A note on editorial decisions at Climate Etc.

by Judith Curry

Commenters occasionally ask questions about  my editorial decisions, in terms of topics and papers I select for discussion, and the rationale for occasionally deleting comments.  Such questions are beginning to dominate the Salby thread, so I am starting a new thread to clarify and and provide a forum to discuss such issues.

Fred Moolten | August 4, 2011 at 2:44 pm |  (excerpts)

I believe Dr. Curry is very angry at the IPCC leadership because she believes they betrayed her and other scientists who took the IPCC conclusions on faith, repeated them, and then found out that some in the leadership had been cooking the books. That made her and others feel foolish, and she appropriately resented it. She still accepts many basic climate science principles but no longer believes that the most important IPCC conclusions should remain unchallenged. She routinely issues those challenges in the form of the topics she posts, and the implicit challenge that all of us should make our judgments without blind acceptance of the pronouncements from authority or their implied certainty, just as she is prepared to do based on her own expertise.

But she is saying, “Well, if you believe that, can you effectively refute THIS CHALLENGE, and THIS ONE, and THIS NEXT ONE? Which is why we see many of the posts that appear here.  Well, can we?  Almost certainly yes – not in the minds of anyone with unalterable opinions, but in the perception of readers who come here looking for answers rather than arguments. It is those readers who are our audience, and to whom, in my mind, we have an obligation to be well informed, truthful, and as objective as possible.

JC comment:   Fred, a thoughtful post, but not really on the mark.  I don’t really do “angry.”  It is not so much that I am angry at the IPCC leadership, as having become convinced that the IPCC’s consensus seeking approach is absolutely pernicious to climate science, not to mention for policy making. Making progress on science requires discourse and continually challenging our hypotheses and the status quo beliefs.  I have spent the last 18 months or so trying to figure out how climate science got into this mess and how we can fix it, and thus I have spent considerable time reading relevant literature from the social science, humanities, legal, communication etc. literature.

Interesting point about readers coming here to look for answers versus looking for arguments.  There are very few “answers” in climate science, and this site is really intended as forum for discussion and arguments.  So the “truth merchant” approach to climate blogging (such as RealClimate) is emphatically what this site is not about.  This site is about discussing issues at the knowledge frontier, where discussion of uncertainty and ignorance is paramount.

.

Chris Colose | August 4, 2011 at 12:20 pm |

Fred,

I have always respected you and your insight, but you are giving this blog too much credibility; this is another of Judith’s whole charade of “this is interesting! Maybe I will put it on my blog and reserve judgment to avoid any criticism of myself, but pretend it has validity.”

I pointed this out with Loehle’s piece too. It is a dumb game she plays and everyone else sees it.

JC comment: Chris, the technical science papers that I discuss here generally fall into one of four categories:

1.  Papers that are viewed as important by some segment of my audience, about which I clearly state my own strongly negative opinions.  Skydragons is the archetypal example here, where it can by argued that my highlighting this book and its flaws has marginalized the skydragon group in the broader skeptical community.

2.  Papers contributed by a Denizen, preferably one that has been published, that are on a relevant topic, and for which the authors are prepared to actively engage in discussion.  The Loehle and Scafetta paper is the latest example, and I think that everyone learns a lot when the authors actively engage in  the dialogue.

3. Papers that I spot that I think are important, the latest example being the Villarini papers. (this category seems to fit the type of paper you think I should be posting.

4. Papers, articles, testimony or presentations in the news that I deem to be interesting, the latest example being Salby’s presentation.  These are presented more for discussion than any sort of “truth judgment” on my part, although I will take a stand on a paper if it is squarely in my area of expertise and/or I have been asked questions by the media (e.g. China coal).  Often these papers are on topics that I don’t know too much about.  A good  example is the solar snooze discussion thread, where I personally learned alot from the discussion (and I assume the Denizens did also).

Chris, when you mature as a scientist, you will come to understand that science is process, not a collection of facts, especially on a topic as complex as climate science.  I hope that you don’t let advocacy get in the way of maturing as a scientist.

.

JC,

Can you please state for the record what *specifically* you found “sufficiently important” about this “that we should start talking about” it?

Thanks in advance.

JC comment:  The fact that Murry Salby is a former colleague of mine and definitely a scientific straight shooter initially caught my attention on this.  If correct, his hypothesis has far reaching implications on both AGW science and policy.  His presentation was extremely lucid and well done (even without availability of the plots.)   The topic he addresses was one that I thought was squarely in the “what we know with confidence” category; this presentation synthesizes and opens up issues at the knowledge frontier on this topic.   Fascinating stuff.  So if you are irritated that “deniers” will use this talk (and the fact that I featured it on my blog) as ammo in their war against CO2 stabilization policy, well that is too bad.  I for one am not going to let your irritation get in the way of having a good discussion here where we all stand to learn something.

.

JC conclusions

The frustration that the “warm” bloggers (e.g. RC et al.) seem to have with Climate Etc. is that I stray from the party line of the consensus.  They seem to view their role as explainers of the consensus and arbiters of climate “truth.”   I am striving for something different, sort of an e-salon where we discuss interesting topics at the knowledge frontier.

With regards to moderation, Climate Etc. has been getting 300-500 comments per day.  I scroll through all of them and at least glance at each, and read selected ones (from commenters i find interesting, check links, etc.).   About 20 posts per day land in spam (not just the obvious viagra kind of stuff, but stuff that was posted with intent here).  Some land there for no discernible reason.  Others land there for issues of length or number of links.  These posts are released from spam as soon as I spot them.  Other posts trigger a “no-no” word, either on the wordpress list or a list of words that i have compiled.  Every comment that Christopher Game posts lands in spam, presumably wordpress flags “game.”  I read each of the posts with “no-no” words, and release those that otherwise have some redeeming value or at least don’t actively insult one of the commenters.  If a post with “no-no” words has no value at all to the discussion it is trashed.  I also respond to emails from commenters about objectionable posts.

Some questions have been asked about perceived uneveness in moderation.  If the post has a moderation note at the end, I will be rigourously enforcing moderation (both topicality and civility).    Moderation for civility is most stringent on threads with high activity.  There is a delicate balance between non-censorship and stupid trash talking, the judgments are not always easy.   For the most part the participants behave, but today has been a definite challenge.  Thank you all for your continued and stimulating participation.

680 responses to “A note on editorial decisions at Climate Etc.

  1. Those who have shown ad nauseam their incapability to manage a serious, formal discussion forum, are trying to give lessons to the champion. Sounds funny.

    • I agree.

      Professor Curry is doing an excellent job slowly, but systematically peeling away the layers of government deceit.

      A lot of folks in seats of power are sleeping badly today as stock markets in the “Free West” collapse and the illusion of H-filled stars and CO2-induced global warming vanish.

      Henry Kissinger himself made the agreement in 1971 with leaders of the Communist Block of nations to end the US Apollo Missions, “the space race”, and to unite nations against a “common enemy” (Man-Made Global Climate Change) in order to avoid the possibility that the entire world might be vaporized like Hiroshima was on 6 Aug 1945.

      President Richard Nixon was selected to be the “fall guy” for this decision , but Nixon started to implement the decision on 5 Jan 1972 before arriving in China with Henry Kissinger on 21 Feb 1972 to “officially” make the agreement.

      http://dl.dropbox.com/u/10640850/20110722_Climategate_Roots.pdf

  2. JC,
    I think the phrase “..Illegitimi non carborundum..” sums the case vs such as Chris

    Love the give and take on this blog. Would not be worth reading if it was just a echo chamber such as RC.

  3. This is the usual end result of too much bickering for too long. People don’t see interesting stuff, intriguing things to discover, surprising questions to ponder anymore. They just see the tactical narrative. Skeptical questions are dismissed as folly and “unjust” to the climate scientists who spend “thousands of hours” on these issues, instead of seeing as opportunities to have an enlightened discussion or talk about the interesting subject.

    I understand when people say that the “Science is settled”. What they mean to say is that they cannot stand it, the always present danger of having questions and doubts being presented as tactical advantages to the merchants of doubt, and so they cannot take questions and honest curiosities about what these findings are really saying, what they aren’t or what the potential of their truth may imply.

    And we have the noise from the other side as well. The always present people who for every single question raised about climate science, here they are telling us once again how right they are in their negation of the whole thing, of the whole scam, etc.

    Too much noise. Too much bickering. It’s really hard to have good discussions of science when there is so much angered noise battling around.

  4. One has to admire Christopher G’s commitment to using what I assume is his real name. Once again one realises that there’s always someone worse off than yourself :)

    What’s interested me from the earliest days of Climate Etc. is how different its social norms are from other similar blogs. Dr Curry lets a lot of stuff go – her instincts are liberal, in the best sense. Both sides (and let’s hope very soon we’ll never talk again about two sides to this but about two hundred or two thousand) continue to show up to a remarkable degree. It works amazingly well, given the polarising nature of the topic(s), despite the noise. And with polarities I’m back with the two sides I guess. Ah well.

    • This went to spam, maybe it is the word “Christopher” :)

      • Might it be the first six letters of his name? (I’ve avoided spelling them out to try to elude the spam trap)

      • Seems to support my problem I had with Cristy a while back (misspelled on purpose).

      • It is a weird situation indeed, didn’t think of chris*t

      • Remarkable. An elementary bug that combines four of my greatest interests – software, linguistics, social norms on social networks (especially the use or otherwise of one’s common name, as the young people behind Google+ call it) and the extraordinary idea of being a Messiah-bearer (translating the offending morpheme back in time from Greek to Hebrew) or, even better, a Bearer of his Anointing – where there’s an attempt to take the Hebrew word and give its meaning in English, though it cannot really be understood without its original sociolinguistic context and cotext. Indeed, sorry that this is going to sound to some like mumbo-jumbo. Being bathed in liquid love may give an idea. Being filled with intelligent fire was someone else’s attempt.

        Anyhow, with all this to contend with, Mr Game certainly lives up to his surname for continuing to try to post here!

      • Mumbo-jumbo:

        “The phrase probably originated from the Mandingo name Maamajomboo, a masked dancer that took part in religious ceremonies. Mungo Park’s travel journal, Travels in the Interior of Africa (1795) describes ‘Mumbo Jumbo’ as a character, complete with “masquerade habit”, that Mandinka males would dress up in order to resolve domestic disputes.[1] In the 18th century mumbo jumbo referred to a West African god.[citation needed]

        According to the Concise Oxford English Dictionary:

        Mumbo Jumbo is a noun and is the name of a grotesque idol said to have been worshipped by some tribes. In its figurative sense, Mumbo Jumbo is an object of senseless veneration or a meaningless ritual.

        Western usage of the term may have formerly carried a degree of racial stereotyping, evoking the casually racist belief in the gullibility of the supposedly childlike Africans, which was widely held when this term was coined. Now, however, this former connection has been forgotten, and it has become a generic term for meaningless ritual or routine.”

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mumbo_jumbo_%28phrase%29

      • I should perhaps have used hocus pocus :)

      • The English sea-side town of Scunthorpe rarely gets a mention on blags due to filters.

        Or perhaps there is nothing interesting about the place…

  5. That you are getting 300-500 comment a day on a science blog speaks for itself. Free flowing discussion attracts people. That why the internet was invented. It seems some people like Chris and at RC want to control the message – too bad for them.

    When things go off topic it can also be interesting but it can also get tiresome if its the same thing over and over. Hopefully, any more discussion on this topic will get directed here.

  6. JC writes: “The frustration that the “warm” bloggers (e.g. RC et al.) seem to have with Climate Etc. is that I stray from the party line of the consensus.”

    This is crap.

    People get upset because you promote, credulously repeat, or make on your own behalf, claims that sound at best far-fetched. When pressed for specifics, you frequently backpedal or move goalposts. When you get called on it, you play the victim, seeking (but never quite succeeding) to further promote your self-styled image as a rebel.

    This Salby thread is a great example. On some level, I suspect you know that it’s ridiculous, but it’s “Not IPCC”, so what the heck- you put up a thread. You get pressed on specifics of why you support it, and **you cannot name a single concrete thing mentioned in the presentation you are promoting**.

    JC: “I am striving for something different, sort of an e-salon where we discuss interesting topics at the knowledge frontier.”

    That humans are increasing atmospheric CO2 levels was at “the knowledge frontier” decades ago.

    This “knowledge frontier” “e-salon” you describe sounds incredibly fascinating. Let me know when you trade in this dumping ground for “Not IPCC” for something remotely like it.

    • How many people now know (because of this thread) that the C12/C13 ratio that “proves” the “extra” CO2 is only man’s is not true.

      How many did a little extra reading on C3 C4 metabolism?

      And we now know that the largest farm crops are C4 metabolism and they prefer C13 and it ruins the claim that the C12/C13 ration proves it is fossil fuels creating the extra carbon.

      And you are livid about it. It ruins the narrative.

      People go off and do a ton of extra reading and it points out this “science is settled” mantra is total utter hogwash.

      • Bruce: “How many people now know (because of this thread) that the C12/C13 ratio that “proves” the “extra” CO2 is only man’s is not true.”

        This is ill-posed.The ratio properly understood is one line of evidence among several. How many people didn’t know that prior to this? I would imagine many. For all of the “skeptics’” bashing the IPCC, so few of them have actually bothered to read what it says.

        http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch2s2-3.html#2-3-1

        e carbon contained in CO2 has two naturally occurring stable isotopes denoted 12C and 13C. The first of these, 12C, is the most abundant isotope at about 99%, followed by 13C at about 1%. Emissions of CO2 from coal, gas and oil combustion and land clearing have 13C/12C isotopic ratios that are less than those in atmospheric CO2, and each carries a signature related to its source. Thus, as shown in Prentice et al. (2001), when CO2 from fossil fuel combustion enters the atmosphere, the 13C/12C isotopic ratio in atmospheric CO2 decreases at a predictable rate consistent with emissions of CO2 from fossil origin. Note that changes in the 13C/12C ratio of atmospheric CO2 **are also caused by other sources and sinks**, but the changing isotopic signal due to CO2 from fossil fuel combustion can be resolved from the other components (Francey et al., 1995). These changes can easily be measured using modern isotope ratio mass spectrometry, which has the capability of measuring 13C/12C in atmospheric CO2 to better than 1 part in 105 (Ferretti et al., 2000). Data presented in Figure 2.3 for the 13C/12C ratio of atmospheric CO2 at Mauna Loa show a decreasing ratio, consistent with trends in both fossil fuel CO2 emissions and atmospheric CO2 mixing ratios (Andres et al., 2000; Keeling et al., 2005).

        Atmospheric O2 measurements provide a powerful and independent method of determining the partitioning of CO2 between the oceans and land (Keeling et al., 1996). Atmospheric O2 and CO2 changes are inversely coupled during plant respiration and photosynthesis. In addition, during the process of combustion O2 is removed from the atmosphere, producing a signal that decreases as atmospheric CO2 increases on a molar basis (Figure 2.3). Measuring changes in atmospheric O2 is technically challenging because of the difficulty of resolving changes at the part-per-million level in a background mixing ratio of roughly 209,000 ppm. These difficulties were first overcome by Keeling and Shertz (1992), who used an interferometric technique to show that it is possible to track both seasonal cycles and the decline of O2 in the atmosphere at the part-per-million level (Figure 2.3). Recent work by Manning and Keeling (2006) indicates that atmospheric O2 is decreasing at a faster rate than CO2 is increasing, which demonstrates the importance of the oceanic carbon sink. Measurements of both the 13C/12C ratio in atmospheric CO2 and atmospheric O2 levels are valuable tools used to determine the distribution of fossil-fuel derived CO2 among the active carbon reservoirs, as discussed in Section 7.3. In Figure 2.3, recent measurements in both hemispheres are shown to emphasize the strong linkages between atmospheric CO2 increases, O2 decreases, fossil fuel consumption and the 13C/12C ratio of atmospheric CO2.

      • This is your idea of discussing C4 metabolism?

        “**are also caused by other sources and sinks**”

        Wow.

        This is my response from the IPCC search:

        “The search “C4 metabolism” did not match any documents”

      • Bruce: “This is your idea of discussing C4 metabolism?” “The search “C4 metabolism” did not match any documents”

        I never claimed to.

        “Wow.”

        RTFRs. If you’d done so in the first place, you wouldn’t be so “wow”-ed by a conflation of the uncontroversial and the laughable.

      • “Today, C4 plants represent about 5% of Earth’s plant biomass and 1% of its known plant species.[11] Despite this scarcity, they account for about 30% of terrestrial carbon fixation.”

        Wikipedia

        “C4 metabolism plants absorb more C13 than do C3 metabolism plants”

        “Over the last 100 years we’ve planted one heck of a lot more grasses world wide than ever before. Grasses are often C4 metabolism…”

        – Chefio http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/02/25/the-trouble-with-c12-c13-ratios/

      • Could you quote the exact part that denies the claim saying that most evidence lies on the c12 c13 ratio? Because all the two paragraphs you just copypasted here seem to confirm the claim, despite your verbiage.

      • Luis Dias: “Could you quote the exact part that denies the claim saying that most evidence lies on the c12 c13 ratio?”

        What Bruce said: “How many people now know (because of this thread) that the C12/C13 ratio that “proves” the “extra” CO2 is only man’s is not true.”

        Can you spot the difference between the two questions?

        The ratio can and does change for reasons besides anthro carbon. This is what Bruce seemed to be shocked by. It’s right in the AR4. Taken with other evidence, the ratio is a strong indicator of the fossil fuel source of the atmospheric CO2 increase.

      • That was my question, what “other evidence” were you talking about, since you opened your remark with the hint you were going to speak about it.

        Don’t bother to bring it up, since I’m quite capable of reading the sources myself. However the presentation that we were discussing in the last post apparently showed a global map of CO2 emissions, where the most concentrated spots of CO2 were not in industrialized nations, but in the tropical forests and other natural places. I don’t know what map he was talking about. It would be a good counter evidence wouldn’t you agree?

      • scepticalWombat

        No the map that he described would not be good counter evidence. We are interested in the CO2 anomalies not the absolute values. So a map that showed the difference in CO2 concentrations for one decade over a previous decade could provide this sort of evidence but one that simply showed the absolute values at a point of time would not.

        To argue otherwise would be like saying that warming is mainly occurring in the tropics because they are much hotter than the arctic when we know that the reverse is the case.

      • Note that changes in the 13C/12C ratio of atmospheric CO2 **are
        also caused by other sources and sinks**

        Which would that be?

        but the changing isotopic signal due to CO2 from fossil fuel combustion can be resolved from the other components

        Do also know how? It seems impossible at first glance.

      • David Bailey

        “This is ill-posed.The ratio properly understood is one line of evidence among several.”

        I have heard that excuse so many times with regard to AGW – after the Hockey Stick graph was exposed, instead of discussing the details of Steve McIntyre’s statistical analysis, apologists justified the graph by saying there was other evidence pointing in the same direction!

        The idea of justifying one piece of flawed work using other work that isn’t in the spotlight, just isn’t science – each piece of evidence has to be tested separately, and THEN combined together to make a big picture!

      • Things– How many people who fear additional atmospheric CO2 really know that the amount of CO2 in our atmosphere is only estimated and that it is not really “known”. At this site and others, many believers thought we knew CO2 levels based on hard undisputeable data. They read about terms like the Suess effect and believe that we can go out and really measure these things accurately. I assume you know that is not possible.

      • I should have written the amount of CO2 contributed by humans is only estimated and can not be measured with any reasonable accuracy

      • This section of AR4 claims that Francey 2005 proves that “the changing isotopic signal due to CO2 from fossil fuel combustion can be resolved from the other components”. The abstract from Francey 2005 certainly makes no such claim.

        Nature 373, 326 – 330 (26 January 1995); doi:10.1038/373326a0
        Changes in oceanic and terrestrial carbon uptake since 1982

        CHANGES in the carbon isotope ratio (δ13C) of atmospheric CO2 can be used in global carbon-cycle models1–5 to elucidate the relative roles of oceanic and terrestrial uptake of fossil-fuel CO2. Here we present measurements of δ 13C made at several stations in the Northern and Southern hemispheres over the past decade. Focusing on the highest-quality data from Cape Grim (41° S), which also provide the longest continuous record, we observe a gradual decrease in δ13C from 1982 to 1993, but with a pronounced flattening from 1988 to 1990. There is an inverse relationship between CO2 growth rate6 and El Niño/Southern Oscillation (ENSO) events which is not reflected in the isotope record. Thus, for the ENSO events in 1982, 1986 and 1991–92, we deduce that net ocean uptake of CO2 increased, whereas during La Nina events, when equatorial sea surface temperatures are lower, upwelling of carbon-rich water increases the release of CO2 from the oceans. The flattening of the trend from 1988 to 1990 appears to involve the terrestrial carbon cycle, but we cannot yet ascribe firm causes. We find that the large and continuing decrease in CO2 growth starting in 19886 involves increases in both terrestrial and oceanic uptake, the latter persisting through 1992.

    • This is crap.

      Wow, you really know how to flatter a lady.

      I ask myself why I have to put with reading such horrible expressions from those who want to represent “the truth”. I wish for your comment to be removed, for you to wash your mouth out and then try again. But I expect our gracious host will keep it here, for such is the ‘climate debate’. This is what we have to get used to. The ugliest consensus that ever stained the good name of science?

      • “you really know how to flatter a lady.”

        This may come as a shock to you, but not everyone is out to try to ‘flatter a lady’ in these discussions.

        “reading such horrible expressions”

        Your pearl-clutching is noted. If you feel faint, do send for some smelling salts. Wouldn’t do to have someone pass out in horror over the word “crap” used on the internet.

        If it makes you feel better, the original version had the phrase “what the h-e-|-|” in it, but that apparently proved to be over the line.

      • This may come as a shock to you, but not everyone is out to try to ‘flatter a lady’ in these discussions.

        Yes, the complete lack of respect you show is here for all to see.

      • Judith doesn’t need the constant unrequested defense of her sensibilities. She’s more than capable of defending herself, or choosing not to as the case may be.

      • She may not “need” it, but that’s no excuse for your incivility.

      • “that’s no excuse for your incivility.”

        I am disagreeing with her strongly. I am occasionally giving her some good-natured sharp elbows. I am not calling her names. I’m treating her as capable of defending herself. If she wants some sort of deference that’s not being given to her, she’s welcome to say something.

        Again, go whiteknight on someone else’s behalf.

      • I am disagreeing with her strongly.

        No – you’re abusing the hospitality of the blog. If you want to disagree, do it – but there are MANY ways to do so without being abusive. So far you’ve failed to use ANY of those. Incivility is irritating and inexcusable regardless of what you call it – and it labels you.

        Do you beat you wife, too?

      • Jim Owen: “you’re abusing the hospitality of the blog”

        I didn’t realize this was your blog. Do you want me to inform JC that she’s failing to enforce your idea of etiquette, or shall you?

        Jim Owen: “being abusive”

        Cite.

        Jim Owen: “Do you beat you wife, too?”

        Way to destroy your own attempts at making a valid point.

      • Way to destroy your own attempts at making a valid point.

        Given your performance here it’s a legitimate question.

      • Jim Owen: “Given your performance here it’s a legitimate question.”

        So let’s clear this up-

        It’s uncivil of me to ask the JC actually back up her positions, while it’s not only perfectly civil of you to question whether or not I am a criminal and spousal abuser, but that’s legitimized by me querying JC?

        Makes perfect sense.

        You know what? I take back everything I said. This is truly an e-salon where people discuss interesting topics at the knowledge frontier.

        JC should be proud.

      • You get what you give.

      • I am occasionally giving her some good-natured sharp elbows

        Gosh, if this is good-natured…

      • Jimmy, anybody who has been here for more than five minutes knows you give the same ignorant ad hominem right-wing nonsense to everybody who doesn’t share your faith-based doctrine.

        “You get what you give” is a laughable assertion from the likes of you.

      • Robert –
        How many times wrt how many subjects have I proved the depth of the well of ignorance you live in?

        Do you know the meaning of xenos yet?

      • thingsbreak,
        Are you from New York?
        In most of the United States, respect, manners and politeness go a long ways.
        Pretend you are at a cocktail party and act towards the hostess as you are acting towards Dr. Curry.
        Would you be surprised if you were frog marched out?
        Would you be angry if people laughed at your spectacle?
        I bet you are invited to more parties the first time than the second.

      • “In most of the United States, respect, manners and politeness go a long ways.”

        And here’s another hypocrite with a pot-and-kettle howler.

        Your abusive rants and spectular failures at trolling are a regular feature of this and other blogs. You regularly embarrass the “skeptic” cause with your nastiness at CE, the Blackboard, WUWT, etc.

        It’s funny how the mostly foul and personally insulting deniers want to project their faults onto others trying to reason with them — I guess they think they deserve a monopoly on criticism — criticizing them is cheating! And rude! ;)

      • Robert –
        Yes, you are rude as well as ignorant.

      • thingsbreak:

        This may come as a shock to you, but not everyone is out to try to ‘flatter a lady’ in these discussions … Your pearl-clutching is noted. If you feel faint, do send for some smelling salts. Wouldn’t do to have someone pass out in horror over the word “crap” used on the internet.

        Wow, apologies seldom come more gracious than that.

        Actually, it wasn’t the word itself but its context:

        JC writes: “The frustration that the “warm” bloggers (e.g. RC et al.) seem to have with Climate Etc. is that I stray from the party line of the consensus.”

        This is crap.

        People get upset because you promote, credulously repeat, or make on your own behalf, claims that sound at best far-fetched. When pressed for specifics, you frequently backpedal …

        What is really interesting is that you confidently speak not just for yourself but for ‘people’. Judith has just identified these people as the ‘“warm” bloggers (e.g. RC et al.)’. I’m going to take it that you and she are talking about the same group of people.

        So this group includes Eric Steig, Gavin Schmidt and Michael Mann. And you feel perfectly entitled to talk on their behalf as you say “this is crap” to Judith Curry. What’s most significant, as Sherlock Holmes said, is the dog that didn’t bark.

        When has anyone seen someone like Steig or Schmidt of Mann come on to a blog like this and say “Hey, that doesn’t represent our views. Or even if it did, we don’t agree with the swearing and rudeness. This area is too important to be demeaned in this way. Sorry, Judith.” It’s not as if Eric Steig never reads Climate Etc. We now know that he does.

        So why do these ‘big names’ never complain when someone uses such crude and ugly language on their behalf – someone who is also sheltering behind anonymity.

        Because this is what they want to see. They know of no other way to argue. It’s vile and it’s the very essence of the way they want to see this issue of massive world concern debated.

        It’s vile and it shows the courage of a two-year-old. Apart from that, these are the very best people to influence the governments of every nation on the planet.

        Did I cover everything?

      • Steven Mosher

        yep you covered it all. The proxy warriors like thingsbreak and deepclimate (dave clarke) go about saying all manner of things in the name of “people” and climate scientists. usually behind the cloak of anonymity. They motive hunt, they do opposition research and you’ll never see gavin or Mike or eric stand up and say “not in our name please”

      • “proxy warriors” “motive hunt”

        Too cute!

        Where are your public, sneering demands for Salby’s code?

        BTW- Don’t you and Tom leave me hanging over at Kloor’s.

      • Oh tb, give it a rest. And from now on you can do your own googling.

      • Oi, I’m tb, not this oik. :)

      • Wow.

        Why do you post anonymously? Steven is a real person using his real name (as I am). When you use such vitriol behind the facade of anonymity, you eliminate your credibility. Please, show the strength of your convictions and post as yourself. Otherwise, one is lead to the conclusion that you have no faith in your convictions. When Gavin Schmidt posts here or to Climate Audit, he uses his real name and everyone knows it. He gains a strong measure of credibility for it (at least in my mind).

      • Identifying you as a proxy warrior says nothing about your motives. i dont know what your motives are and dont care. They dont matter to me. You fight as a proxy warrior. That’s a description.

        Code and data; If you followed me on WUWT you would see me consistently asking for code and data when a paper is published or when an analysis is blogged. That’s pretty much my policy. Ask Scaffetta, or see the threads on the air vent where I ask for christy’s code and data. There are no favorites when it comes to that principle. Ask Anthony, ask Muller.

        Kloor? I’ve told you already.

        1. Have hank roberts do your googling
        2. my POINT and Tom’s point are two different points.

        For your benefit I’ll repeat it: I note that this issue hasnt recieved the same amount of attention or rigor as other solutions. I dont judge the solution to be superior. I judge that it’s an area that seems under
        researched. The funding effect. Tom’s argument is different. I’ll suggest that you treat us as individuals. we don’t always agree but we do respect each other. That’s pretty much it. have a nice day and dont expect anything from me until you are able to use a real verifiable name

      • Richard: I’m going to take it that you and she are talking about the same group of people.

        I am speaking for myself, based on my observations and those of others who have noticed the same pattern. If they want me to name them, they can tell me. I am not presuming to speak for any other specific individual. If you want to see people expressing similar comments/sentiments, there are examples on other blogs.

        No one needs to disavow me speaking for them when I have not claimed to speak on his or her behalf. Your attempts to conflate my statements with others who aren’t participating in the thread or making such comments are a transparent, lazy way of both attacking them and ignoring my criticisms.

        What science in Salby’s presentation does JC find “important”, potentially revolutionary, etc.? Can you answer the question that JC won’t?

      • John Whitman

        Thingsbreak,

        Below is a quote that I found to be the important thing in Salby’s talk via podcast; I find this to be his key statement. Fundamental re-examination of the IPCC’s AR4 and its GSM could be taken based on the forthcoming Salby paper.

        Please note Prof Salb’s statement @ the ~28:16 min mark of the podcast of his talk ‘Global Emission of Carbon Dioxide: The Contribution from Natural Sources’ given at the Sydney Institute on 2 Aug 2011 as follows.

        “ (John Whitman personal transcription)

        Salby said, “The correspondence to observed changes of CO2 on timescales of a couple of years, over the satellite year[s], and to the degree seen even over the 20th century make it difficult not to conclude that sources involved in changes of CO2 on short timescales are also involved in its change on long timescales.”

        John

      • John, I like listening to something when I have this option, knowing which section someone smarter than me thinks is most crucial. Thanks.

      • John Whitman

        Richard Drake,

        I have for a long time respected your postings at CA, here and at BH. I read them with care.

        Ahhhh, I humbly object to that posting. I am not smarter.

        John

      • Short term, carbon fluxes from nature of course happen. Longer term, the anthro contribution dominates.

        What he’s saying in just that quote in isolation would be okay, though if I remember he wasn’t assigning the short and long term to nature and anthro respectively.

      • John Whitman

        thingsbreak,

        Thanks for your reply, nice to keep a dialog active.

        You may wish to re-review his podcast. I suggest he is saying aCO2 can be shown by observations to be not significant in the overall dynamics of the CO2 system. Then he seems to say therefore on longer timescale the CO2 system would behave the same. My thoughts lead me to the analogy that aCO2 is acting like a hair on the underbelly of the dog that is the total CO2 system dynamics, therefore aCO2 will still be that hair in the longer timescales.

        The key word is observations; such as instrumental, satellite, Mona Loa and other modern observations. We need his paper to see charts/data.

        Salby’s talk on podcast is a tasty appetizer. I look forward to discussion of the actual paper or book. You know, Salby or his publicist (if he has one) have set the table nicely for his paper!!! Congratulations to him, he beat the MSM at their own game. Nice.

        Wow or wowable? Maybe. Interesting for me . . . absolutely.

        John

      • thingsbreak and John Whitman: I have listened, and I think that if what Salby states pans out, it will qestion how we do the balance, but will indicate that anthrogogenic emissions are a pertubation as indicated by the literature. In other words, yes for any given molecule of CO2 the expected lifetime is about 5 years, however for land biota it about 40 and for the carbon cycle as a whole on the order of greater than 100 years. Otherwise, the mass balance just doesn’t seem to work. I am using an assumption of psudeo equilibrium, and one that can change. The question of course is how fast does it change and how the paper reflects not only the data and extrinsic assumptions, but the intrinsic ones as well.

      • You call me Richard, which is what my mother called all her dolls and then her firstborn, but we cannot be on first name terms, you’ve made that impossible. My concern is the dogs that didn’t bark and it seems never have. You can’t help.

      • Steve Fitzpatrick

        Oddly, you seem to imagine that by being offensive and insulting you will convince people to believe as you do. My long experience in life tells me you are mistaken about this. Spouting blatant hostility toward the host of a blog (especially one who almost certainly knows more than you about relevant subject matter!) may make you feel better about yourself, but it is self-defeating if you want to actually convince people of anything.

        You see, your offensive behavior shows a terrible lack of judgment on your part, and people are generally disinclined to believe someone who shows a terrible lack of judgment, no matter what they say. Your behavior takes away from your arguments; you would be wise to reconsider your approach.

      • David Bailey

        I think Judith is right to leave comments like that in. If people write like that, they only demean their cause.

    • thingsbreak, now you get it, I am not “promoting” anything, other than open discussion and integrity and science

      • JC writes: “I am not ‘promoting’ anything”

        So what word that is non-synonymous with “promote” would you use to describe the act of someone writing a blog post about something, exclaiming “wow” about it, saying it’s “sufficiently important that we should start talking about [it]“, saying it “could revolutionize X science”, etc.?

        JC: “open discussion and integrity and science”

        In the interest of ‘open discussion and integrity and science’, what *scientifically* (not “he used to be a coworker”) *about the presentation* do you think was deserving of all the ‘totally not-promotion’ you were throwing around in the last thread?

      • Wow, the nerve of these people. Take a pill and chill yourself, for goddam sake. Go out drink a cup of tea. Then comeback and see the figure you are making of yourself.

      • Yes – ‘wow’ is a truly objectionable word, and I’m surprised it got through the spam filter! Thingsbreak’s objections really are very weak and he is indeed making a spectacle of himself. Of course , if he objects that much then he could always seek comfort elsewhere.

      • I think perhaps a cup of tea and a lie down in a darkened room for half an hour might be a good idea…….things definitely do break.

      • Latimer Alder

        When people start to complain that some eviddence shouldn’t have been given publicity, rather than to argue that it is incorrect, the more inclined I am to think that there must be at least a kernel of truth in it.

        And the more unpleasant they appear, the more credence I give the other side.

      • Latimer: “When people start to complain that some eviddence shouldn’t have been given publicity”

        Where did this happen?

        Let me be as clear as I can- what Judith Curry chooses to do with her blog is of course up to her, but if she is going to claim that something is important and potentially revolutionary to the field and should be talked about, I would like to see her say explicitly what about it scientifically (not “he’s a former coworker” + “Not IPCC”) she thinks merits all of that hype.

        She is, of course, free to fail to do so- as she’s failing to do here.

        That’s certainly her right, it’s her blog. I would hope that the more genuinely skeptically-minded readers find it a bit puzzling that she would go through all that trouble without being able to articulate *why* people are supposed to care from a scientific standpoint, but they seem to be few and far between here.

      • Latimer Alder

        She drew people’s attention to it. We can make up our own minds whether her remarks are correct. This is not a blog where the Masters speak and the Faithful re supposed to hear and obey the wisdom.

      • That’s certainly her right, it’s her blog.

        Just as you’re free to stay away from here, to not get worked up by all the ‘cr*p’ you read here – it’s your right to keep away.
        So why do you post here? Why do you care what a bunch of half-witted sceptics have to say?

      • thingsbreak: “In the interest of ‘open discussion and integrity and science’, what scientifically (not “he used to be a coworker”) about the presentation do you think was deserving of all the ‘totally not-promotion’ you were throwing around in the last thread?”

        JC: Crickets.

      • John Whitman

        Not just crickets . . . some members of the family Cicadidae buzzing in the trees . . . . it is late summer here in the Adirondacks Mtns after all. : )

        John

      • Steven Mosher

        her wow made me change my mind ON THE SPOT. I went from believer to disbeliever all because Judith said WOW. Her “wow” suddenly made people who already disbelieve, disbelieve more, more better disbelief, and for free! Yup Judith says wow and the whole dream of controlling carbon goes out the window. I hear Obama asks every day, did Judith say “wow?”. I here that Anthony is planning a wowmometer to track Judiths wows! properly sited I hope. wow, just wow.

      • now you’re getting it….

      • ;) ;) thanks for the laugh.

      • Lots of open discussion with marginal scientific relevance and very little integrity.

        What TB said

        And people should respond to what he said after crap, if they are going to criticise him for that.

      • Bob –
        And people should respond to what he said after crap, if they are going to criticise him for that.

        Why? He started with that word – with the intent to shock. And what was said after that was therefore irrelevant.

        Kinda like meeting someone at a cocktail party and starting the conversation by throwing a punch. After that, nothing you say matters.

      • Kinda like or exactly like, tastes like crap or is crap, which is exactly not like a poke in the eye with a sharp stick.

        It’s nothing like a punch at a cocktail party, which would be assault.

      • Mmmm – my analogy still holds. And, in fact, is more accurate.

      • I would say you are promoting uncertainty and doubt about climate science too!

      • One would think that uncertainty and doubt would be inherent in any science, and not need promotion. It’s a sad commentary that you see that as a bad thing.

      • tt –
        I would say you are promoting uncertainty and doubt about climate science too!

        Nobody has to promote uncertainty and doubt about climate science. Climate science does that extremely well all by its lonesome.

    • thingsbreak:
      Words fail me. I cannot think of anything polite to say, so I will refrain.

    • thingsbreak –
      Do you have anything useful to say – or are you just whining?

      • Is this a “technical thread”, or are we discussing why some people object to JC ‘totally not at all promoting’ stuff that doesn’t even pass the sniff test so long as it attacks the mainstream?

        Cheers!

      • I’ve seen little here that doesn’t pass the sniff test – and I have a very sensitive nose.

        Your first mistake is to believe that the mainstream is “right” and the “science is settled” and that anything that doesn’t agree with the mainstream is “wrong”. That’s three synonymous ideas – all of them wrong.

        Not all contrary ideas are “right”, but if you reflexively dismiss them without rigouous examination, then you’re not promoting science but ignorance. And THAT is anti-science.

        So – you’re telling me you’re just whining about not having your confirmation bias stroked.

      • It’s amusing how quickly those upset about civility resort to lashing out when they have nothing to contribute.

      • Contribute to your trolling?

      • Like you starting the discussion with “This is crap.”.

        RC trolls … dumber than a sack of hammers.

      • “RC trolls … dumber than a sack of hammers.”

        Now be nice…what did a sack of hammers do to you to deserve this?

      • Bruce,

        Speaking of “hammers” and such things , a gent who styles himself “ThePowerofX” has offered the following comment (no. 15) on the Deltoid blog’s “Murry Salby and conversation of Mass” post:

        “Truth is hard as f**king nails. And it keeps pounding her [Dr. Curry] in the
        face. Hard.”

        Nice guy, Deltoid’s “ThePowerofX”, huh? And curiously, the high dudgeon that usually erupts on that blog when the exquisitely sensitive Deltoids discover the slightest unpleasantness directed at a climate scientist has yet to reveal itself in the case of ThePowerofX’s comment with its violent imagery. Like I say, curious.

      • Not everyone is the conformist you seem to be. Being on the side of the mainstream all the time wouldn’t be very interesting. If you want that, then start your own blog.

      • Kermit: “Being on the side of the mainstream all the time wouldn’t be very interesting. If you want that, then start your own blog.”

        I have no problem with reasoned, evidence-based questions about the mainstream. I have a problem with “Not IPCC” being apparently sufficient to earn JC’s ‘totally not promoting’ something as potentially revolutionizing the field.

        If there’s some sort of scientific point she agreed with, she certainly has avoided saying what that might be despite repeated chances to do so.

        The closest she’s come is whiffing badly in attacking Gavin Schmidt’s point about what the paleoclimatic constraints on natural, temp driven increases in CO2 might be. http://judithcurry.com/2011/08/04/carbon-cycle-questions/#comment-94012

        That’s the closest she’s come to commenting on some scientific aspect of the subject, and it was unquestionably *wrong*.

        After that, perhaps it’s not surprising that she is still refusing to say what it is we’re all supposed to be “wow”-ed about and find “sufficiently important that we should start talking about [it]“. If you don’t commit, at least you can’t get embarrassed quite as badly.

      • thingsbreak –
        After that, perhaps it’s not surprising that she is still refusing to say what it is we’re all supposed to be “wow”-ed about and find “sufficiently important that we should start talking about [it]“.

        IOW, you don’t understand the subject? Or the conclusions? Or even the possibilities?

        There’s more than enough to talk about for those who are interested – and apparently for those who aren’t.

      • I understand what Salby is claiming (or trying to claim, at any rate). I am waiting to hear what JC is specifically “wow”-ed by besides him being an old colleague and saying “Not IPCC”.

        What’s the scientific meat for the “wow”, JC?

      • Jim,
        Thingsbreak is one of those rare, gifted people who knows what a paper says before it is published.

      • hunter –
        I suspect thingsbreak was just using the “discussion” here to boost traffic at his/her website. But s/he is also now firmly self-labelled as one of the nasty, uncivil, unmannered and childish progressive breed.

