News Is James Randi a skeptic or a Republican climate change denier?

[Andre]

Yes I'm working on data of the EPICA Dome C ice cores now to discuss the merits of positive feedback there. I did that before, a few years ago to demonstrate the problems for a positive feedback construction. However they introduced a new time scale ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/antarctica/epica_domec/edc3-timescale.txt, so to keep it up to date we have to adjust the timescales of the datasets accordingly. That will take some time.

What would happen if the global temperature increased with 2 degrees, would be irrelevant if there is nett negative feedback then we would need to quadruple CO2 levels or more, which is unrealistic.

But in the hypothetical situation that positive feedback is dominant, then we may return to the situation during the Holocene Thermal maximum roughly from 9000-5000 years ago, when the trees grew in the Sahara(!) and at http://www.geog.ucla.edu/downloads/634/269.pdf while the glaciers and ice caps just kept on going and the sealevels were generally still below current levels. Early civilisations emerged and nobody talked about the Holocene Thermal Disaster.

 

[sylas]

... That should maybe go in an Earth thread.

I agree it should go in the Earth forum; and your recent thread [thread=360877]The AGW climate feedback discussion[/thread] would be ideal.

I simply wanted to correct the record about what arguments and evidence have been presented in the Earth forum so far. I see you have rephrased your post on this... thank you! I appreciate it.

I must also retract... I had said that no articles were presented for negative feedback thus far in the thread. But on checking with your mention "persistency", I looked back and now see that you did actually give links to articles by Olavi Kärner. I had missed it entirely. It was given in [post=2480982]msg #32[/post] of that thread.

My only excuse is that is was so easy to miss. There's no reference or title; only links with the word "here" as link text and nothing else to indicate it was actually a peer-reviewed article on the subject. But I should have seen it, and so I retract. You did give valid references (as links) arguing for negative feedbacks. I'll check it out.

It also would be a good idea to me to pull together the various lines of evidence for positive feedback that are in a range of threads, and add that to your thread. I'll do that. Questions will be welcome, and as you say the answers belong in the other thread.

Cheers -- sylas

 

[OmCheeto]

But the problem is that as formulated: by the time the data is convincing to enough, it is too late.

It would appear, from the date stamps on my images, that the last time I wasted my time with global warming was April of 2007. The forum I posted them on, like Dr. Neutrino, swims with the fishes. So my comments and thoughts on the subject are all gone. (and yes, I've tried the wayback machine). But much can be read in the pictures I posted:

Someone made me watch a you tube video and I grabbed a graph showing that it was solar sunspot activity which was responsible for global warming.

When I plugged in the numbers for the same time period, I came up with a completely different graph.

It appeared that the graph in the video was a lie.

Then there was this image:

Which indicated to my untrained eye that even with CO2 levels 10 to 20 times the current, planetary temperature did not seem to be affected by it whatsoever.

Other images:

(Population over the last 12,000 years)

tend to speak along the lines of Evo and Randi; while feigning concern over polar bears and pup fish, we're raping and pillaging this planet.

This is why when my brother called me, with the sole purpose of bashing Al Gore by the way, I told him I really didn't care if Gore knew it was a lie, and was going to become a billionaire by perpetuating a myth. I also don't care whether CO₂ leads or lags warming, or whether or not the Siberian peat bogs are really carbon time-bombs. There are lots of experts with lots of papers saying lots of things. If I were to read them all I'd simply have no time to do anything else.

So what's the point of all my gibberish?

Invest in the future, and don't worry too much about what the experts have to say.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

But the problem is that as formulated: by the time the data is convincing to enough, it is too late. Remnds me that on another thread where we have been talking about cirrhosis of the liver, the disease process is poorly understood(like many others), but seems to have a threshold in terms of risk exposure, and after that seems unpredictable.

What seems to be lacking in the discussion at least on a public level is a risk/benefit readout.


A good gambler knows knows what the expected value of any manuever carries: Medicine itself is based on the premise of ignoring false positives while improving outcomes associated with a less certain but early true positive that might be false. The recent debate about breast cancer screening brought this home. The backlash vs a seemingly logical and coherent set of recommendations was torn asunder within days of airing.

Curiously, the public seemed not to throw caution to the wind, and seemed well prepared to put up with the psychological torment and money wasted on false alarms.

I read this to mean that folks are pretty cautious when it comes to their own health. Which is why I wonder it seems to be the opposite when it comes to public policy and AGW. More and more, people are being seduced into the belef that this is a false positive. I just don't get it--certainly human behavior is notoriously inconsidtent, but not that much.There are denial/wishful thinking factors at play which relly need to be confronted with:

if a then b, and the costs/consequences are these.
if b, then c, ... Obviously there are more slots for expected values. But what I find most didtressing is that instead of this kind of mature, seasoned.reasoned assessment is whether the casino is trusty.

Certainly, the scientists who in this case run the casino are no more immune of human foibles than the sleeziest pitboss. But their behavior and choices in becoming a scientist vs a pitboss, begs the question of motivation, and whether they might be more counted on to act fairly--assuming truth and understanding are priority values. Kind of trust your doc vs your stockbroker assessment.

