All I’m saying here is don’t take a little piece of a puzzle as “proof” of anything on its own.

As for deforestation, yes you have a very good point there.

And foreign affairs, in general I would agree that countries should take care of their own affairs before interfering in others’.

Or am I taking you out of context? Should not any selectively published information criminally stolen as part of a much larger tranche, and used entirely for the purpose of discrediting the authors, be interpreted carefully and in its original context?

I have downloaded and read the article to which Trembath is refering in the “gotcha” email.
http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/threatlevel/2009/11/energydiagnostics09final.pdf
Turns out the email is genuine, but it does not mean what you take it to mean. See also:
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/11/climate-hack
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack-context/

Trembath would like to account for the natural variability - the noise on top of the rising temperature signal. That noise makes it appear that warming has slowed or paused in the past decade, IF ONLY the (air) temperature record is taken into account.

Other ways to measure climate change would be by the retreat of glaciers; the unprecedented decline in the summer Arctic ice cap; the increase in extreme weather, etc.

A very important indicator of global warming that doesn’t show the apparent flattening of the temperature curve is ocean heat content. (see the first plot here:
http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/sl_drives_longer.html)
Yes it has variability (although this may be instrumental rather than natural), but it has clearly not plateaued. It is still going up. And the oceans drive the climate, so that’s where the temperature will be going in future.

Now Trembath would like an explanation of the “natural variability”. Why has the temperature signal apparently plateaued recently? Temperature changes, even small ones, require the movement of heat. He is frustrated that climate science cannot yet link the energy in the climate system to the ups and downs, indeed the current “plateau”, in the measured air temperature.

New York Times ( summary )

Published: November 20, 2009
Hundreds of private e-mail messages and documents hacked from a computer server at a British university are causing a stir among global warming skeptics, who say they show that climate scientists conspired to overstate the case for a human influence on climate change.

The e-mail messages, attributed to prominent American and British climate researchers, include discussions of scientific data and whether it should be released, exchanges about how best to combat the arguments of skeptics, and casual comments — in some cases derisive — about specific people known for their skeptical views.

In several e-mail exchanges, Kevin Trenberth, a climatologist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, and other scientists discuss gaps in understanding of recent variations in temperature.

Skeptic Web sites pointed out one line in particular: “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t,” Dr. Trenberth wrote

James McDonald… “I assume we are causing a climate problem, because the scientific community says so. I believe the world needs to start placing a higher value on educated, accountable, scientific and academic expertise than it has done in the last century…..” Accountable ? To who exactly ?

Noting firstly that a recent revelation out of the UK through disclosed emails from “Climate Scientists” has confirmed that that this so called human made Climate Change is a load of Bunk, as us lunatic “skeptics” have known all along…. Yes, we must prevent deforestation, I’m all for that. Yes we must start limiting our output of pollution, I’m all for that. Do we need to run around and turn everything off because we are killing mother earth with carbon emissions and introduce another Governmental institution called Emissions Trading – No. Kyoto was a farce as is Emissions Trading.

Let’s take a more pragmatic look at this. A significant portion of the globe is overpopulated, living in squalled conditions, lacking resources, and are left to breed uncontrolled, while the rest of us are bombarded by television adverts seeking funds to prop us these unsustainable environments. Do I feel bad for those poor kids having to live like that ? You bet. Should it be happening, No it should not be. Is it “Climate Change” creating starvation ? Absolutely not.

….” Bringing about social-economic collapse will not solve any problem. It will result in mass starvation, war, pandemics … and exacerbate any climate-related problems we may be causing….”

….” and exacerbate any climate-related problems we may be causing….” Garbage.

….” then hundreds of millions of mostly impoverished people around the world would die from the effects of climate change.”….. So be it. Can the world continue to sustain such a population growth ? No.

