of Science from Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, the Caribbean, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Russia, South Africa, Sweden, the United Kingdom and the USA, the American Meteorological Society, American Geophysical Union, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the Geological Society of London, the Geological Society of America, the Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society, thousands of peer-reviewed journals, and even the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, all agree that climate change is not a political concoction or a scientific hoax, but very real and is caused by our greenhouse gas emissions.
In fact no scientific body of national or international standing is known to reject the basic findings of the human influence on the recent climate.
In fact the only people who are saying that AGW is a fraud are non-scientists and non-science publications. Sorry, but I’ll continue to accept the conclusions of actual scientists publishing peer-reviewed research over non-scientific cranks.
Yet you don’t actually make any counter points. The left is selling us a bill of goods? I had no idea that Newt Gingrich was a communist. I had no idea that the scientific societies of the word I listed above were all left wing?
Care to cite any data to support that claim? Because all estimates I have seen show the costs far outweighing any potential benefit by at least an order of magnitude.
Clearly you don’t read any of the peer-reviewed literature. The world IS heating up,
“Every year this century is among the top-10 hottest years on record. In fact the clustering of hottest years is even more lop-sided than that would indicate; by the end of 2006 it was noted that the 13 hottest years on record had all occurred since 1990 (and we’ve added a couple more to that list since then). How unlikely is that?
Precisely that question is addressed in “How unusual is the recent series of warm years?” (Zorita et al. 2008, Geophysical Research Letters 35, L24706 doi:10.1029/GL036228). The conclusion can be summed up in a phrase best said with a strong Maine accent: ’tain’t likely.”
There is good research going back 100 years showing why C02 heats up the planet. As for the models, they can correctly hindcast the past 100 years of climate, and this gives their ability to predict future climate confidence. As for the ability to test the models, they can be tested, but obviously you need to test for something that is statistically significant. That’s just basic statistics The last 10 years of instrumental data are well within the error bounds of the models, or in other words the observed temperature don’t vary significantly from the model estimates.
Don’t you see the obvious flaw in this logic? Just because some people are making inane misleading and false arguments for climate change doesn’t in anyway argue against the scientific case for climate change. If some idiot (or even hoards of idiots) makes some stupid arguments for evolution that doesn’t in any way weaken the scientific argument for evolution. Or in other words the evidence for climate change that is available to the casual person of interest, including most students, is simplified to the point of being misleading, false, or useless. In other words, the popular argument for climate change is bullshit, independent of the underlying reality of climate change or the evidence available to experts in the field.
Again look at the list of scientific societies and tell me again with a straight face that AGW is dying as a scientific theory. As for the sun, it’s been looked at and found NOT to be responsible for the current warming trend.
Did I say that? Nope I didn’t. All I said was that the test you proposed wasn’t a good one because the instrumental record for the past 10 years in not statistically different form the model output. See the difference?
It sounds to me like you are demanding to see a model run for 100 years before you gain confidence in its results. certainly that is a fair demand, and you will delighted to know that most models start their run roughly 100 years ago, and hindcast the past 100 years very well. So given this new information surely you know give confidence to the results of the models… right?
Unfortunately Whowill your arguments are a)not backed up by any published research, b) have been fully debunked by published research, and c) show a lack of knowledge of the scientific arguments behind climate change instead you chose to focus on the (frequently wrong) popular arguments for climate change.
And that makes you sound like a knucklhead.
“You will delighted to know that most models start their run roughly 100 years ago, and hindcast the past 100 years very well.”
My point with the 100 years crack was that you hysterics have the luxury of never having to be held accountable for your model’s accuracy (or lack thereof). The testable effects of AGW is always in the indefinite future. That is what makes it convenient, Dan.
There is much wrong with what you wrote, and you more than once misinterpreted by words. But in the interests of time, let me focus on one issue that you touch on which I didn’t earlier address.
