I have an interview tonite on NPR’s All Things Considered.
The link for the interview can be found [here]. There is a print story, and a 7 minute audio. The title of the pice is ‘Uncertain’ Science: Judith Curry’s Take On Climate Change.
On Jul 2, I received an email from Richard Harris of NPR:
I’d like to talk to you about how the stable global temperatures over the past 15 years are playing out in the broader discussion of climate change. You seem to be uniquely positioned as an observer of this conversation. I’d like to come down to Atlanta and spend a chunk of a day with you, to produce a piece for NPR that’s part profile and part exposition of these issues.
Since I am not that good with keeping track of of journalists and their reputations, I did a google search for Richard Harris; an impressive bio and it doesn’t get much better than this in science journalism.
So I agreed to do the interview, although I was not in Atlanta but in Nevada for my summer vacation. He received approval to make the trip out to NV on Jul 15/16. Over those two days, I spent about 8 hours with Richard Harris discussing many aspects of the climate issue (maybe half of it was taped).
Maybe about 4 of those hours were spent discussing science, in particular the ‘pause’ and recent estimates of reduced sensitivity and my take on the uncertainty issue. We spent alot of time talking about climategate and my role in the aftermath, my engagement with skeptics, the IPCC, and the data libertarian and citizen science movements. We spend a small amount of time discussing climate/energy policy (a few minutes really), although I did explain to him the different decision analytic frameworks for decision making under deep uncertainty. I mentioned my Congressional testimony at the end of the interview, and I agreed to email a copy. I very much enjoyed my conversation with Richard Harris, and I felt fortunate to have been able to spend so much time with a distinguished journalist.
So I was rather surprised when I read the article on the NPR web site. It was mostly about politics and policy, which constituted a small fraction of our conversation and the few statements that I made in regard to policy were in response to pointed questions, not points that I was trying to make. So I guess politics trumped science in terms of this story, and someone decided to make this story about the politics, particularly my congressional testimony and the fact that I was called as a witness by the Republicans. Plus a heavy dose of my uncertainty about the science and the usefulness of the proposed policies, which is generally accurate.
So while I don’t have any big complaints about the story and a few direct quotes were modified in minor ways, the implication that I am mostly about the politics and policies surrounding climate change is just wrong. I see this as a missed opportunity to discuss the science and the changing dynamics of the climate debate after climategate. But what do I know about what makes a good story for NPR.
Update: I actually just listened to the radio program (previously I had only read the article). I assumed that there was more of an actual interview (i.e. where I actually said something) on the radio program. Not so, seems like I got about 60 seconds of airtime in an 8 min radio show ostensibly about my own opinions. I have to wonder why Harris spent two days talking to me. I guess it took that long to get me to say something about my nieces and nephews.
My favorite part of the story is this photo of my dogs Bruno and Rosie:
Judith Curry with her dogs, Rosie (left) and Bruno, in the mountains near Lake Tahoe. The climatologist focuses on the uncertainties of climate change far more than on the consensus of climate scientists.
Wonderful!
Two things. One you already knew.
1) Dogs are loyal and will never betray you.
2) Journalists are bottom feeders.
In regard to #2
Always ask about the premise of the story.
Always insist on recording the interview and are reserving the right to publish a transcript of it if you feel you’ve been misquoted or taken out of context..
In general it’s better to conduct the interview via email.
It’s very common culture wars for the interviewee to be misled about the premise and you end up being used in a hatchet job on yourself or your interests. If there’s any reason to suspect the article won’t be fair and balanced simply refuse the interview.
Always make your own recording(s) of the interview, and put them on-line for anybody to compare against the final result.
interesting idea, making my own tape recording.
Even better – no ‘live’ inteviews. There will always be more material than they can use, so the snippets will invariably give a different sense to what you thought you conveyed.
Questions submitted in writing, answered in writing. Keep a copy.
Sure, you can be misquoted, but it’s easier to demonstrate.
I turn down alot of interviews; for print journalists i strictly do email (no conversations). I turn down all radio interviews, with two exceptions (NPR) and Alan Stahler, who does in depth interviews on the science (I have one next week on ice clouds). I don’t do live radio or TV interviews at all any more.
2nd regarding your own recording.
Tape? How quaint. I was thinking Google glass. That ought to put the fear of uncertainty into the slimy mofos.
Weren’t we all. Great media management suggestions topped off with a fine piece of techno-oneupmanship!
What I was thinking as I read this and Kloor’s piece was Andrew Montford’s recent experiences in the UK. Is it more or less sulfurous over here? (It would be sulphurous here but never mind.)
Hard to say – though Mann’s tweet is a powerful push for a win for the USA – but it’s notable that Andrew still does live interviews, including on BBC radio, which is kinda equivalent to NPR.
Compared to Harris his latest interviewer, earlier this month, was I thought pretty fair – not everyone did – and certainly not such a timewaster. My final reflections on Bishop Hill included this:
I thought Dr Curry came across this way, despite all, and that’s why Mann is so mad. But it’s also interesting to consider the different dynamics in the two countries.
In the interest of full disclosure, here is NPR’s responder:
http://nhpr.org/post/consensus-view-kevin-trenberths-take-climate-change
He was misrepresented!
Kevin, you’re a victim too!
From the Trenberth interview:
“The oceans can at times soak up a lot of heat. Some goes into the deep oceans where it can stay for centuries. But heat absorbed closer to the surface can easily flow back into the air. That happened in 1998, which made it one of the hottest years on record.
Trenberth says since then, the ocean has mostly been back in one of its soaking-up modes. ‘They probably can’t go on much for much longer than maybe 20 years, and what happens at the end of these hiatus periods, is suddenly there’s a big jump [in temperature] up to a whole new level and you never go back to that previous level again.'”
So in one sentence he just bought the consensus another 5 years (in case the “pause” continues), added a tipping point, and made the coming thermageddon irreversible.
This is how a hoax dies.
The hypothesis in the Western world that modern man is heating the globe (AGW) is an example of pathological science. “Pathological science is the process in science in which ‘people are tricked into false results… by subjective effects, wishful thinking or threshold interactions.’ (refer to Irving Langmuir)
Based on the expected course of a pathological science, global warming alarmism will not simply, go away. It lingers on even after, as Philip Stott describes below, the public is no longer ‘convinced’ that the ‘global warming panic’ is real. Langmuir calls pathological science, “the science of things that aren’t so.”
Global warming is pretend science. More and more heretics have abandoned the pseudoscience faith of the AGW belief system. No longer true believers, these skeptics now see AGW as bad and junk science, an example of cargo-cult thinking and fearmongering voodoo. And, the skeptics now represent the wider public who, as Stott observed, have rejected the “hysteria and the manic depressive hyperactivity… of the ‘Global Warming’ Grand Narrative.”
Waggy said:
“The hypothesis in the Western world that modern man is heating the globe (AGW) is an example of pathological science.”
____
The hypothesis in and of itself is not pathological or pathological science. What becomes pathological (or rather non-scientific) is the approach that one takes in attempting to prove or disprove that hypothesis. Thus, a hypothesis (i.e. humans are adding energy to the Earth system through the addition of greenhouse gases) may or may not be correct, but the approach to proving it can be pathological, unscientific, tribal, etc.
RG,
Nicely said.
Sometimes the pathology begins with the hypothesis, such as with AGW–e.g.,
“Fantastic theories contrary to experience are suggested… mechanisms are suggested that appear no where else,” and “criticisms are met by ad hoc excuses thought up on the spur of the moment.”
Nothing demonstrates the pathology more than the name change: global warming to climate change.
Wagathon, you were saying…
-e.g.,
“Fantastic theories contrary to experience are suggested… mechanisms are suggested that appear no where else,”
Is that not exactly what Trenberth just said in the quote in your earlier comment, that since the ocean is a top-warmed system of liquid, that for some mysterious reason, energy injected at the top moves downward (anti-convection) without top side temperature increases, lingers for possibly decades in the depths building up, and suddenly, once again mysteriously, move upward and manifests, get this, then in a permanent increase in surface air temperature ???
Didn’t I read all of that correct? A perfect example of pathological science.
I love your insight: anthropogenic global warming — pathological science — the science of things that aren’t so. I find that across the board in this branch of “science”.
Wayne,
Trenberth’s view is that there’s a lot of variability in the heat flow between upper ocean and atmosphere.
Over periods of up to 20 years that variability may be in a phase where so much heat is taken by the ocean that the atmosphere is not warming as the increase in the ocean heat equals the combined increase of heat in the whole Earth system.
As the basis of the above is variability, that phase must be followed by the opposite phase during which the net flow is from the ocean to the atmosphere leading to a rapid warming of the atmosphere.
Looking at the history, the last 15 years have been in the first phase, while the 15 years before that where in the second one.
During both phases oceans are heated by solar radiation and release most of that heat to the atmosphere. The variability is not nearly so large that this basic process would change, what changes is the difference between the heating of oceans by the sun and the release of heat to the atmosphere. When that difference is large ocean is warming, the atmosphere less or not at all; when the difference is small the ocean is not warming much but the atmosphere is warming rapidly.
This is the way Trenberth is thinking. He doesn’t claim that the whole process is well understood, but he believes that the overall evidence is strong enough to make the interpretation probably true at a semi-quantitative level.
The absurdity is to imagine that albedo has been anywhere near constant over the period. It seems to be in fact by far the most significant factor in the global energy budget in the satellite era.
http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/cloud_palleandLaken2013_zps73c516f9.png.html?sort=3&o=16
http://www.benlaken.com/documents/AIP_PL_13.pdf
The BSE species barrier leap into vCJD followed the same course; expect the ‘we are all going to die’ headlines to continue, but fall away with a half-life of about 18 months.
http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w318/DocMartyn/nvCJDcases.jpg
They managed to scare everyone until 2002, then they did the ‘long incubation’, then ‘genetics of long incubation’, but by then their hearts were not really in it. In 2001 it was 237 per million (95% confidence interval 49–692 per million) of Britons withvCJD (Hilton 2004) and 0 to 113 per million (2009).
Now even the Prion Moses can only frighten the public by claiming the pandemic may kill ‘1,000’.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/395611/Infected-Mad-Cow-blood-could-kill-1-000-Britons-experts-fear
With a whimper and not a bang, this too will pass.
I think a story that brings to light the political beliefs that color Mrs. Curry’s science is important. Her comment about how climate change regulation might effect her nieces and nephews ability to get a job is absolutely relevant. The fact that she made it after 2 days of interviews is irrelevant. She did not say it was inaccurate or taken out of context so it stands. If she wants her science to be respected then she shouldn’t make statements to reporters that directly tie her personal beliefs to her scientific conclusions and to the Republican political position. That sounds more like politics then science.
Wagathon, I get the feeling your perspective is not based on your climate expertise, but on your dogma. This is a case of “you hear what you want to hear”. This is actually a great example of the climate change debate. Everyone reads the same article and takes away whatever supports their dogma. You are a Republican who will never be convinced because your sources of information (Fox News, AM talk radio) tell you it’s a hoax. I’m not being sarcastic or judgmental, it is what it is. No amount of scientific data can sway you.
Not making a decision is a decision. The “facts” I’ve seen/heard, even from Mrs. Curry, tell me we should be concerned and effect change where we can. I believe Americans can find reasonable steps to effect change, can find ways to be successful (even if that means new regulations) and I believe the US is THE world power. With those beliefs as my foundation I also believe the US should take a leadership position instead of a political based obstinate role. Unfortunately that will never happen because climate change has become just another victim of the current political climate, although I’m sure some would not acknowledge that the political climate has changed either (I am being sarcastic time).
SPete
It would be marvelous if the resolution of two diverging ideologies could be settled as simply as with a thermometer. Alas, it’s not so simple.
====================
Only a cold blued steel razor can settle this Ockhamly.
=========================
You’re wrong SPete–about everything. And, especially about the science of global warming about which ignorance — at least from a scientist — is inexcusable. The facts are there to see for anyone not driven by dogma or suffering from Hot World Syndrome (—i.e., fear of a hotter, more intimidating world than it actually is prompting a desire for more protection than is warranted by any actual threat.)
A study of the Earth’s albedo (project “Earthshine”) shows that the amount of reflected sunlight does not vary with increases in greenhouse gases. The “Earthshine” data shows that the Earth’s albedo fell up to 1997 and rose after 2001.
What was learned is that climate change is related to albedo, as a result of the change in the amount of energy from the sun that is absorbed by the Earth. For example, fewer clouds means less reflectivity which results in a warmer Earth. And, this happened through about 1998. Conversely, more clouds means greater reflectivity which results in a cooler Earth. And this happened after 1998.
It is logical to presume that changes in Earth’s albedo are due to increases and decreases in low cloud cover, which in turn is related to the climate change that we have observed during the 20th Century, including the present global cooling. However, we see that climate variability over the same period is not related to changes in atmospheric greenhouse gases.
Obviously, the amount of `climate forcing’ that may be due to changes in atmospheric greenhouse gases is either overstated or countervailing forces are at work that GCMs simply ignore. GCMs fail to account for changes in the Earth’s albedo. Accordingly, GCMs do not account for the effect that the Earth’s albedo has on the amount of solar energy that is absorbed by the Earth.
________________
Wagathon…I believe that SPete is correct, and you place way too much emphasis on ‘albedo’. Albedo is not changed by rising CO2 levels, but then it is higher energy light that either gets reflected or absorbed. It is low energy light (IR) that GHGs absorb and raise stratosphere temperatures.
Regarding the political aspect of AGW: I see no inconsistency between the Republican Party’s disparaging of climate scientist’s concern with global warming and the financial support it receives from fossil fuel corporations. Also, Pew Foundation asked National Science Foundation for a list of scientists for a poll; at the end of the poll, it asked political party affiliation. 55 percent stated Democrat while only 6 percent admitted Republican (the rest Independent). To me that tends to confirm that really smart people can see the Republican Party for what it is and who controls it.
I believe that SPete is correct…
If your belief was all that mattered then climatists would be right to forego the scientific method. But, people believe all sorts of crazy things. The scientific method is what allows us to separate truth from superstition and ignorance.
Climate change research has been plagued since the days of hysterical fears of imminent cooling in the 1970s by design problems, misuse of research data (both positive and negative with adjustments to raw data without explanation, and adjustments made to the adjustments–all without any justification whatsoever–and, the substitution of data without any disclosure of the questionable gimmicks being employed, together with the knowing corruption and outright loss of raw data without accountability of any kind), poor statistics, small samples, unverifiable computer models constructed using questionable time-invariant climate parameters and reductionist mathematics, and a sycophantic culture of interrelated, self-reinforcing, self-serving, self-appointed gurus–elevated far above their competence for ideological reasons–who idolize and memorialize superstitious preconceptions, indulge in flawed conclusion and hucksterism, and proselytize their politically-correct voodoo pathological climate science (likened by some outside Western academia to the science of ancient astrology), all while self-righteously opposing with cannonades of denigration the accomplishments and observations of serious scientific skeptics and an ever-growing number of global warming heretics of self-defeating AGW theory and eco-terrorism.
WOW wag…all that tripe and no refutation of my statement; so SPete stands correct. Thank you.
‘In summary, although there is independent evidence for decadal changes in TOA radiative fluxes over the last two decades, the evidence is equivocal. Changes in the planetary and tropical TOA radiative fluxes are consistent with independent global ocean heat-storage data, and are expected to be dominated by changes in cloud radiative forcing. To the extent that they are real, they may simply reflect natural low-frequency variability of the climate system.’ http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch3s3-4-4-1.html
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/figure-3-23.html
I have had a number of arguments with wags – but he is correct in this. This is what the satellite evidence says. Cooling in IR and warming in SW – and shifting in 1998/2001. Both – the radiant flux and chaotic climate shifts – mainstream science.
‘What happened in the years 1976/77 and 1998/99 in the Pacific was so unusual that scientists spoke of abrupt climate changes. They referred to a sudden warming of the tropical Pacific in the mid-1970s and rapid cooling in the late 1990s. Both events turned the world’s climate topsy-turvy and are clearly reflected in the average temperature of the Earth.’ http://www.science20.com/news_articles/climate_predictions_better_hindcasts_will_lead_better_forecasts-118948
It shows up in cloud which has both IR and SW properties.
http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/cloud_palleandlaken2013_zps3c92a9fc.png.html?sort=3&o=15
Get used to it fellows – the world is not warming for a decade to three more.
Unlike El Niño and La Niña, which may occur every 3 to 7 years and last from 6 to 18 months, the PDO can remain in the same phase for 20 to 30 years. The shift in the PDO can have significant implications for global climate, affecting Pacific and Atlantic hurricane activity, droughts and flooding around the Pacific basin, the productivity of marine ecosystems, and global land temperature patterns. #8220;This multi-year Pacific Decadal Oscillation ‘cool’ trend can intensify La Niña or diminish El Niño impacts around the Pacific basin,” said Bill Patzert, an oceanographer and climatologist at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif. “The persistence of this large-scale pattern [in 2008] tells us there is much more than an isolated La Niña occurring in the Pacific Ocean.”
Natural, large-scale climate patterns like the PDO and El Niño-La Niña are superimposed on global warming caused by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases and landscape changes like deforestation. According to Josh Willis, JPL oceanographer and climate scientist, “These natural climate phenomena can sometimes hide global warming caused by human activities. Or they can have the opposite effect of accentuating it.”
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=8703
“Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please.”
Mark Twain
“The climatologist focuses on the uncertainties of climate change far more than on the consensus of climate scientists.”
I think I’m going to call the language abuse police.
I like the word “climatologist.: A climatologist is to climate what a cosmetologist is to hair. They can make take something perfectly normal and make it look really dramatic.
-Hide-the-decline : foundation makeup to hide the blemishes
-Scary red graphs to show imaginary heat ; garish red lipstick to show the same thing
-The hockey stick : a big bouffant wig to give the impression of more than is really there
-The IPCC ARs : silicone implants to impress more than is possible with what nature provided
The hairdresser analogy is most appropriate GaryM! +1
In climate science and some other sciences, perceptions seem to outweigh reality.
GaryM, you sexist creep. Does it make you feel more like a man to indirectly poke fun at women for trying to look the best they can? No wonder the GOP can’t win women.
Max,
Jackass alert.
As in you are acting like one.
Even the ignorant alarmists need representation.
Hmmm, there’s a thought. Judging from blog commentary, and not just this one, ignorant alarmists are in the ascendance(yes, you joshua, willard, fan, web, hypotenuse and many more). Little do we hear from the educated alarmists anymore, and when we do, there are faint eddies visible of the rowing back. Or we hear the statements of religious principles from the educated alarmists, like R. Gates and his ‘carrying capacity’ remarks.
I about half bet we’ll hear religion from Kevin Trenberth in his interview.
=================
kim, if you don’t like NPR, get them to interview you,
talk in your riddles, and NPR’s ratings will plummet.
A fine liberal like you, the very quintessence of modern progressive thought, has a much better chance of an interview with NPR.
================
Free advice is worth what you pay for it. But you might want to make your own recording of what you say. Just sayin’.
Oops, misread, thought it was a future interview. Der.
I don’t know about anyone else, but hearing that interview made me want to come here and find out what else you have to say. I’m not surprised that what you considered your most important points never made it into the story. I don’t think I have ever heard from someone interviewed who hasn’t thought the same.
As for me, I write a blog that’s aimed at people who want to do right by the environment but don’t buy the climate change hysteria that almost everyone else in the “green” space pushes. I suspect that I can learn a lot about the audience I’m trying to reach by coming to understand your audience.
I can hardly believe that I’m the only person in the country who found out your blog exists through that interview. So it’s not just a good story for NPR, but will probably increase your readership and your influence. In any case, I’m sure glad I heard it.
Problem with MSM David is the division of responsibilities between the journalist, the sub-editor, the editor in chief and in many cases as for the Murdich press, the owners of the tabloids, each with different agendas.
It’s not the Murdoch press which is spinning and concealing for all it’s worth. It’s the self-anointed “reputable” media, notably NPR, which is selling its bias as hard as it can.
EXTRA! EXTRA! The train is leaving the station.
=============
David,
I can’t say I recognize you, but I like you already.
Judy, I thought your interview was actually quite thoughtful and reasonably balanced. When I think of all the extremists on both sides that NPR could have interviewed, I think it is hard to think of someone who could have presented a more rational perspective for the ‘all the data isn’t in yet’ side. When I ran for Governor in Colorado I learned a lot about what happens when a long interview is viciously cut down into a collection of out-of-context sound bites, and you should feel pretty good about the way this one turned out. It’s hard to get an almost 8 minute story in today’s media. I believe the slogan “Fair and Balanced” has already been hijacked by another news outlet, but I think NPR came reasonably close to meeting that criteria. But we’ll see about that when the ‘mainstream’ view is presented.
Hi Rutt, nice to hear from you and thanks for stopping by!
Judith, as I read your entry today, I felt myself bracing for the punchline. I wasn’t imagining that you would say how faithfully your viewpoint was represented. For my part, I so highly value the work you on this site and I wish to thank you.
And the dogs, are they Portuguese Water dogs?
Sorry, but NPR is anything but “Fair and Balanced” on the subject of climate. It is, in fact, a broadcast platform for an incessant daily drumbeat of evangelicals of the CAGW (catastrophic anthropogenic global warming) conjecture. For someone such as Dr. Curry, it is— quite literally— the lion’s den. And Richard Harris is one of its chief regurgitators.
I cannot convey to you the level of my astonishment that Harris and NPR interviewed Dr. Curry. It only took sixteen (16) years of little-to-no significant temperature rise for NPR to air the possibility that climatology is an immature field and just might not no what it’s talking about. Maybe— just maybe— the science isn’t settled. I am not, however, surprised by Richard Harris’ hatchet job. They don’t come any more biased than that one.
+1
Judith, a long time I was a newspaper (UK) and radio (Canada) journalist. It was rarely about truth, only about the story – what would garner most attention? I was often sent out on a lead which proved to have no substance, no story. The attitude to my rigour was, alas, similar to what I found as an economist in the Queensland Public Service. (I did get a few scoops, though.)
The main reason I decided to pursue an economics career was the lack of respect for truth and honesty in journalism (with some honourable exceptions). I’ve generally found a much higher standard in economics – both in academia and government – at least in the UK and Australian public services, if not the QPS. But, as Gary suggests, don’t expect too much when dealing with the news media.
“I’ve generally found a much higher standard in economics”
Do we laugh or cry?
A Physicist, a Chemist and an Economist were shipwrecked on an island together. They were delighted to find that crate of canned goods had washed ashore not far from where they dragged themselves out of the water, but as luck would have it, none of them had a Swiss Army knife, or any other implement to open the cans with. And so they set out to explore the island, to see what other provisions they might find, or what they might use to open the cans with, agreeing to return after four hours.
Upon their return, the Physicist spoke first. “I found a very fortuitous rock formation, and I’ve made extensive calculations. We can easily construct a catapult and smash the cans against these particular rocks at just the right angle to split them open with a 50% success rate.”
The Chemist snorted, “A typical brute force physicist’s solution!”
“Well, what did you find?” The Physicist shot back.
“I found some rocks as well,” the Chemist said. “But mine had lichen on them, and I can extract an acid from them that will eat through the cans quite nicely, with a 75% success rate.”
“Oh my God!” exclaimed the Economist. “I can’t believe how crude you two are. You don’t just have rocks on your mind, you’re got rocks in your brains. My solution is far more elegant, and civilized. What’s more, it has a 100% success rate.”
“Well, then,” said the Physicist, barely containing his anger, “What’s your solution?”
“Yes, spill the beans,” the Chemist cracked.
“Well,” said the Economist, drawing himself up as if he were about to launch into a lecture, “First, let’s assume we have a can-opener…”
Doc, a very old joke. When I was at LSE (1961-64), all of those who taught me, most of them world-class economists, were advisors to government and/or business. I understood economics as a tool to change the world, I’m pragmatic rather than theoretical. I’ve always been a generalist economist rather than a narrow specialist, you need to understand connections and synergies to give good policy advice.
But much of economics has gone down a more mathematical, less outcome-oriented, route. I don’t knock theoretical economics – the endogenous economics kicked off by Paul Romer in 1986 has been of great value to me – but one has to see the applications for it to be useful. On several occasions in Queensland, I canvassed academic economists to join government innovation bodies. Innovation is crucial to economic growth, but I could find no-one suitable in the four SEQ universities. UQ, however, had 40 experts on subsistence economics of PNG. The economists I recruited in Queensland had either worked for the national government or were graduate recruits I trained. The latter said that they learned more from 3-4 months working with me than in four years at uni. Not all economists are equal, and, as with many disciplines, the over-expansion of the tertiary sector has necessarily led to lower average quality. Some of those in Australia I have regular contact with were also LSE-trained in the ’60s.
I was of course referring to professional standards in terms of honest presentation and debate rather than Climategate approaches. But Australia does have some very good economists, some with global reputations.
Faustino, I jest. The mathematics developed by economists in the 30’s, for measuring the flux of capital through the economy is very similar to the maths developed by biochemists from the early 80’s to explain metabolic fluxes. I was shocked that the elasticity of the two completely different systems can be described in much the same terms. The Biochemists did this quite independently, a pity that none of them had attended a few economics lectures.
Judith, I’ve just listened to the i/v, it wasn’t bad but did not address your main contributions. It was indeed “a missed opportunity to discuss the science and the changing dynamics of the climate debate after climategate,” and the inherent uncertainties in the science and models. But better than not having you on NPR.
I happened to hear the interview on NPR while driving (which surprised me since I don’t often listen to the radio and so was lucky to catch it). I thought that Judith came off very well, although obviously not much was covered and it is a shame they did not work in more specifics on the science.
Now Michael Mann is deriding it on Twitter as “puff” piece, which it was not at all, but I suppose for Mann anything that was not a vitriolic attack on Dr. Curry must be considered a “puff” piece:
https://twitter.com/MichaelEMann/status/370665373143953408
In a contest on who has squandered whatever respect they may have earned, Dr Mann has to be a contender in the science category.
Does anyone ever wonder if even his mother is embarrassed at times?
+1
She should get a tuition refund.
Scott
Everything he learned in Kindergarten he shoulda forgot.
============
+1
When I read the posting, it was already too late. is there a rebroadcast or online link to the broadcast?
The audio (7:50) is here:
http://www.capradio.org/news/npr/story?storyid=213894792
A lot of foolish comments by CAGW true believers over at NPR after the story.
Judith’s link in her second line takes you to the audio.
Judith, back when I was a senior Fortune 500 exec we were sent through many days of media training. You just learned some lessons that training about the media have been teaching for at least two decades now.
It could have been worse. You did well.
Regards
I assume that was after you attended Harvard and before you wrote your book?
Always good to see “skeptics” avoiding an appeal to authority.
Why am I not surprised that Joshua took the time to take a cheap shot at someone who has been successful. Same old same old.
Thanks for playing J. You are as predictable as you are superfluous.
ksd
Ps, if this “feels” like an ad hom, then I know I have succeeded.
Josh, I see a pattern here, a nasty habit of attacking people whose shoes you’re not fit to shine in the most petty ways possible. I gave you a reason why I called some of you intellectually undead alarmists, “names” as you put it. What’s your reason for attacking one of the most incisive commenters here? Whatever vapid, tedious defense you come up with, we all know the real reason is nothing but pathetic envy of a man of intellect and depth.
That isn’t an appeal to authority. At all. I might as well call your post an ad hominem. It’d be wrong, but treating these things as meaningless catchphrases seems fine by you.
Quick, use argument by assertion to say I’m wrong!
Indeed, if only I were as gifted in the art of superciliousness, I would be fit enough to shine someone’s shoes.
