Climate Cover Up: How to Manipulate Public Opinion
Eric Swanson
methods used by the denialist camp to discredit the science of Global
Warming.
The author also has written a book on the subject, "Climate Cover Up"
for those who want more detailed information. Add this to the list of
other the books on the situation, such as Chris Mooney's, "The
Republican War on Science".
E. S.
---
Michael Lewis
Whoa! Who's interest is being served here? Hoggon is not a climate
scientist, knows only what he's been told, is the CEO of PR firm and his
book is being pimped by an insurance company!
A bit of perspective from the web site:
About Allianz Knowledge
Allianz Knowledge focuses on Climate Change, Energy, Microfinance,
Demographic Change, and Safety & Health. These topics are vital to our
business � and to our world.
Allianz groups is one of the largest financial service providers in the
world. It offers its customers tailer-made solutions in the fields of
property and causality insurance, life and health insurance, asset
management and banking.
Hoggan is a shill for the Big Business As Usual Lobby. Has he "register like lobbyists" as he demands the "deniers" do?
Hayduke
--
Hayduke Blogs
http://hayduke2000.blogspot.com/
Eric Swanson
shill for the Big Business As Usual Lobby. I think there's no doubt
that the public often sees only the massive PR campaign by the
denialist, instead of the scientific problems. The problem is a very
big one and the groups with the most money to lose are likely to
respond with the loudest complaints. For better or worse, that's the
way our present political process functions.
Besides, you are attempting to discredit him based on "guilt by
association" and offer no rebuttal to the points which he raises.
Have you actually read his book? Have you read Mooney's book or Ross
Gelbspan's book, "The Heat is On"?
Especially revealing is Gelbspan's discussion of the disinformation
campaign, including this historical backgrounder:
http://www.heatisonline.org/contentserver/objecthandlers/index.cfm?id=4380&method=full
E. S.
---------------------------------
Michael Lewis
> I think there's no doubt
> that the public often sees only the massive PR campaign by the
> denialist, instead of the scientific problems. The problem is a very
> big one and the groups with the most money to lose are likely to
> respond with the loudest complaints. For better or worse, that's the
> way our present political process functions.
>
Indeed, and that's the way it works for climate alarmists as well.
Does the public know how NASA has manipulated surface temperature data
that biases conclusion toward warming? Does the public know about the
IPCC misuse of glacial retreat data? Are insurance companies and carbon
trading lobbyists touting these very real aspects of AGW as well?
The hill slopes both ways.
Alastair
>
> Whoa! Who's interest is being served here? Hoggon is not a climate
> scientist, knows only what he's been told, is the CEO of PR firm and his
> book is being pimped by an insurance company!
The debate is not about science. The scientific message is being
swamped by propaganda from the oil, coal, utilities, and automotive
industries who have most to lose if the use of fossil fuels is
restricted. The insurance industry has most to lose if they are not!
Here is a presentation of the science and of the propaganda war by a
scientist and historian:
The American Denial of Global Warming
http://www.uctv.tv/search-details.aspx?showID=13459
Cheers, Alastair.
Per Edman
> Whoa! Who's interest is being served here? Hoggon is not a climate
> scientist, knows only what he's been told, is the CEO of PR firm and his
> book is being pimped by an insurance company!
>
> A bit of perspective from the web site:
>
> About Allianz Knowledge
>
> Allianz Knowledge focuses on Climate Change, Energy, Microfinance,
> Demographic Change, and Safety & Health. These topics are vital to our
> business – and to our world.
>
> Allianz groups is one of the largest financial service providers in the
> world. It offers its customers tailer-made solutions in the fields of
> property and causality insurance, life and health insurance, asset
> management and banking.
>
> Hoggan is a shill for the Big Business As Usual Lobby. Has he "register like lobbyists" as he demands the "deniers" do?
"Perspective" aside, I hear the book is very good. I would hardly dismiss it out of hand because the writer works for a living.
And if he were a shill for a "business as usual lobby", shouldn't the message of the book be that there is no danger, nothing to fear, no reason to change behaviors, rather than - as it does - make the claim that there are powerful interests pushing that view?
Unless I'm mistaken about the use of the term "shill", that is. You might mean that Hoggan's written a very convincing book about there being a campaign to miscredit the science and cloud the issues, in order to himself cloud and miscredit ... uhm ... no, help me out here. What exactly is it you claim Hoggan is doing?
--
/ Per
Michael Lewis
> Besides, you are attempting to discredit him based on "guilt by
> association" and offer no rebuttal to the points which he raises.
He raises no points regarding the science of climate variability and
he only addresses "Industry front groups and compliant scientists," as
if there is no science behind skepticism about AGW. He is responding as
a Public Relations flack, not a scientist. Furthermore, he ignores the
very same tactics and techniques by climate alarmists to cry wolf about
global arming.
Per Edman
> He raises no points regarding the science of climate variability and
> he only addresses "Industry front groups and compliant scientists," as
> if there is no science behind skepticism about AGW. He is responding as
> a Public Relations flack, not a scientist.
Yes, that is what the book is about. He isn't criticizing "alternate" scientific hypotheses that explain the current rate of climate change, his book is about a campaign of consciously teaching the controversy.
> Furthermore, he ignores the very same tactics and techniques by climate alarmists to cry wolf about
> global arming.
Forgetting for a moment, of course, that "climate alarmists" have scientific consensus on their side, right? If there is such a "very same" campaign for the side of science, please elucidate.
--
/ Per
Per Edman
In Sweden we call this the "kålsupare" fallacy, can't for the moment remember what the fallacy is called in English. What you're saying is that Hoggan is right, that there is a massive PR campaign from the denialist camp, but that this is all as it should be because you say that there is a similar and equally-powered campaign for the scientific perspective, so that makes it all right. Well, it doesn't.
The comparison to "glacial retreat data" (I'm assuming you mean the projection to 2035 that was pulled out of a hat) is interesting. The denialist camp is basing arguments on repeating falsehoods, such as "global cooling stopped in 1998" or "it's all explained by GCR driving CCN" or "CRU made it all up!" or "the satellite data was correct before correcting for altitude". The same claims are repeated again and again, especially after being proven false.
The climate science, however, finds errors, corrects them and then do not repeat them.
Spot the difference.
--
/ Per
hgerh...@yahoo.co.uk
Insurance companies make money by scaring their customers and
competitors. What matters is not whether there are few or many
hurricanes. What matters is that the customers and competitors are
scared into believing damage will be high, so that customers will pay
high insurance premiums and competitors will shy away from
undercutting you. Then, as it turns out that the actual damage is low,
you make tons of money.
Jim Torson
posts by Jeff Masters:
The Manufactured Doubt Industry and the hacked email controversy
http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=1389
Don't shoot the messenger
http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=1394
-- Jim
Jim Torson
Michael Lewis
> Yes, that is what the book is about. He isn't criticizing "alternate"
> scientific hypotheses that explain the current rate of climate change,
> his book is about a campaign of consciously teaching the controversy.
I doubt that it takes a book to understand that for-profit
corporations and right-wing think tanks lobby to get their viewpoints in
the mainstream press. This is Business as usual.
> Forgetting for a moment, of course, that "climate alarmists" have
> scientific consensus on their side, right? If there is such a "very
> same" campaign for the side of science, please elucidate.
There is no scientific consensus. Science doesn't work that way.
There is evidence, verification and theory. There is a body of evidence
that increasingly contradicts the claims of "consensus" scientists and
calls to question the methodology of large organizations lobbying for AGW.
The "very same campaign" is the IPCC, Al Gore and mainstream media.
The Cunctator
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Global Change ("globalchange") newsgroup. Global Change is a public, moderated venue for discussion of science, technology, economics and policy dimensions of global environmental change.
Posts will be admitted to the list if and only if any moderator finds the submission to be constructive and/or interesting, on topic, and not gratuitously rude.
To post to this group, send email to global...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to globalchange...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange
Michael Lewis
> What you're saying is that Hoggan is right, that there is a massive PR
> campaign from the denialist camp, but that this is all as it should be
> because you say that there is a similar and equally-powered campaign
> for the scientific perspective, so that makes it all right. Well, it
> doesn't.
No, that is not what I'm saying. I am saying that if one is to point
out that climate "denialists" use PR techniques to advance their cfause,
one must also point out that climate alarmists use exactly teh same
techniques. It's not just corporations profiting from fossil fuels who
use propaganda to influence public opinion. Science gets lost in this
kind of propaganda exchange.
> The comparison to "glacial retreat data" (I'm assuming you mean the
> projection to 2035 that was pulled out of a hat) is interesting. The
> denialist camp is basing arguments on repeating falsehoods, such as
> "global cooling stopped in 1998"
This is confusing. Who says "global cooling stopped in 1998?" Global
average surface temperature trend has been flatlined since 1998. I don't
understand this reference.
