Cameron Stewart writing in today's The Australian makes reference to the influence of internet bloggers in succeeding in highlighting that measuring climate change is an evolving science. But, goes on to suggest that "their success has been at the margins only" because we have apparently failed to "prove that these discrepancies negate the broader core arguments about the trends of global warming."
The article is entitled 'Key degrees of difference' and it begins:
"Has global warming stopped? The question alone is enough to provoke scorn from the mainstream scientific community and from the Government, which says the earth has never been hotter. But tell that to a new army of sceptics who have mushroomed on internet blog sites and elsewhere in recent months to challenge some of the most basic assumptions and claims of climate change science...
Read more here: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24148862-11949,00.html
This is at least the second time in the last two weeks that internet bloggers have been identified by the mainstream Australian media as relevant to the debate on climate change. The earlier story was on ABC Lateline, you can watch the video clip: http://www.abc.net.au/news/video/2008/07/29/2318074.htm . I comment on the Lateline report in an associated blog post here:
About the cooling in the last 10 years, the article quotes someone saying something very obvious: "Most scientists are adamant that any assessment of climate change based on only 10 years of data is not only meaningless but reckless."
Very true. Why then was there no one accusing the Nobel prize gang of recklessness when they reported that the rate of warming had "accelerated" between 1990 and 2000, predicted further acceleration and runaway climate change?
Luke you have not answered these questions:
"You have yet to post examples of alleged smears."
"Were those guys accused of smearing anyone?"
"AGW HYPOTHESIS has been considered settled science by you guys.Without "debate".So why are all the AGW believer scientists still getting millions of $$ in research grants each year?"
You skated around this question with evasive reply.
"Plus the world is supposed to be in grave peril.Why bother giving money away into research that have allegedly proven everything?"
You skated around this question with evasive reply.
"Could it be because they know deep down that AGW hypothesis is pure B.S. but the money is real and nice to have along with a contrived good reputation built on UNVERIFIABLE research?"
You skated around this question with evasive reply.
Now here is a funny line from you Luke:
"Most scientists would love to have a breakthrough on an issue that nobody else has seen."
Yeah such as publishing science papers filled with modeling runs that "proves" something is going to happen 50 years from.
(sarcasm)
I bet nobody has ever seen reproducable results 50 years into the future.
Sorry but breakthroughs never happen with unverified and non reproducable results.Not if you have to wait for decades.
LOL
"Why would scientists want to voluntarily be on IPCC working groups at endless meetings trying to distill the "science consensus" to be rewarded with rampant abuse from the population. It's more about service than reward."
You forget about the anger of a number of scientists way back in the early 1990's.When they learned that their science report was swept aside by the politicians.They then asked to have their names taken off the list and some even stated they would sue if the IPCC resisted the requests.
How can I take you seriously when you think this way?
"AGW is a very complex problem and the intertwining of politics and science doesn't help. Plus this is now expensive science which is expected to be run professionally in major programs with performance indicators and milestones. The notion that there is plenty of time for gentleman scientists to indulge their fancies chasing every rainbow just isn't there. That's the price you paid when Harvard business school cross-bred with science management in the 1990s. Programs, budgets, plans, and process."
Nah not worth a comment.I will pass on this.
đ
Yes Ivan ... a devastating rebuttal. Outstanding.
âAnd that's the formal meetings - try all the sub-group meetings - what do you think goes on at those meetings?â
As usual, in dealing with your dribbling nonsense, it is necessary to cut through all the bull$hit and corruption and get to the facts of the matter. First of all, it was: âWhy would scientists want to voluntarily be on IPCC working groups at endless meetings..â Then it was: âthey .. spend vast amounts of personal time (for no extra reward) in IPCC science working groups in very non-glamorous places..â Then it was: âwell .. yes ... they are glamorous places... but they donât do any sightseeing.â
Give me a break â itâs like Bill Clinton saying âyes I smoked dope, but I didnât inhaleâ. But you can see the point â first of all itâs the grandiose statement, then as facts begin to intrude the assertion gradually gets watered down. Which is pretty much the whole underlying philosophy of AGW.
Then there is the issue of relevant qualifications. First of all it was: âdoing very very hard physics and maths degrees.â Then it seems there are no physics and maths degrees at all â just a bunch of weather forecasters masquerading as 'climate scientists'.
I mean the best you can do is Neville Nicholls and Susan Solomons? Neville â who did his PhD 25 years ago (and therefore according to your logic is already well past his use-by date) and Susan â with a degree in a highly specialised branch of Chemistry (i.e. no maths or physics in sight here).
