BPSDB
The fraud fad ‘meme de jour’ in climate science Denier tabloid media this week is the hoary old chestnut:
‘New Study disproves/overturns/undermines global warming / climate change science/models/theory!”
.
.
Never mind that:
- they repeat this meme every few weeks with a completely different study;
- none of the Deniers seem to even remotely understand the study they refer to;
- none of the studies ever turn out to say what the Deniers believe/claim;
- the fact that it is “new” means it should be treated with caution since review by the entire scientific community can lead to:
- discovery of subtle errors that the authors and reviewers missed;
- a way of understanding the data different from how the authors had;
- the probability that a single study could overturn the thousands upon thousands of studies that support our understanding of climate change is remote in the extreme (see here).
The latest victim of Deniermania would be of less interest if it had not taken a comic turn with the appearance of Richard Courtney, playing Verges in support to Marc Morano as Dogberry.
The curtain rose with a press release at Eurekalert! (“Global warming: Our best guess is likely wrong“) about a study just published in Nature Geoscience.
The Nutshell version of Carbon dioxide forcing alone insufficient to explain Palaeocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum warming is explained in more detail at:
- OMFG!!!! Climate Models Might Be Wrong!
- Climate change deniers misrepresent new study that finds climate models underestimate warming
- Gaps in climate knowledge! Oh no!
- Bad news on the feedback front
- Unknown climate culprit for Palaeocene-Eocene warming
- Scholars and Rogues
but for our purposes here a much simpler version will suffice.
The Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM) was a time of rapid climate change. The authors of the study in question constructed a model that failed to account for all of the warming based on CO2 alone. This conclusion would be strong support for the powerful actions of one of the “positive feedbacks” discussed in the IPCC reports, particularly the report of Working Group II. These “positive feedbacks” are more popularly known as “tipping points“, but the term”tipping elements” is gaining favour as more descriptive and accurate.
The press release quoted oceanographer Gerald Dickens as saying “There appears to be something fundamentally wrong with the way temperature and carbon are linked in climate models.” (more on that later).
The Nutbar version played out as follows. Given the Dickens’ quote (above) the Denialosphere predictably went beserk.
Here are some of the Denialosphere article titles:
- Climate Models “Fundamentally Wrong”
- Scientists Say Climate Models “Fundamentally Wrong”
- Global Warming Climate Models May be Wrong
- Rocks Confidence in Climate Change Models, Predictions
- Study shakes foundation of climate theory! Reveals UN models
- Global Warming: Scientists’ Best Predictions May Be Wrong
Needless to say the majority of the pieces merely copy/paste the press release verbatim. They inadvertently admit never looking at the original paper by mistakenly claiming to link the paper when all they link is the abstract (Nature Geoscience is subscription only, so even if they had looked, only those with subscriptions could actually read it. My guess is that the Deniers with subscriptions is a whole number somewhat less than 1.)
In his outrageously titled “Study shakes foundation of climate theory! Reveals UN models ‘fundamentally wrong’ – Blames ‘Unknown Processes’ — not CO2 for ancient global warming ‘Global warming: Our best guess is likely wrong‘” Marc ‘Wormtongue’ Morano at Climate Despot apparently tried to incorporate every sensationalist claim he could. He also followed the pattern of linking the abstract as the paper, and merely copying large portions of the press release.
He then went on to attempt to link this study with an earlier ‘meme de jour’, the Swanson and Tsonis study on variability and climate shifts (discussed at the time in Climate change, lies, lies and more lies).
For some reason he did not link the RealClimate article where Swanson says, in effect, that the Deniers are idiots who do not understand science. In the same article Swanson also states that “What do our results have to do with Global Warming, i.e., the century-scale response to greenhouse gas emissions? VERY LITTLE, contrary to claims that others have made on our behalf.”
I guess those facts wouldn’t have worked so well with the lie Morano was trying to construct. Mornano then follows up with some irrelevant and more or less random criticisms of the US Government/IPCC computer software and models (more on this below).
Let us pause for moment though, because it is worth highlighting this typical contradiction in the Denier position. This study is being broadly cited as evidence that computer models are wrong, computer models don’t work, blah blah.
Except Zeebe et al (this study) is based on a computer model. If it demonstrates that computer models don’t work, then this study is wrong, in which case we are back to square one. But if that’s so, then it’s right (by Denier logic), in which case they’re wrong, in which case it’s wrong …
Personally I prefer the scientific interpretation, that models are just a tool like any other. Perhaps someone is willing to argue that only this model works, but I haven’t seen anyone try that one yet.
I suspect that most Deniers are not even aware that the study they are talking about is computer model based. Those that are aware of it probably prefer to not draw attention to the inherent contradiction in their claims.
ENTER VERGES: In UN IPCC Scientist: ‘Natural climate change denial of the last decade is not sustainable anymore’ ‘Global cooling has now been happening for so long’ even RealClimate.org now admits! …
(Morano’s titles really need their own, separate debunking)
… we are told that Richard Courtney “a UN IPCC expert reviewer and a UK based atmospheric science consultant, who is featured on page 224 of the U.S. Senate Report of More Than 700 Dissenting Scientists Over Man-Made Global Warming.” What? Morano want’s to highlight Courtney’s name on a notorious fraud? I guess as the author of that fraud Morano probably has a different … perspective on it.
OK then, let’s hear what the “UN IPCC expert reviewer” has to say about Zeebe et al ‘Carbon dioxide forcing alone insufficient to explain Palaeocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum warming’:
“I would like to comment on the Climate Depot report providing the information concerning the paper by Zeebe et al. that says the PETM (Palaeocene-Eocene thermal maximum of 55 million years ago) demonstrates the assumed (e.g. by IPCC) relationship of mean global temperature to atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration is wrong.
The Climate Depot report reveals:”
Wait, … what?
He’s not commenting on the paper itself? He’s going to comment as if he were talking about the paper, but based on the silly “report” that Morano wrote? He hasn’t even read the paper? (no subscription to Nature Geoscience I guess). Excuse my language, but WTF??? That goes beyond incompetent and clear into ridiculous.
OK, it actually get’s worse, seriously worse.
Ignoring Swanson’s caution that their work has little to do with global warming, Courtney also tries to make the link to Swanson and Tsonis. He manages this by not understanding the difference between a damped warming trend and actual cooling (more or less equivalent to not understanding the difference between positive and negative numbers).
Although he has now successfully demonstrated utter cluelessness beyond all reasonable doubt, Courtney still wants to really hammer the point home. To underscore that you have absolutely no idea about climate science you can hardly do better than to cite the Potty Peer Christopher Monckton as a credible source, so he does. See here for collected links on Monckton’s “science”, and also ScruffyDan’s four part Monckton’s silly graph for an in depth look at climate science ignorance running amok.
After that Courtney just get’s silly.
—-
UPDATE: Richard Courtney has taken umbrage at this article and has commented below. I have responded to his comments.
See: here and here and here and here and here and here.
Thanks to the other commenters who also replied to Courtney’s nonsense with cogent, fact based, intelligent commentary.
—-
So how does a “UN IPCC expert reviewer” make such appalling errors in assessing climate science? How is that possible?
Could it be because:
- Richard Courtney has never actually done any climate research;
- He does not seem to have any scientific credential at all, being rather a technical writer for the coal industry;
- His Diploma in Philosophy may not have included a lot of hard science courses (and here);
- His credential as “expert reviewer” is based on having sent the IPCC some unsolicited comments;
- He is notorious for spouting climate gibberish, eg:
Need I go on?
So let’s leave Courtney and Morano as they babble aimlessly off into the sunset (but with lots of declarative punctuation! and saying “climate models” frequently) and return to the actual study that they were allegedly talking about.
