Home > Economics - General, Environment > Support John Abraham

Support John Abraham

July 20th, 2010
Potty peer Christopher Monckton has stepped up his campaign to shut down John Abraham’s debunking of one of his talks last year, by asking supporters to flood Abraham’s university with emails demanding it start a disciplinary inquiry.

I can only endorse this comment on Monckton and the lunacy of a world in which someone like this is taken seriously.

Posted via email from John’s posterous

Update I thought Posterous would include the link automagically but apparently not. Here’s Garth Renowden’s site where you can support Abraham and/or bag Monckton.

Categories: Economics - General, Environment Tags:
  1. mid
    July 20th, 2010 at 14:06 | #1

    I still can’t understand how people can support this man when you notice the tactics he uses are nothing to do with refuting John Abrahams arguments, but instead harassing him in the hope that he backs down. Way to prove your point Monckton.

  2. Tony G
    July 20th, 2010 at 14:17 | #2

    JQ said
    “the lunacy of a world in which someone like this is taken seriously.”

    That comment would fit Mann & Jones and their hiding the decline; and hiding the spliced and diced data etc…

    Jones, Mann and the other co-conspirators in the warming fraud have been found out, they have admitted themselves that they can not and will not release ALL their temperature reconstruction workings and data for a proper peer review; so get over it and move on. The warming is a fraud, so lets call it climate change.[sic]

    http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/387/38705.htm

    @52

    ” Graham Stringer: You are saying that every paper that you have produced, the computer programmes, the weather stations, all the information, the codes, have been available to scientists so that they could test out how good your work was. Is that the case on all the papers you have produced?

    Professor Jones: That is NOT the case.

    Graham Stringer: Why is it not?

    Professor Jones: Because it has not been standard practice to do that.

    Graham Stringer: That takes me back to the original point, that if it is not standard practice how can the science progress?

    Professor Jones: Maybe IT SHOULD be standard practice but it is not standard practice across the subject. ”

    AGW temperature reconstructs after all their splicing and dicing hide the ‘real decline.

    AGW is a fraud.

    @ 47
    “we are all working independently so we may be using a lot of common data but the way of going from the raw data to a derived product of gridded temperatures and then the average for the hemisphere and the globe is totally independent between the different groups.”
    Bullshi#!
    Are you still saying collusion between the 3 proxy temperature reconstructors did not happen?

    “the lunacy of a world in which people” like Jones and Mann are taken seriously is incomprehensible.

  3. Ken Lovell
    July 20th, 2010 at 15:08 | #3

    The Republicans called Monckton as an expert witness before a Congressional committee. The English-speaking world is truly experiencing an epistemological crisis.

  4. cbp
    July 20th, 2010 at 15:10 | #4

    @Tony G

    Sigh…

  5. Mobius Ecko
    July 20th, 2010 at 15:22 | #5

    The lunacy of the world where someone can’t ascertain the facts and the truth of a matter, though the whole in context story has been freely available for some time is incomprehensible, but here in this thread we have proof of it.

    Repeating cbp, sigh…

  6. Fran Barlow
    July 20th, 2010 at 15:56 | #6

    @Mobius Ecko

    It’s not that they can’t ascertain the facts. It is that they either won’t, or can’t bring themselves to utter them. There is a difference.

    What we are seeing above in TonyG’s all too familiar exceusion into cognitive dissonance is the manifestation of a particular cultural paradigm (socio-spatial angst, misanthropy) rather than a flawed attempt at summarising observable reality. This is written plainly for his own comfort rather than the enlightenment of others.

    In many respects, Tony’s action is similar to someone with OCD. People afflicted by this frequently repeat actions they know to be superfluous, merely because it makes them feel safe — and in control. Tony knows he is wrong and doing what he does makes him appear foolish, but the thought that he is wrong so disturbs him that he must repeatedly utter his mantra to feel calm.

    As a human being, I do feel genuinely sorry for him. Nobody should have to live like that.

  7. paul walter
    July 20th, 2010 at 16:26 | #7

    In recollection of how this has gone on in the USA as well, the most notable victims recently have been Finkelstein and Mearsheimer and Waltz, for challenging the Leon Uris/airport fiction account of middle eastern politics

  8. gregh
    July 20th, 2010 at 16:50 | #8

    “As a human being, I do feel genuinely sorry for him. Nobody should have to live like that.”

    classic insult Fran right up there with “Now, I do not ask you to understand these tests. I’m not a cruel man.” from Twin Peaks

  9. Fran Barlow
    July 20th, 2010 at 17:10 | #9

    @gregh

    It wasn’t intended as an insult. It was an attempt at compassion. Angst and misanthropy present as ugly, but one should retain compassion for those suffering from it and recall that as offensive as they may seem, they have to live like that every waking moment. To be so perpetually unhappy in one’s own skin is surely something nobody should endure.

