geo wrote:So okay I exaggerated when I said that "anyone who questions the data is immediately cast as Holocaust appeasers/deniers."

Yes, you exaggerated, badly, erroneously, pejoratively, damagingly. Like the denialists. Science is all about questioning data, so to sow scurrilous innuendo to the contrary is not a good contribution to dialogue. The Holocaust analogy only applies when people wantonly promote falsehoods about large serious problems.

geo wrote: Where else am I wrong?

Nazi circus, suppressing data, resorting to hysterics – all that hyperbolic attack you mount against climate science is wrong.

geo wrote:Your post goes straight into vague La La land.

No it does not. I gave detailed reasons earlier as to why denialists should be viewed with extreme derision.

geo wrote: I'm never sure who qualifies as a "denier."

For a start, anyone who claims that the air temperature record of the last two decades refutes global warming is a denier, since this argument has been comprehensively refuted, as for example in the wunderground link I gave twice.

geo wrote: It's a vague pejorative that seems only to quash dialogue.

No, it is not vague. Climate denialists are people who ignore scientific evidence for political motives. It is easy to see their methods at work in the various sources I mentioned. They have no interest in dialogue since their motive is just to sow confusion about scientific facts, and they have shown their opinion is stoutly resistant to facts.

geo wrote:You've called me a "denier" before simply because I'm not going along with all the hype.

No, I would not call anyone a denier for expressing reasoned doubt. Denial only enters the picture when people ignore evidence that refutes their opinions.

geo wrote: the blogger in the third link makes a valid point that graphs are routinely tweaked in disingenuous ways.

Maybe you don’t read my comments geo? I already explained quite clearly that the disingenuity is on the part of that blogger, who performs an epic fail in ignoring the standard statistlcal practice of graphing data with the intercept placed just below the bottom value. Anyone who doesn’t get that is innumerate. Look at any newspaper graphs of exchange rates or unemployment. They use the graph to show trends, in a way that this guy, whether through malevolence or just stupidity, claims is misleading.

geo wrote: His comment that I completely agree with by the way: "There is no denying that we as a world need to get serious about investing in alternative and renewable sources of energy like solar, wind, and even nuclear, but this graph is just plain bad."

No, the graph is not “just plain bad”. It shows data on decadal upward temperature trends in accord with normal scientific and statistical practice. What is “just plain bad” is his false insinuation of manipulation. It is an old rhetorical trick to cover up such stupidity by conceding some ground, as he does in his statement of support for renewable energy.

geo wrote: Somehow the warming trend is supposed to be undeniable, but again, we simply don't have much data with regard to our climate prior to 1600. Five hundred years of climate data is paltry. The "substantial uncertainties" I mentioned in my last post is a direct quote from the linked Wikipedia article.

Did you even read the article beyond looking to confirm your prejudice? Even with that small caveat, it provides abundant proof of the hockey stick model.

geo wrote: Yes, I agree there are a lot of charlatans out there and a lot of misinformation. Much on both sides of the aisle. The true picture is much muddier than is portrayed in our mainstream media. There's widespread assumption that our government can "fix" the problem if only the deniers and naysayers could get their heads out of their asses. It's that general attitude of over-simplification and over-villainization that I have a problem with. I'm always open to the magic solutions. What are they again?

Again, as Bjorn Lomborg argues, we should invest in research and development and deployment of commercial methods of sustainable energy. There is nothing magic, but this research, which should be central to global strategic security, is stymied by the antics of denialists, who create moral legitimacy for fools.

It is not up to governments to fix the problem through measures such as carbon taxes. Instead governments should enable the private sector to develop innovative commercial solutions. I can’t believe you think the mainstream media presents an unmuddied portrayal. They give space to lunatics, which sows seeds of completely unjustified doubt about science in the popular mind. The problem is not that denialists have their heads in their arses, but their lies in the media.

Robert Tulip wrote:I already explained quite clearly that the disingenuity is on the part of that blogger, who performs an epic fail in ignoring the standard statistlcal practice of graphing data with the intercept placed just below the bottom value. Anyone who doesn’t get that is innumerate. Look at any newspaper graphs of exchange rates or unemployment. They use the graph to show trends, in a way that this guy, whether through malevolence or just stupidity, claims is misleading.