> or "it's all explained by GCR driving CCN" or "CRU made it all up!" or
> "the satellite data was correct before correcting for altitude". The
> same claims are repeated again and again, especially after being
> proven false.
Proven? Nothing is proven in science. It only takes one verfied
discovery to change an entire theory.
> The climate science, however, finds errors, corrects them and then do
> not repeat them.
>
> Spot the difference.
This is not how science works. Science doesn't find error.
Scientists find evidence that contradicts claims, then verifies that
evidence through hypothesis testing. We don't go around "finding errors."
Climate alarmists claim that humans are producing greenhouse gases
that are causing a rise in global average surface temperature above and
beyond normal fluctuations, and that this temperature rise will have
disastrous effects on all life on earth. These are speculations, not
science.
Alastair
On Jan 24, 5:31 pm, "hgerhau...@yahoo.co.uk" <hgerhau...@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:
If it's that easy then I had better buy some insurance shares :-)
However, we live in a competitive society, and insurance is priced at
the lowest level that will produce a profit. There are plenty of
people out there willing to sell cheaper insurance provided they can
make a profit.
The problem for them is that if there is a big disaster they may not
have the funds to pay out. So they need to know the real risks. It is
a matter of life and death for their companies.
They are not into political posturing.
Cheers, Alastair.
Michael Lewis
> The debate is not about science. The scientific message is being
> swamped by propaganda from the oil, coal, utilities, and automotive
> industries who have most to lose if the use of fossil fuels is
> restricted. The insurance industry has most to lose if they are not!
>
And the science is being swamped by propaganda from the IPCC, Al
Gore and the carbon trade industry who have most to lose if climate
change turns out to beyond human influence.
> Here is a presentation of the science and of the propaganda war by a
> scientist and historian:
> The American Denial of Global Warming
> http://www.uctv.tv/search-details.aspx?showID=1345
I don't need to watch a video, I've read Oreskes' report, which
apparently you have not.
Oreskes' report, /Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus
on Climate Change/ tests the hypothesis that the drafting of reports
and statements by societies such as the IPCC, AAAS and NAS downplays
legitimate dissenting opinions on AGW. Indeed, she found very little
dissent in peer-reviewed literature leading to these reports.
Climate alarmists grab this finding and cry "Scientific Consensus!"
But anyone who has worked in academe knows the pressures brought to bear
on researchers to apply for grants to support their departments and to
submit articles for publication that are sympathetic to "consensus"
opinion in order to be accepted for publication. This is the reality of
academe, which has very little to do with science, truth and reality,
and has everything to do with departmental budgets, tenure and
professional reputation. Hence the CRU emails.
Michael Lewis
> However, we live in a competitive society, and insurance is priced at
> the lowest level that will produce a profit. There are plenty of
> people out there willing to sell cheaper insurance provided they can
> make a profit.
>
> The problem for them is that if there is a big disaster they may not
> have the funds to pay out. So they need to know the real risks. It is
> a matter of life and death for their companies.
>
> They are not into political posturing.
>
This must be some other Universe I'm not familiar with!
Alastair
On Jan 24, 6:09 pm, Michael Lewis <hayd...@rattlebrain.com> wrote:
> > Here is a presentation of the science and of the propaganda war by a
> > scientist and historian:
> > The American Denial of Global Warming
> >http://www.uctv.tv/search-details.aspx?showID=1345
>
> I don't need to watch a video, I've read Oreskes' report, which
> apparently you have not.
I read the Oreskes report when it was first published in Science. The
main point was the experimental evidence:
"That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in
refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the
ISI database with the keywords "climate change" (9).
The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement
of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation
proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the
consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three
categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus
view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on
current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers
disagreed with the consensus position."
Your conspiracy theory does not cut much ice with me. Let's have some
evidence.
The Oreskes video is not about the scientific consensus. It is about
about the junk science of the sceptics, their connection with the
tobacco industry, and their political motivation.
But there is not much point in your watching it. You obviously have
the same political leanings as them :-(
Cheers, Alastair.
Michael Lewis
> Remarkably, none of the papers
> disagreed with the consensus position."
>
> Your conspiracy theory does not cut much ice with me. Let's have some
> evidence.
>
There is no "conspiracy theory." Saying so is merely an attempt to
minimize my skepticism by calling me names. I believe this is called an
ad hominem attack.
The fact that none of the subset of papers examined disagreed with
consensus position means only that. It cannot be extrapoltaed to imply
that there is no dissent, nor does it imply that the consensus position
is right and anything else is wrong. This is not how science works. We
do not pile up one set of papers on one side of the room and dissenting
papers on the other side and see which pile is tallest.
> The Oreskes video is not about the scientific consensus. It is about
> about the junk science of the sceptics, their connection with the
> tobacco industry, and their political motivation.
>
There is no "junk" science. This again is merely another ad homenum
pejorative attempt to minimize dissent. I am a skeptic. I have no
connections with the tobacco industry and I have no political motivation.
I am concerned only with the science of climate variability.
> But there is not much point in your watching it. You obviously have
> the same political leanings as them :-(
>
Ah, this would be guilt by association, then?
Disappointing.
hgerh...@yahoo.co.uk
> the lowest level that will produce a profit. There are plenty of
> people out there willing to sell cheaper insurance provided they can
> make a profit.
>
> The problem for them is that if there is a big disaster they may not
> have the funds to pay out. So they need to know the real risks. It is
> a matter of life and death for their companies.
They need to know the real risks, but they also have a strong interest
in competitors and customers believing that the risks are higher than
they really are.
Munich Re can cope with few or many hurricanes by charging appropriate
premiums. What they want is that customers pay them high rates, and
that competitors don't swoop in and undercut them. And the way to do
that is to overstate the likelihood and magnitude of damage.
And indeed it is vital for them to know the real risks. An insurance
company is alway best off insuring against a minimal risk (say 0.001%
per year of 100 Dollar damage) while charging a lot (say 1000 Dollars
per year).
Now I am not suggesting deceit, but Munich Re is clearly alarmist in
their presentation of natural disaster impact trends (suggesting they
are on a rising course), and they have a strong profit incentive to be
alarmist in the literal sense, ie knowingly exaggerating a threat.
In fact, a much stronger profit incentive than oil companies have in
opposing carbon taxes or cap and trade. Oil company profits depend on
how carbon taxes or cap and trade are implemented, not on whether they
are. A simple 50 Euro tax per tonne of carbon say applied equally
across all sectors on top of existing taxes and subsidies would in my
opinion raise the profits of oil companies. From the analysis of
energyoutlook I understand that the presently discussed cap and trade
bill in the US is quite kind to coal burning utilities and rather
unkind to refiners, but that's all got to do with who gets free
allowances, and not with the overall cap and trade approach.
Per Edman
I doubt that it takes a book to understand that for-profit corporations and right-wing think tanks lobby to get their viewpoints in the mainstream press. This is Business as usual.
There is no scientific consensus. Science doesn't work that way. There is evidence, verification and theory. There is a body of evidence that increasingly contradicts the claims of "consensus" scientists and calls to question the methodology of large organizations lobbying for AGW
The "very same campaign" is the IPCC, Al Gore and mainstream media.
--
/ Per
Per Edman
Per Edman wrote:No, that is not what I'm saying. I am saying that if one is to point out that climate "denialists" use PR techniques to advance their cfause, one must also point out that climate alarmists use exactly teh same techniques. It's not just corporations profiting from fossil fuels who use propaganda to influence public opinion. Science gets lost in this kind of propaganda exchange.
What you're saying is that Hoggan is right, that there is a massive PR campaign from the denialist camp, but that this is all as it should be because you say that there is a similar and equally-powered campaign for the scientific perspective, so that makes it all right. Well, it doesn't.
This is confusing. Who says "global cooling stopped in 1998?" Global average surface temperature trend has been flatlined since 1998. I don't understand this reference.
Proven? Nothing is proven in science. It only takes one verfied discovery to change an entire theory.
This is not how science works. Science doesn't find error. Scientists find evidence that contradicts claims, then verifies that evidence through hypothesis testing. We don't go around "finding errors."
Climate alarmists claim that humans are producing greenhouse gases that are causing a rise in global average surface temperature above and beyond normal fluctuations, and that this temperature rise will have disastrous effects on all life on earth. These are speculations, not science.
--
/ Per
Alastair
On Jan 25, 8:25 am, "hgerhau...@yahoo.co.uk" <hgerhau...@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:
> > However, we live in a competitive society, and insurance is priced at
> > the lowest level that will produce a profit. There are plenty of
> > people out there willing to sell cheaper insurance provided they can
> > make a profit.
>
> > The problem for them is that if there is a big disaster they may not
> > have the funds to pay out. So they need to know the real risks. It is
> > a matter of life and death for their companies.
>
> They need to know the real risks, but they also have a strong interest
> in competitors and customers believing that the risks are higher than
> they really are.
