A panel of Japanese scientists which also acts as an advisory panel to the government released a report last month that is highly critical of the IPCC's theory that human activity caused the warming apparent from 1970 -2000.
The Japan Society of Energy and Resources (JSER) represents scientists from the energy and resource fields, and also acts as a government advisory panel. The report was a harshly worded rebuke of the IPCC's alarmism on global warming.
The report was recently translated, but it still has received almost no attention by the mainstream media. Go figure. Could it be that the report is "off message?"
As the Cap (American jobs) & Trade (away our prosperity) legislation powers its way through Congress, I'm sure we will hear time and again how universal the "consensus" on global warming is.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
62 comments:
> Could it be that the report is
> "off message?"
No. But it could be that the document is not science, just opinions, backed up by essentially no analysis. It's just not convincing as science, but it more an op-ed piece. It also hasn't been peer reviewed, or even submitted to a peer reviewed journal, which is the first stop for scientific claims. It's written by experts in energy, not experts in climate. It contains utterly false statements like this one:
"[The IPCC's] conclusion that from now on atmospheric temperatures are likely to show a continuous, monotonic increase, should be perceived as an unprovable hypothesis."
The IPCC has never, ever said that temperatures are likely to show a "continuous, monotonic" increase. (Notice that every IPCC graph contains a (usually gray) band of uncertainty around it.) Note also that climate scientists do not predict temperatures, they project temperatures based on assumptions about economic scenarios. They really don't try to say anything about year-over-year temperature increases or sea level increases or sea ice levels. Climate change is a long-term problem that unfolds over decades. Climatologists completely understand that other factors matter as well during these times, but that CO2 forcing is the strongest anomalous forcing and will dominate others over the long-term, ie decades. The public has completely failed to understand this, and so, it seems, do these scientists.
They write that "in 2000 Global Warming stopped," which is untrue. This decade is the warmest decade on record ("climate" is a measurement averaged over at least a decade, if not more--not a few years). 2005 was the warmest year on record according to GISS. The warmest month of all time is Jan 2007 (relative to its average). Eight of the last 10 months have been warmer than the year earlier. Arctic sea ice extent reached a minimum just a year and a half ago.
This Japanese document just isn't science, and so it shouldn't be covered like it. It's opinion.
Want to see what real science looks like? Have a look at this:
http://is.gd/HCej
or any of thousands of other peer reviewed journal manuscripts. Notice that it contains numbers, equations, charts. It's not very easy to read, doesn't make sweeping statements, and worries about the details. Compare this level of analysis to the Japanese document.
Or you could look at a few of these:
Impact of solar variability on the earth’s climate
a. “Solar variability and the earth’s climate: introduction and overview” George Reid Space Science Reviews 94 (2000) p.1-11
Provides a general overview of the sun’s impact on the earth’s climate through the Little Ice Age as well as through geological times and the complexity in establishing the solar/climate link.
b. “Low cloud properties influenced by cosmic rays” N D Marsh & H Svensmark Physical Review Letters 85 (2000) p. 5004-5007
Documents how galactic cosmic rays can influence the earth’s low cloud cover and how this in turn would impact the mean temperature.
c. “Global temperature forced by solar irradiation and greenhouse gases?” Wibjorn Karlen Ambio, Vol. 30 (2001)p. 349-350
Argues that the present interglacial has been cooler by about 2°C than the previous ones during the last 400,000 thousand years when the atmospheric concentration of CO2 was 100 ppmv less than at present.
d. “The sun’s role in climate variations” D Rind Science Vol. 296 (2002) p. 673-677 Provides a general overview of the sun’s impact on the earth’s climate through the Little Ice Age, as well as through geological times, and the complexity in establishing the solar/climate link.
e. “Solar influence on the spatial structure of the NAO during the winter 1900-1999” Kunihiko Kodera Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 30 (2003) 1175 doi:10.1029/2002GL016584
North Atlantic oscillation is shown to be strongly modulated by high & low solar activity as identified through sunspot cycles.
f. “Can slow variations in solar luminosity provide missing link between the sun and the climate?” Peter Fokul EOS, Vol. 84, No. 22 (2003)p.205&208
Presents additional evidence of recent changes in solar irradiance and make a case for solar impact on the earth’s climate.
g. “Celestial driver of phanerozoic climate?” N Shaviv & J Veizer Geological Society of America 13 (2003) p.4-10
Documents, using a “sea-shell thermometer”, how the earth’s temperature over last 500 million years is decoupled with atmospheric CO2 levels, while showing strong correlation with variations in the cosmic ray flux.
h. “Variable solar irradiance as a plausible agent for multidecadal variations in the Arctic-wide surface air temperature record for the past 130 years” Willie W-H Soon Geophysical Research Letters Vol. 32 (2005) L16712
Demonstrates a strong link between total solar irradiance and Arctic-wide surface temperature over a long period from 1875-2000.
i. “Solar forcing of the polar atmosphere” P A Mayewski et al Annals of Glaciology Vol. 41 (2005) p. 147-154
Analyzes high-resolution calibrated proxies for atmospheric circulation from several Antarctic ice cores, which reveal decadal-scale association with solar variability over the last 600 years.
j. “The influence of the 11-yr solar cycle on the interannual-centennial climate variability” Hengyi Weng J of Atmosphere and solar-terrestrial physics Vol. 67 (2005) p. 793-805
Re-confirms the solar variability impact on earth’s climate by analyzing monthly sunspot numbers in conjunction with global and regional sea surface temperatures.