    I am not being the least bit snide. I really do feel sorry for him. I wish I could ease his pain or refer him to someone who might.

  10. Tony G
    July 20th, 2010 at 17:26 | #10

    Lets stick to the facts, we know people around here are left with no other debating tactic, except to attack me, only because the grant seekers, Manns’ and Jones’ temperature reconstructions are indefensible and fraudulent.

    Only a microscopic percentage of the globe has a weather station on it and only a few of those stations have a reasonable time line of unadulterated data; so when Mann and Jones manipulate that data to manufacture a product of gridded temperatures, they should release it for the world to see so it can be independently peer reviewed.

    Mann and Jones have admitted in their own words above that they don’t and won’t release all their data on the temperature reconstructions, so their theory that the temperature is rising, is not peered review science, anybody making that claim is a fraudster.

  11. cbp
    July 20th, 2010 at 17:45 | #11

    @Tony G

    No one’s attacking you.

    Most of the commenters here have already been around-the-block hundreds of times over the past years with misunderstandings of those such as yours. We’ve heard this stuff all before and it doesn’t hold up to the slightest scrutiny.

    Take your ideas back to 2004 and maybe someone will care.

  12. paul walter
    July 20th, 2010 at 18:43 | #12

    Fran , you know its always “groundhog day”with them- no”memory”.
    Therefore I applaud your sincere expressions of sympathy. For those of us with half a brain or better, burdened with the temptation to take for granted something as simple as being able to think, its good to see an examplar of what the lack of “wherewithal” can mean.

  13. Ernestine Gross
    July 20th, 2010 at 19:57 | #13

    “Monckton’s response to John Abraham is magnificently bonkers.”

    Headline in The Guardian, cited in http://www.minnpost.com/nextdegree/2010/07/19/19810/st_thomas_prof_john_abraham_in_royal_smackdown_with_global-warming_denier_christopher_monckton

    According to the above article, Professor Abraham’s university has sent Monckton a message via their lawyers – back off or else.

    Good.

  14. JennieL
    July 20th, 2010 at 21:08 | #14

    In case anyone isn’t already aware of this, Gareth Renowden at Hot Topic is collecting expressions of support for John Abraham here.

  15. snuh
    July 21st, 2010 at 09:25 | #15

    Mann and Jones have admitted in their own words above that they don’t and won’t release all their data on the temperature reconstructions, so their theory that the temperature is rising, is not peered review science, anybody making that claim is a fraudster.

    i have no idea if the charge that mann and jones won’t release all their data is true, and if it is true, that it is abnormal in any way, but granting your premises, wouldn’t it obviously be the case that their failure to do so is because of lunatics like monckton?

    i for one am very pleased that monckton is de facto head of opposition to action on global warming. he’s so comically unhinged that everything he says and does makes people who agree with him look bad. if, like tony g, i believed that global warming was a big conspiracy theory, then i would also have to believe that monckton is in on the conspiracy, such is his effectiveness in discrediting those who agree with him.

  16. Gaz
    July 21st, 2010 at 14:26 | #16

    Tony G: “Manns’ and Jones’ temperature reconstructions are indefensible and fraudulent…”

    ….but through some remarkable coincidence, they just happen to tell the same story as all those others that aren”t.

    How about that!

    Everyone must be in on the conspiracy except you.

    Don’t forget to turn the lights on before you go to bed.

  17. July 21st, 2010 at 17:21 | #17

    The “Man-made Climate Change” religion had it’s cover blown on the day of the Hadley CRU revelations. The tide went out and the AGW faith was seen to be swimming with no trunks on.
    Some people have invested so much of their intellectual energy into this faith that they cannot stand the loss of face that comes with recognising their error.
    In simpler language, they are now in a state of mind known as “denial”.
    It is one of the stages of grief.
    Sad to see so many people, most of whom are able to pass uni exams & get themselves a degree, unable to cope with having the rug jerked from under something that was, after all, only ever of an abstract interest.

  18. Michael of Summer Hill
    July 21st, 2010 at 18:13 | #18

    John, I’m not sure how to describe someone who falsely claims to have won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007. But it seems Christopher Monckton has lost it.

  19. Ken Miles
    July 21st, 2010 at 18:32 | #19

    i have no idea if the charge that mann and jones won’t release all their data is true, and if it is true, that it is abnormal in any way, but granting your premises, wouldn’t it obviously be the case that their failure to do so is because of lunatics like monckton?

    It isn’t true.

    The “skeptics” constantly demand that they release other peoples data (without even bothering to ask the actual owners for it). It is just a stupid con job to prop up dumb conspiracy theories.

  20. Tony G
    July 22nd, 2010 at 00:51 | #20

    Ken it is true ” mann and jones won’t release all their data”, it is not what the skeptics say, it is the conclusion of the UK parliaments enquiry.