Whether we should trust the scientists vs the many very multiplied monetary interests in maintaining the status quo seems to be a no-brainer, but I personally am becoming discouraged. Put simply if ther is a 1% chance of breast cancer vs a 99% chance of wasting money and comfort on a false alarm, which would you choose forself or your loved one?

Perhaps it is akin to the denial that one experiences in the dying process - I don't want to believe it so I won't.

And who wants to think that WE have to take responsibility for this. It would be so much easier to just go about our business as if nothing were wrong. So instead of following the lead of the actual experts in the scientific community as we normally do, some would rather call the entire scientific process into question, including resorting to email hacks and other illegal activity, in order to service our denial mechanism. Instead of accepting that the risk is too great and action is required, it is so much easier to grab a beer, turn on Fox, and yell at the liberals.

We have heard the answer in many forms before: Not my problem.

However, the number of "amateur climate experts" who have never formally studied the subject, is the most disturbing trend of all. Everyone's an expert! Any Joe on the street can spend a few hundred hours on the internet and they're an expert. Who knew it was so easy?? Hey, I have a high I.Q., maybe tomorrow we can all play brain surgeon. Googling now...

 

[Evo]

However, the number of "amateur climate experts" who have never formally studied the subject, is the most disturbing trend of all. Everyone's an expert! Any Joe on the street can spend a few hundred hours on the internet and they're an expert. Who knew it was so easy?? Hey, I have a high I.Q., maybe tomorrow we can all play brain surgeon. Googling now...

True, we have that issue in the Earth forum right now. We have no climate scientists in there, but some seem to profess that they have greater knowledge than others that have the same level of non-expertise that they have. Maybe they've googled more, who knows?

 

[turbo]

True, we have that issue in the Earth forum right now. We have no climate scientists in there, but some seem to profess that they have greater knowledge than others that have the same level of non-expertise that they have. Maybe they've googled more, who knows?

It's very easy to form an opinion based on the assertions of people who profess to be experts, but it's shocking how strongly-held and vehemently-defended such opinions can be.

Let's acknowledge that no matter how much access any individual can have to publicly-held records, climate is extremely complex. To process the mountain of data, you need to get it into a form that is compatible with data from all the other sources that you use. Then you have to construct models that can run simulations with all that data to see how closely the models conform to observations, and try to decide if predictions can be made. Anybody here have a super-computer at home to run such simulations? I didn't think so.

If Randi wants to dig a bit more and keep wearing his professional "skeptic" hat, I'm all for that, because I'm in exactly the same boat. It's not a position that is popular with AGW believers OR AGW deniers, but it's a reasonable position for a thinking person to adopt. If Randi's decision to revise an earlier position and revisit the subject should have any camp cheering, it's the skeptics, not the pro or anti AGW crowds. The stakes are very high either way.

Ancillary benefits for making large polluters clean up their acts should not be overlooked. Thanks to large mid-western coal-fired power plants, the mid-west gets cheap electricity and Maine gets acidified lakes, almost-constant ozone alerts in the summer, mercury bio-accumulating in our fish, and other heavy metals like cadmium bio-accumulating in wild ruminants. Maine is paying a very heavy price for the mid-west to get cheap electricity. China practically shut down heavy industry upwind of their Olympics so that the world wouldn't see what ecological damage they are wreaking on their own country and the world. Cleaner industry comes at a cost, but inaction may come with a much greater cost.

IMO, the benefits of a cleaner environment should be factored into any decision to limit carbon emissions, regardless of whether or not we can prove that human activity is warming the Earth. Separating these issues works to the benefit of industries, but threatens the populace.

 

[Evo]

It's very easy to form an opinion based on the assertions of people who profess to be experts, but it's shocking how strongly-held and vehemently-defended such opinions can be.

Let's acknowledge that no matter how much access any individual can have to publicly-held records, climate is extremely complex. To process the mountain of data, you need to get it into a form that is compatible with data from all the other sources that you use. Then you have to construct models that can run simulations with all that data to see how closely the models conform to observations, and try to decide if predictions can be made. Anybody here have a super-computer at home to run such simulations? I didn't think so.

If Randi wants to dig a bit more and keep wearing his professional "skeptic" hat, I'm all for that, because I'm in exactly the same boat. It's not a position that is popular with AGW believers OR AGW deniers, but it's a reasonable position for a thinking person to adopt. If Randi's decision to revise an earlier position and revisit the subject should have any camp cheering, it's the skeptics, not the pro or anti AGW crowds. The stakes are very high either way.

Ancillary benefits for making large polluters clean up their acts should not be overlooked. Thanks to large mid-western coal-fired power plants, the mid-west gets cheap electricity and Maine gets acidified lakes, almost-constant ozone alerts in the summer, mercury bio-accumulating in our fish, and other heavy metals like cadmium bio-accumulating in wild ruminants. Maine is paying a very heavy price for the mid-west to get cheap electricity. China practically shut down heavy industry upwind of their Olympics so that the world wouldn't see what ecological damage they are wreaking on their own country and the world. Cleaner industry comes at a cost, but inaction may come with a much greater cost.

