Resisting Climate Hysteria

[sails]

It seems that the Climate Commission is a very biased organisation of selectively appointed members who will further the cause of warming alarmism...

An excerpt from the article below:

“The so-called Climate Commission is a Labor government-appointed committee of known climate alarmists, selectively appointed ... to further the cause of global warming alarmism.

“I think everybody should take anything they say with a grain of salt.

From the Australian: Make Carbon Tax Hurt Jullia Gillard Advised

 

[basilio]

I am pretty strong on the paucity of significant dissenting evidence against human induced global warming. Why ? Well as I said earlier there are actually only a very few climate scientists who have tried to mount a successful, coherent argument against the broad range of research undertaken by literally hundreds of other scientists. That is why I produced the reference to 97/100 climate scientists think humans cause global warming.

They are the ones whose research leads them to that conclusion not me.

But it is also worth examining the work of the few climate scientists who strongly disagree with this consensus. Richard Lindzen for example puts forwards the view that climate change is basically about internal variability with little/no external cause. Apart from his scientific papers where he attempts to demonstrate this he is also very eloquent in his non scientific essays where he beats up on the global warmists. If you havn't seen it check out his essay on Watts up.

But Lindzen's scientific papers are not honest and in a number of key areas misrepresent other scientists work. In the end his attempts to show that there is no external forcing of climate change turn out to be a professional embarrassment. And let's remember he is a genuine, quality scientist with a very good body of work behind him.


Lindzen essay in Watts Up

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/17/richard-lindzen-a-case-against-precipitous-climate-action/

The analysis of his papers which uncover his errors and in some cases deliberate deceptions

http://www.skepticalscience.com/lindzen-illusion-5-internal-variability.html
http://www.skepticalscience.com/lindzen-illusion-7-the-anti-galileo.html

 

[basilio]

It seems that the Climate Commission is a very biased organisation of selectively appointed members who will further the cause of warming alarmism...

An excerpt from the article below:



From the Australian: Make Carbon Tax Hurt Jullia Gillard Advised

It's worth noting that the author of that quote is Senator Nick Minchin. So let's not pretend he is going to accept it's validity.

The report itself is worth reading.

http://resources.news.com.au/files/...675-aus-news-file-climate-change-11-05-22.pdf

 

[ghotib]

Agree. The implied moral highground of criticism of even agnosticism on the subject is arrogant and inappropriate.

As is the implied moral high ground of suggesting that people who've spent a working lifetime investigating a subject know stuff all about it.

How do you know? Are you yourself a climate scientist? I suspect you'd have long ago made us aware if this were the case, and are rather parroting off what your idols tell you.

Julia that's outrageous. Basilio said earlier on this thread that he's been investigating this subject for 20 years. To be sure anyone can say anything in a forum, but in this case we can test the claim against some dozens of posts right in this thread. I suspect that if you'd actually read them you would easily recognise that they couldn't possibly be simple "parrotting off". You might not be able to decide whether they're right or wrong without further investigation, but they aren't parrotted.

Again, how can you confidently assert this? Because of the lack of willingness on the part of those who control the scientific literature to admit any dissenting voice, it's impossible to be sure of the level of dissent.

Now who's parrotting off? That claim is conspiracy bunkum with roughly the same plausibility as the dog ate my homework. Do your own research.

Ghoti

 

[basilio]

Just had a read of the Climate Commission report. It doesn't say anything new in the debate and wasn't intended to do so.

What it does do very well however is pull together the main features of the discussion in a reasonably easy read with very good to excellent graphics. It also manages to address some of the objections of anti GW advocates . For example it shows some excellent temperature maps which highlight how one part of the world might be unseasonably cold but the rest of the world is far warmer. In all the global temperature is too high.

The later sections are sobering . Check out page 52 for projections of global temperatures with and without decarbonisation of the economy. Also have a look at the risks of rapid climate change as a result reaching particular tipping points.

If/when you read this consider the question about the likelihood of this comprehensive range of research being flat wrong or so corrupt that they have fudged the data simply to keep getting research grants. And have a look at how even the relatively small body of work of non agreeing climate scientists (Lindzen) is shown to be severally compromised by distortions of data and misrepresentation of other scientists work.

