Image via Wikipedia
Part 1 – Introduction.
Still the debate rages. Very few protagonists change their views, regardless of the evidence.
An effective summary would take several pages, but the way I see the global warming scenario is simply that “climate science” cannot seriously be called “settled.” Therefore, neither are any of the conclusions, nor proposed solutions, based on “settled science”. Therefore it is scientifically, politically and morally incorrect to pursue the current path of Carbon constraints, trading and taxes.
Meaning what? There needs to be more scientific evidence that is acceptable to one “side” or the other.
The only new evidence that might convince the warmists that they have missed the point seems to be the continued trend of global temperature to depart from the IPCC predicted graphs. This trend even after efforts to exaggerate it, cannot compete with Natures climate drivers and cycles. (Even then they will probably offer some reason to explain their science being wrong yet their solution still being right).
Conversely, the “deniers” (excuse this word but it is fairly apt – deniers of AGW claims, not of truths), would need two main considerations to change – firstly, an actual convincing measurable rate of more than incrementally increasing global temperature, one that was seen to be genuine and not concocted by temperature selectivities, – secondly, acceptable scientific proof that atmospheric carbon dioxide levels were the major cause and proposed solutions were effective and humane.
Already changes in titles (to “Climate Change” for example, a meaningless term adopted absurdly to imply “man-made weather pattern changes of serious danger to civilization”), and responses, show the warmist adaptability to change, but not to scientific responsibility. An adaptability that is characteristic of mankind in general and one which would, in all probability, cope with most weather conditions thrust upon us by “Nature”.
The settling on “Carbon Dioxide” as an/the enemy is ludicrous and points to the fallibility of the warmist agenda.
There are two main reasons why I soon changed to a “denier”.
I became aware of the political agenda of organizations including the UN to create mechanisms for controlling governments and countries based on the premise that the climate was a danger and could be controlled by political manouvres. This is all covered extensively in Chapter 1 of this blog’s page “Carbon Attack”, titled “Motivations” ref https://tgrule.wordpress.com/carbon-attack/motivation/. (Skip to the section headed “Where the Global Warming Hoax Was Born” for relevance to this post).
Interestingly, the climate trend was initially cooling and that was to be the “scare”. This obviously had to be changed to warming. It now seems possible, if not likely, that cooling is back, but that would not suit the AGW team.
The second reason is that there are two distinct scientific explanations of global temperature sensitivity to atmospheric CO2 levels. One, that the sensitivity is slight and not a cause for concern. Two, that it is significant and of great concern.
I found that the first explanation made ample logical and scientific sense to my technically-trained thought processes. Not so for the second. The convincing information was found in the submission of “The Middlebury Community Network”, featured in the pages titled “An Educational Primer”, commencing at Primer 1 – https://tgrule.wordpress.com/carbon-attack/an-educational-primer/. Acknowledgements to James A. Peden, for “Anthropogenic Global Warming“.
This is reproduced here for coherence and as a deserving post.
“Editorial: The Great Global Warming Hoax?
Editor’s Introductory Note: Our planet has been slowly warming since last emerging from the “Little Ice Age” of the 17th century, often associated with the Maunder Minimum. Before that came the “Medieval Warm Period“, in which temperatures were about the same as they are today. Both of these climate phenomena are known to have occurred in the Northern Hemisphere, but several hundred years prior to the present, the majority of the Southern Hemisphere was primarily populated by indigenous peoples, where science and scientific observation was limited to non-existent. Thus we can not say that these periods were necessarily “global”.
However, “Global Warming” in recent historical times has been an undisputable fact, and no one can reasonably deny that.
But we’re hearing far too often that the “science” is “settled”, and that it is mankind’s contribution to the natural CO2 in the atmosphere has been the principal cause of an increasing “Greenhouse Effect“, which is the root “cause” of global warming. We’re also hearing that “all the world’s scientists now agree on this settled science”, and it is now time to quickly and most radically alter our culture, and prevent a looming global catastrophe. And last, but not least, we’re seeing a sort of mass hysteria sweeping our culture which is really quite disturbing. Historians ponder how the entire nation of Germany could possibly have goose-stepped into place in such a short time, and we have similar unrest. Have we become a nation of overnight loonies?
