Remember the 400+ anti-gw report ?

[Calrissian]

It is the equivalent of dismissing treatment by a doctor who has spent years researching and successfully treating patients in favour of the girl in the local pub who claims that orange smarties will make it all better. Madness.

You do know, only smarties have the answer

---

I do look forward to the next report '1000 eminent people prove global warming has stalled, ice-age iminent'. I'm sure it'll be funded by the Chinese coal board, or some other such unbiased group.

-

Calrissian: time to paint

[Mr Sleet]

Oh now I've heard it all.......

Edit: You will, of course, be able to tell me how much a scientist earns then?

Hi Roo, glad you took that well

As I am a research scientist ( Industry ( carbon sequestration) , not academia ) I could but I won't it might make you cry

Although I am playing with you a bit, one thing you can almost certainly guarantee is that at the end of a climate scientists paper, they will say " more research needed" which roughly translated means " I need another contract"

[Roo]

Hi Roo, glad you took that well

As I am a research scientist ( Industry ( carbon sequestration) , not academia ) I could but I won't it might make you cry

Although I am playing with you a bit, one thing you can almost certainly guarantee is that at the end of a climate scientists paper, they will say " more research needed" which roughly translated means " I need another contract"

You might be playing with me, but I am sure you don't really mean that: there is not enough cash in research science, especially in unis, for people to do anything dodgy in order to get another crappy contract....Oh, the 6-12 month underpaid contract: I remember it well! And I am sure that you would agree that dodgy results will only mean some other so-and-so shredding you in the next edition of 'Journal of your subject part A, number 2 (April)'....?

And as for salaries, there is a reason why my emminent physics hubby is now in IT...........

[Devonian]

Hi Roo, glad you took that well

As I am a research scientist ( Industry ( carbon sequestration) , not academia ) I could but I won't it might make you cry

Although I am playing with you a bit, one thing you can almost certainly guarantee is that at the end of a climate scientists paper, they will say " more research needed" which roughly translated means " I need another contract"

Cynical, but not cynical beyond belief - I've seen to many comments like that for that

[Mr Sleet]

You might be playing with me, but I am sure you don't really mean that: there is not enough cash in research science, especially in unis, for people to do anything dodgy in order to get another crappy contract....Oh, the 6-12 month underpaid contract: I remember it well! And I am sure that you would agree that dodgy results will only mean some other so-and-so shredding you in the next edition of 'Journal of your subject part A, number 2 (April)'....?

And as for salaries, there is a reason why my emminent physics hubby is now in IT...........

Well, maybe I was a bit hasty you win this one . Must dash, carbon to sequester

Edited January 14, 2008 by Mr Sleet

[Stratos Ferric]

For sure it's for commerical reasons.

There are always bugs in software. Always. That, in and of itself, is axiomatic. ...

I agree on early releases VP, but there are good examples - not least avionics and nuclear power stations - where it is either exhaustively and absolutely tested out, or else systems are established separately and in triplicate so that any apparent dilemmas caused by erroneous operation (howsoever caused) are managed out.

I think, also, that we're making assumptions re model structure. You may well be correct to suppose that the Hadley models run on bespoked software, however there are plenty of very complex economic models that run on a software platform. Hence, say, I know my Excel spreadsheets always work, even though I don't write the operational code: what matters is that the relationships I build into the data are correct. At the end of the day modelling a scientific system is not actually hard: most of the science is linear or parametric, and not essentially hard to compute. The issue is more likely to be in trying to reassemble reality: it's rather like trying to reconstruct a beach. And I use this analogy deliberately, because what matters is less that each and every grain of sand is faithfully replicated, but that the overall look and feel is correct.

Like I said, I'd buy into your suspicions re needing to prove source code but for the fact that pretty much every piece of analysis out there points in the same direction. It's very unlikely that separate errors, multiple separate errors at that, would all lead to the same false outcome.