    “It is not standard practice in climate science and many other fields to publish the raw data and the computer code in academic papers. We think that this is problematic because climate science is a matter of global importance and of public interest, and therefore the quality and transparency of the science should be irreproachable. We therefore consider that climate scientists should take steps to make available all the data used to generate their published work, including raw data; and it should also be made clear and referenced where data has been used but, because of commercial or national security reasons is not available. Scientists are also, under Freedom of Information laws and under the rules of normal scientific conduct, entitled to withhold data which is due to be published under the peer-review process.[78] In addition, scientists should take steps to make available in full their methodological workings, including the computer codes. Data and methodological workings should be provided via the internet. There should be enough information published to allow verification.”

    Ken read it for yourself @ 54 here;

    http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/387/38705.htm

    Considering only a few other co conspirators ‘reconstruct’ temperatures and only under the same covert and flawed modus operandi, it is understandable their fiction tallies;

    Anyway, when they show us the temperature manipulations they made to the few thousand existing weather station’s data, and the further temperature manipulations they made to the 10 million odd fictitious weather stations they made up in their grid, then, maybe then, people will start to ‘believe’ it is getting warmer.

  21. Tony G
    July 22nd, 2010 at 01:01 | #21

    Last line should be

    maybe then, people will not need to ‘believe’ it is getting warmer.

  22. paul walter
    July 22nd, 2010 at 03:34 | #22

    It’s a good thing that Prof Quiggin thoughtfully provided his own link for all of this, perhaps more reliable ultimately, than certain alternatives about.
    I feel sorry for some of the naive dupes for big business holding up reform, wanting to continue things on their terms as exemplified by the tobacco cartel last century.

  23. Ernestine Gross
    July 22nd, 2010 at 07:01 | #23

    Tony G, You are off topic. To assist in getting back on topic, taking your posts into account:

    Would you please provide the name of the institution(s) to whom one can write to ask for disciplinary actions to be taken against Christopher Monckton?

    Would you please provide Christopher Monckton’s original data.

    Would you please provide copies of Christopher Monckton’s employment contracts.

    Would you please provide data on the financing of Christopher Monckton’s public speeches.

  24. Tony G
    July 22nd, 2010 at 10:41 | #24

    Ernestine,

    Jones, Mann and the other co-conspirators of the warming fraud have admitted themselves that they can not and will not release ALL the temperature reconstruction workings and data for a proper peer review of their work.

    Putting forward a reconstructed temperature rise as peered reviewed science when it is not, is a fraud. Abraham is promoting this warming fraud, so my assertions are ‘on topic’.

    EG and others, you can attack me or any other conveyor of this message all you like, obviously you can’t attack the message, so I will repeat it ad nauseam until the warming fraudsters come up with some verifiable science to back up your your warming theory…..

    the warming isn’t scientific verified….

    the warming isn’t scientific verified….

    the warming isn’t scientific verified…etc. etc

  25. Michael of Summer Hill
    July 22nd, 2010 at 11:13 | #25

    Ernestine Gross, if you go to the following site you will find useful information on Mockton http://www.spinprofiles.org/index.php/Science_and_Public_Policy_Institute

  26. Ernestine Gross
    July 22nd, 2010 at 14:53 | #26

    @Tony G

    Your reply is not helpful, if I may say. All I have been asking for is information that allows a symmetrical treatment of Monckton.

  27. Ernestine Gross
    July 22nd, 2010 at 15:04 | #27

    @Michael of Summer Hill

    Thanks for the link. I’ve seen more than enough of Monckton. I watched the debate between ‘the lord’ and Dr Lambert. Monckton’s jumps to conclusions and twisting and turning and changes of subjects are still very clear in my head. I am still giggling about Prof. Quiggin’s elegant debunking of ‘the lord’s conspiracy theory: ‘The lord’s’ former boss, Margaret Thatcher, being the ultra left wing (can’t remember whether communist was mentioned) head of the conspiracy. It priceless and beautiful in its brevity. As such the crux of the argument is easy to remember.

  28. July 22nd, 2010 at 16:10 | #28

    The potty professor – Abraham – has been exposed as sloppy and duplicitous. All the original documents are available. I can put all the links here but I think, from the blog rules that would probably evoke the spam filter. Here is part of Lord Monckton’s response to the potty professor -
    do you believe, sincerely, after reading Christopher’s response, there is any justification for the potty professor’s point of view?
    http://cfact.eu/2010/06/04/climate-the-extremists-join-the-debate-at-last/

    i

  29. Ernestine Gross
    July 22nd, 2010 at 16:34 | #29

    “The Prince of Wales has launched a stinging attack on “climate sceptics”, deriding them for peddling “pseudo science”.

    In a speech to world business leaders at a climate change seminar Charles criticised the group for apparently intimidating people from “adopting the precautionary measures necessary to avert environmental collapse”.”

