I’ve always been envious of John Holbo’s discovery of the two-step of terrific triviality, a manoeuvre we’d all seen, but never properly identified. I’d like to solicit names for a manoeuvre I run into all the time in debates over climate policy which goes along the following lines
A: The planet is doomed unless we abandon industrial civilization/adopt my WWII-scale emergency program
B (me): On the contrary,we could cut emissions by 50 per cent quickly and with minimal effects on living standards.[^1]
A: What about cars, methane from ag production, air travel etc?
B: (me) We could cut vehicle emissions in half just by switching to the most fuel-efficient cars now on the market, methane by eating chicken instead of beef, air travel by videoconferencing and taking one long holiday in place of two short ones. The same for most other sources of emissions.[^2]
A: That’s absurd. No one would ever stand for that.
So, does anyone have a name for this manoeuvre, or, alternatively, a defense of this kind of argumentation
[^1]: Actually, we need a 90 per cent reduction by 2050. That would be a bit harder, but once you accept the idea that we could greatly reduce emissions without harming living standards, we’re down to arguing about parameter values in economic models. All economic models yield the conclusion that we could decarbonize the economy over 40 years while still improving living standards greatly.
[^2]: I’ll leave aside the question of whether it’s better to bring this about using prices (eg a carbon tax) or direct controls. My preferred answer is a bit of both, but either will work for the purposes of this example.
John Quiggin 
@ BilB
The short answer to you is that you know b- all about the IPCC, its reports or its methodology. The idea that there are a large number, amounting presumably to something like 90 per cent of those who work as scientists in some field relevant to climate predictions to make sense of your loose way of expressing yourself, of scientists who “subscribe” to its “authenticity [sic]” are “wrong or missled [sic – spelling not so hot either?] is to show that you don’t know how the IPCC does its work or organises its reports. Have you read Donna LaFramboise’s book (op.cit. supra)? It only costs about $5 on Kindle and can be got through easily in three evenings. If you do read it you will learn a lot about the IPCC and its processes that you evidently don’t know and read some trenchant criticism of it which is very thoroughly researched and, as I mentioned, is still despite hysterical opponents given five stars in Amazon reviews.
Who are the lazy people commenting here!?! I have taken the trouble to spend hours with physicists, marine biologists, mathematicians and others with superior highly relevant scientific knowledge to understand what the issues are and what the evidence is. You are so sloppy that you imply that I am a “denialist” which shows that you are too lazy to read what I have written – if it isn’t the simple truth that you are only being fashionable in your circles and don’t care about the issue – and, perhaps are so limited in your range of interests that you haven’t grasped the nature of the case I make which is independent of the science. If you want a high class source for that approach read Nigel (Lord) Lawson’s book “An Appeal to Reason: a Cool Look at Global Warming” only about a sixth of which deals with the science.
I won’t ask you to put up or shut up because it is evident that you lack the wherewithal.
I have just notice another of your absurdities. You demand that there be “conclusive proof” that all of a very ill-defined group of “scientists who subscribe to” some even more ill-defined propositions are “wrong or misled” [I’m not sure how where “misled” comes in if they are not “wrong”]. Even if you were referring to something with substantial and defined content your demand for conclusive proof in the context of the scientific issues involved in AGW must make even commenters on this wretched blog cringe. JQ? I’m sure you have considered the effect of running a blog at all may have on your reputation but I almost sympathise with the agony that it must give you to be host to such a lot of whackers. (And you at least know that my argument is quite clear and independent of the science which I nonetheless think, despite being put off saying so originally because it seemed rude, is subjected to warmist/catastrophist embrace as a kind of religion substitute by a lot of people with not even rudimentary capacity to explore the state of the several branches of science and maths touching the AGW issue. Some of them are and remain friends, like my theistic friends whose views my intellect cannot fathom).
@ Ronald Brak
Yes, without looking at your chart I can agree. (I retain my slight theoretical interest in the question of the origins of the rise in CO2. I am willing to go along with common sense and accept that it is the fossil fuel generated CO2 emissions which are the main cause, though manmade forest fires would rank pretty high too. As it happens, while I was making a quick search for Dr T.W.Quirk’s fascinating paper in Energy and Environment about four years ago which refers to the C12 and C13 isotopes and their relation to the oceanic or fossil fuel signatures of CO2 I came across a submission to a parliamentary inquiry at
Click to access tim_curtins_submission_11_May_2011.pdf
which inter alia, makes a point that the government’s man Dr Will Steffen had greatly exaggerated the relation of fossil fuel emissions to the rise in CO2 in the atmosphere, allegedly having told the inquiry (the author of the submission calls it a lie) by saying that 100 per cent had remained in the atmosphere when in fact only 45 per cent of the emissions from 2000- 2008 had done so. Interesting but peripheral to my standpoint. By contrast I would regard it as the duty of fervent believers to master such material if they are serious about wanting Australian governments to put the use of taxpayers’ resources for combating Australia’s CO2 emissions high on their list of priorities).