...Your third point, sorry don't agree that distinguishing between the two is irrelevant; I think it's profoundly important. Again, no one can be certain that human influence is the driving factor in climate change without first discerning the natural against which to measure differences. Anomalies require a measuring baseline.

Jethro, we already have one. Someone with even a rudimentary knowledge of maths could look at any plot of global temperatures and conclude that these are not normal times. Something very unusual, and probably very apparent, would have to be happening in the natural world to account for the warming we have now. It isn't there, and the longer we warm for, without any such appearance, the more hollow protests of "natural forcing" are bound to become.

[VillagePlank]

I agree on early releases VP, but there are good examples - not least avionics and nuclear power stations - where it is either exhaustively and absolutely tested out, or else systems are established separately and in triplicate so that any apparent dilemmas caused by erroneous operation (howsoever caused) are managed out..

Not quite true, I'm afraid.

What you are talking of is, as I've already mentioned, formal specification leading onto formal methods. It may well be true that the language barrier is getting in the way here! - a layperson reading such a phrase will say - so what? so they've specified formally. This isn't what it means, it means to set out the software in such a manner that its implementation can be tested mathematically. Not as easy as one might imagine. And it's not in widespread use - and scientific programming almost certainly doesn't use techniques such as these because it's too expensive.

One place where I know it's being used is at NASA for the critical shuttle software. There's an excellent article here where they covet the most highest awards in software development. Even they report bugs - 17 of them, in fact, but, to turn a phrase, those in the 'know' know that what they have achieved is truly a remarkable feat of human endeavour against all the odds. Certainly not in the sense of saving mankind from itself, but definately from an intellectual and engineering perspective.

Also, your assumption that because it all appears to work correctly, therefore, by that token, it must be working correctly, is an incorrect one. In my opinion, also, saying that because all of the models self-verify therefore, by virtue of odds, they must therefore be correct is also an incorrect assumption.

Consider your platform point with reference to Excel. Not a bug free platform, either, see here. Why is this the case?

Consider a function f(x,y) = x+y. A very simple adding function. Not much can go wrong with this? Well, it depends. If we assume that it is running through a 32bit compiler (the thing that translates source-code into machine language (the binary bit)) then absolute testing requires, at the very minimum the following that you test it for each value of x, and y. There are about 64k values of each, so a very simple analysis shows that we have at least 64! (factorial) possible tests to conduct which for all intents and purposes is infinity. So how is it done? Well you test for boundary conditions and, literally, hope for the best for all other combinations. Here's an example test manifest for this simple function:

Test f for

x=-32767, x=-1,x=0,x=1,x=32767

y=-32767, y=-1,y=0,y=1,y=32767

Seems OK? Nope - there's still other tests to do. If you implement f(x,y) on a machine you have to put the result somewhere - these tests do not start with the possibilities of return x(max)+y(max) which exceeds the 32bit limit. In languages such as C, and Fortran, you'd hit a buffer overflow issue.

Now we've tested for boundary conditions, and we've implemented the function in such a manner that buffer overflows cannot happen. A bug free function? Nope, not yet. Consider the logistic function, x(n) = rx(1 - x). If you tested this for boundary conditions, your tests are incomplete. Special values do special things to the output of the function - but because you are in the realm of non-linearity, it is hard to predict what values you should be testing for. Would you have guessed that the boundary of r = 3.5699457 is what we should have been looking for to include in our tests as well? If you hadn't guessed, then the behaviour of even this simple system becomes unknown, unmanagable, and, possibly, contains a bug.

Whilst if the computer is modelling a linear system then, pretty much, the functions are well understood, and well managed, as you say - a nuclear power plant is one such system. When we are trying to model turbulence, the rules of the game change.

And no-one, yet, knows the rules.

EDIT: Apologies for the 'boring' detail. I normally try to avoid such posts.