    End of quote from Geoff Brown’s web-site.

    Well, the good lord Monckton should pay due respect to his superior on the hierarchy relevant to him.

  30. July 22nd, 2010 at 17:34 | #30

    @Ernestine Gross
    G’day Ernestine, thanks for visiting my site. Did you also note the quote from the Prince who wanted to be a tampon swirling down a toilet – “.I have endlessly been accused of peddling pseudo science, in one way or another, for most of my life…” and he is an advocate for the failed hypothesis of anthropogenic Global Warming …. oh, sorry, now that the warming has stalled, you lot call it Climate change, don’t you. Why don’t you mention now that you think it is man-made climate change?

  31. Ernestine Gross
    July 22nd, 2010 at 18:24 | #31

    @Geoff Brown

    You are off topic.

  32. July 22nd, 2010 at 18:37 | #32

    @Ernestine Gross
    G’day Ernestine,

    The topic was support the potty professor Abraham. Abraham wrote an attack on Christopher Monckton. Abraham’s diatribe was found to be less than accurate. John Quiggin’s post was anti the good Lord. Your post was possibly off topic but since you introduced my site (off topic) my remarks must become “on topic.”

  33. Ernestine Gross
    July 22nd, 2010 at 19:36 | #33

    @Geoff Brown

    I say the potty peer, Christopher Monckton, should take note of the advice given by his superior in the aristrocratic hierarchy, the Prince of Wales, (as stated on your blog and quoted @29). Christopher Monckton has no standing at all in the hierarchy where Professor John Abraham took the trouble of debunking Monckton’s verbal output. This is on topic of the thread owned by Professor Quiggin and not by you or me.

  34. July 22nd, 2010 at 20:18 | #34

    Correct

    @Ernestine Gross

    Have you at least had the grace to read – monckton-abraham-monckton? Or are you so blind as to not look at opposing views? The potty professor – Abraham – as you say – “took the trouble of debunking Monckton’s verbal output..” but, regrettably, used misquotes and graphs not used by the brilliant Lord Monckton. That is why I gave a link to Lord Monckton’s correction to the potty professor Abraham’s diatribe. If you have any balance of opinion, read Lord Monckton’s reply, go back to Prof Abraham’s flawed diatribe, go back to Lord Monckton’s original address, and, if you have any ability to reason, you will see why;

    a) potty prof was way off beam;
    b) Lord Monckton destroyed the potty prof’s argument.

    Thanks for the opportunity to enlighten you.

  35. July 22nd, 2010 at 20:32 | #35

    @Geoff Brown

    ‘Thanks for the opportunity to enlighten you.’

    My God, how condescending does that remark sounds?

    Are you serious, Geoff Brown?

    Sorry, John, Ernestine et al – I should correct that last remark – “Thanks for the opportunity to enlighten you” – to ,”Thanks for allowing me to let you see the full story.”

    Sorry, gang!!

  36. Ernestine Gross
    July 22nd, 2010 at 20:41 | #36

    @Geoff Brown

    Well, it didn’t work out as you had apparently planned – I got a quote from your blog instead of clicking on your link. I agree with your line 1 @34.

    Good bye.

  37. July 22nd, 2010 at 20:56 | #37

    @Ernestine Gross

    “Good bye.” Well, Ern. does that means that you are now convinced? Excellent.

    For the others, here’s the link that Ms Gross must have clicked on:

    http://cfact.eu/2010/06/04/climate-the-extremists-join-the-debate-a

  38. Ernestine Gross
    July 22nd, 2010 at 22:35 | #38

    You wish, Geoff Brown.

    You are a student of Christopher Monckton, I can see that. However, you have a long way to go. Christopher Monckton openened his talk, which is the subject of Professor Abraham’s rebuttal, with a line to the effect: ‘After this (flattering) introduction I look forward hearig what I have to say’. He is brilliant – as an entertainer.

  39. Alice
    July 22nd, 2010 at 22:51 | #39

    Prof has a major problem since this blog re-opened…it has attracted a whole lot of new trolls with new names and same tired mindless lines…its as if the Prof is on Catllyxs most wanted list…only its like shooting tin ducks here.

    One down and another pops up with a new name.
    They come. They go. They sound the same. Rehearsed emptiness.

    Could anyone be seriously defending Monkton here?

  40. Ken Miles
    July 23rd, 2010 at 00:05 | #40

    Tony G, unsurprising you are wrong. Neither Jones nor Mann generate significant quantities of primary data, rather they use other peoples. If you want the primary data – go to the source.

    Anyway, when they show us the temperature manipulations they made to the few thousand existing weather station’s data, and the further temperature manipulations they made to the 10 million odd fictitious weather stations they made up in their grid, then, maybe then, people will start to ‘believe’ it is getting warmer.

