[fugl]

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/...,3167677.story

[MJB]

Originally Posted by fugl

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/...,3167677.story

That chat shows on which Muller used to appear as a climate sceptic are already claiming that Muller has been 'bought' and that he never really was a sceptic; the vitriol is in full flow. Out of curiosity, I checked out quite a number of sites that argue from the 'climate change conspiracy' point of view; it won't surprise you to know that not one took issue with Muller's revised views from the science aspect, but proceeded in ad hominem fashion, with bar-room sneers, or outright screaming hysteria (the last in particular by Rush Limbaugh, whose visceral hatred of rational discussion seems to have a pretty strong following). I note James Delingpole's response predictably takes the same approach, but without the Limbaugh veneer.
MJB

[John Cantelo]

Rush Limbaugh is one of the most odious of the many anti-science Republican cheer leaders so it's hardly surprising that he's taken this line. James Delingpole may seem more respectable, but his slippery response to Prof Paul Nurse in a recent TV programme shows that he's cut from similar cloth. Anti-science views increasingly dominate politics in America (anti-evolution, anti-climate change, etc). We're not a lot better given the dearth of politicians with a scientific back ground and the numbers willing to support alternative "medicine" and other crackpot ideas. Prince Charles being notorious in this respect too,

[fugl]

Odius is definitely the mot juste when it comes to Mr. Limbaugh. On the other hand, he makes no effort at all to disguise the utter contempt with which he views his followers & he deserves a little credit for that.

Question: What's the difference between Rush Limbaugh & the Von Hindenburg?
Answer: One's a Nazi blimp, the other's a dirigible.

[etudiant]

Originally Posted by fugl

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/...,3167677.story

Not sure that Dr Muller would qualify as a 'denier', based on his public statements from a decade back. However, his conclusions follow from his data. How good that is is another question.
The best summary of the climate issue imho was given by the science advisor to US President Johnson, who said " the climate is an angry beast, we should not poke at it with sharp sticks". He was referring to the ice core evidence that the climate shifted from benign to ice age almost instantaneously, faster than the ice cores could resolve and used that fact to argue that we should not be screwing around with our atmosphere or our habitat.
I thought that was much more honest science than Dr Jones, of UEA, the UK based climate data depository, telling a fellow scientist 'why should I give you my data? You'll just try to find something wrong with it.' That is not the behaviour of a credible researcher, but his institution has endorsed it, so their conclusions are equally suspect, at least to me.

[John Cantelo]

Originally Posted by fugl

Odius is definitely the mot juste when it comes to Mr. Limbaugh. On the other hand, he makes no effort at all to disguise the utter contempt with which he views his followers & he deserves a little credit for that.

Question: What's the difference between Rush Limbaugh & the Von Hindenburg?
Answer: One's a Nazi blimp, the other's a dirigible.

[fugl]

Originally Posted by John Cantelo

Anti-science views increasing dominate politics in America (anti-evolution, anti-climate change, etc).

Indeed. Take a look at this beauty, for example, who has a more than negligible chance of becoming the next vice president of the United States.

http://www.slate.com/articles/health..._problem_.html

Angels & ministers of grace defend us!

[speckled wood]

The critital thing that will derail the the climate change deniars wil ironically be not the effects of our overcomsumption of oil on the climate but the simple fact that the cost of fuel even to low taxed american users will become very expensive. Elsewhere there are already debates arising where it is argued that making engines much more much fuel efficient is more important than reducing emmissions.

Of interest is that Ford in Europe have just introduced two versions of the ford Focus that use highly turbocharged 1 litre engines, that are designed to match the performance of 1.6 litre engines but use less fuel.

[John Cantelo]

Originally Posted by fugl

Indeed. Take a look at this beauty, for example, who has a more than negligible chance of becoming the next vice president of the United States.

http://www.slate.com/articles/health..._problem_.html

Angels & ministers of grace defend us!

Depressing reading, but thanks for the link.

I always find it ironic and darkly amusing that those that most fervently reject the science of evolution are the same people who most warmly embrace Social Darwinism.

[Brian Stone]

I think we should employ the Infinite Monkey Cage approach and deny science sceptics a voice over any technology that relies on science (internet, radio, tv, etc.). Henceforth all communication from them must be made via angels, cloud formations or telepathy.

