Post-normal science

Nordheim

Melanie, over here global warming isn't selling all that well, but in the meantime they've concocted universal health care. Under the banner of this new entitlement, the government intends to steal and redistribute 2.5 trillion dollars, mostly from political opponents. So we don't really need cap and trade, etc. to destory our prosperity and usher in Obama's New Socialist Order.

d1carter

But, Paul Krugman of the NYT and a Princeton professor said that there was nothing in those leaked documents. Could he be wrong? If so, something is in fact fishy in Denmark.

Brian O'Connor

The problem is at least this . . .

We now don't know what we know — or what we don't know — about Global Warming (GW is now doing business as "Climate Change"), much less Anthropogenic Global Warming).

Our problem isn't only with primary papers published by the principals of ClimateGate: we don't know how many, or which, papers published by other scientists — the worker-bee guys whose own work may have been based on the data or conclusions of those primary papers,which the worker-bees considered to be legitimate because of the author's reputations, the fact of the primary paper's publication, and the absence of contrary opinions (the absence of opinions itself perhaps being due to a conspiracy).

Scientifically, how in the world is this to be sorted out?

And — while I can understand an ideologue or religious zealot wanting to change the world's economies come hell or high water "for the greater good", irrespective of climate data that might be good, bad or unknown, who in their right mind would use "the climate argument" right now to push their agenda?

Carlos Perera

As someone old enough--at 56--to have experience the original climate-change hysteria (the impending ice age mania of the 1970s) as an adult, I am not in the least bit surprised by the recent "Climategate/Climatequiddick" scandal. Then, too, extravagant claims of climatological prescience were being made by the likes of Stephen Schneider (who made a seamless, if brazen, transition in the 1980s from prophesying global apocalypse by hypothermia to prophesying global apocalypse by hyperthermia). What does surprise me is the short collective memory and willing suspension of skepticism of a large segment of the public in supposedly sophisticated Western technological societies, as well as their willingness to accept catastrophic economic and social intervention by government on the basis of what is so evidently junk science.

Brian O'Connor

I would add to my previous post that, because the CRU dumped its raw data, our ability to revisit earlier studies is severely handicapped.

On the other hand, if it is the narrative that is important, not the facts, then . . . what's the problem?

david elder

Inquiries are now under way in both Britain and the US over Climategate. I do not expect these inquiries will completely put paid to the greenhouse issue. But I do expect that the inquiries will produce awkward revelations about greenhouse alarmists. There is not much doubt that an alarmist clique centred in Britain and the US has incestuously refereed each other's work (so much for peer review being the touchstone), withheld or fiddled with data embarrassing to them, evaded FOI requests by deleting emails, intrigued to get editors with non-alarmist views removed from climate journals, and sought to questionably influence the IPCC and thus the UN and governments everywhere. May I say that in 40 years of doing science I have never personally struck a science department which behaves like this, thank heavens - I would be out of there ASAP.

Gary

In post-normal parlance, science is an arbitrary cultural construction. What does that say about "science" produced in a culture of lies, deception, statistical inventions, and absence of respect for calirated source data.

Bishop Hill

Hulme is heavily implicated in the emails. It appears to have been his idea to oust von Storch from the journal Climate Research.

http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2009/11/28/mike-hulme-at-dot-earth.html

Frank P

Because, as most of us hereabouts have always suspected, the AGW postulations have turned out to be based on Mickey Mouse science (not to mention political skulduggery), can we henceforth refer to AGW as the Anthropomorphic Global Warning - and try not be so credulous in future.

But we should try harder not to foul our own nests, regardless.

solemnman

Once again reality refuses to cooperate with the all knowing narcissist left's lust for power.The damn ,stupid temperatures just refuse to rise and all that money and power will start slipping from their grasp if the fiction they have promoted has not already morphed into immutable truth and become part of the simplistic script by which we are now being governed.

Lizzy

Something is rotten in the state of Denmark, d1carter, rotten to the core.

All scholarship has gone the way of concocting facts to fit dogma. Who needs accuracy when you are so convinced your cause is morally imperative?

Anth

Well spotted, and well synthesized and interpreted, Melanie. Thanks. Mike Hulme sure seems a man of courage and integrity.

Naomi Muse

Another day, another fraud!

This one should be reported to the Serious Fraud Office for thorough investigation prior to class actions from all who have been charged more than they should. What fun!

It is high time we stopped thinking that science is more than a matter of opinion after interpretation of the data.

Likewise economics is even more a matter of opinion, and has no solid foundations.

Perhaps there is more of a cynical massaging of data for political advantage, and control of the citizens, than previously thought?

Maybe whereas, dear old Hiram Q Tennison - the great American poet, penned that Ulysses sat:

'by this still hearth among these barren crags' with his wife and went on to say;
'I mete and toil unequal laws unto a peasant race'

Whereas the truth of the matter here is that the manipulators in government chortle and giggle with delight when hatching yet another crowd control measure which will govern by fear, and only run a book on how long it might be before the chattering gets to the point of debunking the theory, and how much time they have to do what they want before needing to dream up another scheme....