Well, there’s always tomorrow.
Jealous little twit. Thanks for making an asswipe of yourself, again.
> That isn’t an appeal to authority.
Of course it is, cf. Douglas Walton.
K Scott,
Not to worry.
An ‘ad hominem’ is an attempt to take-down an argument by a take-down of the man. Sometimes a take-down is just a take-down.
W^3
k Scott Dennison,
Well said. It’s par for the course for Joshua. He has nothing of value to contribute, IMO, and is continually unpleasant.
The ad hom goes both ways. If you take down someone, or if you take yourself up. Do not get distracted by old Latin words and old classifications. Look at the function of the argument.
Willard, ” Do not get distracted by old Latin words and old classifications. Look at the function of the argument.”
Kinda like they are cliches for a reason.
Yes, one needs to listen to Rud Istvan more often. He is a devoted proponent of the idea of Peak Oil and the fact that fossil fuel reserves are finite and the amount of energy that they will supply is limited.
He wrote two short books highlighting this problem, which you can purchase on Amazon — “Gaia’s Limits” and “The Arts of Truth”.
The fossil fuel depletion problem is not an issue for the global warming consensus, but it is a huge sore point to all the deniers, contrarians, and cornucopians out there who just can’t stand seeing any progress being made to adopting alternative and renewable energy strategies.
So listen to what Rud Istvan says, because he is a Fortune 500 exec after all, and those guys know what they are talking about.
Truth told, I mostly just started this thing because I like the word supercilious and wanted an excuse to use it…
Little did I know that so many “skeptics” would line up to defend an appeal to authority. Sometimes the real world surpasses your expectations!
> Kinda like they are cliches for a reason.
Indeed, Cap’n. Clichés are products of vulgar misunderstandings. If they end up conveying truth, it’s because the irony they contain, after a while. So like all secondary meaning, clichés work because we already know what we’re talking about.
I usually prefer to use “playing the man” instead of ad him, when I need to offer an explanation. Since my crowds usually know hockey, it’s rare that it does not clarify the concept. And we get the injunction “play the puck, not the man” for free.
Here – let me allow you to glimpse an appeal to (self) authority free version:
Judith, back when I was a senior Fortune 500 exec in business, we were sent through many days of media training.
Let’s try that again, shall we?
I’ve learned a heck of a lot from Rud Istvan, I wonder why? Maybe because of his experience as a Fortune 500 exec, etc.
I find it interesting how you never take Steve Mosher to task when he uses examples of when he helped engineer stealth technology to those that have a hard time grasping RHT physics. How is that not an appeal to (self) authority? Oh, but I see, because it is in support of AGW theory…. that couldn’t be a reason could it?
How about, just let it go. There are still a few people around that are actually successful. Yes, I know that makes them the great Satan in the minds of many of the minions, but is generally better to hitch your wagon to a success rather than a failure.
Josh,
Keep digging. You show your true colours. :)
You must have missed it when I teased him for his references to his private convos with Judith in Lisbon, his dinners with (Von Storch)? etc…
I just think it’s amusing how often Rud manages to slip in a gratuitous self-reference like his book, where he attended school, his status in the private sector, etc. It’s no different than when Springer does the same sort of thing. Yes – it has nothing to do with Rud’s input on the science. It is related, however, to a selective attitude about the climate wars. Rud is among those who line up first to categorize one side as “appealing to authority.”
Selective reasoning is selective.
Why does it bother you, Josh? The man is stating a fact of which I imagine he’s rather proud. I know I would be. But let’s assume for a second that he’s gratuitously “bragging” as you seem to think. Can you articulate for your many fans here at C.E. why it offends you so much?
Straw man. Rud’s success, Springer’s success, etc., are what they are.
Now Rud likes to act like he’s above the fray – with the whole “I’ll make an exception this time to stoop to your level” gambit, and his protestations of “disgust” that people mix it up when he does exactly the same – but he isn’t. So I point it out when I see that he isn’t.
Look – it isn’t all bad. At least it will get PG to shower.
PG –
That’s a straw man (projection?). It doesn’t offend me. It amuses me.
And it is relevant to the selective reasoning that pervades in the debate. It was a gratuitous reference to “authority.” I have often made the point that “skeptics” have a selective attitude about “appeal to authority.” Of course, it happens on the other side of the fence as well. But I don’t get paid as handsomely to point it out on the other side.
Bragging is not making an appeal to authority. Rud Istvan referenced what he learned from training he received. That is completely natural and unremarkable. If he bragged in addition to this, so be it. The subject of his bragging had no bearing on the training or the lessons learned from it.
As is done too often on this site, Joshua is just hand-waving and using catch phrases to belittle people without providing any actual argument. This sort of petty behavior is no better than the incessant name-calling practiced by others.
Petty point-scoring devalues conversation. It’d be nice if we could move away from it.
On top of mentioning the training he received, he gratuitously mentioned his status. It had no relevance to his point – as my suggested revisions show.
I will say that your engagement on this is interesting, as you, like Rud, like the gambit of “I don’t usually respond to riffraff like you (because it’s beneath me), but I’ll make an exception this time because you are just so bad.”
Reminds me of when kim, PG, or Chief claim that they only read my comments by accident. What’s up with the denial? Is it shame-based?
Mix it up. We’re all writing blog comments, for god’s sake. Don’t take yourselves so seriously.
And John –
Also…
In those particular examples, the references to context are relevant to the point – and as was Rud’s reference to media training (but not his references to his status). When I think that mosher makes gratuitous references to his “authority,” I point it out (well, at least sometimes).
Joshua, “Now Rud likes to act like he’s above the fray” Not really, he just has more experience dealing with BS artists, so he is somewhat above the BS part of the fray which is a large part of the fray.
Take Hansen’s “estimates”. They require perfection then he adds a fat tail. You don’t add 3.7 Watts of energy to any system and get 100% impact for that 3.7 Watts much less 300% efficiency. So Hansen’s estimates are pretty much BS.
Can’t agree, Cap’n. He’s just as much of a tribalist as the rest of us peons. He just likes to think that when he call someone “sir” before insulting someone, it elevates him above the riffraff.
He’s commenting on blogs, for god’s sake. People really need to stop smelling themselves.
Josh,
Just stop.
You are setting in concrete an image of being a mean, little person.
I thought Rud’s reference to the context of his media training was perfectly relevant. F500 companies take their public profile very seriously, and typically give their senior people the best training that money can buy. Anyone can hang up their shingle and offer media training, but the kind Rud got would have been best of breed.
If you, Joshua, absent context said “Well, I got media training once and bla bla” it would be much less informative.
That chip on the shoulder really puts you off your game.
johanna –
Bingo. Another fact of appeal to authority – the assumption that because of his status his training would necessarily have been better. So we should assume that if someone has a degree from a prestigious university, their training would necessarily have been better?
I’ve seen the training conducted for prestigious execs from the inside. In my view, some of it was excellent, and some of it was garbage. In fact, most execs, I think, would tell you exactly the same.
But his reference to his status had exactly the desired effect. It got you to assume that his training was “the best of breed,” simply because of the imprimatur of “authority.”
Couldn’t have said it better myself.
John Carpenter,
While Joshua earns a bit of credit for standing in the ring with Mosher when they do get in exchanges, he gets pummeled so thoroughly it is no wonder he doesn’t try to beard the lion in his den.
Joshua, “He’s commenting on blogs, for god’s sake. People really need to stop smelling themselves.” So? It is kind of entertaining reading the nonsense and the common sense on blogs. Climate etc. is not a bad place to reach a select audience, mainly lurkers, that actually have a little authority to do stuff.
Rud may be a pompous ass, but I have worked with quite a few asses that knew how to get things done.
Sorry – I meant to type “…facet of appealing to authority..” not “fact.”
Damn tablet.
> The subject of his bragging had no bearing on the training or the lessons learned from it.
Minimizing Sir Rud’s authority claim as bragging won’t help Brandon here.
Sir Rud’s judgement of Judy’s performance rests solely on the priviledged status mentioned.
Incidentally, this status is also mentioned when Judy wonders ( at least rhetorically) why she learns so much from Sir Rud.
The object of Judy’s wondering carries some weight in the business world, a world where Judy also belongs.
Cf. her About page.
Sir Rud’s ad hominem might be valid, for all I know.
Josh, You are not contributing to an adult conversation here. Rud should be congratulated for his success. Judith’s interview was just fine.
JC said,
I agree. People with experience like his should be respected. We should want to hear from him and others with real world experience at every opportunity, rather than the continually dumb prattle from the likes of Joshua, Robert, Bart R, Max_OK, WHT, Fan, and others I can’t remember because I am used to skipping whatever they write.
As a ninja, I congratulate Sir Rud for having the success to appeal to his own authority.
Mosher’s not an engineer. Don’t be silly.
Ha… don’t compare me to Rudd. I was a senior engineer at a company that didn’t even make the Fortune 1000 when I started. It was a Fortune 50 when I retired 7 years later. While I was there we became one of “The Four Horsemen of the Nasdaq”; Microsoft, Intel, Cisco, and Dell.
Now leave poor Rudd alone.
Judith Curry claims to have “learned a heck of a lot from Rud Istvan” and then wonders why.
It could be because she has read Istvan’s two books highlighting the issue of fossil fuel limitations — “Gaia’s Limits” and “The Arts of Truth”.
This issue is critical to understanding that global warming is a compounding problem to fossil fuel depletion, and that the move toward alternative and renewable energies is a strategy that will help mitigate the potential bad outcomes of both AGW and “peak oil”.
This is the old “kill birds with one stone” strategy and one that I am sure that Istvan and Curry both whole-heartedly endorse.
Peter Lang writes:
I, on the other hand, do read what Peter Lang writes, because it is filled with hypocritical statements, and I like to point them out.
Like Rud Istvan, he is hypercritical of the science of AGW, yet shows no reservations about continuing to push nuclear solutions at every turn.
Why does Lang push nuclear power if there is no problem?
Why does Rud Istvan write books warning of the Earth’s resource limitations if there is no problem?
The hypocrisy is simply staggering.
Cool Rud, when I was a nobody I got sent to media training, karas negotiation school, and chasm training.
They were way better than any class I took at university. I think at AGU 2010 they started running media training for scientists.
I would highly recommend media training to anyone who has the opportunity to take it.
You’re still a nobody as am I. Who do you think you are fercrisakes Burt Rutan or Gordon Moore? Gimme a break.
you missed the joke dave.
Nobody gets it.
===========
Oh I get it. Your media training was last week. Ha ha. Hilarious.
The joke is joshua is correct.
All that really matters is that rud went to media training and he found it useful. He made a useful suggestion to Judith. Not really and argument so I think that both he and willard are stretching the definition of appeal to authority.. but not that far, Rud is basically appealing to his standing and success.. and that makes his compliment more important.
In the end we dont know whether ruds training worked for him or not, whether his company wasted money or not.
Rud could have made the same point ( media training is good) without refering to his personal success, in short even a nobody like me can vouch for its effectiveness.
this type of appeal to authority is a favorite moshpit game, especially since so much of climate science basics come out of the defense of our country.
Joshua : On top of mentioning the training he received, he gratuitously mentioned his status.
Josh, about 30 seconds on LinkedIn would let you know Rud was at Motorola for 9 years and finished his tenure as a Sr. VP. My guess is that you knew that well before he mentioned “senior exec at an F500 co.”
Given that he at least uses his full name – what’s your bitch about? I don’t use my full name btw, exactly because of people like you. And yes, I’m a complete nobody too, just like you.
This definition, Big Dave?
> Linguistically, in the U.S., American English usage of bona fides applies it as synonymous with credentials, professional background, and documents attesting a person’s identity, which is not synonymous with bona fide occupational qualifications.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_faith
Thanks for providing the most expedient way to establish Sir’s appeal to his own authority.
Compare:
“Trust my judgement, I’m a scientist.”
with
“Trust my judgement, I was a top Fortune top exec.”
David –
Rud will enjoy the fruits of his success quite independently of whether I congratulate him or laugh at his superciliousness.
Should I have praised Madoff for his success?
How about Andrew Fastow, should I have congratulated him for his success as well as the corporate training he no doubt received in business ethics (which we can assume was the “best of the breed”)?
I’m not suggesting in any way that Rud has earned his success through corruption – but only that I don’t think that corporate success needs nor necessarily deserves “congratulations.” I’d be more likely to congratulate some due that works two minimum wage jobs to help support his parents, and who manages to get a promotion to the next level on the rung, than to congratulate someone just because they were a “senior fortune 500 exec.”
But sorry for distracting from the adult convo about Michael Mann, the conspiracy between the NPR and the reporter, and sheep dogs.
Joshua, you can be dense. Rud offers that his position is based on “senior fortune 500 exec” experience. You have to consider what company, what time frame, what is the current status of that company. He could have been the executive with Studebaker or he could have been head of one the four horsemen of the NASDAQ outsourcing Apocalypse. He just added his background to evaluate his comment. FOMD tends to appeal to Hansen, a Senior (AKA emeritus) Climate Scientist.
You do a compare and contrast, which authority is more relevant to the discussion remembering that appeal to authority can revert to consider the source (AKA ad hom). You are completely Steiging up the debate :)
So you feel for it too, eh? Hook, line, and sinker as they say in your avocation.
What can you tell from what he added w/r/t his background of being a Fortune 500 senior exec? Can you tell anything about the quality of training he received? Can you tell anything about his ability to incorporate training.
So you read him say that he was trained in media communication, as a senior Fortune 500 exec. and you say:
Now if he had been an exec at a pork belly operation, then I would say his “background” would be relevant – and indicative of mad skillz.
Joshua | August 23, 2013 at 9:15 am |
What can you tell from what he added w/r/t his background of being a Fortune 500 senior exec? Can you tell anything about the quality of training he received?
=======
Yes, I can. A Fortune 500 company will spend a lot of money to get the best training possible. This has been true since the Tylenol poisonings years ago which were a huge wake up call for corporate communications.
On the other hand, had he received the training while working as a bus boy for a local mom and pop restaurant it would not likely have been so good.
It is truly impressive to watch how effective an appeal to authority is with this audience.
Ask any exec, and my guess is that they’ll tell you that a good portion of their training was useless. But you have some fantasy that because he was a senior at a Fortune 500, his training must have been “the best.”
There are myriad examples to show media mismanagement by seniors for Fortune 500’s.
Um, I am an exec (at a Fortune 25 company) and I KNOW, as do 100% of my colleagues, that our media training was the best training of any kind we’ve had. So much so that we repeat it every year prior to our largest trade show. Same trainer, same program. It’s worth that much.
The appeal to authority is a form of ad hom in that any connection to the argument at hand is somewhat subjective and a non sequitur.
What did they say, in your training program, about attaching your name to highly partisan and heavily politicized rants, in a public forum, that display biased reasoning?
That what I do on my time with my resources is my business as long as there in no conflict of interest.
Joshua, You having reading comprehension issues today? Quick! To the Baconmobile! Joshua’s blood bacon fat level is low.
Peter –
It’s relative. I’ve certainly seen more egregious examples – but it is a pattern with Rud. It’s a pattern with folks like Springer as well, but Rud makes it a point to criticize the other side for behavior that is similar to his own, with an air of superiority. At least Springer doesn’t pretend to be anything other than what he is.
Peter Davies | August 23, 2013 at 9:33 am |
The appeal to authority is a form of ad hom in that any connection to the argument at hand is somewhat subjective and a non sequitur.
======
Or it could be that what appears to be an appeal to authority is actually just someone trying to give some context to a statement.
Josh,
See what happens when you get caught up in your terminology? You lose the ability to differentiate between an appeal to authority and an appeal to fact.
I also note your comment about asking any corporate executive. You “guess” you can tell us what they would say. Guessing is a fools errand in most discussions here. Many of the commenters gave considerable experience in the fields they come from. Your guessing due to a lack of experience or knowledge simply does not cut it.
Now go ahead and tell me how referencing experience is simply an appeal to authority.
Tim –
Ok – last comment on this theme and then I’m done. It is fascinating, however, just how ardently “skeptics” want to show me wrong on this. What’s that about?
Actually, I do have experience with execs and their opinions about corporate training (although not media training, specifically). My guessing was based on that experience. I hardly consider scott’s testimonial, in the heat of a disagreement, as some sort of convincing evidence.
But maybe scott’s right. I suppose it’s possible that somehow media training stands out from other forms of training as being uniformly excellent at Fortune 500 companies, but I’d say that such a viewpoint runs smack up against skeptical due diligence. And further, even if we were to believe that Fortune 500 media training is uniformly excellent, we have myriad examples where execs don’t employ such training effectively. Therefore, the blind faith that because Rud received such training, he is an “authority” on the subject is, likewise, not consistent with skepticism (although it is entirely consistent with “skepticism”).
It was an “appeal to authority.” In reality, I think that “appeal to authority” has merit in some circumstances. I have always argued that. Experience counts. By the law of averages, extensive training counts. My point, again, is about selective reasoning, where “skeptics” object to appeals to authority from those they disagree with and then turn around and make, or extend credibility, to exactly those same sorts of appeals that come from their side of the fence.
Selective reasoning is selective.
OK – I lied. But this will be the last comment on this theme (unless I write another).
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204425904578072950518558328.html
First hit on a Google search. There’s plenty more where that comes from.
Oh joshie, won’t you give him credit for attaching his name? You anonymous little punk.
Oh Josh, don’t you know one of the clearest signs of who is losing an argument is the first person to say “this is my last comment then I’m done”?
Joshua,
I did not assume that Rud must be an “authority” on media training and media interviews, only that he might know more about it than you or me.
Skiphill –
Fair enough. Indeed, he might (or in my case, almost certainly does). And someone who is a qualified climate scientist with knowledge derived from experience might know more about climate change than you or I.
My point is not that an “appeal to authority” is necessarily fallacious. My point is the selective reasoning I see among many “skeptics” in their approach to the importance of “authority.”
Sorry for the added “l.” Must be because of my political orientation?
Please, guys. Joshua has a point. Leave it at that, or you will lose more than this point, however top exec you may be in your first life.
You’re fumbling on the freaking first lesson philosophy teachers teach to college students, right after high school.
We all rely on authorities. This is one reason why we sign those comments. This undermines the “science ain’t about authority” claptrap, most of you already use.
I can provide quotes upon request.
Capt Dallas – why wonder? Rud was a senior VP at Motorola from 1991 to 2000. It’s on his linkedIn profile.
http://www.linkedin.com/pub/rud-istvan/9/52/b20
Some others he was at might be Fortune 500’s. Motorola is a Fortune 100.
While I was at a senior engineer at a Fortune 50 I attended the week-long course “The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People”. This includes media training under the ‘win-win or no-deal’ personal interaction. In a nutshell that means if it isn’t a sure win for both you and interviewer then you tell the other person to eat flaming schit & die. Or words to that effect I forget the exact terminology. ;-)
Josh, you’re entirely missing the point Rudd was making which is how important media training is to large companies. That is all.
Jim
But medja. Mebbe it’s butt meetcha.
==============
1. When I was a senior Fortune 500 exec we were sent through many days of media training.
2. You just learned some lessons that training about the media have been teaching for at least two decades now.
3. It could have been worse.
4. You did well.
#4 is the judgement. #3 is empty. #2 and #1 support #4.
Joshua: I’m not suggesting in any way that Rud has earned his success through corruption – but only that I don’t think that corporate success needs nor necessarily deserves “congratulations.” I’d be more likely to congratulate some due that works two minimum wage jobs to help support his parents, and who manages to get a promotion to the next level on the rung, than to congratulate someone just because they were a “senior fortune 500 exec.”
This might be the most insane thing I’ve ever read. In addition to strongly implying corruption, you seem to believe Rud was born or entered the job market as an SVP? Given your fictional respected due [sic] – how many promotions does he get before he loses your respect? Is like drivers where anyone driving 1 MPH slower than you is an idiot, and anyone driving faster a crazy person?
> [H]ow many promotions does he get before he loses your respect?
Joshua was talking about “attaching your name to highly partisan and heavily politicized rant”.
Does providing heavily politicized rants count as some kind of promotion?
JC, I thought the piece was a bit distorted. Being a regular reader of NPR’s website, I find Mr. Harris’ work rather prone to cheerleading of the “consensus”. He seems to have focused on the “I don’t know” part of the discussion and not on science per se, which I think is his way of saying you don’t have anything to add to the discussion.
On another topic – and I’m sure these aren’t revolutionary thoughts, but my POV is that they’re getting overlooked – I was thinking about the idea of “climate” the other day and wondering exactly what constitutes “climate”. There’s no quantitative definition for climate or climate regions, right? We can’t, for example, put “isoclimes” on a map as far as I know. Can we even specify all the factors that constitute the “climate” of a given region? Annual and seasonal temp variation, cloud cover, precip, humidity, jet stream variation, prevailing windspeed and direction…. certainly there are more.
The upshot is that, as I understand it, climate is a regional phenomenon. I think this assessment is correct: it’s reflected in the distribution of vegetation, which can be fairly well divided into distinct biomes.
Now, people that study weather and it’s annual, decadal, and regional variations can, in my mind appropriately be called “climate scientists”.
But what about people that just study planet wide phenomena – like global temp? Are they really “climate scientists”?
I guess when look at the leading proponents of the “consensus”, what I see are planetary scientists, not climate scientists. Few of them seem to have much of a handle at all on what is traditionally known as climate.
So, where that leaves us I’m not sure, and I’m sure other poeple are thinking about these things, but I don’t see it in the discussion much.
Jh,
A trip to the island of Maui will prove your proposition as correct. At least if you add topography to regionality.
+1
While sympathetic to the inevitable wincing after seeing the finished product, I’m sure you did a terrific job (will check it out later). The meta-consideration here is it’s NPR. The very belly of the left wing media beast. This imvho is a step forward. What’s next, a guest column in the NYT’s? Well, prolly not yet. But soon enough. It’s coming. It’s inevitable. All good news…
Exactly.
What Richard Harris wrote to you:
“I’d like to talk to you about how the stable global temperatures over the past 15 years are playing out in the broader discussion of climate change.”
What he actually said about that:
[crickets]
Perhaps your answer was a bit too dangerous to air publicly? Maybe you can answer that question here, just to complete the public record.
“stable global temperatures over the past 15 years”
A myth. A case of repeating a lie enough times and people, even reputable journalists will believe it and spread it even further. A lie fabricated by the supporters of fossil fuels.
The evidence? According to UAH there is a positive trend over the past 15 years.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/plot/uah/from:1998.5/trend
Note that shifting the start date backwards just 6 months halves the trend, which is a big clue at how unrobust these short term periods are for trends.
The uncertainty on the 15 year trend is massive:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/trend.php
It’s 0.113C +- 0.221/decade
See the lie that fossil fuel interest climate deniers have forged was done by converting this true statement:
“Warming trend is not 95% significant”
into:
“No warming trend”
Even though the uncertainty in the above trend includes the possibility over over 0.3C/decade warming.
Scientists talk about a slowdown, rather than a pause, and certainly not as long as 15 years.
This myth about stable temperature might fool Richard Harris, but it don’t fool me.
Give it up lolwot. Even the Met Office has conceded on the existence of the pause as an anomaly for the “consensus” theory.
lolwot,
“Global mean surface temperatures rose rapidly from the 1970s, but have been relatively flat over the most recent 15 years to 2013.”
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/news/recent-pause-in-warming
You should start a sit in outside the Met Office. Demand a retraction. And don’t move until you get it.
Speak truth to power. Don’t let the man get you down. Power to the people. Up against the wall m… you get the idea.
Denial does not become you lolwot
Having K. Trenberth unwittingly state as much in an email four years ago,
is about as much proof as anyone could present!
Appealing to the Authority of the Met Office!
Shame none of you can actually back up the claim with evidence.
Does UAH show stable temperature over the past 15 years? No. No it doesn’t.
Not unexpected, but too bad. Based on what I read from Dr. Curry, there was so much more this troglodyte could have captured. Plus, she’s clearly a dog lover which is aces in my book. Great photo! My Jack and Jill (border collies) would be so proud to have their photo online!
Love border collies. Never brave enough to adopt one due to the massive amount of exercise I’m told they need. Have 3 Italian Greyhounds instead. Sweetest, most biddable dogs imaginable. Makes life worth living right there…
I’m loving the pooch stories
pokerguy, I lived on a border (Northumberland) sheep farm once, the working dogs and their adolescents were far and away the best dogs I’ve ever known. So full of life and enthusiasm, brilliant at their work and loving it.
Lol pokerguy, sometimes dogs share characteristics with
their masters, yores do … I have a nine year old black and
white border collie that goes everywhere with me … along
the river by ways and seashore.
There’s a wonderful story by Alistair Macleod in his collected
short stories., ‘Island’ of the Highland Clearances and
resettlents in Canada, a story with a tragic end, but the old
man in it speaks to his dog in the Gaelic, ” S’e thu fhein a
tha taphaidh” ( It is yourself tha is clever.) I say it ter Lockie
and he’s so smart he understands what I’m sayin. There
aren’t too many dogs understand Gaelic. ) Bts
pokeguy you are soot on that border collies need tremendous amounts of exercise. That’s why we love J&J; they are our personal trainers! Rescued them through an amazingingly generous breeder who found them literally in a ditch on the side of the road as newborns. They’ve been the best dogs we’ve had in a long line.
Ugh… “soot” = spot on
Our newest dog (we have six) is a short-hair border collie. Just a puppy still. From a breeder in Fort Worth, TX. Dam and sire are national agility competitors. One of the pups from the litter (we got first pick because the breeder is a friend) was purchased by a family in New Zealand. That’s a long way to go for a dog especially considering that New Zealand must be rife with border collies already.
Faustino,
I presume that was before you knew about Kelpies, right?
When I was growing up there was no doubt that Kelpies are the best sheep dog. And the best ever was Johnny. He was the Donald Bradman of sheep dogs with the world’s highest score ever. Here’s a bit about Johnny (In the National Library of Australia):
http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/2826790
and more here
Origin and history of the Australian working Kelpie
http://www.noonbarra.com/history.html
My working sheep dog was a kelpie too. After my mother this dog taught me about unconditional love back when I was 19 years of age. I always treated him with the respect that he deserved but he lived in his kennel when he was not working or going with me for walks.
He didn’t like it much inside anyway and its a mistake to treat a working dog as a pet Sounds a lot like modern employment conditions today, we’ve made pets of our employees and they don’t do an honest day’s work anymore! /irony
Peter Davies,
I had same experience but I had one from around age 10. He also lived in a kennel when not working. No dogs inside the house in those days.
Mine have always been pets, but it is fun to see the “jobs” they will make up for themselves. Our favorite to watch is “catch the pool cleaner by the tail” where they chase our automatic pool cleaner around the pool, waiting for it to come to the surface and flick its tail so the can grab it. It is amazing to see their understanding of geometry as when the cleaner turns they instantly calculate where it is going next and sprint around the pool deck to be ready for it.
Amazing dogs.
You can’t go wrong with this breed. They are so intelligent and loyal ksd and mine was always “working” too, rounding up the chooks or anything else that will allow themselves to be rounded up. His name was Trusty and I will always remember him.
K Scott Denison and Peter Davies,
Yes. So many stories to tell. I made a Super 8 Movie of the whole shearing process from mustering, to return to their paddocks and all process in between with the kelpies the key workers in nearly all processes.
Judith, I read something on Roy Spencer’s blog about media interviews, and how to cope with them. Next time this happens, you might like to talk to Roy first.
