The Maginot Line Defence and moral imagination: climate change isn’t real; maybe it is; we should all give up!

Give_up

Mark Lawson is a journalist at the Australian Financial Review noted for his climate scepticism and frequent posts on any climate change thread on The Conversation. Indeed, he is the frequent target of criticism by other posters for making basic errors of fact.

Be that as it may, in the comments section of the post reprinted on WtD, Mark made the following comment in relation to the challenge of establishing global agreements:

I have no quibbles with the article but the main surprise is that anyone seriously thought that an enforceable, global system for limiting emissions could be put in place in the foreseeable future. The immense difficulties were apparent before the Copenhagen conference in late 2009. Activists are only now reluctantly acknowledging this reality.

Getting the US to agree to anything nationally is simply impossible for the reasons the author sets out. Even the well-supported multi-state programs are largely tokens. As for the Chinese, there is big talk but mostly it’s all just hot air. A pilot program for emissions trading in a few cities doesn’t even apply to power stations.

Basically forget it. Come back in a few decades.

Yes – let’s just “basically forget it”.

Indeed, let’s do nothing at all.

Let’s be like Mark and throw our hands in the air and say, “To hell with you humanity, I can’t be ars*d!”

I’m certainly not underestimating the challenges climate change presents – it is truly a problem from hell.

Indeed, there is a real possibility it is beyond humanity’s collective efforts to respond adequately.

However there is a difference between articulating the complexity and scope of the problem and giving up.

Mark employs what I call the “Maginot Line Defence”: it is not so much an argument but the psychological process of moving from denial and/or indifference to defeatism:

Climate change is not real! > Climate change is not real! > Climate change is not real! > Climate change is not real! > Maybe it is real? > Oh cr*p it is real! > It seems like a hard problem… hmmmm > We should all give up!

The Maginot Line, for those who don’t know, was a line of fortifications built by the French between the First and Second World War to protect themselves from another feared German invasion.

When war broke out again, the Germans simply – and quite literally – drove around it.

This led the dispirited French armies to collapse in confusion. France fell in a matter of weeks, and the rest they say was history.

At the time the French army was regarded as the most effective fighting force in the world, however the French national psyche had been badly mauled during WW1. Millions had died in the trenches.

Those losses haunted the French in the decades following the Armistice of 1918.

And so, the idea of fighting another such bloodbath was intolerable to many of the French populace.

So they built a wall and hid behind it, feeling safe behind the imagined security it offered.

The rise of Hitler, new developments in military technology and the innovative combined land-air tactics of Blitzkrieg (not a term the German’s used themselves by the way) was a reality many people did not want to face and refused to even see.

Hence the inflexible, supposedly invulnerable, wall of defence built to shelter them from a threat without having to directly confront it.

Those who employ the Maginot Line Defence in the climate debate are doing likewise, but at the individual level – primarily to protect themselves from the uncomfortable thoughts about the future (something akin to terror management theory) or having to address thorny questions about justice and lifestyle change:

“Climate change real? That’s a change not worth thinking about!”

For many, the response is to hide behind a reflective – and reflexive – wall of indifference in order to avoid disquieting feelings.

But reality can only be kept at bay for so long: eventually it circumnavigates even the most artful defences.

It is then people can resort to defeatism:

“Climate change!” you now hear many sceptics and defeatist cry “…even it if was real, way too hard to solve! What are going to do about it?”

The solution they offer:

“Forgot about it – give up! Come back in a few decades!”

Perhaps these people won’t ever personally know someone forced to relocate due to rising seas, floods or collapsing regional economies in drought-impacted areas.

They may regard these as other people’s problems.

Do not they not have the right to ignore the suffering of others and prohibit such trivia punctuating their consciousness?

Of course they do: there is not – nor should there be – any compulsion for them to do so.

The garden of our soul is for us alone to tend.

But should we only consider our own well-being and short-term needs?

Is that an ethical way to move through the world?

Denial is not so much the refusal to accept scientific facts, but a failure to employ the moral imagination.

Those who employ their moral imagination have the capacity to imagine different futures and the suffering (or flourishing) of others; to pay attention to the pull of their individual conscience; and to acknowledge the impact they have as they move through the world.

Or – we could all just give up.

About these ads

269 thoughts on “The Maginot Line Defence and moral imagination: climate change isn’t real; maybe it is; we should all give up!

  1. john byatt says:

    one of the flying monkeys at Weatherboy’s blog

    Lady Life Grows says:
    March 29, 2011 at 9:34 pm
    I still like superrenewable fuels better. Turning CO2 into petroleum gives us fuel, but only releasing fossil carbons from their long imprisonment in the Earth can green up Earths’s vast deserts.

    Also, burning fossils increases carbon-based fuels, such as wood or this petroleum. You eat your cake and have it, too. So you get more fuel out the more fossils you burn. Super-renewable is better than merely renewable.

  2. john byatt says:

    Eric

    “Coal to liquid produces gigantic amounts of CO2 – the compressors China has ordered are so they can force compressed gas into the process, similar to a blast furnace, except in this case, at least half of the CO2 content of the coal used by this process shall be released before the petroleum leaves the synthesiser.”

    then

    “Since Oxygen and Carbon weigh about the same, atom for atom, the basic process releases 1.5 x the weight of the coal you use as CO2 – thats before you even start to burn the petroleum it produces.”

    So we have X 1.5 times from the conversion process

    So when you work it out how much more do you get from burning the petroleum which you imply that added together will be more than 3.7 times in total?

    Re “gigantic amounts” So what is the total all up ?

    • john byatt says:

      I worked it out for you eric
      Coal (anthracite) 228.6

      Gasoline 157.

      shit it is the same amount all up, you had me worried that you have discovered a process for the creation of matter from nothing

  3. john byatt says:

    And both of them two gutless to answer

    john byatt says:
    May 24, 2013 at 11:13 am
    this one is for eric and mark

    this secret funding has been used to fund disinformation campaigns on tobacco, asbestos, seat belts and climate change and usualy using the same paid for scientists

    where do you draw the line ?

  4. Eric Worrall says:

    THIS ONE’s FOR NICK – Nick, you might remember we discussed the old NAZI technique for converting coal into liquid petroleum?

    “Green” China has just decided to invest in synthetic fuel from coal in a big way.
    http://www.che.com/only_on_che/latest_news/MAN-supplies-compressor-technology-for-a-major-CTL-project-in-China_10498.html

    Coal to liquid produces gigantic amounts of CO2 – the compressors China has ordered are so they can force compressed gas into the process, similar to a blast furnace, except in this case, at least half of the CO2 content of the coal used by this process shall be released before the petroleum leaves the synthesiser.

    But coal is cheap, and petroleum expensive, and China has a lot of coal – so if this pilot plant is successful, I expect they’ll build more of them.

    • john byatt says:

      this one is for eric and mark

      this secret funding has been used to fund disinformation campaigns on tobacco, asbestos, seat belts and climate change and usualy using the same paid for scientists

      where do you draw the line ?

      • Eric Worrall says:

        Perhaps you don’t get it John – China’s move into coal to liquid is a big fsck you to all of you.

        Do you know what you have to *do* to turn coal into liquid petroleum?

        The basic process is:-

        4 x H2O + 2 x C = CO2 + CH4 + 2 x H2

        Since Oxygen and Carbon weigh about the same, atom for atom, the basic process releases 1.5 x the weight of the coal you use as CO2 – thats before you even start to burn the petroleum it produces.

        Of course, even more coal is required to heat the process up to the reaction temperature of around 2000c (from memory), generate the steam, and compress it.

        If China can make it cheap enough – and from their interest it looks like they think they can – it simply doesn’t matter what Heartland, or Al Gore, or anyone else does.

        America and other major economies will be forced to follow their lead, or go bust.

        Welcome to the new world order.

      • john byatt says:

        no answer then eric, you think it is okay to fund disinformation campaigns on the above by your look squirrel response?

      • john byatt says:

        explain again how you get more CO2 from the same amount of carbon in the coal

        CO2 is about 3,67 X the amount of carbon in the coal

      • Eric Worrall says:

        One man’s disinformation is another man’s freedom of expression. I think Greenpeace and the WWF are disgusting propaganda organisations – but I don’t deny their right to push their point of view.

        As for the CO2 / coal thing, the reason the CO2 weighs more than the carbon is because it has taken some weight from the water, which is also part of the process.

        Remember the reaction which produces the CO2 is C (carbon) from the Coal, + oxygen from the water.

        Since oxygen and carbon atoms weigh roughly the same, and both are much heavier than hydrogen, most of the mass of water you add to the reaction ends up as part of the CO2.

        Since one of the 2 carbon atoms ends up in the CO2, and is joined by 2 oxygen atoms from the water, you have 3 atoms / 2 atoms = 150% more CO2 by weight than the weight of the carbon which was converted by the reaction.

      • Nick says:

        Yes,Eric,it’s disgustingly propagandistic to design habitat conservation measures for endangered animals. Shocking and underhand,though you will begrudge them some rights in a free society!

        I suppose it’s not surprising that you,or Mark, don’t appear to know what the WWF actually do…

      • The denial movement should be transparent about its backers. Their hypocrisy is there for all to admire.

      • john byatt says:

        You did not answer the question eric, how do you get more CO2 out of the carbon in the coal

        burning coal produces about 3.7 times the amount of CO2

        you are implying that you will get more than 3.7 times in this process,

        you are restricted by the amount of carbon, there is no carbon in water
        you do not know what you are talking about

    • Nick says:

      That’ll be petroleum for the growing domestic car market ,a nightmare they’re welcome to! China’s problems are vast..demand,demand,demand. They are going to enter carbon trading,and they do want to cap coal use at 4 billion tonnes/annum [!] which represents about eight to ten times total Australian coal production/annum….committing to find 40 billion tonnes a decade, they’ll have to resume Mongolia I guess. What a nightmare. 25 years of domestic coal left at most at that rate. I guess China’s leaders are scared shitless at the balancing act,never mind a bit of ra-ra-ra in a technology journal….

      • Eric Worrall says:

        25 years is a long time. If they can keep up with demand by converting all their domestic coal into petroleum, perhaps by then their research into Thorium cycle reactors will have yielded results.

      • Nick says:

        They are forced into everything,the scope of the supply problem is that big. A new hydro to be larger than 3 Gorges, renewables ,nuclear, coal [though switching proposals to gas is happening]… 25 years….ever notice how the duration of empires just keeps getting shorter?

      • BBD says:

        And where will we end up by, say, 2150? 1000ppmv? 1200ppmv?

        Even if ECS is 2C (and it isn’t; we know this from paleoclimate behaviour), it’s hello Miocene.

      • BBD says:

        No. It’s hello Eocene.

      • Eric Worrall says:

        Yeah whatever more storms blah blah.

        Except its not actually happening, is it?

        In any case, you really should be deciding what to do to stop the spread of coal to petroleum plants – the coal to petroleum process utterly dwarfs CO2 emissions from processing say tar sands.

        Why don’t you create a kickstarter project – to fund the cost of air travel to China, so you can take your protest about CO2 emissions right into the heart of the world’s biggest emitter? I might even make a contribution ;-).

      • zoot says:

        This demonstrates why Erric is such a third rate apps developer. He doesn’t have an entrepreneurial molecule in his body.
        Anybody with ambition and an aptitude for original thought would have taken the opportunities offered by the need to de-carbonise the world economy and run with them.
        There are fortunes to be made in original approaches to renewables, or innovative ways to conserve energy and what does Erric back? Synthetic petroleum from coal. That’s our Erric. Quite happily stuck in the 19th century.

      • BBD says:

        Except its not actually happening, is it?

        What we have is ~0.8C transient response to ~400ppmv. At 1000ppmv and above, you will eventually get the Eocene again. Your attempt a false equivalence is stupid.

      • BBD says:

        Yeah whatever more storms blah blah.

        You know absolutely nothing about paleoclimate, do you Eric?

        Here’s a pretty picture (source: Hansen et al. 2013; in press) that will help you visualise the broad outline of surface temperature evolution over the last 65Ma.

        The peak at ~50Ma is the Eocene Optimum, when GAT was >10C above Holocene values and CO2 concentrations were ~1000ppmv or higher. This is not a model. This is real climate. Arguments about sensitivity must be considered in the context of real climate behaviour.

    • louploup2 says:

      “If China can make it cheap enough…” Do you spend so much as three minutes researching before you put up your posts?

      From the coal industry web site, http://www.worldcoal.org/coal/uses-of-coal/coal-to-liquids/ -

      The conversion of any feedstock to liquid fuels is an energy intensive one. Emissions across the entire process have to be considered. While the coal to liquids process is more CO2 intensive than conventional oil refining, there are options for preventing or mitigating emissions. For coal to liquids plants, carbon capture and storage can be a low cost method of addressing CO2 concerns. Where co-processing of coal and biomass is undertaken, and combined with CCS, greenhouse gas emissions over the full fuel cycle may be as low as one-fifth of those from fuels provided by conventional oil.”

