Lambert has claimed a major win over his use of a voice recording (Monckton’s McLuhan Moment). As usual, it all sounds incredibly clear cut and impressive until the bluff gets hit with a 5 minute test…
The bottom line? The infamous “Pinker tape” turns out to be a reenacted piece of cherry-picking exaggeration, where lines are taken out of context to imply something important, or to frame it as if it was significant.
It’s true Monckton did get Pinker’s sex wrong (golly), and there was a point about fluxes being at the surface vs top of the atmosphere, but nothing Pinker or Lambert said makes much difference to the point that matters: climate sensitivity. (When the top of atmosphere problem emerged, Monckton recalculated the climate sensitivity on the spot; it changed from “very low” to “even lower”.) Pinker herself acknowledges that Monckton’s approach is reasonable.
Monckton has over the years pointed to many reasons why climate sensitivity is low. The Pinker paper is just another one of these corroborating pieces (and it looks a doozy). Using satellite measurements, Pinker shows that more sunlight is reaching the surface of the Earth (possibly due to fewer clouds over the ocean). Over the 18 years, the increase in energy amounts to almost 3W/m2. If this is the case, there is just not much room for greenhouse gases to be heating the world after the effect of this extra surface sunlight is taken into account.
Pinker 2005, Fig 1: global solar irradiation.
Lambert’s staged recording and carefully edited slide contained this select message:
“The CO2 “radiative forcing” value that Mr. Christopher Monckton is quoting refers to the impact on the Earth’s Radiative balance as described above. The numbers that we quote in our paper represent the change in surface SW due to changes in the atmosphere (clouds, water vapor, aerosols). These two numbers cannot be compared at their face value. To the best of my understanding this is the source of the misunderstanding.”
“Our work was properly interpreted in the latest IPCC Report (2007)”
“People tend to use the concept of “Forcing” kind of “freely”. There are many
concepts of forcing in use, such as aerosol forcing, cloud forcing, which can be related to shortwave or long wave or both (as defined above). Since the energy from the sun is the major driver of the climate system, and since clouds are the major modulators of how much of this energy reaches the surface, people tend to label this effect as “cloud forcing” (which is not the same as the formal definition). I believe that one of the issues pointed out in your communication is related to the use of the “cloud forcing” concept. Indeed, this is not the official definition of “cloud forcing”; however, if we give Christopher Monckton the benefit of doubt and assume that he meant “the impact of clouds on the surface shortwave radiation” than it can pass.”(Emphasis added by me)
Set up a strawman and kill it…um, dead
What’s the point of a renenactment? Only PR…
Monckton’s reply (to me in an email):
The only point that Lambert scored was that I had gotten Pinker’s sex wrong in my Melbourne presentation (which, from memory, is the only one in which I mentioned her sex). Otherwise, his stuff was gibberish, as the audience swiftly understood when I explained it to them. During the debate, I had kindly done the calculation on the basis that the change in surface radiance mentioned in the Pinker paper would be the same at top of atmosphere, from which a climate-sensitivity calculation using the UN’s method follows.However, since Pinker insists that it is the surface radiance that her paper addresses, one must of course use the Stefan-Boltzmann radiative-transfer equation to evaluate the temperature change corresponding to the change in radiance caused by the reduction in cloud cover. And that means just about zero climate sensitivity, which, within the usual error margins, is about the same as the 0.12 K/W/m2 that my previous method had calculated. The common-sense point, as I explained to the audience, is that with that amount of warming from a natural source there was not much room for CO2 to have made much of a contribution.
Cohenite makes some interesting comments on Deltoid’s and Lucia’s blogs, that I found useful — in part copied here:
LM= Lord Monckton, TL =Tim Lambert, SW = Shortwave (ie incoming sunlight), LW = Longwave (ie mostly outgoing radiation).
If LM had his McLuhan moment than Tim has had his Woody Allen one. The Pinker direct testimony was a smart tactical move; I was sitting with John Smeed and Stewart Franks and we all thought this was a good start; but it was just a stunt.
In fact this is what LM spoke about; the forcing of less cloud in the 1983-current period; this is a period, as Tim noted, which has featured the lowest sunspot activity in over 100 years; but this is irrelevant because less cloud means more insolation and SW forcing. If radiative forcing from extra SW is as high as Pinker found than 2XCO2 CS must be lower than the IPCC figure given the ^ Temperature during that period. Pinker has some further insight in response to Tim’s slide 12:
“The statement: “is not forcing at all” because “it only accounts shortwave radiation” is not the key problem here. As said before, we can talk about shortwave cloud forcing and LW cloud forcing, as long as it is clear what we mean. The problem is that it is not the accepted definition of SW cloud forcing and should have been labeled as “impact of clouds on the surface downwelling SW”.The net values of both SW and LW is: Fnet (cloud) = FSW (cloud) + FLW (cloud)”
This was LM’s error in saying the extra SW reaching the surface was cloud SW forcing; cloud SW forcing is a negative forcing as Ramanathan found: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/243/4887/57
And cloud SW forcing is much larger than cloud LW forcing. So, while LM has muddled these terms as Pinker says, LM is still right about the CS issue because the 0.16Wm2 PA is sufficient to explain ^T.
2 other points; Tim fell down in explaining the temperature manipulation issue; the public understand the ramifications of CRU and GISS data ‘adjustment’; motherhood statements about scientists just doing their job don’t wash and the point from the floor that the adjustments are always up cannot be dismissed by an assertion that as many adjustments are down as up.
Secondly the LM trend slide which presented an alternative to the IPCC chart showing an increasing trend over shorter periods coming to the most recent times; LM’s alternative slide showing the 3 PDO temp increases is valid and Tim’s dismissal on the grounds that you cannot validly assess trends over shorter periods actually lost him a lot of the ground that the initial Pinker revelation established, because the short period trend invalidity applied to the IPCC trend acceleration graph as LM pointed out.
Still, the debate was pretty good and Tim did better than I expected him to.
Posted by: cohenite | February 12, 2010 9:24 PM
————————————-
jakerman, this is becoming circular; you say: “Ramanathan 89 is measuring the Fnet = Fs + FL ; and not measuring the ΔFnet = ΔFs + ΔFL.” But Pinker in her paper is doing neither; she is measuring ΔSW as a proposed response to ΔF as well as other factors [volcanoes, aerosols etc]; Pinker finds that ΔSW/ΔFs declined from 1983 – 1992 but from 1983-2001 was >0 by 0.16W/m2 PA. Pinker’s paper does not deal directly with ΔLW/ΔFL but she does look at TOA flux anomalies for the 1983-2001 period; she finds a decline rate of 0.17W/m2 for the 20S-20N TOA compared with SW surface increase rate of 0.18W/m2 [fig 4]. That is, for the period 1983-2001, over the tropics, the EEB increased by almost the same rate as the increase in SW. Surely this works against any conclusion that the greenhouse effect has caused temperature increase for this period.
Lotharsson; as I’m sure you know, a forcing is an additional or increasing factor to a system and a feedback is a response, usually expressed in temperature, to that forcing by the system; the Clement et al paper simulated a GHG forced decrease in clouds so the clouds effect on temperature would be a feedback. AGW only recognises 2 forcings, CO2/GHGs and solar; however if the reduction in clouds was not due to either GHGs or ΔSW [as per Pinker] but due to stochastic or cyclical reasons then the cloud change itself would be a forcing; personally I cannot see how AGW treats ACO2 as a forcing because it releases CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels and how WV variation and cloud variation based on evaporative cycles is treated as a [usually +ve] feedback.
References:
R. T. Pinker,1 B. Zhang,2 E. G. Dutton3 (2005), Do Satellites Detect Trends in Surface Solar Radiation? Science, 6 May 2005: Vol. 308. no. 5723, pp. 850 – 854, DOI: 10.1126/science.1103159 PDF available (with free login)
PS: And having said all that, I wanted to say that I was surprised and impressed that Lambert was willing to take up the challenge. At least he believes what he says, and deserves credit for not shying away, as so many have done before him. Here’s hoping there are more debates.
