91 thoughts on “Monday Message Board (on Tuesday)”

  2. Actually most of the temperature rise is unnatural. As is the shrinking of glaciers, the rise in sealevel, and the warming forcing of biological response.

    An improper bias (due to factors such as growth of trees around temperature stations producing shading and transpiration cooling etc) are quantified and adjusted according to published procedures [1].

    [1] http://www.niwa.co.nz/news-and-publications/news/all/2009/nz-temp-record/seven-station-series-temperature-data

    BTW

    The cooling bias if anything persists:

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/Guest-post-in-Guardian-on-microsite-influences.html

    http://atmoz.org/blog/2008/02/18/correcting-for-bias-in-the-surface-temperature-record/

  5. Jakerman

    The Atmoz article was interesting, technical but readable. Might take it away and get the other viewpoint.

  6. Pleased to see Bob Katter vote for Slipper. I hope thats not all the “cane” Bob Katter gives Tony Abbott and the Nationals who have done very little for country people for decades and who ran down free market road with John Howard.
    Katter really makes Barnaby Joyce look like the bootlicking fool he is.
    Whilst I was disappointed at first that Katter didnt join Oakshott and Windsor…the more I think about it…

  7. el gordo :

    Natural variability is everything and the CO2 gravy train is slowly coming to a halt.
    http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c013487bd8bc5970c-pi

    More F’n stupidity from this fellow.

    He did not have the integrity to admit that his chart was artificially created by the dirty trick of vertically shifting later data down by 0.3 degrees!!!.

    See the original at:

    http://www.appinsys.com/globalwarming/SixtyYearCycle.htm

    Of course if you flatten one set of data like this, but leave the co2 rise un adjusted – the correlation weakens.

    Bloody fool.

  9. Hi John,
    I am curious to know what you think of MMT (modern monetary theory)? Surely you’d have an opinion, or have you blogged about it before. Quick search ‘mmt’ on this side gets no result.

  10. Once again I am reminded of the unscientific nature of most AWG “skepticism”, with the “magical natural cycles explain all” line of argument.

    For starters why there “should” be a correlation between CO2 and the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation seems rather odd. Since the CO2 increase is due to man (and I can’t think of any reputable scientist who disputes this) it seems like the most pointless of graphs.

    Not that original source that Chris pointed out is any better. It doesn’t take a genius to realise that something which oscillates back in forth around zero isn’t able to cause a sustained rise in temperature, it might add variability to the year to year or decadal trend but it can’t cause the trend over longer time periods.

    And lastly of course is the “magic” part of the natural cycles, in which any cycle, without consideration for how much heat it moves around and therefore how much effect it could actually have on global temperatures, is claimed to be able to explain the temperature record.

  11. @hrvoje
    I must admit to being fairly ignorant of these ideas, though they were mentioned by Steve Keen at the Conference of Economists the other day. I am generally sceptical of the idea that macroeconomic policy can be based on monetary reform.

  12. @Mike

    Lets not get too tangled up in a canard from a twit.

    SST data is not the key to the magnitude of global warming as it is buffered by underlying seawater, to a depth of miles, and there is considerable mixing in top layers.

    In any case acidification is proximate evidence for warming as solubility of CO2 increases with temperature (carbonic acid).

    Just because a fool cannot use their own references properly, does not mean that the original references are useful or relevant in themselves. Only fools follow fools.

    At mid-depth (700-1100 metres) temperatures have warmed 0.1 C [“Science” (295) p1275]

    Human induced CO2 from fossil fuels is the whole problem, warming is only part of the issue. Other effects apart from temperature also impact on the ecology.

  13. jquiggin :
    @hrvoje
    I must admit to being fairly ignorant of these ideas, though they were mentioned by Steve Keen at the Conference of Economists the other day. I am generally sceptical of the idea that macroeconomic policy can be based on monetary reform.

    I don’t think economists can even define what they mean by “money” these days.

  14. @ Chris

    Don’t worry mate, I know EG’s form and am not planning on getting into a pointless argument with an ideologue. I just find it humorous/sad that many “skeptics” never seem to ask themselves how much their favourite cycle actually affects the radiative balance of the planet (if at all), which is of course, the critical factor.