      • A quick view of TB’s blog shows the average post only gets a handfull of comments. His latest post has a huge increase. Now we know the reason for the trolling.

      • This is a phenomena that Michael Tobis wrote about previously. Take a “warm” climate blog with low traffic and write an article that trashes me, and their blog traffic more than doubles. For the most part such articles are pretty pathetic, but I thought Greenfyre at least brought some panache to the genre.

      • Judith Curry writes: Take a “warm” climate blog with low traffic and write an article that trashes me, and their blog traffic more than doubles. For the most part such articles are pretty pathetic

        If I wanted more traffic, I’d post more. I could not care less about blog traffic. Now that we’ve settled that-

        Since you have the time to make comments like this, would you care to state what from a science perspective (not “he used to be a colleague” and not “Not IPCC”) from Salby’s presentation you feel was worth of saying wow, it’s so important that we should talk about it, it’s potentially revolutionary to the field, etc.?

        (I apologize if you actually managed to answer this at any point during the last couple of days. I understand that your time is precious and you choose which comments to respond to with great care…)

      • TB –
        If I wanted more traffic, I’d post more. I could not care less about blog traffic.

        Why should anyone believe that?

      • John Carpenter

        tb

        “If I wanted more traffic, I’d post more. I could not care less about blog traffic. Now that we’ve settled that-”

        You must have loads if idle time on your hands… really

      • Tom Fuller: Nobody goes there

        Certain people don’t go there because they can’t face up to their own embarrassments.

        But of course, you knew that already…

      • Nobody goes there because there’s nothing worth going there for.

      • LOL. That didn’t even need to be said.

      • tb,
        Tom had enough bones to write a book on Climategate that is pretty good.
        Please continue your self-destruction. It is like a performance art I watched once where a guy flayed himself with long stemmed roses while on stage, spattering blood on the sheets hung around him: pitiful, sad and a cry for help.

    • Michael Larkin

      Do you still maintain you are not uncivil? There are actually ways of saying some of the things you say civilly. “This is crap” is not one of them. IMO, Judith has your measure precisely because she knows how to make her points civilly, and that engages people of different shades of opinion. This blog is much more successful than yours: I wonder why that could be?

      She doesn’t often censor behaviour such as yours, and whether she does it consciously or not, this allows it to speak for itself. Even if what you say has any merit, many will just dismiss it out of hand. I know it might seem incomprehensible, but people who are secure in themselves have no problem initiating discussions about things they don’t necessarily agree with, or feel confident about announcing a verdict on.

    • Wow, ‘ thingsbreak ‘ ; “pot- kettle- black !”

      Yours, “People get upset because you promote, credulously repeat, or make on your own behalf, claims that sound at best far-fetched. When pressed for specifics, you frequently backpedal or move goalposts. When you get called on it, you play the victim, seeking (but never quite succeeding) to further promote your self-styled image as a rebel.”

      Isn’t that just AGW all over ?

      I’ll press you for a “specific” with a sweetener attached ; I will pay you $10,000 (AUS) for a conclusive argument based on empirical facts that increasing atmospheric CO2 from fossil fuel burning drives global climate warming.

      http://climateguy.blogspot.com/2010/11/10k-climate-challenge.html

      I don’t except a challenge but do expect one of the usual excuses – “grandstanding” (so what) or “there is no such thing as total proof in science” (not that I ask for it) or cautious questions of “,what do I consider as evidence?” (why would that matter?) and of course the near mandatory “ad hominum attack” by those who need to save pride when incapable of challenging, (usually rant, ideology or heaven forbid “no scientific training”) oh, and the one that AGW adherents the world over use when asked to debate, ” ………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………crickets…………”

      Despite the robust opposition of AGW believers to any contrarian view, they seem to be strangely timid and unwilling to engage in this challenge,
      which belies the assuredness with which they demand that others believe their extraordinary assertions.

    • JC: The frustration that the “warm” bloggers (e.g. RC et al.) seem to have with Climate Etc. is that I stray from the party line of the consensus.

      thingsbreak: This is crap.
      People get upset because you promote, credulously repeat, or make on your own behalf, claims that sound at best far-fetched…This Salby thread is a great example. On some level, I suspect you know that it’s ridiculous, but it’s “Not IPCC”, so what the heck- you put up a thread. You get pressed on specifics of why you support it, and **you cannot name a single concrete thing mentioned in the presentation you are promoting**.

      Taking this as given, JC has put up a not-IPCC thread but doesn’t promote or criricise anything in it.
      This has annoyed our alarmist thingsbreak. Exactly as alluded to in JC’s quote at the top.
      Seems the claim of “crap” is itself crap.

    • tbreak,
      No, you are crap.
      You, like so manyu other AGW true believers, are deply afraid of open inquiry. You know in your heart of hearts, I bet, that what you believe is utter rubbish.
      You have built, however, a great deal of social capital based on belief in AGW. And you are too cowardly to see that social standing put at risk. Facts and reason are just roadbumps to your drive.
      That the Earth is not suffering anything like the cliamte catastrophes promised for the past 20 eyars forces you in your desperation to scream more loudly and shrilly, hoping to distract from the lack of reality in your beliefs.
      Calling a mild mannered, reasonable person like Judith Curry what you call her,a nd challenging her ethics and judgement is the load of crap, and you are endowed with massive amounts of it.

  7. Along with Science of Doom and Climate Audit this is one of the very few climate science blogs worth reading. I rarely comment but would just say keep up the great work.

  8. Reposted on this thread as probably On Topic.
    Is anyone interested in a facility for viewing this blog via a filter which removes comments and all subordinate comments made by persons on a list of your own choosing? [Here is an example] It might be possible to offer my Python script for general use.

    • Yep, very interested in this and a whole lot more of the same. I prefer Ruby and JavaScript but I’m not religious about it. You can reach me on rdrake98 on the gmail label if you’d like to kick it around.

    • pjb, yes, interested. This blog becomes virtually unreadable because of the hundreds of comments and childish off-topic bickering by a group of people who post more or less the same stuff on every thread, regardless of thread topic. This means that the handful of high quality comments on each post are hard to find.

    • I understand the utility of that, but all it does is guarantee that two sides talk past each other.

  9. I have gone onto your site because I wanted to read opinions which were not extreme one way or the other and which did not embellish the facts. Both the “warmist” and “deniers” sites tend to go over the top with some of their comments. Keep up the good work

  10. Judy:
    Your equanamity and patience are admirable – something many of us should try to emulate.
    On Salby’s podcast, I have to say I need to see his plots in order to get sufficient handle on how he addresses the strengths of the current consensus wrt how the biosphere handles aCO2.

  11. John Vetterling

    As someone who is trying to reach my own conclusions about climate change, I find your site a breath of fresh air.
    I am an engineer and a mathematician; I am quite capable, as are many of your readers, of forming my own conclusions once I have all the data and analysis. But sites like RC seem to believe that we should just take their word for everything and question nothing. CA tries, but the bad blood with RC seeps through.
    This is one of the few sites where I can read and engage in actual discussion of the science with minimal political spin.

    • John Vetterling

      Oh – and as far as the previous thread, why wouldn’t you call attention to it?
      A prominent member of the climate science community, comes up with a result that challenges one of the foundations of our current understanding, in circumstances where you believe his claim is credible, not necessary true, but certainly credible.
      Anyone who failed to discuss this would be remiss.

      • Even if only to bring about a very clear and detailed response on how he’s absolutely wrong. We would still learn a great deal. Exactly, John, I fully agree with you.

      • Michael Larkin

        I’ll second that, Luis. I lean towards scepticism, but reasoned discussion here has definitely moderated my views, for instance on the Skydragon stuff.

      • That’s very welcome as testimony. And it shows again the wisdom of the host in taking a few moments to talk about editorial things. Without that (I almost used feminine instinct), I and other people here would probably never have read this. And morale is also vital in a enterprise like this. This certainly improves mine.

        Which raises another thought. There are some, it seems, who do not want Climate Etc. to succeed. They will come up with all kinds of high-sounding reasons for their concerns. But after a while one comes to suspect much baser motives.

        Not that we should depart from our host by ‘doing angry’. But doing better … much better, that is worth some real effort.

  12. Any scientifc-minded person would prefer to examine all the information available, whether it supports a particular pet theory or not. Anyone with the desire to suppress information is not being scientific. A person who decides that other people should not judge information for themselves is afraid of something.

    Andrew

    • Mostly they fear that people are “too stupid” to see what to them is just plainly obvious. And the polls sort of confirm that fear.

  13. Many understand that global warming is not a problem but fear of it is. And, for many of them, the global warming hysteria movement is just a symptom of far BIGGER problem: the Leftist global agenda is driving out capitalism and the both the Democrats and the Republicans have joined hands to become an ‘official’ job-killing machine in the US.

    We see that even the EPA fingered human CO2 as a pollutant and bought into the idea that it is the sole cause of global warming. And, the Democrats of course blame US-based oil companies for high gas prices to justify confiscating their property.

    Business investment in America has cooled even faster than global temperatures.

    American business who wish to survive will be forced to establish relationships with foreign universities. Look for the IBM of the future to have research facilities at a Tsinghua University in Beijing instead of a blame-America university in NY or Massachusetts.

    Obviously, the governmental-education complex in the U.S. has failed: the drop-out factories are beyond redemption. The causes: the inexorable effects of moral and ethical decline in the West and withal — like ‘chickens coming home to roost’ — a ‘something for nothing’ entitlement, blame Bush, blame business, blame Jews and Christians, blame capitalism mentality that breeds self-destruction.

    Off shore research and invention is now the future for all multi-nationals. Nice epitaph: ‘Here lays Western civilization, killed by superstitious and nihilistic Leftist-libs.’

    Yes We Can! … just can say no to business and no to energy and no to personal responsibility and no, No, NO to individual liberty, hope, dreams and freedom from superstition and ignorance. And Yes We Have! said ‘no’ to all of all of these things that are necessary to wealth and personal success. And sooner rather than later, we all will soon have not.

    A political system built on anything other the necessity to choose rational self-interest is either a monarchy, a despotism or a nihilism. The essence of individual freedom is being able to choose, not be given a choice by someone else. The uniqueness of the N. American experience is that the system is based on inalienable rights of all men, given to them by their creator and guaranteed to them by a piece of paper, a contract, not given and guaranteed by other men. That is why the Leftist must deny human nature, deny faith, deny science and destroy the Constitution.

  14. “to see what to them is just plainly obvious”

    Ah, yes Luis. This is what science is supposed to accomplish. Taking something that was once hidden, and making it plainly obvious to everyone. If the science doesn’t do that, it needs to be worked on some more.

    Andrew

    • I’m afraid that’s not really what science is accomplishing, and I don’t think that’s necessarily a bad thing. I don’t think, for instance, that anyone can show to be “plainly obvious” the findings of quantum mechanics, and I find the rather obscure nature of nuclear fission and the engineer required to build a nuclear bomb to be rather good.

  15. Judith –

    Perhaps you could elaborate on the criteria you use to determine technical relevance on posts such as the previous one.

    I am completely unable to discern a coherent metric – but I assume you must have one in mind. If you could explain what it is, it might help people who want to respect your bar of technical relevance.

    For example, what kind are the criteria that would disqualify a comment but approve the following?:

    Bruce | August 4, 2011 at 4:59 pm | Reply
    If it annoys you it is relevant. If you approve, it is left-wing drivel.

    • “What kind are the criteria that would disqualify a comment but approve the following?:”

      A preference for accuracy?

  16. I’d just like to say that whenever i have anyone that’s interested in learning more about climate change, be they left, right or center, here is where i send them to get the most balanced views. Keep up the good work Dr. Curry, don’t let the trolls bother you.

  17. I must admit that it never ceases to amaze me that people feel somehow justified in showing up at someone else’s — quite successful — blog demanding justifications and rationale and explanations for the things the owner chooses to post. Or, worse, telling the owner what should or should not be posted. In my view, Dr. Curry doesn’t owe any of you a single thing and should you find yourselves unable to process that, well, the one-sided echo-chamber of your choice may almost certainly be found on her blog roll and you are free to decamp at any moment at the click of a mouse.

    • Dr Curry –
      I for one am not going to let your irritation get in the way of having a good discussion here where we all stand to learn something.

      THAT is why I enjoy this blog and spend time here. When I first posted here, I stated that my intent was to learn</b. And I have done that and will continue to do so as long as possible.

      Those who come here and harangue you about how you operate Climate, Etc are, in general, looking only to have their own confirmation biases stroked. I've never been willing to do that – and I appreciate your lack of interest in doing so as well.

      Thank you.

    • Well said, Brendan. I couldn’t agree more – their arrogance is astonishing. Judith’s blog, her rules and her interpretation. If they don’t like it…tough!!

  18. Was I good, or was I good? As stated on Jan 2, 2011:

    The nastiest criticisms by rabid AGWers will be thrown in the direction of [Judith] Curry

    Remember…fundamentalists in any religion may or may not find it difficult to learn to tolerate a non-believer. But invariably, they will find it impossible to even think of tolerating an apostate.

    • Dr. Curry is hardly an apostate in terms of belief in AGW. She is however a true priest in the church of reason (a term from Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance). For those who haven’t read the book, I would consider that to be a high compliment if directed at me and I intend it as a high compliment to Dr. Curry. It is sad that so few professors of science openly share her convictions in the power of science.

      Cheers

      JE

      • After that they need to read “A Confederacy of Dunces” John K Toole, then read some of the whinging. I am sure they will have a good laugh. I hope Dr. Curry NEVER answers some of the questions demanded of her. such that certain folks keep posting what they do. I need the laughs after a hard day.

  19. Per Judith’s focus on how to restore the integrity of climate science from “consensus”, I understand science as a search for an objective understanding of the laws of nature. This process requires testing:
    “The one who states his case first seems right,
    until the other comes and examines him.” Proverbs 18:17 (ESV)

    In the process, each person can benefit from it:
    “As iron sharpens iron,
    so one person sharpens another.” Proverbs 27:17 NIV

    Considering the enormous societal impacts of policy decisions, I think it is particularly important to “kick the tires”.
    “but test everything; hold fast what is good.” 1 Thessalonians 5:21 (ESV)

    So when I have seen papers providing differing facts or models, I will throw them in to challenge models, to see what evidence stands, and what is partial, and to explore the limits and uncertainties in models.

    There is often a high level of uncivil ad hominem accusations that I sometimes challenge to try to push back “the barbarians” and help preserve the integrity of science and the foundations of civilization. Bullying and gate keeping to protect a biased “consensus” by one advocacy group are deeply destructive of science and harmful to society.

    Finally, for those who understand them, being able to read both the “book of nature” and the “book of revelation” is enlightening, refreshing and satisfying.
    e.g. Francis Bacon and Isaac Newton

    • Dear Mr. Hagen,

      Do you use Facebook? I would like to contact you (learn from you) without posting email addresses.

  20. cagw_skeptic99

    At the end of the day, the RC trolls will most likely start to beg for grants to study something else and their papers and blog comments will fade to oblivion. Dr. Curry’s blog is a breath of fresh air and a wonderful source of interesting posts. My computer scrolls quickly past the trolls who don’t like the selection of posts and/or find it necessary to attack the people. What bores they are.

    Thanks again Dr. Curry for your wonderful choices and variety of posts and for providing a well moderated site where intelligent people can discuss the issues.

  21. Theo Goodwin

    Saint Judith writes:

    “So if you are irritated that “deniers” will use this talk (and the fact that I featured it on my blog) as ammo in their war against CO2 stabilization policy, well that is too bad.”

    Saint Judith earns her wings once again! Commenters who fit Dr. Curry’s description above surely live in a Manichean World that is divided between good and evil. They want to stop Dr. Curry from witlessly and wrongly giving aid and comfort to evil. They believe she does this when she announces her excitement about a lecture that promises to reveal something not found in mainstream climate science.

    I hope that I do not need to explain that people who seriously and publicly express belief in a Manichean World are exhibiting symptoms of paranoia. Their belief that they and their cause are being persecuted is false. Their belief that Dr. Curry is a co-conspirator in persecution is false, as is their belief that Dr. Curry is a witless dupe of persecutors.

    The truth of the matter is that Dr. Curry runs her blog in accordance with the explanation that she gave above. This is a place for discussion and argument. This blog has discussion of issues raised by people all across the intellectual spectrum. Some of it I find maddening. I am so sick of postmodern takes on science or whatever that I might never return to this blog. However, I do not want any of these posts to be suppressed. Discussion of them provides opportunities for growth in rational thought to discussants and readers. Growth occurs often.

    I really enjoy an occasional glimpse of Saint Judith’s personality. Her personality makes this blog much more lively and memorable. As an extreme example, none of us will forget the strong blows struck her today, the context in which they arose, or who struck them. Her personality is part of her genius as a blogger. We should all recognize that we find it appealing. We should all learn from her.

    • Theo,
      Thanks for introducing me to the word “Manichean”. I had to look it up, since my knowledge of the history of religion is lacking.

      I thought, at first, that it was a play on a certain M. Mann.

      • “Mann-ichean”…sweet!

      • Very funny. For anyone interested in why we still use the term, this is the key point where the ideas of Mani (no relation to the man at Penn State that I know of) may have infiltrated the Western Christian tradition and thus much of our own intellectual life even now (if only by reaction), according to a single sentence in Wikipedia:

        Some modern scholars have suggested that Manichaean ways of thinking influenced the development of some of Augustine’s ideas, such as the nature of good and evil, the idea of hell, the separation of groups into elect, hearers, and sinners, and the hostility to the flesh and sexual activity.

        Criticise St Augustine in some quarters and it is indeed a bit like criticising Michael Mann at RealClimate. Wikipedia’s expression of the problem areas isn’t perfect either. But for me some of these ‘modern scholars’ have legitimate concerns.

      • It was also the origin of the religion of the Order of the Jedi Knights.

        “Beware of the dark side. The dark side leads to fear. Fear leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering”. Yoda

      • Theo Goodwin

        Maybe St Augustine got too close to Manicheanism but it was declared a heresy.

      • Theo Goodwin

        Well, all of us are a tad obsessed with Mann.

  22. I certainly am in no position to enforce my views upon anyone. I can stand up and refuse to sit down but that doesn’t mean anyone will hear or care about what an extra- Constitutional government has planned for me…

  23. Dr. Curry,
    Well said.
    This is your meeting space and the editorial decisions are yours. Period.
    If things go a way that I believe is unacceptable, then I shall go away.
    To berate you over your selection is like berating the host or hostess of a well served cocktail party over the choice of crystal or napkins.

    • Michael Larkin

      Well put, hunter, and if I might elaborate the metaphor, if I haveJewish visitors one day and Hindu ones the next, I might serve Kosher or vegetarian even though I myself prefer nothing better than pork.

      • Never a man to let an elaborate metaphor off the hook, I hear Dr Curry’s critics exclaiming “Where’s the beef?” without realising that this is not McDonald’s in Middle America but there are a variety of people from the Indian subcontinent at the table to whom our host aims to show hospitality. Curry being of course simply the Tamil word for food (as well as a lovely way of combining functions in functional programming languages). Food fights are fun every now and then but much better is when brothers learn to dwell together in unity, the talk over dinner sparkles because of, not despite, the great difference of backgrounds and perspectives – and I take a leaf from my Jewish friend’s book and say that here the LORD bestows his blessing, life for evermore.

  24. There are plenty of posts that don’t interest me. The posting is prolific enough to where I know there will soon be one that does. It would be nice if those that can find the time to drop by and complain about the posts could also find the time to drop by and present arguments regarding those topics that interest them.

  25. John Kannarr

    All the ad hominems and arguments from authority by certain Denizens are tedious, unconvincing, and off-putting, but references to credible, and understandable, scientific observations and principles and papers are very helpful, and explication is always useful.

    This blog has become one of the few I regularly read to try to stay abreast of new information. Some of the back-and-forth based on differing political principles is interesting as well, but I tend to resent very strongly those who think that their interpretation of the science gives them the authority (and even obligation) to tell the rest of the world what we “must” do. If they have good arguments to persuade people to change their behavior and their choices, fine, it will happen. But the key for me remains persuasion, not dictation.

    Anyone who claims to have the right to impose their solutions by force on others will cause me to want to reject their proposals out of hand, even if I otherwise might be open to their suggestions. Those who seek such power, even if their proposals be correct, should never be allowed to exercise such power.

    • Good comment, John. I completely agree.

    • John,

      I do a simple experiment to see if my hypothesis is correct. I ask the above Denizens (ad hominems and arguments from authority) whether they spend time reading primarily science fiction novels. Almost without exception these people do.

      They believe that man can truly control nature. They believe that man should regulate and control his fellow man for the good of all. And studies have been done of the Marxism implicit in the genre.

      • Yes, that Karl Marx has a lot to answer for hasn’t he? If it hadn’t have been for him we’d all be as free as birds just to do whatever we like. The taxman wouldn’t be demanding that I pay up $1000′s by a certain date, he’d be asking, nicely, if I would like to make a contribution to Australia’s military effort in Afghanistan or, maybe I would like to sponsor the RAAF with their purchase of a new fighter jet. Maybe I’d like to sponsor a part of a wing with our company logo?

        Bloody communists!

      • Well spotted, Karthryn. For some reason Erik von Daniken sticks in my mind as the preferred author, in my shooldays in the 60s, of a Certain Kind of Boy. They grew up to be disciples, and in some cases apostles, of the series of pseudoscientific, counter-intuitive bogus scares, from DDT to CAGW that have punctuated the last half century. As far as I can work it out, the wish to believe von Daniken’s musings as factually true did permanent damage to their critical faculties.

  26. It’s your blog, run it the way you want to.

  27. Dr.Curry, yours is an excellently run blog and one learns a lot here. You owe nothing to trolls to justify what you post as discussion topics in your blog. You are the host and they are the guests and nobody forced them to come here and read your posts. If they don’t like the topics you post, they are free to choose to go away and not come back.

    • Science can only move forward if we build upon work that has already been done. We cannot dwell in an endless circle of re-deriving the first law of thermodynamics, otherwise no progress is made, and we only go backwards.

      Like with Copernicus ?

  28. Judith Curry, thanks for your response:

    You are of course free to run your blog how you see fit, and probably do not need to justify how you run it to others. However, unlike most bloggers on the internet, you actually have an advanced degree and a publishing record in climatology. Thus, your “word” will hold much greater weight amongst the general readership than the random musings of Joe down the street. With that influence comes a moderate degree of responsibility.

    My objections are that you do not properly portray uncertainty and oversell the (even potential) importance of obviously non-sense. You also make a lot of sweeping statements about the “IPCC” or “the community” which do not reflect that you follow what is going on, even though I am sure you do.

    I appreciate your recommendation that science is a process, but it is a very ironic recommendation. Science can only move forward if we build upon work that has already been done. We cannot dwell in an endless circle of re-deriving the first law of thermodynamics, otherwise no progress is made, and we only go backwards. Bloggers can insist endlessly that we debate the first law, think about it in 700 different ways, and “listen” to every new high schooler who has some theory about it, but people are actually trying to advance science rather than stick in a Groundhog’s day version of science.

    I understand many people here have some kind of hatred against “the consensus” or that you have argued that the IPCC has created an artificial consensus, but the logic here is completely backwards. Consensus is the end product of the work scientists do; consensus is what enters into textbooks and class notes after decades of debate and scrutiny (as occurred with the hypothesis that CO2 could lead to global warming for a century or so). This is not to say that students should not learn these things, and indeed part of why I have substantial loan payments to pay off from my college work is to actually be taught these “textbook” principles.

    Similarly, the IPCC does not do original research and does not create consensus or act as gatekeepers of truth. The IPCC reflects the current consensus at the time, by definition, and attempts to summarize and assess the standing literature. If people do not like the fact that there is very little literature to assess on “their” side, then they should do their own work, but its non-existence is not the failure of the IPCC to be objective.

    Finally, interesting discussions and education can be generated without endless appeal to every new paper that thinks they created the “final death blow” to AGW, or highlight every potential “issue” as if it MUST be important or poorly understood. The fact is that CO2 is rising due to human activities. The fact is that we know the magnitude of the “no-feedback” Planck response to very high confidence. The fact is that you cannot make attributions of climate change based on a physics-devoid cosine curve that happens to match some period of the global temperature record. I understand your desire to highlight real climate issues, and Fred apparently understands this as well, but if a casual on-looker were to visit this and only this site they would have a completely backwards view of where the scientific work is being done and where we have enough confidence in results to use them as base assumptions for future work.

    Chris

    • John Vetterling

      Jean Goodwin had a very interesting essay recently http://scientistscitizens.wordpress.com/2011/07/26/debate-in-the-blogosphere-a-small-case-study/#more-265

      In it she talks about managing argumentative responsibilities. You might want to read it.

    • Michael Larkin

      The fact is this… the fact is that… the fact is the other. The fact is, sir, Judith’s opinion is influential as much as anything because she is refreshingly open-minded and lacking in bombast.

    • “Similarly, the IPCC does not do original research and does not create consensus or act as gatekeepers of truth. The IPCC reflects the current consensus at the time, by definition, and attempts to summarize and assess the standing literature. ”

      I wish more people would understand that the IPCC is not a scientific authority, but that it is merely a summary document and should be judged on whether it properly summarized the standing literature. ahem.

      OH, its really funny that Overpeck in the climategate mails took an entirely different view of things. And its really funny that the mails show the great lengths people wen to to shoe horn certain papers into the process to make “keiths job” easier.

      And its funny that when one needs a scientific authority every reaches for AR4 but when someone critiques it, it’s only a summary.

    • Chris –
      I appreciate your recommendation that science is a process, but it is a very ironic recommendation. Science can only move forward if we build upon work that has already been done.

      You have been taught and you assume that the science is solid enough to build on. There are some (many?) here who believe, with reason, that that assumption is a fallacy. And not all of those are stupid, ignorant, uneducated – or dedicated advocates. Many, if not most of the most prominent blog commenters have their own advanced degrees. And many of them have the science and math background as well as practical experience to back up their scepticism.

      Personally, I listen to the arguments, I think about what’s said – and too often, it doesn’t fit with real life experience – or with historical facts. FYI – I have been taking courses for years wrt history, archeology, and other subjects that I missed as an engineer. My education was – and always will be – incomplete. IOW, it’s a “process” and, like science, there is no end to it.

      Do you understand what I just said? Allow me to elucidate – science is not now, nor will it ever be, as “solid” as you seem to think it is. Over the long term, science is ALWAYS about building castles in the air – and watching them dissipate like smoke in the wind so greater castles can be built.

      For 20 years or more, climate science has been trying to build its castle of stone and mortar to last for the ages. While that might seem an admirable goal to you, it takes on a different aspect for those who see the cracks in the walls, the empty moat and the sagging gate. Specifically, Climategate was one window into a science that needs fresh blood, fresh ideas – and a massive transfusion of ethics. The stonewall treatment, the seige mentality – is no longer acceptable. Yes, I know – 200 years ago scientists/natural philosophers kept their notes secret, written in secter codes that only they could decipher. But that was then and this is now.

      You live in a different world. The results of your science, as presently presented, threaten 12,000 years of human progress and accomplishment. Therefore the standards you AND the science MUST meet if you’re to be believed are far different than you might be happy with. And so far, your science and some of those associated with it have failed to meet those standards.

      You speak of the IPCC – you say –
      If people do not like the fact that there is very little literature to assess on “their” side, then they should do their own work, but its non-existence is not the failure of the IPCC to be objective.

      How do you fail to realize the fallacy in that statement? The work that WAS done – and ignored, the literature that isn’t there because it was blocked from publication, the work that WASN’T done because funding was blocked by advocacy, the lies that were published by the IPCC as fact – and the list goes on – and on – and on……

      You expect the IPCC to be respected as an institution? I think that’s not likely to happen without massive reorganization and rearrangement of priorities – at the very least. And truthfully, I don’t see that as anything more than a vanishingly small probability.

      And finally – you say –
      The fact is that you cannot make attributions of climate change based on a physics-devoid cosine curve that happens to match some period of the global temperature record.

      But the fact is that you have nothing that explains that cosine curve. CO2 doesn’t do it – and “natural variability” is a catch-phrase for things you don’t understand – but that are real. So if you dismiss it as not real – what does that accomplish? Real science? I don’t think so. Real science would be to investigate it – not dismiss it.

      Enough – this is far too long – and much too short. And I may have wasted my time. But at least it was my time to waste – and there’s some hope that someday you may just (as Judith says) – mature as a scientist. I will wish that on you.

      And if you don’t meet those standards? Then you will join the ranks of

    • The IPCC reflects the current consensus at the time, by definition, and attempts to summarize and assess the standing literature.
      An utterly ludicrous claim. The IPCC is part of the UN, an organisation dedicated to world government. As such the IPCC’s actual brief is to produce arguments for world government. And Climategate showed us the length to which they have their leading authors go to to produce such arguments.

    • If you have the answer why paper x is wrong then why not just say it? We can often learn as much from things that are wrong as are correct. If you and Eric think it’s so easy start your own blog.

    • Chris Colose – there are so many things you simply don’t get…

      I’ll try to clarify a few points, in full despair…

      your “word” will hold much greater weight amongst the general readership

      No. Especially after Climategate. JC’s words will only hold as much weight as the openness of her debating style, sharing of data, way of thinking will warrant. There’s no “trustful expert” left.

      We cannot dwell in an endless circle of re-deriving the first law of thermodynamics, otherwise no progress is made, and we only go backwards

      Yes we can, for as long as a large part of us (the “uberwarmists”) refuse to answer questions about the first law of thermodynamics by deleting comments, labelling the whole world as “deniers”, redefining what the null hypothesis is, taking advantage of every tragedy (literally, eating out of still-warm human corpses) to propel their pet theories, mixing up science and policy, etc etc.

      Consensus is the end product of the work scientists do

      You’ve missed out a lot of posts here and elsewhere, obviously. Consensus has been the start product of the work the IPCC has been doing.

      The IPCC reflects the current consensus at the time, by definition

      No. It’s an intergovernmental panel. It reflects the consensus of the people invited to the IPCC, forced onto them by the IPCC process.

      if a casual on-looker were to visit this and only this site they would have a completely backwards view of where the scientific work is being done

      This is the “argumentum ad lectores”, according to which blog authors should dumb down their writing just in case an innocent soul misinterprets them. But then we wouldn’t be reading anymore from the blog author, would we? We would be reading from dumbed-down blog author, in words perhaps carefully vetted by a committee. I think it’s something that already exists out there, it’s called “television”.

      Now who would in their right mind want any of that??

      • I think that Chris would prefer Climate Etc to become a RealClimate mirror site.

      • Steve Fitzpatrick

        I think it more likely he would prefer all climate related blogs to become RealClimate mirror sites. He is going to be disappointed…. until/unless he changes his expectations.

      • I think that Chris would prefer Climate Etc to become a RealClimate mirror site.
        Yes, more colose-minded.

    • Chris:

      “With that influence comes a moderate degree of responsibility.”

      Responsibility to who and for what purpose?

    • Chris: “I understand your desire to highlight real climate issues, and Fred apparently understands this as well, but if a casual on-looker were to visit this and only this site they would have a completely backwards view of where the scientific work is being done and where we have enough confidence in results to use them as base assumptions for future work.”

      Well put.

      • “if a casual on-looker were to visit this and only this site they would have a completely backwards view of where the scientific work is being done and where we have enough confidence in results to use them as base assumptions for future work”

        The problem with this (and with most of pop climate science) is that it’s just an assertion.

        Andrew

    • but if a casual on-looker were to visit this and only this site they would have a completely backwards view of where the scientific work is being done and where we have enough confidence in results to use them as base assumptions for future work.

      Why do, or should you worry about what the casual onlooker thinks or does?

      • Thingsbreaks and others have a fear that causal observers will be infected with denialism. They think that most people can be fooled, that most people believe what they read in newspapers and the internet, that most people cant think for themselves. So its imperitive to control the message and the messengers.
        the mails make this fear clear

      • John Whitman

        Mosh,

        Well said.

        Also, I think they are decompensating . . . therefore their fear.

        John

      • Steven Mosher: Thingsbreaks and others have a fear that

        Did someone say something about motive hunting?

        Here you are, reading minds. Here I am asking Judith Curry to explain what it is she thinks specifically was scientifically worthwhile about Salby’s presentation.

        Though neither of us are succeeding, at least I’m giving JC the opportunity to speak for herself rather than make claims on her behalf.

        How’s that request for Salby’s code coming?

      • Climate is complicated enough that only authorities should be able to speak about it, but rhetoric is simple enough even fools judge it.
        =========

      • TB: you’ve said you have this fear.

        Code: when he publishes a paper and makes a claim, I have no issue about asking for the code and data. he gets the same treatment as I gave scaffeta and christy and spenser.
        You do know that I hounded Anthony for his data before he published and you do know that I’ve ask Muller for his code and data prior to publication. so perhaps I’ll ask him as well. But generally I wait until its actually published.
        Finally, You’ll have to forgive me if i dont jump when you say boo. Now, if you use your real name and make a request, I will write code for you, for free. otherwise #Si

        http://stevemosher.wordpress.com/2011/08/05/chcn-canadian-historical-climate-network/

    • Chris,

      As a climate scientist, would you agree that Judith is correct in saying that there is a 1 in 6 chance of climate sensitivity to 2 x CO2 being as high as 1 in 6?

      To me that sounds scary. I’m sure if you came out with something like this, many denizens of this blog would call you a dangerous subversive. But, Judith just says its all part of the general uncertainty over climate change and they call her a saint! No exaggeration!

  29. Chris,

    No progress is made and we only go backwards if we don’t question. Consensus and bureaucracy stops the progress in science.

  30. Judith.

    You and many others here have seemed to miss the point that Chris Colose and I have both made. The problem is not that you have highlighted Salby’s work. The problem is that you highlighted it and described it as potentially important without the slightest hint of a comment that it was going against one of the most well understood and certain things in all of climate science. As Chris rightly points out, this is extremely misleading. Neither Chris nor I in any way shape or form suggested that questioning the received wisdom was a bad thing. We’re just skeptical that Salby has discovered anything.

    In short, I’d like to see little more skepticism on your part.

    • Dr. Steig,
      I think Salby’s work will prove the complete undoing of the isotope argument put forward on RealClimate and elsewhere. That achievement alone advances science and is worth discussing. Salby seems to think he has also shown that human burning of fossil fuels is not the cause of the rise in atmospheric CO2. I am less convinced Salby was successful on this point, but perhaps I do not fully understand the situation since I was not able to view his plots and the questions I wanted asked were not asked on the podcast.

      What I am unable to understand is why you think you have to run Dr. Curry’s blog for her? I am also unable to understand your lack of scientific curiosity. You seem completely convinced Salby has not found anything, but yet you have not seen his evidence. You are prejudging the situation without the facts and it puts you in a very bad light.

      In short, I’d like to see a little more graciousness on your part and a little more scientific curiosity before you judge a man’s work.

    • You could just say what is wrong with the presentation yourself rather than rely on others so much. You know, contribute

    • Maybe she should take your Matlab course?

    • Steig,

      Colose is an impertinent young pup, but his cocksure rudeness can be viewed with a tolerant amusement by those of us of a certain age who recall that we were once brash kids too. Unfortunately, Colose’s behavior is not appreciably different from that of his elders and mentors, it appears. Steig, I can only speak for myself, though I suspect I am not alone, when I say that the horse’s ass behavior that you and your fellow boors unfailingly offer up is getting to be a little old. Fred Moolten manages to present his views with gentlemanly courtesy, so why can’t the rest of you fabulously credentialed scholars of climate science, with your imperious claims of superior knowledge, do the same?

    • It can be trite to say there are two sides to an argument, but in this example it is revealing yet again as to the differences between AGW orthodoxy and an open scientific discourse. Representing “the science is settled” camp is Eric Steig with wingman Chris Colose. Their criticism of JC is that she presents to the public on her blog the suggestion that the as of yet unpublished work by Salby is important. They believe it can’t possibly be important because it contradicts AGW and therefore should be ignored.
      This precisely what is wrong with them as scientists – they should be welcoming this test of our understanding of climate modeling not trying to ignore it.

      Let me quickly dispense with Colose’s suggestion that this paper is akin to a high-school student claiming to overturn the laws of thermodynamics and that real scientists shouldn’t waste their time repeating the basics over and over to neophytes. Can we agree that Salby is a real scientist, and furthermore that he is a real climate scientist; a professor, 100+ papers, authored a text book; you know those kind of credentials. I think young Colose probably would want to reconsider waving him off as a lightweight amateur.

      To be fair we don’t have the paper, we don’t have the figures that go with a half hour talk, but we are told the paper was considered for 6 months and has gone through peer review and is in press. The suggestions are that if this paper is true it will be a major blow to proponents arguing that human derived CO2 is a major driver of global warming. Not a flesh wound but a major Godzilla-smashing-Tokyo-to-pulp damage to the theory.

      This is going to be like Ali vs Fraser and someone is not going to get up off the mat. Salby is either going to look very smart or a complete knucklehead when this paper is published. On a scientific, political, and human nature level this is going to be riveting, and yes it most certainly supports JC’s decision to describe this as “interesting”.

    • “The problem is that you highlighted it and described it as potentially important without the slightest hint of a comment that it was going against one of the most well understood and certain things in all of climate science.”

      JC: “If Salby’s analysis holds up, this could revolutionize AGW science.” That’s a pretty good hint. I can read between the lines that Salby has challenged something that is *considered* well understood and certain. What that “certainty” means to each reader of this blog depends on each person’s view of the history of science and the current state of climate science. And neither you nor JC can control that. You can’t keep people from thinking for themselves.

    • The big problem with your criticism, dr Steig, is that you are part of the RealClimate’s writing team, and we all know how unbiased that site has been for years now. You’d be in a much better place to criticize other blogs if you had yourself a better venue than RC.

      Now, you are skeptical that Salby discovered anything of interest. Well, duh, so am I, and so should be everyone else. Let’s see the graphs, lets see the published paper. I’m willing to bet that the people that Salby “impressed” and caused a “stir” are people like Pielke Sr., for instance. So it’s not as if I am expecting the most astonishing thesis to come out here.

      OTOH, it *is* an interesting thesis. And if dr Curry thought it is interesting why shouldn’t we discuss it? Instead, RealClimate writers come here badmouthing the editorialization. I mean wow.

      • ‘Wow’ is indeed the word the RealClimate writers have most struggled with. It came first in Dr Curry’s last post and I believe she lost them at that point. But not me. I loved it. Indeed I’m still at the wow level about Dr Salby. I love to hear about assumptions being overturned, about people learning something new in a field that is dear to them, especially when they are clearly not threatened by that but joyfully embrace it.

        However, my response is not considered healthy in climate science. Rather more importantly, Judith Curry’s response is not considered healthy. And that is very worrying indeed.

        Let’s just posit for a moment that there are climate scientists that would prefer for Dr Curry’s reputation as a scientist to decline and decline sharply from August 2011. I can imagine such a thing being true in any scientific discipline so I’m not just having a go at climate science – not yet. It’s just human nature. Some people take a stance that you find unhelpful, or their personality grates with you, or at worst you may feel that your whole discipline will suffer unless their reputation takes a tumble.

        So if you read them saying ‘Wow’ about another paper and you are quite sure that the work in question was going to found to be completely wrong, let’s face it, you’d be delighted. The person whose reputation you want to take a dive is going to experience exactly that. All you have to do is sit tight – and try not to let the schadenfreude show too much when the inevitable happens.

        Now I don’t doubt that there are people in the RC stable who wish that Judith Curry’s reputation would indeed go into freefall. But their reaction at her ‘Wow’ (and that was enough – that’s the beautiful conciseness of language sometimes) is not at all like I describe above. Why could possibly explain that?

        I’ll give a little clue. I haven’t even listened to the Salby podcast yet. I don’t feel I have to. Some eminent names in climate science – not Dr Curry, but others – have already persuaded me that he has hit the ball out of the park. I look forward to knowing the details but the world doesn’t depend on that. I have some Python (or Ruby) to play with instead. What fun.

      • I seem to recollect that “Wow” may have been written on the chart paper when a pulsating radio signal was first detected from the heavens. It didn’t turn out to be little green men but a pulsating star. This in turn led to whole new field of astronomy and a Nobel prize. Salby is certainly entitled to a Wow comment on first pass.

      • I agree. I’m also going to take a close look at Salby now that it has raised such wrath.

    • Theo Goodwin

      Eric,

      Though your comment can be read as more or less severe, it does call for self-censorship on the part of Dr. Curry. There is no question that you ask her to qualify her assertions with additional assertions that you supply. In my opinion, such a request is never appropriate.

      If you were acting as a peer reviewer of an article submitted to a journal, you would explain to the author that he/she had failed to address important views, maybe gold-plated views, and that this fact makes the article unacceptable for publication in its present form. In making such comments, you would be doing your duty. So there is a place for your comments. But that place is not a blog.

      In effect, you have asked Dr. Curry to include a disclaimer whenever she posts something that contradicts mainstream climate science. In doing so, you are asking her for self-censorship. I hope that I do not have to explain why we do not want to do that.