But, since correlation is not causation, where does that take you? Would you agree that over long periods of time – the odd million years or so – the rise in atmospheric CO2 has followed the warming of the atmosphere? Would you also agree that there has been a flourishing biosphere during periods when there has been vastly more CO2 in the atmosphere than there is now? Such questons I pose simply to remind you that, if you are hoping to engage in a subtle cross-examination, I understand the procedure too well for it to get you as far as you would get by displaying your real knowledge and address the judge or jury.
@ Nathan
Ah another sloppy waffler. First you criticise my alleged lack of defence of allegedly false claims that you claim to have identified. Now it is lack of “reply” or indeed “response” – it is the fact that I haven’t (as far as you can see) “responded” that caused you to make your penulitmate comment. Well, if you want to use words like Humpty Dumpty feel free to amuse yourself. At least you haven’t done it wordily. But how you can honestly say or believe that I didn’t “respond” to your points beats me. Now if you want to nominate your central points on which you would like my further response to focus then you might get back on track….. not that I encourage you to try – except to practise in private.
You could start by dealing with some of my points that I am now beginning to infer you find a bit embarrassing. E.g. how good the current models are at encompassing all substantial natural factors in the light of their inability to retropredict the big climate changes of the past that I referred to. Oh, and, a little more than BTW, did you even bother to look at the Table I provided which showed how six of the models relied on by the IPCC had given hugely different results? So much for your alleging non-response without even reading what has been provided.
@Angus Cameron
Your link to Tim Curtin’s attack on Professor Will Steffen’s presentation reveals that Curtin is in error. Curtin reproduces a Steffen slide, which he proceeds to misread in mounting his ‘criticism’.
Steffen’s slide notes that 305Gt pf CO2 was emitted by human activity between 2000-2009. Curtin accuses Steffen of saying all this remained in the atmosphere. The slide says no such thing. It is a stupid error on Curtin’s part,and more unpleasantly, Curtin claims that Steffen is Goebbell’s “intellectual forebear” in making the claim that he in fact did not…this is pretty crazy stuff, completely uncalled for.
You need better material, surely your case deserves it….
Thanks Nick. I shouldn’t be surprised. I have myself written criticism of work published by Tim Curtin. As so often, save me from my friends! (Not that I know Curtin at all, only someone who says he tried to put him right on some things and had trouble with that).
@Angus Cameron
But the question of what happens to emitted CO2, wherever emitted from, is one that mildly interests me, peripheral though it may be to my stance on AGW related issues. I have read variously of CO2 remaining in the atmosphere for centuries and, in other places for about 8 or 20 or whatever years on average. The seasonal takeup of CO2, especially in the Northern Hemisphere is huge. No doubt its a matter of distinguishing apples and oranges. The relevant figure would appear to be how long it would take to get atmospheric CO2 down to an acceptable level if it was shown that a certain level was too high and some lower level was OK. My friend who looks forward to developing a marina on the Siberian coast of the Arctic Ocean can’t wait to find out how quickly the CO2 level can be increased and positive feedback guaranteed….
Angus, thanks again for your replies. So to sum up, you think CO2 is a greenhouse gas, you accept that human activity has greatly increased its concentration in the atmosphere, and you appear to accept that global temperatures have increased at exactly the same time that human activity has increased CO2 levels. So do you think that the increase in greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere is sufficent to account for all or a large portion of the approximately one degree celcius increase in global temperature since the start of the 20th century?
@Angus Cameron
“Schroedinger’s uncertainty principle”? Don’t you mean the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, which states that two complementary variables cannot be simultaneously known to arbitrarily high precision? Maybe you’re thinking of the Robertson–Schrödinger uncertainty relations, which are particular ways to express the Uncertainty Principle mathematically.
Getting back to Sunshine’s uncertainty (no pun) about the wave – particle duality of light (or EM radiation in general) in the context of climate change, let’s think about satellite measurements and the Uncertainty Principle. A satellite in orbit acquires a given amount of EM radiation, or photon bundles, in a given amount of time (“dwell time”) from an area controlled by the sensor’s instantaneous field of view (IFOV). If the sensor has been engineered to provide high spatial resolution, or a small IFOV, it must acquire sufficient energy from the ground to overcome the “noise’ inherent in the detector system. This means acquiring EM radiation, or photon bundles, over a broad range in wavelength, enough to rise above the system’s “noise floor”. Thus a high spatial resolution satellite system has relatively poor resolution in the wavelength or frequency of the received radiation (and vice versa). The product of spatial resolution and frequency resolution for the sensor must exceed a minimum value. I have now explained the Uncertainty Principle as it applies to measurements of radiation by orbiting satellites, which are used to make observations useful for climate change studies.
