There's a new skeptic's group out there, the International Climate Science Coalition. There's not much to see. Led by a Terry Dunleavy, who writes for New Zealand Wine Grower Magazine, its the same old gang peddling the same old tripe. Only interesting perhaps in that it provides insight into the staffing of these kinds of groups. As Tim Ball writes at the Climate Skeptics Cafe:
Tom Harris has been hired as Executive Director, myself and Bob Carter and I believe Lord Monckton are in a core group. I am taking over Tom's position at nrsp until a replacement is found. I look forward to working with them and other groups such as the Friends of Science. The more groups and representation we have the better and wider the message is disseminated.
Hundreds of groups, composed in total of dozens of people. Money to pay them all.
BCL readers. Last week, 500 delegates issued the Manhattan Declaration, stating that attempts by governments to reduce CO2 emissions would "markedly diminish further prosperity" while having "no appreciable impact" on the Earth's warming. Among their number were an array of leading climatologists and other experts.
ReplyDeleteCheck out the website Watts Up With That to get another viewpoint not dripping with ideological blather.
Science is about reasonable discussion and evaluating data, not the rigid enforcement of ideological dogma. In the current debate we shouldn't lose sight of this.
Those esteemed scientists around the world who are studying the effect of solar cycles on the earth's temperature?
ReplyDeleteNow the scientific method of constant scrutiny, constant adaptation to new facts and new results, the method that has resulted in many paradigm shifts throughout scientific history,
is subject to scorn.
Those who dare to look at other plausible theories, investigate them, report them, and offer them up for scrutiny and discussion, within the communicable store of knowlege and analysis,
they're "deniers".
How "progressive".
I've been to the Watts Up With That blog and it has lots of graphs and data and is worth the visit. The guy who runs it, Anthony Watts, is a meteorologist who last year forced Nasa's Goddard Institute to correct a fundamental error in its data on US surface temperatures, to show that the hottest decade of the 20th century was not the 1990s but the 1930s.
ReplyDeleteThat's the type of scientific rigor that's needed in this debate. None of us has anything to fear from science and true scientific enquiry.
For instance,
ReplyDeletein, "The persistent role of the Sun in climate forcing",
Dr.Fris Christensen et al. conclude's that "the sun still appears to be the main forcing agent in global climate change".
Lots of sources graphs ect.
Real scientists, real analysis, very recent.
What are they BCL? What sort of smear shall we apply to them?
That study is here:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.spacecenter.dk/
publications/
scientific-report-series/Scient_No._3.pdf/
view
From the leading scientists at the Danish Space Center (the Scandanavian equivalent of NASA).
Their graphs showing the correlation to solar activity and temperature is remarkable.
Not only does this raise a doubt about the AGW theory, it appears to offer a very real alternative,
especially considering that those studying solar output, predicted this year would see a dramatic drop in temperature. (that prediction came from the Russian scientists also studying solar cycles.)
Frances: I have read some of the work coming from that conference. More importantly Eli Rabett has taken the time to track down some of the references. Guess what, they don't support the statements made in the report. So, the authors must have either misunderstood what the papers said, or intended to deceive. Your choice.
ReplyDeleteBiff: No, those who offer up the same old theories that been refuted by previous work without offering new observations or refuting the previous criticisms are called deniers.
Anonymous @ 12:44 I used to read Watts up but I have lost some respect for it recently when it was pointed out that Anthony made some very serious errors in one of his analysis. Instead of admitting his error he first tried to delete the post, but when that didn't work he made up a second part where he looked at the error he made in the first part (without calling it an error).
Regards,
John Cross
Dr. Oleg Sorokhtin, Merited Scientist of Russia and fellow of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences, is staff researcher of the Oceanology Institute?
ReplyDeleteYes he's concluded that:
Earth is now at the peak of one of its passing warm spells. It started in the 17th century when there was no industrial influence on the climate to speak of and no such thing as the hothouse effect. The current warming is evidently a natural process and utterly independent of hothouse gases.
The real reasons for climate changes are uneven solar radiation, terrestrial precession (that is, axis gyration), instability of oceanic currents, regular salinity fluctuations of the Arctic Ocean surface waters, etc. There is another, principal reason—solar activity and luminosity. The greater they are the warmer is our climate.
