by Judith Curry
The limits of judicial competence and the risk of taking sides
Several recent posts have discussed the involvement of courts in climate science disputes:
- The Urgenda ruling in the Netherlands
- Minnesota Trial: Social Cost of Carbon
- Silencing climate dissent via the courts
Lucas Bergkamp has a new paper in press: Adjudicating scientific disputes in climate science: the limits of judicial competence and the risks of taking sides. In this rich 29 page paper, it was difficult for me to decide what to excerpt, below is some text that particularly struck me:
At first impression, if a court were to rubberstamp the scientific consensus, the possible risk of a sort of ‘Galileo trial’ without a suspect, cannot be excluded, since consensus is no guarantee for truthfulness. Although the ‘Galileo’ risk can never be avoided, it should caution policy-makers, scientists, and, above all, lawyers to keep an open mind, even in the face of apparent widespread consensus. In the case of Galileo, science operated under the oversight of religion. Religion is not the only master that science may have to serve. In modern societies, politics or governments are more likely candidates for this position.
Causation in science and in law
Causal requirements, i.e. the conditions under which a cause-effect relation is assumed to exist between two variables, differ greatly between various fields of science, and between science and law. In science, a broad distinction is made between correlation and causation, but there are also close relations between the two. Statistics have important things to say about the probability that a finding is true or false, but there are numerous pittfalls. In law,a broad distinction is made between ‘cause in fact’ and ‘cause in law.’ In Anglo-Saxon jurisdictions, cause in fact is often described as the ‘but for’ test; in civil law jurisdictions, this is the ‘conditio sine qua non’ test, i.e. cause as a necessary condition for a consequence. The exceptions to this requirements are limited.
To prevent the misuse of science in the law, courts have to ensure that the causal conditions that have been applied by the scientists meet the law’s causal requirements. For instance, scientists might conclude that that there is a cause-effect relation between two variables based solely on correlation, even relatively weak correlation, and a “weight of the evidence” approach. A court, however, is likely to be required under the applicable law to apply more robust and demanding causation and evidentiary requirements.
Consequently, a court cannot simply endorse a scientific conclusion, but has to examine independently whether the conclusion is based on the same standards and rules that the court is required to apply. In other words, a court has to apply its own standards to determine whether the scientific conclusions hold up under the law. In evaluating the evidence, it would have to call on scientists from across the spectrum of climate science and beyond, not only those that are affiliated with the IPCC or supported by a powerful state government.
Judicial assessment of scientific consensus
In its Daubert judgment, the US Supreme Court explicitly rejected the consensus or “general acceptance” test for the admissibility of scientific opinions to replace it with requirements regarding sound scientific methodology, validity, and relevance. Thus, consensus is likely to present an issue in relation to the relative degree of credibility or reliability assigned to scientific evidence.
A court may be tempted to treat scientific findings as facts in law, if there is “consensus” about such findings among scientists, since consensus science can be presented in an authoritative manner. On the other hand, a court should realize that consensus may be very far from unanimity and refer merely to the largest minority among a group of scientists. At a more fundamental level, consensus does not exhaust science. In politics, consensus is required to achieve results and progress. In science, however, the debate is never closed, although it may be dormant for some time. Even a widely accepted scientific theory can be falsified at any point in time, without notice. Science does not need consensus, and too strong an emphasis on consensus may even harm scientific creativity or the way science is presented to policy-makers.
In short, consensus is not necessarily irrelevant, but consensus needs to be understood to determine how much weight it should be given, and how it compares to other scientific opinions. Unthinkingly rubberstamping consensus science is not a good practice. In a court room, a claim that there is scientific consensus raises several questions. First, what is the basis for the claim that there is consensus? In other words, how do we know there is consensus at all, and how strong is the evidence supporting the consensus? Second, what is the nature and extent of the scientific consensus? This examination covers issues such as precisely on which findings and facts is there consensus and why, and on which findings and facts is there disagreement and why. Third, how was the consensus produced, i.e. in what kind of environment? Of course, consensus that is based not on persuasive argument, but on silencing dissent by inappropriate means, is not worth anything. Likewise, if an area of science is politicized, consensus may not signal the state of the science, but political dominance.
Process of Consensus Formation
In terms of the process, courts should examine the institutional environment and process in which the pertinent scientific consensus (or other advice) is produced. In other words, it should examine the “politics” of the relevant science and scientific claims or advice. Science is not free from politics, and the organizational, institutional, and procedural context may exercise strong influence on the dominance of scientific theories.
Consequently, there may be substantial differences in the process that leads to the consensus. At one extreme, a process of objective, interest-free deliberation of scientific findings and theories, in an environment free from politics and possible sanctions for adopting any legitimate scientific position, may result in broad concurrence of scientists around a particular scientific theory and specific facts and findings. In such cases of “spontaneous” scientific consensus, a court of law does not run much risk in relying on the consensus position. At the other extreme, however, the process that leads to the consensus is heavily politically charged, as well as strongly value-laden, the environment in which the scientists operate is polarized and characterized by competing non-scientific interests, and scientists are exposed to possibly significant consequences attached to taking a scientific position that deviates from the consensus position. As discussed further below, the climate science consensus is closer to the latter end of the range, and this has consequences for the legal assessment of the climate change consensus.
The Political Nature of Climate Consensus
Thus, the IPCC’s focus is on the human contribution to climate change, not on all possible causes of climate change, which limits the scope of its scientific assessments. Furthermore, the IPCC’s mission is not to carefully map the state and limits of the science and the diversity of scientific opinions, as that would not help policy-makers. Although it is required to be “neutral” and “objective,” there is no effective mechanism to enforce these standards. To the contrary, the process is formally political, since “[c]onclusions drawn by IPCC Working Groups and any Task Forces are not official IPCC views until they have been accepted by the Panel in a plenary meeting.”
The IPCC bodies are required to “use all best endeavours to reach consensus.”In practice, to meet the policy demand for actionable scientific advice, the IPCC was forced to take positions on key scientific issues based on consensus, or at least the public perception of consensus. As a result, scientific deliberation within the context of the IPCC is not free and unencumbered. Rather, the IPCC had to “walk the tightrope of being scientifically sound and politically acceptable.”
The politicization of the IPCC consensus formation and reporting process is further reinforced by the substantial vested interests in climate science and ambitious climate policy. These interests are material as well as ideological. Vast amounts of money are spent on academic and other research, consulting work, etc. Obviously, these funds generate incentives to produce research that requires further research. But there is also an important ideological component. Using climate policy as a prime example, Pieterman and Hanekamp refer to the “vested interests in fear and precaution” as the “precautionary coalition.” This coalition would include academia, environmental NGOs, mass media, and supranational political bodies, and be guided by the ‘Thomas theorem:’ “when people think something is real, it will become real in its consequences.”
Dissenting scientists have either abandoned IPCC process, or they have been marginalized the drive towards consensus. Of course, their defection says nothing about whether they are right or wrong, but, as these dissenting scientists are legitimate scholars, not charlatans, it is a cause for concern. Hence, a court judgment that invokes consensus as a justification would be perceived as taking sides and, thus, would only aggravate the already politicized situation.
Although it apparently influences the thinking of low level judges with no scientific training, the emphasis on scientific consensus in climate science is not likely to move the debate forward. It harms not only the scientific process, but also the process of public opinion formation and policy configuration. At law as elsewhere, consensus is a relative concept and needs to be explored further.
In climate science, scientific consensus, depending on the specific issue, may be relevant, but it may also be unreliable or irrelevant. But consensus is never decisive. Courts should be aware of the relativity of scientific consensus to deciding issues of fact in law. The political IPCC process of consensus formation in climate science is not favorable to the free competition of the best scientific concepts. It does not encourage thorough debate. It pushes consensus in the direction set by the early identification of anthropogenic emissions as the cause of climate change.
If scientists cannot resolve these complex and tricky issues, how can courts resolve them? Society faces very substantial scientific uncertainty, which is the root cause of the scientific disagreements. Courts cannot make the uncertainty go away, and, if substantial, court decisions granting claims will also be arbitrary and subjective, not based on law.
Courts should be aware that consensus science, which is invoked by policy advocates only if it supports their cause, is not a reliable guide, because it may reflect ‘science power politics, ‘group think,’ political pressure, or be seriously biased for other reasons. As a matter of law, the IPCC reports cannot be assumed to be either representative of a scientific consensus, or free from political influence and value judgments; this would need to be established independently for each specific statement. In a climate case, more so than any other policy-related case, courts need to inform themselves of the range of scientific opinions, the specific points of agreement and disagreements, the assumptions made by scientists, their theories and reasoning, the validity and accuracy of the models used, the unknowns, uncertainties, and gradations, etc. Once they understand the climate science arena and the politics around it, they will see the pitfalls of ruling on any scientific disputes in this area: erroneous conclusions on the facts, usurpation of legislative power, upsetting the balance of powers, and frustrating effective and efficient policy-making. “Stay out” would appear to be the best advice for courts.
If courts value the universe of science, uphold the rule of law, and stay within the limits of their own authority, they should refuse to rule on climate science and refer scientific disputes back to the scientific community, which is where they belong. Such is what the law and the balance of powers require, also in the international arena.
In recent weeks, I have been writing frequently about legal challenges involving climate change. Not just because there have been recent and relevant cases and proposals, but because of my own subpoena in an ongoing U.S. Supreme Court case (I was deposed earlier this month – will do a blog post on this case at some point).
Lucas Bergkamp is providing valuable perspectives on these cases and the broader issues. As we saw in the Minnesota case, consensus does not rule, but rather there are two sides that are given equal time. The sad thing is that the scientific community seems more focused on silencing dissent. Perhaps the courts have something to offer on the climate science debates.
Pingback: Adjudicating scientific disputes in climate science | Enjeux énergies et environnement
The public is perfectly capable of deciding, if both sides are allowed to voice opinions. ResearchGate is ending the ban on opposition to supposedly 97% consensus science.
While our government was pushing federal research agencies to find convincing evidence of AGW before the Paris meeting next month, an independent survey . . .
found NO convincing evidence!
To demonstrate that, this question was posted on ResearchGate: “Is there convincing evidence of AGW?”
After a lengthy discussion, and many unsuccessful attempts to avoid the obvious answer, NOT ONE of the thousands of scientists on ResearchGate, claimed convincing evidence of AGW.
Heads may roll, but the claimed 97% consensus support for the AGW tale is apparently completely bogus.
Perhaps out of embarrassment for the USSR’s role in deceiving the public after WWII, today Putin himself admitted the AGW claim is fraud:
The Russian government has now accepted the side of the debate that will ultimately prevail: “Truth is victorious; never untruth.” Western governments would be wise to back away as quickly as possible from the losing side of the AGW debate.
The 97% meme has always been misconstrued. In reality the number reflects the 32% (of 33%) of papers in the study that voiced an opinion at all. And what they were opining about was if human activities caused some degree of warming. Dr Curry would certainly fit into that category…
So it is more likely that Russian scientists will perform the scientific experiments that prove that the physics described to cause global warming is unproven and scientifically fallacious.
This was interesting, including the full draft linked.
Perhaps this focus “on silencing dissent” is a more pertinent case “of seepage from public debate into the scientific process” than “the interpretation of temperature trends from the last 15 years.”
From the abstract:
“Courts should refrain from examining and ruling on climate science, since they are neither authorized nor competent to rule in scientific disputes. Even if judicial competence is assumed, climate science is not ripe for adjudication. To the contrary, the politicization of the science and the socio-political construction of scientific consensus in the climate area render any attempt to rule impartially on the key scientific disputes futile and suspect. Whether in the form of an advisory opinion or otherwise, a court judgment would be perceived as taking sides and, thus, would only aggravate an already badly politicized situation. Courts, including the ICJ, should uphold the rule of law and respect the limits of their authority. They should therefore refuse to opine on climate science and refer scientific disputes back to the scientific community, which is where they belong.”