      I believe that you do not understand all of Dr. Curry’s purposes in supporting her blog or all of the benefits that this blog provides. She offers opportunities for discussants and readers to work through arguments about climate science and science communications that are occurring on the internet and possibly elsewhere. It behooves her to offer the arguments in the raw and to let discussants take them where they may. Otherwise, she would be lecturing and not presenting opportunities to explore arguments. Lecturing your discussants is the quickest way to end opportunities for exploration and to reduce your blog to a list of true believers. That would defeat one of the main purposes of this blog.

      Having rejected the idea that Dr. Curry should post disclaimers, I will now post a disclaimer for Dr. Curry. On her blog, you will not find that she has posted something in her own words that challenges fundamental tenets of mainstream climate science. Nor will you find that she goes easy on posts that do challenge mainstream climate science. If Salby’s lecture is weak, she will ensure that all those weaknesses become as plain as the nose on your face, though she would prefer that her discussants do that work. One of Dr. Curry’s main goals on this blog is to ensure that discussants must engage in a process that includes analysis, criticism, and argument. Sound bites are anathema on this blog. If readers have faith in the process, they will find that Dr. Curry promotes no particular point of view. No other blog does these things as well as Dr. Curry’s blog.

      Finally, there must be a word about trolls. All blogs suffer trolls and suffer from trolls. The particular kind of troll that most damages this blog are trolls who post to lecture and preach. What a pain in the patooty they are. But they are the people who have most to gain from this blog. Censoring them would be a bad thing for many reasons, as long as they do not go psychotic. Those of us who comment on the quality of this blog must refrain from citing posts by trolls. Dr. Curry cannot be held responsible for what they write.

    • Dr Steig:

      “Neither Chris nor I in any way shape or form suggested that questioning the received wisdom was a bad thing. We’re just skeptical that Salby has discovered anything.”

      I’m sure you are! However, as an interested layman with an open mind, I would be delighted if you, Chris or other well informed scientists waded into a scientific dispute on this blog. It would add hugely to the debate. It’s pointless spending time moaning about the fact that Judith posted such or such a paper, get in there and explain (in layman terms if possible) why a particular paper is incorrect.

      Such debate would go a long way to ending the climate wars and would improve the tone markedly.

      • Theo Goodwin

        Well said. One of the most important reasons for doubting mainstream climate science is that its proponents continue to refuse to engage the public.

        Given that human psychology is what it is, that refusal increases whatever resentment the public might have toward climate scientists and all who would raise their taxes. Just imagine what would happen if government officials and scientists announced that Darwin’s Theory of Evolution requires a stiff rise in income tax rates.

      • RobB,

        I think part of the problem is that in the RC universe there is no debate to wade into, only bad science to be swatted down or mis-characterized before the masses get wind of it and start asking impertinent questions or (worse) it causes any decided to waver.

        The intent of content-free drive-by smears is solely to ensure that any decided who come across the original post then also see the smear and say to themselves, “oh, see, someone from RC discounted it, so it must be garbage” and walk away without ever giving it a second thought.

        Engaging in actual civil debate is totally contrary to achieving this objective. This is why they hate Dr. Curry’s blog so much… she lets people know it’s okay to question established orthodoxy, regardless of how often or not that orthodoxy might actually stand up to the scrutiny.

      • Sadly, there is probably much truth in what you say, Brendan, and it is a sad reflection on the state of the science. The reason I came here was because I wanted to hear both sides of the argument so that I could make up my own mind. Unfortunately, many of the consensus scientists seem reluctant to enagage in debate on an open forum and prefer the sanctuary of their own turf where difficult questions can be ignored or moderated out. Climate etc is not perfect because it would benefit from more ‘consensus’ views (notwithstanding Fred and Pekka’s stirling efforts), but it’s far better than one-sided propaganda blogs like RC.

      • Agreed on all counts. Precisely what makes this blog so much better than many of its peers is that there *are* actual discussions taking place in the context of “hey, maybe some of this isn’t quite so settled as some would have us believe.” The day I see those of the RC-ilk actually backing down on the slightest thing (some of those paleoclimate reconstructions, maybe?) is the day I’ll know progress is being made toward bridging the current gulf.

    • “The problem is that you highlighted it [Salby's podcast] and described it as potentially important without the slightest hint of a comment that it was going against one of the most well understood and certain things in all of climate science.”

      Missing the point of this blog entirely, Dr Steig.
      The overwhelming majority here are perfectly capable of checking facts ourselves. We don’t need to be told beforehand what and how to think about a paper. I’d even suggest that so many of us come here because Dr Curry is treating us like adults, and not like first-year students who need their hands held and be taught what and what not to believe.

      Instead of demanding ‘a bit more scepticism’ of Dr Curry – why don’t you lay out, point by point, where and how Prof Salby is wrong?
      Without the ad hominems addressed at Dr Curry or other posters here.

    • Steve Fitzpatrick

      Eric,

      In short, I’d like to see a little more skepticism on your part.

      I suspect many hold that same expectation for you.

      If you read the thread, you will see that several people (including me) have raised serious questions about the likely validity of Salby’s hypothesis; I look forward to seeing his published paper so that I can better evaluate his argument. I hope you look forward to the paper as well. Whatever you think of Salby, he is an experienced researcher in the field with a long publication record. Maybe he is wrong here, but people have the right to hear what he has to say and come to their own conclusions. Judith has neither the right nor the responsibility to “gate keep” the flow of scientific information. Nor does anyone else; that way lies corruption of science by advocacy.

    • I read through the posts about volcanoes and CO2 at RC.
      What strikes me is that there are no dissenting opinions.
      Or are they filtered like mine about the large number of underwater volcanoes and the asphalt volcanoes?
      RC has become a farce.

      • The number of opinions underwater great outnumbers those above ground. Or do I mean volcanoes? It’s always hard to tell on RC.

      • Actually, it was initiated as farce, a “public relations” effort of Fenton Communications.

        However it is useful when people like yourself come to that realization independently.

    • Dr. Steig,
      It is well understood that Dr. Salby’s work is contrary to your recevide wisdom.
      What is not well understood by you and Chris is that pontification is not for science.
      With all due repsect, you pontificate and young Chris is having his career path destroyed because he has confused being an AGW acolyte with being a scientist.
      You do, here and at RC, in fact question and dismiss Salby without bothering to read it.
      Which is less intellectually credible: to dismiss somnethign by a world class scientist before you even know what he said, or to say that if what he says is true, it has powerful implications?
      I would suggest that the corrosive effect of living in the echo chamber of RC has taken you and many others off course, if the goal is to do good science.

    • Inappropriately smearing temporally and spatially Antarctic Peninsular temperatures over the rest of Antarctica, and doing so deliberately, flagrantly, and pinkly. Oh, yes, we hear you, Matlab instructor to the Stars.
      ==============

    • Dr Steig,

      I’ll ask you the same question as I’ve asked others.
      Why are you so concerned about what people here think (or don’t think) that you take the trouble to post here?
      Why should my opinion be of concern to you?
      And, likewise, why should your opinion be of concern to me?

      And why s

  31. it was going against one of the most well understood and certain things in all of climate science

    hmmm, that really increases my confidence in climate science…

  32. Dr.Steig,

    I don’t believe anybody here cares about what you think is potentially important and well understood of all things in climate science. Science is not absolute and what is ” well understood ” as per you and RC is not the absolute mantra for climate science. You and RC have lost that halo and benefit of doubt on anything you say as we can work out for ourselves in seeing the evidence and seeing the data [ or lack ] of it in AGW supporting mainstream climate science. Computer models are not data and computer runs are not experiments. Poorly done statistics and maths and fudged data don’t become evidence.

    A lot of us here understand science and can see through the shenanighans of what passes for ” science ” in the warm neck of the woods.

    So it’s a bit rich to tell Dr.Curry about how to run her blog, when especially RC is an advertisement for how not to run a blog.

  33. Peter Davies

    I have found this blog to be most useful in my search for the truth about the AGW hypothesis. I believe that it remains a hypothesis because it has not shown itself to be capable of replication.

    Any additional work that could add to our understanding of climate change therefore deserves to be examined as rigorously as available data allows, preferably by people who are experts in their fields.

    The outstanding success of this blog stands as testimony to Dr Curry’s judgment and not least due to the diversity and expertise of its denizens regardless of whether they supported AGW or not.

  34. Tomas Milanovic

    Editorial decisions. Topics. And tone. You must mention the tone!
    I really insist. Even if content is important, the form is extremely important for blogging too.
    I began to follow climate matters on blogs years ago on CA. Back then we had something like Dark Ages – on one side the official religion lead by IPCC and amplified by mass media , blogs and environmentalist pressure groups .
    On the other side there was basically John Daly and CA.

    CA back then dealt more with scientific content and theoretical considerations than today (I still remember the excellent thread on exponential divergence). And as I am a scientist, it appealed to me.

    So I learned first of your existence on CA.
    I must say that I was very surprised by your first post even if my first spontaneous move was to dismiss anything you wrote.
    It was very perturbing that one of the priests, a pal of the Manns , Schmidts and other Steigs of the world would post … on CA.
    Wasn’t CA the ultimate anathema, the untouchable?
    Any “real” scientist would immediately catch the pest and suffer a horrible professional death if he touched CA even with a very long spoon.
    So your motivations could only be some really dark and convoluted propaganda intent and therefore to be dismissed.

    However, strangely, your posts contained links and arguments. There were very little references to IPCC (kind : just read AR, you’ll find every truth inside).
    But most strikingly they were polite.
    Nothing like the young pup Colose who knows less about science than many of us have forgotten and yet presumes to give lessons about what should be worshipped and what is “crap”.
    Well it was espcially the tone and the very unusual apparent lack of arrogance that make the effort and read your posts. And I actually learned some interesting things about the dynamical core of the GCM (if you remember you posted about that).
    It didn’t change my opinion about the irrelevance of the GCM but I learned something and that is always good.

    And so it goes with Climate Etc.
    I have been a Denizen from Day1. It is my preferred climate science blog.
    It was more (in frequency) technical in the beginning (what I like) and it is less so now but still sufficiently to keep my interest.
    I find that the scientific level of the posters here is significantly higher than on ANY other climate blog with, perhaps, CA on a par but CA deals much much less with technical matters these days.

    The difference of level between RC and Climate Etc is abyssal.
    On RC are the admins who have a good level on a par with you but the few posters there are just parroting what the masters say. No added value, no intellectual curiosity, no civility and no tolerance.

    So in conclusion I’d say that I find your blog and your editorial policy of high quality and I would like to think that the fact that the tone of most posters is civil is reflecting the quality of the content.
    The quality of a blog and its success always finishes by being a kind of dual of the owner and creator.
    I think that civility attracts civility and trash attracts trash.
    Could be a lesson for some blog owners.

  35. Talking about most well understood and certain things how’s that thawing of Antarctica going? Or is it back to the grave danger of an ice surge now?

  36. Curry does a good job in a difficult area . In way that’s the problem because there are those who would be happier if she did a bad job if the result of that is that their views where dominate and that their outlook on AGW was the only one allowed . In other words they want this blog to be merely a reflection of RC .

    In the end you can never make everyone happy , cover what you think is right , do the job fairly and treat all posters equally , and you done as well as anyone can.

  37. Preface: I’m a relatively new reader of this blog, and I’m not a climate scientist. I’m an economist and stand-up comedian, and I’m mostly interested in the policy aspects of climate change, especially revenue-neutral carbon taxes. I’ve got three comments about the topic at hand:

    1) In my comedy routines I usually talk seriously for a few minutes about climate change, and the first thing I say is that everybody agrees that CO2 emissions are going up and everybody agrees that the main driver is human activity. It’s apparent from Salby’s talk that the second part here is wrong, so I’ll have to change it.

    2) As a non-scientist I am especially interested in predictions, because that gives me an easy way of figuring out who’s been right in the past and who’s likely to be right in the future. The IPCC says that the “primary source” of increased atmospheric CO2 increase is “fossil fuel use” (AR4, WG1SPM, p2, with a similar statement in AR3, WG1SPM, p7) and that global concentrations are currently increasing by about 1.9 ppm/year, up from 1.5ppm in AR3. I’m not sure exactly what Salby says (I didn’t hear any predictions, but I may have missed them) but if global CO2 continues to increase at an increasing rate—in line with global fossil fuel use—then I will have reason to put even more faith in what IPCC says on this topic. So I’m going to make a mental bookmark to check back in on this in a few years.

    3) Regarding Salby’s quote as highlighted by Judith Curry (“Anyone who thinks the science of this complex thing is settled is in Fantasia”): My understanding is that “certainty” is not a scientific concept, but policymakers have to act (or not act) on the basis of the information at hand. My strong presumption here (as noted above) is that the IPCC projections of CO2 are correct, and if that turns out to be true then I will almost certainly stop reading this blog. Curry will have done the equivalent of making a “Wow” post about whether HIV causes AIDS, and while that’s a fine topic for scientists, policymakers need to remember how events turned out for South Africa under “HIV skeptic” Thabo Mbeki.

    My conclusion: IPCC has been correct in the past few decades about global CO2, so my presumption is that they’ll continue to be correct. But I’ll keep an eye out for new data in the years ahead, and until then I’ll change my comedy routine to say that “almost everybody” agrees that the main driver of global CO2 is human activity.

    • What happened to the carbon before our short human appearance on this planet?
      Scientists admit that 95% of science is undiscovered or unsettled.Which means possibly only 5% of science might be correct.
      So far I found many areas not considered into science calculations from motion to the planets shape.

    • Yoaram: “My understanding is that “certainty” is not a scientific concept, but policymakers have to act (or not act) on the basis of the information at hand. My strong presumption here (as noted above) is that the IPCC projections of CO2 are correct, and if that turns out to be true then I will almost certainly stop reading this blog. Curry will have done the equivalent of making a “Wow” post about whether HIV causes AIDS, and while that’s a fine topic for scientists, policymakers need to remember how events turned out for South Africa under “HIV skeptic” Thabo Mbeki.”

      A similar comparison came to mind, but I’ve gotten so much whining from the commentors here that I initially didn’t make it.

      What JC has done is essentially ‘wow-’ed, ‘this is important so we should be talking about it’, ‘it could revolutionize the field’, etc. the climate/atmospheric chemistry equivalent of featuring a talk by Peter Duesberg’s HIV-AIDS denialism because he’s a former colleague and is bucking the mainstream. No one in the relevant medical or biological fields would hesitate to call that absurd at best, and greatly irresponsible.

      Not because they don’t believe that science should be a constant process of revisiting assumptions, or because they hate “free speech”. But because it’s nonsense, and highlighting it on one’s blog while giving the impression that it’s anything other than nonsense is going to grossly mislead an audience. Doing so as a member of the field in question greatly ups the potential to mislead. It is all but certain that at least one person will believe that the science demonstrating that humans are responsible for the increase in CO2 has been “debunked” due to JC promoting Salby’s nonsense and not rebutting it. Presumably, that’s an acceptable or even desirable outcome for JC.

      Is she “allowed” to do that? Of course. Should others be prevented from call it grossly misleading and ridiculous? Surely not.

      • This is my beef too.

        Coming from the medical feild, what is claimed to be ‘appreciating uncertainty’ looks more like paralysis. We are always working with incomplete knowledge, we will always know more tomorrow, but we need to be able to make decisions based on what we know today.

        I can’t imagine we’d make much progress in medical science if we had to constantly argue with people who claimed that ‘germs’ were a conspiracy to install one-world government.

      • We are always working with incomplete knowledge, we will always know more tomorrow, but we need to be able to make decisions based on what we know today.

        And based on that, do you tend to advocate cautious, incremental measures or do you go right for the “Hail Mary”?

        There are a great many people here who have advocated for the former and a vast majority opposed to the latter. There are also a fair number who seem to consider anything less than the latter to be “paralysis”. Would you count yourself in that number?

      • Michael –
        I can’t imagine we’d make much progress in medical science if we had to constantly argue with people who claimed that ‘germs’ were a conspiracy to install one-world government.

        If you’re in the medical field you should know that it’s only been about 100 years since that general kind of argument was being made about germs. Not one world government, of course, but others that were based on the “consensus” at the time.

        Consensus doesn’t mean right.

      • Exactly, we’ve moved on, way on.

        Judith says she wants a discussion at the “frontier of knowledge”, yet much of the discussion is lingering about a 100 years in the past, in effect debating ‘are germs real?’.

        This is the caboose…..and it’s been left waaaay behind.

      • No, Michael – this is the engine – the motivator for the “consensus”, the birthplace of the ideas and concepts that will drive the climate science of the future.

        You’re not required to believe that. Whether you do or not is irrelevant – and few, if any, will care one way or the other.

      • John Whitman

        Jim Owen,

        Yes! But this blog (and other blogs with openness (non-censoring)) is not just the engine but the fuel too!! It keeps us energized. : )

        I think Michael is likely decompensating from the ‘caboose effect’ of his intellectual dependency on those in the IPCC genre.

        John

      • :-) :-)

      • Michael,

        Some provocative thoughts. So let’s say we must reduce our collective carbon signature to avoid catastrophe and such a conclusion is supported by a climate science that is as settled as that of the germ theory of disease. Now wouldn’t we expect that those most knowledgeable in such a climate science to practice what they preach?

        Why then, are we treated to the annual carbon pig-out party spectacle offered up by the IPCC when low-carbon video conferencing is readily available? Why does Big-Green’s nomenklatura enjoy a lifestyle of preposterously high-carbon jets, yachts, rambling mansions, and private Carribean islands with little or no outrage from those most scientifically convinced of the carbon peril? You get the drift, Michael, I’m sure.

        So as a medical professional, Michael, don’t you take elementary precautions to maintain a germ-free hygiene in your professional and personal life? Indeed, what would we think of a medical professional who did not?

        In other words, the germ theory of disease is not just a theory for the “little” people, with a opt-out provision for the privileged few. Not quite the same with the greenshirt orthodoxy and its urgent demands on our lifestyles, not theirs.

      • “when low-carbon video conferencing is readily available?”

        video conferencing for such a big international meeting is fine in theory but in practice there are a number of problems you don’t get with a physical meeting. Such as which timezone do you hold the meetings in – if the meeting is held in the middle of the night in China guess who is going to complain? Do you continue if just one of the parties (inevitably) has connection problems? How do you facilitate private discussions/mixing outside of formal meetings.

      • mike,

        I’ll digress into medical analogies again, as I think one can make the point quite clearly.

        It’s a question of population health vs. individual behaviour.

        Yes handwashing is a good thing, but if the problem is polio, it won’t be much help. What did help, was a systematic program of immunisation.

        Likewise, a single climate scientist sitting in a cave eating raw lentils will do little to solve the problem. But contributing to a process that leads to the implementation of low-carbon economies- that would be a huge help.

      • At 10:34 PM on 5 August, Michael writes:

        I’ll digress into medical analogies again, as I think one can make the point quite clearly.

        It’s a question of population health vs. individual behaviour.

        Yes handwashing is a good thing, but if the problem is polio, it won’t be much help. What did help, was a systematic program of immunisation.

        Ooh, bad medical analogy, there, Michael. The mode of transmission for the picornavirus species called “Human poliovirus” is fecal-oral. Prophylaxis by way of vaccination is most strongly recommended, but if it is not available, then scrupulous cleanliness and minimization of contact with carriers is advised to minimize contracting the pathogen.

        Beyond that analogy, of course, there’s the fact that there is no proof that anthropogenic increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations are having any effect whatsoever on the global climate, which means that there is no justification for “the implementation of low-carbon economies” and the hideously destructive costs such a cement-headed act of religious faith must necessarily entail.

      • Rich,

        Michael’s probably forgotten all his med school stuff, and is perhaps due for a series of CMEs.

        One would imagine, from Michael’s expounding, that the polio vaccines create the very immunity that defends against it. Without the vaccine, eventually, the whole world would have been overrun by polio.

      • It’s settled science to wipe your fingers on your apron after examinations.
        ================

      • Sorry, Richie, evidently your knowledge of medicine is as rudimentary and unreliable as your knowledge of climate science.

        Michael is right and you are wrong. Maybe you should stick to misrepresenting one scientific field at a time?

      • Dumb, Robert – just plain dumb.

        Rich IS a doctor. You’re not.

      • Explain quickly why the Sabin vaccine works better than the Salk.
        ==============

      • Heh, Robert’s one too, but wouldn’t recognize polio if it hit him in the gut.
        ==========

      • Yes, Rich.

        And the transmission medium is typically water. Washing your hands in polio laden water will help very little.

        The only answer to polio was systematic vaccination.

      • No Soap? Radio!
        ============

      • At 12:43 AM on 6 August, Shub Niggurath writes:

        One would imagine, from Michael’s expounding, that the polio vaccines create the very immunity that defends against it. Without the vaccine, eventually, the whole world would have been overrun by polio.

        Well, absent vaccination, the rates of poliovirus infections can be high in any population. Most such infectious cases tend – like other types of enteroviral infection – to be minimally symptomatic and even almost completely asymptomatic, making it difficult to determine prevalence in those areas where infant and childhood vaccination regimes are not widely undertaken. Best information immediately available is that “Asymptomatic and minor infections (abortive poliomyelitis) are more common than nonparalytic or paralytic infections by ≥ 60:1 and are the main source of spread.

        The great benefit of vaccination is the induction of “herd immunity,” and this was one of the reasons why the live attenuated oral polio vaccine (the Sabin type) was so popular in these United States until relatively recently. A person receiving this type of polio vaccine would be “infected” with the weakened virus strains, and would then shed the attenuated live virus and transmit it – beneficially, it was assumed – to those around him.

        A certain number of iatrogenic cases of paralytic poliomyelitis have always been associated with this vaccine type, and among populations in countries like the USA where poliovirus transmission has been diminished by decades of “herd immunity,” the risk/benefit ratio conferred by active oral polio vaccine (OPV) became such that the employment of the inactivated – “killed” – vaccine (IPV) became standard of care in 2000 in order to avoid the rare development of pathogenicity among those carrying or contracting the attenuated organisms.

        Those of us whose childhood years pre-date the Salk vaccine recall the public health closure of “polio pits” – freshwater swimming holes – during the summer months, whereas adequate chlorination was able to inactivate the poliovirus strains.

        Michael might be made mindful that the practice of handwashing also includes the use of soap, which – like chlorination of the water in swimming pools – serves to inactivate the poliovirus (as well as other infectious pathogens).

        The technical medicolegal term for a physician who merely rinses his hands in water after examining a patient is “defendant.”

        And when it comes to Robert, well…

        Robert does give the expression “fecal-oral” a meaning a bit more evocative what’s commonly accorded in the medical literature, doesn’t he?

      • Rich,

        You do know that plain old soap does not have an antiseptic effect (“inactiviate”?) on poliovirus don’t you? It’s purely a mechanistic removal effect.

        The reason for the persistence of high rates of polio in the devolping world was primarily due to the lack of sanitation(ie sewage systems) and clean water (systematic chorlination).

        As with out current AGW dilema, changing personal behaviour was never going to give the kind of results that a population health approach could, and did.

      • At 2:16 AM on 6 August, Michael writes:

        You do know that plain old soap does not have an antiseptic effect (“inactiviate”?) on poliovirus don’t you? It’s purely a mechanistic removal effect.

        And you do recognize, Michel, that all the soaps employed by health care providers in patient contact environments contain antimicrobicidal components which do inactivate poliovirus and other infectious pathogens, don’tcha?

        Hell, I even keep microbicidal soap in my house call kit.

        Er, does your professional liability insurance carrier have any idea of your “low-hanging fruit” status among the local Plaintiff’s Bar?

        As for “our current AGW dilemma,” have you any evidence-based argument that anthropogenic carbon dioxide (aCO2) emissions has caused, is causing, or could ever cause significant adverse effects upon the global climate of any kind whatsoever?

        Remember, even though they’re really, really fancy and expensive and they draw impressive graphs, computer climate models’ output is not evidence.

        In truth, the only “current AGW dilemma” we face is the result of a criminal fraud perpetrated by a crowd of quacks masquerading as “climate scientists,” aided and abetted by malfeasant elected and appointed officers of civil government and actors in the private sector exploiting both the general hysteria and the diversion of public funds to subsidized boondoggles like solar and wind power generation.

        Oh, and let’s not forget “carbon credit” trading while we’re at it.

        Have you no grasp yet, Michael, on the adverse public and personal health effects of the poverty los warmistas have inflicted and are still trying to inflict on our patients?

      • Rich,

        This was an analogy. And a good one for the point being made – individual vs. systematic responses to large problems.

        Alcohol based hand rubs might be commonplace in hospitals, but they definitely weren’t in homes in developing countries. And even if they were, systematic vaccination was the solution, not individual behaviour change.

        You do understand this don’t you?

      • At 8:24 AM on 6 August, Michael temporizes in an effort to defend is literary device, writing:

        This was an analogy. And a good one for the point being made – individual vs. systematic responses to large problems.

        Yep, and it was a spectacularly bad analogy, not only because there were valid mitigatory practices available to reduce the risks of contracting poliovirus infections before Dr. Salk created his vaccine – and those practices still work – but also that you’re trying to draw a wholly false and therefore deceptive analogy between polio and the preposterous bogosity of adverse (even “catastrophic”) man-made global warming.

        The difference, doctor, is that back Dr. Salk’s day, there was hard, evidence-supported scientific proof for the role played by Human poliovirus as the contagious element in the etiology of poliomyelitis, and there is no such evidence today that anthropogenic carbon dioxide (aCO2) emissions have ever caused, are presently causing, or could ever cause significant adverse “global climate change.”

        Have you noticed, doctor, that this is a point I’ve been making and you’ve been evading?

        Perhaps, doctor, you’re too young to have experience of the years before the concept of “evidence-based medicine” achieved the currency we presently take for granted.

        It was a pretty big deal back in the early-to-mid ’90s.

        Are you ever going to apply EBM valuation standards to the quackery of the “climatology” charlatans who’ve perpetrated the greatest single fraud in the history of science (right up there with Dr. Wakefield), or have you so benightedly plighted your troth to this preposterous bogosity – for political reasons, perhaps? – that your intellectual integrity is completely blown?

      • Rich,

        Are you really suggesting that polio could have been dealt with without vaccination, or was “mitigation” just thrown in as a bit of a rhetorical flourish to avoid the appearance of conceding fully?

        “there is no such evidence today that anthropogenic carbon dioxide (aCO2) emissions have ever caused, are presently causing, or could ever cause significant adverse “global climate change.””

        Well since we know the role CO2 has played in major climatic shifts, I’m guessing this is some kind of lame attempt at sophistry by adding the prefix ‘anthropogenic’ to CO2. Even then it seems to presume the effect of aCO2 might somehow be different from non-aCO2.

        An interesting, if entirely evidence free, assertion.

      • These wizards of hand sanitation doubtless have no more respect for Godliness than they do for Cleanliness, both ancient and reliable aids to public health.
        ====================

      • At 9:21 AM on 6 August, we have Michael – who has apparently claimed to be a physician but who seems to have no goddam concept whatsoever of the expression “evidence-based” – persisting in his false “polio vaccination = crushing the life out of industrial civilization to reduce our carbon footprint” analogy, writing:

        Are you really suggesting that polio could have been dealt with without vaccination, or was “mitigation” just thrown in as a bit of a rhetorical flourish to avoid the appearance of conceding fully?

        Nope. Before the Salk vaccine became available, however, “mitigation” by way of community and individual sanitary precautions was all we had. You’re pretty much obviously not old enough to have had personal experience of those days, and you’re also pretty obviously not up on the history of pubic health or what temporizing measures are undertaken even today in venues where vaccination is not an option for one reason (poverty) or another (culture), but what the heck.

        Beyond that, of course, there’s the fact that your “vaccination = carbon emission reduction” analogy is absolutely bogus.

        Y’see, doctor, as I’ve observed (and you’ve evaded), there had been a definite causal link between infection with the Human poliovirus and the development of poliomyelitis established before Dr. Salk and his associates undertook the development of their vaccine, and strong presumptive evidence that prior exposure to the pathogen could confer immunity upon the individual.

        By contrast, there is no objective evidence for “the role [you claim] CO2 has played in major climatic shifts,” and I’m going to keep pointing this out whenever you pustulate in this forum pushing the AGW fraud.

        I repeat: the outputs of computer climate simulations are not evidence. And that’s all your beloved “climate science” fraudsters have ever offered.

        Hell, we’ve got increasing evidence that the anthropogenic contribution to atmospheric CO2 is purely insignificant in comparison with natural sources and their variations in intensity, and that any efforts we might make at purposeful mitigation (either punishing people to reduce their “carbon footprint” or actively throwing money down holes in the ground to effect “sequestration”) are similarly insignificant compared with natural carbon dioxide sinks.

        Jeez, if you actually treat real, live patients the way you approach the question of “the role CO2 has played in major climatic shifts,” would you please notify your professional liability insurance carrier so that they can get a risk mitigation crisis intervention team in your grill ASAP?

        If you’re seeing pediatric patients, let’s just say that they’d also be doing it “for the children.”

      • Dearest Semmelweis:
        Still we’ve doctors won’t wash hands.
        Sacrifice again.
        ======

      • “Before the Salk vaccine became available, however, “mitigation” by way of community and individual sanitary precautions was all we had.”

        And wasn’t that going splendidly? Oh wait, it wasn’t.

        “false “polio vaccination = crushing the life out of industrial civilization to reduce our carbon footprint” analogy”

        Yes, that would be false…if that is what I was saying.
        Most realise that deliberately misconstruing others’ argument is a sign of bad faith in debate, and that bad faith usually stems from the realisation that their case is weak.

        “definite causal link between infection with the Human poliovirus and the development of poliomyelitis established before Dr. Salk and his associates undertook the development of their vaccine, and strong presumptive evidence that prior exposure to the pathogen could confer immunity upon the individual. ”

        Really? Is that how it works? Amazing!

        “By contrast, there is no objective evidence for “the role [you claim] CO2 has played in major climatic shifts,”

        For 1 point, explain the end of the ice ages (hint: you’ll need CO2 to do it).

      • At 8:55 PM on 6 August, Michael had composed a non-response reply to my post at 4:08 PM evading as usual. He complained that my characterization of his false “polio vaccination = crushing the life out of industrial civilization to reduce our carbon footprint” analogy was not what he’d been saying, but fails to explain precisely how his analogy was to be otherwise interpreted, instead writing nothing more than:

        Most realise that deliberately misconstruing others’ argument is a sign of bad faith in debate, and that bad faith usually stems from the realisation that their case is weak.

        Repeat: nothing more.

        Gawd, there are tort lawyers out there just salivating at the prospect of getting a doctor such as this guy in a deposition or – better yet – on the witness stand.

        But Michael is probably a Canadian or a Brit or somesuch other kind of “Standard English” spelling type, so the rabid weasels of ATLA will have to deal with disappointment.

        Little hint, doctor: explicitly clarify your assertion when you accuse a disputant of misinterpreting – deliberately or erroneously – that assertion on your part. That’s what’s expected of you in debate.

        Otherwise the conclusion that you are acting in “bad faith” is inescapable.

        When it comes to the lack of objective evidence for “the role [Michael claims] CO2 has played in major climatic shifts,” all that is gotten is the Delphic non-response:

        For 1 point, explain the end of the ice ages (hint: you’ll need CO2 to do it).

        Nope. The influence of the sun is more than sufficient both short-term and long-term, and your perseverative noise about “CO2,” doctor, fails in consideration of the greater influence upon ices ages of terrestrial orbital hysteresis (look up “Milankovitch cycles”).

        Would someone please explain to Michael the meaning of the expression: “PPR or STFU”?

      • Sorry about the HTML errors, all. I really should not try to compose a post in one of these “Leave a Reply” boxes while I’m on the phone helping a colleague put the finishing touches on the CME activity he’s got to present tomorrow morning.

      • Rich,

        “but fails to explain precisely how his analogy was to be otherwise interpreted,”

        I’ll repeat myself for the 3rd time; it’s the difference between individual behaviour change (personal hygiene) and systematic approaches (vaccination). That’s the analogy. Perhaps your obsession with discussing hospital handwashing practices was interfering with your comprehension?

        See, it’s not so complicated!

        “The influence of the sun is more than sufficient both short-term and long-term, and your perseverative noise about “CO2,” doctor, fails in consideration of the greater influence upon ices ages of terrestrial orbital hysteresis (look up “Milankovitch cycles”). ”

        This explains a lot – sorry Rich, that’ a fail. 0/1

        Orbital perturbations (milankovitch) can only account for the initiation of ending glacial periods. They are quite a weak forcing. That initial warming increases GHGs, eg CO2, providing the positve feedback that partially accounts for the relatively rapid demise of glaciation.
        The transition from glacial to interglacial via milankovitch can only be explained with CO2. This is well understood.

        Being so keen on evidence, I’m sure you’ll now incorporate this new information into your understanding of climate science.

        So next time you’ll be saying;
        ‘there is objective evidence for the role CO2 has played in major climatic shifts, and I’m going to keep pointing this out whenever anyone pustulate (sic) in this forum pushing the idea that AGW is a fraud.’

        Good.

      • Still (as ever) without support, at 11:20 AM on 7 August, we have Michael vomiting up his assertion that his false analogy between polio vaccination and the forcible imposition of “low carbon emission” devastation upon the economy is to be considered as an explanation of

        …the difference between individual behaviour change (personal hygiene) and systematic approaches (vaccination).

        And I repeat that Michael‘s analogy fails because – and he does keep evading this, doesn’t he? – there was objective evidence supporting the theory upon which the concept of vaccination is based and there is still no objective evidence that atmospheric carbon dioxide is a significant factor (much less the key culprit) in adverse global climate change.

        He continues bereft of support for his warmista religious (or is it neurotic?) fixation on carbon dioxide in his assertion that “The transition from glacial to interglacial via [M]ilankovitch can only be explained with CO2” by providing nothing more than his equally unsupported assertion “This is well understood.

        Whoopee! Michael, have you ever so much as prepared a manuscript for submission to a referee’d medical journal?

        I want to see you try to get away with “This is well understood” as support for an assertion of fact you’d made in your manuscript.

        In case you missed it, Michael, in an earlier post I offered you the admonition “PPR or STFU.”

        The acronym “PPR” translates as “please provide references.”

        “STFU” is left as an exercise to the student.

      • Rich,

        You fulminate with such confidence, I would have thought you would have at least covered this elementary piece of climate science at some point.

        http://www.atmos.washington.edu/2003Q4/211/articles_required/Lorius90_ice-core.pdf

      • At 12:36 PM on 7 August, in response – feeble enough, but finally – to a repeated “PPR or STFU” admonition, Michael grunts up a review article (Lorius et al, Nature, 13 September 1990), in return for which I recommend that he get a look into work a bit more recent, presented by Professor Murry Salby at the 2011 meeting of the IUGG in Melbourne this past June.

        Discussion of this presentation and the scheduled publication of Dr. Salby’s research is being conducted on Dr. Curry’s Web site here and here, and is therefore convenient to Michael‘s review.

        In a presentation connected with this work (audio available online), Dr. Salby was asked about the reliability of ice core assessments of atmospheric carbon dioxide over the millennia and replied that the confidence vested in these measurements as “biopsies” of atmospheric contents in the remote past appears to be without justification, particularly in light of new appreciations of confounding factors in the slow but still dynamic distribution of gases in these masses of frozen precipitation over the centuries.

        Your citation of nothing more than a twenty-year-old review article, doctor, would be a “fail” if you were discussing current standards of care in the management of chronic bronchitis or post-infarctive heart failure.

        It’s similarly a “fail” here, too.

      • Rich,

        It’s a classic, that’s why I gave it to you to read.

        It’s the paper that predicted the ‘CO2 lags temp change’ aspect of past climate change. You know, that same meme that ‘skeptics’ repeat ad nauseum without understanding that the are actually acknowledging the role of CO2 as a significant positive feedback in global temps.

        Anyway, there’s a bunch of later papers confirming this and looking at the role of GHGs in amplifying the initial warming from orbital effects.

        And you respond to this highly cited paper with….Salby.

        Massive own-goal by “evidenced-based” man.

        Why do you place such faith (yes, it is faith) in Salby? You haven’t read the paper- it’s not published yet. You haven’t seen the data – it’ not published yet. Evidence – zero.

        Believing in something for which you have no evidence is, you know it! – quackery.

        If you return to your senses and want to deal in evidence, rather than wishful thinking, I’ll post a few more of the papers dealing with the role of CO2 in degalciation.

        Before too long we will have you saying;
        ‘there is objective evidence for the role CO2 has played in major climatic shifts, and I’m going to keep pointing this out whenever anyone pustulate (sic) in this forum pushing the idea that AGW is a fraud’

      • Hmmm, this is unusual – silence from Rich.

        Maybe he’s had the good sense to be embarrassed by his completely credulous acceptance of Salby’s evidence free assertions.

      • Michael,

        Sorry, my reply is wrongly placed in the thread–my responses to you and lolowot are nested under Rich Matarese’s comment.

      • Thank you lolowot for your courteous and thoughtful reply. Yeah there’s problems with video conferencing and any number of other carbon-reduction driven modifications of our lifestyles if carbon reduction is indeed required. But every problem with video conferencing you’ve cited is solvable–indeed, the noted problems are virtually inconsequential, except that they are considerations that must be provided for in the video conference planning. For example, some folks will be up in the middle of the night–tough! it’s for the kids. Won’t be the first folks to work a night shift or pull a night watch. Remember, we’re talking the IPCC which should be showing the example.

        Your comment, lolowot, was courteous so I don’t want take a cheap-shot and return your good faith with some half-baked snark. But let me offer an outlandish suggestion: Could the real problem some might have with video-conferencing the IPCC conference be that the confab would be no fun absent the taxpayer-funded travel to an exotic tourist destination and the really great party? I ask this, because it seems to me that all of this carbon reduction advocacy takes the form that certain “lucky ones” keep their high-carbon “good deals” while Joe-Six-Pack looses his monster truck and tail-gate bashes. And I don’t like that because I’m kinda partial to Joe and think he, too, deserves a sliver of the pie and a form of the “good life.”

        Again, lolowot, thanks for your fine reply, if my response doesn’t come across right, my apologies–just doing my best to make a point.

      • lolowot,

        As an afterthought, let me also comment on the video conference issues of connectivity and after-hours mixing/private discussions. The connectivity matter is no more of a problem than if the flight of one or another delegation is delayed/canceled. A non-problem, really–the show must go on. As for mixing and private discussions, well facebook, e-mail, snail mail and the like should fill the bill. Not at all the same thing as a boozy late-night face-to-face, I know, but a necessary adjust to the old ways if we are to reduce our carbon signature so as to avoid catastrophic anthropogenic warming. One of the smaller sacrifices, I would imagine.

      • Latimer Alder

        And think of all the CO2 that won’t be given off by not brewing the booze that the participants won’t drink. Win-win!

        Suggestion – along with all alarmists eschewing any motorised transportation/air conditioning/heating etc to show their commitment to Mother Gaia, they should all completely refrain from alcohol until global CO2 levels have stabilised.

        That would be a real demonstration of commitment and that they take the problem seriously.

      • I’ll drink to that, Latimer. Heck, I’ll even buy you a pint, and we can drink to it together.

      • Michael,

        Thank you as well for a courteous and well-considered reply. Undoubtedly, my limited powers of communication confused the issue, but I am not seeking a carbon-reduction gesture or two from some ascetic climate science eccentric. Rather, I’m looking for leadership by example and from the front by those most convinced of the carbon peril and loudest and most impassioned in urgiing sacrifice on others. I’m a “little” guy and I’ve had enough of our betters sending elegant missives from ivory towers and luxurious chateaux, well behind the lines, requiring Joe-Six-Packs, like me, to fight harder and sacrifice more bravely.

        I, like most “Joes” am prepared to reduce my materiel lifestyle, if such a sacrifice is truly needed, but I want to see “Big Al” (and all the “little al” clones) living in a rabbit-hutch and riding a bicycle first. And if our betters aren’t willing to give up their high-carbon toys and carbon-hoggie lifestyle? Well, then, my estimate of the situation is that it’s all a hustle, since even our betters wouldn’t truly destroy the world over a yacht or two, I’m sure. That’s “little guy” logic, Michael. It has its faults but it keeps use Joe’s alive to fight another day.

        Video-conferencing the next IPCC annual conference will go a long way to convince me there really is a need to reduce carbon, incidentally and for what it’s worth.

      • Mike, I’m glad you recognize that you are totally ignorant of science, and that you admit you basis your decision in that regard on your resentment of a successful and prosperous former politicitian.

        The rest of your noise, of course, is not of any interest in trying to determine the truth of the science. While I admire your awareness of your own mediocrity, to get to the truth we need better-than-average thinkers. ;)

      • “basis” should be “base.” ;)

      • Still having reading comprehension problems, Robert?

      • Robert should wash his hands between comments.
        =================

      • O. K. Robert, since my original reply has been understandably removed by the moderator, I’ll offer a more toned down response.