Sorry folks, but we’re not exactly buying into the Global Hysteria just yet. We know a great deal about atmospheric physics, (bio) and from the onset, many of the claims were just plain fishy. The extreme haste with which seemingly the entire world immediately accepted the idea of Anthropogenic ( man-made ) Global Warming made us more than a little bit suspicious that no one had really taken a close look at the science. We also knew that the catch-all activity today known as “Climate Science” was in its infancy, and that atmospheric modeling did not and still does not exist which can predict changes in the weather or climate more than about a day or two in advance.
So the endless stream of dire predictions of what was going to happen years or decades from now if we did not drastically reduce our CO2 production by virtually shutting down the economies of the world appeared to be more the product of radical political and environmental activism rather than science. Thus, we embarked on a personal quest for more information, armed with a strong academic background in postgraduate physics and a good understanding of the advanced mathematics necessary in such a pursuit. This fundamental knowledge of the core principles of matter and its many exceptionally complex interactions allowed us to research and understand the foundations of many other sciences. In short, we read complex scientific articles in many other scientific disciplines with relative ease and good understanding – like most folks read comic books.
As our own knowledge of “climate science” grew, so grew our doubts over the “settled science”. What we found was the science was far from “settled”.. in fact it was barely underway.
It was for a while a somewhat lonely quest, what with “all the world’s scientists” apparently having no doubt. Finally, in December 2007 we submitted an article to one of our local newspapers, the Addison Independent, thinking they would be delighted in having at minimum an alternative view of the issue. Alas, they chose not to publish it, but two weeks after our submission (by the strangest coincidence), published yet another “pro-global-warming” feature written by an individual whom, to the best we could determine, had no advanced training in any science at all, beyond self-taught it would appear. Still, the individual had published a number of popular books on popular environmental issues, was well-loved by those of similar political bent, and was held in high esteem among his peers. We had learned a valuable lesson: Popular Journalists trump coupled sets of 2nd-order partial differential equations every time. Serious science doesn’t matter if you have the press in your pocket.
In fairness to the Addison Independent and its editors, our article was somewhat lengthy and technical, and presumably the average reader most likely could not follow or even be interested in an alternative viewpoint, since everyone knew by now that the global warming issue was “settled science”. And we confess that we like the paper, subscribe to it, and know a number of folks who work there personally. They’re all good folks, and they have every right to choose what does or doesn’t go in their publication. They also have a right to spin the news any direction they choose, because that’s what freedom of the press is all about. Seems everyone, both left and right, does it – and it’s almost certain we will be accused of doing the same here. And we just may be, as hard as we may try to avoid it. We humans aren’t all shaped by the same cookie cutter, and that’s a blessing that has taken us as a species to the top of the food chain.
But by then we had been sharing our own independent research of the literature with others via email, and receiving a surprising amount of agreement back in return. (We’re in contact with a large number of fellow scientists around the country, dating back to our college days in the 17th century when beer was a quarter a bottle). One local friend, in particular, kept pressing us to publish, and even offered to set up a “debate” with the Popular Journalist who had usurped our original article. This we politely declined, arguing that “debate” cannot prove or disprove science…science must stand on its own.
But then something unusual happened. On Dec. 13, 2007, 100 scientists jointly signed an Open Letter to Ban Ki-Moon, Secretary-General of the United Nations, requesting they cease the man-made global warming hysteria and settle down to helping mankind better prepare for natural disasters. The final signature was from the President of the World Federation of Scientists.
At last, we were not alone…
We decided to publish the results of our counter-exploration on the internet – but in a somewhat uniquely different fashion. Knowing that most folks aren’t geeks, and may have little understanding of science or math, we’re going to attempt to teach some of the essential physics and such as we go along. Readers with little or no mathematical or scientific training may find it challenging, but if you have a general understanding of introductory college or even solid high school level chemistry or physics, you should have no problem in following this amazing tale. The brighter readers, even without a science background, should be able to follow, as well. Smart folks learn faster than most.
What follows is a tale gleaned from many sources over what turned out to be an unreasonably long period of time. We’ll be first examining a “worst case” scenario, using very simple math at first, in order to arrive in a ballpark that will tell us if we need to go further and pull out long strings of complicated equations, which we don’t want to have to resort to because we’re writing for the average layman who is not a rocket scientist. This is a valid scientific method despite its apparent simplicity, for if one can first determine that a person does not own a motorcycle, then you don’t have to spend a lot of time calculating how likely he is to crash while riding it. Reducing it to the simplest of terms for the average person to understand was a daunting task. Below (following), is an example of what “real” Climate Scientists have to deal with on a daily basis. Is it any wonder that the most popular majors in college are liberal arts?”