The paper is a direct response to the recent spoutings of Philippe Sands, who is mentioned several times in the paper. It will be interesting to see whether Sands responds to this criticism, or ignores it as he did this detailed criticism by Robin Guenier. I see that the paper by Bergkamp cites Guenier several times.
Paul Matthews: this detailed criticism by Robin Guenier.
Thank you for that link.
Thanks Paul for drawing my attention to this interesting paper – it’s gratifying that, as you noted, Professor Bergkamp cites my notes on the Sands lecture.
And thanks also to Judith Curry for finding this. I haven’t (yet) read Bergkamp’s paper in full but, judging by JC’s extracts, he seems to be concerned in particular by the interaction of the law and scientific consensus and appears to assume that there is such a consensus re AGW. But, as I argued in my evidence to the UK House of Commons Select Committee (LINK), I don’t believe there is sufficient data to support that. I think I should send my evidence to Professor Bergkamp.
RG, his argument is more legally sophisticated. He cites both ‘consensus’ papers, and those that shoot the consensus papers down. Then says, EVEN IF there were a true consensus, no court should rely on it without independent ‘adversarial’ judicial testing, since it could still be wrong. Hence the ‘Galileo trial’ analogy. Especially when religiously/ politically fraught, as heliocentricity was and climate change is. And such testing involves multiple matters of climate science, which courts are inherently ill-equipped to determine. He argues that battles between duelling science experts are for the science arena, not the judiciary, to sort out. The exact opposite of Sands arguing the ICJ should rule for consensus CAGW to establish its moral and legal authority.
ristvan: thank you – that’s very helpful. Clearly, before I contact Bergkamp, I must read his paper carefully.
Robin, Bergkamp’s draft paper is excellent and makes Sands look rather naïve and foolish. Finally we hear an adult voice in the room of law, which only underlines the questionable nature of the seminar where Sands presented his activist “reasoning”. What an earth were they thinking?
A cooly reasoned essay that makes legal sense.
Mother Nature does not do politics.
If CO2 was a forcing, its effect on temperature would be according to the time-integral of the CO2 level (or the time-integral of a math function of the CO2 level). The last 500 million years with no sustained average global temperature change demonstrates CO2, in spite of being a greenhouse gas, has no effect on climate.
Engineering science demonstrates CO2 has no effect on climate. Identification of the two factors that do explain (R^2=0.97 since before 1900) reported average global temperature trajectory (sunspot number is the only independent variable) are at http://agwunveiled.blogspot.com
Observation that CO2 has no effect on climate is also documented in a peer reviewed paper at Energy & Environment, Volume 26, No. 5, 2015, 841-845.
What utter nonsense.
Its a start. At least you reveal how fundamental your lack of knowledge is.
And why, specifically, is that “utter nonsense” AK?
AK – Fact-free cuts no mustard. Dan Pangburn’s argument is presented logically with supporting evidence. Please present the basis of your argument.
Look at that: a whole bowl of ign0rant nuts.
All right, let’s take a look at his “supporting evidence”, a bunch blather full of equations:
Nope. You have to add “all other factors being equal” or something similar to make it right. But they aren’t, of course.
The “energy change” from the “forcing”. Energy changes resulting from other changes caused by increased temperature make things more complex.
The “net energy added” (including negative values) from all changes, not just increased “forcing”.
According to the well-known “greenhouse effect” theories, it’s “compensated for by” increased thermal radiation due to higher temperature.
I’m not saying I agree 100% with the standard theory, but blind arm-waving and ignoring the well-known thermodynamic facts of that theory just produces utter nonsense.
As I said at first.
Oh, yeah, and there’s this:
This isn’t true for two reasons:
• Phase changes can absorb/release energy, producing a disconnect between net energy (either in the system or added to it) and overall “average temperature.”
• The measured “average global temperature” isn’t necessarily representative of the overall thermal energy in the system, because temperatures can change in regions not part of the measurement system. (For example, “ocean heat content” at some specific level.)
AK’s sparse “arguments,” as usual, consist merely of ad homs like “ignorant nuts” and “rebuttals” such as “nope,” “wrong,” “false.,” and “so what?”
Pathetic, and obviously demonstrates AK’s utter inability to elucidate any legitimate and scientific counter-argument.
The time-integral of solar activity is the proper method of determining the accumulated solar forcing, but is obviously inconvenient for solar-deniers like AK.
“With this reasoning one could prove that the amount of water in a bathtub was the amount that came out of the tap.
That would only be true if the plug were in.”
Nah, the time-integral of solar activity is the accumulated departure from the mean of solar activity/sunspots, and which accordingly goes up AND down with respect to the MEAN over a given time interval.
“The counterpart of this for Earth is that no radiation escapes to space. This is well known to be false.”
Bull—-, are you capable of seeing that the time-integral of solar activity decreased from 1940’s to 1970’s? If your false claim was remotely true, that would be impossible. The time-integral solar activity is the one and only radiative source and forcing upon Earth, not GHGs, and absolutely DOES NOT limit in any way, shape, or form the “radiation escape to space.” Duh.
“The level of physics on this blog is not even up to junior high school level.”
True for you and a number of your compatriots here.
#BasicCalculus and #Physics
“What utter nonsense.”
Thanks, I didn’t have to say it.
@DP: If CO2 was a forcing, its effect on temperature would be according to the time-integral of the CO2 level (or the time-integral of a math function of the CO2 level).
With this reasoning one could prove that the amount of water in a bathtub was the amount that came out of the tap.
That would only be true if the plug were in.
The counterpart of this for Earth is that no radiation escapes to space. This is well known to be false.
The level of physics on this blog is not even up to junior high school level.
Reply above to Vaughn Pratt:
Since hockeyschtick and I are obviously not going to be able to come to anything remotely approaching a “meeting of the minds” here, may I suggest that a suitably chosen junior high school physics class somewhere in the world adjudicate the question at hand based on our respective arguments?
And if hockeyschtick is in any way dissatisfied with the outcome, perhaps five or ten such classes?
I remain agnostic about the solar effect, whose better proponents have advanced reasonable arguments. But Mr. Pratt’s argument about the bathtub is absolutely correct.
Incidentally, the math- and physics- impaired get this wrong in both directions. Monckton et al.’s recent “Irreducibly Simple” paper’s Equation (1) is based on the opposite error; if you went by it, you’d think the tub would become empty the instant the faucet is closed, independently of the depth it had reached up to that time.
Vaughan – You miss the point completely. The point is the computational mandate that temperature change is in response to the time-integral of the net forcing; not proportionately to the instantaneous value of the net forcing itself.
“its effect” is referring to the effect of the CO2 so the statement is complete and correct as written and your analogy regarding the plug is not relevant.
AK – You appear to be mired in the minutia. There are two completely independent assessments that find CO2 has no effect. The first is the analysis of data since 1895. All considerations not specifically included must find room in the unexplained 3% and only two things are specifically included: the net effect of ocean oscillations and the sunspot numbers.
As to the 500 million year assessment, there was no significant ice for most of the time and any temporary effect is averaged out over the eons.
You remind me that anything that can possibly be misinterpreted will be.
For example “If the forcing is constant, the energy change [due to the forcing] is simply the forcing times the duration.” might be less likely to be misinterpreted with the bracketed words.
It is questionable whether the already long paper should be made even wordier to reduce willful misinterpretation by ardent antagonists.
I do agree about the physics, not my strongest subject, but as to Math, one of my strongest, what the heck is a time integral.
I can quote the second fundamental theorem of Calculus, but except for crank theories of climate, I have never heard of a time integral.
Bob, a time integral is simply an integral with respect to time. For example if the flow from the tap into the tub increases linearly with time, such that the flow is 0 pints/second at time t = 0 seconds, 1 pint/second at t = 1, etc., then the amount of water added to the tub between time 2 seconds and 5 seconds is the integral of tdt from 2 to 5. Since the indefinite integral is 0.5*t^2, the definite integral is 0.5*5^2 – 0.5*2^2 = (25 − 4)/2 = 10.5 pints.
@DP: The point is the computational mandate that temperature change is in response to the time-integral of the net forcing; not proportionately to the instantaneous value of the net forcing itself.
Dan, you continue to ignore the radiation from Earth to space. In equilibrium this equals the radiation that Earth absorbs from the Sun (the insolation net of the portion reflected back to space). An increase in CO2 reduces the former without changing the latter.
Now if the temperature of Earth’s atmosphere remained constant then you would be absolutely correct: heat would accumulate as the time integral of the forcing, exactly as you say.
What you’re neglecting is that this accumulated heat will raise the temperature of the atmosphere. As the temperature rises, so does the radiation to space until once again it equals the net insolation. This is a new equilibrium, one that is the result of the atmosphere’s improved thermal insulation.
This return to equilibrium at a higher temperature is what the high-falutin’ term “Planck feedback” refers to.
As a side note, the custom is to speak of the Planck feedback as warming the Earth’s surface. However the troposphere’s lapse rate remains (roughly) constant whence any warming of the surface heats the whole troposphere by the same amount. Now only about 6% of Earth’s radiation to space is directly from the surface; the remaining 94% is from every point of the atmosphere visible from space (so nothing from below clouds). The physics is therefore more clearly seen when the Planck feedback is described as warming not just the surface but the whole troposphere.
To see why this matters, a helpful analogy is a white cup filled with water. If you look straight down at it, the light you receive is the light reflected from the bottom of the cup. Now if you slowly add milk, you still see the same amount of light, but less of it comes from the bottom because some of it is reflected by the milk. As you continue to add milk, more of the reflected light comes from higher up in the liquid. By the time you have more milk than water, pretty much all the reflected light is from the top millimeter or so.
Rising levels of greenhouse gases (GHG’s) work the same way as rising levels of milk, with two important differences.
First, instead of reflected light the radiation to space is the thermal radiation from the greenhouse gas’s warmth.
Second, whereas milk’s albedo is always 1 (it reflects essentially all light), the troposphere is colder at higher altitudes. Hence as the upper troposphere contributes an increasingly greater share of the radiation to space with rising GHG’s, it does so less effectively because it is colder than the lower troposphere. Less heat therefore escapes to space, forcing the temperature of the whole troposphere to rise until once again the radiation to space equals the net insolation.
Once you see that the Planck feedback involves not only the surface but the whole troposphere, it becomes obvious why Angstrom’s saturation argument fails. Angstrom objected to Arrhenius’s quantitative account of the greenhouse effect on the ground that when CO2 reached saturation, understood as blocking 100% of the CO2-absorbing wavelengths from the surface to space, further CO2 could not increase the temperature, i.e. the Planck feedback would drop to zero. Angstrom’s mistake was to consider radiation only from the surface, ignoring the radiation from the rest of the troposphere. Even when all CO2-absorbing wavelengths from the surface and even the lower troposphere are blocked, the upper troposphere can continue to radiate to space, just as the surface of milk continues to look white even though no light is coming from lower down in the milk.
Nice lesson, doc. They won’t get it. You are talking to impervious clowns.
damn Vaughan… That was good
There are trout in the milk, cloudy trout.
Vaughan is good at explaining the basics. Does poorly in determining how that impacts long term climate.
More nonsense from Vaughn Pratt, including the silly notion that greenhouse gases act as “thermal insulators.”
False. While SOLIDS can act as thermal insulators by preventing CONVECTION, GASES free to convect, & adiabatically rise, expand, and cool in our atmosphere act as cooling agents, not solid thermal insulators which limit convection. The warmer the surface and/or atmosphere, the MORE CONVECTION ACCELERATES to increase convective cooling of the surface. Heat rises. Duh.
Furthermore, CO2 is ONE BILLION times more likely to transfer quanta of energy in the troposphere via collisions (vs. emitting a photon) with the other 99.96% of the atmosphere, which also ACCELERATES convective cooling, adiabatic expansion, rising, and cooling of air parcels.