That's not true that it is standard statistical practice. When graphing data, it is usually a judgment call on where to start the axis. I agree with you that zero is an arbitrary value, and the version of the graph you're referring to probably went too far in trying to remove the apparent trend. But if you graphed unemployment data and started the axis at 6.1% and showing what looks like a massive increase to 6.2% because that is the range of your data, that may be misleading. It may be better to start with the low point of the previous business cycle, for example.

I see graphs of temperature that make it look like a 0.1 degree increase is very large. Maybe it is, but that has to explained. Data doesn't just speak for itself, you have to interpret what changes are significant.

I've tried to express some of my own thoughts regarding climate change, and that's really all I was trying to do. But Robert and I are talking past one another. We are simply not finding much common ground, although I suspect we actually agree on many of the particulars. As for the hockey stick graph, it does seem that the scientific community does more or less accept it, though it's pretty clear that the so-called medieval warming period remains highly controversial. What can I say? I remain highly skeptical of the hockey stick graph. Indeed, if you search Google, you'll find many different versions of it. Some of them have an extreme spike at the end supposed to represent projected warming over the next few decades. If these predictions come true, we are indeed in for a rough ride. But we're probably in for a rough ride anyway.

I suspect most predictions such as that the sea level will rise by 39 inches in the next century are something akin to projected population growth (put out by the United Nations) which is merely an extrapolation based on current growth. As current population growth changes, so does the extrapolation. It's ultimately not very meaningful.

Again, as Bjorn Lomborg argues, we should invest in research and development and deployment of commercial methods of sustainable energy. There is nothing magic, but this research, which should be central to global strategic security, is stymied by the antics of denialists, who create moral legitimacy for fools.

There are a lot of comments like this in your posts. I think many of us are in support of pursuing sustainable energy, even many conservatives. I've already mentioned that solar panel and battery technologies have drastically improved over the last decade. Where do you get the idea that research and development is being stymied? By magic solutions, I mean there is no quick fix.

geo wrote: Robert and I are talking past one another.

No, not at all. You are not talking past me. I have directly replied to your false comments.

geo wrote: As for the hockey stick graph, it does seem that the scientific community does more or less accept it, though it's pretty clear that the so-called medieval warming period remains highly controversial.

That is rubbish. The only controversy is whipped up by denialists with unscientific motives.

geo wrote: I suspect most predictions such as that the sea level will rise by 39 inches in the next century are something akin to projected population growth (put out by the United Nations) which is merely an extrapolation based on current growth. As current population growth changes, so does the extrapolation. It's ultimately not very meaningful.

On current trends, we will put enough carbon into the air to restore the earth to an ice free state, ie with sea level ninety metres higher. The uncertainty is whether that would take fifty years or five hundred. This is a major risk for global political and economic stability, with the potential for vast movements of hundreds of millions or even billions of people out of low lying countries and regions.

geo wrote: Where do you get the idea that research and development is being stymied?

There is an unholy alliance between reductionistas and denialists. Those who see emission reduction as the only solution to climate change are actively preventing research and development of new technology. And denialists have been responsible for the wholesale defunding of climate research in countries such as Australia. Climate security requires research and development through political will on the scale of the Manhattan, Marshall and Apollo Projects. Instead we just get political lies about implausible future targets for emission reduction.

. The only controversy is whipped up by denialists with unscientific motives.

What evidence do you have to support the accusation that scientists who disagree with global warming alarmists have "unscientific motives"?

There is an unholy alliance between reductionistas and denialists

What is the evidence to support this conspiracy theory?

withdrawn

Why is this data from the NOAA unscientific?

New data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration show atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are continuing to rise but global temperatures are not following suit. The new data undercut assertions that atmospheric carbon dioxide is causing a global warming crisis.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor ... wing-suit/

From the mid-1940s through the mid-1970s, global temperatures endured a 30-year decline even as atmospheric carbon dioxide levels rose nearly 10 percent. From 1900 through 1945, by contrast, global temperatures rose rapidly despite a lack of coal power plants, SUV’s, and substantial carbon dioxide emissions.