EC

It is, as I have always said, as case of "the unspeakable in pursuit of the unheatable!"

Naomi Muse

AWG is just the Warming Global Argument, but badly noted by the shorthand taker.

John Levett

Brian O'Connor -

"..who in their right mind would use "the climate argument" right now to push their agenda?2

I was going to give you a list; Al Gore, Paul McCartney, Marcus Brigstocke.. but then I re-read the right mind qualification.

Unwise Ernie

"This affair is likely to cast a significant cloud over the imminent climate summit at Copenhagen. The CRC is one of the key centres behind AGW theory and the ‘science’ on which the IPCC bases its forecasts."

No it won't Mel. It will be completely ignored as merely an attempt by a group of heretics to undermine the faith.

Sorry, but I believe that the consequences of Warmalism will be with us for the forseeable future.

Baron Pipin II

We don’t seem to attract many of the loopy AGW phylum on this blog. Their natural habitat is the CIF site, I wonder why?

Perhaps the roots of the problem lie in that climatology doesn’t really exist as a separate scientific discipline, or does it? Not many of those who reached its academic/societal heights have a proper grounding in sciences with long pedigree. What does Al Gore know about anything apart from selling carbon indulgencies?

In the Wilderness in America

The question is: Will Al Gore and like-minded climate change hucksters stop their con game? The answer is: Not on your life. Al, for one, has multi-millions of dollars (maybe euros now) tied up in his extortionist scheme to screw the naive entreprenurial world out of their capitalistic cash. Al and his fraudulent friends, including all those attending the Copenhagen conference, will find some rationalisation for those pesky emails (sounds like Paul Krugman of the leftist bible known as the NY Times has already began that process).

So, in Copenhagen, they will all pretend that the brouhaha doesn't really exist and will continue to fleece governments of their resources while growing wealthy themselves. No wonder Al didn't want to run for president in 2008. He could just as easily destroy America and indeed the world and make a hell of a lot more than that government check.

Houyhnhnm

Perhaps a discussion of the Nobel Prizes is in order for Copenhagen.

Ian C

Of course, what the dumping of the data in the '80's means is that the whole climate change research thing has to be started all over again! There can be no other solution.

Those who get the job to start again should nto be a bunch of self-selecting environmentalists with an interest in climatology. They need to be proven already as independent thinkers and trustworthy, not people who have influence to peddle or maoney to make.

Augustus

At Copenhagen most of the global warming debate will be focussed on reducing CO2 emissions, and pressing the international community to stump up hundreds of billions of dollars in legally binding agreements because of the misguided belief that this greenhouse gas produced from fossil fuels is warming the planet to dangerous levels. But not only is most of global warming caused by solar activity
during its explosive cyclical phases, CO2 levels are actually so low that more, not less, is needed to sustain and expand plant growth. If CO2 levels are cut, food production will slow because plants grown at higher CO2 levels make larger fruit and vegetables and also use less water.

US Navy Submarines don't consider CO2 levels to be dangerous until the atmosphere reaches a level of 8,000 part per million of CO2. The atmosphere on Earth currently contains about 338 p.p.m. of CO2. A long way from being alarming.

So why are all the green brigade of doom mongers running around screaming about an imminent catastrophe, and horrific consequences unless we
stop CO2 emissions now? Because they know that the public is beginning to 'wise up' to the con. They know that if they don't push for legislation know,
while a befuddled public is still susceptible to the ruse, and the media largely still in their pockets, their window of opportunity will have been lost.
An opportunity to destroy anything which threatens one world governance. An opportunity to force humanity to do the bidding of a global elite, hell-bent on taking the helm of a repressive planetary regime. An opportunity that these arrogant and greedy misanthropes don't intend to let slip them by.

andy t

as a creationist, i see a lot of similarities between the pseudo-science surrounding 'global warming' and the many assumptions peddled by scientists that support the theory of evolution...science perhaps should deal with the present and not try to predict the future...or make up the past

EC

The Global Warm Mongers, Ecopalypse Now and "How To Forge A Consensus" - Chicago style ...

Mark Steyn is on top form at the JWR:

http://jewishworldreview.com/1109/steyn.php3

Not to be missed!

Sergey

To Carlos Perrera
This Stephen Shneider guy you mentioned made brasenly cynical revelation of his vision of how "post-normal" science should operate:
"To do that we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public's imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This 'double ethical bind' we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest."
That is, to be effective means one should give up all attempts to be honest, if needed. I can not see how it is possible to be only slightly dishonest in science for long and not to become eventually outright fraudster, when things get sour. This slope is very slippery.

Nick

Augustus-

"US Navy Submarines don't consider CO2 levels to be dangerous until the atmosphere reaches a level of 8,000 part per million of CO2. The atmosphere on Earth currently contains about 338 p.p.m. of CO2. A long way from being alarming."

You're muddling two separate issues here.

High levels of CO2 can give rise to hypercapnia and respiratory acidosis, which can lead to unconsciousness and death if left untreated. The Navy uses lithium hydroxide scrubbers to remove respiratory CO2 from closed environments for this very reason. CO2 is a noxious substance.