Furthermore, the wimpy “partial blackbody” CO2 absorbs and EMITS at a FIXED very-low-energy ~15 micron band, equivalent to a TRUE blackbody at 193K by Wien’s Law. The entire atmosphere surface to 100km edge of space is already much much warmer than 193K, and a true or “partial” blackbody at 193K cannot warm a much warmer blackbody at 255K or 288K. For that to occur would require a continuous, dominating heat transfer from cold to hot, and an IMPOSSIBLE continuous DECREASE of entropy, forbidden by the 2nd LoT.
The kinetic theory of gases fully explains the 33C Poisson, Maxwell, Clausius, Carnot, Boltzmann, Feynman, US Std Atmosphere, HS greenhouse eqn. gravito-thermal mass/gravity/pressure greenhouse effect, and falsifies the cold heats hot Arrhenius GHE.
No need for the calculus lesson, been there done that.
The thing is if he means a definite integral, he should say definite integral, instead of time-integral.
For Dan Pangburn
But the relationship between 1000 years with CO2 at 40 ppm and 100 years with CO2 at 400 ppm, yield the same value for the definite integral, but I think we can agree, very different climates.
That’s why the definite integral theory is so much rubbish.
Ah, bobdroege reappears, after being repeatedly shot down on the recent thread with his ludicrous “theory” that a static, closed, laboratory gas cylinder in equilibrium is somehow analogous to the dynamic, open, not-in-vertical-equilibrium 100km atmosphere in a gravity-field, and his false claim that NASA used “circular reasoning” in deriving the “NASA Fact Sheet” physical values for Venus. Infamous fizzicyst Donnie boy, of course, agreed with bobdroege’s “gas cylinder theory” of the atmosphere nonsense. LOL
A new post for you and others bobdroege explaining why your gas cylinder theory of the atmosphere is ludicrous, and the Poisson, Maxwell et al gravito-thermal GHE is indeed correct and easily mathematically provable:
Goggle “time integral of force” for over 10,000 links explaining such applications. In the case of solar activity, the approximate “time-integral” of solar-forcing may be approximated as the accumulated departure from the mean of sunspots over a given time period, as shown in the graph above, using Svalgaard’s latest “corrected” sunspot data.
Your gravito-thermal effect possesses the same sorts of miraculous properties as the CO2 greenhouse effect.
The daytime temperatures in the Libyan desert can exceed 45 C, whilst nighttime temperatures drop below freezing. In the Antarctic, surface temperatures drop below 80 C on occasion. The force of gravity seems to remain relatively constant. This is all supposedly due to gravity?
Another problem is that surface temperatures on the Moon, largely without atmosphere, after the same length of exposure to sunlight, exceed anything ever measured on Earth. Maybe an example of a reverse-negative-gravito-thermal effect?
Now looking at deep water, it is noticed that temperature at great depths appears to be independent of pressure brought about by the effects of gravity on a column of water, and actually decrease as pressure increases, to a limit independent of gravity, depth, pressure, or insolation.
We have the gravito thermal effect acting in water exactly (more or less) contrary to its effect in gas, even though water is capable of convection, advection and so on.
But the final nail in the coffin of the non existent gravito thermal effect, is that it only seems to exist in heated gases. If all external heat sources are withdrawn from a gas, it rapidly falls in temperature, eventually reaching absolute zero.
If you believe that the gravito thermal effect will prevent a gas from falling below 33 K, you have inadvertently invented a perpetual motion machine. I wish you well.
One other minor problem is that experimentalist John Tyndall noticed that surface temperatures actually increase with increasing altitude, and provided reasons for the observed temperature increases. Not air temperature, which falls, but surface temperature.
It seems that the gravito thermal effect cools the air, but warms the surface, except where it does neither in the absence of a heat source.
What a load of tosh!
Vaughn – I derived a simple equation that gives 97% explanation of the average global temperature (AGT) trajectory since 1895 and credible projection back to the depths of the LIA. Everything not explicitly considered must find room in the unexplained 3%.
I discovered that CO2, in spite of being a ghg, has no effect on climate which explains why the reported AGT trend since before 2001 has been flat in spite of the CO2 level increasing by 33.3% of the increase 1800-2001.
The reported AGT is being temporarily propped up by short-term uptrends in ENSO and AMO and some of the agencies committing the unforgivable sin in science of changing the data to corroborate an agenda. I wonder how low the AGT will need to get for some to realize they have been misled. I expect the downtrend in reported AGT to steepen and be more evident before 2016.
None of this is consistent with “ignoring” or “neglecting” anything that matters.
The analyses in http://agwunveiled.blogspot.com are correct. They are corroborated by peer reviewed papers at Energy and Environment, vol. 25, No. 8, 1455-1471 and Energy & Environment, Volume 26, No. 5, 2015, 841-845. Your comments indicate that you do not grasp the analyses.
You should be aware that AGT has gone up AND DOWN over the last 500 million years. You should also be aware that the CO2 level must have always been above about 150 ppmv for life on land to have evolved. The integral of the CO2 level would be a large number. This could not be consistent with the temperature trajectory unless the effect of CO2 on AGT is zero and the AGT change was caused by something else. This is true even if there is a ‘break even’ level of CO2 where above ‘break even the planet would warm and below ‘break even’ the planet would cool. This is discussed further in the analysis.
I never claimed NASA used circular reasoning, I claimed that you might have, as you still haven’t shown that anyone measured the density of the atmosphere at the surface of Venus, which you have used with your incorrect application of the Ideal Gas Law to predict the surface temperature Venus. The surface of Venus is a supercritical fluid, not a gas.
You links to your website that you purport to show your workings are apparently broken, and your paper has been rejected, how’s that going?
I agree with Vaughn, but I think the number is 20 to 30. Cause you will flunk a few times
Mike Flynn | October 30, 2015 at 9:33 pm | :
MF says: “Your gravito-thermal effect possesses the same sorts of miraculous properties as the CO2 greenhouse effect.”
First of all, it’s not “my” gravito-thermal effect, it’s the Poisson, Helmholtz, Maxwell, Clausius, Carnot, Boltzmann, Feynman, US Std Atmosphere, International Standard Atmosphere et al gravito-thermal “GHE.”
And secondly, there’s nothing “magical” about the gravito-thermal GHE since it can easily be mathematically PROVEN from the 1st Law, Newton’s 2nd Law, Ideal Gas Law, and Poisson Relation (which is also derived from the 1st law and IGL).
MF says: “The daytime temperatures in the Libyan desert can exceed 45 C, whilst nighttime temperatures drop below freezing. In the Antarctic, surface temperatures drop below 80 C on occasion. The force of gravity seems to remain relatively constant. This is all supposedly due to gravity?”
Hell no! It’s due to huge differences in SOLAR INSOLATION, not gravity. I’ve explained this to you 3 times before already, thus, refer to cartoon above.
MF says “Another problem is that surface temperatures on the Moon, largely without atmosphere, after the same length of exposure to sunlight, exceed anything ever measured on Earth. Maybe an example of a reverse-negative-gravito-thermal effect?”
Hell no for the 5th time! It’s because 30% of solar radiation is reflected by the albedo of Earth’s atmosphere! Moon albedo is ZERO.
MF says “Now looking at deep water, it is noticed that temperature at great depths appears to be independent of pressure brought about by the effects of gravity on a column of water, and actually decrease as pressure increases, to a limit independent of gravity, depth, pressure, or insolation.””We have the gravito thermal effect acting in water exactly (more or less) contrary to its effect in gas, even though water is capable of convection, advection and so on.”
Just like MF didn’t know the difference between COMPRESSIBLE GASES and INCOMPRESSIBLE SOLIDS, and thus why there is an Ideal GAS Law but no Ideal SOLID law, MF is also unsurprisingly unaware that LIQUIDs, like SOLIDs, are INCOMPRESSIBLE as well, thus do not follow the Ideal GAS Law!
Really MF, your understanding of basic science is clearly below that of the average 3rd grader; refer again to cartoon above.
MF says, “But the final nail in the coffin of the non existent gravito thermal effect, is that it only seems to exist in heated gases. If all external heat sources are withdrawn from a gas, it rapidly falls in temperature, eventually reaching absolute zero.”
As I’ve already explained to you MF before, if there was no Sun there would be no atmosphere and all gases would collapse to the surface and freeze at the 2K temp of space. The only nails in the coffin are for your pathetic clueless theories.
“If you believe that the gravito thermal effect will prevent a gas from falling below 33 K, you have inadvertently invented a perpetual motion machine. I wish you well.”
Another MF fabricated strawman. All that the gravito-thermal GHE does is redistribute the heat from the only energy SOURCE the Sun, more to the surface (the 33K G-T) and less to the upper troposphere (the even larger NEGATIVE (-35C) ANTI-GREENHOUSE EFFECT) from the center of mass of the atmosphere at 5.1km to the top of the troposphere. No perpetual motion machine whatsoever, unlike the falsified Arrhenius GHE.
MF says “It seems that the gravito thermal effect cools the air, but warms the surface, except where it does neither in the absence of a heat source.”
False. Already addressed above, and in my multiple prior responses to you on other threads.
MF, who doesn’t even understand 3rd grade basic science, says, “What a load of tosh!,” ironically a perfect description of his pathetic pseudo-science.
“I never claimed NASA used circular reasoning, I claimed that you might have, as you still haven’t shown that anyone measured the density of the atmosphere at the surface of Venus”
As already explained to you bobdroege, the NASA Venus Fact Sheet does not provide the sources for the data, but obviously the density values were measured or calculated using the kinetic theory of gases and gas law. You claimed that if density was calculated by NASA using the IGL, that that would be “circular reasoning.” Good luck with that.
“which you have used with your incorrect application of the Ideal Gas Law to predict the surface temperature Venus.”
Sure bobdroege, the fact that the Ideal Gas Law calculates Venus surface temperature with 0.3% of observed is just a huge, amazing, incredible, unbelievable “coincidence.”
T = PV/nR = 92000/(65000/43.45*0.083144621) = 739K
which is within 2K (or 0.3%) of NASA observations of 737K
You previously claimed van der Walls adjustments were necessary, and apparently to you 99.07% accuracy of this calculation just isn’t good enough, but despite 2 requests failed to provide any mathematical proof whatsoever backing up any of your claims.
droege says “You links to your website that you purport to show your workings are apparently broken, and your paper has been rejected, how’s that going?”
What links are broken? They all work for me. I don’t have any papers that have been rejected. WTH are you talking about?
Here’s another link with the PURE MATHEMATICS proving from FIRST PRINCIPLES that I’m right and your non-mathematical-musings are wrong.
“I agree with Vaughn, but I think the number is 20 to 30. Cause you will flunk a few times”
WTH are you talking about?
Found a paper: Florides (2010) “Global warming: CO2 or Sun”
Thanks for that review paper.
Conclusion: It’s the Sun, stupid.
Pingback: Robin Guenier on Philippe Sands | The IPCC Report
Pingback: When Science Goes To Court | Transterrestrial Musings
the courts are not being used to decide a scientific question
the scientific question is being used to expand the boundary of the courts
the target is the nation state
It makes more sense to me that the boundaries of politics have contracted and the space is being filled by law and scientific fact.
AGW theory is more a religious than a scientific debate and until that changes facts don’t matter.
The irony is that United Nations is far out of line with its charter, and is actually responsible for creating this religion. United nations were supposed to:
– To maintain international peace and security…
– To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples …
– To achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character,
– To be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends.
United Nations organ IPCC has now itself become an international problem of an economic and cultural character.
The magnitude of the economic problem should be obvious from the vast amount of resources this religion has seized. Resources which could have been used to relieve human suffering. Resources which could have been used in line with United Nations charter.
This definition of organization culture helps to understand how IPCC has become a problem of a cultural character:
“An organization culture is a way of perceiving, thinking and acting – which has been learned, developed or discovered by an organization while learning to deal with its internal and external challenges – and which is being taught to it´s members as the right way of perceiving, thinking and acting.”