      Do you get it; CTL does not actually reduce GHG emissions, and significantly reduces the EROI of the feedstock (coal). The only place CTL makes any sense is where coal is plentiful and liquid fuels in short supply, like Germany in wartime, South Africa without significant petroleum, and China with a desperate need for lare quantities of liquid fuels to keep its economy going.

      And you do realized that “low cost” CCS (the second emphasized phrase) is a myth, don’t you? No? Then you really don’t know what you’re talking about. Why don’t you see if you can come up with some peer reviewed analyses showing that CCS actually works, and that CTL can have “as low as one-fifth” the GHG emissions of conventional oil. Are you capable of a bit of research that isn’t driven by your confirmation bias?

  5. john byatt says:

    Mark

    “that’s because the donors to Donors Trust are anonymous, dimwit”.
    So they’d be sweet if these funds were donated publicly. No targeting of the donors for having the wrong views. No boycotts. No that never happens.

    they would not be targeted for having wrong views but rather for funding misinformation campaigns

    they can have all the wrong views they like

    • john byatt says:

      they fund scientists like Carter lindzen Spencer etc to misinform the public to tell outright lies as Lindzen has done, yet none of those three has one paper that has not been proven wrong.

      they cannot get the science right yet have the damn hide to use their profile for the purpose of delaying the urgent action that is needed

      they are scum

      • Eric Worrall says:

        If you only fund science which supports your position, don’t expect any challenges – even if your position is flawed.

      • john byatt says:

        conspiracy theorist

      • Eric Worrall says:

        You said yourself that Heartland are scum because they fund scientific research by well qualified scientists who question the scientific position you subscribe to. Like I said, if you throttle scientific inquiry into areas you think should not be questioned, then expect a lack of questions – but don’t call it science.

      • Nick says:

        Well,they have had no great value from those scientists. Carter has one joint paper which he was caught misrepresenting by press release. The paper was rubbish anyway. Then Carter was caught lying about remuneration, goodbye Bob.

        Lindzen ? When did he last publish? Spencer? Blog science.They do their advocacy in interviews,fake conferences and talks.

        Most of the cash goes to your Bast/Morano/James Taylor types…industrious sharks.

        JHS has it, ROI for buying PR is quicker than with research. It’s good value in the US,where most of the politicians are beholden to the FF industry anyway. Canada have exchanged their blood [and water] for tar,and are muzzling science. That will be explored here with the IPA/COALition.

      • Eric Worrall says:

        Name a single peer reviewed paper from the “scientific research” funded by Heartland.

        Would you take such a paper seriously if they did produce one?

        Canada have exchanged their blood [and water] for tar,and are muzzling science. That will be explored here with the IPA/COALition.

        And its about to get a whole lot more interesting – if the Chinese move to explore carbon to petroleum technology with an industrial scale pilot plant proves successful.

        • “Would you take such a paper seriously if they did produce one?”

          I take all peer reviewed papers seriously and judge each one on it’s merits. Why don’t they go to the trouble of doing some actual science I wonder? Instead of spending their money to promote disinformation through social media, they could actually do some real research. Oh that’s right…. Muller

      • Nick says:

        Weren’t the Chinese coal/dieseling in 2010? They got a plant up with a million gallons/day production. They have a big military need I’m sure.

        I would take a peer-reviewed Heartland paper seriously with full disclosure. But that’s it,they are advocates and control freaks. They don’t want to commission real scientists because there is no conspiracy by scientists to debauch the literature.

      • Eric Worrall says:

        Instead of spending their money to promote disinformation through social media, they could actually do some real research. Oh that’s right…. Muller

        Always find it amusing when you guys think Müller was some kind of defeat for us.

        http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/09/a-fascinating-new-interview-with-prof-richard-muller-quote-on-climategate-what-they-did-was-i-think-shameful-and-it-was-scientific-malpractice/

        Müller on the CRU:-

        What they did was, I think, shameful. And it was scientific malpractice. If they were licensed scientists, they should have to lose their licence. … The standards held over there at the University of East Anglia are just not up to what we consider standard scientific methods…

        Müller on Mann:-

        What’s wrong is what they said. The conclusions that Michael Mann drew, that it’s the warmest it’s been in a thousand years – I was on an international academy review panel that looked at that. Our conclusion was: he could not draw those conclusions.

        Müller on extreme weather:-

        Oh, you know, this is really unfortunate, because right after Katrina, 2005, people said “We can now expect a whole bunch of more storms”. In the next year, not a single hurricane hit the U.S.”

        When people exaggerate, they try to come up with dramatic examples to convince the public. That’s the wrong way to go. You have to respect the public. You have to give them the honest truth and not the exaggerated truth. People now feel as if they’ve been misled.

        The whole interview is a hoot – you can read it on the WUWT site, or I can provide a link to the audio if you prefer.

        • Fool. While rooting around in Watts’ swill, why don’t you dig out the post where he said unequivocably that he will accept Muller’s findings? Oh, that’s right. He made that one disappear when Muller’s results backed Mann’s findings didn’t he? Yet you support the dishonest, spineless crybaby to the hilt. Lie down with dogs Buzz.

      • Nick says:

        Mann was right about NH temperatures 1000 years ago. Otzi the Iceman,and his relatives, told me. Grosjean 2007 for instance.

        Mullers recollection of post Katrina is confused,very tabloid. As such,it’s suitable for Watts,but as for BEST,Anthony had to pass. The world has forgotten that it’s waiting for Watts et als view,and maybe that the way Watts would prefer it.

        But look,you’ve got me talking about Watts,so while I am,I’ll just add that he’s a scumbag. I wish you could do better,but that’s your lot.

      • Watts demonstrates you can fool some people all the time.

        Gullible Libertarians are sitting ducks for anti-science.

      • Tony Duncan says:

        Eric,

        Fascinating. I don;t think you got the memo that mueller was NEVER a skeptic. it was all a ruse so he could con Curry into giving his whitewash some veneer of respectability.
        Mueller BETRAYED you guys by confirming the consensus about 19th and 20th century warming.
        What Mueller said back then MUST have been said just to lull deniers into complacency
        Funny that Mann’s paper that he so attacked in such an ad hominemy way has jsut been reconfirmed by TWO recent papers, on top of all the others that have reconfirmed them. Marcott and that new paper both show almost exactly the same graphs as Mann’s, and the howling about Marcott had to do with a silly meaningless spur in the grpah at the very end. the part that mueller totally confirmed by the way>
        And as per your response to my previous comment to you>
        My concern with your attitude is NOT that the current empirical evidence is not within historical parameters of natural variation, butt hat you cannot consider it POSSIBLE that they are evidence of ACC. Of course the Arctic SIE is probably the lowest in 15 hundred years, and Sandy and Irene are some of the largest total energy storms on record, and numerous of concrete pieces of evidence are equally ndicative of ACC. But you seem to insist on looking at each piece in isolation and saying that since each one POSSIBLY could be from natural variation, then there is no real possibility that CO2 is responsible. Until numerous factors go outside d NV you will not consider them.
        I like baseball analogies. So if you have 9 baseball players who have been on a team for 10 years. For 8 years the had AVG of between 230-310. And then in year 8-9-10 and ten the batting avg of EACH player increases 30 points and you know they all started taking steroids in year 8, there is no reason to even CONSIDER that the steroids are responsible because, in each case the player had a similar high batting avg. for one of the earlier years. NO I COULD accept you saying that the rise in batting avg is not CONCLUSIVE proof, but saying that it is wrong to even consider the possibility, seems remarkably dense.

    • Mark’s gyrations are wondrous, Wattsonian even. And it’s fun to watch them. But he still hasn’t addressed the fundamental point.

      Why are deniars funding PR instead of research? My hypothesis is they know what they’ll find will not support their objective. Better to sell than build. Harper is defunding Canadian science – and his administration has all but admitted such.

      • Eric Worrall says:

        So its OK for Greenpeace and 10:10 and WWF to fund propaganda campaigns, but not OK for people who hold different views to fund campaigns to raise awareness of what they believe? Perhaps you would like to see laws passed to punish people who support wrongthink?

      • Nick says:

        Why are donors hiding behind Donors Trust and other arms length structures under US tax law? Why don’t they just hire openly declared PR companies instead of ones with silly fronts like CFACT? Morano is a pipeline for junk,featuring Nova -maths wrong- and Steven Goddard-frivolous FUD coupled with extreme Obama hate…nuttiness is no handicap,just pour it out and see who will buy it.

        Why use smoky PR? Because donors are well informed enough about the science to know that what they are seeking advocacy help with is disinformation: Heartland were,and probably still are drawing up a new science syllabus for US high schools designed to debauch the NSF and education board approved, legitimately designed syllabus. James Taylor routinely misrepresents papers in WSJ op-eds. If you understood how,Eric,you’d be outraged.

        WWF and Greenpeace are open about funding and their intentions,which are many,AGW is just one. They don’t write the science,they seek expert consultation and to align themselves with the scientific establishment. This may not always work,but again their organisational process is more transparent.

      • Eric Worrall says:

        Why are donors hiding behind Donors Trust and other arms length structures under US tax law?

        Because they’re frightened of bullying? Look at what happened when a few donors names leaked after Gleick committed identity theft.

        One thing I am pretty sure of though is that Heartland aren’t funded by me – its sickening the way the government splurges money taken from me as tax to fund campaigns which I disagree with.

      • Nick says:

        “Look what happened…” they got all blinky in the cold light of day! Bullying!? Diddums.

      • Eric Worrall says:

        It doesn’t matter whether you think the bullying is righteous – fear of bullying is a plausible motivation for donors keeping their identity secret.

      • Nick says:

        Fear of bullying or embarressment?

      • BBD says:

        The vested interests hide because they are subverting democracy. Everybody knows this.

        Eric: STFU. This is serious. You are beyond out of order defending these scum.

      • Eric Worrall says:

        BBD – STFU. You are beyond out of order for trying to silence your political opponents.

      • BBD says:

        How can you silence those who hide in the shadows and subvert the democratic process by stealth?

        Just how naive are you exactly?

      • Poor Eric, he makes such a tawdry victim.

        The deniars are the bullies. Just read the rhetoric of Nova, Watts or Delingpole. Or look at the asinine court actions of Cuccinelli or NIWA. Deniar projection fail. Or look at the US Senate and the likes of James Inhoax. Look at Morano’s persecution of Mann.

        Real people declare their interest. Deniars like transparency – until it applies to them. They’re happy to steal emails, but unhappy in reverse. Twits – and I chose my vowel carefully.

      • I’m looking forward to the Watts Chair of Truthiness in Climate at some crazed red state university in the deep south of the US with a home schooled intake.

        Will they actually get stuck into the science? The hashtag for that is #qtwtain, http://blogs.independent.co.uk/tag/headline/

      • louploup2 says:

        Eric and Mark are truly dumb as rocks (or, if I was conspiracy minded–”intentionally distracting with totally idiotic arguments”). They shouldn’t be silenced; they should be ignored after their stupidity is refuted.

        When faced with questions that challenge their position, they dodge or ignore. Why engage with them unless/until they actually engage? Anyone with half a brain can see they are idiots with a short peruse of the threads (and links) here. It doesn’t take endless exchanges and name calling (and yes, I confess, I do it too). What a waste…

        It seems to me the real focus should be on the politicians who are not operating in the real world.

  6. john byatt says:

    Wondered why eric went quiet

    Richard Tol @RichardTol

    .@dana1981 I published 4 papers that show that humans are the main cause of global warming. You missed 1, and classified another as lukewarm

    11:31 PM – 22 May 13

    6. Richard Tol @RichardTol

    .@dana1981 I published 118 neutral (in your parlance) papers. You missed 111. Of the 7 you assessed, you misclassified 4.

    11:40 PM – 22 May 13

    7. Richard Tol @RichardTol

    .@dana1981 Most importantly, consensus is not an argument.

    huh?

    • Mark says:

      Are you selectively quoting there, John. The quote-police will be after you any minute now.

      Two tweets you might have missed which are gold….

      “I think your data are a load of crap. Why is that a lie? I really think so.”

      “Don’t worry. I did read your paper. A silly idea poorly implemented.”

      Poor old Cook probably isn’t so cock-a-hoop about his paper just now.

      Aussie science is on a bit of a downhill roll just now…first Gergis, then Lowandowsky, now Cook. Three strikes….

      • Nick says:

        Still haven’t read the paper,Mark? Only by reading the paper,and methodology, will you be able to protect yourself from being misled by either Twitter party…’I think your data are a load of crap’ says Tol [?] Sounds technical,eh? [sarc] Whats next? ‘Your mother wears army boots’?

        Bring substance to at least part of your comment,then your snark will work better for you!

      • john byatt says:

        so where is eric, Tol accepts that the abstracts of some his papers support the position, “humans are the main cause of global warming”.

        he has none which reject the consensus , that would be contradictory

        yet eric puts up a comment implying that the missed papers do reject.