    Luckily, The Goddard Institute of Space Studies gives you everything you want (not that you’ll bother to read it). Here are links to the station data, the source code of the programs used to analysise it and here are the scientific papers describing the analysis. What else do you need?

  41. snuh
    July 23rd, 2010 at 09:52 | #41

    Abraham’s diatribe was found to be less than accurate.

    yeah oddly enough i’m not going to take your word for this, especially given the weaselish way your word is put. found by whom? in what respect? was he being straightforward dishonesty or did he merely make an inadvertant slip? and so forth.

  42. Dave McRae
    July 23rd, 2010 at 13:14 | #42

    Tony G, Geoff Brown, SATP – the Mann thing was covered by Roy Spencer at the Heartland Institute – his satellite data and Mann’s data coincide thus there’s no fudging/error unless Spencer’s doing it too.

    But that’s not what I want to post – this post never escapes moderation at ‘skeptic’ sites, and I’m trying to get a volunteer to disprove AGW at it’s very source.. post as follows:


    I’ve read a few posts about CO2 not being able to interact with infra-red energy in this thread and some others on this site.

    I have been asking for volunteers, but no luck so far, to disprove that assertion that CO2 can absorb/emit energy, or is any way active in the infra-red. If we can disprove CO2 is IR active then we’ve killed the AGW thing dead. If a skeptic is willing to put a finger on the line for science, we can do this.

    I’m sure I could organise a local to you university or industry that has a CO2 laser, a local TV crew or 2, and with a televised personal injury waiver, televise the attempt to cut off your finger with the CO2 laser. When the invisible beam of nothing fails, AGW will be shown to be a hoax .. on camera.

    I lack the guts to do it myself. I’ve seen and have used CO2 lasers to do some serious burning and if it’s a trick by those scientists as part of their global domination plan, I can’t work out how it’s pulled off.

    More info at http://galahs.blogspot.com/2010/04/carbon-dioxide-laser.html

  43. Tony G
    July 24th, 2010 at 23:14 | #43

    Very funny Ken @ 40, the data is used to construct temperature anomalies, not ‘a global average surface temperature’. Maybe when they can work out how to calculate a global average surface temperature correctly, then they might be able to work out anomalies from it.

    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/sources/gistemp.html

    So Ken point me to a peered reviewed ‘global average surface temperature’.

  44. Ernestine Gross
    July 25th, 2010 at 00:08 | #44

    @Tony G

    Why don’t you start a campaign against the accounting professtion with the aim of having all financial accounts declared invalid on the grounds that from the perspective of a trader in financial securities the relevant time interval for monetary transactions is, say 5 minutes and it is not legitimate to do what accountants do, namely aggregating (adding up) monetary values of transactions that occur at unknown specific time intervals during an entire year and, moreover, aggregating monetary values that overlap even one year and, furthermore, aggretating values that are not even based on a transaction at all.

    Such a campaign should keep you busy for the rest of your life.

  45. jquiggin
    July 25th, 2010 at 05:58 | #45

    It’s obviously pointless to argue with Tony G, but after #43, it would be interesting to know if there is any absurdity produced by delusionism (or for that matter any talking point produced by the political right) that is too absurd for him to swallow and regurgitate. Over to you, Tony.

  46. Tony G
    July 25th, 2010 at 08:40 | #46

    “Physical, mathematical and observational grounds are employed to show that there is no physically meaningful global temperature for the Earth in the context of the issue of global warming. While it is always possible to construct statistics for any given set of local temperature data, an infinite range of such statistics is mathematically permissible if physical principles provide no explicit basis for choosing among them. Distinct and equally valid statistical rules can and do show opposite trends when applied to the results of computations from physical models and real data in the atmosphere. A given temperature field can be interpreted as both “warming” and “cooling” simultaneously, making the concept of warming in the context of the issue of global warming physically ill-posed. ”

    http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/globaltemp/globaltemp.html

  47. Michael of Summer Hill
    July 25th, 2010 at 09:23 | #47

    Tony G, in a recent National Research Council (US) report found’…stabilizing atmospheric concentrations does not mean that temperatures will stabilize immediately. Warming that occurs in response to a given increase in the CO2 concentration is only about half the total warming that will ultimately occur. For example, if the CO2 concentration stabilizes at 550 ppmv, the Earth would warm about 1.6 C on the way to that level; but even after the CO2 level stabilizes, the warming would continue to grow in the following decades and centuries, reaching a best-estimate global “equilibrium” warming of about 3 C (5.4 F)’. Hopefully this will help you understand what is fact and what is fiction.