k. “Living with a variable sun” Judith Lean Physics Today (2005) Vol 58, No. 6 p. 32-37 American Inst. Of Physics USA
Presents additional evidence of recent changes in solar irradiance and makes a case for solar impact on the earth’s climate.
l. “Phenomenological solar contribution to the 1900-2000 global surface warming” N Scafetta & B J West Geophysical Research Letters Vol. 33 (2006) L05708
Constructs a phenomenological model to include solar forcing and demonstrates its linkage to the earth’s temperature change over last 400 years.
m. “Phenomenological solar signature in 400 years of reconstructed northern hemisphere temperature record” N Scafetta & B J West Geophysical Research Letters Vol. 33 (2006) L17718
Constructs a phenomenological model to include solar forcing and demonstrates its linkage to the earth’s temperature change over last 400 years.
n. “Empirical evidence for a nonlinear effect of galactic cosmic rays on clouds” R G Harrison & D B Stephenson Proceedings of the Royal Society A (UK): 10.1098/rspa.2005.1628 (2006)
Documents how galactic cosmic rays can influence the earth’s low cloud cover and how this in turn would impact the mean temperature.
Sea-level rise, ocean surface warming/cooling etc.Sea-level Rise
a. “New perspectives for the future of the Maldives” N-A Morner M Tooley & G Possnert Global and Planetary Change 40 (2004) p. 177-182
In the region of Maldives a general fall in sea-level rise occurred some 30 years ago.
b. “Estimates of the regional distribution of sea-level rise over the 1950-2000 period” J A Church et al J of Climate 17 (2004) p. 2609-2625
Analyzes patterns of regional sea level rise over the period 1950-2000 and concludes that it is not possible to detect a significant sea level rise over this period anywhere.
c. “Low sea-level rise projections from mountain glaciers and icecaps under global warming” Sarah Raper & Roger Braithwaite Nature V. 439 (2006) p. 311-313
Projects sea level rise from mountain glacier and icecaps (outside of Greenland & Antarctic Ice Sheets) as only about 5.1 cm by 2100, half of previous projections.
d. “Nonlinear trends and multiyear cycles in sea-level records” S Jevrejeva et al J of Geophysical Research V.111(2006) C09012
Obtains global sea level rise trend of 2.4 mm per year for the period 1993-2000
e. “On the decadal rates of sea level changes during the twentieth century” S J Holgate Geophysical
Research Letters 34 (2007) doi:10.1029/2006GL028492
Analyses nine long and continuous records of sea level changes from 1904 through 2003. Sea level change of ~2.03 +/-.35 mm/yr from 1904-1953. 1954-2003, sea-level change is found to be lower ~1.45 +/-.34 mm/yr.
More at sustainableOregon.com
Hey David, we are still waiting (its been months now) for you to show us evidence of your previous claims:
1. “the science is that the world is warming and man is responsible for much of it. This is well-established in the scientific literature.”
2. CO2 can cause “far more than 0.5 C warming”
3. “if you're going to damage the climate by burning carbon "
4. “today's CO2 is different – manmade (there's irrefutable proof of this).”
5. “Global warming is, simply, the most serious and most difficult problem ever faced by mankind. . .This is a sound, definite scientific conclusion, no longer in any real doubt”
NIPCC Report States There Is No Anthropogenic Global WarmingUh-oh. That's the really bad thing about science. Despite frontman AlGore's contention, there is no "scientific concensus" because "the science is in". The science is never in. People keep collecting data, asking sticky questions, and generally pursuing - well, science.
And the latest science, reported by the NIPCC, states unequivocally that there is zero evidence of man-made global warming. Zilch. Nada, for our Spanish-speaking friends. Basically, alarmists make their money by becoming very good at scaring people. When people show signs of ignoring their strident calls, successful alarmists alter the call.
You've seen it already: in just a few short months they've gone from warning of Man-Made Global Warming to warning of Anthropogenic Climate Change. It's still all your fault. After all, that's how they make their money.
Oh, but Rob!
Has the report been reviewed by the "Peers?"
Meaning: by the community of environmentalists who make their living sounding the global warming alarmist bell in the scientific journals controlled by the environmental community in order to ensure continued grant dollar flow from the federal government?
If THEY haven't blessed this report, you sure can't expect a titan like David Appell will think it worthy.
Guess where Anonymous (above) obtained the information he did not read, but merely cut-and-pasted?
http://is.gd/IcUC
Guess who funds friendsofscience.org? (Go ahead, guess.)
Canadian oil interests.
MAX Redline wrote:
> ..."the science is in". The science
> is never in. People keep collecting
> data, asking sticky questions, and
> generally pursuing - well, science.
Of course. So what? By that logic, we would *never* consider any scientific conclusion established enough to be and useful and could always wait for "more science."
Nonetheless, science does establish results to low orders of uncertainty. We don't know if Newton's law of gravity are really correct at distances less than 1 mm (people are still doing the experiments and collecting the data), and we do know for certain that they are incorrect in strong gravitational fields, and astrophysicists have some questions about Newton's law at large distances such as across galaxies. But Newton's laws are a very good approximation in most environments and enabled us to precisely navigate rockets to the moon and back and all over the solar system. Should we have waited for every small detail to be explained until we launched? No.
And so it goes for nearly every scientific result. We can't determine precisely who will and who will not get lung cancer if they smoke their entire lives, so does that uncertainty mean you should take up smoking? Of course not.
The climate change problem isn't a scientific problem, it's an environmental problem. And that makes it a societal problem. Do we listen to the best science of our day and take action to drastically reduce GHGs, or do we wait (how long?) for ever more and more data and every last detail to be explained and risk a potentially serious diminution of the atmosphere and oceans that we rely on for life and sustenance? It's a policy question, not a scientific question.
