All Scientists are Sceptics ~Professor Bob Carter

Whenever someone asserts that a scientific question is “settled,” they tell me immediately that they don’t understand the first thing about science. Science is never settled. Dr David Deming

Perhaps the most frustrating aspect of the science of climate change is the lack of any real substance in attempts to justify the hypothesis ~Professor Stewart Franks

A lie told often enough becomes the truth.
-- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin - See more at: http://thepeoplescube.com/lenin/lenin-s-own-20-monster-quotes-t185.html#sthash.aTrSI3tG.dpuf
A lie told often enough becomes the truth.
-- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin - See more at: http://thepeoplescube.com/lenin/lenin-s-own-20-monster-quotes-t185.html#sthash.aTrSI3tG.dpuf
A lie told often enough becomes the truth.
-- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin - See more at: http://thepeoplescube.com/lenin/lenin-s-own-20-monster-quotes-t185.html#sthash.aTrSI3tG.dpuf

Tuesday, 30 July 2013

The Consensus, settled science and the real deniers.

Michael Mann:
Science Denier? or Deceiver?
As most people know, Wikipedia is a handy resource but it is not always right. In fact it is terribly wrong sometimes.

For example, Wikipedia's entry on

Climate change denial - Wikipedia,

begins: 

Climate change denial is a set of organized attempts to downplay, deny or dismiss the scientific consensus on the extent of global warming, its significance, and its connection to human behavior, especially for commercial or ideological reasons.

Note that the entry mentions scientific consensus.

Oh dear, talking of science and then using the very unscientific term scientific consensus? For there to be a "consensus," implies that the science isn't settled. Surely confirming that there is no Law of Anthropogenic Global Warming; no Law of Climate. Again from Wikipedia (virtually contradicting their denial entry above):
Scientific consensus is the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study. Consensus implies general agreement, though not necessarily unanimity. Scientific consensus is not by itself a scientific argument, and it is not part of the scientific method. (Emphasis added - Link)
On the supposed "consensus" and the "settled science" Professor Ian Plimer wrote, in his book How to Get Expelled from School 
The IPCC’s Summaries For Policymakers are released before the body of the report. If journalists were inquisitive and had some scientific knowledge they could easily show that the Summary for Policymakers…… is not a summary at all but states pre-ordained conclusions. What journalists did not do was to read the 987-page Working Group 1 IPCC 2007 report.  
If they did they would have found that the words “uncertain” and “uncertainty” appeared more than 1300 times and that there are 54 “key uncertainties” that acknowledge limits to the prediction of climate. The IPCC itself shows that the science is not settled, that there is no consensus and that little is known about the controls on the climate. But all this is hidden in the small print and journalists have just have not bothered to read what might contradict their own opinions. (emphasis added)
The Alarmists' arguments began when the accepted term was Anthropogenic (or Man-made) Global Warming (AGW). The Alarmists tried to use the double whammy of saying that sceptics didn't accept the falsified AGW hypothesis at the same time implicitly trying to blacken sceptics with an implied link to the Holocaust deniers.

At an intermediate stage, the term morphed into Man-made Global Warming, then just Global Warming and then, after a stall in the temperature rise, moved to Climate Change.  Unfortunately,  the Alarmists tag of denier kept getting further from the truth.

Let's examine the stages and the sceptics' (at least from this blogger's POV) agreement or denial:

Catastrophic Man-Made Global Warming (CAGW): 

Sceptics, generally believe the science is still out. Until recently, it has been generally accepted that Planetary Warming of 0.7-0.8ºC occurred during the 20th century. However, more recent papers show this maybe not be the case. In a paper presented at the European Geosciences Union in 2012, greek scientists Steirou and Koutsoyiannis concluded that the global temperature increase during the last century is between 0.4°C and 0.7°C where these two values are the estimates derived from raw and adjusted data respectively.

Steirou, E., and D. Koutsoyiannis, Investigation of methods for hydroclimatic data homogenization, European Geosciences Union General Assembly 2012, Geophysical Research Abstracts, Vol. 14, Vienna, 956-1, European Geosciences Union, 2012. (link)
So, the "science" says "no catastrophic global warming" (CAGW) during the 20th century. Also, no global warming this century for between 17 and 23 years to date. (back-up link)

Catastrophic AGW? - NO.  My position.  I deny that there has been catastrophic global warming since the end of the Little Ice Age. In fact, beneficial warming has been experienced.
UHI Image - NASA

Man-made Global Warming (AGW)

Has there been man-made global warming? Yes. The Urban Heat Island (UHI) effect has been experienced. An urban heat island (UHI) is a metropolitan area that is significantly warmer than its surrounding rural areas due to human activities.

