Climate change or global warming and who did it?

[mashman]

Gone in 60 days.

surely not

[carbonhed]

I'm going to give you that one. I'm arguably guilty of a little hyperbole

Fair enough. I'd argue over the "little"... much more like "relentless".

But then hyperbole was the very thing that changed me from being an AGW believer into a sceptic so perhaps I'm hypersensitive to bullshit.

And I don't agree that climate change is primarily caused by human behaviour.

Here's an interesting link that discusses climate scepticism :-

http://judithcurry.com/2011/06/28/mo...ics/#more-3806

Check out the six lies about sceptics/deniers and see how many you peddle. There's a prize for a clean sweep.

[Scuba_Steve]

well people latest news is burn coal to keep earth cool

[oneofsix]

well people latest news is burn coal to keep earth cool

Got that sorted for you, There is a whole hillside of the stuff burning away down the coast. (no I don't mean Pike River)

[shrub]

Fair enough. I'd argue over the "little"... much more like "relentless".

But then hyperbole was the very thing that changed me from being an AGW believer into a sceptic so perhaps I'm hypersensitive to bullshit.

And I don't agree that climate change is primarily caused by human behaviour.

Here's an interesting link that discusses climate scepticism :-

http://judithcurry.com/2011/06/28/mo...ics/#more-3806

Check out the six lies about sceptics/deniers and see how many you peddle. There's a prize for a clean sweep.

Relentless is your interpretation. I make an effort to stay reasonable and and make a genuine attempt to back my arguments with credible sources.

But let me respond to your list:

Deniers believe that the climate has not warmed

A frequent argument on this site is that the temperature is dropping, or hasn't changed since 1998. When credible sources are cited arguing the opposite those sources are poo pooed for all kinds of reasons.

Deniers are not real scientists

Some are, some aren't. Some are real plumbers, some aren't.

Deniers are a tiny minority of scientists

I wouldn't say tiny, but definitely a minority given that 97.4% of expert climate scientists agree. I suggest you read this paper

Deniers are anti-environmental shills of big oil

Some are, some aren't. Some work for fundamentalist Christians, some don't. Some work for universities, some for the local plumber and some are on the dole. Many of the more strident denier lobby groups used to have funding from organisations that would be disadvantged if climate change was taken seriously, but that funding is becoming very hard to trace. BTW the big oil companies are all falling over themselves to position themselves as pro AGW - Shell state that "The world must take action to halve CO2 emissions by 2050 in order to avoid the worst effects of climate change." Are they wrong?

Deniers think CO2 is irrelevant

Many do, and I have read twaddle that says we should aim for 600ppm because that will benefit horticulture, but some don't. However the majority of arguments on this site are that carbon concentration makes no difference, or that we aren't responsible.

Deniers believe humans have no impact on climate

I'd rephrase that to "deniers believe humans have little or no impact on climate change". Isn't that the crux of your argument?

I used to be a rabid denier, and I walked out of Al Gore's film in disgust because I thought it was emotive crap, but to maintain that position would be hard because the evidence is strong and nobody has presented a challenge to the AGW argument that holds water. I also have several friends who are scientists, and while none of them are climate scientists, they all work in environmental fields from forestry to vertabrate control, and they all take it very seriously.

But most importantly, I look out the window and see that things are changing, and when I look for an answer as to why, AGW is the only answer that makes sense. Present me with another reason please, I want to be a denier too, but am afflicted with cognitive dissonance.

[carbonhed]

There has been no significant warming since since 1998 and it's becoming so problematic for the warmists that they're producing crap like this to explain it :-

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpre...-201102467.pdf

From the abstract :-

"Given the widely noted increase in the warming effects of rising greenhouse gas concentrations, it has been unclear why global surface temperatures did not rise between 1998 and 2008."

Plus of course you completely slide on by the fact that it's been warming since the end of the little ice age and that is what the original quote referred to. Slippery but not to be unexpected.

The study that reported 97.4% of climate scientists agreed had to exclude so much of their original polling data to get the result they wanted you'd almost think they were searching for cooperative Bristlecone Pines.

Big Oil is into renewables in a big way because your stupid policies have made it a big money earner for them. Take the taxpayers money and give it to the usual assholes. Greenpeace and the rest of the Watermelons have taken infinitely more from Big Oil, Govt's and the big money boys.

You can see climate change looking out of your window?

I used to think I could see the treeline on the little mountain behind my place rising over the decades until I saw a photo of a mate sitting on the top of it surrounded by the blackened stumps of trees that had been burnt off generations earlier. What part of the climate change you can "see" is anthropogenic and what part natural?