Zeebe et al do seem to be saying that the warming cannot be accounted for by CO2 alone, and that the models seriously underestimate the potential warming. Do the Deniers have a point? doesn’t this “prove” that the models are wrong?
First let’s be clear, who knew that the models underestimate the warming potential of tipping elements? Uhmm … absolutely everybody who has the slightest clue about climate science? (which apparently excludes the Deniers). Seriously, this is broadly known and frequently discussed, eg:
- Tipping points in the Earth system
- Why the world’s top scientists underestimated how fast we’re destroying the climate
- Musings about models
- Tipping Points in the Earth’s Climate System
- Tipping points: we know enough to know better
- Tipping points
- What exactly is polar amplification and why does it matter?
- Climate Tipping Points Get Scarier
- The Tipping Points
- Could tipping happen any time soon?
and, as mentioned above, in the IPCC reports themselves. The reasons the models do not incorporate tipping elements range from the political to the practical, but let’s deal with the latter here. It’s pretty simple really, tipping points are more or less impossible to model without almost complete knowledge of the system.
A simple analogy would be the proverbial “straw that breaks the camel’s back”. Given many tonnes of straw to work with it is a given that eventually you will crush the camel completely. Given more and more data about the camel’s load bearing capacity and stamina, and the average weight of the pieces of straw you can start making some informed predictions about approximately when, but knowing exactly which straw will cause it to collapse is very difficult to determine. 
Further, since there are multiple possible tipping points, a more apt analogy might be that of pandemics. We know enough about disease, health etc that we know that we will have pandemics. We also know a great deal about how they will spread, etc once they begin.
Do we have any idea of exactly which disease will be the next pandemic? and in what year it will break out? and where? Of course not. There are far too many variables to make that kind of precise prediction. But we can and do make the accurate (as opposed to precise) prediction that there will be a pandemic eventually, and that we should be prepared for it.
So naturally we can not make a model of health predictions that shows the time and spread of the next pandemic. We can model health trends quite accurately assuming no pandemics. We can also easily model what happens if a pandemic breaks out in this or that year in this or that place. We can even make some very informed predictions about the places and times that are more likely, but we can’t create a model that tells us when and where the next one will be.
So it is with climate change tipping elements. We know that they exist, and we know that given increased warming they will eventually be triggered, but which one first? and exactly when? We can’t say.
We can and do make the accurate prediction that given increased warming one will be triggered eventually, and that we should be do everything we can to avoid it. We can even make some very informed predictions about the places and times that are more likely. We know this, but obviously cannot model it except as a collection of “if/then” scenarios.
So what Zeebe et al is probably telling us (let’s wait until the scientific community has had a chance to assess the work before using more definite language) is that positive feedbacks can play a very significant role in warming, and that as we already knew, the current models that exclude the tipping elements underestimate the consequences of those tipping elements.
Put another way, Zeebe et al seems to be saying that we have a pretty good grasp on climate change science, including the strengths and weaknesses of the models, even though the models do not predict tipping elements.
As a corollary, the response to the paper confirms the findings of Swanson and Tsonis, specifically that:
Modes of natural climate variability are those forces of nature by which people who know nothing about modes of natural climate variability can explain everything.
or put more simply, “climate change Deniers are “fundamentally wrong” ”
As with every Denier Meme de jour the excitement will pass quickly. In a week most of the Denialosphere will go back to thinking that PETM is an animal rights group and that Zeebe was the bassist for ‘The Tragically Hip’.
All they will remember for certain is that a “new study” showed that “all of the models are wrong.” That the global scientific community did not immediately embrace the Denier faith is something they will ascribe to one of the generic conspiracy delusions.
Since Denier Memes are really just variants of Urban Legends it is equally certain that reference to this meme will pop up from time to time; we just don’t have any good models that tell us where or when. As such it is a good idea to be prepared by bookmarking this article 😉 .
During the past century, as temperatures have risen by one degree Fahrenheit, the areal extent of glaciers in the Sierra Nevada Mountains has fallen by 55 percent. These glaciers feed the rivers that support California’s agriculture, which produces more than half of America’s domestically consumed produce. Earth Gauge
We give our consent every moment that we do not resist.
Denier “Challenge” aka Deathwatch Update: Day 262 … still no evidence.
Enjoy 🙂
IMAGE CREDITS:
With love from Wormtongue by Theremina
65 Myr Climate Change from Wikipedia
2007 Arctic Sea Ice from Global Warming Art
Sea Level Projections from Global Warming Art
Comment Policy
Comments that are not relevant to the post that they appear under or the evolving discussion will simply be deleted, as will links to Denier spam known to be scientific gibberish
The Open Thread is for general climate discussion, however the spam rules still apply.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20227081.500-the-man-who-discovered-greenhouse-gases.html
“Global warming: blast from the past”
http://lightbucket.wordpress.com/2009/07/12/global-warming-blast-from-the-past/Try to drag your knowledge of science up to at least 1870Sense from Deniers on CO2? Don’t hold your breath….
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPA-8A4zf2c&feature=relatedWhat is the evidence that CO2 is causing global warming?
http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2008/10/what_is_the_evidence_that_co2.php
Does CO2 correlate with temperature?
http://moregrumbinescience.blogspot.com/2009/03/does-co2-correlate-with-temperature.html
The CO2 problem in 6 easy steps http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/08/the-co2-problem-in-6-easy-steps/
Yet more CO2 http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/08/08/yet-more-co2/
A role for atmospheric CO2 in preindustrial climate forcing http://moregrumbinescience.blogspot.com/2008/10/discussion-role-for-atmospheric-co2-in.html
Calculating the greenhouse effect http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/01/calculating-the-greenhouse-effect/langswitch_lang/sk#more-220
Greenfyre's 
The IPCC estimate of climate sensitivity is commonly called the Charney sensitivity; it excludes a bunch of long term feedbacks.
This new study (along with other studies, such as Hansen’s 350 ppm paper) provide evidence that the Charney estimate of sensitivity is low. How low? I don’t think we can answer that yet, but as was pointed out on real climate when the Hansen paper was making the rounds:
So basically this study says that the models are underestimating the expected warming. So why are deniers so excited by this study?
BTW thanks for the link!
—–
I actually had a denier comment on my post of this study linking to a write up (which pretty much agreed with me anyways, though it did include the Dickens’ quote) of the same study as a counter to my point that feedbacks are being underestimated. Since it broke my comment policy (which I have begun to strictly enforce after being flooded by info pollution sent to me by the Morano hoards), it is now gone. But I did get a good chuckle out if it.
And they actually have the audacity to complain when they are not taken seriously?
—-
If you are trying to convince ‘deniers’ that they are wrong, you need to seriously work on the tone of your writing. I came here looking for exactly the kind of debunking of the ‘deniers’ that you are trying to do here, and found your snarky, nasty writing style so off-putting I couldn’t get through the rest of your article.
You are not doing the AGW side of the debate any favors. You’re playing into the stereotype of AGW supporters as being nasty hysterical people trying to shout down debate.
On the other hand, if you just want to preach to the choir and make yourself feel superior, then keep up the good work.
Just sayin’.
—-
[…] It looks like deniers are trumpeting this study, because it highlights the uncertainty in the current crop of models. Unfortunately for them the […]
Shorter Dan H.:
I didn’t read your blog entry, because I’m an extremely even-handed, impartial person who judges arguments according to whether they make me feel good.
— bi
This is a fantastic refutation of global warming denier rhetoric. Keep up the good work!
Heh, heh, heh…
I thought all computer modelling was inherently inaccurate (according to many ‘deniers’). But this model is accurate enough to prove deniers are correct.
Sounds like more cherry picking yet again!