IMO, the benefits of a cleaner environment should be factored into any decision to limit carbon emissions, regardless of whether or not we can prove that human activity is warming the Earth. Separating these issues works to the benefit of industries, but threatens the populace.

Bravo! Maybe if enough of us band together we can get someone to realize that real urgent issues need to be addressed and scrap all of this political posturing.

Yeah, I'm dreaming.

 

[sylas]

True, we have that issue in the Earth forum right now. We have no climate scientists in there, but some seem to profess that they have greater knowledge than others that have the same level of non-expertise that they have. Maybe they've googled more, who knows?

Anyone can increase their level of knowledge with a bit of work. It takes time and effort, but it makes a difference, and the end result is that there really are differences in how much knowledge people have on a particular topic, and more importantly -- how much knowledge anyone individual has over time.

This is, after all, why learning is worthwhile. It makes a difference.

James Randi is going to increase his own level of knowledge on this subject. That's the right approach. Not to sit back and rest on his own considerable authority as a skeptic, or declare his own innate intelligence. Also -- being Randi -- he is not going to simply take for granted what he is told by others.

He will, of course, take information from others into account. Since Randi, like us here, is not a professional climate scientist, this is the most important way he will progress; by sifting through a lot of information from a lot of other people.

He has started this already. Phil Plait (the Bad Astronomer) is the president of the James Randi foundation. He's also had a lot to say on climate change issues. He's an astronomer rather than a climate scientist, but he's put quite a bit of effort into this topic himself and is well ahead of Randi in terms of general climate knowledge -- as I am sure they both would acknowledge. Phil has already been in touch with Randi to straighten out a couple of errors, as Randi himself reports in his followup http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/806-i-am-not-qdenyingq-anything.html (JREF, 17 Dec 2009).

Phil also reports on the topic at his own blog: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2009/12/17/randi-and-global-warming/. Phil, as a president of the James Randi Foundation, friend of Randi, and all around cool guy himself (his blog is superb for anyone interested in astronomy and/or skepticism), has some very fair and sensible comments to make. Here's an extract; but I recommend reading his whole article as well as what Randi has said for himself.

So what are we to make of all this?

One is that anyone, everyone, is capable of making mistakes, from grand to minor, from basic ones we never should have made to ones that are inevitable. Skeptics make these same mistakes, too. Even noted skeptics. I’ve done it, Randi’s done it, every human has done it. Apropos of exactly this, Michael Shermer changed his stance on global warming after sufficient evidence swayed him.

Another is that even skeptics can be quick to jump to conclusions based on our own preconceived notions and methodology. Randi made an error, yes. Pointing that out politely and clearly is fine, as can be seen by the fact that he followed up on his post once he was given better data. But the ways in which many people attacked him were, in my opinion, unfair. If someone has a history of spinning the truth, of lying, of distorting reality for their own agenda, then sure, have at them. But when it’s someone who has devoted their life to prying the scales from everyone’s eyes, I think they’ve earned a modicum of decorum when they make a mistake.

Of course, on blogs (either writing them or commenting on them) it’s very easy to simply react. Again, we have all done this, and usually with some regret later. I’ve had to go back and retract things I’ve written when better evidence has arisen, or simply when someone has pointed out where I blew it.

Part of being a skeptic — and it’s a big part — is admitting when you’re wrong.

And finally, there is a really good takeaway point from this: when it comes to reality, no one and no thing is sacrosanct. If something is wrong, it gets called out. That’s what skepticism is all about. If Randi makes a mistake, he gets called on it. If scientists do, or the Pope does, or anyone, then it is up to all of us to speak up. And I think that how we do it is just as important as the content of our claims.

I’ve known Randi many years, and I know that for him, truth trumps all. May all of us be so inclined.[/color]​

Phil nails it.

As for knowledge... it is obvious that a number of people active in this forum would have more knowledge of climate science than Randi. That should come as no surprise to anyone, but here's the thing. You can't depend on that. Knowledge isn't static. Everyone's state of knowledge changes over time; and the more the better.

Google is okay; but on a topic like this I'd strongly recommend anyone wanting to raise their own state of knowledge to get hold of actual books. If you have the time, shore up the background knowledge of thermodynamics, of radiation, of geology, of anything that helps give the strong foundation for building on. Just looking up papers to support what you already know or believe is no substitute for a genuine effort to learn what you don't know as yet.

Randi's thoughts are interesting for an insight into the man, and I wish him all the best on continuing to learn about the subject, as I suspect he will. But I'd never use him as major source on climate science. Neither would I use Al Gore, for that matter, or George Monbiot, or other such folks. Taking Randi as an authority figure would be hugely ironic, virtually a betrayal of everything he works for.

