In my post on The Stupid Cult of Cooling and the Goyder Line debate, I commented that claims of global cooling since 1998 (or 2002, depending who you’re reading)
are, for the most part, made by the sort of people who in 1998 (or 2002) were denying the existence of the global warming which they now claim was actually happening but has ceased.
In evidence, I offer three statements by self-defined “classical liberal” newspaper columnist, publisher and host of the ABC’s Counterpoint programme, Michael Duffy.
On 3 May 2008, Duffy wrote in the Sydney Morning Herald that:
Global warming stopped six years ago. It might start again tomorrow, but from 2002 until now, average global temperatures have remained fairly constant. This is in contrast to the previous period when, as everyone knows, the temperature trend was upwards.
This suggests that, prior to 2002, Duffy, like “everyone”, agreed that the temperature trend was upwards.
However, on 30 September 2000, Duffy wrote in the Courier-Mail and the Daily Telegraph that:
I’ve been following the global warming issue closely for a decade, and have found it to contain more recklessly irresponsible hysteria and false science than anything else I’ve ever come across… There is no reputable evidence that proves that humanity is warming the Earth to any significant degree, or that the seas are rising.
This was in an article denouncing the Mandatory Renewable Energy Target under the non-reckless, non-irresponsible, non-hysterical heading “Raving Green loonies are about to inflict one of the greatest blows to the Australian economy”.
Earlier, on 30 May 1998, Duffy wrote the following paean to the Oregon Petition in the Australian:
One of the most influential pieces of factual fairy floss of recent times was the statement, repeated often at dinner parties and in the media last year, that the 2000 scientists on the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change were climate experts concerned about global warning. It was a load of baloney.
In fact, only a minority of the 2000 were climate scientists, and in most cases their opinion was not sought – or was sought and ignored – by those who wrote the relevant report. Some of them have become so annoyed by the repetition of the “2000″ figure that they have now joined 15,000 other scientists in signing a mammoth petition debunking the greenhouse hysteria.
(Which still exists: plans are afoot to block off 10 per cent of Sydney’s Centennial Park from the public, to turn it into a “carbon sink”.) It’s worth quoting some of the petition: “There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.
“Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.”
It’s also worth quoting the “review of science” circulated by the petition’s organisers, on which the petition was based, and which Duffy presumably also read and agreed with:
The empirical evidence actual measurements of Earth’s temperature shows no man-made warming trend. Indeed, over the past two decades, when CO2 levels have been at their highest, global average temperatures have actually cooled slightly.
To quote Duffy again from 30 September 2000:
“more recklessly irresponsible hysteria and false science than anything else I’ve ever come across”
Quite so, to which we can add classically and liberally airbrushing one’s past positions. More to come.
The LaRouchies aside, the ABC’s Great Global Warming Swindleathon was great just to see David Karolyi serve Duffy a big mug of shut the fuck up in the first few minutes. When confronted with a non-compliant expert he collapses like the overpaid hack he is.
I’m still stuffed if I know what “classical liberal” is supposed to mean. It’s like code for hide-bound-conservative-who-doesn’t-want-to-be-called-that. It’s much easier to refer to them as “reluctant liberals”.
That’s the trouble with saying things on the record. People remember, and hold you accountable for it.
Incidentally, as a factual matter, the hottest year to date was 2005, http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/ncdc.html, so it would be a bit of a stretch to claim that the observed temperatures in 2006 and 2007, slightly lower than 2005 caused by the cooling effects of the latest La Nina, are a reverse of a 50 year upward trend.
Here’s a more precise link
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2007/ann/global.html
David Rubie@2: that’s the long and short of it, J.S. Mill wouldn’t be caught dead hanging around with most of these “Classical Liberals”.
My reading of Duffy’s comments is not that he denies global warming, but that he is not convinced that the warming that is happening is anthropogenic. So while ‘everyone knows, the temperature trend [pre 2002] was upwards’ that does not mean that it was caused by CO2 emissions.
That’s not my personal opinion (I know next-to-nothing about climate science and I am prepared to be guided by the experts) but I do think you can be sceptical about anthropogenic global warming, while still accepting the data that the planet has gone through periods of warming recently.
As Required noted, Duffy did not claim that there had been no warming, only that there was “no reputable evidence” of a human cause. The only quote you mined that did deny warming did not come from Duffy, so you seem to be deliberately misrepresenting his position.
Incidentally, so far Duffy has been right. GW stopped at, or soon after, the time of those statements and has not yet restarted.
The problem with that, Required, is that people who deny the anthropogenic part of global warming generally have no comments to make about ways to mitigate the effects, whereas anthropogenic global warming proponents DO have ideas about ways to mitigate it (greenhouse gas reductions). The globe is warming, it will have cataclysmic effects if some of the forecasts pan out, and we really need to start thinking about how to avoid some of those effects.
“Incidentally, so far Duffy has been right. GW stopped at, or soon after, the time of those statements and has not yet restarted.”
Wrong. The hottest year to date was 2005.
Bill, it’s like this. There’s the upward trend of global warming, but that doesn’t mean that every year’s temperature has to be on the trend line. Some years its above the trend (caused mostly by El Nino) and years its below (caused mostly by La Nina). These relatively short term influences cause temperature deviations around the trend, but don’t affect the trend itself.