  48. July 25th, 2010 at 10:32 | #48

    Perhaps PrQ given that:

    It’s obviously pointless to argue with Tony G, but after #43, it would be interesting to know if there is any absurdity produced by delusionism

    You ought to make a ruling in similar terms for advocacy of climate delusionism as you have for that other technology. For the next five years, in the absence of new and plausible evidence that impugns the integrity of either the IPCC-consensus position on the anthropogenetic etiology of the post industrial climate anomaly, or the professional integrity of the scientists and researchers associated with it, that this site will not entertain posts that rely for their force on claims to that effect.

  49. Ernestine Gross
    July 25th, 2010 at 11:11 | #49

    @Tony G

    What on earth do you think I am going to do with your quote? I am not going to conclude anything.

    But I want to reach a conclusion on what you conclude. For this purpose I have a few questions arising from the paper your referenced.

    Tell me, which situation could be discribed as a ‘disjoint temperature systems’:
    i) the temperature within two fully functioning aircraft on route from Sydney to any location you want?
    ii) the temperature in each of several rooms within a house that has one gas heater operating and a semi open floor plan?
    iii) the temperature measured 50 cm from each side of a fence separating two properties (A and B) each consisting of a 2 storey wooden house with a footprint of 200m2 built on approximately 1000 m2 land, where the house in property A is on fire.

    Did the authors of the paper from which you quote consider ‘locally disjoint temperature systems’ ?

  50. Jim Rose
    July 25th, 2010 at 11:43 | #50

    @jquiggin
    Anyone who doubts that it has got warmer than in the past should be asked to view paintings and other evidence of the River Thames frozen sold in the winters before the end of the little ice age in the 1850s.

    Global temperatures can change rapidly by up to 6 or 7 degree in a few decades such half a dozen times as the last ice age ended from about 15,000 BC. These last of these was in 9800 BC or so. Such tumultuous events are far greater global threats than gradual warming or cooling. A new ice age is too.

    In the past, the science of climate change was robust enough to admit it got the sign wrong.
    • In the 1970s, the prediction was global cooling.
    • The prediction is now global warming.

    I have never seen a story on how this change of mind actually happened.

    Scientific revolutions are common as Thomas Kuhn has shown, and the physical sciences are based on experiments – on conjecture and refutation with data.

    Scientific truth is always provisional in the sciences paradoxically labelled the hard sciences, and grows through explaining new or novel facts.

    Karl Popper’s three maxims of good science always apply, which are test, test, test! A willingness to challenge what your believe demarks science from non-science.

    The test of your status as a genuine participant in a scientific discourse is to be able to answer the question posed by Karl Popper: what evidence will make you give up your position?

    An environment where people throw around labels like denier and alarmist is not conducive for scientists to either change their mind or decide they were still right in the first place.

    Such unpleasantness encourages many to choose other careers or different sub-fields of study. John Abraham may have these doubts in the the back of his mind by now.

    I have always wonder whether the estimated welfare effects of global warming change if there no human signature – human activity is not the leading cause, but the world is still warming just as before.

  51. jquiggin
    July 25th, 2010 at 12:27 | #51

    “In the 1970s, the prediction was global cooling.”

    Wrong, wrong, wrong. If you are falling for bogus claims like this, you really need to accept that your knowledge of this topic is effectively zero (or maybe less). For this particular error, see

    http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11643-climate-myths-they-predicted-global-cooling-in-the-1970s.html

    Then, as you say, apply Popper to your apparent hypothesis “stuff I read on rightwing climate sites is probably reliable”

  52. Ernestine Gross
    July 25th, 2010 at 12:32 | #52

    “Potty peer Christopher Monckton has stepped up his campaign to shut down John Abraham’s debunking of one of his talks last year, by asking supporters to flood Abraham’s university with emails demanding it start a disciplinary inquiry.
    I can only endorse this comment on Monckton and the lunacy of a world in which someone like this is taken seriously.

    “Update I thought Posterous would include the link automagically but apparently not. Here’s Garth Renowden’s site where you can support Abraham and/or bag Monckton.”

    The above is the topic of this thread.

    I can offer the following update: This morning, 25 July, the count of names in support of Professor Abraham on Garth Renowden’s site was 1007.

  53. Ken Miles
    July 25th, 2010 at 12:42 | #53

    @Jim Rose

    In the past, the science of climate change was robust enough to admit it got the sign wrong.
    • In the 1970s, the prediction was global cooling.
    • The prediction is now global warming.

    I have never seen a story on how this change of mind actually happened.

    In a nut shell, the predictions of global cooling weren’t particularly strong or widespread (some “skepics” have delibrately misquoted scientific papers which have predicted cooling due to orbital changes by omitting both the mechanism and time scale [thousands of years in the future]). They came about because of two competing factors; some aerosols cool the planet whereas greenhouse gases warm the planet. So the overall anthropogenic effect will depend on the ratio of anthropogenic warming vs. anthropogenic cooling. Perhaps the most famous paper (titled Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols: Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate by Rasool and Schneider) from this era looked at this and suggested that humans could trigger an ice age. Within a year, the authors had revised their views because they had massively overstated the likely aerosol production while underestimating the warming from CO2.