—-
Mike Kaulbars AKA Greenfyre:
Thankyou for your diatribe. I enjoyed it (I always enjoy a good laugh). But I would have preferred that you had commented on what I actually wrote. Those who want to read what I wrote can do so at
http://www.climatedepot.com/a/1979/UN-IPCC-Scientist-Natural-climate-change-denial-of-the-last-decade-is-not-sustainable-anymore
Furthermore, I was not commenting on the paper. [1] I was commenting on a statement by a co-author of the paper that was provided by the publisher of the paper in the press release for the paper. That statement said:
“In a nutshell, theoretical models cannot explain what we observe in the geological record,” said oceanographer Gerald Dickens, a co-author of the study and professor of Earth science at Rice University. “There appears to be something fundamentally wrong with the way temperature and carbon are linked in climate models.”
And my comments began by saying:
“OK, but if there is “something fundamentally wrong with the way temperature and carbon are linked in climate models” then this begs the question as to what effect altered atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration is now having on mean global temperature.
So, I offer the following thoughts.
The Earth has now been experiencing global cooling for a decade. The Southern Hemisphere started to cool about 20 years ago and this cooling spread to include the Northern Hemisphere about 10 years ago.”
After that I make no mention of the quote from Dickens, what he said, or his paper. I discussed why we have had global cooling for a decade and if and when global warming will resume.
But you make no discussion of what I wrote. I presume this is because you can find no fault in it. [2]
Indeed, your only mentions of what I wrote are misrepresentations. For example, I did not cite Monkton as “a credible source” [3]. I wrote:
“This is Monkton’s Figure 5 showing recent global temperature as a composite index of global mean surface temperature anomalies, taking the mean of two surface and two satellite datasets (and it is taken from http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/monckton/temperature_co2_change_scientific_briefing.pdf ).
The graph is a composite but each of the averaged data sets shows the same.”
Do you wish to challenge either that “each of the averaged data sets shows the same” or that those data sets are credible sources? [4]
For example, the HadCRUT3 data is at
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/
and it clearly shows that – as I said – “The Southern Hemisphere started to cool about 20 years ago and this cooling spread to include the Northern Hemisphere about 10 years ago.”
Do you want me to provide all the other sources, too? [5]
And am I supposed to refute all your other misrepresentations? [6] If so, then I do that by asking people to read what I wrote and to compare it to your diatribe.
Incidentally, when smearing people you could try to be factually accurate. For example, you say I provided “unsolicited” peer review comments to the IPCC. In reality, it is a matter of documented fact [7] that the US National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA, asked me to review the IPCC’s Fourth assessment Report (AR4) and the IPCC Chairman asked me to review the subsequent IPCC Synthesis Report.
Please keep up the good work of providing humorous diatribes. I am grateful for the belly laugh you gave me this time and would enjoy more laughs.
Richard
—-
Well, I am quite offended, actually, that your piece made no mention of me, and I would think that fellow travellers Frank and Scruffy, posting above, would agree this must have been an oversight on your part, Green Fyre.
I have a fish pond in my back yard, and it is remarkable how rapidly one little piece of string algae will take over the whole pond, the whole of the slime identical to the piece from which it began. Your artistic ability of sliming Richard Courtney, imitates this life form.
A piece of slime posted long ago on someone’s web site about Courtney spread like a disease in alarmist web sites, and continues to do so to this day. [1]
So if you should ever hear that you have no talent, [2] Green Fyre, it didn’t come from me.
—-
By the way that is Brian Gregory Valentine, of Arlington, Virginia, employed by the US Department of Energy [3], who wrote that.
That is to distinguish me from any ANONYMOUS individuals such as Frank Bi, or Scruffy, or Green Fyre [4], who are brave enough to castigate others on the Internet but not brave enough to sign their name to their work.
Richard S Courtney said: “The Earth has now been experiencing global cooling for a decade.”
More ‘diatribe’. Unfortunately repeating something may fool people into buying more coal and protect ones job in the coal industry, but cherry picking does you no favours.
Richard S Courtney said: “For example, the HadCRUT3 data …clearly shows that – as I said – “The Southern Hemisphere started to cool about 20 years ago…”
Actually it clearly doesn’t, unless you have defective eye sight.
In which case I apologise, but do suggest you see an optician.
Richard S Courtney said: “Incidentally, when smearing people you could try to be factually accurate.”
Yes indeed. If you want to set higher standards then, I suggest that when you reference the Hadcrut3 data you get your facts correct.
Re: Richard S Courtney
Hadcrut3 data… Southern Hemisphere temp anomalies:
20 years ago: 1989 = 0.065
last year: 2008 = 0.170
At no time between 1989 and 2008 has the SH temp dropped below 0.065.
By definition cooling means that the temperature over time most drop below the chosen starting point. Mr Courtney chose 20 years ago.
It really worries me that Mr Courtney was asked to check anything the IPCC has done, or any scientific paper.
Paul:
I did “get my facts right”, and I ask people to look at the data at the URL because the facts speak for themselves.
Please note that even the global warming propogandists at RealClimate.org admit that we have had global cooling for a decade.
At
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/07/warminginterrupted-much-ado-about-natural-variability/
they say: [1]
Excerpt: “We hypothesize that the established pre-1998 trend is the true forced warming signal, and that the climate system effectively overshot this signal in response to the 1997/98 El Niño. This overshoot is in the process of radiatively dissipating, and the climate will return to its earlier defined, greenhouse gas-forced warming signal. If this hypothesis is correct, the era of consistent record-breaking global mean temperatures will not resume until roughly 2020.”
So, even RealClimate (i.e. the Alamo of discredited so-called climate scientists) [2] now admits the fact that the Earth is experiencing global cooling [3] – at very least they admit that we have not had global warming for a decade – and suggests that global warming will not resume “until roughly 2020.” And they are trying to provide excuses for the cooling.
In other words, these global warming propogandists have recognised that their climate change denial of the last decade is not sustainable anymore. So, they have abandoned any pretence that global warming exists at the moment, and they are presenting their excuses for why the globe is cooling together with their assertions of when global warming will resume (presumably they will claim with a vengeance).
So, Paul (whomever you may be), you need to keep up. The ever-changing message from global-warming-propogandists has ‘moved on’.
You need to get back ‘on message’. [4]
Richard
—-
Some interesting stuff:
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2008/02/on-astounding-diplphil-courtney.html
Mr Courtney said: “I did “get my facts right”, and I ask people to look at the data at the URL because the facts speak for themselves. ”
Well then, what exactly do you mean by cooling??
Is it some new definition that you have made up?
Is a lower increase in temperature than expected, what you call ‘cooling’?
Come on, you said: “In reality, it is a matter of documented fact that the US National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA, asked me to review the IPCC’s Fourth assessment Report (AR4) and the IPCC Chairman asked me to review the subsequent IPCC Synthesis Report.”
So where is the science then, that you applied to such a review??
If you can do that, then show there is undoubted cooling that started 20 years ago.
Do you believe eveything you read on the internet, Paul? Eli does.
So, you and Eli have a lot in common, including preferred anonymity, although the indentiy beneath the bunny mask is well known,
and when I search the Internet using the key words, “Paul, AGW alarmist, slimer” [5]
I must say, the results are rather, vague
Hey, lets see some science here.
I have asked Mr Courtney to show here, in his own words, using the Hadcrut3 data that he has personally referenced, to show that there is undoubted cooling in the SH, that started 20 years ago.
All I am asking is that a self professed expert explains his statement.
It doesn’t matter what the original posting was about or any other comments.
Then why did you divert?
I’m not the one who diverted, you did.
If Richard doesn’t mind if I comment on the questions he was asked (I’m sure he doesn’t), the interpretation of the global temperature data from Hadley Centre over the period, 1998-2008 (for which 2008 data are verified), depends on the order of the spline interpolation of the data. [6]
Least squares reductions of the data show there has been no warming over the period. Higher order spline interpolations show a maximum occurring near 2002.