The quote I mined that did deny warming beyond any question of interpretation was from a “review” of “science” which formed the purported evidentiary basis on which support was solicited for the petition which Duffy was quoting approvingly. In the original article Duffy quoted from statements by the petition’s organisers in addition to the petition, so it is entirely reasonable to presume that Duffy was probably aware of the contents of the document in which that quote appeared, and did not feel the need to distinguish his own petition from that expressed in the document.
It is also obvious that Duffy regards the authors of the quoted comment as more reputable and reliable scientific sources than the IPCC and others who accept AGW.
Required @ 6, Bill @ 7 and Michael Duffy should look at and digest charts like this one and similar but even more extensive charts in the rather excellent wikipedia article.
The whole point is that:
(i)Since the Industrial Revolution started about 200 years ago, we have been driving anthropogenic global warming for almost that long. The Wikipedia chart of several centuries makes it equally plain that the “warming up out of the Little Ice Age” of 400 years ago is nothing of the sort, but bigger, steeper and more consistent than anything else in the last 200 years.
(ii) Since the Earth is a Big Place and has feedback mechanisms, there was a time lag (decades, not months) before it really ceased being able to cope with us, and there is a time lag before any response to what we do.
(iii) The global average temperature trend switched over the period 1910-1935 from a previous flat trend to a ramping-upward trend. Relative to the 1840-1930 average, exursions of more than 0.15oC either way did not happen until about 1935. But now we are 0.8oC above the 1840-1930 average and still trending up.
Yes, there are fluctuations up and down of a few hundredths of a degree, and on a decadal scale of 0.2oC or so. But that does not counter or even obscure the longer-term trend, or the break in slope in the early 20th century.
Anyone suggesting that a 1- or 2-year glitch indicating that “global warming has stopped” is just demonstrating that they really have no clue about what “long term” means. Look at decades and centuries. Months and years are not significant in this context.
There are also arguments put about that bigger natural temperature excursions have happened in the past. True. The Earth has been warmer. But the rate of change also matters, and we are warming the planet faster than any other process, which makes adaptation difficult. The temperature is currently rising at 0.8oC per 75 years, or about 11oC per millenium. Compare this with:
(i) The “fast” swings into and out of interglacial warm periods, for which we now have good-resolution ice core data, as shown in the wikipedia article chart of “Ice Age Temperature Changes”. Temperatures swung up from -7oC at 136ka ago (kilo-annum = 1000 years) to +6oC at 126ka and back down to -6oC at 108ka, but those rates of change are 1.3oC/millennium up and -0.7oC/millennium back down again. An order of magnitude less than what we are doing.
(ii) The Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (look it up)of 55.8 million years ago, which was the warmest time since the end of the dinosaurs, with tropical vegetation in the Arctic, and a time of mass extinction. Probably caused by big CO2 and methane hydrate burps associated with India and Asia colliding to form the Himalaya. But the temperature rose by only 6oC in 20000 years, or 0.3oC/millennium.
All this data has been out there for a while, for people who know where to look and how to interpret it. Denialists relaly are making idiots of themselves.
Correction: “anything else in the last 2000 years”.
And yes, I can spell “really”, relaly
Paul, this “review” of “science” doubtless contains numerous statements and assertions. Insisting that Duffy agreed with all of them is not justified, (unless Duffy confirms that he did/does).
In the statements that are Duffy’s, he appeared to take some care with his wording, and certainly does not deny that GW had ocurred up to that point.
Since Duffy is a journalist he must have said many things that are on the record. If that is the best you can do you are misrepresenting him.
Sorry Spiros, but I think you will find that only the NASA/GISS data series shows 2005 being hotter than 1998. The other generally used temperature series, (I think there are 3 others), show the opposite.
It’s probably fair comment that there is no statistically significant difference between ‘98 and ‘05, but it is not true that the hottest year was 2005.
Bill, let’s get a few things straight:
1. On 30 May 1998, Duffy made comments which can only be interpreted as glowing approval of the Oregon Petition and endorsement of its organisers and signatories as more credible and reputable authorities on climate scientists than the IPCC.
2. Frederick Seitz, a key organiser and signatory of the petition and one of the scientists whose views Duffy regards as more credible than those of the IPCC, sent prospective petition signatories a “research review” which stated:
The document was available on the same web site as the petition and another document by Seitz from which Duffy quoted.
3. Duffy did not state any disagreement with this statement. There are three possible explanations for this:
(a) He read the statement and agreed with it. If so, I am not misrepresenting his position.
(b) He read the statement and disagreed with it, but for reasons best known to himself decided to keep his disagreement to himself. If so, I can hardly be said to be deliberatly misrepresenting his position when all I have done is state what any impartial reader would regard as a highly plausible interpretation of his position based on what is on the record in the article and in the document being quoted. If Duffy’s silence resulted in his true position being misinterpreted or misunderstood, this is his fault, not mine.
(c) He did not read the statement before writing the article, in which case he can justly be criticised for lazy and sloppy journalism, and once again has only himself to blame for whatever conclusions his readers and critics might have drawn on the basis of what was on the record.
4. No further correspondence will be entered into, unless plea-bargaining Bill wants to enter a guilty plea on Duffy’s behalf on the lesser charge of journalistic incompetence in return for dropping the more serious charge of dishonesty.
Andy the points you think are making are mainly very woozy.