[MJB]

Originally Posted by fugl

Indeed. Take a look at this beauty, for example, who has a more than negligible chance of becoming the next vice president of the United States. http://www.slate.com/articles/health..._problem_.html Angels & ministers of grace defend us!

Is my summary, that BJ supports a political definition of what is permitted in science education, thus widens the definition of 'politically correct'?
MJB

[chris butterworth]

Originally Posted by Brian Stone

I think we should employ the Infinite Monkey Cage approach and deny science sceptics a voice over any technology that relies on science (internet, radio, tv, etc.). Henceforth all communication from them must be made via angels, cloud formations or telepathy.

........ or, as now, through hoots and gibberings that would be more suited to being uttered while sitting halfway up a tree. I'm opposed to euthanasia, except with informed consent, but couldn't their parents have slipped while giving them a bath or something.

chris

[Squonk]

For those BFers who are less easily led, here are two professional climate scientists, plus one of the designated reviewers of one of Muller's recent papers, on the newspaper article which started this thread off.

http://judithcurry.com/2012/07/30/ob...d-attribution/

http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.co...e-trends-by-w/

http://www.rossmckitrick.com/

[John Cantelo]

Muller has described himself as a skeptic. To hear the man himself log onto http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#48409332 for his interview with Rachel Maddow,

[John Cantelo]

Originally Posted by Squonk

For those BFers who are less easily led, here are two professional climate scientists, plus one of the designated reviewers of one of Muller's recent papers, on the newspaper article which started this thread off.
[/url]

May I suggest that by being insulting, albeit mildly so, about BFers who hold a different view is hardly going to win anyone over. By a wide margin the majority of climate scientists accept global warming as being a reality. Are you suggesting that they are all 'easily led' too?

[MJB]

Originally Posted by Squonk

For those BFers who are less easily led, here are two professional climate scientists, plus one of the designated reviewers of one of Muller's recent papers, on the newspaper article which started this thread off.

http://judithcurry.com/2012/07/30/ob...d-attribution/

http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.co...e-trends-by-w/

http://www.rossmckitrick.com/

Originally Posted by Squonk

For those BFers who are less easily led, here are two professional climate scientists, plus one of the designated reviewers of one of Muller's recent papers, on the newspaper article which started this thread off. http://judithcurry.com/2012/07/30/ob...d-attribution/ http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.co...e-trends-by-w/ http://www.rossmckitrick.com/

Judith Curry has indeed been a co-author with Muller on previous papers, and has consistently argued a different interpretation on climate change issues for a long time. However, a number of her criticisms in recent years (easily found on the Web) have been re-examined by others in light of evidence documented since here original position. A number of scientists have posed questions about her conclusions as a consequence, and have offered to discuss ther concerns face to face or privately.

As always on this theme, issues have been clouded by personal feelings, mostly from people (on both sides of this specific debate) who lack expertise and background on the subject, but feel that their opinion, often on single points in a very complex subject, is as valid as the next person's, no matter how knowledgeable and informed that the next person might be. Shouting about a single point is very much an anti-science debate characteristic. It's notable that quite a long list of respected scientists in climatology and allied fields (eg physics, biological specialisations, mathematics) who initially were of the opinion that human-induced climate change was not a major factor have since changed their opinions. Quite a few hung on to their initial view by concentrating on one particular aspect, but the weight of evidence (in thousands of peer-reviewed papers) told.

Having read many papers over the years and having followed the debate as well, it seems to me that Judith Curry finds herself in this position of concentrating on those parts of the picture that are fuzziest, but assigning to them a major likelihood of these parts including major controlling factors that will explain why Anthropogenic Global Warming is a non-event. Now, she could be right, but mainstream scientific thinking is that the range of controlling factors already considered, their interactions (though imperfectly undersood) and the continuing avalanche of results across numerous scientific disciplines are providing results that are consistent enough to provide a framework of robust context. Judith Curry has so far declined to debate a number of aspects in her work (which at the time it was carried out, raised a number points that were worth further investigation).

It's the nature of science that conclusions must be tested, and if these conclusions remain robust after testing, time and time again, then these conclusions are probably the foundation of a sound theory (theory in the scientific sense, not as in the disparaging phrase, "It's only a theory"). I think that Judith Curry may now be in the position of trying to stick with her conclusions through thick and thin, an understandable and human reaction if you've spent years working on research. That frequently happens - even Richard Feynman spent some five years in what turned out to be a blind alley of mathematics before abandoning it and moving on to other things - he described the feeling as like being bereaved!