Edited January 15, 2008 by VillagePlank

[Roger J Smith]

Actually, there are plenty of signs that warming could be natural variability at work. There is no requirement for there to be an external driver for these, the atmosphere-ocean system is complex enough that it might easily be subject to periodic changes that result in overall warmer or colder temperatures, especially in sectors (such as Europe which has warmed more than North America).

Some of these signs would include the following:

-- historical cases where similar warmings took place, without any possible role for greenhouse gases. One could cite 1710-1739 relative to 1659-1709, an average warming of about 1.5 to 2 C degrees. That is probably larger than the warming which is now underway relative to an arbitrary cold period such as 1940-87.

-- vast fluctuations in sea ice around Iceland over many centuries as documented in Hubert Lamb's work (he was a professional climatologist, Ken Hare was only kidding about the deformity requirement by the way, I know a lot of people educated since 1984 have no sense of irony).

-- very large differences in summer circulation patterns from the 1910's decade to the 1920's in N America, then a reversal in the 1930's, to an even more extreme variant.

-- winters 1987-92 in southern Ontario averaged 2.5 C above normal, both February 1993 and all of the period January to March 1994 were about 4-5 C degrees below normal.

My point, without going on any further, is that large swings of climate are natural and have always occurred; the current warming of certain regions (the phrase global warming is somewhat misleading) is certainly larger than most examples and perhaps now a little longer-lasting too, but not entirely outside the range.

Now, given that many of us "skeptics" still attribute some of the warming to greenhouse gases (say 25-33 per cent), that leaves a large amount of natural warming both possible and in my opinion, plausible. I can understand why some look for external drivers to make their case easier to prove, but the fact of the matter is, the atmosphere is something like a deck of cards in a casino, just because you are getting a lot of tens and aces for one fifteen minute session doesn't mean you can plan your future on that basis, because sooner or later, the dealer will have nothing but low cards for you.

Right now, I think the real debate, whether these large panels and associations want to admit it or not, is how much of the warming will continue past some hypothetical cooling phase of the natural variability, and how the two regimes will interact when it tries to cool off. I remember that in 1993-94, it had no problem whatsoever cooling off, the January of that winter was virtually as cold as the previous record cold month of 1857 and also produced daily records that were similar.

And this is of course in the heartland of what is said to be the world's largest emission zone of carbon dioxide, downwind from both Chicago and Detroit, not to mention the Alberta Tar Sands ... which is perhaps why I am a skeptic, all of that carbon dioxide had the effect of turning -41 to -40 ... and that is not exactly a catastrophe. :lol:

[Gray-Wolf]

With the greatest of respect Roo, what you are proposing here is outside the realms of a public forum whose members consist of laymen. If you require such rigour as only citing original source and that alone, and that sources such as institutions (because they have a PR dept) and science journals cannot be considered, then perhaps this forum is not for you? Academic institutions may satisfy your requirements more fully.

However 'great' your respect this is the cruelist post I've ever seen on any forum!!! Had I told someone to bog off to another forum I'd be in the cooler for sure!!!!

Let's play nice eh?

[Devonian]

Actually, there are plenty of signs that warming could be natural variability at work. There is no requirement for there to be an external driver for these, the atmosphere-ocean system is complex enough that it might easily be subject to periodic changes that result in overall warmer or colder temperatures, especially in sectors (such as Europe which has warmed more than North America).

Some of these signs would include the following:

-- historical cases where similar warmings took place, without any possible role for greenhouse gases. One could cite 1710-1739 relative to 1659-1709, an average warming of about 1.5 to 2 C degrees. That is probably larger than the warming which is now underway relative to an arbitrary cold period such as 1940-87.

Is this global, CET or somewhere else, Roger? Certainly the recent CET has reached level higher than those times you cite - and by some margin.

-- vast fluctuations in sea ice around Iceland over many centuries as documented in Hubert Lamb's work (he was a professional climatologist, Ken Hare was only kidding about the deformity requirement by the way, I know a lot of people educated since 1984 have no sense of irony).