Taking anyone here as an authority figure would be a cheap short cut. But denying any difference in the ability or knowledge between PF contributors would be just as absurd. Some folks really do know more about certain topics than others, despite not being professionals. And anyone actively working through these topics will quite easily find themselves becoming more knowledgeable as well.

The test of that is actual merits of substantive discussions. We can't just presume all sides are equal. That's a cop out. There are real substantive differences here on questions that are answerable, and which frequently can be resolved if we are willing to focus on one thing at a time, looking and checking what is actually said, on its merits, without concerns about who happens to be saying it.

Cheers -- sylas

 

[OmCheeto]

Cleaner industry comes at a cost, but inaction may come with a much greater cost.

IMO, the benefits of a cleaner environment should be factored into any decision to limit carbon emissions, regardless of whether or not we can prove that human activity is warming the Earth. Separating these issues works to the benefit of industries, but threatens the populace.

This is why when I said we should invest in the future, I was not speaking figuratively.

I will only invest in companies that I consider necessary to build a greener infrastructure. And this global warming hoopla has nothing to do with it.

(After reading about the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_Cities_Assembly_Plant" where my truck was built, I decided Ford was the only worthy US car manufacturer to invest in.)
(Ignore SPY. My brokerage bought them on my behalf as I didn't know what I was doing when I first got started.)

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Note for example that anyone cares what James Randi thinks.

Randi is a magician.

Do I hear for any calls for actors to comment on a TOE?

 

[Evo]

http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/806-i-am-not-qdenyingq-anything.html[/PLAIN] (JREF, 17 Dec 2009).

Phil also reports on the topic at his own blog: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2009/12/17/randi-and-global-warming/ . Phil, as a president of the James Randi Foundation, friend of Randi, and all around cool guy himself (his blog is superb for anyone interested in astronomy and/or skepticism), has some very fair and sensible comments to make. Here's an extract; but I recommend reading his whole article as well as what Randi has said for himself.

So what are we to make of all this?

One is that anyone, everyone, is capable of making mistakes, from grand to minor, from basic ones we never should have made to ones that are inevitable. Skeptics make these same mistakes, too. Even noted skeptics. I’ve done it, Randi’s done it, every human has done it. Apropos of exactly this, Michael Shermer changed his stance on global warming after sufficient evidence swayed him.

Another is that even skeptics can be quick to jump to conclusions based on our own preconceived notions and methodology. Randi made an error, yes. Pointing that out politely and clearly is fine, as can be seen by the fact that he followed up on his post once he was given better data. But the ways in which many people attacked him were, in my opinion, unfair. If someone has a history of spinning the truth, of lying, of distorting reality for their own agenda, then sure, have at them. But when it’s someone who has devoted their life to prying the scales from everyone’s eyes, I think they’ve earned a modicum of decorum when they make a mistake.

Of course, on blogs (either writing them or commenting on them) it’s very easy to simply react. Again, we have all done this, and usually with some regret later. I’ve had to go back and retract things I’ve written when better evidence has arisen, or simply when someone has pointed out where I blew it.

Part of being a skeptic — and it’s a big part — is admitting when you’re wrong.

And finally, there is a really good takeaway point from this: when it comes to reality, no one and no thing is sacrosanct. If something is wrong, it gets called out. That’s what skepticism is all about. If Randi makes a mistake, he gets called on it. If scientists do, or the Pope does, or anyone, then it is up to all of us to speak up. And I think that how we do it is just as important as the content of our claims.

I’ve known Randi many years, and I know that for him, truth trumps all. May all of us be so inclined.[/color]​

Phil nails it.

As for knowledge... it is obvious that a number of people active in this forum would have more knowledge of climate science than Randi. That should come as no surprise to anyone, but here's the thing. You can't depend on that. Knowledge isn't static. Everyone's state of knowledge changes over time; and the more the better.

Google is okay; but on a topic like this I'd strongly recommend anyone wanting to raise their own state of knowledge to get hold of actual books. If you have the time, shore up the background knowledge of thermodynamics, of radiation, of geology, of anything that helps give the strong foundation for building on. Just looking up papers to support what you already know or believe is no substitute for a genuine effort to learn what you don't know as yet.

Randi's thoughts are interesting for an insight into the man, and I wish him all the best on continuing to learn about the subject, as I suspect he will. But I'd never use him as major source on climate science. Neither would I use Al Gore, for that matter, or George Monbiot, or other such folks. Taking Randi as an authority figure would be hugely ironic, virtually a betrayal of everything he works for.

Taking anyone here as an authority figure would be a cheap short cut. But denying any difference in the ability or knowledge between PF contributors would be just as absurd. Some folks really do know more about certain topics than others, despite not being professionals. And anyone actively working through these topics will quite easily find themselves becoming more knowledgeable as well.

The test of that is actual merits of substantive discussions. We can't just presume all sides are equal. That's a cop out. There are real substantive differences here on questions that are answerable, and which frequently can be resolved if we are willing to focus on one thing at a time, looking and checking what is actually said, on its merits, without concerns about who happens to be saying it.