The way I heard it the satellites cut too fine a swath to provide useful information (like cutting the lawn with nail clippers).
But that was from a treehugger website promoting Al Gore’s legrainge point satellite, so you know how that goes.
10
My my,
what are we going to about CO2 now that it just about out of a job.With IR absorption already near saturation levels and the 3 narrow frequency bands does not give it much to absorb with.I can see the many untouched IR photons flee the atmosphere with glee.
LOL
10
Now add to that the assumtion that half of the “heat radiation” from the CO2 interaction is reflected back to earth because the direction is actualy random in 360 degrees, after being emitted.
Now maybe I am wrong here but CO2 up at a certain level is not going to have half radiated back due to the curvature of the earth. It should be less than half??
10
[…] Ooops the green movement suddenly realises they are hated – that’s what complacency and lying through your teeth gets you! Self deception and Michael Mann. Spin, PR factless and clueless, […]
10
I’ve finally managed to get a paper analysing the “greenhouse effect” on Venus which is the basis of the Copenhagen Diagnosis (p 10) and will post a summary of the measured evidence from the various probes on my blog tonight. Put very simply there is no runaway greenhouse effect on Venus. It radiates more energy than it gets from the Sun, and that in itself, nullifies the greenhouse effect explanation.
Jo, thanks for getting into Lambert’s Pinker furphy.
10
P.S. thanks Jo great article as usual
There are a few red, no green, (gawd they are so interchangable these days) no I did mean red faces from those supporting Lamberts use of the “Pinker” video only to find out it was not her and a typical cherry picking exercise after the event.
10
Before we can even attempt to try and get back on the right track (namely the truth) with climate research, we have to get rid of many of the leading “scientists” who corrupt, twist, hide and/or distort the data and findings. If this doesn’t happen then there is no hope getting back on the right track. That should be pretty obvious if one thinks about it. Now, the only way to get rid of those people is to charge them with fraud, and if found guilty put them behind bars. If this doesn’t happen then the previous goal will never be reached. This is clear from the avalanche of revelations showing that AGW in its present form is a hoax and a fraud, and that nothing really has changed since the AGW hoax is continuing everywhere, even in some of our schools. This too should be pretty obvious if one really thinks about it.
10
“We” are getting closer and closer, more and more often to,
CO2 has no discernable effect upon temperature.
What I think is a cohenite quote above,
“Surely this works against any conclusion that the greenhouse effect has caused temperature increase for this period.”
Perish the thought, we’ll be burning witches next…
Louis Hissink: Post 5 Re venus not a run away greenhouse effect. Any chance of a link please.
10
christopher monckton ended the debate with a warning to the audience to watch out for the next alarmist talking point, ocean acidification. well, it has started. could you get monckton to respond, if possible:
19 Feb: BBC: John Stewart: Science in Actiion
Ocean acidification
The oceans are becoming more acidic and at a faster rate than previously measured. This could lead to a massive extinction in the deep seas, according to new research. The ocean is what is known as a carbon sink – it has taken up between a quarter and a third of all atmospheric CO2 since the start of the industrial revolution. A study published in the journal Nature Geoscience shows that the increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is leading to a similar increase in the oceans today. But it is believed that the process is making the seas much more acidic which is damaging the delicate shells of organisms that are critical to the marine food chain. In fact the rate of acidification is now the highest in 55 million years. Danniella Schmidt from the University of Bristol, one of the scientists behind the work, joins us on the programme.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00673xy
14 Feb: Nature: Past constraints on the vulnerability of marine calcifiers to massive carbon dioxide release
Andy Ridgwell & Daniela N. Schmidt
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/abs/ngeo755.html
btw bbc in the same prog, url above, had:
“Public perception of science
Can we trust science and scientists? It’s a question that is increasingly being asked by the media, and the public, after some high profile apparent mistakes. Did UK scientists manipulate data on global warming? Is the International Panel on Climate Change credible after it admitted that it had made a mistake in asserting that Himalayan glaciers could disappear by 2035? In the past few years there have also been false claims about stem cells, and erroneous warnings about vaccines. Michael Specter is the author of “Denialism”, where he asks why we have begun to fear scientific advances instead of embracing them.”
in which specter did not even mention climate, but only said trust the scientists on vaccines and GM foods.
it’s now almost impossible to watch ‘landline’ on ABC:
21 Feb: ABC Landline: Sustaining Farmers
ANNE KRUGER, PRESENTER…
And even though both sides of politics agree agriculture should be exempt from an emissions trading scheme, the arm wrestle continues over what farmers can do to minimise their carbon footprint or sequester it in their soil.
Some clear unambiguous baseline data would certainly help but with so many competing scientific points of view jockeying for attention, not to mention a plethora of self-serving “pseudo-scientific” claims, who can you believe?…
CHRIS CLARK: Brian Keating, a 50 per cent increase in agricultural productivity, a 50 per cent decrease in carbon emissions, they’re ambitious targets.
DR BRIAN KEATING: Yes Chris, clearly it is but deep down that the goal the world faces, population growth, composition of diet, economic development…
CHRIS CLARK: Is it going to take fundamental changes in the structure and approach of it Australian agriculture to meet these targets?
DR BRIAN KEATING: I think embracing the greenhouse challenge and the carbon challenge as an opportunity as much of a threat is part of it whether that’s a fundamental change in structure, I think it might be a fundamental change in attitude perhaps.
CHRIS CLARK: Which attitudes do you have in mind?
DR BRIAN KEATING: Change can sometimes come across as a threat and we’ve got to work through that and get to the fundamentals of the science and then work through with farmers on the opportunities as well…
http://www.abc.net.au/landline/content/2010/s2825835.htm
21 Feb: ABC Landline: Homer’s Epic
TIM LEE: Other Australians have written poems of heroic proportions but none of them quite like Wimmera, which runs to a staggering 360 pages…
HOMER RIETH: Because the Murray Darling is now in the centre of Australian consciousness in terms of a political issue, in terms of water and the survival of the planet and climate change. But perhaps through the eyes of a poet take us into the life and meaning of the natural world that is there and which is now facing peril.
http://www.abc.net.au/landline/content/2010/s2825839.htm
360 pages about a problem that may not even exist sounds like a ‘good read’!!
to top it all off, anne kruger announced next week ‘landline’ would have a major ‘climate change’ program, think she might have suggested it would be more than a one-off. that’s the end of ‘landline’ for me.
10
Thanks Jo, great article.
MattB wrote,
MattB:
February 18th, 2010 at 5:30 pm
Eddy I’ve not seen a killer debating move as good as that since Lambert pulled out the Pinker quote vs Monckton! Good work.
At the time, I didn’t know what he was talking about as I wasn’t familiar with the debate. I wonder how much longer it will be before even the hardcore proponents of AGW see the light?
10
Pat Wrote
Ocean acidification
The oceans are becoming more acidic and at a faster rate than previously measured. This could lead to a massive extinction in the deep seas, according to new research.
Minister Wong made the same claims in Adelaide last week, in a long rebuttal of her entire speech I sent the following
Emotional claims are being made that the oceans are turning to acid. Acidic and basic are two extremes that describe a chemical property. The pH scale measures how acidic or basic a substance is and ranges from 0 to 14. A pH of 7 (e.g. water) is neutral. A pH less than 7 is acidic. A pH greater than 7 is basic.
IPCC WGI state that the mean pH of surface waters ranges between 7.9 and 8.3 in the open ocean, so the ocean remains alkaline. It is dishonest to present to a lay audience that any perceived reduction in alkalinity means the oceans are turning to acid.
a full rebuttal on this latest lie can be found at the link below.
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals
/acid_seas.pdf
Just be pre-armed and even we laymen can stop these lies before they can get traction.
10
Derek #8
http://www.firmament-chaos.com/papers/fvenuspaper.pdf
Seems the various probes measured increasing upwelling radiation, totally unexpected, and dismissed as an error, much like the attitude of the climate scientists when confronted with empirical data contradicting the hypothesis.