Lamb was a considerable scholar, very much aware of the problems to be caused by increased CO2. He set up the CRU...

-- very large differences in summer circulation patterns from the 1910's decade to the 1920's in N America, then a reversal in the 1930's, to an even more extreme variant.

-- winters 1987-92 in southern Ontario averaged 2.5 C above normal, both February 1993 and all of the period January to March 1994 were about 4-5 C degrees below normal.

...

And this is of course in the heartland of what is said to be the world's largest emission zone of carbon dioxide, downwind from both Chicago and Detroit, not to mention the Alberta Tar Sands ... which is perhaps why I am a skeptic, all of that carbon dioxide had the effect of turning -41 to -40 ... and that is not exactly a catastrophe. :lol:

A rather odd last paragraph I must say. I mean, are you saying the CO2 from burning the Alberta tar sands is emitted in Alberta?

[jethro]

Roo:

I find your take on all this incredibly confusing, earlier on yesterday you were saying (and have said previously) that in order to comment on science, the commentator has to have equal knowledge and qualifications, that to disagree as a lay person was arrogant. Now you are saying lay people such as we all are, are at liberty to critically discuss the science.

The dodgy source material you keep referring to is also confusing. Yes there have been numerous tabloid/blog reports included in the threads but they have been discussed from that perspective. There have also been numerous peer reviewed papers posted too. I think you'll find many, many sceptics/questioners have and do support their comments with logic and credible science. Solid evidence has been presented.

Yes there is primary source material available for established studies, what is less available are new papers supporting new research, it takes time for the process to filter through for public consumption. If we are to confine our discussions to old, established data on the basis that we have the original source to support our view, then the circular motion of these discussions will continue ad infinitum - there's only so many ways a paper can be interpreted.

I think everyone, from both sides of the debate has to accept there are sources, some more credible than others, from where information can be gleaned which may throw more light on the whole debate. Original source is ideal, but we don't live in an ideal world. The point you made earlier that you would question a press release from a reputable institution purely on the basis that it was press release material, is in my eyes an unworkable position to take; this would rule out not only the Havard press release but much of the information which comes from NASA. PR is merely an interface between an institution and the public, any press release from any reputable institution is edited prior to release to ensure the content is correct. Indeed, if we are to go down the route of only original source material then by definition, the IPCC report is considered null and void, it does not contain the original papers from which the data has been amassed.

Stratos:

I'm sorry but I disagree. What we have is a temperature record which shows warming, what we do not have is an adequate explanation of why. Nor do we have a complete and accurate record of deviations from norm and causes. We have a record of increasing carbon emissions coinciding with warming, we do not have accuracy or understanding of how much is attributable to which.

You say if any of this were natural in cause then it would have to be something very unusual and probably apparent; not so. In recent history, a time when records have been available we have documented evidence of a climate shift in 1976, a change in ocean currents which caused significant warming in the NH more particularly Canada and North America - large natural variations can and do happen. Recent research shows this may be re-setting it's self again, in the opposite direction.

NASA released a paper earlier in the year which said the AO also showed signs of switching from the predominately positive phase of the last decade or so, back to a cycle of negative phase. We know both the PDO shift between negative and positive phases and the AO negative/positive phases are cyclical, we know these can and do influence weather and climate; what we do not know is how or why these shifts happen. In Alaska the meant temperature difference between the negative phase of the PDO and the switch to the positive phase in 1976 was + 3.1c, a significant rise in anyone's book. A rise which happened during the increasing temperatures linked to CO2 but not caused by CO2. We know we experienced a record breaking El Nino in 1998, what we do not know is why is was so intense, nor do we know why it appears to have caused a step change upwards in temperatures. All these and many more natural climate variations need further study and understanding before we can accurately decipher the signature of increasing emissions.

http://climate.gi.alaska.edu/ResearchProje...dler%202005.pdf

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/...80103144416.htm

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/...21113070418.htm

[VillagePlank]

.. are you saying the CO2 from burning the Alberta tar sands is emitted in Alberta?