This is well known at a number of sources, and if you can’t locate any to verify what I have said, I will point you to some.
This is not to say there has been “no net warming” over the stated period, directly related to AGW.
There has been considerable. It has arisen from the heated emotions of followers of Al Gore and James Hansen, who are responsible for unneeded distress over a non problem. [7]
@ Richard S Courtney
“The Earth has now been experiencing global cooling for a decade.”
So? That is entirely consistent with AGW models and theory:
http://mind.ofdan.ca/?p=2332
Not to mention that with a couple of months to go this decade is on track to be the warmest ever recorded.
Also your excerpt from real climate doesn’t mention cooling at all. In fact if anything it says temps have plateaued, BUT are to start rising again in the not to distant future. And by looking at the above link you can see that this IS consistent with climate models.
Temperature is noisy data; any trends can be temporarily swamped out by noise. However this doesn’t mean that the trend doesn’t exist.
@ Brian
As I told you when you commented over at my place, I am not anonymous. Far from it. It would take only a couple of seconds to find my real name. Here is a hint: just ask the question whois he? Really it is that simple. I am not anonymous and never claimed to be.
And on anyone who still insists on looking at short time scales looking for temperature trends read this:
http://mind.ofdan.ca/?p=2482
Basically the error estimates of a decade of temperature data swamp out any observed trend, so all that can be said is that we estimate global temperature change as somewhere between rapid cooling and oh-my-god-we’re-all-going-to-fry warming!
Hence the need for more data.
Anonymous Paul:
This will be my last response on this blog because I have much better things to do than waste my time answering anonymous trolls on smear blogs.
Firstly, I stated science in my item that the above article attempts to refute but so abjectly fails to demean. [1]
But, in response to my citing the HadCRUT3 data and providing the URL so anybody can see the graphs for themselves, you demonstrate that reading a graph is beyond your capabilities and say;
“I have asked Mr Courtney to show here, in his own words, using the Hadcrut3 data that he has personally referenced, to show that there is undoubted cooling in the SH, that started 20 years ago.”
Well, my words are that the temperature of the Southern Hemisphere has fallen. Anybody can look at the graph and see
(a) the histogram peaks in 1987 and
(b) the smoothed line slopes down.
The downward slope indicates cooling.
The same URL links to actual data. The temperature anomaly for 1987 was 0.200 and the temperature anomaly for 2008 (i.e. the most recent complete year) was 0.174. It may be hard for you to understand, but I think others will grasp that 0.200 is higher than 0.174 and that 1987 was “about 20 years ago”. [2]
Secondly, I “professed” nothing about my expertise. The only statements about myself were to correct a lie in the silly article (above) that these comments are supposed to be discussing. The most that could be said of the correction is that it may be interpreted to imply that some others value my expertise.
The lie was that I provided “unsolicited” peer review comments. This lie is especially silly because the AR4 drafts were confidential so I could not have seen them to review them “unsolicited”. [3]
Thirdly, your daft response is to ask what “science” I applied to that review. All AR4 review comments including mine are provided by the IPCC on the IPCC web site so anybody can look them up. I provided comments on each draft. My comments on all the drafts amounted to nearly 100 A4 pages in total.
My comments included corrections to misleading statements, consistency between sections of the report, and corrections to omissions of important information. The following are randomly selected examples of each type.
Start Page SPM-10
Start Line 17
End Page SPM-10
End Line 23
This paragraph is grossly misleading because it omits an important clarification. It is necessary to append an additional final sentence to it that says;
“Ability to attribute a cause to an observed change demonstrates that the suggested cause is a possible explanation for the change, and it is important to note that the ability to attribute is not evidence that the attributed cause is responsible for the change in part or in whole.”
Start Page TS-8
Start Line 25
End Page TS-8
End Line 27
To be accurate, and to avoid falsehood, delete the words
“, observations and modelling studies show that current methane levels are due to continuing anthropogenic emissions of methane which are greater in magnitude than its natural sources.”.
These statements are fabrication that must be deleted.
Several paragraphs in Chapter 2 say that reasons for the present variability of atmospheric methane concentration are not known and are mostly – probably entirely – natural (i.e. not anthropogenic). The Chapter admits that the sources and sinks of methane are not known, are not understood, and are varying for reasons that are completely not understood. Hence, the model of Wang et al. (2004) is – and can only be – pure conjecture. Its results are science fiction and not science. And the model of Lassey et al. (2005) is pointless because it assumes “the methane sink remains stable”, but Chapter 2 says these sinks are not known, are not understood, and are varying for reasons that are completely not understood. Hence, the work of Lassey et al. (2005) is not science and it is not even worthy of being described as science fantasy.
Considering these facts, it can only be a falsehood for the Technical Summary to allude to them by claiming that “, observations and modelling studies show that current methane levels are due to continuing anthropogenic emissions of methane which are greater in magnitude than its natural sources.”.
Start Page TS-6
Start Line 31
End Page TS-6
End Line 34
Delete the sentence saying
“Atmospheric CO2 concentration increased by only 20 ppm over 8,000 years prior to industrialisation, and multi-decadal- to-centennial scale variations were less than 10 ppm. ” because the statements are not true. They are a set of misrepresentations based on selective use of data. Simply, they are lies that utilise ice core data without consideration of the limitations of that data and ignore other data that demonstrates the statements are untrue.
Air samples extracted from ice cores are inherently incapable of revealing high and low atmospheric concentrations of the gases they contain. There are several reasons for this with the most notable being that gases diffuse from regions of high concentration in unsealed firn in the decades before the ice sealed, and high values of the gas concentrations measured in the ice cores are deleted from the data sets using the assumption that high values are ‘biogenic artefacts’. Also, the diffusion reduces the observed rates of change to gas concentrations indicated by the ice core data. Stomata data do not suffer from these problems and indicate that the present atmospheric concentration of CO2 and the recent rates of change to atmospheric concentration of CO2 have repeatedly occurred in recent millennia.
The stomata measurements are obtained from ancient plants. The leaves of plants adjust the sizes of their stomata with changing atmospheric CO2 concentration and this permits the determination of past atmospheric CO2 concentrations by analysis of leaves preserved, for example, in peat bogs. (e.g. Retallack (2001), Wagner et al. (2004), Kouwenberg et al. (2003)). The disagreement with the ice core data is clearly seen in all published studies of the stomata data. For example, as early as 1999 Wagner reported that studies of birch leaves indicated a rapid rise of atmospheric CO2 concentration from 260 to 327 ppmv (which is similar to the rise in the twentieth century) from late Glacial to Holocene conditions. This ancient rise of 67 ppmv in atmospheric CO2 concentration is indicated by the stomata data at a time when the ice core data indicate only 20 ppmv rise. (refs. Retallack G, Nature vol. 411 287 (2001), Wagener F, et al. Virtual Journal Geobiology, vol.3. Issue 9, Section 2B (2004), Kouenberg et al. American Journal of Botany, 90, pp 610-619 (2003), Wagner F et al. Science vol. 284 p 92 (1999)).
The importance of this is clearly shown by Figure 2 of
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2002 September 17; 99(19): 12011–12014, Rapid atmospheric CO2 changes associated with the 8,200-years-B.P. cooling event, Friederike Wagner, Bent Aaby, and Henk Visscher,
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=129389
THIS FIGURE FLATLY CONTRADICTS THE UNTRUE ASSERTIONS IN LINES 31-34 ON PAGE 6. It compares stomatal data with ice core data from the Taylor Dome for atmospheric CO2 concentration for the period 8,700 to 6,800 calendar years BP. It shows that
the stomatal data indicate a higher atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) level (up to 320+/-15 ppm) than the ice core data (all less than 270 ppm),
and
the stomatal data shows the extensive averaging (smoothing) which has occurred in the Taylor Dome ice core data.