Astrophysics knows two solar activity cycles, of 11 and 200 years. Both are caused by changes in the radius and area of the irradiating solar surface. The latest data, obtained by Habibullah Abdusamatov, head of the Pulkovo Observatory space research laboratory, say that Earth has passed the peak of its warmer period, and a fairly cold spell will set in quite soon, by 2012. Real cold will come when solar activity reaches its minimum, by 2041, and will last for 50-60 years or even longer.
Mr. Cross,
ReplyDeletethat study was the most recent. Scientific method does not allow for the sort of simple brush off ("tired old theories") which you wish to employ.
Rather scientists look to the methodology, and attempt to duplicate the results and agree, amend or offer alternative suggestions.
Have you seen the results which track solar variation to temperature?
The esteemed Russian scientists, and those of Denmark (as well as several other countries including several in the USA) are serious researchers.
Perhaps you should stay within your apparent comfort zone (political punditry/partisan criticism) and leave real science to the real scientists.
Generally speaking, the most powerful form of "evidence" to use lay terms, of the value of a theory is its predictive value.
ReplyDeleteThose studying solar variations predicting this recent sudden cold spell.
In other words, their research has been shown to be used as a predictive tool.
On the other hand, evidence of rapid rise in ocean levels, flooding of low lying cities, and drastic rise in temperatures (made approximately 8-10 years ago when AGW theory was at its apex) have simply not come true. Indeed, the opposite has happened.
Of course the development of this alternative theory is nothing extraordinary in the scientific community. AGW theory was still very much in its infancy, and it's very common that new theories are modified and replaced. It happens all the time.
The problem is so many became politically invested in a very "young" theory (resulting in the very unscientific, defensive "denier" speak) though I'll leave the political type discourse to the likes of Mr. Cross.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteA couple of quicky notes:
ReplyDelete1) The Svensmark paper is rebutted here:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/10/cosmic-rays-don%e2%80%99t-die-so-easily/langswitch_lang/in
Just thinking back, I think S. has to argue that there is a lag between solar activity and Earth temp changes to get his data to match the observed trend of the last 30 years or so. Except that it throws all the earlier correlations (which assume no lag) out of whack.
And, Doc, the hard Winter we are having was already predicted back in August by the climatologists at the Hadley Center, due to the fact that a new La Nina was kicking in.
I see the scientific illiterate and right-wing nutters are posting early...
ReplyDeleteI can't wait to see the peer reviewed papers from these groups... until then, yes, you do deserve scorn for your ignorance...
That link was an argumentative blog post.
ReplyDeleteIt was not a scientific journal (nor would it in any way be approved as such by anyone with scientific credentials).
You seem to be confusing political rhetoric and defensive argumentation with scientific theory and method.
If you could point out a scientific peer reviewed study that has been published or released by a scientific body, which refutes that recent paper I would be delighted to review it.
Otherwise, I would repeat the suggestion I made to Mr. Cross and perhaps you should leave science to the real scientists, like those of the Danish and Russian institutes.
Nor was the svenmark paper a journal article.
ReplyDeleteI would add that suggesting that the Danish Space Center somehow engaged in academic fraud would be an astonishing thing in the academic community.
ReplyDeleteTo date, I'm unaware of any study that even begins to contradict the assertions made in that study, let alone suggests they are fabricated or the results otherwise manipulated.
Again, my statements are limited to the scientific community, rather than to arguments and musings by bloggers or those with partisan interests.
Mr. BCL,
ReplyDeleteActually it was an official publication from a National Scientific agency, based on a rigorous scientific study, by esteemed scientists.
Such a publication is more "official"and carries more scientific weight than publishing in a leading science journal.
Of course I can appreciate your desire to suggest this is somehow less scientifically weighty than a blog post, given your firmly stated position in this matter.
Doc, your argument was that the Realclimate response was not a journal article. Nor is the Svensmark paper. And if you are at all familiar with their earlier work you will know that they have indeed done some strange things to make the observations fit their theory, which have been pointed out in journal articles.
ReplyDeleteActually Mr. BCL, what I asked for was as follows:
ReplyDelete"If you could point out a scientific peer reviewed study that has been published or released by a scientific body, which refutes that recent paper I would be delighted to review it."
Again, I appreciate your desire to elevate the stature of those sources which confirm your position, however, my original point stands.
I will assume for the moment that you simply misread my above statement, rather than intentionally mischaracterized my point.
Let's keep it simple.
ReplyDelete-The Arctic ice has INCREASED both in thickness and area.
-It's the coldest winter in 10 years, and is still raging in Ontario/East.