  54. Ken Miles
    July 25th, 2010 at 12:52 | #54

    @Ernestine Gross

    Also, The University of St Thomas has been absolutely perfect in its defense of Abraham.

  55. Ernestine Gross
    July 25th, 2010 at 13:18 | #55

    @Ken Miles

    Before someone else tries to draw big conclusions from an error message, I’ll just let you know that your link @4,p2 didn’t work.

  56. Ken Miles
    July 25th, 2010 at 13:21 | #56
  57. July 25th, 2010 at 14:06 | #57

    @Jim Rose

    Global temperatures can change rapidly by up to 6 or 7 degree in a few decades such half a dozen times as the last ice age ended from about 15,000 BC. These last of these was in 9800 BC or so.

    This is the kind of nonsense one gets when one endures delusionals. There is simply no evidentiary basis for such claims, and in so far as there was a warming coming out of the period 13000BP it was obviously off a much lower base than now and driven by entirely different things, so it is hardly germane. The warming that took place was about the same as the last century’s warming, could well have been localised and in any even took about 1000 years, not 100.

    Such tumultuous events are far greater global threats than gradual warming or cooling. A new ice age is too.

    Or it would be, if such were upon us, but of course, it isn’t, not that that matters to one of our resident delusionals. Of course, “cooling” “a new ice age” a “little ice age” what does it matter. It is, as Humpty Dumpty said, much of a muchness isn’t it? So on goes Mr Rose …

    In the past, the science of climate change was robust enough to admit it got the sign wrong. In the 1970s, the prediction was global cooling

    No it wasn’t, for the umpteenth time, and I am not going to debunk this canard one more painful time to amuse Jim, but that doesn’t stop him doing his own version of Groundhog Day.

    Scientific truth is always provisional in the sciences paradoxically labelled the hard sciences, and grows through explaining new or novel facts.

    Which of course the delusionals never offer. They are like Mr HorseNo Sir, I don’t like it

    A willingness to challenge what your believe demarks science from non-science.

    Which of course, the delusionals never do. They don’t challenge their fellow delusionals but instead play happy families because for them any idea that assists their tendentious case for doing nothing suffices.

    what evidence will make you give up your position?

    For the delusionals, there is no such evidence. They shut their eyes, cover their ears and declare it’s all a fraud. For them, observable reality is the biggest fraud and their inability to have serious journals entertain their nonsense simply affirms a dark conspiracy amongst grant-grubbing scientists.

    I have always wonder whether the estimated welfare effects of global warming change if there no human signature – human activity is not the leading cause, but the world is still warming just as before. (sic)

    Not that Jim Rose would look at any of the published material on this matter, largely I suspect because this would force him to refute it — something he is ill-equipped to do. Far better for him to pretend that he an hius fellow delusionals are unique in considering this question, so the whole conspriacy against common sense and in favour of take you pick between nihilism, Gaia, grant grubbing taxing, socialism or all of the above can run and run .

    Really, why need we entertain such hectoring, ignorant, reckless, misanthropic and derivative maundering as Mr Rose offers above? No reason I can think of …

  58. Ernestine Gross
    July 25th, 2010 at 14:24 | #58

    Good. Jim Rose has found his match in Fran Barlow in the space of communications strategies.

    JQ, how many pages of your blog-site are you going to allocate for the communications strategy play?

  59. Jim Rose
    July 25th, 2010 at 15:14 | #59

    @jquiggin
    My note is, in part, based on my own memories of the 1970s and news sources that I read at the time such as Time magazine and Newsweek.

    Thanks for the link. excellent evidence in favour of your viewpoint. More is at http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/Myth-1970-Global-Cooling-BAMS-2008.pdf

    As your link notes, “between 1965 and 1979, 44 scientific papers predicted warming, 20 were neutral and just 7 predicted cooling. So while predictions of cooling got more media attention, the majority of scientists were predicting warming even then.”

    There was a debate on the sign – this is always a healthy phenomenon in a science and there were plenty of fence-sitters waiting for the results of further research.

    It is even better that the scientists of that day chose the scientific method over producing more of the results that in the 1970s got a lot more publicity. That is science at its best.

  60. Michael of Summer Hill
    July 25th, 2010 at 15:22 | #60

    Ernestine Gross, some people are gullible and it seems he took the bait hook, line, and sinker. Next he will say that penguins really do fly remember when ‘The BBC announced that camera crews filming near the Antarctic for its natural history series Miracles of Evolution had captured footage of Adélie penguins taking to the air. Terry Jones explained that, instead of huddling together to endure the Antarctic winter, these penguins took to the air and flew thousands of miles to the rainforests of South America where they “spend the winter basking in the tropical sun’.

