Which of these claims has not been put forward by prominent global warming denialists ?
A Cycle analysis by a well-known astrologer proves that global temperatures will soon decline
B Data supporting global warming was faked by NASA along with the bogus moon landings
C There is no such thing as global average temperature, and therefore the whole idea is meaningless
D A voyage through the Arctic Circle by the Chinese fleet in 1421 proves that temperatures were much higher then
Answer over fold
Answer: B. Although both global warming denialists and moon landing denialists routinely accuse NASA scientists of fraud, the two groups appear not to have made common cause as yet (Please correct me if I’m wrong).
Here’s the info on the others
A. The Lavoisier Group presents a “scientific” critique of the IPCC based on the work of the late astrologer and cycle crank Theodor Landscheidt. This is the same body that claimed in a submission to Parliament (PDF here) that the Kyoto Protocol poses “the most serious challenge to our sovereignty since the Japanese Fleet entered the Coral Sea on 3 May, 1942”.
C. The claim that there is no such thing as global average temperature is one of the many errors of Ross McKitrick
D. The best yet, tying global warming denialism to the absurd and much-demolished claims of Gavin Menzies comes from Christopher Monckton in the (UK) Telegraph, who gets an enthusiastic endorsement from Tim Blair. Tim B sees this as evidence that “the debate is not over”. His nemesis, Tim Lambert, provides a chapter and verse demolition, but the reference to Menzies is more than enough for anyone based in the real world.
While all the claims listed above are absurd, they are not lunatic fringe, at least not in the parallel universe of GW denialism. McKitrick (until recently a moderately well-known rightwing economist, but now presented as an expert on everything from physics to historical climatology) was one of the main scientific sources for the bogus House of Lords Economics Committee report and one of the “Nine Economists“, led by Nigel Lawson, who criticised the Stern Report’s first discussion paper. Their critique also relied heavily on the work of the Lavoisier Group.
John Quiggin 
And the many errors of Mann? Where are they in your list? Instead of cherry-picking strawmen amongst denialists, why don’t you tackle the well-established screwups amongst AGW proponents?
[Rhetorical question, I already know the answer: like most lefties, you see an ideal opportunity in global-warming to increase state control over our economic lives]
“Cherry picking strawmen”? Marcel, maybe you should express yourself in French; you’re not very good at English.
This is pathetic, proust. You cited this same Monckton not half an hour ago in this very boutique as “above board”. When his total lack of mobility is pointed out, you point to his beautiful plumage. Face it, you’re selling a dead parrot.
To be more serious, your claim of “well-established” screwups by Mann is based on the “work” of McKitrick a couple of whose many ludicrous errors are noted above.
No, my claims of well-established screwups is based on the work of McIntyre and McKitrick. Having read a lot of his analysis, McIntyre I trust.
On Monckton: his discussion of the problems with the hockeystick is good. His discussion of problems in the climate models is good. As for 1421, I don’t know anything about that.
On his discussion of climate sensitivity: I am sceptical of someone who needs to publish what amounts to an entire paper in a report such as that. Should be in a refereed journal. Kinda suprising, but I hadn’t got that far when I made my original post. I haven’t gone through the details of his argument, but my prior is now low again for these reasons. However, I have read enough to know that Lambert’s criticisms miss the point entirely (no surprises there).
Gosh,
JQ you are becoming hysterical, in a rhetorical sense.
You have lost the argument as a consequence.
Another “skeptic” by JQ’s definition: James Annan. Among other things, he’s an occasional contributor to realclimate.org, and was referred to in the recent Stern report.
FTA:
proust, so who is right about climate sensitivity? Monckton or Annan? Choose.
proust, you’re determination to disbelieve climate science is the product of your tenacious adherence to the view that government is oppression of the individual. Libertarianism is one of the more dangerous ideologies kicking around at the start of this new century.
The romantic notion that we are all brave individuals in charge of our separate fates is fanciful. And the global problem of climate is the greatest threat to your ideological vision. Nothing binds us more tightly to a common fate than our shared physical habitat. Nothing more urgently demands a communal solution.