[shrub]

There has been no significant warming since since 1998 and it's becoming so problematic for the warmists that they're producing crap like this to explain it :-

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpre...-201102467.pdf

From the abstract :-

"Given the widely noted increase in the warming effects of rising greenhouse gas concentrations, it has been unclear why global surface temperatures did not rise between 1998 and 2008."

Yes, quite. You missed the next bit: "We find that this hiatus in warming coincides with a period of little increase in the sum of anthropogenic and natural forcings. Declining solar insolation as part of a normal eleven-year cycle, and a cyclical change from an El Nino to a La Nina dominate our measure of anthropogenic effects because rapid growth in short-lived sulfur emissions partially offsets rising greenhouse gas concentrations."

Maybe you should read more than just what supports your position? What they're saying is that factors that cool countered the effect of human activity in warming which explains why temperature growth stabilised for a brief period. And why is it "crap"? Was it because it was published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, and not on a blog? Or was it because it was written by several world renowned experts in climate science and not by your mate Bill down at the pub? Or was it simply because you couldn't understand it?

And when I said I could see the effect of climate change by looking out my window I was speaking metaphorically. If I look out my window I actually see my neighbours house, what I meant was when I observe what's happening around me and in the world beyond me I can see that the climate is changing.

And much as it amuses me to kick you around the internet, it's a little pointless and I have better things to do.

[carbonhed]

Yes, quite. You missed the next bit: "We find that this hiatus in warming coincides with a period of little increase in the sum of anthropogenic and natural forcings. Declining solar insolation as part of a normal eleven-year cycle, and a cyclical change from an El Nino to a La Nina dominate our measure of anthropogenic effects because rapid growth in short-lived sulfur emissions partially offsets rising greenhouse gas concentrations."

Maybe you should read more than just what supports your position? What they're saying is that factors that cool countered the effect of human activity in warming which explains why temperature growth stabilised for a brief period. And why is it "crap"? Was it because it was published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, and not on a blog? Or was it because it was written by several world renowned experts in climate science and not by your mate Bill down at the pub? Or was it simply because you couldn't understand it?

And when I said I could see the effect of climate change by looking out my window I was speaking metaphorically. If I look out my window I actually see my neighbours house, what I meant was when I observe what's happening around me and in the world beyond me I can see that the climate is changing.

And much as it amuses me to kick you around the internet, it's a little pointless and I have better things to do.

Ahhh... metaphor and hyperbole... hyperbole and metaphor... bullshit I suspect for the rest of the planet.

And there's an interesting deconstruction of that paper and how it got to be published here :-

http://judithcurry.com/2011/07/04/an...998/#more-3966

[shrub]

Ahhh... metaphor and hyperbole... hyperbole and metaphor... bullshit I suspect for the rest of the planet.

So I can assume you are unable to counter my argument? Or have you been unable to find any blogs to c&p from?

And there's an interesting deconstruction of that paper and how it got to be published here :-

http://judithcurry.com/2011/07/04/an...998/#more-3966

Er, no. That's a fairly lightweight and unsubstantiated attack on the authors and their conclusions by one Judith Curry. Calling it a deconstruction is like calling a GN250 a chopper.

Interesting woman, she has become something of a poster girl for the deniers and a bit of a sensation in the blogosphere - reminds me of Christians that love to parade the notorious gang member who found Christ and is now rides for Jesus as a patched member of the Redeemed. Pity none of her attempts to cast doubt on the consensus have any substance or are taken seriously outside of the denier community.

Nice try though, and I will give you one thing, you keep on coming back for more.

[Jantar]

...
I wouldn't say tiny, but definitely a minority given that 97.4% of expert climate scientists agree. I suggest you read this paper.....

From that paper...

With 3146 individuals completing the survey....... 96.2%
(76 of 79) answered “risen” to question 1
and 97.4% (75 of 77) answered yes to question
2.

So they discarded 3167 responses before choosing only 79 individuals to calculate their percentage. Anyone researching geochemistry (15.5%), geophysics (12%), oceanography (10.5%), General geology, hydrology/hydrogeology, and paleontology (each accounting for 5–7%) were considered to be NOT involved in climate science. This is such poor use of statistics that the claimed result is invalidated.

[shrub]

From that paper...

So they discarded 3167 responses before choosing only 79 individuals to calculate their percentage. Anyone researching geochemistry (15.5%), geophysics (12%), oceanography (10.5%), General geology, hydrology/hydrogeology, and paleontology (each accounting for 5–7%) were considered to be NOT involved in climate science. This is such poor use of statistics that the claimed result is invalidated.

