Comment on Radical essays on science & technology by Anteros

January 17, 2012, 6:17 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Radical essays on science & technology by Anteros

≪ Previous: Comment on Is it necessary to lie to win a controversial public debate? by Jim Cripwell

$

0

0

Mosher -
Well put – clear and succinct.

However, my departure from the whole narrative that you left unstated (or unfinished) but which is in everyone’s mind, is the degree to which we have evidence for qualitative aspects of the future warming – and what, if anything, science can do to add anything to that evidence.

Taking the latter part first, I would suggest the answer is nothing. science can provide us with nothing at all to help us with evidence for the qualitative aspects of the future.

Therefore we have to use other things – many other things – to inform our expectations of how good, positive, interesting, challenging, delightful, wonderful and warm the future will be.

I suggest people make their minds up on this issue prior to any consideration of the ‘science’ of climatology, but I’m with kim-not-bot on this: Warmth=diversity+thrivingness.

Let us not bemoan this 15 year hiatus, but look forward to the resumption of the mildly warming interglacial!!

---

Comment on Radical essays on science & technology by Anteros

January 17, 2012, 6:18 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Is it necessary to lie to win a controversial public debate? by stefanthedenier

≪ Previous: Comment on Radical essays on science & technology by Anteros

$

0

0

Bollocks-to-bolding

Comment on Is it necessary to lie to win a controversial public debate? by stefanthedenier

January 17, 2012, 6:26 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Is it necessary to lie to win a controversial public debate? by Lady in Red

≪ Previous: Comment on Radical essays on science & technology by Anteros

$

0

0

RiHOO8
THE ONLY thing that the Warmist are more honest than the Skeptics is: Warmist avoid to lie that medieval global warming and little ice ages were GLOBAL. They were definitely NOT GLOBAL. Referring to those as ”GLOBAL” is indicators for the leading Warmist that they don’t have mature opponents. Plus, it tells them that the pretend Skeptics are just as big liars as the Warmist … the difference is same as ”two cheeks on a same ass” there must be some difference, but it’s impossible to notice that difference. Pretend Skeptics lie about lots and lots of past GLOBAL warmings / Warmist lie about one in 100years. Temperature on the WHOLE PLANET overall doesn’t go up and down as a yo-yo!!!

In medieval times people believed that the earth is flat; if you believe in their data, what does that makes you?! I mentioned 50 times that: ”at that time people were scared to sail more than 50km west of Portugal – not to fall of the planet – how did they monitor the temperature in Oceania, south America and the rest of the unknown world; with thermometers that were not even invented? Don’t blame the Warmist for not believing in prof.
Plimer’s bigger crap than the Warmist crap.

THE BIG, AND THE MINI ICE AGES WERE IN NORTHERN HEMISPHERE, NOT GLOBAL!!! I have proven it beyond any reasonable doubt. That’s why the Warmist prefer the ”pretend Skeptics” than to face real solid proofs / facts and the laws of physics. As long as there is talk about medieval GLOBAL warming crap, Warmist will flourish, thanks to the Smarties, prof Plimer created. Leading Warmist would give a kingdom for Smarties like that. The ones that are so dumb to believe that they can prove that will not be global warming in 100y by their lots and lots of former PHONY GLOBAL warmings!… Leading Warmist are rolling on the carpet from laughter – laughter prolongs life

Comment on Is it necessary to lie to win a controversial public debate? by Lady in Red

January 17, 2012, 6:32 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Is it necessary to lie to win a controversial public debate? by bob droege

≪ Previous: Comment on Is it necessary to lie to win a controversial public debate? by stefanthedenier

$

0

0

There are a couple of personnas mixing here: “believers” and “fact finders.”

When you immerse yourself in something, you “believe.” It’s irrational, it’s life generating and fulfilling. It’s everything. Sometimes, we do it in a good cause: storm a beach in DDay…. Sometimes we fake a hockey stick because we believe the world may be at risk.

The good, the bad, the ugly…?

Most of you are “fact finders,” uncommitted to “belief,” hunting, like Feynman, to expose the “cargo cult (silly) science. You are the right ones.

But, not to understand the blinders, the blindfolds, the overwhelming “belief” of those who toss virgins into volcanoes is to miss a big part of the problem.