I sympathize, Angus, that you were called out those many years ago for spouting “guff” about the Uncertainty Principle in your Philosophy class. But from your posts, I fear you have yet to outgrow the tendency.
@ Ronald Brak
I guess it could explain about half the rise or a little more. That’s a very tentative view that I would find hard to justify in detail without looking up a few dozen articles I have read which would tend to support it. Just from memory I recall that there were a couple of downward movements (though not as large as the upward movement of temperatures from about 1976 to 1997 which according the the scientists I trust most just because I know they have no axe to grind and are highly competent physicists is particularly significant because of the Great Pacific Climate Shift of 1976**) each covering about 30 years of the late 19th – early and middle 20th century. The real take off of CO2 emissions was from about 1950 and it wasn’t until about 1976 that the temperature rise became very noticeable. Do you remember the predictions being made in the early 70s that we were threatened with another Ice Age? Apart from better understanding and modeling of the effects of clouds and ocean circulation (never forgetting that the oceans have several hundred times the mass of the atmosphere and several hundred times as much CO2 – and that’s apart from the CO2 which as been taken up and stored by or as rocks in the ocean) the modeling of feedback (positive, negative or negligible) is so far from settled that an authority like Bill Kininmonth can say with considerable credibility that CO2’s own contribution will raise temperatures by about half a degree C sometime after 2050. It looks as though the forthcoming IPCC report may well reduce the maximum likely rise to about 2 degrees (that’s from the Matt Ridley article in the WSJ – he’s better at science than banking I think, and hope).
**Interestingly one of them admitted he had only recently added the Chow Test to his armoury – pretty important as it is regarded, I gather, as providing a good test of whether there is a break in a trend such as to make it statistically valid to regard the time series as two separate ones rather than a single one – particularly relevant to the what I gather is accepted as the Great Pacific Climate Shift of the late 70s.
So, given that no one has given reason to suppose that the natural forces which brought us out of the Little Ice Age had ceased to operate by 1900, and given the absence of any strong correlation between CO2 rise and temperature rise before the 1976 – 1997 period (or 1950 to 1997 if you don’t apply the Chow Test and ignore the climate shift of the late 70s) I think “about half” or a bit more would be a fair estimate. Curiously I would think most scientists wouldn’t be able to do better and those that could would have to do a lot of careful detailed work to make their case convincingly. Certainly I have never heard as far as comes to mind any scientist giving a good knock down answer on any such precise and complex matter.
@ JKUU – thank you for reminding me it was the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle with which I made a fool of myself by trying to use something I then didn’t understand in a context to which it had no relevance that I could explain. However I would have used the correct name!
You are quite wrong in supposing I retain any strong tendency to make the same kind of misstep many years on. I am extremely aware of what I know and how justified I am in thinking I know it: I happily adopt the tag given me by another of a Sceptic’s Sceptic but one who realises that decision making in conditions of uncertainty is an important part of real life – almost a justification for some professionals from specialist areas doing a well structured MBA course.
You sound as though you know what you are talking about in relation to the Heisenberg principle’s application to measurements that have relevance to climate studies. But you don’t seem to have much sense of relevance. That, as a great judge of my acquaintance said many years ago was the chief requirement of effective counsel, that is ” a sense of relevance”. A lot of people go on about things they know about because, well, they know about them (and almost by definition find them interesting quite apart from any opportunities their knowledge affords them to show off). And others, including myself, go off at tangents to the main argument because they are enjoying the train of thought, especially if it has just come to them, or just because it is interesting to them or satisfying to try and work out exactly what they think about the subject. (Almost on the “I don’t know what I think until I hear what I say” principle!). You seem to have done that. And good luck to you. I think JQ can afford the ink and newsprint.
Q: Does anyone have a name for this manoeuvre?
A: Futilism.
NOTE When updated in the course of argument, neo-futilism.
@Angus Cameron
“Ah another sloppy waffler.” Angus, I’m tolerating your comments, although they are totally wrong, because you’ve mostly been polite. But any further personal attacks on other commenters will lead to a ban.
Apologies for my bad formatting: Greg vP’s quotes are the first and third paras above, other comments are mine.
I’m pretty sure it already has a name, “Conservative Liberal Obstruction” or “the Present Measure argument”, thanks to Cornford’s Microcosmographia academica. A’s final “that’s absurd” is pretty close to the use of the Conservative Liberal wedge.
“The following are the main types of argument suitable for the Conservative Liberal.