I think you'll find it's a reference to the energy required to get the oil out and upgrade it into a usable product. Currently, I think (but not sure) that it's currently fiscally unviable, but as the price of oil goes up, so does that viability of extracting 'more expensive' oil.

[jethro]

However 'great' your respect this is the cruelist post I've ever seen on any forum!!! Had I told someone to bog off to another forum I'd be in the cooler for sure!!!!

Let's play nice eh?

Well no cruelty was intended, I don't have a malicious bone in my body. No offence was intended, no bog off to another forum was intended, Roo did not take offence, the moderators did not interpret it in the way you have. We were discussing the nature of the discussions and establishing the parameters of material considered to be acceptable to the pro side of this debate. Neither Roo nor myself have any desire to endlessly go round in circles, what we both have is a desire to speak to one another on terms which we both understand and accept; in order to communicate you have to speak the same language. Roo and I and many others on here have opposing views on this subject, no one shifts an inch either way. If between us we can thrash out boundaries of material which may convince or sway one another in either direction, we may make progress. Roo is frustrated with the lack of progress in these discussions, as am I, my comments which you have interpreted as cruel were actually part of a much bigger discussion and I was pointing out the limitations of the nature of a lay person, open forum. Nothing more.

[Bobby]

I think you'll find it's a reference to the energy required to get the oil out and upgrade it into a usable product. Currently, I think (but not sure) that it's currently fiscally unviable, but as the price of oil goes up, so does that viability of extracting 'more expensive' oil.

The problem with the oil sands and oil shale is not that they aren't "viable" but that the production is so slow and expensive. Very dirty, polluting and generally damaging to the environment.

Edited January 15, 2008 by Magpie

[VillagePlank]

The problem with the oil sands and oil shale is not that they aren't "viable" but that the production is so slow and expensive. Very dirty, polluting and generally damaging to the environment.

... which is the point being made

[VillagePlank]

One thing that baffles me completely, is that I posted this as, what I feel is, a rational response to argument of my concern that source code isn't published by the builders of the major models - primarily to show that all is not well and good in the business of creating software that mimics the natural world.

Now, most posts before were quite vociferous, comments of the ilk that clearly I am some sort of loon on a conspiracy theorist trip - so that's why I took the time and effort to post a reasonably detailed response in general terms. It could, I guess, have been a lot more detailed, but then we're into analysing whether models, like some have (sort of) claimed, have become a self-referential asymptote - amongst other things that really wouldn't interest a great deal of people.

I can only think of the following reasons:

(i) I am wrong

(ii) I am disliked (not as uncommon as you might at first think )

(iii) You didn't understand it

(iv) You don't care

(v) I am right and you're embarrassed

All of which serves to reduce the debate to a function of emotion rather than a quest for the truth - of which all sides profess to be searching for.

Doesn't seem that way to me.

[Devonian]

One thing that baffles me completely, is that I posted this as, what I feel is, a rational response to argument of my concern that source code isn't published by the builders of the major models - primarily to show that all is not well and good in the business of creating software that mimics the natural world.

Now, most posts before were quite vociferous, comments of the ilk that clearly I am some sort of loon on a conspiracy theorist trip - so that's why I took the time and effort to post a reasonably detailed response in general terms. It could, I guess, have been a lot more detailed, but then we're into analysing whether models, like some have (sort of) claimed, have become a self-referential asymptote - amongst other things that really wouldn't interest a great deal of people.

I can only think of the following reasons:

(i) I am wrong

(ii) I am disliked (not as uncommon as you might at first think )

(iii) You didn't understand it

(iv) You don't care

(v) I am right and you're embarrassed

All of which serves to reduce the debate to a function of emotion rather than a quest for the truth - of which all sides profess to be searching for.

Doesn't seem that way to me.