This has absolutely nothing to do with AGW (which is simply incident IR absorption by CO2), however. Your point is invalid.

Derek BLADES

Nordheim, November 30th, wrote "Melanie, over here global warming isn't selling all that well, but in the meantime they've concocted universal health care."

Nordheim’s "they" presumably includes McCain and Clinton as well as Obama. They did not "concoct" anything. They just put it high on their election manifestos.

That anyone could be against universal health care is a cause of total astonishment in the more enlightened countries of the developed world. Take the OECD - the "rich men's club» - as an example. Of its 30 member governments, the United States is the only one not providing this basic component of a civilised society. (It is also the only one that authorises judicial murder, but that is another story)

Dave

". What kind of scientists destroy the raw data on which they base their research? "
Plenty. Data takes up space and costs money to store.
It was raw data gathered from various Met Offices around the globe. It still exists. You want it go and ask them for it.

andrew adams

CRU has not changed its position on the release of the raw data. It has said what it has always said - that the rights to some of the data are owned by other organisations, that it cannot release it without their permission and that it is attempting to obtain such permission.

andrew adams

Of course, what the dumping of the data in the '80's means is that the whole climate change research thing has to be started all over again! There can be no other solution.

No it doesn't. No one is the serious scientific community is suggesting that the research was somehow invalid. The research still stands unless you are an absurd conspiracy loon. And it's not as if CRU is the only organisation which has carried out such work.

Fergus Pickering

Derek Blades, by judicial murder I take it you mean capital punishment. Your terminology is as perfect an example of begging the question as I could hope to come across.

Augustus

Nick - I take your point about closed environment CO2. But my frustration is based on the premise that bad science should be shown up for what it is by scientists themselves. That is the proper way to deal with it. But when scientists themselves cook the books, and prevent others from finding out the truth, then it really becomes serious. And it is not only scientists behaving badly, they also get politicians to do the same. When bad, and often fraudulent, science is used against the people for socialist
propaganda we are entering a frightening world. Dr. Mark Penning, president of WAZA said that 'thousands of species of animals face extinction if the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is not reduced'. This
is all window dressing for Copenhagen, designed to help force leaders into the CO2 quagmire.

Derek BLADES - To millions of Americans the so-called health care reform is a health 'scare'
Bill. They are scared of the astronomical financial burden the legislation would place on the backs of all Americans. And isn't it the case that, while this kind of reform has been rejected by the voters, it is still being advanced through the legislative process by the use of extortion, bribery, and scurrilous horse-trading practices?

Neil Craig

Well Andrew Adam, firstly among the "other places that have carried out work" is the American GISS who initially said 1998 had been the warmest on record & then when Stephen McIntyre checked it proved they had got it wrong & actually 1934 was. Even the officials ultimately accepted he was right. Sop the strong odds must be that this was not just the USA but the rest of the world too. If it is actually true that CRU have destroyed the data the very kindest thing one can say about them is that theirs claims are totally & completely worthless.

As a basic matter of science "results" which can't be checked are valueless & nobody with the remotest interest in truth would say otherwise. Your disgusting remark abouit anybody practicing the most basic science being a "loon" could not, under any circumstances, have been said by anybody with the remotest trace of honesty & I insist you retract it.

If there is no evidence based "research" from the CRU eco-fascists then, simply as a matter of scientific fact, the American evidence, that 1934 was the warmest & we have thu8s not seen net warming since, must be accepted as the default position. The fact that you lying, thieving, fascist parasites can only produce evidence free ad homionum attacks shows you have noting else. While I have said many things about eco-fascist liars I have never engaged in evidence free attacks.

J.A.E

I think the public has wised up and is not at all convinced but they have got to our schools and brainwashed the children which will be difficult to alter. Also the public feels disenfranchised on every side ( we won't mention referenda) and does not feel it has a voice . Viva Lord Lawson!

Stephen Fox

Andrew Adams
I am not qualified to express an opinion on the manipulation of the temperature record, but it is clear beyond clear from the emails that CRU have done everything they possibly could to withhold the data, and their methods of adjustment from anyone wishing to test their conclusions, and that they have systematically sought to undermine all those who question their prediction of catastrophic climate change.
If the linking in this enterprise of the main proponents of AGW in Britain (Jones, Briffa, Hulme) with counterparts in the US (Mann, Schmidt, Trenberth) and with Santer at the IPCC is not indicative of conspiracy, then you and I have different ideas about what the word means.
In fact, one of the aims of that conspiracy has been precisely control of the temperature record. As I understand it there are only four such databases: two based on satellite observation, the Hadcrut, and Nasa Giss (Gavin Schmidt runs it). The latter two are closely intertwined. The world of AGW climate studies revolves around this very small group of scientists. They are central to it and their names keep cropping up.
And many in the ‘serious’ scientific world are indeed suggesting their work is invalid. Such dispute is what science is about. It is a disgrace that Jones et al should have worked so hard to suppress it, and that so many in the media and politics should have connived with them in that suppression.

mary

Melanie,I thought that you were bullied in a most unpleasant way on QT last Thursday.I think it was when you expressed your views on climate change.