Pussy footing around the core issues is what got us here in the first place. No one had the spine to stand up and prevent massive logging and deforestation, and still don’t aka South America, nor manage trade with countries that have no regard for pollution control. Same goes for the Islamic issues. Just take a look at what’s happening all around us and as shown in this YouTube video that is doing the rounds at the moment. http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=RKgK-0HwN30

Perhaps, being pragmatic here…., as we should have left the US Banks to sort themselves out, we need to leave these overpopulated “out-of-control” 3rd world countries to sort themselves out. If it means their Government’s standing up and taking responsibility for local conditions, or dying off, then so be it. It is a natural cycle. Something us humans need to accept for the common good. It is seen in many natural environments. And don’t tell me that this is what sets us apart from animals. We in fact could learn a lot from the animal world. How not to S**t in our own nest for starters.

Scientifically, Climate Change as it is being touted as a “man made” phenomenon is a Rort. If there is starvation in Bangladesh and Etheopia, then stop procreating. If areas of India, Asia, and Miami, will be wiped out due to rising sea levels, then build a wall or move, but not to Australia, we have our own water shortages – due to population vs resource issues – not Climate Change.

Fair answer. Anyway, it was a way I had a bit of a laugh at myself which I thought I’d throw out there in case it was helpful, after you said “I dont know I don’t know”. I still don’t know either, I just stopped imagining that I could know better and took a leap of faith on the Enlightenment, imperfect as it is.

Hi Harvey,

My expressions of frustration were intended not so much to slur anyone as to protest at how this all has become an “us and them” thing. A war of words. The book I mentioned by Deborah Tannen explains how adversarial methods have become our standard way of seeking the truth even though they are useful only some of the time. The idea that “there are two sides to every story” has come to sound like a truism, but it’s not even true.

I had also hoped to make the point that if this campaign is conducted as a war on big business, it will fail, whatever the rights and wrongs of the matter may be. If I’ve achieved nothing more than to make the matter even more divisive, then I hope a better intellect than mine, such as yours, can see that and can make the point better than I did.

Hi Adam Neira,

I don’t generally tick the box at the bottom to email me with follow-ups, so this is the only retrospective comment from you that I found. If there are others, please let me know.

To answer your questions:

(a) lately it’s all work and Crikey. The observation is well made and noted, thank you.
(b) no … is anybody?
(c) no … and congratulations, with that question you’ve got to the very heart of the matter.

Bringing about social-economic collapse will not solve any problem. It will result in mass starvation, war, pandemics … and exacerbate any climate-related problems we may be causing.

I assume we are causing a climate problem, because the scientific community says so. I believe the world needs to start placing a higher value on educated, accountable, scientific and academic expertise than it has done in the last century. I don’t necessarily hold that all academia has shown itself worthy of that level of reliance — in many ways it’s gone downhill from its zenith at the turn of the 19th-20th century — but among the alternatives are the pseudo-scientific movements that characterized the 1930s. I prefer to place some trust in the weight of informed reason, and expect them to rise to the challenge.

In other words, if we successfully reform industry to a low-carbon model, and it turns out AGW was false and it was unnecessary, we will still have taken a step forward in the development of civilization, and we can move on from the dark age of the 20th century.

Economically, I do not believe this requires making war on industry. First, everyone would lose such a war and it would defeat the whole exercise. Second, it is not necessary. There is a win-win way to accomplish these reforms and still have prosperity. We have only to stop tearing each others’ throats out and find it.

Dear Dr Tarvydas

I agree

Heathdon McGregor, re your last entry, please understand that I respect commonsense as much as you do. It and science are just different and a lot of the later has become part of our modern western commonsense. Nature is science in the absolute honest sense then along comes man (of all kinds) making discoveries in his terms about nature and calls it his science. I revere nature for what it is and man’s quality efforts for trying hard to find out.
Nature doesn’t need anyone to prove what it is but a story of ‘understanding’ of a bit of nature needs proof of some kind or another for the rest of us to trust and accept the story.

Sorry never read New Scientist, I was just raised that if you don’t understand ask. If the explanation doesn’t satisfy then ask again or ask somebody else. Never said I was right just said I don’t know.