        Tol also has a lot of neutral papers , if global climate change or global warming were not mentioned in the abstract then they would not be assessed

        but all his neutral papers if self assessed would have to be either neutral or a part of the consensus again unless he contradicts himself

        so rather than drop the 97% consensus figure, including his papers would increase the percentage.

        he can think it is crap, I think his position that a 4DegC warmer world would be wonderful is crap ,

        at least he accepts that most of the warming is due to humans

        good to see you sticking up for him mark

      • Mark says:

        “’I think your data are a load of crap’ says Tol”
        You missed the fun bit, which was the next two sentences.

        By the way, selective quoting again. I’m telling ya, the quote-police will be here any minute. I can’t understand it. Every time I truncate a quote the quote-police swarm out in their indignation. Anyone would think they only complain when the quote doesn’t suit their prejudices. Hypocrites even.

        BTW, I did read the paper and unlike some here, understood it. That’s why I enjoyed the tweeted take-downs.

      • john byatt says:

        correction web of science was used to select global climate change or global warming papers

        not the abstract
        so we can check tol’s calim of missed papers by searching web of science for some of them using the keywords

        why don’t you do that mark ?

      • Lewandowsky would have had to invent Mark if Mark hadn’t already existed. He’s the archetype conspiracy theory deniar.

      • john byatt says:

        Methodology
        This letter was conceived as a ‘citizen science’ project by volunteers contributing to the Skeptical Science website (www.skepticalscience.com). In March 2012, we searched the ISI Web of Science for papers published from 1991–2011 using topic searches for ‘global warming’ or ‘global climate change’. Article type was restricted to ‘article’, excluding books, discussions, proceedings papers and other document types. The search was updated in May 2012 with papers added to the Web of Science up to that date.

        We classified each abstract according to the type of research (category) and degree of endorsement. Written criteria were provided to raters for category (table 1) and level of endorsement of AGW (table 2). Explicit endorsements were divided into non-quantified (e.g., humans are contributing to global warming without quantifying the contribution) and quantified (e.g., humans are contributing more than 50% of global warming, consistent with the 2007 IPCC statement that most of the global warming since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations).

        So it is up to Tol to show that a similar search would bring up his missing papers

        unless every paper he has ever written refers to global warming or global climate change

      • Eric Worrall says:

        If Toll’s papers support the thesis that +4c is beneficial, then HTF can you possibly conclude he “supports the consensus”?

        Thats just desperate.

      • Nick says:

        The methodology simply sorts on the basis of implicit or explicit endorsement of AGW, not advocacy for AGW. You know, is it happening?,not is it good or bad? Endorse=acknowledge,which I think possibly would have been the better word to use.

  7. john byatt says:

    just how dumb

    Mark says:
    May 24, 2013 at 9:03 am
    “Meanwhile, in the real world, as he puts it, there are real conspiracies”

    Ahhh, so that’s a real conspiracy. OK, got it.
    $120million distributed to those evil right wing think tanks over 9 years – ie $13m per year.

    Meanwhile total income for the WWF, just one of those angelic conservation groups so beloved of the IPCC – $250m per year.

    Further comment would be superfluous.

    it ain’t about funding it is about secretive funding, read the link first, you missed the point by a mile

    possibly being deliberately moronic or provocative as he calls it

    • Mark says:

      “read the link first,”

      Yeah, I didn’t read the link. I just worked out it was about funding to R-W groups and the exact quantum via ESP. Man, what a dill.

      The story twice mentioned that it was a secretive group but spent the other 90% of the article talking about where the money went. If you think that makes it about the secretiveness then its little wonder you think everyone’s in the consensus (except Mann et al).

      • Nick says:

        Why do individuals and corporates choose to use Donors Trust,Mark? Anonymity in philanthropy is not necessarily a bad thing,but is DT philanthropic, and the distributees named are involved in disinformation distribution. Would you like to argue Heartland was involved in public education in putting up billboards featuring the Unabomber? Remember their tax-exempt status. Would you regard that as ‘educational’ or ‘political’?

        Can you successfully argue Morano’s website is educational. Go on,have a go. Should be fun. And why would anyone be shy about their funding education?

      • john byatt says:

        did they have to repeat it every second sentence to make the point to you ?

      • Nick says:

        Most of the time they talked “…about where the money went” that’s because the donors to Donors Trust are anonymous, dimwit…really,Mark!

      • john byatt says:

        sourcewatch

        They cloak the identity of the original mystery donors because the funds are then distributed in the name of DT or DCF, contributing another step to what has been called a “murky money maze.”[2]
        The twin Donors organizations are advertised as a way for very wealthy people and corporations to remain hidden when “funding sensitive or controversial issues,” creating a lack of accountability.

        do you condone this mark?

      • Mark says:

        I had thought of the way you guys attack in groups as a swarm of ants, sallying forth from the mound every time some says something the least bit threatening. But its actually more like Hyenas, each attacking from a different direction and in a differnt mode. While one is being dealt with the others come in yapping from the other side.

        While I’m dealing with John’s complete misunderstanding of the article, there’s Nick, taking my answer completely out of context and yapping from the other side. Its all very interesting.

        “did they have to repeat it every second sentence to make the point to you ?”

        Well had they done so it might have made your assertions that it was about the secretiveness mildly less bizarre.

        “that’s because the donors to Donors Trust are anonymous, dimwit”.
        So they’d be sweet if these funds were donated publicly. No targeting of the donors for having the wrong views. No boycotts. No that never happens.

      • Follow the money, Mark. Isn’t that what your clown brigade shouts? Well, get on with it. You’ve been caught, trousers down around your ankles.

      • Nick says:

        …and what is wrong with boycotts,Mark? I understand why businesses fear them,but others have a right to object to business activities. It’s a small world with competing values and interests…better to know those values and interests,than allow business to hide behind fronts. Especially fronts that construct lies.
        Business greenwash and whitewash is corrosive,and sadly exposure is a great improver of practise. Has been for centuries.

  8. john byatt says:

    Mark “These days peer-review is seriously flawed but is still used as a totem of authority by those of a certain ilk. Its only when papers reached unapproved results that the process is criticised. Approved results on the other hand are treated as having added authority because of the review.”

    clearly believes that it is a conspiracy, OWG revelations nutter?

    • john byatt says:

      No one criticises the process,It is the lack of process in journals such as E & E which is criticised, the editor of that journal has stated that the politics is above the science

      Gavin schmidt told E & E that their peer review was non existent

      E & E threatened to sue

      Gavin told them to go for it

      They backed down

    • Mark says:

      “clearly believes that it is a conspiracy, OWG revelations nutter?”

      Clearly!

      Never mentioned conspiracy (except to refute silly conspiracy ideation assertions). Never mentioned OWG.

      But, heh, if you can’t deal with what my stated opinions, then make up other opinions and then tell me what a fool I am for thinking things I never said I thought.

      Meanwhile, in the grown-up world….

      • Meanwhile, in the grown up world, the science and the consensus are clear. So it’s time for the politicians to grow up and deal with the issue, sweeping aside the denial.

      • john byatt says:

        did not mention conspiracy?

        this is the definition of claiming conspiracy

        “Mark “These days peer-review is seriously flawed but is still used as a totem of authority by those of a certain ilk. Its only when papers reached unapproved results that the process is criticised. Approved results on the other hand are treated as having added authority because of the review.”

        “certain ilk” play twilight zone theme

      • john byatt says:

        Jo Nova ” I did not say that there was a conspiracy, I said that scientists were creating the hoax for more money and politiciians were going along with the hoax for more power”:

      • john byatt says:

        Jo Nova ” I did not say that there was a conspiracy, I said that scientists were creating the hoax for more money and politicians were going along with the hoax for more power”:

      • Is this the same Mark who, on a prior thread, bonkerly maintains the IPCC and glaciers is some sort of concocted story? He may not be a OWG (though many anti-UNers are) but he is a classic conspiracy theorist.

        Meanwhile, in the real world, as he puts it, there are real conspiracies, http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/feb/14/donors-trust-funding-climate-denial-networks. Real conspiracies. Theirs.

        If deniars were really so keen on “real science” one would think they’d pour their money into creating chairs and faculties in universities instead of dissembling PR machines such as Heartland and the GWPF. After all, lobbying is expensive. Burt there’s no use sponsoring a chair of science that’s just going to go all Muller and find the wrong answer, is there? Best to focus on convincing gullible Libertarians that the left is coming to get them, dressed in white lab coats.

      • Nick says:

        Very true,JHS. +1

      • john byatt says:

        wHAT HE SAID

      • Nick says:

        Stop it John,only one person can agree with a previous poster. More than one, and it’s group think..whether the opinion is supportable or not! Be careful!! Stay strong!!

      • Mark says:

        “Meanwhile, in the real world, as he puts it, there are real conspiracies”

        Ahhh, so that’s a real conspiracy. OK, got it.
        $120million distributed to those evil right wing think tanks over 9 years – ie $13m per year.

        Meanwhile total income for the WWF, just one of those angelic conservation groups so beloved of the IPCC – $250m per year.

        Further comment would be superfluous.

      • john byatt says:

        “Is this the same Mark who, on a prior thread, bonkerly maintains the IPCC and glaciers is some sort of concocted story? He may not be a OWG (though many anti-UNers are) but he is a classic conspiracy theorist.”

        that is him

        thinks head jobs are naughty

        Dr Oz “give your mrs a head job as foreplay

      • Nick says:

        Further comment from you Mark would be useful. Discuss funding transparency.

      • Mark thinks comparing an organisation that openly states its funding to ones that don’t proves a point. Well, it does. The funding is secret for a reason – and not a good one. Deniar fail. Again.

        When are you creating that university post, Mark? We could call the the “Watts Chair of Truthiness”. The crest would be a magic yellow highlighter.

  9. john byatt says:

    denier contradiction number 40

    correlation does not prove causation

    correlation does prove causation

    http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com.au/

  10. john byatt says:

    Ice floe stn. abandoned 4 months early due ice break up

    http://neven1.typepad.com/blog/2013/05/russia-abandoning-ice-station.html

  11. MikeH says:

    Lawson has also weighed into the sea level debate with this paper co-authored with automotive engineer Alberto Boretti/Albert Parker (the same person). This is the same junk sea level science that was taken apart by Tamino.
    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0964569112003304

    Michael Brown and John Hunter have the details here
    http://theconversation.com/peer-review-isnt-perfect-and-the-media-doesnt-always-help-11318

    • john byatt says:

      The faith of the media in Boretti seems particularly strange given his lack of expertise. Sure, he’s an Associate Professor … but with expertise in car engines, not sea levels.

      Unfortunately the media’s faith in Alberto Boretti (who has changed his name to Albert Parker) isn’t as strange as it should be. Some journalists have given up critically analysing claims that support their agenda … even if that means relying on pseudo-scientists who turn 78 into 50

    • MikeH says:

      I should have also mentioned that Lawson has published a climate denier tome “A Guide to Climate Change Lunacy”.

      http://www.connorcourt.com/catalog1/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=152#.UZ6wlbXRiSo

      It was published by Ballan based publisher Connor Court Press who also publish the IPA, George Pell, Plimer etc. Connor Court Press appear to have a DLP theme to their publishing. Connections – Ballan is former DLP heartland. Boretti/Parker taught at University of Ballarat a few kilometres up the road from Ballan and last remaining DLP Senator John Madigan comes from Hepburn Springs a few K north of Ballan.

      • Chris O'Neill says:

        “Ballan is former DLP heartland”

        Could still be. Ballan is in the Western Victorian Upper House seat that had a DLP member from 2006 to 2010.

    • Mark says:

      How could this paper get through peer-review? I guess the reviewers never bothered to ask for the code and data to allow them to thoroughly check the methodology. They probably just did it by intuition while on travelling.

      It’d never happen in proper peer-review…
      http://hro001.wordpress.com/2012/02/02/phil-jones-keeps-peer-review-process-humming-by-using-intuition/

      • Nick says:

        You, and your link, start from a point of ignorance about peer-review. You may think that when scientists publish papers they are issuing decrees? And that peer-review claims to be perfect,and exactly how reviewers want it? That every paper is the best it could be?

        Science is work in progress. Papers–analyses and contentions– that are peer-reviewed don’t just get decreed faultless and unquestionable then framed and hung. They have to have utility. They have methodologies and references:if folks want to really drill down and replicate,that’s where you start. Write your own code. The data is available in Phil’s field,you need to request it.

        Phil Jones is an experienced fellow. When he talks about his ‘intuitive’ approach it comes from his experience,broad detailed knowledge of his field,and experience of papers. He does not say that his reviewing is exclusively intuitive. His intuition-domain knowledge- refines his reviewing,If things don’t smell right,more scrutiny and consultation is applied.

        He also notes how reviewing has to fit into a professional life.He has a lot of work to do -as an administrator and team leader,and international co-worker,and does not have the time to utterly deconstruct every paper: the funds and personnel have never been available in science for that approach.