I have always said yes and No to the AGW story. I don’t think a denial is sustainable for the periods 1910 to 1940 and 1970 t0 1998. So yes and no are appropriate answers. So long as the proportion of hot, new CO2 in the global atmosphere does not exceed present levels. the so-called ‘pause’ will continue. That is my prophesy.
a tweet from Michael Mann, what an honor
Twitter / MichaelEMann: Pathetic #RichardHarris @NPR …
Pathetic #RichardHarris @NPR puffpiece glorifies #JudyCurry for purveying #climatechange distraction & confusion http://fb.me/1mzJ62jBi
High praise indeed :)
Nice guy the Michael Mann chappy. he has the utmost personal integrity and respect for others.
That Mikey, what a sweetheart! In his high school annual he was designated “Mr. Personality.” As for NPR, the great “back down” is gaining steam.
If the estimable mikey m. feels the need to snipe, you know you’ve drawn blood.
Looks like you hit the spot! A Michael Mann cameo slur puts you in distinguished company.
Re the interview, by NPR standards it wasn’t too bad. Besides, it is impossible to extract more than a few inevitably unrepresentative snippets in 8 minutes out of hours of broad-ranging material.
That said, NPR must be doing pretty well if they can afford to send a journalist interstate for two days to get 8 minutes worth of material. Shades of our publicly funded ABC, which can outgun all the commercial news providers because they don’t have to pay their own way.
Johanna,
+1
Heh, she ran, but she couldn’t hide. Not from the ceaseless truth-seeking of Richard Harris.
============
He’s sued other people for less than that.
Is his ego so inflated, or his skin so thin that he cannot even attempt to act like a scientist with integrity?
I am sure many who read this blog know much better than I do of who else might be in a small but contemptuous circle. Certain names come to mind.
I am at the point I am willing to believe Michael Mann is so self absorbed he forgets he has a mother.
Fear of embarrassing mine has kept me from doing a lot of stupid or embarrassing things.
The Mann maligners are spewing their hatred tonight. They never seem to learn that attacking him doesn’t work. Look at what’s happened to his foes. A college professor disgraced by plagiarism, a Virginia AG in hot water over his misdeeds, and NPR losing the first round of a law suit.
GO Michael !
Max,
Go ask your mom if Mikey “I am a warrior from the front lines” Mann is self absorbed or not.
Max doesn’t know his NPR from a National Review in the ground.
=====================
kim, rather than concerning yourself with what I know, you should be enjoying your golden years and thinking ahead to extended care facilities.
From the sheen on your shine, I’d guess your golden years are behind you.
========
“I am at the point I am willing to believe Michael Mann is so self absorbed he forgets he has a mother.”
If would probably have said the same thing if they’d interviewed Punxutawney Phil.
Max,
When it comes to concerning one’s self with what you know, one can use the same amount of energy as with blinking and pretty much have it covered.
At least based on what you say here.
Some people tweet, Michael Mann twits.
It’s not unknown for older academics to never quite get over “a certain young PhD” doing very well and getting more accolades than themselves.
Apropos of nothing.
I’m afraid that was a genteel hit piece whose message was, for the typical NPR listener, “Don’t get worried about your alarmist beliefs if you hear about this seemingly qualified Curry person who’s a climate skeptic. She’s just a nice dupe of the Republicans who’s motivated by individualist ideology, not science. You can safely disregard her.”
That doesn’t mean the piece won’t still work to your long-term advantage, though. Those paying attention, if they have any doubts at all, will quickly read between the lines because your quotes don’t sound as if they’re being presented in context.
Also, your point about China and India will resonate with a whole lot of NPR listeners, both those who actually follow international economics and those who like to think of themselves as cosmopolitan sophisticates–it has just the right kind of “hard-headed,” “realist” tone for the latter group. (Not a lot of U.S. liberals are as starry-eyed about China’s trajectory as some were a few years ago, when people like Tom Friedman seemed to believe that the Communist Party was going to usher in a windmill and solar revolution.)
My god, man – you must have been in the freakin’ room when the reporter and editors discussed how they were going to spin the piece.
I’m sure that was exactly how they conceptualized the subliminal messaging. Good thing that folks like you are around to unearth the plot.
heh, maybe he wasn’t in the room, but he’s also not too far from the truth. How do you reconcile the aired piece with what JC had to say about the interview? Doesn’t seem too leave a lot of wriggle room for another interpretation does it Joshua? Of course, I readily admit to my own person bias’s in this never ending debate.
Audit, John. Never ending audit.
Thanks Willard, your quite right.
John
The interview seemed pretty fair to me. I’m not sure that there should be an expectation that the reporter has to match his report to the balance Judith would have preferred.
He had his orientation as to what he wanted to report. He conceptualized the interview. It seems to me that the basic expectation should be one of fair representation of Judith’s orientation – not that his conceptualization of what he wanted to report has to match Judith’s conceptualization of what she wanted reported.
Of course, if she comes across as being more focused on the politics than she is in reality, that could be considered a form of distortion – but isn’t that necessarily subjective? I see Judith as being quite focused on the politics (as an advocate), and she sees it differently. Such is life. PG thinks I’m a nasty idiot – and my family disagrees (well, most of them, anyway).
I’m not sure there is a way to make objective determinations there, and in lieu of that, I think that basic fairness is the primary expectation and I think that the interview met that expectation – as you did apparently, also, from listening to it.
When would anyone ever think that they were presented perfectly in such an interview? I think it is an unreasonable expectation. But certainly, it is fair game for Judith to feel and indicate that the felt the report was out of balance with the interview.
Fair enough Joshua. Let’s see what kind of report we hear tomorrow when Kevin Trenberth is featured.
Josh
More 9:45 type commentary and less of the bulk of your postings on this thread so far and I’ll consider you as credible.
you make reasonable points (I don’t have to agree to recognize them as reasonable), you are are concise, and there is no demeaning inference. Or outright meanness.
“The interview seemed pretty fair to me. ”
huh? to judge fair you’d have to have the tape of what she said and the story written from it.
What was included .what was left out.
jeez.
I agree Steven… having been interviewed many time over my career I can say that rare is the “fair” representation of the conversation. Not that reporters often lie, they simple fail to report the whole conversation in order to leave the impression they want.
Josh’s naiveté is out in full force again. I guess Josh thought it was fair because he liked what it said. Now whom have I heard accuse others of that type of behavior???
Joshua might think that “fair” means that the interview gives a view of Judith that he shares, or that it represents her views accurately rather than falsely.
For those of us who have been interviewed by the press, however, fair can mean something entirely different.
Oh, dear, what can the matter be?
Harris be long at the fair.
================
The determination of what or isn’t “fair,” is inherently subjective. I qualified, and said as it seemed fair to me. John thought it was fair upon hearing it initially, also.
The question then becomes how to extend a subjective determination of “fairness” to what was put in or left out. But even of course, despite the confusion of some here, a determination is inherently subjective.
To repeat my point – the reporter is perfectly entitled to his own goal for the interview. He has no obligation to comply with Judith’s, or your, determination of what his goal for the interview should have been. You seem to be confusing your subjective determination with some concept of objective reality. You set up an impossible standard and then complain because it isn’t reached.
And in the end, it serves to advance a sense of victimhood, at the hands of the big bad left wing media pro Eco-Nazi agenda. Perfect.
Well, except the whole notion that the media significantly affects the public’s perspective on climate change may just be just evidence-free, eh?
http://www.culturalcognition.net/blog/2013/8/8/partisan-media-are-not-destroying-america.html
Confirmation bias is confirming. Self-victimization is self-victimizing.
“the reporter is perfectly entitled to his own goal for the interview. He has no obligation to comply with Judith’s, or your, determination of what his goal for the interview should have been.” That’s fine with me, as long as _one_ of his unalterable goals for the interview is to accurately represent what the interviewee was saying. If he’s picking out particular quotes that sound like what he wants but have little to do with what was actually said, then no.
People being interviewed should make their own copies.
“The determination of what or isn’t “fair,” is inherently subjective.”
really?
Now you certainly dont believe that. whether chocolate ice cream is better than vanilla is inherently subjective, but I dont think you can sustain the argument that “fairness” is subjective.
If I cut that chocolate cake into two pieces of unequal size and take the larger, am I being fair?
To be sure, its difficult to have a canonical test for fairness, but that doesnt imply subjectivity and doesnt imply that we cant spot unfairness.
Further if its just your opinion, if you are just expressing your subjective state, then why the hell should we care that you like chocolate ice cream
I agree it was for their audience. When the interview and its NPR article ends with the commentator saying
“But leaving climate change actions to individuals will not solve the problem. You can’t affect global warming simply by buying a Prius and adjusting the thermostat. And there’s no uncertainty about that”,
it is a not so subtle rejection of uncertainty preventing action.
Yep.
It is also a relevant statement of fact – and a statement which is very similar to what you read “skeptics” say in these threads on a daily basis.
So, then, you think their audience is “skeptics?”
Joshua, you are parsing that sentence in a different way from me. To me it looks quite damning about uncertainty. Taken as a phrase, I think it implies there is a problem and it is not a small one, and that fact is not uncertain.
Maybe, Jim – The logic of the sentence certainly assumes that a “problem” exists.
But they just gave a fair interview with an expert who said, repeatedly, that the magnitude of the problem is uncertain.
Joshua, I also think it was fair. He asked good questions, and the question about continuing to experiment with the earth is a particularly tough one for any skeptic. He shows more concern about global warming than Judith, and there was no comfort for him in her answers either.
Nice pickup Jim.
NPR’s audience
interesting thread. I think Joshua should go teach them about motivated reasoning.. you know prove he can see both sides of things..
So Jim D, like Josh, is clairvoyant and, in spite of Dr. Curry’s words to the opposite, divines that the interview was “fair”.
Oh hell, what does Dr. Curry know, she only was there for the whole interview? Thanks for ruling on the fairness Jim and Josh! /sarc
Yep, I was going to post that last paragraph of the interview before I ran into it here. An obvious CAGWer jab. They have her on and let her talk about the very real uncertainty, then pull the rug out from under her with a completely unsubstantiated, irrational, illogical statement. Our tax money shouldn’t be spent on these twits.
The reason it is fair is that the interviewer is in the mainstream in being concerned about global warming and this is what it looks like when such a person is interviewing someone who isn’t mainstream and is not concerned. You ask why they are not concerned, and uncertainty doesn’t cut it as an answer. Hence the end comment.
Joshua is full of strawmen and irrelevancies. “Fairness” is not a concern brought up in my comment. Nor do I suggest that the media are all-powerful–the back half of the comment suggests that much of the audience will indeed be affected quite differently from the way I interpret the interviewer intending. It does seem clear from Prof. Curry’s account that the email proposal to her, concerning the subject of the piece, varied in a misleading way from what was actually put on the air. But I never argued that this was “unfair” in some cosmic sense nor that it would be a big win for the Urgent Mitigationists.
Persuasion through media these days is really hard (unless one can completely hide the existence of relevant facts and arguments). Audiences have become pretty hard targets–even politically congenial sources start to bore them, turn them off, and create an itch for subversion if they keep hammering the same themes over and over without sufficient variation. (Heck, even professional communities make subversive jokes about their failings and limitations–I just read that NSA analysts illicitly snooping on romantic interests are jocularly referred to by their peers as accessing Loveint.) My fellow Americans, even the benighted ones who don’t agree with me about everything, are not easy to fool unless they want to be fooled.
Like your picture Judith and your dogs must be loving the change of scene!
As others have already said, it seems that Harris’s original reasons for interviewing you have been lost in the politically correct noise that is affecting any rational discussion of the AGW issue.
The current “pause” will not be statistically significant over millennia IMO and seems well within the bounds of natural fluctuations around the warming trend since the last major ice age.
Take southern dogs on a vacation up north in the winter so they can experience playing in the snow. Joy squared. No wait. Joy cubed. It’s an intense experience for them.
David Springer +1
I had an Anatolian Shepherd living with me in south central Texas. They’re a livestock guard dog bred in the mountains of Turkey. A few of them will guard a flock all summer long without humans around . They’re big and can intimidate anything or anyone with a low growl, wilting glare, and raised hackles which comes in handy when needing to convince larger predators to look elsewhere for their next meal.
Anyway I took him up north in 2011 in the dead of winter. It was 10F below zero when we arrived. The first thing he did was jump out of the car and make a snow angel. We stayed all winter and he loved it so. He had huge webbed paws that served almost like snow shoes and so much fur sticking out between his pads it was like he was wearing mittens.
That breed must have been extraordinarily good company in the snow. I’m afraid our kelpies wouldn’t fare very well at all in the cold. Horses (dogs) for courses. Love most dogs, except for the lapdogs and some terriers, which have been overbred IMO, to the extent that they can’t function properly. Some German Shepherd breeds have poor backs and don’t last very long before they become crippled.
When they describe Dr. Curry as one of a small pool of scientists that the House of Representatives likes to invite for their committees, I think NPR are saying, not so subtly, that the Republicans like these few scientists that they can count on for a message that supports their own agenda. Scientists are used by politicians and journalists (including NPR) as a means of getting their own messages out. Very few scientists are given the opportunity, or even have the ability, to talk to the camera live and unedited or self-edited and have that go out to the public. I am fairly sure an interview with Fox would have brought out more thoughts about Climategate’s effect, consensus science, and the ideas we have seen about the suppression of skeptics. It would have been very different, and definitely more controversial.
They do seem to have a small pool of scientists. Maybe they should add Graeme Stephens, Bjorn Stevens, Mojib Latif, Delia W. Oppo, Lowell Stott, Kari Lawrence, Steven Schwartz and some other fresh faces.
Do you mean Mojib (if my name weren’t Mojib Latif it would be global warming) Latif?
The one who many “skeptics” completely distorted to run with a “climate scientist says the earth is cooling.”
Why do you mention his name in this context, Cap’n?
Some of those would have taken Rohrabacher to task about his ice-caps on Mars ideas.
Joshua, “Why do you mention his name in this context, Cap’n?”
because he actually has an open mind. He has a new paper out where he was able to model or hindcast the abrupt 76/77 and 97/98 climate shifts by, wait for it, using the actual initial conditions. Those “shifts” are what lolwot uses to get his scary trends. Those shifts are what Tamino uses to mathturbate ENSO, Vlocanic and solar out of the get his scary trends. Those shifts are what Hansen uses to get his scary trends. Those shifts are mainly natural variability. See how it works? Science progresses if you have an open mind.
He certainly seems like one of the few (on either side) who maintains a proper respect for uncertainty. How ironic that Chief quotes him, eh?
ML is suggesting that there is a greater then previously assumed natural variability (internal),eg
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00281.1
What happened in the years 1976/77 and 1998/99 in the Pacific was so unusual that scientists spoke of abrupt climate changes. They referred to a sudden warming of the tropical Pacific in the mid-1970s and rapid cooling in the late 1990s. Both events turned the world’s climate topsy-turvy and are clearly reflected in the average temperature of Earth. Today we know that the cause is the interaction between ocean and atmosphere. Is it possible to successfully predict such climate shifts? This is the question that scientists, under the auspices of the GEOMAR Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research Kiel, pursued. Using a coupled model of the ocean and the atmosphere, they were able to successfully replicate these events.
“The ocean plays a crucial role in our climate system, especially when it comes to fluctuations over several years or decades,” explains Prof. Mojib Latif, co-author of the study. “The chances of correctly predicting such variations are much better than the weather for the next few weeks, because the climate is far less chaotic than the rapidly changing weather conditions,” said Latif. This is due to the slow changes in ocean currents which affect climate parameters such as air temperature and precipitation. “The fluctuations of the currents bring order to the weather chaos.”
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/08/130822105042.htm
On the other hand weather brings disorder to climate chaos. Unfortunately – predictability is still no better than tossing a coin.
Do you ever tire of being trivially mistaken Joshua? Not having any depth of understanding and simply floundering about on the semantic surface? Not knowing the value of scientific ideas but indulging in scatter shot pop psychology blather?
Have sceptics distorted Latif’s model results showing a decade more of cooling? Or is this mainstream science and just the reality of how climate is behaving?
JC note: Attention in the public debate seems to be moving away from the 15-17 yr ‘pause’ to the cooling since 2002 (note: I am receiving inquiries about this from journalists). This period since 2002 is scientifically interesting, since it coincides with the ‘climate shift’ circa 2001/2002 posited by Tsonis and others. This shift and the subsequent slight cooling trend provides a rationale for inferring a slight cooling trend over the next decade or so, rather than a flat trend from the 15 yr ‘pause’.
I’d say that the shift encompasses the 1997/1998 El Nino to the 1999/2001 La Nina. A dragon-king in the sense of Sornette (http://arxiv.org/abs/0907.4290) – or alternatively a noisy bifurcation in the sense of Thomson (http://arxiv.org/abs/1007.1376).
The rationale for a ‘slight cooling trend’ is a little thin and the presumption that the next shift will be to warmer conditions again is utterly unfounded. However, interesting as all that is, the essential problem is the political aspect. Cooling however slight poses problems in maintaining any political and social impetus to moderate emissions of greenhouse gases.
To coin a phrase – oh what a wicked problem. This is clearly something that space cadets are motivated not to understand even while agreeing with the some of the scientists in question. Clearly very odd.
This is why I blog. My words, on what I want to talk about, when I want to talk about it.
Knee-jerk detractors – on both sides of the aisle – please take note.
“JC note: Attention in the public debate seems to be moving away from the 15-17 yr ‘pause’ to the cooling since 2002 (note: I am receiving inquiries about this from journalists).”
Thank for restating this Chief. The Climate can be a fickle ally. At first helping the warmists and now leaning the other way. It can not be reasoned with, it cannot be lured with promises of riches, it cannot be put into jail, it is intransigent. As the journalists are seeing it, that’s really a key indicator I think.
When looking at the bigger picture of the Earth system from an energy storage perspective, then the big PDO induced climate shift circa 1976/77 and then the seemingly opposite in 1998, would seem to be opposite functions in the coupling of ocean to atmosphere energy flow. In the first case, we saw a net increase in the flow of energy from ocean to atmosphere, and in the second case, we saw a net global decrease. One might expect the net result of this to be a zero-sum game in terms of the overall energy content of the Earth system. This might well be a zero-sum game over longer periods absent some additional external forcing to the system, leading to a cool PDO/warm PDO oscillation that (because of this external forcing) see a continually rising Earth system energy content, with only the location of that energy in the system being modulated by the natural variations of the system as expressed in the PDO multi-decadal seesaw and likely other such ocean/atmosphere coupling seesaws as well.
It is only zero sum if you assume that clouds, ice, snow, biology, hydrology and dust don’t vary with shifts in ocean and atmosphere circulation over decades to millennia. A difficult assumption to justify.
We know there are large short term changes.
‘The top-of-atmosphere (TOA) Earth radiation budget (ERB) is determined from the difference between how much energy is absorbed and emitted by the planet. Climate forcing results in an imbalance in the TOA radiation budget that has direct implications for global climate, but the large natural variability in the Earth’s radiation budget due to fluctuations in atmospheric and ocean dynamics complicates this picture.’
http://meteora.ucsd.edu/~jnorris/reprints/Loeb_et_al_ISSI_Surv_Geophys_2012.pdf
We know equally that there are very large decadal changes in albedo that are associated with the decadal patterns in ocean and atmospheric systems. We know as well that the patterns occur in varying forms and intensity over hundreds to thousands of years. We don’t know what tips the system into rapid and severe cooling – but ice feedbacks are involved.
Chief,
Cumulative effects from external forcing eventually can reach points of criticality. At these points the system can tip to a new regime or whipsaw back and forth. The Younger-Dryas and perhaps even the 8.2 ky event are potential examples of rapid cooling on the way to longer-term warming. With feedbacks, one external forcing can easily trigger another, even stronger forcing. Milankovitch cycles and CO2 for example…
Milankovitch cycles and ice sheets seem far more significant. But the point is that internal variability causes radiative feedbacks form cloud, snow, ice, dust, etc.
Chief H2O said:
“But the point is that internal variability causes radiative feedbacks form cloud, snow, ice, dust, etc.”
________
Internal variability may cause feedbacks (both positive and negative) from clouds, snow, ice, dust, biosphere etc., and these things may also cause internal variability. External forcings may also create feedbacks from clouds, snow, ice, dust, biosphere etc. (both positive and negative). It’s complex and chaotic, but deterministic. No random walk.
Lorenz was able to show that even for a simple set of nonlinear equations (1.1), the evolution of the solution could be changed by minute perturbations to the initial conditions, in other words, beyond a certain forecast lead time, there is no longer a single, deterministic solution and hence all forecasts must be treated as probabilistic. The fractionally dimensioned space occupied by the trajectories of the solutions of these nonlinear equations became known as the Lorenz attractor (figure 1), which suggests that nonlinear systems, such as the atmosphere, may exhibit regime-like structures that are, although fully deterministic, subject to abrupt and seemingly random change.
Determinism may imply that the system is potentially predictable – but doesn’t guarantee it. With climate it seems quite unlikely in the short to mid term.
“The winds change the ocean currents which in turn affect the climate. In our study, we were able to identify and realistically reproduce the key processes for the two abrupt climate shifts,” says Prof. Latif. “We have taken a major step forward in terms of short-term climate forecasting, especially with regard to the development of global warming. However, we are still miles away from any reliable answers to the question whether the coming winter in Germany will be rather warm or cold.” Prof. Latif cautions against too much optimism regarding short-term regional climate predictions: “Since the reliability of those predictions is still at about 50%, you might as well flip a coin.” http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/08/130822105042.htm
A post on this coming soon. But right now I’m working on a post KT vs JC on NPR
Hey Chief:
“The ocean plays a crucial role in our climate system, especially when it comes to fluctuations over several years or decades,” explains Prof. Mojib Latif, co-author of the study. “The chances of correctly predicting such variations are much better than the weather for the next few weeks, because the climate is far less chaotic than the rapidly changing weather conditions,” said Latif.
I found the above the most interesting and understandable part.
The climate has the inertia when compared to the weather.
Use a container ship at cruise speed to represent the climate. Study its wake. Use only the observed information in its V wake to determine what the ship is doing? The wake is the weather. Changes in the wake, is that chaos theory and that regime change you’ve mentioned?
‘The global climate system is composed of a number of subsystems – atmosphere, biosphere, cryosphere, hydrosphere and lithosphere – each
of which has distinct characteristic times, from days and weeks to centuries and millennia. Each subsystem, moreover, has its own internal variability, all other things being constant, over a fairly broad range of time scales. These ranges overlap between one subsystem and another.
The interactions between the subsystems thus give rise to climate variability on all time scales.’
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2009BAMS2752.1
Hurrell and colleagues state the same thing in a different way.
‘The traditional boundaries between weather and climate are, therefore, somewhat artificial.’
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2009BAMS2752.1
“The winds change the ocean currents which in turn affect the climate.”
Temperature depth Pacific ocean profile:
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/ocean/pacific-ocean-temperature.gif
I can see the winds flattening the linked profile and assume a net energy transfer change with more average wind from the West until about 1998. After a certain time of pushing net heat to the atmosphere that changes the ocean current and no amount of wind can change the current back to where it just left.
This might assume the ocean currents snaps into its their new current state. Now what happens to our linked profile? It doesn’t flatten as much as before. Why? Is it too depleted from 20 some years of warming us? Will it now miser the heat it can and stay less flat to rebuild itself?
Your profile is a La Nina pattern.
I am making progress Chief with those videos. Rivers meander. Do Ocean currents meander? I wonder what would happen if they varied their meander factor, more or less all at once?
I have never met anyone who has been interviewed by a journalist who has been happy with the finished product; it always turns out that the emphasis has been changed.
Even going through the drafts of press releases being released by your own organization is a horrid experience. They will not reproduce the caveats, you put them in, the take them out.
I heard the interview while driving this evening and was really surprised by the length of the story and thought it is be pretty good, but winced at the idea of JC being a mouth piece for Republicans. After reading Judiths version of what the interview covered over the length of time spent, I am now disappointed with the result of the story. There was no mention about the ‘pause’ or her interpretation of it which would have been much more interesting to know than some of the political aspects the piece tried to make. Yes, an opportunity missed.
On another note, I also own a poodle/Australian shepherd mix, though mine is white. I didn’t know of any other people owning this mix other than those sold by the breeder I got her from. They are great dogs and I love mine, she has been a wonderful addition to our family. Do yours like to swim? Mine loves fetching sticks while swimming.
My dogs are WONDERFUL, it is a great mixed breed. They don’t like to swim or fetch tho. There are a few breeders here in the U.S. Thanks for telling me about your pooch.
I think if I ever visit Georgia and want to have lunch with Dr. Curry, I will just say the magic words ‘Bruno and Rosie’ and present a little painting of them. Then again I remember a show that when you said the magic word, you got the lucky bird!
Interested in a soon (Dec) to be 5 yr old black lab?
I would want visitation rights.
My experience with dogs is they either live to play fetch or couldn’t care less about it. Polar opposites in the same litters too. Seems to be about a 50-50 mix. No preference by gender. It’s probably genetic and has to do with division of labor in the pack. They are extremely cooperative with each other in a pack with specific roles and responsibilities for each member. Obsessed with playing fetch is associated with a strong prey drive. If you compare the motion of a bouncing tennis ball with that of a startled bird or rabbit flushed out of the weeds you realize the drive that’s behind the obsession.
Absolutely David! Our Jack we call our “surfer dude” because he is so laid back. He couldn’t care less about fetching anything with the exception of the pool cleaner. Jill (from the same litter we think) is as obsessive as they come about fetching anything.
JC said: “So while I don’t have any big complaints about the story and a few direct quotes were modified in minor ways, the implication that I am mostly about the politics and policies surrounding climate change is just wrong.”
_______
Well, if that’s the way you are seen, there may be a reason.
In a previous topic you alluded to being circumspect. Maybe doing it on this would be helpful.
NPR. What did you expect? Sounds like you gave them a lot to think about but they really don’t want to swim upstream. It’s a club thing. You aren’t a member.
NPR mentioned a more ‘consensus” type climate scientist will be featured tomorrow (I’m sure to give more balance of course). Any idea who that will be?
Kevin Trenberth. And I bet he gets to talk about pause science.
Maybe he will talk about that moving hot spot.
The h spot. Why am I not surprised that geeky progressive climate scientists can’t find it?
I hope they ask him a few Earth Energy Budget questions :)
That damn ‘missing heat’ wouldn’t be so errant if it would just stop moving around.
==========
If it truly is about pause science and not pause politics then it could be interesting. Much can be learned from real study of this tropospheric pause, and in particular the opportunity to greatly advance the understanding of natural ocean-atmosphere coupling over multidecadal timeframes.
I wonder if they read his autobiography.
Barney Stinson/HIRED.
=============
“Much can be learned from real study of this tropospheric pause.”
Where’s lolwot?
lolwot, R. Gates is saying there is a pause. You gonna just sit there and take that? Where’s your indignation? Where’s your righteous wrath? Where’s his evidence? How dare he?
(pssst…He even calls himself a “skeptical” warmist. He must be in the pay of big oil.)
r.gates
re; “tropospheric pause”
my emphasis
You alarmists are so cute and cuddly as your desperation to keep your narrative alive rises.
So now we have different kinds of global warming since the kind we used to care about is MIA. LOL – hilarious. You boys should have your own show on Comedy Central.
I used to listen to NPR news an hour a day. I’m down to maybe 10 mins and I think the reason is all their silly climate articles. When I do turn it on, about 1/3 of the time I encounter a story related to climate — seems a little too often to me, but the environment is of central concern to NPR listeners, and climate is the main bugaboo. That’s my explanation at least.
