Scepticism Of Man Made Climate Change

[VillagePlank]

The cause of public confidence in science is ill served by the dogmatic and intolerant banner of ‘denialism’. Surely we are capable of defeating people like Duesberg and Wakefield in proper argument without descending into the gutter. The pity is that we have been seeing this deplorable trend not only over AIDS and autism, but also in relation to other controversies such as those concerning theories of evolution and passive smoking. Enough is enough.

 

http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/7516

 

Essentially recognising those who use the terms 'denier' and 'misleader' for what, and who,they really are.

 

Ad-Hominem: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html

Edited November 9, 2013 by Sparkicle

[keithlucky]

Devonian

[*]

[*]Members

[*]3,071 posts

[*]Gender:Male

[*]Location:Near Newton Abbot or east Dartmoor, Devon

Posted Yesterday, 12:45

keithlucky, on 10 Nov 2013 - 12:25, said:

 

 

Firstly, nice to see you here Keith, in the Man made thread I thought you said you'd keep out of  ...

 

Anyway, lets see where we are...Oh yes, it starts out with Dr Masters reporting (that's reporting) the figures on Haiyan others, like JTWC, give. He the goes on to be (repeatedly!)viciously insulted, called a liar and worse by 'stevegoddard' and then both A. Watts and P. Homewood pile in with such petty, nauseating nit picks it's hard to believe it's being done. Such bloggers falling over themselves to insult a fine scientist with a unimpeachable reputation and argue about a few MPH while thousands of people have died - it's one of the most unedifying spectacles I've seen from 'sceptics' for a long time

 

Besides, it's not as if there is any doubt the Haiyan was about as fierce as a typhoon gets! C'mon Keith - the place has been levelled!!

 

And to cap it all,  has anyone mentioned 'you know what'!?

 

I'll leave this with a comment left on P. Homewood's blog which sums it up...:

 

"I am in Manila currently and we were lucky that the super typhoon was 400 km away. Except for heavy rain nothing of the worse things happen here.

More than 10.000 dead people already been accounted for, amongst some of my wife’s family and here people quarrel about whether BBC was right or wrong. I’don’t give a flying swearing is not big or clever if it is 275 or 375 km, people die here or their houses and businesses are being destroyed, for christ sake some dignity is in place here.

I’ve seen TV life reports her and I tell you i have never seen anything in my life…"

 

Jese....

 

Edit: swear filter in action I see

Sorry Devonian for crossing over to the darkside but there was nothing extrodinary about this storm just go back in history,

http://www.wunderground.com/blog/weatherhistorian/comment.html?entrynum=204

 

 

 

 

[Methuselah]

Devonian

[*]

[*]Members

[*]3,071 posts

[*]Gender:Male

[*]Location:Near Newton Abbot or east Dartmoor, Devon

Posted Yesterday, 12:45

keithlucky, on 10 Nov 2013 - 12:25, said:

 

 

Firstly, nice to see you here Keith, in the Man made thread I thought you said you'd keep out of  ...

 

Anyway, lets see where we are...Oh yes, it starts out with Dr Masters reporting (that's reporting) the figures on Haiyan others, like JTWC, give. He the goes on to be (repeatedly!)viciously insulted, called a liar and worse by 'stevegoddard' and then both A. Watts and P. Homewood pile in with such petty, nauseating nit picks it's hard to believe it's being done. Such bloggers falling over themselves to insult a fine scientist with a unimpeachable reputation and argue about a few MPH while thousands of people have died - it's one of the most unedifying spectacles I've seen from 'sceptics' for a long time

 

Besides, it's not as if there is any doubt the Haiyan was about as fierce as a typhoon gets! C'mon Keith - the place has been levelled!!

 

And to cap it all,  has anyone mentioned 'you know what'!?

 

I'll leave this with a comment left on P. Homewood's blog which sums it up...:

 

"I am in Manila currently and we were lucky that the super typhoon was 400 km away. Except for heavy rain nothing of the worse things happen here.

More than 10.000 dead people already been accounted for, amongst some of my wife’s family and here people quarrel about whether BBC was right or wrong. I’don’t give a flying swearing is not big or clever if it is 275 or 375 km, people die here or their houses and businesses are being destroyed, for christ sake some dignity is in place here.