With regard to this wonderful quote of yours, it hits on another problem of the theory that CO2 causes GW. When one thing has been found to be correlated with another thing and the model assumes that this correlation means causation, then we would naturally expect the model to accurately predict that which it assumes. Now wouldn’t we?
And please stop telling me all the stuff you’ve been spouting is science. I am most definitely not convinced. I think its politics mixed with opportunism, glued together with the left’s need to assign blame (whether it concerns human nature or whether it concerns weather)for that which cannot be controlled by man.
ScruffyDan:
There are credible scientists whose research suggests that the AGW/ACC science has basic flaws. Has there been a credible skeptical scientist to have voiced legitimate flaws or contradictions with the science?
In the face of credible science which contradicts AGW/ACC, should supporters of the AGW/ACC science acknowledge this, should they condemn it, should they ignore it, or should they deny it?
@ Whowill
Obviously you haven’t spend ANY time in the peer-reviewed literature, because if you had you would know how ridiculous this is.
Yep, you definitely haven’t read any peer-reviewed literature because you have absolutely know idea how climate models work. The science of global warming isn’t based on models that accurately predict their assumptions.
Grow up. Every single relevant scientific society says that our GHG emissions are responsible for the recent warming trend, there are thousands of peer-reviewed scientific studies showing the same thing… yet you want me to believe that non of this is science, but rather a vast left wing conspiracy (that somehow snagged people like Newt Gingrich). And yet you wonder why people like you aren’t taken seriously.
If you really want to know why scientists are so certain that our GHG emissions are the cause of the recent warming trend read this. You comments so far have been in violation of my comment policy because they repeat fully debunked denier talking point that prevent the debate from moving forward. You haven’t brought anything new to this debate, you haven’t backed up anything you have said, and you haven’t responded to the points I have raised.
So if you want to continue this debate then you need to at least learn and understand the basic science. It really is the least you can do if you want to be taken seriously.
@ Jeff
You are going to have to provide links to published peer-reviewed research if you want me to believe that. I have had people claim the same thing before, but when I ask for links they present me with papers are either not peer-reviewed, or that are peer-reviewed but arrive at wildly different conclusions from the ones they are pushing. Marc Morano is definitely the worst offender here.
I have even seen press releases written by authors of some papers (Singer I am looking at you!) that arrive at conclusions that are nowhere to be found in the paper.
And I probably don’t have to tell you that an article in the MSM about some new research doesn’t cut it either as the MSM’s science reporting is often embarrassingly wrong.
Why don’t you look up William M. Connolley. He is an ex-climate molder, and while he doesn’t challenge the notion that humans are causing climate change he is certainly skeptical (in the true meaning of the word) and is very outspoken in his belief that Hansen’s latest climate sensitivity estimates are far too high. And yes he is respected.
IF such research is published, it wont be ignored. It will be scrutinized very heavily by others, and over the time span of a few years the effect of such research on the scientific community can be determined.
The problem is that no research that suggests basic flaws exist in climate change theory has been published, or has withstood the resulting scrutiny.
Prove me wrong show me some links.
What kind of scientist are YOU, Dan?
“You comments so far have been in violation of my comment policy because they repeat fully debunked denier talking point that prevent the debate from moving forward. You haven’t brought anything new to this debate, you haven’t backed up anything you have said, and you haven’t responded to the points I have raised.”
One, your comment policy is geared to stifling debate about a subject about which you know nothing except that what you hear from people you happen to agree with. You refuse to believe there is debate on the subject. This is your problem not mine. So, ban me.
Two, you say my arguments have been debunked. I say there is no proof of AGW, and there indeed is none. I also happen to think the evidence is suspect, the motivations questionable, and the funding corrupting, and many people more qualified than I agree. What the AGW-ers have is just theory backed by opaque and flawed models. Hard evidence of LONG term warming is lacking. The earth is currently getting colder. The evidence it that the sun is responsible for this. There IS debate in the scientific community. YOU wish to deny this. YOU are the denier. You want to ban me? Go ahead.