>
Are you really suggesting that if Munich Re say that hurricanes are
going to increase as a result of global warming then more people in
Haiti will take out house insurance?
Haiti may be an extreme example, so will it encourage more people to
take out house insurance in the UK, or the USA? Are they going to
rush to take up hurricane insurance because of Munich Re or because of
Katrina? I doubt if they come from New Oleans that Munich Re wants
their business :-(
> Munich Re can cope with few or many hurricanes by charging appropriate
> premiums. What they want is that customers pay them high rates, and
> that competitors don't swoop in and undercut them. And the way to do
> that is to overstate the likelihood and magnitude of damage.
>
> And indeed it is vital for them to know the real risks. An insurance
> company is alway best off insuring against a minimal risk (say 0.001%
> per year of 100 Dollar damage) while charging a lot (say 1000 Dollars
> per year).
>
> Now I am not suggesting deceit, but Munich Re is clearly alarmist in
> their presentation of natural disaster impact trends (suggesting they
> are on a rising course), and they have a strong profit incentive to be
> alarmist in the literal sense, ie knowingly exaggerating a threat.
They can't exaggerate the threat if they do not know what it is. So
that is why they are objective experts. They cannot allow cries of
"Alarmist" from customers who feel they are being overcharged to
affect their search for true risk.
> In fact, a much stronger profit incentive than oil companies have in
> opposing carbon taxes or cap and trade. Oil company profits depend on
> how carbon taxes or cap and trade are implemented, not on whether they
> are. A simple 50 Euro tax per tonne of carbon say applied equally
> across all sectors on top of existing taxes and subsidies would in my
> opinion raise the profits of oil companies. From the analysis of
> energyoutlook I understand that the presently discussed cap and trade
> bill in the US is quite kind to coal burning utilities and rather
> unkind to refiners, but that's all got to do with who gets free
> allowances, and not with the overall cap and trade approach.
The oil etc. companies do not face the prospect of going out of
business if they underesimate the danger of global warming. Like the
bankers, they are willing to take big profits now, and let the
government pick up the bill if things go wrong.
It is probably true that cap and trade will not affect their business.
For that reason it is not the answer. If we don't decrease the amount
of oil burnt, then the dangers from AGW will only increase. But I
doubt the oil companies think that an increase in taxes will help
their business. Any increase in the tax on oil means less profit for
them. Selling price = Cost price + taxes + profit. Increasing taxes
reduces the profit or raises the Selling Price, in which case demand
falls and so too will the total profit.
But if you are convinced that there is nothing to fear from global
warming, and that any attempt to itemise the dangers amounts to
alarmism, then it is pointless me continuing this debate. The Arctic
sea ice will be gone soon, and the Greenland ice sheet has begun to
melt. That is an inevitable rise in sea level of 7 m (24 ft) unless we
take action. That will float the Antarctic ice shelves, and a further
rise in sea level. It won't just be the centre of New Orleans below
sea level. London, New York and Melbourne will join it.
Cheers, Alastair.
Michael Lewis
> While it's true that science works by theory, prediction, model and
> verification, it is also true that there is a consensus on the
> mechanics of modern-day climate change.
I disagree. There is only a consensus among some climate scientists.
I know two personally who are not among the "consensus." Therefore,
there is no monumental consensus.
> The very same as what, then? This is what I mean. In your hurry to
> claim that IPCC, Al Gore and "mainstream media but not fox" are
> participating in the "very same campaign", you are simultaneously
> saying that there is a campaign that these people can be the "very
> same" as.
Please don't put words in my mouth. I said no such thing.
The IPCC, Al Gore and mainstream media are promoting the idea that
human greenhouse gas production causes global average surface
temperature rise, and, therefore, human action can slow down or stop
this temperature rise.
Michael Lewis
> I'm sorry, but it is what you are saying. If you wanted to say that it
> was untrue that the denialist camp is using propaganda instead of
> science, you would have said that. Instead, you chose to claim:
>
> "Indeed, and that's the way it works for climate alarmists as well."
>
> As well. If you meant "only", you needed only write that, instead. But
> you didn't. You admit that massive PR campaigns and loud complaints
> rule the denialist camp, but you defend this by saying that the
> "climate alarmists" do it too. That's not much of a defense.
Again, please don't put words in my mouth. You may not rephrase what
I actually say and pretend it is what I said.
I didn't mean only, so I didn't say only. I have not defended any
massive PR campaign by either side. Just the opposite. I decry the
appeal to popular press to advance any agenda.
> There are many denialists who do. If you truly haven't seen any of
> them yet, a simple google search for the very term you quote above,
> would give you plenty of firewood. Global average surface temperatures
> were, according to NASA, higher in 2005 than in 1998, but looking only
> at these two years and ignoring the rising long-term trend is
> disingenious at best and misdirection at worst.
One can find almost anything in a web search. What do the data say?
>
>
>
> Climate alarmists claim that humans are producing greenhouse
> gases that are causing a rise in global average surface
> temperature above and beyond normal fluctuations, and that this
> temperature rise will have disastrous effects on all life on
> earth. These are speculations, not science.
>
>
> Ah. And because you have defined the theory of antropogenic global
> climate change as non-science, I suppose that frees you of any
> obligation to actually falsify the theory, or pointing out any
> significant errors with it.
There is no scientific verification that anthropogenic CO2 is
causing global average surface temperature rise. This is speculation
based on correlation, not a demonstrated cause and effect. In fact, the
factors influencing climate variability are many and varied.
Anthropogenic CO2 production is one of the least influential factors.
> May I ask, where you believe the divergence from science occurs? Is it
> that carbon dioxide absorbs infra-red radiation that you believe is
> not science? Or is it that human activities have released carbon
> dioxide into the atmosphere? Or perhaps it is the volume of gas
> released into the atmosphere that is not... scientific?
While these processes are real, there is no direct cause and effect
relationship among them and the observed rise in global average surface
temperature.
Michael Lewis
> But if you are convinced that there is nothing to fear from global
> warming, and that any attempt to itemise the dangers amounts to
> alarmism, then it is pointless me continuing this debate. The Arctic
> sea ice will be gone soon, and the Greenland ice sheet has begun to
> melt. That is an inevitable rise in sea level of 7 m (24 ft) unless we
> take action. That will float the Antarctic ice shelves, and a further
> rise in sea level. It won't just be the centre of New Orleans below
> sea level. London, New York and Melbourne will join it.
>
Why continue these baseless scare tactics? "The Arctic sea ice will
be gone"? Forever? Arctic sea ice diminished 1000 years ago during the
Medieval Warming Period and allowed the migration of Inuit people from
Siberia to Greenland. Then look what happened! The Greenland ice sheet
has been melting for 15,000 years. It's not melt that's solely
important, it's melt and precipitation, among many other factors.
These simplistic scare statements are just as bad as those who claim
we can stop climate change.
Igor Samoylenko
Consensus does not imply unanimity.
One way to define consensus is as a set of concepts without which you cannot understand the theory in question as a whole. The key role of CO2 in regulating our climate is amongst such consensus concepts.
Here is the 2009 Bjerknes lecture by Richard Alley on the role of CO2 in our climate history:
http://www.agu.org/meetings/fm09/lectures/lecture_videos/A23A.shtml
What he makes very clear is that you cannot understand our climate over the last 1 billion years if you exclude CO2 from consideration - full stop. CO2 plays a central role in controlling our climate and the climate sensitivity to doubling CO2 concentrations is around 3C – this conclusion is supported by multiple, independent lines of evidence.
Eric Swanson
Michael Lewis wrote:
> There is no scientific verification that anthropogenic CO2 is
> causing global average surface temperature rise. This is speculation
> based on correlation, not a demonstrated cause and effect. In fact, the
> factors influencing climate variability are many and varied.
> Anthropogenic CO2 production is one of the least influential factors.
You accept the data which shows the temperature is increasing. We
know that adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere changes the IR
transmission and this has been measured for CO2. We also have an
opposite situation over the Antarctic where ozone (a greenhouse gas
too) has been depleted and the temperature has fallen in the
Stratosphere, which acts to counter the CO2/H2O warming on a global
basis. Other possible causes for the warming have been offered and as
far as I know, there is no other possible explanation for the observed
warming.
> > May I ask, where you believe the divergence from science occurs? Is it
> > that carbon dioxide absorbs infra-red radiation that you believe is
> > not science? Or is it that human activities have released carbon
> > dioxide into the atmosphere? Or perhaps it is the volume of gas
> > released into the atmosphere that is not... scientific?
>
>
> While these processes are real, there is no direct cause and effect
> relationship among them and the observed rise in global average surface
> temperature.
>
> Hayduke
Sure there is. Adding CO2 most effects the IR emission process at the
higher levels of the atmosphere and the Stratosphere appears to be
warming, with the exception previously mentioned over the polar
regions. If the overall lapse rate remains the same, warming above
the Tropopause will translate to warming at the surface.