The “Principles governing IPCC work” is incompatible with the quest for scientific knowledge. The principles resembles principles governing a political or even religious organization.
Given the definition of organization culture, and the near impossible task of changing an organizational culture, I see no way how this problem can be solved without significant changes.
What the UN is supposed to do is what America is paying for. What we’re funding instead is the generation of is anti-American propaganda broadcast from NYC. It’s about like Hugo Chavez being invited here by the Leftists to smell the sulfur during the term of Bush the Great. The change the world really needs is to move the UN to Africa as it’s obviously impossible for the UN to uplift the globe’s poor from NY.
The magnitude of the economic problem should be obvious
from the vast amount of resources this religion has seized.
Resources which could have been used to relieve human
suffering. Resources which could have been used in line
with United Nations charter.’
Say, who will bell the cat?
BtS, we all must try in our own ways. Not one bell. Not one cat. Regards.
“Stay out” would appear to be the best advice for courts.
It looks to me like it is too late for that. In some cases, such as the suit brought against the EPA and Mann v Steyn the courts will try to rule on procedural grounds. But with Urgenda and Sen Whitehouse’s RICO proposal there is the claim that people have been or will be killed by CO2 polluters; in those cases, the courts will have to rule on the merits of the claims.
I think it ought to be read along with Spencer Weart’s recent historical review and discovery of “a peculiar kind of science”. It substantiates Bergkamp’s call that the courts aim for a Daubert type of standard and not rely on expert opinion.
@MRM: But with Urgenda and Sen Whitehouse’s RICO proposal there is the claim that people have been or will be killed by CO2 polluters; in those cases, the courts will have to rule on the merits of the claims.
Urgenda’s complaint, Matthew, was that the Dutch government reneged on its earlier commitment to a given reduction of emissions. They did not complain about any conjectured increase in mortality of people; indeed for all we know Urgenda might consider a reduction in the population of Homo sapiens beneficial to the overall health of the biosphere.
Vaughan Pratt: Urgenda’s complaint, Matthew, was that the Dutch government reneged on its earlier commitment to a given reduction of emissions.
I stand corrected. Thank you.
It is just absurd that anyone would want a court to address – let alone resolve, a scientific question. Judges were not chosen for their scientific or technical education, training, or understanding. They are not qualified to determine scientific issues: they are politically selected, regardless of whether they are state or federal or local judges, trial or appellate judges. Some states, like Colorado, [jokingly] describe their judicial selection process as merit-based,but there is no basis for that categorization. Colorado simply uses a new form of backroom political selection.
Most judges were liberal arts majors; in my experience (20 years in law), most are technophobic.
Asking judges to resolve scientific issues reveals an extreme disrespect for science. There are many judges who will pretend to understand scientific and technical arguments, if they are asked to decide issues relating to such arguments, but such pretense is just part of the job, as judges are asked every day to decide matters over which they have no competence. Most accept the responsibility and in doing so assume an arrogant ability to answer questions that is far beyond the capacity of any person. That’s part of the fundamental flaw of relying on courts to resolve any issue. Intellectually honest judges (of which there are very few) are torn apart by doubt and uncertainty when they are faced with decisions beyond their competence.
Scientific questions are questions of facts and judges are supposed to restrict their rulings to issues of law, except in those relatively few cases where the parties have asked the court to determine questions of fact. They aren’t equipped or constitutionally authorized to make such decisions on scientific matters.
People who want judicial answers to scientific questions are seeking one thing: to impose their views on the proper answers – by force of law – on those who don’t share their views.
That’s a prescription for the suppression of science. A system where courts (or other government agencies) determine scientific questions, is consistent with Soviet-style Lysenkoism. but not with a free society.
paulg23, the courts won’t be asked to resolve a scientific question, they’ll be asked to resolve a legal question where scientific evidence carries weight. Courts regularly rely on scientific expert testimony, involving for example DNA evidence in criminal trials, where judges and juries have no competence in the subject matter. They rely on the qualifications of the expert who introduces evidence through their testimony. When both sides have experts who present opposing viewpoints, how is the court to decide which expert to believe? One of the jobs of the attorneys is not to leave the court with two unreconciled expert opinions and just hope for the best. Cross examination gives an attorney the chance to probe weaknesses or inconsistencies in an expert’s arguments, to expose questionable assumptions, and to give the expert the opportunity to express doubt.
Use of the so-called 97% consensus on AGW as evidence raises several interesting points. First, a climate scientist who is qualified as an expert can make any of the assertions that the consensus is supposed to embrace on his or her expertise alone. There should be no shortage of experts willing to do that. Second, introducing the consensus as evidence gives the other side the opportunity to reveal what goes into it. The 97% is so broad that many skeptical scientists are included in it. It may be comforting for the court to know that they can rule against the more extreme positions of the AGW side without straying from the consensus.
Paul, I completely agree that we should not seek a ruling from judges regarding correctness of science. However, with climate science, there is a huge problem of separating fact from fiction. Consider my situation – I have a long career as an electrical engineer. Not climate science, but I am reasonably well versed in the physical sciences. For me, Drs. J. Christy, R. Spencer, J. Curry and the like present compelling information that the concept of CAGW is nowhere close to being “settled science”, certainly not close enough to be used in setting policy. However, the “mainstream” science claims these people are “deniers”, “liars”, basically not telling the truth. But they never can provide explanations of exactly what is untrue about what they are saying. The closest I have ever come is someone telling me that the reason Christy’s chart comparing model results to satellite temps is not true, is because satellite temps are not accurate. When I questioned him about his basis for that statement he gave me a link. It led to a climate science site (may have been NOAA I forget exactly) where some scientist had given his opinion that “generally I expect the surface temperature record to be more accurate than the satellite”. That’s it. He had taken that simple opinion statement and turned it into “satellite temps are not accurate, therefore Christy’s chart is wrong”. Truth be told, replacing satellite temps with surface temps doesn’t change Christy’s chart that much, the models still perform terribly. But to this fellow, the answer he wanted is that Christy’s chart is crap, and he refused to be rational about it.
Where I’m going with this, is the HUGE problem of taking statements out of context. Here is what frequently happens in climate science. Someone publishes a paper in peer reviewed literature giving an opinion, or modelling result, where there is no empirical data to back it up. Later papers then cite this paper as if the result had been proven when in reality it is only conjecture. Then another paper cites the other paper that had cited the original, etc, etc. This original conjecture becomes scientific truth, because it is cited in peer reviewed literature. The difficulty in following the paper trail back to the source of the original conjecture is overwhelming, and thus the record cannot be set straight, especially when considering it to be truth better suits ones ideology. In a nutshell: conjecture in peer reviewed literature becomes scientific truth simply because it can be cited. The climate science gatekeepers are making it this way to fit their predetermined conclusions. It’s a mess!
A public courtroom setting, where all testimony is under oath, and there are two competing sides trying to get at the truth through cross examing, could go far at rooting out all of the conjecture that is being accepted as truth. I have no interest in a judges ruling. But what I want is the public testimony under oath (with prison for perjury) with direct pointed questioning and cross examining coming from both sides, with perhaps the top 5 – 10 scientists from each side being subpeonaed to testify. I want this testimony video recorded in full for the public record. I want it to last as long as necessary to get to the truth, even if it requires every day for a full year. Then, and only then, will there be sufficient information for the people to decide the truth for themselves. To summarize: We don’t need judges to decide anything, but we SORELY need the courtroom setting to get truthful information out to the public so that they can decide!
Here is a recent example. Dr. Lovejoy recently wrote an article concluding that the 0.9C temperature rise of last 125 years is nearly impossible without anthropogenic forcing. The primary basis of his conclusion is that the standard deviation of historical temperature changes over 125 yr periods is only 0.1C. IF we had 10000 years of satellite and (trustworthy) surface temperature measurements, and it showed only 0.1C standard deviation, then I would tend to agree with his conclusion. BUT WE DON’T! We have around 35 years of satellite data, and 125 years of questionable surface temperature data. But Lovejoy talks with the level of confidence in his conclusions (complete with the term “denialist”) as if he has this 10000 years worth of direct measurements. Doing so is deceitful. He uses the term “preindustrial temperature series drawing on several sources” and moves on as if his preindustrial temperature series were proven fact. I asked him about the source of his temperature series. He responded with a link to his SLIMM paper. I dug into that, and found yet another citation: “The average of the three multiproxies from Huang (2004), Moberg et al. (2005) and Ammann andWahl (2007).” Digging into it further I found it is nothing more than questionable tree ring and borehole studies that go back only 500 or maybe 1000 years. Bottom line: His entire premise is based on data that is highly questionable to begin with. Yet he makes NO mention of this in his article. This is the kind of crap that intense questioning under oath will bring to the surface. My gut tells me that cli sci is loaded with it, but we will never know without courtroom-type testimony!
Subpeonas would be inconvient for those served. The courtroom setting (perhaps before congress, but questioning definitely not BY congress, we need smart people doing the questioning) would be expensive and time consuming. But isn’t there enough at stake to justify it? We have spent hundreds of Billions (with a B) of public money on climate research, it has polarized the entire country (the entire world for that matter). Seems to me that is more than enough to justify taking some very unusual measures to get to the truth of this bloody mess! I REALLY want to know the truth. If there really is merit to the CAGW claims, I want to know what that merit is!
One more thing to add. A model I have in mind is the APS workshop moderated by Steve Koonin from couple years back. I think Steve did a wonderful job of moderating and questioning the scientists he had invited. Something like this, with Steve Koonin types doing the questioning, with more scientists from both sides, all testimony done under oath, and video recorded for public viewing. Something like that is what I’m thinking that we need!
I’ve been reading lately about the ozone hole and the fact that it recently has been larger than when CFC’s were allowed. It brings into serious question the causal relationship betwen CFC’s and the ozone hole. Two scientists won the Nobel Prize back in the 80’s for their research that claimed to prove that CFC’s were a dire threat to ozone levels. Governments around the world banned CFC’s as a response. Now, according to NASA’s own observations over the past few years, the ozone hole has been much larger recently than it was when CFC’s were being used. This could be a classic case showing just how difficult it is to prove causation, and just because the theory seems to make sense, it often doesn’t.
Ozone hole theory doesn’t hold up…
I would be interested to know if the above was ever refuted.
Did you see the WUWT thread on this a couple of days ago?
My main involvement with this subject came several years ago when I asked the Max Plank institute and Cambridge University if it were possible the ozone hole had always existed but we were unable to measure it prior to the invention of suitable instruments in the 1950’s.
They confirmed it was possible but didn’t think it likely.
The Arctic and the Antarctic were both warming through the 1940’s and I understand part of the formula for an increasing ozone hole size are very low temperatures which may have been missing when the researchers first looked.
I don’t know the rights and wrongs of all this but perhaps it is more complicated than originally believed.
Once again, correlation is confused with causation, and models trump reality.
TJA’s link is worth a read. My understanding is that experimental data, (as opposed to made-up hypothetical data), shows that the supposed mechanism for CFC caused ozone depletion is at least incomplete.
The similarities between the “Ozone hole” and “Climate change” are interesting. One similarity is that there is no experimental basis for the supposed culprit in either case. Others will no doubt occur to you.
People interested in Antarctic ozone depletion should understand what is said here.
Your link doesn’t take me anywhere but the AIP Scitation home page, with a “page not found.”
I found a couple of papers purporting to deal with the “ozone hole.”
The following quote gives a flavour –
“A new mechanism accounts for the catalytic destruction of ozone in the absence of oxygen atoms.9 Rapid ozone loss begins as the first rays of sunlight illuminate the vortex in spring. In a reaction requiring only visible light, not higher-energy UV, the sunlight photolyzes the Cl2 produced by the PSC reactions in the vortex. As described in the box (cycle 2), the now-free Cl reacts with O3 to produce ClO and O2. Two ClO molecules combine in the presence of a third body to form Cl2O2, but that dimer is easily photolyzed in low light to produce Cl. A related cycle involving both ClO and BrO (cycle 3) is also important; halons and methyl bromide are the dominant anthropogenic contributors to BrO.10”
There are one or two incorrect assumptions, as you may have noticed. Sort of shoots the whole thing in the foot, if you get my drift.