I’ve seen TV life reports her and I tell you i have never seen anything in my life…"

 

Jese....

 

Edit: swear filter in action I see

Sorry Devonian for crossing over to the darkside but there was nothing extrodinary about this storm just go back in history,

http://www.wunderground.com/blog/weatherhistorian/comment.html?entrynum=204

 

But weren't those storms also extraordinary, Keith?

[stewfox]

At least we haven't seen a spin that this terrible Typhoon Haiyan was due to 'man made climate change'

 

http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/11/09/scientists-reject-typhoon-haiyan-link-to-man-made-global-warming-storm-expert-brian-mcnoldy-of-u-of-miami-we-dont-get-to-pick-and-choose-which-storms-are-enhanced-by-a-warmer-climate-and-which/

 

That 'need jerk reaction' has been more tempered in recent years which is pleasing to see.

 

 

Edited November 13, 2013 by stewfox

[keithlucky]

We all thought that the melt season had started in the Antarctic but no another daily growth record broken http://t.co/SbkfQ1voQR

Edited November 15, 2013 by keithlucky

[Jimmy0127]

At least we haven't seen a spin that this terrible Typhoon Haiyan was due to 'man made climate change'

 

http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/11/09/scientists-reject-typhoon-haiyan-link-to-man-made-global-warming-storm-expert-brian-mcnoldy-of-u-of-miami-we-dont-get-to-pick-and-choose-which-storms-are-enhanced-by-a-warmer-climate-and-which/

 

That 'need jerk reaction' has been more tempered in recent years which is pleasing to see.

 

Beg to differ, Stewfox. BBC Question Time last night devoted 10 minutes to this question.

 

Awkward it was too, as both sides used the IPCC's report to justify themselves - Nigel Lawson citing the lack of evidence supporting consequentially larger and stronger storms, and Ed Davey citing evidence supporting consequentially larger and stronger storms.

 

Lawson essentially lost the argument, and looked most foolish, when he raised the question of "the pause", and was rebuffed on the grounds that this is selective timing. We need to look at the bigger picture. 

Because everyone knows that global warming actually started in 1960. 

[keithlucky]

After all the hype haiyan super Typhoon was only 7th on the all time list of Typhoons http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2013/11/was-haiyan-strongest-storm-ever-no.html

Edited November 16, 2013 by keithlucky

[Polar Maritime]

A common argument against the realities of climate change this year has been “Warming has slowed over the last 16 yearsâ€. Of course, to those well informed, this argument was, from the start, a result of people getting caught up in short term noise in a long term trend. Essentially, refusing to notice that despite an apparent slowing rate of warming, the temperature, year on year, is increasing. But, as a result of new research, this argument, in all its forms, can be tucked up safely in bed. British and Canadian researchers have now demonstrated that the warming trend since 1997 has been grossly underestimated; by as much as half.

How, you may ask?

In order to answer this question we must firstly look at how temperature data is obtained. HadCRUT is the dataset of monthly instrumental temperature records formed by combining the sea surface temperature records compiled by the Hadley Centre of the UK Met Office and the land surface air temperature records compiled by the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia. This system is the most commonly utilised and referred to dataset in the world-influencing the IPCC and many other international panels.

HadCRUT, or more specifically, HadCRUT4, takes surface temperatures directly from land based stations or from ships and does not, unlike other systems, interpolate data. The system is capable of gathering temperature information for 84% of the planet. It is this remaining 16% that is the focus of the new study. While you could assert that 84% of coverage is a good representation of the global average temperature, there lies a problem- the coverage is lacking in parts of Africa and the Polar Regions; the Arctic being a particular area of interest.

As many of you will be well aware, the Arctic has been particularly sensitive to climate change. The area has warmed exceptionally, this has been shown through satellite and reanalysis as well as the more visual aid of unprecedented sea ice loss.

At this point, you may be asking “surely there is another temperature record�?

There is. NASA’s temperature record ‘GISTEMP’, which is recorded using satellites, actually tries to address the gap in coverage. This is achieved by the extrapolation of temperatures in areas where no data is being collected by basing temperature on the nearest available measurements. You may argue that this is can be a misrepresentation of data- but at least it’s not simply excluding a region.