That's not what they said, and you know it. They didn't discard them at all, and the 79 individuals you cite are those who specify that they are climate scientists and more than 50% of their peer reviewed publications have been on climate change - in other words, serious experts.

They broke the sample into general public, non publishers/non climatoligists, climatoligists and active publishers all topics. 58% of the general public agreed with AGW, rising as the expertise of the sample rose, so the more you know the more likely you are to agree. The conclusion was:

"It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes".

[Jantar]

That's not what they said, and you know it. They didn't discard them at all, and the 79 individuals you cite are those who specify that they are climate scientists and more than 50% of their peer reviewed publications have been on climate change - in other words, serious experts......

That IS what they said, and YOU know it. They did not canvas any members of the general public, but estimated that result from a totally different study:

2. The general public data come from a 2008 Gallup poll (see http://www.gallup.com/poll/1615/Environment.aspx).

Yes, they broke the sample down, and the claimed 97% is from the 79 individuals of the 3167 responses. Remember also that the authors chose the 10,257 earth scientists that were sent the questions from a database prepared by Keane and
Martinez [2007].

It was not a random selection of qualified scientists, It was not a statistically neutral questionaire, and it was a very unscientific method that produced the results.

[shrub]

You're trying to erect a strawman, you're better than that.

That IS what they said, and YOU know it. They did not canvas any members of the general public, but estimated that result from a totally different study:

The paper was not titled "popular consensus on climate change" so the general public figure was illustrative only.

Yes, they broke the sample down, and the claimed 97% is from the 79 individuals of the 3167 responses.

97% of climate scientists who actively publish agree with AGW. There were only 79 in their sample and 97% of that 79 agreed. Maybe if they had found 179, or 1790 actively publishing climate scientists the figures may move to 95%, or even 90%; but they are just as likely to stay at 97%. An overwhelming majority. If the figure was 67%, then the sample size would be an issue.

Remember also that the authors chose the 10,257 earth scientists that were sent the questions from a database prepared by Keane and Martinez [2007].

It was not a random selection of qualified scientists,

Keane and Martinez are the publishers of the American Directory of Geoscience Departments which means almost every earth scientist in America is listed. Sure there are some who missed publication date etc, but that's like saying "I used the white pages as my population" if I wanted to research the general public. Was 10,257 too small a sample? Was a 30.7% response rate too high? Or too low?

It was not a statistically neutral questionaire

"When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures
have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?
2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing
mean global temperatures?"

How so? What would you have preferred?

"and it was a very unscientific method that produced the results.

What is unscientific about an online survey? Scientists use them all the time, and you and I have no knowledge of how the data was analysed, so neither of us can make that claim. However the American Geophysical Union would be very, very unlikely to publish anything that was the least likely to have flawed data.

Come on mate, you can do better than that, I expect flawed reasoning and ignorance about statistical analysis from some of the other halfwits on this thread, but I think you are better that. And I'd just like to remind you that on the 28th you promised me that "I will put up data for at least 2 of these falsifications later this week." I'm keen to see them.

[shrub]

Yes, they broke the sample down, and the claimed 97% is from the 79 individuals of the 3167 responses. Remember also that the authors chose the 10,257 earth scientists that were sent the questions from a database prepared by Keane and Martinez [2007].

I'm going to explain it using a motorcyle analogy because that's how i look at the world.

I want to know whether I should wear ATTGATT, so I decide to do a survey. I use as my sample the 10,257 motorcycle registrations of ChCH, and send them a survey. 3167 of them respond and answer my questions. All of them ride a motorcycle, but some ride a GN125 to work a few times a year, some ride every day, some tour etc, so I break the responses into people that ride under 1000 kms a year, 1000 - 5000 kms, 5-20 and over 20.

72% of the under 1000 km riders think ATTGATT is a good idea
79% of the 1-5k riders think it's agood idea
88% of the 5 - 20k riders
97% of the 20k+ riders

Yes, there are only 79 people in the 20k+ range, but they're pretty serious about riding, so I'll take their opinion more seriously than the under 1k riders. last year the AA did a survey where they asked car drivers whether bikers should wear protective gear and 58% said yes, so I considered that in my decision making.

My jug has boiled, but all we're arguing is whether 97% of the gung ho experts believe in climate change, or whether it is really something else, and arguing over one tiny article because none of you can do any better than pick holes in detail.

Harleys are not authentic American bikes because they have Japanese electrics now.

[Ocean1]

Witch!! It's a witch!!!

Err, wrong century...


Ummm... Fush!! The fush are all poison!! Don't eat the f...

Ah, decade or two more eh?...


Weather!! The weather's fuckt. We're Doomed, dooooooomed.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/opin...rming-alarmism