Cheers -- sylas

So, you are willing to admit you are wrong. I'll accept that. See you in 30 years and see who was right.

 

[turbo]

So, you are willing to admit you are wrong. I'll accept that. See you in 30 years and see who was right.

Are you willing to admit that you might be wrong? In 30 years will we have an inhabitable world that your daughters can raise their families in without climate-induced war and tumult? There are very high stakes here.

It is very easy to take a position and preach (perhaps pushing a political stance) on either side of the issue. Can we please stop posing and challenging and instead make posts that address what we might agree on WRT observations? If not, I'm back off the climate threads for the duration. I'm sick of the bias and politics.

 

[denverdoc]

Perhaps it is akin to the denial that one experiences in the dying process - I don't want to believe it so I won't.

And who wants to think that WE have to take responsibility for this. It would be so much easier to just go about our business as if nothing were wrong. So instead of following the lead of the actual experts in the scientific community as we normally do, some would rather call the entire scientific process into question, including resorting to email hacks and other illegal activity, in order to service our denial mechanism. Instead of accepting that the risk is too great and action is required, it is so much easier to grab a beer, turn on Fox, and yell at the liberals.

We have heard the answer in many forms before: Not my problem.

However, the number of "amateur climate experts" who have never formally studied the subject, is the most disturbing trend of all. Everyone's an expert! Any Joe on the street can spend a few hundred hours on the internet and they're an expert. Who knew it was so easy?? Hey, I have a high I.Q., maybe tomorrow we can all play brain surgeon. Googling now...

Ivan, I have become hugely discouraged over the past few weeks, more so than can be explained by my usual touch of seasonal depression can account for.

Maybe it as you suggest in the above post--some kind of death and dying type of denial at work, but I believe your second explanation hits closer to home. What is really depressing at the core, is the ability of big bucks and spin doctors to bring any impetus for change to a screeching halt, whether here or the health care system. The science of propoganda is just too advanced. On the top of the list of the most disrespected politicians alive: Al Gore.

It is all too much like a court of law where paid witnesses bend the truth every which way leaving the jury to rely on who seems more credible? The ole idealism quotient has been just hammered to death lately. No need to cry publlicly, however. In my own post just pointing out how bad the general population is at "gambling". I recall a couple of books on the subject as to how irrational people are when it somes to choice of risk aversion/acceptance. Maybe people are just too concrete to think 50+ years in the future. If so it is a helluva liability for the species.

 

[sylas]

So, you are willing to admit you are wrong. I'll accept that. See you in 30 years and see who was right.

I'm willing to admit I am often wrong; which is not quite the same thing. I've just posted acknowledgment of an error to Andre. It's a long standing deliberate aim of mine to put the highest priority on recognizing my own errors, big or small, and also to acknowledge publicly with thanks anyone who helps me find them.

Hopefully it takes me a lot less than thirty years! As I said in the final sentence you quoted:

There are real substantive differences here on questions that are answerable, and which frequently can be resolved if we are willing to focus on one thing at a time, looking and checking what is actually said, on its merits, without concerns about who happens to be saying it.​

I'm here primarily to discuss science related topics, substantively, with other people who are also willing to put out ideas for consideration and to hear mine. I am especially interested in people who recognize science as making definite claims which can be judged on their merits, and the scientific process as giving real answers, in so far as we can know anything. I especially like to debate with people who don't take offense at disagreement and who want to resolve disagreements -- to sort out substantively where the truth falls. This is what I try to be myself.

And most of all I am interested in engaging with people who source things with information and data and references and so on that give substantive progress towards answers. It is a major strength of PF, usually.

Science isn't just a matter of opinion, or of personal authority. More than anything else, it is no respecter of persons, and strives not for balance between views, but the demolition or falsification of views that are incorrect, and the support and development of what is real.

This is what Phil points out so eloquently in his message.

I think I have something useful to contribute here, and I am sure I am getting useful information from the discussions myself. I've learned a lot over the years, in all kinds of topics, as I have engaged various subjects in discussions, particularly when they have a strong set of guidelines such as PF for keeping the discussion grounded in credible information. I also learn as I check out questions that bug me, off-line and in my own time.

When people do make major changes of mind, this is usually how it happens. Not in the heat of a forum discussion, but later on, as you pick up more snippets or reflect on isolated items of learning, and resynthesize into a new more consistent viewpoint. That's how it has been for me, with big viewpoint changes. I'm sure it will be so for Randi.

Randi also put up his ideas for consideration, and got burned, but he acknowledges so quickly a useful correction that he's an inspiration. However, as Ivan points out, he's not a good source in his own right. I wish him well, and he's got some excellent guidance with Phil involved, but what conclusions he eventually comes to is his own business. All I care about is finding out what is real, as best I can, and I don't use Randi as a source on this topic.