 

[basilio]

I've referenced an analysis of Richard Lindzens work on cliamte science earlier but I think it's worth posting the long story on how his ideas and research have evolved and found to be wanting.

Lindzen Illusion #7: The Anti-Galileo

Richard Lindzen is one of the most prominent and widely-referenced climate scientist "skeptics". After all, there is a scientific consensus about anthropogenic global warming, so there are few climate scientist "skeptics" to choose from. Lindzen has researched climate science for four decades, since the field really began to grow and develop in the early 1970s, has published hundreds of peer-reviewed papers, works at a prominent academic institution (MIT), and has been a "contrarian" for most of his career.

So his combination of expertise and "skepticism" make Lindzen an appealing figure to "skeptics". He's even been compared to Galileo quite frequently. But there's one major difference between Galileo and Lindzen: Galileo was right.

Galileo's positions were based on and supported by scientific evidence. Other scientists at the time also recognized that Galileo was right and supported by the evidence. In this post we will see that Lindzen, on the other hand, has a history of consistently being wrong on climate issues, and his positions are contradicted by the scientific evidence and observational data.
Lindzen's Evolution

In his 1989 MIT Tech Talk, Lindzen summarized his many climate contrarian positions at the time:

Earth hasn't warmed as much as expected
the surface temperature record is wrong
global warming is not a concern
climate sensitivity is low
the water vapor feedback is negative
the cloud feedback is negative
global warming is just due to internal variability
water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas

Over the years, Lindzen's views have evolved somewhat, and some of these positions have fallen by the wayside. Let's examine how his 1989 positions compare to his current views, and how they stack up against the observational data. You would think a scientist's views would match observational reality, but as we will soon see, that's simply not the case for Lindzen.

Earth hasn't warmed as much as expected - this remains one of Lindzen's favorite arguments, which he makes in media articles on an annual basis to this day. But as we saw in Lindzen Illusion #1, there is simply no truth to this argument. When we consider all factors, including aerosol cooling and ocean thermal inertia, both of which Lindzen neglects in making this argument, we see that the planet has warmed almost exactly as much as climate models expect.

The surface temperature record is wrong - as we saw in Lindzen Illusion #2, in 1989, Lindzen didn't even put the GISTEMP observed warming trend (0.5 to 0.7 °C since 1880) within his range of possible warming trends (-0.2 to +0.4 °C since 1880). As we now know, and as Lindzen would now admit, James Hansen and GISTEMP were right, and Lindzen was wrong. The surface temperature record was and is accurate.

Global warming is not a concern - this argument is of course fundamental to global warming "skepticism", and thus one which Lindzen continues to subscribe to. However, it's based on a conglomeration of Lindzen's many other incorrect arguments, and as shown in Lindzen Illusion #3, his arguments against taking action to reduce GHG emissions are based on logical fallacies and a lack of understanding of economics.

Climate sensitivity is low - this continues to be Lindzen's bread and butter argument, but as illustrated in Lindzen Illusion #2, temperature projections using low sensitivity simply don't match the observed warming trend. Additionally, Lindzen Illusion #1 showed that the warming we've seen so far is inconsistent with low climate sensitivity. Lindzen Illusion #4 demonstrated that nothing credible we've seen so far suggests sensitivity is nearly as low as Lindzen claims. His low sensitivity argument seems to be based on little more than his own fundamentally flawed paper.

The water vapor feedback is negative - as we saw in Lindzen Illusion #4, Lindzen argued that water vapor could be a negative feedback due to a drying of the upper atmosphere until the mid-1990s, but had begun to reverse this position by the end of the decade. Indeed, recent observational evidence has been consistent with the climate model projection of a strongly positive water vapor feedback.

The cloud feedback is negative - Lindzen Illusion #4 also discussed that Lindzen continues to believe the cloud feedback is strongly negative. However, his "infrared iris" hypothesis has not withstood the test of time, and numerous recent studies have been inconsistent with a strongly negative cloud feedback.

Global warming is just due to internal variability - Lindzen continues to argue that internal variability may account for most of the global warming over the past century. However, Lindzen Illusion #5 revealed this argument's Achilles heel: the oceans (including the deep layers) are warming too. If the surface warming were simply due to heat moving around the internal climate system, from oceans to air, then the oceans would be cooling. Moreover, we saw that Lindzen's argument was based on a misrepresentation of other climate scientists' work.