‘The present measure would block the way for a far more sweeping reform’. The reform in question ought always to be one which was favoured by a few extremists in 1881, and which by this time is quite impracticable and not even desired by any one. This argument may safely be combined with the Wedge argument: ‘If we grant this, it will be impossible to stop short’. It is a singular fact that all measures are always opposed on both these grounds. The apparent discrepancy is happily reconciled when it comes to voting.”
Source: http://www.cs.kent.ac.uk/people/staff/iau/cornford/cornford8.html
Angus, so to sum up your position, you believe in human caused global warming. I presume you are in favour of efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions?
@Angus Cameron
On the question of “how long CO2 remains in the atmosphere”, you should have regard to the detailed scientific work done on “the long tail of CO2”.
It’s the perturbation to the entire ecosystem from the desequestration of hitherto sequestered carbon that is the problem, rather than the residence of any CO2 molecule, that is the larger problem. Carbon cycles and is re-released (unless it is securely sequestered (eg through silicate weathering)
Studies suggest that the ‘long tail’ may be 50kyr long and that the carbon we are freeing from the fossil reserves will continue to cycle between the active sinks at the surface — (marine, water; vegetation; the atmosphere; the soil) for that long sionce this is the time scale for siliate weathering.
That may be unduly pessimistic, since we can’t know that some technology from securing carbon at the scale required will not be developed and deployed far earlier than that, but that again underlines the need for caution in desequestering carbon from its comparatively secure stores beneath the Earth’s surface.
@ John Quiggin
Apologies for calling a spade a spade (or, as the expression goes, a bloody shovel). It is in a way reassuring that you don’t seem to have been reading what your little ones have aimed at me! But only “in a way” because your broad brush “[your] comments are totally wrong” is extremely disheartening given that I used sometimes to read your pieces in the AFR and think you knew something useful to have expressed by an expert in such a forum.
Just give a glimpse of your reasons please. How can it be “totally wrong” to make an argument that, absent any adequate evidence that action taken by Australia will make any difference to our climatic outcomes we should base our spending decisions on proper consideration of opportunity costs and make sure we are not giving up the possibility of doing good with our money in myriad ways for nothing in return. And as you have committed yourself to “totally” how about justifying the model making which can’t guarantee that it has all the natural forces accounted for which gave us the past climatic disasters that I mentioned. How can I be totally wrong about that? Equally, what have you to say about the application of the Chow Test to the temperature times series of the last 70 years and the finding of a break about 1976? Or of the relevance of work done on whether the emissions have an oceanic or fossil fuel signature (though I have not described them as important to the central questions)?
Now we have, this morning in The Australian, the following:
We got it wrong on warming, says IPCC
Graham Lloyd, Environment editor, The Australian, September 16, 2013
THE Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s latest assessment reportedly admits its computer drastically overestimated rising temperatures, and over the past 60 years the world has in fact been warming at half the rate claimed in the previous IPCC report in 2007.
More importantly, according to reports in British and US media, the draft report appears to suggest global temperatures were less sensitive to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide than was previously thought.
The 2007 assessment report said the planet was warming at a rate of 0.2C every decade, but according to Britain’s The Daily Mail the draft update report says the true figure since 1951 has been 0.12C.
Last week, the IPCC was forced to deny it was locked in crisis talks as reports intensified that scientists were preparing to revise down the speed at which climate change is happening and its likely impact.
It is believed the IPCC draft report will still conclude there is now greater confidence that climate change is real, humans are having a major impact and that the world will continue to warm catastrophically unless drastic action is taken to curb greenhouse gas emissions.
The impacts would include big rises in the sea level, floods, droughts and the disappearance of the Arctic icecap.
But claimed contradictions in the report have led to calls for the IPCC report process to be scrapped.
Professor Judith Curry, head of climate science at the Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta, told The Daily Mail the leaked summary showed “the science is clearly not settled, and is in a state of flux”.
The Wall Street Journal said the updated report, due out on September 27, would show “the temperature rise we can expect as a result of manmade emissions of carbon dioxide is lower than the IPCC thought in 2007”.
The WSJ report said the change was small but “it is significant because it points to the very real possibility that, over the next several generations, the overall effect of climate change will be positive for humankind and the planet”.
After several leaks and reports on how climate scientists would deal with a slowdown in the rate of average global surface temperatures over the past decade, the IPCC was last week forced to deny it had called for crisis talks.
“Contrary to the articles the IPCC is not holding any crisis meeting,” it said in a statement.
The IPCC said more than 1800 comments had been received on the final draft of the “summary for policymakers” to be considered at a meeting in Stockholm before the release of the final report. It did not comment on the latest report, which said scientists accepted their forecast computers may have exaggerated the effect of increased carbon emissions on world temperatures and not taken enough notice of natural variability.
According to The Daily Mail, the draft report recognised the global warming “pause”, with average temperatures not showing any statistically significant increase since 1997.