-Once the pine beetle numbers are calculated, and found there was a KILL due to the -30 temps for an extended period,
it's all but over for Gore and his religious following.
See guys, 3 of the biggest, loudest preached, warning signs, are now in the 'oops' file.
Your 'facts' are now fiction, to ordinary Canadians, who get their weather forcasts by looking outside.
I suppose its time I leave this thread.
ReplyDeleteThe bare allegation that the Danish Space agency has "done some strange things" is in no way an honest attempt to show a recent alternative study to the one I sourced at the outset.
I had some other very recent studies in keeping with the one shown above, which are equally noteworthy though I doubt it would be very welcome, and I respect a blog owner's right to have what he or she wants (or doesn't want) posted at his site.
As an aside, I must say that the apparent political leanings and pre-existing sentiment on this issue and how this affects the basic willingness to even consider viable positions has been fascinating indeed.
I will point to a point to a peer reviewed paper that refutes Svensmarks peer-reviewed paper when he provides a peer reviewed paper. And S. troubles with facts are well known and can be found easily enough by searching his name through this very blog. The papers I link too are peer-reviewed.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteDr Wilhelm if you were not some sock puppet you'd be the first to call out Dr. Ball and his ilk for being the ignorant fucktards that they are.
ReplyDeleteIt seems that you are running after any bit of evidence (even if false) that affirm that global warming is not happening.
While the scientific method is one of debate and reaching conclusion, you have to start with a few absolute truths.
It's funny how Dr Sock Puppet refers to people on the Marc Morano's list of deniers for hire (people with no scientific credibility).
So Dr Sock Puppet, if you want to continue this debate, I suggest that you start putting facts on the table instead of your twat filled babble...
Wilson, you should know better... really are you trying to be stupid or does it come naturally to you?
I wish I had time to debunk all your nonsense but I'm afraid that in the interim you'd have invented some more...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteAnon, the Danes stand behind
ReplyDeletehttp://www.spacecenter.dk/publications/lists-of-publications/ (those are peer reviewed).
The report you site is a reply to "Lockwood and Frohlic" has not been published in any peer-reviewed journal. So while interesting, it's more telling how anon seems to grasp onto this more than any other peer-reviewed papers.
This is hardly a right/left assertion (although there is a correlation between misrepresentation of facts done almost systematically by the right). So Anon, unless you have better understanding of what science is, I'd recommend you go back to playing with your lego and masturbating to pictures of Anne Coulter (and that is a smear). You see, fuckwads like yourself have a barely adequate understanding of how the real world functions....
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteI wish I had time to debunk all your nonsense but I'm afraid that in the interim you'd have invented some more...
ReplyDeleteI still want to know who pays Wilsie and if they are in need of some advice in lie-avoidance. That's as much help as I'm morally prepared to provide and the help won't come cheap, but I figure, as they all slip into complete irrelevance, I should start skimming off some of the fat.
I'm planning on setting up a trust to fund a rehabilitation programme for young neoconservatives (which will include exercise, sport, proper nutrition plenty of reading, zit therapy, tips on dating and so forth), so really, the means justify the ends.
Dr. Wilhelm: you example of Dr. Oleg Sorokhtin is just what I was talking about. Everything from him that I was able to find was opinion. Where is his scientific evidence as opposed to his scientific opinion.
ReplyDeleteIf you wish to discuss science, my starting point is always the following 3 points.
1) We are responsible for the recent increase in CO2.
2) CO2 will absorb and re-emit IR radiation.
3) If you increase the IR on an object it will either cause it to warm or cool less quickly.
Do you disagree with any of those? If so, please explain why.
Regards,
John Cross
John, while commendable that you'd want to discuss with sock puppets and other nutters, they have very little interest in discussing facts - they only give off the veneer of credibility and use that as an excuse to spew they garbage.
ReplyDeletethey = their...
ReplyDeleteAre you claiming Dr. Wilhelm is a sock-puppet? How dare you?
ReplyDeleteDidn't you notice the "Dr."
oh that changes everything - "dr"?
ReplyDeleteI guess you can buy any title off the internet these days - wonder if it came with a super duper decoder ring?
That was a particularly hilarious sock-puppet performance. Casting anony as "Doctor" is as catastrophic as casting Patrick Swayze as King Lear.
ReplyDeleteBest to stick to roles like 'asylum inmate #5', or 'banjo-playing savant', anony.