I'm not actually a big fan of organized skepticism; and there are still confusions even in Randi's second post. For instance, he still doesn't seem to understand the relevant sources of energy. He writes:

My commentary was concerned with my amateur confusion about the myriad of natural phenomena that obviously bring about worldwide climate changes and whether we can properly assign the cause to anthropogenic influences. Yes, I'm aware of the massive release of energy -- mostly heat -- that we've produced by exhuming and burning oil, natural gas, and coal.[/color]​

It might be a slip of the tongue, or it might be because he still doesn't really know much of the science: but the "massive release of energy" from burning fuel is an irrelevant drop in the bucket for Earth's climate. I expect Phil will take this up with him as well, but that's up to Phil.

What this underlines is that Randi is not a good source in his own right for the science of climate. Is this a surprise to anyone?

Cheers -- sylas

 

[turbo]

It might be a slip of the tongue, or it might be because he still doesn't really know much of the science: but the "massive release of energy" from burning fuel is an irrelevant drop in the bucket for Earth's climate. I expect Phil will take this up with him as well, but that's up to Phil.

You're right, Sylas. That was ill-phrased. It should be apparent to anybody paying attention that the Earth gets almost all of its heat from the sun, and that the burning of fossil fuels might leverage that energy transfer by changing our planet's albedo or inhibiting re-radiation of infrared back to space.

If we can cause or accelerate the melting of a lot of glaciers and snow-caps with our fossil fuel consumption, that would change the equation, and because glaciers are the source of fresh water for a lot of the world, we might see regional disasters as streams and rivers dry up and populations are deprived of clean water for irrigation and consumption.

Even though the polar ice-caps generally get their sunlight at relatively low inclinations, erosion of those would inevitably cause our planet to heat up. Loss of north polar ice might not result in a rapid rise in global temperature because sea-water is a tremendous energy-sink and there is a lot of thermal work involved in making all that ice transition through the ice-water phase change. Though global changes based on the loss of that ice may be subtle and hard to quantify, they could be extremely difficult to slow or reverse (if possible).

I am not convinced that we humans are driving the Earth's climate into runaway warming - in fact, our behaviors might provide some kind of damping forces that help slow or prevent rapid climate change. Why has climate in the Holocene era been relatively stable? I don't know. What I do know for certain is that we are allowing our industries to poison our air and our water for the sake of profit, and we are not holding them accountable. That has to change.

 

[sylas]

Loss of north polar ice might not result in a rapid rise in global temperature because sea-water is a tremendous energy-sink and there is a lot of thermal work involved in making all that ice transition though the ice-water phase change. Though global changes based on the loss of that ice may be subtle and hard to quantify, they could be extremely difficult to slow or reverse (if possible).

Quite right... and this is a major uncertainty. The amount of energy that is currently flowing into the ocean is not known. When the ocean eventually comes back up to equilibrium (as it must; it is not an infinite sink of energy) and the flow of heat into the ocean ceases; that will appear as an additional "forcing", or energy flux. For example, if there is currently 0.5 W/m² of energy going into the ocean, then when the heating of the ocean has completed that will be an additional 0.5 W/m² that must be radiated into space.

Measuring this flux is hard; and the implication is that there is a substantial time delay in temperature response to a forcing. We don't know how much; but we do know that there is a flux of energy somewhere in that ball park, and that is effectively a temperature increase that we are already committed to; it is only a matter of how long it takes. The whole thing is made more complicated because in fact we keep increasing the forcing as well.

I am not convinced that we humans are driving the Earth's climate into runaway warming - in fact, our behaviors might provide some kind of damping forces that help slow or prevent rapid climate change. Why has climate in the Holocene era been relatively stable? I don't know. What I do know for certain is that we are allowing our industries to poison our air and our water for the sake of profit, and we are not holding them accountable. That has to change.

In principle, anything is possible; but I can't imagine anything we are doing that would have a damping effect. (There are some things that have a cooling effect, however; aerosol pollution being the big example.) By the way, "runaway" is usually a term used to indicate a kind of supercritical effect from such a strong positive feedback that warming increases all by itself until something breaks. There are some speculations about strange ways that could happen; but it's highly speculative, and not happening in present conditions. I don't consider it very likely.

My own view is that human activity is directly providing some 0.25 to 0.3 W/m² extra forcing per decade. The response to that has been about 0.16 degrees per decade; although there is also that additional heat going into the ocean that will still have its effect in time, even if all humanity went into indefinite hibernation.

Cheers -- sylas

 

[seycyrus]

And in contrast, anybody who doesn't enthusiastically grasp the denial of AGW is a lefty, communist, enviro-freak. Let's please engage this complex study with something approaching maturity, and leave the nastiness at the door.

I gave a very concrete and specific example of how those who had doubts about AGW were vilified as republican, limbaugh-loving, Gore haters. This was the Chris Mathews show. The topic as introduced was something along the lines of "Why do some people still have doubts or concerns about AGW?' None of the 5 people on the show even remotely mentioned CRU. The show broadcast a week or so ago, yet one of the polls they used to prove their point was from at least a month before the CRU hack.