The philosophically puny notion of the primacy of private property collapses instantly under the force of this realisation. Let it go and soar free, proust. You’ll feel better. There are 6 billion of us out here. We have room for one more.
Perhaps more relevant to this discussion is who is right, Lambert or Annan? Because if Lambert is wrong, it doesn’t much matter what he says about Monckton.
Lambert:
By your disparaging of Monckton’s rejection of the consensus scientific view, I take it you are a rusted-on subscriber to that view.
Annan thinks a little differently about that consensus:
Who’s right Lambert? You or Annan? Choose.
wbb – anytime you care to hand over your private property just let me know and I’ll give you an address where you can send the check.
The outcry from scientists against Mr Stern is picking up speed.
Proust,
So you agree with Annan that climate sensivity to a doubling of CO2 is 3C +/- a bit? As opposed to the old IPCC reports’ 3C +/- a bit? Annans discussion and paper is about the size of the “bits”. He still holds the view that a doubling of CO2, by itself, will lead to ~3C rise in temperatures. He argues that the likely sensivity is 3C +/- 0.5C while the old IPCC has likely as 3 +/- 1.5C. He doesn’t disagree with the 3C part and doesn’t disagree that we should be doing something:
“OTOH, it might be the case that even with a climate sensitivity of 2.5C and assuming a more moderate “business as usual” emissions growth, mitigation is still amply justified”
The thing about ‘tightening’ the range is that not only does the high end come down but also the lower end comes up.
Help, please.
Where is the economic argument in the following article?
http://www.staff.livjm.ac.uk/spsbpeis/RES-Henderson.htm
As far as I can see, there isn’t one. Henderson (presumably relying on his expert advisor McKitrick) implies that the IPCC has got the science wrong. The Nobel prize winners he criticises accept the IPCC science and draw the obvious economic inference that mitigation is cost justified, just as Stern does.
wbb – anytime you care to hand over your private property just let me know and I’ll give you an address where you can send the check.
clever. however, wbb is sadly not suggesting we should abandon private property. he is saying we should abandon “the philosophically puny notion of the primacy of private property” as conceived by libertarians.
“the philosophically puny notion of the primacy of private property�
Bah. Next time some wheezing, congested, mucus-spewing libertarian lets some of their “private property” infect me, I intend to sue! My body is my private property! They have no right to pass their blasted cold germs on!
If they don’t like the body they’re in, they can damn well sell up and move on.
Prize offered for most absurd-on-the-face-of-it defense of the holy primacy of “private property”.
SimonC, I agree with Annan that the “consensus” is wrong and that many of the climate scientists involved are engaged groupthink and/or conscious alarmism to further their political goals. Meanwhile the likes of JQ and Lambert tag along because it also helps their political goals.
snuh, perhaps wbb should tell us what he means by “The philosophically puny notion of the primacy of private property”.
Something I have noted before: lefties are often collectivists with respect to other people’s property but individualists with respect to their own.
Dead men talking, proust and louis don’t even notice that their horse’sarses have been shot off from under them. We all know that the only crowd which thinks louis understands what he’s jabbering about is at Henry Thornton who employ him. But they’re like a charity those guys.
Proust – you may have read stuff but you haven’t understood it have you, and what did you think “cherry picking strawmen” signified when you wrote it? If you wanna be part of something big like Ross McKitrick’s war on temperature or Monckton’s practical joking (you fell for it didn’t you?) you’ll need to study more than fwench literature, lad. Heard of the natural sciences at all in your readings? The hard stuff at school that required numeracy and hard work while you were blowing snotballs at the pretty girls?
“Bah. Next time some wheezing, congested, mucus-spewing libertarian lets some of their “private propertyâ€? infect me, I intend to sue! My body is my private property! They have no right to pass their blasted cold germs on! If they don’t like the body they’re in, they can damn well sell up and move on.”
Gorgeous.
On the other hand, who would want to have a communal toothbrush?
(It seems to me that anything beyond first year undergraduate economics texts with 2 dimensional diagrams is a bit of a problem for the bipolar ideologists).