I am only concerned with the measured data in this paper, and only did an initial PDF search in it to extract “measurements” that I intend to post tonight.
Back to my day job 🙂
10
Jo,
Clive Hamilton is whingeing about hate mail and saying it is all a denialist conspirasy.
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2826189.htm
I am assuming you have got your share of offensive hate mail and would be able to give Clive’s rant some much needed context.
10
OT, but there is a vicious attack on “climate denialist organisations” on ABC Unleashed.
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2826189.htm
The article was written by non other than Clive Hamilton (the man who wanted to suspend democracy in Australia).
Hamilton writes about the recent trend of cyber-bullying and the rise right-wing climate denial.
He mentions some of the victims of cyber-bullying including David Karoly, Ben McNeil and Andy Pitman who have supposedly all received abusive/threatening emails as part of an orchestrated attack by climate denialist organisations.
He writes: “….increasingly the attacks are arranged by one or more denialist organisations.” HE HAS PROOF OF THIS?
Hamilton used the terms “denier”, “denialist”, and “denial” at least 6 times throughout the article, but it’s the extreme right-wing side who are being abusive.
At the end of the article the following appears:
Tomorrow: Who is behind the cyber-bullying campaign?
10
Monckton got Pinker’s gender wrong. Lambert got the spelling of Trenberth’s name wrong.
10
Oh the irony of crying foul that someone outmanouvered the great Lord Monckton. It was a pants down move and the Lord should just grin and bear it.
10
thanx bob malloy…
re clive hamilton’s insane piece, a couple of comments say this is merely the first of FIVE in a series. please say it ain’t so, auntie. a second article is listed at the bottom on who is behind the campaign, but i see no reference to ‘five’. did the ABC remove that reference? can’t see how two commenters could have picked up on it.
dear clive, i voted for the Greens in the last federal election, and voted ALP before that, and i have written to the Greens telling them if they can’t read the CRU emails/harry read me/and get an expert to explain what is revealed in the code and see why people would be angry, then something is wrong with the Greens.
no doubt we’re in for a rush of rubbish like hamilton’s, after geoffrey lean’s call to arms in the rightwing UK Telegraph on 19 Feb:
19 Feb: UK Tele: Geoffrey Lean: Green activists are losing their fire
Today’s environmental pressure groups tend to be pusillanimous, policy-wonking and petrified, says Geoffrey Lean
Greenpeace’s executive director, John Sauven, wrote a newspaper article this week calling for “fight” and “leadership” over climate, but his organisation has shown precious little of either. Indeed, two of his top aides have separately told me that the group is “keeping its head down” to avoid Right-wing US politicians capitalising on its involvement. This illustrates the problem precisely. Green groups got obsessed with policy and politicians, and complacent about public opinion, which they took for granted. They became part of the establishment, and let the sceptics take over their former role as insurgents. And they now cannot get their act together to respond.
Yet the gutlessness goes deeper. I have been told by a senior figure at Friends of the Earth that the group should only undertake campaigns where it already has public support. During the 2000 fuel price protests environmentalists ran for cover, losing the argument for green taxes in the process. Shamed, they swore they would never be so cowardly again; but just look at them now.
It’s all about the bottom line. Raising funds has become their most important cause; the planet comes a distant second…
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthcomment/geoffrey-lean/7273163/Green-activists-are-losing-their-fire.html
Geoffrey Lean is on the Advisory Council for LEAD, along with Pachauri, Maurice Strong, Anglo American, GlaxoSmithKline and the like:
LEAD Advisory Council
http://www.lead.org/page/231
when will the greens realise the public is now aware that they jumped in bed with BP, Shell, ConocoPhillips, Exxon and the like, and were willing to give them cover in imposing horrendous direct/and or indirect taxes on the public via carbon offsetting/capntax/carbon tax?
btw clive, no-one is against cleaning up the environment. but that is a completely different subject.
10
I miss the CAGW (Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming) proselytizers and lackies!! There has only been MattB here to “discuss” CAGW once in the last 2 blogs. Have they ALL run off scared because they realise that their arguments are empty and their “evidence” missing??
I wonder if the “Green” movements have realised that they have been taken for a ride by the CAGW rhetoric and that the “good” work that they do (very little in reality, but credit should be given)is going to be wasted when overall public opinion catches up and blames the greenies for the CAGW rubbish??
10
Pat
The reference to the 5 articles is on the ABC Homepage http://www.abc.net.au
It’s titled “Ugly Denial”
10
Bunny@14,
It looks like the meeting held today between the various AGW factions has sent the word out that it’s all on.
So now Clive comes out with more rubbish. How many times did he drop the denier label? 6 times I think in that very article.
Obviously if you keep baiting bears, one of them is going to lash out – which is what I think he really wants to happen.
It suits his agenda to label anyone who doesn’t subscribe to the AGW theory as being some right wing militant lunatics, which of course, we are not.
I wonder if any of the threats made to Clive and company might have been made from some supporters trying to give him some ammo?
10
thanx bunny but no thanx auntie-
here’s one for clive:
Edmonton Journal: Lorne Gunter: Climate alarmists feeling more heat
But discredited data-fudgers have too much at stake to give up now
There is too much at stake politically, too many careers and reputations on the line, too much grant money for researchers and donations for environmental groups, too much green-tax revenue for governments, too much prestige in academic circles at risk for those who have asserted for more than a decade that man is causing damaging climate change to slink away in defeat…
Since late November, the True Believers have watched in stunned silence as the foundation of the climate-change theory has suffered one body blow after another…
(LISTS PLENTY, INCLUDING NASA-GATE)
Alarmists may want to believe this changes nothing, but that simply makes them the new deniers.
http://www.edmontonjournal.com/technology/Climate+alarmists+feeling+more+heat/2593111/story.html
10
Eddie #10
I would have to agree with MattB it was a smart move by Lambert to muddy the waters by mangling Pinker’s comments. Lambert manufactured a situation where the AGW faithful could claim victory, however tenious, in the debate. The suprise to me was that Lambert performed as well as he did against a biased moderator and the eloquence of LM. With no ad homs or spewing vitriol which is standard fare on his blog I can only assume Lambert was either heavily medicated or employed a doppelganger.
10
another one in a series for clive!
21 Feb: George F. Will: Global warming advocates ignore the boulders
Science, many scientists say, has been restored to her rightful throne because progressives have regained power. Progressives, say progressives, emulate the cool detachment of scientific discourse. So hear the calm, collected voice of a scientist lavishly honored by progressives, Rajendra Pachauri.
He is chairman of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which shared the 2007 version of the increasingly weird Nobel Peace Prize. Denouncing persons skeptical about the shrill certitudes of those who say global warming poses an imminent threat to the planet, he says:
“They are the same people who deny the link between smoking and cancer. They are people who say that asbestos is as good as talcum powder — and I hope they put it on their faces every day.”
Do not judge him as harshly as he speaks of others. Nothing prepared him for the unnerving horror of encountering disagreement. Global warming alarmists, long cosseted by echoing media, manifest an interesting incongruity — hysteria and name-calling accompanying serene assertions about the “settled science” of climate change. Were it settled, we would be spared the hyperbole that amounts to Ring Lardner’s “Shut up, he explained.”
The global warming industry, like Alexander in the famous children’s story, is having a terrible, horrible, no good, very bad day. Actually, a bad three months, which began Nov. 19 with the publication of e-mails indicating attempts by scientists to massage data and suppress dissent in order to strengthen “evidence” of global warming.
But there already supposedly was a broad, deep and unassailable consensus. Strange.
Last week, Todd Stern, America’s special envoy for climate change — yes, there is one; and people wonder where to begin cutting government — warned that those interested in “undermining action on climate change” will seize on “whatever tidbit they can find.” Tidbits like specious science, and the absence of warming?
It is tempting to say, only half in jest, that Stern’s portfolio violates the First Amendment, which forbids government from undertaking the establishment of religion. A religion is what the faith in catastrophic man-made global warming has become. It is now a tissue of assertions impervious to evidence, assertions that everything, including a historic blizzard, supposedly confirms and nothing, not even the absence of warming, can falsify.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/19/AR2010021903046.html
10
MattB #16
A minor victory for the faithful amid a host of crushing defeats. Not enough to remove the taste of ashes I would have thought. Assuming the feet were out of the mouth long enough for the ashes to get in.