CRU has, if I might be so bold, awakened fresh doubt and/or concerns among some of the members of this forum.

These concerns *are* valid, and not merely due to Gore-hate or Limbaugh-love.

We have seen expressed in the hacked emails a desire to mold, define, and redefine the scientific venue. I'm sure that some members and maybe even some of the moderators of this forum have wondered to what degree this forum's guidelines have been shaped by this externally manipulated pressure.

 

[Mk]

Randi's thoughts are interesting for an insight into the man, and I wish him all the best on continuing to learn about the subject, has I suspect he will. But I'd never use him as major source on climate science. Neither would I use Al Gore, for that matter, or George Monbiot, or other such folks. Taking Randi as an authority figure would be hugely ironic, virtually a betrayal of everything he works for.

Why are we taking anyone as authority figures at all?

"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts."

Stop worrying about who is and isn't an "expert." If we can agree that there is an objective reality not dependent on our perception, then facts are facts, and they are open to discussion, verification, and replication by anyone.

 

[Sorry!]

Why are we taking anyone as authority figures at all?

"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts."

Stop worrying about who is and isn't an "expert." If we can agree that there is an objective reality not dependent on our perception, then facts are facts, and they are open to discussion, verification, and replication by anyone.

Yep, I don't see how this is problem, unless of course you're going to pull the well over-used climategate card that many politicians are loving (mostly American I've noticed).

Ask sylas, he knows all about discussing, verifying and replicating the results from data he has gathered.

The problem isn't that 'facts are facts that are yada yada by anyone' the problem is that most people don't go out and do this. They would rather sit at home and hear from the news that Climategate has scandalized the AGW camp and all their results are bogus and blah, blah, blah, and pretend it's a real problem instead of looking at the raw data for themselves and concluding, on their own.

 

[Andre]

Why has climate in the Holocene era been relatively stable? .

But it wasn't, if you work your way through a couple of hundred detailed studies comparing Holocene to the late Pleistocene, you will find comparable differences. The only difference is the isotope records from ocean sediments and ice cores, which are a essential basis for Sylas positve feedback. Yet we have no idea what we are looking at.

 

[seycyrus]

well over-used climategate card that many politicians are loving (mostly American I've noticed).

It is not over-used. It is a fact that it has caused concern in many scientific minded individuals who up till now had dismissed *any* anti-AGW rhetoric as simply belonging to those crazy rush-loving republicans who hate Al Gore.

Edit: *up till now been forced to dismiss ...

Please don't bring the "Stupid American" fallacy into this. Other people from other countries have expressed concerns as well.

Ask sylas, he knows all about discussing, verifying and replicating the results from data he has gathered.

Is that one of the "experts" we aren't supposed to be trusting? or is that one of the experts who it is okay to trust?

..Climategate has scandalized the AGW camp and all their results are bogus and blah, blah, blah, and pretend it's a real problem instead of looking at the raw data for themselves and concluding, on their own.

It is a real problem.

The emails indicate that at least among some of the "experts" there was a concerted effort to mold aspects of scientific policy to meet their own agenda.

To ignore this is intellectually dishonest.

 

[Sorry!]

It is not over-used. It is a fact that it has caused concern in many scientific minded individuals who up till now had dismissed *any* anti-AGW rhetoric as simply belonging to those crazy rush-loving republicans who hate Al Gore.

Edit: *up till now been forced to dismiss ...

Please don't bring the "Stupid American" fallacy into this. Other people from other countries have expressed concerns as well.

So because I say that most politicians who have become involved that equals 'stupid american fallacy' to you? Interesting, I thought I was just saying that American politicians are making the most noise about this, nothing to do with their intelligence.

Yes, climategate has been way over-used. Instead of debating anything about the actual science the skeptics (mostly politicians, mostly American I've noticed) have taken to character-assassination.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gpEGBgHxNTQ&feature=related

Even if what was in the e-mails was true I have yet to see one single skeptic bring up anything new in regards to the science. Nothing new has come out of this at all as far as the science is concerned, I wonder why that is.

Is that one of the "experts" we aren't supposed to be trusting? or is that one of the experts who it is okay to trust?

While I'm sure that sylas is quite knowledgeable on the subject of climate research I do not think he would consider himself an expert. As far as I know he's a mathematician who has taken an interest in climate research to understand. Look at what's happening here: A person says that people need to take the data and understand it themselves and when someone from our own PF community goes and does this and discusses their results in other threads the character assassination gets attempt on them? That quite frankly is ********.

It is a real problem.

The emails indicate that at least among some of the "experts" there was a concerted effort to mold aspects of scientific policy to meet their own agenda.

To ignore this is intellectually dishonest.

Well, keep saying that, find something wrong with the science and quit playing politics if AGW is so wrong; it should be quite easy.