John S

Thanks for the link to the Dunn piece, Melanie. That in turn led me to the Eisenhower Farewell Address - the one where he warned of the dangers of the Military-Industrial Complex, well before the escalation of the Vietnam War, the hippies and peaceniks etc.

In it, he also had this prescient warning: "Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite."

Rob M

Baron Pipin II: 'We don’t seem to attract many of the loopy AGW phylum on this blog.' No, but you have attracted at least one creationist (andy t). Enjoy!

Peter Thomas

"First get your facts; then you can distort them at your leisure."

Mark Twain

Brian O'Connor

andrew adams November 30th, 2009 6:19pm wrote:

No one is the serious scientific community is suggesting that the research was somehow invalid. The research still stands unless you are an absurd conspiracy loon. And it's not as if CRU is the only organisation which has carried out such work.

The research cannot be considered valid simply because it's there. And there are people in the "serious scientific community" who suggest that at least some of the research is invalid.

The research is tainted, and we don't know to what extent: the raw data were destroyed or dispersed to the winds in such a way that it almost certainly cannot be recovered intact, so replication of studies is impossible; those who might have been able to raise questions about the analyses and conclusions of Jones, Mann, and their supporters were prevented from doing so; there is evidence that some data were fudged; there is at least one statement from one of the warmists that they cannot account for the plateauing of temperatures over the last decade (a "travesty" that they can't); and the computer code of the Harry_Read_Me file contains evidence that the code was written to produce a certain outcome, viz, rising temperatures.

When you consider that other scientists trusted the homogenized/massaged data from the CRU in their own published studies, the complexity of the rat's nest increases still further.

So on what basis should one accept the validity of the studies that are "out there?"

burgess

Sorry, Nick, Augustus was actually too conservative in his CO2 limit. 8,000 ppm is only when the caution lights go on.

Contrary to your claims, CO2 in the concentrations being considered is not noxious. It is colorless, odorless, and harmless. AND absolutely essential to all life on Earth (see photosynthesis).

According to the maritime fleet sub standards

http://www.maritime.org/fleetsub/chap7.htm

one percent [10,000 ppm] or less is harmless, and after air purification is started, efforts should be made to keep the percentage of carbon dioxide from going above this amount. Prolonged breathing of over 3 percent CO2 [30,000 ppm] causes discomfort in breathing even at rest and becomes progressively dangerous above 4 percent [40,000 ppm]. The amount of carbon dioxide should never be allowed to exceed 3 percent [30,000 ppm].

The same numbers can be found in the US Dept HEW criteria for occupational exposure to CO2 where they set an operating limit of 10,000 ppm (1%) and a ceiling of 30,000 ppm (3%).

http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/pdfs/76-194a.pdf

CO2 produces intoxicating effects at 50,000 ppm (5%) and only becomes life threatening at 100,000 ppm (10%).

ahem

Go over the YouTube and find the Gore Blackburn confrontation on CSPAN. Representative Blackburn flips over a rock and finds something very, very ugly underneath. "Are you calling me greedy?"

C. Gee

andrew adams:

You wrote: "No one in the serious scientific community is suggesting that the research was somehow invalid."

Warmists insist that only they, and not skeptics, are "real" scientists, "qualified" scientists, "peer-reviewed" scientists - and now "serious" scientists.

So the "serious scientific community" is an identical set with the warmist consensus. Of course they would say that the research is not invalid. But nobody can validate it now, because the raw data that they used and then added value to has been dumped.

That isn't just serious, it is fanatical.

Pete

Good news Melanie. C.E.I. have issued a notice of intent to sue NASA's Giss for failure under the U.S. Freedom of Information act.

You can almost hear the sound of emails burning!
Imagine the sound of a Dalek on Dr.Who and instead of "exterminate" use "Delete, delete, delete, delete!"

Nick

Burgess, I made no comment regarding dosage. It's the distinction between pharmacology and toxicology, after all.

And again, none of this relevant to the IR opaqueness of the CO2 molecule.

Ruth

Could do with some global warming, would have saved me scraping ice off the car this morning. Oh yes...its climate change now isn't it. Global warming was supoosed to bring us hot dry summers and warm wet winters. As that isn't happening they now call it 'climate change'. This way they can appear to be right, whatever the weather is like.

Ian C

Andrew Adams,

Others have made good replies in response to your post answering mine, that deal with the main point.

The additional point is the raw data can be obtained from the original sources but the work done by CRU in preparing their warmist case cannot as all that is shown is the results of their 'workings'. Now that they are discredited as a reseacrh house they must see if they can re-create the same results. But this time it must be in the full glare of the spotlight.

If I were the Chancellor of East Anglia Uni. I would insist that they do it without pay as they have almost certainly breached the ethics components of their contracts of employment and as such will have a liability to their employer.

Peter

Next time you meet a Lab Technician ask him/her what is meant by thi fiddle factor. Believe me they all know!