Ok, I'm provoked

In my case 1 and 3.

With climatology I don't know anything like as much as the experts do and so I bow to them. In this case I don't know as much as you do about programming/computers/maths but I think computer modellers do know what they're talking about.

The world these days is run using computers and models. Most of them are invaluable and produce useful results. Be it weather forecasts, prediction of where foot and mouth virus would spread, flood predictions, controlling spacecraft, tidal predictions etc etc. It's simply not the case, imo, the computer models are riddled with serious errors that render them useless.

In essence, as I understand it, the atmosphere is rather simple - it's quite easy to predict how warm the surface should be using long known pre models (pre computers) 'simple' physics (that's how the GH effect was discovered - the earth's surface is warmer than it would be with a atmosphere without ghg's). Indeed, I suspect that one could come up with prediction for 2050 and 2100 based on present ghg trends using equations and abacuses/i (spp) and get something pretty close to what the models predict.

Now, shot me down, but remember, you'll be using the argument from authority and that's what the IPCC is :lol:

[jethro]

Ok, I'm provoked :lol:

In my case 1 and 3.

With climatology I don't know anything like as much as the experts do and so I bow to them. In this case I don't know as much as you do about programming/computers/maths but I think computer modellers do know what they're talking about.

The world these days is run using computers and models. Most of them are invaluable and produce useful results. Be it weather forecasts, prediction of where foot and mouth virus would spread, flood predictions, controlling spacecraft, tidal predictions etc etc. It's simply not the case, imo, the computer models are riddled with serious errors that render them useless.

In essence, as I understand it, the atmosphere is rather simple - it's quite easy to predict how warm the surface should be using long known pre models (pre computers) 'simple' physics (that's how the GH effect was discovered - the earth's surface is warmer than it would be with a atmosphere without ghg's). Indeed, I suspect that one could come up with prediction for 2050 and 2100 based on present ghg trends using equations and abacuses/i (spp) and get something pretty close to what the models predict.

Now, shot me down, but remember, you'll be using the argument from authority and that's what the IPCC is

But to be fair Dev, even the IPCC admit their knowledge of atmospherics and ocean coupling is rudimentary. The predicted rise in temps they come up with is a reflection of this in as much as they assume and include positive feedbacks, but the positive feedbacks remain an untested, unquantifiable, unknown - how do you program that?

Why not publish the source code so that it may be verified? Publish and be damned I say.

[Roo]

Why not publish the source code so that it may be verified? Publish and be damned I say.

Ah the circular argument continues apace I see....

We have been over (see both mine and SF's posts above and before, etc, etc, etc, etc) why they probably do not publish them and that appeared to be enough until (guess what!) a rehash of old material.....

Conspiracy here we come!

I still stand by my position that this is all largely pointless all the while it is based on half truth and rumour. Please read the FULL paper before using it as evidence, as without doing so you are doing the authors a grave disservice. It is also lazy research and results in utterly unreliable conclusions. And, to reiterate, a press release never has been, and never will be, evidence: it has been written to attract attention from the media: it cannot be relied upon to be an accurate summary of any scientific paper, even if it is from Harvard! (and for all those who say it is impossible to get the original papers: it is easy to find abstracts through google, I have done so for most of the links above, and then it's not tricky to email the author who is almost always deeply gratified to have someone interested in their work).

And now I am off, you'll be very glad to hear! I had a bit of an eye opener yesterday, and I really can't be doing this anymore, if I'm honest.

The truth of the matter is, despite protestations, few people here actually want to learn anything, they just want to (attempt) to tear down the learned consensus for some weird reason best known to themselves: it appears to be the result of a fundamental, and wanton, mis-understanding of the scientific method and an inability to be able to interpret the results. This, coupled with a deep mistrust of scientists working in the climate field and a range of poorly sourced, and inadequately referenced, material leads to some truly spectacular conclusions.

Oh, and there's also a good dose of irrational obstinacy that AGW must be wrong although, for why, I cannot fathom.