Scientists admitted large parts of the world had been as warm as they were now for decades at a time between 950 and 1250, centuries before the Industrial Revolution.
And, The Daily Mail said, a forecast in the 2007 report that hurricanes would become more intense had been dropped.
Writing in The Wall Street Journal, Matt Ridley said the draft report had revised downwards the “equilibrium climate sensitivity”, a measure of eventual warming induced by a doubling of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. It had also revised down the Transient Climate Response, the actual climate change expected from a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide about 70 years from now.
Ridley said most experts believed that warming of less than 2C from pre-industrial levels would result in no net economic and ecological damage. “Therefore, the new report is effectively saying (based on the middle of the range of the IPCC’s emissions scenarios) that there is a better than 50-50 chance that by 2083 the benefits of climate change will still outweigh the harm,” he said.
************************************
Even the Oz’s editorial waffle has got round to backing off its support for the main AGW disaster thesis and action by Australia. Will you mount your steed or allow Sancho Panza to restrain you?
@ Ronald Brak
I would never “sum up” something important in such simple unqualified terms. However I am in favour of reducing CO2 emissions and therefore “efforts being made” to that end by someone somewhere, if the cost isn’t too great compared with the reasonably anticipated outcome. Thus I think there is a lot to be said for investing in better technology, and research intended to provide such better technology, so as to reduce emissions from fossil fuel burning and part of my reason for that, as for most things I support, is that there is more than one benefit likely to flow from such technological improvements: particularly reduction in air pollution (I don’t mean pollution in the Humpty Dumpty sense which includes CO2!).
@ Fran Barlow
Thanks for your elaboration. I haven’t time to read or discuss it in detail but I think it adds something substantial to my tentative understanding and approach that time in the atmosphere isn’t a simple concept.
@Angus Cameron
What do you mean “even the Oz is backing off”? The Oz is Australia’s leading publisher of denialist memes! Check out Tim Lambert’s “The Australian’s War on Science” series.
@Angus Cameron
If you were paying attention, you would have seen that you’re reply to my comment hadn’t appeared as of last night. Unfortunately this is an occupational hazard on this site when posting many links. The possibility that you’re comment might be stuck in moderation what precisely what prompted the “as far as I can see” caveat. You might like to consider being a little more observant and a little less rude next time.
Angus, I summarise things simply all the time. I find it very helpful for getting a handle on things. So to sum things up simply once again, you believe in human caused global warming and you think efforts should be made to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. So, some quibbles not withstanding, broadly speaking you are in agreement with everyone on this thread.
Angus Cameron appears to have provided a complete, verbose and extremely tedious illustration of the two-step (I can’t be sure as each time I started reading one of his contributions I fcould feel the will to live slipping away). We’re still no closer to a catchy name for it (although Mick Peel’s suggestion @ 1 of the Lomborg Twist is pretty good).
@Nathan
That said, in the interests of being civil, let me add that I completely and cheerfully withdraw my claim of your failure to respond. It’s also quite polite, so props for that. I’ll endeavour to respond later, but briefly, although I don’t set too much store by appeals to peripheral authority one way or the other, I’ve got to respond to your continued practice of referring to your “physicist friends”. As a professional theoretical physicist, I spend my life around other physicists and so I can reliably inform you that there is a great regard for the cautious and diligent research undertaken by so many groups in climate science. In particular, citing something like Lindzen and Choi (one of the most famously flawed papers in the field) would tend to get you laughed out of most physics department tearooms.
@David Irving (no relation)
Itoldya, it’s called the “Conservative Liberal Present Measure argument”, or “Present Measure” for short.
@Angus Cameron
The article you reproduce from The Australian is in error.
The UK journalist David Rose made several errors and false claims, which Graeme Lloyd has obediently passed on to lucky Australia.
The IPCC AR4 2007 in fact observed that warming had proceeded at 0.13C/decade , not the 0.2C claimed in the article. The 0.2C/decade figure was the IPCC’s projected rate for two decades post-2007 Rose must correct this.
Rose/Lloyd has also claimed the IPCC were ‘forced to deny’ they had scheduled a crisis meeting….when in fact Rose has been forced to retract his false claim of a ‘crisis meeting’ because the IPCC corrected him!
Please do not dump tabloid garbage uncritically, Angus.
@ Nathan
At last, someone who should know what he’s talking about. I take on trust that you are a theoretical physicist and, if you tell me you have done work on aspects of climate science I will find such work very interesting. Otherwise, I would still give you credit beyond the accepting what other scientists they know or know at only one remove do because we, the great and good, would be appalled at bad science or badly motivated scientists. In other words I would give you credit beyond what I give to some of the great and good in the medical science world who have decided to go into bat (disregarding economics of course) on what they conceive as climate science.