As for Quantum theory I don’t know enough, very little actually, to make any call. If it helps I did see what the bleep do we know and thought that string theory while sounding plausible was a bit like religion, we can’t prove it but we know its true. I might refer you to Dr Tarvydas’ reaction to the term common sense. Personally I admire science but it in no way diminishes my respect for common sense. Common sense has been around forever while science is how many hundred years old? Science followers may despise me but it’s just how I feel.

Thanks for the link, I will investigate someday when I have time.

Is there anything like there was in Darwin’s time where they are the acknowleged home of science?

In my brief auditing of the past Crikey postings by various contributers, your name comes up a hell of a lot. You seem to want to “get on top” of various contributers and corral them into a intellectual pen of your own choosing.

Some questions for you…

(a) Do you have a life away from Crikey.
(b) Are you receiving any form of remuneration from those connected to the “Man Made Climate Change” movement.
(c) Would you bet your life/house/all your assets on the absolute, incontrevertible proof of “Man Made Climate Change”.

I await your response.

James McDonald,
your comment to Heathdon,
“I’ve always had a good laugh at people who subscribe to New Scientist for a few years and then start challenging quantum theory. I’ve known a few like that.
Just to be clear on something: quantum theory doesn’t make sense. Anyone who tells you it can be explained in a reasonable intuitive manner, doesn’t know it very well themselves. Einstein even found it preposterous ….. “
I have said it often even to Crikey “Science is not ‘common sense’, it does not make common sense it makes scientific sense to those who are able to receive it and that much science makes sense to the would be ordinary folk goes to show how much science sense has pervaded (admirably) our so called ‘common sense’.

James McDonald,
your comment to Duke,
“Rudd’s CPRS legislation was never intended to work, I think he feels it’s enough to get the ball rolling and bring about a global big-government revolution, and the rest will solve itself. To that end, the quality of the legislation was neither here nor there,”

shows insight, so congratulations, but you have abused it to validate allsorts of personal and convenient conclusions about players.
Insight to a scientist leads to ideas, developing a theory to tie them together into an entity which reasonably could become real when both oneself and others with the theory in mind find the supporting evidence over time if possible.

Sorry I’ll rephrase that, not to sound like such a deadbeat question. I’ve been unsure until recently myself about what to think, so I know what you mean. I didn’t come to a decision by reading enough explanation for it all to come clear. On the contrary, the more explanation I read the less clear it became.

I’ve always had a good laugh at people who subscribe to New Scientist for a few years and then start challenging quantum theory. I’ve known a few like that.

Just to be clear on something: quantum theory doesn’t make sense. Anyone who tells you it can be explained in a reasonable intuitive manner, doesn’t know it very well themselves. Einstein even found it preposterous, saying famously “God does not play with dice.” Schroedinger too found the emerging pattern ugly, where physics is always elegant. Yet quantum theory is very solidly supported, modern computer technology depends on it, and it has resisted all attempts by some of the world’s smartest people to disprove it.

Nothing that a New Scientist subscriber can’t tackle though.

At some point I realised I was one of those people. I was trying to understand the AGW theory all in my head, together with the objections to the hockey stick, the increasing Antarctic ice, the historical CO2 levels, the mediaval warming, Plimer’s unknown submarine volcanoes, and so on.

I had become one of those people who read a few New Scientist articles and start challenging quantum theory. Upon realizing this I had a good laugh at myself and checked out what the majority of scientific organisations think.

What I found is more or less summarized here. But it’s time well spent to do your own research — not of ice shelves and volcanoes, but:

(a) what are the main respected scientific organisations in various fields (the genuinely authoritative, respectable ones, not just the ones that pay for top billing in a google search)

(b) what are their position statements.

Anyway, it worked for me. I hope this helps.

Thank you for your considered reply. I used to note Bolt then I thought he is only there to provoke so I ignore that it is him and concentrate on what he is saying. Amazingly I sometimes thinks he at least will ask an unpopular question that needs asking even if the reasoning behind the question are abhorrent to me.