10
Allen – you forget of course that I’ll be jumping for joy should you lot turn out to be correct. Do you think the englishman who thought Germany would win WWII was upset when they did not? I doubt it.
10
I
The greens have their hands firmly on the tiller they are dissembling the rhetoric and it is our money that is paying for the ride.
10
MattB
Based on the evidence or lack thereof supporting AGW, you should be jumping for joy now or are you waiting for Real Climate to give you permission.
10
MattB
Leading with the foot again, suggest you google Mosley and black shirts.
10
Allen I suggest you google relevance.
10
Well, well, I asked on another thread what had happened to Clive Hamilton and here I have my answer (#13 and #14): He’s been closeted away feeling sorry for himself and is now lashing out at us nasty denialists! What’s the matter Clive, can’t handle the heat? Time to grow up and stop running to “Auntie” when the big boys and girls bully you …
So you think our “campaign” is “orchestrated”? Just goes to show that a well-trained hive mind thinks everyone else must be thus organised as well.
Can’t wait for tomorrow’s installment: “Who is behind the cyber bullying campaign?”
10
Matt You made a crap analogy, I picked you up on it. To paraphrase you
“It was a pants down move just grin and bear it.”
10
Allen you dill.
10
MattB:
February 22nd, 2010 at 1:01 pm
Maybe not Matt, but the Englishman, Frenchman or anyone else who thought Germany would win either sat back and didn’t HELP DEFEND their country or secretively worked to gain a benefit from a German win they expected. These people were commonly known as traitors.
You may be happy if AGW doesn’t win, but you are one of those who work against the defenders of “their country” so to analogise.
So now I’m wondering, in the context of AGW, how should we label you Matt?
I don’t wish to label you. Instead Matt, maybe you should tell the rest of us what label you put on yourself.
10
Jo
I see the ABC Drum is now carrying a story:
“Bullying, Lies and the Rise of Right-Wing Climate Denial”
Seems like the elevation of Ad Hom’s to the level of a blanket attack by good old Aunty ABC?
Cheers,
Speedy
10
Hmm, lemme guess…George Bush? Maybe Dick Cheney. Well, that’s who’s to blame for everything in the US…even stuff that’s happened since they left office. 🙂
10
Humbug I cen tell you which mob most closely resemble the brownshirts, and it aint my side.
Can you explain this leap of logic: “the Englishman, Frenchman or anyone else who thought Germany would win either sat back and didn’t HELP DEFEND their country or secretively worked to gain a benefit from a German win they expected.”
Are you sure none of them fought their assess off and died for their country, or did whatever else they could to assist the way effort?
Seriously what an astoundingly absurd generalisation.
10
way = war
10
Humbug
I’m probably a bit soft, (OK, I am!)but am inclined to give MattB the benefit of the doubt – he just probably means he’s hoping the world isn’t headed for the global apochalypse that Hansen, Pachauri, Mann and Co. have been using to frighten the children. In that case he’s not gutless, just gullible – and there’s a lot of those around! Still pretty frustrating though, I admit.
I wish I could speak as charitably about most of the media, especially the ABC. But that level of incompetence by a group (who should know better!) is stretching the bonds of charity a little too far.
Cheers,
Speedy.
10
hmmm!
i did a search on
“Bullying, Lies and the Rise of Right-Wing Climate Denial”
try it. i got 62 results, including on usa today, canadian newspapers, even a pakistan site; however, the article is not there when u click on the links. it is also listed on a dozen or more abc web pages, including bananas in pjs, rage, events, technology, etc. it looks like someone doing a little computer trickery.
an example, which doesn’t have the story:
ABC Brisbane – Explore by Topic – Australian Broadcasting Corporation18 Feb 2010 … Bullying, lies and the rise of right-wing climate denial. In the first of a series of five articles, Clive Hamilton tracks the progress of …
http://www.bananasinpajamas.com/brisbane/topics/government-and-politics/?ref...
hmmm again.
10
Yep,
The organised Pinkos at Auntie are trying to strike back. This time implying some form of psychological problem:
All just following orders, it looks like to me. Drones….
10
How are you going “peter of sydney”, who do you think would win a debate between Skip and Eddy Aruba?
Personally my money would be on Eddy, by the way do you think MattB is the same Matt as Matt Bennett?
For all those interested here is a link to the last bastion of the church of AGW but be warned these believers bite.
scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2008/07/how_to_talk_to_a_sceptic.php
[Edited: old link went 404. Try http://illconsidered.blogspot.com.au/2006/02/how-to-talk-to-global-warming-sceptic.html -Jo]
10
hmmn just found this link on the bananas in pjs page:
ABC: The great debate
by Kellie Tranter
It took the Roman Catholic Church 350 years to admit that Galileo was right about planets revolving around the sun…
In a 2007 paper ‘Why do some people resist science?’ psychologists Paul Bloom and Deena Skolnick Weisberg from the Department of Psychology, Yale University wrote:…
You’ll have gathered that I, for one, don’t accept that there’s any room for debate about a link between climate change and the global build-up of greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide. Reputable, independent scientific bodies in our own country – institutions worthy of our trust like the Australian Institute of Physics, the Geological Society of Australia, the Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society, the Australia Coral Reef Society, the Australian Medical Association, and the CSIRO – seem to agree…
So we can all sit back as Bolt slaughters the livestock (watch that scalpel Jonesy!) while the others grapple with hard hitting questions like: How can the mean temperature of the ground be in any way influenced by the presence of the heat-absorbing gases in the atmosphere? Isn’t current global warming just part of a natural cycle? And (ooh, a really curly one) doesn’t water vapour account for almost all of the greenhouse effect? To enhance the debate’s integrity (or perhaps to shorten it, or maybe even to add spice) all panellists should be asked for their primary sources each and every time they assert a scientific fact or quote anyone else!
So come on Jonesy, what about it?
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2826813.htm?site=brisbane
while bbc trust is looking into advocacy by bbc presenters, who is watching over the AGW insanity that has taken over ABC?
10
Pat
The abc news site http://www.abc.net.au has “The Drum” column, which has the article by Clive Hamilton. So much for fair reporting! I wonder when Jo will get a right of reply?
The comments, however, are probably running 70% against him, however and there were over 450 of them last I looked…
Cheers,
Speedy.
10
MattB:
February 22nd, 2010 at 3:58 pm
You made the analogy Matt. Unhappy that I didn’t use the word “some”? OK point taken, here you go…
Happy? Now tell me how you’d like to be labelled.
10
MattB:
February 22nd, 2010 at 3:58 pm
Oh really? Tell that to Moncktons wife and his guests at Copenhagen when the group of youths from “your side” barged in yelling chants, sloganeering and holding up placards to distrupt the meeting.
Which side is proclaiming the need for upheaval? Which side wants to turn the worlds economies upside down? Sheeesh
10
Who is Matt Bennett? Maybe you could email him some abuse and I’ll cut and paste it here if it is me?
10
Humbug, since we’re all about evidence, do you have any references for economic analysis that backs up your “turn economies upside down” claim? That is the link that always gets me with skeptics, this unwavering belief that acting to reduce carbon emissions will cripple economies and send us back to the dark ages. I’m surprised Howard, Turnbull, and one short of a majority of curent Libs would subscribe to such policies.
10
Australian Climate madness report
Scientists have been forced to withdraw a study on projected sea level rise due to global warming after finding mistakes that undermined the findings.
The withdrawn paper was held up for praise by the university of Bristol. Mark Siddall, from the Earth Sciences Department at the University of Bristol, said the study “strengthens the confidence with which one may interpret the IPCC results”.
As Pat # 9 pointed out above this university is now promoting Ocean Acidification, May they finish up with egg on their face over this one as well.
