Slashdot Mirror

The folks at http://www.climate2003.com and http://www.climateaudit.org/ debunk the crackpots at http://www.realclimate.org/.

The folks at http://www.realclimate.org/ debunk the crackpots at http://www.climate2003.com/ and http://www.climateaudit.org/.

This is as it should be in science.

The graph used in the New Scientist article about the Bush Whitehouse accepting humans as the cause of global warming, here http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6334, has been debunked as bad science here:
http://www.climateaudit.org/. Mann's own bad science puts any reports that use it in doubt. This is how science works.

How did they debunk it? They used the scientific method of attempting to duplicate Mann's study using Mann's data. They couldn't. They found flaws. They found buggy software - the math was simply wrong! It always produces a hockey stick even with random data with a flat trend! They reported those flaws. Unfortunately for Mann his science was junk.

Scientific understanding progresses as a result. Now we know more.

As for the Time Online report at the top of this thread (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-1489955 ,00.html. Where's the data? Where's the software? Where's the actual report/paper?

Open source the science otherwise it's all disconnected conclusions and might as well be mind poo (a technical term ;--). Mann et al kept their data secret (as you can read at the links above that debunk him). That's not science. That's closed science of the elite or the schiesters.

Open source science is science that can be audited by anyone. Otherwise how can you really judge it's value? If a scientist with the stature of Mann can be debunked and have his result crushed like a bug how can anyone trust the reputation of any scientist? The answer is that you can't ofcourse otherwise you're bringing a belief into your resoning: a belief that you trust a particular scientist. That's not science, that's potentially religion, or at least faith based science (due to the trust factor).

Open science is the only way to go to be able to have supportable conclusions. The Times Online article is just a fluff peice with no hard data to back it up. It's just a summary of items to peak interest. Where's the beef? Where's the data? I want the software. Let's audit the software for bugs. That's what was partly wrong with Mann's analysis, a software bug.

Earth is too important to us to have the wrong conclusions, no matter which way they are headed. It's better to know reality accurately than believe in a fantasy as far as Global Warming is concerned.

Which would you rather be: faith based or science based? If your are science based then you must be prepared to have your views shaken now and then as a result of more accurate and up to date science. If you are faith based then go to church and leave us rational humans be.

Oh, as a final point, it's the responsibility of a scientist to be skeptical. To hold the neurtal gound even when faced with conclusive data. To keep asking the questions time and time again. To ask questions that underly the conclusions. To question the conclusions. Remember that consensus isn't science, it's mob rule, science works by multiple scientists auditing the data, methods and process of the analysis and conclusions.

Unfortunately for Mann his famous hockey stick hasn't passed this close scutinty process. Now he has to fight for his reputation and career. It seems harsh, but that's what happens with junk science.

I remain an open minded skeptic.

Pet

Please read the global cooling myth to understand that this statement is inaccurate, at best. This falls under the rubric of "if something is stated often enough..."

This is not meant to be a criticism of you. I've heard this so often myself that I believed it to be true. It wasn't until I did a little research that I found out otherwise.

Obviously, it is possible that scientists are wrong. They almost always are, although usually in minor details. E.g., we know that QM and GR can't both be right, but both are excellent approximations, at worst. Likewise, there might be some details that the scientists have wrong here, as well. The date that catastrophe X happens, or the amount that phenomenom Y is responsible for it, etc., are all quite debatable. However, it seems that the claim that global warming will continue, resulting in severe flooding of low-lying areas is almost indisputable. How much we can do to prevent it is obviously still one of the questions yet to be resolved. That we can, and should, do something, however, is not.

We find it disappointing that a prominent individual such as Crichton did not take greater care in acquainting himself with all of the facts before making such rather inflammatory public pronouncements as those detailed above.

We find it disappointing that a prominent individual such as Crichton did not take greater care in acquainting himself with all of the facts before making such rather inflammatory public pronouncements as those detailed above.

We find it disappointing that a prominent individual such as Crichton did not take greater care in acquainting himself with all of the facts before making such rather inflammatory public pronouncements as those detailed above.

Check out http://www.realclimate.org/ for blog response by climate scientists to stories in the media that often miss the facts. No response to this Times article yet, but they're usually pretty quick.

Second, you could use this argument to justify absolutely anything. If all you have to do to disprove a scientific finding was to simply say "all these scientists might be wrong"

You're taking an absolutist stance in which the goal is to "justify" and "disprove".

That is not the goal. We (who feel that the scientific method has more merit than politics) simply wish to let the process of theory and trial work itself out without turning every morsel of conclusion into a talking point. Let the Manns and McKitricks debate the evidence and let others in the field reproduce data. This is how it works. Heck, the most conclusive piece of data yet was published in 1998. Anything less than 10 years ago is rarely something that has had time to be assailed by reasonable scrutiny from the scientific community.

That we're simply too impatient to wait for the conclusion is not a matter that is of interest to the scientific method.

Disclaimer: I am one of said scientists. -But I prefer to remain anonymous here. Please mod down the above two trolls! There most certainly is a scientific consensus about the fact that the anthropogenic greenhouse effect is real and will heat up the Earth significantly in the future. True, there is some discussion about how significant the recent global warming is when compared to natural variability (though I will still claim that there is a consensus); but the number of scientists claiming that society will not heat up the Earth in the future is quite small. The claims that I and hundreds of colleagues would spend our entire careers knowingly producing bogus science to keep meagre government salaries (I am European), well, let's say they are wrong. I may of course just be left out of the inner circle... BTW, I can assure you that plenty of funding is available for the people that do not agree with setting limits on economic growth. Of course, this is not an issue that can be decided by referendum; the science behind global warming is well founded. If you want to learn more about this science, please have a look at http://www.ipcc.ch/, e.g. the technical summary of the WG1 report, or follow the more up-to-date discussion at http://realclimate.org/. The latter is run by climate scientists and discusses the science in connection with media talk about climate change.