But have you worked for hours and days putting together papers on the subject? Or are you entirely depending on others whom for various good or bad or indifferent reasons you trust?
I have heard the Lindzen and Choi paper dismissed and it did seem even to me with no adequate ability to dissect the paper beyond the abstract somewhat unconvincing in so far as it might form the basis of firm opinions rather than doubts. So, please, give me chapter and verse on the follow up to that paper. As you noted (and I accept) that absolutely critical question of the nature and extent of the feedback from additional water vapour has had much work done on it and it is still ongoing. Where are we at? And with what probability that we know the answer? By the way Svensmark’s theory about the sun’s magnetic influence (not the usual solar explanation) on the way cosmic radiation from well outside the solar system affects cloud formation has been rubbished too. Again I have only read and heard dismissive assertion so would be pleased to know where that theory is at. It is difficult to get people enthusiastic enough to blog to understand that my solidly based (in logic anyway, if not morality) stance about what Australia should do independently of what “the science” has, supposedly, settled really does excuse me from keeping up with the latest research on all the main AGW related areas of science. And if I therefore raise as questions which are nonetheless interesting, and potentially reassuring if one can conclude that the AGW disaster scenario is at worst extremely unlikely, that is surely permissible especially when there really are common errors and gaps that are widespread in non-scientific circles, and, in the case of gaps, in scientific circles. E.g. I still haven’t heard that anyone has modeled climate so as to accurately retropredict past disasters and thereby give some confidence that all the major natural influences on climate have been accounted for.
How careful I have been not to assert a belief that scientists in early or mid career who depend for the forseeable future on research into presumed dangerous AGW being rewarded with accolades, promotions and research funds are quite as suspect (intellectually as much as or more than morally) as any businessman, lawyer depending on Legal Aid or …. millions of others of us who do not belong to priestly castes (oh, dear, their don’t seem to be any priestly castes which automatically inspire thoughts of purity these days. Even the peace-loving Buddhists have taken to persecuting Muslims in Sri Lanka, Burmay and Thailand: is there nothing one can hold up as permanently admirable and sacred?)
@ Nick
I would thank you for providing relevant corrections (assuming they are relevant and significant overall) if it were not for your sloppy indifference which allows you to refer to that as “tabloid” garbage. It is of course from the established Environment Editor (or Correspondent or whatever) of our major broadsheet. Most people don’t buy or read The Australian (indeed I only had the article because it was forwarded to me and others by a former head of a major federal government department who has taken a special interest in climate matters). So I provided it as a minor service.
Now I look back at what you have written and I suspect, without the time to check, that you have only cherry picked a few nits which don’t much affect the substance of what the article conveyed.
where’s turgid?
could it be he is being spelled by another?
and
the hope that catchy word play will open the sluice gates of reason ,is ,while not impossible,highly improbable.
after all,every body knows half of all advertising is a waste of money but know one knows which half.
maybe the way to get wide spread attention is to concentrate on who benefits from the denial.
follow the money and hammer it.
look at the technique being followed by angus.
he’s all over the place.
inconsistency is not a problem.
long windedness is not a problem.
being really irritating is not a problem.
and digressive argument?
very useful against people who are used to reason.
etc.
the facts are in.
it’s not about facts it’s about feeling.
follow the money and hammer it.
you are economists.
following the money is your job.
@Angus Cameron
I thought you liked to call a spade a spade? That article is garbage. And Rose’s error, transmitted by Lloyd, is no ‘nit’, it crushes the core of his claim that the IPCC ‘admitted’ they had overestimated the warming by half … please, take the time to check. I did.
Don’t fall for News Ltd tabloidism: the use of ‘admit’, ‘forced’ and other loaded words is a red flag. The IPCC meeting was scheduled anyway, as can be confirmed at their website. WG1 is scheduled to meet end September to present their SPM for member government approval. News Ltd have been spinning their view from leaked incomplete drafts.
@Angus Cameron
Further to the disinformation from News Ltd This response from the Science Media Centre
@Angus Cameron
Whose ‘contributions’ to this area of policy over a number of years have been shown to have been utterly lacking in intellectual integrity, in a paper that has had no integrity in any area of policy, in a stable of papers that have just run an utterly partisan and frivolous election campaign to secure the regime of preference of the head of NewsCorp.
So poor is the output of this paper, that one really is better served assuming that every claim not plainly confirmed independently of them is wrong rather than right and to look for the nefarious motive underlying the claim.
Angus, taking up Ronald’s question to you
To clarify your position on climate change, are you saying that policies of adaptation and accommodation will be sufficient and cost effective without carbon emissions reduction?