10
MattB:
Sorry old son, but I think Humbug’s got you on toast – some of your friends haven’t been acting like perfect gentlemen… But at least you are now trying to improve yourself by associating with a better class of people on this blog!
Now, at the risk of getting back on thread, perhaps you can tell us why Mr. Lambert needed to pull that little play acting stunt in his debate with Monckton? If he was right and had all the facts on his side, surely there’d be no need for it? Why would he need to doctor the technical report and use an actor/actress instead of just laying the bare facts on the table? Why is the truth not sufficient? Unless, perhaps, it isn’t the truth, or the whole truth anyway…
I’ll let you ponder that for a while.
Cheers,
Speedy.
10
Speedy I don’t think Lambert has pulled any stunts, and his use of Pinker was a good move backed by the science.
Rather I consider that Jo’s use of:
“Indeed, this is not the official definition of “cloud forcing”; however, if we give Christopher Monckton the benefit of doubt and assume that he meant “the impact of clouds on the surface shortwave radiation” than it can pass.”
(Emphasis added by me)”
is the wrong interpretation of what Pinker has said. All she (Pinker) has said is that while Monckton is not using the terl “cloud forcing” correctly, but that he may have meant something else and it is not uncommon for it to be used “incorrectly” in such a manner.
As I’ve mentioned in the Pittmann thread, as that is where the 5 questions to Pitmann are put forward by Monckton, I’ve explained that Monckton appears to erroneously use a figure of 3.04W/m2, which is the effect of clouds on SW radiation, where he should have been using a figure that is 3.04 +/- the LW forcing of clouds.
To me, unless I’m wildly off track, that is the key issue about this Pinker work. Monckton has used her findings in his DeltaT equation, however her findings are only about SW radiation impact of clouds, not the “cloud forcing” which is how Monckton has interpreted it.
So my take is that he (lambert) WAS right, has the science and maths on his side, and that Monckton was wrong. Pinker kindly gives him the benefit of the doubt that it was a simple misunderstanding of her paper, and that she should it was not unreasonable to use her findings in the way Monckton had tried to do (with my emphasis being on it not being unreasonable just unfortunately Monckton did it incorrectly). So where Jo says “Pinker herself acknowledges that Monckton’s approach is reasonable.” my reading of it is that it is reasonable to try and use her findings in this way, just that his actual way of doing it is incorrect.
For mine the ONLY bit of the whole thing that is dodgy from Lambert is having Audio that sounds like it was Pinker reading direct, when in fact it was just a colleague who sounded like she may be Pinker reading Pinker’s paraphrased words. But it was a very clever debating trick that Monckton had no way to pick up on.
10
re-reading that last post of mine – does anyone have any tips on getting a 4 year old to sleep longer in the morning I’m chronically sleep deprived and typos are getting worse as the day draws on.
I;ve seen references before to spell checking and red wiggly lines? Does that mean people type replies in Word then cut and pasts as as far as I can tell there is no spellchecker on the blog itself?
10
Typing responses in a word processing application is one way. Some browsers like FireFox have built-in spell checking. You can also download various shareware apps that spell check inside IE. When I use IE, I have an app called Babylon running (it can also translate), but I have to make a conscious effort to spell check, which I frequently neglect.
Everyone makes typos and misspells from time to time. You won’t find me beating you up about that one. There’s plenty of other bones to pick with you. 😉
10
Re posts 42 and 43, just did a spot of googling on Kellie Tranter and Clive Hamilton.
NO SURPRISES THERE, FOLKS…as expected…
10
The next instalment in the Chrome Dome Diatribes is already available, although dated 23 Feb:
“Who is orchestrating the cyber-bullying?”
“The floods of offensive and threatening emails aimed at intimidating climate scientists have all the signs of an orchestrated campaign by sceptics groups. The links are well-hidden because mobilizing people to send abuse and threats is well outside the accepted bounds of democratic participation; indeed, some of it is illegal. And an apparently spontaneous expression of citizen concern carries more weight than an organised operation by a zealous group.”
Wow – go tell that to the zealots at “GetUp”! On their home page alone I count three “click here to send xxx a message” campaigns encouraging “spontaneous expressions of citizens concern” – not!
It’s quite a rant, and Jo’s blog is mentioned. He even has a go at The Australian – they must have hurt his feelings at some stage?? Haven’t got time to comment right now but there’s so much unsubstantiated drivel I would contend it needs its own post. Joanne?
10
MattB:
February 22nd, 2010 at 5:03 pm
Typical MattB, refuse to answer the question asked of him and deflect by asking for “evidence” for something else stated. I’m surprised the term peer reviewed wasn’t squeezed in there somewhere. But I’ll go along with it.
Lets look at the most important economy of all, that of the USA, coz once they’re stuffed, history shows the rest of us will follow.
S. 2191, the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act would satisfy the UNFCCC call for reductions in emissions if implemented. So which study would you like Matt?
The EIA (Energy Information Administration) study of s.2191?
The EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) study?
The CBO (Congressional Budget Office) study?
The CRA International analysis?
The ACCF (American Council for Capital Formation) and NAM (National Association of Manufacturers) report?
The Heritage Foundation Analysis?
or maybe you prefer
The Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change?
I’ll tell you what, why don’t you study ALL OF THEM
Ofcourse we haven’t even started on the demands by “your side” that we build no more coal fired power stations, that we WASTE yet more millions on wind, solar, carbon sequestration and the infamous Flannery favourite geothermal. Not to mention the added beurocracy, red tape intended to be introduced in the name of green. Then there is the billions that are supposed to be transferred (via the UN ofcourse) to developing countries. The costs of carbon accounting we are already facing even at local council level (they all have emissions or green officers now) and the grand daddy of them all, Jo Novas favourite, carbon trading that your side wants. Where do you think the billions in profits for the bankers and traders and shonks and shysters who inevitably populate these sorts of schemes will come from? ALL MONEY, in the end ALWAYS COMES FROM THE CONSUMER. No exceptions, every last cent is passed on either thru higher charges or taxes, ALWAYS, EVERYTIME.
Now you may say the Lieberman-Warner bill isn’t the real McCoy, but any bill looking to restrict emissions to 1990 or even 2000 levels will have similar effects, give or take a few billion.
Now, how about YOU SHOW ME EVIDENCE OF THE COSTS OF SITTING ON MY HANDS AND DOING NOTHING, NADDA NIL ZERO ZIP ZILCH SITTING ON MY AR*E for your AGW SCAM
10
Humbug your post at 45 didn’t really have a question for me to dodge?
“Which side is proclaiming the need for upheaval? Which side wants to turn the worlds economies upside down?” well they are not really questions are they? Rhetorical at best.
Also – EPA and MIT approx 1% GDP, and that does not from what I can tell offest against costs of inaction (which of course you think are zero I acknowledge).
JLK – cheers – I use Firefox and now I look it says my spellcheck is on but just does not seem to do anything. Have tried a new dictionary will kick in when I restart tomorrow so you never know. Cheers again. Hey look at that I learned something from a crank website;)
10
I enjoyed this article by Walter Russell Mead, thought I’d share. Heres a little extract..
10
Where the IPCC gets its science from:
http://weeklyworldnews.com/
10
rer t ert e rt er tekrjtejrte rterltje ltet erte rte
brilliant thanks JLK! red wiggly lines everywhere!
10
Anne-Kit Littler @ 54
There appears to be an orchestrated attack on sceptics.
GLOBAL SLIMING of sceptics is apparent on ABC Unleashed with the rants of Clive Hamilton (part 2 is longer and stranger than part 1), and at the Guardian in the UK there’s an article claiming “Climate Sceptics are recycled critics of controls on tobacco and acid rain.”
10
Read this and weep – one might call it “A Very Convenient Retraction”. Is this where Pen got her 1.1 metres from at last week`s speech in Adelaide?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/21/2009-paper-confirming-ipcc-sea-level-conclusions-withdrawn-mistakes-cited/#more-16611
The projected sea level rise was obviously previously underestimated…
10
We should “recycle” the critics of one of the largest mass murderers in human history, namely
Racheal Carson, the Silent spring author.
http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2010/02/16/the-green-death/
Silent spring = mass murder of the poor and young mostly.