AGW? Yes. My position - I do NOT deny AGW!

Global Warming (GW?)

Well, anyone who believes that the world has not warmed since the Little Ice Age is either confused or a fool.

GW? Yes! My position  - I do not deny GW.

Climate Change. (CG? err...forget it)

Since Climate has changed since time immemorial, how could anyone deny climate change?

This shows how the Alarmists' use of the Term "Climate Change Denial" is so idiotic. 

And Climate Denier? Forget it? 

Who could deny that there is climate?

As Professor Bob Carter says in his recent book Taxing Air  
To term a person a climate sceptic is simply to reinforce that he or she surely is a scientist; for all good scientists........are sceptics. (bold added)
So are we sceptics, or in fact are non-alarmist scientists deniers? Bob (in Taxing Air) continues:
Most people termed 'climate sceptics' or 'deniers' by their opponents, and all true scientists in general, are in fact climate 'agnostics'. This is to say that, in advance of analysis, they have no particular axe to grind regarding the magnitude of the human influence on global climate. Rather, they just want the facts to be established and for the interpretations then to fall where they most logically live .
So, we see, at least from this blogger's point of view, the sceptic is NOT a Global Warming Denier, not a Climate Change Denier, definitely NOT a Climate denier.

Who are the real deniers (or deny pretenders) of Climate Change?


As has been previously pointed out on this blog, Dr David Deming from the University of Oklahoma gave evidence to the Senate enquiry that lead IPCC author (not mentioned by Deming but lated outed by Overpeck) Jonathan Overpeck emailed Deming saying that they had to get rid of the MWP to scare the populace into accepting the AGW hoax. (link and Link)

In other words the IPCC through one of their lead authors were saying - (for convenience) that they:
  • DENY the existence of the Medieval Warm Period;
  • DENY that fact that there was a Roman Warm Period,;
  • DENY the Minoan Warm Period Data;
  • DENY the fact that warming occurs BEFORE the rise in atmospheric CO2.
So, remind me again, who are the REAL deniers? 
  • IS it the sceptics who know climate changes? 
  • IS it the Sceptics who know the planet has warmed since the Little Ice Age?
  • IS it the Sceptics who examine all the science?
or IS it the the Alarmists, the paid-for-a warming-opinion scientists who were exposed of duplicity by multiple climategate emails?











15 comments:

  1. You say that “For there to be a "consensus," implies that the science isn't settled”. There are some peer reviewed papers that suggest the threat of anthropogenic climate change is not serious, but a recent study of peer reviewed climate science related papers have shown that 97% of them agreed that the resent warming is mainly caused by anthropogenic processes. You can view the paper here http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article.

    You say that there has been “no global warming this century for between 17 and 23 years to date.”. There is a lot to consider when looking at temperatures on Earth. A good example is how a volcanic eruption can cause the Earth to cool. We have to take these natural temperature variations into consideration when looking at short climate time frames as you are suggesting. A resent paper on the subject shows that temperatures have continued to warm when you minus out all these natural factors. You can view the paper here http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/6/4/044022/fulltext/. The last graph in the paper explains it very simply. There is also a simple video regarding the matter http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W705cOtOHJ4&noredirect=1.

    You say that “anyone who believes that the world has not warmed since the Little Ice Age is either confused or a fool.”. Anthropogenic warming is only considered over the time that we started to increase CO2 in the atmosphere. Suggesting the warming before that time is anthropogenic is incorrect. You’re other comments about the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period is not acknowledging the fact that these were both regional anomalies, not global like the resent warning from anthropogenic CO2. This video explains it all http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G80mIbF5yEg.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sheesh! New Blogger without a blog, Climate Quote.

      You twice use the term "resent paper," and yet use those papers as part of your argument. No wonder you resent those papers. Your first link is to the much lambasted "Cook et Al" paper. It has been suggested that the site was created because no respectable scientific journal would accept such a disasterous paper.

      You can read one critique here - 0.3% CONSENSUS, NOT 97.1%

      You say: Anthropogenic warming is only considered over the time that we started to increase CO2 in the atmosphere. Well, there was a large increase in man's carbon dioxide emissions from the mid 1940s, but global temperatures plunged for thirty years and some were declaring that we were heading for another ice age. Strange, if CO2 was causing warming.