Proust, you’re on record as saying that you think that most climate scientists are biased by the (putative) fact that they get their funding by creating alarm. You said that you did not doubt their honesty; this bias operated unbeknownst to them. Why do you think that you’re free of this bias? Why don’t you become a consistent sceptic, rather than simply doubting claims that are uncongenial to you?
krusty, you’re hilarious. Which hard science is your PhD in?
Because my funding and social status is independent of anything I say about climate science.
Well, the evidence suggests that motivated cognition operates on preferences. Have a look at Kahnemann and Tversky, or more recently the work by Peter Ditto.
There’s an interesting sign of retreat here. Until recently, the denialists would claim that the scientists on their side were just as good as those on the other. This post offered an open invitation to defend them, but no one has taken it up, except for prousts attempt to distinguish McIntyre from his co-author (on all of M1 published work as far as I know) McKitrick. Crossposting at CT produced nothing better.
Instead we get a standard creationist tactic, cherrypicking quotes from scientists who support the mainstream view, but disagree about particular aspects of it in an attempt to suggest that there is more division than really exists. OK as a debating point or troll tactic, but a sign of desperation if you’re trying to pose as a defender of science.
snuh, perhaps wbb should tell us what he means by “The philosophically puny notion of the primacy of private property�.
while i imagine he can defend himself, it seems pretty clear from the context. libertarians tend to place considerations of private property above all other considerations (“primacy”), which approach wbb rejects. even if you disagree with wbb, i’m not sure what you get out of purporting to misunderstand him.
The thing that strikes me about the libertarian argument is this: while a relatively trivial loss of freedom is required to combat climate change now (ie temporarily higher taxes as we adapt to a low-carbon economy), if we don’t act now, the cost in terms of individual liberty to take effective action will get progressively higher as the problem grows. And if we don’t combat climate change effectively, the conditions that will result, with economic crises, competition over resources, increased flows of refugees and other security challenges, will create conditions that are ripe for an authoritarian response.
In other words, I strongly suspect that the cost in freedom to combat climate change now is relatively small to the cost in freedom that we will be paying down the track if we fail to deal with it now.
So, unless you plan on dying soon, the way to maximise individual liberty over the course of our lifetimes is to support immediate action.
ive dropped by to tell all you pessimists to not worry about global warming.
1) its warming, but not enough to worry about
2) it would probably be warming if there were zero humans on the planet
3) technological change will swamp any climate change in the next 100 years
4) GDP growth per capita of the poorest fifth of the world will mean they are better off in the next 100 years, irrespective of the temperture…
5) being a bit warmer is probably better than the current temperature, and we definitely don’t want to waste any money on halting or reversing slight warming…
i dare someone to prove me wrong…
the truth about climate change whingers is that they are pessimistic – their beliefs stem more from their psychology than anything else.
i became an optimist when i looked at the facts. 10,000 years of human progression with every century being more liveable than the last.
c8to,
Excellent stuff. When you’ve got a moment can you please pass on references to the documented material (primary evidence, not modern re-interpretations of an occluded past) that shows every century of the past 10,000 years has been more liveable than the last; evidence that proves the world will experience low business as usual emissions and climate sensitivity; and robust projections of how the vulnerable (including Australia’s own) will get access to climate-proofed technology and living conditions.
You have to prove you’re right. Given that this debate is surrounded by uncertainty and it’s a question of weighing up multiple lines of evidence, if you move beyond risk to certainty, you need to show how you did it.
quiggin, your viewpoint is simply not supported by the changing opinion amongst climate scientists. It looks like Stern’s overt bias has really got the ball rolling on this, and I guess we should thank him for that.
You, of course, are on record as defending nearly all climate scientists as puritan purveyors of truth, and denigrating as an ignorant, paid shills, anyone who dared suggest otherwise. However, even the climate scientists themselves are now recognizing the cancerous and alarmist element within their own ranks, the element to which many skeptics (myself included) have so vociferously objected. Events are leaving you behind, sunshine.
No doubt you’ll attempt to brush this off as immaterial, but your credibility is taking a hit.
“10,000 years of human progression with every century being more liveable than the last.”
Perhaps you could outline your case for the 5th to the 6th, and the 6th to the 7th centuries AD, with particular reference to the former Roman Empire.