I like Colleen McCullogh’s version of the internet, “good for bite size pieces of info to lead to further investigation but useless without the follow up.”
Sorry for yammering

Best wishes

I think a few people are confusing debate with explaining. Fair enough, you don’t understand some part of AGW. You want an open discussion to improve your understanding. Say you’re Andrew Bolt. But with Andrew, this is not a debate; he doesn’t have any contrary information to disprove the theory, all he has is a lack of understanding. So he identifies this as a lack of debate, while in fact it’s a lack of explanation. I can see why people tire of this, particularly with The Bolta, as he picks up a piece of information from the interweb, and declares it fact then defends it to the hilt. Others will point out why this is wrong, but he keeps coming back to it. He’s no use at all in a debate, and obstructionist in improving general understanding.

The Stern report provides some sobering estimates:

Was Stern peer reviewed as someone recently asked.?Do you know the answer?

I mean debate in that there are two differing opinions and the two sides are debating which is correct.

I have used Einstein in the hope to promote that answers can come from anywhere, even the clerks office. I am trying to offer a different view to the constant rebuttal I get when Iask questions, which is along the lines of “the science is decided ask no more questions”

What Iwould take from your interesing sounding gyroscope experiment is that he was right and it doesn’t matter how much money you spend he will still be right.

This last line may amuse people who think I am a non believer but I just dont know and I haven’t had my Oh Shit moment. They may be right and whether a nuffy like me believes it or not doesn’t really matter.

If by debate you mean someone has done experiments or analysed data, then written a paper that can be reviewed, then by all means. My understanding of the IPCC process is that it doesn’t do any science at all; they collate and review the available papers, argue about the relative merit of each then come to an agreed position in light of these arguments. It is not a discussion about what is happening, but a discussion of the relative merits of the methods used to reach these conclusions. It’s subtle, but very important.

While Einstein’s methods/results may have been debated, they will not be overturned without experiment and peer review. Seen the info on the Einsteinian ‘Frame Shift’ experiment that is being run on a little satellite at the moment? After all these years, one of his theories has failed to be disproved by one of the slickest experiments I’ve ever seen. The most accurate gyroscope ever manufactured, spinning at 10,000rpm in a vacuum in space has proven that heavy objects distort the planes of space/time around them. Awesome.

Einstein didn’t debate anyone. He did experiments that were repeatable by others; wrote papers that were reviewed by his peers and provided theories that were falsifiable.

Has this happened with Global Warming or have there been so many voices each saying that they are correct for different reasons that the arguement becomes muddied.

Converly MichaelT, I’m suspicious of anyone who thinks science should be a debate.

Personally I believe that is what science is, an ongoing debate. Which scientific fact has been the longest without having its meaning debated?Einstein himself has been debated since he published.

You seem to speak for many others. I speak for myself. My point doesn’t require the backing of others, whether imagined or not.

If you read my posts you may see that I dont avoid recognition of a dominant, widely backed consensus opinion once that has been reached… which in this case has happened. It has happened because you say so. I disagree. Sorry for that. I have laid out my questions about global warming previously. The most noted that we still have jet powered flight when burning fuels is apparently the main cause of global warming. Explain that one with your existing body of knowledge

I believe we live in a smug age where so many people believe that we know everything. I dont and that is what I am saying. If Global Warming is real and things go as bad as the worst chicken little is saying then who is more at fault. the people who doubted and asked for proof or the people who wouldn’t deign to put forward an arguement that every body could understand because they were frustrated at not being believed just because they said so.

I don’t know if global warming is real I dont know I don’t know I don’t know, just to be sure everybody got that.

I do know that the arguements being out to the public by the believers is not getting through. I believe that if the planet is at stake then the answers could come from anywhere. Some on this thread believe that only experts can comment (Roger) That is the reason for the Einstein analogy, he would have been told to go back to the clerks office by some of the people who are so sure of themselves, yet he was a great physicist.

If the answer to global warming came from a Latin American farmer would you believe him/her or would you need for your experts to agree?

Einstein didn’t debate anyone. He did experiments that were repeatable by others; wrote papers that were reviewed by his peers and provided theories that were falsifiable.

My impression is that physics is more open to ideas out of left field (e.g. quantum theory) and pluralistic debate than some other scientific disciplines.

I’m always suspicious of people who want to shut down debate.