It is also a deadly serious one with no room to be wrong.
Appell,
Your lying has run crazy while the refuting and collapse of AGW science mounts.
What you call "the best science of our day" is the worst junk science of any day.
The best demonstration of it can be found at
www.wattsupwiththat.com
where no "oil" interests fund any of the skeptic's work.
And I'll remind readers that David Appell wrote that Hurricane Katrina was caused by human CO2 emission caused global warming.
Which makes him a monumental liar and hypocrite to be ridiculed and disregarded every time he surfaces.
see also
www.icecap.us
And how bad are the climate models that Appell relies upon as the best science?
"Worse than we thought"
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=6100#comments
2
reply and
paste linkSoronel Haetir:
May 27th, 2009 at 9:41 pm
Did that abstract just admit that their historical temperature record is based in part on what computer models tell them to expect?
4
reply and
paste linkSteve McIntyre:
May 27th, 2009 at 10:11 pm
I think that's what it says. But it's possible that they've done something else. It's a typical climate science article - no Supporting Information providing details or source code for exactly what they did.
Jeff Id:
May 28th, 2009 at 7:04 am
I'm angry and getting tired. Mashing data to fit the models and models to fit the data, it looks like the 'peers' all work for the same club. This is ugly work.
Craig Loehle:
May 28th, 2009 at 8:35 am
If the purpose were to reconstruct SST in the past "just for basic science" then the circularity would not exist. BUT if you use models to reconstruct the SST and then test the models against this reconstruction (for purposes of proving global warming)…why is that not obviously a problem?
30
reply and
paste linkSteve McIntyre:
May 28th, 2009 at 8:58 am
Re: Craig Loehle (#29),
Craig, of course, it's a problem. It's totally absurd.
Something else that I'll try to get to sometime - remind me if I forget - the GISS TRP data set is a bit of an outlier relative to CRU, NOAA and ERSST. It would be worth checking to see if GISS models verify better against GISS TRP data (and HadCRU against HadCRU TRP data.)
The first reason one might be suspicious about icecap.us is that they refuse to identify their funders. Real scientists are transparent about who funds their work.
The second reason is that their articles aren't peer reviewed, which is the first requirement of anything claiming to be science. Opinion articles on Web sites aren't science. Their articles lack rigor.
The third reason is that many of their founders are the same old skeptics whose work has been discredited over the years.
Furthermore,
The stories which point out the absurd claims and policies coming out of the AGW movement are enlightening to say the least.
When the basis for them is shown to be lacking science and sanity you couldn't care less.
Just as you found no problem claiming Katrinna was AGW caused.
This will do no good, but what the hay.
I recommend that our friend Afpel spend a little time with a couple of dead guys: Feuerabend and Popper.
I can't think of two guys who would have been more unalike, and yet it is their similiarity that prompts me to mention them both.
There's nothing wrong with having crazy ideas. What is wrong is not having in place a method that allows you to disprove the bad ones.
It is fair to suggest that Popper would falsify the Afpel test fairly simply. It is not enough, as averred by Friend Afpel, to simply really, really, really believe a thing is true, to make it true.
But credit should be given Friend Afpel for his adherence to his own doctrine.
.
Don't bother arguing with Appell. For his ilk this is a religion.
Don't you love seeing your name in print? I like my photo even better:
http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2008/12/12/1229093410321/david_appell_140x140.jpg
Rob,
Isn't it embarrassing to have such rude people on your side? Why is it that so few on the right are capable of addressing those with opposing viewpoints with respect?
Perhaps it's because they don't have facts or reason on their side, so they have to resort to name-calling.
It's all quite sad.
Oh Roadie it's not sad for you. Here's what is sad -- Coyote just compared you unfavorably to David Appell, and now you try to come on to Rob to get some love. This is not how we've been instructed to do it. Grow up.
Nobody's conscience,
Fawning over Ted "the only rhetorical weapon I have in my arsenal is to call someone a 'moonbat'" Piccolo shows you have the intellect of a dimwitted amoeba.
Besides, Ted, like most bullies, is really a coward, whose response to being challenged is to delete comments.
Hey Roadie, we all know you are just trying to get back in the union by pulling this infantile B.S. against the Republicants' blogs. Go ahead and waste your time. It ain't gonna work. Look. You lost your grievance in arbitration. After what you did -- not once, not twice, but three times -- how could you ever expect any of us to forgive you? You are not getting back in the union no matter what you do here.
Davey,
I say that two plus two equals four. But I work for a lending institution and in some people's eyes lending institutions are evil.
So therefore two plus two must not equal four.
Nice.
---------
Roadbat,
Guess what... there are thousands (no THOUSANDS) of comments that challenge me still up on my blog.
So... That makes you not just a moonbat but a proven liar.
Wonder why no one takes you serious anymore?
Of course we know why you don't use your own name. You know that no one takes you serious outside the blog world either.
It saddens you. Heck even, late at night sometimes it maddens you.
But then you light up another cheap cigarette and find a blog to log onto to vent.
Yet... Yet all the while ignoring that pile of dirty clothes laying in the corner and those awful sweats you are currently wearing.
yip yip
Hey roadkill,
Your stench is insulting.
You don't know what rude is.
Appell is the rudest blog commenter around. Next to Carla of course.
He's a chronic liar who manipulates and propagandizes.
Respect isn't something to be extended to a liar and despicable fraud.
Appell is not simply an "opposing viewpoints".
But there you are misrepresenting just as he does.
Neither of you have facts or reason on your side, so you resort to absurd and dishonest methods.
It's all quite disgusting.