It is interesting to note that as experimental evidence contradicts the previous hypothesis, a new, equally incorrect hypothesis, has to be created.
How else to reconcile the increase in the size of the “ozone hole” with a decrease in the level of those compounds once supposed to create it?
A bit like CO2 levels increasing, but surface temperatures not performing as expected. Oh well, just give the models a tweak here and there, demand more funding for bigger computers, and try to silence anyone who points out any inconvenient facts. RICO, anyone?
Sorry Mike, the online paper may need a subscription. Here’s the citation, if you can get Physics Today at a library:
Physics today, ISSN 0031-9228, Vol. 67, Nº. 7, 2014, pág. 42
It is a comprehensive review as of 2014, including some historical perspective and details of the seasonal and year-to-year variability, mechanisms, etc. A main point is that recovery is slow and variable due to the long lifetime of CFCs and the variability of the controlling dynamics.
Thanks, but I have no reason to chase up the paper, unless you can assure me that it doesn’t depend on the erroneous theories of Rowland.
Another who confused correlation with causation. Experimental evidence is revealing that Rowland’s theory, elegant though it may appear, is wrong. Just like Arthenius, or Hansen. Although Arrhenius was a brilliant scientist, unlike Hansen.
Mike – don’t worry, the article contains no reference to erroneous theories of Rowland… (-:
Interesting piece. There is a strong pull, so I liked where it highlighted the problem of “do goodism”.
“8.5 The Moral Urge To Do Good
Despite these objections, the psychology climate activists put at work is smart and appealing to the unaware. Who would not want to act if it was the last hope for survival? The proposition is simple: judges that dare to be so courageous will feel good about themselves, experience the realization of being saviors of planet earth, and acquire fame and respect for bending the law for the common good. What more could an otherwise relatively unimportant judge wish for? It is the opportunity of a life-time, offered free of charge …. The question is, however, whether it is also free of charge to society…”
“The political IPCC process of consensus formation in climate science is not favorable to the free competition of the best scientific concepts. It does not encourage thorough debate. It pushes consensus in the direction set by the early identification of anthropogenic emissions as the cause of climate change.”
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was extremely biased from the very beginning. This should be evident from the: Report of the second session of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 28June1989. https://www.ipcc.ch/meetings/session02/second-session-report.pdf
These are some revealing quotes from the report:
“In welcoming the delegates to the UNEP (United Nations Environmental Program) Headquarters … The Executive Director of UNEP, hailed the fruitful alliance between WMO (World Meteorological Organization) and UNEP. The firm commitment of prof. Obasi, the Secretary-General of WMO, coupled with the determination of UNEP leadership, has resulted in a partnership which is helping to unify the scientific and policy-making communities of the world to lay the foundation for effective, realistic and equitable action on climate change.”
“The Executive director stated that the impacts of climate change and global warming would have serious consequences for humanity. In Egypt alone, global warming could flood much of the Nile Delta and Drown 70 centuries of civilization in less than one, and could inundate one fifth of the nations arable land.”
“It would be desirable for the Panel´s report to be ready by august 1990 for presentation to the Second World Climate Conference and to the United Nations General Assembly. It should be born in mind that both the governing council of UNEP and the executive Council of WMO expected the first report of IPCC to form the basis for international negotiations on a global convention on climate change. The report can also play a valuable guiding role for the large number of conferences, meetings and symposia on climate change being held all over the world. For all of these reasons, the report should be completed in good time.”
“The issuance of the report would only be the beginning of a far more arduous task. To tackle the problem of climate warming effectively, radical changes would be necessary in international relations, trade, technology transfer, and bilateral and multilateral strategies. The panel´s continued work would be the only guarantee of the concerted response to the global threat of climate change”
“In his opening remarks , Prof. Bolin said that the primary objective of IPCC, in making its first assessment, is to produce a document which could provide guidelines for the formulation of global policy and which would enable the nations of the world to contribute to this task”
“IPCC´s first report will contain the 20-page summaries for policy-makers to be produced by the working groups and an overall integrated summary of these placed in perspective. Professor Bolin suggested that the integrated summary be written by a drafting group consisting of the officers of IPCC and the chairmen of the Working Groups. He asked that this plan of his be enforced by the panel.”
“The panel invited interested UN organizations, regional or global intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations and private institutions that wish to to contribute in the matter, to collaborate with appropriate analyses. …. The panel invited the contribution from these organizations in order that its own work may be improved.”
Imagine the pressure on the participants. A pressure to conform with the prejudice of the leaders.
United Nations Environmental Program and World Meteorological Organization created Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. IPCC is by no means an independent scientific body. This should also be evident from the Principles Governing the Works by IPCC:
These principles are not enforcing a scientific method upon the works by IPCC. The principles are imposing a mission upon IPCC, and a principle to strive for consensus, and an organization structure where dissenting ideas must be diminished.
The hypothetico-deductive method is fundamental to all search for knowledge. Fundamental for scientists as well as courts. A method which was first formulated by Karl Popper in The logic of scientific discovery: http://strangebeautiful.com/other-texts/popper-logic-scientific-discovery.pdf
United Nations organ IPCC is a biased organization which need to be abolished – it is not an independent scientific body.
Proof that this was politically-driven and not based on demonstrated anthropogenic warming is that a year or so later the IPCC’s then Chief Scientist, Sir John Houghton, told me that AGW was as yet an unproven theory (when briefing a small group of central agency policy-makers in Canberra). The IPCC’s Deputy Chair was present, and did not demur.
Who else was present, please ? Names …
Once you have theories that make predictions that are useful and prove to be correct then you can start trusting those theories.
The paper is a worthwhile read. A number of salient points in addition to those excerpted here. The bigger issue pointed out is the ongoing effort of warmunists to end run democratic processes. Urgenda is an example. Sands UK talk is an example. Obama’s EPA CPP is an example that none other than Larry Tribe has shown endruns the Constitution, not just Congress.
Noteworthy, the G77 got language reinserted into the COP21 draft in Bonn last week that again calls for an international ‘climate justice tribunal’ with apparent enforcement powers over developed but not developing countries. Similar language got rapidly tossed from Copenhagen when the affront to national sovereignty was exposed by Mark Mirano. Such a tribunal would start from ‘settled science’ UNFCCC presumptions, truly a ‘Galileo court’ outcome with UNFCCC in the Catholic Church role.
Even though this excellent new paper shows how unworkably bad Sands court idea is, it won’t go away. Warmunists are seeking every opportunity to impose their vision on the world as a whole. By and large they have been failing except in a few EU countries and within the unelected EU bureaucracy. So they grasp ever more clearly at non- democratic means.
Those in the UK may be interested in the BBC Radio 4 programme Law in action, which is discussing exactly this issue next Tuesday, with Lord Carnwath, the organiser of the ClimateCourts event.
At first impression, if a court were to rubberstamp the scientific consensus, the possible risk of a sort of ‘Galileo trial’ without a suspect, cannot be excluded, since consensus is no guarantee for truthfulness. Although the ‘Galileo’ risk can never be avoided, it should caution policy-makers, scientists, and, above all, lawyers to keep an open mind, even in the face of apparent widespread consensus. In the case of Galileo, science operated under the oversight of religion. Religion is not the only master that science may have to serve. In modern societies, politics or governments are more likely candidates for this position.
Is there any better way to say this?
” if a court were to rubberstamp the scientific consensus”
There is no “scientific consensus” that additional atmospheric CO2 will lead to an overall change in the climate negative for humanity overall or the USA specifically.
Imo, this is the issue that “skeptics” should be pointing out to the public. The conclusion that it will lead to net negative conditions should be backed by some reasonably reliable evidence. Where is it???
I enjoyed the this part about evaluating consensus:
“First, what is the basis for the claim that there is consensus? In other words, how do we know there is consensus at all, and how strong is the evidence supporting the consensus? Second, what is the nature and extent of the scientific consensus? This examination covers issues such as precisely on which findings and facts is there consensus and why, and on which findings and facts is there disagreement and why. Third, how was the consensus produced, i.e. in what kind of environment?”
A reasonable person wouldn’t make it past the first evaluation case before determining the “consensus” appears to be mostly fabricated.
And if they did proceed to the next case they would quickly realize that the extent is very limited.
And, he gives examples in the copious footnotes that support your line of fact tracing.
A group of French mathematicians are taking a stand against AGW policies. They’ve produced a white paper; only a preamble available in english:
The battle against global warming: an absurd, costly and pointless crusade
White Paper drawn up by the Société de Calcul Mathématique SA
In a democracy, there is an opposition, and this opposition has a right, in principle, to express its views: this is what distinguishes democracy from dictatorship. But when it comes to the questions about global warming that we are talking about here, the opposition – people who do not believe in global warming – have been told to shut up: no public debate, no contradictory discourse, no articles in scientific journals. They have simply been told that the case is proven and it is time to take action.
In law, there is a fundamental principle known as the ‘adversarial principle’. A case can be thrown out of court if the defense is not informed of every known element of the accusation. Even if twenty people have witnessed the abominable criminal commit his offense, if the defense has not had access to blood-sample analyses, the case will be thrown out. In the case of global warming, a number of bodies are telling us they have all the evidence, but refuse to tell us what it is. The data have been processed, but how? Time series have been altered, but why? Some phenomena have been left out of the equation, but on what grounds? We do not know, and we are simply required to keep quiet and do what we are told. No second opinion is permitted.
It is on the debris of the fundamental principles of the law and of democracy that this White Paper has been written.
The full text of the White Paper is available (in French) :
An English translation will be available soon.
Comments may be sent to email@example.com
Our previous works about global warming are available at:
More on this at http://cnsnews.com/news/article/barbara-hollingsworth/french-mathematicians-blast-uns-absurd-crusade-against-global?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=cns&utm_term=facebook&utm_content=facebook&utm_campaign=n-french-mathematicians-blast-un
[h/t: David L Hagen]
Extract: “The mathematicians harshly criticized a “crusade [that] has invaded every area of activity and everyone’s thinking,” noting that “the battle [against] CO2 has become a national priority.
“How have we reached this point in a country that claims to be rational?” they ask, adding that mathematicians “do not believe in crusades. They look at facts, figures, comments and arguments.”
“There is not a single fact, figure…[or] observation that leads us to conclude the world’s climate is in any way ‘disturbed,” the paper states. “It is variable, as it has always been. … Modern methods are far from being able to accurately measure the planet’s overall temperature even today, so measurements made 50 or 100 years ago are even less reliable.”
@jungletrunks: A group of French mathematicians are taking a stand against AGW policies
Theorem. The group G in question is abelian.
Proof. G has five elements. Five is prime. Every group of prime order is cyclic. Every cyclic goup is abelian. Therefore G is abelian. QED
Consensus as a relative concept, Thomas Kuhn’s
‘the way scientists do normal science,’ the de jour
‘camp paradigm.’ How should that stand in the courts?
All the democratic candidates are on this bandwagon now:
Hillary joins calls for federal probe of Exxon climate change research
That is good news. She will lose, since there is nothing to probe. If you read the Exxon papers of the time, rather than ‘conspiracy’ interpretations of them decades later, they were completely mainstream when written. More false warmunist conspiracy theory. She will get entangled in her own web. Like Benghazi. The hard evidence that she is just wrong, merely echoing a current warmunist meme for political convenience (Oreskes, Merchants of Doubt, Koch paranoia) is already indelibly posted on the web.
Well said on Hillary’s lack of merit for a federal probe, ristvan. I agree about the political convenience, she’s simply creating red meat fodder to distract from scandals while swinging harder left in attempts to garner some of Sanders base. It’s all so incredibly contrived, I don’t even think the left cares who she really is or anything about her lack of integrity, as long as she’s the right mouthpiece frankly.
jt, the scandals and sandals approach.