Water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas - although Lindzen no longer downplays the role of CO2 in the greenhouse effect, he continues to downplay its role as a global temperature driver, and many "skeptics" still argue that water vapor is a far more important greenhouse gas than CO2. However, as highlighted in Lindzen Illusion #6, two recent NASA GISS studies demonstrated that CO2 plays a far larger role in the greenhouse effect than Lindzen claimed in 1989, and more importantly, is "the principal control knob that governs the temperature of Earth".

In short, of Lindzen's eight 1989 arguments listed above, he has effectively admitted that he was wrong on three points (temperature record accuracy, water vapor feedback, importance of CO2 as a greenhouse gas), but continues to make the other five. However, none of these remaining five arguments mesh with observational reality. But a useful question comes to mind, given the frequency with which "skeptic" arguments contradict each other: are these surviving arguments contradictory or self-consistent?

Lindzen's Consistently Cloudy Vision

Lindzen's surviving arguments are: Earth hasn't warmed as much as expected, global warming is not a concern, climate sensitivity is low, the cloud feedback is negative, global warming is just due to internal variability. And indeed, we can create a consistent depiction of the climate system with these arguments.

A strongly negative cloud feedback would allow for a low climate sensitivity, which would explain how the large anthropogenic GHG radiative forcing could have a small impact on global temperatures. If the anthropogenic influence were overestimated, then Earth wouldn't have warmed as much as expected. But if GHGs aren't driving global warming, there must be another cause. Lindzen explains the warming through the natural internal variability of the climate system (although as Swanson et al. (2009) note, a climate system with larger internal variability will also tend to be more sensitive to external forcings). And if the warming is just natural variability, it will soon reverse itself, and thus is of no concern.

So Lindzen does present a mostly coherent, consistent alternative hypothesis to the anthropogenic global warming theory. There's only one problem: as discussed above, every single one of these arguments is inconsistent with the observational evidence. You may have also noticed that every single one of Lindzen's positions have underestimated or downplayed anthropogenic global warming, which suggests they may be based on contrarianism rather than scientific evidence.

Lindzen has constructed a house of cards, with his incorrect conclusion (global warming is of no concern) sitting atop a series of incorrect beliefs which are each contradicted by the observational evidence. Indeed, when asked by then-Senator Al Gore why he believed water vapor and clouds generate a negative feedback in a 1991 Congressional hearing (Page 71), Lindzen responded:

"as far as we can tell every model predicting an excess of 2 degrees [sensitivity to doubled CO2] is predicting more [warming] than we already have seen."

In short, Lindzen's "no concern" argument is based on his "low sensitivity" argument, which is based on his "clouds are a large negative feedback" argument, which is based on his "Earth hasn't warmed as much as expected argument. It's just one huge chain of wrong arguments based on other wrong arguments, finally leading to a very wrong conclusion.

With this history of being wrong, the comparisons to Galileo seem wholly inappropriate. There is of course nothing wrong with being occasionally mistaken in science. The problem arises when a scientist is consistently wrong and fails to learn from the corrections advanced by other scientists or by nature, especially when we're asked to believe that he is right and virtually every other scientific expert is wrong.

Galileo was not a contrarian who was purely motivated to contradict Catholic beliefs. Galileo's key feature is that his conclusions were dictated by the scientific evidence. If anything, Lindzen is the anti-Galileo, as his conclusions seem to be based on pure contrarianism instead of scientific evidence.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/lindzen-illusion-7-the-anti-galileo.html

 

[wayneL]

basilio,

That is nothing but an "I'm right, you're wrong" diatribe.

Please, if your going to clog up so much bandwidth, at least post something substantive.

 

[noco]

THE LIES, THE MYTHS AND THE TRUTH on Climate Change (AGW) has at last been exposed not only by Andrew Bolt but the Climate Change Commission, but Gillard claims it is more reason to impliment her stupid lie driven carbon dioxide tax.

Is it to save the planet or the Australian economy which has been so badly managed by this incompetent Labor government??????????




http://blogs.news.com.au/couriermai...olumn_climate_commission_now_short_of_scares/

 

[Knobby22]

The climate scientist Andrew Bolt, he did make one statement I agree with in that article that he will be dead before it really goes bad.