        Let me unpack this gem of a comment you’ve left me. Well, let’s see. First, we have an expression of reverential, star-struck love of Al Gore (while once obligatory, don’t you think that’s a little retro now, Robert?). And then what else? Some lamebrain attempt at snark (not your strong suit, Robert). And then there’s the tone of the comment–sort of a hot-and-bothered, angry chihuahua quality there. In all, a rather milquetoast example of the dorkish unpleasantness we’ve come to cherish in our greenshirts.

        So what’s that leave us? A claim that I realize I am “totally ignorant of science.” Well, on that one, Robert, while I probably know more science than your beloved Al Gore, for the sake of argument, I’ll concede the point. But recall, Robert, the little CAGW hustle to which you’ve hitched your wagon has two parts–there’s the “science” part and then there’s the part where the greenshirts use that “science” as a cover to launch–surprise!–yet another lefty brave-new-world. And my specialty is getting inside the greenshirt OODA loop in that last dimension. You know, Robert, you don’t need to be a rocket-scientist to be able to do that; just a knack.

      • It’s hard to be specific in response to such a broad brush complaint.

        Is one climate scientist riding a bike enough to win you over?

        Do you really know so much about the lifestyle of climate scientists, or is this just another pointless jab at an ex-politician?

      • Michael,

        Here’s what I want. A High-Carbon Lifestyle tax, applicable to anyone making over $500,000/year. The proposed tax would allow any affected tax-payer a world-wide residency allowance of 500 sq ft/regular resident. Taxpayers exceeding that allowance would then be taxed on the excess to that allowance until at 2000 sq ft/regular resident the taxpayer’s income would be taxed out of existence. Similar taxes would apply to yachts, vacation homes, recreational air-travel, private jets and any similar source of high-carbon consumption. Passs such a tax and enforce it rigorously for five years, then invite me to see the carbon-reduced lifestyle of the rich and famous. At that point, I’ll be convinced (if there’s no cheating) and ready to join the party–until then, no thanks.

        A bit tongue in cheek, but something along those lines, Michael. I mean, it seems to me that the public has lost its enthusiasm for carbon reduction and I don’t think advocates like you will reverse that trend absent a dramatic demonstration of leadership from the front and by example. You’re a smart guy, Michael, and so it’s probably best for me to leave it to you to come up with the “brainstorms.”

      • You need to worry when they fasten on ‘energy footprint’ rather than ‘carbon footprint’.
        ==========

      • Mike, I think he prefers blamestorms and you as the lightening rod.

        Though you and others craft a good human question: Why should I scrimp and save and sacrifice until penniless and impoversihed so the high priests that made my impoverishment can condemn me for my sins while enjoying all that a high carbon life style can give?

        Perhaps you have also wondered why they refuse to dicuss the subject, just pontificate. After all, what does it cost compared to what they ask you to sacrifice to answer your questions. It is the most important problem to face our current generations yet it is not worth taking the time and explaining it and getting you to buy in to it. Why is that?

        Perhaps another question you should ask is what do they mean by sustainability for all generations, and this generational guilt of if we use it, we somehow use up some other generation’s resource. At what rate can we expect iron, or oil, or any of a literal host of chemicals and minerals to be re-supplied by the earth? Because I would maintian that without better definition, the best we could hope for without continued advancements is but a few generations. Do they understand what “all”, and “forever more” actually mean? And if they do, what are they actually proposing other than something that makes them feel good, and if not, why should you trust them at all if they can’t even define the problem well enough to make sense?

      • “but we need to be able to make decisions based on what we know today”

        …and not make decisions based on what we don’t know.

        Andrew

      • BTW Michael, could you list what you think we “know” (your word) in regards to Climate Science? Thanks.

        Andrew

      • The planet is warming and it’s not; the sun, the PDO, ENSO, the earth’s core, an artifact of the satellite record, an artifact of the land temp record, a vast conspiracy to impose one world government, leprechauns, or Al Gore.

        CO2 is a GHG.

        Increasing GHGs will lead to increasing temps

        CO2 has increased since pre-industrial times

        The ocean is a net CO2 sink

        Anthropogenic CO2 emissions are far greater than volcanic CO2 emmissions

        The increase in CO2 is anthropogenic.

        Climate sensitivity is not 1. It’s not 10.

        Climate sensitivity is most likely around 3 deg.

        The observed increases in temperature are very likely the result of anthropogenic CO2 emmsions since pre-industrial times.

        Higher temps will lead to; sea level rise due to thermal expansion, ice loss and possibly further sea-level rise, increased intensity of cyclones, increased rainfall intensity, increased duration and severity of drought, alteration to species distributions, alteration to ecosystem composition.

        How’s that for a start?

      • The trouble is that little word “we.” Andrew doesn’t know those things, because he chooses to be ignorant. But ignorance is not a superpower. “We” may not all agree to those things, but the portion of the “we” which is scientifically literate overwhelming does. If a science illiterate chooses to embrace faith over evidence, who cares?

        It is not the responsibility of those with knowledge to endlessly argue with those that choose to be ignorant, and it is not necessary, or wise, to defer decisions until everyone on the fringe can someone be compelled to accept the facts.

      • One day, perhaps far in the future, Robert will make a wrong diagnosis.
        ====================

      • Latimer Alder

        Would be interested to know how you distinguish ‘science-literate’ form ‘science-illiterate’? What criteria do you use to judge?

        And which camp do you assess yourself to be in,,, and why? Any evidence to support your view?

      • It is not the responsibility of those with knowledge to endlessly argue with those that choose to be ignorant

        So why do you?

      • Kim,

        Medical science is known for making spectacular misdiagnoses – but practitioners have the peculiar ability of being able to bury their mistakes.

      • … the portion of the “we” which is scientifically literate … If a science illiterate chooses to embrace faith over evidence, who cares?
        Our real problem though is the IPCC/consensus – science literates who choose faith over evidence.

      • Michael trots out the “Climate sensitivity is most likely around 3 deg” item of blind faith, amidst a number of uncontentious claims – I suppose imagining no one would notice.

      • Michael,
        The problem is that the IPCC/AGW cmommunity ids demanding radical surgery on a problem they alone have defined, and with no supporting evidence.
        Additionally, it is clear the radical treatment the IPCC/ AGW community is demanding is with definite high risk to the patient and with no defined benefits.
        To top it off, the one treatment demanded is one that many of those are financially and socially benefiting from promoting, yet when small scale tests of their cure are tried, no promised benefits are realized.

      • The problem is that the IPCC/AGW cmommunity ids demanding radical surgery on a problem they alone have defined, and with no supporting evidence.

        I want a second opinion – and probably a third.

      • John Whitman

        Jim Owen,

        Concur but I would like to change your comment to;

        “I want a second opinion set of independent (of the IPCC) assessments – and probably a third set.”

        And I want those assessments to take all the time that is necessary to allow, finally, some really open and comprehensively active discourse.

        John

      • John –
        I think we said the same thing. Same concept, just different words. :-)

      • Jim,
        One would be enough it were credible.
        As it is, we are instead getting what is claimed to be multiple lines of suport which turn out to be the smae thing simply repeated over and over.
        And none of htem hold up under scrutiny.
        notice especially that the typical AGW believer when confronted about the catastrophic nature of their claims, they fall back to the Trenberth null- that we are changing things.
        So what if we are changing things?
        What do we do about it is the only question worth asnswering.
        None of the alleged cures are proportionate to the risk in either ‘cure’ or ‘cost’ or ‘risk’.

      • We’ve already had hundreds.

        Continuing to seek ‘second opinions’ is known as “doctor shopping” – ie hoping someone will tell you the story you want to hear.

      • No – there’s been only one – that’s been parroted by hundreds.

      • The real reason why the medical analogy fails is that if a doctor tries some new procedure, and leaves a trail of dead bodies, people notice. It’s kind of self-correcting. Climate scientists, OTOH, can be wrong decade in and decade out, and the evidence is so ambiguous (and usually in some gawdforsaken part of the world where humans never go), that complete systemic failure can and does go unnoticed.

        And then something like climategate comes out, and what do they do? Quick! Hide the bodies!

      • David Bailey

        Thingsbreak,

        You do not seem to realise how exasperated a lot of us are, at climate science as it is currently conducted. For example, there is a book doing the rounds, “The Hockey Stick Illusion”, that contains a detailed analysis of the statistics of Mann’s historical reconstruction of climate – and I am sure you can guess what the conclusion it comes to!

        There is absolutely no point in merely claiming that there is other evidence pointing in the same direction. You have to get rid of the mistakes, and see what is left.

        I suspect I am not untypical when I say that the first step in making me believe in AGW science would be to publish a line by line response to that book, or to persuade Mann to withdraw his paper. Leaving an important flawed paper in the literature just because it is seen to be “on message”, just isn’t science.

        Rather than huffing and puffing about websites such as this, the AGW crowd could do themselves no end of good by purging all the fraudulent/shoddy work and the blatant exaggerations – we could then discover if there really is a core of truth remaining regarding AGW.

    • Yoram:
      I suspect most here are intrigued by Salby’s claim – but as of yet there is no justification for changing the general view that the current increase in CO2 is due to our burning of fossil fuels.
      As for uncertainty and predictions, I recommend you take a look at Dan Gardner’s Future Babble especially the very intriguing last chapter. Judging by the manner in which Salby handled the questions at the meeting, he sounds like he is more “fox” than “hedgehog” – which in itself is grounds for being cautious about accepting his assertions as definitive.

  38. Judith: There will always be the few who can’t comprehend why a blogger prepares posts about specific subjects. For some unknown reason, those persons can’t comprehend a very basic reality: it’s your blog. You blog about what you want to blog about.

    The topics you select and your even-handed moderation are the primary reasons your blog has become so successful.

  39. Judith,
    How much fuel would you save if you had a much less amount of friction hindering your car?
    The solution would take a few modifications as it would generate an incredibly bad steering situation for the driver displacing the molecules that would normally slow the vehicle down.

    Just showing that being ignored has it’s benefits of unhindered discoveries or research.

  40. ‘Kyoto has permitted different groups to tell different stories about themselves to themselves and to others, often in superficially scientific language. But, as we are increasingly coming to understand, it is often not questions about science that are at stake in these discussions. The culturally potent idiom of the dispassionate scientific narrative is being employed to fight culture wars over competing social and ethical values.’

    The Wrong Trousers: Radically Rethinking Climate Policy
    Gwyn Prins & Steve Rayner

    The scientist has a lot of experience with ignorance and doubt and uncertainty, and this experience is of very great importance, I think. When a scientist doesn’t know the answer to a problem, he is ignorant. When he has a hunch as to what the result is, he is uncertain. And when he is pretty darned sure of what the result is going to be, he is in some doubt. We have found it of paramount importance that in order to progress we must recognize the ignorance and leave room for doubt. Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty — some most unsure, some nearly sure, none absolutely certain.

    Richard Feynman: What Do You Care What Other People Think?: Further Adventures of a Curious Character

    Climate is orders of magnitude more dynamic and complex than climate models – and climate models are themselves dynamically complex. The results of models are solutions in a complex phase space creating irreducible imprecision as a result of uncertainties in initial conditions (sensitive dependence) and in boundary conditions (structural instability). The plausibility of any solution is an a posteriori judgement The limits to irreducible imprecision in atmospheric and oceanic simulations (AOS) are unknown as they have not been systematically explored in purpose designed model families.

    Now I could put this more colloquially – - but would that be talking superficially in the idiom of science? There is no uniquely plausible solution for climate projections in any of the AOS. All of the solutions for ‘sensitivity’ for instance – are selected subjectively from a range of possible solutions from plausibly formulated models. The subjectively chosen solution is forwarded to the IPCC where it is graphed along with the subjectively chosen solutions from other models and the mean magically becomes the most likely through the mad theory of ‘ensembles’. And the people who most ardently promote this are the ones who are clueless as to the reality of models – like Fred and Chris. The modellers metaphorically throw the dice until they roll a natural. So the future is still uncertain – so what’s new?

    Science also tells us that climate is dynamic and complex – just like models only spatially as well. Climate shifts abruptly at all timescales and all across the globe. It is a system with competing negative and positive feedbacks and uncertain thresholds. Tremendous energies cascading though powerful systems. Climate shifts on decadal scales with abrupt changes in hydrology and in the trajectory of global surface temperatures. Much of the abrupt change come from the the El Nino Southern Oscillation/Pacific Decadal Variation patterns. Most ‘recent warming’ occurred in the ENSO ‘dragon-kings’ of 1976/77 and 1997/98 – not slow but abrupt changes. Most of the rest seems to have been from PVD cloud radiative feedback – if we can believe NASA/GISS. There is no CO2 signal (whether natural or anthropogenic) distinguishable from natural variation in the satellite radiative flux record.

    Science tells us that we are in a cool Phase of the PVD – so cooling is in the dice for a decade or three more as La Nina continues to increase in intensity and frequency in the Pacific. You’ve just gotta pretend it isn’t happening. Beyond that – be dragons.

    Is this a climate paradigm? It sure is.

  41. Dr Curry you’re too kind, and you apparently have the patience of a Saint. How you do it is beyond me.

    For the blogmob – we all know “why” we write anything; we all know that we’re frequently misunderstood –even when the person we’re communicating with is an arm’s length away and can see us as plain as day; most of us understand what JC is speaking about here; some of us have no clue; some of us are no better than Chicken Little and (perhaps) never will be. Life’s a beach, take it as you find it and deal with it; it could be worse, you might be trying to blog with a mob.

  42. “I am striving for something different, sort of an e-salon where we discuss interesting topics at the knowledge frontier.”
    (My bold)

    That’s what makes this blog so interesting, even, or perhaps especially for those of us who look at what is going on from a different perspective, a different science discipline.

    In the best French salons of the 18th and 19th century all contributions were allowed. One didn’t have to be a poet to give a pithy critique of the latest effort on display. Exceedingly good manners were a must, else one never was invited back.
    Oh – and teenagers (according to age or mentality) were definitely not allowed to attend …
    :-)

    Thanks for this particular e-salon, and hopefully some will start to recognise it as such, and not as a battlefield or a farmyard, where peacocks with the largest tail feather displays win.

  43. My post at “The Way Things Break” has been deleted so I am posting it here

    Thingsbreak

    I see this blog cited approvingly by “skeptics” online, and it has without exception been in the context of dismissing, ridiculing, or otherwise attacking the mainstream.

    The IPCC compared the recent global warming rate with global warming rate for a longer period that has a combination this recent warming and previous global cooling phase and declared to the world “accelerated warming.”

    http://bit.ly/b9eKXz

    When the IPCC and the mainstream make such obviously false claim, they must be dismissed, ridiculed or otherwise attacked until they retract their false claim.

    The correct interpretation is that the global mean temperature (GMT), for the last 130 years, from 1880 to 2010, has oscillated like a pendulum between the upper and lower GMT boundary lines, with the global warming trend line as the neutral position of the pendulum, as shown in the following graph.

    http://bit.ly/nicmt9

    At the moment, the GMT is near its upper boundary line, and like a pendulum will swing to the lower GMT boundary line in the next decades.

    No explanation is required because that was what happened after 1880s and 1940s.

    To claim continued warming of 0.2 deg C per decade by the IPCC, when the GMT (the pendulum) is near its upper boundary line is to violate physics and nature.

    • Girma: “My post at “The Way Things Break” has been deleted”

      Uh, not it hasn’t. Why make things up?

      Right. Because that’s just what you do.

      • Girma, thingsbreak’s blog is just a really slow blog with few readers. Your post was probably waiting for his approval. He has to approve the posting because he needs to control the message there and so he can think of insults and trash talk for anyone that presents a dissenting view. Hence low number of readers and lack of any variety in postings on his blog.

      • You must be so concerned by the fate of mankind that youwould shut up other people for not telling the (your) truth.

      • That’s for the thingbreaker.

      • Thingsbreak

        Sorry

        It was not there when I last checked.

      • If you say a post is deleted that means to us that it was posted and then taken down. That’s different than being stuck in moderation, or sent to the bit bucket.

      • That’s okay, seems to have been a harmless misunderstanding. I appreciate the apology, and I apologize in turn for my impolite rejoinder.

  44. Colose

    A touch of humility would improve the prospects of those seeking knowledge listening to what you to say, until then I, and I suspect many others, will simply ignore your sermons.

    In particular, your understanding of atmospheric physics is remarkably naive, it’s as if a nuclear physicist was arguing that because it’s perfectly safe to put two 1cm cubes of U238 in close proximity it must be safe to repeat the exercise with 10 cubes. Salby has more than 40 climate related papers & books in his publication list, might I ask how many you have?

    Steig

    In my opinion, the rank hypocrisy that your personal involvement in the peer review process of the O’Donnell paper exposed and your apparent inability to accept cogent criticism of your work disqualifies you from riding any horses, especially high ones.

    Should you apologise for your behaviour which was clearly aimed at defending your reputation rather than furthering scientific truth and publicly accept your statistical naivety, there might be a chance for you to redeem yourself. I shan’t hold my breath!

    • Steve Fitzpatrick

      That should be U235. It would take more than ten 1 cm cubes to be a problem.

    • Nebuchadnezzar

      “because it’s perfectly safe to put two 1cm cubes of U238 in close proximity it must be safe to repeat the exercise with 10 cubes. Salby has more than 40 climate related papers & books in his publication list”

      I’ve emailed the esteemed professor Salby to let him know he shouldn’t try to put all his papers on the same shelf at the same time.

      Disaster averted!

    • From O’Donnell reviewer, to a preacher on climate blog etiquette – from a proprietor of Realclimate.

      The horse is so high, it’s up in the clouds.

  45. John Whitman

    Judith,

    The attempts to influence your editorial policy by ~3 commenters (on the Salby thread) who are of a certain ‘genre’ notwithstanding, a healthy human condition is a very argumentative one.

    I find your blog, as well as BH’s/Watt’s/McIntyre’s and numerous affiliate blogs, to be a locus of a very healthy human condition. RC and its affiliates, not so much.

    Mix it up and let’s enjoy the best of the human condition; discovering the secrets of nature with active discourse.

    John

  46. Hey Jude
    It’s your blog you can do what you like:-).
    I hope you don’t mind me offering advice to Thingsbreak or TB for short.
    TB in the spirit of friendship remember it is better to keep your mouth shut and let people think you are a fool than to open it and confirm it?
    Also TB, empty vessels make the most noise?
    Take care man.

  47. poor Steig…years and years spent at RC carefully deleting dissent from history, rationalizing the most improbable of data massaging, establishing time and again that there is not the slightest possibility the RC Team could ever be wrong about anythinw…then comes somebody called JC and it’s all a Revelation!

    • omnologos,

      Hey, promises were made, gifts exchanged. Blah blah blah. You know how it goes. ;)

      Andrew

  48. Schrodinger's Cat

    I value this site because:
    -There is much to learn and some of the discussions are very informative.
    -Opinions from both camps are encouraged and given a good hearing.
    -The contributions are usually of a high calibre.

    My scientific background is in industry, not academia, but I have frequently attended research symposia and it has always surprised me that some academics get so emotional about their beliefs that scientific objectivity can quickly get replaced by animosity. I recognise that this is related to the focus on the individual being much more intense, whereas in industry, the output of the team or even the company is what is judged and the people involved may not even be identified.

    I mention this because some of the criticisms of this site appear to me to be petty or trivial in nature, as though the critics are irritated that the subject or content did not conform to their individual expectations.

    It appears to me that the so-called climate consensus conceals the fact that many of the fundamentals of the science are based on folklore, flawed assumptions and maybe even worse, so I fully support Dr Curry in posting a wide range of topics. Who knows what gems of new understanding may emerge?

    Each post will attract a level of response that depends on the level of interest it inspires. I don’t have a problem with that.

    • Good comment!

      Why is the term “consensus” still used regarding the climate change topic. There may have been a consensus in the science community over ten years ago, but can someone please present an agrument of why using that term is appropriate to use today?

      Does anyone believe a consensus exists today on climate??? On what specifically???

      • If consensus is defined as “large majority” rather than “unanimity,” then I would say there is a consensus that increasing atmospheric CO2 should be expected to cause some degree of warming. There is no consensus that the warming will be catastrophic, dangerous or even bad.

      • Ron– I would probably agree with your conclusion. That said, as I understand the definition of the word “consensus” it really is not appropriate even for that.

        There are a lot of those who fear CO2 who refer to the scientific consensus, but even it that they seem to get it wrong in that there is no evidence of a consensus today except on very narrow points.

  49. Was JFK in on the plot too?

    http://is.gd/EkLqCF

    You’re funny. Say something else.

  50. Oh my, what to do, what to do… when the truth hurts…?

    “We find that the proxies do not predict temperature significantly better than random series generated independently of temperature. Furthermore, various model specifications that perform similarly at predicting temperature produce extremely different historical backcasts. Finally, the proxies seem unable to forecast the high levels of and sharp run-up in temperature in the 1990s either in-sample or from contiguous holdout blocks, thus casting doubt on their ability to predict such phenomena if in fact they occurred several hundred years ago.” (McShane and Wyner 2010)

  51. @Thingsbreak: are you afraid to use your own name when acting like a keyboard warrior? At least Judith Curry has the courage to blog under her own name.

    You’re repeatedly barging in here with your juvenile bravado, yet fail to list JC’s website in your own warmist website. At least have the courtesy (can’t say the courage, which obviously, as keyboard warrior, you don’t have) to link her on your own website instead of putting up silly pictures (http://i.imgur.com/ThMTk.jpg). You, sir, are a disgrace for whatever opinion you’re standing for.

  52. Thingsbreak

    What right do you have on what JC post or not?

    After ClimateGate the dam has broken and you cannot any more control the message of the unproven theory of man made global warming.

    You have completely lost. Control of the message has not worked.

    Only a minority now believes in man made global warming.

    Don’t build anything on falsehood, as it will finally crumble.

    http://bit.ly/nicmt9

  53. I was one of those who used to push Dr. C. to take a more hardline, more proactive position re the absurd claims of scientific certainty….in other words to in some way “officially” identify herself as a “skeptic.”

    I see now how wrong-headed that was. By taking care to maintain a generally dispassionate neutrality, she’s only enhanced her own credibility which has in turn allowed her to create the only blog that I know of where something close to civility prevails between the two camps…though my impression is that most warmists don’t hang around long.

    • Too much dishonest nonsense here. Boring.

      • I answered Chris last night – his points weren’t all that good. Hopefully, someday they’ll get better.

      • Holly Stick,
        Like most extremists, you confuse your opinion with fact.
        Dr. Steig and Chris made no significant points at all.
        They are basically taking umbrage at a perceived insider for going outside the community mores.
        They are both trying to suppress inquiry.
        That is not science. that is not even good religion.

      • +1 for that last line!

      • “They made no significant points at all.” I agree. They have no substantive disagreement. They just quibble over a perceived rhetorical slant implied by words like “wow”.

        That seems to be a genre. Witness Eli Rabett attacking Roger Pielke Jr. for allegedly using a word incorrectly. http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2011/07/simple-math-and-logic-underpinning.html

      • It was significant, because his argument depended on the incorrect use of the word and the fact that the reader would assume the normal usage. He also shape shifted back and forth between the meanings in his arguments, misleading the reader. Normal behavior.

      • As Roger has documented, there are two different usages of the word (“decarbonization”) in the scientific literature. And of course, his argument does not depend on any such confusion. If you read his book, it’s perfectly clear. It’s one of the key concepts in the book, he explains exactly what it means and uses it consistently over and over, and there is no way a reader with IQ above 12 will make the mistake of thinking he is using it in the sense you (mistakenly) claim is the only correct one.

      • I don’t think I’m going to discuss this with you here and now, mainly because it’s off topic. But if I were, I would start by challenging you to summarize Roger’s argument clearly and succinctly. I suspect you can’t because you have no idea what it actually is.

      • If pigs were horses cows would fly.

        Do you mean the impression he is trying to leave or the rather convoluted argument that lets him say nonono, not that one

        BTW Dagfinn is not a very common name. Perhaps you enjoy irony.

      • I think the explanation to you gets convoluted when you misunderstand in a complex way.

      • Interesting that my rather trollish post gets left but the one with a substantive argument and comments on the bad behaviour by regular commenters here gets deleted. What’s open about that?

      • Dunno for sure, Holly, haven’t seen your deleted comment. But maybe Dr. Curry is concerned that your comment might get you hauled before some Canadian court for defamation and is doing you a favor.

      • Judy has crossed the thin green line. She’s off message and needs to be brought back inside the bunker

      • steven –
        I recently warned Joshua about bunkers – they’re BAD places to be stuck. :-)

      • When Chistopher Hitchens argued against the beatification of Mother Theresa, he said, he was invited to the Vatican, and was given a patient hearing. Much more than any liberal commenter or pundit ever did.

  54. Chris, when you mature as a scientist, you will come to understand that science is process, not a collection of facts, especially on a topic as complex as climate science.

    A hearty round of applause for that, Dr. C!

    • Which leads to an important question; why are we graduating science PhD’s who don’t understand that?

  55. Let’s see if Eric Steig and Chris Colose are man enough to defend their comments with evidence based science. I won’t hold my breath.

  56. ThingsMayBreakButICanFixAnything

    Whether you believe in AGW or not, there is one certainty I have concluded from reading these posts…

    ThingsBreak is a huge D Bag who wishes he had the audience that JC has.

    Maybe someone can do a study to see if the earth is warming because ThingsBreak is burning with envy?

  57. We have RC and Skepticalscience, we have CA and WUWT and we have many more sites. What would be the value of Climate Etc., if it would be like some of the other sites. Judith has also written that this site is an experiment in trying to maintain some new type of discussion between scientists and skeptics.

    It’s also clear that this site is not just a trick to push true some agenda of either side, but that Judith sincerely hopes that both skeptics and those with more main stream views would learn from each other. There may be more two-ways influence, when the discussion is not on matters of best understood climate science, but there are certainly also issues related to climate science proper, where the main stream view may get significantly modified in future and some of those changes may be anticipated in the skeptics’ arguments.

    There have been threads discussing ideas that I cannot consider much else than distractions, but it’s always difficult to draw the line between something that is unlikely, but possible enough to be of interest, and something that goes too far beyond limits of credibility. It’s also true that some posts may have been on something too farfetched, but the ensuing discussion of much more interest.

    And perhaps most importantly, the livelihood of a blog may require that there are also posts that any single participant finds strange and out-of-place. Only when almost all readers feel that way, is the post clearly out-of-place.

    • Pekka

      The only part of your comment I take exception to is the portion where you write the goal is to “maintain some new type of discussion between scientists and skeptics.”

      IMO that suggests wrongly that those who study science are of one opinion and those skeptics are on the other. In truth, there is as much science to be learned by AGW fearists as by many described as skeptics

  58. Carrick Talmadge

    Judith:

    The frustration that the “warm” bloggers (e.g. RC et al.) seem to have with Climate Etc. is that I stray from the party line of the consensus.

    I think this relates to the real damage done by Climate: It became clear that there was a lot of concern from a number of scientists about staying on message.” This was revealed by the very different, frank conversations that scientists had among themselves and the hand-wringing when “off message” publications managed to make it through their gauntlet.

    “I can’t believe that got published” indeed. That sort of comment speaks of charlatanism to me.

    Science absolutely advances by putting the arguments out for people to discuss. If a paper is wrong (Salby’s almost certainly is), it diffuses uncertainty about the question, rather than amplifying it.

  59. thingsbreak: “In the interest of ‘open discussion and integrity and science’, what scientifically (not “he used to be a coworker”) about the presentation do you think was deserving of all the ‘totally not-promotion’ you were throwing around in the last thread?”

    • thingsbreak,
      If you have to ask you just don’t want to get it.

    • It would be interesting to see if you can have a relevant discussion on the topic.

      For instance- Do you support the implementation of climate mitigation strategies in the USA? If so what ones and how do you see those policies as effective from a cost benefit analysis standpoint? My guess is you won’t respond since you have not seemed to get into real topics

      • Rob: interesting to see if you can have a relevant discussion on the topic

        Do you support the implementation of climate mitigation strategies in the USA? If so what ones and how do you see those policies as effective from a cost benefit analysis standpoint?

        The topics of relevance are either JC’s editorial policy, or the laughable rubbish Salby presented. What do mitigation strategies have to do with either?

        If there’s a relevant thread on this or another blog you’d like to discuss mitigation in, link away and I am happy to discuss it with you there. You’re putting me in a ‘damned if I do, damned if I don’t’ position by essentially daring me to have an off-topic discussion. I will gladly discuss such things in a venue that won’t cause me to have my comments deleted.

      • I look forward to the opportunity at some future time then. You obviously have strong feelings for what you believe, I just do not understand the logic of what I “believe” you suggest be done

      • tbreak,
        Don’t be shy.
        This is a great spot to enlighten us on effective mitigation strategies.
        tell us especially how the Kyoto mitigatoin strategies coud have worked, for starters.

    • It’s very simple. In the scientific argument when we get down to the bottom the appeal to consensus is finally made, somewhere somehow, we justify our belief in certain physics by saying “well 100 years of history” or “all scientists agree” or “this science has worked for years” at the end, at the bottom we rely on some quasi pragmatic solution to the epistemological dilemma of science: its knowledge, but it’s never certain. It’s contigent, yet we rely on it.

      When a non credentialed person challenges the “science” we respond with a variety of pragmatic answers: the claim hasnt been peer reviewed. The man is not an expert. Nobody agrees with him. In some cases we try to demonstrate the error> But by and large all the front line arguments are pragmatic. Science is after all a pragmatic discipline.

      So when a credentialled person, claims to have a paper being published that challenges a key tenet of science, that IS a wow moment.

      1. Wow we were wrong
      2. Wow, he’s a bone head.

      Either way, its worthy of discussion.

  60. What, precisely, was I supposed to respond to? It was a boring attempt to distract from what JC did do by ridiculing something I never claimed.

    She didn’t just “say wow”. She said this nonsense could revolutionize the field. She said it was so important that we should be talking about it.

    What specifically in the presentation provided the basis for these comments from her? Not, “he was a colleague”. Not “Not IPCC”. What science discussed could possibly justify this sort of characterization by JC?

    Mosher can’t answer that, because he knows it’s a crock, too. So instead he resorts to predictable, poorly executed, yawn-inducing sarcasm.

    • thingsbreak,

      As Steig said, it goes against “one of the most well understood and certain things in all of climate science”. Logically, that means that if there is any chance it’s correct, it’s *potentially* revolutionary. So what you seem to be saying is that there is no chance whatsoever it could be correct. It’s “nonsensical” and can be dismissed out of hand. Looks like this might the real disagremment beneath the fog of rhetoric.

      I’m not sure it’s worth discussing, though. It might be just as well to agree to disagree. It will become clearer as research progresses.

    • She also said “He has the reputation of a thorough and careful researcher.” That might make it worth discussing even if you were sure he was wrong. You’re obsession with these phrases of Judith’s is totally out of proportion.

      • For obsession with phrases of mine, see also http://curryquotes.wordpress.com/. bizarre.

      • Astonishing and utterly pointless! Does someone really have the time to put all of that together. They must feel threatened.

      • Since you have the time to make comments like this, would you care to state what from a science perspective (not “he used to be a colleague” and not “Not IPCC”) from Salby’s presentation you feel was worth of saying wow, it’s so important that we should talk about it, it’s potentially revolutionary to the field, etc.?

        (I apologize if you actually managed to answer this at any point during the last couple of days. I understand that your time is precious and you choose which comments to respond to with great care…)

      • Michael Larkin

        Good God, man, your obsessive seeking of the attention here you don’t seem to be capable of getting on your own blog is simply embarrassing to witness; it’s even worse than your totally unreflective incivility. Were I Judith, I wouldn’t answer you – ever – until you changed your attitude. I doubt anyone’s holding their breath. At any rate, I’ve had enough of your trolling and won’t be paying any more attention to you.

      • thingsbreak, it’s this simple: You need scientific arguments to discuss a scientific study. You don’t need scientific arguments to discuss whether a study is worth discussing. It’s a waste of time.

      • Somebody has too much time on their hands.

      • Somebody is mentally sick.

        Funny how even I can easily get a collection of quotes of mine posted by a total stranger…all I have to do is post a comment into one of the seriously unhinged less-than-famous warmist blogs, and a short time later, some good soul will magically mention my writings a hundred times.

      • omnologos –
        Actually there are several sickos here – but don’t tell them. They think they’re privileged, brilliant intellectuals.

      • And you folks are desperate for someone, anyone to justify your opinions so you can avoid admitting that humans are causing AGW. No matter how flawed his arguments are.

      • There are lots of flawed arguments against AGW. It’s easily avilable, no need to be desperate. And lots of flawed arguments in favor of AGW, too, of course.

    • TB, why does it bother you so much?
      Why are you so worried about what anyone here says?

    • “She didn’t just “say wow”. She said this nonsense could revolutionize the field. She said it was so important that we should be talking about it. ”

      Well its trivially true that this nonsense could revolutionize the field.

      I listened to the Podcast. I checked the authors credentials.

      WOW. this is something we should be discussing.

      Why? two reasons:

      1. IF its true, and no science is settled, IF its true, and everything I believe about the carbon cycle is wrong, Then I want to know.

      2. If it’s Not true, and i suspect it’s not, then i want to see the arguments and figure out HOW THE HELL it got published. It will be important to understand how science goes wrong. That in fact is my whole concern with the hockey stick. How does junk get published and how long does it take to remove the junk.

      So, i did what we always do. I listened with an open mind. I checked the credentials. Then I checked my ego at the door and said ” I could be wrong” Everything I believe about the truth of climate science could be wrong. Let’s wait and see about the paper. In the meantime, lets discuss. There’s no harm in discussing crazy ideas. people respond to you and robert and you verge on being certifiable. People listen to your rantings and you have no credentials. You are a nobody. So how does a nobody who gets attention for his lunatic ravings get to decide that its bad for dr curry to suggest that we should discuss the potentially lunatic findings of a named, credentialed scientist? Your suggestion, your lunatic suggestion, that we should somehow not be discussing this, has become the topic of discussion. shouldnt we be the ones complaining. To be fair, if its ok for us to discuss the lunacy of an unnamed, unpublished, moniker, then it’s ok to discuss the pod cast of a published, named scientist. The truth will out about is views, I fail to see the danger in discussing it and wonder about those who want to control dialogue. They usually want to control other things when their attempts to muzzle curiousity fail.

      • Steve, you don’t get it, even discussing stuff like this provides fuel for the “deniers.” Amazing that people (including some scientists) think that not providing fuel for the deniers is more important than scientific curiosity and progress and stating when we don’t completely understand the science . Ah, but policy makers need to make decisions, so scientists need to be certain, one way or another. This one makes me tear my hear out also. Individuals, companies, policy makers, etc. make decisions under uncertainty all the time, and understanding the level of uncertainty is key information in the decision process. So that is why we shouldn’t be talking about this according to thingsbreak et al.

      • Dr. Curry,
        The final refuge of the loser is silence.
        AGW believer are reduced to trying to impose silence to defend their enlightenment.
        They will fail in this endeavor.

      • simon abingdon

        “The final refuge of the loser is silence”. But not long ago you told us it was pointing out spelling mistakes. (Perhaps that was the last but one refuge: can’t quite remember)..

      • There are many circles of refuge, almost as many as there are refugees.
        ===========

      • Individuals, companies, policy makers, etc. make decisions under uncertainty all the time,…

        Judith – you haven’t been paying attention. The poor economy under Obama’s watch was primarily the result of “uncertainty.”

        Or, I guess, the logic could be that uncertainty is only really the driver when Obama is president. Under Obama, businesses required completely certainty to make investment decisions. Under all other presidents since Washington, businesses made investments despite certainty.

      • Or, I guess, the logic could be that uncertainty is only really the driver when Obama is president.
        Depends how un/stable Obama’s monetary policies etc are, compared to other administrations. The more he ‘manages’ the economy, the more activist/Keynesian his approach, the more instability and uncertainty there will be.

      • Judith,

        Of course, uncertainties should not be underestimated but neither should they be overestimated or overstated.

        It’s important to get it right and your incessant use of the word, and phrases like ‘uncertainty monster’, ‘the need for better understanding of uncertainty’, ‘better ways to treat uncertainty’, etc just translates into ‘uncertainty=doubt=no need to take any action’ in the public mind.

        Have you become just another one of Naomi’s Oreskes’ “Merchants of Doubt” ?

      • Naomi fantasized a vision from the shadow of the beast behind her.
        ===================

      • being a merchant of doubt is far more honest scientifically than being a merchant of certainty, where none exists. The idea that certainty = action doesn’t work in any event, as we have seen.

      • The merchants of doubt were well-funded. Oystein, ask Dr. Curry what kind of car she drives and if she bought one (or two!) recently.

        Dr. Curry treats uncertainty correctly–much as the IPCC used to do. It is a monster with regards to climate change. It is much worse when it hides under the bed than when it is called out and confronted honestly and openly.

      • Sometime earlier, I read you saying something along the lines of “we need to spend time with sceptics, to understand how they think, what makes them think. We need to understand them..” etc.

        I propose you start doing the same thing with “warmists”. I read a lot of blogs, and to be frank and honest: you really don’t understand what drives them, how they think. Yes, I am aware that you are a scientist and all that, but you are now deep embedded in groupthink about what “the other camp” (yes, you are in a camp, even if you think you aren’t) thinks, means, and to what their motivation is.

        As others have said, more eloquently than I, you are building bridges from nowhere. Sadly, that makes you what you wanted initially to figth – tribalism.

      • I think you meant alarmist not warmist

        Why do all the alarmists think in terms of camps and tribe? The “either your with us or against us” approach doesn’t help any situation

      • What blogs specifically, what do you think drives them, and what about that is it that Judith doesn’t understand?

      • And BTW, I don’t fully understand what drives RealClimate, for instance. That comes from reading too much, not too little. I don’t know how they justify to themselves putting out deliberately misleading information as I’ve documented earlier on this blog. And I don’t think they are going tell me.

      • Oystein, your claim that Judith fosters tribalism can be tested. Why don’t you spend a Sunday morning cataloguing statements by our hostess that attack warmists personally or the institutions of climate science generally. Compare your results with the description of Dr. Curry found on warmist websites. You can start (if you can stomach the ordeal) with Eli Rabett’s warren, move to Thingsbreak and Michael Tobis, saving Joe Romm and Real Climate for the piece de resistance.

        Do let us know who is creating and defending tribal boundaries, won’t you?

      • Smurf. . . . FWIW, Eli has no horse in this race. He has however, heard that many of Judy’s professional colleagues are somewhat not interested in postnormal reconciliation with her.

      • Interesting, I haven’t really noticed. Overall my invites are way up (in mainstream venues) in terms of invitations to give conference talks, submit invited papers, give named seminars at universities, join prestigious committees and boards, media queries.

      • “this is something we should be discussing.”

        And how exactly we should do that? Discuss what? We don’t have his slides, we don’t have his paper, we don’t have his data.

        “IF its true, and no science is settled, IF its true, and everything I believe about the carbon cycle is wrong, Then I want to know.”

        Let’s return to the Dragon Slayers then. If what they say it’s true, then everything I believe about the radiative transfer is wrong.

  61. I am struck by the fact that in some ways Salby’s talk sounds a bit like Moon hoaxers to people in the Warmist camp. It’s irritatingly native, and not worth talking about. This seems to be why Chris Colose and thingsbreak are annoyed that Dr. Curry is giving this work the time of day.

    However one other thing I notice is that while many people are also irritated by new claims that the Moon landings were faked, they go out of their way to explain in painstaking detail why we should disbelieve the moon hoaxers. Hours and hours are spent writing pages of highly technical rebuttals to the moon hoaxer’s points.

    This sort of behavior I do not see here. The warmists are not debunking Salby’s points but are instead denying that they should even have to. If he as grossly incorrect as is being claimed, then some transcripts of his podcast should reveal these errors.

    What I find perplexing is why those asking Judith to stop taking Salby seriously don’t feel that they need to explain why. They seem to think that the force of authority is sufficient to convince her, and the rest of us, that this dialog is unproductive.

    That’s not an effective way to counter the moon hoaxers, why do you expect it to work here?

    • Brad: are not debunking Salby’s points

      This is not difficult. nature acts as a net sink, this is invalidates the claim on its face- people have been more specific about the particulars of this and I can as well, but that’s the gist of it; paleoclimate shows he’s grossly overestimating the contribution from nature to a given change in temp; he’s attacking a strawman in regards to how the isotopic ratio is used in the IPCC- it’s not a black and white issue but is part of multiple lines of evidence, and natural changes to the ratio are acknowledged.

      All of these points and more have been made. It’s unfortunate that you don’t seem to be reading them.

      • It cannot be true that Nature is always a net sink or there would have been zero carbon dioxide before significant man-made contributions began.

        And if one acknowledges that Nature is not always a net sink, the door is open to speculate that with an increase in temperature CO2 is going to adjust to a higher equilibrium level due to purely natural phenomena.