Continued at ‘Primer 2′ “Warming”, or, if you are patient will be posted as Part 2 of this article.
Related articles
- Global Warming – More on the BEST claim of proven AGW | The GOLDEN RULE (trutherator.wordpress.com)
- Surprise! No warming in last 11 years (hotair.com)
- COP 17 or cop out. (thebrightlibertarian.blogspot.com)
- Anthropogenic Global warming NOT reconfirmed (trutherator.wordpress.com)
- CO2 science. A version including H2O effects. (tgrule.wordpress.com)
- The truth about AGW is becoming CLOUDy (thebrightlibertarian.blogspot.com)
- Carbon Tax – “Sorry Julia, Bob and Greg, you are wrong” (tgrule.wordpress.com)
The GOLDEN RULE 
No matter how many times you say this issue is not settled, the fact remains that even organisations like the International Energy Agency (not normally a mouthpiece for eco-Marxist, woolly liberal or anti-Capitalist ideology) think it is:
Without a bold change of policy direction, the world will lock itself into an insecure, inefficient and high-carbon energy system… Delaying action is a false economy: for every $1 of investment in cleaner technology that is avoided in the power sector before 2020, an additional $4.30 would need to be spent after 2020 to compensate for the increased emissions“!
Why has my last comment not appeared? Am I now blacklisted?
Martin, Sorry, you will have to do better than that.
Off the cuff, I would, in my inimitable manner, suspect the IEA as much,or more than the IPCC, of having ulterior motives, whatever political names you might use for them.
Cannot find your “last comment” – only 24/11 06:32, “I blame Carbon Trading……….”, to which I replied at 10:19.
Perhaps you can detail or resend the comment.
I doubt that there will be any blackballing providing no personal attacks are introduced.
Regards, Ken.
Ken, have you any grounds for suggesting that the IEA is anything other than an organisation with a massive vested interest in the maintenance of the status quo that has, in point of fact, admitted that the status quo is not sustainable?
I don’t recognise the comment you mention (have you confused me with someone else?). Mine began by saying something like “Thank you for dropping by my blog…” but went on to suggest that you really ought to pay more attention (instead) to the Climate Denial Crock of the Week site, because it provides:
a useful commentary on the crass stupidity of repeating the ‘Climategate’ stunt;
a wonderful example of the consequences of Roy Spencer getting his nonsense published in the Remote Sensing journal; and
a useful summary of Obama’s speech to your Australian Parliament (that you probably missed).
Good luck with defeating the cognitive dissonance.
OK Martin, hope we are getting back on the same track.
Your “have you any grounds for suggesting that the IEA is anything other than an organisation with a massive vested interest in the maintenance of the status quo that has, in point of fact, admitted that the status quo is not sustainable?”
I prefer to delve into this a little deeper, but initial thoughts are:
IEA vested interests presumably are to maintain profit goals for their industries.
There are numerable factors – nuclear power, seemingly continued support for the fossil burning industries (e.g carbon tax subsidies to Australian industries, development of coal gas and associated sources).
What I am trying to say is “what exactly is the status quo?”
Nobody really believes that alternative energy production other than nuclear, which is in a very shaky position, will succeed in replacing fossil fuels, to any great extent. So the current status quo involves using copius quantities of non-renewable resources. This useage will need to be reduced in order to make the resources last, say several hundred more years. By charging more and more for power, profits could be maintained.
If this is the case, the resource status quo will alter but the profit status quo will be upheld. Thus the IEA is satisfied.
This is just one possible way of looking at the situation. As I said, deeper research is required to enable a confident assessment.
BTW, don’t you fret about my cognitive dissonance 🙂
“IEA’s World Energy Outlook 2011 focuses on world’s largest oil and gas producer, finds huge potential for improving energy efficiency.
Russia requires USD 2.5 trillion (in today’s money) over the next two and a half decades – around USD 100 billion a year – to invest in new infrastructure and technologies that will help meet the projected growing demand at home and abroad for oil, gas, coal and power, according to the International Energy Agency’s World Energy Outlook 2011.”
“The leaders of the G20 group of industrialised nations, who met at a summit in Cannes on 3-4 November, endorsed a new IEA report entitled G20 Clean Energy, and Energy Efficiency Deployment and Policy Progress.
The report, which was prepared by the IEA in collaboration with the G20 Clean Energy and Energy Efficiency Working Group, provides an overview of clean energy and energy efficiency technology deployment and summarises support policies in place across G20 countries.”