Three, I have answered some of your questions. I need not answer them all. You don’t like it. Then ban me. Your malleable comment policy allows it. It’s your site. So, prove your close-mindedness and ban me for whatever ridiculous reason you want.
I am not a scientist (not yet anyways), and I am not an expert in the field (though I my understanding is far greater then the average laypersons), which is precisely why I accept the conclusions of those looking at the problem and every single relevant scientific institution.
My comment policy is geared towards not having the same lame point repeated over and over again. Why don’t you take a quick look back at my comments over the years and see how many times I have had to explain to people why 1998 is an inappropriate baseline and how many times have I had to explain the difference between weather and climate. After the 100th time it gets tiering, and prevents any real debate from taking place.
I fully accept there is debate on the subject, BUT every single relevant scientific society and thousands of peer-reviewed studies all agree on a basic consensus, that our GHG emissions are responsible for the recent warming trend. Thus there exists a scientific consensus.
At present time anyone who is challenging this basic consensus is doing so from opinion articles in newspapers blog posts, and other non-scientific mediums. In other words they are NOT part of the scientific debate. The scientific debate has moved beyond the question of whether or not our GHG emissions are responsible for the recent warming trend, even though the popular debate may have not.
Yes they have been. If you read my fist response to your comments you will see why. In fact you haven’t even attempted to respond to my debunking (other than showing your ignorance of basic statistics).
Of course there is no proof, the scientific method doesn’t provide proof in such situations. The fact that you want proof is very telling indeed. What the scientific method DOES provide is a mountain of evidence supporting the hypothesis that our GHG emissions are causing the current warming trend. Anyone with a basic knowledge of how science is done would understand that.
Surely you can do better than that. You comments thus far show several basic misunderstandings of both statistics and climate science, thus the fact that you think the evidence is suspect isn’t very convincing. Did you need the link I provided you? Did you even attempt to understand its contents? Our are you happy not knowing.
Oh yes the grand uber-conspiracy involving thousands of scientists, hundreds of respectable institutions, governments form all over the world (including the Bush administration)… and you call me an alarmist. Sorry nope I don’t buy it.
Not those who actually study the climate. Those that have the MOST expertise, most certainly do not agree with you.
Opaque? Do you have any idea what you are talking about? You do realize that the source code most models is available to be scrutinized right?
Flawed? Says you, but then because of your ignorance of basic statistics you don’t know how to construct a proper test.
Have you seen the instrumental record? Have you seen any of a number of proxy reconstructions? Do you even understand how scientists have arrived at the conclusion that our GHG emissions are warming the planet, and why there is great confidence in those conclusions? Obviously not our you wouldn;t have made that argument.
What the hell are you talking about? Have you seen the temperature records? Did you know that globally 2008 was hotter than every single year of the last century except for the record el nino year of 1998. Did you realize that it was so hot despite being a strong la nina year.
“The bottom line: In the GISTEMP, HadCRU and NCDC analyses D-N 2008 were at 0.43, 0.42 and 0.47ºC above the 1951-1980 baseline (respectively). In GISTEMP both October and November came in quite warm (0.58ºC), the former edging up slightly on last month’s estimate as more data came in. This puts 2008 at #9 (or #8) in the yearly rankings, but given the uncertainty in the estimates, the real ranking could be anywhere between #6 or #15. More robustly, the most recent 5-year averages are all significantly higher than any in the last century. The last decade is by far the warmest decade globally in the record. These big picture conclusions are the same if you look at any of the data sets, though the actual numbers are slightly different (relating principally to the data extrapolation – particularly in the Arctic).