First of all the “Industrial Revolution” sounds impressive but industrial production was a small fraction of current levels, confined to a few countries. As a result CO2 levels had risen by less than 10ppm by 1900. It is riduculous to attribute the temperature rise from the LIA (at its worst about 1700), to 1900 to CO2. Even by WW2, CO2 had only risenn by 20-30ppm, so attributing this warming phase to CO2 is also a stretch. Most of the 100-110ppm rise in CO2 has ocurred since WW2.
“Anyone” is not suggesting there has been a 1 or 2 year glitch. there has been a glitch of approaching a decade, (depends a bit on what averaging/smoothing etc that you use).
Swings into and out of glacial periods are far faster than the figures you cite. Ice core analysis indicates rises of +6C in 200 years (possibly even 50 years) when glacials end. Needless to say this is much faster than recent GW.
As for more diatant geology, no one knows what caused the PETM, or how long such events took. Perhaps you overlokked the word “hypothesis” in your Wiki article. The PETM may just as easily have been triggered by the Brito-Arctic basalt trap eruptions (which ocurred at exactly the same time). (There are probably other explanations as well).
I do agree that “the Earth is a Big Place” and has warmed somewhat over recent centuries and decades.
Despite your commendably diligent research, you dont seem to be actually strengthening your “case” against Duffy. Many people comment favourably, even “glowingly”, about all sorts of reports without noting any reservations they might have about some of the contents. Most people who sign most petitions would be in that position – and Duffy did not even sign this Oregon Petition.
Thousands of people, (including many journalists and scientists), have expressed “glowing approval” of An inconvenient Truth for example. Many of them, including some of the journalists, might have noticed some exaggerated, partial, or outdated claims in AIT, but chose not to be critical. That doesnt mean I am entitled to insist that such people agreed with literally everything in AIT. Somehow I doubt that you would be accusing a journalist of “lazy and sloppy journalism” if he/she did not express any reservations they might have had about AIT. Would you?
If I may repeat myself, at least Duffy has had the old fashioned virtue of being right (so far). GW stopped soon after his comments.
“Many people comment favourably, even “glowingly”, about all sorts of reports without noting any reservations they might have about some of the contents. Most people who sign most petitions would be in that position”
No-one with a modicum of intellectual honesty, that is.
Oh, sorry – we’re talking about Michael Duffy.
“The other generally used temperature series, (I think there are 3 others), show the opposite.”
None of which changes the point about the long term trend, even by a little bit.
1998 was an exceptionally hot year because it was an El Nino year. What has this got to do with anthropogenic climate change? Nothing at all.
I would be accusing them of that if they wrote a rave review for the film without having seen it, which would be analogous to the third possible explanation I suggested for Duffy’s failure to distance himself from the Seitz etc. “no evidence for warming” statement.
Bill wrote:
and also:
Will the real Bill please stand up?
Paul, your evidence establishs that Michael Duffy denied AGW years ago, but not that he denied GW. It is the latter that he stands accused of.
Case Dismissed.
Now why not move on to Exhibit B? I presume the heading Exhibit A meant that you have some others in mind?
“The other generally used temperature series, (I think there are 3 others), show the opposite.
None of which changes the point about the long term trend, even by a little bit.
1998 was an exceptionally hot year because it was an El Nino year. What has this got to do with anthropogenic climate change? Nothing at all.”
Fascinating logic. In an earlier comment you imply a record hot 2005 (an El Nino year) is evidence of man-made global warming. Now when someone challenges you and says 1998 was hotter you say the el nino in that year is irrelevant!
“In an earlier comment..”
Actually, no.
In my earlier comment (3) I disputed the ‘fact’; often cited by climate change deniers, that 1998 was the hottest year on record, and because of that ‘fact’, it follows that AGW is no longer a problem. I did this by pointing to evidence that 2005 was the hottest year on record, and that the cooler 2006 and 2007 was due to the La Nina phenomenon. So (a) we haven’t had ten years of cooling, we’ve only had two and (b) the two cooler years are easily explain ed by factors that are unrelated to AGW.
In a later comment (9) I spelled it out: the long term trend (due to AGW) is up, but some years are above the trend and some below.
Bill (14) said that whether 1998 or 2005 was hotter is a matter of measurement dispute.
In (19) I said that even if that is true, then that doesn’t change anything about the long term trend, which is still up, and shows no sign of turning down.
Think of it this way, by analogy. Per capita incomes in capitalist countries have been on a long term upward trend ever since the industrial revolution. But superimposed on the long term trend are repeated cycles of booms and recessions. During the booms (the El Nino equivalents), incomes are above the trend line. During the recessions, the La Ninas, they are below.
David-
It refers to people who adhere to the nineteenth century tenants of liberalism. Persons such as John Stuart Mill for example. People who endorse both economic and social liberalism. They can be distinguished from conservatives because they will not seek to enforce or preserve ‘traditional values’ via government decree. It’s often associated with libertarianism which some regard as another word for the same thing. The ‘classic’ qualification functions to distinguish such from contemporary ‘liberals’ (ie Social Liberals) who endorse liberty but seek regulatory solutions to economic and social problems nonetheless.
>
Being a classic liberal has nothing to do with one’s stance on AGW. However there are those who describe themselves as such who irrationally deny the evidence because of a doctrinairre endorsement of unfettered markets.