Why did the above phenomena I underlined happen?

Among opponents of the mainstream scientific assessment, some say that while there is agreement that humans do have an effect on climate, there is no universal agreement about the quantitative magnitude of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) relative to natural forcings and its harm to benefit ratio.[50] Other opponents assert that some kind of ill-defined "consensus argument" is being used, and then dismiss this by arguing that science is based on facts rather than consensus.[51] Some highlight the dangers of focusing on only one viewpoint in the context of what they say is unsettled science, or point out that science is based on facts and not on opinion polls or consensus

Wiki (Emphasis mine)

ant wrote:

. The only controversy is whipped up by denialists with unscientific motives.

What evidence do you have to support the accusation that scientists who disagree with global warming alarmists have "unscientific motives"?

The specific controversy in question was about temperatures in medieval times, but the principle applies more broadly. Alarmism covers a lot of ground, ranging from the broad and overwhelming global scientific consensus reflected in the massive reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change through to a range of unsupported opinions such as in the ‘back to nature’ movement.

Writers who reject the scientific consensus on climate consistently fail to have their opinions supported by evidence, fail to get published in reputable scientific journals, and tend to link their views to rather cranky right wing politics. Assessing their motives for promoting such dubious views does come down to politics to a large extent.

The IPCC itself cannot be viewed as a conspiracy, given its overwhelming scientific support. The only reputable scientific criticism of the IPCC is that it is too cautious, for example on Arctic melting, and on geoengineering. The IPCC process shows that if writers have scientific motives, they can engage with the rest of the scientific community. At present, denialists find their only outlets in right wing mass media corporations such as Fox and the Daily Mail who have a clear propaganda motive to denigrate the evidentiary basis for anthropogenic climate change.

For example, Lord Monckton is really just an attack dog for conservative politics. The Australian geologist Bob Carter seems to get a buzz from being published by newspapers who want to pretend he gives denialism some scientific cover. These people have no intellectual status.

What I think gives denial its impetus is a backlash against the green alarmist argument geo raised, that there are too many people on the earth. Part of the alarmist movement includes a hostility to economic growth, a desire to return to a more simple society, and a view that we should just use less energy. The corporate world sees this green agenda as dangerous, with potential to cause economic damage, and so has recruited its denialist lap dogs as part of the political class war.

I find it fascinating how the political economy of climate change maps onto traditional left-right divides. Science is neither left nor right, but climate science has been pushed into alliance with the political left, whose main objective is to increase the size of government. I see this socialist alliance as a complete dead end for climate politics, since increasing the size of government through carbon taxes is actually not a practical method to stabilise the global climate, and is not politically feasible or good anyway.

The only real solution, in my view, is for climate science to ally with the corporate world, through support for R&D into profitable industrial methods such as large scale ocean based algae production for fuel, food, fertilizer and fabric. But the left wing momentum behind climate politics is so strong that this right wing approach is seen as anathema, especially by greens who see companies as morally evil.

ant wrote:

There is an unholy alliance between reductionistas and denialists

What is the evidence to support this conspiracy theory?

It is not a conspiracy theory, but an accident of interests. Those I term reductionistas, who support the UN view that emission reduction is the only way to stabilise the climate, actively oppose mobilising capitalist ingenuity. The Haida Salmon ocean iron experiment was a classic example, with the greens mobilising leading UN agencies to condemn and stop this simple practical activity.

Denialists have mixed views on innovation, with some, such as Newt Gingrich, supporting geoengineering, but most viewing any proposed support for technological solutions as part of the whole warming plot.

When people agree on policy, they do not need to conspire. In this case, the reductionist movement and the denial movement agree in opposing technological research, but for different motives. That amounts to an unholy alliance, if you accept Lomborg’s argument at fixtheclimate.com that technological research is the key to practical progress towards climate stability.

ant wrote:Why is this data from the NOAA unscientific?