“As the IEA’s analysis has shown, without an urgent and radical change of policy direction, the world will lock itself into an insecure, inefficient and high-carbon energy system,” Ms. Van der Hoeven said. “Renewables already play a central role in fostering sustainability and energy security, and their significance will only grow in the coming decades. Against this backdrop, Deploying Renewables 2011 provides a major review of renewable energy markets and policies at this critical juncture.”
Martin, I am confused by the reports from the IEA. They seem to have a finger in each pie. Worth keeping an eye on, I suggest. I doubt that they are anything but self-interested. I am inclined to suspect their heavy involvement in the scam.
My comment with 3 links in it seems to be awaiting moderation (which is what happened yesterday)
Yes they are here, attached to the post “I Blame The Australian Carbon Tax for Price Increases”.
There you will find two comments from me, in response.
regards, ken.
The simplest explanation for my use of the phrase “status quo” (i.e. the right one) is the “business as usual” assumption that humanity will proceed to burn all fossil fuels just because they it can (without any consideration for whether or not this is a wise thing to do given what we now know)…
I agree that the status quo, as far as the planet is concerned, is the burning of non-renewable fossil fuels at a rate which means we will run out in the foreseeable future, assessable using current and predicted rates of use and presumably accurate global resource assessment. Also that there are air pollution issues.
It is not wise to persue this activity without a deliberate plan to support the continuation of the human race together with all associated environmental and flora and fauna and ocean life, far into future beyond our dependence on fossil fuels.
The current program being instituted by the AGW fraternity might achieve this end result, but it is not acceptable to my moral standard and expectations for my progeny.
Why? Because it is based on false science and the deliberate attempt to reduce the world’s population to a level which would extend civilization significantly, but still continuing the use of fossil fuels (with associated pollution), and nuclear power generation (with associated contamination by waste and radiation).
You may be ok with this scenario, if in fact you can visualise it as I see it. I am not prepared to support other people playing “GOD” with my future off-spring.
Perhaps you would explain how you see the AGW plan working if it did achieve drastic reductions in fossil fuel energy production and was accompanied by renewable energy production increases, but no-where near replacing it. Only nuclear power production can replace fossil fuel power, whilst supporting the developed countries populations.
The under-developed and developing countries would not survive under these circumstances, whatever the system, unless there is the community desire to subsidise them. I don’t just mean public charity operations, I mean government backed support.
Sorry, I drifted off topic.
Anyway, I disagree with nuclear power as a solution.
The system that you are supporting, as I see it, means virtual genocide for millions of people.
Getting back to the topic, the science of CO2/global warming is not settled- it is not as you see it!
I have already said, in a previous comment, basically that our perceptions are not on the same wavelength. There seems little point in continuing this except for the public readers benefit. If any, they may support one or the other but even then, what would that prove?
Application of the Occam’s Razor principle would imply you are wrong:
Your alternative hypothesis (and that is being polite about it) requires that every time any institution (such as the American Association of Petroleum Geologists or the International Energy Agency) comes out in support of the consensus view, they must be added to the list of those duped by the establishment. And so the “scam” grows until everyone on the entire planet apart from a small number of “sceptics” accepts that the simplest most logical explanation for what they can see going on around them is that the planet (so far mainly the oceans) is warming up as a result of human activity.
At what point will it be best for all life on Earth to admit that “the game is up” ?
Sorry, Martin, you misunderstand my comments. Perhaps I do not have sufficient word skills.
I am saying that the IEA is part of the scam. Not that they are in support of the concensus view.
I am also saying there is no consensus view other than in the imagination of the warmists.
We really do waste each other’s time in discussing this issue.
I agree. Further discussion is pointless.
Martin. Oh well, its been fun! I will continue to monitor all aspects of the debate, in particular WUWT’s contributions. Thanks for your contributions to my blog. They really are appreciated because they provide a counterpoint. A debate encourages/forces one to stand back a little and look at themselves or their beliefs. It tests the validity of the beliefs. Not always a useful outcome but still worthwhile. Hope to hear from you again. Regards, Ken.
You should take part in a contest for one of the best blogs on the web. I will recommend this website!
Ok, you got me in! You have a very interesting site, so will overlook the “troll” likeness, and the exaggerated praise.
Whether other readers like your topics is another matter, but no harm done.
If you win, you could invite Men With Day Jobs to play at your “victory” party.
Hi Martin, Thanks for staying in the thread.