PhilipH

From personal experience I know it's not uncommon for raw data to be lost in scientific research, often because it is left in obsolete computer formats that can no longer be read. I don't see an overt conspiracy here, it's more likely that originally climate change researchers were sufficiently alarmed by the data they had at the time to campaign for politicians to take action. Unfortunately, they probably over-exaggerated the case to make it more convincing. Now with the unpredicted slight cooling since 1998 the science is starting to look very shaky indeed, and they're in denial publicly. The final arbiter will be the climate itself - if the cooling continues its game over for their careers.

Sergey

See this:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/11/27/scientists-square-heated-climategate-debate
It seems, Russia is now a champion of open debate on this topic, ahead of USA.

TomTom

Shades of Lysenkoism in the USSR....and what did Andrei Sakharov say about that in 1964 during elections at the Soviet Academy of Science ?

He is responsible for the shameful backwardness of Soviet biology and of genetics in particular, for the dissemination of pseudo-scientific views, for adventurism, for the degradation of learning, and for the defamation, firing, arrest, even death, of many genuine scientists

Proof indeed of how far The West has converged with the USSR in Political Ideology in Scientific Thought.

KB

The dumping was done in the 1980s, well before the tenure at the CRC of the man at the eye of the current storm, Dr Phil Jones.

The director of the CRU for the whole of the 80s (1978-1993 in fact) was Tom Wigley, a member of the "hockey team" who is, if not in the eye of the current storm, not far away.

Frank P

burgess (4.06am)

Scott?

daniel maris

Anyone read Bryan Appleyard's dismal piece in the Sunday Times?

I am not a denialist as he calls non-believes in GW or AGW but his article made me wish I was!

It was truly pathetic. Even the metaphors (the lazy way to argue science) were pathetic. He seems to think you can make a pile of sand "collapse" by adding one more grain. I'd like to see him do it.

One point he was making...he was claiming the global warming experienced in the Medieval warm period was a Europe-only phenomenon. Is that true? It sounds highly unlikely - I've never heard of climates changing in this way on a single continent basis and it seems to go against the way weather works on Earth (Hadley cells and all that).

Sergey

Climatology community is recent and small. Statistician's community is old and hundred times bigger. Why there is practically no cooperation? Why statisticians requests for raw data, code and details of methodology are denied and stonewalled? This is a systemic malfunction, and climatologists can not blame anybody except themselves for this obvious failure. Everybody who applied statistics to noisy, inhomogenious and somewhat poorly defined datasets (often is the case in social studies or psychology) knows that choice of methods and procedures can dramatically influence conclusions. Remember the scandal with "Lancet" publication about Iraq war victim count? Without independent audit, all such work is doubtfull.

Ken

"Prof" Phil Jones suspended pending investigation, is dud science starting the unwind?

http://www.ajc.com/news/nation-world/uk-climate-scientist-to-221080.html

C. Gee

daniel maris:

The MWP occurred in both hemispheres.
See http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/mwpp.php

Sergey:

The parallels between social science and climatology are not just confined to abuse of statistics. They share the same theoretical underpinnings. Capitalism is to social relations as CO2 is to climate. The gas is metonymy for capital.

Richard

Daniel Maris,

What exactly was wrong with Appleyard's article - apart from the one point about the medieval warm period being confined to Europe?

I thought it was admirable in the way it attempted to address, and own up to, the dilemma of a non-expert faced with the combination of uncertainty and very high stakes that global warming presents. This seemed to me a refreshing change. If one really thinks there has been a huge academic conspiracy, or one really believes one has identified a certain answer that eludes most of the experts, one won't find Appleyard refreshing. But I'm not in either position.

His 'grain of sand' metaphor was just another way of expressing the familiar concept of the 'tipping-point'.

I do regret that he too descended at times to the abusive tone that damages so much discussion on this topic - talking of 'boneheads' and so on. But most of the contributors to this blog can scarcely complain about that, or claim to be thin-skinned, considering how much they dish out - even the otherwise serious and courteous Sergey, when he talks about James Lovelock.

The serious question Appleyard tries to address is, what should our response be when presented with serious scientific evidence that this warming is probably very dangerous? Unless one is, in all conscience, quite sure that it isn't happening or isn't dangerous, one ought to be willing to accept that as a serious and urgent question, without abuse.

Augustus

Talking of metaphors, how about:
'Snake chokes on its own tail'?

Dixon

"Augustus
December 2nd, 2009 2:50pm
Talking of metaphors, how about:
'Snake chokes on its own tail'?"

You mean Benzene do you!

Barbara

This post-normal science - would it have any connection to the post-democratic politics Mandy and the EU keep telling us we now have?