I quote Ross Gittens in today's Age, "It's a sore test...when people put power bills before their childrens future."

 

[basilio]

basilio,

That is nothing but an "I'm right, you're wrong" diatribe.

Please, if your going to clog up so much bandwidth, at least post something substantive.

In fact the post overviews the main points that Lindzen uses to argue against the GW hypotheses and demonstrates how each one is factually wrong - they have been disproved by observation. And since Lindzen and the arguments he runs are some of the cornerstones of the anti GW viewpoint I thought it would be worth detailing exactly how provably mistaken they are.

 

[Julia]

I quote Ross Gittens in today's Age, "It's a sore test...when people put power bills before their childrens future."

That's a very emotive remark from Ross Gittens.
It demonstrates a lack of understanding for the genuine fear of many householders, much less well paid than Mr Gittens, and their already diminishing capacity to pay ever rising power bills.

 

[moXJO]

I quote Ross Gittens in today's Age, "It's a sore test...when people put power bills before their childrens future."

What we will achieve nothing via this tax in terms of world emissions. Ross Gittens is a pompous ass for sprouting that $hit

 

[basilio]

That's a very emotive remark from Ross Gittens.
It demonstrates a lack of understanding for the genuine fear of many householders, much less well paid than Mr Gittens, and their already diminishing capacity to pay ever rising power bills.

Julia it will be a lot harder to pay for the power bills if we don't sort out climate change.

The climate change report brought together the best current science on this issue. Ross Gittins did an excellent summary of the report and was pointing out that we either use resources now to combat cliamte change or suffer far greater hardships in the relatively near future feeling its effects.

Of course if one chooses to believe that the report is just a load of trumped up stories, that the sun will shine tomorrow and that CO2 is great for plants then we can simply ignore the issue and pretend that sending out dole bludgers to plant some trees will be a big enough fig leaf to cover the Coalitions nether regions.

I'm not having a go at you in particular Julia but so far very little of this discussion wants to acknowledge we might have a serious planetary problem that requires serious attention and money.

 

[basilio]

THE LIES, THE MYTHS AND THE TRUTH on Climate Change (AGW) has at last been exposed not only by Andrew Bolt but the Climate Change Commission, but Gillard claims it is more reason to impliment her stupid lie driven carbon dioxide tax.

Is it to save the planet or the Australian economy which has been so badly managed by this incompetent Labor government??????????




http://blogs.news.com.au/couriermai...olumn_climate_commission_now_short_of_scares/

I couldn't resist having a look at just how our resident lying piece of xxxt would spin the Climate Change Commision report..

He dismisses the suggested 1 metre increase in sea levels as happening in 100 years when we are all dead ! Just somehow manages to miss the analysis of the ever increasing floods in Melbourne, Sydney , Brisbane and every other coastal area that will happen as the sea does rise over the time. Completely skips over the discussion of what is happening with rapidly increasing melting of Greenland and what that could do to the equation.

The rest of his stuff is typical cherry picked Bolt drivel. A scientific review of an issue of this magnitude will always point to some unknowns. But it also identifies what we do know in detail, how this is already impacting on us and what the likely effects will be in the short, medium and long terms.

I thought it was particularly insightful to see how Bolt managed to ignore the possibilities that bushfires could conceivably be more dangerous if we had longer and hotter summers.

Anyone like to buy the Brooklyn Bridge or a seaside shanty ? I'm sure Andrew will sell you down the river.

 

[Calliope]

...we might have a serious planetary problem that requires serious attention and money.

So now it appears that you are thinking that our CO2 emissions will affect the planetary system.

 

[OzWaveGuy]

Julia it will be a lot harder to pay for the power bills if we don't sort out climate change.

The climate change report brought together the best current science on this issue. Ross Gittins did an excellent summary of the report and was pointing out that we either use resources now to combat cliamte change or suffer far greater hardships in the relatively near future feeling its effects.

And exactly what will the temperature change by basilio by adopting these alarmist at the trough tax policies? You cannot answer this as nor can the "experts" that get paid a handsome sum to peddle this rubbish. Time to switch off the alarmist cool aid and the AGW gravy train - the AGW credibility is long gone.

I see the AGW great barrier reef card is being played yet again - yawn - the desperation continues to grow.

Well, it's freezing here in Canberra, even with all the hot air from the local alarmists that actually don't do anything themselves, right basilio?