However, NASA, while picking up some pieces dropped by the HadCRUT, has not included corrections in the data for the change in which sea surface temperatures are measured and unfortunately satellites cannot measure the near-surface temperatures but only those overhead at a certain altitude range in the troposphere. So, here we have two massive data sets, used worldwide, both excellent in their own right- but neither perfect.

In comes new research… (don’t you just love science??)

Kevin Cowtan from the University of York and Robert Way of the University of Ottawa have developed a new method to fill the data gaps, utilising the geostatistical method known as ‘kriging’ (this might be familiar to GIS users). Kriging essentially weights surrounding measured values and then using these, derives a predicted value for an unmeasured location.

The team used this technique to produce a hybrid temperature value; taking the difference between satellite and ground data. So, in essence they have created a system that converts satellite data to near surface temperature data.

They applied this method to the HadCRUT4 data. Previously, HadCRUT4 had shown a small warming trend of only 0.05 °C per decade for 1997-2012- but we must not forget that this trend was missing Arctic temperatures. After filling in these gaps, the team found that the trend is actually around 0.12 °C per decade; matching the long-term trend mentioned by the IPCC and painting a more realistic picture of the current global warming trend.

More information can be found here:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/11/global-warming-since-1997-underestimated-by-half/

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/nov/13/global-warming-underestimated-by-half


Also check out this video, which explains the study quite well: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GhJR3ywIijo

Edited November 16, 2013 by Polar Maritime

[4wd]

Basically they are infilling data with what they think it should be.
Made up data is not better than no data at all.
Judith Curry is having none of it.
http://judithcurry.com/2013/11/13/uncertainty-in-sst-measurements-and-data-sets/

 

It's interesting how the usual suspects are gleefully promoting this one paper already - as it conveniently reduces 'the pause' which they were previously trying to claim was caused by the ocean suddenly deciding to hide heat, or most recently our amazingly successful reductions in CFC use.

This will backfire when further studies largely ignore the invented data.

Evidently AGW Towers are increasingly concerned by this graph which shows actual recorded (real!) data against computer predictions - to the extent that making up data so it doesn't look so bad is the current favoured option.


 

[UV-RAY]

Basically they are infilling data with what they think it should be.

Made up data is not better than no data at all.

Judith Curry is having none of it.http://judithcurry.com/2013/11/13/uncertainty-in-sst-measurements-and-data-sets/

 

It's interesting how the usual suspects are gleefully promoting this one paper already - as it conveniently reduces 'the pause' which they were previously trying to claim was caused by the ocean suddenly deciding to hide heat, or most recently our amazingly successful reductions in CFC use.

This will backfire when further studies largely ignore the invented data.

Evidently AGW Towers are increasingly concerned by this graph which shows actual recorded (real!) data against computer predictions - to the extent that making up data so it doesn't look so bad is the current favoured option.

You knew it was only a matter of time when fabricated and fudged data would be presented in order to prop up a failing theory.

[4wd]

It reminds me of that attempt to 'warm' an area in Antarctica the size of Western Europe by smearing and averaging very intermittent data from one weather station which hadn't even been recording for years at a time, and sections of the data it did have were way out compared to the nearest reliable ones. 

[keithlucky]

It reminds me of that attempt to 'warm' an area in Antarctica the size of Western Europe by smearing and averaging very intermittent data from one weather station which hadn't even been recording for years at a time, and sections of the data it did have were way out compared to the nearest reliable ones. 

Yes and ingnore the other 34 stations lol.

[keithlucky]

Rising co2 has no effect on corals http://www.nipccreport.org/articles/2013/nov/12nov2013a1.html

 

[UV-RAY]

Just read another doommongering post on the manmade thread and I have too say some proponents of AGW are only in it due to their hatred of all things man, or so it appears.Now that's only a small percentage of people mind you as the majority of the other side use the best of the scientific studies we have to argue there case and this isn't levelled at those for sure.

[4wd]

At least we haven't seen a spin that this terrible Typhoon Haiyan was due to 'man made climate change'

 

http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/11/09/scientists-reject-typhoon-haiyan-link-to-man-made-global-warming-storm-expert-brian-mcnoldy-of-u-of-miami-we-dont-get-to-pick-and-choose-which-storms-are-enhanced-by-a-warmer-climate-and-which/

 

That 'need jerk reaction' has been more tempered in recent years which is pleasing to see.