This article was the least alarming of those that I’ve heard recently. I agree with your reading that it was skewed towards things you rarely talk about (politics). I like the last sentence which seemed to be saying “I know we’re interviewing an skeptic, but we here at NPR don’t hold that view. We just have to balance our news out a little bit every now and then.”
BTW, the pictures of Tahoe look great. Hope you had fun. I just got back from a week of hiking in the mountains and I’m ready to go back.
for the last 15y didn’t ”stop warming” in reality the warming NEVER started in the first place – wake up, GLOBAL warming is a concocted mythology
media looking for a ”shock news” and the lefty academia is behind the biggest con ever
Judith Curry
It looks to me like Richard Harris of NPR played you a bit, in order to get the preconceived CAGW message across.
This is the way the “interviewing business” works, unfortunately.
The lead-in refers to you as a “controversial scientist”.
Harris obviously did not like your statement that “if all other things are equal” adding more CO2 will result in warming – but we don’t know “if all other things will be equal”. He also seemed to bridle at your remark that humans may have caused “half” of past warming (rather than “most”).
The statement that you have testified for “Republicans” (oh horror!) was silly and unnecessary as was the absurd remark that you were more interested in uncertainties than in the scientific consensus (ouch!).
So it was no surprise that Harris referred to you as “a bit of an outcast” in climate science (zap!).
Don’t know what all NPR censored out, but rather than getting into a real discussion of the science, Harris seemed to be acting as a shill for the IPCC consensus team (and Obama politics) – especially when he brought in the AGU statement calling for “urgent action”.
I’d say you held your ground and “hung in” there, trying to steer the conversation to an objective and rational discussion of the science and all the uncertainties involved, but Harris was more interested in playing political hardball (Chicago-style).
It’s a tough world out there, as you undoubtedly know.
Max
the bait:”I’d like to talk to you about how the stable global temperatures over the past 15 years are playing out in the broader discussion of climate change.”
the switch: “While the Obama administration presses forward with plans to deal with climate change, Congress remains steadfast against taking action. It’s not easy to find a scientist who will agree with that point of view. But Republicans have found an ally in a climate scientist by the name of Judith Curry.”
Tomorrow they will discuss the science with a Real climate scientist, who will express sadness that former climate scientist “We just don’t know.” Judith Curry is allowing herself to be used by evil dimwitted fossil-fueled Repubs to obstruct the urgent action everyone knows is needed to save the planet from frying, when our missing heat turns up.
They didn’t let you go first, because you are a lady. You was set up. They are not gentlemen.
Detroit Don is the kind of Republican that Democrats love.
I love the dude, and I’m not even a Democrat.
fric and frac
tandem dummies
you two clowns should not be allowed on here at the same time
Am I fric or frac?
Max,
I don’t know, but you are the funny one.
Max_OK
As an outside observer, who has an acquaintance living in a Detroit suburb, Detroit probably needs a change to a “Republican” in the mayor’s office, after all these years of crooked and incompetent Democrats there.
Whaddaya think?
Max_CH
+1 manacker. Look at the US cities in the most dire financial situations and the vast majority have one thing in common: decades of Democrat leadership. Even I can see that correlation.
Well, k scott, that could be because most large cities have Democratic leadership. I got a list of cities ranked by population size(see link). Then I used Google to find the political affiliation of the the mayors of cities with population greater than 500,000. Of those 34 cities only 4 had Republican mayors ( Indianapolis, Ft. Worth, Albuquerque, and Fresno).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by_population
So if most large cities have Democratic leadership, it stands to reason most financially troubled large cities would have Democratic leadership.
Max_OK,
Try the same thing with states – same result. Try the same thing with school districts – same result. Try the same thing with any form of government – same result.
Max_OK: please pay attention this time. Look for cities who have had Democrat leadership for *decades* and then look at their fiscal health. Not just those cities that happen to be led by Democrats *today*.
My favorite NPR program is Science Friday. I also liked Car Talk with the Tappet Brothers, but that program retired.
Car Talk was not advancing the socialist cause. It had to go.
Tom wanted to retire. If you are you saying Click and Clack are liars, shame on you.
Max_OK
Funny. I would’ve thought it was Sesame Street, based on your comments here.
Max_CH
I guess you aren’t aware of the trouble the Republicans got into over Big Bird.
Know surprise.
https://www.google.com/search?q=DIA+mural+photos&client=firefox-a&hs=d8G&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&channel=fflb&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=jJgXUp3hLqyRigLGtIDQCg&ved=0CDQQsAQ&biw=1056&bih=567
It’s what is in the pictures that are worth 10,000 words.
One more reason the press has surrendered any legitimacy in being an institution worthy of trust.
I hope you enjoyed you vacation.
Please name one institution worthy of trust. Just one.
Institutions exist ultimately for their own self perpetuation and thus their moral code answers to this imperative above any other, and maintaining public trust is therefore rather low on the list of priorities.
I trust the men and women who serve in uniform. In case you missed it, the US Army was in the news as they conducted 3 trials, with 2 convictions and a third likely.
Last week, while working in DC, I was one address away (the building next door) from the Peace Corps.
I trust the Church in the form of my local parish.
I trust the company I work for, as they have established a track record of caring for their employees, their customers and their communities.
I trust local government, as I have seen they try to be responsive and responsible to their citizens.
I trust my family, friends and neighbors.
I don’t have trust issues Gates, do you?
PS – PBS tonight had Raul Sanchez interviewing two authors of books about Washington politics and both made the interesting comment on how being a good reporter has taken a back seat to being a pundit or talking head. If you want fame & fortune, tweet, blog, be outrageous and out there. There is recipe for respect and trust.
Ah, perhaps you have a point; the Institution of Climate Alarmism, AKA the IPCC, shows little interest in maintaining public trust.
================
tim56 states “I trust the men and women who serve in uniform”
What, all of them?
Yes, all of them. Only men wearing bowties only does timg distrusts.
Louise,
In a population around one million you are sure to find some outliers. They do not invalidate what the vast majority represent.
In the spirit of gender equality, I will ask if you have ever put yourself in harm’s way?
Willard,
Remember that bit about descending into irrelevancy? You are still on a downward trajectory.
Bow ties?
willard wonders and whiffs.
====================
I trust the NSA, but not in a good way.
Insecurity,
It’s become national;
By whose agency?
==========
I know you like squirrels, timg56. So when you mentioned men in uniforms, I thought it did not extend to the Chippendales.
Since you prefer more direct, stating that you trust everyone but most climate scientists and journalists does seem to indicate you have distrust issues.
The men and women who serve in the military are not an institution. They are individuals, each with their own degree of trust- worthiness.
I do not have trust issues with individuals on a case by case basis, but there are no institutions that I trust completely.
Weak attempt at a rebuttal R Gates… I think most of us knew what tim was saying.
And the fact that you picked his reference to the military as the only one to comment on is very telling.
Not sure what is “telling” about me trusting individuals members of the Military without trusting the overall institution of “The Military”. Like all institutions, its self perpetuation and maintenance of its own influence and power remain paramount goals, and those goals in and of themselves, do not lead to trust but waste, corruption, and worse. Same is true for the current form Washington D.C. Federal Government. Politicians spend most their time worrying about staying in office and keeping power rather than serving the people.
I wonder if NPR will reprise the wonderful moment in Kevin Trenberth’s 2008 radio interview in which he admitted that the ‘missing heat’ may have already been radiated back out to space.
==============
Reports are that paraclimatologists have proven that Maxwell’s Demon is real and is haunting the oceans. Do we mitigate or exorcise?
Arrgh! Arrgh! Run for the hills! It’s worse than we thought!
‘Ware demons! Burn the witches!
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn.
+1
Much has been learned in 5 years. He would not make such a claim now, as both the science and the data would not make it an option.
Dream on, oh Devout One.
========
The interview was typically useless. The issue is simple even for the layperson to understand. Why can’t we predict the weather beyond a few days? That is also why we cannot predict long term climate outcomes. There is no basis to believe that this “problem” that is irreducible in the short term can somehow be solved in the long term.
Doug, I don’t agree with you.
Weather can be predicted beyond a few days (e.g., it will be cooler come winter).
Back in 1988 Hansen predicted global temperature would rise. It has.
I have more confidence in long-term predictions than short- term predictions. I wouldn’t bet on what the stock market will do tomorrow but I would (and do) bet on what it will do over the next few decades.
‘In sum, a strategy must recognise what is possible. In climate research and modelling, we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.’ TAR 14.2.2.2
Max got infected with a meme in the blogosphere. Wrong when conceived – 100 times wronger now. Sad case – probably intellectually terminal.
Get out of here, Dunderhead, the TAR ain’t saying global temperature can’t forecast long-term.
What kinda BS are you trying to lay down ?
Dr Dunderhead brings knowledge to – well – climate dunderheads who think they know something when in fact they are tedious little babes in the woods who understand nothing at all.
Of course the TAR says that prediction of future climate states is impossible – you just read it didn’t you?
…and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible…
Now this is for 2 reasons. Models are chaotic. They have at their core the Navier-Stokes partial differential equations of fluid motion. As Tim Palmer – the head of the European Centre for Mid-Range Weather Forecasting explains it.
‘Lorenz was able to show that even for a simple set of nonlinear equations (1.1), the evolution of the solution could be changed by minute perturbations to the initial conditions, in other words, beyond a certain forecast lead time, there is no longer a single, deterministic solution and hence all forecasts must be treated as probabilistic. The fractionally dimensioned space occupied by the trajectories of the solutions of these nonlinear equations became known as the Lorenz attractor (figure 1), which suggests that nonlinear systems, such as the atmosphere, may exhibit regime-like structures that are, although fully deterministic, subject to abrupt and seemingly random change.’
http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/369/1956/4751.full
Suffice to say – there are many potential solutions and the question is – how do you know what the right answer is? This I will leave you to ponder for a while.
The second reason is that climate is a coupled, nonlinear chaotic system – just as the TAR says. As the esteemed Mojib Latif says – what
happened in the years 1976/77 and 1998/99 in the Pacific was so unusual that scientists spoke of abrupt climate changes. They referred to a sudden warming of the tropical Pacific in the mid-1970s and rapid cooling in the late 1990s. Both events turned the world’s climate topsy-turvy and are clearly reflected in the average temperature of Earth. Today we know that the cause is the interaction between ocean and atmosphere. Is it possible to successfully predict such climate shifts? This is the question that scientists, under the auspices of the GEOMAR Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research Kiel, pursued. Using a coupled model of the ocean and the atmosphere, they were able to successfully replicate these events.
“The ocean plays a crucial role in our climate system, especially when it comes to fluctuations over several years or decades,” explains Prof. Mojib Latif, co-author of the study. “The chances of correctly predicting such variations are much better than the weather for the next few weeks, because the climate is far less chaotic than the rapidly changing weather conditions,” said Latif. This is due to the slow changes in ocean currents which affect climate parameters such as air temperature and precipitation. “The fluctuations of the currents bring order to the weather chaos.”
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/08/130822105042.htm
This might equally be thought of as weather bringing disorder to climate chaos. These abrupt events in the Pacific Ocean occurred around 1910, the mid 1940’s, 1976/77 and 1998/2001 with profound effects on global hydrology, biology and surface temperature.
Here’s some homework from some more very heavy hitters in the climate field – http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/cdeser/Docs/jclim_minobe-pdv.pdf
That’s right, Chief, the TAR says it has no idea about how global temperature will change over the long-term.
HA HA !
My gawd, Chief, you are dumb, painfully dumb. You try to compensate by being long winded, but it just makes you both boring and dumb.
You remind me of something I read about Australians becoming Asia’s white trash (see link). As a boring dummy, what are your thoughts on that?
http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/parenting/are-aussie-kids-becoming-poor-white-trash/story-fnet08ui-1226606663083
Some people are beyond the help of even Dr Dunderhead.
Science clearly shows that the future climate states are not predictable.
‘The most we can expect to achieve is the prediction of the probability distribution of the system’s future possible states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions.’ TAR 14.2.2.2
‘Atmospheric and oceanic computational simulation models often successfully depict chaotic space–time patterns, flow phenomena, dynamical balances, and equilibrium distributions that mimic nature. This success is accomplished through necessary but nonunique choices for discrete algorithms, parameterizations, and coupled contributing processes that introduce structural instability into the model. Therefore, we should expect a degree of irreducible imprecision in quantitative correspondences with nature, even with plausibly formulated models and careful calibration (tuning) to several empirical measures. Where precision is an issue (e.g., in a climate forecast), only simulation ensembles made across systematically designed model families allow an estimate of the level of relevant irreducible imprecision…
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 (see ref. 26).’ http://www.pnas.org/content/104/21/8709.long
Knowledge takes sincere and humble application over a long time. You – Max – are an ignoranus – a person who’s both stupid and an arsehole.
Your article btw was inspired by a politician who was shot down in flames for being an ignoranus.
‘PISA is sponsored, governed, and coordinated by the OECD. The test design, implementation, and data analysis is delegated to an international consortium of research and educational institutions led by the Australian Council for Educational Research (ACER). ACER leads in developing and implementing sampling procedures and assisting with monitoring sampling outcomes across these countries. The assessment instruments fundamental to PISA’s reading, mathematics, science, problem-solving, computer-based testing, background and contextual questionnaires are similarly constructed and refined by ACER. ACER also develops purpose-built software to assist in sampling and data capture, and analyses all data.’
‘Australia sits in ninth place on the PISA rankings, with the Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, stating she wants to see the country in the top five in reading, mathematics and science by 2025. But education experts are cautious about the $6.5 billion plan, saying it will take more than money to address Australia’s declining ranking.’
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/national/education/world-rankings-a-lesson-in-valuing-role-of-teachers-20120904-25clz.html#ixzz2clzHEb5k
So we have gone a little backwards but are aware of it – and have the will to do what it takes. There are pockets of extreme disadvantage in Latham’s back yard of western Sydney. Know them well. That’s where I was born. I can assure you that the kids in my local area are bright, creative and charming.
You however are a hopeless case. I left you enough clues about what science really says but unless you are willing to buckle down and try harder nothing will sink in. It is the horse and water story all over.
Here’s the scores btw – http://www.oecd.org/pisa/46643496.pdf
Max_OK | August 22, 2013 at 11:55 pm | Reply
Back in 1988 Hansen predicted global temperature would rise. It has.
======
Remind me when it was that he predicted the warming would take a pause?
Oh yeah, forgot – what was Hansen’s chances of being right when he predicted temperatures would rise? Fifty-fifty, correct?
Now show us where he accurately predicted by how much and for how long a period that prediction held.
Dunderhead is a sockpuppet identity of Chief Hydrologist. Sockpuppets are meant to deceive.
Good Lord, you are even more boring than that windbag, Chief Hydrologist, whom you strongly resemble. Are you his twin?
Max – this is about science and we know your eyes glaze over. It is not about trivial, smarmy, one line, smartarse snarks that you think are funny. If it were you would be right up there as a sterling contributer to the discourse. As it is you are just a boring little fart with absolutely nothing worthwhile to say.
Judy has mentioned the “hurricane wars” of 2004-2007 as a warm-up for the current ad hominem mudslinging going on today with climate sensitivity & the pause.
The tropical cyclone academic and research community, both federal and university, is much smaller, on the order of hundreds with many fewer examining climate change influences. The mud flowed between colleagues, mentor and mentored with some jabs that went overboard but tame compared to the abjectly nasty, personal tone seen today.
Ryan,
I hope you don’t mind, but I have provided likes to your webpage to a couple of female friends are convinced the alarming predictions are carved in stone.
Links.
Judith Curry, Professor and Chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology ; “I see this as a missed opportunity to discuss the science and the changing dynamics of the climate debate after climategate.”
Richard Harris, NPR alarmist; “By now, of course, Curry has strayed far from science and deep into public policy. But like all of us, she does have a personal point of view. And hers, at root, is not about science; it’s about individualism.”
Not to wax too offensive Judy, but I hope you got a new dress and a tube of KY.
What did you think the Palace Guard was going to do to you?
Geebus –
Looks like the “skeptics” must really be getting desperate* What else could possibly explain such a completely inane post?
Not serious, there – just mocking the “logic” of some “skeptics.” But serious about how inane the post is.
This is one case where deletion is entirely called for.
Desperate (aka lolwot, Josh, Willard).
I am limiting the list to commentators at this site..
Max is safe, as I don’t believe he knows what desperate is. Jim D makes enough valid comment to keep him off, but I get the impression he is walking closer to the edge. Fan is a class unto himself.
What part of Judith wants to talk about science and NPR says Judith is no longer a scientist do you not grasp?
NPR can’t question Judy on the science so they put up a strawman about personal opinion.
Joshua: Motivated Moderator
Andrew
Judith, I think what bothers me about this dispute is the downside of not acting on carbon and being wrong. It seems to me that doing nothing on the basis of what we are not yet absolutely certain of is betting much of the environmental and political stability of the future on the likelihood of finding a positive unknown unknown. That’s a pretty risky bet. Furthermore, a modest price on carbon or a cap/trade system might be all we need to facilitate a swift move to a less-polluting and healthier economy. What makes you think the costs would be unacceptably extreme or the gains simply trivial?
” It seems to me that doing nothing on the basis of what we are not yet absolutely certain of is betting much of the environmental and political stability of the future on the likelihood of finding a positive unknown unknown.”
Not absolutely certain? So we’re certain, just not absolutely certain.
Ron makes a valid point. If we start a discussion from his starting point we would be far better off than where we are now, where it is already assumed that things are going to be very, very bad.
Taxes and market polluting policy lead to a healthier economy. Honey, you’re a caution.
============
NO, we don’t need taxes. People should buy their own roads, schools, armies, and other stuff. Pollution is an index of economic growth. OK, eventually pollution could get to be just too much, but we’ll all be in heaven(I hope) by then so who cares.
I didn’t know we were holding the Skeptical Science Straw Man Competition on Climate Etc. tonight.
Wanna buy a bridge?
Ah, thanks for the explication of ‘At this point, what difference does it make?
=================
Ron,
I think your question was honestly asked so I shall try to honestly answer. I have worked in the electrical utility business all of my adult life, at a nuclear plant. An adult male can do about 1KwH of work per day and a horse can do between 7-10KwHs of work per day. The electric industry sells 1KwH for about 15 cents in the USA (an overestimate). You are therefore buying one man day of work for 15 cents, or one horse day for about 1.50 dollars. It is nothing to “buy” 100 man days of labor each day from your electric utility, if you need that work done. Similar comparisons could be made for liquid fuels, gas, diesel, etc. Industry has leveraged this cheap “labor” to build everything we all take for granted now, from cars to roads to computers and beyond. This increased productivity has improved our standard of living nearly continuously over the last 2 centuries. When people talk about the increased productivity of the worker, this is what they are talking about…………whether they know it or not. Meanwhile, human labor has been freed up to use its/our brains.
Even pretending that we could produce all of our power from renewable sources, it would cost an order of magnitude more than conventional fossil fuel sources. Energy is nearly perfectly fungible, i.e. I don’t care where the power comes from to run my factory, I just need the power. Raising the cost without a matching increase in economic utility must lower our standard of living, and it will. The precautionary principle applies only when the cost of precautionary action is low compared to the potential cost of inaction. It is actually based on Pascal’s Wager, which is premised on a belief in God……….Pascal believed there was no cost to believing in God, so he was a believer. That argument does not apply here. If you study the chaotic nature of climate and still believe we must take action, then I can respect that position. Unfortunately, publicly acknowledging the nature of the system and how little we understand it is not currently particularly high on the warmists agenda.
Doug,
Yes, output per manhour is a measure of productivity, but the greater use of energy alone doesn’t necessarily raise productivity nor is energy the only factor that increases productivity.
You say: “Even pretending that we could produce all of our power from renewable sources, it would cost an order of magnitude more than conventional fossil fuel sources.”
I think that’s conjecture since you don’t know future renewable costs and future fossil fuel costs.
Max, Keep it up and you waste a bunch of photons.
Tom, renewables are the future, but I doubt we will ever be totally dependent on renewables. The subject of renewables sure gets some people bent out of shape.
I’m not sure why.
It is OK Max. We are now.
Max_OK
Naw, Okie, you got that wrong.
It’s the subject of fossil fuels that “gets some people bent out of shape”.
And, hey, I even think I know why.
‘Cause they want to levy taxes on them to help finance pet projects and reward political cronies, like politicians have done for ages.
So when a pol starts bloviating about the war on “carbon pollution”, keep your hands on your wallet.
Just a bit of advice.
Max_CH.
Max+OK
Sorry if I appear to be beating on you relentlessly, but you do come out with some rather silly comments.
For example, your comment to Doug Badgero:
Duh!
But most folks DO know current renewable (solar/wind) costs and fossil fuel (coal/gas) costs. And the renewables are way higher, principally because of their low on-line factor compared to fossil fuels.
And that is not likely to change.
Max_CH
Aw come on, Max_CH, you don’t know what the cost of renewable and fossil fuels energy will be decades from now. You don’t know what technological advances will occur in renewables.
Max_OK
Use your head.
I know that the sun will shine no more hours/day in the future than it does today. Same goes for the wind.
The problem with these “renewables” is that they are inherently intermittent as determined by the natural facts of life – and this is not going to change in the future. As a result their use will be limited to a small part of the total.
That’s the problem here.
Max
PS I have nothing against sensible renewables, such as hydroelectric, which covers half of the power demand in Switzerland. But not every place has lots of mountains and lots of rain/snow like Switzerland
Max_CH, it’s not going to change in the future because you say so or hope so?
Gimme a break ! Do you think you are talking to a 5-year old?
Doug Badgero,
Thank you for that excellent comment. Very well explained.
As for Max_OK’s belief that renewable energy is the future, what a joke. Renewable energy supplied 95% of total energy in 1800 and now supplies 13%. And that 13% includes all the biomass and solar energy used for heating, cooking and other non electricity uses especially in the developing coutries. The electricity proportion of total energy is minuscule. Only the gullible and the loony ideologues could believe the trend is suddenly going to change because they belong to the religion of the loony left.
The Decline of Renewable Energy
http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/the-falling-share-of-renewables-in-global-energy-production-by-bj-rn-lomborg
I presume the response from Max_OK will the the usual ad hom nonsense about how he doesn’t like the author or some other such nonsense.
Max_OK
You ask me:
Some times I’m not sure, based on your comments here.
Max_CH
Peter Lang said in his post on August 23, 2013 at 2:41 am
As for Max_OK’s belief that renewable energy is the future, what a joke.
_____
Hey, Nukey, I hope you haven’t started glowing in the dark.
Face it, nuke power has a bad imagine and you aren’t doing anything to make it better.
Modern renewable technology is making nuke power a hard sell. Why not be honest and admit that’s why you don’t like renewable energy.
Max_CH takes me for a 5-year old.
I take him for an old fuddy duddy, a stick-in-the-mud.
I gotta go. It’s time for my nap.
Doing something is very different from doing something effective. The various schemes being propounded, such as carbon tax, won’t stop worldwide atmospheric CO2 from increasing rapidly. If the alarmists are correct, the plans under consideration won’t save us form disaster. And, if the alarmists are wrong, we don’t need to do anything.
I think Judy’s point is that ought to wait a bit until we understand the threat and until we actually know how to protect ourselves against that threat.
Sounds like the little engine that couldn’t.
I think I can’t …I think I can’t … I think I can’t
I knew I couldn’t … I knew I couldn’t
Max_OK
Looks like you need a “railroad engineer” to help you out with that ailing choo-choo train.
Max_CH
David in Cal
Judith did make that point very logically and objectively.
Richard Harris just didn’t want to hear it, because he already had his mind made up..
This was not an “interview”.
It was a staged “inquisition”.
Max
Max
Ron Barker
You ask our hostess
Judith is a climate scientist, so she probably does not have any specific concrete thoughts on what the costs might be.
But, as a climate scientist, she probably has a pretty good idea of what the gains from specific actionable proposals (in terms of reduced atmospheric CO2 and possible reduction of future warming) might be (“all other things being equal”).
And these are “simply trivial”..
The fact is that there have been no specific actionable proposals made to date, which would perceptibly change the global temperature in 2100. None.
And I’m pretty sure that she is well aware of this.
Max
Ron Barker,
You asked:
A modest price will achieve nothing. In fact, unless there is a global carbon price with a very high level of participation it will achieve next to nothing. And that wont happen. So any country or region that implement carbon pricing will be severely disadvantaged for no benefit. This explains the above and also provides the costs and benefits of Australia’s ETS to 2050:
http://jennifermarohasy.com/2013/08/why-the-ets-will-not-succeed-peter-lang/
What’s the upside of ‘acting’? For sure not any reduction in CO2 emissions. It’s all just costing money (more CO2) and achieving nothing (Kyoto). It’s just bureaucratic verbiage. And even if it did, it would cost more billions and reduce the global temperature index by maybe few hundreths K, if ACO2 had the postulated effect.
few hundredths K
Judith Curry:
With today’s interview, I thought you were effective. Trying to figure out why, I think it was that your tone was perfect. Thank you.
+1
Shoot fire! Even Dana has weighed in.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/aug/23/climate-change-greatest-risk-management-failure
He’s right about the contaminated sites debacle. When I first got out of law school 25+ years ago, I worked for a law firm whose clients included lots of insurance companies with environmental exposure. Polluted sites were a god send to the legal industry as everyone was willing to spend a fortune to fight over who would pay the massive fortunes that were required to clean up even the most minor sites. Whoever did the clean up had to remove and replace soil far beyond whatever plume was located, regardless of how minor the level of pollutant.
I tried to avoid those cases like the plague, but still got roped into dealing with a string of gas stations in Michigan that had some minor leaks from their tanks. A massive time sink, with huge remediation costs for very minor, low risk spills.
There were to be sure hazardous sites that needed to be cleaned up, and fast, and frankly the cost be damned. “Super fund” sites in particular. But they were not the bulk of the work. What a massive waste of resources, on so many fronts.
And CAGW mania has the potential to dwarf the negative effects of those idiotic polices, on a global scale.
Max_OK:
“Should people insure for events that may happen beyond their life expectancies?”
In some cases. My point was the haziness of the situation, 50 years out. It’s movement towards the uncertain and some are disposed pull away from that. Which is not to ignore it but approach it with caution. If the question is, where do we find the CPAs, one answer is not 50 years in the future. There be dragons there. And back here in the present, people are reviewing ones fitness to continue to belong to the accounting tribe. Shall we slay a future dragon today? I am going to think on that for awhile please.
You also mentioned morality and I believe of course there’s an obligation owed to the future. Two examples I can think of are lead and mercury pollution. We should leave them good farmland and forests. Good water in all its forms. Good knowledge and hopefully wisdom. A good government though that’s a huge undertaking. I throw libertarian curve balls at my sons from time to time, in part to get them to think in different ways.
Maybe part of the answer is we leave them some of our morality. Does this AGW issue display our morality? Perhaps it shows the collective decision making processes we are passing down to our heirs.
Am I making a list of things besides windmills and ethanol plants I want for my sons? One of my areas of interest is alternative transportation in the form of the simple bicycle in urban and suburban areas. An area not too un-similar from the AGW issue. Both sides lobbing rhetorical water balloons at each other, fighting over limited resources (quite a large pot of money though), with huge inertia on the side of motor vehicle side of the issue, and a fair amount of passion from both sides sometimes on display. It occurs to me, this may be what they call a no regrets policy.
And I agree with Judith Curry here:
“I walk to work, I drive a Prius, I’m a fanatic about turning lights off and keeping air conditioning high and heating low, so I try to personally minimize my own carbon footprint.”
And I disagree with Richard Harris’s reply where he implies these things don’t matter to the outcome. As individuals, do our own roads traveled matter? I think it matters for me.