        That article was ‘peer-reviewed’ in comments by Donna Laframboise with the arching of eyebrows…LOL. That’s rigor!

      • Mark says:

        You, and your link, start from a point of ignorance about peer-review. You may think that when scientists publish papers they are issuing decrees? And that peer-review claims to be perfect,and exactly how reviewers want it? That every paper is the best it could be?

        No Nick, I’m very aware of how flawed peer-review is. Its from an earlier age when papers were sparse and academics weren’t judged (partially) by the number of papers issued. In those days peer-reviewers reviewed and didn’t just check that the paper passed the smell test.

        These days peer-review is seriously flawed but is still used as a totem of authority by those of a certain ilk. Its only when papers reached unapproved results that the process is criticised. Approved results on the other hand are treated as having added authority because of the review.

        The data is available in Phil’s field,you need to request it.

        Unless you want to actually want to check its validity, in which case….
        (Phil Jones to Warwick Hughes) “Even if WMO agrees, I will still not pass on the data. We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it. There is IPR to consider. “.(emphasis added)

        • “In those days peer-reviewers reviewed and didn’t just check that the paper passed the smell test.”

          Spoken like someone with no experience with the peer review system. Clearly you have never submitted any scientific papers for publication and you certainly haven’t reviewed any papers yourself.

      • john byatt says:

        contradiction number 666

        the modelling is crap

        Otto’s modelling proves lower sensitivity

      • john byatt says:

        deniers contradiction number 888

        science is not about the numbers agreeing

        31000 scientists do not agree with the science

      • Mark says:

        so uknow_etc, peer-reviewers have always just subjected papers to the smell test?

        That’s different to what my academic friends tell me about the ’60s and ’70s. but you’d know. /sarc off.

        • Actually Mark, I would. I have published numerous times and have reviewed a paper or two as well in my field. John Byatt and Mike can verify my credentials. So, let’s talk about your experience with peer review shall we?

      • john byatt says:

        well I know UKi and know that he has peer reviewed papers in the fields that are relevant to climate change,

      • Mark says:

        so again

        “so uknow_etc, peer-reviewers have always just subjected papers to the smell test?”

      • john byatt says:

        He may be referring to journals like E & E

      • Mark says:

        so ukow_etc, I said…
        “In those days peer-reviewers reviewed and didn’t just check that the paper passed the smell test.” and you told me I wouldn’t know what I was talking about.

        But you now agree that I was right and in the past they didn’t just subject papers to the smell test.

        This is like drawing teeth.

        • Mark, I can’t comment on what they did in the 60′s and 70′s but I know for fact that my papers were subject to full and proper review based on the feedback and requests I received from the reviewers. I’m still waiting to hear about your personal experience with peer review. If you don’t actually have any, I’m not sure you are qualified to have an opinion on the matter. You certainly wouldn’t have any basis for casting aspersions with throw away phrases like “sniff test.”

          But let’s pretend for a moment that peer review lets something dodgy through because it fails some supposed “sniff test”, the fact the paper gets published allows other researchers to replicate the methodology to test the results and see if they come up with something different. That is how it works. For all the blustering and carrying on from blowhards like Watts, McIntyre and others of their calibre, we are all waiting with baited breath for them to actually do some real work and publish in a real journal. There is a reason, you know, why they don’t? Hint: It has nothing to do with editorial control. They know that they either 1. lack the skills or 2. will get the same results. Neither of them want to risk losing their sycophantic, moronic, scientifically illiterate followers. That’s why they opt for blog review of their idiotic “papers”.

          If you want more information on the peer review process, go to journal websites and look for the instructions on submitting. Most of them will have information on the peer review process for their individual journals. In fact, why don’t you email the editors and ask them about the “sniff test” and share with us all the responses you get? Could be fun. For me, I don’t have the time or inclination to discuss it with you anymore than I have as the information you are seeking can be found where I told you to look for it.

      • john byatt says:

        How did you get to be so stupid Mark ?

      • Nick says:

        Mark,quit lying,you have no idea about peer-review. Once again,you’re passing on a nice tidy story [the infants history of the decline of peer-review] often told by old farts [and young ones] about how the place has gone to the dogs since I were at lab.

        Your bullshit assessment of the ‘current worth of P-R’ is part of the self-serving narrative of the armchair Galileos,attempting to justify why they will not publish.

        Warwick Hughes has had full access to requested data for years now. Results? Any time now….
        Jones’ sniff-test of Hughes motivation was spot-on,and he was direct in his exchange with Hughes,telling him up front he would not co-operate…

      • Mark says:

        “You certainly wouldn’t have any basis for casting aspersions with throw away phrases like “sniff test.””

        Nick said “sniff test”. I said “smell test” (aren’t you one of the and I was paraphrasing what Phil Jones had said in the link that I posted near the beginning of this whole ridiculous thread, which, of course, you didn’t read because, I can only assume, you don’t want to be contaminated by alternate views.

        I think I’m beginning to see how this blog works. We have a bunch of people who assume they know vast amounts on C/D/AGW and protect the blog-space with the ferocity of Horatius defending the Pons Sublicius (an apt analogy since he was one-eyed as well). Anyone who expresses unfavourable views is set upon by the swarming hoard with an attempt to shout the heretic down.
        As this small thread today shows, the shouting doesn’t need to logical. So we have iknow_etc telling me I don’t know what I’m talking about when it turns out he agrees with my point. And we have Nick telling me that P-R is not perfect and then, when I agree its flawed, telling I’m lying (not wrong, mind you but lying) because, presumably I agreed with him. And then we have moronic de-contextualised assertions from John that I’m stupid, which apparently passes for considered thought where he comes from.

        I’m sure that most people will fold under this type of crazed attack.

        But buckle yourselves in boys, because I really enjoy it. My thesis many moons ago was on group-think so I’m going to get a lot of material out of this. Who knows, sometimes I may be deliberately provocative just to see what happens.:)

        • You don’t know what you are talking about but I would also agree with the village idiot if he told me the Earth was round. the fact remains that your ignorance of peer review is apparent to anyone with peer review experience reading your comments about it.

          You wrote a thesis? Really? Now we will be the subject of your research? That’s awesome. Do you plan to write it up and put it through peer review? oooooohhhh that’s right. You don’t trust peer review. Whatever will you do?

      • Mark says:

        oops pressed “post Comment”too early….so again…

        “You certainly wouldn’t have any basis for casting aspersions with throw away phrases like “sniff test.””

        Nick said “sniff test”. I said “smell test” (aren’t you one of the quote-police?) and I was paraphrasing what Phil Jones had said in the link that I posted near the beginning of this whole ridiculous thread. Of course, you didn’t read it because, I can only assume, you don’t want to be contaminated by alternate views.

        I think I’m beginning to see how this blog works. We have a bunch of people who assume they know vast amounts on C/D/AGW and protect the blog-space with the ferocity of Horatius defending the Pons Sublicius (an apt analogy since he was one-eyed as well). Anyone who expresses unfavourable views is set upon by the swarming hoard with an attempt to shout the heretic down.
        As this small thread today shows, the shouting doesn’t need to logical. So we have iknow_etc telling me I don’t know what I’m talking about when it turns out he agrees with my point. And we have Nick telling me that P-R is not perfect and then, when I agree its flawed, telling I’m lying (not wrong, mind you but lying) because, presumably I agreed with him. And then we have moronic de-contextualised assertions from John that I’m stupid, which apparently passes for considered thought where he comes from.

        I’m sure that most people will fold under this type of crazed attack.

        But buckle yourselves in boys, because I really enjoy it. My thesis many moons ago was on group-think so I’m going to get a lot of material out of this. Who knows, sometimes I may be deliberately provocative just to see what happens.:)

      • Nick says:

        Happy to read unfavorable views,Mark. I would be happier still if they had some novelty and content,and you fact-checked them before posting. Re-warmed cynical well-poisoning from the UK media that is years old does not rise to the level of ‘unfavorable view’. It’s ‘ex-parrot’ stuff. Fish in a barrel,need better trolls stuff.

        Where is your substance? You have cited critics of the IPCC in complete ignorance of the weakness of their arguments.

        A group-think specialist who can’t think for himself. So in the end you are just being arch and enjoying the attention. Cheap date.

      • john byatt says:

        “I may be deliberately provocative”

        that would be a nice change from deliberately moronic

      • Mark says:

        “A group-think specialist…”

        No longer. They say that people, these days, will change career 3 times in their life.
        Well I’m a bit older and have only done it once.

      • Nick says:

        I asserted you were starting from a point of ignorance about P-R,and explained why I thought it was flawed but functional in the context of science work

        You ‘agreed’ with me? What? You said you were aware of how flawed P-R is. Is that the agreement,the rapturous moment? What happened after that, did we carry on agreeing?

        .After a paragraph from you of ‘it were better in the old days’, a belief which I’d never offered up for agreement or otherwise, you opined:

        These days peer-review is seriously flawed but is still used as a totem of authority by those of a certain ilk. Its only when papers reached unapproved results that the process is criticised. Approved results on the other hand are treated as having added authority because of the review.

        On the basis of that bitter cartoonish characterisation,I figured you were bullshitting and told you so. I thought Mark has never seen a paper getting knocked back and forth in P-R,even though there are open-review sites which could give him an insight.

        But apparently we agreed on something,and I’m in denial about it.

  12. john byatt says:

    Tol

    he does not dispute AGW, he believes that it is great, he thinks that more than 2C would be okay,

    According to Tol “the impact of climate change is relatively small”.[4] He was also among the US Senate Republican Party’s “list of scientists disputing man-made global warming claims”, which stated that Tol “dismissed the idea that mankind must act now to prevent catastrophic global warming”.[5]
    Tol characterises his position as arguing that the economic costs of climate policy should be kept in proportion to its benefits.[6][7][8]
    He argues against the 2 °C ‘guardrail’ target for limiting temperature rises.[9] Tol does not advocate another target, but has recommended a carbon tax of $5/tC.[10] He acknowledges that this level of taxation is too low to significantly discourage fossil fuel use but argues it would help to stimulate the development of fuel-saving technology and improve the competitiveness of renewable energy sources. He states that compliance may affect the coal and oil industries and the people they employ.
    In an interview with Der Spiegel in 2005, he argued that temperature rises between 2-4 °C would also have advantages. North of a line drawn from Paris to Munich, people would benefit, e.g., from reduced energy bills. However, south of it, people would be overall “losers” of climate change.[11]
    In 2007, Tol predicted a reduction in annual economic growth by 0.4% in the Republic of Ireland if greenhouse gases were reduced by 3% per year.

    ]

    just a little bit of research eric would save you making a twit of yourself

    • Eric Worrall says:

      Doesn’t exactly sound like an endorsement of the IPCC / disaster scenario to me.

      Face it – Cook’s 97% is toast.

      • john byatt says:

        No but that is not what the consensus is all about is it?

        it is about a consensus that humans are responsible for most of the warming.which from the above Tol fully accepts

        lets face it you are toast

        you are just pissed off because you were too lazy to research

        get honest for once eric d

      • Nick says:

        “Doesn’t exactly sound like an endorsement of the IPCC/disaster scenario to me”

        That’s no surprise,because your framing has no relevance to the framing of the actual categories in the papers’ methodology.

        You still have not read the design and methodology of the survey.

        This is the modus of the rejecter: claims emphatically that he has seen nothing in the science that convinces him,and is confident he can dismiss AGW. It always turns out that he has actually seen very little at all of the science,and the confidence is a hollow pose. But still feels entitled to make declarations with confidence.

      • john byatt says:

        , examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics ‘global climate change’ or ‘global warming’.

        so most of Tol’s papers did not match, global climate change nor global warming

      • The shrieks from the echo chamber conclusively prove Cook correct.

  13. Eric Worrall says:

    There’s a major twitter war re the Cook 97% “consensus”, with scientists like Dr. Toll objecting many of their eligible papers were not included, and those which were were misclassified.

    Lets do a calculation.

    121 eligible papers from Dr Toll, 21 of which were included but misclassified, out of 11944 papers:

    32.6% – the proportion of papers which endorse AGW
    0.7% – Rejected AGW
    0.3% – Uncertain
    The rest – no position

    32.6% x 11944 = 3894 papers which “support” AGW.
    0.7% x 11944 = 83 papers which “reject” AGW
    0.3% x 11944 = 36 papers which are “uncertain” about AGW

    Subtract the 21 Dr. Toll papers which were misclassified = 3873

    Add the Dr. Toll papers to the against: 83 + 121 = 204

    “Consensus” percentage, using Cook methodology, just accounting for Dr. Toll’s misclassified or missing papers =
    3873 / (204 + 36 + 3873) = 94%

    Just from correcting the misclassification of Dr. Toll’s papers, the “consensus” has dropped 3% points.

    This is going to be fun – if just a few of the scientists whose work was misclassified raise a ruckus, Cook will have to revise his paper, and the headline consensus will be pushed into the 80 percent range – or even lower.

      • Watts is spam. Why would anyone sensible read him?