 

[basilio]

And exactly what will the temperature change by basilio by adopting these alarmist at the trough tax policies? Oz wave guy

And exactly how long is a piece of string Oz ? Come on mate. I want to know NOW, Exactly . to the micrometre.

How much impact will one player make to a footy team ? What about the committeemen, boot studder, coach, financial supporter?

Can you identify exactly how much each person contributes to the bottom line in your workplace ? Bit tough isn't it ? It takes everyone to play a part and it is really tough, unfair and stoopid to try and factor exactly how much each contribution was to the whole story.

So overall this is just a dumb trick question put up weasals who want to get under your skin on the personal cost/benefit of changing how we live on earth. Perhaps another way of looking at the picture is to read the report and then have a look at page 52 which highlights the possible futures we face.

 

[basilio]

So now it appears that you are thinking that our CO2 emissions will affect the planetary system.

Last time I looked the earth was a planet Calliope.

By the way have you had a chance to read the Climate Commission report yet ?

 

[sails]

It's worth noting that the author of that quote is Senator Nick Minchin. So let's not pretend he is going to accept it's validity....

So what if that was Michin's quote? Can you prove that the Climate Commission is not what he said? And, frankly, it seems to be nothing more than a sales report designed to get people to "think" that the weather is all our fault and that carbon tax is the way to fix it. And pigs might fly to the moon. Why don't they try to sell that too?

I believe the Independents told Gillard she had to "sell" her tax more effectively. This is obviously all part of the sales pitch. It seems the Climate Commission is a hand picked group of people who have been chosen to sell the carbon tax to the people. Something like selling ice to the eskimos, imo.

Description of the Climate Commission and the excerpt below is from the article I posted earlier. Basilio, can you state that this is not so?:

“The so-called Climate Commission is a Labor government-appointed committee of known climate alarmists, selectively appointed ... to further the cause of global warming alarmism

And, below is a link to the latest world carbon emissions for 2011 from Wikipedia and shows Australia still slightly over 1% of world emissions. New Zealand have 0.11% emissions and the UK still under 2%. How do we think we can actually do anything for emissions when our emissions are already so tiny? China and the US emit about 40% between them...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions

All the science in the world doesn't matter when there is so little we can do and yet risk destroying our economy, keeping pensioners shivering in the cold because they are too scared to put a heater on. Come on guys, perhaps get your heads out of th science books and be a little bit practical about this?

And below it is in picture form - does that make it any easier to see how stupid we and other low emitting nations are to risk jobs, our economies and potentially further hurt people who already can't afford electricity to keep warm?

Graph from rom Bolt's blog: If Climate Commissioner Steffen was independent he wouldn’t have stalled

 

[wayneL]

I couldn't resist having a look at just how our resident lying piece of xxxt would spin the Climate Change Commision report..

He dismisses the suggested 1 metre increase in sea levels as happening in 100 years when we are all dead ! Just somehow manages to miss the analysis of the ever increasing floods in Melbourne, Sydney , Brisbane and every other coastal area that will happen as the sea does rise over the time. Completely skips over the discussion of what is happening with rapidly increasing melting of Greenland and what that could do to the equation.

The rest of his stuff is typical cherry picked Bolt drivel. A scientific review of an issue of this magnitude will always point to some unknowns. But it also identifies what we do know in detail, how this is already impacting on us and what the likely effects will be in the short, medium and long terms.

I thought it was particularly insightful to see how Bolt managed to ignore the possibilities that bushfires could conceivably be more dangerous if we had longer and hotter summers.

Anyone like to buy the Brooklyn Bridge or a seaside shanty ? I'm sure Andrew will sell you down the river.

OK now I know not to take you seriously.

Your comment about increasing floods did it. Only the most pathetically politically motivated zealot has linked the recent floods to climate change. Not one serious and sober climate scientist has done so.

1/ As alarmists are so apt to say when it suits them, weather is not climate.

2/ FFS have a look at REAL flood and storm records. There is no increase.

Also sea level rise rate is still subject to debate as to whether it is increasing or holding steady (or declining) at the same rate since the little ice age. At this point the steady appear to be winning.

You are a doomsday klaxon with the bloody cheek, the temerity to accuse more balanced minds of willful ignorance.