  15. The new Royal Society guide says: “The size of future temperature increases and other aspects of climate change, especially at the regional scale, are still subject to uncertainty.”

    In the trade they call this ‘quote mining’.

  16. EG glad you can name your technique. Can you explain why ‘quote mining’ is considered poor practice?

    Then can you explain why you proudly practice it?

  17. ‘The practice of quoting out of context, sometimes referred to as “contextomy” or “quote mining”, is a logical fallacy and a type of false attribution in which a passage is removed from its surrounding matter in such a way as to distort its intended meaning.’

    The slip-up or inadvertent comment is what journalists thrive on to get the real story. It is poor practice, but we have to live and it’s better than working in the cannery.

  19. I note EG you did not explain why it is considered poor practice. Care to answer this?

    Also note we are not talking about a “slip up or inadvertent comment”. We are discussing concious minded quote mining.

  21. A glucosamine study was discussed on RN’s Health Report this week. Pod or transcript available but this quote gives a succinct summary of the benefit and harm ledger:

    Norman Swan: So the bottom line is if you’ve got arthritis and you’re taking glucosamine or chondroitin you’re unlikely to be doing yourself any harm apart from wasting your hard earned money.

    Peter Juni: Indeed.

  22. How quickly EG turns on himself, firstly he accurately writes:

    quote mining”, is a logical fallacy and a type of false attribution in which a passage is removed from its surrounding matter in such a way as to distort its intended meaning.’ […] It is poor practice, but we have to live and it’s better than working in the cannery.

    Then when feeling the need to defend his actions he flips and makes a mockery of himself:

    There is noting wrong with quote mining, as long as the quote is accurate.

  23. We now have the full quote (PDF) from the Royal Society, not the quote mined from el gordo’s house of mirrors:

    There is strong evidence that the warming of the Earth over the last half-century has been caused largely by human activity, such as the burning of fossil fuels and changes in land use, including agriculture and deforestation. The size of future temperature increases and other aspects of climate change, especially at the regional scale, are still subject to uncertainty. Nevertheless, the risks associated with some of these changes are substantial. It is important that decision makers have access to climate science of the highest quality, and can take account of its findings in formulating appropriate

    The paper concludes:

    is strong evidence that changes in greenhouse gas concentrations due to human activity are the dominant cause of the global warming that has taken place over the last half century. This warming trend is expected to continue as are changes in precipitation over the long term in many regions. Further and more rapid increases in sea level are likely which will have profound implications for coastal communities and ecosystems.

  26. Very perceptive, jakerman…

    Not especially, just basic adherence to accuracy and honesty.

    Now care to answer my question, why is quote mining poor practice?

  27. Surely, el gordo, it would be more interesting to know why you quote mined the Royal Society report to give the impression that it supports your view when in fact it does the exact opposite. Please note that running away and changing the subject is not a defence to your intellectual dishonesty.

  29. El gordo, I can see it is an uncomfortable question for you to address. But blatant hand waving and distraction only make it look worse.

    How about you just answer the question, why is quote mining poor practice?

  30. To break the back of the CAGW consensus its important to expose the lies and deceit, so I’m happy to quote people out of context if it fits the story.

    Keep in mind the quotes are legitimate, but obviously in a moral sense its poor practice.

  31. Quite telling el gordo, you are:

    happy to quote people out of context if it fits the story

    And the story you wish to manipulate the facts to fit is anything that will help:

    break the back of the CAGW consensus

    You recognize this is immoral, yet you fail to acknowledge that it is illegitimate. Let me help you understand why quote mining is illegitimate. Firstly ask you know quote mining is:

    a logical fallacy and a type of false attribution in which a passage is removed from its surrounding matter in such a way as to distort its intended meaning.

    The need to do this in order to shoe-horn into a preconceived narrative under lines the fragility and lack of real support for your preferred narrative. If you need to distort the author’s meaning of quotes to fit a narrative, your narrative is weakened not strengthened.

  32. Quote mining is the practice of selective quoting, including the choice of start and end of the quoted text, with the intention to deceive the reader. The deception is usually of the variety that makes the quoted person seem to support something that they actually do not, or vice versa.