Toodle pip!

Edited January 16, 2008 by Roo

[jethro]

Ah the circular argument continues apace I see....

We have been over (see both mine and SF's posts above and before, etc, etc, etc, etc) why they probably do not publish them and that appeared to be enough until (guess what!) a rehash of old material.....

Conspiracy here we come!

I still stand by my position that this is all largely pointless all the while it is based on half truth and rumour. Please read the FULL paper before using it as evidence, as without doing so you are doing the authors a grave disservice. It is also lazy research and results in utterly unreliable conclusions. And, to reiterate, a press release never has been, and never will be, evidence: it has been written to attract attention from the media: it cannot be relied upon to be an accurate summary of any scientific paper, even if it is from Harvard! (and for all those who say it is impossible to get the original papers: it is easy to find abstracts through google, I have done so for most of the links above, and then it's not tricky to email the author who is almost always deeply gratified to have someone interested in their work).

And now I am off, you'll be very glad to hear! I had a bit of an eye opener yesterday, and I really can't be doing this anymore, if I'm honest.

The truth of the matter is, despite protestations, few people here actually want to learn anything, they just want to (attempt) to tear down the learned consensus for some weird reason best known to themselves: it appears to be the result of a fundamental, and wanton, mis-understanding of the scientific method and an inability to be able to interpret the results. This, coupled with a deep mistrust of scientists working in the climate field and a range of poorly sourced, and inadequately referenced, material leads to some truly spectacular conclusions.

Oh, and there's also a good dose of irrational obstinacy that AGW must be wrong although, for why, I cannot fathom.

Toodle pip!

So the original paper I provided a link to above about The Great Pacific Climate change and it's impact upon temperatures of a rise of 3.1c due entirely to natural causes, warrants no comment then? It is one thing to demand original source, I accept when possible this should be done, but when I follow the desires of the pro side, post original papers which validate one of the questioners questions, it remains unanswered, ignored, not discussed in any way. This is, I would hazard a guess, the fourth or fifth one of these threads where I have posted this paper and not one single pro side has responded.

Irrational obstinacy that sceptics must be wrong exists too. The scepticism and circular nature of these discussions will continue for ever more if the pro side do not enter into debate to disprove the peer reviewed sceptic papers.

Edited January 16, 2008 by jethro

[noggin]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/...ing_cooler.html

Here is a media article. I am linking to it as I feel that it explains quite well what I have wittered on about for some time i.e. that it is the media which is causing and perpetuating this irrational fear of global warming.

I am well aware of the irony of a media article re the media's articles, but in this instance it is a small price to pay.

I have not posted for a few days as I feel an impasse has been reached here. I wish we had a crystal ball and could see into the future (climate-wise). Then we could see how things will be. I am not after "point scoring", nor would it be a contest to see who was right, who was wrong, who was a bit right or a bit wrong or anything like that.....it would just be so that we could put an end to the torture that is the enviro threads at times.

[Devonian]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/...ing_cooler.html

Here is a media article. I am linking to it as I feel that it explains quite well what I have wittered on about for some time i.e. that it is the media which is causing and perpetuating this irrational fear of global warming.

I am well aware of the irony of a media article re the media's articles, but in this instance it is a small price to pay.

I have not posted for a few days as I feel an impasse has been reached here. I wish we had a crystal ball and could see into the future (climate-wise). Then we could see how things will be. I am not after "point scoring", nor would it be a contest to see who was right, who was wrong, who was a bit right or a bit wrong or anything like that.....it would just be so that we could put an end to the torture that is the enviro threads at times.

And, I'm sorry to say, noggin, yours is a post that shows what drives me nuts about AGW so called scepticism.