      • john byatt says:

        you have a problem with maths?

        Tol
        Cook survey included 10 of my 122 eligible papers. 5/10 were rated incorrectly. 4/5 were rated as endorse rather than neutral.

        have you looked at the papers eric ?

      • Eric Worrall says:

        111 papers should have been included, according to Dr. Toll’s interpretation of the Cook methodology.

        I think we can safely assume none, or very few, of Dr. Toll’s papers endorse AGW

        Either way, you’ve still lost your 97%. Cook’s 97% is mathematically fragile – it is based on a small subset of the sample. And Dr. Toll isn’t alone – Watts is busy telling lots of other scientists whose papers have been misclassified or “overlooked” to raise an objection.

      • Nick says:

        I think we can safely assume you still haven’t looked at the methodology,Eric.

        So some of Tol’s eligible papers were not included? The survey did not claim to attempt to track every paper that could be eligible.

        Tol is just doing some advertising,that’s OK.

        Watts is a defunct noise machine. A bumbler. To take your rationale [or whatever it is ] seriously for discussions sake. Say 97 becomes 96 or 94? Wow. Powerful!

        You linked to Watts presenting Scafetta,Shaviv and Idso complaining that they had been misclassified. I demonstrated to you,using the methodology,that they were being disingenuous. Their complaints were rubbish,and they were misrepresenting their own abstracts. That’s to be expected…but reviewing such assertions with the methodology at hand will sort out such ‘questions’ very clearly.

    • Dr No says:

      Don’t be lazy- provide us with a list of the 204 “against AGW” papers.

      (p.s. don’t waste your time citing WUWT)

      • Eric Worrall says:

        83 papers are inferred from Cook’s own numbers – 0.7 x 11944. I just added the 121 Toll papers – it seems a reasonable assumption that Dr. Toll is not a supporter of the IPCC position on AGW.

        You’ve lost your 97%, just from Dr. Toll’s objection. And if other scientists like Dr. Toll take the time to object to misclassification or exclusion of their papers, like I said, the percentage is likely to drop into the 80s, or lower.

      • Eric Worrall says:

        Make that 0.7% :-)

      • Dr No says:

        As I thought.
        Laziness.
        Provide us with the list so we can check the veracity of your inferences.

    • MikeH says:

      Poor old Eric does not appear to know who Richard Toll (sic) is.

      Here he is on the GWPF council alongside Plimer, discount Carter, McKitrick, Happer.
      http://www.thegwpf.org/who-we-are/academic-advisory-council/

      And Eric – it is Tol

      Like all the other paper authors, Tol would have been asked to rate his own papers.

      Here it is again for Eric the denier who appears not to have read the paper he is critiquing.

      “We received responses from 1,200 scientists who rated a total of over 2,100 papers. Unlike our team’s ratings that only considered the summary of each paper presented in the abstract, the scientists considered the entire paper in the self-ratings.”

      “In our survey, among scientists who expressed a position on AGW in their abstract, 98.4% endorsed the consensus. “

  14. john byatt says:

    RE Antarctica gaining ice

    no , mass loss

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/11/121129143312.htm

  15. Tony Duncan says:

    What truly amazes me is that people like Eric complain there is no empirical evidence, and deny the arctic will melt. When it DOES, they invent a reason for it to have happened naturally. Irene, and Sandy hit and they say it COULD have been100% natural. Australia record heat, COULD have been 100% natural, Russian heat wave COULD have been 100% natural.

    Yet I NEVER hear him say that these things COULD be related to ACC and if that is the case and we are just at the beginning of these effects, well, I am not convinced, but there COULD be serious consequences.
    I understand that the politicization of this issue makes it hard for people to look honestly at what is actually going on, but I find it funny how absolutely insistent these people are that they are absolutely right and there is NO WAY there could be a reason to do something about CO2, Yet people who really look at the science and acknowledge uncertainty, and who readily admit the Himilayas are not about to melt, or that >4C° doubling is extremely unlikely, or any number of mistakes that have been made by ACC scientist are said to be religious zealots

    • Eric Worrall says:

      The issue is Tony, that none of these things appear to be outside natural variation.

      The Arctic might be melting, but there is evidence of past melting and refreezing, so it looks like some kind of cyclic oscillation. Most of the Antarctic is growing colder (yeah I’m sure some model predicted a cooling Antarctic – you can find a model for every occasion).

      Irene and Sandy were devastating, but in the context of historical frequency, cyclone activity is unusually low, and has been for decades. Between 1954 and 1956 New York got hit by 4 cyclones in two years, all more powerful than Sandy (which was no longer a cyclone when it hit – wind speed had dropped) – Hurricane Carol (1954), Hurricane Edna (1954), Hurricane Connie (1955), Hurricane Flossy (1956). These were not isolated incidents – the mid 20th century was a terrible period for American tornadoes, far more violent than any recent weather.

      The Australian record heat was one brief spike of heat in an otherwise ordinary Summer.

      The Russian heatwave was unusual (as in once a century or so), but last winter in Russia was extremely cold and snowy, as it was across much of the Northern Hemisphere.

      so there really isn’t any unusual weather you can point to and say “this would not be happening, if it wasn’t for global warming”. Predictions of worsening weather, “the new normal”, are currently still a computer model fantasy, which show no sign of manifesting.

      • Eric Worrall says:

        Yeah I know, I should have said “tornado” instead of “cyclone”… :-). Its early, I haven’t had my first coffee… :-)

      • john byatt says:

        http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/12/121223152408.htm

        Study Shows Rapid Warming On the West Antarctic Ice Sheet
        Dec. 23, 2012 — In a discovery that raises further concerns about the future contribution of Antarctica to sea level rise, a new study finds that the western part of the ice sheet is experiencing nearly twice as much warming as previously thought.

        “so there really isn’t any unusual weather you can point to and say “this would not be happening, if it wasn’t for global warming”

        we cannot attribute any single event to global warming but we can say that all events now have a global warming component , we can also say that extreme events are increasing.

      • Eric Worrall says:

        Only in your fantasies John. The lack of increased storm activity is especially damaging, given all the spin you guys have invested in promoting “the new normal” meme.

      • john byatt says:

        again from ignorance

        “The lack of increased storm activity”

        it is not about numbers it is about intensity,

        read IPCC and at least know what you are talking about

        and no, not all extreme events are storms

      • john byatt says:

        It topok him one minute to peruse the google scholar papers and dismiss them,
        great

        clown

      • Nick says:

        We can test the system with reference to hurricane landfalling trends on an area that represents a tiny fraction of the global area where such events occur,can we? Refer to a few extreme events,and we have the numbers? Silly stuff Eric.

      • Dr No says:

        “:re currently still a computer model fantasy, which show no sign of manifesting.”

        Meanwhile, real scientists continue doing real hard work:

        Warming causing Rockies, Everest to lose ice and snow

        http://www.climatecentral.org/news/warmer-springs-cause-rockies-and-everest-to-lose-ice-and-snow-16006

        Get out of your armchair and do something useful.

      • john byatt says:

        he has already, an egg timer app.

      • louploup2 says:

        Eric, you are an incredibly stupid human being. What a waste of time it is trying to have a dialogue with you.

      • Chris O'Neill says:

        “it looks like some kind of cyclic oscillation”

        When you only have one image in your brain, that’s the only image you can see.

        “Most of the Antarctic is growing”

        slightly

        “colder”. It was for a while anyway.

        Pity about Northern Hemisphere land areas that together are averaging 1.4 deg C hotter than they were in the nineteenth century. I guess that must be some kind of cyclic oscillation too.

      • FrankD says:

        Oh, something else Eric doesn’t know about: “Sandy (which was no longer a cyclone when it hit – wind speed had dropped)”

        The wind speed had not dropped below hurricane force. It was not technically a hurricane because it had transitioned from tropical to post-tropical, which only describes its energy source. Winds at landfall were 80 mph (130 kph), equal to a middling category 1 hurricane.

        As to “Between 1954 and 1956 New York got hit by 4 cyclones in two years, all more powerful than Sandy”

        Carol: Hit Long Island as a Cat 2. Pay that.
        Edna: Passed east of NY as a Cat 1. Missed by 300 km, and same strength.
        Connie (1955) – ran up Chesapeake Bay as a torpical storm, missed NY by 300 km and weaker.
        Flossy (1956) – crossed the coast of North Carolina as a post-tropical storm. Missed by NY 500 km, and weaker (did a lot of damage to the Gulf Coast though).

        So of your four hurricanes, 1 hit and 1 was stronger. 25% score. About average.

    • I love the new Libertarian line of “the new normal is the same as the old normal”. Ignore all the records being set – ignore heat records outpacing cold records three to one. It’s crazy, but loud. The evidence is there, they just choose to ignore it.

      And for an IT guy to dismiss models because they happen to run on computers… Seriously?

      In the meantime, Eric states severe weather in the US is diminishing whilst NOAA data says he’s wrong.

      Is this the same maths that predicted a Romney landslide?

    • Sou says:

      That’s why science deniers hate it more than anything when current measures are compared to, say, the 1961-1980 mean – let alone anything earlier than that.

      They’ll look at monthly surface temperatures and say, see this month is lower than last month so we’re heading for an ice age. They’ll ignore the months where the temperature sets a record anomaly – saying “it’s not much above normal, nothing to see here.”

      By continuing to redefine ‘normal’ by shifting the baseline upwards each month/year, Eric and his cronies think they can get away with crying “it’s normal’.

      • john byatt says:

        Funny also that Had3 has been running warmer than GISS but they are all saying that GISS is the dodgy one, it was the reverse claim during the email hack

        get ready for them going back to GISS is correct and Had3 is dodgy

      • Sou says:

        Yes, John. I notice when science deniers think the data is doing what they want (eg this month is cooler than last month) the data is spot on. When the data is not doing what they want (this month/year is at a record high) that same data is dodgy!

        In another forum I recall people saying – “but xyz flooded once in the 13th century, therefore ten one-thousand-year floods in the past ten years isn’t unusual” – or the equivalent. Truly weird. No sense of time and space as Jeff Harvey would say.

  16. ‘It is happening but there is nothing we can do’ is an improvement, it will save time on those stupid AlGore comments, or 70s ice-age and the other zombie ‘arguments’.

    and actually it is quite honourable to be a ‘political’ sceptic: who knows, perhaps humans are completely useless at survival and a century after our deaths the human race will be a big full stop.

    I think we are 20 years too late for the easier transition- if we started in 1992 we had enough cheap oil money to build the schemes, to have the luxury of energy wealth to de-carbon. But now, peak oil has been and gone- the economy is/has ground to a halt, tarsands is economic. we have to stay dirty and desperate just to keep 0.1% growth. The deniers and thinktanks are just clinging to a past that is falling apart- growth fueled capitalism has run out of fuel. without the promise of more stuff who is going to put up with the shit they dump on everyone?

    The only real threat they can offer is that the alternative will be worse. It can only be business as usual or a green tyranny, or communism or back to the middle-ages- who is being alarmist now? I think they are being terribly fearful.

    The challenge is not to get people to accept science- it is to get people to hope for a better world. Capitalism is dead either way you look at it.

    • Eric Worrall says:

      We haven’t run out of fuel – nowhere near.

      Shale gas has transformed energy in America – so much so, they have to sell coal cheap to Europe, because noone wants to burn it anymore at home.

      As for coal, we have hundreds, if not thousands of years coal supply available. At around $140 / barrel, it becomes economically viable to use the old NAZI technique for converting coal into oil, which is why the price of oil never stays high for long.

      http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/06/04/us-coal-fuel-idUSL0140169720070604

      So there is no way we will run out of affordable hydrocarbons in the foreseeable future.

      • BBD says:

        As for coal, we have hundreds, if not thousands of years coal supply available.

        You seem oddly unconcerned about the rising atmospheric fraction of CO2 – but then, you are a physics denier, so I suppose this follows.

        Incidentally, your most recent iteration of your lies about water vapour has been corrected, again, and your lack of response duly noted.

      • Nick says:

        You’re nuts. The EROIE for FF extraction is getting seriously stupid once you’re into shale and coal seam gas,and tar sands. The yields from shale plays fall away rapidly,but all you need to resume snoozing is the prospect of a couple of years of price relief….Canada’s crazed posturing involves industrial scale denial of the crap energy dividend from tar. And you fear a carbon cap/price ETS so much you don’t consider that it may be a short-term phase before price and bottleneck realities prove we should have ramped up renewables faster. The ‘new life’ in FF is the filthy.energy expensive end of the resource. But the shareholders must get their way over the broader interests of the nations.

        You are crusading unwittingly for the rich,controlling peddlers of a defunct fuel to impose the downside of their entitlement,costing the biosphere in pollution,on the next generation. Governments have lost control of policy,and censored their own vision. They now serve blackmailing sectional interests with limited scopes.