I don’t like the word ‘win’ much, even though the issue is a sort of a contest.
It ideally is a technical, if not scientific, debate. Yet a lot of personal stuff has come into it. Pride in being right is obviously a big factor.
If a clear-cut right/wrong outcome eventuates, there will be a fair degree of self-satisfaction, no doubt. But I hope we are above gloating,”I told you so” and any bitterness. Disappointment, of course. But pleasure in knowing the best outcome for the planet.
The important issues are whether the planet is being endangered by the rising CO2 levels and whether we are being taken for a ride.
Theoretically, whatever the technical conclusion, we all should be happy that the matter is settled, if ,or when, that point is reached.
Regards, Ken.
Ken, the scientific basis for concern about humanity’s ability to affect our planet’s climate has been well understood for over 100 years. The jury is not out. If this were a judicial process, humanity would, beyond reasonable doubt, have been found guilty decades ago. However, personally-speaking, there will be no self-satisfaction in my being proven right. I think my emotions will be a mixture of disappointment and anger because, by failing to act before now, we have all but guaranteed a drastically-different planet for our grandchildren.
In his long, illustrious career, because of his tendency to be so blunt about the selfishness of vested interests and the stupidity of politicians, James Hansen has been denied funding for his research and even been the victim of attempted gagging-orders (i.e. denied access to the media) while at NASA. Therefore, it is utter nonsense to claim climate scientists are “in it for the money“. The people who are in it for the money are the members of that business elite commonly referred to as the fossil fuel lobby (i.e. the people whose lies you choose to accept – rather than listen to the collective voice of the majority of relevant scientists).
How do I know I am right? Because 425,000 years of Earth History tells me so. But please do not think that I am just having a downer on climate change sceptics. Not a bit of it. My problem is with all those that have, for at least the last 50 years, sought to deny the reality of all kinds of legitimate environmental concerns simply because acknowledging their reality would pose such a fundamental challenge to their fossil-fuelled “business as usual paradigm“. Unfortunately, the Good Book always seems to be proven right, and so it will be with this – the greatest of all human follies – “As you sow, so you shall reap!“
With respect, Martin, my thoughts on what you say here are that you are, in fact, in denial yourself.
I am one of thousands, public (generally well educated and intelligent), and scientists who clearly see the evidence of an ‘unsettled science’.
For you to not have any doubts at all about the validity of the AGW science and, what is obvious to many, the almost indisputable signs of agenda bias, places you in a special class of “warmist”.
If you read the current emails, well publicised here, you will see that many IPCC involved scientists, themselves express various doubts. They use the phrases like “in case we are wrong”, “if they are right about sulphites”, “if we really are kidding ourselves”.
How can you justify your adamancy that the science is settled?
In the meantime, it is great to have your comments. Counter arguments are important in making a blog effective.
Regards, Ken
Ken, You really must try and pay more attention. Given that I have made it clear that I am not just concerned about climate change – rather the environment as a whole – how can you possibly put in a box marked “warmist“>? Using your lexicon of misinformation, you must surely have to classify me now as a full-blown “alarmist“?
Climategate 2.0 will prove to be your downfall: As George W. Bush famously did not quite say, “Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me!“. Thus, the media has, in the main, ignored this second tranche of old, data-mined and word-searched emails with cherry-picked quotes taken out of context. Funnily-enough, they spotted the pattern in the events (a week before UNFCCC talks) and, thankfully, understood their mendacious intent…
For you to believe that the science is not settled, requires you to invoke the greatest conspiracy in history – involving the vast majority of scientific institutions, professional bodies, NGOs and governments; and/or an extra-ordinary – and totally unwarranted – faith in your own judgement (no offence intended – even people with irrelevant PhDs have made this mistake). As for me, I am not relying on my own intelligence, I am relying on 150 years of scientific research and Occam’s Razor.
But, I almost forgot, you believe that 9/11 was an inside job. Do you believe also that the USA allowed the Japanese to bomb Pearl Harbour to give them an excuse to enter WW2, or that the CIA assassinated JFK, Marilyn Monroe and Martin Luther King? How about the “Moon Landings” being filmed in the deserts of of New Mexico; and poor old Princess Diana – bumped-off by MI6 (at Prince Philips request)…?
No need to answer, I too have you already labelled…
Martin, There are several logic errors in your comments. I cannot see much value in explaining them.
So other than that, I agree there is no need, or at least no point, in answering, even though I actually have.
Regards, Ken.