“There is no doubt in my mind that the literature on climate change overwhelmingly supports the hypothesis that climate change is caused by humans. I have very little reason to doubt that the consensus is indeed correct.”
-Richard Tol, Energy Policy 73, 701–705, 2014
Don Don,
You must at least find it interesting since you keep replying…
[…] most interesting charts I’d seen for a while and wanted to write a post on it, but Dave Rutledge posting at Judith Curry beat me to […]
“To criticize C13 for what it doesn’t do might very well be suboptimal, Judy.” – Willard
Willard,
You fail to fully appreciate the blog-scientist methodology; blog-posts claiming flaws in climate science/reseearch are correct – no critical appraisal required.
For someone claiming to be interested in science and research, Jose has an…err…curious take accuracy and professional behaviour.
Given the corrupt state of the profession – eg continuing unrepentant attitude over Climategate and the ensuing coverups – rebuilding trust in climate science, requires rebuilding the climate science profession.
Is this even possible though, given that it is government-funded, and government has has such an obvious and huge vested interest in a finding of CAGW alarmism?
“To be quite clear, anyone who spends their time making accusations of fraud, and claims that others are dishonest, is probably a complete joke who should simply be ignored.”
“The McIntyre and McKitrick paper is pure scientific fraud. I think you’ll find this reinforced by just about any legitimate scientist in our field you discuss this with. To recap, I hope you don’t mention MM [McIntyre and McKitrick] at all. It really doesn’t deserve any additional publicity.”
True.
Mosh
Not sure of your meaning. Are you saying the M and M paper is fraudulent or is it reinforcing the comment that those who shout fraud should be ignored?
Incidentally, A nobel prize awaits those who manage to prove malicious intent by the major suppliers of temperature data. All it needs is a peer reviewed paper by a sceptic, which shouldn’t be difficult to write if the ‘fraud’ is so obvious.
tonyb
JC Where does the intellectual and political diversity come from in the climate debate? Certainly not from academia
Because they’ll all funded from the same source; and which is by no stretch of the imagination is a disinterested observer.
Nick
Yesterday we were discussing the accuracy of Dr Hansen’s 1988 prediction of temperature and the ‘pause.’ Here is the original Hansen 1988 document
http://climatechange.procon.org/sourcefiles/1988_Hansen_Senate_Testimony.pdf
and the scripps co2 data.
In the 1988 paper, on page 48, Hansen seems to say quite clearly that scenario A is based on a continuation of the previous 20 years trend of co2 to 2020. The scripps data shows this was exceeded.
Hansen cites a reference 1 in his 1988 testimony relating to a giss 3D model of 1988. It is here. Unfortunately it is pay walled so only parts can be viewed
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/ha02700w.html
In your 6.35 you linked to co2 data (from climate audit) which you said directly related to this 1988 paper.
As I am unable to view the original data for myself, you merely need to confirm your 6.35 was directly taken from the data used in hansen’s 1988 paper, that was complied at the time and comes directly from reference 1 (pay walled) and I will obviously accept this in good faith.
Can you confirm the climate audit material is identical and contemporary to the 1988 paper? Thanks
tonyb
Solar panels in Africa.
While claiming economic viability, the article speaks of the need for “regulatory stability” – presumably a euphemism for ongoing political privilege (subsidies, impositions and restrictions on fossil, etc).
Making the economic viability claim a bogus one.
Solar irrigation pumps in Bangladesh.
These now compete with diesel pumps, but are only made affordable by subsidy. However, article says diesel is also subsidised.
So, rather than remove or reduce the diesel subsidy, thereby reducing the government, they choose to add to it by creating a new bureaucracy for solar.
Well, at least the Bangladesh state is looking after the interests of the Bangladesh state then. Career bureaurocrats there can sleep well.
“I am impressed that Jose managed to avoid using fraud in the above comment.” – attp
To be fair, he did use it 43 times in one of his other posts.
“Career bureaurocrats there can sleep well.” Not only in Bangla Desh, unfortunately, those public servants who genuinely seek policies which best serve the community are easily outmanoeuvered by those who follow an insider-outsider, you-scratch my back …, self-and-mates-serving path. The former tend not to be self-serving, the others have more skin in the game, know that the goodies are a threat, and scheme, manipulate and toady to ministers to ensure that they hold sway. And most ministers rarely resist any proposal which will enhance their own empire.
Similarly with Australia’s Choice, which started out as a straight-down-the-line consumer testing magazine then became social crusaders, later teaming up with the green left. Cancelled long ago.
Casablanca in 1969 looked a bit boring. I took off early when I woke to find that the guy who’d given me a ride from Algeciras in Spain via the ferry to Ceuta was sound asleep with the door open and a revolver to hand (or to be picked up) by his bed. A recipe for disaster. I took the Marrakech Express while he slept on.
Anti-Israeli distortions are, sadly, far worse than those promoting alleged CAGW. A poster to Haaretz complained that an article detailing this would never appear in the Western MSM. I was happy to advise that The Australian ran it as its top featured article, almost a full broadsheet page. But I doubt if any other media here would have picked it up.
Tony,
The data was posted at RealClimate by Gavin Schmidt some years ago, and Gavin believed that it was the data associated with the 1988 paper. I can confirm that the CA files are a copy of that posted data. Hansen was still head of GISS at the time, so I presume Gavin’s belief was based on word from Hansen. Unfortunately, I can’t now locate the RC reference.
And that’s probably how many more respondents felt, that they weren’t comfortable with the categories as specified. So they would have to make a choice between category that came somewhat close to their personal estimate, or other, dunno, or unknown. Hence the large fraction of responses in those latter three categories.
This is not just mindreading, but based on comments from respondents and based on comparing the results of this question to those from Q3.
And that is why we thought it better to leave those latter three categories out, because its number is in all likelihood much higher than the numebr of respondents who are truly agnostic on the question of human GHG dominated warming.