Mike

Melanie,is your non appearance on moral maze tonight a cynical silencing exercise by Al Beeb,given its Climategate topic

Sergey

The problem with all discussions about "tipping points" is that such points never were observed in geologic history of Pleistocene - that is, last 2 million years. All tipping points were on the side of cooling, which really was sometimes very abrupt - during Younger Dryas (12.9 ky) or Toba explosion (73 ky). All this time, Antarctic ice cap never melted, and tropical rainforests exist in their current shape for 30 000 years. We are now at warm phase of glacial cycle and can expect only tipping point to glaciation. The reason to believe in possible tipping points to runaway warming appears only if our present temperatures are exceptionally high, but they are not. Medieval Warm Period was probably warmer. The evidence for that is scarce, but convincing. Vikings sailing Northern Seas in tiny vessels, inappropriate for ice-covered seas; clothes of Medieval monks (they were wearing sandals); splinters of hard wood found high in the Alps after glacier retreat; many archeologic artifacts demonstrating warm-climate plants cultivated at higher lattitudes that is possible now. The main reason for CRU team to falsify their data was attempt to hide MWP, because if modern warming was not exceptional, all reasons to believe in AGW hypothesis evaporates.

Augustus

Dixon - I was thinking more in terms of circular reasoning. Pro-AGW climate scientists have ended up concluding only what they had assumed to begin with.

Sergey

What is wrong with Bryan Appleyard's article? Everything. His only scientific credentials is a degree in English. He has no business to write about science, he simply does not understand what science is.

Richard

Sergey,

So, let me get this right. Non-scientists have no right to comment on climate change. We should only listen to the scientists. But if the scientists tell us, as most of them do, that global warming is happening and is likely to be catastrophic, we shouldn't believe them.

Sergey

No, Richard, I never claimed such thing. Everybody can comment. But for scientific observer of mass circulation newspaper some scientific background is a reasonable requirement. "Scientist" does not mean specialist, and in multi-disciplinary field nobody can knew all neccessary disciplines. The present problem arise because a very small cabal could control all peer-reviewed publications. Stephen McIntyre is not a climatologist, but a very qualified stastistician - and he was denied vital data. Many scientists from very different fields must have access to information and access to media to inform public about their perspective and views. Science can be saved from degradation only when it is a public effort, with many centers and independent teams testing each other. A wide debate is needed, but, of course, some background in science - any science, from ethnography and archeology to atmospheric chemistry and spectroscopy - is needed.

Sergey

Speaking about scientists, here
http://www.oism.org/pproject/
is a petition signed by more 31000 American scientists. MSM will let you know only about those scientists who support AGW; the fact that there are dozen thousand contrarians is almost unknown to anybody. In Russia, where Phil Jons censorship can not reach, situation is very different, and prominent sceptics can freely address public.

Richard

Sergey,

You did seem to be saying that Appleyard shouldn't be writing on this subject because he isn't a scientist and has, instead, an English degree. As far as I can see, he isn't a science correspondent for the Sunday Times. His website says he is a free-lance features writer, and he has written several books about the relationship between science and the arts, and the interface between science and the wider culture.

The problem for me is this. You, and others who take your view, tell me with great confidence that the AGW warnings are wrong: not that they could be wrong, or that they are wrong about some things and right about others, or that both sides have some strengths in their argument and some weaknesses. You just say they are wrong. Often this view is expressed in an impatient, abusive and sneering tone. You don't seem to do that as a rule, but you did call James Lovelock 'clinically insane'. It isn't that I'm especially thin-skinned, but when people do that a lot it sounds like blustering to me, and makes me think they know their arguments are weak, really; that's why they resort to abuse.

But anyway, you say the AGW warnings are simply wrong, and advance certain arguments that I can't really evaluate but seem to me at best to only answer small parts of the AGW thesis. The point about the medieval warm period is an example; another is the finding by some scientists - disputed, I believe - that we are currently experiencing short-term cooling. As I understand it, neither of these observations is necessarily incompatible with the AGW theory. If some of the data indicates cooling and some indicates warming, isn't it possible that short term cooling is taking place against a background of longer term warming? This is what some of the climate scientists are saying, as reported by the BBC recently.

You say AGW is wrong, and you direct me to a petition with thousands of names on it; at a glance I can't recognise any of them and have no idea who they are. I go to another website, such as Real Climate, or read David King's book (until recently the government's chief science advisor). Here I find very substantial evidence that AGW is an urgent, potentially catastrophic problem. I am directed here to thousands of other sources. This suggests to me that at very least there is a very widely supported case for AGW. You may disagree with certain points in it, but I can't understand - I really can't; this isn't a merely rhetorical point - why you dismiss it altogether.

Well, one might say, let the argument continue until perhaps it is settled - though both sides seem to be saying that it is already settled. But that's no good, because one is also being told by the AGW side - who, despite everything said here, do seem to be the large majority of specialists - that we have terribly little time in which to act to avert catastrophe, or at least minimise it. We can't simply wait. The penalty of getting this wrong could be almost unthinkably bad. I am entirely in sympathy with Phil on that point.

There seems to be some reason to believe that there are ways of reducing carbon emissions very substantially that would not wreck the world economy or send us back to a life resembling that of medieval peasants. In some ways, the low carbon options represent an opportunity for growth, employment and invention. If that's true, and the possible penalty of doing nothing is so terrible, why is that not the least-worst option?