The problem is this: you AGW clowns keep parroting ad infinitum that âweather isnât climate ... weather isnât climateâ. And yet, when you go through the CVs of the âscientistsâ on the AR4 Synthesis Report (if you can find any CVs, that is), what do you see: Osvaldo Canziani, Zhenlin Chen, David Karoly, Ulrike Lohmann, Neville Nicholls, et. al. â all with degrees in Meteorology. Listen up, numb nuts: Meteorologists are nothing more than Weather Forecasters. If âweather isnât climateâ, then by the same token, âWeather forecasters arenât climatologistsâ. You want us to bet our future on the collective musings of a bunch of unqualified weather forecasters? A group who collectively canât even reliably predict the weather a week in advance â yet you would have us believe that they are spot on when it comes to predicting something way beyond their experience or qualifications: i.e. the climate in 50-100 years time.
While weâre on the subject of Susan Solomon, hereâs an interesting little tidbit that helps to put the lie to your assertion that all this AGW junketing is demanding and unglamorous work. Susan used to work with Martin Manning at the NOAA. It seems that the good doctor also managed to bring his son on board to work for the IPCC as well (and share in the Nobel prize, I might add). Not that there is anything wrong with nepotism, of course â there is always room for another snout or two at the trough. Particularly when there is plenty of taxpayersâ money for everyone to wallow in.
But the question is this: if all this IPCC work is such demanding work, and intrudes so much into everyoneâs personal time having to travel to all these $hit places â why on earth would anyone encourage their children to follow in the same footsteps? Are they all mad, or what?
As for â toddling off and organising .. belly button fluffâ - generally I would leave that sort of work to SJT and the rest of the plonkers at the CSIRO (when they are not defending AGW, that is). I hear there is quite a demand for organising belly button lint amongst you gubmint science boys in general and in the AGW industry in particular. I can see this opening up a whole new business venture for the appropriately-trained CSIRO and BoM when this whole AGW house of cards finally caves in.
The problem is the Climate Science field has been found out. Most of the practioners rely heavily on statistical analysis, and as it turns out, there are a lot of statisticians out in the blogesphere. Outside of statistics, the realm of Climate Science is totally beholden to circulation models, of which none have any kind of precision. The models cannot replicate past climate regimes, let alone even forecast the next phase of ENSO. Again, software developers, engineers, and modelers from other fields have pointed this out via the blogesphere. So, yes, the experts who fill the goverment posts, research centers, and universities are being assaulted at the edges. The barbarians are certainly at the gates.
The question that is on everyone's mind why can't the people in the field of Climate Science police themselves. It turns out that "peer-review" in this field is not what it is cracked up to be.
Paracelsus (1493-1531) wrote more or less "All substances are poisons; there is none which is not a poison. The right dose differentiates a poison."
SJT (2001 -???) writes "I don't know what is outrageous about the physical properties of CO2. It's like saying it's outrageous that a little bit of arsenic can be fatal. That's not my fault, that's just how the cosmos works."
No, SJT, it is not.
The lesson, SJT, is that we know fairly well how much arsenic is fatal. But, we do not know at all well how much CO2 (if any) is needed to for Global Warming. I guess all the top experts have been asked for a qauntitative derivation of doubling sensitivity, prominently, but nobody has come up with an answer.
This is post-IPCC stuff, SJT, so if you refer me to that drivel I shall get up-chucky.
Talking of chucky, have you read "Chucky and the U.S. CCSP" at http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3384
U might learn something about the scientific method. Might help.
And that's the formal meetings - try all the sub-group meetings - what do you think goes on at those meetings? Sight-seeing. You really are kidding.
Hmmm - weeelll - I'll just pick two - Susan Solomon - PhD Atmospheric Chemistry
Neville Nicholls - PhD Meteorology - one of Australia's most well known climate scientists.
You really are a tedious moron. Now toddle off and organise your belly button fluff you gimp.
"IPCC science working groups in very non-glamorous places"
Yeah..yeah. Sorry, no sale.
> Tenth Session of IPCC Working Group I, Paris, France, 29 January - 1 February 2007
> Eighth Session of IPCC Working Group II, Brussels, 2-5 April 2007
> Ninth Session of IPCC Working Group III, Bangkok, Thailand, 30 April - 4 May 2007
All vey unglamorous places, to be sure.
"Your comments about IPCC report authors are simply ill-founded.."
Hardly. I've been researching all the authors listed on the AR4 Synthesis Report. As far as I can tell, there are no "very hard physics or maths degrees" there. If you have different information, then send it as long.
Ivan - please - Bali is for pollies and the IPCC political circus - you really have no idea - reality is that many of the very respected names (which you never hear about on here) spend vast amounts of personal time (for no extra reward) in IPCC science working groups in very non-glamorous places - like NOT Bali. Your comments are really just uninformed and deliberately abusive. Find out what really goes on. Your comments about IPCC report authors are simply ill-founded and rude. Unless you have actually made a serious investigative effort which you are prepared to table against the majority of authors desist.