This is a brief quote from the paper (see the paper for references):
“The conventional iced-based concept of relatively stabilized CO2 concentrations during the greater part of the Holocene is challenged increasingly by stomatal frequency analysis of fossil leaves (13–15). Species of C3 plants are often characterized by a plastic phenotype capable of consistent adjustment of numbers of leaf stomata in response to changes in ambient CO2 concentration (16–18). Identification of a CO2-sensitive gene involved in stomatal development in Arabidopsis thaliana demonstrates the genetic control of the response (19). As a corollary of this responsiveness, stomatal frequency analysis of fossil leaves enables the detection and quantification of atmospheric CO2 changes at different time scales (14, 17–25).” [4]
Richard
—–
Dan, with all of your insight, I can’t understand for the life of me why you see a nonissue as an issue.
Same goes for Eli, and Frank too, by the way.
A mystery to me, but I will have to leave it at that.
Peace.
bgvalentine@verizon.net
Courtney, go and take a high school level statistics course. You don’t get a trend by drawing a line from a starting point to a final point.
You are so anti-science it is pathetic.
I don’t think I can take much more of this web site reading things from web crawlers like Ian
BGV then shut up, stop spreading lies misinformation and obfuscation. Stick to your lyin’ denyin’ blogs, they will appreciate your nonsense and dishonesty. Honest scientists don’t like what you are doing to science and scientists.
And take your pal with you.
@ Richard
Sad see you go without you bothering to respond my comments. Can’t say I am surprised though.
Ian – aren’t you the author of How to Win Friends and Influence People?
No – that was Dale Carnegie, sorry.
Shorter Brian G Valentine and “Dr.” Richard Courtney:
(1) By drawing a line between two data points and ignoring all the data points in between, we were able to show that the globe has been cooling for the last 20 years.
(2) The fact that Courtney’s comments on the IPCC report weren’t incorporated in the final report shows that his comments were obviously based on solid science!
(3) Also, Ian Forrester is not the author of How to Win Friends and Influence People.
Therefore, global warming is a scam.
— bi
Ladies and Gentlemen – you read it right here, on Green Fyre’s web page, the very same thing that I concluded back in 1987
(the year before Jim Hansen made his histrionic debut in Congressional testimony, virtually apoplectic spreading the word that the World was Coming To an End within months because humans had discovered means of controlling combustion to result in useful work about two centuries prior to that,
and Hansen unfortunately confused global weather patterns of that summer, which resulted from an El Niño effect, with this tragic discovery,
or more likely, Hansen didn’t confuse anything at all)
Man-Made Global Warming is a Scam
Frank B and I are in perfect agreement, way to go, Frank!!! [8]
@ Brian: “spreading the word that the World was Coming To an End within months”
Ugh, and you wonder why I don’t take you seriously.
Actually, I made that conclusion in 1987 on behalf of DOE, my supervisor at DOE at the time asked me to report on the subject to the Office of Conservation and Renewable Energy.
I confess that my considerations had been tainted many years prior to that, when I was as sophomore in College.
A professor of physical chemistry, also an historian of chemistry, mentioned to me that S Arrhenius, had made an obscure proposal that the world would somehow overheat because of CO2 from coal combustion, and Arrhenius’s proposal had been debunked in the years 1905-1910, when it became rather chi-chi at the time to contemplate the idea.
The chemist mentioned that Arrhenius’s proposal had the habit of appearing and then getting debunked on a decannual basis.
Following this historical trend, the consideration of Man-Made Purgatory on Earth should have disappeared in 2007, ten years following establishment of the IPCC. [9]
Dan, you think I’m exaggerating?
And who should you take seriously???
Go back and look at that testimony, Dan. It’s Congressional record.
Yes I do. Go ahead prove me wrong. Show me the quote.
Anonymous trolls:
I am fed up with you cowards who misrepresent, smear and lie but hide behind anonymity because you lack the guts to be accountable for your despicable behaviour. [1]
Anonymous Frankbi:
I pointed to the Hadley Centre’s presentation of its own data for Southern Hemisphere temperatures on its own web site at
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/
And I said:
“Anybody can look at the graph and see
(a) the histogram peaks in 1987 and
(b) the smoothed line slopes down.
The downward slope indicates cooling.”
But you say;
“(1) By drawing a line between two data points and ignoring all the data points in between, we were able to show that the globe has been cooling for the last 20 years.”
OK, if you think that then take it up with the Hadley Centre, not me. [2]
However, I said that “the smoothed line slopes down” in response to anonymous Paul who had demanded that I justify saying the SH temperatures have fallen for about 20 years because, he said:
“20 years ago: 1989 = 0.065
last year: 2008 = 0.170”
I showed him that I could do the same by saying;
“The same URL links to actual data. The temperature anomaly for 1987 was 0.200 and the temperature anomaly for 2008 (i.e. the most recent complete year) was 0.174. It may be hard for you to understand, but I think others will grasp that 0.200 is higher than 0.174 and that 1987 was “about 20 years ago”.” [3]
Now, will you laughably pathetic little cowards go and try to do something useful instead of posting your nonsense on the web. [4]
Richard
—-
It is worth following the link.
1987 was hot, being an El Niño year. Indeed, it was the hottest year in the southern Hemisphere on record at the time.
However, in the Southern Hemisphere, ten of the last twelve years have been warmer than this. The only exceptions are 2000 and 2008 – both of which were La Niña years.
1987 0.200
1988 0.145
1989 0.072
1990 0.154
1991 0.165
1992 0.088
1993 0.123
1994 0.105
1995 0.154
1996 0.147
1997 0.287
1998 0.457
1999 0.219
2000 0.192
2001 0.329
2002 0.375
2003 0.371
2004 0.299
2005 0.328
2006 0.286
2007 0.214
2008 0.174
Anyone claiming that this record “clearly” shows cooling over the last 20 years clearly hasn’t got a clue about statistics.
There were two parts to Hansen’s testimony, the spoken and the written (as there always are), from my memory of the spoken Hansen stated
“We have observed the “signal” [of the greenhouse effect] in the climate noise and we are in for an unprecedented global warming, perhaps in the form of a runaway greenhouse effect. Draughts in the Southwest of the USA are showing signs of this”
The written testimony, of course, dealt with the various “scenarios” that would appear under greenhouse gas emissions patterns.
Actually I am very grateful for Dr Hansen. He is a civil servant, so am I, and the activities he participates in set the standard for activities that I can participate in, without rebuke.
For my Agency cannot limit my activities to any smaller than activities Hansen participates in, and in that sense, Hansen remains a role model for me.
Hansen DOES, however, do things that I personally WOULD NOT do, and those activities involve THE TAKING OF MONEY from people who would have him come to speak or consult on “climate” matters – matters that, he is directly engaged in at NASA.
He has been a paid speaker billing himself as a NASA executive.
I am proud to say I have never accepted ten cents from anyone for doing what I do, I have been offered speaking and travel fees, and have carefully avoided ever taking a cent.
That is public record at all organisations that I have spoken at. [10]
@ Brian
That doesn’t quite mesh with the “the end of the world in a few months” of you last comment. Not even close.
Hence why I don’t take you seriously.
As for what he said:
Unprecedented global warming. Sounds fine to me. Yes we have been warming, but not for quite a while. Certainly unprecedented for human time scales, and I doubt Hansen was referring to the whole paleoclimate record.
A runaway greenhouse effect. It depends on the definition used by Hansen. I am not aware of a single standard definition. Again It seems likely to me (based on his other work) that he is speaking in human time scales not geologic ones. And perhaps referring to major tipping points, though I am not sure when he became interested in them.
Those seem like the two potential sticking points, but they seem reasonable to me (though I am making some assumptions about context). Again prove me wrong. (And I would prefer something more than your recollection.)