        In other words, this point you’ve made does not show that Salby’s conclusion is invalid “on its face”, as you say. It may be wrong, sure, but I haven’t seen the inherent flaws that make this claim worthy of being ignored, unlike the Moon hoax theories, which are far more absurd. I see instead a lot of grandstanding without technical discussion as to the why.

      • Nature has been a net sink since human industrial emissions have become significant. That precise enough?

        In essence a nice LeChatelier. Before ~ 1850 natural emissions and absorption of CO2 were in balance (annual variations were less than 10 ppm, being generous there). As industrial combustion ramped up the amount of increase in CO2 mixing ratios was less than would have been calculated from the emissions alone, because ~1/2 of the industrial excess was absorbed into the natural sinks.

      • I think it is pretty safe to say as a chemist that no chemical reaction converts 100% of the reactants to products, so there would always be some CO2 left in the atmosphere when Nature is a net sink.

        Though I have been a very bad boy and used the % key.

      • Very true, and that is a point that students have trouble with in understanding LeChat.

      • tb,
        It may not be difficult, but that does not mean you are correct.

    • Brad, you are referring to the author of more than 100 scientific papers… is there any chance you are rushing to judgement of a radio conversation?

  62. So long as there is still some possibility that the CAGW agenda can win the political day, Dr. Curry will be seen as an existential threat by its proponents. What scares the progressives more than anything is dissent. The more wide reaching the dissent, the more persuasive, the more of a threat they perceive it to be.

    Net neutrality, the “fairness” doctrine, exclusionary “peer” review, the use of scorn and derision to make voices of dissent anathema, are all part of a common goal of silencing opposition. It is one thing to be the hated Rush Limbaugh, or other vocal, popular conservatives. Progressives deal with these threats with hate, derision and ridicule. They can manage to keep their followers from ever even listening to them, by labeling them racist, sexist, homophobic tools of the rich.

    But the dissenters who drive progressives bat guano crazy are those who they think have no right to dissent, and who do not fall into the caricature they paint of their other opponents. That is because they represent a threat to their very base, the default progressives who have always believed what they say, just because they said it.

    An establishment female climate scientist like Dr. Curry? A black Supreme Court Justice like Clarence Thomas? A former radical community organizer, like David Horowitz? What right do they have to dissent? Haven’t they benefited from the very movement they now threaten? Who are they to bite the hand that fed them?

    Progressives see these people as the most dangerous of all to them. These people have been inside the castle. They are not in awe of the “consensus,” whether it be on race, politics or climate. They know the man behind the curtain is just a man. And worst of all, other true believers just might listen to them.

    The Limbaughs, Moranos, Palins and Perrys all speak primarily to conservatives, and may reach some moderates and independents. But a Curry, Thomas or Horowitz has the potential to get the attention of the default progressives who otherwise meekly follow the “consensus” like lemmings toward a cliff. This cannot be tolerated.

    All the incessant off topic whining about tone and viewpoint and bias are designed to prevent what this blog was expressly created to foment – open, uncensored discussion of the intersection of science and politics in the area of climate. The progressive sycophants who post huge numbers of comments here can’t change the nature of the posts, they haven’t been able to marginalize Dr. Curry and so reduce her traffic, and can’t stop others from commenting on the issues. So they try to derail every thread into discussions that are about anything but the science, and become boring for their repetition. It is the internet version of the filibuster. And the Salby thread was a classic example.

    The most prolific commenters here are a one note symphony regurgitating what they read at Real Climate, Think Progress and the Huffington Post. But unlike them, I have no taste for censorship. So I hope they keep plugging away at their keyboards, posting their incessant cries of how unfair the world is that not everyone agrees with them. It is the open debate from both sides that makes this site worth so much attention.

    It is too bad that this is the best the consensus can do in response. Maybe it would be interesting if a Steig or a Colose actually addressed the issues in the articles cited, rather than whining about why someone even raised the issue at all. But perhaps they just don’t have the confidence to do so. Whatever the reason, I for one will continue to enjoy this blog, no matter how much the default progressives try to derail it.

    • Maybe if Judith’s fans would avoid smearing and attacking people like Steig and Colose the moment they appeared on her blog, they would be more inclined to stay and discuss things. But why should they ry to talk with a bunch of howling jerks?

      You are not open and civil here.

      • Holly,

        The two gents you mentioned decided to come on like gang-busters with an evident intention to straighten us rubes out and put Dr. Curry in her place. Unfortunately for them, their arrogant, pompous ass behavior, that they have learned plays so well on the protectively moderated blogs they favor, didn’t register so well on this free-wheeling blog. Yeah, they did get roughed up a bit, but they asked for it and deserved it. And they also had a chance to give as good as they got–as “thingsbreak” and you, Holly, are proof–but unlike you and thingsbreadk, Colose and Steig took a powder. Such stuff our wannabe philosopher-kings and cull-masters are made of.

      • Holly,

        Those who are arguing for the complete reordering of society, based on their own authority, shouldn’t complain about getting their feelings hurt if someone is mean to them. It’s unseemly. If you want to be one of the saviors of the planet, at the costs of hundreds of billions of other people’s dollars, you should grow a thicker skin.

        I was only suggesting it would be interesting to hear reasoned, civil arguments from consensus types here. But from a purely political perspective, I hope nothing changes at all.

        By all means, keep up the condescension and ridicule of those who dissent. Don’t respond civilly in open fora to dissenting views; don’t participate in debate on the merits rather than hiding behind appeals to authority; keep telling each other how stupid and evil your opponents are, and make those views as public as possible.

        And whatever you do, don’t learn anything from the collapse of Copenhagen and the 2010 U.S. elections. Ignore climategate, ignore the conflicts of interest at the IPCC, keep Pachauri as its head, and defend the hickey stick to the death. You are all sooooo close. Just keep doing what you are doing. Please.

        Until November 6, 2012. We’ll take it from there. Thanks.

      • Ms. Stick, most commenters here are open and civil. There are some exceptions. Steig and Colose are not here to discuss. They are here to post a conversation closer. Steig then leaves. Colose sticks around to make sure the post mortem follows guidelines and to issue correctives as needed. They often are.

  63. “The frustration that the “warm” bloggers (e.g. RC et al.) seem to have with Climate Etc. is that I stray from the party line of the consensus.”

    We would all like to believe that people who dislikes us resent us for our virtues rather than resenting us for our faults, but I think you miss the mark here. I see no one at RealClimate upset at you for straying from “the party line”; I see a lot of people upset, and am sometimes upset myself, to see somebody with the qualifications of a scientist promoting irrational, heavy-handedly partisan, sloppy work and hair-brained ideas, and not taking responsibility for quality.

    I think many scientists would welcome the kind of “skeptic” who was, as you implicitly claim to be, a “mature” scientist who speaks the language of science and behaves in an honest, rigorous, self-critical way. It seems to me that it is really the quality of your “skepticism,” or the lack thereof, that people find frustrating.

    • “I see a lot of people upset, and am sometimes upset myself, to see somebody with the qualifications of a scientist promoting irrational, heavy-handedly partisan, sloppy work and hair-brained ideas, and not taking responsibility for quality.”

      I agree Robert. I am also upset.

    • This is exactly what I’m talking about. If this work is so grossly incompetent then surely you can explain to me, a smart layman, what is wrong with it.

      Can you also identify support for your claim that it is “heavy-handedly partisan”?

    • “I see a lot of people upset, and am sometimes upset myself, to see somebody with the qualifications of a scientist promoting irrational, heavy-handedly partisan, sloppy work and hair-brained ideas, and not taking responsibility for quality.”

      So now we’re talking about the hockey stick?

    • Robert,
      Bunk. You have demonstrated elsewhere clearly and vilely what you think of skeptics.
      Your lack of maturity in your posting here makes your call for a mature scientist ironic and humorous, to say the least.

      • Oh look, more attacks. No one is open and civil here.

      • Holly –
        You have no room to talk. I do remember your incivility from long ago. You’ve apparently learned nothing since.

      • Holly Stick,
        I am responding to Robert.
        Robert is responded to after he posts.
        Do you think Robert is being civil or open?
        It is always interesting to see how AGW believers feel free to be rude and slander anyone, but take such umbrage when they get a bit back.

    • Robert, you’re as partisan an ideolgue here who sticks to the tried and true montra of always shouting that the “science” backs you. By science you mean the politically contrived IPCC consensus that was designed at first to focus and create the regulatory narrative and later impose a restrictive order of repression on dissent, which you support. All for a political culture you also support (massive state empowering regulatory and tax scheme).

      25 years running in many ways, no sale. Epic fail, as it leaves the global or national left enclave it mostly dies. Anything can survive as an academic dispute in backwater university life (with a high population of other liberal ideolgues) but each time it attempts a leap to primetime it fails. Only in bastions of leftist excess in England and more recently Australia and other enclaves has there been modest success with the statist climate agenda. The trend line that dooms the movement, the more the less informed study and research the topic the more skeptical they become. In the recent Rasmussen poll 51% of Democrats believe Climate Scientist cooked their reports. This is what a bitter partisan, Soviet Styled climate establishment has helped create. Billions of wasted research dollars, junk “green” industries that only exist to suck tax money and add debt to near backruptcy governments from around the world. A world with starving children where their leaders can be found at climate conferences talking about who-knows-what but are really their because the eco-left in the west promised financial supports if they play this foolish charade dressed as “SCIENCE”.

      Because evil is often paved with pompous proclaimations of “the common good” it’s sadly unlikely that most who knew the nature of the fraud as promoters will reach the dock. It’s regrettable and unjust.

      We’re watching before our eyes the last true and great success of liberal power meet it’s natural failure; Keynesian economics and fiat money standards. An ever increasing debt ratio is in fact unsustainable and 80 years or more of debt layering and papering over outsized social contracts and excess credit at every level can’t be resolved. The original junk science in practice on a world wide scale. Do you seriously think another Ponzi scheme (carbon credits) was in the cards to be added to all the others that already exist?

      What’s wrong in the debate here and elsewhere is that people have to accept that the science isn’t that fresh and will never be decisive given the vague nature and tools at hand. You will engage, hypocrite that you are, in that same attacks on measurements and uncertainty to defend your opportunistic hypothesis as you claim others are doing to your cause.

      In the end the reason for the focus on this topic has little to do with science directly. It’s the political stakes that drive the interest. Dreams of great win for state control for the mostly left-wing warming movement, a great defense for liberty and individual rights from libertarians and conservatives. The fact that the left has adopted and corrupted the word “science” into it’s lexicon of disinformation is of course very distressing. I’m disappointed that Dr. Curry while making astute observations at times is so committed to the middle and skates around with mealy mouthed terms like “no labels” which is an insult to the levels of abuse that she has witnessed (contributed to in history) and the half level of atonement she has made. Largely and ironically Robert I suspect because she and you would largely self-identify with the same political choices.

      So the game will go on, the science hill can’t be surrendered to the hack class of the academic left and the tool culture. So millions more flow-charts, pie charts, graphs and powerpoints are yet to come. Each side will find the opaque nature in the area of climate and the name calling and agenda will go until the public can stand it no more. Then it will be dropped. The extreme claims made for the cause will be footnotes and the terrible damages of misallocating science, research funds, subsidies will be whitewashed. Another alarmist, government promoting topic will come to takes its place. Perhaps ocean acidity or “biodiversity” redux. More graphs, more saving the world as long “we” get to be in charge.

      Until political self-indentity is properly disclosed and adressed in the science community, including Dr. Curry the nature of the debate will remain obfuscated and even dishonest.

      • cwon14,
        Note that Robert does not engage. He just trolls.
        He is not even really god at it.
        He is like someone who knows enough of a language to order lunch in a foreign restaurant, badly, and thinks if he repeats his one or two phrases over and over and louder and louder he can make those idiot waiters understand him.

      • You apparently are a person with an opinion toward whom WebHubTelescope’s antipathy is aimed, inspiring of all manner of ad hom-hurling like you being nasty and full of venom.

  64. Judith & Denizens:

    Have you noticed that the S/N ratio could be appreciably raised by requiring all posters to use their real names?

    The leftover 70′s culture of “screen names” does the same damage as the invisible, anonymous drivers on the highway — people tend to behave badly when they think they won’t be called out on it.

    I notice that RP,Jr. has taken to responding to bloggers like “Eli Rabett” by his real name (Josh Halpern, ims), besides calling out his illogic and general bad manners.

    Civility = civilization, folks. Abuse it at your peril.

    Peter D. Tillman
    Consulting Geologist, Arizona and New Mexico (USA)

    “It’s not what we don’t know that’s the problem, it’s what we know that ain’t so.” — Mark Twain (probably)

    • “It’s not what we don’t know that’s the problem, it’s what we know that ain’t so.” — Mark Twain (probably)

      Josh Billings

    • I’m nobody! Who are you?
      Are you nobody, too?
      Then there’s a pair of us — don’t tell!
      They’d banish us, you know.

      How dreary to be somebody!
      How public, like a frog
      To tell your name the livelong day
      To an admiring bog!

      - Emily Dickinson

    • I love absurd self-aggrandizement posing as logic.

      Is the S/N ration any higher than in mainstream politics, where all the major players not only espouse viewpoints using their real names, they, in fact, base most of their strategies on enhancing “name recognition.”

      The S/N ratio of your comments, like those of anyone else, stands on its own, independent of whether or not you assign your real name to your posts. On this very site, there are many examples of N posted by people who assign their name, and S posted by people who post anonymously.

      Next we’ll have people who post under their real names telling us how it’s an indication of their “courage,” even as they intervene in dialogue by others for the sole purpose of leveling cheap shots, insults, etc.

      Oh.

      Wait.

    • Pseudonyms have their pros and cons. It’s part and parcel of the internet. They may increase noise but sometimes that’s the best part.

      Historically, its common to have pseudonyms in large debates

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pseudonyms_used_in_the_American_constitutional_debates

  65. A brief Google search to ID the (often) disruptive and (certainly) uncivil anonymous poster “Thingsbreak” was unsuccessful.

    Help? People shouldn’t be able to hide behind screen names, imo.

  66. TB you ought to revisit those posts about me… recent developments and all that… but of course false accusations and inaccurate representations of science are your specialty, aren’t they?

    Crapwowie!

  67. Needless to say, I come for the argument. Happily, there are great opportunities to gain useful and/or interesting information, but my concern for the preposterous bogosity of the AGW conjecture has been – from my earliest appraisal of the subject, circa 1981 – the political economic threat it poses to individual human rights generally and particularly.

    Though my posts have doubtless been the subjects of e-mails addressed to Dr. Curry for having “insulted” various posters by way of accurate assessments of their political viciousness, moral turpitude, and deficient fund of knowledge, I would make it plain that I have never once been the author of such an e-mail, appealing in this forum only on the rare occasion when a writhing, twitching, incoherent schmuck has “responded” with nothing except feeble personalities, bereft of even the pretense of substantive comment on the subjects at hand.

    Incidental insult – even as pitiful as I’ve gotten from the benighted boobs senselessly propounding the AGW fraud here and elsewhere – doesn’t bug me at all. Heck, I just consider the source.

    But there really ought to be some kind of pertinence in posts, some evidence – or even a simulacrum – of reasoned disputation.

    By and large, I’ve found that the proponents of evil (and the AGW fraud falls definitively into that category) are extremely stupid people. They commonly display the cunning one expects of dangerous vermin, but they’re not smart.

    And in a forum like this one, where there is no “RealClimate” censorship to protect them, they’re subject to that “Scientific vivisection of one nerve till it is raw” required to expose their malevolence and stupidity, punishing them for the good of their souls and the preservation of good civil order and social harmony in our polity.

    • Rich –
      But there really ought to be some kind of pertinence in posts, some evidence – or even a simulacrum – of reasoned disputation.

      We should both wish for that. But it doesn’t show up very often.

    • But there is nothing but an insufferable pomposity clothed in practised insults – lacking substance – empty verbosity – using 10 words where one one (and preferably none) would be more reasonable. What purpose is there other than a bombastic, repetitive and noisome repetition of bile and spewing across the blogoscape in an uninterrupted stream of insult and vitriol. The worst of the worst fulminating against the world at large.

      What answer would there be but to emulate the empty but long winded noise that emanates from the fetid imagination of someone who has spent too long seething in rage, cataloging the insults, imagining cruel tortures for the evil and intransigent – but in the end it is just the hopeless, impotent anger and you in the dark wearing a tin foil hat. Who can be bothered

      • ;) Thank you for today’s good literature laugh.

      • And there is anything in Chief Hydrologist‘s vomitus at 3:09 AM on 6 August except “repetitive and noisome repetition of bile“?

        Hm. That did bear repeating, didn’t it?

        Well, at least he’s not puking up “the conservative agenda” at the moment, in which he pushes for: “fairness in markets” (who gets to judge what’s “fair”?), “adequate prudential [government thug] oversights” (who determines what’s “adequate“?), “management of interest rates…to prevent asset bubbles” (“management” provided by popularity contest winners under the guidance of banksters and academically credentialed Keynesian economists, of course), and “restraint in the printing of money.”

        Gotta like that last one most of all, don’tcha? Such a blithe, religious faith in the ability of government goons to sustain “restraint in the printing of money” despite the fact that such “restraint” has never been maintained at any time anywhere in the history of currency, and surely not in the near-century record of the U.S. Federal Reserve System.

        As the beasts that perish when it comes to literacy in either history or economics, that’s Chief Hydrologist and all his co-religionists.

        As I’ve said, with “friends” like that, those of us advocating the protection of individual rights are hardly in need of enemies, are we?

      • Cue the bagpipes – I feel the wind a blowin’ with a fetid stench from the nether regions of what is laughingly referred to as Richies brain. Duck for cover – it is inevitably followed by a spray of foulness reminiscent of an hour spent at the baboon enclosure. I remain unclear as to any purpose or function or intent – other than to spike the air with random, smelly calumny

        He would do away with the Austrian school of economics and the rules of Friedrich Hayek on spending, printing money, interest rates and the rule of law in markets? The rule of law dismantled so that brutes rule the day? Figures from the polemic – but is so utterly mad as to leave me stranded in bewilderment. I could quote Hayek some more on the role of government in a civil society- but from experience it is pearls before swine.

        The beasts that perish in illiteracy? Pompous and pretentious libertarian twaddle more likely.

      • After what’s getting to be his habitual vacant blart-’n-bonkus halfway effort at “wit,” at 11:37 PM on 6 August, we’ve got Chief Hydrologist unsupportedly speculating that I:

        …would do away with the Austrian school of economics and the rules of Friedrich Hayek on spending, printing money, interest rates and the rule of law in markets?

        That I prefer Dr. von Hayek’s mentor, Ludwig von Mises, to the former individual, and have already extolled Austrian scholar Murry Rothbard for his pikestaff-plain lucidity in the diagnosis of government “spending, printing money, [normatively setting] interest rates and [violating] the rule of law in markets,” I’d say that Chief Hydrologist is substantially misrepresenting the Austrian School of economics to suit his “conservative agenda as precisely critiqued above. He continues mistakenly to misconstrue the concept called “the rule of law,” applying it to private citizens rather than to the officers of civil government, expressing his horror at

        The rule of law dismantled so that brutes rule the day

        Gawd. Let’s pull a quote from Dr. von Mises’ Planned Chaos(1947):

        It is the rule of law alone which hinders the rulers from turning themselves into the worst gangsters.

        Contrary to Chief Hydrologist‘s erroneous assumption, the concept of “rule of law” pertains only to the officers of government, and not at all to the private citizen except as (in the words of Dr. von Mises, same source) it “assigns to the citizens a sphere in which they are free to act without being frustrated by government interference.

        Just as the U.S. Bill of Rights was enacted not to confer any rights upon the private individual but rather as a succession of explicit prohibitions constraining the agents of the federal government in their dealings with the private individual and the governments and people of the several states, “the rule of law” functions as a restraint upon the popularity contest winners, the bureaucrats, and the armed thugs of civil government generally.

        When I speak for the prohibition of normative governmental interferences in the economy – “picking winners” and perpetrating “bailouts” in aid of losers, counterfeiting currency, and diverting public spending to purposes other than the protection of individual human rights – I am speaking for the rule of law.

        Chief Hydrologist by contrast, is advocating the violation of the rule of law as the essence of his “conservative agenda.”

        Jeez, just how historically and even politically illiterate can such a nominal conservative as Chief Hydrologist possibly be?

  68. * Hunter: The problem is that the IPCC/AGW cmommunity ids demanding radical surgery on a problem they alone have defined, and with no supporting evidence.

    * David Bailey: I suspect I am not untypical when I say that the first step in making me believe in AGW science would be to publish a line by line response to that book, or to persuade Mann to withdraw his paper.

    * Bad Andrew: BTW Michael, could you list what you think we “know” (your word) in regards to Climate Science?

    * Jim Owen: I want a second opinion – and probably a third.

    * Chief Hydrologist: Science tells us that we are in a cool Phase of the PVD – so cooling is in the dice for a decade or three more as La Nina continues to increase in intensity and frequency in the Pacific.

    All these statements strike me as pretty bizarre, except the last one, about which more below. As for the rest:

    IPCC has now published 4 assessment reports. They predicted that global CO2 would increase… and it has. They predicted that global temperature would increase… and it has. So it’s simply wrong to say, as Hunter does, that there is “no supporting evidence” for AGW.

    I would also say that David is wrong in focusing on whether or not Mann withdraws his paper. AGW is fundamentally not about what happened in the past thousand years, it is about what is going to happen in the next hundred years. IPCC AR4 predicts that global temperature will increase by about 0.2C “for the next two decades”, so if that happens then won’t that be a more important validation of AGW then fuss about the hockey stick? The answer is “yes” because policymakers can affect the future, not the past.

    Bad Andrew seems to be implying that we don’t “know” anything about climate science, which I think is also wrong. So I’ll take the bait (since I don’t think Michael responded) and start with this: We have (1) very good reason to believe that global CO2 is increasing because of human activity, and we have (2) a scientific theory (Tyndall and Arrhenius and all that) that says that if global CO2 increases then global temperature will increase, and we have (3) multiple decades of evidence that mostly supports the theory: the 1980 were warmer than the 1970s, the 1990s were warmer than the 1980s, the 2000s were warmer than the 1990s. This is what IPCC predicted, and their predictions have been pretty good.

    Jim Owen wants 2nd/3rd opinions. Since the National Academy of Sciences (or all the other groups that basically agree with IPCC) presumably doesn’t count, I’m not sure this is possible. But again, I think asking for 2nd/3rd opinions is going down the wrong track. The IPCC has made bold predictions in the past, so let’s compare those predictions (increasing global CO2, increasing temperature, etc) with what’s actually happened. And let’s compare IPCC predictions with predictions from other folks, be it Salby or Curry or NIPCC or whoever.

    My basic gripe here is that everybody is criticizing the IPCC but nobody appears to have the guts to come out and make their own predictions… nobody except Chief Hydrologist. So I’m thrilled to see Chief come out and predict that “cooling is in the dice for a decade or three more”. This is a strong contrast with IPCC (which predicts 0.2C warming for the next two decades) and so in a few years we’ll find out who’s right.

    The rest of you should start making similar predictions, or—even better!—you should highlight predictions about CO2 and temperature you’ve made in the past that have come true. If your predictions turn out (or have turned out) better than IPCC predictions, you’ve earned the spotlight. Until then, the IPCC has earned the spotlight and deserves more respect than you’re giving it.

    • Yoram –
      My basic gripe here is that everybody is criticizing the IPCC but nobody appears to have the guts to come out and make their own predictions… nobody except Chief Hydrologist.

      Your gripe is invalid. I predicted cooling 5 years ago.

      For the rest –
      1) the IPCC predictions have been compared to observations ad nauseum. And consistently found wanting. So hunter is right.
      2) The Salby paper isn’t out yet. But IF it’s right then it’s a game-changer – and Bad Andrew would be right.
      3) The IPCC reputaton was built on the Mann paper which was a lie from the start. OK, s0 you don’t like “lie” – so call it “in error”. But since it’s still being defended that error is being perpetuated – how long should one perpetuate a scientific error? David is right, as well.
      4) The first IPCC assessment report denied anthro warming. The second denied it as well – with the exception of ONE statement that was inserted AFTER the document was approved. Most of those involved then withdrew their names from the document – which invalidated the entire effort. But it was published anyway. The TAR was based specifically around Mann’s hockey stick – which was later falsified. The FAR science has been defended here as well as elsewhere, but is still found wanting. The FAR SPM and recommendations are a mishmash of enviro wet dreams and have tarred the document as political advocacy rather than science. Do you REALLY want to defend the IPCC?
      5) You say – IPCC (which predicts 0.2C warming for the next two decades) and so in a few years we’ll find out who’s right.
      No – we’ve already found out. What did the IPCC predict for the last decade? What were the observations? Why don’t they fit?

      I have reason for wanting a second – and third opinion before I accept a verdict that would leave my grandchildren in a poverty stricken, corrupt, autocratic if not totalitarian UN-governed world. Tell me again- why do you think my words were bizarre?

      • “What did the IPCC predict for the last decade? What were the observations? Why don’t they fit?”

        The IPCC predicts temperatures for longer periods of time, not a decade.

        The fact that the IPCC scenarios don’t show ENSO wiggles should be enough to show they are not supposed to be annual resolution or even decade resolution predictions.

        “Your gripe is invalid. I predicted cooling 5 years ago.”

        Hows that working out?

        http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:2006/plot/uah/from:2006/trend

      • lolwot –
        Yoram calimed IPCC predicted 0.2 DegC/decade

        http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1998/to:2011/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1998/trend:2011

        My prediction isn’t all that bad. :-)

      • Nebuchadnezzar

        Hi Jim,

        Are you sure now that you don’t want a second opinion on that?

        http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1998/to:2011/plot/gistemp/from:1998/trend:2011

        HadCRUT3 has a known problem, which is that it gives a relatively small weight to those areas that have warmed fastest, principally the Arctic and high latitude land areas in the northen hemisphere. HadCRUT3 is not really an estimate of global temperature so comparing it to global average temperatures from models is not an apples to apples comparison.

        GISTEMP for all its perceived faults is at least an attempt to estimate a truly global average temperature and therefore it is the apples to apples comparison for climate model projections of global average temperature.

      • And Gistemp is known for extrapolating hot air around Greenland with its choice of model and gridding. Why not use a satellite set for a third opinion? Besides GISTemp did not make the .2/dedcade from 1998 to 2008, did it?

      • Nebuchadnezzar

        GISTEMP are known for extrapolating air temperature over large areas. The question is whether that is a reasonable thing to do. The problem is there are very few observing stations at the hightest latitudes to verify the extrapolations. However, NCDC do a more modest filling in of the data and still get a higher trend than HadCRUT3. So there is a third opinion and it too points to an underestimate by HadCRUT3.

        If you have a satellite data set that shows near-surface air temperature over the whole of the Earth that would certainly help. One thing to bear in mind is the low Arctic sea-ice of recent years. There might be a very great difference in air temperature above sea-ice and above open water.

        The secret is (don’t tell anyone) that Arctic warming is far faster than the *average* model projection would suggest, but the warming at lower latitudes is far less. The Arctic warming doesn’t ‘salvage’ the model projections.

        As to your final point, I’m guessing you already know that no one predicted that the warming in every single decade would be exactly 0.2K/decade.

      • At 9:23 AM on 7 August, Nebuchadnezzar had commented that

        GISTEMP are known for extrapolating air temperature over large areas. The question is whether that is a reasonable thing to do.

        This practice of “smearing” surface station instrumental readings over broader and broader areas – predicated on the contention that “there are very few observing stations … to verify the extrapolations” – is a practice I’ve long considered damnable.

        Consider the same method applied to the study of glycemia in a population of schoolchildren.

        For the sake of expediency – because persuading a genuinely statistically significant random sample of the study population to submit even to fingerstick blood sampling – I take a random plasma glucose level for one kid out of a hundred and twenty running around on a school playground, and then “smear” that reading over all the rest.

        Do I now have grounds for asserting that all one hundred and twenty of those children are either hypoglycemic, normoglycemic, or hyperglycemic at that given moment?

        Borjemoi! Calling what the AGW fraudsters have been doing “Cargo Cult Science” is a studied affront to the peoples of the southwest Pacific Ocean area.

      • If all those kids were related you would. There are quite a few follow ups on the original Hanson and Lebedeff demonstration that there were strong correlations in the station data up to 1200 km. A number of them are linked here See especially the comments.

        Of course, if those 120 kids are all related, well that is a very inbred blog

      • This practice of “smearing” surface station instrumental readings over broader and broader areas – predicated on the contention that “there are very few observing stations … to verify the extrapolations” – is a practice I’ve long considered damnable.

        That’s a nonsensical statement. All temperature readings involve extrapolation. All you are directly measuring at a surface station is the temperature of the sensor itself, which no one cares about. Inference of the temperature 100km away from the sensor is not “smearing” any more than inference of the temperature 100ft from the sensor is “smearing.”

        Consider the same method applied to the study of glycemia in a population of schoolchildren.

        It’s called a “sample size,” it’s a universal reality of all medical research, and it leads to the problem of generalizability and various ways of addressing it.

        I’ve seen this a lot lately, and I don’t like it: people expressing their ignorance of climate science using analogies that demonstrate their ignorance of medical science. Now that is my idea of a “damnable” practice. Share your uninformed critique of climate science with us if you must, but at least confine your analogies to things you understand!

      • In response to my comparison of “smearing” single-thermometer readings over broad areas – a degree of “extrapolation” fraught with so much potential for error that vesting confidence in its reliability is one of those “fantasia” exercises of which Dr. Salby had spoken in his presentation on carbon cycles – with the assumption that a single random plasma glucose specimen collected on a milling crowd of 120 kids in a playground could serve as evidence suitable for inferring the glycemic status of all 120 children, we’ve got the duplicitous warmista troll Robert at 3:47 PM on 7 August writing that:

        All temperature readings involve extrapolation. All you are directly measuring at a surface station is the temperature of the sensor itself, which no one cares about. Inference of the temperature 100km away from the sensor is not “smearing” any more than inference of the temperature 100ft from the sensor is “smearing.”

        The issue at hand is not that “extrapolation” cannot be employed. All clinical trials rely on extrapolation from findings observed in study subjects enrolled to represent likely patients in the employment of the diagnostic and/or therapeutic modalities under study.

        And this Robert sphincter whines that he doesn’t like “people expressing their ignorance of climate science using analogies that demonstrate their ignorance of medical science,” does he? Well, just what the hell does Robert know about “medical scienceor about “climate science“?

        You got anything to say about statistical adequacy in the design of a clinical trial, Robert, or are you “just jerking off” as usual?

        Whenever “extrapolation” is employed – whether in “climate science” or clinical medicine – it is necessary both to establish the parameters of the investigation in a fashion as closely coordinate with “real world” conditions as possible and to assess the results with conscientious acknowledgement of how they might not correlate with events outside the plenum of the study, acknowledging confounding factors and providing the best possible estimations of accuracy limitations.

        This applies both to my example of the relative worth of a random plasma glucose drawn from one of 120 children in a playground and readings from a single surface thermometer “smeared” over thousands of square kilometers.

        There’s “extrapolation” and then there’s confabulation.

        Maybe there’s no difference to a warmista like Robert when that “smearing” supports his preposterous predatory bogosity, but then Robert‘s objectives have nothing whatsoever to do with either moral or intellectual integrity.

      • Jim, you say you predicted cooling 5 years ago, but… how about a link to where you predicted that? And do you really think we’ve had cooling since then? See the GISS temperature record.

        Then you say that IPCC has been compared to observation and found wanting. But what’s your evidence? My read is that on the big issues (global CO2, global temperature) the IPCC has been pretty good. (Of course I agree that they could turn out to be wrong eventually, and if Salby is correct then presumably IPCC will be wrong about the time path of global CO2. So far there’s no evidence of that though.)

        Then you say that IPCC reputation was built on the Mann paper. This is not true: IPCC reputation is built on their continuing ability to predict future time paths of things like global CO2 and global temperature.

        Then you say that AR1 and AR2 deny AGW. But AR1 SPM says “based on current model results, we predict [under Business as Usual] a rate of increase of global mean temperature during the next century of about 0.3C per decade (with a range of uncertainty of 0.2C to 0.5C per decade).” AR2 “models project an increase in global mean surface temperature relative to 1990 of about 2C by 2100″, i.e., about 0.2C per decade. Are you saying that the SPM in AR1 and AR2 support AGW but the actual reports don’t?! If so, the actual reports are online and you should provide specific quotes.

        Then you say that IPCC was wrong about the last decade. And yet global temperature has been going up about 0.2C per decade, meaning that they’ve been pretty accurate.

        PS. As an economist I can assure you that a revenue-neutral carbon tax will not bankrupt your children or grandchildren. Even Art Laffer agrees!

      • If Art Laffer agrees, I would be very very very worried about its sensibility.

      • Yoram –
        You’ve already gotten more of my time than you rate. So you’ll get the short answers and some links.

        1) My predictions were made on fora that no longer exist. And if they did I wouldn’t waste my time looking for something 5 or more years old. You asked – I told you – end of story.

        2) Temperature – we haven’t had “cooling” as such but we’ve had no “warming” either. You’re talking about decadal temps so your graph is inapplicable – and if you trust GISS you’re truly a warmist advocate. Try this – http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1998/to:2011/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1998/trend:2011

        3) So – no 0.2 degC/decade

        4) Wrt IPCC – read some of the IPCC threads on this blog. Like this for example – http://judithcurry.com/2011/07/10/ipccs-problems-at-the-top/

        or this – http://judithcurry.com/2011/07/09/ipccs-new-protocol-for-addressing-possible-errors/

        Or a half dozen others. And try these links – http://sites.google.com/site/globalwarmingquestions/ipcc and http://noconsensus.org/CitizenAuditReport.pdf

        5) Wrt AR2 – I was in the AMS HQ office the day they learned that the conclusion had been unilaterally changed by ONE person. Don‘t try to bs me about that.

        6) I don’t care what your occupation is – revenue neutral carbon tax is a) a wealth redistribution scheme designed to buy low income votes and b) totally ineffective as a CO2 mitigation scheme. We spent months on this blog being harangued about that – and while there may be some here who still think it’s a good idea, I doubt if there are many.

        7) I’d suggest you do some actual research – unless, of course, your mind is already made up and you don’t want to be confused by facts.

      • Heh, some joker named A. Smith @ the APS has taken it upon himself to document my claiming it is cooling, as in ‘We are cooling, folks; for how long even kim doesn’t know’. I think he’s tracked the phrase back almost 5 years now.

        I’m tremendously grateful he’s going to the trouble to preserve my warning, but not sure why he has such a quest. If it has to get cold, I’d at least like the credit, but don’t understand why Arthur wants so badly for me to get it.
        ==============

      • kim –
        You can have the credit – I’d rather have cash. :-)

      • But can you beat Nov 2007? Although it actually hit me like a tonne of bricks in 2003. After thinking about it for 3 days straight – no sleeping, no eating, just the occasional break for sex – I rang someone who already knew about it.

        So I don’t think any of us have the credit – other than for being a total cool dude.

      • Way back when, I’m pretty sure I was reading stories of oceanic oscillations by some dude with a name like a science fiction writer.
        ====================

      • http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/11/enso_variation_and_global_warm.html

        Not quite 5 years ago – but I waited for the TAR to come out and tell us the obvious – they didn’t. They imagined that the world doesn’t change unless you poke it with an anthropogenic forcing. I can’t really help stupidity. Most ‘recent warming’ happened in 1976/77 and 1997/98 – ENSO rather than slow warming. Most of the rest was cloud cover change.

        If you note the error bars in the GISS temp record?

        Try this one – http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_current.gif

        It shows monthly values – and shows temp peaking in the the 1997/98 El Nino.

        Higher energy costs would reduce globally productivity – and have a price in human lives if anyone in developing countries especially were silly enough to do it.

        Being an economist is no recommendation. .

      • At 10:14 PM on 5 August, Yoram Bauman had included a postscript reading:

        As an economist I can assure you that a revenue-neutral carbon tax will not bankrupt your children or grandchildren.

        Oh, goodie! And “[a]s an economist,” Dr. Bauman, what were you anticipating in the U.S. housing and general real estate markets back in 2006 and 2007?

        Except for the Austrian School economists, the mainstream in “the dismal science” got caught as thoroughly flat-footed by the Great Recession (now working it’s way into our Mombasa Messiah’s enduring cancerous legacy as “The Obama Depression”) as had their predecessors during the stagflation of the Carter Malaise back in the late 1970s.

        If the test of any science’s validity is its’ ability to accurately predict, then Dr. Bauman‘s version of “the dismal science” (he is palms-up not an Austrian School guy) – never having been able to grapple with the concept of stagflation in particular, but woefully gormless when it came to spotting the onslaught of the currently “double-dipping” Great Recession – isn’t really a science at all, is it?

        So that prediction about how “a revenue-neutral carbon tax will not bankrupt your children or grandchildren” should be taken as reliable – except to the precise opposite effect, meaning that it will devastate the economies of present and succeeding generations – exactly…why?

      • If you Google “Economists who predicted the crisis “, the name Nouriel Roubini comes up most often. Is he Austrian School?

        Marxist economists also predicted the crash too. They have successfully predicted 6 of the last 3 recessions! They’ve been predicting the ultimate crash for more than 140 years.

        I’m not sure that it all actually means that much though. People are always making predictions. Statistically some of them will turn out to be right just on chance alone.

      • “These crises don’t come out of nowhere,” he said. “Usually they arrive because of a systematic increase in a variety of asset and credit bubbles, macro-economic policies and other vulnerabilities. If you combine them, you may not get the timing right but you get an indication that you are closer to a tipping point.” Roubini is definitely showing his Austrian roots.

      • At 3:28 AM on 7 August, Chief Hydrologist assesses the writings of Marxist economist Nouriel Roubini and remarks:

        Roubini is definitely showing his Austrian roots.

        It might seem paradoxical, but the Marxist (and other socialist) malpractitioners in the field of political economics tend reliably to be more familiar with the work of the Austrian School thinkers than are their Keynesian (“mainstream”) colleagues.

        This is chiefly, I suspect, due to the impact of the writings of Ludwig von Mises, especially his book Socialism: An Economic and Sociological Analysis (originally published in 1922), which even today fixes the baleful attentions of European socialists in particular.

        It’s one of the principal reasons why the National Socialists of Germany’s Third Reich strove so vigorously to capture Dr. von Mises and kill him, obliging him to flee for his life first to Switzerland and then to these United States.

        Neither the modern socialists nor their predecessors have yet been able to refute Dr. von Mises’ observations and conclusions in Socialism, and his analyses of the pure malignancy of this general category of authoritarianism here and elsewhere in his writings has been implacably damning.

        He had even concluded that treatise with a call to arms addressed to the advocates of individual human rights (and therefore the opponents of socialism):

        The great social discussion cannot proceed otherwise than by means of the thought, will, and action of individuals. Society lives and acts only in individuals; it is nothing more than a certain attitude on their part. Everyone carries a part of society on his shoulders; no one is relieved of his share of responsibility by others. And no one can find a safe way out for himself if society is sweeping towards destruction. Therefore everyone, in his own interests, must thrust himself vigorously into the intellectual battle. None can stand aside with unconcern; the interests of everyone hang on the result. Whether he chooses or not, every man is drawn into the great historical struggle, the decisive battle into which our epoch has plunged us.

      • –Yoram: As an economist I can assure you that a revenue-neutral carbon tax will not bankrupt your children or grandchildren–

        To know this you would first need to know the cost of the alternative technolgies that could be used to generate similar quantities of power that we now use, at similar levels of convenience.

        So what are they?

      • Jim,
        Don’t fall into his trap of prediction.
        Skeptics have no obligation to make predictions.
        No more so than an art critic has to produce a painting, or a movie critic a movie.
        Yoram is, deliberately or not, playing a game where he gets to pick your ideas apart, and claim that his are good if he can pick yours apart.
        That is simply ceding him the issue.
        The issue is not what do skeptics have to compete with AGW. The issue what is wrong with AGW theory. And there is plenty.
        Focus on that.

      • Hunter,

        So you would liken yourself to the obese fan in the stands, shouting advice on how his team should play football, but the best he can do is waddle to the pie stand at half time?

      • tt,
        What an odd question.
        Where is a pie stand in a stadium game, by the way?
        As I read here, the only cheering going on is for you and the other true believers, loyal and true to the AGW promotion team.
        And the inference about body size…..are you one of those Australians who wins the beer belly contests?
        But if you would like to discuss my original question, I would look forward to it.: Does a critic have to offer an alternative play/book/movie?
        Does an auditor have to offer a different management practice for his or her audit to be valid?
        Do you live in the real world, or are you in some government job?

      • Jim: Skeptics have no obligation to make predictions …
        TT: So you would liken yourself to the obese fan in the stands, shouting advice on how his team should play football, but the best he can do is waddle to the pie stand at half time?

        TT simply ducks – and therefore concedes – the point.

    • I predict .4 degrees C hotter in 30 years. Unless they mess with measurements by correcting for things like urban heat islands. However, I think a global average is a useless measure anyhow.