“Uncertainty simply isn’t our friend when it comes to risk. If uncertainty is large, it means that a bad event might not happen, but it also means that we can’t rule out the possibility of a catastrophic event happening. Inaction is only justifiable if we’re certain that the bad outcome won’t happen.” – Abraham and/or Nuccitelli, commenting on Judith Curry’s recent NPR interview.
I do not work as an environmental risk assessor, but am familiar with the principles of business and personal insurance. What I am reading above reduces to, all bad outcomes must be insured against. Which I think is debatable. The further out a risk is, and the less we are certain about it, does allow for an opinion that we have more pressing current issues to deal with. That spending money for what may happen 50 years from now, and when that situation has huge bars around its expected value, well. Is that responsible?
The insurance we are used to, and mentioned by them, has much firmer foundational basis in things we can understand. Risk pools, and averages for instance. With a keen eye kept on the bottom line by the insurance companies. They are working with the mostly known. So I don’t think their every day examples are quite the same thing as climate insurance.
Should people insure for events that may happen beyond their life expectancies?
Max_OK
Only those things that might have a realistic chance of actually occurring.
Living in Switzerland, I would not insure my house against tidal floods or tropical storms, for example.
And I certainly wouldn’t pay an insurance premium that’s higher than the damage I’m insuring against.
Max_CH
Max, AGW scientists call that stuff: Hole Life.
As they used to say,”Buy term & invest the rest”. It worked out very well for most…
Max_CH and Tom, you didn’t address my question. Should you insure against what could occur beyond your life expectancy? Since adverse affects from climate change aren’t expected in your lifetimes, it would be rational self-interest to oppose paying for mitigation. On the other hand, it would be immoral to oppose mitigation that would benefit future generations. So what do you do?
On a different topic, Max-CH says: “And I certainly wouldn’t pay an insurance premium that’s higher than the damage I’m insuring against.”
I should hope you wouldn’t insure anything you could afford to replace out of pocket. It’s poor value to do so.
maxie fric,
Do you have any problem with the public debt that is being piled up and left for future generations to pay off? Well, we know they won’t pay.
I have a problem with people who don’t want to reduce it with tax increases as well as spending cuts.
Max_OK
You write:
What specific actionable “mitigation” proposals are you talking about?
Please try to be specific.
Max_CH
Here’s some for you to comment on.
http://files.asme.org/asmeorg/NewsPublicPolicy/GovRelations/PositionStatements/17971.pdf
maxie frac,
Of course, the half that don’t pay taxes don’t mind if tax rates are raised on the “rich” half. How about just stop spending freaking money we don’t have, for starters. But why I am discussing this with you as if you are anything other than a smarmy little cartoon character. I am going to have one more single malt and going to bed.
Detroit Don, my guess is I pay more in tax than you, and I ain’t whining. If you are concerned about passing too great of a debt to future generations, you shouldn’t be opposed to a tax increase to pay for past spending.
It’s past my bedtime. Goodnight.
Max_OK | August 23, 2013 at 1:07 am |
Should people insure for events that may happen beyond their life expectancies?
=======
I live on what was once a glacial terminal morraine. This is a proven fact that i am reminded of any time i dig in my yard.
Should I insure my property against future glaciers?
Max_OK | August 23, 2013 at 2:40 am |
I have a problem with people who don’t want to reduce it with tax increases as well as spending cuts.
=====
Please show us the US history of spending and tax increases or decreases over the past, say, 50 years. Not the rate of each, the absolute value of each.
I’d love to see any time when the US government cut real spending, other than post-war. Last I checked, spending was at an all-time high versus US GDP.
What is interesting about that is over that period (longer, actually), if you compare spending as a % of GDP, and the spending to revenue ratio, the numbers are more favorable under Dem administrations than the Repub administrations that preceded or followed (with the exception, I would imagine, of the current administration). Of course, it’s tough to draw a line of causation between the administration’s party and those ratios (the role of Congress is part of the causation as are myriad external economic influences), but since you’re a political warrior – just sayin’
Thanks for making my point Josh, which is that government tends to always grow, regardless of party. That is why many, including myself, believe that reducing deficits and debt by spending cuts only is needed.
Imagine a 5 or 10% cut across the board. Challenge the government to streamline. I’ve experienced this several times in my career and each time we have been able to absorb the cuts without disastrous consequences by stopping work on non-value add activities. Time for our government to do the same.
Yet the current administration, like the one before, continues to spend. Worse, this one pretends a small cut to the increase of spending will be catastrophic. Turns out it wasn’t. But then again, this administration believes in CAGW as well.
There’s a theme in there I think.
Agency of Adjustments Cook Books
k scott dennison,
“Thanks for making my point Josh, which is that government tends to always grow, regardless of party.”
That is true. The Republican Party is almost always headed by progressive Republicans with political Stockholm Syndrome. But even with that blame cannot be equally shared. From 1950 to 1994-5 (the Gingrich takeover), the Democrats controlled the House for every year but one. They controlled the Senate every year but three.
Ronald Reagan is the only conservative to have served as president in my life time, And while he had a (moderately progressive) Republican Senate for 6 of those years, he never had a Republican House. Nor did he ever have a Republican minority leader in the House who could or would stand up to Tip O’Neill.
And even Gingrich, once he gained power, ran the House in a way designed to preserve his power, not control the government. The Bush/Gingrich spending was the beginning of the full throated Europeanization of the GOP we are seeing today.
Health, home, cars…risk… they are all based upon what sample size again? Now what set of weather systems are being used by scientists to determine the risks to our weather here on planet Earth? More than one?
Judith,
O jut listened to the 8 minute interview summary. I loved it. What you said is great. You are very wise.
Great photo too. But it would be better with Aussie eucalypts in the background :)
HA ! Great if you like some of the world’s most venomous snakes and spiders, man-eating salt water crocs, an man-eating sharks. No wonder G.B. sent all it’s jail birds down there.
Been there have you Max? Because I don’t know about you but that the Brits sent jail birds to paradise to serve their time then settle says more about the Brits poor judgement if you ask me! Sorry Brits, have to call them like I see them. ;-)
Yup. JC and Max_OK would love the Aussie outback and the nasties generally go about their business without creating any problems for anyone, so long as you leave them alone. I also notice that JC has a very good pair of hands with plenty of hard physical work done in their time.
If you ignore the comments this is a pretty decent climate blog. It is also a good example of why comment count is not a good metric for determining the informational value of a blog.
As my way of self-referencing authority, my own experience with the press has always been disappointing, and the more important the topic the greater the disappointment. It would be nice if you could get your hands on the original transcripts and blog or youtube them. It is reasonable to ask the press to show their data and algorithms.
dp, sounds like you want to manage the press instead of the press managing you. I doubt you will get far.
It’s downright de-press-in’, ain’t it?
Agree with you yet again dp. Welcome to the blog. You will find that quality commentry only comes from the more thoughtful commenters, who only contribute few posts. They have a life away from their iPads, iPhones and PC’s etc.
Sorry dp, I confused you with jh, who commented above on this thread.
“we simply don’t know how the climate will behave in the coming decades, so there may be no point in trying to reduce emissions.”
There no point in wasting trillions of dollars towards promised goal to reduce CO2 emissions and failing to have any significant affect upon CO2 emission.
There is no point repeating what Germany has done in last couple decades- which has been an obvious failure {unless success is measured by how much you increase poverty- with poorest being unable to buy the energy they require}.
But, if the German policy goal was allowing politicians to hand out tax payer money and dramatically increase the cost of electrical power for Germany’s 81.8 million citizens- so as to enrich their campaign contributors- then it’s been a successful operation.
There would be a point in lowering energy prices and lowering CO2 emission. There would be a point of increasing the supply of natural gas.
And there would a point to increasing nuclear electrical energy production.
Great news, and I wish they had the whole interview. I agree with Richard Harris when he said “You seem to be uniquely positioned as an observer of this conversation.” That has not happened by accident, but by your good choices, taking chances, and hard work.
My sincere congratulations on a well-deserved acknowledgement of your importance in the discussion,
w.
You must have missed the part where Richard Harris said that Judith had strayed far from science and that she doesn’t have a clue about what needs to be done about climate change. We will find out about the REAL science and what REALLY URGENTLY needs to be done about climate change tomorrow, from an IPCC/Obama approved REAL climate scientist, Dr. Kevinsky Trenberthski. I bet Kevinsky will not go near “We don’t know”.
Perhaps it will be shown as a two day documentary
Listened ter the 8 minute summary. Judith. You sounded as I would
expect, measured and reasonable.Hafta say I’m disappointed,
though not surprised, by how each brief comment they ‘allowed’
you was heavily framed in undercutting and partisan statements
by Richard Harris. Personally I’d like ter give him the edge of me
tongue re his ‘noble’, if that’s what yer call it, bias.
Luv yer photo and cute Rosie.)
Bts
She was framed. allright.
I agree, Beth.
If one compares Harris’ “journalism” with that of (much to my surprise) CBC’s Max Allen (although I believe Allen is an independent contractor, rather than a run of the mindless IPCC/UNFCCC-green-propaganda-mill CBC employee!) and his treatment of Judith’s evolving views [see http://judithcurry.com/2012/03/12/demon-coal/%5D, IMHO, CBC beat NPR hands down!
Eeeuuww … not sure what happened there, but let me try that link again:
http://judithcurry.com/2012/03/12/demon-coal/
Heh, had they heard the unexpurgated Judy, without the framing, the NPR audience would have been twiddling the tuning, ‘Where’s NPR? Dang radio’s not working, it must be the weird weather’.
===================
Yes Hilary,
That flashback ter March2012 interview was apples cf ter oranges
wasn’t it.. Fun ter read our own comments there as well )
Beth.
Would love to see Harris interview Willis or the master wordsmith. Now that would be a wipe out. Interesting to see how those interviews would get reduced to 8 minutes. Judith was just too polite.
Sigh, just would not happen, Harris wouldn’t have the cojones.
What you don’t get is that Harris is a propagandist, not a journalist. They can cut and splice anybody to make them look like tools of the venal idiot obstructionist Repubs. That is what they did to Judith and she doesn’t seem to have noticed. Some of you characters are really naive.
Don Monfort
Gotta agree with you.
This was not an informative “interview”, where the object is usually to learn the opinion of the interviewee on a specific subject, often one related to his/her area of expertise.
Instead it was a polemical “inquisition”, i.e. a series of loaded questions asked in a rather aggressive or unpleasant manner, with the intent of discrediting any opinion that deviated from the expressed political agenda of the UNFCCC/IPCC and Obama administration, which is fully supported by the interviewer.
The 8-minute summary was apparently spliced and censored to cut out most of the discussion of open scientific areas of debate. Instead it attempted to depict Judith as a controversial outsider obsessed with uncertainty rather than agreeing with the general scientific consensus that urgent action on climate is needed now.
In other words, it was hardball politics in play, Chicago-style.
To her credit, Judith maintained her calm throughout, even when Harris got shrill.
Short-term it looks like Harris outsmarted her.
But in the long term, most impartial observers will realize that she displayed rational objectivity, which Harris did not.
And, after all, as a respected climate scientist, she knows what she is talking about when it comes to our planet’s climate.
Harris obviously does not.
Max
On Feb 9th 2011, Judith posted a thread, ‘On Being a Scientist’
which she linked to the publication, ‘On Being a Scientist.
A Guide to Responsible Conduct in Research.’ citing standards
ter be followed fer honest reseach.
Hmm …so where are the guidelines, loud ‘n clear, presented
fer journalists out there and checks ter see they’re followed
so that the publick ain’t channeled into a consensus-du-jour-
sanitized interpruh-tashun of events and media don’t control
gateways of not fer publick interpreta-shun, ‘we will tell yer
what yer need ter know. ? Max_ who _thinx_ he’s_ okay
thinx “consensus -u-lie-ashun”is okay, but Max, it ain’t okay.
Thank heavens fer open society blogs like Judith Curry’s.
Bts
Hey Judith, you should check out the Skeptical Science’s Dana Nuccitelli’s “depuffing” of your piece. It’s entertainingly bad.
It’s not quite as bad as Andrew Dessler’s recent offering though. If you haven’t seen that yet, you should check it out. It’s probably the worst treatment of uncertainty I’ve ever seen. I could write a ten page paper on it and still not cover everything he gets wrong.
I’m not sure I’d trust Scooter to run to the store for groceries. He’d likely come back with stuff I didn’t ask for and try to tell me why I should eat what he bought and how much of an anti-science, Republican numbskull I am for not following his advice.
NPR doesnt want to have you address the science since they have lost control of the science. PBS has done the same thing in other stories. Jennifer did the same thing in the Barnes issue. When losing control of the science they change the subject. That is the basis for all the ad homs. When losing the war, try some diversionary tactics.
But, she went on, not all things are equal. She says there’s so much uncertainty about the role of natural variation in the climate that she doesn’t know what’s going to happen. She says a catastrophe is possible, but warming could also turn out to be not such a big deal.’
The trouble with journalists – as with lawyers – is that they don’t quite get the technical details right. The essential problem is that climate isn’t behaving in the terms of simple expectations. It is not warming for decades perhaps and overall warming is far less than presumed. The real risk is not from slow warming but from abrupt and severe change that could conceivably be to warm or cool. As Dallas says – reversion to the mean seems in fact more likely. Stepwise cooling perhaps from MOC slowdown.
Dealing with the politics – and the scientific uncertainty – requires actively pursuing no-regrets actions. Something that includes energy innovation.
+1 Chief. The debate should be more focussed on carbon mitigation in a no regrets context as Peter Lang keeps telling us. No-one knows what the weather will bring in 100 years time and the sort of predictions being bandied about in the name of policy simply don’t cut the mustard.
NPR are bunch of lefties.
And any opportunity for lefties to hear anything other than usual ideological gruel is a win for these poor people.
WUWT:
Mad Mann:
From Dr. Michael Mann’s Twitter feed today:
Pathetic #RichardHarris @NPR puffpiece glorifies #JudyCurry for purveying #climatechange distraction & confusion
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/22/mad-mann/
So if pisses off Mann and some lefties get a small opportunity to escape
their enslavement, it seems all good to me.
Though spending 8 hours to get 8 mins may not be particularly efficient.
In Mann twitter there is Dana Nuccitelli:
Humans are very good at managing risks, except when it comes to the greatest risk we’ve faced – climate change.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/aug/23/climate-change-greatest-risk-management-failure
A bit from it:
“Climate change seems to be a major exception to this rule. Managing the risks posed by climate change is not a high priority for the public as a whole, despite the fact that a climate catastrophe this century is a very real possibility, and that such an event would have adverse impacts on all of us.”
Which seems to suggest that public has yet to pay any amount money on the risk of global warming.
And it seems to me the public has already paid an enormous amount of money in terms of insurance in regard to global warming. That the total cost of reducing CO2 emission has been enormous.
There little justification for solar or wind energy other then the false claim that it’s a path to lowering CO2 emission.
So nearly all this cost has been the public buying a type of insurance. It’s proven to be utterly useless insurance, but the intention behind taking the costly course of action was due to desire to lower CO2, and the effort to lower CO2 was to do something about the future risk of increasing global temperature.
“In February, Altmaier warned that if the law were not amended, the cost of the energy revolution could reach €1 trillion by 2040. Those costs arise from surcharges on electricity from renewables paid by consumers in a complex subsidy support scheme, and the massive infrastructure updates needed to accommodate the increasing amount of green energy.”
Read more: http://world.time.com/2013/05/28/the-cost-of-green-germany-tussles-over-the-bill-for-its-energy-revolution/#ixzz2cm8RSrq6
It’s a gross underestimation of costs, but it’s a Time article.
Heh, what if Germany actually manages to go 80% renewables and it’s economy does just fine thank you very much.
Looks like your Catastrophic Anthropogenic Energy Policy alarmist theory might be in trouble.
And what if it doesn’t?
‘If’ is a very big word.
Lolwot- the key words you used were- “what if”
You could have wrote- what if someone develops a small nuclear fusion device for use at home. The same timescales may apply–lol
Heh, what if I win the lottery and Ashley Judd becomes my girl friend? I like my chances better than Germany’s, and I don’t like my chances at all.
lolwot,
Instead of posing such a what if question, why don’t you look at what Germany is actually doing?
Hint: it is called bringing old coal plants back on line and building new ones.
Key line : Harris “They say doing nothing..” JC :”I can’t say that that is not the best solution”.. “well that’s when she parts company with her peers ..for example the AGU” (He bigs it up as credible BIG REPORT when we know it’s just the opinion of 12 activists on an AGU committee and the only non-activist on that commitee Robert Pielke Sr refused to sign that report)
… “Curry’s descent from that position is about the economics..” ..Harris big’s up CO2 increase.. “By now Curry has strayed far from science (no she is the one WITH science it’s the Sc-activists who extrapolate “science” into scareporn opinions.)
– “Her opinion is not about science” “leaving actions upto invidiuals will not solve the problem” (that is your opinion Harris who are you to claim authority over Curry)
..And he ends “and there is no uncertainty about that !”
Wow look how Harris tries to hammer home a point “There is NO uncertainty” ..just a pure deluded propagandist
.. note all the deluded who parrot 97%, 97% in the comments as if that figure had any credibility ..That shows their disrespect for science
I actually just listened to the radio program (previously I had only read the article). I assumed that there was more of an actual interview (i.e. where I actually said something) on the radio program. Not so, seems like I got about 60 seconds of airtime in an 8 min radio show ostensibly about my own opinions. I have to wonder why Harris spent two days talking to me. I guess it took that long to get me to say something about my nieces and nephews.
However, you do come across as a warm and thoughtful human being. That counts for a lot for the neophyte. But I understand how let down one could feel with Harris. How to know how much time to spend with the next one.
He may have been waiting for Coal Trains of Death, but ran out of time.
Maximizing the share of substantive comments would not allow for much in seven minutes. Trying to explain any particular issue or view was clearly not the idea of this program, Condensing 8 hours of discussion or 4 hours of taping to a few minutes is simply impossible. That time may perhaps allow for transmitting an impression, not much more. The main outcome was that a number of people became curious enough to search for more on Judith’s thinking. That’s certainly a positive outcome.
I don’t like the beginning with strong reference to Republicans, nor do I like the habit of many journalists to end an interview in a strong statement based on their own opinion or judgment. It’s wrong to end an interview trying to give the impression that the journalist is somehow above the views brought up in the interview itself. It’s right and desirable that tough questions are presented (but not questions that are impossible to answer). The journalist should not use his opportunity add his own comments when the person interviewed cannot contest them any more. In an interview he is not the expert, whose opinions we wish to hear.
Even bad publicity is good publicity.
I never would have imagined that you had to give Harris eight hours of your time for that piece! 8 hours for 60 seconds, unreal. Given that and also how different the NPR piece is from what Harris proposed (a discussion of “pause” science), I suspect that you survived a dirt digging expedition in remarkably good shape. Yes, he unfairly painted you as a tool of evil Republicans, but at least it did not end up as a complete hatchet job…. Hence Michael Mann’s sneer that it is a “puff” piece….
Another adjusted “puff” piece.
So, thanks for the intro:
Puff the magic carbon
Lived by the CO2.
Don’t know why,
Just scratch that itch.
Attribution,
She’s a bitch,
Turned and bit the puffer,
Someplace rich.
=========
Oh, it was a complete hatchet job all right. What Mann wants is something much more than a hatchet job. He and his crowd want non-believers to be disappeared, annihilated, never to be heard from again.
” I have to wonder why Harris spent two days talking to me.”
He was looking for something to undermine your credibility. The fact that there was so little of your comments in the piece means you didn’t say anything he could use to make you look bad. I suspect your history at this blog has lead you to be cautious in how you phrase things, realizing how anything you say can be taken out of context. He couldn’t find any gotchas, so he included almost nothing of what you said.
I would love to see a list of the questions he asked, and better yet, the context, the lead up.
No doubt. Just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean that they aren’t out to get you.
When was the last time you were interviewed by the national media Josh? My experience is reporters are always looking to undermine you.
Just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean they aren’t out to
getundermine you.And they still wonder why there are so many sceptics around, when they pull stunts like that.
Just what are they trying so hard to hide, and why?
Judith, I have read your interview at NPR site, and there is no uncertainty: the journalist has manipulated that interview.
Anyhow, let’s go into science:
(1) On the uncertainty: “there’s so much uncertainty about the role of natural variation in the climate that she doesn’t know what’s going to happen”.
(1.Answ) JC is right. The IPCC, in the AR4, estimates radiative forcings (RF) with inappropiate error margins. And this makes it impossible to do any scientific prediction (even using most modern Monte Carlo simulations).
(1.Answ.Answ) Furthermore. It seems that IPCC behaves as a bad scholar student. Example of wrongly RF’s estimation: cloud albedo effect in Table 2.12 is: –0.70 [–1.1, +0.4] W·M2, and cloud albedo effect in figure TS.5.(a) is: –0.70 [–1.8, –0.3] W·M2.
(2) On the JC’s “pause” claim.
(2.Answ) JC is not right. 15 years (from 1998 until 2013) has not enough statistical significance to set any claim.
(2.Answ.Answ) But it will be interesting to keep measuring Earth’s temperatures and let’s see how things go.
(3) On the recent estimates of reduced sensitivity.
(3.Answ) It is not surprising. IPCC’s estimation of climate sensitivity, for example in table TS.5, is based in science fiction. (Well, to be precise is based in Manabe’s papers, that were based in many other articles … all of them very far, far away from any scientific kingdom).
(3.Answ.Answ) Furthermore, the hierarchy of global climate models imply that all IPCC’s climate models are based in fictitious sensibilities. And, again, this makes it impossible to do any scientific prediction.
Judy, on balance a great interview considering Harris’s proclivities. I was somewhat dismayed that you felt it necessary to mention you drove a Prius. Like Pielke Jr., at his most recent congressional testimony where he started off by pandering to the left by mentioning his AGW bona fides. You are a world-class atmospheric physicist and he has a BS in Biology but you must have felt he might be more sympathetic to your evolving position if he knew you drove a Prius, regardless of whether it is environmentally sound to own a Prius
We should remember that when considering how “good” a car is for the environment, gas mileage is one of the least important factors . The production of the car is far more important. The raw materials’ sources, the manufacturing effort, as well as the shipping costs all have an impact on the environment, and the Prius fall short here.
The batteries in the Prius contains nickel, a lot of which is is mined in Canada. The Canadian plant that smelts this nickel is nicknamed “the Superstack” because of the amount of pollution it belches out; the area for miles around it is a wasteland because of acid rain and air pollution. The smelted nickel then travels (via container ship) to Europe to be refined, then to China to be made into “nickel foam,” then to Japan for assembly, and finally to the United States. All this shipment for each tiny step in the production process costs a great deal, both in money and in pollution.
When you calculate all the production costs the Prius costs about $3.25 per mile and is estimated to last about 100,000 miles. The Hummer, on the other hand, with all the same factors counted, costs about $1.95 per mile and is expected to last about 300,000 miles.
The Prius comment came up in context of my actually driving Harris to Tahoe in my Prius. Not something I would have volunteered, other than I was asked explicitly about the issues that that I was quoted on in the interview. Note, I have never been a proponent of individual actions and choices as being a solution to the climate change problem, although I have probably mentioned the hypocrisy of climate scientists jetsetting all over to the world to attend IPCC meetings.
“Note, I have never been a proponent of individual actions and choices as being a solution to the climate change problem”.
Knowing that you are, more than most, acutely aware of the CS debate, remind me again what he “problem” is.
You forgot to quote the second part of the sentence, Bob:
> [A]lthough I have probably mentioned the hypocrisy of climate scientists jetsetting all over to the world to attend IPCC meetings.
Not being a proponent of the hypocrisy card does not prevent from mentioning it.
Dr. Currry,
I think Rud’s assessment of the piece is spot on:
“It could have been worse. You did well.” To me, the essence of Curry came through the processing.
Even given that you can not control the editing:
– the message that the uncertainties in the science are significant is there,
– a healthy consideration of Realpolitik is there, e.g., the comment on China and India,
– overall, still come across as making an calm rational effort to be an honest realistic broker between science and policy at a number of points in the interview as broadcast,
– ‘steely blue eyes’ … priceless.
Really not a bad day at all.
The essence of Curry only came through for you, because you know Curry. If you didn’t know Curry the “interview”, which was really a hatchet job featuring brief cherry-picked snippets of a sneaky interrogation of Curry by a propagandist, would have left you believing that Curry is a tool of rightwing nutjob conspiracy theorist Repub Congressman Dana Rohrbacher.
If I didn’t know that it would be a complete waste of time, I would write to the fake ombudsman at NPR and call attention to this blatant misuse of public funding. Now watch how they treat Trenberth.
Don Monfort
You just must enjoy suffering. You look at the detractions, in particular your suite of detractions, and fail to see that there were some definite pluses. Certainly there were no surprises in how things went, so I guess you can only really fault Dr. Curry for taking up the opportunity in the first place. On the other hand I don’t see much potential for progress in your approach.
Pingback: Climate Puffery - Collide-a-Scape | DiscoverMagazine.com
@WebHubTelescope (@WHUT) | August 23, 2013 at 8:30 am |
“es, one needs to listen to Rud Istvan more often. He is a devoted proponent of the idea of Peak Oil and the fact that fossil fuel reserves are finite and the amount of energy that they will supply is limited.”
Can you find even one Denizen who believes the supply of fossil fuels is infinite? I’m thinking you might want to refine your aim a bit.
jim2 said:
“Can you find even one Denizen who believes the supply of fossil fuels is infinite? I’m thinking you might want to refine your aim a bit.”
Get yourself a mirror jim2.
CAGW, Peak Oil,…
Political Extremism in America,” the manual also lists “Doomsday thinking” under “traits or behaviors that tend to represent the extremist style.”
Extremists often predict dire or catastrophic consequences from a situation or from a failure to follow a specific course, and they tend to exhibit a kind of crisis-mindedness. It can be a Communist takeover, a Nazi revival, nuclear war, earthquakes, floods, or the wrath of God. Whatever it is, it is just around the corner unless we follow their program and listen to their special insight and wisdom, to which only the truly enlightened have access. For extremists, any setback or defeat is the beginning of the end.
now you are talking.
A good article on my interview by Keith Kloor
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/collideascape/2013/08/23/climate-puffery/#.UhdvDRY47DM
Kloor snoots away from the sulphur.
=========
Judith
In writing this comment I have tried to be as objective as possible bearing in mind I ‘know’ you and hold a certain position on AGW, albeit not as extreme as some on this blog.
My relative objectivity comes as a Brit who has never heard of Richard Harris before nor the Broadcast company concerned, so had no preconceptions as to what their likely slant would be.
To be honest I could not see what the fuss is about. It was a well scripted story, a pleasant interview and the points you made- and that he weaved into the narrative -seemed to me to be pretty fair and even handed.
That you ‘don’t know’ or that there are ‘uncertainties’ is surely at the crux of your personal journey. I remember the first brush I had with you was when you wrote a paper on Southern Ocean temperatures. A subject that, bearing in mind our lack of data, presents enormous uncertainties which never really came over in the paper. I think the 2013 Judith would write it in a somewhat different manner now.
I thought your personality came over quite well in the interview -as it is beginning to with this blog where you seem more willing to express an opinion or voice the exasperations we all sometimes feel when certain commentators overstep the mark.
So, good interview, nothing to be that concerned about and we look forward to learning a bit more about you and your beliefs/position in the coming months.
tonyb
The ones who heard her bank their furies.