If so, could the engineering adaptations, such as the storm walls to protect NY from the occurrence of other Cyclone Sandy’s be designed without climate modelling? How much are overall adaptation costs reduced by carbon emission reductions? Of course, the answer may be it is a question of science and not economics.
@Fran Barlow
Exactly.
Man, we’ve been in total agreement several times now…
I’ll offer “Argument from Personal Incredulity” as a candidate answer to your original question John.
Angus Cameron, you can’t seriously take our national tabloid seriously on global warming! Talk about gullible.
And maybe the term you are looking for Professor Q is “defeatism”.
Lord have mercy, I feel sorry for Angus’ keyboard.
Tangentially:
There is no scientifically proven link between smoking and lung cancer. In fact, “scientists” in the ’40s and ’50s clearly demonstrated that cigarette smoking was very healthful (if only from a weight-loss standpoint). I have seen the advertisements supporting my contention (but I will not cite them directly, as what I have to say is obviously true, based on self-assessment of my own intellect). In light of that, those who are exposed the second-hand smoke should be thankful for the smokers who have unselfishly done them such a favor in exposing them to this healthful non-pollutant.
The alleged link between smoking and lung cancer is based on bad science.
Cigarette smoking cannot be stopped by ridiculous laws, higher taxes, or public education. The mere fact that cigarettes exist is proof that they are a part of our natural system, and, as such, cannot be effectively regulated.
Smoke ’em, if ya’ got ’em.
Angus Cameron,
I’ve had a look at your underpinning Tim Curtin “technical document”, and, frankly it is a load of twaddle, particularly his “peer reviewed” paper. Of that paper he puts forward an argument (as far as I can deduce) that rather than focus on reducing emissions, he suggests growing more food to increase the CO2 absorption from the atmosphere from the natural 4 to 6 gigaton CO2 to something else. The problem with that of course is that human CO2 output is now 25 gigaton and the notion to absorb any significant part of that through growing plant matter on the earth’s 1 fifth surface area is totally absurd particularly as that area for plant growth is steadily being eroded by human activity and the destructive effects of global warming.
Curtin attempts to add credibility to his arguments by throwing in several chemical equations claiming some kind of conspiracy to suppress these supposed environmental balancing effects. From what I can tell he is deluded in his conclusion.
But the real issue with all of the denialist arguments is the failure to recognise that as the earth warms atmospheric moisture content increases. This is generally not denied, but what is not appreciated is that this moisture uptake which represents a massive increase in atmospheric energy content also suppresses temperature. So the argued “cooling” is in fact continued heating as more moisture is packed into the air. Further it is this moisture content that drives the ever increasing destuctive climate events of both flooding and counter intuitively heating, fires and freezing.
So, Cameron, it is good that you are interested in these things, but you really do need to study harder and actually think about the information. Otherwise you continue to be a very verbose part of the Triviality.
Some reading
https://www-pls.llnl.gov/?url=science_and_technology-earth_sciences-moisture
@ Quibble
Don’t you use voice recognition?
I think you are probably unfamiliar with the progress of proof on tobacco related matters. Initially quite respectable scientists could point to the fact that there was a merely statistical connection between between cigarette smoking and lung cancer but it is surely at least 40 years since physiological mechanisms were adequate described and proven.
I have recently read some suggestion that the benefit protecting people from second hand smoke is small in most circumstances, indeed so small that it is hard to justify some of the bans in public places. I wouldn’t risk even my most ill-bred dog in that fight which doesn’t interest me. I don’t want to smell again 99 per cent of the second hand smoke that has ever been emitted in my presence.
@BilB
BilB – Before trying the patronising mode consider first whether you might be taking on a master (if he bothers with you) and, to start with, don’t show yourself up as someone who doesn’t take care to read what he criticises Someone else has already controverted what Curtin said (I suppose that is so anyway because I didn’t toss in the reference to Curtin with any implication that it was right or critically important because I had merely come across it BTW and hadn’t studied it.) I didn’t identify Curtin as a nutter, but I did say, which you ignore:
“Thanks Nick. I shouldn’t be surprised [that Curtin got it wrong] . I have myself written criticism of work published by Tim Curtin. As so often, save me from my friends! (Not that I know Curtin at all, only someone who says he tried to put him right on some things and had trouble with that).”
@John Brookes
@ John Brookes
And what do you read when you want to “take global warming seriously”? And what counts as taking it serously? One wouldn’t read this blog in order to “take global warming seriously” after all, or would you? If so, you must allow that there are a lot of ways of raising an issue just as you wouldn’t, if civilised, cut off a layman asking about something he/she had heard a supposed expert say on a program or in a context you didn’t think canonical and you wouldn’t treat what was quoted as unworthy of reply because of the origing of the quote. Unfortunately for your argument you need to come to terms with the fact that the author of The Australian article knows quite a lot about the AGW issue, probably having done a lot more reading than anyone on this blog and in my case I thought it worth passing on to others for detailed refutaton (if justified) rather than fatuous broad brush abuse because of the distinguished former public servant who posted it.