Sergey

Richard, I never claimed that I can disprove AGW. No, I can not. I only asserted that it was not proved and can not be proved at present level of knowledge, and why. As for measures of mitigation of the present warming (which I also never denied, only warned against wild exagerrations of alarmists like Gore) without destroying of global economy - they really exist, and I proposed some. First, forget wind and solar power - they are hopelesly unadequate. Switch to nuclear, this is the only alternartive to burning coal. And this does not require any international treaties like Kioto, national programs to build nuclear plants are quite enough.

Sergey

I do reject AGW hypothesis, but not because I can prove it wrong, but because I think it is redundant. Modern warming can be explained more convincingly by a natural variability. Physics of ocean-atmosphere heat exchange provides better explanation, without any role for humans or natural CO2 emissions.

Sergey

" If some of the data indicates cooling and some indicates warming, isn't it possible that short term cooling is taking place against a background of longer term warming?"
This certainly is a possibility, and I belive that it is in a sense true. But long-time trend is very mild, it consists of rebound from Little Ice Age and does not exceed 1 degree for a centuary. As for rapid warming of last three decades of 20 century, it is probably a natural cycle, with 30 years of cooling and 30 years of warming, and now we are at turning point fron warming to cooling. It will last for another two decades, and then warming will resume. Neither short-term oscillation nor long-term warming trend are really dangerous.

Nick

I refer interested parties to the editorial in this week's issue of Nature (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v462/n7273/full/462545a.html).

"[The denialists] paranoid interpretation would be laughable were it not for the fact that obstructionist politicians in the US Senate will probably use it next year as an excuse to stiffen their opposition to the country's much needed climate bill. Nothing in the e-mails undermines the scientific case that global warming is real — or that human activities are almost certainly the cause. That case is supported by multiple, robust lines of evidence, including several that are completely independent of the climate reconstructions debated in the e-mails."

Needless to say, I agree 100% with this.

Rhoda Klapp

Nick, I posted this on Liddle's blog, but it works here too. This is my summation of the sceptical position. Needless to say, I disagree with Nature, which seems to be supporting advocacy rather than science...

"what Would convince them that GW is not real/man-made/a problem. Their hypothesis is (no AGW). What would falsify this hypothesis for them???"

Well, I put that all in. The CO2 = AGW is not so much in dispute per se, just the scale. I think CO2 is a bit player, far smaller than the natural variation. To support that, I go to the historical record. The data are in dispute, but the glaciers in greenland DO uncover trees, the viking graves are in permafrost, so there is definitely a case. For the little ice age, there are the frost fairs. They happened, they deserve to be accounted for. Scale and causes of natural variation: unknown. Number of natural influences: unknown. Claimed CO2 effect of those variations: nil, as far as I know. Sum of natural variation (from what norm?) currently: unknown. Therefore, CO2 contribution, currently : unknown.
Reliability of computer models: Zilch. That's an opinion, based on some knowledge of the field.

Signs that the CO2 = AGW effect is working, in actual observation: Well, not much. Predicted troposphere temp changes, not seen. Proof of CO2 sensitivity, nope. Observations of radiation budget, currently not showing CO2 effect, but early days.

So, you can prove it by the sensitivity and the radiation budget, and by quantifying the natural variation. That's what I want to see. Is it asking too much? For proof by fiddling the temperature record and comnputer models is not enough.

Sergey

For real proof one never needs multiple lines of reasoning, only just one, but solid, without logical and factual gaps. Everything else is circumstantial evidence, not a proof. This is the actual difference between science and advocatcy. And, of course, skeptics need not prove anything, this is the obligation of enthusiasts.

michael

theory

practical(the test)

conclusion

As is normal in politics, the bit in the middle is bypassed.

theory: AGW

practical: 0

conclusion: CRAP SCIENCE.

Sergey

When New York Times editorial uses Dan Rather's defence (facts are fake, but the narrative is accurate), nobody is suprised. When "Nature" editorial uses the same, one begins to ask himself if this journal can still be rendered scientific. May be, now it is better to call it post-scientific?

DouglasT

Sergey - "Modern warming can be explained more convincingly by a natural variability. Physics of ocean-atmosphere heat exchange provides better explanation"

No they can't and don't I'm afraid, and that's a large flaw in your overall assertions. Anyone who knows anything about the above knows full well that modern warming is no-where near adequately explained by natural variability; in fact the physics of "ocean-atmosphere heat exchange" supports mmcc if understood correctly.

C. Gee

Douglas T:

"Anyone who knows anything about the above knows full well that modern warming is no-where near adequately explained by natural variability;..."

Anyone who knows anything, knows that not everything is known about natural variability and that even what is known has not been adequately accounted for in the computer models. And if the recent temperature rise has been exaggerated, the aggregate effect of known natural variability may well be close to being an "adequate" explanation.

Anyone who knows anything is probably someone who should learn more.

Stash.

that's right. there is no global warming.

the ice cap is melting because of magic and not because it's getting warmer.

Summer

But if the ice-caps are not melting, then it is not getting warmer. And they are not melting.

Even if it was getting warmer, there are many things that could and have caused that to happen, apart from humans. Because it happened when humans were not around!!