E. S.
Eric Swanson
Where is your evidence that the Medieval Warm Period was as warm as
the recent past?
Furthermore, if the Greenland Ice Sheet has been melting so strongly
since the LGM, how come there's still layers of recent ice resting on
the top in locations such as those used to extract ice cores? Also,
the rise in sea level after the LGM reached a plateau about 8k yr BP
during the Holocene Optimum and has remained at roughly the same level
until the beginning of the Industrial Age. If the Greenland Ice Sheet
had continued to melt, would not the sea level have continued to rise?
E. S.
-----------------------------------
Michael Lewis wrote:
[cut]
Phil Hays
> Per Edman wrote:
> > While it's true that science works by theory, prediction, model and
> > verification, it is also true that there is a consensus on the
> > mechanics of modern-day climate change.
>
> I disagree. There is only a consensus among some climate scientists.
> I know two personally who are not among the "consensus." Therefore,
> there is no monumental consensus.
I'd like to hear where you (or these un-named climate scientists) break
with the consensus.
Do you think that energy is conserved?
Do you think that CO2's spectrum has been measured incorrectly?
Or is there something wrong in the physics of radiation?
Or in the accounting of human added CO2 in the atmosphere?
Or ... what?
--
Phil Hays <phil...@ieee.org>
Per Edman
Per Edman wrote:I disagree. There is only a consensus among some climate scientists. I know two personally who are not among the "consensus." Therefore, there is no monumental consensus.
While it's true that science works by theory, prediction, model and verification, it is also true that there is a consensus on the mechanics of modern-day climate change.
Please don't put words in my mouth. I said no such thing.The very same as what, then? This is what I mean. In your hurry to claim that IPCC, Al Gore and "mainstream media but not fox" are participating in the "very same campaign", you are simultaneously saying that there is a campaign that these people can be the "very same" as.
The IPCC, Al Gore and mainstream media are promoting the idea that human greenhouse gas production causes global average surface temperature rise, and, therefore, human action can slow down or stop this temperature rise.
--
/ Per
Michael
> Other possible causes for the warming have been offered and as
> far as I know, there is no other possible explanation for the observed
> warming.
>
Really? How then did the surface temperature rise during the
Medieval Warming period? And numerous times before.
> Sure there is. Adding CO2 most effects the IR emission process at the
> higher levels of the atmosphere and the Stratosphere appears to be
> warming, with the exception previously mentioned over the polar
> regions. If the overall lapse rate remains the same, warming above
> the Tropopause will translate to warming at the surface.
>
Why does the lapse rate result in surface temperature increase? Why
doesn't that extra energy dissipate into space? What has changed to
change the energy balance of the atmosphere/ocean heat sink?
Hayduke
Michael
> Michael,
>
> Where is your evidence that the Medieval Warm Period was as warm as
> the recent past?
>
Recent past? Yesterday? Lat Monday? 1950?
The evidence is in tree rings and the
archaeological/paleontological remains of the people who migrated from
Siberia to Greenland 1,000 years ago, following whales migrating across
the Arctic Ocean.
Hughes, M.K. and H.F. Diaz
<http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/medieval.html>, "Was
there a 'Medieval Warm Period' and if so, when and where?" */Climatic
Change,/* Volume 26, pp. 109-142. 1994.
> Furthermore, if the Greenland Ice Sheet has been melting so strongly
> since the LGM, how come there's still layers of recent ice resting on
> the top in locations such as those used to extract ice cores? Also,
> the rise in sea level after the LGM reached a plateau about 8k yr BP
> during the Holocene Optimum and has remained at roughly the same level
> until the beginning of the Industrial Age. If the Greenland Ice Sheet
> had continued to melt, would not the sea level have continued to rise?
>
It's not melt that's solely important, it's melt and precipitation, among many other factors.
Glaciers are not ice cubes.
Hayduke
Michael
>
This assumption is increasingly questioned by multiple, independent
lines of evidence.
If 15,000 people believe something based on a single assumption, and
that assumption is proven wrong by a single dissenter, the "consensus"
belief is refuted.
"Fantastic doctrines (like Christianity or Islam or Marxism) require
unanimity of belief. One dissenter casts doubt on the creed of millions.
Thus the fear and the hate; thus the torture chamber, the iron stake,
the gallows, the labor camp, the psychiatric ward." Ed Abbey
Hayduke
Per Edman
Again, please don't put words in my mouth. You may not rephrase what I actually say and pretend it is what I said.
There is no scientific verification that anthropogenic CO2 is causing global average surface temperature rise. This is speculation based on correlation, not a demonstrated cause and effect. In fact, the factors influencing climate variability are many and varied. Anthropogenic CO2 production is one of the least influential factors.
While these processes are real, there is no direct cause and effect relationship among them and the observed rise in global average surface temperature.May I ask, where you believe the divergence from science occurs? Is it that carbon dioxide absorbs infra-red radiation that you believe is not science? Or is it that human activities have released carbon dioxide into the atmosphere? Or perhaps it is the volume of gas released into the atmosphere that is not... scientific?
/ Per
Per Edman
Alastair wrote:Why continue these baseless scare tactics? "The Arctic sea ice will be gone"? Forever?
But if you are convinced that there is nothing to fear from global
warming, and that any attempt to itemise the dangers amounts to
alarmism, then it is pointless me continuing this debate. The Arctic
sea ice will be gone soon, and the Greenland ice sheet has begun to
melt. That is an inevitable rise in sea level of 7 m (24 ft) unless we
take action. That will float the Antarctic ice shelves, and a further
rise in sea level. It won't just be the centre of New Orleans below
sea level. London, New York and Melbourne will join it.
Arctic sea ice diminished 1000 years ago during the Medieval Warming Period and allowed the migration of Inuit people from Siberia to Greenland.
Then look what happened! The Greenland ice sheet has been melting for 15,000 years. It's not melt that's solely important, it's melt and precipitation, among many other factors.
--
/ Per
Michael Lewis
>
>
> 2010/1/25 Michael Lewis <hay...@rattlebrain.com
> <mailto:hay...@rattlebrain.com>>
>
> Per Edman wrote:
>
> While it's true that science works by theory, prediction,
> model and verification, it is also true that there is a
> consensus on the mechanics of modern-day climate change.
>
> I disagree. There is only a consensus among some climate
> scientists. I know two personally who are not among the
> "consensus." Therefore, there is no monumental consensus.
>
>
> Consensus does not require unanimity. And I don't believe I used the
> word "monumental",
This is not a quote.
> nor do I mean that the consensus is meaningful in itself. It's the
> other way around: The consensus is the result of a solid theory, not
> the cause of it.
And yet, this "consensus" is used to beat AGW skeptics into line.
>
>
> The IPCC, Al Gore and mainstream media are promoting the idea
> that human greenhouse gas production causes global average surface
> temperature rise, and, therefore, human action can slow down or
> stop this temperature rise.
>
>
> As well as?
I don't understand the reference.
hgerh...@yahoo.co.uk
> going to increase as a result of global warming then more people in
> Haiti will take out house insurance?
Munich Re is a reinsurance company. Their customers are smaller
insurance companies.
> They can't exaggerate the threat if they do not know what it is.
What they can do is to point out that insured losses from major
catastrophes are on a rising trend and will continue to rise and that
this is a good reason for the smaller insurance companies to cough up
some cash, and for nobody else to steal their business.
> But I
> doubt the oil companies think that an increase in taxes will help
> their business.
As long as the main effect of the taxes is to change the relative
economics of coal and natural gas, they'll increase demand for natural
gas and natural gas prices. In addition, oil companies have know-how
relevant for carbon capture and storage, and also know-how related to
second generation biofuels, even more areas to make a profit.
> But if you are convinced that there is nothing to fear from global
> warming, and that any attempt to itemise the dangers amounts to
> alarmism ...
I think Munich Re specifically are alarmist and have a good profit
motive to colour their presentations. The points I am making in this
thread are just:
1. Insurance companies have a profit motive to be alarmist, especially
so reinsurance companies reinsuring major storm and flood damage
2. Munich Re has in fact presented dodgy statistics which are not
supported by the peer reviewed science
3. Oil companies have much less of a profit motive to fund climate
denialism than is often widely assumed
Michael Lewis
> Forever? No no, the ice will most certainly be back before the next
> Milankovic minimum, in 8000 years or so, if not before. If you believe
> the Earth's orbit have a causal relationship to the "so-called"
> ice-ages, that is.
>
>
>
> Arctic sea ice diminished 1000 years ago during the Medieval
> Warming Period and allowed the migration of Inuit people from
> Siberia to Greenland.
>
>
> Really? How much? Wasn't it easier to migrate across ice than to walk
> across open ocean?
No. The Inuit are sea mammal people. They live on the land. They
followed migrating whales along the ice free ocean. Interesting how the
ice came back long before 8,000 years. What caused that, then?