Bill-
>
Duffy is not qualified to make any authoritative pronouncement on the causes of global warming. Like many other pundits he seeks to cherry pick facts out of a wider and more complex study in order to create ‘reasonable’ doubt. Tony Mokbel would do well to hire him.
>
Despite whatever smarts these people possess they’re being stupid. And this likewise goes for the ‘alarmists’ as well (ie people who use AGW to launch into hysterical tirades against industrial civilization). They both make the mistake of believing that AGW is somehow an item on the 19th century ideological agenda: socialism v capitalism etc. It’s nothing of the kind. It’s simply a consequence of our success as a species in exploiting resources to our own benefit. Given that climate history shows that we are in a benign phase of ‘good weather’ that won’t last more than another 10 000 years, given continental shift; it was inevitable that we would have to reckon with planetary ‘moodiness’ eventually. In many ways AGW might be one of those good bad things.
>
But the current scrapping over the morality of capitalism, and the efforts of those who support it unreservedly to stamp AGW a bogus theory because inconvenient will not make the problem go away. I remember the US president’s response to calls for action on climate change. He said: “The American lifestyle is not negotiable”.
>
What arrogance. And what stupidity. Since when does Nature negotiate?
Bolt’s persistent ammassing of huge numbers of scientists in support of his rhetoric reminds me of the Nazi’s efforts to marginalize Einstein. They had 100 scientists all write treatises viz why relativity was a crock. Naturally it was spurious rhetoric masquerading as science. That is: relativity is a crock because we resent the fact that Jews are often brilliant.
>
Einstein smirked in response. Why 100? he asked. ‘Twould only take one.
Adrien, I agree with you about the people (on both sides) who think the AGW debate is a stoush over 19th C ideology, but PLEASE don’t use nazi analogies! We’ll end up with a mess like the one over at John Quiggin’s place.
Duffy is not qualified to make any authoritative pronouncement on the causes of global warming. Like many other pundits he seeks to cherry pick facts out of a wider and more complex study
Wot? You mean exactly like Al Gore?
Sorry about that non sequitur, but seriously, who cares what some journalist might have said ten years ago? The issue really is whether GW is AGW. What Duffy, writing as a journalist, has to say is really of no importance to anyone, other than those who choose to obsess about this one man.
The objective facts are – the warmest year in the last one hundred years was 1938, temperatures spiked in 1998, fell back and then continued their warming trend until 2002, at which time, with minor wiggles, they flat lined. Far from the science being settled not one of the models which the IPCC relied on predicted this. All the models require the troposphere to be warming at three times its known current rate, all the models require the Antarctic to be warming, and it isn’t – it is cooling. The models all assume cloud formation will provide positive feedback – increasing warming, but cloud formation is in fact changing to provide negative feedback, promoting cooling, contributing to a dynamic equilibrium effect. There may be valid reasons for all of this within the AGW paradigm, but right now no one has explained what these reasons may be. The models have shown themselves to be absolute whizzes at predicting the past, but useless at predicting the future.
Climate science, far from being settled, is in its infancy, and we are only now beginning to understand the complexity of the task we have set ourselves in trying to understand it. The idea that we know enough to try to control it by manipulating one minor component, CO2, is an example of the hubris which is posessed only by those who, in previous decades, were foolish to fantasise that governments could regulate something as complex as national economies.
There has been no net temperature increase since 1940, that being the last year when temperatures were at todays levels. There has been no climatic change to date which is outside natural change observed over the last two thousand years. And there is no reason I know of to think there will be. If anyone can provide substantive evidence to the contrary I will be interested in seeing it.
Cat, you are being a bit harsh saying the temperature is the same today as in 1940, (even if that’s true). After all we are just after a La Nina right now. The rest of your analysis is rather masterly!
But perhaps there is case to replace the IPCC’s computers with Michael Duffy? He does boast a better predictive record, and runs on a very small fraction of the cost. just an idea for the Razor Gang.
It was cold when I got up this morning. Certainly colder than at lunchtime yesterday. And way heaps colder than back in summer. I declare global warming totally ovah.
Bill,
Thank you. Making the effort to follow the science does pay off at dinner parties, even if I never get invited back. It beats the hell out of relying on the worthless propaganda put out by Lee Lin Chin and P. Adams.
Pity the poor models, Gaia just won’t cooperate.
The models require the oceans to be warming, acting as a heat sink and taking up 85% of the available extra heat. According to the best research available right now, the oceans have been cooling for at least the last five years, directly conflicting with forecasts. The big astonishing omission of the IPCC models is that none of them take into account solar cycles. They, to a model, assume that the variability of the Sun, cyclically or otherwise, has no effect on the Earth’s climate. This is an absurd assumption and, by itself, should be enough to invalidate them as reliable forecasting tools.
The problem is, the IPCC was not set up to determine whether GW was A, but rather was instructed to assume that the case was true. It effectively has no mandate to question the assumption, thus the content of the reports it puts out. My understanding is its mandate is to demonstrate the A, not question it, and to propose policies to mitigate its effects, whether it exists or not.
In other words, it is as corrupt as the rest of the UN has become.
As I read elsewhere -
If a model gives completely wrong numerical predictions for five-year periods, what is the exact reason that it won’t give wrong predictions for ten-year or thirty-year periods?
Quite.