Thus in your first paragraph you use the word 'irrational' - yes indeed, of course people like me are irrational. But, perhaps you'll say you don't mean people like me? But I do think AGW is a serious problem, I do think the world will probably warm a lot and that will have a lot of consequences - silly irrational me

You then quote a truly awful American (clue) op ed. It's littered with out of context quotes. Dr Jones DID NOT say 2007 'would be the warmest year on record' - he would have qualified that with a probability. Then the article describes Dr Jones as an 'alarmist'. He is not, he might well be alarmed (I am) but to call him alarmist is simply to ad hom him - to attack his character - yuck.

On we go through the article. 'And the trend line is down'. - the old global warming has stopped line . People need to understand trends. Further on we get Dr. Oleg Sorokhtin's prediction uncritically recycled, yet later on rather than reporting what he says Al Gore is simply 'the crook'. Balanced? Don't make me laugh.

I'm sure I've missed other egregious nonsense but I must quote the article final flourish since it's a classic of the type: "Some dastardly scientists with environmental and political motives manipulated long term scientific data to create an illusion of rapid global warming," Mr. Coleman wrote. "Their friends in government steered huge research grants their way to keep the movement going...In time, in a decade or two, the outrageous scam will be obvious." 'political motives', 'illusion', 'scam' what a load of tendentious claptrap - if someone wrote that of sceptics there would be outrage here!

Ugghh.

Edited January 17, 2008 by Devonian

[Roo]

Apologies for my rant yesterday, and if it led anyone to think I was leaving NW, I apologise: I'm not. I'm just going to keep out of the enviro zone for a bit as I feel I've said all I can say. I had a crap day the day before, but that is no excuse.

Jethro: From the Climate paper, I really don't see too much of a controversy. Even the authors leave it until the last paragraph to say:

'The cooling trend throughout much of Alaska since 1977, though not statistically significant, is in contrast to some theories regarding the atmospheric warming in an increasing greenhouse gas environment.'

As far as I understand it, and I am not a scientist, so I can't interrogate the results, there will be cooling and warming on a local basis, with AGW. Yes, there are natural warming and cooling factors and it would appear the authors are talking about one such cooling.

Their conclusions do not seem to warrant, nor do the authors claim them to warrant, the overturning of the consensus about AGW, .

edit: for clarity

Edited January 17, 2008 by Roo

[noggin]

And, I'm sorry to say, noggin, yours is a post that shows what drives me nuts about AGW so called scepticism.

Ugghh.

Hi, Dev.

I know that you know that I am not out to cause offence. Nor I am offended when you say my post is responsible for driving you nuts!

It is so frustrating for all sides (for want of a better word!). As someone on here said recently.....if the scientists can't agree, what hope is there for us?

The fact that I can't debate my way out of a paper bag doesn't help, either! I know what I believe to be the case regarding global warming and cooling ( that it is natural and that the media does not report things as it should i.e. in a balanced way) but I just can't debate. Anything. I would make a lousy politician.

It would be good (for the purposes of discussion (by others)) to have a peek into the future, though.

[noggin]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/...ing_cooler.html

The same link as above.

I will quote this bit from it...

"Dr Roger Pielke of the University of Colorado noted that a paper published in an obscure scientific journal that argued there was a link between hurricanes and global warming generated 79 news articles, while a paper that debunked the connection published in a far more prestigious journal generated only three."

...and this bit...

"John Tierney, science writer for the New York Times wrote "When the Arctic sea ice last year hit the lowest level ever recorded by satellites, it was big news and heralded as a sign the planet was warming. When the Antarctic sea ice reached the highest level ever recorded by satellites, it was pretty much ignored."

There is more in the article in the same vein. Indeed, it is the main thrust of the article.

I am becoming more and more convinced that the media has one heck of a lot to answer for in it's totally unbalanced reporting of climatological issues.

Personally I can't see the point in continuing to contribute to the enviro threads. I have always tried, believe it or not, to see others' points of view. What is the point of continuing when so many AGWers will not even consider any point of view which does not tie in with theirs? Open-mindedness only works when it works both or all ways.