And if you had decent evidence to support that, I’d be advocating dealing with it now. But saying again-and-again that the debate is over don’t make it so. Paying state-expansionists like Stern to distort the evidence for political ends don’t make it so either.
Roger
You have to prove you’re right. Given that this debate is surrounded by uncertainty and it’s a question of weighing up multiple lines of evidence, if you move beyond risk to certainty, you need to show how you did it.
That is the crux of the debate from both sides of the fence
Quoted out of context it makes you out as a sceptic
Mine’s in clowning proust, from the Ayn Rand school of it. Takes me everywhere I want to go on the internets these days. You?
Mine’s in this.
“And if you had decent evidence to support that, I’d be advocating dealing with it now.”
as a hypothetical, proust, what sort of evidence would convince you of the reality of human-induced climate change and the resulting need to take urgent action to combat it?
be specific.
snuh, all thing considered I’d say that human-induced climate change is real. But as for how much we’re contributing, and what effect it will have, I think we’re still largely ignorant.
Given the accelerating rate of human progress, I suspect the best course of action under all but the most pessimistic scenarios given the true state of our current knowledge is business as usual. If things are obviously going south in 70 or 100 years time, there’ll be an extra billion or so educated Chinese and Indians with the economies to match to help us solve the problem.
If, in the meantime, bad stuff starts happening, like dramatic sea-level rises or very steep temperature rises, then we should revisit the issue.
“the well-established screwups amongst AGW proponents”
Well established by who? Steve McIntyre? What other jokes do you know? Proust still doesn’t seem to understand that Bristlecone proxy Temperature reconstructions are independently validated ALL the way from 1900 back to 1450 and that there is no objective reason why they should suddenly become invalid before 1450.
“Having read a lot of his analysis, McIntyre I trust.”
You’re a fool.
#hat-tip-to-John-Q-for-predicting-the-creationist-climate-change-denialist-link
“quiggin, your viewpoint is simply not supported by the changing opinion amongst climate scientists.”
Another line item in the creationist play-book. Claim that unnamed ‘scientists’ are changing their minds, but of course, provide precisely zero evidence to support this contention.
Given the accelerating rate of human progress, I suspect the best course of action under all but the most pessimistic scenarios given the true state of our current knowledge is business as usual. If things are obviously going south in 70 or 100 years time, there’ll be an extra billion or so educated Chinese and Indians with the economies to match to help us solve the problem.
If, in the meantime, bad stuff starts happening, like dramatic sea-level rises or very steep temperature rises, then we should revisit the issue.
this seems to me to basically admit that no amount of evidence would satisfy you of the need to take action to combat climate change, unless the evidence was of biblical proportions, in which case the most we should do is maybe “revisit” the issue. have i unfairly summarised your position?
Huh? If there was any doubt that proust inhabits a rich fantasy world, then this comment surely removes the last shred of uncertainty. In a week where the debate has decisively shifted in favour of the global warming ‘alarmists’ proust seems think things are going his way.
He’s delusional. Get the straight jacket and lock him up with Bolt.
If, in the meantime, bad stuff starts happening, like dramatic sea-level rises or very steep temperature rises, then we should revisit the issue.
But, proust, that’s just fundamentally ignorant about the way that climate works. There is a long delay between cause and effect. With the increased carbon in the atmosphere we have now, it will be 30 or 40 years before all the various feedback loops play out and we reach a new climate equilbrium, and therefore see all of the effects of what we’ve already done.
You’ll get your dramatic sea level rises all right, but by the time they manifest, they will be irreversible, and, moreover, if we haven’t done anything in the meantime, we won’t reach a new equilibrium, but will have already condemned ourselves to more radical climate change.
To put bluntly, if we’ve done nothing between now and, say, 2040, and we start to see dramatic sea-level rises at that point, we’re already f***ed. It’s that simple.
So you need to make a decision now on whether the downside of effects that will take 30 years to manifest is so great that prudence dictates action to minimize that risk. And to make that judgment, you need to be familiar with the state of knowledge now, which you obviously are not.