  61. Ernestine Gross
    July 25th, 2010 at 16:25 | #61

    The short version of Jim Rose’s post @ 9, p2 reads:

    I, Jim Rose, have been spreading misleading information and I do not have the minimum intellectual honesty, defined as error correction, or the courage to say it as it is.

  62. Jim Rose
    July 25th, 2010 at 17:05 | #62

    @Fran Barlow
    We seem to agree that knowledge grows by offering facts, reasoned arguments and anticipated consequences while always keeping an open mind.

    I also think that the division of labour applies. Economic studies of the effects of global warming either accept the IPCC predictions or model a global warming of this or that amount.

    On looking at published material on this matter, on the related thread on global warming, I have previously drawn the attention of readers of this blog to:
    • the writings of Thomas Schelling in general – he has worked on the issue since chairing a presidential commission of some sort in 1980; and
    • Richard Tol’s 2009 Journal of Economic Perspectives survey of the welfare costs of global warming.

    The Tol paper and most of Schelling’s writings on global warming are open-access.

    You do not seem to agree that labels like denier and alarmist are not conducive for scientists to change their mind or decide they were right in the first place, and that such unpleasantness encourages many to choose other careers or fields of study. Name calling make the impartial spectator suspicious that you are covering up gaps in you arguments or a growing bitterness may be clouding your objectivity.

    Agreement is less likely if you attack people’s pride and bring their integrity into question. This tactic is also straight out of stage four of how to discredit a government report without ever having read it. See http://www.yes-minister.com/polterms.htm and go to Government Procedure for Deciding Not To Publish a Report.

    It is better to ask your interlocutor to think more deeply about this or that point that is in debate. Look for common ground that already exists and for a growing number of important anomalies and puzzles their current way of thinking cannot explain.

  63. Alice
    July 25th, 2010 at 22:13 | #63

    @Ernestine Gross
    Ernestine – for an interesting read – I highly recommend the following letters…titled “exchange between Arrow and Davidsonon debt “if you trace back you can locate the prior communications..

    http://rwer.wordpress.com/2010/07/24/exchange-between-arrow-and-davidson-on-debt/#more-1728

  64. Jim Rose
    July 25th, 2010 at 22:46 | #64

    @Ernestine Gross
    Economists are no more qualified to assess the merits of the science of global warming than they are qualified to explore the medical science and clinical psychology of alcohol, tobacco or gambling.

    Economists, nonetheless, write productively about alcohol, tobacco and gambling.

    When I was a teenager, cigarettes were nicknamed cancer sticks. There was no knowledge gap about the risks back then or now.

    Alcohol and gambling are problems because of issues of excess and many cases of addiction.

    Economists have no special expertise in deciding the line that demarks crossing over into excess. Extremes and addictions are obvious to all.

    What economists can point out is that if you want to see less alcohol or tobacco consumption or less gambling, make it more expensive. Maybe not so expensive that people exit big-time to the black-market and police and political corruption flourishes.

    Putting higher taxes on sin are not without pain. They fall disproportionately on lower income groups and problem gamblers and heavy drinkers often can be low-income earners.

    Prohibition has worked poorly for alcohol and for tobacco and also for gambling except where there is significant infrastructure and large customer bases are required that cannot be built by word-of-mouth advertising such as for casinos.

    A lot can be said in contentious areas without giving-up the gains from the division of labour to comment on questions where most economists lack professional expertise.

  65. Ernestine Gross
    July 27th, 2010 at 15:15 | #65

    @Jim Rose

    You are debating yourself. I’ve told you before you can write whatever you want as long as you comply with Professor Quiggin’s rules but without pretending to talk to me.

    As I have shown on this thread, you haven’t got the intellectual honesty to admit error. I am not interested in what you have to say to me.

    You are an intellectual, I grant you that. But, like many other words one needs a bit more information to make sense of the word in context. It seems to me v. Hayek’s description of an intellectual – a second-hand dealer in ideas – is appropriate for you.

  66. Ernestine Gross
    July 27th, 2010 at 15:29 | #66

    @Ernestine Gross

    Correction. I allowed myself to be side-tracked by this Jim Rose. If there is anybody who wants to check that I did show Jim Rose to offer contradictory opinions and to refuse to acknowledge error, I refer to the predecessor thread, Economists and Climate Change.

  67. Jim Rose
    July 27th, 2010 at 15:40 | #67

    @Ernestine Gross
    Thanks

    A few days ago, you made great play about the absence of negative prices as a reason for the inefficiency of markets.

    I pointed to the existence of negative prices in spot markets in the energy sector.

    What was your response, again?

    Point to a climate change related specific error and I will respond.

  68. Ernestine Gross
    July 27th, 2010 at 15:51 | #68

    @Jim Rose

    You are off topic on this thread. If you wish to have a reply to your question, go to the right thread first. Beware of what you are asking for.

Comments are closed.