Michael JR Jose

But of course. Hot fraud, cold fraud, refried fraud, sliced fraud, fraud with spam...BUT!! the only way to really kill the silly CO2 scareology is to get the true science out there. What really drives climate? Well, Henrik Svensmark, professor of physics has what is dubbed 'The Chilling Stars' theory, the second edition of the book so named has a final chapter on the relative insignificance of CO2 as a greenhouse gas. The true Svensmark explanation is in the interaction of the sun's magnetosphere (magnetic field), which protects the earth from a large proportion of the cosmic rays falling on us from space. The cosmic rays that get through to lower cloud level seed the atmosphere with ions to form more clouds, and more clouds block the sun, so the earth is cooler. The sun has been relatively active in the last century, so more sun magnetosphere, less cosmic rays, less clouds, more sunshine on earth, hotter earth. This mechanism varies as the sun gets more/less active, and as the cosmic ray intensity goes up/down. The overall mechanism can be traced back many hundreds of millions of years in the geophysical records. Svensmark is supported by some major scientists, including Eugene 'solar wind' Parker, Nir Shaviv (astrophysicist), Richard Turco (UCLA), and others. An excellent DVD documentary in English called 'The Cloud Mystery' is available from Lars Mortenson's website, you can google it.

Boiled Cabbage

So having the head of the IPCC "investigate" the CRU emails is a bit like Goebels investigating Kristallnacht?

In an interview last week, Pachauri told the Guardian there was "virtually no possibility" of a few scientists biasing the advice given to governments by the IPCC. "The processes in the IPCC are so robust, so inclusive, that even if an author or two has a particular bias it is completely unlikely that bias will find its way into the IPCC report," he said.

Tom Billesley

Drat and darn it, only another few years of mutually validated orthodoxy and those pesky heretical deniers would have been discredited and tucked up safely in mental health institutions for "re-education".

Sergey

On-line comments are not the best way to explain physics, but I would try. Ocean has roughly 1000 times more heat capacity than atmosphere, and it is 13 degrees cooler then the last. This was true for last 10 000 years. Typical time of ocean mixing is 800 years, which implies existence of permanently operating heat pump cooling ocean and warming atmosphere. 0.01 degree of ocean cooling produces enough heat to warm atmosphere by 10 degrees. So work of this ocean-to-atmosphere heat pump can explain any observable warmings and coolings without any change in greenhouse effect, if power of this pump fluctuates. And it does fluctuates, so we had PDA, ENSO and other periodic changes of temperature associated with change of ocean currents. This is the main argument. Details I can provide.

prjelbert

The Putative President Obama

We have had an Impeached President in USA. What about a Putative President?

It is generally used for a putative marriage which is an apparently valid marriage, entered into in good faith on the part of at least one of the partners, but that is legally invalid due to a technical impediment, such as a preexistent marriage on the part of one of the partners. Unlike someone in a common-law, statutory, or ceremonial marriage, a putative spouse is not legally married. Instead, a putative spouse believes himself or herself to be married in good faith and is given legal rights as a result of this person's reliance upon this good-faith belief. ‘Putative’ means ‘supposed’; an alternative legal word for putative is ‘deemed’, hence a supposed marriage or deemed marriage.

In the same way, a Putative President is an apparently valid president, who has entered presidency in good faith on the part of at least one of the parties, either the voting public or the party putting up the candidate which includes the candidate himself, but the presidency is legally invalid due to a technical impediment, such as voter or candidate failure to conform to voting and presidential requirements. Unlike a duly-elected, sworn-in president where no such impediments are to be found, a putative president is not legally the president. Instead either the voters or the putative president may believe in good faith that the presidency is valid, and the putative or supposed president is given legal rights as a result of this reliance upon this good-faith belief.

As with a putative marriage, so with a putative presidency, there would be legal recourse, even after presidential instatement into office: the impediment should be removed or the president with the impediment should be removed.

As with a putative marriage, the just impediment should be declared. In the case of the putative President Obama, the United States law regarding presidencies requires an original Birth Certificate showing that he was born in the United States. The voters have an absolute right in law for this to be produced. This has not been forthcoming to date, hence the putative status of the Presidency of Barak Obama.

Barak Obama’s grandmother has testified to his birth in Kenya. There is nothing wrong with being born in Kenya. He would qualify to be President of Kenya after re-establishing citizenship, and perhaps of many other countries where birthplace is not significant in a presidential bid. However in the USA it is a requirement that all Presidents can prove birth in the United States of America. So far all that has been forthcoming is a photocopy of a birth certificate purporting to come from Hawaii.

For ordinary citizens it is necessary to have original documents and to have them verified, as we all know. Photocopies will not be accepted even when verified as true copies by a commissioner of oaths in many instances: we require original passports to enter a country; we need original degree certificates to get certain jobs; we require original bank documents to prove our ownership of our Bank account. How much more carefully should this requirement be observed in the election of the President of a country!

Until Barak Obama has produced a valid, original Birth Certificate he must be regarded as a Putative President, and his decisions not of binding nature until the matter is resolved.