As as for Ted, his hosting and being a coward?
You have all that wrong too, roadfool. Your perception that he's a coward is as wrong as you global warming delusion.
You and David get most of what you deserve. The rest would be even less pleasant.
sides, Ted, like most bullies, is really a coward, whose response to being challenged is to delete comments.
Thursday, May 28, 2009 11:42:00 AM
Ted,
Do your kids read your blog comments? Is that the type of manners you want them to have?
You leave a few challenging comments up, but your response to them is generally to call the person names. "Moonbat" is your overwhelming favorite.
Ted, get a clue--you're a joke.
Roadrunner, One of your problems is that you're too new to the game. Moonbat Rules are Coyote's answer to Saul Alinsky's 'Rules for Radicals' -- the handbook that guides what we do here.
Moonbat Rules are meant for Conserv-a-Nutz benefit -- to explain the pollution that we began to leave on Conserv-a-Nut blogs a few years ago. It's really not an insult to be called out as a Moonbat. It is what it is. We are what we are. Moonbat Rules came before Roadrunner.
I suggest Coyote's kids read two of Saul Alinksy books -- 'Rules for Radicals' and 'Reveille for Radicals'. Then they will be able to understand the way the world works in John Podesta's New Progressive Era. Soon enough, these books will be required reading. We are all community organizers now.
Sorry, DAc, Ted's "rules" are a childish attempt to smear people who disagree with him.
Look at his comments. A commenter will make a substantive point, and Ted replies with "Moonbat rule # (fill in the blank)." It makes real discussion with him impossible.
But childishness seems to be what Ted is all about. Such a high percentage of what he writes is filled mostly with insults that it's hard to take him seriously.
Which is too bad, because he seems to veer from the G.O.P. party line more than most COBRA bloggers, but it's hard to get past his atrocious manners.
Look at it this way--if any employee behaved the was Ted does on his blog, how long would they last? A day? An hour? Five minutes?
Of course, there's the issue of Rob posting a bogus study as if it's real science.
David has done an excellent job of pointing out why it's bogus.
Any bets as to whether Rob will actually respond?
Ted's "rules" are a childish attempt to smear people who disagree with him.No. Yours is an excellent description of Alinsky's 'Rules for Radicals'. That came decades before Coyote's 'Moonbat Rules' and we've been able to use that as our guidebook effectively for a long time. But now you risk blowing it for us, by giving undue attention to the path-breaking reverse-ridicule that Coyote is heaping upon us with his 'Moonbat Rules'.
On the conference calls you missed, they went into all this. If we act like you then other Conserv-a-Nutz are going to adopt Moonbat Rules and our big strategic comparative advantage will disappear, poof! We will be playing by the same rules as them again and we will lose.
That's why I really don't think you deserve this beat. Grow up and play by our 'rules.' Or go back for some more training and to the beginning of the line where you belong.
Roadbat,
I teach my kids not to suffer fools.
Indeed go from the presence of a foolish man, when you do not perceive in him the lips of knowledge.
While the wisdom of of the prudent is to understand his way, but the folly of fools is deceit.
You have time and time and time again proven that you are perfectly willing to accept lies and deceit as your backdrop.
You cannot be trusted to engage in any conversation honestly and it is at that point that you are to be considered a foolish caricature of the sweat suit clad chain smoking hypocritical moonbat.
The "moonbat rules" are really quite specific and since you engage in them all the time it is much easier to simply point out the cases of your dishonesty by assigning the instances to the specific rules.
I know I know you don't like it. You don't like it that no one takes you seriously in your real life away from your anonymous and dishonest blog cruising.
It is a shame actually. Probably a waste in that you could have contributed something to society.
Instead you have fallen back into your own little world that is dominated by erroneous stereotypes and when someone actually proves your erroneous stereotype wrong, you then use that as a guilty charge of conforming to your erroneous stereotype.... Oh wait... That was moonbat rule 1.0.
Read it slowly for once. It's ok if you move your lips because no one is watching. Because Bush is no longer in the White House....
yip yip
So, Ted, does that mean that your kids don't suffer you?
Ted, you're one of the most foolish people I've come across. Your reaction to real evidence that counters your beliefs is to call the person names. Oh, and you call the person a liar.
You realize that the Rush Limbaugh/Bill O'Reilly/Lars Larson method no longer works, right? Most people have figured out that people who behave like ill-mannered children are not to be trusted.
What's hilarious is that when you present an argument based on facts, and offer citations, Ted and friends cry "Rules for Radicals".
Well, as Colbert points out, facts do have a liberal bias.
Ted calls himself "Coyote", but he's not a trickster at all--he's totally predictable. Present facts contrary to his beliefs, and goes on the following journey: Calling you a "moonbat" to calling you a liar, to deleting your comments.
Here's a comment from Daniel Miglav's blog that shows why it's prudent to remain anonymous while commenting on righty blogs:
Blogger Don Nam Vet said...
Time for talking to mental midget liberals is over - they only understand what they fear - violence. Remember POWs/MIAs this Memorial Day.
8:20 PM
Roadrunner, you are hurting the Left, and you don't even know it. I bet you couldn't name three things about Saul Alinsky besides the title of his book "Rules for Radicals". Go back to school, dude. You're an embarrassment.
Saul Alinsky seems to be much bigger among the right than the left.
I have to say, in my 50+ years on the planet, his name hasn't come up much in conversations with my liberal and lefty friends.
The right is being hurt by their childish behavior on blogs. The rise of the blogosphere has been terrible for the right.