================
Tony,
You thought Judith came across well, because you like her. It happens to most people watching politicians debate. They like their candidate and almost always think their man or woman has done well. In this case, the ‘interview” was like a pre-recorded debate that was produced and edited by one of the participants to suit his own purposes.
That’s beautiful. tony thought it was a fair interview because he likes Judith.
I thought it was a fair interview because I’m a mean, petty, punk of a little man.
Selective reasoning is selective.
It wasn’t an interview, joshie. An interview is when someone is asked questions and is given the opportunity to respond and explain. What you liked about the “interview” is that it was one-sided and rigged to present your side of the argument as the correct and morally superior side. You little putz.
Don
I didn’t ‘see’ anything. I listened to an interview and read the spoken word. There were no pictures (others than of those Dogs looking as pensive as Judith). I fully agree that putting voices AND visuals together makes a powerful impression but I didn’t have that.
As I say, I know nothing of the supposed agenda of Richard Harris. In that context Judith came over fine (from the few bits of speech that were available). Richard came over ok. The structure of the interview seemed ok. I don’t see the slanted or malicious interview that others may perceive. You seemed to think Harris had an agenda , Joshua thought it a fair interview, perhaps just to annoy you, perhaps because that is what he really thought.
I did have the apparently huge advantage of not knowing Richard Harris from some of the more obscure Republican politicians and therefore didn’t join some pre determined ‘tribe’.
tonyb
OK Tony, I know you didn’t see anything. Maybe I should have said it was like listening to politicians debate. Better? I don’t see how you could have missed Harris’ agenda. I like you, so I won’t go beyond that.
“When you calculate all the production costs the Prius costs about $3.25 per mile and is estimated to last about 100,000 miles. The Hummer, on the other hand, with all the same factors counted, costs about $1.95 per mile and is expected to last about 300,000 miles.”
________________________
Someone doesn’t know cars.
Bad nap?
cool, and people had trouble getting data
http://www.thecarconnection.com/tips-article/1010861_prius-versus-hummer-exploding-the-myth
That article isn’t exactly a paragon of clarity, either:
“On an energy basis, the firm says, vehicles cost an energy-equivalent average of $119,000 to recycle, while hybrids average $140,000.”
WTF does that verbal bumf mean?
What am I saying here? When possible, consider leaving the motor vehicle parked and bicycle instead.
“The per-mile cost of driving to work is 50 cents, including gasoline, insurance, maintenance and depreciation, according to the IRS’ 2010 standard mileage rates. Actual rates may vary by vehicle.
The per-mile cost of biking is 9.6 cents and includes maintenance and depreciation, based on interviews with U.S. cycling organizations and previously published research, most notably from Road Kill: How Solo Driving Runs Down the Economy.” – http://featuresblogs.chicagotribune.com/features_julieshealthclub/2010/05/biking-to-work-can-it-save-money.html
Some notes:
Yes, the strength of the study is weak.
Notice the passion in an above name, Road Kill, perhaps a reference to occasional traffic conflict issues.
Most bicycle maintenance is possible as do it yourself. Adjusting bearings and wheel truing might be left to the more experienced though.
I have yet to recycle the Fuji bicycle frame I bought in about 1982. It’s still in use.
Prof Curry, It could have been worse: remember David Stockman?
I side with the dog lovers. That’s a good photo.
Have you asked NPR if you can have copies of the whole tapes? It might be worth the effort.
Bob: When you calculate all the production costs the Prius costs about $3.25 per mile and is estimated to last about 100,000 miles. The Hummer, on the other hand, with all the same factors counted, costs about $1.95 per mile and is expected to last about 300,000 miles.
What daydream is that from? Only the batteries of the Prius don’t last beyond 100,000 miles; whether you can recoup the extra cost of the Prius batteries (my son owns a Prius,) compared to a Corolla (what I drive) depends on the cost of the fuel, how much driving you do, and how much you get stuck in traffic — for most people in the US, it is at least worth the calculation. I had a boss who owned a Prius, and I calculated how much I’d save commuting if I owned one instead of my Corolla. Fuel efficiency aside, and even accounting for the slightly reduced carrying capacity because of the weight and volume of the batteries, the Prius is a pretty good car for its price.
I recommend consulting with cab drivers. I know of at least one whose hybrid has over 250,000 miles, with original battery. That’s anecdotal, but worth looking at a larger population of cab usage of the vehicle.
Matthew, you missed the entire point. Do some research – I am not going to do it for you. Prius’s are net negatives to the environment. Ask your son for an honest explanation as to why he purchased the disaster. Bet you he didn’t do any real cost analysis. Look at me – I am environmentally sensitive.
Bob, that Prius vs Hummer fiction has been around for many years. It’s as stupid now as it was then. Someone just made up a lot of assumptions, put them together, and of course, came up with the conclusion he was seeking. One patently absurd assumption is a Prius is only good for 100,000 miles, and by accepting that you tell me you are very naive.
Bob: Do some research – I am not going to do it for you. Prius’s are net negatives to the environment. Ask your son for an honest explanation as to why he purchased the disaster. Bet you he didn’t do any real cost analysis.
I have done lots of cost comparisons. For example, I compared the fuel consumption of my Corolla to the fuel consumption that my boss would have gotten driving beside me on my commute day in and day out. At the fuel prices of today, her Prius would have been worth the extra cost.
You don’t have any backup to your claim. Full stop.
Lest we forget what the argument is all about — in as much as among sane people there is no imminent danger from human-caused global warming — is that the rest of the world couldn’t give two schitts about Western Leftist fanaticism about AGW (they liken it to the science of ancient astrology). On the home front, secular-socialist, big-government liberal Utopian Eurocommies are make use of global warming to strip spirituality and Judeo-Christian principles of individual liberty and personal responsibility from the American gestalt as they pick the productive clean like buzzards as Western civilization stumbles.
The click-clack of an alternate reality Burroughs Machine. That’s doubly plus a good and uptwinkles all around.
=============================
The only real dangers we face are from the acts of society that are based on the fear of global warming.
A breaded meadow turns fields of roses.
===============
Waggy, the “we” you are talking about is the shrinking demographic. When it has shrunk to nothingness there will no longer be anything for it to worry about.
Spring is like a perhaps hand
(which comes carefully
out of Nowhere)arranging
a window,into which people look(while
people stare
arranging and changing placing
carefully there a strange
thing and a known thing here)and
changing everything carefully
~ee cummings
I’ll see your burroughs and raise you a steely dan
Somebody thought NPR wasn’t/isn’t a joke prior to this?
Andrew
Judith,
Are Harris’s words/statements/questions in the audio taken from the actual conversation that you had with him? It sounded like commentary recorded after the fact.
I don’t think the piece used any of Harris’ words from the actual interview. The context of when my statements were originally made is pretty different from what shows up in the interview
Harris is a snake.
NPR? You should have expected the result you got.
Right, or she could have expected worse. NPR’s listeners view all things Left as just good old commonsense.
NPR – Notoriously Propagandistic Radio.
On the surface they seem authoritative and respectable … until you hear a story about something you know well. Then you see the agenda all too clearly.
Yes Gary, we know you prefer the drivel spewing out of the bobble-heads at Faux News.
R Gates,
NPRavda is not real news. Skeptical people recognize this reality.
With the exception of the BBC, from a journalistic perspective, NPR sets a pretty high bar compared to most other “news outlets”. Hardly perfect, but certainly far better than MSNBC or Faux News. CNN is somewhere in the middle.
Those who love Faux News more often than not will hate NPR and the BBC. This is not a coincidence but goes back to basic values and perspectives.
This thread is about a radio program of 7 or 8 minutes. The program was based on an interview. It was, however, not an interview but a short program about a scientist whose approach differs from that on many others.
Any normal listener gets only an inaccurate impression from such a program. It’s not built to satisfy the requirements of a thorough analysis of the type the denizens of this blog make on it.
Some scientists are unhappy that NPR tells about the existence of scientists like Judith Curry, while some of the denizens here think that the program gave somehow a wrong impression.
Searching for an agenda many alternatives open up. Noting the typical audience of NPR anything that deviates too much from their expectations gets mostly rejected. If there’s an agenda, it must take the audience into account.
If there’s really an agenda, what it would be? Changing the views of the listeners of NPR? If so, then in which direction? I don’t believe in an agenda other than that of a journalist who wants to widen his scope carefully (as some climate scientists have recently changed their tone just a little – carefully).
Perhaps the person who is most affected by the interview is actually Richard Harris (I refer to the lengthy discussions he had while preparing the program). If that cannot be noticed from this program, it may have influence on his further work. Such on influence will probably never become recognizable, but that’s a good reason for accepting invitations to discuss with journalists who are likely to continue to work in the same field also in the future.
It’s just got to be a conspiracy with some folk
Pekka, your previous comment made sense. This one is foolish. Go back and read your first comment.
Harris is not a journalist. He is a propagandist. He framed Judith.
A reasonable perspective Pekka.
> This thread is about a radio program of 7 or 8 minutes.
And the previous one was about the first half of a short paragraph.
Too long for your attention span?
Guess you never heard that one of the tenats to good writing is brevity.
Lots of words were written about that first half of a short paragraph, timg56, so I’m not sure what you mean by brevity. See for yourself:
http://judithcurry.com/2013/08/21/arctic-sea-ice-and-weather/
All this for:
> What perplexes me, however, is that her intent in interpreting the new results in Barnes (2013) seems less than objective and is a direct attempt to disprove the work presented in Francis and Vavrus (2012; hereafter FV12).
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/wp/2013/08/21/researcher-defends-work-linking-arctic-warming-and-extreme-weather/
Also note the sentence that follows:
> A very different interpretation of the results could be made.
***
Now, please tell me how you define attention span.
“This thread is about a radio program of 7 or 8 minutes. ”
so much depends
upon
a red wheel
barrow
glazed with rain
water
beside the white
chickens.
harris is the white chicken
Or was it a black squirrel event?
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/nasdaq-outage-a-black-squirrel-event-2013-08-22
The anti-NPR …
“Al Gore and his traveling medicine show is back in town with his new, improved snake oil, guaranteed to grow hair, improve digestion, promote regularity and kill roaches, rats and bedbugs. Al and his wagon rumbled into town on the eve of “a major forthcoming report” from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which is a panel of scientists affiliated with the United Nations. Their report is expected to buck up the spirits of the tycoons of the snake-oil industry.”
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/aug/23/pruden-up-to-our-ears-in-snake-oil/
More from that article …
“On the contrary, what frustrates Al and the snake-oil industry is that the skeptics can no longer be shut out of the conversation. “We can expect the climate crisis industry to grow increasingly shrill, and increasingly hostile toward anyone who questions their authority,” Kenneth P. Green, a former member of the U.N. panel, predicted three years ago. Another former panelist, Dr. Kimimori Itoh, a Japanese physical chemist, calls the phenomenon “the worst scientific scandal in history. When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.””
I like their direct approach. They think he’s an idiot, and just come out with it – no hit piece disguised as an interview. Up front. I like that.
Unless its a live interview, articles, at least in my experience, seem to reflect the views of the interviewer and often out of context.
An essay that vividly illuminates the moronic cognition of the narrow libertarian/denialist climate-change analyses that are posted so commonly here on Climate Etc:
Conclusion Pseudo-economic libertarian/denialist analyses of climate-change policy are short-sighted, inhumanely restricted, anti-Jeffersonian, and even moronic. Wendell Berry is right to condemn the libertarian/denialist community (and their supporters) as “gleeful yahoos who are destroying the planet, and the mindless oafs who abet them.”
Judith Curry, it would be well to take care that your (legitimate) scientific inquiries are not cherry-picked by “gleeful yahoos and mindless oafs,” for the amoral purpose of self-serving short-term economic advantage, with utterly immoral disregard for the long-term price of planetary destruction.
FOMD, this tripe is even more off-topic than your usual thread-spamming harangues. You (and all of us) could not lead modern lives without the benefits of modern economies. The Berry/Tate/FOMD romantic Manichean fantasy of perfect small-is-beautiful purity vs. evillll corporations is a caricature, and in any case wildly OT to this thread.
You really are one of the worst thread-spammers around.
Denialism is wrong because this is wrong and this is wrong and wasting carbon super-profits on this is wrong.
And when Judith Curry’s (legitimate) research findings are cherry-picked to justify and accelerate long-term planetary-scale ecological and social abominations, that’s wrong too.
Ain’t that plain Jefferson-style common-sense, Skiphil?
Fan
I agree that all your three links are ‘wrong.’
But equally, this is wrong
http://www.thisiscornwall.co.uk/Green-energy-trade-seeks-win-public-support-ugly/story-19685430-detail/story.html#axzz2cop8EcFD
And this is wrong
http://www.thisiscornwall.co.uk/Turbines-ugly-noisy-devalue-homes/story-17208577-detail/story.html#axzz2cop8EcFD
We are a small country and you don’t save the environment by trashing the countryside with giant, inefficient and costly solar and wind farms
So where do we go from here to obtain cheap reliable energy to heat our homes without bankrupting us (5 million households in Fuel poverty in the UK) and to allow our industry to compete (your industries enjoy power at a fraction of the cost of ours )
tonyb
James Hansen is vigorously advocating a market-driven mixed global energy economy of nuclear, solar, wind, and conservation. Market-driven in the sense that long-term costs associated to carbon-burning are rationally market-accounted.
Obviously, the long-term costs of carbon-burning are the part of Hansen’s accounting that the denialist cohort of “gleeful yahoos who are destroying the world, and the mindless oafs who abet them“ prefer to omit.
Also, thanks for your many thoughtful posts, TonyB! Your rationality and graceful manners are much appreciated (even when I don’t agree with your conclusions).
Fan
I always maintain that countries should use the principle of ‘horses for courses’ as regards their energy solutions so I am glad that Dr Hansen agrees with me.
In the case of the uk, solar farms are a silly and costly irrelevance but in sunny California they might make sense.
In the case of Britain, wave/ tidal power is our obvious destiny as we are an island with nowhere further than seventy miles from the sea.
Trouble is that all our renewable eggs have been put in the wind power basket. In winter we have long periods of windless cold weather so they stop working just when most needed.
Tonyb
+(-1)^0.5
Jim2, this plain Wendell Berry interview might help to change yer mind!
(unless you try to assign a monetary value to it, that is)
fan,
Perhaps you should start using Noah Berry as a role model.
“Our present industrial system also makes those connections, but by pillage and indifference. Most economists think of this arrangement as “the economy.” Their columns and articles rarely if ever mention the land-communities and land-use economies. They never ask, in their professional oblivion, why we are willing to do permanent ecological and cultural damage “to strengthen the economy?”
Hi Fan, I’m glad to see you quote this as it gives me a better understanding of your point of view. You likely missed it, but I defended you recently, maintaining that you’re a passionate, committed person who has embraced an Oreskian approach to climate change, whereby the potential damage is perceived to be so great that we don’t even have the luxury of open-mindedness. I do respect your beliefs, and admire your passion and energy.
Here’s the trouble as I see it:, since your mind isn’t open it’s effectively impossible to have any kind of real debate with you, as it seems to me that meaningful debate must be predicated on the implicit possibility, however remote, that the other guy could be right. Without that implicit possibility, the parties don’t really listen to each other….Your approach might serve you well in your personal life, but insofar as discussion is concerned, well, not so much…
Interested in your response as you interest me as a person….If you dislike my characterization of you as close-minded, I would support it by telling you that in all the many, many, many comments you’ve made here, I don’t think I’ve ever seen one acknowledging even the slightest mistake or misjudgment. That is, I’ve never seen you admit to be wrong about anything. Of course I don’t have time to read everything you right, so it’s possible I’m wrong.
Pokerguy, it’s easier and simpler to admit to a love of contradiction than it is to admit a mistake. It’s characteristic of the thinkers whose work I admire (Wendell Berry, James Hansen, William Thurston in recent years, the Founders and Framers in previous centuries) that their works enrage both lefties and righties, in part because their works definitely *do* contain plenty of contradictions and compromises.
And if you further appreciate that (as it seems to me) Dwight Eisenhower and Bill Clinton were *both* outstandingly capable American presidents and warm human beings — who alike found difficulty in keeping their political ideologies pure and their pants zipped — than perhaps there’s not much more to understand about the pragmatic “FOMD philosophy”!
And oh yeah … I come from farming roots, and these roots dispose me to appreciate Wendell Berry’s notions of economics as subordinate to community.
Fan of more BS – set the example by living in a house powered only by solar and wind, milk your own goats, collect rain for drinking water, farm your own vegetables, and kill and prepare your own meat. When you have lived that way for five years, come back and tell us how great it is.
Isn’t it about time to forget about political parties and just take a stand. The science and the data are pretty clear: global warming is a hoax and a scare tactic. Get over it: it’s the Sun, stupid.
Funny thing Waggy…your statement is 100% political, and yet you seem to ascribe it to science. Odd, eh?
There is nothing political about the Sun. The only reason climatists (who are all Leftists) deny the Sun is because they the official climate alarmism industry steadfastly denied easily observable natural oscillations. Many now see that climatists turned their backs on thousands of years of historical information due to the ulterior motives–i.e., they have hidden agendas. Even so, while Republicans may not be self-righteous proselytizers of the fashionable, politically-correct government science of AGW, they still have not defunded the UN and the failed public education system, which makes them a big part of the problem because they’re taking money from the productive and are handing it over to those who are colluding to crap on the scientific method and common sense because they hate America.
Amusing if the Republicans end up owning the Sun by planting their flag on it. Premature, it’s still over the horizon.
==========
Kim said:
“Amusing if the Republicans end up owning the Sun by planting their flag on it.”
____
I’d pay a dollar to watch them try.
Kim:
He who controls the sun, controls the…
But this is the problem, Dr. Curry – when your main message is uncertainty, THAT is what the public hears. Nothing else. In communicating with the general public, or for that matter Congress (yikes!), it seems to me – and I am admittedly NOT speaking from direct experience here – that you must remember your audience. if your main point is NOT uncertainty, then leave that out and focus on what you want your message to be. With apologies, I am including my comment that I just left on NPR’s site, regarding the article on your interview. I take your point that you feel misrepresented, but in a world that thinks in snippets (tweets?), this is going to happen.
Best,
Steve Gaurin
As a former student of Dr. Curry, I must say I am disappointed to see her current take on climate science. I was baffled by her blog when she created it, and dismayed to see that she is sticking so firmly to its focus on uncertainty. Dr. Curry is a brilliant mind and I have the utmost respect for her abilities and opinions, but I think she is missing the broader perspective here. I think she is failing to recognize how the general public (and even worse, the government) will misinterpret and misuse her words. In climate science, as in any discipline, there are experts and then there is everyone else. The trick for all experts is to find a way to communicate the main points of their findings to everyone else, in the most honest way, but without undermining the main thrust of the science. In my opinion (as a climate scientist and science educator myself, though far less accomplished than Dr. Curry), we do a very good job of communicating the uncertainty in our science to the public, absolutely. But we also convey our very real message of alarm. I would agree with Dr. Curry that cutting CO2 emissions NOW would not help very much with climate change in coming decades, but we have to do something. To take no action could result in further regrets years down the road. Speaking of, there is something called the “no-regrets strategy,” which holds that, even if climate change proves not as catastrophic as we think it might be, we would have no regrets about taking action to diminish our influence on the climate system as much as possible, because the efforts we put forth will result in a more sustainable way of living in the long-term. But on the other hand, if we are right about the climate changing rapidly and catastrophically, then we will have MAJOR regrets about having done nothing. So let’s do something! Let’s keep up the energy conserving technologies and practices, let’s continue to pursue renewable energy sources (yes, including nuclear fusion), let’s figure out ways to reduce emissions and even remove CO2 from the atmosphere if possible. The refrain put forth by climate deniers and ostensibly by Dr. Curry herself, is that taking such action would ruin our economy (for her nieces and nephews, really?), but I do not buy that argument, never have. I firmly believe that we could and should focus on cutting emissions and developing alternative energy in this country, because instead of ruining our economy this would revive it, this would serve as our next economic revolution because we could export our technology to the rest of the world, including China and India. Other countries (read: most of Europe) are beating us to that line, and quickly. Fortunately the Obama administration is taking some action to further this line of research and development in the US; I only hope they continue to turn a deaf ear to the “uncertainty” argument of Dr. Curry and others.
Hi Steve, I hope that you are enjoying grad school. I don’t recall your taking any of my courses?
My main point is that climate science is uncertain, climate change is a wicked problem, and we are fooling ourselves if we think there is a simple silver bullet solution. How and if society should react to an alarming possibility is the stuff of politics, not science.
So maybe my main point got across after all.
Dagnabit.
Belongs here:
http://judithcurry.com/2013/08/22/jc-on-npr/#comment-368499
Judith said:
“How and if society should react to an alarming possibility is the stuff of politics, not science.”
____
That would be a very bad way to run an insurance company…leaving the actuarial tables to politics and not the sharp-penciled and keen minded actuaries with a very scientific basis. It is actually exactly not the politicals that should be in charge of how we should react, as in doing so it virtually guaranteed that in doing so the “reaction” will be either too much or not enough. The worst that could happen is what is happening in that the scientists are being hijacked (on both sides) in order for the politicals to futher their position. Worse still, the public, who has forever not trusted the politicals now, don’t trust any science, though the naked apes do love the fruits of that science.- The Age of Stupid in full glory.
I don’t agree that scientists should worry so much about being misunderstood. Worrying about that may ultimately have the opposite effect as many people conclude that the scientists are distorting the message in order to “make it understood correctly”. Difficult issues are difficult, whatever approach is taken to present them, playing with words and formulation does not solve the problem.
The uncertainties are real, and it’s better to admit them openly. Those who are worried are in most cases not worried about what they are certain about but what they consider likely enough to take seriously. As this is the real valid argument among specialists, it should be accepted that this is also the only correct argument to present to the public.
Understanding uncertainties and risks is difficult. Dana Nuccitelli is totally wrong when he writes that people understand well other risks, but not the risk of climate change. In reality people have very contradictory and illogical views on all risks that do not materialize regularly in their everyday life. That has been proven by innumerable studies. Even so the only way forward is to be open and to try to explain the risks properly.
The main obstacle for acting is that even those who consider immediate action essential cannot agree on how to act. It’s common to say that we must do something, but that’s of no help until it’s known which approaches are effective enough to have even a positive net expected value.
Steven Gaurin,
We don’t deny that switching from fossil fuels to renewables comes at a cost, we are just skeptical that the clean energy revolution will lead to the economic catastrophe that alarmists predict.
You see there is no proof that the push for renewables will result in an economic catastrophe. The unproven hypothesis of alarmists is based only on flawed and disproven economic models that can be summed up as: Garbage in – Garbage out. They’ve predicted power outages and economies collapsing because of higher energy prices but none of this has happened. They also failed to see the bank crash coming in advance so why should we believe they can predict anything accurately at all? Economics isn’t even a real science and is one of the least credible professions. They need to venture out of their excel spreadsheets and observe the real world for a change.
The alarmists predictions of catastrophe are based on calculating the costs of renewables by assuming everything else in the economy is equal. But in reality everything else is not equal. Unlike their toy models the real economy is complex and non-linear and no-one understands it. The real economy probably has mechanisms to self-correct itself, in which case we’ll be just fine. Renewables might even bring a net profit in the long-run and be a net boon to society (something the economic alarmists are too biased to even consider)
So the right thing to do is to just press on with renewables and the clean energy revolution. We can always reconsider IF the alarmists ever manage to 100% prove that switching to renewables will result in an economic disaster, but I won’t hold my breath on that.
It’s not the “push for renewables” that is the problem. It’s the government spending money on “renewables.” I don’t have a problem with a Joule Unlimited pushing their new CO2 -> gasoline technology. I’m happy for it. I do have a problem with Solyndra and their ilk. We have a deficit problem already, we don’t need yet other holes in our boat in the US.
lolwot,
The FERC (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission) is on record saying that the EPA’s newest regs aimed at coal generation plants represent a real risk to grid stability and reliability.
The wind industry estimates a 20% share of generation capacity (at today’s level of demand) by the year 2050 as the most realistic optimistic figure. Where is the remaining 80% going to come from?
It is not alarmist to look at numbers and realize you can’t get from point A to point B without some serious purtibation to the system. Would it be “survivable”? Probably. Would it be advisable? Probably not, unless you can demonstrate that the cost of not doing so is equal or greater. Despite all of the times I’ve asked, you have not once given any evidence for a warmer world being dangerous.
“The FERC (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission) is on record saying that the EPA’s newest regs aimed at coal generation plants represent a real risk to grid stability and reliability.”
Well regulators would say that wouldn’t they. They just want more tax money for their regulations.
“It is not alarmist to look at numbers and realize you can’t get from point A to point B without some serious purtibation to the system. Would it be “survivable”? Probably. Would it be advisable? Probably not, unless you can demonstrate that the cost of not doing so is equal or greater. Despite all of the times I’ve asked, you have not once given any evidence for a warmer world being dangerous.”
You haven’t given any evidence for a clean energy revolution being dangerous economically.
Steve Gaurin
I thank you for your reasoned thoughts and position and would like to explore your conclusions.
Steve wrote- “But we also convey our very real message of alarm. I would agree with Dr. Curry that cutting CO2 emissions NOW would not help very much with climate change in coming decades, but we have to do something.”
My perspective- It is not appropriate to raise a “alarm” unless you know that there is a real problem. We do not know that a warmer environment is a real problem for the US over the long term or for the world overall. I’d agree about raising an alarm if sea level was rising at 5 or 6 times its current rate, but not now. You write that “we have to do something”, but imo that is an impatient attitude that is prone to the implementation of wasteful solutions. If you want to do something now, make sure it is productive. How about the construction and maintenance of robust infrastructure to protect people from harm due to adverse weather?
Steve wrote- “To take no action could result in further regrets years down the road.”
My response- Taking a misguided action now results in less funds for doing something productive. Do things that you are highly confident will have a benefit worth the expense.
Steve wrote- “no-regrets strategy,” which holds that, even if climate change proves not as catastrophic as we think it might be, we would have no regrets about taking action to diminish our influence on the climate system as much as possible, because the efforts we put forth will result in a more sustainable way of living in the long-term.”
My response- Steve, you are jumping to conclusions unsupported by the evidence. You do not know that a world with more CO2 in the atmosphere is more or less sustainable than one with less. Even if sea level were to rise significantly, it does not mean that the plant is less able to sustain human life. It just means that conditions would be different. Humans ability to adapt is one of our strengths.
Steve wrote- “The refrain put forth by climate deniers and ostensibly by Dr. Curry herself, is that taking such action would ruin our economy (for her nieces and nephews, really?), but I do not buy that argument, never have.”
My response- It all depends on the specific actions being considered. As a minimum, government spending in one area reduces available funds that could have been used in another area. It is about where funds can be used most productively.
Steve wrote-“ Other countries (read: most of Europe) are beating us to that line, and quickly.”
My response- Good for them. I would like the US to do what makes sense and not to follows others actions if those actions do not make sense for us.
Thank you, Rob. I appreciate your logical and unemotional response. I may not agree, but I am always open to different perspectives. At the least, it will be more than interesting to find out what happens in the next few decades as a result of our actions or lack thereof. One point I would make though – I think a sea level rise of ~1m by the end of this century is a rather rapid rate of change, especially considering the logistical impossibility of moving, say, New Orleans a few hundred meters inland.
Steve,
Where does the 1 meter figure come from? At ~ 3 mm/yr, I get 10 inches by 2100. Unit conversion doesn’t get me anywhere close to a meter.
Steve
Since there is presently zero reliable evidence to support a conclusion that sea level will rise by 1 meter by 2100, I am not overly concerned for the US.