      • contradictions- there is lots of [cheap] fossil fuels but the cost is $120, and as for coal prices they have quadrupled to $120 a ton, and fracking: the investment bubble has driven down prices but this is an industry that needs hundreds of well heads to replace 1 conventional gas well.

        Peak oil 2006 according to IEA. for a system built and designed for $30 oil capitalism will fall apart at $100 +

      • Eric Worrall says:

        Incidentally, your most recent iteration of your lies about water vapour has been corrected, again, and your lack of response duly noted.

        Wow an alarmist tortures the data into vague agreement with some model.

        Be interesting to see if this view makes AR5 – so far AR5 seem to be focussing on new presentation techniques to camouflage the lack of agreement between observations and models.

        http://joannenova.com.au/2013/04/ipcc-plays-hot-spot-hidey-games-in-ar5-denies-28-million-weather-balloons-work-properly/

        Peak oil 2006 according to IEA. for a system built and designed for $30 oil capitalism will fall apart at $100 +

        No, there’s plenty of public sector fat still left to trim – starting with renewables subsidies.

        You’re nuts. The EROIE for FF extraction is getting seriously stupid once you’re into shale and coal seam gas,and tar sands. The yields from shale plays fall away rapidly,but all you need to resume snoozing is the prospect of a couple of years of price relief….

        The NAZI coal to oil process is surprisingly effective. The NAZIs didn’t have secure access to oil, so they ran much of their war effort off coal to oil processes. Sure it pumps out gigantic amounts of CO2, but if there is a new oil shock, noone will care about that.

      • Nick says:

        You just tortured some data below, Eric. “I reject changes in weather extreme frequencies by reference to a handful of disparate events”,effectively.

        I’m sure if there was sufficient real data to support you Eric,you’d use it. You would prefer to argue in good faith…?

        As for a future in which ‘no-one will care’ about poor EROEI and massive pollution because no-one presumably will have a choice…wow. That’s a confession.

      • Nick says:

        That’s the confession that ‘the libertarian toolkit contains nothing to rectify the problem’ Pithy,JHS.

      • Nick says:

        Good link JB. Will Eric read it? Another Wattsian inversion…Eric,you have outsourced your thinking to a liar. He is betraying your trust constantly.

      • BBD says:

        Eric indulges in shut-eyed, pathological denial:

        Wow an alarmist tortures the data into vague agreement with some model.

        Be interesting to see if this view makes AR5 – so far AR5 seem to be focussing on new presentation techniques to camouflage the lack of agreement between observations and models.

        Eric has just referenced Jo Nova in response to two references to the published scientific literature. This is risible. Eric doesn’t understand that

        - Nova is misrepresenting the evidence
        - There’s lots of evidence that WV is increasing

        Eric is so sunk in pathological denial that he rejects the fact that the increase in WV has been clearly established over the last two decades. His remark about AR5 is therefore besides the point.

        Here’s an overview of more evidence. Because of the link limit, abstracts only:

        Soden BJ et al. (2005) “The radiative signature of upper tropospheric moistening” Science 310, 841-844.

        Abstract: “Climate models predict that the concentration of water vapor in the upper troposphere could double by the end of the century as a result of increases in greenhouse gases. Such moistening plays a key role in amplifying the rate at which the climate warms in response to anthropogenic activities, but has been difficult to detect because of deficiencies in conventional observing systems. We use satellite measurements to highlight a distinct radiative signature of upper tropospheric moistening over the period 1982 to 2004. The observed moistening is accurately captured by climate model simulations and lends further credence to model projections of future global warming.”

        Santer BD et al (2007) “Identification of human-induced changes in atmospheric moisture content” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 104 15248-15253.

        Abstract: “Data from the satellite-based Special Sensor Microwave Imager (SSM/I) show that the total atmospheric moisture content over oceans has increased by 0.41 kg/m(2) per decade since 1988. Results from current climate models indicate that water vapor increases of this magnitude cannot be explained by climate noise alone. In a formal detection and attribution analysis using the pooled results from 22 different climate models, the simulated “fingerprint” pattern of anthropogenically caused changes in water vapor is identifiable with high statistical confidence in the SSM/I data. Experiments in which forcing factors are varied individually suggest that this fingerprint “match” is primarily due to human caused increases in greenhouse gases and not to solar forcing or recovery from the eruption of Mount Pinatubo. Our findings provide preliminary evidence of an emerging anthropogenic signal in the moisture content of earth’s atmosphere.”

        Soden BJ et al. (2005) “The radiative signature of upper tropospheric moistening” Science 310, 841-844.

        Abstract: “Climate models predict that the concentration of water vapor in the upper troposphere could double by the end of the century as a result of increases in greenhouse gases. Such moistening plays a key role in amplifying the rate at which the climate warms in response to anthropogenic activities, but has been difficult to detect because of deficiencies in conventional observing systems. We use satellite measurements to highlight a distinct radiative signature of upper tropospheric moistening over the period 1982 to 2004. The observed moistening is accurately captured by climate model simulations and lends further credence to model projections of future global warming.”

        Santer BD et al (2007) “Identification of human-induced changes in atmospheric moisture content” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 104 15248-15253.

        Abstract: “Data from the satellite-based Special Sensor Microwave Imager (SSM/I) show that the total atmospheric moisture content over oceans has increased by 0.41 kg/m(2) per decade since 1988. Results from current climate models indicate that water vapor increases of this magnitude cannot be explained by climate noise alone. In a formal detection and attribution analysis using the pooled results from 22 different climate models, the simulated “fingerprint” pattern of anthropogenically caused changes in water vapor is identifiable with high statistical confidence in the SSM/I data. Experiments in which forcing factors are varied individually suggest that this fingerprint “match” is primarily due to human caused increases in greenhouse gases and not to solar forcing or recovery from the eruption of Mount Pinatubo. Our findings provide preliminary evidence of an emerging anthropogenic signal in the moisture content of earth’s atmosphere.”

        Your most recent iteration of your lies about water vapour has been corrected, again.

  17. john byatt says:

    rather than link to just one of the great papers or articles at desdemona today

    start from the top, well worth it

    go to http://www.desdemonadespair.net/

    • zoot says:

      Thanks for that John. What a depressing collection, I think I’ll go and open an artery ;-)

    • Watching the Deniers says:

      Here’s the paper: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/grl.50316/abstract

      Reality is outrunning IPCC and other projections on sea ice (or at least consistent with those models that predict early loss) – the death spiral is well and truly underway.

      I was reading the paper thinking yeah, sure the Arctic is bad – we know the projections (in particular AR4s) have been crap on this.

      Then got to this:

      “Thus, time horizons for summer sea ice loss of these three approaches turns out to be roughly 2020, 2030, and 2040 respectively for trendsetters, stochasters, and modelers. Predictions depend on the weight given to data, understanding of Arctic change processes, and the use of model projections. It is reasonable to conclude that Arctic sea ice loss is very likely to occur in the first rather than the second half of the 21st century, with a possibility of loss within a decade or two.”

      That is a tipping point of concern: one would anticipate a significant on impact the planet’s albedo effect. Consequently we would expect a significant impact on the Earth’s energy budget. The warming at those latitudes? All that CH4 in the tundra? After flat lining for a period CH4 concentrations are creeping back up.

      Goodbye smooth, comforting linear trend-line out to 2100 that may allow adaptation efforts to keep pace with temperatures – hello abrupt climate change!

      Those with more technical expertise feel free to comment – or correct me if the implications I’ve outlined are implausible.

      One wonders how this makes the “good news’ about lower climate sensitivity in the short term (TCS) implied by the Otto et.al paper look. If I recall it excluded such tipping points. Frankly Otto et.al is looking more than overly optimistic.

      Still, work on climate sensitivity is an interesting space to watch – I’ll await AR5 and further research.

      Thanks for bringing to attention John: that is tomorrow’s post mate.

  18. Mark says:

    The reason the Maginot Line failed was that it stopped at the Luxembourg border and so the Germans were able to outflank it by just ignoring Belgium’s neutrality. The line itself was never breached but it became irrelevant following the Ardennes offensive. Had the French followed their original plan and taken it all the way to the coast, things might have been very different. But they followed international niceties and informal law and decided to not offend the Benelux nations by build forts on their frontier.

    So, if there is a lesson from Maginot perhaps it is that nations ought to ignore international norms and do what’s in their individual best interest. I wonder if having the highest national CO2 tax in the world is in our best interest.

    • zoot says:

      I wonder if having the highest national CO2 tax in the world is in our best interest.

      It is, as long as we ignore the niceties and take it all the way to the coast. Not only do you mangle English, you mangle metaphors as well.
      BTW Are you Mark Lawson?

    • Nick says:

      ‘nations ought to ignore international norms do what’s in their individual best interest’..agree. What is their best interest? International co-operation…or N.Korea?

      • Mark says:

        ” International co-operation…or N.Korea?”

        They’re the only options?

      • Nick says:

        International co-operation is a miserable choice,I agree. What did it ever do for you? Thoughtless people trading with us,and expecting reciprocation,all those agreements common interests and access…why don’t they leave us alone to shit in our nest. It’s not as though we share anything like an atmosphere or ocean,is it?

        You are convinced there will be no significant global carbon market,and convinced we don’t need to contemplate it as you reject science. I think it is unavoidable–the mugging and manipulation of speculative behavior will push us faster towards dumping too much carbon into the biosphere,wasting the energy it generated on the way,and rushing the inevitable change to alternative generation.

      • Eric Worrall says:

        I rather hope there is a global carbon market. After the spectacular failure of the Obama backed Chicago Climate Exchange, and the imminent failure of the European carbon market, I would quite enjoy watching the comedy replayed on a global scale. Imagine all the dictators from tinpot countries noone ever heard of demanding to know why people didn’t want to buy their carbon credits anymore. Imagine the handwringing and finger pointing when it all collapses in a heap.

        Hilarious!

      • Nonsense, Eric – tripe. You seek falsifiable science, yet cite Watts, no-one more falsified on the interwebs than Weatherboy, with the possible exception of David Icke. And I only consider that a possibility.

        Mind you, your in good company. Hansen supports the nuclear option.

      • Mark says:

        Nick,

        I wasn’t suggesting that international co-operation wasn’t an option, just that its one of only two options. It reminds me of those government ads that tell us the only options when visiting friends is to stick to the speed limit or have an accident that wipes out your family. Experience tells me this might be hyperbole.

        International co-operation is/was an option. But experience with regards to Kyoto and since suggests that its efficacy is more hope than fact. Another was Howard’s AP6 initiative of giving mitigation technology to developing countries.

        Personally I’m calm and relaxed about this. As we know more about the climate systems, we find that even the most dire of potential outcomes get pushed back in time. If peak oil is true (and I’d doubt it) then FF emissions will fall away anyway. But its more likely that we’ll go down the path Lomborg set out a decade or so ago, of invention and innovation superseding FF. It seem more likely than not that we’ll see, by say 2050, the vast majority of windows, rooves and who knows what in cities being solar collectors, Surely someone will work out geothermal power, Thorium may become an answer. Micro nuclear is one I’d favour. One or more of these will come about as economics allows…all will cause emission reductions.

        But all of this will come about, not by activists trying to tell others how to live, but by individuals and individual nations doing what’s in their interests.

        Its really instructive that the US is one of the few nations to achieve significant emission reductions in the recent past, not because of international obligations but through following self-interest, with a little help from screwy economic management :)

      • john byatt says:

        It is good that the US has reduced it’s CO2 emissions but these figures do not include methane emissions.

        total CO2e emission data for 2012 should be out shortly, if not already,

      • Nick says:

        Mark,I think you fail to recognise that incumbent technology is setting the agenda based around exercising the perks of incumbency, maximising their returns on investment according to short-termist economic measures,and hang the rest. Incumbent FF interests fight tooth and nail to hold their dominance for financial reasons, by attempting to marginalise other technologies,appeal to the love of the bubble/get rich quick expedience,and by attempting to marginalise science that does not serve their perceived interests.

        This sort of behavior is unsurprising,indeed habitual …and never has it been more dangerous because of the scale and persistence of the downsides.

        You seem to think that the market is spontaneously self-organising to optimise best outcomes across the board. In fact it only ‘achieves’ this by general ignorance of history, perception management [Lomborg serves this role],and selective accounting. The longer illusion is favored over ecological reality…

      • Mark says:

        Yes Nick, the FF industry is doing its best to fight off the competition. That’s their job. But ultimately economics wins out and a newer, cheaper, better takes over.

        We keep getting told that government should subsidise solar, wind etc because they will inevitably be cheaper than FF. If that’s true, then they’ll win out with or without government assistance.

        I remember back in the late 70s’, early 80′s the demands that the government step in to break up IBM. It was claimed at the time that IBM so dominated the mainframe market that no one would ever get a look into sans government help.

        Meanwhile a couple of blokes were in their garage tinkering with an apple and a couple of others were doing some BASIC work.

        Somewhere right now there are a bunch of no-names who, in a few decades, will be spectacularly rich and famous and who are currently working on the demise of your hated FF industry.