It's one thing for Lars and Rush and Bill and Sean and Ann to spill their venom and display their childishness on the radio and in books that most of us won't hear or look at. Besides, the stuff on radio is here and then gone.
But on blogs, anyone can stumble upon their posts and comments that consist largely of name-calling are not only open for all to see, but they persist.
So, when the racists start taking Sonia Sotomayor's speeches out of context, it's easy to refute them, and the offending posts, and the coded language that often goes with them, are still there.
And it's also hurt the radio yaks, because their false statements are now refuted quickly.
16 years ago, Rush Limbaugh could say his falsehoods and call people names, and only his sycophants really knew how bad it was.
Now he does it, and the whole world knows in a day.
David Appell: Guess who funds friendsofscience.org? (Go ahead, guess.)
Canadian oil interests.
JK: I see David, who claims a Phd in physics, is still unable to judge a simple list of peer reviewed articles and instead must resort to irrelevant comments about funding.
He is such a biased fool that he ignores the FACT that Al Gore ha made over $100 million on this scam.
David Appell: Do we listen to the best science of our day
JK: So why don’t you listen to the thousands of Phds who oppose the few scientists at the IPCC who you worship on a daily basis.
David Appell: The second reason is that their articles aren't peer reviewed, which is the first requirement of anything claiming to be science.
JK: David again shows his total lack of understanding science. He is too un-informed to know that peer-review is a recent thing and mainly to avoid embarrassing mistakes by the editors. It is not and has never been a carful checking of an article, it is only a brief review.
Einstein’s original article probably could not pass the current peer-review process because it was not politically correct.
That Mann’s fraudulent hockey was published is clear proof of the lack of anything, except superficial checking. If it had been reviewed for accuracy, Mann’s data and computer code would have been available. They weren’t making checking impossible.
A proper review would have notice that Mann didn’t even know the name of the process he used.
A proper review would have notice that Mann’s process produced hockey sticks from random data.
A proper review would have notice that Mann used tree ring data known to be un-reliable.
Hey David, we are still waiting (its been months now) for you to show us evidence of your previous claims:
1. “the science is that the world is warming and man is responsible for much of it. This is well-established in the scientific literature.”
2. CO2 can cause “far more than 0.5 C warming”
3. “if you're going to damage the climate by burning carbon "
4. “today's CO2 is different – manmade (there's irrefutable proof of this).”
5. “Global warming is, simply, the most serious and most difficult problem ever faced by mankind. . .This is a sound, definite scientific conclusion, no longer in any real doubt”
Thanks
JK
Jim, your questions have been answered time and again. But parroting dumb questions is the only thing you're capable of. As I've said many times, you're just a big waste of time.
Good luck.
If my time is too valuable to waste on Conserv-a-Nutz, then why do I do it? Especially now that I've been named Cap & Trade Czar - China by B-HO.
Appell said: Of course. So what? By that logic, we would *never* consider any scientific conclusion established enough to be and useful and could always wait for "more science."
And so it goes for nearly every scientific result. We can't determine precisely who will and who will not get lung cancer if they smoke their entire lives, so does that uncertainty mean you should take up smoking? Of course not.
The climate change problem isn't a scientific problem, it's an environmental problem.Interesting. After claiming time and again that the science is in on Man-Made Global Warming, you now decide to drop that and go with the "Climate Change" talking points, and further, claim that it's not a science problem, but an environmental problem.
A wise move, David: Man-Made Global Warming isn't occurring, and a large body of scientific evidence as well as widely available physical evidence exists now that disproves the entire hypothesis.
Thus, you switch gears and begin to rail against "Climate Change" - which of course you will also attribute to the interference of pesky humans. Yet you go further, and claim that it is not a scientific problem, but an environmental problem.
In other words, environmental issues are divorced from the realm of science. It's nice to find a point of commonality, however small and brief: I've long maintained that environmeddlism is based not upon science, but emotion.
Where we diverge is in the matter of what, exactly, constitutes the planetary environment. I consider that the sun, the moon, and assorted other extraplanetary bodies and features are important components of the planetary environment, and further assert that these figure far more prominently in shaping the direction of planetary climate change than do any human activities.
Of course, in this argument, the science is clearly on my side at present.
We can't determine precisely who will and who will not get lung cancer if they smoke their entire lives, so does that uncertainty mean you should take up smoking? Of course not.While I commend your attempt at redirection, it should be noted that the same argument applies to your religious bias.
We have no evidence that human activity exerts significant long-term effects upon planetary climate. Does this uncertainty mean that we should force people to alter their lives in order to combat a "problem" that arguably does not exist?
In point of fact, Climate Change has been going on since the planet was formed. Life in general and humans in particular have survived by adapting to climate variation, not by concerted efforts to halt the processes.
By insisting upon limiting freedom in the name of "saving the Planet" from whatever "crisis" you happen to find in vogue, you demonstrate your alienation not only from other humans, but from life itself.
You seem to believe that the climate in which you've grown is the best possible climate, that it should remain static so that you retain your comfort level, and that the only way to ensure that the conditions with which you're most comfortable continue to exist over a long term involves systematically depriving everybody else of their liberty.
Inherent in this philosophy is the rather self-absorbed definition of yourself: that you are smarter than the rest; you know better, and it is therefore your job to save us all from ourselves. Only thus can the Planet be Saved.
This must be a heavy burden to bear, and one must admire the courage and the strength that it must take to carry the weight of planetary salvation upon your shoulders.
It is impressive that you are so selfless. It is also illustrative.
You serve as a veritable beacon of self-importance and self-delusion, and in so doing, you serve all of humanity.
Thanks to your continued efforts, the rest of us know what to avoid.
David: Jim, your questions have been answered time and again.