Until recently, Pielke (father and son) were touted on the Heartland Institute website as expert advisers. The Heartland Institute, which was strident and contemptuous of dozens of respected scientists, was funded in part secretly by pollluting industries, and has now been discredited and essentially has collapsed. Now both Pielkes have distanced themselves from the Heartland Institute and have esablished their own websites, one of which is cited above. However, note the heavy use of underlining in it, not something that occurs on any standard science-based website; note too, the hectoring tone, and thirdly note that a number of co-authors listed in the older papers have refused further cooperation with Pielke Sr since the Heartland fiasco.

Ross McKitrick has written often on climate change, and certainly is a sceptic. However, I'm sure he would never describe himself as a climate scientist. He is an economist with a background in mathematics and statistics, a professor at Guelph University. He has authored or co-authored several papers on the mathematical and statistical methodology in climate-related research, and so has a view that is worth respect. He disputes the views of others who disagree with him, but who work in the same general field. The methodology he attacks in the Muller paper has been supported elsewhere, but clarity on this particular aspect will takesome time to achieve. However, quoting him verbatim from a recent paper:
"So our conclusion is that a valid explanatory model of the pattern of climate change over land requires use of both socioeconomic indicators and GCM processes. The failure to include the socioeconomic factors in empirical work may be biasing analysis of the magnitude and causes of observed climate trends since 1979."
This suggests that there are other factors that might (or might not) influence mainstream climate change opinions. Most mainstream scientists I would guess are sceptical, not of that claim, but of its likely significant effect on the overall picture, but would support any re-examination of data to prove or disprove the point.

My present take on Squonk's cited references are that they may well have some value, but that whatever transpires from subsequent analysis of their content, little of significance will emerge. Muller, as a personality, is not a shy and retiring academic, but the vitriol from people with whom he has worked doesn't help.

I've met quite a few people whose research has produced data in this subject or who have worked in climatology. Their concern and worry lies squarely with the mounting evidence - because their children's future looks so bleak, they have scoured their field of expertise to try to find anything that the research results would indicate that AGW is not a real threat. If any such data are found, they would be the first to say so.

My concern lies with what the human race is doing to the bottom 3 miles (5000 metres) of the atmosphere. Above that level, few could survive for long, but it is what is happening in the upper levels that drives our survival prospects.
MJB

[chris butterworth]

Originally Posted by MJB

the foundation of a sound theory (theory in the scientific sense, not as in the disparaging phrase, "It's only a theory")

This, I have found, is a major stumbling block for the 'validity' of many pseudo-scientific arguments ( and the basal argument in 'Creationism' if you think about it ). The fact that scientific theory stands or falls on the merits of the observable ( and scientifically repeatable ) evidence for and against the theory is overshadowed by the vernacular "It's only one (or more ) scientists viewpoint. I think differently". To be honest, I can't really think of how we can overcome this, apart from "Education, education, education".

Chris

[Squonk]

Originally Posted by John Cantelo

May I suggest that by being insulting, albeit mildly so, about BFers who hold a different view is hardly going to win anyone over. By a wide margin the majority of climate scientists accept global warming as being a reality. Are you suggesting that they are all 'easily led' too?

John,
yes, it was mildly insulting, compared to the use of terms like "denier" and "crackpot".

And in this debate you need to be more careful about what you mean by "accept global warming". Do you mean "are certain that human CO2 emissions are causing catastrophic global warming"? That the majority of climate scientists hold this position is something you also need to be sceptical about.

[John Cantelo]

Originally Posted by Squonk

John,
yes, it was mildly insulting, compared to the use of terms like "denier" and "crackpot".

And in this debate you need to be more careful about what you mean by "accept global warming". Do you mean "are certain that human CO2 emissions are causing catastrophic global warming"? That the majority of climate scientists hold this position is something you also need to be sceptical about.

I used the term 'crackpot' in reference to alternative medicine and a general (not specific) complaint about politicians without scientific background rather than climate change. I should have been more careful to make this clear. The term 'denier' is widely used in the is context as a short hand term for those who "in denial" about the weight of evidence suggesting climate change is 'real'. It didn't (and doesn't) seem insulting to me, but if so I happily apologise. You comment re "easily led" struck me as more specific (being aimed at people here) and somewhat insulting, but perhaps I'm guilty of being as thin skinned as I appear to have been too casual in my wording.