I guess you didn't find the time to read much on RealClimate.org as you said you'd try to do? or do you disagree with what's said there?

I guess you didn't find the time to read much on RealClimate.org as you said you'd try to do? or do you disagree with what's said there?

> The article has some interesting plots; look it up if you get a chance.

Here are two of the plots showing the unexpected reversals in trends for CO2 and CH4. (The one on the left expects methane to more or less track solar radiation, and certainly not to make a u-turn like it does.)

Unfortunately, I can't find an on-line version of the summary plot for temperature vs. expected temperature over the past 10K years, so you may still find it worth reading the magazine article.

Not everyone agrees with Ruddiman, of course. Here is a discussion thread at RealClimate, revealing a range of views about his proposals.

> The article has some interesting plots; look it up if you get a chance.

Here are two of the plots showing the unexpected reversals in trends for CO2 and CH4. (The one on the left expects methane to more or less track solar radiation, and certainly not to make a u-turn like it does.)

Unfortunately, I can't find an on-line version of the summary plot for temperature vs. expected temperature over the past 10K years, so you may still find it worth reading the magazine article.

Not everyone agrees with Ruddiman, of course. Here is a discussion thread at RealClimate, revealing a range of views about his proposals.

No, it wasn't. It was based on a mixture of outright falsehoods ("Global warming is defined by the global mean surface temperature...[]..it's effect is presumably the same everywhere in the world"), and selective use of facts in such a manner as to be outright misleading (Antarctic cooling does NOT contradict the idea of global warming; in fact it is consistent with the results from models, which show local cooling there). Again, read this rebuttal , written by scientists active in the area.

And that there are many scientists who do not believe in global warming.

It is a consensus among published papers by atmospheric scientists and climatologists that there are increasing levels of CO2 and global warming.

On a more precise note, asking a climatologist whether or not he "believes in global warming" is like asking an economist if he believes in inflation. Global warming is happeneing; the question is a) whether it is unusual, b) whether it is caused by humans, c) whether it will be harmful. The majority of scientists in the field would answer "yes" to all three, but not every single scientist you can find will do so. (There are always cranks - to this day there are scientists who claim the Sun is made primarily out of iron). There are also some uncertainties to some of those answers - just that most scientists think that the predominance of evidence points to humans causing problems.

Just like they said in the 70s which has proven to be false.

Puhleeeaaase not this old canard again. Read a rebuttal here. Same website, but its a collection of rebuttals to the most common claims by contrarians, most of which you've manged to parrot pretty well.

No, it wasn't. It was based on a mixture of outright falsehoods ("Global warming is defined by the global mean surface temperature...[]..it's effect is presumably the same everywhere in the world"), and selective use of facts in such a manner as to be outright misleading (Antarctic cooling does NOT contradict the idea of global warming; in fact it is consistent with the results from models, which show local cooling there). Again, read this rebuttal , written by scientists active in the area.

And that there are many scientists who do not believe in global warming.

It is a consensus among published papers by atmospheric scientists and climatologists that there are increasing levels of CO2 and global warming.

On a more precise note, asking a climatologist whether or not he "believes in global warming" is like asking an economist if he believes in inflation. Global warming is happeneing; the question is a) whether it is unusual, b) whether it is caused by humans, c) whether it will be harmful. The majority of scientists in the field would answer "yes" to all three, but not every single scientist you can find will do so. (There are always cranks - to this day there are scientists who claim the Sun is made primarily out of iron). There are also some uncertainties to some of those answers - just that most scientists think that the predominance of evidence points to humans causing problems.

Just like they said in the 70s which has proven to be false.

Puhleeeaaase not this old canard again. Read a rebuttal here. Same website, but its a collection of rebuttals to the most common claims by contrarians, most of which you've manged to parrot pretty well.

No, it wasn't. It was based on a mixture of outright falsehoods ("Global warming is defined by the global mean surface temperature...[]..it's effect is presumably the same everywhere in the world"), and selective use of facts in such a manner as to be outright misleading (Antarctic cooling does NOT contradict the idea of global warming; in fact it is consistent with the results from models, which show local cooling there). Again, read this rebuttal , written by scientists active in the area.

And that there are many scientists who do not believe in global warming.

It is a consensus among published papers by atmospheric scientists and climatologists that there are increasing levels of CO2 and global warming.

On a more precise note, asking a climatologist whether or not he "believes in global warming" is like asking an economist if he believes in inflation. Global warming is happeneing; the question is a) whether it is unusual, b) whether it is caused by humans, c) whether it will be harmful. The majority of scientists in the field would answer "yes" to all three, but not every single scientist you can find will do so. (There are always cranks - to this day there are scientists who claim the Sun is made primarily out of iron). There are also some uncertainties to some of those answers - just that most scientists think that the predominance of evidence points to humans causing problems.

Just like they said in the 70s which has proven to be false.

Puhleeeaaase not this old canard again. Read a rebuttal here. Same website, but its a collection of rebuttals to the most common claims by contrarians, most of which you've manged to parrot pretty well.

In summary, I am a little disappointed, not least because while researching this book, Crichton actually visited our lab and discussed some of these issues with me and a few of my colleagues. I guess we didn't do a very good job. Judging from his reading list, the rather dry prose of the IPCC reports did not match up to the some of the racier contrarian texts. Had RealClimate been up and running a few years back, maybe it would've all worked out differently...