Frankly, if they want accuracy, they would not have obtained worse results had the relied on this fellow -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punxsutawney_Phil
Might I suggest, for references to the relevant research and commentary -
http://www.countingcats.com/?p=33
http://www.countingcats.com/?p=40
http://www.countingcats.com/?p=210
http://www.countingcats.com/?p=227
Expressions of loathing for the casual manner in which morally superior and worthless Green policies kill people -
http://www.countingcats.com/?p=75
http://www.countingcats.com/?p=185
The money quote from that one -
So why be surprised that totalitarian solutions to mythical problems wind up causing real devastation?
And a good belly laugh at ecohysteric expense -
http://www.countingcats.com/?p=54
And BTW, who is Michael Duffy anyway? Does he matter?
“And BTW, who is Michael Duffy anyway? Does he matter?”
And BTW, who is Bob Carter of the Canada Free Press. Does he matter?
Also providing over a half dozen links to your own site instead of to the actual source material may be construed by some as a desperate attempt to gain attention for yourself instead of for whatever point you trying to make.
I think that was George Bush the elder about the Rio earth Summit.
cats, that 1938 thing is about the US of A, about 2% of the world’s surface, which was quite anomalously warm in the 1930s.
You’re wrong about Antarctica. It was expected to cool because the warmth would make more snow fall. It’s very dry at -37C and snow often falls out of a blue sky, I’m told. In fact the inner part is cooling, but the rim is melting and there’s a net loss of ice.
If you don’t know who Duffy is, I can infer that you’re from somewhere else.
Having said that, cats, that’s it. No stoush from me. I’m not going to play.
I listen to Duffy most weeks. He not infrequently has Bob Carter and Jennifer Marohasy on the program. Following Carter, I’d say he thinks that AGW is lost in the noise of natural processes. Furthermore while it has been warming, he’d tend to attribute it to solar and would expect a cooling in the coming decades. So he’s more scared of an ice age than of GW.
Has everyone reading this thread read Paul’s companion post?
And BTW, who is Bob Carter of the Canada Free Press. Does he matter?
You mean Professor Bob Carter of Adelaide and James Cook Universities? Specialist in paleoclimate change? Palaeontologist, stratigrapher, marine geologist and environmental scientist. Head of School of Earth Sciences at James Cooke between 1981 and 1999. Chair of the Earth Sciences Discipline Panel of the Australian Research Council, Chair of the national Marine Science and Technologies Committee, Director of the Australian Office of the Ocean Drilling Program? A publication record of more than 100 papers in international science journals on topics which include taxonomic palaeontology, palaeoecology, the growth and form of the molluscan shell, New Zealand and Pacific geology, stratigraphic classification, sequence stratigraphy, sedimentology, the Great Barrier Reef, Quaternary geology, and sea-level and climate change?
That Bob Carter? Who also writes the occasional journalistic article on topics that matter to him?
I dunno, his opinion could be worth something, what do you think? His qualifications anywhere near as good as Al Gores?
Actually, sarcasm aside, given his prominence in the debate, I fail to see how anyone who claims to be informed on climate change could not at least have heard of him. Any more than they would be ignorant of James Hanson, Ross McKittrick, Michael Mann and the New Zealand Climate Change Coalition.
Also providing over a half dozen links to your own site instead of to the actual source material may be construed by some as a desperate attempt to gain attention for yourself
The links are already on my site, researched and well marked. Digging them out again is a waste of time. Besides, given that they are linked by narrative, putting them in context, I figured that it might help lift the debate to a more informed level. Given that I am pretty satisfied at the quality of the information on them, why wouldn’t I use them? Modesty?
instead of for whatever point you trying to make.
Like, debate, on any topic but specifically climate change in this case, is far more interesting when informed, rather than flailing around in ignorance and the dark.
Ok, my apologies, next time I will give less relevant information.
Why are people so unkind?
Brian,
In fact the inner part is cooling, but the rim is melting and there’s a net loss of ice.
The West Antarctic Peninsula is warming, it is thought ‘possibly’ as a result of change in local currents (no reference, sorry), and has lost some ice, but the main continent has cooled by approx 1 Celsius in the last couple of decades. Continental ice thickness is increasing, the winter sea ice cover for last year and this year is 60% greater than average and is at record levels (for time of year) since satellite measurement began.
Re Duffy, I spent 23 years in London, only been back in Oz for a couple of years. Still a stranger in a familiar land.
As far as stoush goes, yeah, I’d rather talk and debate. Exchange of information is the way to learn. Except that I often can’t resist being sarcastic about Al Gore.
OK countingcats, I’ll give you that Bob Carter is certainly more qualified than Micheal Duffy to advance an informed opinion on this issue.
(Disclaimer: I don’t really follow this issue. I just like having a go at pompous biased dickweeds who pretend they aren’t. They are found on both sides of this debate. Unlike most scienctist working in this field.)
Speaking of which, how does
“Besides, given that they are linked by narrative, putting them in context,”
correlate with framing sentances like:
“Is there any tragedy he is not willing to use to advance his garbage?”
or
“Green Hysteria Kills” which links to a crank site lambasting the ethonal biofuel craze which carefully ignores the fact the Bush Government, egged on by likes of Archer Midland Daniels, triggered this corn rush in the first place.
or just
“Green kills.”
Frankly, you’re behaving just like the kind of ecohysteric you think you’re pinning to the mat. All you angry crazed fanatics deserve eachother.
Umm.. I really wasn’t supposed to be the Man of Steel for that last comment.