[Squonk]

Originally Posted by John Cantelo

"in denial" about the weight of evidence

Apology accepted, but your rephrasing above is also inaccurate and insulting (but you don't need to make another apology ).

Originally Posted by John Cantelo

climate change is 'real'

Like "accept global warming" this is a very vague phrase which bears little resemblance to sceptic concerns. Again, I urge the educated readers of BF who are interested in this topic to read 'the Hockey Stick Illusion'. If this was a £30 tome I would understand (and support) the reluctance, but we are talking about a paperback costing less than £10. And for those who now have the voice in their heads (familiar to me) "I'm buying into crackpot conspiracy theories", I will remind you of the endorsements of all of the scientists I listed on the other thread.

There is something else I would like to say here, directed towards readers who are reluctant to enter the blogosphere, where much of this debate is taking place. This is that endorsement of a blog and its author do not constitute an endorsement of all of the comments and commenters which may appear there. Finding what appears to be a 'crackpot' or 'conspiracy theory' comment under a post does not imply that the blog author is of that mind.

[John Cantelo]

Originally Posted by Squonk

Apology accepted, but your rephrasing above is also inaccurate and insulting (but you don't need to make another apology ).



Like "accept global warming" this is a very vague phrase which bears little resemblance to sceptic concerns. Again, I urge the educated readers of BF who are interested in this topic to read 'the Hockey Stick Illusion'. If this was a £30 tome I would understand (and support) the reluctance, but we are talking about a paperback costing less than £10. And for those who now have the voice in their heads (familiar to me) "I'm buying into crackpot conspiracy theories", I will remind you of the endorsements of all of the scientists I listed on the other thread.

There is something else I would like to say here, directed towards readers who are reluctant to enter the blogosphere, where much of this debate is taking place. This is that endorsement of a blog and its author do not constitute an endorsement of all of the comments and commenters which may appear there. Finding what appears to be a 'crackpot' or 'conspiracy theory' comment under a post does not imply that the blog author is of that mind.

I wonder what "uneducated readers" - which seems to mean anyone who has a different view from 'Squonk' on .... well, I'm not not quite sure what term for global warming/climate change is acceptable here .... are supposed to do. Of course, I am sorry that my evidendently clumsy use of words and ".." was insufficiently careful guard against the charge of being insulting. It wasn't intentional and my apology was genuine. I evidently have as much as a talent for rubbing 'Squonk' up the wrong way as he has for doing likewise to me. Still, at least I attempted an apology and tried, unsuccessfully it seems, not to be insulting. I must do better next time.

With regard to the book 'The Hockey Stick Illusion' I gather the thesis explored therein is hotly disputed and itself subject of rebuttal. Certainly I doubt that the good professor, who is the subject of this thread, was unaware of it and did not take the views thus expressed into consideration.

[Minto]

Originally Posted by MJB

Judith Curry has indeed been a co-author with Muller on previous papers, and has consistently argued a different interpretation on climate change issues for a long time. However, a number of her criticisms in recent years (easily found on the Web) have been re-examined by others in light of evidence documented since here original position. A number of scientists have posed questions about her conclusions as a consequence, and have offered to discuss ther concerns face to face or privately.

As always on this theme, issues have been clouded by personal feelings, mostly from people (on both sides of this specific debate) who lack expertise and background on the subject, but feel that their opinion, often on single points in a very complex subject, is as valid as the next person's, no matter how knowledgeable and informed that the next person might be. Shouting about a single point is very much an anti-science debate characteristic. It's notable that quite a long list of respected scientists in climatology and allied fields (eg physics, biological specialisations, mathematics) who initially were of the opinion that human-induced climate change was not a major factor have since changed their opinions. Quite a few hung on to their initial view by concentrating on one particular aspect, but the weight of evidence (in thousands of peer-reviewed papers) told.