In summary, I am a little disappointed, not least because while researching this book, Crichton actually visited our lab and discussed some of these issues with me and a few of my colleagues. I guess we didn't do a very good job. Judging from his reading list, the rather dry prose of the IPCC reports did not match up to the some of the racier contrarian texts. Had RealClimate been up and running a few years back, maybe it would've all worked out differently...

In summary, I am a little disappointed, not least because while researching this book, Crichton actually visited our lab and discussed some of these issues with me and a few of my colleagues. I guess we didn't do a very good job. Judging from his reading list, the rather dry prose of the IPCC reports did not match up to the some of the racier contrarian texts. Had RealClimate been up and running a few years back, maybe it would've all worked out differently...

There was an article in a 1975 edition of Newsweek where scientists were sure of a global cooling. Now it's a global warming?

Cool! I can throw links out there to give my posts authority too!

Before you base your response to a very serious environmental situation on a work of fiction, please read this. Crichton uses a bunch of proven-false arguments, and wraps a transparent opinion piece in a layer of fiction, yet still tries to make a political point. And in the process he basically slanders a whole bunch of very earnest, hard-working scientists. It's really quite despicable.

Personally I think there has to be a balance where we work to protect the enviroment but do not have to tramatize our kids with scary tales of the world ending in their lifetimes.

I grew up in the 80's; the nukes could fly any minute (that really could've happened). I turned out just fine. So I'm not too worried about traumatizing kids. Besides, the consensus view states that there would be a 2-6 deg increase in global average temperture, not "that the world will end". You can infer from such a rise that the disruption will be very severe, but I think it is simply idiocy to argue that we shouldn't warn people "just because it might scare the kids".

He's an MD, not a PhD (much less a PhD in climatology), and the fact that you would change your mind about any scientific issue after reading a novel (no matter how well referenced) is pretty scary. You might like to read this for some informed criticism of Crichton's book.

It seems my argumentation was to subtil, I have to remember that sarcasm doesn't work over the web.

I wanted to point out that I am majorly dissapointed at inflammatory posts especially from "my" side (the "tree-huggers"), which take up arguments, which are easily disproved, and let the opponents paint us as irrational, fanatical panic-mongers.

My later suggestion, that right-wingers (which, btw, I consider only a subset of the otherwise respectable group of conservatives) are doing it themselves, was an attempt to show such a contraproductive argumentation can be found on the other side, too.

This should be considered as a warning to both sides to base their position on flawed arguments, as it will help the opponent more than oneself.

> The so-called scientists responsible for proving that humans are causing global cooling rush to TV cameras

Thanks for making my point clear. Which brings us to Myth number 1, since Chrichtons "State of Fear":
"Global Cooling"

> Other than the "No consent" argument, which I don't quite understand the meaning of, all of these arguments are scientifically valid.

"No consent": The idea that there is no scientific consent among climatologists on a) the existance of global climate change or b) that human influence it. Untrue

"Not provable": The models cannot be verified, unless it already happened. Ignores the fact that we can resimulate the past. Therfor the models are "provable", in the sense that one can validate their quality.

"Sun fluctuations": The idea that the sun is the source of all heat and warmth, and therefor the major cause for the Climate Change (note: capital letters). Untrue

"Earth has been warmer"
"Earth has been cooler"
Corrolar: "We are in an Ice Age"
"Little Ice Age": Essentially the same argument. Climate has changed and will change. Ignores the various scales in which those things have happened and their relevance for the current climate. The "Little Ice Age" and the Warm period in the Middle Ages was a regional effect, not a global one. And concerning the global ice ages and warm periods. They are happening over time-frames of millenia. Not decades, like the current change. And, when someone should bother to have a look, we are currently supposed at the beginning of a war period plateau .

"We puny humans have no influence in comparison to the might of earth": I find humility a positive streak, however when it paired with
"We mighty humans will handle any problem earth will throw at us""
it seems nothing more a flag of convienience than real humility. And sadly the first is wrong, and the latter is only provable by trying, which some people would rather avert.

Let me pick up:
ad hominem: The suggestion, that personal agendas are responsible for the outcome of climatologic research.

And now let me add:
"Butterfly Effect": Shows that the writer has only cursive knowledge about Chaos-Theory and modelling, as Chaos only puts a limit to the accuracy to the predictions and the task of modeling is to also predict the accuracy.

> who believe in conservative ideals like the scientific method.

Well, I was trying to be derogatory to right-wingers, which I don't equate to be the same as conservative, but a subset. Similar to Michael, except with a different philosophy.

Scientific method can hardly be claimed as an uniquely conservative ideal. At most, it could be claimed an ideal originating in the liberal stream during The Enlightenent (E.g Kant). But even that is quite far-fetched, especially considering what conservatve and liberal meant then and now.

Now, tha

It seems my argumentation was to subtil, I have to remember that sarcasm doesn't work over the web.

I wanted to point out that I am majorly dissapointed at inflammatory posts especially from "my" side (the "tree-huggers"), which take up arguments, which are easily disproved, and let the opponents paint us as irrational, fanatical panic-mongers.

My later suggestion, that right-wingers (which, btw, I consider only a subset of the otherwise respectable group of conservatives) are doing it themselves, was an attempt to show such a contraproductive argumentation can be found on the other side, too.

This should be considered as a warning to both sides to base their position on flawed arguments, as it will help the opponent more than oneself.

> The so-called scientists responsible for proving that humans are causing global cooling rush to TV cameras

Thanks for making my point clear. Which brings us to Myth number 1, since Chrichtons "State of Fear":
"Global Cooling"

> Other than the "No consent" argument, which I don't quite understand the meaning of, all of these arguments are scientifically valid.

"No consent": The idea that there is no scientific consent among climatologists on a) the existance of global climate change or b) that human influence it. Untrue

"Not provable": The models cannot be verified, unless it already happened. Ignores the fact that we can resimulate the past. Therfor the models are "provable", in the sense that one can validate their quality.