 

[Pinu7]

The problem have with climate change is not with the science, but the politicians. AGW is a topic partaken in conversations by AVERAGE PEOPLE(aka non scientists/hardcore science enthusiasts). How could such a complex topic be accurately depicted in a political, emotionally charged, powerpoint presentation? It couldn't, however, many people are now convinced one way or the other(mostly towards the side of AGW). I believe politicians, from many countries, are using AGW research and promotion for their own corrupt agendas. I think this would explain why some climatologists "hide" data, to get funding.

 

[Sorry!]

I think this would explain why some climatologists "hide" data, to get funding.

Source? please.

 

[Andre]

...Even if what was in the e-mails was true I have yet to see one single skeptic bring up anything new in regards to the science. Nothing new has come out of this at all as far as the science is concerned, I wonder why that is.

Remarkable indeed, considering the plethora of studies with new elements challenging AGW, just to mention a few of the many that I did not quote before:

Douglass et al 2004, Douglass et al 2007, McIntyre, McKitrick submitted 2009, http://www.nosams.whoi.edu/PDFs/papers/tsonis-grl_newtheoryforclimateshifts.pdf , Klotzbach et al submitted 2009, http://www.spydercat.com/Steelmakers.pdf, http://sciences.blogs.liberation.fr/home/files/Courtillot07EPSL.pdf , Barkāns and Žalostība 2009

So one can wonder indeed why these never have come to your attention. Is it maybe because the many mindguards do their work so excellently, "protecting the group from adverse information that might shatter their shared complacency?"?

 

[Sorry!]

Remarkable indeed, considering the plethora of studies with new elements challenging AGW, just to mention a few of the many that I did not quote before:

Douglass et al 2004, Douglass et al 2007, McIntyre, McKitrick submitted 2009, http://www.nosams.whoi.edu/PDFs/papers/tsonis-grl_newtheoryforclimateshifts.pdf , Klotzbach et al submitted 2009, http://www.spydercat.com/Steelmakers.pdf, http://sciences.blogs.liberation.fr/home/files/Courtillot07EPSL.pdf , Barkāns and Žalostība 2009

So one can wonder indeed why these never have come to your attention. Is it maybe because the many mindguards do their work so excellently, "protecting the group from adverse information that might shatter their shared complacency?"?

I'm specifically talking about NEW papers that specifically have to do with AGW data manipulation. You should do a check up on half those skeptics however, lol.

Andre you can keep referencing to papers all you like and point out how anybody who is against your beliefs is groupthinking. It just shows in my opinion how weak your stance is. You are doing what a majority of other skeptics are doing and that is, as you can see from the youtube video, character assassination. Skeptics would love for their allegations over climategate (which is what we were previously specifically talking about before you come in here throwing random papers around) and they are doing a pretty good job at making it seem like something new has come out of it: FACT OF THE MATTER IS: nothing new HAS come up.

 

[seycyrus]

So because I say that most politicians who have become involved that equals 'stupid american fallacy' to you? Interesting, I thought I was just saying that American politicians are making the most noise about this, nothing to do with their intelligence.

You are the one who used the word "american" as an adjective, not I. You claim that you used it to denote mere geographical information? Sorry, but I don't buy it.

Yes, climategate has been way over-used.

No, it has not been over-used.

Instead of debating anything about the actual science.

The fact is that the CRU hack has made many question the "actual" science. The emails are indicative of an attempt to mold the scientific venue.

the skeptics (mostly politicians, mostly American I've noticed) have taken to character-assassination.

There you go again with your 'american" politician angle again. Pray tell, what voting block do these politicians represent? I think I know the answer... This line of logic is once again steering back to the theme that started this thread, i.e. "the only people who have doubts about AGW are Rush Limbaugh loving, republican, Al Gore haters.

That is not true. To imply such, is distasteful, deceitful and disingenuous.

new in regards to the science. Nothing new has come out of this at all as far as the science is concerned, I wonder why that is.

Because the CRU hack is about motive, and cherry picking. Not about something like proposing an alternative thermal balance model. Simple.

Look at what's happening here: A person says that people need to take the data and understand it themselves and when someone from our own PF community goes
and does this and discusses their results in other threads the character assassination gets attempt on them? That quite frankly is ********.

You should take a step or two back, before you accuse me of attacking sylas. I pointed out the fact that the choice of experts depends on where one sits. Nothing more.

Well, keep saying that, find something wrong with the science and quit playing politics if AGW is so wrong; it should be quite easy.

1) You miss the point of the entire thread. 2) Just because something is wrong, does not mean it is easy to disprove.

 

[NeoDevin]

So one can wonder indeed why these never have come to your attention. Is it maybe because the many mindguards do their work so excellently, "protecting the group from adverse information that might shatter their shared complacency?"?

Yes, we get it already Andre, you can stop posting the same thing in every single thread on the subject. Anyone who doesn't agree with you is a victim of groupthink...

I think you just broke my irony meter.

 

[Sorry!]

I think you just broke my irony meter.

I've tried pointing this out to him already, EPIC fail on my part.

 

[Evo]

Locked. This thread has seriously gone off topic and has absolutely nothing to do with the OP. Off topic posts on CRU were moved to the Cru Hack thread.