      You say: You’re sic other comments about the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period is not acknowledging the fact that these were both regional anomalies, not global

      The Alarmists have tried to paint these as regional events, but that is not true.

      Here is a summary of papers re theMedieval Warm period in China and a recent paper of the Medieval Warm period in Chile

      Many other papers are available from all over the world showing the MWP was a global event. It is a pity that the Alarmists won't admit it, but it doesn't fit their political cause.


      Delete
    2. No I don’t have an active blog yet, is that a problem? And regarding my spelling error of resent, it’s nice to know the kind of person I am dealing with to try and alter my meaning. The link you provided leads to nowhere! And unless it’s a published comment to the journal regarding the peer reviewed paper, you really don’t need to link it. The Cook paper is spot on in classifying the many peer reviewed papers that endorse anthropogenic climate change (Global Warming). 97% accept that man is causing the warming. I shudder to think what you “believe”. You only have 3% of most climate science papers to actually refer to when “trying” to argue against anthropogenic global warming.

      This comment of yours “Well, there was a large increase in man's carbon dioxide emissions from the mid 1940s, but global temperatures plunged for thirty years and some were declaring that we were heading for another ice age. Strange, if CO2 was causing warming.” Shows how little you know about anthropogenic climate change. The CO2 we put into the atmosphere today takes time to increase temperatures on Earth. You can’t expect a immediate response to added CO2. Also there were many factors cooling the Earth at the time, mainly aerosols. But as these were reduced, anthropogenic CO2 became the main warming factor on Earth. We have seen a steady increase in global temperatures and continue to due to CO2. From your links and comments about medieval warming in China and Chile, I guess you did not take the time to watch the videos I linked. I linked videos to make it easier for you.. China and Chile both did experience warming during that time, but many regions did not. The recent warming is global! This is expected when the warming is caused by CO2. Watch the videos! This link also shows where the medieval warming took place, and where the recent warming is taking place, huge difference. http://www.skepticalscience.com/medieval-warm-period-intermediate.htm

      Delete
  2. Quoie old chap, you say to try and alter my meaning. Sorry, I wasn't trying to alter your meaning, but rather trying to make sense out of it.

    You say: 97% accept that man is causing the warming. I shudder to think that you accept that flawed statement without researching the flaws in it.

    You say The CO2 we put into the atmosphere today takes time to increase temperatures on Earth. Or perhaps, as most scientists agree and as has been shown over millennia, temperature rises and tne a rise in CO2 follows.

    You say We have seen a steady increase in global temperatures and continue to due to CO2.
    Can you definitely say that the rise in global temperature is due to CO2. The IPCC after more than twenty years have admitted in correspondence that they cannot. And is temperature still rising? Well not according to the RSS satellite data which show not significant warming for twenty three years.

    It was for a temperature rise of less than 15 years when James Hansen thought that was a significant period, Remember temperatures fell from the mid forties to the mid 70s. So they started rising again from around 1975. James Hansen, then of NASA-GISS, said to a senate hearing in 1988
    the global warming is now large enough that we can ascribe with a high degree of confidence cause-and-effect relationship to the greenhouse effect.

    Source: http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Environment/documents/2008/06/23/ClimateChangeHearing1988.pdf

    You say China and Chile both did experience warming during that time, but many regions did not. I just used China and Chile as examples. THere are peer-reviewed papers from:

    Africa
    Antarctica
    Asia
    Australia/New Zealand
    Europe
    North America
    Northern Hemisphere
    Oceans
    South America

    Doesn't leave much of the globe untouched by the MWP, does it?

    They can be found at Medieval Warm Period Project

    As to your link to John Cook's Very UN-Skeptical Science paid smeer blog, don't bother. It is as full of holes as his recent lambasted paper.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You say “We have seen a steady increase in global temperatures and continue to due to CO2. Can you definitely say that the rise in global temperature is due to CO2. The IPCC after more than twenty years have admitted in correspondence that they cannot.”

      That is what the Cook 97% consensus is about, it looks at over 15000 climate change papers and found that 97% of them agreed that the recent warming has been caused by anthropogenic CO2.
      You say “And is temperature still rising? Well not according to the RSS satellite data which show not significant warming for twenty three years.”