"Sun fluctuations": The idea that the sun is the source of all heat and warmth, and therefor the major cause for the Climate Change (note: capital letters). Untrue

"Earth has been warmer"
"Earth has been cooler"
Corrolar: "We are in an Ice Age"
"Little Ice Age": Essentially the same argument. Climate has changed and will change. Ignores the various scales in which those things have happened and their relevance for the current climate. The "Little Ice Age" and the Warm period in the Middle Ages was a regional effect, not a global one. And concerning the global ice ages and warm periods. They are happening over time-frames of millenia. Not decades, like the current change. And, when someone should bother to have a look, we are currently supposed at the beginning of a war period plateau .

"We puny humans have no influence in comparison to the might of earth": I find humility a positive streak, however when it paired with
"We mighty humans will handle any problem earth will throw at us""
it seems nothing more a flag of convienience than real humility. And sadly the first is wrong, and the latter is only provable by trying, which some people would rather avert.

Let me pick up:
ad hominem: The suggestion, that personal agendas are responsible for the outcome of climatologic research.

And now let me add:
"Butterfly Effect": Shows that the writer has only cursive knowledge about Chaos-Theory and modelling, as Chaos only puts a limit to the accuracy to the predictions and the task of modeling is to also predict the accuracy.

> who believe in conservative ideals like the scientific method.

Well, I was trying to be derogatory to right-wingers, which I don't equate to be the same as conservative, but a subset. Similar to Michael, except with a different philosophy.

Scientific method can hardly be claimed as an uniquely conservative ideal. At most, it could be claimed an ideal originating in the liberal stream during The Enlightenent (E.g Kant). But even that is quite far-fetched, especially considering what conservatve and liberal meant then and now.

Now, tha

It seems my argumentation was to subtil, I have to remember that sarcasm doesn't work over the web.

I wanted to point out that I am majorly dissapointed at inflammatory posts especially from "my" side (the "tree-huggers"), which take up arguments, which are easily disproved, and let the opponents paint us as irrational, fanatical panic-mongers.

My later suggestion, that right-wingers (which, btw, I consider only a subset of the otherwise respectable group of conservatives) are doing it themselves, was an attempt to show such a contraproductive argumentation can be found on the other side, too.

This should be considered as a warning to both sides to base their position on flawed arguments, as it will help the opponent more than oneself.

> The so-called scientists responsible for proving that humans are causing global cooling rush to TV cameras

Thanks for making my point clear. Which brings us to Myth number 1, since Chrichtons "State of Fear":
"Global Cooling"

> Other than the "No consent" argument, which I don't quite understand the meaning of, all of these arguments are scientifically valid.

"No consent": The idea that there is no scientific consent among climatologists on a) the existance of global climate change or b) that human influence it. Untrue

"Not provable": The models cannot be verified, unless it already happened. Ignores the fact that we can resimulate the past. Therfor the models are "provable", in the sense that one can validate their quality.

"Sun fluctuations": The idea that the sun is the source of all heat and warmth, and therefor the major cause for the Climate Change (note: capital letters). Untrue

"Earth has been warmer"
"Earth has been cooler"
Corrolar: "We are in an Ice Age"
"Little Ice Age": Essentially the same argument. Climate has changed and will change. Ignores the various scales in which those things have happened and their relevance for the current climate. The "Little Ice Age" and the Warm period in the Middle Ages was a regional effect, not a global one. And concerning the global ice ages and warm periods. They are happening over time-frames of millenia. Not decades, like the current change. And, when someone should bother to have a look, we are currently supposed at the beginning of a war period plateau .

"We puny humans have no influence in comparison to the might of earth": I find humility a positive streak, however when it paired with
"We mighty humans will handle any problem earth will throw at us""
it seems nothing more a flag of convienience than real humility. And sadly the first is wrong, and the latter is only provable by trying, which some people would rather avert.

Let me pick up:
ad hominem: The suggestion, that personal agendas are responsible for the outcome of climatologic research.

And now let me add:
"Butterfly Effect": Shows that the writer has only cursive knowledge about Chaos-Theory and modelling, as Chaos only puts a limit to the accuracy to the predictions and the task of modeling is to also predict the accuracy.

> who believe in conservative ideals like the scientific method.

Well, I was trying to be derogatory to right-wingers, which I don't equate to be the same as conservative, but a subset. Similar to Michael, except with a different philosophy.

Scientific method can hardly be claimed as an uniquely conservative ideal. At most, it could be claimed an ideal originating in the liberal stream during The Enlightenent (E.g Kant). But even that is quite far-fetched, especially considering what conservatve and liberal meant then and now.

Now, tha

It seems my argumentation was to subtil, I have to remember that sarcasm doesn't work over the web.

I wanted to point out that I am majorly dissapointed at inflammatory posts especially from "my" side (the "tree-huggers"), which take up arguments, which are easily disproved, and let the opponents paint us as irrational, fanatical panic-mongers.

My later suggestion, that right-wingers (which, btw, I consider only a subset of the otherwise respectable group of conservatives) are doing it themselves, was an attempt to show such a contraproductive argumentation can be found on the other side, too.

This should be considered as a warning to both sides to base their position on flawed arguments, as it will help the opponent more than oneself.

> The so-called scientists responsible for proving that humans are causing global cooling rush to TV cameras

Thanks for making my point clear. Which brings us to Myth number 1, since Chrichtons "State of Fear":
"Global Cooling"

> Other than the "No consent" argument, which I don't quite understand the meaning of, all of these arguments are scientifically valid.