You didn't really think they could let a juicy disaster go to waste do you?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24975106

Same old garbage, weasel words and emotive nonsense like this:

"It is not fair, it is not just and it cannot go on that those living in poor and vulnerable communities, such as in the Philippines, are being affected now whilst governments fail to steer us to a better future based on our shared responsibility to care for our planet now and for future generations."

 

.

[4wd]

Because..... It's funny!


(and not far from the truth)


“First, I asked Stephen Belcher, the head of the Met Office Hadley Centre, whether the recent extended winter was related to global warming. Shaking his famous “ghost stickâ€, and fingering his trademark necklace of sharks’ teeth and mammoth bones, the loin-clothed Belcher blew smoke into a conch, and replied, “Here come de heap big warmy. Bigtime warmy warmy. Is big big hot. Plenty big warm burny hot. Hot! Hot hot! But now not hot. Not hot now. De hot come go, come go. Now Is Coldy Coldy. Is ice. Hot den cold. Frreeeezy ice til hot again. Den de rain. It faaaalllll. Make pasty.â€
–Sean Thomas, The Daily Telegraph, 19 June 2013″

[jonboy]

It was very disappointing to hear a lead within Oxfam this morning on the BBC blame the intensity of the Philippines Typhoon on climate change and that the world could and should stop said climate change. Were do these people get their advice. You cannot change/stop our climate changing when its is down to natural cycles. What will they say when temperatures globally fall yet the Philippines get hit by more and more typhoons (Chinese research indicates historically typhoons take a more northerly during mini ice ages)

Really frustrating to see this today

[UV-RAY]

http://forum.netweather.tv/topic/76448-scepticism-of-man-made-climate-change/page-38#entry2836598

 

I can only assume this refers to the last couple of posts by GW as you haven't the bottle to say so. To say that  some proponents of AGW are only in it due to their hatred of all things man, is not only backed up by scant evidence but shows a paucity of scientific reasoning and human understanding all so often displayed by the acolytes of Watts.

 

I'm intruiged as to whom else you refer but have to assume I'm included so I would appreciate some supporting facts to go with the woffle. I mean to say this from someone who repeatable comes up with this unsupported tosh.

 

"You knew it was only a matter of time when fabricated and fudged data would be presented in order to prop up a failing theory".

Lol, I was being diplomatic  ands best not to name names. As for evidence, well there's plenty on global surface temps falling away but none on CO2 being responsible for the majority of the past warming. Conjecture and assumptions aren't evidence, something the warming brigade can't seem to get there head round.

 

Edit; Why does my post end up in this thread? Also I was referring to the Typhoon not AGW per say, so any data suggesting that somehow CO2 is the trigger for this tragedy is fudged and fabricated data.

Edited November 17, 2013 by Sceptical Inquirer

[Gray-Wolf]

Four said;

 

You didn't really think they could let a juicy disaster go to waste do you?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24975106

Same old garbage, weasel words and emotive nonsense like this:

"It is not fair, it is not just and it cannot go on that those living in poor and vulnerable communities, such as in the Philippines, are being affected now whilst governments fail to steer us to a better future based on our shared responsibility to care for our planet now and for future generations."

 

.

? ?? I can't see why this would gaul you so 4?

 

When 'Science' is mentioned it is only to say that it is impossible to link any one weather event to AGW. When it speaks of emissions reductions it should also be pleasing to you as it makes it amply clear that we will not reach agreement in any meaningful way?

 

The only thing I can see you taking issue with is the general public's view that this is a taste of what is promised if we allow AGW to impact us unmitigated?

 

Is it the fear that the general public can get so torn up at the sight of 4,000 dead ,12 million impacted and images of destruction that makes some areas look like Armageddon's big brother has just thrown a paddy there?

 

Sadly I fear that such reports will become ever more frequent as impacts of warming continue to 'load the dice' in favour of ever more extreme weather events. I think that this is the understanding of the 'general Public' that you seem to take issue with 4?

 

Were this 'loading of the dice' not backed up by sound observational science I could see why you might take issue but sadly science is telling us that this is what is occurring and that 'extreme weather events' , of all colours, are now far more likely to occur that they were 50yrs ago. Surely we cannot deny the science 4?

 

EDIT: Ooopsie! Wrong thread! Could a mod move it over please?