Exxon wasn’t The latter group had done secret, in-house testing on animals that demonstrated health risks, but they didn’t reveal their findings and issued propaganda that flew in the face of their findings.
Exxon had no similar smoking gun evidence that global warming was dangerous. It had no lab findings, and so nothing conclusive; it had only the same iffy chain of reasoning that outside researchers had. If further thinking about that chain of reasoning, and about iffy new alarmist claims, led it to conclude that the matter was doubtful, and it said so publicly, there was nothing guilty in doing so.
(Oops–my leading sentences were cut off. Here’s a full version:)
The Tobacco Institute had done secret lab testing on animals that demonstrated the danger of tobacco, and then it made statements about tobacco’s safety that were knowingly false.
Exxon had no similar smoking-gun evidence that global warming was dangerous. It had no lab findings, and so nothing conclusive; it had only the same iffy chain of reasoning that outside researchers had. If further thinking about that chain of reasoning, and about iffy new alarmist claims, led it to conclude that the matter was doubtful, and it said so publicly, there was nothing guilty in doing so.
If the radiation from one molecule of carbon dioxide in every 2,500 air molecules could actually slow the rate of cooling of Earth’s surface, then the radiation from water vapour should slow the cooling at least a hundred fold, making rain forests about 50 degrees hotter than dry regions at similar latitudes and altitudes.
The pseudo science that blames natural warming on carbon dioxide assumes that the Sun’s radiation firstly warms the Earth’s surface, and that radiation from these so-called “greenhouse gases” then slows the cooling. It would, but it would not make the surface hotter than the Sun’s radiation could make it anywhere on Earth.
The problem climatologists have is that correct physics tells us that the Sun’s radiation is nowhere near strong enough to explain the average surface temperatures on Earth, let alone on Venus, where the solar radiation reaching its surface is only a tenth as much, and yet it is over 460°C there.
Correct physics tells us that the Sun’s radiation can, on average, only raise the temperature in colder regions well up in the troposphere.
Correct physics tells us that gravity forms a temperature gradient in the troposphere of a planet and that is the real reason why the surface temperature is hotter than the middle of the troposphere.
And that’s why all of what climatologists say about carbon dioxide is wrong.
The real dam wall preventing heat loss from Earth is actually the stratosphere.
“Observing Physicist” sounds like another one of Doug Cotton’s multiple faux pseudonyms.
Regardless, I agree that “Correct physics tells us that gravity forms a temperature gradient in the troposphere of a planet and that is the real reason why the surface temperature is hotter than the middle of the troposphere. And that’s why all of what climatologists say about carbon dioxide is wrong.”
But, “The real dam wall preventing heat loss from Earth is actually the stratosphere.” isn’t true. The more “greenhouse” or IR-active gases in the stratosphere up to the thermosphere/edge of space, the more radiative surface area is available for radiative COOLING to space. Even the warmists agree this is true, but fail when they assume CO2 magically changes from a cooling agent above the troposphere to a warming agent in the troposphere.
then the radiation from water vapour should slow the cooling at least a hundred fold,
Fallacy 1 here is the assumption that water vapour as a gas is as well-mixed as CO2.
Whereas water vapour condenses out as clouds, CO2 does not condense out, and it slows the cooling far above the clouds where there is negligibly little water vapour.
Fallacy 2 here is the assumption that water vapour is independent of CO2. If an increase of 5% in CO2 results in an increase of 1% in water vapour, and if water vapour has say 30x the influence of CO2 on heat trapping, then a 1% increase in CO2 will result in an increase of 30/5 = 6% in the heat trapping impact of water vapour.
By 2050 we will have seen a hundred percent increase in CO2 since the 18th century.
“The sad thing is that the scientific community seems more focused on silencing dissent. Perhaps the courts have something to offer on the climate science debates.”
Agree with your point 1, but am worried about your point 2. The courts are politicized. Here are some examples. The right to privacy, interpreted to be in the constitution, means states can not regulate whether a woman may get an abortion. Now, I happen to agree women ought to be able to abort, to a point, but it’s simply not in the constitution.
The Federal 9th circuit court determined that CA could not provide lower welfare benefits to new arrivals to CA, as it violated the “Right to travel,” firmly embedded in the constitution (????)
Federal judge Mariana Pfaelzer issued a permanent injunction against the vast majority of the people of CA by striking down proposition 187, which stated that illegal immigrants were not eligible for CA taxpayer provided “entitlements” because it interfered with the the right of the federal government to regulate immigration (!) Meanwhile Sanctuary cities violate federal law all the time.
The constitution clearly states that “equal opportunities of the laws” is the law of the land. yet, the Supreme court has meandered about this with its support of Affirmative Action. AA is a clear violation of the constitution.
You may agree or disagree with these outcomes, but they are political decisions. So good luck trying to find the courts adhering to the code of law.
The courts are a corrupt institution, just as Science is becoming a corrupt institution.
Consensus in science is fatuous. Consensus ends in stagnation.
The consensus before 1960 or so was that continents are fixed in place. Wegener and others were non-physical in their claim that continents were mobile.
Plate tectonics overturned the consensus in about 5 years, so that continental mobility is the current consensus. Instruments can now measure the movement of continents–on average about the rate of growth of fingernails.
The reaction to Wegener’s hypothesis was hostile (Gohau, 1991). In the 1920’s, the president of the American Philosophical Society, W. B. Scott declared it was, “…utter, damned rot!” (Dott and Prothero, 1994). The note in Science by Edward Berry (1924) entitled “Germanic pseudo-science” is an extreme example of the level of hostility–at least in America.
Ref: Berry, E. W. Germanic Pseudo-Science (in Discussion and Correspondence), Science, 60:1547 (August, 1924)
Reading this make you suspect Bergkamp is coming from a particular direction and sure enough top of his bio is this.
“Advised the LOA REACH Consortium bringing together 51 of the World’s leading petrochemical companies (including ExxonMobil, LUKOIL, Petrobras, BP, Shell, LyondellBasell, INEOS, Total and Chevron ConocoPhilips). ”
This is not going to be seen an impartial view of the weight of climate science. The fossil fuel ties are always there with this kind of article, usually close to the surface.
I think you may have misunderstand the nature of LOA Reach which is not a talking shop for oil company deniers. It is related to the recent and highly complex EU chemical registration processes
Which side does he take?
Here is his bio which includes being environmental lawyer of the year and a string of other environmental awards.
What is it you dislike about him and why?
It is not a good sign if he always takes the corporate side in environmental cases. I would not consider him an environmentalist, so much as anti-. What’s your take on it?
I had only vaguely heard of the guy before you posted. He is a very high end lawyer dealing with Govts, The EU and large corporations. He has won numerous legal environmental awards. He is not going to do pro bono work for an individual as the skill sets and the knowledge are completely different. Organisations like Greenpeace are rich enough to have their own legal advisers and pay third party organisations to produce reports that support their position. This from one of his papers;
“The problem with minority scientific opinions is that they are more likely than majority opinions to be erroneous.
Although there may be a new Galileo among minority scientists, there are also many charlatans among them, and the political process is not suitable for sorting one from the other.”
I would have thought this would be music to your ears. I think you misunderstood his role based on browsing the first link you googled. We all do it.
Heh, there are two environments. In one, CO2 is toxic, filthy pollution. In the other it is plant food, the issue of a cornucopia.
Fascinatingly, our Earth is vast and voluminous enough to sustain both environments. Will wonders ever cease?
Heh, there are two environments. In one, CO2 is toxic, filthy pollution. In the other it is plant food, the issue of a cornucopia. …
No wonder you can’t figure anything out.
Kim’s figured a bunch of stuff out. You just lack the smarts to understand it.
What he said that I agree with is that it should be left to the scientists not the courts. Perhaps you would not agree because that smacks of the status quo where consensus rules. In fact he goes in a big circle from saying ‘consensus doesn’t mean anything’ to concluding with ‘leave it to the scientists’, so in the end I don’t know where he stands.
AK, I know nossing, and less every day.
I like to tell moshe that once upon a time I did have it all figured out, but have since forgotten. You have to read the blogs.
The fault lies with scientists. Self-criticism is a necessary part of the scientist’s mindset. Lose that and everything is lost.
In the light of contrary evidence, eg the 18+ year’s pause, answers must be found for the anomaly in the trend. That does not include manipulating the data to suit. I have asked people what they have witnessed in the so-called ‘exceptional’ climate change. ‘Nothing new under the sun’ is the best answer.
Keeping an open mind is essential for the pursuit of knowledge. Human knowledge has not reached an end. In the words of the song – ‘We have only just begun..’. ( from the Carpenters)
I am enjoying the political/scientific uncertainty with the upcoming election. Individuals will rise and fall and that includes scientists; a very special election.
There was no 18-year pause.
30-year trend through 2006 is higher than 30-year trend through 1999. That is called increased warming after 1998. Don’t believe me, go into a cowboy bar and argue your point. Good luck. “It got hotter, but warming paused!” Butt beating ensues.
After 2005, the PDO index slouched into persistently negative numbers, and La Nina and La Nina leaning neutral dominated ENSO.
And then, perfectly consistent with the theory of an idiot, the PDO, which peaks every 40 or so years, went positive and it’s been warming like crazy since 2012. Because the PDO is a beast and the AMO does practically nothing except follow.
So the cause of the 8-year pause in warming is dead and the pause is dead.
Like tonyb says, it’s nuanced.
Can I quote you quoting me? :)
“30-year trend through 2006 is higher than 30-year trend through 1999.”
Explain the satellite record for the last 18+ years!
Do you know that the trend for the last 18 years from UAH is within .001 of the trend from NOAA and all of the trends from all the data sets overlap with the trends from RSS and UAH.
So, within the margin of error, all the data sets show the same trend.
They stink at estimating the surface air temperature 2 meters above the land. IOW, they’re inaccurate at it, as the chief scientist of RSS admits.
“They stink at estimating the surface air temperature 2 meters above the land.”
But greenhouse gases must warm the troposphere before they can warm the surface. No troposphere warming means no greenhouse warming and no greenhouse climate change.
Why is this so hard for you?
Never mind rhetorical question.
You have not answered the 18+ satellite point. That is very revealing!
That’s because you think it is different from the other data sets and you didn’t specify which satellite data set, UAH or RSS, those two are different even though they still overlap.
The increase in the temperature of the troposphere as measured by UAH is due to the greenhouse effect of adding CO2 to the atmosphere.
That’s all you are going to get.
Heh, the only knob.
Your models are wrong. Self-criticism demands answers to this, not blind parroting of alarmist positions.
how’s that coolin thing goin for ya these days?
You mean the trend from 1997 to 2015 by UAH that is 0.099 +/- 0.184 C/decade?
What exactly about the alarmist position is that supposed to prove?
I don’t have any models, but this might be a good time to point out that one of our denizens has a post showing the increasing divergence between Hansen’s models and current temperature measurements.
For various values of increasing.
Good work Nick, somebody has to give you props.
In relation to long term cooling, you mean? Since the surface was molten?
Still proceeding, according to real scientists – geophysicists and so on.
Current rate calculated in the order of one to three millionths K per annum. Very slow, due to the asymptotic nature of the process.
You may be mistaken in what you consider to be evidence of the “globe” increasing or decreasing in total energy content, energy distribution throughout the interior, and ultimate effects on the surface.
The surface demonstrably cooled in the past, when CO2 levels were far higher than now. Interesting gas, CO2 – cools on the one hand, warms on the other. Actually it neither heats nor cools. Only Warmists persist in believing otherwise.
So the cooling proceeds, albeit slowly. If you are worried that temperatures are increasing in your particular location, maybe you could consider moving to Antarctica. If you wait a while, maybe the ice will melt, and Antarctica will be green and habitable again.