JK: No they have not. Quit telling lies.
RR,
Nuh uh. Same thing to you but twice more of it.
I'm rubber and your glue, it bounces off of me and sticks to you.
---there, more to your speed.---
yip yip
And, finally, Ted Piccolo summarizes what amounts to right-wing "argument" these days.
Perhaps some of you on the right are grown ups, but those who are seem to be hiding most of the time.
David,
What a whopper.
You call JK "a big waste of time"?
If you weren't so ignorant and dishonest you would simply visit and join the informed discussions of current AGW science over at www.wattsupwiththat.com
But your foolish and unethical contributions would leave you squashed like an annoying insect you are.
You folks on the right don't realize that most of the country has figured you out.
They see the childish name-calling, and they realize that you folks aren't to be trusted.
They see your unrelenting rudeness and incivility, and they realize that you folks aren't to be trusted.
They see you attack science, and they realize you folks aren't to be trusted.
I actually hope that a real conservative movement emerges--checks and balances are necessary in government, as much for "my side" as for the other side.
What passes for "conservatism" these days, though, is a joke.
Redline wrote:
> I consider that the sun, the moon,
> and assorted other extraplanetary
> bodies and features are important
> components of the planetary
> environment, and further assert that
> these figure far more prominently in
> shaping the direction of planetary
> climate change than do any human
> activities.
Science is not about "asserting," it's about proving. Where is the proof? That is, where is the analysis that calculates all the factors that influence climate and which shows that natural forces prevail?
Because climate scientists have been doing this calculation for about three decades now, and they've found that they can't quantitatively explain the last several decades of the earth's climate without factoring in a strong anthropogenic component. The summary of this calculation is presented in the IPCC 4AR WG1 FAQ 2.1 Fig 2 p 136 (available at www.ipcc.ch). With which of these numbers do you disagree, why, and what numbers do you consider correct instead? Moreover, do your numbers explain today's climate? Because when climate scientists take these numbers and plug them into their best models, they *do* explain recent climate, but if and only if anthropogenic forces are included. Without them, recent climate cannot be explained. This is shown in detail in the IPCC 4AR WG1 Ch 9 FAQ 9.2 Fig 1, p. 703 (bottom three graphs)
http://tinyurl.com/27ocvp .
Again: what calculations and what numbers are you using to assert that natural forces alone explain recent climate?
It is obvious that Afpel has either never read Popper or, that he fails to comprehend the importance of Popper.
"Science is not about "asserting," it's about proving."
Sheesh.
.
David Appell: Science is not about "asserting," it's about proving. Where is the proof? That is, where is the analysis that calculates all the factors that influence climate and which shows that natural forces prevail?
JK: Yeh, Daveid where is the proof of you claims:
1. “the science is that the world is warming and man is responsible for much of it. This is well-established in the scientific literature.”
2. CO2 can cause “far more than 0.5 C warming”
3. “if you're going to damage the climate by burning carbon "
4. “today's CO2 is different – manmade (there's irrefutable proof of this).”
5. “Global warming is, simply, the most serious and most difficult problem ever faced by mankind. . .This is a sound, definite scientific conclusion, no longer in any real doubt”
David Appell: Because climate scientists have been doing this calculation for about three decades now, and they've found that they can't quantitatively explain the last several decades of the earth's climate without factoring in a strong anthropogenic component.
JK: This is the logical fallacy of assuming that you know all possible causes. They don’t. They don’t even know the magnitudes of the known causes to an accuracy that puts man’s emissions below the accumulated round off errors. You are following fools.
David Appell: The summary of this calculation is presented in the IPCC 4AR WG1 FAQ 2.1 Fig 2 p 136 (available at www.ipcc.ch).
JK: This is an assertion - Science is not about "asserting," it's about proving. Where is the proof?
David Appell: With which of these numbers do you disagree, why, and what numbers do you consider correct instead?
JK: This is an assertion - Science is not about "asserting," it's about proving. Where is the proof?
David Appell: Moreover, do your numbers explain today's climate?
JK: Why should they - your’s don’t (without excessive speculation.)
David Appell: Because when climate scientists take these numbers and plug them into their best models, they *do* explain recent climate, but if and only if anthropogenic forces are included.
JK: You repeat the logical fallacy. And add the claim the models are accurate, even though they have failed real test after real test. Stratospheric air temperature, warming antarctic, last 10 years of warming. YOUR models are crap. Back testing proves only accuracy of data fitting. Accurate predictiopns ARE THE ONLY TEST of a theory. YOUR models fail.
David Appell: Without them, recent climate cannot be explained. This is shown in detail in the IPCC 4AR WG1 Ch 9 FAQ 9.2 Fig 1, p. 703 (bottom three graphs)
http://tinyurl.com/27ocvp .
JK: Logical fallicy & This is an assertion - Science is not about "asserting," it's about proving. Where is the proof?
David Appell: Again: what calculations and what numbers are you using to assert that natural forces alone explain recent climate?
JK: And we are still waiting for proof of your claims:
1. “the science is that the world is warming and man is responsible for much of it. This is well-established in the scientific literature.”
2. CO2 can cause “far more than 0.5 C warming”
3. “if you're going to damage the climate by burning carbon "
4. “today's CO2 is different – manmade (there's irrefutable proof of this).”
5. “Global warming is, simply, the most serious and most difficult problem ever faced by mankind. . .This is a sound, definite scientific conclusion, no longer in any real doubt”
Thanks
JK
Well, I was going to post some refutation of Mr. Appell's claims, but seem to have been beaten to that by others here - I have only a few points to add.