@ Richard
And still you ignore the fact that such fluctuations are in line with AGW theory and models.
And I’ll repeat myself, just so we are clear. I am not anonymous. It would take you 5 seconds to find my real name.
This is YOUR civil “servant,” supported by YOUR tax dollars.
I think his taking money for public speaking is despicable.
If you think it justified, then let him be your role model.
… go dig up my name if you want. Take you five minutes.
Blah. If you don’t sign what you write with the name your mom and dad put on your birth certificate, you ain’t all that proud of what you say.
Face it, Dan. Face it right now. [11]
Why do I stay up to mouth off like I do?
Because “greenhouse” taxes WOULD HURT A LOT OF INNOCENT PEOPLE for NOTHING
damn it all, the PEOPLE WHO THINK THAT THE GOVERNMENT LOOKS OUT FOR THEM would get damaged beyond repair
all to please the likes of Albert Gore and his stupid f-ing abusive ARROGANCE
Step One of becoming a “denier” – it has to make you angry.
If that don’t happen, it won’t happen. [12]
So, here comes the onslaught to call Courtney and me “trolls” and to laugh and spit.
Nothing Courtney and I haven’t seen before, nor the last time. [13]
Good night.
Well, it looks as if we have a perfect example of the “Shouting Match over AGW” in the comments here, doesn’t it? Perhaps everybody here should take a breather and ask “What, if I’m wrong? What’s The Worst That Could Happen then?”
Those of you who apparently think that AGW is a hoax, could you live with the consequences if it turns out that it was a – dire – reality after all, giving us all the natural disasters the activists and many scientists have been warning us all about for years?
Those of you who think that it is a real threat for ourselves and later generations, could you live with the consequences of perhaps having ruined the economy for nothing because we invested in renewable energy and put a price on carbon emissions?
Which of the two is the more acceptable risk to take?
I for one have already made up my mind that taking action now is the better bet to make and I don’t even need to believe one or the other side to come to that conclusion. I’m simply applying the thinking tools Greg Craven first provided in his YouTube Videos under his ID wonderingmind42 (you can watch them in chronological order on his new website: http://www.gregcraven.org/en/the-videos/introduction). If you are so inclinded you can also get his new book which will lay it all out without telling you WHAT to think about AGW but HOW to think about it – which obviously is a big difference and well worth a read by everybody having to make any kind of decision without being an expert.
Hope this helps.
Dear Mr Courtney.
Just to recap, you wrote (refering to hadcrut SH data):
“The Southern Hemisphere started to cool about 20 years ago and this cooling spread to include the Northern Hemisphere about 10 years ago.”
The year now is 2009, so by my reckoning 20 years ago was 1989. Apologies if you use a different calendar, in which case maybe you need to explain how your calendar works.
You then later make the statement:
“the histogram peaks in 1987”.
So now the ’20 years’ has increased to 22 years or so.
1987 being a conveniently higher mean (in a typically noisy set of data) than 2008.
This highlights the cherry picking nature of your comments.
I could just as easily choose 1985 as the start point, in which case 2008 was considerably warmer!
BTW i won’t say that you are unable to grasp that 0.59 is lower than 0.174.
Richard S Courtney said: “However, I said that “the smoothed line slopes down” in response…”.
The point being made, is that it is you that made specific statements about what is happening. I don’t see any credible ‘smoothed’ graph here, produced by you, that defends your statement.
Everyone else can clearly see that temperatures have been rising with a possible deviation from that rise in the last few years. You can only possibly imply ‘cooling’ by imposing your own personal theory on that data. But that has nothing to do with ‘smoothed’ graphs, or rather it has, if you want to impose the theory on it.
Woah!
Step out to go to the bathroom and see what happens? OK, I have to go out for a few hours, but when I get back I’ll see if I can sort this out.
This is the way the world works:
The CO2 in the air does nothing. [13] Compared with everything else that influences the “climate,” the CO2 is inert.
The CO2 might indeed absorb some IR. At the microscopic concentration CO2 is present in the air, and as it ever was, that absorption is responsible for nothing. Not compared with everything else.
The influence of CO2 cannot be measured. [14] There is no possible concentration of CO2 in the air that the influence ever could be measured. The background is too noisy.
Mouth off anything you want to and that’s the way it is and that’s the way it will remain.
Whether you like it or you don’t
So, you think you know more than 2000 or whatever it is number of IPCC scientists, Valentine?
Nope. That’s what the evidence says about the world, not me.
If you have looked carefully and objectively at the evidence, you know it as well as I do. [15]
Thank you, Green Fyre, for allowing my messages to appear unrestricted on your page.
Why do you come here to mouth off, Valentine? Why don’t you go back to “troll land” and share your comments with your troll friends, not us.
The subject of this web column, is rather an invitation for me to come and do so. [16]
Herr Winkler,
May I suggest that you not fear fear the weather.
Perhaps it is more appropriate to fear what other people can do to you (and to those least capable of withstanding it).
Regardless how “well-intentioned” those people might be. (Or claim to be.)
sorry for my ‘duplication of word’ typo in the first sentence above
Word Press- we need an editing function on Word Press blogs.
Other folks provide them.
So Brian, are you a professional or amateur denier? Do you get paid by the post? I have to ask because I know at least one denier had a price list in a hidden directory on his website.
Greenfyre, I normally lurk, but I do follow your blog and enjoy following the discussion. Keep up the excellent work, but I think you are underestimating the pure evil of the deniers.
—-
Yeah, I am “paid” handsomely – in the form of abuse, laughter, and very bad-looking email.
Other than that, I haven’t taken, nor ever will I take, one cent for saying anything.
I work unpaid on behalf of the poor and elderly who would suffer catastrophically as a result of the EVIL intentions of the global warmers.
Evil, mind you, just pure, out and out, unmittigated, unspeakable EVIL damn it all there is no other WORD FOR IT [17]
Ah, as usual, Courtney runs away whenever he is challenged. Liars like him never feel sorry for running away, which is a shame, because if they hung around they might learn something, but it matters not because their unscientific lies are shown to be wrong.
Monty Python adequately parodied this already, so I don’t need to do anything.
Brian G Valentine:
“The influence of CO2 cannot be measured. There is no possible concentration of CO2 in the air that the influence ever could be measured. The background is too noisy. ”
Yeh whit? You are denying that CO2 has anything to do wtih the ‘greenhouse’ effect altogether? Your evidence for this is?
@ Brian
When all else fails just make your yell louder! Awesome!
You are denying that CO2 has anything to do wtih the ‘greenhouse’ effect altogether? Your evidence for this is?
um, excuse me, darlin’, isn’t, like, ‘evidence’ that CO2 has anything to do with a “greenhouse gas effect in the atmosphere” needed?
– does one normally go about “demonstrating” that an effect that isn’t observed, is actually not present? [18]
Yessirree, Dan, HOOT and HOLLER!
HOOOOOOO-AHHHHHHHH
as they say in US Army
—-
Valentine’s posts show only one thing. A mail order degree is completely worthless as far as giving one any knowledge of science. You are making all honest scientists very angry when you try to tell us that you are worthy of degrees in science.
I wouldn’t let on where you got yor degrees because enrollment will surely drop when they see the ignorance and abusiveness of some one with degrees from that institution.
Then again, you may have got your degrees in a box of sugar flakes, you are certainly flaky enough.
@ Brian
The mind boggles.
@Dan
It is remarkable that we respond to each other with the same “shake-your-head-in-disbelief” disbelief.
—-
@Brian
It is remarkable how you can deny the mountain of evidence that contradicts your arguments, and claim that non-exist.
Me, I am just accepting of mainstream science because I know I could be mislead by convincing sounding bullshit
In the company of gloabal warmers, Sir, I have no idea, Sir, what it takes, Sir, to “humilate one’s self.”