"No consent": The idea that there is no scientific consent among climatologists on a) the existance of global climate change or b) that human influence it. Untrue

"Not provable": The models cannot be verified, unless it already happened. Ignores the fact that we can resimulate the past. Therfor the models are "provable", in the sense that one can validate their quality.

"Sun fluctuations": The idea that the sun is the source of all heat and warmth, and therefor the major cause for the Climate Change (note: capital letters). Untrue

"Earth has been warmer"
"Earth has been cooler"
Corrolar: "We are in an Ice Age"
"Little Ice Age": Essentially the same argument. Climate has changed and will change. Ignores the various scales in which those things have happened and their relevance for the current climate. The "Little Ice Age" and the Warm period in the Middle Ages was a regional effect, not a global one. And concerning the global ice ages and warm periods. They are happening over time-frames of millenia. Not decades, like the current change. And, when someone should bother to have a look, we are currently supposed at the beginning of a war period plateau .

"We puny humans have no influence in comparison to the might of earth": I find humility a positive streak, however when it paired with
"We mighty humans will handle any problem earth will throw at us""
it seems nothing more a flag of convienience than real humility. And sadly the first is wrong, and the latter is only provable by trying, which some people would rather avert.

Let me pick up:
ad hominem: The suggestion, that personal agendas are responsible for the outcome of climatologic research.

And now let me add:
"Butterfly Effect": Shows that the writer has only cursive knowledge about Chaos-Theory and modelling, as Chaos only puts a limit to the accuracy to the predictions and the task of modeling is to also predict the accuracy.

> who believe in conservative ideals like the scientific method.

Well, I was trying to be derogatory to right-wingers, which I don't equate to be the same as conservative, but a subset. Similar to Michael, except with a different philosophy.

Scientific method can hardly be claimed as an uniquely conservative ideal. At most, it could be claimed an ideal originating in the liberal stream during The Enlightenent (E.g Kant). But even that is quite far-fetched, especially considering what conservatve and liberal meant then and now.

Now, tha

It seems my argumentation was to subtil, I have to remember that sarcasm doesn't work over the web.

I wanted to point out that I am majorly dissapointed at inflammatory posts especially from "my" side (the "tree-huggers"), which take up arguments, which are easily disproved, and let the opponents paint us as irrational, fanatical panic-mongers.

My later suggestion, that right-wingers (which, btw, I consider only a subset of the otherwise respectable group of conservatives) are doing it themselves, was an attempt to show such a contraproductive argumentation can be found on the other side, too.

This should be considered as a warning to both sides to base their position on flawed arguments, as it will help the opponent more than oneself.

> The so-called scientists responsible for proving that humans are causing global cooling rush to TV cameras

Thanks for making my point clear. Which brings us to Myth number 1, since Chrichtons "State of Fear":
"Global Cooling"

> Other than the "No consent" argument, which I don't quite understand the meaning of, all of these arguments are scientifically valid.

"No consent": The idea that there is no scientific consent among climatologists on a) the existance of global climate change or b) that human influence it. Untrue

"Not provable": The models cannot be verified, unless it already happened. Ignores the fact that we can resimulate the past. Therfor the models are "provable", in the sense that one can validate their quality.

"Sun fluctuations": The idea that the sun is the source of all heat and warmth, and therefor the major cause for the Climate Change (note: capital letters). Untrue

"Earth has been warmer"
"Earth has been cooler"
Corrolar: "We are in an Ice Age"
"Little Ice Age": Essentially the same argument. Climate has changed and will change. Ignores the various scales in which those things have happened and their relevance for the current climate. The "Little Ice Age" and the Warm period in the Middle Ages was a regional effect, not a global one. And concerning the global ice ages and warm periods. They are happening over time-frames of millenia. Not decades, like the current change. And, when someone should bother to have a look, we are currently supposed at the beginning of a war period plateau .

"We puny humans have no influence in comparison to the might of earth": I find humility a positive streak, however when it paired with
"We mighty humans will handle any problem earth will throw at us""
it seems nothing more a flag of convienience than real humility. And sadly the first is wrong, and the latter is only provable by trying, which some people would rather avert.

Let me pick up:
ad hominem: The suggestion, that personal agendas are responsible for the outcome of climatologic research.

And now let me add:
"Butterfly Effect": Shows that the writer has only cursive knowledge about Chaos-Theory and modelling, as Chaos only puts a limit to the accuracy to the predictions and the task of modeling is to also predict the accuracy.

> who believe in conservative ideals like the scientific method.

Well, I was trying to be derogatory to right-wingers, which I don't equate to be the same as conservative, but a subset. Similar to Michael, except with a different philosophy.

Scientific method can hardly be claimed as an uniquely conservative ideal. At most, it could be claimed an ideal originating in the liberal stream during The Enlightenent (E.g Kant). But even that is quite far-fetched, especially considering what conservatve and liberal meant then and now.

Now, tha

It seems my argumentation was to subtil, I have to remember that sarcasm doesn't work over the web.

I wanted to point out that I am majorly dissapointed at inflammatory posts especially from "my" side (the "tree-huggers"), which take up arguments, which are easily disproved, and let the opponents paint us as irrational, fanatical panic-mongers.

My later suggestion, that right-wingers (which, btw, I consider only a subset of the otherwise respectable group of conservatives) are doing it themselves, was an attempt to show such a contraproductive argumentation can be found on the other side, too.

This should be considered as a warning to both sides to base their position on flawed arguments, as it will help the opponent more than oneself.

> The so-called scientists responsible for proving that humans are causing global cooling rush to TV cameras

Thanks for making my point clear. Which brings us to Myth number 1, since Chrichtons "State of Fear":
"Global Cooling"

> Other than the "No consent" argument, which I don't quite understand the meaning of, all of these arguments are scientifically valid.