I feel countingcats with his or her sweeping and invective-laden dismissal of opposing viewpoints may be better suited to such a role.
“I hate this damn computer
I wish that they would sell it
It never does what I want
Only what I tell it.”
Green Kills
Absolutely.
We are seeing that with the biofuel craze right now. As for the future you think people won’t die, in the statistical aggregate, as a result of the pointless restrictions placed on third world economic growth to deal with the highly speculative problem of AGW?
The planet simply is not conforming with the prognostications, but the green scaremongering continues regardless.
Why?
“Green Hysteria Kills” which links to a crank site
EUReferendum is a crank site? One of Britains foremost, erudite, best researched and politically influential sites is a crank site? That will come as a surprise to a lot of people.
Ok, you found something to blame on Bush, where, although he acted according to the wishes of the environmental lobby, you find reason to lob a Big Business briqbat at poor old McChimpy Haliburton, while ignoring the influence of the impeccably green European Union, instigating policies which only an innumerate could support, and which are the major contributor to the problem. Regardless, the whole disastrous farce of biofuels is driven by the green agenda. No one would be considering such an expensive alternative fuel otherwise.
So, apart from disagreeing with the article, would you be willing to explain the designation ‘crank site’. Or was this just use of a smear to bolster your position? Before explaining, may I recommend you investigate the status of that site within the UK.
Is there any tragedy he is not willing to use to advance his garbage?”
I stand by that. Weather varies year on year, but there is little evidence that climate change has had significant effect on weather events, or will have any significant effect in the future. If you can show evidence to the contrary I am happy to examine and discuss it.
Failing that, on what basis does Al Gore link the disaster in Burma with his favourite thesis of catastrophic climate change? Other than simply seeking to use all those deaths as a piece of green scaremongering, seeking to use those them to bolster his own position. I find his actions in this specific issue to be repulsive.
If you can persuade me otherwise, I am happy to listen.
I reiterate, on the evidence available so far – Green kills.
I will rephrase that – bad policy constructed around questionable and/or suspect science has deleterious effects on the welfare and well being of both individuals and the populace at large. For example – biofuels.
Those two statements give the same message, the first simply uses fewer words.
“I reiterate, on the evidence available so far – Green kills.”
So can you point to any evidence that Green kills. What is exactly is “Green” and how does it kill?
Having had a fossick around your site, it’s clear you’re just the opposite side of the coin to the extreme Earth Firsters who say “Humans are killing the planet”. You’re all just fanatics wanting to give your dull little lives some meaning by embarking on a grand crusade.
At least those whacko Extreme Greens have the courage of their convictions what with direct action and all. If you feel so strongly that their actions kill other humans, then why not physically intervene yourself? Are you just gonna stand by while Carsonites perpetrate mass murder? Show us you have the courage of your rhetoric and that you’re not just another Internet Tough Guy who likes typing “kill”, “genocide” and “fascist” a lot.
Cats; people wont die because of “pointless restrictions placed on third world economic growth”. That is because there wont be any such restrictions. LDC’s will not accept any meaningful carbon cap, Russia recently made that very clear.
LDC’s will sign pretty pieces of paper, but not if the paper requires them to sacrifice any economic growth at all. Indeed with CO2 intense Western industries relocating, subsidised technology transfer etc, LDC’s might even be net economic beneficiaries.
In global political terms AGW is purely a Western obsession, or a middle class Western obsession. It’s skin deep for most Westerners too
I can understand why countingcats doesnt get invited back to dinner parties, but all he did was make scathing comments about a very public political figure, (Al Gore). Stalin promptly responded by calling countingcats a “pompous biased dickweed”.
Clearly Stalin’s table manners are far worse.
(I suppose it is what you expect of Russians).
My evidence establishes beyond doubt that Michael Duffy generally endorsed the views of scientists who denied GW, and that he did not publicly qualify his endorsement of their views to the extent of stating any disagreement with their statement that:
which was a key element of the evidentiary basis for their petition which he was explicitly endorsing.
The case against Duffy is still very much alive unless he or his lawyer, Bill the Troll, can come up with an alibi.
Of greater significance in the wider scheme of things is that in 1998 the world’s largest organised group of denialists was promoting the hypothesis of [drum roll] Global Cooling!
Now Duffy, Bill the Troll, Andrew Bolt, Bob Carter, etc., have, in their several ways, implicitly admitted that the world’s largest organised group of denialists was wrong about global cooling the first time they tried it on, and the Oregon crowd themselves quietly shuffled away from this trope to their next talking point du jour.
Now, ten years on, the Stupid Cult of Cooling resurfaces.
2 Peter 2:22 says it all, really:
cats, it’s Hansen, not Hanson.
We’ll leave Antarctica for another day, but if you look at the global anomalies they are much stronger around the North pole at this stage.
Currently Michael Duffy presents the program Counterpoint along with Paul Comrie Thompson on ABC Radio National. They like to present non-mainstream points of view, but they have taken a definite anti-AGW stance. Last year they had a silly “carbon train” theme with a cow mooing, meant to represent a gravy train and a sacred cow. They believe in the great conspiracy where AGW scientists everywhere are maintaining their funding by knowingly publishing false science. It’s too silly for words to describe.
It’s not all he does, so google if you’re curious.