—-
@ Brian
“Herr Winkler,
May I suggest that you not fear fear the weather. ”
Two things:
Why do you assume that it is “Herr” – which confirmation bias does that come from?
Contrary to you I know the difference between weather and climate and I am not afraid of the weather but what climate change will eventually do to the world as we know it if we don’t do anything against it now.
—-
Anonymous Trolls:
I have not “run away”. I have given up trying to reason against your lies, smears and misrepresentations.
However, I think I should point out that my article (that this blog entry balatantly misrepresented) [1] directly addressd the issue of why Brian Valentine is right to say the AGW scare is evil.
As I said, my actual article can be read at
http://www.climatedepot.com/a/1979/UN-IPCC-Scientist-Natural-climate-change-denial-of-the-last-decade-is-not-sustainable-anymore
But it is clear that you anonymous trolls consider it an imposition to read anything you shout about. [2]
In my article I wrote:
“However, advocates of AGW use the Precautionary Principle saying we should stop greenhouse gas emissions – notably carbon dioxide emissions – in case the AGW hypothesis is right. [3] But that turns the Principle on its head. [4]
Stopping the emissions would reduce fossil fuel usage with resulting economic damage. This would be worse than the ‘oil crisis’ of the 1970s because the reduction would be greater (the European Union suggests 80% reduction!), would be permanent, and energy use has increased since then. The economic disruption would be world-wide. Major effects would be in the developed world because it has the largest economies. Worst effects would be on the world’s poorest peoples: people near starvation are starved by it.
All human activity is enabled by energy supply and limited by material science. The energy supply permits the growing of crops, the manufacture of tools, and the provision of goods, services and constructions. Material science limits what can be done with the energy (e.g. a steel plough share is better than a wooden one, ability to etch silica permits adequately reliable computers, etc.)
Wind power, biomass power and animal power were abandoned when the greater energy intensity of fossil fuels became available by use of the steam engine. The increased energy supply enabled more people to exist and the human population exploded. The population is now about 6.6 billion and all estimates indicate that the present population growth will continue and is likely to peak at around 9 billion in the middle of this century. That additional more than 2 billion people requires additional energy supply.
Billions of people – mostly children – will die from lack of energy without that additional energy supply. Reducing the energy supply would kill more millions – probably billions – of people.
Replacement of fossil fuels by wind and solar is not possible because the laws of physics do not allow it. Only an increase to nuclear power could make much reduction to use of fossil fuels and that reduction is limited because many activities require energy that is not only available where there is a wire.
A cut of 80% in anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions would require a similar reduction to use of fossil fuels.
So, man-made global warming is not a global crisis but the unfounded fear of it is. That fear threatens a constraint of fossil fuel use that would kill millions – probably billions – of people.” [5]
That is direct quote from my article. But perhaps its meaning is not clear to anonymous trolls whose behaviour suggests they share a single brain cell between them. So, l will enumerate it. [6]
1.
The AGW hypothesis is probably wrong because there is no empirical evidence for it and substantial evidence that denies it.
2.
However, anything is possible so the worst-case scenarios of the AGW hypothesis could turn out to be right.
3.
If those worst case scenarios did turn out to be right then the effects of AGW would be less harmful than the effects of the proposed actions to prevent it (i.e. reduced use of fossil fuels in the next few decades).
4.
Those proposed actions would kill several times more people than the combined activities of Ghengis Khan, Adolph Hitler and Pol Pot.
5.
Genocide on such a scale is pure, unadulterated evil.
Did any of you comment on that? No. [7]
Had any of you read my explanation of that? It seems not.
And you wonder why I have ceased to bother with you. The only thing left to ponder is whether any of you has any morality of any kind. [8]
Richard
—–
Courtney what a load of drivel.
Who pays you to waste your time typing such nonsense e.g.:
And as for your list of 5 preposterous statements at the end of the post these are complete lies. Why are you so dishonest? Why do you hate science and scientists so much (while pretending to be one)?
@ Richard
And still you ignore the points I raised.
And you say this with a straight face:
“there is no empirical evidence for [AGW]”
Really none? Denialism at its finest!
The rest of your argument is just as dishonest as that line. Pathetic.
Interesting string of comments with Brian Valentine. One says that there is no evidence that CO2 has an effect on global warming. The reply is prove it. How can you prove that something doesn’t exist? Falsifiability?
…then it gets nasty. I particularly enjoyed the comments questioning his education.
—-
Mr Courtney said: “I have not “run away”. I have given up trying to reason against your lies, smears and misrepresentations.”
Lies???
Misrepresentations???
I think most people understand ‘giving up’ as ‘quitting’.
Which is the same as ‘running away’
—-
Mr Courtney said: “Replacement of fossil fuels by wind and solar is not possible because the laws of physics do not allow it. Only an increase to nuclear power could make much reduction to use of fossil fuels and that reduction is limited because many activities require energy that is not only available where there is a wire.”
You are living in the past. Most of your thinking is stuck in the ’50s’ and ’60s’. Thankfully, time has moved on and left you behind.
What will happen, will be a convergence of new technology and ideas to solve problems with a realisation that resources are limited and that there is a need for a moderation of human activity.
You’re right, there probably is a need for some nuclear energy, but it is just one of the technologies that will be used from a basket of many.
Mr Courtney said: “That fear threatens a constraint of fossil fuel use that would kill millions – probably billions – of people.”
A little extreme emotional blackmail here from our Mr Courtney.
In fact Mr Courtney is using ‘fear’ here in the same way that he accuses the people he is up against of doing.
One could argue that millions of people die as a result of using fossil fuels!
My energy use in the last 12 months is about 25% less than it was in the previous 12 months. Amazingly, i don’t feel as if I am about to die!
—-
Mike:
Thankyou for giving me another laugh.
You say to me:
“you are a contemptible hypocrite”.
And you say this because I responded to unsolicited, demonstrable lies and misrepresentations about me in an item that you posted on the web. [1]
I have a recommendation and a comment.
I recommend that you refer to any dictionary for the definitions of “contemptible” and “hypocrite”. [2]
And I comment that you can try to justify your actions and your ego in any way you like, but however much you try to cover them in polish the fact is that a polished turd remains a turd. [3]
I lack the stomach to wallow in the mire of this web site and will not wast further time on it.
Richard
@ Richard
No, that is not why called you contemptible hypocrite. That should be abundantly clear to anyone.
—-
Richard S Courtney – I applaud your efforts to remain reasonable in the face of the irrationality on display here.
But you must understand something about these people. If, tomorrow, someone produced incontrovertible and undeniable proof that anthropogenic global warming is NOT occurring, and that mankind faces NO crises, NO catastrophe, NO “tipping points” and has absolutely NO reason to apply any limits to industrialization and the continued expansion of the use of fossil fuels — (all of which I happen to believe is true) — if this occurred these people would be emotionally CRUSHED. They’d fall into such a state of severe depression they’d need psychological counseling to avoid suicide.
So you are dealing with people who would MOURN and GRIEVE — not celebrate — what would be obviously good news for billions of human beings. Such people are emotion-driven haters that are beyond reason and thus beyond persuasion. Do not give them another second of your time — believe me, they aren’t worth it.
—-
Mr Smith said: “…has absolutely NO reason to apply any limits to industrialization and the continued expansion of the use of fossil fuels — (all of which I happen to believe is true)”
I think you are probably the only person on planet earth that believes that. Or maybe there are some lunatic trekkie fans that fantasize about it, but anyone that has the ability to think beyond their own tiny specialisation, realises that there is a limit to how far humanity can go without causing serious damage.
I hope/assume that Mr Smith is isn’t the same person as this???:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_W._Smith
Maybe a crazy fan instead??