Per Edman
Per Edman wrote:
nor do I mean that the consensus is meaningful in itself. It's the other way around: The consensus is the result of a solid theory, not the cause of it.
And yet, this "consensus" is used to beat AGW skeptics into line.
The IPCC, Al Gore and mainstream media are promoting the idea
that human greenhouse gas production causes global average surface
temperature rise, and, therefore, human action can slow down or
stop this temperature rise.
As well as?
I don't understand the reference.
--
/ Per
Per Edman
Really? How then did the surface temperature rise during the Medieval Warming period? And numerous times before.
--
/ Per
Per Edman
This assumption is increasingly questioned by multiple, independent lines of evidence.
If 15,000 people believe something based on a single assumption, and that assumption is proven wrong by a single dissenter, the "consensus" belief is refuted.
"Fantastic doctrines (like Christianity or Islam or Marxism) require unanimity of belief. One dissenter casts doubt on the creed of millions. Thus the fear and the hate; thus the torture chamber, the iron stake, the gallows, the labor camp, the psychiatric ward." Ed Abbey
--
/ Per
Per Edman
Recent past? Yesterday? Lat Monday? 1950?
The evidence is in tree rings
and the archaeological/paleontological remains of the people who migrated from Siberia to Greenland 1,000 years ago, following whales migrating across the Arctic Ocean.
--
/ Per
Eric Swanson
Igor Samoylenko
> This assumption is increasingly questioned by multiple, independent lines of evidence.
> If 15,000 people believe something based on a single assumption, and that assumption is proven wrong by a single dissenter, the "consensus" belief is refuted.
Michael Lewis
> 2010/1/25 Michael Lewis <hay...@rattlebrain.com
> <mailto:hay...@rattlebrain.com>>
>
>
>
>
> I say there's a consensus on antropogenic global warming. You say
> there are one or two scientists who are not a part of the consensus. I
> (we) respond that consensus is not unanimity. Now you're upset that
> the fact of a scientific consensus is used to viciously harass, attack
> and defile denialists. Shifty, aren't you?
Please don't deign to tell me what I am or am not. I am not upset. I
am the only one here who gets to say that.
Notice the quotes around the word consensus. Does that suggest
something?
>
> > "Indeed, and that's the way it works for climate alarmists as well."
>
> As well as who, Michael? The very same as who?
Yes, climate alarmists use the very same propaganda tactics that the
author is accusing climate denialists of using.
Michael Lewis
> 2010/1/25 Michael <hay...@rattlebrain.com
> <mailto:hay...@rattlebrain.com>>
interpretation of these data yield conclusions. And no, the Medieval
Warming Period was not limited to the North Atlantic. As I stated
earlier I documented it in tree rings from Alaska and Siberia, and in
the archaeological record of those who migrated from Siberia to
Greenland during this period. My data are included in the climate record
of the past 2500 years.
Michael Lewis
>
> This assumption is increasingly questioned by multiple,
> independent lines of evidence.
>
>
> Such as?
>
>
> If 15,000 people believe something based on a single assumption,
> and that assumption is proven wrong by a single dissenter, the
> "consensus" belief is refuted.
>
>
> Yes, falsification.
>
>
>
> "Fantastic doctrines (like Christianity or Islam or Marxism)
> require unanimity of belief. One dissenter casts doubt on the
> creed of millions. Thus the fear and the hate; thus the torture
> chamber, the iron stake, the gallows, the labor camp, the
> psychiatric ward." Ed Abbey
>
>
> I would have preferred a scientific, sourced example rather than
Fortunately, one's personal preferences do not apply here.
Alastair
wrote:
> I think Munich Re specifically are alarmist and have a good profit
> motive to colour their presentations. The points I am making in this
> thread are just:
It is obvious to me that you think that any warnings about the dangers
of global warming are alarmist, but those beliefs, no matter how
strongly held, are not based on objective evidence.
> 1. Insurance companies have a profit motive to be alarmist, especially
> so reinsurance companies reinsuring major storm and flood damage
I don't take out insurance on the basis of the likelihood of damage,
nor on its degree. For instance, if there is a local burglar
operating in the area, I do not "up" the insurance in my theft
policy. As I explained it is the insurance companies who have most to
lose if the effects of global warming are catastrophic.
> 2. Munich Re has in fact presented dodgy statistics which are not
> supported by the peer reviewed science
Unlike your other two points which are purely opinion, here you could
produce evidence of dodgy statistsics. That you haven't makes me
suspicious that the dodginess is just your opinion yet again.
> 3. Oil companies have much less of a profit motive to fund climate
> denialism than is often widely assumed
How much do you believe "is often widely assumed"? This is just hand-
waving.
If you want to be taken seriously provide some evidence of dodgy
statistics and alarmism from the insurance companies. Then I will be
able to decide whether or not you are just another apologiser for big
business and their anti-AGW denialism.
Cheers, Alastair.
Phil Hays
> Per Edman wrote:
> > 2010/1/25 Michael <hay...@rattlebrain.com
> > <mailto:hay...@rattlebrain.com>>
> >
> > This assumption is increasingly questioned by multiple,
> > independent lines of evidence.
> >
> >
> > Such as?
Such as?
Per Edman
2010/1/25 Michael Lewis <hay...@rattlebrain.com <mailto:hay...@rattlebrain.com>>
Please don't deign to tell me what I am or am not. I am not upset. I am the only one here who gets to say that.
Notice the quotes around the word consensus. Does that suggest something?
Yes, climate alarmists use the very same propaganda tactics that the author is accusing climate denialists of using.> "Indeed, and that's the way it works for climate alarmists as well."
As well as who, Michael? The very same as who?
--
/ Per
Per Edman
2010/1/25 Michael <hay...@rattlebrain.com <mailto:hay...@rattlebrain.com>>
Depends on which times you mean. Proxy data and historical records seems to indicate the MWP was limited to the north Atlantic or at least not globally synchronous. As requested earlier, if you have any more specific information about your claim, feel free to share it.
Proxy climate data and historical records indicate nothing. Human interpretation of these data yield conclusions.
/ Per
Per Edman
2010/1/25 Michael <hay...@rattlebrain.com <mailto:hay...@rattlebrain.com>>
"Fantastic doctrines (like Christianity or Islam or Marxism)
require unanimity of belief. One dissenter casts doubt on the
creed of millions. Thus the fear and the hate; thus the torture
chamber, the iron stake, the gallows, the labor camp, the
psychiatric ward." Ed Abbey
I would have preferred a scientific, sourced example rather than thinly-veiled *ALARMISM* about labor camps and torture chambers.
Fortunately, one's personal preferences do not apply here.
/ Per
Michael Lewis
> I'd like to hear where you (or these un-named climate scientists) break
> with the consensus.
>
> Do you think that energy is conserved?
> Do you think that CO2's spectrum has been measured incorrectly?
> Or is there something wrong in the physics of radiation?
> Or in the accounting of human added CO2 in the atmosphere?
>
> Or ... what?
>
It's "what."
The problem is not climate denialists against climate alarmists.
The problem is that non-linear, chaotic complex adaptive systems are
being analyzed and interpreted as linear systems.
The linear interpretation says, "If you push something hard enough,
it will fall over."
The non-linear, chaotic complex adaptive system replies, "If you
push something hard enough, it may fall over, or it may fall toward you,
or it may sprout wings and fly away, or it may sit there and politely
ignore you."
Complex adaptive systems are unpredictable. Therefore linear
mathematical models can never predict complex adaptive systems reactions
to specific input. The further down the timeline one attempts
predictions, the farther off they will be.
We can't predict glacier melting 200 years downstream because we
can't know if present trends will continue. We could be just as easily
in the next glacial advance in 200 years. After all, it WILL start
sometime. From the look of past patterns, glacial advance follow abrupt
warming, then cooling.
Who can say?
Hayduke
Hayduke Blogs
http://hayduke2000.blogspot.com/
Eric Swanson
> The problem is not climate denialists against climate alarmists.
That's correct, if one is strictly interested in science. So, why do
you repeatedly refer to "alarmist" as if they were the same as the
group who are scientists? Al Gore is not a scientist. Scientists
don't have millions of dollars to spend on PR campaigns and to engage
in politics.
> The problem is that non-linear, chaotic complex adaptive systems are
> being analyzed and interpreted as linear systems.
I don't know where you got those ideas. Especially the adaptive part
as it relates to climate. No one I know of has suggested that the
Stefan-Boltzmann equation was linear. Nor is the amount of water
vapor in the atmosphere a linear function of temperature. The
spectral emission lines experience pressure broadening which changes
as a function of altitude. The amount of energy in a moving fluid
increases with the cube of the velocity. Where is the linearity?
> The linear interpretation says, "If you push something hard enough,
> it will fall over."
>
> The non-linear, chaotic complex adaptive system replies, "If you
> push something hard enough, it may fall over, or it may fall toward you,
> or it may sprout wings and fly away, or it may sit there and politely
> ignore you."