They are not lying, able to see: they believe. You show up with your Sgt Friday notebook and want, “Just the facts, Ma’am” and the “fact” that the elephant swung through the window and ate the homework is: simply the fact, belief. True, heartfelt. Nothing to do with reality.

….Lady in Red

Comment on Is it necessary to lie to win a controversial public debate? by bob droege

January 17, 2012, 7:12 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Radical essays on science & technology by randomengineer

≪ Previous: Comment on Is it necessary to lie to win a controversial public debate? by Lady in Red

$

0

0

I see you are still using the not so global Hadcrut3, which leaves out large areas including large parts of africa and both polar regions, which gives it a cool bias.

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/releases/archive/2009/land-warming-record

Comment on Radical essays on science & technology by randomengineer

January 17, 2012, 7:27 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Is it necessary to lie to win a controversial public debate? by hunter

≪ Previous: Comment on Is it necessary to lie to win a controversial public debate? by bob droege

$

0

0

Mosher

Maybe tonyb’s stuff is more useful than you think

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/01/16/criegee_biradicals/print.html

This looks like a previously unseen regulatory mechanism. I wonder how forestation etc estimates jibe with tonyb’s stuff. It sure doesn’t seem to have any correlation to the hockey stick.

Comment on Is it necessary to lie to win a controversial public debate? by hunter

January 17, 2012, 7:37 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Is it necessary to lie to win a controversial public debate? by cwon14

≪ Previous: Comment on Radical essays on science & technology by randomengineer

$

0

0

re,
AGW is an opportunistic infection. to use a metaphor. It exists because of weaknesses in the larger society.

Comment on Is it necessary to lie to win a controversial public debate? by cwon14

January 17, 2012, 7:43 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Is it necessary to lie to win a controversial public debate? by MattStat

≪ Previous: Comment on Is it necessary to lie to win a controversial public debate? by hunter

$

0

0

Think about agenda 21 as well;

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/7870-agenda-21-and-the-movement-toward-a-one-world-govt

It rhymes, it’s all the same road map for the same destination.

---

Comment on Is it necessary to lie to win a controversial public debate? by MattStat

January 17, 2012, 8:20 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Is it necessary to lie to win a controversial public debate? by cwon14

≪ Previous: Comment on Is it necessary to lie to win a controversial public debate? by cwon14

$

0

0

Brandon Shollenberger, thanks for two informative comments.

The result truly is model dependent.

Comment on Is it necessary to lie to win a controversial public debate? by cwon14

January 17, 2012, 8:24 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Is it necessary to lie to win a controversial public debate? by Oliver K. Manuel

≪ Previous: Comment on Is it necessary to lie to win a controversial public debate? by MattStat

$

0

0

Gaianists, for example may appear stupid and confused but honest in their beliefs. Many are but it’s naive to think there isn’t plenty of play acting among the cult members and other actors.

http://video.search.yahoo.com/video/play?p=george%20costanza%20it's%20not%20a%20lie%20if%20you%20beleive%20it&tnr=21&vid=1448641298693&turl=http%3A%2F%2Fts2.mm.bing.net%2Fvideos%2Fthumbnail.aspx%3Fq%3D1448641298693%26id%3Ddac3881579d7c9c54b0bcf26f2e5156e%26bid%3DbJVPFPorYFjGuQ%26bn%3DThumb%26url%3Dhttp%253a%252f%252fvodpod.com%252fwatch%252f11576444-its-not-a-lie-if-you-believe-it-george-costanza&rurl=http%3A%2F%2Fvodpod.com%2Fwatch%2F11576444-its-not-a-lie-if-you-believe-it-george-costanza&sigr=12giusq00&newfp=1&tit=%26quot%3BIt%26%2339%3Bs+not+a+lie+if+you+believe+it%26quot%3B+-+George+Costanza

Comment on Is it necessary to lie to win a controversial public debate? by Oliver K. Manuel

January 17, 2012, 8:52 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Is it necessary to lie to win a controversial public debate? by blueice2hotsea

≪ Previous: Comment on Is it necessary to lie to win a controversial public debate? by cwon14

$

0

0

Jeff Id has now posted a full length video of NSIDC Sea Ice Data.

http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2012/01/17/full-length-nsidc-sea-ice-data/

This demonstrates the dynamic and cyclic contraction and expansion of sea ice since 1979.