I don’t know, just guessing.
Good work, Mike and the rest of the team – Courtney and Whatshisname have been nicely exposed and eviscerated.
I knew I’d heard Courtney’s name, but had to remind myself why – http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Richard_S._Courtney – not a climate scientist, not any type of scientist – despite his fraudulent claims, just a coal shill on the ExxonMobil travelling circus payroll.
Hey, don’t run away Richard, I’ve got a question for you!
On page 104 and 204 of the @uS senate report of over 700 dissenting scientists’ you are down as:
“Dr. Richard Courtney”
Can you tell us what this PhD is in and when it was awarded, or do you want to tell them to change their documents because of a blatant falsehood?
After all, one wouldn’t want to claim qualifications one wasn’t entitled to?
Oh wait, maybe you would.
Also please let us know when you’ll be speaking in the UK, it would be nice to turn up and see if you are really a 2 headed monster belching coal fumes in real life. It would also be an opportunity to correct your misunderstandings of the science of climate change.
DELETED for Violation of Comment Policy
What, Marion’s post got deleted?
Must have used too much irony!
(Apologies for the formatting but is there a guide somewhere?) [1]
Courtney said,
“But, in response to my citing the HadCRUT3 data and providing the URL so anybody can see the graphs for themselves, you demonstrate that reading a graph is beyond your capabilities and say;
“I have asked Mr Courtney to show here, in his own words, using the Hadcrut3 data that he has personally referenced, to show that there is undoubted cooling in the SH, that started 20 years ago.”
Well, my words are that the temperature of the Southern Hemisphere has fallen. Anybody can look at the graph and see
(a) the histogram peaks in 1987 and
(b) the smoothed line slopes down.
The downward slope indicates cooling.”
I find this quite baffling. The URL he gave contains only this graph http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.gif on that page. It’s hard to read anything other than vague trends from it but even so there’s no obvious peak in 1987 or anywhere near. [2] The obvious peak is in 1998, as you would expect. Similarly, how anyone can see a fall in the graph (any, not just SH) from the late 80s is beyond me.
I think the answer is to use the excellent Wood For Trees site and generate our own graphs from the HADCRUT3 data. I shall do this for the SH for both 20 years (1989-2008 inclusive), and for the 1987-2008 period, using both the unadjusted and the variance-adjusted mean datasets. [3]
1989-2008 unadjusted. http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3sh/from:1989/to:2009/plot/hadcrut3sh/from:1989/to:2009/trend
Linear trend shows clear rise. Claim refuted.
1989-2008 variance-adjusted. http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vsh/from:1989/to:2009/plot/hadcrut3vsh/from:1989/to:2009/trend
Clear rise in trend. Claim refuted.
1987-2008 unadjusted. http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3sh/from:1987/to:2009/plot/hadcrut3sh/from:1987/to:2009/trend
Clear rise in trend. 1987 unremarkable. Lower than 1998 and much of this century. Claims refuted.
1987-2008 variance-adjusted
. http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vsh/from:1987/to:2009/plot/hadcrut3vsh/from:1987/to:2009/trend
Clear rise in trend. 1987 unremarkable. Lower than 1998 and much of this century. Claims refuted.
So what’s going on? What is Courtney looking at? I’d like some confirmation before I say any more. 😉 [4]
—-
So, no reply from Courtney or one of his fellow travellers?
The claim was made and repeated and yet the figures and graphs clearly show otherwise.
Courtney, DipPhil, a UN IPCC expert reviewer and a UK-based climate and atmospheric science consultant, has invented some quite “creative” methods for “interpreting” temperature data. This is a classic:
Global Warming Erased? 2008 Global Temperatures Similar to 1940
—-
[…] […]
Thought this may interest you. On another blog (http://joannenova.com.au/) I’m a bit of a resident warmist… not sure why I do it and I don’t claim to be a scientist of any sort.
So there is a thread about basically climate sensitivity:
http://joannenova.com.au/2010/02/not-four-degrees-1-4-degrees/#more-6805
But anyway I made a throwaway line (post 77)
“I am willing to bet that the science used by the IPCC uses the best that science has to offer when it is considering how the oceans will react to increasing atmospheric CO2 in terms of what proportion will end up in the ocean vs the atmophere.
But you never know maybe the worlds leading ocean scientists are also in on the deal and are keeping mum while their science is bastardised by the pseudoscientific cabal and the IPCC?” (thjat last bit is dramatic licence not what I think about the IPCC fyi).
To which Richard S. Courtney replies a lot later on:
“I accept the bet and offer to put up US$10,000 at odds of 2:1 in your favour.
Please read one of our 2005 papers; viz.
Rorsch A, Courtney RS & Thoenes D, ‘The Interaction of Climate Change and the Carbon Dioxide Cycle’ E&E v16no2 (2005)
Then please find any reference to it in any IPCC Report.
The paper assesses all the known interactions in the carbon cycle and concludes from this..
yadda yadda yadda
“When you fail to find any reference in any IPCC Report to our paper that I cite here (there is none despite my mention of it in my peer review for IPCC AR4) then please contact me so you can pay me the money.
Richard”
Now the bet is (as determined by him – I actually have not made any bet) I owe him $5000 because I say the IPCC used the best science at hand, and he considers omission of his E&E paper as proof to the contrary.
Anyway anyone who can counter Richard can pocket $7500 (I assume USD – I’m an aussie and he a pund using englishman), I’ll take $2500 spotters fee:)
All I need is a credible rebuttal of his paper, unfortunately the interwebs cannot provide such.
Of course no one will ever see the money – sorry – I jsut assume that to be the case.
Cheers
Matt
seems clear enough.
Courtney seems to think his paper qualifies but who is he to judge? If it were any good it would be in a proper journal, not E&E, where bad science goes to die (and then give off a foul stench for years afterwards).
yes, but on the blog in question just bagging out E&E will not cut it, especially when Courtney is on the editorial panel of E&E. Lets imagine I was a skeptical nutter who just happened to have stumbled upon some breakthrough that could really advance the science, but being a skeptic I default publish in E&E… I mean it could happen once in a while? hmm maybe not but let’s just play make believe for a few moments:)
I know, but it’s up to him to show that his paper is the “best” science. It got mentioned in a couple of denier blogs but I don’t think anyone even bothered to look at it.
Hi again,
Just wondering I was reading the old thread about the 450 peer reviewed paper etc https://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2009/11/15/450-more-lies-from-the-climate-change-deniers/ , and the comments unfortunately are closed. I wanted to ask Huang Feng who had done some work looking at papers published in E&E what his opinion of the peer review that had taken place for:
Rorsch A, Courtney RS & Thoenes D, ‘The Interaction of Climate Change and the Carbon Dioxide Cycle’ E&E v16no2 (2005)
based on the categories he considered E&E put things in? Hope that makes sense:)
This is what Huang said then:
“I went through the 84 E&E articles listed in the “450 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of “Man-Made” Global Warming”. I noted what sections, if any, that each article was published under and here is what I found:
2 articles listed as “Climate sceptic voices”
1 as letters
1 as “Report”
9 as “Viewpoints”
5 were completely undesignated
46 were listed as “Articles”
1 as “Peer reviewed papers”
19 as “Refereed papers”
Cheers again,
Matt
You need to read this:
Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995
Professor Jones told the BBC yesterday there was truth in the observations of colleagues that he lacked organisational skills, that his office was swamped with piles of paper and that his record keeping is ‘not as good as it should be’.
The data is crucial to the famous ‘hockey stick graph’ used by climate change advocates to support the theory.
Professor Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon.
And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html
I suggest you find out what he really said. You quoted the ‘Daily Mail’, a rag well known for printing lies.
What he said was
[…] It looks like deniers are trumpeting this study, because it highlights that the current crop of models are uncertain. […]