@ Bilb
I’ve just had a look at your link. I’m not sure what you think is new or surprising about it or has any relevance to where Australian money ought to be spent in the near future.
What puzzles me is why you think you are making a contribution towards having the positive feedback effect treated as huge and hugely important by citing something with date September 18, 2007. Don’t try to pretend that you are more than an interested amateur with opinions beyond your personal competence if you can’t do better than that. As others have asserted positive feedback is just about the hottest topic for AGW research and you cite some kind of news release from six years ago!
@ Fran Barlow
I have to refrain from comment on News Corp papers as the only one I get is the Weekend Australian and I don’t see any of the others regularly. How painful it must be to feel compelled to read such trash and demonstrate and document its failings.
Anguth:
Tiziz wut eye git wit boyce recoznigtion.
Obviozly meye con pootr haz bean dreen king.
Again, Angus, you haven’t understood the information, so here is some more to help you.
http://www.aos.wisc.edu/~aalopez/aos101/wk9.html
The important aspect here for the hardened denialist is that humidity supresses temperature rise and rearranges energy flows in the atmosphere. The denialist is hanging his hat on the short term variations in the general air temperature rise failing to understand the integrated (not the feedback) process of temperature and energy flow cycle in the global atmosphere.
Here, Angus, you dive headlong into the triviality
“But, since correlation is not causation, where does that take you? Would you agree that over long periods of time – the odd million years or so – the rise in atmospheric CO2 has followed the warming of the atmosphere?”
Well as you have put the proposition, here are those millions of years relative to the present
and having
“taken the trouble to spend hours with physicists, marine biologists, mathematicians and others with superior highly relevant scientific knowledge to understand what the issues are and what the evidence is”
demonstrate how your theory of CO2 following temperature works?
I’m sorry, JQ. Please ban me for life.
My head is spinning after falling into the trap of reading all of Angus Cameron’s 2.28 comment. Here is a person who must run his brain in a blender once a week, just to mix things up a little, before pooring it back into his head to carry on blogging.
Why ever did he turn up here? Has he been banned from everywhere else!!?
@ BilB
Thanks for the links which are interesting enough though I don’t see why you think they have value in an argument with me. Of course the rise in temperature of ocean and land from any cause is, cet. par., going to produce more water vapour in the atmosphere and that can act as primarily an additional greenhouse factor (depending I suppose on lots of variables such as where in the world it concentrates if it does, at what heights, how far it forms reflective clouds etc.) and/or as a source of more rain, bigger hurricanes etc etc. But whether there are models which appear to encompass all natural and manmade variables and have been validated by outcomes over many years to at least the 2 sd (95%) standard is another matter. Clearly the East Anglian lot whose emails were leaked were worried. They didn’t say, as is now so often blandly said, that a high plateau of temperatures doesn’t shed a doubt on the modeling but is just well within the range of natural variation. They apparently accepted what everyday commonsense scepticism proffered which was that the AGW is going to be disastrous thesis did depend, not least for its acceptance, on people seeing that a rise in CO2 was followed pretty reliably and soon by an increase in global temperatures because more greenhouse gas had trapped more heat and so on…. (I have to repeat because you and others don’t get it. This is barely relevant to what I think Australian policy should be but can I hope be another contribution to reducing believers tension levels).
I think it is time for me to sign off in relation to someone who passionately asserts the irrelevant (i.e. to my posts that you purport to reply to). If you took any care, you could, at least I trust you could, see that your first quote from me was a particular response to someone whose questions about correlations I could not see going anywhere helpful to him or me. What you incorrectly call my [“your”] “theory” of CO2 following temperature seems important to some – and it may be: it is certainly something to take notice of – but I have never thought it more than something that needs explanation though it is quite compatible with the idea that there might be thresholds in the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere and different relatonships at different overall average temperatures, and so on. I will admit to believing that anyone seeking to prove that we are facing CO2 mediated disaster needs to add to his persuasive armoury an explanation of such past phenomena, though, to my mind the events of the Holocene are much more important. (Would you care to point me to explanations for the major climatic events of the Holocene that I have pointed to? There were about 8 I think…..).
Angus Cameron,
You really do exemplify John Holbo’s two step triviality.
Events such as flooding of entire countries, massive fire storms, polar meltdown, glacial disappearence, and global temperature altering CO2 emissions are interesting, but climate change thousands of years ago arefar more important to the Australian Federal budget.
There has got to be some sort of prize for that kind of bizarre thinking. It would probably be called the “Lord Lithgow Award”, and be proudly kept beside one’s Darwin Award.