      Yes everything is still on track regarding warming. I suspect you are asking me this as a question because I explained it all before? Maybe you did not understand it? I will cut and paste my last explanation about this question and you can explain what you don’t understand? Below is my cut and paste from my previous comment to you:
      You say that there has been “no global warming this century for between 17 and 23 years to date.”. There is a lot to consider when looking at temperatures on Earth. A good example is how a volcanic eruption can cause the Earth to cool. We have to take these natural temperature variations into consideration when looking at short climate time frames as you are suggesting. A resent paper on the subject shows that temperatures have continued to warm when you minus out all these natural factors. You can view the paper here http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/6/4/044022/fulltext/. The last graph in the paper explains it very simply. There is also a simple video regarding the matter http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W705cOtOHJ4&noredirect=1.

      You talk about James Hansen back in the 1975, but I have already explained this to you.
      It wasn’t until around 1975 that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere had taken over any cooling effect by areolas. Man made aerosols I should also add.

      You then go on about more regions around the world that saw warming during the medieval warm period. So I am going to explain it to you again, there were countless places around the world that saw warming during this period, but there were also countless regions that did not see warming! This is the problem, CO2 is a global gas, it warms everywhere, so we look at all the areas that did not get warming during the medieval warm period and see if they are getting warming now, due to anthropogenic CO2, and they are. And the warming is more! I linked you all the peer reviewed science about it. The idea is this is not the same warming today as we saw back then. It’s being caused by CO2 today. These two pictures explain it better, this one is of medieval warming http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/Temperature_Pattern_MWP.gif and this one is of the recent warming http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/Temp_Pattern_1999_2008_NOAA.jpg. I also linked a video about it all in my last posts.



      Delete
  3. You say “97% accept that man is causing the warming. I shudder to think that you accept that flawed statement without researching the flaws in it.”

    The Cook study was a look at over 15000 climate science peer reviewed papers which they read and determined if the paper had endorsed the science that states the earth is warming and the cause is anthropogenic CO2. That is not very hard for them to do and they have all the papers they used online for everyone to check! It has nothing to do with people being in consensus, it’s just a look at all the papers and categorising them into the ones that accept man made warming from anthropogenic CO2 and those that don’t. 97% did agree with manmade warming from anthropogenic CO2.

    You say “The CO2 we put into the atmosphere today takes time to increase temperatures on Earth. Or perhaps, as most scientists agree and as has been shown over millennia, temperature rises and then a rise in CO2 follows.”

    With that logic, CO2 would have reduced as temperatures went down! But let’s look at the facts. Science has looked into this claim made by sceptics and have explained the process. This rise in temperature before an increase in CO2 is simply due to the earth’s axis changing and causing the Earth to heat up. This extra heat warms up the oceans which releases CO2 into the atmosphere, that is why the temperatures raised first then CO2. But this warming which caused CO2 to rise was only regional, not global. It was the CO2 release that made it a global warming. What science has shown is that almost all the warming seen after the little warming caused by the Earth’s axis change, is due to the extra CO2 added to the atmosphere. So this process only reaffirms that CO2 is a powerful greenhouse gas. When the axis of the Earth went back to normal, the Earth cools and the CO2 is reduced and the Earth goes back to its normal temperature. This is why we have ice ages. It is all explained here http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v484/n7392/full/nature10915.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Oh Dear, Quoie!

      You say:

      "The Cook study was a look at over 15000 climate science peer reviewed papers which they read and determined if the paper had endorsed the science that states the earth is warming and the cause is anthropogenic CO2.

      I have previously pointed out that this study has been lambasted by many.

      For Instance Popular Technology

      To get to the truth, I emailed a sample of scientists whose papers were used in the study and asked them if the categorization by Cook et al. (2013) is an accurate representation of their paper. Their responses are eye opening and evidence that the Cook et al. (2013) team falsely classified scientists' papers as "endorsing AGW", apparently believing to know more about the papers than their authors.

      And From Lord Monckton:

      0.3% CONSENSUS, NOT 97.1%

      The latest paper apparently showing 97% endorsement of a consensus that more than half of recent global warming was anthropogenic really shows only 0.3% endorsement of that now-dwindling consensus.

      Poor John Cook, why does his university still keep him?

      You say:

      But this warming which caused CO2 to rise was only regional, not global.

      That's what you said about the MWP. I gave you links to peer-reviewed papers from every continent on Earth. Do you still maintain that the MWP was only regional? Or are you dodging a false statement that you previously made?