Green = anti human.
Green is far, far worse than CAGW, that is just falsely based greed,
which will also cost many countless poor and young their lives.
As well as us our economies and present lifestyles,
especially if the “planned for” warming (only) does not occur.
10
Matt #32
Apology accepted.
10
Bunny
You refer to them comparing us Realists to tobacco lobby lackies.
In football terms, this is known as “softening up” the other team. It usually happens when a given team is getting trounced on the scoreboard that they try to shift the focus of play with some gratuitous biffo.
Right now, the Climatologists don’t want to talk about Climatology – why? Because the news is all bad. Climategate, Copenhagen, anything to do with Pachauri etc. So the best way to deal with this is to brush the abuse aside, then resume on where the global warming is all wrong.
Hurt them on the scoreboard, team!
Cheers,
Speedy.
10
Venus is a curious case and it is a pity that the greenhouse theory was extrapolated from it.
For more on the origins of Venus check out
http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=9aqt6cz5
The author has been a long-standing critic of conventional cosmology. The fanciful extrapolations by astronomers and cosmologists have eventually led to policy decisions affecting all of us. Finally there may be some light shone on many dubious mainstream theories that have taken root – to name a few: black holes, dark matter, dark energy. What next, dark epicycles?
10
Alex: #65
“http://geoplasma.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!C00F2616F39D0B2B!987.entry” is about the space probe measurements of Venus.
10
Hmm, Venus…yes…I remember we had a
troll, ervisitor, (troll was correct the first time) here who said something about Venusian lesbians in SUVs ruined their planet and moved to Earth…or something strange. Maybe ole Brian Valentine can set me straight. 🙂We seem to have a dearth of standard trolls these days.
In other news, the enemy are definitely regrouping around the tobacco theory. It’s popping up in papers all over the world…seems like a coordinated Soros-funded attack. Jeffrey Sachs has an ad hominem and inuendo-based screech in the Graunaid.
I think I postulated here a while back that their attacks will get more desperate and vicious as their religion crumbles around them. We are seeing it now. The hysteria is worse than any time prior to Climategate.
10
ABC reporting of Clive Hamilton’s latest rant on ABC The Drum, dissembled here.
ABC: as credible as Weekly World News?
http://abcnewswatch.blogspot.com/2010/02/abc-as-credible-as-weekly-world-news.html
10
Mattb
2009 USGDP 14,441,425,000,000 Nominal per capita $46,443
1% GDP (US) = $144,414,250,000 Legal US population 305,529,237
$472.67 per person (my household) = 5 people $2363.35
But I live (today) in a very cold area so I know I’ll pay a disproportionate amount as a heating fuel tax.
Another example:
US taxable husband & wife joint (household) income of $40,000 = $5,165 Federal income tax (2009) so look at what the above $2363.35 does as a household tax impact.
Of course you have to believe that it is only 1% GDP (I don’t) and if you look at the map in the link provided by Baa H. http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/cost-of-climate-change-policies/
You’ll see many States would see a $6,000 to $8,000 net DECREASE in household income as a result of you’re “only 1%GDP”. Now if you have an imagination you’ll contemplate what this does to the US GDP over time. With jobs leaving to countries with no carbon penalties, I think a reasonably intelligent person will see a VERY DARK ECONOMIC FUTURE (for the US at least).
So why don’t you feel that this won’t cause “first world” economies to crash?
After all the discussions about Deep Green intent which is rather clear, Why do you NOT believe the whole AGW scam is to BRING First world countries to their economic knees??
10
There is no way this is true. Pinker was very clear in what she said, that Monckton had misunderstood and she agreed with the IPCC.
10
MattB:
February 22nd, 2010 at 5:48 pm
re-reading that last post of mine – does anyone have any tips on getting a 4 year old to sleep longer in the morning I’m chronically sleep deprived and typos are getting worse as the day draws on…
MattB, when my four year old son was causing me to lose a lot of sleep the Pediatrician recommended Benadryl. I am not a doctor and am not advising you to do anything (yep, a disclaimer) but I thought I would pass that along. It comes in liquid form with various flavors that children love and they sleep well. It also works well on long road trips.
@ Baa Humbug
Thanks for trying to reason with MattB. I know it can be frustrating but it could have been worse as it could have been me trying to reason with Matt!
MattB, you queried, “Humbug, since we’re all about evidence, do you have any references for economic analysis that backs up your “turn economies upside down” claim?”
The economies of the world are predicated upon cheap base load electricity which is primarily generated by the burning of fossil fuels. If you increase the cost of electricity the cost of everything rises which has the effect of limiting consumer spending. The economies of the developed world are based upon consumer spending. Barack Obama, the first green President of the United States, has stated that “Electricity prices would necessarily skyrocket’ as a result of his policies. If green energy were a money maker it would already be in use. The ethanol industry, wind farms and the solar industry have only been able to survive because of tax credits and write offs as well as government subsidies. Ironically, the greens are often against alternative energy. They have opposed nuclear power because of the waste it generates. The greens have opposed wind farms because birds sometimes fly into the windmills and die. The big solar plant in the Southern California desert is on hold and is opposed by the greens and Senator Feinstein because it could further endanger the desert tortoise. You can google and find statistical evidence to bolster both sides of the argument. Then again, statistics don’t lie but liars use statistics.
Think about this, Matt, if some organization lies to you over and over will you continue to trust them? The AGW theory has more holes than a pin cushion and the IPCC and the CRU have used fraudulent data to support their theory. If the truth is on your side you wouldn’t need to lie. i hate to break it to you Matt but it was a small cabal of scientists who have controlled the process and have benefited tremendously from the AGW scare. No scare, no money. Scientists have gotten on board with bogus junk science in the past (e.g. Lysenkoism, Eugenics, H. Pylori, etc.) and as long as their livelihood is based upon adhering to the “party line” nothing will change. If the climate scientists were doing honest research they would not have gamed the peer review process, frustrated legitimate FOI requests, altered temperature data or engaged in ad hominem attacks in an attempt to destroy anybody who disagreed with them. The tactics they have employed are those that are used by fraudsters, not legitimate scientists.
BTW, if you do not have a spell checker or if you are unsure about the proper spelling of a word just google the word. If the word is misspelled the search query will normally respond with, “Did you mean…” followed by the word correctly spelled. I works most of the time. I hope you get some sleep so you can finish your review of Courtney’s paper. Good luck!
10
MattB,
There are two things that modern technological civilization needs in great abundance: freedom and energy (24/7). The cap and tax or the EPA regulation of CO2 emissions means the end of freedom because EVERYTHING and individual does and needs to live involves CO2 (the gas of life for both plants and animals).
Every action by every individual will require a “mother may I” permit from the regulatory agencies. See the “permitting” process of how that works for anything larger than a dog house. See also how well the USSR et.al. functioned based upon central power, control, and five year plans worked for the people.
Nearly every productive action above mere subsistence requires the availability of huge quantities of reliable high quality energy (24/7) for it to happen.
The requirement to use the so called alternative energy sources cannot provide the necessary amount, quality, and reliability of energy required. There is no wind energy when the wind doesn’t blow. There is no solar energy when the sun doesn’t shine. Gaseous hydrogen consumes more energy in its production than it returns even in a maximally efficient fuel cell. The prohibitive taxes on the use of fossil fuels will make their use horrifically expensive even if one were permitted to use them.
Repress freedom and you repress innovative and productive action. Civilization soon grinds to a hault. Repress the use of fossil and nuclear fuels and you eliminate the possibility of maintaining modern technological civilization.
If you think this is not so, show us how its possible to eliminate individual freedom and the use of huge quantities of economic energy and still have the consequences of modern technological civilization.
10
Eddy A says . . .
“MattB, when my four year old son was causing me to lose a lot of sleep the Pediatrician recommended Benadryl. I am not a doctor and am not advising you to do anything (yep, a disclaimer) but I thought I would pass that along. It comes in liquid form with various flavors that children love and they sleep well. It also works well on long road trips.”