Comment on Is it necessary to lie to win a controversial public debate? by blueice2hotsea

January 17, 2012, 9:28 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Radical essays on science & technology by steven mosher

≪ Previous: Comment on Is it necessary to lie to win a controversial public debate? by Oliver K. Manuel

$

0

0

Joshua -

In your work, have you discovered any relatively universal cross-cultural cues that are tip-offs to identifying lies and liars?

Thanks,
bi2hs

Comment on Radical essays on science & technology by steven mosher

January 17, 2012, 9:45 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Radical essays on science & technology by steven mosher

≪ Previous: Comment on Is it necessary to lie to win a controversial public debate? by blueice2hotsea

$

0

0

Ant,
I don’t know that science can tell us anything about the qualitative aspects. In some ways I think that even trying to quantify the future effects can be misguided.

let’s say I come down on the side of common sense. Basic physics tells us that changing the atmosphere will change the climate, over time.
That argues for two things.
1. find pathways to curtail that activity
2. build societies that are resilient to climate change.

I think people have jumped to solutions far too quickly without getting agreement on broad principles. FWIW.

Comment on Radical essays on science & technology by steven mosher

January 17, 2012, 9:48 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Is it necessary to lie to win a controversial public debate? by randomengineer

≪ Previous: Comment on Radical essays on science & technology by steven mosher

$

0

0

PE.
It is that simple. what is complicated is what you want to conclude from the simple facts. Reacting in fear becuase you believe the effects to be disasterous or sticking your head in the sand because you dont know the answer to 3 decimal points, are both disfunctional responses.

Comment on Is it necessary to lie to win a controversial public debate? by randomengineer

January 17, 2012, 10:13 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Not 100% sure? by manacker

≪ Previous: Comment on Radical essays on science & technology by steven mosher

$

0

0

Motls, always topical.

http://motls.blogspot.com/2012/01/how-bad-science-becomes-common.html#more

---

Comment on Not 100% sure? by manacker

January 20, 2012, 1:03 am

≫ Next: Comment on The long, slow thaw? by Jon

≪ Previous: Comment on Is it necessary to lie to win a controversial public debate? by randomengineer

$

0

0

cwon14 and Laurie

IMO it is not reasonable to bash our host here for being too “PC” regarding expressing doubts of the IPCC AGW dogma.

She has explicitly gone on record that
- the magnitude of AGW is uncertain, as we are unable today to clearly differentiate between natural and anthropogenic past warming
- even in its worst incarnation AGW will not become an existential problem over the next century
- we should better clear up all the uncertainties before we rush into mitigation actions whose unintended consequences we cannot foresee

These statements (which were made under oath to a congressional committee) may sound too “PC” to some.

While I also would like to have heard more explicit skepticism of the IPCC “mainstream consensus” view, I realize that (in view of her position and the high level of sensitivity here) she has been cautious in her choice of words. [This may prove to be the best approach in the long run.]

Her recent formal challenge of the IPCC “most…very likely…” claim on attribution of late 20th century warming is another indication that she is not going along with the PC mainstream flow.

I’d give her the benefit of the doubt – as I think she can do more good for exposing the real truth as a questioning insider than as a challenging outsider.

Just my take on this.

Max

Comment on The long, slow thaw? by Jon

January 20, 2012, 1:47 am

≫ Next: Comment on 2 perspectives on communicating climate science by Latimer Alder

≪ Previous: Comment on Not 100% sure? by manacker

$

0

0

There are many books about the Little Ice Age. But Jean Grove’s isn’t really just another, is it? It’s /the/ seminal text, built on decades of data collection, and evidence sifted from a far wider range of contexts than most number-crunching climate historians are now used to handling (e.g. Norwegian tax records).

The first edition of The Little Ice Age came out in 1988, just ahead of the game. Which is precisely why various scientists were so keen to engage with Grove’s work in the 1990s, either to build on it, temper it, dismantle it, or work round it. But it’s worth noting though that Grove herself accepted the theory of the greenhouse effect, and the mounting evidence confirming its impact on C20th climate.