    • David Bailey

      Yoram,

      Science only works if published evidence – particularly key papers – are honest and subject to criticism. Sometimes mistakes are found, but if the paper is of any importance, it is vital to set the record straight. An erroneous demonstration of some effect of General Relativity, such as gravitational waves (say) has no place in the research record, even if lots of other evidence points in favour of GR!

      Part of your frustration – and those of many other AGW supporters, is that you do not seem to see that by making climate science into a campaign, you have caused lots of people to lose faith in the underlying science – because we can see that the science is being skewed in a variety of ways (I could list about 6, and I am not a climate scientist!).

      Belief in the importance of climate change is dropping all over the world, and I would say this is because people can sense the exaggeration and distortion that has been employed. A great example can be seen on the BBC website this morning. A tortuous argument is used to ‘explain’ an increased risk of attacks by polar bears on their dwindling numbers due to climate change!!! This despite the fact that polar bear numbers have, I think, increased!

      The only way to fix this, would be to clean up climate science, and then look at what solid evidence remains.

      I should add, that my general views are fairly left/green – not the stereotype that tends to be used about ‘deniers’. I seriously doubt AGW, and I think it will ultimately rebound horribly on the general green movement. There are real issues to concern us all – such as the destruction of the rain forests – and if AGW is exaggerated, it has just acted as a huge distraction.

      • David, I disagree. The hockey stick is a distraction, and so is the BBC and your general political views. The policy value of climate science lies in its ability to predict the future. If global CO2 continues to rise and global temperature continues to rise, my faith in the IPCC will rise, and yours should too. Will it?

      • Temperature rose in concert with CO2 during the last quarter of the last century. That some believe CO2 causation of that temperature rise is one of the grandest examples yet of the ‘Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc’ logical fallacy.

        Why has your skepticism not risen, Yoram, during this century, as CO2 rises and temperature does not?
        ==============================

      • We don’t believe the warming was due to the rise in CO2 simply because they correlate Kim. We believe it because of the evidence of the physical effect of rising CO2 (and other greenhouse gases).

        Temperature hasn’t fallen this century despite a low solar minimum and an increase in frequency of La Nina events. Rising CO2 is one of the main reasons it hasn’t fallen.

      • Pure speculation/models, lotwot, there being no physical science to underpin it, esp as regrds feedbacks.

      • you are wrong, there is paleo-climate data that supports it

        Plus models are not merely speculation. Speculation is as you see in comments on this thread. A lot more thought goes into models.

      • Paleo data that explains the physics of feedbacks? How?
        And of course a model is a speculation of how things work.

      • Paleo data has the feedbacks built in

      • So the paleo data explains the underlying physics of feedbacks?
        What exactly is this explanation then?

      • Global temperature this decade is higher than global temperature last decade: . By about 0.2C, right in line with what IPCC says.

      • Whoops, the link got left out there.

      • - Global temperature this decade is higher than global temperature last decade: . By about 0.2C, right in line with what IPCC says. -

        Which is about the same as ~1900-1940, which the IPCC says was due to natural rather than anthropogenic factors.
        So do we now also understand the physics of natural forces well enough to say they are currently dormant, and that therefore this must be man’s doing ?

      • Wrong. 1900-1940 is not anywhere near 2000-2010. See here. (Hopefully this time the link come through: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.gif .)

      • What I was referring to, was that the major period the IPCC attributes to CAGW – ~1950 onwards – has a similar rate of warming to 1900-1940, which the IPCC says was not due to man. (All of which, taken together, implies a knowledge of the effect of natural forces at work).

        You are right though that after 2000 warming is “nowhere near” that of 1900-1940 (or 1950 -> ) – as it has effectively gone to zero.

    • Yoram,
      Please try a deconstruction of my analogy.
      If I am off base, I would like to know.
      Your reliance on the IPCC, when it is shown to not be credible, is not really what I am looking for.
      My prediction is this:
      Weather, which is what climate is made of, will continue to be hot, cold, dry, wet, stormy and calm, in about the same ways it has over the last millennium well into any period of the future we can reasonably care about.
      That prediction was made years ago, when I first realized how out of control the AGW mania had gotten. I was correct.
      My other prediction is that all attempts to manage the climate by way of CO2 mitigation will fail.
      Your conclusion that until skeptics can predict better than the IPCC,by the way, is not the way science works.
      Skeptics sole job is to deconstruct the IPCC or any other scientific claim.
      You claim to be a performing comedian.
      Do you think anyone would take you seriously if you complained that since a critic did not offer a different, better routine than yours, he or she has no legitimate criticism to offer of you?
      The IPCC deserves no more respect than any other government body.
      It strikes me as odd that a comedian, whose fellow artists generally make their routines about deconstructing absurdities in life, would dare tell people that they have an obligation to respect and accept something from a complex government bureaucracy simply because it is authoritative.

      • Hunter: Your analogy is interesting, but ultimately I don’t buy it. Comedy fans don’t HAVE to go see comedy, and if a critic says that a show is lousy then people can choose to do something else.

        In contrast, policymakers HAVE to make decisions, and that (I hope!) means having some framework on which to base those decisions.

        Let’s take an economics example: Rich Matarese (at 8:35am above) thinks that mainstream economics is lousy and that only the Austrian School can be trusted. This is a climate blog, not an economics blog, so I’m not going to respond to him… but I am going to note that the basic thrust of his argument makes logical sense: Keynesian economics is no good, the Austrian School is better, so policymakers should make decisions based on the Austrian School. If instead Rich simply criticized economists for missing the financial crisis &etc, then my response would be “okay, so mainstream economists aren’t perfect; what have you got that’s better?”

        In the same way, my response to your criticisms of IPCC is “okay, so IPCC isn’t perfect, what you have got that’s better?” I’m perfectly willing to admit that IPCC has made mistakes, and I’m confident that they’ll continue to make mistakes: climate is complicated, and scientists don’t understand all of it (and presumably never will). But the only alternative I see at the moment is following the wacky advice of Jim Owen (see 12:04am above), who thinks we should just use 1998 as our base year and conclude that global temperatures have been stable.

        In any case, I’m certainly not saying that you have “an obligation to respect and accept something from a complex government bureaucracy simply because it is authoritative”, any more than I would say that you have to accept Roger Ebert’s movie reviews. But every Friday night you HAVE to make a decision about what to do, and if Roger Ebert has been a good guide for you in the past then I think you should respect his reviews of the movies that are out this weekend. In the same way, policymakers HAVE to make decisions about energy policy &etc, and since past IPCC predictions about global CO2 and global temperature have come pretty close to the mark I think policymakers should respect their predictions for the future.

        PS. I don’t “claim to be a performing comedian”, I am a performing comedian :)

      • At &:21 PM on 6 August, Yoram Bauman writes that his “

        ….response to … criticisms of IPCC is “okay, so IPCC isn’t perfect, what you have got that’s better?” I’m perfectly willing to admit that IPCC has made mistakes, and I’m confident that they’ll continue to make mistakes: climate is complicated, and scientists don’t understand all of it (and presumably never will). But the only alternative I see at the moment is following the wacky advice of Jim Owen (see 12:04am above), who thinks we should just use 1998 as our base year and conclude that global temperatures have been stable.

        Dr. Bauman, the fact that you’re not aware of climate science more reliable than the outputs of the IPCC process – which have drawn volumes of harsh and well-supported criticism not only on Dr. Curry’s Web site but all across both the skeptical and the “luke-warmist” spectra can’t really be interpreted by anyone willing to consider you an honest disputant as anything but the result of abysmal lack of information on your part.

        There has been so damned much wrong with the IPCC that it’s difficult even to know where I can begin in recommending to you a concise summary of their departures from the standards of scientific method, from professional ethics, and from the obligation simply to tell the truth about the findings and conclusions of the majority of the scientists participating in the Panel’s processes since its establishment in 1989 that I would ask the assistants of others reading here to enter their recommendations.

        Does the expression “Augean Stables” carry the connotation it used to?

        Dr. Bauman, it’s not merely “ that IPCC has made mistakes” but that the IPCC’s deviations from fact have been quite deliberate.

        It’s simply that when the officers of the Panel have been caught in these duplicities, they’ve repeatedly striven to handwave them away as “mistakes.”

        And you fell for that feeble “Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!” nonsense? Gawd!

        As Dr. Curry had herself recently discussed in this forum, there have been numerous studies which have elucidated evidence that supports hypothesis strongly refuting the extremely weak (hell, mendacious) “Cargo Cult Science” publications of the AGW alarmists.

        Not to mention the fact that whenever the alarmists – particularly those who (at the time Climategate pantsed them) were proudly calling themselves members of Dr. Michael Mann’s “Hockey Team” – have been obliged under measures such as the various Freedom of Information statutes in the UK and in these United States to disgorge the observational data and the methods whereby they’d derived their conclusions – conclusions upon which the IPCC has long depended – dispassionate skeptical examination has demonstrated corruption of the information collected, prejudicial “cherry-picking” of data, dishonest interpretation of that data, and conclusions substantially discordant with the observations undertaken.

        The IPCC promulgations, Dr. Bauman, are a snare and a deceit. More scrupulous – and honestly skeptical – examination on your part will demonstrate this to your satisfaction.

      • Rich: For someone who claims to have volumes of evidence you offer up almost none. You also fail to meet my challenge of providing an alternative to the IPCC predictions about global CO2 and global temperature. The IPCC has clearly indicated what they think is going to happen: global CO2 increasing by about 2-3ppm/year, global temperature increasing by about 0.2C/decade. What do YOU think is going to happen instead? Then we can come back in 10 years and see who was closer to the truth. The IPCC has been pretty close to the truth for the last 2 decades regarding global CO2 and global temperature, so that gives me a strong reason to treat their predictions as credible. If you’ve got evidence to the contrary you should be specific about it, which so far you haven’t been.

      • At 12:16 AM on 7 August, Yoram Bauman complains that in a single “Leave A Reply” box I have failed to provide him with a full rebuttal of the voluminous errors, misstatements, unsupported and therefore abjectly unscientific assertions, and elaborate prevarications of the IPCC since its establishment in 1989.

        Okay. Let me go the obtuse Dr. Bauman better than he’s gone in any way at all, nonspecifically invoking the IPCC as a “Cargo Cult” witch doctor invokes the spirit of the Military Airlift Command, without understanding just precisely what the hell he’s talking about.

        Science educator Joanne Nova had begun aggregating information on the manifold bogosities of los warmistas many years ago. In October 2010, she began producing a series of eleven online articles under the title “Is the Western Climate Establishment Corrupt?,” all elements of which are online and freely accessible to Dr. Bauman by way of Ms. Nova’s Web site. He is encouraged to read through them.

        In addition, Ms. Nova had created The Skeptic’s Handbook in 2009 (pre-Climategate) as a summary guide for the non-scientist on the subject.

        The Science and Public Policy Institute has similarly prepared and makes freely available online a number of papers free for download in PDF, many of which have concerned themselves specifically as well as generally with the IPCC, and which address their subjects in language accessible to the non-scientist.

        One of these was John McLean’s independent review of the IPCC, published on August 18, 2010. This might very efficiently serve as a starting point for Dr. Bauman‘s focused appreciation of the untrustworthy character of the IPCC.

        I’ve been reading about the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) conjecture since it was brought to my attention by the late Dr. Petr Beckmann sometime in 1981, and I’ve followed it through most of the Climategate Timeline to the present day. There’s a correspondingly enormous amount of information on this egregious scientific error which grew into the greatest single fraud in the history of the human race, and the IPCC figures large in that fraudulence.

        Dr. Bauman – if he’s an honest disputant and not simply a religious True Believer in the alarmist “Cargo Cult” – has a helluva lot of catching up to do.

      • Let me repeat myself: I’m backing the AGW predictions of the IPCC (2-3ppm/year increase in CO2, 0.2C/decade increase in global temperature) but you can back whatever predictions you want. The key is that you make some predictions, not just cast stones at IPCC, so that in 10 years or 20 years we’ll have a better idea of who’s right.

        But you’re clearly unwilling to make any predictions. What other readers of this blog should be wondering is: Why not?

      • At 10:55 AM on 7 August, Yoram Bauman writes that he is

        …backing the AGW predictions of the IPCC (2-3ppm/year increase in CO2, 0.2C/decade increase in global temperature) but you can back whatever predictions you want. The key is that you make some predictions, not just cast stones at IPCC, so that in 10 years or 20 years we’ll have a better idea of who’s right.

        But you’re clearly unwilling to make any predictions. What other readers of this blog should be wondering is: Why not?

        Dr. Bauman is not “backing the AGW predictions of the IPCC but rather regurgitating them without critical consideration of their provenance, methodology, or validity.

        Moreover, Dr. Bauman is persistently evading the acknowledgement that there is no obligation upon the critic of a particular (allegedly) scientific assertion to offer “predictions” alternative to those produced by the authors of the assertion in question, but merely supportedly to observe that the “predictions” have proven wrong.

        Dr. Bauman is demonstrating profound intellectual dishonesty in his presence in this forum, evading all consideration of the critiques of IPCC error, methodological failures, and outright duplicity thus far provided by those responding to Dr. Bauman‘s posts.

        What “predictions” of past and anticipated global climate change have Dr. Bauman himself offered, as opposed to his “True Believer” second-handing of the IPCC religious orthodoxy?

        Nil.

        I repeat: Dr. Bauman is displaying pure quackery, and nothing more.

      • Yoram But [Rich is] clearly unwilling to make any predictions. What other readers of this blog should be wondering is: Why not? –
        Why does someone who spots an error or unwarranted assumption in the calculations for some prediction, need to make a prediction of his own?
        If I see you divide by zero in your proof of Fermat’s last theorem, is my observation not valid until I supply my own proof?

        Ridiculous, of course. So No, I doubt if other readers are wondering why Rich doesn’t emulate the IPCC by making hollow predictions.

      • Yeah Rich – put up or shut up – ya drongol

      • Yoram,

        Yr: “…policymakers HAVE to make decisions…”

        Let me throw out an idea. Neither governments nor anyone else HAS to make a decision before the relevant problem is ripe for such decision making.

        Remember, that only recently we were being assured that we have a “new paradigm” in financial risk management based on “computer models” developed by some real smart guys. And that on that basis all sorts of reckless decisions were made by some of the most august of our financial institutions that had the ultimate effect of driving our economy over a cliff. A cautionary tale, it seems to me.

        Too many parallels between the “big-push” by CAGW advocates and the recent financial follies to encourage me to think that the time is ripe for CAGW decision making. An impressionistic conclusion, I know, but since neither you nor I nor anyone else can personally know all of the ins-and-outs of the CAGW science, the related policy recommendations on the table, and their myriad of ramifications, we are all stuck with impressionistic judgements in CAGW matters to some degree or another.

        In sum, it seems to me your urgent desire to “yank the lanyard” is a little too hasty; I want to be a bit more sure about where that round will land before I crank it off.

      • Yes, policymakers do HAVE to make a decision: either you try to reduce CO2 or you don’t. Either you regulate derivates or you don’t. Either you go after Bin Laden or you don’t. We chose to go after Bin Laden, we chose to not regulate derivates, and we’re choosing to not do much about CO2. Whether or not that’s the right choice depends on what you think is going to happen to global CO2 and global temperature, and since the IPCC predictions about those issues have been pretty close to the mark in the past, they seem like the best guide we’ve got to what’s going to happen in the future.

      • Yoram,

        Bold assertions may work for you on the stage, but they’re not working their magic on me and perhaps others, as well, in the context of CAGW.

        If you mean that a deferral of a decision until it can be more prudently considered at a later date is a form of a “decision” then on that trivial basis I guess I must agree that policy makers HAVE to make decisions. Otherwise, your fist-pounding insistence that policy makers “HAVE” to make decisions is lame. Not only can policy makers defer their decisions on CAGW policy, they have . Indeed, the U. S., Canada, China, India, Russia and many others are clearly “bagging it” when it comes to action on the IPCC’s Prophecy of Doom (and their actions would suggest that these major nations do not share your pious faith in the IPCC’s powers of prophecy).

        So the lay of the land, like it or not, Yoram, is that we will wait a while, of necessity, to better see where CO2 and global warming are going before making the sort of decisions you have in mind, if we make such decisions, at all. Sounds good to m

        But while I’ve got you on the hook, Yoram, let me say that I can well imagine that your comedy act features some devastating satires lampooning Al Gore and his Big-Green pals and their preposterous and flagrant carbon-piggie hypocrisies. And in your satires, Yoram, what is Al’s reaction when you explain to him all those CAGW perils the IPCC has laid out for us of the laity? Bet there’s some laughs there!

      • I agree that global CO2 emissions are not going to come down anytime soon. We may disagree about whether that’s a good thing or not, but at the very least we should be able to agree that IPCC will deserve more respect if their predictions about global CO2 and global temperature over the next decades turn out to be mostly on target, i.e. 2-3ppm/year increase in CO2 and 0.2C/decade increase in temperature. Yes?

      • Yoram,

        The IPCC will be accorded “respect” by thinking individuals only to the degree that it earns such respect: that it conducts its work with a staff of superbly qualified individuals at all levels reflecting a variety of views, free of conflicts of interest, and chosen for their demonstrated scientific excellence and integrity, not their orthodox reliability; that it conducts its work in a full and open manner with dissenting opinions prominently acknowledged and with no regard to the political, ideological, and profit-seeking interests attracted to climate science; that its conducts its work so that its reviews only consider literature that is, itself, produced to the highest standards of the scientific method and has been vetted through the public scrutiny of publicly available data, code, and methodologies; that it conducts its work so that it is subject to public comment by knowledgeable critics with systematic consideration and forthcoming response to relevant criticisms; that it conducts its work so that the uncertainty attached to its conclusions, which are inherent in science, are duly and prominently noted; and that its conducts its work so that its executive summaries faithfully derive from and fully represent the underlying review of the qualifying scientific literature and avoid over-simplification and politically motivated selectivity.

        On the other hand, no doubt the IPCC’s reputation will be enhanced superficially in the popular mind if its current “big number” rings the bell over the next few decades just as lotto winners see the reputation their numerological theories enhanced with a big win–everyone loves winners and no one more so than PR flaks. And no doubt the IPCC, if it brings home the bacon in the form of a winning “big number” AND its predicted dire consequences will gain further respect as a good cover for pushing unpopular schemes on the part of greenshirt politicos with their “big” plans for the “little” people and their closely allied Big-Green pals and their make-a-big-buck intriques. Conversely, if the IPCC ever looses its usefulness to these fair-weather friends, it will be thrown under a bus in a New York minute–winning number or no winning number, scientific integrity or no scientific integrity.

        Sorry, Yoram, your question didn’t lend itself to the simple yes/no response your catechism style favors. But you got my best shot.

      • “on the part of greenshirt politicos”

        Sad, such a effort, and to be undone by Godwin’s Law.

        You lose, mike. In the future maybe try leaving the right-wing fringe fanaticism at home. Better luck next time!

      • Robert,

        Your comment just tripped my greenshirt idiot comment alert. Always happens when greenshirts, like you, invoke Godwin’s Law. You know, greenshirst, like you, who employ the truly offensive term “denier” with its undeniable subliminal and scurrilous resonances with the term “holocaust denier”.

        Regardless, I’m sticking with “greenshirt”–in no small part because I can see its getting under your skin, Robert.

      • Robert,

        Sorry, all that nipping at my ankles in your last comment distracted me. I had intended to take advantage of our next opportunity to chit-chat to inform you that I’ve replaced that earlier reply to you that was, alas, lost to moderation. Let me repair that oversight, check out my comment up above dated August 6 9:07a. m. It’s a good one and I know you’ll like it. The key word in the comment is “chihuahua.”

      • “on the part of greenshirt politicos”
        Robert: Sad, such a effort, and to be undone by Godwin’s Law.
        You lose, mike. In the future maybe try leaving the right-wing fringe fanaticism at home. Better luck next time!

        Sorry Robert, anyone who claims victory by Godwin’s law, automatically loses. Your establishment left-wing fanaticism has sunk you. Next time try actually thinking things out.

      • Robert, laughably, tries to pretend he has not been fulfilling Godwin’s law from basically his first post.
        What a little weasel Robert our newest troll is.
        what a laughable maroon.
        Thanks, Robert, for cheering up a Sunday afternoon.
        Robert is one of the best recruiters to AGW skepticism to ever post here.
        Keep up the good work.

      • Yoram,
        Frequently in life and policy the best thing is to do nothing, or as little as possible. The AGW community is demanding the equivalent of radical heart surgery when no other indicators are calling for it.
        Adaptation has worked very well for humanity.
        Mitigation is an illusion with no substance, whenever the topic is actually analyzed and not simply cheered on.
        You seem unable to engage on the discussion except by way of dismissal, and that is sadly common in the AGW community.
        Your evasion of my discussion of the critic is actually an admission by you that you are just bleating out believer talking points, and not actually engaging.
        That is annoying, frankly.
        The only thing more annoying is the boring, predictable path many believers are taking in attempting to pretend that skeptics are so wicked they should be suppressed and silenced, as we see ‘journalism’ professors and politicians doing today.
        Nothing marks a loser in a discussion like trying to stop the dialogue.

      • Yoram,
        You went to Reed and are subsidized by PBS?
        Why am I not surprised. Yet I am still disgusted. You couldn’t get a real gig? You had to go the PBS racket route?
        You know, as a taxpayer I find that our money is going to support the inevitably leftist spew of PBS so that comedic economists can tour China and get hyped at tax payer expense really insulting.
        Thanks for reminding me that we Americans really being ripped off by lefty hacks who suck down our money and then trash us who actually pay for it.
        Cya, tool.

      • What makes you think I’m “subsidized” by PBS? Last I checked they haven’t given me a dime.

      • Yoram,
        PBS is following you. Their resources are being used to follow you.
        Their resources come from us tax payer schleps.
        That is really lame.
        And you are the big economist, so don’t tell me you don’t ‘get it’.

      • - In contrast, policymakers HAVE to make decisions, and that (I hope!) means having some framework on which to base those decisions.-
        And if there is no framework worth any salt, it means there is no basis for any action. It doesn’t mean action premised on the most popular (or only) worthless framework is justified.

      • So we disagree about whether the scientific theory of AGW (going back to Tyndall/Arrhenius/etc) is worth anything, and about whether the IPCC’s predictions about global CO2 and global temperature have earned them some respect when it comes to their predictions about the future path of global CO2 and global temperature. I say Yes, and you say No. But you refuse to engage on the issue of whether IPCC predictions about global CO2 and global temperature have been mostly correct in the past. And you also show me nothing that makes me think that the basic scientific theory of AGW is wrong. So if I were a policymaker I would be choosing between the National Academy of Sciences… and Punksta. Not a hard choice, sorry.

      • One of the great tricks the AGW believers rely on is to confuse greenhouse/Tyndall gas theory with AGW.
        That is not really any different from fanatics of a particular religion claiming that it is not possible to moral if one does not believe their religions obsession.

      • – So we disagree about whether the scientific theory of AGW (going back to Tyndall/Arrhenius/etc) is worth anything –
        No, Tyndal is not in dispute. But nor is Tyndal anything like the whole basis for IPCC predictions, which rely heavily on feedback multipliers. Which very much are in dispute.

        – So if I were a policymaker I would be choosing between the National Academy of Sciences… and Punksta. Not a hard choice, sorry. –
        Differences between the two being that Punksta
        - has not been shown to be riddled with corruption, in Climategate and elsewhere
        - recommmends nothing that would enhance the policymaker’s prestige and power, no more taxes and bureaucracies etc

    • Peter Davies

      Yoram
      You seem to be calling for predictions on the future course of global warming and then waiting to see who is confirmed correct. The AGW hypothesis would seem to be superficially supported by the data from 1970 up to 2000 but apparently not by the data after 2000. What not seems to be supported at all, however, is CAGW and the imposition of economic sanctions on the use of fossil fuels for electricity generation and transportation.

      • No, that’s not what I’m saying. I’d like to see (sensible) action now to reduce the rate of growth of CO2 emissions. But the fact of the matter is that global CO2 emissions are not going to go down anytime soon because of growth in China, India, etc. So at the very least we should make sure that in 10 years or 20 years we’re in a different place in terms of the theory of AGW than where we are right now, and the way to do that is for everybody to make predictions and then in 10 years or 20 years we find out who’s done a better job. I’m backing the AGW predictions of the IPCC (2-3ppm/year increase in CO2, 0.2C/decade increase in global temperature) because they’ve done a pretty good job over the past few decades, and because I believe what my colleagues in physics and climate sciences at University of Washington tell me about the basic science of AGW. No, I don’t claim to understand it all myself, but the good news is that you can back whatever predictions you want. The key is that you make some predictions, not just cast stones at IPCC. So… how about it?

      • Peter Davies

        Intuitivelty,. I agree that polution activities are best reduced if not curtailed. I don’t like smog and I dont think we should be supporting it in any way.

      • At 4:25 AM on 7 August, Yoram Bauman writes that he’d

        …like to see (sensible) action now to reduce the rate of growth of CO2 emissions. But the fact of the matter is that global CO2 emissions are not going to go down anytime soon because of growth in China, India, etc. So at the very least we should make sure that in 10 years or 20 years we’re in a different place in terms of the theory of AGW than where we are right now, and the way to do that is for everybody to make predictions and then in 10 years or 20 years we find out who’s done a better job. I’m backing the AGW predictions of the IPCC (2-3ppm/year increase in CO2, 0.2C/decade increase in global temperature) because they’ve done a pretty good job over the past few decades, and because I believe what my colleagues in physics and climate sciences at University of Washington tell me about the basic science of AGW. No, I don’t claim to understand it all myself, but the good news is that you can back whatever predictions you want. The key is that you make some predictions, not just cast stones at IPCC. So… how about it?

        Gawd. We should give thanks that Dr. Bauman is an economist and a comedian, and not “the kind of doctor who does anybody good.” It’s this kind of “Do something even if it’s wrong!” attitude of credentialed academics like Dr. Bauman, coupled with his explicit willingness to “believe what my colleagues in physics and climate sciences at [the] University of Washington” (emphasis most assuredly on “believe“) that has given the great AGW fraud the destructive impact it has already imposed upon the world.

        I had earlier directed Dr. Bauman to a number of critiques of the IPCC (which he endorses on this subject in precisely the same way any other True Believer will invoke the name of his deity) written for the non-scientist, but he has failed to respond to that specific post of mine, and his subsequent comments show no indication of his access to these resources. I therefore direct his attention to them yet again.

        First and foremost, Dr. Bauman errs when he writes that the IPCC had “done a pretty good job over the past few decades.” That assertion on the part of Dr. Bauman is notably not supported, and is in fact invalidated by evidence-based investigation in studies conducted by atmospheric physicists, meteorologists, climatologists, and other scientists (beyond the narrow purview of Dr. Bauman‘s University of Washington, it seems), such as one currently under discussion on Dr. Curry’s Web site.

        I would direct to Dr. Bauman‘s attention the recent presentation of Dr. Murry Salby (audio available online) on the subject of the carbon cycle, during which Dr. Salby mentioned the observation – of which Dr. Bauman appears not to be aware – that while the most sustained instrumental tracking of atmospheric carbon dioxide levels has shown a steady increase in all-causes CO2 over the past half-century and more, the uncorrupted instrumental global temperature datasets have shown no correlation of warming therewith.

        While correlation does not necessarily imply causation, lack of correlation militates strongly against the conjecture of causation.

        As an economist, Dr. Bauman ought to be aware of the fact that the test of any science lies in its ability reliably to predict. This is, as I’ve observed in this forum, one of the fatal flaws of “the dismal science” itself as it has been practiced in government and in academic venues like the University of Washington.

        Given that the AGW conjecture (which has never risen to the level of “theory” and, in truth, never can) asserts that the critical cause of anticipated “global climate disruption” over the next century and more will be anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide (aCO2), the failure of correlation between what we’re seeing on the Keeling Curve and what is actually reflected in uncorrupted global temperature data is yet another of the many reasons why Dr. Bauman is wrong to vest his faith – and faith is the sole basis of Dr. Bauman‘s support for this preposterous bogosity – in the IPCC and the AGW fraud.

        So Dr. Bauman would “…like to see (sensible) action now to reduce the rate of growth of CO2 emissions” even though he has no factual basis for imposing such action upon the people who must bear the costs thereof.

        I would say that in the field of political economics, Dr. Bauman is proving himself to be a quack.

      • – I believe what my colleagues in physics and climate sciences at University of Washington tell me about the basic science of AGW –
        Have these colleagues had anything to say about the about the science fraud and malpractice by Jones et al underpinning the IPCC position?
        Or are they complicit by their silence?

      • Let me repeat myself: I’m backing the AGW predictions of the IPCC (2-3ppm/year increase in CO2, 0.2C/decade increase in global temperature) but you can back whatever predictions you want. The key is that you make some predictions, not just cast stones at IPCC. So… how about it?

      • What makes you think the IPCC’s crystal ball is any better than anyone else’s?
        Not being adept at crystal ball gazing, I, for one, am not going to make any predictions.

      • Nobody else is offering up a crystal ball, for heaven’s sake! And for my money the IPCC’s crystal ball has done pretty good for the past few decades, yes? http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.gif

      • Not at all good, that looks horrible.

      • Pacific decadal oscillation hindcasts relevant to near-term climate prediction

        ‘A negative tendency of the predicted PDO phase in the coming decade will enhance the rising trend in surface air-temperature (SAT) over east Asia and over the KOE region, and suppress it along the west coasts of North and South America and over the equatorial Pacific. This suppression will contribute to a slowing down of the global-mean SAT rise.’

        It is all fairly obvious – except to those to whom it isn’t. .

      • Yoram,

        Sorry, didn’t see this comment of yours or I would have posted my prediction here. You can find it in my comment August 7, 2:33 p. m. below. Key word: guessing-game.

      • Yoram,
        Since we are no where close to 0.2C, can we move on to your punchline?

      • Yoram,
        So I’ll take it your climate colleagues are complicit in IPCC fraud then, if only by their failure to criticise it.
        (And do you criticise it? Or do you too think that malpractice is iust normal academic behaviour?

        And let me repeat myself: making alternative predictions is not key here. Nice as that would be, it is not a requirement for showing that the IPCC argument doesn’t stack up. If there are still no theories that stack up, that is not a reason to pick/back/base_action_on the most popular one.

      • Punksta: I don’t claim to understand the hockey stick papers or the criticisms of those papers, so I mostly stay away from that discussion. (As an economist, however, I do think that conspiracy theories are unlikely—if they were easy then free-market economics wouldn’t work so well because producers would just get together to fix prices—so I tend to shy away from theories that involve massive conspiracies in which folks at UW and elsewhere are “complicit in IPCC fraud”.) My main point, however, is that I’m not informed enough about the hockey stick stuff. And I’m not going to get informed about it, because I don’t think it’s very important. What I think is important is predictions about global CO2 and global temperatures in the 1990 – 2100 time frame.

        And, when it comes to those predictions, since you’re not willing to make any predictions the choice for policymakers is clear: does the IPCC do better than hypothesizing that global CO2 and global temperature will be the same next year (or in 10 years) as they are this year? I’m extremely confident that the IPCC will do better in terms of global CO2 over the next 10 years (of course, is Salby is right then presumably I will be wrong…. so we’ll have to wait and see!) and I’m very confident that the IPCC will do better in terms of global temperature over the next 10 years. Just look at the evidence to date and extrapolate: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.gif Again, of course, I could be wrong! That’s the impressive thing about making predictions :)

        You, on the other hand, fail to show that IPCC predictions about global CO2 and global temperature have been wrong over the past two decades, and you fail to offer up any alternatives of your own for the next two decades. So in two decades we will be no closer to resolving this than we are now. That’s too bad, and it’s not very impressive. Hopefully your colleagues can carry the ball past where you have left it.

      • O. K. Yoram, I’ll be a good sport and play along. I predict that 10 years from now the global temperature will cool by the same absolute value that the IPCC says it will warm. Good to go? And, if I understand the rules of the game, if my number is the lucky winner then I’m more credible than the IPCC, right?

        And, oh by the way, if it turns out I win this guessing-game will you then direct your devotions to me and give me the big build-up in your comedy act? Also, if my number comes up the winner, I think I should replace the whole of the IPCC with it’s current payroll payable to me alone to include that generous party-budget that funds their annual obscene, carbon-piggie, blow-out conferences. With me on that last, Yoram?

      • Not quite good to go, because you didn’t make a prediction about global CO2 in 10 years. And, look: what you call a “guessing game” is in fact hugely important. If global CO2 and global temperature don’t continue to rise roughly in line with IPCC projections then you’re darn right I’ll change my tune (and my comedy act). The whole point is that IPCC doesn’t think they’re guessing: they think their models are good enough to predict the future. If they turn out to be right and you’re not impressed then you’re not paying attention. And if you turn out to be right about temperature falling over the next 10 years then I’ll pay more attention to what you have to say. Fair, yes?

      • Yoram –
        The IPCC models were never intended to predict the future in the terms you seem to assume. Nor have they done so.

        You need to get some education about the subject. You apparently haven’t bothered with that little detail.

      • At 8:36 PM on 7 August, Jim Owen had addressed Dr. Bauman, saying:

        The IPCC models were never intended to predict the future in the terms you seem to assume. Nor have they done so.

        You need to get some education about the subject. You apparently haven’t bothered with that little detail.

        Dr. Bauman – who, “as an economist” has shown himself to be a quack, indifferent to the material and opportunity costs being suffered by innocent human beings due to laws and regulations based upon the completely worthless policy recommendations of the IPCC in which he believes so uncritically – seems now to be fixating upon the predictive value of the AGW “Cargo Cult Science” being foisted by the Panel.

        I had earlier observed to him that the test of any science is its ability to provide reliable prediction by characterizing mechanisms of causation which are proven by subsequent observation and/or experimentation, and now he’s vapor-locked on that.

        Dr. Bauman has already admitted that he has no interest whatsoever in the science behind the ukases of the IPCC. He has stated that he is unable “…to understand the hockey stick papers or the criticisms of those papers, so I mostly stay away from that discussion.” Heck, in that same post he’d said:

        My main point, however, is that I’m not informed enough about the hockey stick stuff. And I’m not going to get informed about it, because I don’t think it’s very important. What I think is important is predictions about global CO2 and global temperatures in the 1990 – 2100 time frame.

        Of course, the correlation between “global CO2 and global temperatures” in the time frame between 1990 and 2010 has demonstrated that the predictive value of the IPCC’s ludicrous excuse for a “scientific” basis is nil.

        Let’s understand this about Dr. Bauman: he is ignorant of any aspect of climate science, and will not put in the effort required even to gain a “reasonable layman” appreciation of the subject. He is satisfied merely to know that the “We’re All Gonna Die!” alarmism of los warmistas has the official seal of approval of the United Nation’s IPCC, and that’s good enough for him.

        Do not use the expression “argument from authority” with reference to Dr. Bauman in this forum because his faith in officially sanctified orthodoxy is the only basis for his personal position on the subject of “man-made global climate change,” and you do not challenge a religious whackjob by appeal to what you kinda hope will be his sense of intellectual integrity.

        In Dr. Bauman‘s case, we’ve more than sufficient proof that he has no more intellectual integrity – even “as an economist” – than does your average exorcist.

        So with that clearly in mind, let us acknowledge that Dr. Bauman is most emphatically not going to heed Jim‘s admonition “to get some education about the subject.

      • mike,
        Yoram is a lefty extremist, from Reed and using PBS (our tax dollars) to promote his career.
        I would take him no more seriously than his comedy schtick.
        What is it with lefties and the need to take out money, all the way from building their careers to managing the climate?
        Skeptics do not have to predict anything.
        All we have to do is point out that AGW is crap.
        Making predictions puts us on the ground of accepting their flawed assumptions and fallacies.
        They do not want skeptics being skeptical, because they cannot win.
        And Yoram needs to work on his Chinese tour and pretend to be earning his PBS support.

      • Hunter,

        As always, I appreciate your wise counsel. But I’m just goofing with Yoram. My prediction was plucked out of thin air–made it up to screw with Yoram (all good-natured joshing, of course).

        You know, I checked out Yoram’s link and he seems a pretty impressive guy. Hard-charger, go-getter, active in philanthropy, a man who experienced a tragedy in his youth that he recounts with great dignity and inspirationally, and a considerate gentleman with his girlfriend–as least that’s the impression he leaves me.

        What is puzzling is how a guy like Yoram, with a PhD no less and PBS’s beaming seal of approval, could discuss CAGW issues in a manner one would rather expect from a freshmen new-join to Loser High School’s debate team (Junior Varsity division). So how to square the unimpressive Yoram we see on this blog with the seemingly impressive Yoram of his website?

        Theory 1: Yoram really is an doofus and that’s the quality the establishment philosopher-kings of the left want in their fast-track, useful fools now-a-days.

        Theory 2: Yoram is really a smart guy after all. The doors that have opened wide for Yoram depend on a lefty-slant to his comedy routine. So, of course, he’s hard-over committed to the greenshirt orthodoxy when discussing CAGW issues–it’s his bread and butter. My further wild guess is that his comedy act is geared to teens and twenty-somethings that are not only impressionable but have been softened up by years of school-based greenshirt brain-washing. And so the quality of Yoram’s thought we see on this blog really derives from his keep-it-simple-and-manipulative comedy act where he humorously walks the kids through their cathechism (Do you believe the planet is warming? Yes! Do you think we should save our planet from potentially catastrophic warming? Yes! etc. until by the end of the act the kids are all a-giggle and writhing and frothing and shouting for cap-and-trade and electric dork-mobiles). In this theory, Yoram becomes a useful and likely witting tool vice a useful fool.

        I favor the second theory. I also suggest Yoram’s little visits to this blog were most likely to gather material for his routine. In that regard, I wouldn’t be surprised, hunter, if you and I and Rich, for sure, appear before Chinese audiences as your typical knuckle-dragging deniers.

        But I could be wrong about, Yoram. Who knows?

      • Yoram’s Guessing Game

        I still await an explanation of what it could possibly achieve.
        Either from the stand-up economist himself, or anyone else.

      • The whole point is that IPCC doesn’t think they’re guessing: they think their models are good enough to predict the future.

        No they don’t. As part of the UN, they are are first and foremost trying to boost the UN’s prospects, by making it look like more government is needed – particularly world government. They only reason they profess belief in the models, is to advance their political advocasy.

      • Chief Hydrologist

        No one believes the models but the innocents who have been conned. atomospheric and ocean simulation (AOS) are of course chaotic systems as they use the same partial differential equations of fluid motion that Edwrad Lorenz used in his 1960′s convection model – to discover chaos theory. There is no unique solution and we don’t know the size of the phase space. So they run the models until the ‘a posteriori solution behaviour’ looks about right.

        ‘AOS models are therefore to be judged by their degree of plausibility, not whether they are correct or best. This perspective extends to the component discrete algorithms, parameterizations, and coupling breadth: There are better or worse choices (some seemingly satisfactory for their purpose or others needing repair) but not correct or best ones. The bases for judging are a priori formulation, representing the relevant natural processes and choosing the discrete algorithms, and a posteriori solution behavior. Plausibility criteria are qualitative and loosely quantitative, because there are many relevant measures of plausibility that cannot all be specified or fit precisely. Results that are clearly discrepant with measurements or between different models provide a valid basis for model rejection or modification, but moderate levels of mismatch or misfit usually cannot disqualify a model. Often, a particular misfit can be tuned away by adjusting some model parameter, but this should not be viewed as certification of model correctness…

        Sensitive dependence and structural instability are humbling twin properties for chaotic dynamical systems, indicating limits about which kinds of questions are theoretically answerable. They echo other famous limitations on scientist’s expectations, namely the undecidability of some propositions within axiomatic mathematical systems (Gödel’s theorem) and the uncomputability of some algorithms due to excessive size of the calculation

        http://www.pnas.org/content/104/21/8709.full

        But in fact the IPCC didn’t use models for their 0.2 degree C estimate. They simply averaged the temperature trend between 1976 and 1998 and asumed it would continue. They can’t even get that right. First of all – you need to subtract the 1976/77 and 1997/98 ENSO events. You then have to start to wonder about natural climate variability.

        I predict that there will be a negative temperature trend beetween 1998 and 2011 – oh wait – that’s already happened for the reasons I go into below.

      • Proving more and more to be a wholly valueless disputant in this forum, at 11:11 AM on 7 August, Yoram Bauman attests to his inability

        …to understand the hockey stick papers or the criticisms of those papers, so I mostly stay away from that discussion. (As an economist, however, I do think that conspiracy theories are unlikely—if they were easy then free-market economics wouldn’t work so well because producers would just get together to fix prices—so I tend to shy away from theories that involve massive conspiracies in which folks at UW and elsewhere are “complicit in IPCC fraud”.) My main point, however, is that I’m not informed enough about the hockey stick stuff. And I’m not going to get informed about it, because I don’t think it’s very important. What I think is important is predictions about global CO2 and global temperatures in the 1990 – 2100 time frame.