      Delete
    2. You then go on about more regions around the world that saw warming during the medieval warm period. So I am going to explain it to you again, there were countless places around the world that saw warming during this period, but there were also countless regions that did not see warming! This is the problem, CO2 is a global gas, it warms everywhere, so we look at all the areas that did not get warming during the medieval warm period and see if they are getting warming now, due to anthropogenic CO2, and they are. And the warming is more! I linked you all the peer reviewed science about it. The idea is this is not the same warming today as we saw back then. It’s being caused by CO2 today. These two pictures explain it better, this one is of medieval warming http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/Temperature_Pattern_MWP.gif and this one is of the recent warming http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/Temp_Pattern_1999_2008_NOAA.jp g. I also linked a video about it all in my last posts.

      Delete
    3. Don't link Cook's smear site the very UNskeptical science. I have shown you how his pseudo 97% paper is very flawed ans so is the stuff on UNskeptical Science. And if you don't believe that papers re warming on every continent on Earth mean that there were a few cracks between the warming, I give up.

      Have a nice ill-informed life.

      Delete
    4. You made the "claim" that scientists are denying the Medieval warming, I am simply showing you that due to it only being a regional warming, it did not heat up the earth as much as it has at present. And to also explain to you that the present warming is from CO2 so is more of a global warming. This is confirmed by looking at all the areas that did not get warming during the medieval period and seeing that they are warming from present CO2. Its a different warming and is more global and hotter. Its simple. I would like you to explain how that is denying the medieval warming period? Also to not look up the facts given to you is why we classify sceptics as deniers. Skeptical science is a treasure chest of links to scientific papers that support anthropogenic CO2 warming, just like WUWT is for papers or BLOGS (in most cases), that are against high warming.

      Delete
    5. Here you go again with your due to it only being a regional warming... As has been pointed out to you several times, it was on every continent on Earth (and from peer-reviewed papers, not from Cook's smear site.)

      You also say that I made the "claim" that scientists are denying the Medieval warming. No, that is false. I made the claim that, for political rather than scientific reasons some of the IPCC Alarmists tried to suppress the MWP and make the false claim that is was just a Northern Hemisphere event.

      See, for instance:

      http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com.au/2013/04/david-deming-dubs-alarmists-real-deniers.html

      IPCC Lead Author Jonathan Overpeck.....emailed (Dr) Deming saying that, to scare people, they had to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period (MWP.) Phil Jones (Professor in the School of Environmental Sciences, UEA) referred to it in the Climategate emails.

      You say (and how can you keep getting things so wrong?)
      Its a different warming and is more global and hotter.

      More global than the MWP that was on every continent and in the oceans? Gee, that more global!

      And Hotter? Well, only according to the models and nor according to real data.

      Delete
  4. There is a lot of interesting articles about the Cook paper. The ones you linked don't seem to work. This one I linked below was a good read. http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/05/97-study-falsely-classifies-scientists.html?m=1

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Now you're starting to use your head. Your link goes to one of my links above and see the second paragraph from your link?

      To get to the truth, I emailed a sample of scientists whose papers were used in the study and asked them if the categorization by Cook et al. (2013) is an accurate representation of their paper. Their responses are eye opening and evidence that the Cook et al. (2013) team falsely classified scientists' papers as "endorsing AGW", apparently believing to know more about the papers than their authors.


      Cook ET al Falsely classier papers......they were fraudulent with their claims.

      What a con!

      Delete
    2. This one is a good read to, it looks at emails between Cook and his peers that were hacked. https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&cad=rja&ved=0CDsQFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.populartechnology.net%2F2013%2F06%2Fcooks-97-consensus-study-game-plan.html&ei=icb_UZLjEq2XiQeCrICwBA&usg=AFQjCNFtK5B80Jqa-J0x_unG0tNSoWzBQA&sig2=G15xOTk6TAg1_wjDjyEmFA&bvm=bv.50165853,d.dGI

      Delete
  5. New Peer Reviewed Study: Medieval Warming Unprecedented In South America.

    http://www.c3headlines.com/2013/08/new-peer-reviewed-study-medieval-warming-unprecedented-in-south-america.html

    As most scientists now recognize, the empirical studies that confirm the Medieval Warming to be unprecedented far outnumber those that statistically speculate otherwise – the latest research now confirms that South America was very hot during the Medieval Warming Period

    ReplyDelete





All serious comments published after moderation.
Comments should be polite, and respect all views.
No bad language. Spam never makes it!