That there are likely to be discontinuities within the overall system
is rather obvious, given the known changes switching from glacial to
inter-glacial conditions. Evidence points to a switch in the process
which drives the Thermohaline Circulation as one example.
> Complex adaptive systems are unpredictable. Therefore linear
> mathematical models can never predict complex adaptive systems reactions
> to specific input. The further down the timeline one attempts
> predictions, the farther off they will be.
That's why the experiments with models involve using the same model as
the control and the experimental change. That lessens the impacts of
the differences between the model and reality. In any event, the time
line is also impacted by the fact that the future rate of emissions is
an unknown. That's the reason that the model experiments have all
used the same set of emission scenarios over time, which removes that
unknown from the problem. Sensitivity experiments have been performed
by varying different parameters to ascertain the impacts of the
models' basic assumptions, which cover the expected range of those
parameters.
> We can't predict glacier melting 200 years downstream because we
> can't know if present trends will continue. We could be just as easily
> in the next glacial advance in 200 years. After all, it WILL start
> sometime. From the look of past patterns, glacial advance follow abrupt
> warming, then cooling.
I think it's obvious that what humanity does to the Earth will be
superimposed on the natural changes which might eventually cause the
return of glacial conditions for another 100,000 years. Humanity has
already had considerable impact on the natural world, having changed
his environment for thousands of years, which is another area of
active research. To assume that the a repeat of the forces which
started the last period of Ice Age conditions will of necessity result
in another Ice Age if now repeated is another unknown, as mankind's
impacts may have precluded the start of that next round of glacier
growth. Or, it may be that what we do could result in the start of
another Ice Age, even though the latest models do not make this
projection. I think it's possible that the Thermohaline Circulation
is changing and this may result in one of those "tipping points",
i.e., a threshold event, which would change the Earth's weather in
ways human civilization has never experienced.
If you think climate is so chaotic that the future can not be
predicted, then, tell us why you would want to take the risk inherent
in changing the basic optical parameters of the atmosphere?
E. S.
---
Per Edman
The problem is that non-linear, chaotic complex adaptive systems are being analyzed and interpreted as linear systems.
The linear interpretation says, "If you push something hard enough, it will fall over."
The non-linear, chaotic complex adaptive system replies, "If you push something hard enough, it may fall over, or it may fall toward you, or it may sprout wings and fly away, or it may sit there and politely ignore you."
Complex adaptive systems are unpredictable.
We can't predict glacier melting 200 years downstream because we can't know if present trends will continue.
/ Per
Per Edman
Do you think that energy is conserved?
Do you think that CO2's spectrum has been measured incorrectly?
Or is there something wrong in the physics of radiation?
Or in the accounting of human added CO2 in the atmosphere?
--
/ Per
Phil Hays
> Phil Hays wrote:
> > I'd like to hear where you (or these un-named climate scientists) break
> > with the consensus.
> >
> > Do you think that energy is conserved?
> > Do you think that CO2's spectrum has been measured incorrectly?
> > Or is there something wrong in the physics of radiation?
> > Or in the accounting of human added CO2 in the atmosphere?
> >
> > Or ... what?
> >
> Complex adaptive systems are unpredictable. Therefore linear
> mathematical models can never predict complex adaptive systems reactions
> to specific input. The further down the timeline one attempts
> predictions, the farther off they will be.
So then a small input like a little change in CO2 level or in the
distribution of sunlight due to orbit change would not correlate with
the climate over a long time interval. Is this a fair statement of your
position? If not, please restate it.
--
Phil Hays <phil...@ieee.org>
Michael Lewis
>> Complex adaptive systems are unpredictable. Therefore linear
>> mathematical models can never predict complex adaptive systems reactions
>> to specific input. The further down the timeline one attempts
>> predictions, the farther off they will be.
>>
>
> So then a small input like a little change in CO2 level or in the
> distribution of sunlight due to orbit change would not correlate with
> the climate over a long time interval. Is this a fair statement of your
> position? If not, please restate it.
>
... a small input like a little change in CO2 level or in the
distribution of sunlight due to orbit change may or may not correlate with
the climate over a long time interval.
Hayduke
Michael Lewis
> why do
> you repeatedly refer to "alarmist" as if they were the same as the
> group who are scientists?
I don't refer to "alarmist" as if they were the same as the group
who are scientists. Alarmists, such as the IPCC and Al Gore, are
alarmists. Scientists are scientists.
> Al Gore is not a scientist. Scientists
> don't have millions of dollars to spend on PR campaigns and to engage
> in politics.
>
No, but the agencies and corporations they work for do.
> I don't know where you got those ideas. Especially the adaptive part
> as it relates to climate.
Atmospheric systems tend to homogeneity.
> No one I know of has suggested that the
> Stefan-Boltzmann equation was linear. Nor is the amount of water
> vapor in the atmosphere a linear function of temperature. The
> spectral emission lines experience pressure broadening which changes
> as a function of altitude. The amount of energy in a moving fluid
> increases with the cube of the velocity. Where is the linearity?
>
Linearity is in the minds of politicians, policy administrators, the
press and the public.
> To assume that the a repeat of the forces which
> started the last period of Ice Age conditions will of necessity result
> in another Ice Age if now repeated is another unknown, as mankind's
> impacts may have precluded the start of that next round of glacier
> growth.
May have, or may not have. Mankind's impacts are minuscule compared
to the vast global and cosmic forces which have acted on the Earth over
millennia. We do know that the Earth has shifted into glacial advance
four times in the past 500,000 years. Is there any reason to think the
pattern will not continue? It looks pretty consistent so far, and ripe
for a shift.
> Or, it may be that what we do could result in the start of
> another Ice Age, even though the latest models do not make this
> projection. I think it's possible that the Thermohaline Circulation
> is changing and this may result in one of those "tipping points",
> i.e., a threshold event, which would change the Earth's weather in
> ways human civilization has never experienced.
>
> If you think climate is so chaotic that the future can not be
> predicted, then, tell us why you would want to take the risk inherent
> in changing the basic optical parameters of the atmosphere?
>
I'm not taking any risk. I see no reason to think that human
activity is changing the basic optical parameters of the atmosphere, any
more than past natural processes have changed the basic optical
parameters of the atmosphere.
Michael
Eric Swanson
> Eric Swanson wrote:
> > why do
> > you repeatedly refer to "alarmist" as if they were the same as the
> > group who are scientists?
>
> I don't refer to "alarmist" as if they were the same as the group
> who are scientists. Alarmists, such as the IPCC and Al Gore, are
> alarmists. Scientists are scientists.
The IPCC has a large group of scientists which include many of the
same people that write the reports referenced. Have you read the 4th
assessment, Working Group 1? The authors are the leaders in the field
of climate science .
> > Al Gore is not a scientist. Scientists
> > don't have millions of dollars to spend on PR campaigns and to engage
> > in politics.
>
> No, but the agencies and corporations they work for do.
Most of the scientists work for either governments or in
universities. Universities don't spend millions on PR campaigns and
nor does the NSF .
Got any proof that the scientific community is spending money at a
rate near that of the denialist camp?
> > I don't know where you got those ideas. Especially the adaptive part
> > as it relates to climate.
>
> Atmospheric systems tend to homogeneity.
While true, it's not an "adaptive" response, it's an inanimate balance
of forces. Learn some physics.
> > No one I know of has suggested that the
> > Stefan-Boltzmann equation was linear. Nor is the amount of water
> > vapor in the atmosphere a linear function of temperature. The
> > spectral emission lines experience pressure broadening which changes
> > as a function of altitude. The amount of energy in a moving fluid
> > increases with the cube of the velocity. Where is the linearity?
>
> Linearity is in the minds of politicians, policy administrators, the
> press and the public.
We are talking science here, are we not? The political mess comes
after the scientist have had their say.
> > To assume that the a repeat of the forces which
> > started the last period of Ice Age conditions will of necessity result
> > in another Ice Age if now repeated is another unknown, as mankind's
> > impacts may have precluded the start of that next round of glacier
> > growth.
>
> May have, or may not have. Mankind's impacts are minuscule compared
> to the vast global and cosmic forces which have acted on the Earth over
> millennia. We do know that the Earth has shifted into glacial advance
> four times in the past 500,000 years. Is there any reason to think the
> pattern will not continue? It looks pretty consistent so far, and ripe
> for a shift.
Mankind's impacts were great enough to remove most of the large
megafauna from the Earth, especially in North America and that
occurred thousands of years ago. The resulting changes in the North
American ecosystems would also have impacted climate.
The repeated series of Ice Ages/Interglacials is thought to be due to
rather small changes in the distribution of solar energy, compounded
by changes in the atmospheric optical properties. Is there any reason
to think that these processes will be repeated? Yes and the latest
estimate of the driving forces suggests the Ice Ages won't return for
thousands of years. That is, the net impact of natural forcing won't
repeat for that long a period.