On Congress’ subpoena of NOAA study …
The Republican head of the House science committee is fighting to obtain documents from the Obama administration on a controversial global warming study, as the agency that produced it locks down internal records despite a subpoena.
The report by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) claims to refute prior studies showing the rate of global warming had flattened in recent decades.
Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas, a global warming skeptic who questioned the data, issued a subpoena on Oct. 13 for the agency to “compel production of documents and communications relating to adjustments of historical temperature data.”
But the chairman of the Committee on Science, Space and Technology complained this week that the agency still is only providing some of the documents.
More from that article:
Smith’s committee says it does not recognize the confidentiality interest as a legitimate exemption, and still wants communications between NOAA employees. A committee aide told FoxNews.com the subpoena was not just about communication between scientists, but the entire decision-making process behind the report.
“These are government employees using government email making decisions that have potentially far-reaching implications and it’s the committee’s role to understand the full context of that decision-making process,” the aide said.
FOIA requests to gov agencies would require the e-mails to random citizens, much less Congress. Must be something difficult to explain to generate the defiance. Only excemption would be presonal information or national security information and Hillary Clinton showed us all that communications can be open to Russian, Chinese, Iranian governments and not to Congress or American public.
jim2: “These are government employees using government email making decisions that have potentially far-reaching implications and it’s the committee’s role to understand the full context of that decision-making process,” the aide said.
I am not sure that govt-funded scientists understand that they are not Galileo, Newton and Einstein.
Any email written on a government computer and government-owned email system should never be considered private property of government-owned employees, national security cases excepted.
I’m not sure who they think they are.
j2, they’ve never been touched! I can see why they’ve acquired an aura of invincibility. But Nature heeds not poor humans’ narratives.
Doomed. I’ve said for a long time we’ll eventually feel sorry for these government scientists, shackled to their grisly tasks, grimly silent, yeah, they are sullen.
They are not claiming private but are claiming internal discussions exception pre decision making. I don’t think that works with Congress requests, especially when subpoena is involved.
“First, we are to work proactively and promptly regarding processing FOIA requests. We should utilize modem technology to inform the public on the operations of the Government and take affirmative steps to readily and systematically post information online in advance of a FOIA request.
Second, we are to adopt a presumption of openness. We are encouraged to make discretionary disclosures, when possible, and should not withhold information merely because we have a legal basis to do so. We should not withhold information to shield public officials from embarrassment
or to hide errors or failures or because of speculative or abstract fears. In addition, whenever we determine that we cannot make full disclosure of a requested record, we must consider whether we can make a partial disclosure. The Department of Justice (DOJ) will only defend a denial of a FOIA request if the agency reasonably foresees that disclosure will harm an interest protected by one of the exemptions, or if disclosure is prohibited by law. Requested records must be evaluated on a case by case basis to assess sensitivity of content, age, and potential for causing a foreseeable harm. You must seek guidance from your local FOIA Office, Chief Counsel, or the Office of the General Counsel at Headquarters when making decisions to withhold information.
end quote. FOIA
Exemption 1: Information that is classified to protect national security.
Exemption 2: Information related solely to the internal personnel rules and practices of an agency.
Exemption 3: Information that is prohibited from disclosure by another federal law.
Exemption 4: Trade secrets or commercial or financial information that is confidential or privileged.
Exemption 5: Privileged communications within or between agencies, including:
1.Deliberative Process Privilege
2.Attorney-Work Product Privilege
Exemption 6: Information that, if disclosed, would invade another individual’s personal privacy.
Exemption 7: Information compiled for law enforcement purposes that:
7(A). Could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings
7(B). Would deprive a person of a right to a fair trial or an impartial adjudication
7(C). Could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy
7(D). Could reasonably be expected to disclose the identity of a confidential source
7(E). Would disclose techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions
7(F). Could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of any individual
Must be deliberative process exemption but can’t apply to Congress subpoena
I’m pretty sure that if we saw the emails, the consensus would evaporate faster than water in a Pacific hurricane.
I’m pretty sure the emails include zippo that would change the consensus. Emails are not physics.
Banking is not the law in the end either.
74 would be a good start in any country today.
This is a big deal the “N” in NOAA stands for “National” – they are our employees. The computers, networks, and software belong to us and we are entitled to look at their emails. The corruption of these people is incredible, but the fish rots from the head. Obama has led the way and Hillary is right behind them.
If only they were more interested in climate than narrative.
It’s not a dispute about science. It’s a dispute about what thinks of itself as science, a dispute about who gets to wear the symbol.
It’s sort of a sociological problem.
You can still find scientists out there probably. Look for curiosity-guided work. Perhaps it’s still even published, though it may have been displaced by climate science by now.
The early JGR, say from the 70s and before, might be an interesting contrast.
The law, with all its vague non-quantifiable concepts such as ‘reasonable doubt’,etc… is actually more rigorous than the modern day scientific community.
Wow. How did that happen? I gained a slight bit of respect for the legal paradigm.
Let’s face it. Critical theory is the new Post-Juadic secular messianic religion, the modern University it’s new Talmudic society, the university professor the secular Rabbi, and consensus the new Chazal.
Climate science is all about social justice, which is the basis for the revolutionary morality of critical theory.
I no longer use the term ‘critical thinking’ because it has been so debased. I prefer ‘analytical thinking’ now instead, but can’t wait for it to be depraved, too.
Critical thinking, different thing. It involves no ‘critical thinking’, only criticism.
An unknowing person might thing such a thing obscure, but, in fact, it underlies almost all of sociology and has bled into many other disciplines in the modern university. A study of the most influential papers in psychology easily demonstrate the massive influence of critical theory.
Critical race theory, the modern pillar for the racial grievance industry is a direct offspring.
What I am arguing is that the heavy obsession with social justice in Climate and Environmental sciences are demonstrative that it has, in fact, permeated science as well, especially the green sciences.
“According to these theorists, a “critical” theory may be distinguished from a “traditional” theory according to a specific practical purpose: a theory is critical to the extent that it seeks human “emancipation from slavery”, acts as a “liberating … influence”, and works “to create a world which satisfies the needs and powers” of human beings (Horkheimer 1972, 246). ”
““Socialism … is essentially prophetic Messianism …” So Erich Fromm writes in his 1961 classic Marx’s Concept of Man. World-renowned Critical Theorist, activist, psychoanalyst, and public Marxist intellectual, Erich Fromm (1900-1980) played a pivotal role in the early Frankfurt Institute for Social Research and influenced emancipatory projects in multiple disciplines. ”
“A study of the most influential papers in SOCIOLOGY”
Psychology, well, Freud had his own brand of secular messianic savlation (destroy repressive Western Civilization).
The mindset of the law is fundamentally different than that of science.
In law, questions are brought before judges, who then provide answers.
In science, there is no judge to provide answers, only reality, and reality does not hand down definitive judgements for us to read. We can only guess at what it’s trying to tell us by prodding and poking, and we often change our minds as to its message. We can never be entirely sure we have it right, no matter how substantial the evidence.
Do judges understand these fundamental differences? I’m not convinced all do. Some may think the science would benefit from figures of authority to winnow truth from falsehood.
Puttin, me on?
He’s made his decision. How about you?
This is curious. The BRICs are supposed to be holding fast to the climate guilt schtick in order to shakedown the developed countries.
I guess I can count on this tactic leading up to Obama falling prat. What else is new?
Someone who had to drag their country back to life after 70 years of commienism would know. Good for him.
Those who want to assert a consensus and shut down debate would do well to remember many other issues where past consensus is now viewed as wrong: the claim that dark skinned races are inferior, myriad health claims for foods (still made, rarely verified), sending those with TB to live in caves to cure them, weird “cures” for mental illness now viewed as torture, etc. Also worth mentioning the violent response to the Atkins diet which in spite of its hostile reception does seem to work.
Or perhaps they want to freeze all knowledge at the level of what they learned in school?
The sillies. Tabu is simply more attractive to the curious. When will they ever learn?
What does a judge do when credibility is necessarily dispositive of the issue of the reliability experts’ opinion testimony? Easy… look to the consensus. But, academia’s supposed ‘consensus’ of opinion about AGW theory is totally bogus. That much has been proven!
Rule 702. Testimony by Expert Witnesses
A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise if:
(a) the expert’s scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue;
(b) the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data;
(c) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods; and
(d) the expert has reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of the case.
The height of folly to hang momentous policy action on the state of our knowledge. Oh, well, they’ve been warned and don’t seem to care with the ring of power just so deliciously within apparent reach.
Refreshing candor. I’m more likely to trust someone who admits how much they don’t know than someone blinded by their certainty.
I know what it is doing, it is not that hard to figure out if you look at it like a mechanic to a car or a refrigeration engineer looks at a building.It is pretty obvious that the atmosphere’s increasingly insulative composition is amplifying space weather and terestial inputs. Magma like ice melt,carries heat. Geo weather under our feet is turned up as the radiative rate of the surface is slowed. The core gives off heat, gotta go somewhere, … nobody considers the ground under us as part of the climate, but it does give off a lot of heat from the core.
Sure, fine but that is not the logical presumption. So far our best theory concerning changes in the ‘radiative rate’ is that it depends upon the amount of solar energy reaching earth, that is a function of solar activity and changes in albedo. A study of the Earth’s albedo (project “Earthshine”) shows that the amount of reflected sunlight does not vary, for example, 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.
==> “For instance, scientists might conclude that that there is a cause-effect relation between two variables based solely on correlation, even relatively weak correlation, and a “weight of the evidence” approach. A court, however, is likely to be required under the applicable law to apply more robust and demanding causation and evidentiary requirements. ”
The scientific method is a control against spurious attribution of causation. So is the legal process, although of the two, I’d say that the legal process is less robust in that regard.
But it isn’t the comparison between legal and scientific processes that, ultimately, determines which is more inclined towards finding spurious attributions of causation….it is the openness of the participants to examining for their own biases.
Speaking of which:
==> “At the other extreme, however, the process that leads to the consensus is heavily politically charged, as well as strongly value-laden, the environment in which the scientists operate is polarized and characterized by competing non-scientific interests, and scientists are exposed to possibly significant consequences attached to taking a scientific position that deviates from the consensus position. As discussed further below, the climate science consensus is closer to the latter end of the range,
Notice what’s missing? How about the climate science “anti-consensus?” Is it magically excluded from non-scientific interests, consequences of opinions expressed, etc.?
==> “Dissenting scientists have either abandoned IPCC process, or they have been marginalized the drive towards consensus.”
And what of the huge politicized effort to marginalize the IPCC process, and scientists who support it?
Somehow, that seems missing from the analysis.
Must be coincidence, of course. :-)
It is also very unclear what exactly the courts would decide. That warming is happening? Not a very useful ruling. That there will be Al Gore’s 20 ft sea level rise? Not many scientists believe that. That IPCC reports are gospel? In that case they can’t revise them.
Warmist hawks are seeking for a ruling that would change the famous Overton window. For example, the ruling could contain simple statements like
– Global warming is real (GW, I don’t oppose that)
– Humans are contributing to it via greenhouse gases (AGW, I don’t oppose that)
– We need to do everything to stop it (I’m against this)
The ruling could not be about a specific TCR or ECS, or that the warming is dangerous (cAGW). No. That would just be implied by the changing Overton window.
Not many people outside the climate blog readers actually understand that the consensus does not include there is a dangerous warming going on. It is always implied by telling how many scientists believe GW is true and how many believe AGW is true. Plus a few scare stories from CAGW activists which we have plenty of.
People who tell what errors cAGW theories have, are almost always greeted as AGW denialists. It is somewhat unbelievable based on the really bad track record of cAGW based predictions.
(oh yeah, Arctic didn’t melt in summer 2015, and my local newspaper just quietly placed the melt date between 2030 and 2100. I’ll be dead before 2060, so there could be no change during my lifetime, and despite nothing happens they will still hang on cAGW, though of course if the warming continues roughly on the linear 1880-2015 track, CAGWism will need to develop more subtle catastrophe scenarios.)