    E.G. see EG.

    AGW is a scientific question that has been amply supported by observations, both instrumental and paleo – the paleo concerning the constraints upon sensitivity. Not one of the alternative ideas has scientific credibility, and most other ideas can be ruled out comprehensively. Quote mining is often used to imply quite the reverse state of the science, and that is where the quote miner has crossed the moral line from valid scientific argument to intending to deceive; the cost of deception in this case is that it might further delay whatever corrective action is still available to humans.

    EG stick to scientific arguments and you might garner some respect, but quote mining (to “disprove” AGW) is just sheer lunacy.

  34. We’ll see if el gordo can change to adopted this approach [stick to scientific arguments]. And if he can, we’ll see for how long.

    Note el gordo, link spamming with misleading intros does not fit with sticking to scientific arguments.

  35. Scientific arguments are great but arguments about the science from non-experts are a waste of time. Lets not get these confused.

    A non-expert (such as myself) can offer a superficially plausible argument that is entirely spurious, but where a solid understanding of the subject matter is required to understand why.

    Most people who take the AGW hypothesis seriously only do so as they have correctly assessed that this is the expert opinion on the matter. Tony G and el gordo will struggle to gain traction with educated people unless they can have an impact on expert scientific opinion. That AGW skeptics do not even appear to be trying speaks volumes about their lack of conviction.

  36. The other option for the AGW skeptic is to argue that they could never influence real science as real science is involved in a massive conspiracy including many thousands of scientists and all scientific boards of international standing. The plausibility of this argument needs to be assessed against the plausibility of of the alternative, which is that the AGW hypothesis is genuinely supported by the research.

  37. el gordo

    We would love to stick to scientific arguments. It is your intellectual dishonesty, your willingness (and I quote your own words), to quote people out of context if it fits the story that prevents scientific argument.

  40. El gordo there is no theory that we can expect decades of cooling, there are just claims made in discredited social science journals like E&E.

  41. This is the gist of it.

    ‘Temperatures fluctuated between warm and cool at least 22 times between 1480 AD and 1950 (Figure 10). None of the warming periods could have possibly been caused by increased CO2 because they all preceded rising CO2.’

  43. And what scientific journal is this “magical natural cycles explain all” argument published in?

  45. @el gordo

    AGW is a theory.

    Which, for those who grasp the meaning of “theory” in scientific discourse (as opposed to common or lay parlance) does not at all diminish its significance for public policy. Something in science that becomes “a theory” has already been accepted by those in the field as the best explanator of the observed phenomenon(a) to the exclusion of others.

    cf: Maths (theorem)

  46. @el gordo

    More stupidity.

    Of course El Nino and southern Oscillation correlate with sea temperatures.

    If you use real data at :

    http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ensoyears.shtml

    you will find the annual average minimums of 1955 (-1.24) and 1975 (-1.14) have not been equalled or matched since.

    So the trend shows warming underpinning other fluctuations.

    Also the recent annual average maximums of 1987 (+1.29) and 1997 (+1.26) were never reached in the past.

    So the trend again shows warming underpinning other fluctuations.

    Only fools get tangled up in the other fluctuations – which are normal and can be expected.

    You are one such fool.

  47. ‘Anthropogenic global warming (AGW) currently dominates climate science to the extent that many consider it a fact – not a theory.’

    Jennifer Marohasy 3 October 2010

  48. Got anything from a peer-reviewed climate scientist, el gordo? Field biologists that used to work for the IPA do not really count. BTW, you really should learn how to hot-link. Unless, of course, you think the presence of ‘hot’ in the word proves that it was invented by evil climate scientists.

  49. el denialist gordo :
    ‘Anthropogenic global warming (AGW) currently dominates climate science to the extent that many consider it a fact – not a theory.’

    Denialists currently seek attention from climate science to the extent that many consider it an annoyance – not a joke.

  50. @el gordo
    El gordo – you fool quoting Marohasy who is unknown outside her employment by the IPA.
    Please go away and join your friends elsewhere. This is not a blog peopled by idiots.

Leave a comment