Drugging your kids is not necessarily a good thing, and antihistamines can become addictive. Also, it becomes an easy out, making it addictive to the parent too. Antihistamines have many potential unwanted side effects, especially used regularly or frequently. Water retention and its opposite, dehydration, are common. Crankiness is too.
MattB, look at Joanne’s articles on her site here concerning children and food additives. There may be something that will work for you that doesn’t require taking any risks at all.
10
@ Florida 73
Great post! I was just relaying a story about my doctor and my son.
10
@ Florida 73
Great post! I was just relaying a story about my doctor and my son.
@ MattB
Maybe you can call the doctor’s office and ask them?
10
Being a Perth local don’t worry my good wife is all over the additive alert book. INtroducing the kids to my fave UK drink Vimto has not helped…
10
Kind of interesting to compare the Pinker 2005 solar irradiance graph above with the hurricane graph here:
http://www.coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/tropical/
Lots of peaks and troughs seem to line up. I’d be interested if someone has link to the solar irradiance data (as numbers) especially if it contains the decade 2000 to 2009 where there has been a recent dropoff in the huricane graph.
10
Louis Hissink’s excellent blog is:
http://geoplasma.spaces.live.com/
Sorry to out you Louis, but, I think you need a larger readership!!
10
Lionell in 72. I’ll just answer your long post by focussing on “Repress the use of fossil and nuclear fuels and you eliminate the possibility of maintaining modern technological civilization.” and confirming my position as a supporter of nuclear power.
10
Just out of interest were there any comments on my post #50 that tries to explain just what it is that Pinker says Monckton got wrong?
10
C’mon guys, let’s quit giving MattB thumbs down on the simple conversational posts like his post #51.
There’s plenty of other comments to poo-poo him on. 😉
10
Gee Lionell, you weren’t supposed to notice that. These green energy people have it all figured out. Don’t they? Just ask them.
10
this must be the silliest sentence i’ve ever read on ABC:
Traders get ETS impact briefing
By Stephanie Fitzpatrick
A carbon forum will be held in Rockhampton today to help local businesses understand climate change.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/02/23/2827761.htm?site=news
10
Mattb:
Sorry, I thought you’d read Jo’s post…
The core issue is one of the climate sensitivity, since we all agree that higher CO2 should, all things being equal, result in higher IR retention, higher temperatures, etc. The sticking point is – how much? Because we have two camps. One is looking at the paleoclimate and seeing CO2 levels of 5000+ ppm having no significant impact; the other (with which you are aligned) appear to be running around like headless chooks telling us the world will end when the CO2 gets to 500 or so.
Now, you mention the issue is whether the difference is 3.04 or 3.04 +/- cloud forcing. An interesting point, because some friends of mine seem to think that clouds are important. They theorise that changes in the solar magnetic output can result in changes in cloud development, with a significant impact on climate via the change in albedo. Perhaps you have met these friends – look around you buddy! Unfortunately, the IPCC has very little to say about clouds, and appears to ignore them completely in their very “sophisticated” models.
Figure 1 above indicates that we have had an increase in the sun irradience which by itself could explain some or all of the recent temperature records. (To the extent that they have any residual credibility after they’d been dodgied up.) It is irrelevant whether the figure is net of clouds or inclusive, and in fact Monckton did his sums after the debate to confirm this.
To quote from the article: (Moncktons comments to Jo)
Comments by Phil (Decliner) Jones are an admission that the temperature record itself has shown similar patterns since before the expansion of industrial society as it did in the period 1980 – 2000. Which, returning to my original point, demonstates that our climate (or the temperature record anyway) has a very low sensitivity to CO2 level as it currently stands. Following on from this, the policies that assume global warming is a real, significant and detrimental effect will have no positive impact on our society and should be resisted until they can provide a real and logical argument to the contrary.
I agree that the fake voice was a good trick. Not very ethical, a bit deceptive (by omission), but effective at the time. Sort of typical of the whole AGW movement, actually.
Cheers,
Speedy.
10
Actaully Speedy I think Monckton has missed the point.
If you refer to Pinkers statment in the PDF, and then to Monckton’s deltaT formula he posted to Pitmann,
MOnckton says deltaT = 5.35ln2 [0.45/(3.04+0.45+0.35)]
where the 3.04 comes from Pinker.
However the 3.04 should represent Fnet(Cloud) = Fsw(Cloud) + Flw(Cloud), where Fsw(Cloud) is the 3.04 from Pinker.
Now with fewer clouds Fsw is higher… but Flw is lower… so incorporating Flw can only INCREASE the deltaT – ie increase the climate sensitivity.
Monckton has instead adjusted the Fsw at “top of the atmosphere” to Fsw at surface level… getting a smaller deltaT, but it still ignores the Flw(cloud).
Do you follow?
10
Hi All,
I’ve just been over at the ABC blog regarding chrome domes latest rant. I think it’s awesome how so many people have been getting the message about this AGW scam – without any real support from the mainstream media.
MattBs comments were complimentary to us – thanks Mattb.
One commenter summed it up Adrian who said
Has this ever happened before? It sure hasn’t come about due to some docco on the idiot box.
10
hmm I’m not sure that even makes sense to me – I’ll rehash it when I have time including text from other threads rather then just referring to them…:)
10
Madjak, Humbug, Jamama & Co.
Nice to see you giving Uncle Clive a lesson in science and manners. Also very nice to see just how many people have taken the time to tell him & his mates at the ABC to get stuffed.
On the positive side, Uncle Clive has given Jo some great publicity…
Cheers,
Speedy
MattB
No – like you said, it’s a bit garbled. But just try putting a CO2 level of 5000 ppm into a climate model and tell me what happens.
There is only one question in this debate – it’s the question of climate sensitivity. History and even Phil Jones says that AGW doesn’t have a leg to stand on. Anyway, I’ve got a day job to do…
Cheers,
Speedy.
10
Speedy post 84,
Dont forget Nir Shaviv has found that the changes in TSI amount to a 5 to 7 magnitude rise in ocean heat. He does not know what the mechanism is but these are the facts, possibly due to cloud who knows. (still trying to find the link again).
Anyway, you are wasting your time trying to get MattB etc to understand this as they constantly appeal to authority. They only know and accept what the authority tells them, for example if the IPCC suddenly turned around and said GCR/cloud cover can account for 50% of warming and CO2 50% rather than 100% then they would accept this.
If the planet gets warmer and releases more water vapour then there is more cloud cover and the temps drop, conversely if the planet gets cooler (say volcanic eruption) the planet cools less WV less cloud cover and the planet warms. The cloud acts as a thermostat, one would think this concept is not hard to grasp.
10
MattB:
That’s great! Now what are we going to do for energy until we start building nuclear power stations in the necessary quantity and get them up and running? The so called green alternatives don’t cut it.
I noticed that you evade the issue of the propensity of the greens for a top down command and control micromanaged economy where even exhaling would be “controlled”. Their repression of high energy sources simply inhibits maintenance of the technology. Their micromanagement would make innovation impossible. The two together assures a rapid decline and collapse of civilization. Compared to that, the dark ages was a picnic with cake and ice cream.
10
Lionell, we’ll do the same as we would under any other forward energy projection. There are comprehensive investigations of rolling out nuclear power and the transition over at BraveNewClimate so I suggest you look there to be honest. I share your concerns, although with some optimism that things may turn around, for the green alternatives. They can and will play a useful role in some places and at the fringes of the energy market at least. But only a bit player I fear.
“the issue of the propensity of the greens for a top down command and control micromanaged economy where even exhaling would be “controlled”.” I think that is going a bit too far to be honest Lionell, but certainly I am opposed to “a rapid decline and collapse of civilization” if that helps.
10
Crakar how is your “Nir Shaviv” any less an appeal to authority than any of my references to science. Are you suggesting if Nir Shaviv suddenly released a paper that was even more contrary to AGW hypothesis you’d not lap it up?
Why do you think noone is grasping that clouds play a role?