 

EDIT:EDIT: Seems SI and I crossed posts and ended up in the threads we took our 'paste' from? Anyhoo's here's a U.S. view similar to what I posted above;

 

 

http://www.thenewstribune.com/2013/11/17/2897080/megastorms-could-create-tipping.html?

Edited November 17, 2013 by Gray-Wolf

[4wd]

When 'Science' is mentioned it is only to say that it is impossible to link any one weather event to AGW

Yes but the rest of the piece is mostly the usual emotive nonsense suggesting that a single weather event was 'caused' by AGW or made worse it, and such events are going to be more common.
The evidence just does not support it but they have no shame and will use the deaths of 1000s to push the propaganda.

Disgusting - and that is from the BBC not the Greenpeace half-wits who aren't locked up yet.

[UV-RAY]

? ?? I can't see why this would gaul you so 4?

 

When 'Science' is mentioned it is only to say that it is impossible to link any one weather event to AGW. When it speaks of emissions reductions it should also be pleasing to you as it makes it amply clear that we will not reach agreement in any meaningful way?

 

The only thing I can see you taking issue with is the general public's view that this is a taste of what is promised if we allow AGW to impact us unmitigated?

 

Is it the fear that the general public can get so torn up at the sight of 4,000 dead ,12 million impacted and images of destruction that makes some areas look like Armageddon's big brother has just thrown a paddy there?

 

Sadly I fear that such reports will become ever more frequent as impacts of warming continue to 'load the dice' in favour of ever more extreme weather events. I think that this is the understanding of the 'general Public' that you seem to take issue with 4?

 

Were this 'loading of the dice' not backed up by sound observational science I could see why you might take issue but sadly science is telling us that this is what is occurring and that 'extreme weather events' , of all colours, are now far more likely to occur that they were 50yrs ago. Surely we cannot deny the science 4?

 

EDIT: Ooopsie! Wrong thread! Could a mod move it over please?

There is zero evidence to support this though, it's weather and the Typhoon as deadly as it was isn't that unheard off GW. It's amazing how proponents of AGW can use weather events as an example of AGW but as soon as sceptics post cold related stories it's just weather. 

Edited November 17, 2013 by Sceptical Inquirer

[UV-RAY]

Rubbish. It was perfectly obvious who you were talking about and I would still like to know whether I'm included in your comment. As for none on "CO2 being responsible for the majority of the past warming". I take it then we can safely dismiss numerous scientific papers by climatologists and scientists from other disciplines on the basis of your unqualified say so?

 

Kindly point me to thescientific opinions that states CO² was the trigger for the tragedy, and if you can, explain how the data was fudged. I'm interested because I haven't come across any.

 

Frankly I think you are just a wind up merchant.

Oxfam have already stated this also GW has done the very same, but he's not alone the blogosphere is littered with the same views, some from cranks and others from self professed experts. As for your slur on me being a wind up merchant, well I'll ignore that and just highlight  how the globe has stopped warming without any cool drivers in place from the beginning of the pause, that in itself should bring the sceptical side out of any good scientists, why hasn't it?

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/david-cameron-says-evidence-is-growing-for-climate-change-link-to-storms-after-typhoon-haiyan-8943229.html

Edited November 17, 2013 by Sceptical Inquirer

[UV-RAY]

When 'Science' is mentioned it is only to say that it is impossible to link any one weather event to AGW

Yes but the rest of the piece is mostly the usual emotive nonsense suggesting that a single weather event was 'caused' by AGW or made worse it, and such events are going to be more common.

The evidence just does not support it but they have no shame and will use the deaths of 1000s to push the propaganda.

Disgusting - and that is from the BBC not the Greenpeace half-wits who aren't locked up yet.

I switched of getting my news content from the beeb a long time ago,  the sooner it is privatised the better for all who don't want their news spoon fed to them.

[VillagePlank]

With the missing Arctic temperature now added in does this mean that our current temperature series are, therefore, incorrect? Is it only on this point? What other missing data is there or isn't there? What other parts of the series are wrong? Climate models are calibrated against these series, so are the models therefore wrong? If the heat was already in the system, in the Arctic, what's the explanation of the heat in the ocean? Are the assumptions underpinning feedbacks and feedforwards wrong, then?

[knocker]

Yes I've been wondering about this. Some fair questions Spark.