Having read many papers over the years and having followed the debate as well, it seems to me that Judith Curry finds herself in this position of concentrating on those parts of the picture that are fuzziest, but assigning to them a major likelihood of these parts including major controlling factors that will explain why Anthropogenic Global Warming is a non-event. Now, she could be right, but mainstream scientific thinking is that the range of controlling factors already considered, their interactions (though imperfectly undersood) and the continuing avalanche of results across numerous scientific disciplines are providing results that are consistent enough to provide a framework of robust context. Judith Curry has so far declined to debate a number of aspects in her work (which at the time it was carried out, raised a number points that were worth further investigation).

It's the nature of science that conclusions must be tested, and if these conclusions remain robust after testing, time and time again, then these conclusions are probably the foundation of a sound theory (theory in the scientific sense, not as in the disparaging phrase, "It's only a theory"). I think that Judith Curry may now be in the position of trying to stick with her conclusions through thick and thin, an understandable and human reaction if you've spent years working on research. That frequently happens - even Richard Feynman spent some five years in what turned out to be a blind alley of mathematics before abandoning it and moving on to other things - he described the feeling as like being bereaved!

Until recently, Pielke (father and son) were touted on the Heartland Institute website as expert advisers. The Heartland Institute, which was strident and contemptuous of dozens of respected scientists, was funded in part secretly by pollluting industries, and has now been discredited and essentially has collapsed. Now both Pielkes have distanced themselves from the Heartland Institute and have esablished their own websites, one of which is cited above. However, note the heavy use of underlining in it, not something that occurs on any standard science-based website; note too, the hectoring tone, and thirdly note that a number of co-authors listed in the older papers have refused further cooperation with Pielke Sr since the Heartland fiasco.

Ross McKitrick has written often on climate change, and certainly is a sceptic. However, I'm sure he would never describe himself as a climate scientist. He is an economist with a background in mathematics and statistics, a professor at Guelph University. He has authored or co-authored several papers on the mathematical and statistical methodology in climate-related research, and so has a view that is worth respect. He disputes the views of others who disagree with him, but who work in the same general field. The methodology he attacks in the Muller paper has been supported elsewhere, but clarity on this particular aspect will takesome time to achieve. However, quoting him verbatim from a recent paper:
"So our conclusion is that a valid explanatory model of the pattern of climate change over land requires use of both socioeconomic indicators and GCM processes. The failure to include the socioeconomic factors in empirical work may be biasing analysis of the magnitude and causes of observed climate trends since 1979."
This suggests that there are other factors that might (or might not) influence mainstream climate change opinions. Most mainstream scientists I would guess are sceptical, not of that claim, but of its likely significant effect on the overall picture, but would support any re-examination of data to prove or disprove the point.

My present take on Squonk's cited references are that they may well have some value, but that whatever transpires from subsequent analysis of their content, little of significance will emerge. Muller, as a personality, is not a shy and retiring academic, but the vitriol from people with whom he has worked doesn't help.

I've met quite a few people whose research has produced data in this subject or who have worked in climatology. Their concern and worry lies squarely with the mounting evidence - because their children's future looks so bleak, they have scoured their field of expertise to try to find anything that the research results would indicate that AGW is not a real threat. If any such data are found, they would be the first to say so.

My concern lies with what the human race is doing to the bottom 3 miles (5000 metres) of the atmosphere. Above that level, few could survive for long, but it is what is happening in the upper levels that drives our survival prospects.
MJB

Its all political, control that's what it's always been about. The models predicted certain outcomes , unfortunately reality has been somewhat different. How hard do they look for data that would indicate AGW isn't real, not very hard I would think as their funding would go down the drain

[Minto]

Originally Posted by John Cantelo

May I suggest that by being insulting, albeit mildly so, about BFers who hold a different view is hardly going to win anyone over. By a wide margin the majority of climate scientists accept global warming as being a reality. Are you suggesting that they are all 'easily led' too?

Yes they are easily led , by the money. Why hasn't the planet warmed as the models predicted?

[Minto]

Originally Posted by John Cantelo

With regard to the book 'The Hockey Stick Illusion' I gather the thesis explored therein is hotly disputed and itself subject of rebuttal. Certainly I doubt that the good professor, who is the subject of this thread, was unaware of it and did not take the views thus expressed into consideration.

As has Michaels Manns original work

[TwoDipsfromAmsterdam]

Originally Posted by Minto

Yes they are easily led , by the money. Why hasn't the planet warmed as the models predicted?

Talking about being easily led by the money, have a read of this to see where the deniers' money is coming from:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...cal-funding-us

David