"No consent": The idea that there is no scientific consent among climatologists on a) the existance of global climate change or b) that human influence it. Untrue

"Not provable": The models cannot be verified, unless it already happened. Ignores the fact that we can resimulate the past. Therfor the models are "provable", in the sense that one can validate their quality.

"Sun fluctuations": The idea that the sun is the source of all heat and warmth, and therefor the major cause for the Climate Change (note: capital letters). Untrue

"Earth has been warmer"
"Earth has been cooler"
Corrolar: "We are in an Ice Age"
"Little Ice Age": Essentially the same argument. Climate has changed and will change. Ignores the various scales in which those things have happened and their relevance for the current climate. The "Little Ice Age" and the Warm period in the Middle Ages was a regional effect, not a global one. And concerning the global ice ages and warm periods. They are happening over time-frames of millenia. Not decades, like the current change. And, when someone should bother to have a look, we are currently supposed at the beginning of a war period plateau .

"We puny humans have no influence in comparison to the might of earth": I find humility a positive streak, however when it paired with
"We mighty humans will handle any problem earth will throw at us""
it seems nothing more a flag of convienience than real humility. And sadly the first is wrong, and the latter is only provable by trying, which some people would rather avert.

Let me pick up:
ad hominem: The suggestion, that personal agendas are responsible for the outcome of climatologic research.

And now let me add:
"Butterfly Effect": Shows that the writer has only cursive knowledge about Chaos-Theory and modelling, as Chaos only puts a limit to the accuracy to the predictions and the task of modeling is to also predict the accuracy.

> who believe in conservative ideals like the scientific method.

Well, I was trying to be derogatory to right-wingers, which I don't equate to be the same as conservative, but a subset. Similar to Michael, except with a different philosophy.

Scientific method can hardly be claimed as an uniquely conservative ideal. At most, it could be claimed an ideal originating in the liberal stream during The Enlightenent (E.g Kant). But even that is quite far-fetched, especially considering what conservatve and liberal meant then and now.

Now, tha

1. The report is about the policy response, not the science. It has nothing whatever to do with the correctness of any of the science.
2. The report is specifically talking about the public discource between science, policy-makers, politicians and the Great Merkin Public. In America.

Hence, the largely empty debate between the small band of climate "skeptics," who are certain that climate change is not a threat, and most of the scientific community, receives a substantial press. The implication is there is something of a standoff between the two, a considerable misreading of the actual situation. Or, evidence of ecological change and unusual weather events tends to receive much press attention implying (or claiming) that the evidence indicates the onset of global warming or, at times when the events reflect more cold than heat, that they invalidate the theory. In both cases, the conclusions are an artifact of the way the press handles the issue rather than a true reflection of the scientific evidence and the nature of the scientific debate. This is not surprising nor unusual, especially when the evidence is fuzzy and most reporters are not able to judge the subject critically.

But, the evidence is not clear-cut. There are large uncertainties in the interpretation of the evidence, first of all about the basic conclusion of a demonstrable anthropogenic "fingerprint" but, at least as important, about the scale and timing of any warming that might take place.

Eugene B. Skolnikoff: Professor of Political Science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology; 77 Massachusetts Ave., Bldg. E53-366, Cambridge MA 02139-4307, USA; email: xxxxxxxxx@mit.edu.

Uncertainty gives full play to political and economic interests that would be adversely affected by corrective measures to address the risks, since it allows costly measures to be opposed by denigrating the legitimacy of the forecast risks or by arguing the measures are wasteful if the predicted risks cannot be documented. It also leaves the door open for the crafting of alternative scientific analyses, stimulated by those who perceive their interests to be threatened. In effect, those with a political or ideological stake create a constituency for scientists who wish to challenge in either direction the predominant view, in the process exaggerating the apparent uncertainty of the science.

All models that are capable of reproducing the last 1000 years or so of climate fail to reproduce the recent global temperature increase (the 'hockey stick') unless they include the effects of human CO2 emissions. It has been shown that all it takes to produce a graph similar to the famous hockey-stick graph is random data because the mathematics used in that analysis are flawed. I believe this was even mentioned on /. earlier, but here [technologyreview.com] is the article.

Finally this article's called What if the hockey-stick was wrong?; you might find it informative.

The so-called consensus is a political invention. There is a great deal of debate over whether or not global warming is caused by human activity.

Let me just get in one last dig at the hysterical greens

The quote from Oliver Bernstein, whoever he is, does indeed sound rather crap taken out of any context. So what? Rush Limbaugh's a junkie and Bush was a cokehead, but I'm not claiming it therefore follows that all Republicans are addicts. I base my understanding of climate change on science. I don't feel the need to defend every word anyone says on the subject, there aer plenty of ill-informed morons on all sides of the issue. Statistically, some of the ill-informed morons will be right (for the wrong, or bad, reasons.) So what? Some people think soldiers torturing and murdering civilians is bad because the magic bearded sky-pilot will send them to hell for all eternity. I think that's simple-minded superstition, but I still think soldiers shouldn't murder and torture. Duh.

All models that are capable of reproducing the last 1000 years or so of climate fail to reproduce the recent global temperature increase (the 'hockey stick') unless they include the effects of human CO2 emissions. It has been shown that all it takes to produce a graph similar to the famous hockey-stick graph is random data because the mathematics used in that analysis are flawed. I believe this was even mentioned on /. earlier, but here [technologyreview.com] is the article.

Finally this article's called What if the hockey-stick was wrong?; you might find it informative.

The so-called consensus is a political invention. There is a great deal of debate over whether or not global warming is caused by human activity.