I do suggest you rethink your use of the “denier” term or label as being counterproductive. It may be appropriate for those that deny the basic physics, but that is a pretty small group. The real debate centers around two issues
1. What is ECS or more accurately TCS (since I doubt we will ever know ECS with much accuracy) over the next 100 or so years?
2. What other conditions will change (positively and negatively) where and when as a result of any changes in temperature
With all due respect, nobody really know the answer to #1 + or – .25C (which is really necessary to determine threat assessment); and nobody has reliable information to #2.
The current rate of sea level rise is about 0.69mm/yr. Note the negative ocean freshwater content (OFC) trend.
http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/vonSchuckmannampLTroan2011-fig5PG_zpsee63b772.jpg.html?sort=3&o=39
The source of ocean warming is relevant.
http://s1114.photobucket.com/user/Chief_Hydrologist/media/CERES-BAMS-2008-with-trend-lines1.gif.html?sort=3&o=117
‘What happened in the years 1976/77 and 1998/99 in the Pacific was so unusual that scientists spoke of abrupt climate changes. They referred to a sudden warming of the tropical Pacific in the mid-1970s and rapid cooling in the late 1990s. Both events turned the world’s climate topsy-turvy and are clearly reflected in the average temperature of Earth.’
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/08/130822105042.htm
There are of course those who insist that sensitivity in a coupled, nonlinear system is poorly defined and most apparent at tipping points.
‘Sensitive dependence nonetheless does exist in the climate system, as well as in climate models — albeit in a very different sense from the one claimed in the linear work under scrutiny — and we illustrate it using a classical energy balance model (EBM) with nonlinear feedbacks. EBMs exhibit two saddle-node bifurcations, more recently called “tipping points,” which give rise to three distinct steady-state climates, two of which are
stable Such bistable behavior is, furthermore, supported by results from more realistic, nonequilibrium climate models. In a truly nonlinear setting, indeterminacy in the size of the response is observed only in the vicinity of tipping points.’
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1003.0253.pdf
Steven
First of all welcome. It is good to read a fresh perspective. You said;
‘I firmly believe that we could and should focus on cutting emissions and developing alternative energy in this country, because instead of ruining our economy this would revive it, this would serve as our next economic revolution because we could export our technology to the rest of the world, including China and India. Other countries (read: most of Europe) are beating us to that line, and quickly.’
I am British so would reluctantly admit to being European. What on earth do you mean that ‘most of Europe are beating you to that line.’
The climate change act is costing us all dear and causing the erection of unsightly and costly wind farms and solar farms that don’t work when there is no wind and no sun. No wind is very common in winter, as is a severe lack of sun in that season, just when power is most needed.
Investors are creaming off a 8% return due to the large Govt subsidies offered to encourage firms My elderly neighbours will retreat into one room this winter again as they can’t afford to heat their homes. Our energy costs are way higher than yours and we can’t afford them.
BTW you have obviously bought into the ‘global warming’ meme.
Britain is part of the globe. Here are the official Met office figures
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/
I don’t notice much in the way of warming over the last twelve years do you? Looks more like serious cooling which is why so many here are having trouble paying their fuel bills. The temperatures now are colder than the 1730’s. Did you take climate history at Uni? That was in the middle of two of the periods of ‘The little Ice Age.’
There are numerous uncertainties surrounding ‘climate change’, the greatest being that it happens so often and to such a large degree that at present our current ‘climate change’ is indistinguishable to natural variations of the past
All the best
tonyb
By deniers I mean members of the public and politicians who deny that change is happening. Britain is a small part of the globe. 2012 was the warmest year on record in the continental USA, but only the 9th warmest year globally. No one looks at one particular region and says “There it is!” or “There it isn’t!”
Steve Gaurin,
Can you name a prominent skeptic, or two, who deny change is happening?
Steven
Thanks for your reply. So you seem to agree that ‘global’ warming is a misnomer.
You make no reference to the ‘European’ experience with energy costs, inefficient renewables or natural variation in climate.
tonyb
Wind farms kill birds and bats at an unsustainable rate. In the US west the main victims are golden eagles.
Scott
Steven, my straightforward opinion is that you should consider leaving science. Your post can only lead to one conclusion – i.e. you are an advocate who happens to be in a science field. Cut through the thousands of papers we’ve all read Steven, an in addition to the Arrhenius warming expected from a doubling of CO2, the preeminent question remaining is sensitivity. Are you certain of a CS of 2,3,4,5, Steven? Judith is not, nor should you. The current data indicates a CS of 2 or less Steven. Is that beneficial or harmful Steven? Open your mind young man, or go into politics.
Look, I’m not going to respond to such insulting and personal attacks. What is the problem here? I voice an alternative opinion and your response is to attack me? You want me to open my mind? Open yours. And grow up. Old man.
Actually, you just did respond.
That’s the “logic” of a “skeptic.”
Leave that kind of “logic” to them. They’re extremely good at it, and very hard to top.
So Steven, you use the very offensive term “deniers” and you’re all huffy about Bob’s post. My advice: Look in a mirror and repeat your false indignation.
Scott, Gary, etc. ~ I think what you’re doing is trying to reduce my argument to zero chiefly because I used a word you didn’t like. I explained above what I meant – members of the public and politicians who deny that change is happening. I did not personally attack anyone with my initial post, but I have been personally attacked as a result of it. And yes I got defensive, but I think that’s only human. If a personal attack is the kind of response you think is warranted in a discussion like this, all I can do is wish you good luck and bid you farewell.
Yes, but denier.
You Made .Me Do It.
Impressive media lessons .
Steven, you misconstrue an attack from sincere advice. Read your last sentence – you seem to be a Mini-Mann. Politics for you, young man. Not science, you are not emotionally equipped.
Bob,
My sincere opinion is that you should stop bragging about having read thousands of papers when you lukewarmingly recite your credo based on one or two, while patronizing a total stranger with an unsolicited advice that does seem to be a bit personal.
Bob said:
“The current data indicates a CS of 2 or less…”
____
Nope. One extreme of current model output indicates a CS of 2 or less. There is no current “data” that says much about CS. In anything close to “data” we’d have to go back to proxy data during the last time CO2 was at current levels, during the Pliocene. That proxy data would a favor a CS much higher than 2C.
Willard, yes, the advice was unsolicited. But, don’t you see Willard that without some direction early in his career, he might go the way of Mikey, Marcott, or heaven to bid, Willard. Seriously, read his post and then tell me you want him teaching “climate science” to young heads full of mush.
Of course, Bob, your advice was only meant for his own edification. After all, that might explain why you added denigrating details. You were only trying to help.
Pokerguy might appreciate how this game got discovered:
http://www.ericberne.com/games-people-play/im-only-trying-to-help-you/
You’ll see that there’s a connection with Scott’s You Made Me Do It.
Steven Gaurin,
There’s little point debating with climate deniers.
LolWot, ” Steven Gaurin,
There’s little point debating with climate deniers.”
Yeah, that’s right lolwot. Don’t debate others with different opinions. Wouldn’t want him to learn anything, would we lolwot. You and he could retire to the broom closet and tell CAGW scare stories to each other. When you tire, invite Willie.
I doubt you have anything to teach him
lolwot | August 23, 2013 at 8:22 pm |
Steven Gaurin,
There’s little point debating with climate deniers.
======
Yeah, instead call them hateful names and hold your breath until they relent. Yeah, that’ll work.
Or, y’all could just put on some big boy pants, stop the name calling and participate in a debate.
Steven Gaurin,
“Scott, Gary, etc. ~ I think what you’re doing is trying to reduce my argument to zero chiefly because I used a word you didn’t like.”
For one thing, I am not one of those who get all excited about the word “denier.” For another, I didn’t try to reduce your argument to anything. I just tried get you to actually make it.
” I explained above what I meant – members of the public and politicians who deny that change is happening.”
The problem is, “deny that change is happening” doesn’t tell anyone what your argument is. What change? That’s not an argument, it’s meaningless. Every skeptic I know acepts that “change is happening.” So I assume you mean something different, something more specific.
And no offense, but asking you what you mean is not a personal attack. I understand now that you don’t want to clarify what you mean. But I thought I would give you an opportunity to actually make the argument anyway. I always give the benefit of the doubt, until someone plays the victim when you ask them a simple question.
“Yeah, that’s right lolwot. Don’t debate others with different opinions” – Bob
Stricly speaking, it would be pointless to try and debate a ‘denier’ since, by definition, they hold irrational views.
You mentioned Judith’s viewson CS earlier – you know Judith thinks CS could be as high as 10 degs?
The nuance of what I have said (and meant) is that CS=10 is a possible scenario (i.e. it has been inferred using a model or observational analyses), and I have not yet seen this scenario falsified. So I leave it on the list of possible scenarios. I bet if someone really dug into the source of high scenario estimates and critically examined the methodology and results, perhaps this scenario could be falsified based upon our current background knowledge. If this scenario comes from a sophisticated coupled general circulation climate model, well then we are not yet at a point of falsifying this scenario.
See my post on scenario falsification (well it is hidden at the end of this post) http://judithcurry.com/2010/10/12/do-ipccs-emission-scenarios-fail-to-comply-with-the-precautionary-principle/
The other issue that is not sufficiently considered in all this (and I have alluded to this a number of times including my testimony) is that our linear notions of CS are probably incorrect and that some complex process involving CO2 could produce an abrupt climate change that is larger than what climate models are able to produce.
Sounds like all this should be the topic for a new post
There were no strong words in Mr.Gaurin’s first comment:
http://judithcurry.com/2013/08/22/jc-on-npr/#comment-368488
We can pick up the discussion Scott presumably would like to have. Perhaps we should start with what Bob will find as the main point of this comment?
I promise I’ll never use the D word. “Corporate executive” will suffice.Just to add context, of course.
***
I thought execs of Fortune N companies had seminars on how to deal with crucial conversations. Perhaps throwing tantrums when hearing strong words is the new trend. Only when followed by Big Boys tough talk in a guy’s back can we see complete corporate class.
Not sure where nieces and nephews come from? I am sure you can find out somewhere on the interwebs. A friend of mine – looking for cooking tips – googled two fat ladies. Not sure if it will work for you but worth a try.
Economic pain is easier. Caps and taxes have the same end. Caps directly reduce reliance on fossil fuels – taxes increase costs and encourage substitution at higher prices. In the latter case the energy taxes are no longer payable and in both cases the economy is left with structurally higher energy costs. Even a revenue neutral carbon tax has this problem. Up until the point of substitution we just see money redistributed around the economy. At the point of substitution money disappears up the fundament and the economy is left with higher energy costs, lower productivity and lower growth. At the margins people are homeless, children are hungry, the elderly burn their furniture to keep warm. The only alternative to that is perpetual and maximum growth. Especially for the developing world.
The GFC is another matter. Many had concerns with asset bubbles and interest rates held too low for far too long. Classic disasters waiting to happen. What we didn’t know was that megabucks of sub-standard loans were being collateralised and sold off to enthusiastic subscribers encouraged by the idea that this asset boom was not like all the others that had come before. They were of course mistaken and took the global economy down the gurgler with them.
This is overall little doubt that taxes and caps are calculated to lead to higher energy costs. It has been known for a long time that higher energy costs lead to productivity declines.
e.g. – http://www.bos.frb.org/economic/conf/conf22/conf22c.pdf
We understand that this stands in stark contrast to the limits of growth proponents. What I say is let’s do the experiment – as there is no humane alternative – and maximise growth to see just how long we can keep it up for. No fat lady pun intended.
I hope this adds to your economic and – ahem – personal sophistication. Any more questions – just ask Dr Dunderhead.
Yes, but the poor, Chief, I mean Dr. Dunderhead.
Very convincing.
***
Here was the bit about Judy’s relatives:
http://www.npr.org/templates/transcript/transcript.php?storyId=213894792
Incidentally, this fulfills a related suggestion, made a few days ago:
> [M]aybe if she paraded her grand children out for us to see you’d approve.
http://judithcurry.com/2013/08/20/scientists-and-motivated-reasoning/#comment-367579
Perhaps Judy was trying to please her most endearing Fan.
– If the case CS=10 is taken as a credible scenario with a non-negligible probability (a few percent is certainly not negligible in this case),
and
– If we judge that we can significantly reduce warming that would result from such a CS,
then we should definitely take those actions even at a rather high cost.
Fortunately such a CS seems very unlikely (a judgment based on IPCC reports and related more recent literature), and unfortunately we do not have effective means for influencing the climate. Thus neither of those conditions seems to be met. That leaves open, how high the CS can be at a level of likelihood high enough for serious concern. That leaves also open, whether we have less effective but still practical means for influencing the climate. Quantifying these questions is what we should try to do. Only through that can we move forward to rational policy choices.
Judith said:
Yes. That would be good.
I’d also like to understand what what the PDF of climate sensitivity (as commonly presented) would look like (at a particular starting point, such as Earth’s climate at 1900 or 2000) if we could measure it accurately and precisely. I expect it would have a very narrow confidence interval, e.g. +/- 0.1C or less, not the IPCC AR4 figure of +/-1.5C. I expect it (the real value) would also probably be more symetrical than the skewed distributions being presented, which, I suspect are reflections of our lack of understanding rather than of the real distribution.
Your statement expresses paternalism. I had thought that the feminist movement in academia had thoroughly debunked this kind of simple paternalism in academia.
Steven
Lets examine just one bit of what you argue.
” In climate science, as in any discipline, there are experts and then there is everyone else. ”
Now take that as a given. in every field there are experts and others.
read through your essay and count the number of times you made arguments in areas where you are not an expert
I count these:
Steven as communcations expert
‘The trick for all experts is to find a way to communicate the main points of their findings to everyone else,”
Steven as expert on how public opinion is formed
“the general public (and even worse, the government) will misinterpret and misuse her words. ”
Steven as expert on the history of climate science communication
“we do a very good job of communicating the uncertainty in our science to the public, absolutely. ”
Steven as expert on how quickly policy must be adopted
“I would agree with Dr. Curry that cutting CO2 emissions NOW would not help very much with climate change in coming decades, but we have to do something. ”
Steven as expert on what those of us in the no regrets camp argue. he gets it wrong
“Speaking of, there is something called the “no-regrets strategy,” which holds that, even if climate change proves not as catastrophic as we think it might be, we would have no regrets about taking action to diminish our influence on the climate system as much as possible, because the efforts we put forth will result in a more sustainable way of living in the long-term. ”
Steven as policy expert again
“So let’s do something! ”
Steven as an expert on what Judith argued. he gets it wrong.
The denier argument is that the economy will be ruined, the warmist argument is that we can take the pain, some greens argue the economy will improve, and judith argues that she is no expert. she doesnt know
‘The refrain put forth by climate deniers and ostensibly by Dr. Curry herself, is that taking such action would ruin our economy (for her nieces and nephews, really?), but I do not buy that argument, never have. ”
Steven as economics expert and futurist and technology transfer expert
“I firmly believe that we could and should focus on cutting emissions and developing alternative energy in this country, because instead of ruining our economy this would revive it, this would serve as our next economic revolution because we could export our technology to the rest of the world, including China and India.”
##############
lets sum this up you start with an argument that every field has experts and others. Frankly I’m struggling to figure out which field your an expert in.
I trust your teachers remember you. i would
Mosh, that’s a little bit devastating.
The other Steven as something it’s hard to put into words. :)
Here was Gaurin’s claim:
> The refrain put forth by climate deniers and ostensibly by Dr. Curry herself, is that taking such action would ruin our economy (for her nieces and nephews, really?), but I do not buy that argument, never have.
Where do these nieces and nephews come from, again?
Also notice the word “ostensibly”.
***
The fact that Gaurin states he does not buy this argument does not require him to be an expert on futurology.
How dare Steven G be an expert in everything.
That’s Steven M.’s thing.
Micheal
“How dare Steven G be an expert in everything.
That’s Steven M.’s thing.”
wrong. His argument is that every field has experts and everyone else.
And he would like to use the “appeal to experts” argument.
So, I inhabit his argument to show him how it can be used against him.
My position is different.
In the first place I would not argue that every field has “experts” and everyone else. I think the spectrum of understanding is a lot more nuanced than that. So after 5 years and over 10000 hours of study of surface temperature I would not call myself an expert despite the three publications, I would also not count myself in a class of “everyone else”
I would say that while not an expert in my field I am able to find flaws in the positions held by experts and I put no weight on expert opinion in my field.
Next, I wouldnt argue that one needs to be an expert to have an opinion on any of the matters that Steven expressed his opinion on, but you will note that it was him, not me, who relied on the expert/non expert distinction.
Finally, I am an expert on paying taxes and I am an expert on the kind of world I want to leave my children and grand children. And so I reject much of what steven says in that regard.
“The fact that Gaurin states he does not buy this argument does not require him to be an expert on futurology.”
And that fact that sky dragons do not buy the argument on C02 does not require them to be experts in physics, However, It was Steven and not me who split everyone into experts and everyone else. Maybe that was an unwise position, you might consider picking some fleas off him.
> His argument is that every field has experts and everyone else.
Yes, and his argument was not that he was an expert in every fields he opined upon.
Nor was his argument that non-experts were not allowed to their opinions.
> However, It was Steven and not me who split everyone into experts and everyone else.
That there are experts in fields of knowledge does not lead by itself to your straw man, Mosh. You need to stuff everything Gaurin said with it, which incidentally reminds me a technique called currying:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Currying
***
> [Y]ou might consider picking some fleas off him.
Scratch your own itch, if you please. “Yes, but Gaurin said X” is just another decoy to deflect from an incident that alarmed Judy’s white knights. A stranger comes here and challenges Judy’s nobility.
How hospitable was the reaction.
***
That we have experts in every fields of knowledge does hit a political limit: everyone’s the master of his own vote. This can be a show of hands, or a show of feet, in case of buying arguments. Top Fortune execs should be wary of their manners when comes the time to sell arguments.
Welcome to the blog, Steve. Don’t take people’s sharp words that seriously; it’s not a big deal, and it’s par for the course.
As for your suggestions, I’m afraid that climate scientists who want immediate action have not made their case here in the US. There is a sizable chunk of the voting public that is conservative, and the burden of proof is on you to convince us that the danger is urgent enough to take action. The actions you call No Regrets generally aren’t, from our point of view; we consider them harmful. If you want to suggest Bjorn Lomborg’s No Regrets: heavy investment research into making alternative energy resources cheap and efficient, _instead_ of subsidizing inefficient ones cheap, I don’t think you’d get argument from anyone. We’d all like cheap, clean energy.
But really what the US does isn’t going to make much difference; it gets totally swamped by China and India. What Europe is doing makes no difference at all. And if Africa ever gets its act together and develops, they’ll swamp us too. The kind of suggestions that most liberals support _don’t really help_. They’re feel-good stuff that leaves the real problem in place. They will kill a lot of Africans who would never get a chance to industrialize. They will not kill a lot of Chinese, as the Chinese will never stand for it. How about a No Regrets policy of very strong support for nuclear power, and fracking? That has the potential of actually cutting CO2 emissions worldwide.
> They will kill a lot of Africans who would never get a chance to industrialize.
Deaths and taxes.
Top Fortune execs might prefer to optimize the communication effect:
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2002/dec/19/marketingandpr.famine
We should also prefer “accept to disappear” instead of “kill”, as a Nestlé top exec once said would be a possible consequence of their gaming of coffee prices.
Endeavor to persevere.
Steven, I understand a “no regrets” option as one which we could undertake because it has net benefits which exceed their opportunity cost (the discounted, risk-adjusted return on alternative uses of resources). In practice, such opportunities are rare, if they exist then entrepreneurs would tend to find a way to exploit them.
Your argument that the US should “focus on cutting emissions and developing alternative energy in this country, because instead of ruining our economy this would revive it, this would serve as our next economic revolution because we could export our technology to the rest of the world, including China and India. Other countries (read: most of Europe) are beating us to that line, and quickly” is just nonsense , it doesn’t accord with economic reality, as has been demonstrated many times in discussions here. “most of Europe” is in deep fiscal strife, with low growth and high unemployment, and is turning away from expensive emissions-reduction schemes which have severely damaged their economies. You won’t export technologies to China and India, partly because they are now lower-cost innovators and partly because the Chinese will steal ideas they need rather than pay for them, and produce the hardware domestically.
Many of those, on CE and elsewhere, who do not buy the CAGW argument, argue that, inter alia, whatever the science of global warming, there is no convincing evidence that the costs of attempting to rebate any warming exceed any potential benefits.
Many posters on CE are well to the sceptic side of Dr Curry, but we appreciate her stance on the importance of integrity in science, and not misrepresenting the situation because it suits a political agenda of some CAGW promoters. Understanding the uncertainties is critical to good policy-making, and the IPCC et al have misrepresented or under-played them, leading to overly aggressive reduction policies at great cost for no demonstrated benefit.
> In practice, such opportunities are rare, if they exist then entrepreneurs would tend to find a way to exploit them.
If that argument amounts to claim that low-hanging fruits are all already picked up, say by invisible hands, then we might argue, as Leibniz did, that we live in the best possible world.
If so, I think that’s a shame. Science is used to make political decisions, no? Any thoughts on the “no-regrets strategy”? And why exactly will taking action to reduce CO2 ruin our economy?
Why would liberal fascism ruin our economy? That is not a hard question to answer. It is impossible to maximize the net present wealth of a society when you foresake what only the free enterprise capitalism can offer–i.e., the most efficient allocation of scarce resources.
Wagathon there’s no need for such alarmism.
There’s no proof of any economic catastrophe from switching to renewables. Relax, enjoy it.
First, no one’s talking about fascism, don’t let this devolve into a “reductio ad absurdum” argument. Second, you have not answered the question at all – how is there no room for developing alternative energy technology in capitalism? If we succeeded, capitalism (selling the tech to others) would facilitate the next economic revolution. A preemptive word here … if you continue using extreme language and misrepresenting my words, I will not continue to respond.
You can’t use unverifiable models to justify making decisions that effect my life and pretend it’s not fascism because you feel your intentions and noble.
Do you know just what a huge ask that is? Money may not grow on trees, but energy definitely doesn’t. Technology might be able to deliver a lot of amazing things easily and inexpensively, but large-scale energy generation isn’t one of them. That still belongs very much in the future, like it or not. Engineers know this, apparently activists and politicians don’t.
Another thing is that there are literally billions of people in the world for whom a continued state of poverty is virtually guaranteed if the global economy doesn’t grow very significantly.
I meant alternative energy generation.
For the academicians of the secular, socialist big-government global warming machine, money grows on Yamal trees.
‘If’ is such a tiny word, but it carries a huge presumption.
@dennis adams | August 23, 2013 at 3:40 pm |
It’s not just the ad homs from climate practitioners, it also stonewalling or even outright refusing to share code and data. It’s making up statistical procedures that lie for them. It’s being obfuscatory and using weasel words continually. It’s all that and more that make some of these twits disgusting.
Steven Gaurin, if you want a laugh you check out the last thread where everyone is acting concerned that a scientist said something mean to another scientist.
Compare that with your treatment here.
Oh those evil deniers being skeptical about schoolteachers being able to save the world from evil America…
When you use “climate denier” and then say you are a climate scientist and science educator, it scares me and detracts from your message. I hope my grandkids get a more circumspect view of science than you apparently can provide. Just keep up this attitude and everyone will see why you are in fact less accomplished than Ms Curry. She is a beacon of integrity and puts to shame many of her colleagues.
In a word, wow. Presumptuous, accusatory, unwarranted. Nicely done.
Steve– you did use the term denier. Do you care to define what that means to you?
You first, Dennis. Juding by your initial response, I think you should be first to tell me why the term I used bothers you so much. By the way, it’s DR. Curry, not Ms. Curry.
It is a low brow term, not befitting a true scientist. What kind of credentials does it take to make that assertion? Show me the science. When I first got interested in this issue 4 years ago, what struck me was how many ad homs were used by those purporting to be top notch climate scientists. When pressed to refute skeptics very legitimate questions about the science, they resorted to terms such as denier rather than to present a scientific argument for their case. It is a phrase off the street, like tea bagger. You need to elevate your game if you want to be taken seriously.
From a reply I wrote above … By deniers I mean members of the public and politicians who deny that change is happening. Happy? Or feel like insulting me again?
Steve, if you take these comments as being personal insults then it seems you haven’t been around the block too many times – particularly in blogland, where you need to have a very thick skin in order to survive.
Tell me, why does it apparently bother you so much what some members of the public or some politicians think?
Phatboy, I agree about the thick skin. I don’t really have one. But on the whole I just wish such personal exchanges could be left out of this debate: they’re counterproductive. I’m all for learning and sharing but I really don’t appreciate being berated like this. It’s unnecessary, and in my opinion, immature.
At any rate, to answer your question … it bothers me what the public and politicians think because members of the public vote, and politicians make policy. If they aren’t getting the right message from scientists (and I feel the right lesson is that there is ample evidence to be very concerned about climate change – let’s face it, I’m hardly alone on that stance), then they are not going to enact policies that will help solve the problem. Apparently most of the people on this site disagree with me (and MOST climate scientists) as to the extent and effect of climate change, which is fine. I admit there is enough uncertainty to make room for debate. I guess I was hoping for more debate and less debasing. Anyway I’m off this site from now on, with a bad taste in my mouth.
Steve, since when have politicians been particularly concerned with what the voting public thinks, except when there’s an election coming?
I’m sorry you feel that you don’t belong here, however if you came here hoping for more debate then it could be argued that you didn’t exactly start out by putting your best foot forward.
“Anyway I’m off this site from now on, with a bad taste in my mouth.”
Change your socks more often, put your foot in your mouth less often
and that bad taste will vanish.
^^^^^^^^^^^ you’re killing me Mosher!
Change socks AND put on some big boy pants.
Done and done.
Thanks for playing, Scott.
Steve, your interpretation of the no regrets strategy is mistaken. We need not do anything. The no regrets strategy means only doing things that make sense even if the climate scare is a false alarm. On this strategy there is no reason to reduce CO2 emissions per se.
In other news, David Wojick pretends he’s a logician,
If you are Bill Gates, you can afford a no regets policy, no matter what the issue is.
If you Bill Jiminez, maybe not so much.
I have found that a lot of people who put forth the no regets policy position ignore the real world issue of resource allocation. It can be a reasonable policy to pursue, so long as costs are reasonably taken into account.
Yes, but the poor.
No but inanity.
Actually, I think David W. got it exactly right ^^^.
“No regrets” means there’s no possible scenario under which you might regret the decision later. That can only happen if it would have made sense without taking climate into account. IOW, “no regrets” must necessarily be the things that we would have done anyway, policy or no policy.
Practically speaking, it means nothing.
Harold, “Practically speaking, it means nothing.”
Not really. More efficient energy use is always a no regrets. Clean water and clean air are no regrets. Both have been improving for decades. It may seem like nothing because it is a continuous process and the “greens” only focus on the negatives, there has been a lot going on by people that actually have a clue.
Capt. The point is, that more efficient is something we would have done anyway. No policy is required. If policy is required, there is at least a chance of a regret.
It’s that simple.
Leibniz once used your argument to prove that we live in the best possible world, Harold.
Harold, “It’s that simple.”
You have to remember your audience, the greens think “do nothing” is actually doing nothing. They need to be reminded that there is a lot being done which is part of the no regrets, has absolutely nothing to do with their alarmist plans and is more effective than their efforts to date.
Instead of do nothing you should use, “Stay the course.” or something appropriately cliche because you are not talking to the sharpest tacks in the box. They need to be spoon fed facts or they wander off attacking Coke or some other corporation that is doing things.