Your mate Bob Carter never responded to this dissection of his Melbourne rotary address to my knowledge, because you couldn’t. It demonstrates how wrong he is about the basic science. He’s also been taken apart several times at Deltoid.
Recently in a talk he had polar bears existing several hundreds of thousands of years before they evolved from the brown bear. His mental set is such that he is quite unreliable in presenting information. His howlers are such that you just can’t trust him as a source.
I’m not a scientist, but I get the impression that his own work is quite specialised and that his excursion into climate science generally is outside the scope of his genuine expertise.
Anyway Paul has a pretty good handle on him, and Paul’s knowledge is definitely to be respected.
On Gore, have a look at Tim Lambert’s fisking of Bolt and then have a gander at Eric Steig at RealClimate. There have been others. I think you’ll find that Hansen gave the movie a once over in February 2006 before it was finalised. Steig says:
Perhaps a Distinction rather than a High Distinction.
Re: the role of the IPCC
There is a decent overview by Stephen Schneider of Stanford on Ockham’s Razor this week.
Crikey, now Paul resorts to the Good Book and starts quoting St Peter – a noted authority on journalist ethics.
Clearly there are unsuspected religous depths to Paul. Maybe that’s why he is so fond of words like “denialist”?
But since everyone else on this thread has lost interest in the guilt of said Duffy, perhaps Paul should just move on to his next indictment.
GW said:
You mean the ex global warming denier and blabberer of this nice quote?
counting cats sez:
This seems to be the latest talking point for the denialists. Not only is not true, you can find that it is not true in about two minutes.
Quite so, Bill. I’m indicting you as a troll and turning you to stone until such time as you start making comments which add value to the discussion.
In other words, Bill is in moderation.
Meanwhile, apparently more advanced societies have stopped wasting time arguing with those for whom reality is but a distant memory, and are actually doing something on a massive scale.
Was there any comment on this blog about Christopher Pearson’s dire predictions of an impending ice age, or was it considered too ridiculous?
Cliff, personally I wouldn’t normally waste time reading Pearson and I don’t see it as my role, not being a scientist, to arbitrate on scientific matters.
Nevertheless I googled to find the article, which it seems appeared in the Australian of 26 April. It seems to be based on some stuff written by Chapman, which has been roundly debunked in various places, notably by by Deltoid and again David Karoly via Deltoid.. This is a quote from Chapman:
Well, yes, but 2007 is an anomaly with a ready explanation and it’s always unlikely that a 12 month “trend” in the weather will continue for 20 years. In fact I’d be astonished if you could find one instance in the record.
Marohasy picked it up as you’d expect. On her blog there are commenters like Luke and Ender who are quite knowledgeable about climate change who regularly comment on rubbish science. This time they thought it was too stupid to bother.
Chapman, Pearson et al are mightily impressed by the 50 million year slide in the temperature and rightly so. But Hansen et al have painstakingly sorted out what was going on, and the main story happens to be CO2. I’ll come back to this in a later post.
Anyway Sir David Attenborough has spoken on AGW. So that’s it then. No more argument!
Tim Lambert,
I had a look at your site, but all I could see was you making assertions to counter someone else’s assertions. However, I accept you write in good faith, and accept that you could provide references for your claims. That being the case, I accept and acknowledge your point.
However, there has been no dispute of the central issue, and that is that the AGW hypothesis, as presented by the IPCC and tested by the forecasts of the models it cites, has been falsified.
The models still fail to anticipate the temperature flatline since 2002,
The models require continental Antarctica to warm, but it has cooled and the sea ice, both this year and last, is at record extent.
The models specify that the Earths surface will warm as a result of the troposphere warming, and the heat being radiated back. The troposphere demonstrates no such level of warming. The temperature increase we have seen up to 2002, therefore, according to the models, cannot be as a result of CO2 forced greenhouse effect.
CO2, even according to AGW hypotheses, is incapable by itself of causing significant temperature increases. The hypotheses requires that atmospheric temperatures, slightly increased by increased CO2 levels, will result in greater moisture takeup, resulting in greater cloud cover; increasing insulation, cutting heat radiation and forcing temperatures higher – resulting in further increased moisture levels, a classic positive feedback effect. This is the assumption all the models make in their forecasts. In fact, increased temperatures are causing a negative feedback, reducing cloud cover and mitigating the temperature increase.
The models forecast that the oceans temperature will rise, alongside atmospheric and surface temperatures. They aren’t. In fact, the oceans could be cooling.
That is five separate examples of the IPCC AGW hypothesis being falsified. As I stated earlier, there may be valid explanations within the AGW paradigm, but none have been presented. Under the circumstances, it is still possible to ‘believe’ in AGW, but it must be a matter of faith, not science. Faith being belief in the absence of evidence.
I have presented five, but why five when, to paraphrase Einstein, one would have done? Well, no matter which example is used, someone always comes back with a dismissive, “the science is settled” attempt to brush it aside. That approach is easier with one than it is with five.
I look forward to reading refutations of each of these.
countingcats, back at 29 you said this:
I don’t know how you could get 1938 as the warmest out of this graph from Wikipedia or this one from NASA GISS. They can’t be that far out.
It is true that there was a silly kerfuffle last year when 1934 was found to be numerically slightly warmer than 1998 in the US of A, which from memory is about 2% of the planet’s surface, when NASA corrected some data.