Let me just get in one last dig at the hysterical greens

The quote from Oliver Bernstein, whoever he is, does indeed sound rather crap taken out of any context. So what? Rush Limbaugh's a junkie and Bush was a cokehead, but I'm not claiming it therefore follows that all Republicans are addicts. I base my understanding of climate change on science. I don't feel the need to defend every word anyone says on the subject, there aer plenty of ill-informed morons on all sides of the issue. Statistically, some of the ill-informed morons will be right (for the wrong, or bad, reasons.) So what? Some people think soldiers torturing and murdering civilians is bad because the magic bearded sky-pilot will send them to hell for all eternity. I think that's simple-minded superstition, but I still think soldiers shouldn't murder and torture. Duh.

All models that are capable of reproducing the last 1000 years or so of climate fail to reproduce the recent global temperature increase (the 'hockey stick') unless they include the effects of human CO2 emissions. It has been shown that all it takes to produce a graph similar to the famous hockey-stick graph is random data because the mathematics used in that analysis are flawed. I believe this was even mentioned on /. earlier, but here [technologyreview.com] is the article.

Finally this article's called What if the hockey-stick was wrong?; you might find it informative.

The so-called consensus is a political invention. There is a great deal of debate over whether or not global warming is caused by human activity.

Let me just get in one last dig at the hysterical greens

The quote from Oliver Bernstein, whoever he is, does indeed sound rather crap taken out of any context. So what? Rush Limbaugh's a junkie and Bush was a cokehead, but I'm not claiming it therefore follows that all Republicans are addicts. I base my understanding of climate change on science. I don't feel the need to defend every word anyone says on the subject, there aer plenty of ill-informed morons on all sides of the issue. Statistically, some of the ill-informed morons will be right (for the wrong, or bad, reasons.) So what? Some people think soldiers torturing and murdering civilians is bad because the magic bearded sky-pilot will send them to hell for all eternity. I think that's simple-minded superstition, but I still think soldiers shouldn't murder and torture. Duh.

All models that are capable of reproducing the last 1000 years or so of climate fail to reproduce the recent global temperature increase (the 'hockey stick') unless they include the effects of human CO2 emissions. It has been shown that all it takes to produce a graph similar to the famous hockey-stick graph is random data because the mathematics used in that analysis are flawed. I believe this was even mentioned on /. earlier, but here [technologyreview.com] is the article.

Finally this article's called What if the hockey-stick was wrong?; you might find it informative.

The so-called consensus is a political invention. There is a great deal of debate over whether or not global warming is caused by human activity.

Let me just get in one last dig at the hysterical greens

The quote from Oliver Bernstein, whoever he is, does indeed sound rather crap taken out of any context. So what? Rush Limbaugh's a junkie and Bush was a cokehead, but I'm not claiming it therefore follows that all Republicans are addicts. I base my understanding of climate change on science. I don't feel the need to defend every word anyone says on the subject, there aer plenty of ill-informed morons on all sides of the issue. Statistically, some of the ill-informed morons will be right (for the wrong, or bad, reasons.) So what? Some people think soldiers torturing and murdering civilians is bad because the magic bearded sky-pilot will send them to hell for all eternity. I think that's simple-minded superstition, but I still think soldiers shouldn't murder and torture. Duh.

Personal financial interest drives most science these days.

• Anthropology
• Chemistry
• Physics (high-energy, solid state, plasma, etc.)
• Planetary geology (Spirit/Opportunity, Cassini/Huygens)
• Cosmology
• Biology
• Paleontology

Scientists who perform research on behalf of corporations are not necessarily any less honest than scientists performing research for the government or other 'unbiased' source of funding.

It's bad enough that you put scientific research on a pedestal and expect every scientist to be some sort of altruistic super-human...

In the case of climate research, there is one hell of a lot of prestige which would come with a correct debunking of the global-climate models which all predict warming. There might even be a Nobel in it. But note that I did say correct debunking; anyone withoute the facts on their side need not apply. Have you noticed where the huge majority of the climate scientists (who have the facts such as they are) stand today?

do you have to hold this public relations ploy to try to convince people that your views are right despite evidence and in the face of so many examples of bad scientists?

Regarding climate science, I refer you to this entry:

The main reason for concern about anthropogenic climate change is not that we can already see it (although we can). The main reason is twofold.
(1) Carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are increasing rapidly in the atmosphere due to human activity. This is a measured fact not even disputed by staunch "climate skeptics".
(2) Any increase in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases will change the radiation balance of the Earth and increase surface temperatures. This is basic and undisputed physics that has been known for over a hundred years.

Go here for consensus
Here for the global cooling myth.

I begin to wonder what is hurting more, an objector, or a bad arguing proponents.

As a "tree-hugger", I begin to think the latter.

Go here for consensus
Here for the global cooling myth.

I begin to wonder what is hurting more, an objector, or a bad arguing proponents.

As a "tree-hugger", I begin to think the latter.

Remember, 25 years ago these same folks were howling about 'global cooling', that should tell you something.

You ought to read this. Then take a look at the rest of the site, and see what real climate scientists are saying. It has not one shred of hysteria in it, but plenty of it ought to worry you.

• Obviously an increase in global average temperatures doesn't say anything about whether a particular local area will experience moer or less pecipitation (snow is precipitation of course.) Neither does it mean local temperatures will necessarily rise. That's why climatologists talk about the global average temperature and study *global* climate.

• RealClimate has these interesting Hockey Stick related articles:
  • this article and
  • this article refute various attempts to criticise the studies that show the hockey-stick;
  • this article is entitled 'what if the hockeystick were wrong?'.

thanks!

• Obviously an increase in global average temperatures doesn't say anything about whether a particular local area will experience moer or less pecipitation (snow is precipitation of course.) Neither does it mean local temperatures will necessarily rise. That's why climatologists talk about the global average temperature and study *global* climate.