        Okay, we now have Dr. Bauman‘s clear admission that, to him, the science of AGW is irrelevant. It is sufficient to Dr. Bauman‘s purposes – and those purposes are malevolent in the extreme – that the “man-made global climate disruption” contention bears the imprimatur of the IPCC, an organ of the United Nations, and in that Panel Dr. Bauman vests an entirely unfounded belief so fervent that he refuses to consider criticism of the deviations from scientific method, the mistakes, the corruption, and the lies of the people responsible for running the IPCC even though such criticisms are well-supported and lead ineluctably to the conclusion that there is no reason whatsoever to accept the various IPCC policy recommendations as bases for the formulation or implementation of statutes and regulations with regard to the world’s climate.

        Dr. Bauman goes on to speak – “as an economist,” for pity’s sake – that because the critics of the IPCC in this forum do not choose to “make any predictions” of global climate change because they reject the never-proven conjecture that anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions have anything to do with such changes that Dr. Bauman insists that “the choice for policymakers is clear,” meaning that he wants the various governments to impose restrictions on their citizens which would force those innocent people to “reduce their carbon footprint” at enormous direct material and opportunity costs.

        And Dr. Bauman is supposed to be “an economist,” is he?

        Gawd, what a quack.

        This quack then goes on to write that he’s “…extremely confident that the IPCC will do better in terms of global CO2 over the next 10 years” (without saying why he’s “confident,” of course), and adding that “of course, if Salby is right then presumably I will be wrong….

        Oh, goodie. Dr. Baumanwill be wrong” and real, live people all over the world will be forced to sustain heavy costs for absolutely no purpose whatsoever.

        Can “an economist” be sued for malpractice – the dereliction of duty to those for whom he is taking professional responsibility? Dr. Bauman – as “an economist” – is in this forum demonstrating malpractitionate behavior.

        There can be no other conclusion with regard to Dr. Bauman‘s conduct as a disputant in this discussion than that he is professionally – “as an economist” – incompetent, and no longer to be regarded except with contempt.

      • Yoram –
        Just look at the evidence to date and extrapolate: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.gif

        Soory, Bubba, but your evidence has nothing to do with IPCC projections or predictions. It’s a GISS plot of their temp vs time – and badly done at that if one is lookiing for anything other than political advocacy.

      • Yoram I tend to shy away from theories that involve massive conspiracies in which folks at UW and elsewhere are “complicit in IPCC fraud”. –

        Such talking up of “conspiracy” is a well-worn strawman. The reality is just a question of vested interest. The state stands to massively benefit from an aceptance of CAGW thinking, and is itself the funder of close to 100% of climate science, virtually all of which preaches CAGW. It has the same ring as tobacco-funded science telling us smoking is safe. In both cases, scientists are selected for, and work to advance the interests of, their employer. Add to this the widespread science malpractice revealed in Climategate, that the climate establishment can’t being itself to criticise, and you get a good overall picture.

        As regards predictions, since the IPCC one has fallen flat on its face for the last 10+ years, I am at a loss to understand your enthusiasm for it. And as mentioned, although it correctly hindcast 1950 onwards, that rate of warming was very similar to the 1900-1940 one, which was attributed to natural forces, NOT man. So how can anyone know that 1950-> was not natural too?

      • Does Yoram reject the Koch/Exxon conspiracy?

      • Sorry, but I haven’t even heard of it.

      • Bunk.
        The conspiracy by big oil is a staple of the AGW mythos.
        There is no way a comedian and AGW believer from far left liberal arts school is not going to be steeped in that.
        Please do not be disingenuous. It is not funny.

      • As far as the funding of vested interests goes, the totalitarian/left camp (the state) controls close to 100% of the funding of climate science – hence the apparent ‘consensus’.

      • At 5:07 AM on 8 August, Punksta had written that:

        As far as the funding of vested interests goes, the totalitarian/left camp (the state) controls close to 100% of the funding of climate science – hence the apparent ‘consensus’.

        Though Punksta is almost certainly aware of this resource, on 21 July 2009 science educator Joanne Nova published a monograph aggregating information on this subject, titled Climate Money – The Climate Industry: $79 billion so far – trillions to come. It may be freely downloaded in PDF via the link provided here. From the opening page of that paper:

        The US government has spent over $79 billion since 1989 on policies related to climate change, including science and technology research, administration, education campaigns, foreign aid, and tax breaks.

        Despite the billions: “audits” of the science are left to unpaid volunteers. A dedicated but largely uncoordinated grassroots movement of scientists has sprung up around the globe to test the integrity of the theory and compete with a well funded highly organized climate monopoly. They have exposed major errors.

        I would recommend this pre-Climategate monograph to Dr. Bauman (“as an economist“), but inasmuch as he’s demonstrated that he’s a quack – “as an economist” – I don’t think it’d do him any good.

      • Yoram,

        Yoram,

        I’d never heard of it either but, after having Googled, I think they must be talking about this.

        http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/polluterwatch/koch-industries/

        All,
        Yes, we do know that those with a vested interest do finance Right wing think tanks like the IPA, Heartland Institute, CEI etc, and also Right wing republicans in the US Congress. Is this kind of finance a conspiracy? Sure, the financiers want to keep their identity secret, and the “think tanks” don’t want to reveal their funding source, but secrecy isn’t always the same thing as conspiracy.

  69. Whoever said they predicted cooling 5 years ago, perhaps should take a look at the latest NSIDC graph on Arctic Ice.

    It doesn’t look like its cooling in the Arctic.

    • tt –
      This is the one I use –

      or this one –

      or this one –

      or this for temp –

      http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php

      You need to rethink your conclusion.

    • I wouldn’t call it a prediction exactly – more of this is happening now. Cool PDV, clouds, more and bigger La NIna.

      http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/11/enso_variation_and_global_warm.html

      Try this one. http://www.pnas.org/content/107/5/1833.full

      You posted this ice thing somewhere else – it still has little meaning.

      I posted this link to Professor Ole Humlum as well – http://www.climate4you.com/ – actually read the section on sea ice this time (and the rest of course) and you might know something.

    • You are just assuming that 2500 of the worlds leading scientists can’t be wrong. You need to rethink your entire life and the whole basis of your ideological attachment to the authoritarian framework of global warming. The very idea is a nonsense and should be replaced with the concept of abrupt climate change – most of it natural. You need to go to Vienna and have a team of psychiatrists working on you around the clock – 24 hours a day for however long it takes. Just on you exclusively.

      Send the bill to Al Gore.

      • If they do it 24 hours a day, it’s not psychiatry, it’s torture. ;-)

      • I thought there were only about 600 scientists who contributed to WG1.
        The remaining were divvied up between WG2 & WG3.

      • CH,

        Why do you say “The very idea {of AGW} is a nonsense” ?

        I can understand someone claiming AGW might be incorrect after a careful analysis, but you seem to be rejecting even the possibility that 30,000,000,000 tonnes of CO2 emitted annually, from anthropogenic sources, may be a problem out of hand.

        That doesn’t sound like a scientific approach.

      • ‘Recent scientific evidence shows that major and widespread climate changes have occurred with startling speed. For example, roughly half the north Atlantic warming since the last ice age was achieved in only a decade, and it was accompanied by significant climatic changes across most of the globe. Similar events, including local warmings as large as 16°C, occurred repeatedly during the slide into and climb out of the last ice age. Human civilizations arose after those extreme, global ice-age climate jumps. Severe droughts and other regional climate events during the current warm period have shown similar tendencies of abrupt onset and great persistence, often with adverse effects on societies.

        Abrupt climate changes were especially common when the climate system was being forced to change most rapidly. Thus, greenhouse warming and other human alterations of the earth system may increase the possibility of large, abrupt, and unwelcome regional or global climatic events. The abrupt changes of the past are not fully explained yet, and climate models typically underestimate the size, speed, and extent of those changes. Hence, future abrupt changes cannot be predicted with confidence, and climate surprises are to be expected.

        The new paradigm of an abruptly changing climatic system has been well established by research over the last decade, but this new thinking is little known and scarcely appreciated in the wider community of natural and social scientists and policy-makers.’

        http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309074347

      • Oh my God – it’s worse than global warming. We just don’t know when.

    • That Arctic ice is melting does not necessarily mean the air tempeature is increasing. There are issues of winds and ocean currents. Why don’t you rather supply us with a temperatue graph?

      (And while you’re at at, how about the Antarctic for comparion?)

      • One from 1900 in the Arctic – an interesting question for the sulphur meme. Why such a pronounced ;low frequency variability when sulphur is not a factor in the Arctic?

      • Try cryosphere for the antarctic sea ice. Also Curry’s article on same.

        For arctic temperatures try this
        or this

      • You link him to youtube? You are full of mischief. I assume you know perfectly well about low frequency variability in the Arctic – and indeed elsewhere in the NH.

        There is a great deal of balanced information here from Professor Ole Humlum – http://www.climate4you.com/

        Positions:
        Adjunct Professor of Physical Geography at the University Centre in Svalbard (UNIS), since 2003. Full time staff member 1999-2003.
        Professor of Physical Geography at the Institute of Geosciences, University of Oslo, since 2003.

        Research Interest:

        Glacial- and periglacial geomorphology, with main emphasis on the climatic control on glacial and periglacial geomorphic activity in cold-climate, high-relief areas, past as well as present.
        Landforms derived from bedrock weathering in high-relief areas, with special emphasis on rock glaciers.
        Climate variability and associated geomorphic response. Reconstruction of Quaternary ice sheets, glaciers and periglacial environments in the North Atlantic region.
        Historical and modern climatology (modern data series as well as the use of documentary and early instrumental records for the reconstruction of late Holocene climate) of the Arctic region, the North Atlantic region, including the Faroe Islands, Greenland, Svalbard and Norway.
        The impact of climate on societies (human dimensions) in the North Atlantic region.
        Comparison and integration of different climate proxy series.
        Scientific applications of numerical modelling in geomorphology; e.g. modelling of active layer and permafrost thermal characteristics.
        Mapping Arctic and Antarctic surface temperature changes and geomorphic effects during the observational period.
        Mapping, monitoring and modelling natural cold-climate geomorphic processes and -hazards.
        Permafrost and periglacial processes. International Permafrost Association.
        Physical Geography of Svalbard
        Snow avalanche risk in Svalbard

      • Why not UT? That was a NOAA release on the state of the Arctic. The details were at the second link

        But otherwise yes on the mischief.

      • A post on the Arctic is almost ready, will be up later today

      • Judith

        Ah! You’re doing one of your famous trails again. A carrer in television beckons when all this climate nonsense subsides:)

        tonyb

      • Cool, stay chilled everyone.

    • Show me what’s not cherry-picking about choosing July anomalies.
      And since when does ‘cooling’ occur in the summer months?

  70. A sign of weakness!

    Anyone who operates a site on a special topic is a sure looser when it comes to credability and trust if its like the majority of the “warmist” sites.
    Its a contraproductive strategi ang gain the opposit reaction and effect.
    I dont know who thougth it was a good idea to start with i think it was the Greenpeace thinktank that suggested this Sovjet propaganda/censur style and it became the applied strategy to “communicate”. Well I togheter with at least 75% of the planets population is not interested to listen to someone who refuses to answer your questions nad ignore you. Théy are soon left isolated in thier ivory towers talking to each others. I dont visit any climaterelated “warmist” sites anymore.They are to predictable and the only usful communication is sites were aeryone is invited to participate.

    Im totally chocked ower the for me totally crazy logic and arguments about “moderation” and “choises” of topics . There is something fundamentally wrong with the hole AGW crowds values on scintific debates and how an open society has to work. When you dont dare to meet in an open debate its a very powerful signal that some things have be seriously wrong.

  71. Substitute ‘carp’ for ‘crap’ and there is an immediate improvement in civility. No meaning is lost, either. It’s a win/win. Who could ask for anything more?
    ===================

  72. Dear Judith,

    I thoroughly enjoy your blog. It’s true I often grumble about some of the posts that come from the soft sciences. But all in all I find your blog very stimulating. It’s particularly interesting to visit a blog where both sides of the arguments can be read in the comments. I often visit Keith Kloor’s place for the same reason.

    My only real gripe is the way that every comment thread gets overrun by the same few individuals, who endlessly bicker with one another. My suggestion would be to set up a creche area. Once someone has commented three times on a blog post, all subsequent comments of theirs are moved to the creche, where they can call each other names, and score points for as long as they like. (Yes, that would have placed a few of my comments in the creche area in the past!)

    I don’t imagine that this is a terribly practical idea. Just a thought.

    • If I see a long sub-thread with certain names recurring, I skip to the next left-hand starting post. That way I miss the tedious, often personal, arguments but probably miss few worthwhile posts.

  73. To Rich and Michael, because we have run out of space above,

    Yes, Rich, poliovirus infection can be high, but paralytic polio remains, always, a fraction of those infected. If we are infecting all and sundry, paralytic polio is high too.

    Indeed, if one can provide a completely successful cordon around the virus, and its fecal-oral propensities for transmission – one could perhaps stave off forever for life, the threat of the virus for entire communities. Whether that is possible – that is a different question.

    But polio increased in incidence with modern sanitation (and the rise in populations). It deprived populations of the early childhood exposure, via fecal-oral transmission. It reduced that benefit, swelled the ranks of those with no immune exposure to the virus in early childhood – thus creating the very lack of ‘herd immunity’.

    The rest of the story is just a scrambling to re-create the very fecal-oral transmission that confers immunity,… that used to confer immunity,… in the first place. By using an modified live virus – the vaccinees get all the polio infection they can, expect for the CNS part.

    So, Michael, the very thing you berate Rich about, that fecal-oral conscientiousness cannot protect against polio – that is the very foundation for the Sabin vaccine to protect against polio.

    Your ‘systematic program of immunization’ is nothing but a recreating of highly unsanitary conditions – in their essence. It consists of catching hold of young infants and force-feeding them a virus, that otherwise be swimming around in shit. A virus that didn’t get into their system, because of high sanitation.

    So your views about the reasons for persistence of high rates of polio in the developing world, if you think really hard about the essentials of the problem, are wrong as well.

    • At 10:01 AM on 6 August, Shub Niggurath had pursued the topic of epidemic Human poliovirus infection, observing that paralytic “…polio increased in incidence with modern sanitation (and the rise in populations)” to a great extent by preventing widespread exposure to the pathogen in the early years of life such that there was a relative lack of both individual and “‘herd immunity’.”

      Of course, a great part of the price for that natural “herd immunity” was paid in high rates of infant and child mortality due not only to poliomyelitis but other communicable diseases.

      Given my druthers, I prefer all those “routine” infant, childhood, and adolescent immunizations, and I wasn’t addressing Michael on the contention that immunizations with either the active (“live”) attenuated oral polio vaccine (OPV) or the inactivated (“killed”) equivalent (IPV) don’t constitute the gold standard in the prevention of poliomyelitis so much as I was trying to make the point that Michael‘s persisting effort to draw an analogy between vaccination against Human poliovirus and the government policy measures pushed by the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) alarmists is absolutely false.

      Heck, it’s contemptible. Michael keeps evading the fact that there has simply never been offered any objectively verifiable evidence supporting the “man-made global climate change” contention of the alarmists.

      In the “evidence-based medicine” professional environment of the past decade-and-a-half, such a failure on the part of a physician stinks to high heaven.

      Unlike Michael (I strongly suspect), I’m also old enough to have had personal experience of the times before Dr. Salk’s vaccine became available, and I’m more conscious of the mitigatory sanitation methods (personal and public) which had then been undertaken in these United States to reduce exposure to infection.

      To the extent that they work at all – not as well as does vaccination – they still work among populations where vaccination is not possible for reasons economic or sociocultural (chiefly religious).

      I kinda suspect that Michael has neither proximal knowledge of such present-day populations nor the retention of whatever education he might have gotten on the subject. But what the heck. “Fund of knowledge” is a trait reliably absent from all of los warmistas I’ve ever encountered.

  74. Top job Judith. Thanks for all the hard work and long hours you have been putting into creating and maintaining a space “where the fight can take place in civility”.

    It;s great that Eric ‘spread the warmth’ Steig can come here and presume to tell you how to do it.

    It’s marvellous that Things Break can come here and talk crap

    It’s wonderful that Morose Colose can come here and bemoan the awful way you fail in your responsibilities as a net-nanny.

    Without being censored.

  75. Yoram, you state you believe the IPCC is correct because they have been accurate up to this point. The business as usual projection from IPCC 1 was 0.3C per decade. This has been lowered by the IPCC to 0.2 C per decade. They have thus already been wrong or they wouldn’t have had to change projections. Hind casting and explaining discrepancies by altering the assumed aerosol levels is not a projection. You make statements that if co2 goes up and temperatures go up the IPCC is correct. This shows a lack of understanding of what the argument is. Few skeptics argue against the GHG effect although there are a few. The primary difference between being skeptical and mainstream is the climate sensitivity assumed with the mainstream view at about 3C and the skeptical view at about 1C. The response to forcings since the beginning of the industrial age has been consistent with a climate sensitivity of 1.2C If you were serious about making your decisions on whom has been most accurate thus far you would be a skeptic. My projection, since you seem to believe projections from people like me make some sort of difference, is that the earth will continue to respond to forcings in a manner compatible with a sensitivity of 1.2C.

    • Let me add that if you predict, for instance, that the global mean temperature will increase in the next decade, there is a 50 per cent probability that you will end up correct by chance. It’s a very weak empirical test. And this is part of the problem with the IPCC predictions. There are large error bars. And the less precise the prediction, the easier it is to be “proven right”.

      • Dagfinn: The IPCC prediction is not that global temperature will increase, it’s that global temperature will increase by about 0.2C per decade for the next two decades.

        Steven: IPCC AR1 predicted “a rate of increase of global mean temperature during the next century of about 0 3°C per decade (with an uncertainty range of 0 2°C to 0 5°C per decade).” One could argue that they were referring to the average over the whole century rather than the average for any specific decade, but I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and agree that the IPCC was wrong about 0.3C per decade and has since revised to 0.2C per decade.

        My first point here is that this is still better than the alternative predictions at the time, e.g., Julian Simon who wrote this in 1994: “My guess is that global warming will simply be another transient concern, barely worthy of consideration ten years from now in a book like this one. Consider that, when I first addressed environmental matters in the late 1960s and 1970s, the climatological issue of major public concern was still global cooling.” And yet, here we are, more than 10 years later… still discussing the issue, because global CO2 and global temperature are still rising.

        My second point here is that I don’t think you’re correct when you write that “The primary difference between being skeptical and mainstream is the climate sensitivity assumed with the mainstream view at about 3C and the skeptical view at about 1C.” My strong impression is that the “skeptic” community doesn’t even think that 1C will happen. (Look for example at Chief Hydrologist’s posts about how we’re in a cooling phase.) But you all can correct me: If you agree that BAU will lead to 1C warming then I want to hear you say it! Rich? Jim Owen? Chief Hydrologist?

      • There is no need to give me the benefit of the doubt. Simply read the paper you refer to and see what it says:

        “global mean temperature during the next century of
        about 0 3°C per decade (with an uncertainty range of
        0 2°C to 0 5°C per decade), this is greater than that
        seen over the past 10,000 years This will result in a
        likely increase in global mean temperature of about
        1°C above the present value by 2025 and 3C before
        the end of the next century”

        To get to 1C warming in about 30 years leaves little doubt as to their intent. As far as what else was predicted, now your argument is that they don’t know what they’re talking about but nobody else has a clue either?

      • Yes, you are correct about AR1. Thanks for the clarification.

      • Oh, as far as what I think. I told you what I think. If it isn’t clear to you it is yet another indication you don’t understand the argument

      • Yoram,
        The IPCC blew the last predictions.
        To get the temps they predict by the time frame they claim is nearly impossible from where we are right now.

  76. Let me summarize where things stand in my efforts to get some actual predictions from you all about the next 10 years that can be compared with IPCC predictions (2-3ppm/year increase in global CO2, 0.2C/decade increase in global temperature):

    * Chief Hydrologist: Science tells us that we are in a cool Phase of the PVD – so cooling is in the dice for a decade or three more as La Nina continues to increase in intensity and frequency in the Pacific.

    * Mike: I predict that 10 years from now the global temperature will cool by the same absolute value that the IPCC says it will warm.

    * Steven: Few skeptics argue against the GHG effect although there are a few. The primary difference between being skeptical and mainstream is the climate sensitivity assumed with the mainstream view at about 3C and the skeptical view at about 1C. My projection, since you seem to believe projections from people like me make some sort of difference, is that the earth will continue to respond to forcings in a manner compatible with a sensitivity of 1.2C.

    The rest of the folks on these threads (Rich, Jim Owen, etc) appear to prefer invective to predictions.

    My conclusions:

    1) If it warms 0.2C over the next 10 years then I’ll have more reason to believe IPCC and less reason to believe Chief Hydrologist, Mike, or Steven. If it cools over the next 10 years then Chief Hydrologist and Mike will be right and the IPCC will be wrong and I’ll be the first to congratulate them.

    2) Steven is wrong in writing that “The primary difference between being skeptical and mainstream is the climate sensitivity assumed with the mainstream view at about 3C and the skeptical view at about 1C.” The “skeptics” on this blog seem to show very little inclination to accept any warming whatsoever. In fact, many of them refuse to make any predictions whatsoever.

    3) Surprisingly, nobody made any predictions about global CO2 in 10 years. Despite all the fuss about the Salby speech, nobody is standing up to say that global CO2 will remain steady over (or fall!) over the next 10 years. Too bad, because those predictions would be really easy to evaluate in 10 years.

    • Salby’s argument already has failed because the CO2 continues to go up as fast as ever while the temperature doesn’t, so his purely statistical model is not going to work. In his talk, he avoids saying his idea has any predictive value at all.
      My prediction would be that the average of the next decade will be at least as much warmer than the 2000-2009 decade as that decade was warmer than the 1990-1999 decade, which is 0.15 to 0.2 C, and I would not be surprised if it exceeded 0.2 C.

    • Yoram,

      Once again, I’ll be a pal and give you a forecast for CO2. My prediction: Whatever its level, CO2 will be shown to an inconsequential contributor to climate temperature and its impact otherwise will be seen to have roughly as many benefits as disadvantages.

      Remember when Chairman/Professor/Dr. Bernanke declared that the problems with sub-prime mortgages were entirely limited to that segment of the housing market which was otherwise sound as a bell? And then it turned out that C/P/D Bernanke was wrong. Didn’t catch me by surprise–I had already assumed that housing was toast from the get-go and the only question was “What next?” Since then I’ve pretty much used a forecasting technique for “What next?” that assumes the opposite of the pronouncements of officialdom. It’s worked pretty well for me so far, so I’m employing the same technique to forecast the climate future–assume the opposite of the IPCC’s forecast.

      We’ll see.

      • Yoram,

        I owe you, guy. You’ve helped me discover my inner-seer. Here’s my latest (ready to copy?).

        By 2020 the term for science-for-hire will no longer be “Tobacco Scientists” but “IPCC Scientists.”

        Swami mike sees all.

      • O, K. Yoram, here’s one more (you’re writing this stuff down aren’t you?).

        By 2020 people who drive electric cars will be called “dorks”.

        Swami mike sees all.

        P. S. That’s the last freebe, Yoram–want anymore outta Swami mike and you gotta pay for it (you can write it off as a business expense, incidentally).

      • Very funny Mike, I’ll take all the freebies you’re willing to send my way!

        And… I’m delighted that you finally made a prediction: “assume the opposite of the IPCC’s forecast”, which I assume (correct me if I’m wrong!) means that you predict that over the next 10 or 20 yeas global CO2 will decrease by 2-3ppm/year and global temperature will decrease by about 0.2C/decade. Sounds good to me, let’s see what happens!

      • Almost Yoram. My CO2 prediction is the opposite of the IPCC position, in that I predict it will not be shown to be the predominant driver of global temperature but a minor contributor. You know, Yoram, your over-eager effort to get a number attached to my prediction, even if it requires you to put words in my mouth, get’s my ol’ nose a-twitch–what’s your little game, guy?

      • P. S. And please note, Yoram, my predictions were made with full knowledge that they were not based on sound science.

        Rather, it seemed you were about to have a nervous breakdown if you didn’t get a “prediction” from someone so I did the good deed and threw you a couple of BS prediction-bones. Regardless, since my predictions do not derive from sound science, they are pure BS just like any other unscientific BS prediction.

        And any public official that would use my BS predictions as a basis for public policy decisions is almost as big an idiot as those who would rely on Swami mike or some man-chihuahua-pig lefty hack as their climate future guru. Of course, my BS predictions, in this instance can be classified as Mr. Nice-Guy BS predictions intended to get a possibly disturbed pal through a rough patch.

      • At 9:21 PM on 7 August, mike addresses Dr. Bauman (who speaks in this forum “as an economist“) on the ability to provide:

        …a forecast for CO2. My prediction: Whatever its level, CO2 will be shown to an inconsequential contributor to climate temperature and its impact otherwise will be seen to have roughly as many benefits as disadvantages.

        With Dr. Bauman‘s attested indifference to the science of CO2, of course, that’s not likely to make any impact upon the guy’s religious faith in the All Highest Holy IPCC, but what the heck. mike goes on to a more interesting comment:

        Remember when Chairman/Professor/Dr. Bernanke declared that the problems with sub-prime mortgages were entirely limited to that segment of the housing market which was otherwise sound as a bell? And then it turned out that C/P/D Bernanke was wrong. Didn’t catch me by surprise–I had already assumed that housing was toast from the get-go and the only question was “What next?”

        Not fair. As an officer of the Federal Reserve System, Dr. Bernanke was acting to facilitate the “official counterfeiting” of U.S. currency, perpetrating theft of value by fraud as a matter of U.S. federal government policy.

        The housing market “boom” was deliberately engineered to give the politically advantageous illusion of a healthy national economy, and currency inflation was essential to that fraud.

        All secular recessions are caused by currency inflation.

        Without exception. When you hear the phrase “It’s the government’s fault!” bear in mind that because the federal government controls the issue of currency in these United States (yeah, the Fed is a “private” institution; yank the other one while you’re groping around down there), that expression of rage is precisely correct.

        To expect that Dr. Bernanke – whose job was to perpetrate that currency inflation – should have made public his knowledge that the housing “boom” must result in a massive “bust” (such as we’re presently seeing) is entirely unreasonable.

        Might as well have expected Bernie Madoff to have taken out an advertisement in The Wall Street Journal ten years ago to inform the readers he was operating a Ponzi scheme.

        Same thing with the IPCC. The administrators of body empaneled (and funded) for no purpose other than to confirm a link between the anthropogenic atmospheric emission of CO2 and adverse global climate change are not going to pursue lines of investigation or acknowledge empirical evidence leading to the conclusion that their agency is unnecessary and that it should be dissolved.

    • It is good to see you have held yourself to such rigorous scientific standards in determining I am wrong. What you fail to understand is that it is completely possible to predict cooling for the next decade or two and not be in disagreement with me. I’m not saying they do or don’t agree with me. What I am saying is that you should understand why the positions are not mutually exclusive. When you do we can discuss this further.

      • This is an excellent point, Steven, and I thank you for making it. But you should understand the source of my confusion: I asked for your predictions for global CO2 and global temperature over the next 10 or 20 years, and your response was “My projection, since you seem to believe projections from people like me make some sort of difference, is that the earth will continue to respond to forcings in a manner compatible with a sensitivity of 1.2C.”

        It is now clear to me that this is no prediction at all, because you think that just about any developments in the next 10 or 20 years are “compatible with a sensitivity of 1.2C.” So I’ll ask the question again: What are your predictions for global CO2 and global temperature over the next 10 or 20 year? I’m going with the IPCC predictions (2-3ppm/year increase in global CO2, 0.2C/decade increase in global temperature). What do YOU predict will happen over the next 10 or 20 years?

        It is clear that we’re not going to be able to reach agreement about much of anything at the moment. My hope is that we’ll be able to get to a point where we’ll be able to make progress in 10 or 20 years, when we can look back and see whose predictions did well and whose predictions didn’t. But we can’t do that unless you actually take a stand.

      • No, actually I don’t understand your confusion. Stating a climate sensitivity is a very accurate way to depict a person’s view. More accurate than a prediction. But since you insist and since you may actually go read something once we get past this, I will make one just for you. I predict the weakening solar cycle and the AMO going negative will produce about 0.25C cooling that will offset approximately equal warming for the next 20 years producing a flat to slightly declining trend. The co2 will go up at 1.5ppm during this time period based. I do consider this exercise a waste of time. With a negative PDO, a weak solar cycle, and an AMO that is likely to go negative soon, if it hasn’t already started, we will know long before 20 years from now if skeptics or mainstream were closest to being accurate.

      • Yoram,
        You feel the way forward is a children’s guessing game about the future of climate.
        Can you explain what possible benefit this could be? Because your only motivation seems to be to get attention away from the politicised and corrupt nature of climate science establishment, whom you are loathe to see examined. Other than hiding this corruption and bias, what do you hope to achieve?

      • Punksta: What you say is a “children’s guessing game” is what I see as a foundational component of science: making predictions based on theory and then testing those predictions in the real world. Many many people (including myself) have faith in IPCC predictions about future global CO2 and global temperature because their predictions have been pretty accurate in the past: http://www.ipcc.ch/graphics/ar4-wg1/jpg/ts26.jpg . If they continue to hold up pretty well in the future then you should get on board too, yes? But instead of offering up an alternative set of predictions you want to go sift through some muddy details from the past. Heck if I can figure out why, unless either (1) you’re too scared that 10 years from now you’ll be proved wrong or (2) you’re too scared to admit that you don’t know enough climate science to make a good prediction.

        I am reminded—since Mike started telling jokes—of a joke about an old woman who called a reporter to complain about having a Satanic toaster. So the reporter comes over, and puts a piece of bread in the toaster, and 2 minutes later the toast pops up with a Satanic symbol on it. And the old woman complains and complains and complains about how disturbing this is and how she can’t sleep &etc… until finally the reporter asks her why she doesn’t just get a new toaster. And the old woman replies, “Because, when all is said and done, it makes a darn fine piece of toast.”

        My point is this: The IPCC may be the scientific equivalent of a Satanic toaster, but (unlike the rest of you) I’m not here for a morality tale about corruption and bias and the Austrian School of economics. I’m here to get good predictions of global CO2 and global temperature. And as long as the IPCC toast is the best on offer I’m going to say that when all is said and done it makes a darn fine piece of toast. I don’t think the rest of it is terribly important as far as climate science is concerned. (Climate policy, that’s a different issue, but we’re talking climate science.)

        If you want to poke around in the archives, the way to impress me is to convince me that this graph is somehow wrong: http://www.ipcc.ch/graphics/ar4-wg1/jpg/ts26.jpg . But if you really want to impress me then all you need to do is make some predictions of global CO2 and global temperature over the next 10 or 20 years. Do that and you might earn my respect in 10 or 20 years. If you’d done that 10 or 20 years ago and been more accurate than the IPCC then you’d have my respect right now. You didn’t. The IPCC did, and they’ve been pretty accurate so far, and so for now the IPCC has earned my respect.

      • I have shown you already they weren’t accurate. You continue to state they were. Do you have an explanation for this?

      • Yoram,

        I think the disconnect between yourself and myself and maybe some others is that you see the essence of the problem as one of predictions only and a contest between sources of predictions.

        While reliable predictions are a feature of a successful scientific theory, science is not the only source of predictions. To name but a few, mankind has also obtained predictions, from time to time, through the reading of entrails, ouija boards, sacrifices of virgins, the burn patterns on toast fresh-popped from Satanic toasters (liked the joke, incidentally), and even, in the most advanced of civilizations, through the oracular visions of Swami mike.

        But the question for most of the participants on this blog is not which of the above sources of predictions gets the lucky number, in any one instance. Rather, the question is which of those sources of prediction are “scientific” in character and that is because most of us on this blog have a probably irrational attachment to predictions derived from the scientific method (though you’d be surprised how many furtive visits Swami mike receives). And, in that regard, the scientific integrity of the IPCC and hence of its predictions is in question, to say the least.

        And think about it, Yoram. Do you really want to be stuck with Swami mike as your guide to the future if he lucks out and just happens to call the end of the decade global temperature right?

      • Chief Hydrologist

        I didn’t write about it untill 2007 – but that was because the IPCC missed it totally because they – were on the wrong scent, were out in their reckoning, scre…d the pooch, added up 2 and 2 and came up with 5, paid Peter to rob Paul, bought a pig in a poke, cast swine before pearls, bought high and sold low, ignored the warning label – objects in mirror are dumber than they appear, fell out of the stupid tree and hit every branch on the way down, are an experiment in Artificial Stupidity, don’t know much but leads the league in nostril hair, remind me of Paul Revere’s ride – a little light in the belfry, are grossly ignorant — 144 times worse than normal ignorance, having intelligence rivalled only by garden tools, set the lowest possible goals and consistently fail to achieve them, are T minus dumb and counting, have a collective IQ of 2, but it takes 3 to grunt, have delusions of adequacy…

        ttp://www.americanthinker.com/2007/11/enso_variation_and_global_warm.html

        Here’s a thought – read something about models. .

        http://judithcurry.com/2011/08/04/a-note-on-editorial-decisions-at-climate-etc/#comment-95999

        Now I know you don’t understand anything I say and are too much of an arrogant, ignorant, pissant progressive to even wonder why you should try – but let’s try a simple bit.

        When extreme ENSO perturbations of 1976/77 and 1997/98 (I won’t even mention dragon-kings) are excluded the residual temperature trend of ‘recent warming’ is at most 0.1 degrees C/decade. How that isn’t blindingly obvious is beyond me. “Oh we can’t count 1998 because it was an outlier.’ Don’t count it – but don’t come pis….g in my ear about 0.2 degrees C/decade.

        http://judithcurry.com/2011/08/04/a-note-on-editorial-dciie

        ons-at-climate-etc/#comment-95970

        And if you have a problem with Austrian economics – I have a problem with a fool in sheeps clothing.

      • simon abingdon

        “ignored the warning label – objects in mirror are dumber than they appear”. Chief, wish I’d thought of saying that. (I know, …).

      • Yoram,
        What you say is a “children’s guessing game” is what I see as a foundational component of science: making predictions based on theory and then testing those predictions in the real world.
        What makes it a children’s guessing game, is that by your own laudable admission, you have absolutely zero physical science behind your ‘predictions’. Same league as astrology. Climology, let’s call it.

        Simply blind faith in the IPCC, that (as you doggedly keep ignoring)

        - cannot explain why the 1900-1940 warming they say was not human-caused, was remarkably similar to the 1950-2000 they say was; and thus also cannot explain how they can tell what exactly is behind the 1950-> warming
        - cannot explain the flat period of the last decade or so
        - is riddled with political advocasy and other corruption, and quite unrepentant

        And you persist with the smokescreen that what matters in determining whether the IPCC is making sense, is to offer a different guess to theirs. Other than the excitement of gambling, what else can this possibly achieve. Comedy, perhaps ?

  77. Chief Hydrologist

    Anastasios Tsonis, of the Atmospheric Sciences Group at University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, and colleagues used a mathematical network approach to analyse abrupt climate change on decadal timescales. Ocean and atmospheric indices – in this case the El Niño Southern Oscillation, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, the North Atlantic Oscillation and the North Pacific Oscillation – can be thought of as chaotic oscillators that capture the major modes of climate variability. Tsonis and colleagues calculated the ‘distance’ between the indices. It was found that they would synchronise at certain times and then shift into a new state.

    It is no coincidence that shifts in ocean and atmospheric indices occur at the same time as changes in the trajectory of global surface temperature. Our ‘interest is to understand – first the natural variability of climate – and then take it from there. So we were very excited when we realized a lot of changes in the past century from warmer to cooler and then back to warmer were all natural,’ Tsonis said.

    http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2010/02/ellison

    ‘What we find is that when interannual modes of variability in the climate system have what I’ll refer to as an “episode,” shifts in the multi-decadal global mean temperature trend appear to occur. I’ll leave the details of these episodes to interested readers (here and here), as things get pretty technical. It’s sufficient to note that we have an objective criteria for what defines an episode; we aren’t just eyeballing curves. The climate system appears to have had three distinct “episodes” during the 20th century (during the 1910′s, 1940′s, and 1970′s), and all three marked shifts in the trend of the global mean temperature, along with changes in the qualitative character of ENSO variability.’

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/07/warminginterrupted-much-ado-about-natural-variability/

    We might note from the real climate post that when the extreme ENSO perturbations of 1976/77 and 1997/98 are excluded the residual temperature trend was at most 0.1 degrees C/decade.

    Was that due to CO2?

    ‘Earth’s global albedo, or reflectance, is a critical component of the global climate as this parameter, together with the solar constant, determines the amount of energy coming to Earth. Probably because of the lack of reliable data, traditionally the Earth’s albedo has been considered to be roughly constant, or studied theoretically as a feedback mechanism in response to a change in climate. Recently, however, several studies have shown large decadal variability in the Earth’s reflectance. Variations in terrestrial reflectance derive primarily from changes in cloud amount, thickness and location, all of which seem to have changed over decadal and longer scales.’

    http://www.bbso.njit.edu/Research/EarthShine/

    ‘The overall slow decrease of upwelling SW flux from the mid-1980′s until the end of the 1990′s and subsequent increase from 2000 onwards appear to caused, primarily, by changes in global cloud cover (although there is a small increase of cloud optical thickness after 2000) and is confirmed by the ERBS measurements.’

    http://isccp.giss.nasa.gov/projects/browse_fc.html

    Where to now?

    If as suggested here, a dynamically driven climate shift has occurred, the duration of similar shifts during the 20th century suggests the new global mean temperature trend may persist for several decades. Swanson et al 2009 – Has the climate recently shifted.

    In the Pacific Ocean, air and ocean temperatures, atmospheric carbon dioxide, landings of anchovies and sardines, and the productivity of coastal and open ocean ecosystems have varied over periods of about 50 years. In the mid-1970s, the Pacific changed from a cool “anchovy regime” to a warm “sardine regime.” A shift back to an anchovy regime occurred in the middle to late 1990s. These large-scale, naturally occurring variations must be taken into account when considering human-induced climate change and the management of ocean living resources.

    http://www.sciencemag.org/content/299/5604/217.abstract

    Biology is the sensitive indicator because it responds to upwelling of nutrient rich water in the eastern Pacific – but that we have shifted to a cool Pacific mode is obvious to everyone. The cool regime sees a cool PDO and increased intensity and frequency of La Nina.

    ‘A negative tendency of the predicted PDO phase in the coming decade will enhance the rising trend in surface air-temperature (SAT) over east Asia and over the KOE region, and suppress it along the west coasts of North and South America and over the equatorial Pacific. This suppression will contribute to a slowing down of the global-mean SAT rise.’

    http://www.pnas.org/content/107/5/1833.full

    ‘Recent scientific evidence shows that major and widespread climate changes have occurred with startling speed. For example, roughly half the north Atlantic warming since the last ice age was achieved in only a decade, and it was accompanied by significant climatic changes across most of the globe. Similar events, including local warmings as large as 16°C, occurred repeatedly during the slide into and climb out of the last ice age. Human civilizations arose after those extreme, global ice-age climate jumps. Severe droughts and other regional climate events during the current warm period have shown similar tendencies of abrupt onset and great persistence, often with adverse effects on societies.
    Abrupt climate changes were especially common when the climate system was being forced to change most rapidly. Thus, greenhouse warming and other human alterations of the earth system may increase the possibility of large, abrupt, and unwelcome regional or global climatic events. The abrupt changes of the past are not fully explained yet, and climate models typically underestimate the size, speed, and extent of those changes. Hence, future abrupt changes cannot be predicted with confidence, and climate surprises are to be expected.

    The new paradigm of an abruptly changing climatic system has been well established by research over the last decade, but this new thinking is little known and scarcely appreciated in the wider community of natural and social scientists and policy-makers.’ http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10136&page=1

    Balmy weather is forecast to continue perhaps a little cooler due to a cool La Nina decadal Pacific mode – but the next shift is due in a decade or 3…..

  78. Finally, Steven makes a prediction! “I predict the weakening solar cycle and the AMO going negative will produce about 0.25C cooling that will offset approximately equal warming for the next 20 years producing a flat to slightly declining trend. The co2 will go up at 1.5ppm during this time period based.”

    Excellent! The reason this is important is stated by Steven himself: “With a negative PDO, a weak solar cycle, and an AMO that is likely to go negative soon, if it hasn’t already started, we will know long before 20 years from now if skeptics or mainstream were closest to being accurate.” Amen. And let me add that we’ll know long before 20 years from now whether CO2 will go up at only 1.5ppm/year: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/#mlo_growth

    PS to Steven: AR1 SPM says “based on current model results, we predict [under Business as Usual] a rate of increase of global mean temperature during the next century of about 0.3C per decade (with a range of uncertainty of 0.2C to 0.5C per decade).” They have since revised to 0.2C per decade. You apparently take this as evidence that IPCC is not “accurate”. I look at those statements (and the visual evidence: http://www.ipcc.ch/graphics/ar4-wg1/jpg/ts26.jpg ) and conclude that the IPCC has been pretty close to the mark. You take their statement of 0.3C per decade (ignoring the caveats, e.g., the range of uncertainty, and the caveat about “current model results”) and conclude that they’re terribly wrong. I think you’re the one who needs to explain.