> > Or, it may be that what we do could result in the start of
> > another Ice Age, even though the latest models do not make this
> > projection. I think it's possible that the Thermohaline Circulation
> > is changing and this may result in one of those "tipping points",
> > i.e., a threshold event, which would change the Earth's weather in
> > ways human civilization has never experienced.
>
> > If you think climate is so chaotic that the future can not be
> > predicted, then, tell us why you would want to take the risk inherent
> > in changing the basic optical parameters of the atmosphere?
>
> I'm not taking any risk. I see no reason to think that human
> activity is changing the basic optical parameters of the atmosphere, any
> more than past natural processes have changed the basic optical
> parameters of the atmosphere.
Your response again suggests you have no clue about the physics
involved. Your reply ignores the finding that the recent rise in
atmospheric CO2 is larger than any period since the beginning of the
present period of glacial/interglacial climate. I suggest that you
should learn some science before you spout off and demonstrate your
ignorance.
E. S.
Michael Lewis
> Your response again suggests you have no clue about the physics
> involved. Your reply ignores the finding that the recent rise in
> atmospheric CO2 is larger than any period since the beginning of the
> present period of glacial/interglacial climate. I suggest that you
> should learn some science before you spout off and demonstrate your
> ignorance.
>
This is the argument of a petulent child.
Hayduke
Per Edman
We are talking science here, are we not? The political mess comes
after the scientist have had their say.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Global Change ("globalchange") newsgroup. Global Change is a public, moderated venue for discussion of science, technology, economics and policy dimensions of global environmental change.
Posts will be admitted to the list if and only if any moderator finds the submission to be constructive and/or interesting, on topic, and not gratuitously rude.
To post to this group, send email to global...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to globalchange...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange
--
/ Per
Eric Swanson
Oooh, I'm so hurt. I think I'll throw a tantrum.
But first, Mr. Lewis, please tell us about the basic physics of energy
flows thru the atmosphere. Don't you agree that the optical
properties of the atmosphere govern this process? Perhaps you aren't
aware of the fact that the entire problem of global warming rests on
the changes to those optical properties. As the saying goes, if you
can't take the heat, don't go into the kitchen.
E. S.
---
Alastair
> Your response again suggests you have no clue about the physics
> involved. Your reply ignores the finding that the recent rise in
> atmospheric CO2 is larger than any period since the beginning of the
> present period of glacial/interglacial climate. I suggest that you
> should learn some science before you spout off and demonstrate your
> ignorance.
Yes, but he refuses not only to read the science but also to watch it.
I have already suggested he watch this presentation which begins with
the science, but he refused claiming that he had already read another
paper by Oreskes.
The American Denial of Global Warming
http://www.uctv.tv/search-details.aspx?showID=13459
If he is going to bury his head in the sand there is no point arguing
with him. He won't be able to hear you :-))
Cheers, Alastair.
>
> E. S.
Phil Hays
> Phil Hays wrote
In other words, you refuse to answer the question. You are so sure that
there will be no correlation between human CO2 releases and future
climate, but still refuse to state an opinion as to if past CO2 levels
and/or the subtle changes in heat patterns from orbital changes
correlate with past climates over long periods of time.
http://www.es.ucsc.edu/~rcoe/eart206/Hays_OrbitPacemaker_Science76.pdf
http://www.daycreek.com/dc/images/1999.pdf
If past forcing (CO2 and orbital changes) is correlated with climate,
why will future climate not be correlated with forcing (human release of
CO2)?
--
Phil Hays <phil...@ieee.org>
Michael A. Lewis
> Yes, but he refuses not only to read the science but also to watch it.
>
> I have already suggested he watch this presentation which begins with
> the science, but he refused claiming that he had already read another
> paper by Oreskes.
> The American Denial of Global Warming
> http://www.uctv.tv/search-details.aspx?showID=13459
>
> If he is going to bury his head in the sand there is no point arguing
> with him. He won't be able to hear you :-))
Sandbox bullies on discussion lists always resort to this type of
character assassination, rather than discussion of issues. It's
interesting to see this buddy-buddy relationship displayed here.
Climate change dissent prompts emotional responses everywhere, as it
challenges the status quo of perpetual economic growth, "sustainable"
development, and the clique of scientific respectability.
Uncritical acceptance and promotion of fantastic doctrines, such as
"irreversible climate change," adds credence to an otherwise dodgy
viewpoint. The global warming band wagon has been under construction
for thirty years. Finally, many are discovery it has no wheels.
Hayduke
Michael A. Lewis
>> > So then a small input like a little change in CO2 level or in the
>> > distribution of sunlight due to orbit change would not correlate with
>> > the climate over a long time interval. Is this a fair statement of
>> > your position? If not, please restate it.
>>
>> ... a small input like a little change in CO2 level or in the
>> distribution of sunlight due to orbit change may or may not correlate
>> with the climate over a long time interval.
> In other words, you refuse to answer the question.
The paragraph above was my answer.
> You are so sure that
> there will be no correlation between human CO2 releases and future
> climate, but still refuse to state an opinion as to if past CO2 levels
> and/or the subtle changes in heat patterns from orbital changes
> correlate with past climates over long periods of time.
I am not so prescient as to claim such surety based on our inexact
understanding of climate variability.
> If past forcing (CO2 and orbital changes) is correlated with climate,
> why will future climate not be correlated with forcing (human release of
> CO2)?
Correlation does not explain process or direction. If you are asking
me if an increase in atmospheric CO2 will always correlate with an
increase in average surface temperature, I would answer: no. If you
are asking if small changes in initial conditions will correlate with
larger climate outcomes, I would answer: sometimes.
We simply do not understand the complex interacting atmospheric and
cosmic mechanisms resulting in climate change, and, I submit, we
cannot fully understand them and predict specific outcomes.
Hayduke
Michael A. Lewis
>> Mankind's impacts were great enough to remove most of the large
>> megafauna from the Earth, especially in North America and that
>> occurred thousands of years ago. The resulting changes in the North
>> American ecosystems would also have impacted climate.
This is not definitively demonstrated. Some megafauna may have been
hunted to extinction. Others clearly were not. The evidence is
contradictory.
>> The repeated series of Ice Ages/Interglacials is thought to be due to
>> rather small changes in the distribution of solar energy, compounded
>> by changes in the atmospheric optical properties. Is there any reason
>> to think that these processes will be repeated? Yes and the latest
>> estimate of the driving forces suggests the Ice Ages won't return for
>> thousands of years. That is, the net impact of natural forcing won't
>> repeat for that long a period.
"Thought." "suggest."
In other words, we don't know.
>> > > Or, it may be that what we do could result in the start of
>> > > another Ice Age, even though the latest models do not make this
>> > > projection. I think it's possible that the Thermohaline
>> Circulation
>> > > is changing and this may result in one of those "tipping points",
>> > > i.e., a threshold event, which would change the Earth's weather in
>> > > ways human civilization has never experienced.
Anything is possible. What is the evidence to support the proposition
that the Thermohaline Circulation is changing; in reality, not in
mathematical models?
I'm not asking that the evidence be trotted out here. I'm curious if
this is a "thought" or a conclusion based on observation.
>> Your response again suggests you have no clue about the physics
>> involved. Your reply ignores the finding that the recent rise in
>> atmospheric CO2 is larger than any period since the beginning of the
>> present period of glacial/interglacial climate. I suggest that you
>> should learn some science before you spout off and demonstrate your
>> ignorance.
The nastiness of this response suggests a lack of trust in the science.
In fact, it is difficult to determine with any accuracy the
"largeness" of atmospheric CO2 variation over the past 500,000 years.
One cannot say with any certainty that CO2 levels were less or more
than present.
Furthermore, such a correlation is meaningless as there is no
established cause and effect relationship between atmospheric CO2
levels and average surface temperature. The fact in isolation that CO2
absorbs IR energy says nothing about "global warming," as other
chaotic factors involved in climate variability far outweigh the
effects of CO2.
This is what I mean by a narrow linear view of climate change: more
CO2 = higher surface temperatures. This is demonstrably untrue,
therefore this simplistic appeal to popular emotion has no merit.
hayduke
Eric Swanson
the >> marks.
Michael A. Lewis wrote:
> On Wed, 27 January, 2010 8:14 am, Per Edman wrote:
>
> >> The repeated series of Ice Ages/Interglacials is thought to be due to
> >> rather small changes in the distribution of solar energy, compounded
> >> by changes in the atmospheric optical properties. Is there any reason
> >> to think that these processes will be repeated? Yes and the latest
> >> estimate of the driving forces suggests the Ice Ages won't return for
> >> thousands of years. That is, the net impact of natural forcing won't
> >> repeat for that long a period.
>
> "Thought." "suggest."
>
> In other words, we don't know.
Perhaps I should have said "the preponderance of the evidence tells us
that"...