Bingo, Capt. An example of something that is done in a few places, and pencils out economically, is CNG powered city buses. Reduced carbon is a side benefit, if it’s a benefit at all. If some cities can do it, all cities (except maybe AK and HI) can do it.
That’s a true “no regrets” move, because it wasn’t done for climate reasons in the first place. It was done because 1) economically it was about a push with diesel, 2) it makes a lot less soot and other real pollutants (as opposed to so-called “carbon pollution”), and 3) it’s better for national energy security. Pierce County WA has been doing this since the ’80s, long before anybody knew what a climate was.
For it to be “no regrets”, one of two things have to be true: either 1) we know beyond any reasonable doubt that the benefit exists, or 2) it’s justified solely on other known benefits. Nothing justified by climate passes test #1, and things that pass test #2 we are doing anyway.
Your 1 or 2 may imply policies, Harold, since the benefits might be external to those who will have to implement the changes.
Harold, “Bingo, Capt. An example of something that is done in a few places, and pencils out economically, is CNG powered city buses. ”
Propane also, it has an established infrastructure. Lots of school districts looking into switching to propane which is easily converted to CNG or LNG. Infrastructure, that shovel ready job kinda thing that lasts several decades and typically is a good investment in a crap economy though, takes a back seat to smart grids, Solandras, A123s, Fiskers in the Boondoggles ‘R US administration.
Propane is made from oil. CNG is extracted from the ground separately. They’re both clean burning, but one we can have a lot more of without pumping or cracking any more oil.
FWIW, NG is significantly lower in CO2/BTU than propane.
Looking a little further down the road, NG can be converted directly to H2, with concentrated CO2 as a byproduct, suitable for reinjection. This is all technology that’s ~100 years old. Fracking NG is potentially a game changer. C3, not so much.
I think people exaggerate the harms of misallocation of resources. Resources are misallocated all the time. Major project can come for naught. It is unavoidable. If it were especially harmful, there would be some hint of persistent harm. But there is not. The economy keeps ticking. People might ponder why, but probably not.
Harold, “Looking a little further down the road, NG can be converted directly to H2, with concentrated CO2 as a byproduct, suitable for reinjection. This is all technology that’s ~100 years old. Fracking NG is potentially a game changer. C3, not so much.”
A lot is in the transition. With propane you have the infrastructure in place enough to actually get vehicles on the road. Adding CNG or LNG to that infrastructure should be a smaller cost than starting over. Hydrogen require a more expensive infrastructure that would take longer to develop, Depending on how it plays out, you are building a solid base for liquified or compressed gas transportation fuels without pushing a lot of small businesses out. C3 is not a game changer but can be useful for changing the game.
JCH, one sign of persistent harm might be billions of people remaining in poverty with little hope of improvement. One further sign might be that situation actually getting worse. Closer to home, there can be little doubt that the average working person’s living standards are being steadily eroded – can that also be classed as persistent harm?
> Closer to home, there can be little doubt that the average working person’s living standards are being steadily eroded – can that also be classed as persistent harm?
Another good reason for inaction.
Willard, “> Closer to home, there can be little doubt that the average working person’s living standards are being steadily eroded – can that also be classed as persistent harm?
Another good reason for inaction.”
A good bit of that could be due to the back door action, those end runs where politicians make treats, finance failures and bailout buddies. All for the “greater good” of course.
RE room for developing alternative energy technology in capitalism?
There is. And it does not preclude government subsidies. The question to consider is at what point do you decide to remove the subsidies and let the market determine its fate? I think wind will eventually survive without them, but doubt very much if it will ever exceed 20% of US generation capacity. PV solar is unlikely to reach that point without dramatic breakthroughs. Same with electric cars.
Taking action with the primary basis being reducing CO2 emissions is not a no-regrets policy. To achieve the sort of reductions needed according to GCM output would require either trillions of dollars put into developing technologies and infrastructure that may or may not work or drastically cutting the amount of energy and fuel for people to use. Both have extremely high costs and in no way can be construed as a no regrets policy. At least they can’t without solid evidence for not doing so having an equal or greater cost. To date that evidence hasn’t even reached the level of slim. Non-existent would be a more accurate description.
> The question to consider is at what point do you decide to remove the subsidies and let the market determine its fate?
Corporate executives from Fortune 5 still ponder about fossil fuel subsidies:
http://priceofoil.org/fossil-fuel-subsidies/
Perhaps at one point fossil fuel will be ready to let the market determine its fate.
Perhaps execs would need seminars to learn how to communicate that they’re not really “subsidies”.
Steven Gaurin, ” Science is used to make political decisions, no?” Yes indeed. Sometimes it is right and sometimes it wrong, but it is used to make political decisions.
“Any thoughts on the “no-regrets strategy”?” Considering that 17% of US CO2 emissions are offset by land use changes and not joining Kyoto hasn’t harmed the US in meeting goals it never agreed to, I would say let the private sector continue to be innovative and avoid government “mandates” that tend to back fire.
” And why exactly will taking action to reduce CO2 ruin our economy?” Since the “sensitivity” is reducing to less than half the original estimates, focusing on CO2 when there are likely more effective approaches could harm the economy that is needed to solve the problem. Right now Obama is looking at $43 per ton of CO2 while Australia is looking to drop its $23 per ton. Germany is switching to more coal while UK is importing US biomass to cheat the system. Most would see it as the cluster f$ck it is rather than maintaining some naive notion that the IPCC has any usefulness because it claims to be scientific.
> Since the “sensitivity” is reducing to less than half the original estimates, focusing on CO2 when there are likely more effective approaches could harm the economy that is needed to solve the problem.
Is this supposed to be the answer to “why exactly will taking action to reduce CO2 ruin our economy?”, Cap’n?
Steven Gaurin,
“And why exactly will taking action to reduce CO2 ruin our economy?”
Let’s make a deal. You get your fellow concerned “scientists” to agree to stop trying to decarbonize the global economy, and then we will take you seriously when you talk about “taking action to reduce CO2” in ways that “won’t ruin the economy.”
Stop talking about reducing CO2 and we’ll talk about reducing CO2.
Steven, see my comment on your previous sub-thread on “no regrets.”
Dr Curry, I recommend you consider recording these exchanges so that any out of context quotes and important caveats can be aired properly. Too much material ends up on the cutting room floor, and the reporters and editors are the ones who control the final spin.
Also, I appreciate that you, Dr Curry, have taken time to try to engage with those who do not fully subscribe to the so-called consensus position. I believe you are correct in your assertions about uncertainty: my fear is that the IPCC and its ready-to-listen-to-anything following are misrepresenting, underestimating the uncertainties, perhaps grossly. In my experience there are many reasons people do this, among them a quest or desire for fame, power, financial greed, and the fear of being ostracized by ones “peers.”
Frankly, I believe all scientists should be skeptical, especially of their own work, and should encourage such skepticism. In my own work in engineering, I have often found myself too close to the work to see errors that are readily apparent with “fresh eyes” or by others. We’ve seen many scientific theories tossed into the gutter by the aristocracy of the day, only to have truth win out in time.
The current debate about Anthropogenic Climate Change seems to be causing vast sums to be spent by our deeply in debt government on what-if research, instead of in areas where the greatest uncertainties lie. Finding a way to tackle that problem would be a huge benefit to the nation and to science.
Gene, it’s good that you and James Hansen and Judith Curry are agree whole-heartedly on the need to focus upon uncertainties!
This lucid, well-referenced, fact-driven analysis, and especially its explicit acknowledgement of uncertainty, helps us understand why James Hansen’s research integrity is well-respected by Judith Curry (at least, according to a Judith Curry comment earlier this week … that Judith seemingly has since deleted?)
Heh. Fanny said ‘lucid’.
I think fan intended ter say ‘e-lus-ive,’ Harold.
Or maybe ‘Lucifer’.
Seemed to me that point came across clearly, and that it is entirely consistent with the main (and IMO, most important and validated) thrust of your blog.
As such, it was entirely appropriate that it was the main message of the article.interview. Of course, determining the “main message” is subjective – but I see no particular reason that anyone heavily engaged in the debate would have a deeper grasp on an objective evaluation.
My guess is that if you polled a group of people who weren’t already prone towards a particular perspective (i.e., weren’t prone towards a “motivated” view of the interview/article), the main takeaway would be that you feel that the science is very uncertain, and too uncertain to justify specific policy.
Why would you object if that is the main takeaway? Isn’t that your main message?
Perhaps when the reporter got that from what you were saying, he felt that was the main thrust of your participation in the debate. Would there be something nefarious about that, as so many of our much beloved “denizens” are entirely convinced is the case?
Joshua,
You really excel at being a self-appointed critic of Judith as well as the self-appointed keeper of the Climate Etc conscience. In other times, you might have been affectionately referred to as the “village idiot”.
I love you too, Brian. Almost as much as I love Don.
Brian, no one refers to joshie affectionately.
Our Joshie/Village Idiot is also a Warmer.
Not a coincidence.
Andrew
We can thank Providence that the Cyber Brothers are there to make sure Joshua will become their own personal Godzilla:
http://www.flamewarriorsguide.com/warriorshtm/godzilla.htm
You are really a prize, joshie. You are ignoring how Harris framed the snippets that he cherry-picked from an eight-hour discussion.
Indeed, we should resent that Harris did not select Judy’s quotes randomly.
Perhaps he should simply have quoted those that contain “uncertain”?
Perhaps he could have actually given Judith more than 60 cherry-picked seconds of air time. Perhaps he could have left out the framing of Judith as a tool of alleged conspiracy nut obstructionist rightwing repub congressmen. Etc., etc. It was a frame job and you know it. It’s too bad that a guy with a brain like yours is so unashamedly dishonest.
Come on, Don Don. Even if Harris did frame the debate (as if Judy was not), it is irrelevant to the fact that your cherry-pick remark is “statistically insignificant”, to put it in a way you might get a glimpse of what’s coming if you persist in getting lukewarmingly flummoxed. I might even be tempted to revisit how Denizens (go, team!) reacted to David Rose’s selection.
Comparing Judy’s reactions in both case might even deserve due diligence.
What? Huh? You are breaking up, willie.
If you want to compare something, compare Harris’ treatment of Judith with his fawning admiration for and hearty agreement with Trenberthski, when that little “interview” airs. Get back to us, willie. But try to be coherent. I won’t ask you for honesty.
Please scratch your own itch, Don Don.
Next time, don’t conflate cherry picking with quote mining.
Oh, and as promised:
> [T]he particular piece of this debate that bores me is the propaganda strategies used by both sides, so I rarely engage in discussing that stuff.
http://judithcurry.com/2012/10/16/pause-discussion-thread-part-ii/#comment-256712
I took Thermodynamics as a grad student with you at CU, in the Fall 2000 semester. I left after that semester to come back east and be closer to family and my fiancee. Speaking of “no regrets,” I can’t say for sure that that was the best decision I ever made. Might have been better for my career if I had stayed put. But I’m doing fine so shouldn’t second-guess, I guess.
Just curious; in what University did you enroll back east? What are your graduate, undergraduate degrees? Trying not to be disparaging, but your missives do not sound as I would anticipate from someone with a grad degree in the hard sciences.
In contrast there are several grad progs such as “Climate Communications” which would seem to align with your talents.
Hi Steve, thanks for the update, I had assumed a Georgia Tech student and not a CU student. I’m glad to hear that you are doing well. p.s. I am in the process of working on 2nd edition of the our Thermo book
NPRavda is not a serious news organization. NPRavda is as predicitble and empty in their echoing of lefty orthodoxy and suppression of science as Joshua is in his obsessive self-appointed task.
How to fabricate an ad him against an organization in two sentences.
And as a bonus, how to associate this organization with our local scapegoat.
Ad hom. Now saved in the tablet.
People notice NPRavda’s government funding correlates to holding the line on government policies that are supported by their patrons in government. Hack journalists take to news suppression like ducks to water. And our pal Josh…well, pathology is fascinating to watch, sort of like a slow motion tranwreck.
Josh is a tranwreck?
I thought he still had all his boy parts
How honorable to leave the whipping boy’s pants on.
willard there are always two choice:
wedgy or pants him.
leaving his pants on allows for the wedgy.
did you live a sheltered life?
Wedging Joshua for the hedging he calls sounds like a suboptimal trade to me, but hey, you’re the gatekeeper.
Josh’s behavior is trainwreck. I have no idea of Joshua is a “he” or a “she” in the real world.
I will never rest until all science is suppressed!!! There is no stopping me!!!!!
Today Climate Etc. …
….TOMORROW, THE WORLD!!!!11!!!!1!!111!!!!
Your ignornace of science and obsessive confusion of your faith with science has already conquered your world, sadly.
The Medium is the Message: it doesn’t take much imagination to see that with the willing acceptance of a pathological science like global warming, we must expect a Western education system capable only of churning out nothing but Little Lord Fauntleroy clones, and with that the Fall of Western Civilization cannot be far behind as Indian and Chinese students learn by our example the difference between intellection and speculation.
Hmmm … pretty much none of the Jefferson Lecture winners fit that mold, Wagathon … including Wendell Berry as a distinguished thinker whose work is directly relevant to the proper accounting of costs in climate-change economic analysis!
So, are you entirely certain that you’ve got your facts, right Wagathon?
“Berry is especially well known for his skeptical take on technology. He has argued in favor of horse-drawn farming practices and against the use of computers. He owns no television and says he is increasingly wary of screens. Except for the four large pads of solar panels at his farm…”
My recent response to pokerguy surveyed some of the contradictions and compromises of thinkers like Wendell Berry and James Hansen. For sure, there are plenty of them!
As experts in the science of things that aren’t so, the climatists of Western academia feel they are uniquely qualified to run the economy.
Does anybody believe that the 7 minutes was representative of the 8 hour interview? For the marooons, do you think that if you had seen the entire eight hours of discussion that the impression conveyed in the 7 minute frameup would have matched up well with the reality?
‘No regrets options are by definition GHG emissions reduction options that have negative net costs, because they generate direct or indirect benefits that are large enough to offset the costs of implementing the options. The costs and benefits included in the assessment, in principle, are all internal and external impacts of the options.’ http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg3/index.php?idp=292 Mooted climate impacts from CO2, however, are excluded from costs.
Real, pragmatic and practical paths to decarbonisation of the energy sector requires technological innovation – but this remains insufficient to address anywhere near the the full breadth of carbon emissions. For that the ultimate solution for much of the world is economic development. This translates into reduction in population pressures, reduction in black carbon, tropospheric ozone, methane, sulphur dioxide and nitrous oxide, elimination of other pollutants, improvements in ecologies and sequestration of carbon. We are interested in a bright future for humanity in this century. This requires clear and non binary thinking. The solutions are investing in energy innovation, meeting Millennium Development Goal commitments in the west and to a greater extent facilitating free trade between nations.
In the humanitarian sense this is stuff we should be focusing on anyway – and especially if we want to make serious inroads on emissions.
e.g – http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/10176217/The-underground-forests-that-are-bringing-deserts-to-life.html – http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/27939/1/HartwellPaper_English_version.pdf – http://thebreakthrough.org/archive/climate_pragmatism_innovation
Taxes and caps are a policy failure.
‘The old climate framework failed because it would have imposed substantial costs associated with climate mitigation policies on developed nations today in exchange for climate benefits far off in the future — benefits whose attributes, magnitude, timing, and distribution are not knowable with certainty. Since they risked slowing economic growth in many emerging economies, efforts to extend the Kyoto-style UNFCCC framework to developing nations predictably deadlocked as well.
The new framework now emerging will succeed to the degree to which it prioritizes agreements that promise near-term economic, geopolitical, and environmental benefits to political economies around the world, while simultaneously reducing climate forcings, developing clean and affordable energy technologies, and improving societal resilience to climate impacts. This new approach recognizes that continually deadlocked international negotiations and failed domestic policy proposals bring no climate benefit at all. It accepts that only sustained effort to build momentum through politically feasible forms of action will lead to accelerated decarbonization.’
What the world needs is a positive and effective agenda for a bright future for humanity. I doubt that this can come from the progressive side of politics – but I wish they would prove me wrong.
@Chief Hydrologist | August 23, 2013 at 5:35 pm | Reply
*** The solutions are investing in energy innovation, meeting Millennium Development Goal commitments in the west and to a greater extent facilitating free trade between nations.***
There’s that “investment” weasel word, a euphemism for taxes – hidden and direct. It’s a euphemism for a reduced standard of living, a smaller or non-existent middle class, a step backward for humanity.
Nonsense. Modest frakking expenditure by US governments has paid off handsomely. There is General Atomics spending $1.8 billion on developing what is basically a Los Alamos modular nuclear design. Basic research in universities – funded by the US government – is leading to approaches on many fronts.
e.g. http://science.energy.gov/bes/efrc/research/basic-research-needs/
These are the seeds of new industries and new businesses.
Does this work?
http://science.energy.gov/bes/efrc/research/basic-research-needs/
Frakking?
‘Support from DOE and GRI played a critical role in developing microseismic frac monitoring. This technology has, since the early 2000s, been playing a key role in optimizing the way shale gas wells are hydraulically stimulated.’ http://www.rff.org/RFF/documents/RFF-DP-13-12.pdf
Just one aspect.
The fracking “investment” wasn’t needed, was it? Oil companies have their own research departments and plenty of cash. I don’t have any quarrel with some federal money for basic research. It’s the Soyndra’s I object to – and many of the other “investments” the “progressives” are so fond of.
‘We shall see that 3-D seismic surveys contributed to Mitchell Energy’s
development of the Barnett shale and became a widespread application in the Barnett shale in the early 2000s.’
The original research by the Los Alamos Laboratory was in relation to geothermal applications – but it paid off handsomely in oil and gas.
Want to disband the the LANL? Why? Got an argument that it is not cost effective?
http://www.lanl.gov/index.php
Chief,
Frakking was invented in 1947 by Texas oilman George Mitchell.
http://www.economist.com/news/business/21582482-few-businesspeople-have-done-much-change-world-george-mitchell-father
and for evidence of how this wildly successful energy producer cared about environment and quality of life
http://www.forbes.com/sites/briandomitrovic/2013/08/06/fracking-pioneer-george-mitchell-a-visionary-under-and-on-the-earth/
Some government research showed up late in the game, but frakking and horizontal drilling (which the real innovation for this latest golden age of petroleum and natural gas) were both developed privately.
As for nuke power, it is likely a proper industry for high levels of government involvement due to the low likelihood/high cost negative possibilities of failure. But as we sadly see in Japan, government regs allowed a reactor and its safety systems to be several feet too low in relation to known tsunami risks.
But do note that thorium, modular and pebble bed reactor designs have been around for literally decades, but government has failed to move these ideas forward, and government in Germany is irrationally ending nukes and increasing coal.
Am I the only one here who is ashamed and embarrassed at the way new guy Steven Gaurin was treated?
Tonyb
Probably
I’m sorry I missed it. It’s a little inglorious wandering the battlefield waving a wooden sword and tooting at a tinhorn ear.
==========
Now much to miss. It was all just another vulgar misunderstanding :)
Why?
Cf. http://www.flamewarriorsguide.com/warriorshtm/xenophobe.htm
Willard
A classic. Is there a word for a herd of them that collectively attack?
tonyb
Tony,
With my Cyber Brothers above, I was paying lips service to these:
http://www.flamewarriorsguide.com/warriorshtm/cybersisters.htm
which are of course based on these:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erinyes
which in turn may be the basis of Lew’s “furies”.
***
According to René Girard, most societies implement such mechanism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/René_Girard
***
The Auditor calls this “piling on”:
http://climateaudit.org/2009/05/21/foi-and-the-unprecedented-resignation-of-british-speaker/#comment-183865
See two comments later.
***
By telling you all this, I might look like an Eagle Scout:
http://www.flamewarriorsguide.com/warriorshtm/eaglescout.htm
but I won’t throw myself over a Grenade:
http://www.flamewarriorsguide.com/warriorshtm/grenade.htm
Our grenade being “Punch at Judy’s”.
I’m just a mix of Big Cat, Philosopher, and Archivist aspiring to be a Kung Fu Master, and perhaps later an Ent.
Tony,
With my Cyber Brothers above, I was paying lips service to these:
http://www.flamewarriorsguide.com/warriorshtm/cybersisters.htm
which are of course based on these:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erinyes
which in turn may be the basis of Lew’s “furies”.
***
According to René Girard, most societies implement such mechanism:
In Girard’s view, it is humankind, not God, who has the problem with violence. Humans are driven by desire for that which another has or wants (mimetic desire). This causes a triangulation of desire and results in conflict between the desiring parties. This mimetic contagion increases to a point where society is at risk; it is at this point that the scapegoat mechanism is triggered. This is the point where one person is singled out as the cause of the trouble and is expelled or killed by the group. This person is the scapegoat. Social order is restored as people are contented that they have solved the cause of their problems by removing the scapegoated individual, and the cycle begins again. The keyword here is “content”, scapegoating serves as a psychological relief for a group of people. Girard contends that this is what happened in the case of Jesus. The difference in this case, Girard believes, is that he was resurrected from the dead and shown to be innocent; humanity is thus made aware of its violent tendencies and the cycle is broken. Thus Girard’s work is significant as a re-construction of the Christus Victor atonement theory.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/René_Girard
***
The Auditor calls this “piling on”:
snip – piling on
http://climateaudit.org/2009/05/21/foi-and-the-unprecedented-resignation-of-british-speaker/#comment-183865
See two comments later.
Girard should have read a sentimental journey where subject model and object are one. no envy or jealousy.
and derrida on hospitality.
Why?
By what, reality?
No. I did consider, however, that his terminology was a bit strong for a newb and that’s waving a red flag at the various sceptical bulls that lurk here.
No, I am too. Thanks for bringing it up.
He was doomed as soon as he uttered the word obama
Ashamed and embarrassed? Read what he wrote – he is in trouble and on is way to becoming Mini-Mann. You have a duty to mentor him correctly. Or, maybe you’re 2 birds of the same feather. That young man should be in political science. He’s bewildered by Judith’s position – sheeesh. And Willie comes to his defense. Go figure.
> You have a duty to mentor him correctly.
Bob listens to the call of duty, and plays his role like on Call of Duty.
What do you think was your pupil’s main point, Bob?
I think I found Fan of More BS’s profile …
http://www.flamewarriorsguide.com/warriorshtm/weenie.htm
“Al Gore Likens Climate Change ‘Denialists’ To An Alcoholic Father, Slavery Perpetrators” –The Huffington Post
Nothing to see here folks — AGW is all about the science and schoolteachers trying to save the world. No politics involved.
Richard Harris and his hero, Dr. Kevinski Trenberthski:
http://m.npr.org/programs/all/2/214198814
What a love fest.
Oh dear. What a stitch-up.
Let me bring this out as another part. curryja | August 24, 2013 at 8:49 am |
Judith, you write “If this scenario comes from a sophisticated coupled general circulation climate model, well then we are not yet at a point of falsifying this scenario.”
You seem to be supporting my reasoning. CAGW is a very plausible hypothesis, and, since we cannot do controlled experiments on the earth’s atmosphere, we cannot measure climate sensitivity, however defined. It is unlikely that the value of CS is negative, but it must have some upper limit. The available evidence shows that that upper limit could be as hign as 10 C for a doubling of CO2.
But what we need to do is look at what little empirical data we have. Since no-one has measured a CO2 signal in any modern temperature/time graph (c.f. Beenstcok et al), there is a strong indication that the actual value of CS is indistinguishable from zero.
If you want to get right down to it, Dr. Curry did nothing here but make herself chum for the machine.
Andrew
At least they didn’t photoshop the dogs on to a melting ice floe in the Arctic. For NPR, that’s an improvement. The typical 8 minute NPR news story consists of a Republican getting a single sentence, and then 7 1/2 minutes of interviews with the innocent victims of Republican hate and greed.
Where do you get the idea that NPR is a hundredth as interested in such opportunities as it is in opportunities to use scientists as instruments of socialist propaganda?
Max OK, If you have bought any insurance policy in your life, did you take the time needed to read and understand your policy? If you had died yesterday, what would your spouse think about today?
“Should you insure against what could occur beyond your life expectancy?”
This is why everyone needs to read their Bible. Even,,, you.
Remember now, you gotta love it?:o)
One thing discussed briefly in the interview is the most important question in my view: that of running a massive experiment on the only planet we have. If we take that risk, and the climate change deniers are wrong, then we could lose everything. So the question for everyone is, is it worth the risk to run the experiment. When he asked you that question, you avoided the answer by saying “I think the experiment is going to happen whether people say we should run it or not.” Will you answer the question: SHOULD we run the experiment? So in your opinion, if you were the ultimate decider and were the only one making the decision, would you run the experiment or not? Thanks.
“then we could lose everything” Daft, I call it, as Oor Ernie’s dad used to say in the Knockout, I can see no conceivable scenario under which “we could lose everything” as a result of global warming. World income per capita will be several times at century’s end what it is now, an extra couple of degrees C here and there will make little difference.
So you would be in the “let’s run the experiment and see what happens” category?
There’s no alternative to the experiment. So no risk. Bureaucratic verbiages reduce no CO2 emissions. Only economic crises reduce CO2 emissions.
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v2/n1/images_article/nclimate1332-f1.jpg
So you would be in the “let’s initiate a global economic crisis to reduce CO2 emissions” category?
I’m going to assume that you’re not being sarcastic when you argue that the only way to reduce CO2 emissions is through economic crisis. It certainly is one way – but the ONLY way? No alternative/renewable energy? No energy efficiency? Since those are clearly excellent ways to reduce CO2, I’m truly puzzled by your argument.
I am not being sarcastic, au contrair!
kb, search ‘power density’ and ‘energy storage’.
============
Pingback: Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup | Watts Up With That?
There is a slim chance that Harris set out to do a proper interview of Judith then higher ups at NPR rejected that. If someone interviewed me for two days I would know just as much about where he stood. Better luck next time — maybe you can get on Leno.
All in all, it was worth Dr. Curry’s effort. That may have been the first time in decades that many NPR listeners were apprised by a reputable authority of the fact that the science may, in fact, not be settled. It came as such a profound shock to many of the Faithful that they have reacted with howls of protest and dismay.
I always ask any journalist who wants to use my name as part of a story: “Would you let me read (& maybe even EDIT) your story BEFORE you publish it?, PLEASE?” Inevitably they say no. No “peer review” allowed in the “fast paced” field of “journalism”, its an interference in their “art”!
Two things.
1) Dogs are loyal and will never betray you.
2) Journalists are human beings like the rest of humankind, and they bring to the work their ideas, their rants, their biases, and their editors wishes for a styory.
Is that a beam, a mote, or a sty in your eye, young pup?
===============
Cats reflecting hotly gold, woofing amariller at the tin eared.
========================
“Took ya glasses of so the headlights wouldn’t make ya glasses shine, huh?” he asked.
H/t Thurber’s other than Topaz Cufflinks.
===============
Thurber’s dogs, their qualities – steadfast, melancholic,
grouchy integrity, doggedness even. And who could
not enjoy Thurber’s story of the dog who bit people :)
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/books/2012/11/a-note-on-thurbers-dogs.html
I find it interesting that in all these seemingly erudite repartees when someone like “kblond” asks a pointed question that follows up directly on the NPR interview about “running the experiment” it provokes so litte serious response. So much of the exchange on this blog is flippant and/or pedantic that it falls short of the host’s intentions. As for the interview, I have listened to it and read it on the website, and I fail to see why everyone believes it presents her in such an unfavorable light. I found the two interviews together quite thought provoking, and representative of the debate without demeaning either spokesperson.
Pingback: The science and silence conundrum | Climate Etc.
Pingback: Curry versus Trenberth | Climate Etc.