• RealClimate has these interesting Hockey Stick related articles:
  • this article and
  • this article refute various attempts to criticise the studies that show the hockey-stick;
  • this article is entitled 'what if the hockeystick were wrong?'.

thanks!

• Obviously an increase in global average temperatures doesn't say anything about whether a particular local area will experience moer or less pecipitation (snow is precipitation of course.) Neither does it mean local temperatures will necessarily rise. That's why climatologists talk about the global average temperature and study *global* climate.

• RealClimate has these interesting Hockey Stick related articles:
  • this article and
  • this article refute various attempts to criticise the studies that show the hockey-stick;
  • this article is entitled 'what if the hockeystick were wrong?'.

thanks!

• RealClimate piece mentioning the event.
• Google search that finds lots of info
• Abstract of a paper discussing the event
• looks like a map of the lake (PDF)

I'm late to the game but, as a service to sanity, could the horde of kneejerk posters who have spewed variations on:

* Michael Crichton says its a con
* They were talking about an ice age in the 1970s why can't they get their story straight?
* Its all fluctuations in the sun's output
* Volcanoes produce way more CO2 than us
* They can't tell if it'll rain tomorrow, how can they talk about a hundred years from now?
* There isn't a solid consensus about climate change
* So what if all the scientists agree? Science isn't a popularity contest
* We'll farm the tundra
* The scientists are all in it for the grant funding
* Climate Change is an anti-american plot

and similar rants check out the relevant RealClimate.org articles so that next time they'll be a bit more informed on the subject.

Thanks.
Luke

Your statement is not entirely correct. All models predict increased CO2 to influence warming, and it can be demonstrated that CO2 levels are increasing, and that humans are causing this increase: How do we know that recent CO2 increases are due to human activities?

My personal belief is that, in the current climate of mud-slinging and political pressure, there is no reasonable way to determine the real answer,..

Climate prediction model is worthless ...if it can't account for past data. For instance, from historical records we know that temperatures around 1300 A.D. were warmer than they are now, and that around 1500-1700 it was considerably colder, warming up again afterwards up to today.

Until a model can take past data and accurately come up with conditions we have today, it's worthless other than as an interesting exercise in "what if?".

Climate prediction model is worthless ...if it can't account for past data. For instance, from historical records we know that temperatures around 1300 A.D. were warmer than they are now, and that around 1500-1700 it was considerably colder, warming up again afterwards up to today.

Until a model can take past data and accurately come up with conditions we have today, it's worthless other than as an interesting exercise in "what if?".

These results were collated from approx. 60,000 separate climate model runs. Here's a link to the actual paper published in Nature (PDF). ClimatePrediction.net passed the 50,000 run mark only a month ago, so it looks like participation is on the up. Kudos to everyone running it! Personally I've switched from SETI@Home to this project. (Of course, you may feel that cancer research into protein folding is more important. One of the nice things about the BOINC framework is that you can contribute to multiple projects at the same time.)

The 'eleven degrees rise over the next century' is of course the worst-case scenario. Of course, climate disruptions of that magnitude really would be catastrophic to human civilisation - for one thing, massive loss of agricultural production, the loss of large areas of expensive real-estate (many of the world's great cities would certainly be under water. I don't know precisely what magnitude of sea level rise 11 degrees would produce but consider that the Greenland ice sheet, which is already showing signs of increased melting, would produce approx. 7m rise - that's goodbye to London and New York and Amsterdam for starters.) Here's a chart from the IPCC's 2001 report showing the various scenarios they based their predictions on. As you can see, the worst-case they foresaw was about 5 or 6 degrees C. The significant thing about these results is that the upper bound of the range of possible temperature rises is shown to be about twice as severe as previously thought. Not only is more and more solid evidence being produced to back the fundamental prediction that human CO2 emissions are causing significant changes in our climate, but the magnitude of those predicted changes is getting greater and greater as time goes on. Note as well that the charts don't suddenly flatline at the year 2100...

Finally I'm looking forward to a discussion on RealClimate.org on this. I've found it to be utterly addictive to see discussions amongst actual researchers in the field, not only showing the areas of legitimate disagreement, debate and uncertainty, but also the solidity of the scientific consensus, as well as busting various common myths - the Crichton garbage, the hockey-stick stuff etc etc. Strongly recommended.

I was around when speculation about a new ice age was a topic of pop-science articles.

The concern over global warming is not in the same category.

The "chicken little" strawman is yet another entry in the stream of sophistry, twisted facts and lies that gets churned out by the Cato Institute, the Global Climate Coalition and other fossil fuel industry front groups and bought-out think tanks.

Hers is a specific refutation of the "global cooling" myth.

Stefan

In summary, I am a little disappointed, not least because while researching this book, Crichton actually visited our lab and discussed some of these issues with me and a few of my colleagues. I guess we didn't do a very good job. Judging from his reading list, the rather dry prose of the IPCC reports did not match up to the some of the racier contrarian texts. Had RealClimate been up and running a few years back, maybe it would've all worked out differently...

In summary, I am a little disappointed, not least because while researching this book, Crichton actually visited our lab and discussed some of these issues with me and a few of my colleagues. I guess we didn't do a very good job. Judging from his reading list, the rather dry prose of the IPCC reports did not match up to the some of the racier contrarian texts. Had RealClimate been up and running a few years back, maybe it would've all worked out differently...

• Call me old fashioned, but I'm going to rank papers in Nature above a supermarket tabloid in the 'credibility' stakes.
• weather is not climate. I don't know what the temperature will be around here next week (weather) but I know very precisely what it will average over the year (climate).
• State of Fear is comprehensively demolished by actual, working scientists on RealClimate.org.

Have a nice day!