> >> > > Or, it may be that what we do could result in the start of
> >> > > another Ice Age, even though the latest models do not make this
> >> > > projection. I think it's possible that the Thermohaline
> >> Circulation
> >> > > is changing and this may result in one of those "tipping points",
> >> > > i.e., a threshold event, which would change the Earth's weather in
> >> > > ways human civilization has never experienced.
>
> Anything is possible. What is the evidence to support the proposition
> that the Thermohaline Circulation is changing; in reality, not in
> mathematical models?
No, "anything" that violates the laws of physics must be considered
not possible until it's been shown to happen and thus the laws of
physics must undergo a revision. As for the THC, there is a large
program which is intended to monitor the AMOC and early reports
indicate some variation has been noticed. Go read the literature, I'm
not going to do your homework for you.
> I'm not asking that the evidence be trotted out here. I'm curious if
> this is a "thought" or a conclusion based on observation.
Yes, there is evidence that is now visible for the last 3 winters.
> >> Your response again suggests you have no clue about the physics
> >> involved. Your reply ignores the finding that the recent rise in
> >> atmospheric CO2 is larger than any period since the beginning of the
> >> present period of glacial/interglacial climate. I suggest that you
> >> should learn some science before you spout off and demonstrate your
> >> ignorance.
>
> The nastiness of this response suggests a lack of trust in the science.
What does that have to do with your lack of understanding of the
physics involved with the problem of Global Warming. Perhaps you
haven't bothered to study the problem, which was first analyzed more
than 100 years ago.
> In fact, it is difficult to determine with any accuracy the
> "largeness" of atmospheric CO2 variation over the past 500,000 years.
> One cannot say with any certainty that CO2 levels were less or more
> than present.
You doubt the measurements of atmospheric gases from the ice cores in
the Antarctic?
> Furthermore, such a correlation is meaningless as there is no
> established cause and effect relationship between atmospheric CO2
> levels and average surface temperature. The fact in isolation that CO2
> absorbs IR energy says nothing about "global warming," as other
> chaotic factors involved in climate variability far outweigh the
> effects of CO2.
Fine words. The effect of increasing CO2 in air can be measured in
the lab. Do you doubt the results of those efforts? Are you saying
that the whole of the study of atmospheric sciences is incorrect?
> This is what I mean by a narrow linear view of climate change: more
> CO2 = higher surface temperatures. This is demonstrably untrue,
> therefore this simplistic appeal to popular emotion has no merit.
I think the claim is that increasing CO2 will result in global average
temperatures increasing. Stress the word "global" here, as some areas
may cool. If the claim that increasing CO2 will result in higher
temperatures is untrue, then you should have no trouble providing hard
proof of that statement. If such exists, I expect that it would be
widely understood and there would not be any discussion possible. We
are awaiting a demonstration of your deep understanding of the
science, like, maybe, a reference to some definitive publication?.
E. S
---
Per Edman
--
/ Per
Per Edman
>> Your response again suggests you have no clue about the physics
>> involved. Your reply ignores the finding that the recent rise in
>> atmospheric CO2 is larger than any period since the beginning of the
>> present period of glacial/interglacial climate. I suggest that you
>> should learn some science before you spout off and demonstrate your
>> ignorance.
The nastiness of this response suggests a lack of trust in the science.
Furthermore, such a correlation is meaningless as there is no
established cause and effect relationship between atmospheric CO2
levels and average surface temperature. The fact in isolation that CO2
absorbs IR energy says nothing about "global warming," as other
chaotic factors involved in climate variability far outweigh the
effects of CO2.
--
/ Per
Per Edman
Rather than cry about how wicked it is to point out that you do not seem to grasp the physics involved, you could easily have chosen that you do understand it. Your choice is answer enough.
--
/ Per
Phil Hays
> On Wed, 27 January, 2010 9:40 am, Phil Hays wrote:
>
> >> > So then a small input like a little change in CO2 level or in the
> >> > distribution of sunlight due to orbit change would not correlate with
> >> > the climate over a long time interval. Is this a fair statement of
> >> > your position? If not, please restate it.
>
> >>
> >> ... a small input like a little change in CO2 level or in the
> >> distribution of sunlight due to orbit change may or may not correlate
> >> with the climate over a long time interval.
>
> > In other words, you refuse to answer the question.
>
> The paragraph above was my answer.
A refusal to answer is an answer. Fair enough.
> > If past forcing (CO2 and orbital changes) is correlated with climate,
> > why will future climate not be correlated with forcing (human release of
> > CO2)?
>
> Correlation does not explain process or direction.
Of course. Do show an alternative process where by climate causes
orbital variations. This would require you to show how Newton's laws of
motion, corrected by Einstein for relativistic effects, are wrong. Or
perhaps you have some different alternative explanation.
--
Phil Hays <phil...@ieee.org>
Michael A. Lewis
Ta for the noo.
Eric Swanson
I just leaned of Richard Alley's lecture. I don't know if anyone can
view it or not.
http://www.agu.org/meetings/fm09/lectures/lecture_videos/A23A.shtml
You might find it interesting. He is rather energetic...
E. S.
------------------------------
Tom Adams
On Jan 24, 12:31 pm, "hgerhau...@yahoo.co.uk" <hgerhau...@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:
> > The insurance industry has most to lose if they are not!
>
> Insurance companies make money by scaring their customers and
> competitors. What matters is not whether there are few or many
> hurricanes. What matters is that the customers and competitors are
> scared into believing damage will be high, so that customers will pay
> high insurance premiums and competitors will shy away from
> undercutting you. Then, as it turns out that the actual damage is low,
> you make tons of money.
Actually insurance companies make money by arranging to have a utility
function that is differs from their customers.
Customers (except maybe for a few confused ones like you) expect to
get a
negative return on the premiums they pay. The are willing to give the
insurance company that positive return in order avoid financial risks.
It is not necessary that the customers overestimate the risk.
hgerh...@yahoo.co.uk
> function that is differs from their customers.
>
> Customers (except maybe for a few confused ones like you) expect to
> get a
> negative return on the premiums they pay. The are willing to give the
> insurance company that positive return in order avoid financial risks.
> It is not necessary that the customers overestimate the risk.
This is not at all in contradiction to what I wrote. Insurance
companies of course can make money with everybody properly assessing
risks, and as they've got administrative costs, the average return for
customers must be negative.
However, insurance companies can make more money, if competitors and
customers overestimate the risks, because otherwise competition drives
insurance rates down close to what is justified based on real risks +
administrative costs + return on capital employed demanded by the
marginal investor.
On the other hand, more hurricanes or more crime does not reduce
insurance company profits. Far from it, if there's hardly any burglary
in a country say, insurance companies are likely to make fewer profits
than in a country with lots of burglaries. After all, with no risks to
insure, there is no reason to buy insurance.
Besides, it's a very specific type of insurance company that we are
discussing in this thread, and it's not health insurance or car
insurance or property insurance to individual customers; it's rather
the handful of big reinsurance companies, and most notably Munich Re.
Munich Re would like people to believe they are threatened by a rise
in weather related disasters. That's rubbish. It would be true, if
insurance rates were fixed, and the number of customers paying these
rates were fixed also, but disaster related damage was note. If this
was so, then Munich Re's profit would be a direct function of disaster
related damaged and their business would get squeezed into bankruptcy
by rising payouts.
In truth they've got a very strong profit motive to exagerate damage
trends.
DanJ
qualified to write about PR. How hard it that to understand, really?
This is carefully explained in the book, and on all the website
material about the book. He is not writing about climate science per
se. In case you are not clear on that, here it is again: Hoggan is
not writing about climate science.
On Jan 23, 10:38 am, Michael Lewis <hayd...@rattlebrain.com> wrote:
> Eric Swanson wrote:
> > Here's an article presenting an interview with James Hoggan about the
> > methods used by the denialist camp to discredit the science of Global
> > Warming.
>
> >http://knowledge.allianz.com/en/globalissues/climate_change/global_wa...
>
> > The author also has written a book on the subject, "Climate Cover Up"
> > for those who want more detailed information. Add this to the list of
> > other the books on the situation, such as Chris Mooney's, "The
> > Republican War on Science".
>
> Whoa! Who's interest is being served here? Hoggon is not a climate
> scientist, knows only what he's been told, is the CEO of PR firm and his
> book is being pimped by an insurance company!
>
> A bit of perspective from the web site:
>
> About Allianz Knowledge
>
> Allianz Knowledge focuses on Climate Change, Energy, Microfinance,
> Demographic Change, and Safety & Health. These topics are vital to our
> business and to our world.
>
> Allianz groups is one of the largest financial service providers in the
> world. It offers its customers tailer-made solutions in the fields of
> property and causality insurance, life and health insurance, asset
> management and banking.
>
> Hoggan is a shill for the Big Business As Usual Lobby. Has he "register like lobbyists" as he demands the "deniers" do?
>
> Hayduke
>
> --
> Hayduke Blogshttp://hayduke2000.blogspot.com/