I found it curious, David, that you chose not to address the broader spectrum of my reply to your allegations. Having stated that The climate change problem isn't a scientific problem, it's an environmental problem., you then attempt to fall back upon "science" as the arbiter of the discussion: Science is not about "asserting," it's about proving. Where is the proof? That is, where is the analysis that calculates all the factors that influence climate and which shows that natural forces prevail?I'm sorry, David, but you don't get to do that. As noted above, you have clearly stated that the issue is not scientific, but environmental. Your words, David - and you don't get to try to wiggle away from them.
As I noted, In other words, environmental issues are divorced from the realm of science. It's nice to find a point of commonality, however small and brief: I've long maintained that environmeddlism is based not upon science, but emotion.
Where we diverge is in the matter of what, exactly, constitutes the planetary environment. I consider that the sun, the moon, and assorted other extraplanetary bodies and features are important components of the planetary environment, and further assert that these figure far more prominently in shaping the direction of planetary climate change than do any human activities.In view of the fact that you asserted that we have an environmental problem, you don't get to go back and demand "scientific proof" that the sun and the moon are part of the planetary environment. In fact, David, resorting to such tactics makes you look even more foolish than many of us have come to expect from you.
Do you really need to have "scientific proof" that the sun and the moon affect tides on Earth? Do you really need to have "scientific proof" that they also significantly affect agriculture, skin cancer, atmospheric conditions, and other attributes associated with planetary climate?
Your statements are just silly, David, and they reflect a degree of desperation normally associated with fringe religious elements. Of course, I've long maintained that folks like you are in fact nothing more than adherents to a religious belief.
Yet, in your haste to run back to the "science" (after having rejected it in favor of an environmental argument which, by all appearances, you know is weak), you have failed to answer a few questions. This is normal; we understand that you prefer to attempt redirection.
We have no evidence that human activity exerts significant long-term effects upon planetary climate. Does this uncertainty mean that we should force people to alter their lives in order to combat a "problem" that arguably does not exist?As I noted, Climate Change has been going on since the planet was formed. Life in general and humans in particular have survived by adapting to climate variation, not by concerted efforts to halt the processes.I have presented you with a legitimate query, and with a statement that challenges your apparent belief that humans should attempt to halt climatological variation.
You have yet to respond. I'm still waiting.
Max Redline, I'm not really interested in rhetorical arguments. It appears that's all you have, which is very weak tea. If, on the other hand, you can reference scientific results and calculations that show in detail that recent climate can be explained without anthropogenic factors, then I'd be very interested to see that. Lots of people have been looking for that for a long time, but have never found it in any of the skeptic arguments.
Yeah. You just care about what I'm not really interested in. So what. I'm gonna be B-HO's new Cap & Trade Czar - China. Well ... depending on how the confirmation goes. Quark Soup!
Appell,
You could not be more dishonest.
Your pitch is a demand to explain the IPCC fabrication of unusual warming.
With so many aspects of the IPCC summaries having been degraded with flaws your basis which ignores all of them leaves you as an integrity felon.
The idea that IPCC claims can ride free of validation while skeptics must prove the contrary is the stuff of manipulative activists clinging to a movement they fear cannot survive the truth.
You are particularly offensive in your advocacy of this CO2 emissions fraud with your substance amounting to nothing but
small minded assertions that mislead and misrepresent the issue entirely.
Once again I suggest you go to
www.wattsupwiththat.com
and show us your stuff. Let your juvenile abuse of the truth get the full vetting you pretend to only be able to get here.
I'll be waiting to see David Appell's brilliance get in the mix on the wide array of AGW science discussed on that number one science blog.
Pick a thread, any thread.
Your NO SHOW will expose your
intellectually corrupted self.
> The idea that IPCC claims can ride
> free of validation while skeptics must > prove the contrary
The IPCC documents hardly "ride free" -- their assessment reports are probably the most peer-reviewed, vetted scientific documents ever published. Its conclusions are probably better established than the efficacy of prescription drugs you routinely take.
*crickets*
Oh, but David:
The climate change problem isn't a scientific problem, it's an environmental problem.I disagree that it's a problem. Since you raised the point, however, that you consider it to be not a scientific "problem" but rather an environmental "problem", I have a problem with your sudden desire to return the discussion to what you perceive as credible science.
First you claim it's not about science, then when you get called on that and encouraged to display your mastery of environmental issues, you want a "do-over".
I'm not really interested in rhetorical arguments. It appears that's all you have, which is very weak tea. If, on the other hand, you can reference scientific results and calculations that show in detail that recent climate can be explained without anthropogenic factors, then I'd be very interested to see that. Lots of people have been looking for that for a long time, but have never found it in any of the skeptic arguments.The only weak tea I've noticed seems to be derived from your periodic droppings.
You stated that we have not a scientific, but an environmental "problem". As you raised the issue as an environmental concern, then you must be prepared to discuss it in environmental contexts.
It looks really silly when you raise an issue and then tell people who take you up that "well, you're not really interested in rhetorical arguments". There's nothing rhetorical about it, David. You chose to bring the subject up; nobody else here did.
You didn't "mis-speak", did you?
Appell,
Your blind and small minded faith in the IPCC reports is a lesson is pure delusion.
And it's an easy sort of delusion.
All you need do is continue pretending the many fatal flaws have never been found by scrutinizing expert skeptics.
That's why you never join the discussion about them at WUWT.
Max, do you have scientific analysis that shows in detail how recent climate can be explained without evoking anthropogenic factors? You've been avoiding this question. It's the one that counts, not how one labels the problem.