So what to make of the latest year’s data? First off, we expect that there will be oscillations in the global mean temperature. No climate model has ever shown a year-on-year increase in temperatures because of the currently expected amount of global warming. A big factor in those oscillations is ENSO – whether there is a a warm El Niño event, or a cool La Niña event makes an appreciable difference in the global mean anomalies – about 0.1 to 0.2ºC for significant events. There was a significant La Niña at the beginning of this year (and that is fully included in the D-N annual mean), and that undoubtedly played a role in this year’s relative coolness. It’s worth pointing out that 2000 also had a similarly sized La Niña but was notably cooler than this last year…
There were a number of rather overheated claims earlier this year that ‘all the global warming had been erased’ by the La Niña-related anomaly. This was always ridiculous, and now that most of that anomaly has passed, we aren’t holding our breath waiting for the ‘global warming is now back’ headlines from the same sources.”
This is why I have my comment policy in place. You already used the blame the sun myth. I responded by linking to a few studies showing that the sun CANNOT be responsible for the current trend. But instead of replying you just repeat the point as if I hadn’t said anything.
I’ll ask you the same thing I asked Jeff. Show me. You saying it doesn’t make it true.
I have had people claim the same thing before, but when I ask for links they present me with papers are either not peer-reviewed, or that are peer-reviewed but arrive at wildly different conclusions from the ones they are pushing. Marc Morano is definitely the worst offender here.
I have even seen press releases written by authors of some papers (Singer I am looking at you!) that arrive at conclusions that are nowhere to be found in the paper.
And I probably don’t have to tell you that an article in the MSM about some new research doesn’t cut it either as the MSM’s science reporting is often embarrassingly wrong.
You haven’t actually answered them. You haven’t brought up any counter points, you just repeated yourself. If you want to continue this debate that means you have to actually respond to the points I make, otherwise everything you need to say has already been said.
If you look back at the comments left here over the years you will see that the exact same conversation has been repeated hear hundreds of times. You aren’t adding anything new or of any value to my site.
You are a bore.
Try reading something other than your AGW alarmist sites.
[Scruffydan: This section of the comment has been deleted for violating the comment policy. Continual rehashing of points without responding to counter points will not be tolerated.]
The AGW concern has lessened recently. Wake up and smell the coffee. The economy is the no. 1 concern for people. AGW is dead. The smart money is on what to do about global cooling. That is what is in store for us, and global cooling has always been bad for humanity. We have thrived in warm weather. As a Canadian, one would naturally think you’d be most concerned with this. But … not my problem.
The majority of humanity doesn’t give a damn about AGW or GW or climate change … or whatever you choose to call it this week. No one cares because the consequences are all in the hysteric’s heads. People LIKE warm weather. If some houses are lost in the Hamptons, most people will shrug and get on with their lives. No one cares, Dan. And by no one, I mean the people who will ultimately be asked by the likes of you to foot the bill. AGW is dead. It’s time to bury it. It is beginning to stink.
Like Nature, The Proceedings of the Royal Society, and other such journals? Or are they to alarmist?
So the fact that people have other short term concerns at the moment means that the scientific case for AGW is dead? I would love to see you explain that logic.
The fact is that public opinion has no bearing in the scientific case for AGW. The fact that Joe SixPack doesn’t care has no influence on reality.
Says who? Name one scientific society that has arrived at at that conclusion. Name one peer-reviewed study that arrived that that conclusion.
But even more telling is the fact that you seem to require hundreds of years of extraordinary warming to even entertain the thought of global warming, yet after only a few years of no temperature records (the last one was in 2005 for GISTEMP data, or 1998 with the HADCRUT3 data), you are ready to proclaim the danger of global cooling. Why the double standard?
So now you admit that climate change does have some real costs… huh? Make up your mind.
I bet people with houses in the Hamptons care. I bet Insurance companies that insure those house care. And that is just one small possible consequence of climate change.
You keep saying that, but provide absolutely NO evidence that supports that conclusion. Do you seriously expect me to take the word of a random commenter on my blog. A commenter who has made his lack of knowledge of this issue abundantly clear.
I don’t think so. I like to get my science from actual scientists publishing in peer-reviewed journals, not some crackpot knucklehead on the Internet, who can’t even be bothered to respond to any points I raise, who instead prefers just to repeat the same nonsense over and over again until with the hopes that someone will be naive enough to buy it.