I say numerically because the change was from a position where the two values were statistically indistinguishable to the position where the two values were statistically indistinguishable. In other words nothing changed.
I don’t know why you are obsessing about Antarctica. I’m not an expert on models, but I understand that some of them have problems with the polar regions. I think it’s got to do with numbers as you approach a point. But if you look at
this image which comes from NASA GISS via this page and represents the changes from 1880-2006 you’ll see where the action is. Nevertheless Antarctica is still losing ice, and in increasing quantities, and when big slabs fall off they end up in the sea.
After your comment at 29 I decided that discussion with you wasn’t going to change your mind, so that’s it from me. Tim Lambert might engage. It’s up to him.
Brian,
Re. 1938, you are right, It was a few months since I last read on that, and I had remembered it as global, not just the US. I stand corrected, and thank you. However, this matter is about temperature trend, the 1930’s figure nonetheless demonstrate that there is nothing special about current temperature levels. They are not out of court in historical terms. If you can demonstrate otherwise, I am happy to listen.
As far as Antarctica does, I am not obsessing, merely raising the matter that the Antarctic climate trends, along with a number of other observations – see the list, serve to invalidate the AGW hypothesis.
Regarding your statement on Antarctic ice loss, you will find here a 2002 NASA report on the increase in Antarctic ice cover, 1973 – 1999, and here, a report of the record cover of ice 2007-2008. As you see, ice was lost on the West Antarctic Peninsula as we previously discussed, but continental Antarctica is gaining ice, year on year, with no significant sign of ice loss or temperature increase. I am aware of SBS news, and other organs, reporting on the break of a, huge by human standards, miniscule by any comparison of what is there, portion of the Wilkens ice sheet on the West Antarctic Peninsula a couple of months ago. I am aware that the WA Peninsula is warming, but that is a miniscule effect compared to the main continent. Nearly 200 square miles of ice broke of the Wilkens sheet, in two chunks, but the continental edge as a whole, as at the beginning of April, had a level of sea ice cover roughly one million square miles greater than at the same time last year. The extra growth in seasonal sea ice cover over the previous year, in just this years cooling season to April, months before peak cover, was five thousand times greater than that lost from Wilkins. Puts the reliability of journalistic reports into perspective, doesn’t it?
As far as boundary effects go, if 2007 Arctic ice cover is being used as an example of AGW in action and validating the models, as it is, then intellectual honesty requires the AGW proponents to acknowledge that Antarctica invalidates the models.
Your criticism that I haven’t changed my mind is unreasonable. As demonstrated over the 1938 temperature issue, I am willing to change my mind if my information can be demonstrated to be incorrect, but right now? I have been given no reason to do so.
countingcats, IMHO we are all subject to confimation bias which means we tend to support our existing position, even if that position is one of legitimate scepticism of mainstream views. Anyone who thinks they have no confirmation bias is suffering from a delusion IMHO. We just have to be as aware as possible of our own bias and try to stay open to other evidence.
My perception is that your position is to pick holes in the AGW position, which has it’s uses if backed by sound science.
I saw the 1938 thing as so far off reality that it indicated an extreme cherry picker. Frankly the notion that “the 1930’s figure nonetheless demonstrate that there is nothing special about current temperature levels” still bespeaks a mindset that is scrambling to find anti-AGW evidence. At least that’s the way I see it.
But I’m willing to accept that you are writing in good faith. I actually have to go out and work now and may get back to a more detailed response this evening, but I’m severely time-poor at present.
Brian,
Re confirmation bias – sure. I agree, and I guess that may be one reason I seized on 1938/34.
However, there is no question that warming happened in the last couple of decades of 20thC, what is being debated is why. Given the implications of the costs and the changes/damage that can be done to civilisation via inappropriate policy, whatever assumptions lie behind it, it is essential that the assumptions be sound and justified. To me, when Freeman Dyson discounts the role of CO2 in global warming, an Al Gore slide show doesn’t cut the mustard. And yes, I know mentioning Dyson seems an appeal to authority, but it isn’t. It is more a matter of when someone like that expresses an opinion, a wise man considers it. Or maybe that’s just confirmation bias again.
bespeaks a mindset that is scrambling to find anti-AGW evidence. At least that’s the way I see it.
And I, on the other hand, see so much reason to question the AGW hypothesis, that I ofttimes find it incomprehensible that others don’t.
Oh well, funny old world, innit?
When you’re a one-trick-pony formulaic contrarian, you’re bound to contradict yourself over time as you mindlessly rote-contradict conflicting positions that you don’t realise are in opposition to each other.
On Antarctica, I’ve just had a quick look at some of the stuff I’d bookmarked.
This from gavin at RealClimate in 2004 is interesting. This is the last paragraph:
I’ve highlighted the bit that seems to be directly contra to what you said.
On ice loss, have a look at this from Jan 2008:
In other words there’s nothing going on down there that would disturb the AGW paradigm, but in terms of sea level change…
Have a look at what gavin says about the attribution of 20th Century climate change to CO2. If you want to argue with him you need to get your head right into the science of the physics and chemistry of the topic, the way observations are made and conclusions drawn, and then get your head into climate model construction, then come up with something that can be peer reviewed and published.
But one of the reasons why I feel reasonably comfortable with the AGW story is that at the end of all that it has coherence and tells a consistent story that explains the main features of what has happened in the last 65 million years and is understandable by the interested lay person.