10
Speedy,
One thing that came out of it was that if someone calls me a denier, I guess I might be justified in calling them a scientologist? That was if I was petty.
10
Madjak
An academic argument then! Name-calling won’t change the facts, no matter how much some people would like it to.
It probably reflects more those who use the names than those who receive them. Mind you, I don’t think I’d like to be called a Scientologist…
Cheers,
Speedy
10
MattB, I would be interested to know whether any of the warmists would come forward and claim that Pinker’s solar irradiance values are driven by CO2 forcing.
If they are not willing to make such a claim, then regardless of specific details we can still see strong correlation between the solar irradiance and various other aspects of climate (ocean surface temp, hurricanes, global mean temp, etc) — such that CO2 is at best a small factor to consider.
Every year that passes, CO2 keeps going up but the correlation between CO2 and anything else you care to measure get worse. So it’s only a matter of time before everyone gives up on CO2 as being a significant input signal. Might as well look around for other things that drive the climate, and the sun does seem like the logical candidate.
If George’s simulation is anything to go by, the time constants in energy balance are relatively short (only a few months) so this could be independently confirmed by sliding the solar irradience time series over various other time series looking for the biggest peak. If it does confirm a sort time constant then get ready to throw out pretty much all the global climate models and throw out all this talk of hidden energy building up deep under the oceans.
10
You mean “trick” in the sense of deception? Trying to present one thing as if it were some different thing, in the hope of misleading the audience?
10
I think Illusion rather than deception. The words were Pinker’s (she could easily cry foul if she thinks she’s been misrepresented).
10
Maybe we should start a political party consisting entirely of cab drivers. At least they would regularly stay in contact with the common man in the street. Mind you, after the cabbies get power only a very small fraction of people will still be able to afford to pay their incredibly inflated fees but that’s roughly where we are now, and when you really need to speak with your local member, he will probably run into you sooner or later (having a cheap car might be helpful at this juncture).
10
Tel
It’s not unknown – how ahout “Sea levels will rise by 20 feet” and then showing a picture of a famous city up to its hips in the aqua pura? There’s a bit of coin in “illusions” like that…
Cheers,
Speedy.
10
Well Tel reading what Pinker says her study looked at change in irradiance due to atmospheric conditions (clouds, water vapour, aerosols). in as much as they can be influenced by temperature then of course there would be a link to CO2 forcing temperature made by those who are of that way of thinking. Of course they could go the other way where they are a negative feedback.
10
Computer graphics have become so good these days, they are interchangeable with reality.
10
crakar24:
February 23rd, 2010 at 3:31 pm
Crakar I believe what you are looking for is titled “The Oceans as a Calorimetre” by Nir Shaviv. Was published in Journal of Geophysical Research.
You can get a summary from the man himself HERE
10
That’s very amusing to read. They’re both helping each others delusions in the wrong direction. The idea of a spouse blogging this way about her partner is positively yukky.
10
Clive of Australia’s next screech is now available on Auntie’s website:
Think tanks, oil money and black ops
“The deployment of think tanks and sceptic websites to attack climate science has been a carefully planned strategy that was developed in the United States in the mid-1990s. It was refined with the advice of political consultant Frank Luntz who in 2002 urged the Republican Party to undermine the credibility of climate science by commissioning “independent” experts to “make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate”. The strategy is comprehensively exposed by former PR insider Jim Hoggan in his recent book Climate Cover-Up.”
Now there’s an interesting spin! Jim “Pot” Hoggan calling the kettle black. Would that be the same Jim Hoggan who is behind DesmogBlob? (typo intentional) It brings to mind the Israeli Defense Force’s great motto: “Attack is the best defense”!
10
I just listened to the whole debate, questions and summing up.
I thought Lord Monckton was absolutely brilliant. His extraordinary breadth and depth of knowledge is awesome and he has a knack for summing up an argument and connecting with the audience. What a star.
I thought Tim gave it all he had and good for him to actually come out and debate – I hope we get to hear more discussions like this because we need to hear them. Sadly Tim had moments where he seemed to lose the plot and he argued solely about the disputed climate sensitivity which meant that Lord M ‘won’ any and all other points as they were unopposed.
Tim’s Pinker moment was dramatic but it just looked like one of those ‘tricks’ climatologists use to hide stuff – which it now looks like it was.
By the way over on his blog he is disputing the Pinker quote you have here -where does it come from?
10
Scott:
February 23rd, 2010 at 7:41 pm
Actually Scott, you can make it easy on yourself by watching this video of Svensmarks’ work broken down to 5 parts. I just found the link HERE Total of 50 minutes but well worth it.
10
Political and OT, but here`s another US-based attempt to call Gore (and others) to account – the Democrats may have something to say about the motion but this could generate some publicity nonetheless;
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/climategate-and-the-law-senator-inhofe-to-ask-for-congressional-criminal-investigation-pajamas-mediapjtv-exclusive/
10
George #107
I got the Pinker Quote from Slide 11 http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/upload/2010/02/monckton.pdf And I cut and pasted the other quotes from the pdf I’ve linked in the story.
If I’ve mis-cut them, let me know, but I just got the quotes off Lamberts site.
And yes Baa Humbug and Mark D, I’ll get organized. It’s high time I put up a cosmic ray thread…
10
George where is Deltoid disputing quotes? I can’t find it.
10
Joanne Nova:
February 24th, 2010 at 1:12 am
As if you didn’t have enough to do, but yes it would be good. Any chance we could invite Nir Shaviv to comment? He is not a skeptic nor an alarmist, grew up in a “green” home. Have a lot of regard for his research and opinions.
I think Alan Jones spoke to him some time ago, wonder if I can find an audio of it.
10
I read lots of blogs that mention a certain English newspaper and it’s amazing how many misspell Grauniad.
10
Thanks Baa Humbug
Much appreciated 🙂
Thanks Jo
I am glad you could understand where I am coming from
10
Baa Humbug and Steve Short and others, I’ve posted a “Cosmic Rays Thread“. I should have done it ages ago, and moved comments there. I hope I didn’t lose any. Let me know if you see any that belong there…
10
Joanne,
I follow your posts with great interest but I do wonder about this.
It seems to me Pinker made it clear that Monckton was confused and trying to calculate the wrong value. He might have been correct in calculating the wrong property, but it wasn’t climate sensitivity he was calculating. This Pinker makes clear and it’s a very important distinction to make.
It makes me wonder, are you purposefully misleading us?
Sincerely,
Brendon.
10
Lambert’s wife looks exactly like him wearing a blonde wig.
10
Joanne,
Seems to me that Lambert just got someone to read Pinker’s words. So what?
The substantive point is that Monckton’s use of Pinker’s work was debunked. Pinker backs the IPCC interpretation of her work, not Monckton’s – enough said.
I am surprised that anyone still listens to a raddled old faux-aristocrat with thin credentials, who was a minor flunkey at the court of Queen Margaret (Thatcher)& has been trading on the connection ever since.
10
Wow Toby I bet you are proud of yourself for typing that………!
And you? why should anyone listen to YOU?
10
Reply to Brendon
Pretty much. Monckton gets caught out with a blatant falsehood (that Pinker was misinterpreted) then he calculates the wrong figure. In the debate he doesn’t rebuke Lambert he just moves on to the next topic.
Monckton is a snake oil salesman. He pretends to hold a place of authority, he pretends to be the one guy standing against the rest and he pretends to know something those other scientists don’t. A good trick is to use scientific terminology and make it sound elementary or obvious. Not only does it show everyone how very clever you are but it makes your punters feel all clever whilst simultaneously leaving them unable to rebuke you. Imagine he was shilling water of youth and you wouldn’t need to change much of what he says.
10
Reply to Bhazor post # 118,
YAWN…..
10
No surprise there, Monckton can’t tell the difference between surface area from volume when talking about the Arctic. What makes you think he can tell a female from a male.
10
[…] top of the role of clouds and temperature when he debated Tim Lambert – and Lambert sprung that infamous ambush about Pinker being a woman not a man. What was overlooked was the fact that Monckton was correct. Pinker et al had found that solar […]
10