New data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration show atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are continuing to rise but global temperatures are not following suit. The new data undercut assertions that atmospheric carbon dioxide is causing a global warming crisis.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor ... wing-suit/

Thanks ant, I can well see why people get taken in by the malicious distortion here by Forbes Business Magazine. The data from NOAA in the first sentence is correct. But the commentary from Forbes in the second sentence is denialist propaganda. An innocent reader could well imagine that Forbes is quoting NOAA in the statement that “data undercuts assertions”. But no, that is not from NOAA, it is pure Forbes editorial, aimed to shore up stock prices of fossil fuel companies.

The data from NOAA does not undercut assertions about global warming, as Forbes falsely alleges. The fact is that early models of climate change underestimated the extent to which warming occurs in the sea rather than on land. Recent models have shown how waves drag the surface heat down to the ocean depths. We are still heating up the planet at the rate of four Hiroshima bombs per second, but most of this extra heat goes into the sea, not the air. This does not in the slightest undercut the reality of crisis, which is seen in poleward migrations, acidity killing coral, an extinction crisis, and the very real risk of a sudden global climate flip, for example a melting of the Antarctic ice shelf on massive scale.

ant wrote:

From the mid-1940s through the mid-1970s, global temperatures endured a 30-year decline even as atmospheric carbon dioxide levels rose nearly 10 percent. From 1900 through 1945, by contrast, global temperatures rose rapidly despite a lack of coal power plants, SUV’s, and substantial carbon dioxide emissions.

Why did the above phenomena I underlined happen?

Have a look at the chart of temperature from NASA.

You can see the big pimple at the start of the second world war. But the overall trend since 1910 is a rise of one degree. See the zigs and zags from year to year? They are replicated in bigger trends, for example a temperature spike in the early 1940s.

The trick by denialists is to use spike years to distort the data. You can see the spike years on this chart, for example 1943, 1964, 1998, where the annual figure is way off the five year trend. Did you know, for example, as shown on this graph, that temperature fell from 1943 to 1976 by 0.28 degrees, but over about the same timeframe, from 1950 to 1973, temperature rose by 0.36 degrees, 29% more than the supposed fall over the similar period?

Look at those numbers and look at the graph and look at how denialists cherry pick to maliciously mislead the public and politicians.

Climate is chaotic. There are lags between the cause and the effect, the CO2 addition and the temperature rise. There are many factors at work so the change will not be at a constant rate. But the trend is inexorably up. This is caused by anthropogenic carbon, which reached around a billion tonnes per year in about 1910, and is now accelerating up from 8 billion tonnes per year, as seen here.

Among [denialists], there is no universal agreement about the quantitative magnitude of anthropogenic global warming relative to natural forcings

(My edit)
Denialists would say that. So what?

geo wrote:How dismissive and smug and certain you are, Robert.

Of course I dismiss your comparison of me with a Nazi, just because I maintain that climate science is certain. That is not smug. It is like if you called me smug for maintaining the earth is certainly not flat. I am just explaining the mainstream scientific views, that you reject, God only knows why.

geo wrote:I simply cannot respond to your broad strokes and grandiose strawmen.

I have not presented any straw man arguments. Again, that is a complete misrepresentation on your part.

geo wrote:I I acknowledge my own confusion over climate change and maintain that it is difficult to find clarity with all the conflicting information.

It is easy to find clarity about the actual climate trajectory if you have the ability to distinguish between science and propaganda. It is hard to find clarity on policy responses, since that is an area which is by its nature unclear. But all these efforts to muddy the waters about the science illustrate why people find it so hard to move on from the science to a constructive debate about policy.

geo wrote:I It's easy for you apparently because you simply dismiss all contrary perspectives as belonging to "reductionistas and denialists."

Those are two separate issues. My debate with those who see emissions reduction as the basis for climate stability is about policy. My debate with those who deny climate change is about science. I do not dismiss the reductionist view, but consider it is should be a starting point for dialogue. I do dismiss denialism, as like a kind of creationist religion, grounded in an alienated ideology.

geo wrote:I I think I'm done here.

It is disappointing Geo that you come across as a sensible and rational person, but then have this massive blind spot about climate science. It just illustrates to me how successfully the black propaganda of the denialist movement has worked, when it can even influence an intelligent person like you to fail to see basic science.