    PS to Mike: I agree that having theory and/or models to back up predictions are an added bonus, but I’ve been downplaying that angle because we’re not going to agree: I think the IPCC theory and models are pretty good, and you think they’re Satanic. I don’t think there’s a good way to resolve this issue, so I’m falling back on the quality of the toast, i.e., the predictions. The truth is that, in my view, I believe that IPCC theory and models are pretty good, which means they’re likely to be close to the mark. And in my view, I believe that “skeptics” don’t seem to have much in the way of theory and models, which means they’re unlikely to be close to the mark. If it turns out that your guess is better than the IPCC then I’ll have to come back and ask you about theory theory and models; but if your guess (“I predict that 10 years from now the global temperature will cool by the same absolute value that the IPCC says it will warm”) is better than the IPCC then it will be clear to me that climate science is not nearly as well developed as the IPCC makes it out to be.

    • No, we won’t know about co2 ppm until 20 years from now. It fluctuates too much.

      Now tell me, how much closer to being accurate was a 0.3C/decade prediction compared to a prediction of no warming at all? Is there any difference at all after accounting for the margin of error of 0.05C?
      If there is no difference how could one be accurate and the other not be? Because you have decided to it is so? When you are doing your stand up comedy acts do you ridicule skeptics for not reading the literature?

      • I don’t get what you’re saying about the margin of error. IPCC AR1 says “0.3C per decade (with a range of uncertainty of 0.2C to 0.5C per decade)”, which I take to mean 0.2C to 0.5C, with a best guess of 0.3C. Actual has been about 0.2C, so it seems to me that the IPCC did substantially better than a prediction of no warming at all.

        As for my stand-up comedy, I don’t ridicule skeptics. In fact, I don’t mention skeptics at all. What I say is that global CO2 has been increasing and that 100 years of theory says that increasing global CO2 will lead to increasing global temperature, and that global temperatures for the past few decades have been increasing pretty much in line with climate science projections, about 0.2C per decade. You can watch the videos yourself, at http://www.standupeconomist.com :)

      • Actually there are no data sets that show a 0.2C /decade global warming trend that I am aware of. The good news for your argument is that with a 0.3C uncertainty range you can get close. The bad news is if you give the person claiming no change the same uncertainty range divided equally above and below their prediction,they could actually have some data sets within their prediction. Now you have to decide for yourself if this is meaningful.

      • Richard S Courtney

        Steven:

        You say you are not aware of any “data sets” that show a 0.2 deg,C warming trend. I agree.

        Let us consider the only real predictions (as distinct from ‘projections’) in the IPCC AR4.

        The underlying assumption of the IPCC scenarios is that “committed warming” results from energy being stored in the oceans. This energy gets released to the atmosphere in later decades and induces the “committed warming”. So, the total warming increases at a higher than linear rate with time as both “committed warming” and ‘instant’ warming increase.

        However, this “committed warming” seems to have vanished (Trenberth says this is a “travesty”).

        Section 10.7.1 titled ‘Climate Change Commitment to Year 2300 Based on AOGCMs’ in the Report from WG1 (i.e. the “science” Working Group) of the most recent IPCC Report (AR4) can be read at

        http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch10s10-7.html

        It says:
        “The multi-model average warming for all radiative forcing agents held constant at year 2000 (reported earlier for several of the models by Meehl et al., 2005c), is about 0.6°C for the period 2090 to 2099 relative to the 1980 to 1999 reference period. This is roughly the magnitude of warming simulated in the 20th century. Applying the same uncertainty assessment as for the SRES scenarios in Fig. 10.29 (–40 to +60%), the likely uncertainty range is 0.3°C to 0.9°C. Hansen et al. (2005a) calculate the current energy imbalance of the Earth to be 0.85 W m–2, implying that the unrealised global warming is about 0.6°C without any further increase in radiative forcing. The committed warming trend values show a rate of warming averaged over the first two decades of the 21st century of about 0.1°C per decade, due mainly to the slow response of the oceans. About twice as much warming (0.2°C per decade) would be expected if emissions are within the range of the SRES scenarios.”

        So, the IPCC says “The committed warming trend values show a rate of warming averaged over the first two decades of the 21st century of about 0.1°C per decade”.
        n.b. That is “committed warming” that will occur because of effects in the past.

        And the effect of increase to atmospheric CO2 since 2000 is expected to double that rate of warming to “About twice as much warming (0.2°C per decade)”.

        But there has NOT been a rise in global temperature of “0.2°C per decade” or of “0.1°C per decade” for the first of half of “the first two decades of the 21st century”. Indeed, there has been no discernible rise and probably a slight fall.

        So, for the IPCC prediction to be true then the global temperature must rise by a staggering 0.4°C now and be sustained at that higher level for the next 10 years. This would be more than half the total rise over the previous century, and only a member of the cult of AGW could think this is a reasonable expectation.

        Indeed, if one accepts the lower limit of the “uncertainty assessment” of “-40%” then the required immediate rise needed to be sustained for the next 10 years is at least an incredible 0.24°C.

        And if the needed rise from now were linear it would need to increase global temperature by 0.8°C over the next 10 years (or at minimum by 0.46°C).

        Nobody really thinks such rises are likely.

        Richard

      • Thanks Richard, I’m fairly familiar with the arguments. I have found that sometimes it is best to start out slow with people that aren’t. Ever see the movie “What About Bob”? It’s a great movie if you haven’t.

      • I rather prefer The Outlaw Josie Wales, wherein we find:

        Lone Watie: We thought about it for a long time, “Endeavor to persevere.” And when we had thought about it long enough, we declared war on the Union.

        I’ve been thinking about the AGW fraud for a very long time.

      • Your featured video is very amusing btw.

      • clowns aren’t funny and you are starting to beclown yourself.

    • Science is not about finding out who’s best at making predictions. It’s about testing hypotheses. In other words, testing the validity of specific ideas, not specific people’s skill at predicting. And you don’t need alternative hypotheses to test one hypothesis. And if someone has a prediction that differs from the IPCC, that could be based on any number of alternative hypotheses. Lucky guesses are completely worthless. Hypotheses that make successful predictions are worth having, but as long as the predictions are approximate as the IPCCs “predictions” (I don’t belive they claim to be making predictions), it’s only a weak test. All in all, it’s far too complex for your guessing game.

      • What exactly is the difference between “making predictions” and “testing hypotheses”? Not much, as far as I can see: in both cases you say what you think will happen and then you see if you were right, yes?

        As for needing an alternative hypothesis, you may not need one for science, but you need one for policy. If we’re going to try to influence CO2 emissions (or decide to not influence them) then it would be really helpful to have some sort of estimate of what’s going to happen if we do X, Y, or Z. The IPCC gives us one such estimate, and contrary to what you say the IPCC predictions are quite specific, e.g., “For the next two decades, a warming of about 0.2C per decade is projected for a ranges of SRES emission scenarios” (AR4). That’s pretty specific, so you have at least give them credit for being gutsy enough to make a specific prediction. Time will tell if they’re right or wrong.

      • Yoram,

        Let me give it one more shot. You say:

        “What exactly is the difference between “making predictions” and “testing hypotheses”?”

        This comment, within the larger context of your thoughts appearing on this blog, misses the point. While public policy formulation in the area of climate change is not purely scientific, it is best pursued on a foundation of sound scientific knowledge. And the issue is that the IPCC’s “science” is alleged to be corrupted and distorted by various political, ideological, and make-lotsa-dough agendas. Reasonable men may disagree on the particulars of those allegations and even the main proposition, but that is the point of contention. Therefore, our “activist” direction, at this time, should be to take IPCC “climate science” and other areas of contention down to the floor-boards and build climate science back up on the basis of honest and rigorous application of the scientific method–other public policy decisions prudently held in abeyance until we get that part right.

        Let me just say it straight out, your perverse pursuit of “predictions” and attempts to frame climate change public policy in terms of a horse-race between dueling predictions, divorced from a critique of the scientific method basis for those predictions, smacks of a propagandists’ activist intrigue. Indeed, such an interpretation makes sense since the intellectual silliness of most of your remarks on this blog is out of character with your hot-dog academic achievements, but would be worthy of your presumed smarts if seen as a part of a clever greenshirt agit-prop set-up.

        Yoram, you certainly have no obligation to answer, but I’ll ask: just where are you headed with all these “skeptic predictions” you’ve been collecting and what is PBS’s play in this venture of yours, if any?

      • Mike. A while ago on this blog an others I offered up the observation that nobody on the climate science communication side had any humor. You can go search those posts. Shortly thereafter we began to see rather feeble attempts at humour, more cartooning, more youtubes, and now this schlub. even Steig got into the act. I don’t imagine that they are taking a clue from me. But I sense that they are getting direction from people with more experience in the “hearts and minds” business. We’ve seen them try to trot emmauel out to appeal to conservatives ( wrong guy ) and we’ve seen them start to examine their messaging strategy. I’ve worked long enough in that business to anticipate these changes, see these changes, and say… these changes are not enough. They need to go back and start over with a clean slate. BEST was a step in the right direction, even there they failed. ground up. clean slate. come clean,clean house ( bye bye Mann) transparent, open. Then they might have a shot.

      • Steve,
        I fear that even ripping the whole thing up and starting again from scratch is not going to be enough.
        There is simply too much misinformation (on both sides), too many entrenched positions, too many snouts in the trough, too much mistrust etc etc etc.
        I think the only hope is for the world to forget completely about climate change for at least a generation or two, and then start again – no chance of that happening.
        The great irony (and tragedy) is that, whatever the truth of the matter, we will probably never know for sure – not the current generation, at any rate

      • Though it would represent a retrenchment from the enlightenment, I fear the temperature may determine the narrative. And we are cooling, folks; for how long even kim doesn’t know.
        =================

      • mike,
        Yoram is starting to remind me of an unpleasant encounter I had with a BBC journalist in 2006 (if I recall correctly).
        He was on his way to some climate conference in Mexicio City, and wanted to stop in Houston, the hometown of big oil and meet a ‘real skeptic’.
        I ended up being one of the people he spoke with. We had a great meal at a local Mexican place, toured some of H town, and ended up drinking some nice wine in an old bar downtown.
        He promised me a recording of the interview.
        He was only kidding. He chopped up what I said, parsed it up into nice out of context phrases, and had me saying what I did not say. And he fibbed about any sort of recording- there was none.
        IOW, he was not a journalist. He was a joker using people.
        Yoram is playing some game here and is trying to manipulate us to say what he wants, and then use it for a comedy skit or a hit piece.
        Notice how he misleads about not knowing of the standard AGW conspiracy myth. And he cannot respond to points about problems with the IPCC, but simply repeats how reliable they are.
        He is playing a game here at the expense of honest dialog.
        I suggest ignoring Yoram. He is an extremist here on a mission.

      • Yoram,

        You ask what the difference is between “making predictions” and “testing hypotheses”. The difference as you’ve framed it in this discussion is that you attach the prediction to the person making it rather than to the hypothesis. If you had said “let’s find out what predictions follow from the different competing hypotheses”, I don’t think anyone would have objected in principle. (It’s hard to do in practice, but that’s a different matter.)

        Earlier you said: “The key is that you make some predictions, not just cast stones at IPCC, so that in 10 years or 20 years we’ll have a better idea of who’s right.

        But you’re clearly unwilling to make any predictions. What other readers of this blog should be wondering is: Why not?”

        So you are going to make a list of who predicted what, and store it for 20 years? And then you want to try to track down the (possibly anonymous) commenter who was closest and find out what else they have to say? Just guessing, but the point is there is no way this could be useful in the real world. In 10 or 20 years, this discussion will have been forgotten, climate science will have progressed, and there will be new discussions and new hypotheses based on new premises and new data.

        You make up a “challenge” that seems superficially reasonable, but is actually absurd and irrelevant. Then you imply that this is crucial to the credibility of those you challenge.

        I don’t know what lies behind this weird behavior of yours. My best guess is that you have a hidden agenda, as several have suggested.

      • I see the pattern now. What Yoram is doing is basically the same as what thingsbreak was doing with Judith earlier. Invent a meaninless question or challenge, and “interrogate” the “supect”, insisting on an answer. And if there is no answer that is deemed good enough, imply flaws in the suspect’s character or motives.

        Here is another recent example: “Not answering gives a strong impression that Roger Pielke Jr does not want to resolve this point of contention.”

        (http://rabett.blogspot.com/2011/07/theres-word-for-that.html?showComment=1312236865457#c3585638565066523143)

    • Yoram persists in calling his children’s gambling game ‘science’.
      And again ignores requests to explain how this can possibly move matters forward, any more than a wait-and-see-waht happens.
      And again refuses to examine the funding and motivation of the IPCC.
      And again refuses to take on board the poverty of IPCC guesses.

      I guess he too is firmly on government money.

      • At 9:19 AM on 8 August, Punksta excoriates Dr. Bauman’s persistence in “..calling his children’s gambling game ‘science’” and refusing “…to examine the funding and motivation of the IPCC,” concluding of Dr. Bauman:

        I guess he too is firmly on government money.

        Directly or indirectly, you’ve got it in one. According to Dr. Bauman‘s self-inflating Web site, his primary rice bowl is his position as “environmental economist” for the University of Washington’s greenshirt Program on the Environment, adding to his income by way of episodic “consulting” work “on the economics of climate change.”

        So no catastrophic, awful, horrible, “We’re All Gonna Die!” anthropogenic global climate change, and Dr. Bauman‘s job – and all the work he’s done as an “environmental economist” since getting his Ph.D. from the University of Washington in 2003 – goes bye-bye.

        Jeez, no wonder he worships the IPCC. His professional life itself depends upon the Panel’s “keep up the skeer” campaign.

        But maybe he can make a living as an author. On his Web site, Dr. Bauman touts his The Cartoon Introduction to Economics, which – if we can infer from his comedy routine clips – is likely to be pretty much thoughtless and painfully sophomoric.

        In contrast, I’d recommend the much earlier (1985) How an Economy Grows and Why It Doesn’t, and its 2010 successor, How an Economy Grows and Why it Crashes.

        Thus in terms of pecuniary self-interest, Dr. Bauman is incapable of being received as a trustworthy voice on the subject of the preposterous AGW bogosity (think “ExxonMobil,” but way to hellangone in the greenshirt direction) as well as having proven himself in this forum – “as an economist” – to be a complete quack.

  79. Here is a peer reviewed model.

    ‘A negative tendency of the predicted PDO phase in the coming decade will enhance the rising trend in surface air-temperature (SAT) over east Asia and over the KOE region, and suppress it along the west coasts of North and South America and over the equatorial Pacific. This suppression will contribute to a slowing down of the global-mean SAT rise.’

    http://www.pnas.org/content/107/5/1833.full

    You look at the model results showing a 0.2 degree rise from 2000 to 2010 and figure that’s about right? We don’t need to wait 10 or 20 years. The verdict is in – you can’t get any sillier.

    • or dishonest – it becomes merely another pointless exercise in pissant progressive politics.rather than a pursuit of knowledge.

      ‘Kyoto has permitted different groups to tell different stories about themselves to themselves and to others, often in superficially scientific language. But, as we are increasingly coming to understand, it is often not questions about science that are at stake in these discussions. The culturally potent idiom of the dispassionate scientific narrative is being employed to fight culture wars over competing social and ethical values.’

      If you confuse the issue enough you may slip through the social and economic agenda that you deny exists. Here it is in wikipedia – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_politics – must be true.

    • Sorry, but I don’t understand what you’re getting at here. What model results? Figuring what’s about right? And what’s the point of your peer reviewed model?

      PS. Let’s leave the left-wing political stuff for another time and focus for now on the scientific facts about global CO2 and global temperature, okay?

      • The model discussed in the study ‘Pacific decadal oscillation hindcasts relevant to near-term climate prediction’ predicts nil warming over the next 10 years. There are a number of other studies listed above which say that and more. Do try to follow.

        You look at AOS – which I also discuss above as complex and non-linear systems with reference to peer reviewed work – from the 4AR which shows about 0.2 degrees C warming form 1998 to 2010. There has been ENSO related variability – but no trend in surface temperature.

        You show results from AOS which are not empirical science in any sense. I have cited a dozen very recent studies in great length that are based on observation and analysis. I even linked to realclimate.

        You are either unbelievably obtuse or have a political agenda – which is it?

      • At 9:41 AM on 8 August, Chief Hydrologist addresses Dr. Bauman thus:

        You are either unbelievably obtuse or have a political agenda – which is it?

        The answer, of course, appears to be “both.”

        Dr. Bauman‘s rice bowl is his job as an “environmental economist” with the greenshirt Project on the Environment (POE) at the University of Washington, where Dr. Bauman got his Ph.D. in 2003. He also does “some consulting, mostly on the economics of climate change.”

        I would be strongly inclined to hold that Dr. Bauman‘s pecuniary motives are a more puissant factor in his behavior in this forum than is his obtuseness.

        He appears to be far more corrupt than simply cement-headed.

      • Yoram,
        No, let’s not leave the left wing political stuff for another time and place.
        Hardcore AGW believers tend to be hard core lefties.
        You are good example of this.
        You are not focusing on scientific facts. You are parroting the IPCC and simply repeat your argument from authority when confronted.
        Additionally, you are playing games here and manipulating people to make them say things you want them to say.
        So no more going along with your little scenarios. No more of you setting the agenda for what others have to say.

      • Chief Hydrologist

        Hunter,

        Did you know that twice as many pissant progressives ‘believe’ in global warming as classical liberals?

        Cheers

      • First you make all sorts of assertions about my politics, and then you claim that I’m “not focusing on scientific facts”?

        And then you assert that I’m “manipulating people to make them say things you want them to say”? Nonsense. All I’m doing is giving you all a chance to show that I should listen to you instead of the IPCC. You’re not interested in that, which is too bad for all concerned.

      • Neither of the above.
        Instead of listening to the IPCC, or anyone here for that matter, you could do worse than to follow the motto of the Royal Society – “Nullus in verba”
        Come to think of it, you might as well get some use out of their motto, as they no longer appear to use it.

      • Yoram,

        You seem to want to listen to someone who’s sure. Sure enough to make predictions. Problem is, being sure is not equal to being right. And the other problem is that the IPCC is not nearly as sure as the average activist likes to pretend.

      • Yoram,
        I make no assertions about your politics.
        I draw reasonable conclusions that you do not deny.
        You are obviously playing a little ‘show me yours’ game,
        Your tell is when you say ‘you are giving us a chance’.
        You are just playing a little game. Maybe a nice blog about how brave you were to deal with a den of denialists?
        Who,by the way, is underwriting your tour of China?

  80. At 9:32 AM on 8 August and spaghetti-ing away up above (see here) we have the chronic subacute Michael defending his reference to a twenty-one-year-old review article (Lorius et al, Nature 13 September 1990) as:

    …a classic, that’s why I gave it to you to read.

    It’s the paper that predicted the ‘CO2 lags temp change’ aspect of past climate change. You know, that same meme that ‘skeptics’ repeat ad nauseum without understanding that the are actually acknowledging the role of CO2 as a significant positive feedback in global temps.

    Oh, goodie. Now I get to tell a guy who claims to be a physician that there is no original work – no “predicted” – in a review paper.

    Tell me, Michal, have you ever published anything at all in any kind of reasonably scientific periodical in all your little life? Have you ever had even a third-hand participatory role in composing or reviewing such a manuscript? But Michael goes on:

    Anyway, there’s a bunch of later papers confirming this and looking at the role of GHGs in amplifying the initial warming from orbital effects.

    And you respond to this highly cited paper with….Salby.

    Massive own-goal by “evidenced-based” man.

    Gawd, this guy’s gotta be a Brit. An American might use the military expression “blue-on-blue,” but only a soccer schmuck ever says “own-goal.”

    The citation of Dr. Salby’s work (and his presentation) is pertinent not only because it’s very current (see Dr. Curry’s recent Web articles here and here) and therefore both readily accessible and fresh in the minds of those reading in this thread but also because it’s more recent than 1990 and is therefore a better reflection of current thought on the subject at hand.

    And of that “bunch of later papers” to which Michael breezily refers we’ve gotten from him precisely bupkis.

    That’s Yiddish, Michael. It translates as “nothing of value, significance, or substance.”

    So Michael – who hasn’t come up with even a link to the “evidence” he claims exists to support what we’ll charitably call his contentions – promises that he will (Real Soon Now!):

    …post a few more of the papers dealing with the role of CO2 in degalciation.

    Yep. And the check’s in the mail, too.

    Somebody really ought to lance this pustule. Looks as if he’s ripe. Where’d I put that box of Number-11 blades?

  81. randomengineer

    I’m not sure exactly what Salby says (I didn’t hear any predictions, but I may have missed them) but if global CO2 continues to increase at an increasing rate—in line with global fossil fuel use—then I will have reason to put even more faith in what IPCC says on this topic.

    Or, if you’re paying attention at all, less.

    CO2 rise correleates to population overall meaning that exhalation and concrete and change in land use and animal husbandry and cereal crops need to be examined. The IPCC view, which is that of a political body, is concentrated on SUV use and such that can be more easily regulated in participant countries (especially those with subjects rather than citizens.) There’s a great deal more to the story than CO2.

  82. From AR4 SPM: “Since IPCC’s first report in 1990, assessed projections have suggested global average temperature increases between about 0.15°C and 0.3°C per decade for 1990 to 2005. This can now be compared with observed values of about 0.2°C per decade, strengthening confidence in near-term projections.”

    From Steven: Actually there are no data sets that show a 0.2C /decade global warming trend that I am aware of.

    This is the fundamental disconnect. Maybe we need to be more clear about which “data sets” we’re aware of. For my part, I’m aware of:
    * NASA: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.gif
    * Hadley Centre: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh%2Bsh/index.html
    * IPCC: http://www.ipcc.ch/graphics/ar4-wg1/jpg/ts6.jpg
    NOAA: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/2009/decadal-global-temps-1880s-2000s.gif
    * Christy and Spencer: http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/

    Which ones are you aware of, Steven? And BTW thanks for your kind words about my comedy :)

    PS to Mike et al.: Sorry to disappoint, but so far you all haven’t said anything funny enough to make it into my comedy routine yet. But keep trying and maybe you’ll get there! And definitely keep up the (bizarre) speculations about what PBS and I are going to do with your global CO2 and global temperature predictions. My only plan at the moment is to come back in 2020 and find out whose predictions did better. Of course, in order to do that it would be helpful to know what kinds of data sets everyone is aware of.

    • At 7:51 PM on 8 August, Yoram Bauman concludes a long regurgitation of IPCC-worshiping warmista blithering points with the admission that:

      My only plan at the moment is to come back in 2020 and find out whose predictions did better.

      Would that this were so.

      In truth, Dr. Bauman (whose rice bowl is as an “environmental economist” for the University of Washington’s greenshirt Project on the Environment) is calling for normative government intervention in the economy to impose a “revenue-neutral carbon tax” to no purpose other than to compel the reduction of carbon dioxide emissions resulting from economic activities which involve the combustion of petrochemical fuels.

      The preponderance of economic activities in these United States. Effectively all such, in one wise or another.

      We have had Dr. Bauman speaking ex cathedra – “as an economist” – in this wise without fail in this forum. Dr. Bauman wants this “carbon tax” imposed right now, not “in 2020 [after we] find out whose predictions did better,” and he keeps evading the observation I’ve made that this is not the practice of a responsible professional – pressing for extremely costly and incredibly damaging action in advance of proof, in this case objective evidence validating the preposterous AGW conjecture – but rather the malignant irresponsibility of a quack.

      Perhaps we should investigate in detail the character of the program at the University of Washington in which Dr. Bauman attained his Ph.D. in 2003. Might be nice to read through his dissertation and his professional (as opposed to his “humorous”) publications.

      It’s always interesting to examine the footprint of a quack.

    • The IPCC doesn’t have a data set. The only data sets I am aware of are UAH GISS Hadcrut NCDC and RSS. Show me the one that has a data set over 0.2C/decade warming and I’ll show you the one I am unaware of.

      • Okay, I’m curious: How about GISS:

        Average anomaly (from base of 1951-1980) for 1990-99 is 0.313 C, average anomaly for 2000-2009 is 0.516 C. The difference is 0.203 C.

      • The have a perfectly good graph on their web site with a 5 year running mean

        http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/

      • And, what’s your conclusion from the graph? Do you disagree with this:
        Average anomaly (from base of 1951-1980) for 1990-99 is 0.313 C, average anomaly for 2000-2009 is 0.516 C. The difference is 0.203 C.

      • I hadn’t really thought about it. Perhaps if you can explain why I should think about it when I can look at the graph and see that the 5 year running mean has only gone up about 0.3C in 20 years this will give me some incentive.

      • Not much on math, either, are you.

      • I agree with Jim Owen: Steven really isn’t much on math :)

        But seriously, Steven: I’m amazed that the difference between you and me (and as far as I can tell, between you and the IPCC) is the difference between 0.3C over 20 years and 0.4C over 20 years. (Just for the record, last year the 5-year running mean was 0.36C higher than it was 20 years previously. Did that change your mind about anything? I doubt it.)

        But regardless: if you’re comfortable with 0.15C per decade for now then so be it. In my view that doesn’t leaves you so far removed from IPCC.

      • Only a fool would look at derived average temperature on a global scale and think that any significance exists to the accuracy or precision with which you are citing.

      • Hey, I’m just looking at one of the data sets Steven suggested, and at the accuracy level he cited. So… don’t blame me.

  83. Yoram –
    I respectfully suggest you inform yourself about the difference between ‘prediction’ and ‘projection’.
    Then check out which one the IPCC are using, and which one proper sciences are using.
    You might then not have to wait until 2020 to grasp what we’re on about.

  84. Viv: I’m eager for you to enlighten me, because dictionary.com says that they’re synonyms. And if your strongest evidence of IPCC malfeasance is that they’re using one instead of the other then, well, I don’t think that’s terribly strong evidence.

    Oh, and by the way, what’s your prediction/projection for global CO2 and global temperature for 2020 and 2030?

    • Yoram,
      As regards evidence IPCC malfeasance, it seems you haven’t heard about Climategate and the whitewashes of it. Hiding data, hiding the decline, etc etc. Or are turning a blind eye to it.

      And still playing children’s guessing games and calling it science I see. And still not explaining how it can help at all.

    • There is no telling you, Yoram; you must find it yourself. But follow Viv’s lead if you seek understanding.
      ===========

    • IPCC DDC: Definition of Terms

      http://www.ipcc-data.org/ddc_definitions.html
      May 16, 2011

      Projection
      The term “projection” is used in two senses in the climate change literature. In general usage, a projection can be regarded as any description of the future and the pathway leading to it. However, a more specific interpretation has been attached to the term “climate projection” by the IPCC when referring to model-derived estimates of future climate.

      Forecast/Prediction
      When a projection is branded “most likely” it becomes a forecast or prediction. A forecast is often obtained using deterministic models, possibly a set of these, outputs of which can enable some level of confidence to be attached to projections.

      http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2007/08/projection_prediction.php

  85. Sorry, I thought we were here to learn from each other, not to leave mysterious clues in the form of hints and poems. And I certainly didn’t think that we were here to insult each other in the method of Rich Matarese. But I don’t mind—as an comedian I’ve received worse—and like all academics I would be delighted if you looked at my academic papers, including my PhD dissertation. Most of that stuff is online. As a start here’s my CV: http://www.standupeconomist.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/cv2011.pdf

    Enjoy! I’ve got to go write some papers (I’ve got a visiting research position at the Institute for Global Low-Carbon Economy in Beijing), so this might be my last post. Good luck to us all!

  86. Yoram,

    You are obviously a talented young scientist beginning your career.

    As a friend, I encourage you to read this historical background of global climate change:

    Corruption of solar science and smear tactics are at the base of the global climate scam.

    The decision was apparently made during Kissinger’s secret visit to China to in 1971 to use “anthropologic global climate change” as the common enemy to:

    a.) Unite Nations;
    b.) End the Cold War, the Space Race; and
    c.) The threat of Mutual Nuclear Annihilation.

    The Bilderberg Model of a “homogeneous Sun in hydrostatic equilibrium” – adopted at the Bilderberg in April of 1967 – became official government propaganda after the 1971 meeting.

    References:

    1. “The Bilderberg Sun, Climategate & Economic Crisis”

    http://dl.dropbox.com/u/10640850/20110722_Climategate_Roots.pdf

    2. “The Bilderberg Model of the Photosphere and Low Chromosphere”

    http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1968SoPh….3….5G

    3. “Neutron repulsion” “Neutron repulsion”, The APEIRON Journal, preprint, in press, 19 pages (2011) :

    http://arxiv.org/pdf/1102.1499v1

    With kind regards,
    Oliver K. Manuel
    Former NASA Principal
    Investigator for Apollo

  87. I am still waiting for an answer to the question posed to JC by ThingsBreak. i.e.

    “. In the interest of ‘open discussion and integrity and science’, what scientifically (not “he used to be a coworker”) about the presentation do you think was deserving of all the ‘totally not-promotion’ you were throwing around in the last thread?”
    Hundreds of comments have been made, many of trash talk by people who think it is game changing science, but no word from JC to explain why the science behind this paper is so good, that it merits the exclamation “Wow”!

    From the standpoint of science, based on what I understand there can be no doubt that human industry is causing CO2 in the atmosphere to rise over time. CO2 emissions due to human activity has been estimated to be about twice the increase in atmospheric CO2 since the industrial age began. The estimated uncertainty in emissions is way smaller than the atmospheric increase. If I am wrong about this, I certainly want to know about it and why I am wrong.

    Professor Curry – Can you help me? Are you saying you don’t know?

    It seems to me strange that a climate research scientist would profess ignorance about this elementary point and claim it was outside of her field so she wouldn’t comment.

  88. I am still wondering about the Salby presentation. People are obviously adding carbon to the atmosphere and there is a variable natural flux that changes with temperature. The third figure – http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/ – shows annual increases and the changes due to for instance to the 1992 Mt Pinatubo cooling and the 1998 El Nino warming.

    The concentration in the atmosphere is measurable directly and the anthropogenic emissions calculable from fossil fuel sales. The natural fluxes are some 24 times the anthropogenic flux – but this is not a fixed number and is not known with great certainty. We have an increase in both natural and anthropogenic components in the mass balance in the last few decades – and we also have sinks of substantial capacity. .

    The argument on isotope ratios seems moot – that we are adding carbon to the atmosphere is obvious and whether this shows up or not in isotope ratios is irrelevant.

    It seems that a substantial component of the increase over the past few decades was the result of warming in the period – observed from the year to year variability.

    Of course – most ‘recent warming’ was the result of ENSO ‘dragon-kings’ in 1976/77 and 1997/98. Dragon-kings are as associated with a neighborhood of what can be called equivalently a phase transition, a bifurcation, a catastrophe (in the sense of Rene Thom), or a tipping point. (Sornette 2005 – Dragon-Kings, Black Swans and the Prediction of Crises)
    Most of the rest seems to involve ENSO SST changes and ENSO cloud feedbacks (eg Clements et al 2009, Burgmann et al 2008, Zhu et al 2007, Palle et al 2007, Trenberth et al 2010, Dessler 2010 and Spencer and Braswell 20121, McLean et al 2010).

    It seems that there is not an ‘elementary point’ here – and therefore your condescending tone and smug convictions are misplaced. I would suggest a little more humility would help in your scientific endeavours – given the complexities of the Earth’s climate system. Uncertainty is after all the driver of scientific revolutions.

  89. Thanks to Hank for clarifying the distinction between prediction and projection. As for the rest of you, what do you think about Oliver Manual’s claim that the “climate scam” goes back to “Kissinger’s secret visit to China in 1971″? Are you one-for-all-and-all-for-one when it comes to conspiracy theories, or are you actually willing to challenge each other? (With the exception of those of you who actually made predictions about global CO2 and global temperature over the next 10 or 20 years, I already know that you’re not willing to challenge yourselves :)

    Okay, back to my academic work… got to fill up the rice bowl!

    • I think of Manuel’s posts as a cry for help, just as I do when a believer think that skeptics are funded by the Koch brothers and Exxon.
      Or it could be a demonstration of a thinking disorder, like someone who implies that all skeptics think alike and confuses people declining to little games with actual dialogue.
      But calling your obsession and profitable gig promoting AGW fallacies ‘rice bowl’ is insightful since it is a lucrative gig. Jealously guarded fiefdom indeed.
      Break a leg,

    • In general, I am skeptical of conspiracy theories. However, unless they involve aliens or other highly implausible entities, I don’t discount them completely until I’ve had a chance to check the evidence for myself. Leaving the door ajar, so to speak. The problem is that checking the evidence is usually a lot of work. Doing it superficially is not an option for me. Therefore, I ignore most conspiracy theories.

  90. Yoram, why would I change my mind? Because my “about” was off by 0.03C/decade? Have you found the data set I am unaware of that shows 0.2C/decade warming because of it? It seems not. You are also seemingly oblivious as to what the differences between our positions are. I wasn’t arguing there has been no warming. I was arguing the projections from IPCC 1 at 0.3C/decade warming were no better than the projections of no warming. My position is they are both wrong. Your position is one is right and the other is wrong even though there is no significant difference between their accuracy. My position is one of analysis. Your position is one of advocacy. That is a much larger difference than 0.02C/decade.

  91. That those who seek both more government, and world government, have conveniently latched onto CAGW is no surpise. Ditto the would-be world government the UN – via its IPCC division.

    Talk of conspiracy here though misses – indeed is usually wheeled in to obscure – the far more significant point, which is that government in general stands to greatly expand its grip over societies by using the CAGW argument. And, not coincidentally, governments are the very bodies financing and peddling the CAGW idea.

  92. Steven: I don’t think we really need to disagree. Given the data to date it’s hard to make the call between 1.5C/decade and 2.0C/decade. So we’ll have to wait and see about what happens in the next 10-20 years. IPCC says 0.2C/decade, while you “predict the weakening solar cycle and the AMO going negative will produce about 0.25C cooling that will offset approximately equal warming for the next 20 years producing a flat to slightly declining trend.”

    PS. You also predict that “co2 will go up at 1.5ppm during this time period”, and I’ve been saying 2-3ppm/year. I should be more clear that 2-3ppm/year is my prediction, not IPCC. My prediction is based on what I understand from AR4, but I haven’t found anything in AR4 that spells it out clearly in the same way that they spell out temperatures rising 0.2C/decade for the next two decades.

  93. Judith,

    You write that you strive for “an e-salon where we discuss interesting topics at the knowledge frontier.”

    The main criticism though on e.g. your Salby post is that you elevate it to a knowledge frontier, whereas it’s way behind that frontier in geoscience. You thus give it an air of importance and relevance where it has none.

    What you call “warm” bloggers are not primarily concerned about being “arbiters of truth”, but more so concerned that nonsensical stuff is elevated as if it had any scientific validity. In other words, you seem to have a much wider acceptance for nonsense than most other scientists. That’s not necessarily a bad thing, but it does mean that it sometimes causes more confusion than insight.

  94. Arkadiusz Semczyszak

    Such a comment posted on Tamino – Open Mind (you can not agree with it but it’s worth reading – the more so because Tamino usually removes my comments):

    “What Salby does not explain is this: total human emissions of CO2 from fossil-fuel burning are far larger than total CO2 increase. In fact, the CO2 increase has only been about half of human emissions. So, the net emission from other sources has been negative, while atmospheric CO2 has been rising.”

    Salby not explain, but it is relatively easy to explain. It depends on what is optimum p.CO2 for a Global Primary Production (assuming that other factors affecting the GPP – are stable or positive: for example is getting warmer) … And here is the essence of the dispute, or eg: PP ocean rise (doubling p.CO2) by 37% or 16%, whether perhaps fall …

    If the real optimum p.CO2 – for photosynthesis – GPP – is higher than at present, this addition – as a result of warming – for example, the first 5 ppmv CO2 (natural) will have a different effect than the next 5 ppmv CO2 (if we assume an exponential increase in the efficiency of photosynthesis – GPP). A simple model: add 5 ppmv CO2 – photosynthesis reaction – of this amount – hypothetically – circa 5?% eliminated by GPP (3 ppmv CO2). The atmosphere will be 2 ppm of CO2. GPP responds because according to this oscillation model. CO2 is a “food”, GPP is the consumer – “predator”.

    What happens if we add 10 ppmv of CO2 into the atmosphere (5 ppmv of CO2 “natural” + 5 ppmv CO2 anthropogenic)?

    We know from pre-industrial GPP continues to grow.
    Are accordance with the model oscillation? Improving conditions for photosynthesis?
    If the optimum of photosynthesis in real conditions – is similar to the theoretical optimum (??), it every (next) CO2 “impact” should be stronger – more increase GPP. Instead circa 5?% annual increase CO2 emissions – GPP will “eat” for example 75% CO2 (7.5 ppmv of CO2 – from 10 ppmv of CO2 increase of emissions all over).
    2.5 ppmv of CO2 will be added to the atmosphere.
    If the base conditions described above are correct, then no anthropogenic sources – “allowance” of CO2 into the atmosphere could be 2 ppmv of CO2, and by anthropogenic emissions: 2.5 ppmv CO2 …
    This is confirmed by the case of Mt. Pinatubo (see link below).

    Every links to commentaries and research papers containing questions about ice core – CO2 – whole is here – my discussion of F. Engelbeen. I would ask (first) THIS read carefully (especially the “case of Mt. Pinatubo” and the huge problems of estimating the size of the current soil respiration). Later – after analysis – critical remarks – even invectives – are welcome (by the way sorry for my “slavonic English”).

    I add this graph (about 14C in “old” warming – deglaciation), because …

    The main argument against the claims Salby professor is so (I think) here isotope 14C (NOAA). But the problem is that ever in the past – at the time of warming – the amount of 14C in the atmosphere – always – declined.
    „It turns out to be about a 3‰ decrease in Δ14C for every 1 ppm of fossil fuel CO2 added to the atmosphere.” – in turn this NOAA claim based on the assumption that the whole surplus p.CO2 comes from anthropogenic sources.
    Of course fossil fuels are practically free from 14C – 14C drop repeatedly increase in the atmosphere (compared with the natural increase in CO2 emissions), but the direction of change – a decrease of 14C in the atmosphere – is the same in every (natural and anthropogenic) CO2 emissions growth. Fossil fuels are only responsible for an unusually strong decrease of 14C in the atmosphere, but (this is possible), not for most of the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere.

    Natural sources of CO2 emissions with a low level of 14C (and their natural oscillation imbalances – with GPP) to be found on terrestrial. Zech et al., 2011. ( High carbon sequestration in Siberian permafrost loess-paleosols during glacials.):
    “Recent findings show that the amount of organic carbon stored in high-latitude permafrost regions has been GREATLY underestimated [...].” (same, says a few references cited therein – and an interactive discussion – recent papers) …, Nowinski et al., 2010.: “Radiocarbon ages of heterotrophically respired C ranged … … from 1,525 to 8,300 years BP [14C !] in August samples, suggesting that old soil C in permafrost … ”

    I will also attention that the proxy in the form of CO2 delta 13C of marine and inland “water” of carbonates (coccoliths, sponges, corals, etc..), also “carry” a big mistake (12C there is a very “mobile” – compared to 13C) . 12C is much less mobility in the alkenones – and these proxy gives generally the highest (of course with the “water” proxy) estimates old p.CO2. The differences between the different proxies of CO2 are indeed huge – Alkenone and boron-based Pliocene pCO2 records, Seki, et al., 2011.. Figure 9a shows that all the proxy (for p.CO2) are different from ice cores, some of them – much (!).Also, some proxies show here that the last 3 million years, p.CO2 often could be similar – or higher – than the present (also in the period in which we have data from ice cores). Ice cores show the lowest estimates p.CO2.

    In addition, we compare (temperature – influence on CO2) these four figures (specially You see around 1950 +/- 10 years)
    : ‘Global and European temperature (CSI 012) – Assessment published Jun 2010’

    pH1,

    pH2

    CO2 historical – whit new very real background – 2009

    [these figures especially I recommend Ferdinand Engelbeen]

    Of course, the fluctuations in water pH of the oceans is affected by many factors (tides, monsoons, sunshine, etc.). Only temperature (direct influence) – rather – small.
    Być może zawarte w tym poście dane Panu przydadzą się, polecam też lekturę http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/03/06/historic-variations-in-co2-measurements/

    Ja uważam, że to Słońce (występujące z opóźnieniem efekty drugiego rzędu) odpowiada za obecne ocieplenie i wzrost CO2 w atmosferze.

  95. I also want to say that even if the writers persue a storyline where the characters have to go international to persue it…writers can always ty the USA to it. After all, surely ppl realized that the Templar Treasure didn’t land or was hidden in the New World. Surely, ppl new that the City of Gold was in fact only a legend.But, still Hollywood made it fascinating to watch and wonder if it could be possible!!