Jean Grove’s scepticism was not built on prejudicial interpretation of data, nor did it extend to cynicism or flat denial of positions opposed to her own published views: which meant she was perfectly happy to accept new findings that forced her to adapt her own account, and perfectly happy to associate herself with courteous colleagues of /all/ persuasions — Soon, Briffa, Jones, Esper included (all of which is reflected in the second posthumous edition of her book, ‘Little Ice Ages: Ancient and Modern’, published in 2004). Many would do well to follow her example. Contrarians who cite her 1988 work blindly would do well to consider the views expressed in her final publications, including the revised edition.

For a recent account by Jean’s husban and long-term collaborator, A. T. Grove, which builds from the position adopted by him and Jean in the 1990s, back have a look at this:

http://www.realinstitutoelcano.org/wps/portal/rielcano_eng/Content?WCM_GLOBAL_CONTEXT=/elcano/elcano_in/zonas_in/dt25-2010

Comment on 2 perspectives on communicating climate science by Latimer Alder

January 20, 2012, 2:00 am

≫ Next: Comment on 2 perspectives on communicating climate science by andrew adams

≪ Previous: Comment on The long, slow thaw? by Jon

$

0

0

@cwon

Y’know I really don’t actually care what Judith’s views are. She provides a forum for others to discuss (mostly) interesting topics.

If you – and others – feel uncomfortable, you are very welcome to butt out. Attendance is not compulsory, but constant slagging off of our hostess is discourteous as a minimum and completely overwhelms any good points you might make.

Same applies to the others who seem to have so little of interest to say that they spend all their time trying to psychoanalyse JC.

Get a life you people!

Comment on 2 perspectives on communicating climate science by andrew adams

January 20, 2012, 2:07 am

≫ Next: Comment on Nonequilibrium thermodynamics and maximum entropy production in the Earth system by markus

≪ Previous: Comment on 2 perspectives on communicating climate science by Latimer Alder

$

0

0

Yes, the Younger Dryas event is understood to be caused by a change in heat transport, specifically the AMOC. The effects of this were regional, so the NH was cooler and the SH was warmer, so it doesn’t really have much to do with climate sensitivity.
Whether such changes are likely to occur in future is a separate question from future climate sensitivity. AFAIK it’s not known exactly what the underlying cause of the YD was, although I think progress is being made, but it must have been triggered by a pretty drastic event. I think it’s considered highly unlikely that the AGW will trigger a similar event, of course if scientists did predict such a thing they would be condemned for being alarmist.
But given that we can detect changes in heat transport mechanisms and understand their effects sufficiently well to confidently attribute an event which happened 12k years ago it seems highly unlikely that if current warming had a similar cause we would not be aware if it.

Comment on Nonequilibrium thermodynamics and maximum entropy production in the Earth system by markus

January 20, 2012, 2:14 am

≫ Next: Comment on Discussion with Rich Muller by cheap tyres glasgow

≪ Previous: Comment on 2 perspectives on communicating climate science by andrew adams

$

0

0

Thank you for your thoughts Pekka. I will not bore you by waxing lyrically of my own philosophical perspectives. But,

“Taking any specific new idea, it’s often 100% certain that they are wrong, because they contradict in an obvious way knowledge based on empirical observations directly or indirectly but still without doubt”.

Without rhetoric, give me the empirical evidence relied upon, to support the AGW theory. No proxies please. I’ve searched without success.

“Unfortunately real improvements are difficult to achieve and one has to first understand all the basics, before any hope of success can be considered possible”.

Pekka, I would not throw my hat into a ring, unless I knew I was on a winner. My profession is such disciplined. It is my appeal to the authority of my own reasoning. Unlike many here, coached in the scientific method, I have no blinkers attached, I am free to the musing of a open mind. I am able to make my own mistakes and not be embarrassed by them.

The basic premise of N&K is this:
Kinetic Energy is (forced) employed by Potential Energy until mass re-radiates the employed kinetic energy to space.

So Enhanced Energy is the kinetic energy plus the potential energy of mass. The mechanism of conjoining energies causes heating the mechanism of decoupling causes cooling.

That is my own very, very short hypothesis. The long one would perplex you, no offence intended.

But I am MAD, so none of it is truth. Right?