Someone afraid to sign their name wrote:
> Appell
> Your blind and small minded faith
> in the IPCC reports is a lesson
> is pure delusion.
I do not operate on "faith" and the credence I put in the IPCC reports is not "blind."
I have read dozens of books about climate change, read hundreds of scientific papers on the subject, attended several conferences on the subject, talked and corresponded with many, many scientists on both sides of the issue, and followed the issue closely for the last decade.
From all I've seen, only the inclusion of anthropogenic factors can explain the climate of the last several decades. Moreover, this science is, based on my reporting, judgement, knowledge and training, significantly superior to that proposed by AGW skeptics. It is far more comprehensive, quantitative, and rigorous that what I've seen from nearly every "skeptic."
The scientific cases on each side do just not compare, to my best journalistic and scientific judgement.
That's how I've formed my opinion. You?
David
--
David Appell
appell@nasw.org
http://www.nasw.org/users/appell
The climate change problem isn't a scientific problem, it's an environmental problem.
David, I believe that's what you said. Now you're trying to back-peddle. Contrary to your latest statement, it is clearly you who've been avoiding a discussion of environmental issues, as I previously noted: You stated that we have not a scientific, but an environmental "problem". As you raised the issue as an environmental concern, then you must be prepared to discuss it in environmental contexts.
So far, I'm not seeing any movement in that direction, David. Do you routinely raise issues which you have no intention of discussing as a means of redirection?
A frost advisory has been issued for much of New York state. Solar activity is at its lowest ebb since 1928. Polar ice in the North, which your scientists assured us, based upon their models, would now be absent and would thus allow for transpolar shipping routes, is actually rebuilding.
AlGore is pounding his head on frozen pavement, and wondering how his carbon-trading corporation is going to make any money.
Not long ago, in geologic time, Vikings had farms in Greenland. How do you explain that without invoking anthropogenic factors?
Then the ice came, and very quickly. How do you explain that without invoking anthropogenic factors?
I can explain it by noting that solar output and lunar gravitational effects exert very strong influences upon the climate of this planet - and indeed, we see similar effects over time on Mars, in terms of solar output and the tidal effects of its moons. So far as I'm aware, any anthropogenic effect there has occurred only in the last few years - an insufficient amount of time for any such effect to occur.
In other words, David, the primary drivers of climate change are extraterrestrial as well as terrestrial, and anthropogenic effects are comparatively insignificant.
But simple things like facts never get in the way of a good story, do they? Nobel Prize-winning physicist, now US Energy Secretary,Professor Steven Chu, recently had this to say: "If you look at all the buildings and if you make the roofs white and if you make the pavement more of a concrete type of colour rather than a black type of colour and if you do that uniformally, that would be the equivalent of... reducing the carbon emissions due to all the cars in the world by 11 years – just taking them off the road for 11 years," he said.
Hey, that's the ticket! After all, like AlGore, he's a Nobel laureate. He's a scientist, and a perfesser too, and now he's Obama's Energy Secretary for the USA as well. And he's got a Plan to Save Us All From Climate Change! How can you not get on board that (energy-efficient, green, sustainable, light-rail) train?
You blow the whistle; I'll watch.
David,
You're a blatant liar.
You don't follow the skeptic's work at all.
Unlike myself, who follows both sides, you avoid the skeptic's work then claim, lie, that it doesn't exist or it's of lesser substance and weak.
Nonsense.
All you need do to measure your ignorance and dishonesty on the skeptic's work is to post this declaration of yours on some WUWT thread.
Shall I post it for you.
Appell says,
"From all I've seen, only the inclusion of anthropogenic factors can explain the climate of the last several decades. Moreover, this science is, based on my reporting, judgement, knowledge and training, significantly superior to that proposed by AGW skeptics. It is far more comprehensive, quantitative, and rigorous that what I've seen from nearly every "skeptic."
The scientific cases on each side do just not compare, to my best journalistic and scientific judgement.
That's how I've formed my opinion. You?"
David
David Appell
appell@nasw.org
http://www.nasw.org/users/appell
Yep that's what Ill do.
Take a look at the feedback over there.
Anonymous, you have no right to publish anything anywhere in my name. That's libelous (also cowardly), and you are not nearly as anonymous as you think.
Anonymous, you have no right to publish anything anywhere in my name. That's libelous (also cowardly), and you are not nearly as anonymous as you think.
Oh really, David? I hate to burst your bubble, but you published that. It's fair game. When you publish on the 'Net, it's open content. You can be so silly, sometimes.
Particularly amusing is that you griped and griped and griped for months about my Max name, claiming that I was "hiding" - though many people managed to send me emails, you couldn't figure it out. You claimed it wasn't worth your time. Of course, as proven time and again, emailing me at my home address takes no time. You're just lazy.
And now you tell anon 702 that you are not nearly as anonymous as you think.
Oooh. How brave. How scary.
So that's your approach? Threatening to "out" your critics? How very Jack Bogdanski of you.
Personally, I doubt that you could out your way from a brown paper bag. You just don't have the skills. Bog may be mouthy, but he does have a certain level of skills that you seem to lack.
All you seem to bring to the party is your AGW religion and a mouth.
This just shows how inept and shallow Appell is.
His avoidance of the WUWT science blog, where he could easily test his AGW understanding, is highlighted by his demsand that no one else post any of his misunderstandings there either.
David, your entry level bromides on AGW would look mighty kindergarden over there.
You best stay away.
Anonymous/Afraid to sign his name:
I have no need to prove myself on the WUWT blog. I write for some of the best science magazines in the world. I'm confident in my journalism.
And since it's always all about David "One Bad" Appell, here's his photo.
Post a Comment