I would vigorously dispute that “global” warming was real. To the extent that the data sets are valid and meaningful, they do not paint a uniform “global” reaction. Far from it. some parts of the globe appear to be warming, other parts appear to be cooling (notably the US appears to have cooled since the 1930s/40s), and some parts of the globe appear to have undergone little if any change (the Antarctic shows no warming for the entirety of the satellite record, and during that time Antarctic ice appears to have increased, but not statistically).
I would not dispute that man has had an impact on micro climatic factors on a micro regional basis, but whether so called “ghgs” have any measurable impact on temperature is moot. So far using our best measuring devices, and bearing in mind their limitations and error bounds, we are unable to detect the signal of “ghg” warming over and above the noisy signal of natural variation.
I would agree that (presently) there is no need to do anything, save other than to continue to monitor the situation, and adapt where necessary.
+100 to Hugs and richard v, The truth will out as it always did and always will.
Can’t see the Forest because of the Data Trees,……..When you start your car, there is “Global Engine Warming” then it “PAUSES”. If it didn’t your engine would burn up and you would be walking. The Earth is the same way, if a more insulative atmosphere due to it’s in vogue composition meant that temperatures just went up, then it would have risen to temperatures long ago that would have killed off all life on Earth. See there is still life on Earth is proof that endless temperature rise does not happen, hence no continious AGW.
SO what does happen when it is on “Pause”? It is more accurate to say it is on “CooL”. The Planet is like a heat pump or refrigerator. Can you guess what refrigerant or coolant, it uses? Hint” Jupiter uses Ammonia and your car, frig and heat pump uses some sort of Freon…..Hint #2, To cool the Earth you need a lot of refrigerant, you might even need to cover about 3/4 of the planet with it. Hint#3 , the temperature phase change Range or physical change, must be at temperatures that support Life on Earth.
YES! you guessed it, it is Water!
Basically, as fast as heat loiters about on our planet’s surface, it either radiates off to space or Water will pick it up and carry it to the upper layers of our atmosphere, where it will change form from gas to liquid or solid giving off heat to space while being super cooled at the same time. Then it falls to the surface bringing the cold, ready to pick up the heat. The more heat to energize this process means it can cool the Earth real time, or “In a Day”.
We can calculate the Storms size need to cool the planet. If we know what is going on, then we can use the system to model the data rather than the data to model the system. Look at the historical deforestation of the World, surely, the World before Man performed differently compared to the World with Man on it. I’m just saying our data windows are often too small. Thorw out all the data, start over and tell me what you see…
Wow, interesting info about Clinton’s relationship with Exxon. I guess we can add blackmail and extortion to Clinton’s list of virtues, sounds like a RICO case to me. It’s a shot across the bow to those other oil companies still giving donations I suppose.
Election 2016: Hillary Clinton Demands Probe of Exxon After Oil Giant Stops Funding Clinton Foundation http://www.ibtimes.com/political-capital/election-2016-hillary-clinton-demands-probe-exxon-after-oil-giant-stops-funding#discussion
Her call for an investigation comes only months after the company decided to stop sponsoring her family’s foundation. The Clinton Foundation has accepted at least $1 million from ExxonMobil, despite the company’s history of financing challenges to climate science. And Clinton’s State Department touted ExxonMobil as an example of how America should look at Iraq as “a business opportunity.”
The Clinton Foundation featured two ExxonMobil board members at its conference this year. The foundation has also accepted donations from other major oil firms that have a financial interest in fighting climate change legislation.
Just to reinforce the point, the Daubert decision was about admissibility of scientific opinion, a lower standard than correctness. A great book about this case and the general topic of admissibility of scientific opinion is “Judging Science: Scientific Knowledge and the Federal Courts” by Kenneth R. Foster (Author), Peter W. Huber (Author)
Off topic, but apropos of the coming meeting in Paris, the Société de Calcul Mathématique SA has just released a 195 page white paper with the title:
“The battle against global warming: an absurd, costly and pointless crusade”
It can be downloaded in English, here: http://www.scmsa.eu/archives/SCM_RC_2015_08_24_EN.pdf
I have been reading that, it is good.
For instance, scientists might conclude that that there is a cause-effect relation between two variables based solely on correlation, even relatively weak correlation, and a “weight of the evidence” approach. A court, however, is likely to be required under the applicable law to apply more robust and demanding causation and evidentiary requirements.
No one should go along with weak correlation, certainly not the courts and certainly not science and not the stupid media, but they do, they all do.
Well, the Global Buddhist Climate Change Collective don’t see any need for adjudication, they’ve got the Dalia Lama et al to sign a statement to world leaders to stop temperatures rising. My response on their Facebook page:
To the best of my knowledge, the Buddha taught a way for each individual to come out of suffering, to understand the nature of existence, the Dhamma, through observing with detachment its manifestation within oneself and thus purifying oneself of all past conditionings, defilements; but in his 45-year ministry, he did not comment on policy issues beyond his mission. Through their statement on climate change, Buddhist leaders have crossed this boundary into an area in which, it seems to me, they lack knowledge both of the alleged problems of anthropogenic global warming and of the best policies that might be adopted to deal with an always uncertain future. I consider this to be an unfortunate and ill-informed intervention which might very well impede the spread of the Dhamma.
‘Carbon is a singular element, the only element that
can bind itself in long stable chains without a great
expense of energy ..and for life on earth precisely
long chains are required ….Therefore carbon is the
key element of living substance….’
Let’s hear it for carbon and life on Earth. Huzzah!
So sad, Dalai Lama … so bad E.P.A
Stoty of A Carbon Atom. Concluding paragraph …
‘It is again among us, in a glass of milk. It is inserted
in a very complex, long chain, yet such that almost
all of its links are acceptable to the human body. It
is swallowed; and since every living structure harbors
a savage distrust toward every contribution of any
material of living origin, the chain is meticulously
broken apart and the fragments, one by one, are
accepted or rejected. One, the one that concerns
us, crosses the intestinal threshold and enters the
bloodstream: it migrates, knocks at the door of a
nerve cell,enters, and supplants the carbon which
was part of it. This cell belongs to a brain, and it
is my brain, the brain of the me who is writing;
and the cell in question, and within it the atom in
question, is in charge of my writing, in a gigantic
minuscule game which nobody has yet described.
It is that which at this instant, issuing out of a
labyrinthine tangle of yeses and nos, makes my
hand run along a certain path on the paper, mark
it with these volutes that are signs: a double snap,
up and down, between two levels of energy, guides
this hand of mine to impress on the paper this dot,
here, this one.’
Well, we could try carbon, but tend to use wheat flour – a stottie cake or stotty is a type of bread that originated in North East EnglandI. t is a flat and round loaf, usually about 12 inches in diameter and 1.6 inches deep, with an indent in the middle produced by the baker. Elsewhere in the world, bread considered similar to the stottie is known as Oven Bottom Bread. One chief difference is the heavy and dough-like texture of the bread. Thoughleavened, its taste and mouth-feel is heavy and very reminiscent of dough.
Stotties tend to be eaten split and filled. Common fillings include ham and pease pudding, but also bacon, egg and sausage. The heavy texture of the bread gives it its name. To ‘stott’ is Geordiemeaning ‘to bounce’ because if dropped it would (in theory) bounce. Stotting is also used by biologists to describe the jumping behaviour of antelopes in response to predators.
Geordies can be quite devoted to the humble stotty – my niece used to get them posted to her when she was away at uni (otherwise, she’s quite normal) (for a Geordie).
Define ‘normal.’ )
Mmm, hard one, Beth. “Unlike me,” perhaps.
I wanna be like you …and kim .
Heh, the power of Man’s red flower, bursting blossoms of prosperity.
Heh, u git it , kim. They wanna be like us.
Any legal proceeding on this issue would bog down during the first presentation by the consensus witness. Any opposing counsel brighter than a fence post would object repeatedly:
“Objection, asserting facts not in evidence.”
A problem with the courtroom is lack of engineering knowledge. When knowledge is lacking, anything can appear to be credible. A prime example is the Supreme Court ruling that the EPA can impose ruling on CO2 with the numbingly ignorant perception that CO2 is a pollutant. Assertion that, at any even remotely possible level in the atmosphere, CO2 is a pollutant is science malpractice. Mother Nature has already demonstrated CO2 has no effect on climate but many are unable or unwilling to look.
“All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.” (German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer, 1818)
Knowing that there is no escape from THE FOUR LAWS WITHOUT WHICH NOTHING WHATSOEVER IN THE UNIVERSE THAT HAPPENS, HAPPENS – and cannot be overruled by edicts from whoever, be it Dalai Lama, Pope, Obama, Merkel, IMF, UN, EU, IPCC, the Supreme Court, EPA, or anyone, it is high time to remember Alexius Meinong: TRUTH IS A PURELY HUMAN CONSTRUCT BUT FACTS ARE ETERNAL. .My result of following this tenet is:
In the light of this: http://tinyurl.com/pvzva68
I calculated this: http://tinyurl.com/ot2hlp4
Resulting in this: http://tinyurl.com/naexuho
Why should I, or anyone, form a different opinion?
There is always some level of corruption in science at all levels and on all sides so consensus can be a big danger especially when it politically quashes other ideas. I give an example from another field of science, Medicine. There is a “consensus” among MS neurologists that angioplasty is bad for people with MS. (People believe what they want to especially when their jobs are on the line). There is no neck vein Angioplasty for MS sufferers in Canada. (Angioplasty improves blood flow in the brain and it is allowed if you have kidney dialysis.) It got banned for MS after about 7 procedures here in Canada, not because it didn’t work but because the neurological community got up in arms about it. They feared for their jobs. Placebo controlled trials were ordered and they are being done by a neurologist (who has publicly come out against the possibility that angioplasty works) and who has no expertise in blood flow and fluid dynamics. Their task is not to prove that angioplasty doesn’t work, it is to prove that “CCSVI” is not the case of blood flow problems in MS. CCSVI is the theory that the veins are damaged and obstructing the blood flow. My wife has an MS variant. A canadian doctor, who himself has MS and patients who had the procedure told her to go to the USA and have the procedure. As her husband, I paid for the operation and I went to California with her. Now it gets interesting, the surgeon we used Dr Arata, is skeptical about CCSVI too! But he does the procedure because IT WORKS. He now thinks it works because of a happy accident. The angio balloon when expanded in a vein disrupts a nerve (the vagus nerve) that runs beside the vein. Prior to the angio, the nerve is working badly (The vagus nerve signals for processes that control the autonomic nervous system). And after the angio, this nerve works better. The improvement is instant for many many people! On the operating table, the moment the balloon is expanded. So far only the vagus nerve theory can explain this instant result. My wife had an instant result. I was hoping for some success but it was orders of magnitude better than I expected. People in science actually chide me “co-relation is not causation”……. About a result that only happens on an operating table during a specific procedure. Never before the balloon is expanded, just during and after. I am stunned that medical science suppresses this treatment because it competes with drug sales to people with MS. (That is the only reason that they suppress it). This procedure only helps 1/3 of MS patients, so in Canada 30,000 of 90,000 people, but Arata has a simple test that identifies this subset. It also helps people with Lyme Disease who have autonomic dysfunction as part of their lyme. The before and after videos of my wife are at the link, for people who have eyes in their head and can see the difference before and after. https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLkzXlmAwZTZfQ01RnN-8Ip5lUz0HrNWzN
interesting example, thx
The medical community has always been resistant to anything that questions their traditional treatments. All the way back to Lister and Semmelweis.
Be not the first to take up the new, nor yet the last to let go the old.
The Constitution and the science in America does not support each other, both have different theories when it comes to climate and environment. And that has to end if we want to improve it.
Pingback: Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #203 | Watts Up With That?
Pingback: Climate Law in Action | Climate Scepticism