        I’ve often thought that the difference between an alarmist and a sceptic is the level of faith each have in the genius of mankind to innovate and problem solve.

        • “We keep getting told that government should subsidise solar, wind etc because they will inevitably be cheaper than FF. If that’s true, then they’ll win out with or without government assistance.”

          Perhaps our government(s) in their infinite wisdom should remove the >$5 billion in subsidies they bestow on the coal industry each year. Cheap coal is only cheap because of them.

      • john byatt says:

        “I’ve often thought that the difference between an alarmist and a sceptic is the level of faith each have in the genius of mankind to innovate and problem solve.”

        We have been doing that for many years now with wind and solar
        but the alarmists claim that they will destroy our economy in doing so. .

      • Mark says:

        Yes Mr J, the Germans did have some minor success very late in the Battle of France. By that time the French Army was in disarray and the fortifications surrounded. They were never really designed for a frontal attack and assumed surface support force and some air cover. Once all this was lost, they were less defendable. Nonetheless its amazing just how well they withstood attack.

        Frank D,

        It is very true that Britain and France were very unprepared to face the German Army that they faced in 1940. But in 1938 they would have faced the German Army of 1938 and that was a very different proposition. For example, during the Sudeten crisis Hitler asked for an appraisal of what air power he could bring against Britain in the event of war and was told that Germany had no ability to hit Britain at that time. It was only after that that the Luftwaffe was beefed up with a plan to increase its size 500% by 1943.
        They may not have known it, but the allies were in a much better military position in 1938 than they were in 1940. Had they been resolute in standing behind the Czechs their prospects were good.
        Firstly the Czechs had extensive defensive lines in the Sudetenland such that the Germans thought that, even using 30% of its available force, the Wehrmacht would have taken 4 weeks to achieve victory. The Czechs thought they could hold out for longer still. Additionally, had fighting started, the Poles would have taken about 4.7 nanoseconds to join in, drawing away more German manpower. So the French would have faced at most, half the German strength.

        All of that meant that, had Chamberlain stood firm in 1938, as he did in 1939, it is most unlikely that Hitler would have gone to war, and somewhat likely that the generals would have removed him had he tried.

        I know that Munich is sometimes excused as a time-buying exercise, much like the later Nazi-soviet pact. But Chamberlain instead thought it was a decisive and permanent peace move and it was only after March ’39 that Britain finally got serious about re-arming.

    • Watching the Deniers says:

      I’m very familiar with the history Mark.

      The failure was on the part of the French: there was already enough precedent in how the Germans during both conflicts ignored neutrality. Now, had they had been able to imagine the contingencies and the range of options the Germans would have taken they would have planned to place sufficient forces in depth to counter their offensive. Instead they massed near the border where they could be easily encircled by the rapidly advancing German pincers.

      Recall Hitler overrode the more conservative plans of the German general staff (after being convinced by Manstein) and pushed the plan to push west and divide the allied forces – they also pinned the remaining French forces against the Maginot line.

      Let’s consider the competing tactical approaches of the opposing forces:

      The French scattered their tanks and armor in pockets, and used it as infantry support as was the practice during the later stages of the First World War. Actually, tank v tank, the French armor was equal too if not superior to the German’s.

      The difference was in the massing of armor: the German’s concentrated their armor and used them as powerful “fists”. Again, had the Allies paid attention to German tactics developed in the Spanish Civil War, utilized in Poland and elsewhere they would have known what to expect.

      The allies effectively fought using the tactics developed in late 1918 when they rolled up the Hindenburg line using massed infantry supported by armor, short but intense artillery barrages and limited air support. Allied military strategy ossified during the inter-war period due to a failure to innovate, complacency and the heavy cuts imposed by the Depression.

      As to your claim fortifications ended at Luxembourg: the heaviest fortifications did, but in 1934 the French extended fortifications (though lighter) all the way to Dover. France had an almost continuous line of defense along it’s border.

      You could ignore the decades of scholarship of military historians, or claim as you do it was all due to France being overly nice and not wanting to offend their neighbors.

      You could also quibble with the particulars.

      Now if there is a lesson to be learnt – Mark – failure of imagination can lead to catastrophe.

      • Eric Worrall says:

        Too much imagination – confusing facts with fiction – can also lead to catastrophe. Hitler’s regime was based on science fiction. So are threats of imminent climate catastrophe, which never seem to actually materialise.

        • and there we have it. It took longer than I expected but here is the first invocation of Godwin’s Law by Eric….come on eric. You can do it….eugenics.

      • Nick says:

        No one has ‘threatened imminent climate catastrophe’. They have warned that avoiding more climate change involves avoiding imminent CO2 threshholds.

      • Eric Worrall says:

        My point is the period we have to wait until we see the effects of dangerous climate change never seems to shorten. We never seem to actually cross these dangerous thresholds.

        Even former loyalists like James Lovelock have run out of patience with this game – and you wonder why your movement is failing to achieve its goals.

        http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/04/23/11144098-gaia-scientist-james-lovelock-i-was-alarmist-about-climate-change

      • Nick says:

        You just don’t notice what is happening,and are motivated to reject it. Blind and self-blinding. Awesome combination. We understand you Eric.

      • Eric Worrall says:

        If I thought CO2 was a credible threat, I wouldn’t be arguing with you about the science, I’d be taking you to task for frittering your political capital on useless renewables, when you should be pushing for wholesale nuclear decarbonisation of the economy.

        I don’t have any motivation for rejecting the science – other than the fact it is cr@p.

        • You claim the science is crap and yet you are yet to present any science of your own. You continually spew garbage from Watts and Nova and repeat the same idiotic and dishonest memes. You actually have no idea about scientific convention and grossly overestimate and overinflate your ability to understand what you are trying to talk about. You don’t have the self-awareness or good sense to be embarrassed by your, quite frankly, stupid propaganda and conspiracy fuelled mutterings. Every single commentator here, when they aren’t facepalming, is laughing at you and shaking their head’s in disbelief at the incredibly strange way you court ridicule with no awareness. You remind me of……Buzz Lightyear.

          “You actually think you understand science? And all this time I thought it was an act.”
          “You’re mocking me aren’t you?”
          “Oh no no. Look Eric! Some Watts science”
          “Where?”
          “Bwuuuahahahahahahahaha”

      • BBD says:

        Amusing Eric says:

        If I thought CO2 was a credible threat, I wouldn’t be arguing with you about the science

        Shortly after once again eschewing scientific argument in favour of likening climate scientists to Nazi eugenicists:

        confusing facts with fiction – can also lead to catastrophe. Hitler’s regime was based on science fiction. So are threats of imminent climate catastrophe, which never seem to actually materialise.

        Please stop doing this, Worrall. It is fucking offensive.

        I have yet to see you mount a scientific argument. All you ever do is misrepresent aspects of climate science. As I have said repeatedly, you are reduced to this miserable practice because you do not have a scientific counter-argument to the standard scientific position on AGW.

        How you can face yourself, smeared with the filth of intellectual dishonesty, day after day, is a mystery to me.

      • Nick says:

        You’ve surrendered your political capital to sectional interests determined to realise the profits of their ‘assets’ at the expense of a safer atmosphere and the rest of the population. You rhetorically spruik nuclear power,insisting it just must be unreasonably costly, while flaunting your delusion about the raw size of FF reserves without a thought for the fact that they are are increasingly poor EROEI. The low hanging fruit is gone,though you think nothing of the prospect of turning over thousands of km2 to extract coal. Just get a bigger machine,and a longer drill,eh? A bigger ship a bigger pipeline and a longer train…all so that you can get a new phone every six months.

        Yes, you don’t have any motivation to reject the science other than maintaining your delusion. ‘It’s crap’,says,Eric,while time after time we show you the actual errors in your reckoning. They have bottled your vanity and are selling it back to you.

      • zoot says:

        Hitler’s regime was based on science fiction.

        Bollocks!

        Your historical knowledge is as shite as your scientific knowledge which is nearly as shite as your grasp of English.

      • Eric’s motivation for rejecting the science is simple. The Libertarian toolkit contains nothing to rectify the problem. For the sake of his ideology it is better to reject the problem than admit he has no solution. That would be doubleplusungood.

      • Tony Duncan says:

        Eric,

        I LOVE it when deniers use famous scientists to make their point, because as in this case, the scientists point pretty much contradicts the point the denier is making. I personally have always felt Lovelocks rants were over the top alarmism. The same when Hansen talks about runaway global warming. Lovelock is saying climate change does not spell doom for the world, but he is in no way suggesting that CO2 is not a grave danger. So he has gone from extremist to realist. Kudos to him.
        I will gain similar respect for you when you do the same

      • Eric Worrall says:

        Eric’s motivation for rejecting the science is simple. The Libertarian toolkit contains nothing to rectify the problem. For the sake of his ideology it is better to reject the problem than admit he has no solution. That would be doubleplusungood.

        Nonsense, if I thought CO2 was a problem, I would push harder for removing the layers of red tape which is preventing an expansion of nuclear power – at least w/r to passive safe systems http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_nuclear_safety .

        I would push for cutting CO2, without all the social changes you guys seem to want to piggyback onto your environmental “concerns”.

        I have no motivation for rejecting CO2 alarmism other than I think the supporting science is a crock – because my “solution”, if I did believe, would be something I want anyway.

      • Cugel says:

        To be strictly accurate, the French (and British) had their armies positioned for an attack through the Low Countries. Ironically, they discounted an attack at Sedan because it was such bad tank country, and responded to a feint further west, pushing themselves into a bag. The fundamental problem, though, was a faulty conception of tank warfare. And lamentable generalship didn’t help. As for the politicians, lets not get started …

        History’s not going to write a favourable report on this period either, I’m confident of that.

      • Nonsense, Eric – tripe. You seek falsifiable science, yet cite Watts, no-one more falsified on the interwebs than Weatherboy, with the possible exception of David Icke. And I only consider that a possibility.

        Mind you, your in good company. Hansen supports the nuclear option.

      • john byatt says:

        denier contradictions number 1004

        Global warming theory isn’t falsifiable Greenhouse effect has been falsified

      • Well spotted, Mr Byatt.

      • Mark says:

        WtD,

        Yes, I’m well aware of the reasons for the German victory in 1940. It can be summarised that, while the German leadership was listening to Guderian, the allied leadership was ignoring Lidell Hart.

        In 1940, the Allies had more (and arguably, better) tanks than the Germans and rough equality in planes. But as you say they used them in a new,innovative and successful way to overcome Allied resistance.

        Its true there was significant fortification along the Benelux boarders but it wasn’t close to quality of the Maginot Line. These fortifications were meant to be places that held difficult or strategic ground and funnelled attacking forces into killing fields. But they never really came into play because the war was lost in the low countries.

        Its interesting to postulate what would have happened had the French abandoned Belgium and Holland and kept their army to solely defend their own boarders. The Ardennes strategy wouldn’t have worked because there wouldn’t have been an army to cut off. This would have caused the Germans to then face a direct attack on fortified positions. Following Dunkirk, when they did invade France, the depleted French army made a much better first of resistance.

        So another lesson is that’s its fatal to misunderstand what is in your own self-interest.

        You could ignore the decades of scholarship of military historians, or claim as you do it was all due to France being overly nice and not wanting to offend their neighbors.

        That’s not at all what I said. I wasn’t suggesting that France lost because the Maginot Line didn’t go to Calais, only that the course of the war might have been different had it done so. And what is it with you guys here.(” You could ignore the decades of scholarship of military historians”)..this constant refrain that anyone who disagrees with you is ignorant of the facts.

        • Watching the Deniers says:

          Now that is a much better response.

          I think we can all agree is that multiple factors contributed to the success of the Germans in 1940.

          At least you have clarified your point – however, it is still counter-factual assertion. We can never know because history played out the way it did. But let us indulge in some counter-factual history: I believe the German’s would have looked to develop a strategy to avoid directly throwing themselves against any heavy fortifications regardless of their location.

          The Germans decided not to play be the accepted rule book – the all-arms approach stressed speed, manoeuvrability and concentration over a broad front approach. Key to this strategy was avoiding fortifications or directly engaging concentrations of the enemy.

          As you know such an approach was developed to specifically overcome the stalemate of trench warfare. The German’s wanted win as quickly as they could. The antecedent to this approach was of course the writings of Hart and Guderian – however the Germans were also mindful of their initial successes during Operation Michael in 1918. They sought to drive the British forces holding the line in Northern France into the sea: to do so they employed innovative tactics. They used specially formed units of shock troops, limited but intense artillery barrages and concentrated their forces.

          However, the speed of advance was still limited to that of how fast troops – on foot – could cover ground. Still they had considerable early success, but frittered that away by resorting back to conventional tactics (plus a lack of supplies, reinforcements and heavy casualties).

          “Blitzkrieg” took the formula employed in Operation Michael and did something different: the armour freed itself from supporting the infantry, it simply pushed ahead – destroying or encircling the enemy, calling in the Stuka’s and air other support. The infantry raced to keep up and then held the ground. Such an approach made the more conservative German general’s highly nervous: but it worked.