“snuh, all thing considered I’d say that human-induced climate change is real. But as for how much we’re contributing, and what effect it will have, I think we’re still largely ignorant.” well, you’ve quoted Annan – he says 2.5 to 3.5 C sensitivity to a doubling of CO2. I’m sorry, that’s right you agree with his view that the “consensusâ€? is wrong but not with his conclusions. Which part of the consensus doesn’t he support? By the way do you know how he came up with the 2.5 to 3.5C figure?
“You’re a fool”
Maybe so, but I am in good company:
“MBH” is Mann & co. “MM” is McIntyre and McItrick.
Report co-authored by Edward J. Wegman. No slouch.
Let’s be plain.
Proust – what you write here is forever. These crude etchings on the walls of the digital cave will be read and reread by generations of students and historians.
Some of us are grappling with the evidence, and what the economic and social implications of that evidence is. How can we best set the economic incentives by which our economy operates to maximize social utility? How do we balance individual freedoms with the fact that we are interdependent with one another and our environment? What is a reasonable reaction to the facts of global warming (increased CO2) and what this implies (rising sea levels)? Nothing is known precisely – so what can we reasonably say?
And no – hiding behind a pseudonymn will not shield you, as a person, from scorn, derision, and pity.
The unreasoned denialist reaction to the hard wood that barks your shin when your eyes are closed is going to be a subject of study. And you, proust, and your ilk, will be Exhibit A.
“Which part of the consensus doesn’t he support?”
The alarmist part.
“do you know how he came up with the 2.5 to 3.5C figure?”
Yes.
“have i unfairly summarised your position?”
Yes.
I disagree that dramatic sea-level rises or temperature spikes are events of “biblical proportions” (leaving aside the fact that most events of biblical proportions are pretty tame by today’s standards).
The sea is currently rising very slowly. We can measure it pretty well – if it starts to accelerate we’ll know about it pretty quickly. We’ll also know about the temperature in another 10 or 20 years. If we get another degree or so in that time, it’s probably time to revisit the issue.
Paul G. Brown, needless to say I don’t feel like the unreasoning one here. But I do like “these crude etchings on the walls of the digital cave”. That your own?
so wait, let me get this straight. the only part of my characterisation you disagree with is “biblical proportions”? otherwise i have fairly summarised your views?
“biblical proportions” attached to the first clause in your characterization (“no amount of evidence …. short of biblical proportions”), and the third clause (“in which case [evidence of biblical proportions coming to light] the most we should do..”).
There were only three clauses, each of which is infected by your mischaracterization of my evidentiary requirements as disproportionately “biblical”. So no, you have not fairly summarized my view at all.
Paul G. Brown,
And those who advocate an immediate and serious response may be exhibit “B” for the prosecution case of those responsible for impoverishing the world.
Threats of dire personal consequences in the future have no place in this discussion (IMHO). We will all have to live in this world in the future, so, if we get it wrong, that will probably be enough of a consequence.
We are (most of us) seeking a balance here. From what I can read the Stern report has under-estimated the costs of reducing AGW and over-estimated the costs. I will be interested what our host here has to say in summary on the report – I think it will be interesting and informative as well as the start of another long thread.
If we are going to play the “choose one” type games, though, perhaps we can also have a look at what (silly?) statements the AGW anti-denialists have come out with – I promise it would be just as amusing as the statements in the post at the head of this thread.
My personal favourite is that we need to take the entire world back to a pre-1066 England level of development and somehow lose at least 5/6ths of our population.
You could have scientists, or you could have knowitalls like proust just making stuff up.
Proust:
Proust you’re a sceptic? “Skeptic” is no way to spell idiotarian but anyway why not cite someone you think supports your claim? James Annan won’t do it for you, you’d know that if you knew a little more than nothing about the subject of your cheery chatterboxing today. Try Monckton, you seemed to think he was an authority earlier on although you didn’t quite get around to enlightening anyone as to what it was that “Lambert’s criticisms miss the point” of, by the bye. As usual Tim Lambert is way brighter than you on the subject (no disgrace in itself although the margin here is wide).
Tell us again about Monckton, that’ll be a laugh anyway.