          Also recall the main thrust of the German offensive punched through the Ardennes in 1940 (and again in 1944). This area was adjacent to the Benelux border and Northern France, but there is another reason the French did not consider an attack from here.

          They regarded the Ardennes as unsuitable for massed armour, and thus did not conceive the Germans would concentrate their tanks there. They regarded the Ardennes as a natural defensive barrier – virtually impassable – in the same way any other topographical feature aids defence.

          Also recall this: Northern France and the region of the Benelux is referred to as the “cockpit of Europe”. For centuries armies have used this region as a East/West corridor. Over this same area the 1940 invasion of France was fought; as was Waterloo (1815); as was Fontenoy (1745); as was countless other battles since the Ancient world.

          That the French failed to pay attention to the lessons of history – even within living memory – demonstrates a failure of imagination and complacency.

          I think my original assertion stands. A failure to conceive alternatives and innovate – plus a heavy dose of complacency – can contribute significantly to failure at the strategic level.

          References

          Push into the Ardennes: http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005181
          Operation Michael: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Michael
          Liddell Hart: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B._H._Liddell_Hart
          Heinz Guderian: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinz_Guderian

      • louploup2 says:

        Eric says, “all the social changes you guys seem to want to piggyback onto your environmental “concerns”. What social changes?

      • Mark says:

        Well, a large part of history is ‘what-ifs’. What if Chamberlain hadn’t caved at Munich, what if Poland had agreed to ally with Russia in ’39, what if France had disputed the re-occupation of the Rhineland in ’36, what if Hitler didn’t hold back at Dunkirk, and so on. Those type of questions help to clarify and help understanding and can act as a guide to current decision-makers. Indeed I’d argue that you can’t understand the US actions in the Cold War and Iraq without understanding Munich, ’38.

        My own guess is that,had the Maginot Line gone to Calais, the German’s would never have tried to take it on. Instead the phoney war would have dragged on until it petered out or until the German’s had developed technology to take it out. Either way 1940 and 1941 would have looked very different.

        “Recall Hitler overrode the more conservative plans of the German general staff (after being convinced by Manstein)…” The Mechelen incident was also instrumental in this change.

        I appears to be a constant of history that the loser innovates while the winner develops over-confidence that what worked before will work again. It partially explains Napoleon’s successes, Bismarck’s 1870 victory, and of course the German victories in 1939-42. Extending the idea, it could even be used to explain Hannibal’s initial success. There’s lots of reasons why the French/British didn’t innovate in the inter-war years but confidence that past victories are a guide to future victories is surely high on the list.

        One final point of interest…in the 1970s it was commonly accepted that Liddell Hart had been influential in Guderian’s thinking. But according to a podcast I heard t’other month, this is now hotly disputed. I’ve yet to look into it. Hart was however influential in the formation of the Israeli army and should have been listened to by the Brits in the 30s’.

      • FrankD says:

        Mark, you spoke earlier of “rough equality in planes”. If Chamberlain hadn’t “caved” at Munich, as you put it, the RAF would have opened a-one-year-earlier-World War 2 with three squadrons of front line fighters, compared to the 52 the RAF advised was required. A year later they were approaching that number, and by 1940 had the required forces to stave of the Luftwaffe.

        Going to war in 1938 would have guaranteed decisive tactical air supremacy for Germany, instead of the “merely” significant advantage that had during the Battle of France.

        The Munich Agreement is misunderstood by a great many people, and Mark has been one of them. Tangentally, and personally, I have found a high correlation between the Chamberlain “caved” school and the “climate scam” school. I put it down to intolerance of ambiguity.

      • Mr. Jordon says:

        Mark, your assertion that the Maginot Line was never breached is not true. It was. Initially the Germans just went around it but eventually it was attacked and breached. The Germans dropped paratroopers on top of the plus they use gliders and even dive bombers.

        From memory it was called Operation Tiger.

        • Watching the Deniers says:

          Very true Mr. Jordon – it took the German’s enormous effort, and at that point defences were down to a skeleton force. The German’s turned their 88mm flak guns on the defences.

      • Mark says:

        Yes Mr J, the Germans did have some minor success very late in the Battle of France. By that time the French Army was in disarray and the fortifications surrounded. They were never really designed for a frontal attack and assumed surface support force and some air cover. Once all this was lost, they were less defendable. Nonetheless its amazing just how well they withstood attack.

        Frank D,

        It is very true that Britain and France were very unprepared to face the German Army that they faced in 1940. But in 1938 they would have faced the German Army of 1938 and that was a very different proposition. For example, during the Sudeten crisis Hitler asked for an appraisal of what air power he could bring against Britain in the event of war and was told that Germany had no ability to hit Britain at that time. It was only after that that the Luftwaffe was beefed up with a plan to increase its size 500% by 1943.
        They may not have known it, but the allies were in a much better military position in 1938 than they were in 1940. Had they been resolute in standing behind the Czechs their prospects were good.
        Firstly the Czechs had extensive defensive lines in the Sudetenland such that the Germans thought that, even using 30% of its available force, the Wehrmacht would have taken 4 weeks to achieve victory. The Czechs thought they could hold out for longer still. Additionally, had fighting started, the Poles would have taken about 4.7 nanoseconds to join in, drawing away more German manpower. So the French would have faced at most, half the German strength.

        All of that meant that, had Chamberlain stood firm in 1938, as he did in 1939, it is most unlikely that Hitler would have gone to war, and somewhat likely that the generals would have removed him had he tried.

        I know that Munich is sometimes excused as a time-buying exercise, much like the later Nazi-soviet pact. But Chamberlain instead thought it was a decisive and permanent peace move and it was only after March ’39 that Britain finally got serious about re-arming.

  19. Chris O'Neill says:

    “Basically forget it.”

    Let’s see…
    First stage of denial: there is no warming.
    Second stage of denial: we’re not causing it.
    Third stage of denial: it’s cheaper to just live with it.
    Fourth stage of denial: it’s too late to do anything. We’ve had it no matter what we do.

    • Don’t forget stage 2.5: We’re causing it, but it’s good. CO2 is plant food! I want my winters a little warmer! Etc.

      • Nick says:

        That’s right!. The earth is actually in ‘CO2 drought’! Nothing grew,beyond some poor yellowed grasses, until Stevenson built a steam engine! Mother Earth was abusive and negligent, and starved her children….

  20. Sou says:

    Another wonderful article, WTD.

    People like Mark Lawson don’t think much of humanity at all. People like Matt Ridley don’t think much of this generation and put all their faith in future generations.

    I believe we can and will do more in the next few years. We are in a much better position to act now than will people in 50 years’ time, when they’ll be fighting against much worse climate change and all the associated impacts.

    We owe it to ourselves and our descendants. (If we don’t care much about what happens after we die, maybe some of us’ll care about how we are perceived in future histories.)

    BTW, for once Eric was spot on:

    http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2013/05/the-mice-play-more-fake-forcings-from.html

  21. “If it’s hard it’s not worth doing”

    Imagine if we applied the same philosophy to –

    * World hunger
    * AIDS or cancer research
    * Poverty

  22. Oh no, Mike! You mentioned Hitler….anytime soon….

    • Tony Duncan says:

      ukiss (holy cow, did you know that was your acronym? Am I late to the party?)

      I am guilty of Godwin’s law pretty often, especially around ACC. Having studied early 20th century European history quite a bit, and I think it makes a reasonable analogy. I equate ACC now to the threat of Hitler in the mid 30′s. After all there was no proof that Hitler and Germany would try to overrun Europe and wipe out or enslave much of the worlds population. As someone like Eric might have argued. Hitler might even be beneficial. After all his anti communism will keep the Soviets from taking over , and his minor dictatorial actions are not much different from all those other autocrats from European history. It is just plain foolishness to spend money of defense and take serious action to prevent him from taking over western Europe and killing all the jews. those are just alarmists talking. The WORST that could happen is he will establish a zone of influence in Czechoslovakia and Poland and rattle his saber, and if we ignore him he will play his little games and be gone eventually

  23. Eric Worrall says:

    Again Mike, this persistent belief that deep down we actually do believe in dangerous anthropogenic climate change, but are playing some kind of game of moral brinkmanship.

    This simply isn’t the case – we think the danger comes from the political lunacy surrounding efforts to mitigate what we perceive as a non problem. We see no credible evidence of dangerous climate change caused by anthropogenic CO2 emissions, now or in the future.

    We think you and your fellow travellers are dangerous – not anthropogenic CO2.

    • john byatt says:

      What is with the we again? do you feel that using I lessens your position?

      so I can take your position as representing all deniers then?

    • Nick says:

      All the ‘we will,we will,block you’ is just immoral brinksmanship,then?

    • Eric and his ilk are dangerous, omnivorous, ostriches.

    • Nick says:

      “We see no credible evidence of dangerous climate change caused by ACO2..”

      So do you use physics and meteorology to support your position on what can only be regarded as an matter of science?

      No,you quote mine emails about travel expenses,and fail to read methodologies before accepting assertions from failed weathermen.

      I see no credible evidence of your ability to reject credibly.

      • Eric Worrall says:

        Let me know when the world starts warming again Nick. Given that the pattern of warming over the last 150 years has been long multidecadal periods of flat or mildly declining temperatures, interrupted by brief spurts of warming, like the warming period which ended in 1998, you may have a long wait.

      • Eric admits the surface exhibits a long term warming trend. And the major heat sink, the oceans, continues to warm nicely.

      • Nick says:

        You must have missed the note that it hasn’t stopped–breath holding again,I suppose.

      • Eric Worrall says:

        I notice you still don’t want to tell us when the surface temperature will start moving upwards again. Its all very well looking for alleged warming in the remote corners of the world, but if it never manifests in a way we notice, then why the fuss?

      • Nick says:

        “If it never manifests in a way ‘we’ notice,then why the fuss?” I have noticed how you work very hard not to notice…. lazy, high amplitude jet streams,anyone? No one in the US noticed over the last few months,eh? How about that warm up from record May snow to 35-40C temperatures over 2 to 4 days in the northern mid-west?

      • Eric Worrall says:

        http://history1800s.about.com/od/crimesanddisasters/a/The-Year-Without-A-Summer.htm

        During the Year without a Sumer, the 1816 weather disaster caused by the eruption of Mount Tambora, it wasn’t always cold. The weather warmed, farmers planted crops, only to have the crops destroyed, again and again, by abrupt periods of extreme cold.

        Jetstream instability, unstable weather, could be a sign of an imminent lurch downwards in global temperatures.

      • Nick says:

        Idiot,Tambora spread a sulphurous aerosol haze around the planet,dimming the sun, once it fell out things returned to normal..though there was more global effective vulcanism in the 1830s.

        In contrast,with an ArcticOcean energy dynamic changed,high latitude warmth deepening the troposphere,we can now expect jet stream behavior to do the weather whiplash over the NH for much of the year. Blocking highs ,cut off lows…more ‘pointy’ weather. Ain’t gonna end anytime soon. Unstable weather because of persistent high latitude warming, thin sea ice leaking energy etc. Not global cooling. You only see cold weather,don’t you,then you extrapolate from that. That is not science,that is Wattsian inversion.

      • Tony Duncan says:

        Eric,

        you are seriously suggesting the effects of Tambora signify a possible new global cooling on WHAT basis? I have ben telling deniers for the last few years that I will be happy to question ACC when surface temperatures start to fall significantly. the fact that they have not risen linearly since the last huge El niño Could indicate that ACC is not as serious as many have predicted, but there is no reason to believe that, it is just an empiric possibility. Looking at NOAA charts of ocean warming, I don;t see HOW there could be any sort of long term cooling. Maybe peopl like Annan are correct and there won’t be more than 2.5°C for a doubling of CO2. that might rule out the devastation likely form a 5-6°C rise over the next 150 years, but it is certainly nothing to jump up and down about thinking there can be no significant problems worth doing something about.
        Clearly Irene and Sandy, both huge storms on devastated VT where I live part time and the other NY, where I live part time had devastating consequences and i know of no theory that maintains that these wil not increase if temps continue to increase. We are talking about climate change of a nature to change the geological era we live in in less than 200 years and yet you are so confident in your belief that it means next to nothing.
        I am in awe.

    • I believe the author covered the “denial” phase you describe.

  24. Nick says:

    Just seems to be an example of someone who enjoys a public commentary position for other reasons,and feels obliged to make offerings on a subject he is clearly not prepared to do the background on.

    That is actually an amazing waste of an opportunity,whatever the position.

    • Nick says:

      So I read some of Lawson’s comments …it boils down to: ‘we are unco-operative players,and we will just have to adapt’,and somehow he thinks this thought has not occurred to mitigation advocates? Realpolitik cannot fathom that mitigation is adaptive,part of adaptions armoury? We are too close to the unfolding change to pretend there is a distinction between M and A.

Comments are closed.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 769 other followers

%d bloggers like this: