Climate Change and Well-Informed Denial

Tue, 2011-05-03 08:52Chris Mooney
Chris Mooney's picture

Climate Change and Well-Informed Denial

On climate change, we’re politically polarized—which would be bad enough, but that’s not all. The hole we’ve dug is even deeper—as new research clearly suggests.

There’s yet another study out on Democrats, Republicans, and climate change, this time from Lawrence Hamilton of the Carsey Institute at the University of New Hampshire. Over the last two years, in a series of regional surveys, Hamilton asked nearly 9,500 people questions about climate change—from Appalachia to the Gulf Coast, and from New Hampshire to Alaska. 

Across all these regions, he consistently found the following phenomenon: Democrats and Republicans who claimed to know less about the climate issue were more like one another in terms of whether they accepted the science. Democrats and Republicans who claimed to know a lot about the issue, by contrast, were vastly polarized—with knowledgeable Democrats overwhelmingly accepting the science, and knowledgeable Republicans overwhelmingly denying it.

Political polarization is greatest among the Republicans and Democrats who are most confident that they understand this issue,” writes Hamilton. “Republicans and Democrats less sure about their understanding also tend to be less far apart in their beliefs.”

This core finding itself is not new—a 2008 Pew survey also found that Republicans with a college level of education were less likely to accept the science of climate than Republicans who lack such education. Other studies have also underscored this fundamental point. But for precisely that reason, Hamilton’s research kind of puts it in the realm of indisputable political fact. Not only are we polarized over climate change, but our knowledge and sophistication, when combined with our politics, make matters worse.

How could this be? For Hamilton, the explanation lies in the interaction between how we get information (from trusted news and Internet sources, we think, but we’re actually being selective) and our own biases in evaluating it (objectively, we think, but again, we’re actually being selective). “People increasingly choose news sources that match their own views,” Hamilton writes. “Moreover, they tend to selectively absorb information even from this biased flow, fitting it into their pre-existing beliefs.” In other words, we’re twice biased—based on our views and information sources—and moreover, twice biased in different directions.

Thus it really makes a lot of sense that those who are paying less attention to the climate issue, whether nominally Democrat or Republican, are less polarized and less sure of themselves. They’re not working nearly as hard at reaffirming their convictions, and refuting the convictions of the other side. (Hamilton’s study implies, though, that that they may have a different problem—they know so little that they may be more likely to be buffeted by the weather in terms of how they think about climate. If it’s hot out, maybe they’ll worry. If it’s cold, they’ll scoff.)

Overall, the big picture is that our society is not making up its mind in anything like a rational or scientific manner about climate change. That’s unfortunate–but it would be a form of denial itself at this point to reject the finding. 

 

Comments

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/05/23/study-on-paleo-rainfall-records-clearly-shows-existence-of-mwp-and-lia-in-southern-hemisphere/

Quick, kill the messenger !

Even if it does, all that means is that the climate is MORE sensitive than the IPCC best guess.

The climate isn’t some sort of sentient Gaia, you know.

And Watt’s record on telling the truth about a report is rather dismal.

‘http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/05/23/study-on-paleo-rainfall-records-clearly-shows-existence-of-mwp-and-lia-in-southern-hemisphere/

Quick, kill the messenger !’

No point as that particular messenger, Watts or GoFigure (you still cannot make yourself clear GF - ambiguity being the mark of either a poor communicator or charlatan, which does not exclude ‘the messenger’ being both), is already dead, from the neck up.

Meanwhile whilst you and Watts FAaround with findings of scientific studies events continue to unfold:

Joplin disaster spurs media whirlwind on link between climate change, extreme weather, and tornadoes
Plus McKibben, Trenberth & why ‘Mother Nature is only warming up’
May 24, 2011

http://climateprogress.org/2011/05/24/joplin-media-link-between-climate-change-extreme-weather-and-tornadoes/

Colombia’s disastrous floods make clear world isn’t prepared for catastrophic climate change
President Santos: “The tragedy the country is going through has no precedents in our history”

http://climateprogress.org/2011/05/24/colombia-floods-climate-change/

Study links 1,000-year Arctic storm to climate change

http://climateprogress.org/2011/05/23/study-links-1000-year-arctic-storm-to-climate-change/

(You should also check out what has ben happening at Shishmaref over the last decade.)

Arctic sea ice volume: The death spiral continues
One-year-old ice in Beaufort Sea now a foot thinner than in 2009

http://climateprogress.org/2011/05/19/arctic-sea-ice-volume-death-spiral/

That is as well as large fires in Canada and more in the UK as forests and woodlands dry out and/or trees are infested by parasites as these latter move their range north. If you like maple syrup then you are likely to have to pay more for it as the trees are lost.

That is the trouble with facts, so damned inconvenient.

When confronted with ‘events dear boy’ the intelligent change their minds about courses of action and why they need to change them.

http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/05/24/why-did-they-choose-to-start-counting-in-1950/

NOT

Steven Goddard was so discredited over his forecasts of Arctic sea ice last year that even Watts threw him under the bus.

More cherries being picked there me thinks, Goddard is expert at that one thing that is for sure.

So Go Figure Go Figure!

Real Science - the irony it burns.

But that site does indicate at one truth, those that believe what appears there are true Munchkins.

How did you make out on that ‘yellow brick road’ GF? You truly are a strawman par excellence.

Still no evidence of AGW alarmism.

But apparently it exists on this site.

So maybe Desmogblog ought to feel womderful because RPJr went and wrote a paper, got it reviewed, got it published JUST to refute Desmogblog’s stance on Hurricanes in the USA.

Wherever and whatever that might have been.

Or, alternatively, poptart was talking crap. Which doesn’t let desmogblog big itself up as so well read and followed that RPJr had to write and get published a paper just to refute them!

When I went to school my fellow science curricula students were primarily conservatives. We conservatives learned mathematics, chemistry, physics etc; ie all the difficult courses that required understanding, thinking, and problem solving.

The lefties were wearing their che’ t-shirts, taking all the ‘-ism’ and black or lesbian studies courses which required no thinking but simply parroting idiotic talentless leftist professors brain flatulence.

Strangely all these bone-head lefties of my college days who never took a rigorous course in real higher education are now the ardent admirers of something they like to call “science” which bears no resemblance to the science that I took while they did not.

They love changing the order because they have little or no talent that anyone would willingly purchase - the new order will hold them in higher esteem presumably

They care not a white about the environment but only how to secure a government sanctioned position - flying across the country to hold meetings or plant a tree makes sense to them.

They like things called “alternate energy” - the meaning of the term “alternate” can only be construed to mean “not market based”

This is the clue and this debate is merely a surrogate fight between socialists with their soft slavery and free market capitalists. … And no, GE is not a capitalist company it is a socialist organization that lives and dies through government fiat and political intrigue

What the heck has this Bentham story got to do with the current debate about stuff like hokey sticks?

Going by Lindzen and Choi’s latest attempt at wool pulling it will probably not be long before they have to chose the Bentham method to get published:

WINO’s Lament http://rabett.blogspot.com/2011/06/winos-lament.html

Here is what it has to to with hockey sticks; the hockey stick was advertised as the real deal because it was all “peer reviewed”, whatever that’s supposed to mean.

In Mann’s hockey stick case, the review meant nothing since no one had access to either the data or the software that magically produced the hockey stick. In this case “peer review” could only have meant that someone had run it though a spell checker at best.

The entire process sold as science means nothing when pure gibberish
passes a presumably “peer reviewed” process and ends up in an an “authoritative journal of science. Mann’s hockey stick and “Deconstructing Access Points” share this in common; they both were available for publication in an “authoritative” science publication for a fee, neither were reviewed in any way prior to being accepted as “settled science”

The fact that you can not see the obvious connection illustrates just how flawed your ability to think logically is - You may have even been one of those che’ t-shirt wearers I was speaking of earlier.

The witness, in this case “authoritative peer reviewed journals” have no credibility and thus its testimony means nothing.

Science is not dome by voting, its done by offering predictable results which the AGW con artists have yet to do.

And no, guessing “right” 50% of the time on a coin toss does not mean your science is mostly correct, since it fails only half of the time

RE:”Going by Lindzen and Choi’s latest attempt at wool pulling it will probably not be long before they have to chose the Bentham method to get published”

I think what you are suggesting is that some peer reviewed journals are flawed.

If this is true just who peer reviews the peer reviewer journals. Do you have information as to which peer reviewed science journals are are peer reviewed themselves. ie which authoritative journal validates other peer reviewed journals and just who would peer review the peer reviewed journal of peer reviewed journals and so forth and so on?

What I am suggesting to you although I’m sure you cannot grasp it is that NO legitimate science rests on authority. It must speak for itself or not at all. Peer review may well point out errors in a theory but it can never verify any real science. Real science always self verifies or passes into the realm of faith and belief ie religion.

Gareth, peer reviewed journals are a bit like university rankings. People who work in the industry & move through it know who holds what standards.

Names like Harvard, Yales, Cambridge, Oxford etc are synonymous with excellence. Whereas the university of schmucksville is not.

Likewise with journals. Science & Nature are probably the most respected due to their high standards, that is why they are the most cited. If you need to add weight to your argument, then science & nature is the go to place & on it goes through the rankings. Energy & Environment for example is so far in the wilderness that no one wants to go there for adding weight to their argument.

You can see the climate science journal rankings & scientific institutes most respected here http://sciencewatch.com/ana/fea/09novdecFea/

Sorry but you are still simply begging the question posed.

Just who peer reviewed “sciencewatch.com” ?

If sciencewatch.com is not peer reviewed how are we to accept anything it says as more worthy of belief than Brietbart or Drudge?

RE: “Gareth, peer reviewed journals are a bit like university rankings. People who work in the industry & move through it know who holds what standards.”

Ahhh its all cultish in other words!

RE: “Names like Harvard, Yales[sic], Cambridge, Oxford etc are synonymous with excellence. Whereas the university of schmucksville is not.”

Ahhh, that’s why George W Bush was so honored by the left for for his native intelligence in gaining an MBA from from Harvard - no diploma mill this school huh? Ditto for Ted Kennedy - cheating was OK‘ed by dad so Harvard agrees, Teddy can cheat. Cheating ok by Harvard in return for the big bucks that is; I hear they do a lot of AGW “science” for the big bucks too.

RE: “Likewise with journals. Science & Nature are probably the most respected due to their high standards”

Well if there were no spelling errors in Mann’s tome on bristle-cone pines and hockey sticks we can thank their “high standards” for that; no evidence whatsoever that any review beyond this ever occurred. If it were done it must have been done by PhDs in Lesbian studies.

RE: “You can see the climate science journal rankings & scientific institutes most respected here”

Again, who are these twits that assume I should respect the same people these people do? Hell they probably respect Obama too.

Do they “respect” Mann & Trenberth: Hide the data, bury the computer code and burn the emails - how stupid and naive these “scientismists” are regarding computers = “destroy the e-mails” - a child knows this cannot be done; Mann’s statistical methods not worthy of a competent undergraduate.

Or how about sandwich board doomsayer Hanson; charged with criminal trespass in the name of “science”

I suppose they are at the pinnacle of AGW “respect” - what hogwash

“Ahhh its all cultish in other words! ”

No it’s because they consistently churn out the highest results. Maybe at the school of plankton you never learnt that. Do you also suffer a reality bypass with other facets of life?

On the blogs you can get away with delusional talk. Out in the real world, you would simply be ridiculed . Lol, those fancy people with degrees eh Gareth?

“who are the twits that assume I should respect the same people as these people do?”

I think you are missing one important fact Gareth…….they have skills……you don’t.

RE: “No it’s because they consistently churn out the highest results.”

So would George Bush and Ted (Cheater) Kennedy be one of their “highest results” I do not wish to disparage any institutions of higher learning, some of them actually turn out some good engineering and medicine services the “real world” finds in short supply.
The “real world” has more than enough AGW ‘scientismists’, bureaucrats, and lawyers.

They equally turn out a lot of crap; usually money is the driving factor in this. If daddy has a lot of money junior will get a diploma (even if he is caught cheating - way to go ‘scholar’ Teddy) It’s the same with the AGW faux-science: lots of uncle’s money (uncle sam) and Harvard will bless phrenology with the same enthusiasm that is does for AGW - follow the money.

If you look at real advances in science they almost never occur in universities, this is why merit-less AGW has gained such a foothold in academia. Nothing is done; nothing is accomplished. No lasers, phasers or photon torpedoes.

RE: “On the blogs you can get away with delusional talk.
Out in the real world, you would simply be ridiculed . Lol, those fancy people with degrees eh Gareth?”

Sorry batman, I’ve been out in the “real world” for over 40 years creating solutions to real problems helping real organization that have to produce real profits. My solutions have been found valuable across the world. This puts me solidly in the real world - only a taxpayer teat-sucking socialist like you would consider Hanson, Mann, Trenberth et al part of the “real world”

RE: “I think you are missing one important fact Gareth…….they have skills……you don’t.”

I produce “profits” from my work. Profits are only gained by having the measurable skills to do something better than your competition can do. The judge of my skills are people who want their problems solved, and these people have the right of refusal; they aren’t forced to buy my skills with a government gun stuck in their ribs “coaxing” them to buy what I have to offer.

Conversely how do we judge the “skills” of teat-suckling socialists like Hanson et al. How do they sell their skills without a government gun shaking down the taxpaying buyers on their behalf?

Never mind, we have their testimony: “hide the data and erase the e-mails”

Keep it coming I enjoy striping you statists to the core; you are a feeble lot so it may be a little unfair of me but I do believe it serves a larger public purpose.

‘Never mind, we have their testimony: “hide the data and erase the e-mails”

Come on, who hid data?

Who erased emails?

We have been over this earlier here.

Lies, lies lies all the way down and through your posts like mycelium through cheese

Furthermore it is malicious and mendacious behaviour on your part.

Guess what, the real world of species and ice is not taking any notice of your denial for they both continue to deteriorate at an accelerating pace.

Like the old puzzle about a lilly in a pound doubling its coverage with every day that passes. On day 28 the pond is half covered, on which day is the pond totally covered?

What I am indicating is that total Jared Diamond like ‘Collapse’ could just be a doubling or two of resource loss away - and we would not even know it.

Think what you are doing you fool, think!

“They equally turn out a lot of crap; usually money is the driving factor in this. If daddy has a lot of money junior will get a diploma ”

Well, I have to say, that annoyed me also at uni. It was well known across all uni’s when I went that full fee paying students received special treatment. Where as people like myself who had to get loans where the university received their funds on a drip received no mercy. Full fee paying students are the life blood & bread & butter of any university. Without them they would grind to a halt. So it’s in the universities best interests not to give them a hard time. That drove me nuts when other full fee paying students would come to me with questions, not know what they are doing & mysteriously get higher marks than me.

While I certainly agree money can be more of a factor in some getting their degrees, it’s not always. Many actually want to be there & get something out of it. You can’t taint an entire university with a few bad apples. If that were the case, places like Harvard, Yale, Oxford & Cambridge wouldn’t be renowned & respected internationally. Graduates still have to come up with the goods. If they work for daddy or go into politics , it’s a little harder to measure their worth. The rest have to go into the real world.

“If you look at real advances in science they almost never occur in universities”

You miss an important point. What have denier scientists done to advance ANYTHING to do with climate science?

“creating solutions to real problems helping real organization that have to produce real profits.”

You obviously don’t understand the role of government compared to the private sector. Sure governments have to maintain a tax base, but they are not motivated by profit. They are motivated by the ability of their
populous to produce & also their well being. If they ran like the private sector, then we would never get highways, sewer, water, police, ambulance, fire, judges,libraries,parks etc, because they all run mostly as a loss.

Governments have for many many years commissioned scientists to act on their behalf to pred-determine areas of concern, so as to mitigate the prospect of 1) less tax & 2) more government expenditure.

Obviously no government wants to constantly put hand in pocket for natural disasters or effects of drought, or flood etc.

The only reason you find distasteful what the scientists are coming out with NOW, is that your political party opposes it. Therefore, like a good lapdog, so do you. Where was your opposition to the science BEFORE they talked about carbon taxes?

“Conversely how do we judge the “skills” of teat-suckling socialists like Hanson et al”

You could say that about all government employees. How do we judge the skills of police, firemen, paramedics, judges, soldiers?

“Keep it coming I enjoy striping you statists to the core; you are a feeble lot so it may be a little unfair of me but I do believe it serves a larger public purpose.”

It’s funny watching deniers that are so obviously following the will of their political party abandon all logic & sense, then turn their backs on reality because they don’t like the results.

It’s over for the deniers, the games up, they hang by a thread.

Thank you for acknowledging that academia is far from being white as the driven snow; the unwarranted influence of money in academia is legendary. We are now going to have a consumer affairs czar from academia charged with protecting the consumer from the implications of their own contracts. Odd that she doesn’t see the meteoric rise in the costs of an education, most of which could be had for free in a good library, in need of her protection services.

RE: “You miss an important point. What have denier scientists done to advance ANYTHING to do with climate science?”

I may as well ask you what you are doing to advance the science of pattern baldness remediation. You assume that this is more worthy of our energies (and more importantly our finances) than the former. The climate is what it is, I want a healthy economy (market driven) that produces enough wealth to deal with anything the future may toss at us. Frankly, I’m more worried about alien invasion; have you seen “Mars Attacks” - wow it’s even scarier than Al Gore’s Movie (and more plausible too)

RE: You obviously don’t understand the role of government compared to the private sector. Sure governments have to maintain a tax base, but they are not motivated by profit.”

Aye, there’s the rub. You assume that generating profit is bad or neutral at best. I hold profit generation to be the highest goal anyone can achieve for the larger society. Your assumption is based upon statist indoctrination rather than a clear understanding of the elevating aspects of profitable endeavor. I’m prepared to debate you on at length on this subject.

The fact that governments are not motivated by profits makes them horrible at delivering anything useful; They are equally bad at everything, including defense and justice. We trust government with the use of force to get things done, that’s why they must be restricted to only the things for which force is required (locking up or executing criminals or blowing up our enemies) We do this even knowing they will do it poorly. Profits must be devoid of force to make them holy.

RE: “They are motivated by the ability of their
populous to produce & also their well being.”

What polyanna poppycock; they are motivated by the same things that motivate all humans; power; lust, fear, laziness, status, etc. The only thing that differentiates them from the those who are forced to buy their “product” is the legal use of a gun to collect their take.

RE: “Obviously no government wants to constantly put hand in pocket for natural disasters or effects of drought, or flood etc.”

Why - will they lose anything? Will their share of the national pie be diminished by earthquake?

The notion that authority can placate the force of nature predates history itself. Human sacrifice and stripping of wealth was most often used to placate nature’s fury; sometimes the giving ones daughters to the authorities was more in order. So far our AGW crowd is content with the stripping of wealth but calls for human sacrifice have already been called for by your most ardent fans:

A quick web search for “death to climate criminals” returns about 6,000,000 hits: here is a typical one:

http://www.climatecriminals.co.uk/

RE: “You could say that about all government employees. How do we judge the skills of police, firemen, paramedics, judges, soldiers?”

Yes you can, although I would contend that fire extinguishing services any many others can easily be let for bid under contract. I draw the line at the use of force; if firemen either possess weapons or direct the use of force they should be under political (government) control.
We do not easily judge their skills; we cant call the BBB or buy consumers digest to rate them. That’s why government needs to be strictly contained.

Regarding my party; I’m a conservative(small government) There is no political party as of yet that expresses my ideals but the tide is changing.

“Thank you for acknowledging that academia is far from being white as the driven snow; the unwarranted influence of money in academia is legendary. ”

No arguments there.

“most of which could be had for free in a good library, in need of her protection services.”

I thought you were for small government?

“I may as well ask you what you are doing to advance the science of pattern baldness remediation.”

MPB only affects a small population & doesn’t threaten food, water, economic & security.

“I want a healthy economy (market driven) that produces enough wealth to deal with anything the future may toss at us. ”

Provide an example of a country that is ruled entirely by the market & has no government. I know of cities, but not countries.

“You assume that generating profit is bad ”

I run a small business, so….no.

“I hold profit generation to be the highest goal anyone can achieve for the larger society.”

So do governments. That is why so much politics is played over the economy & jobs. Without business & employment the less company & personal tax they receive. Private gated communities & even cities work well for the moment, but they still require some government assistance. No country is run entirely by the free market.

It must really grate on your nerves & sense of logic that a communist country bailed out much of the western world during the GFC & is on track to become the next super power. I thought they were incapable of doing anything?

“What polyanna poppycock; they are motivated by the same things that motivate all humans; power; lust, fear, laziness, status, etc”

That is just your paranoia & conspiracy theories showing their face again. Tarring everyone with the same brush like you did with universities. Sure, there are corrupt politicians & even entire corrupt governments. But across the board, that is not the norm.

“Why - will they lose anything? Will their share of the national pie be diminished by earthquake?”

Wow, you really are naive. Think about hurricane Katrina. You cant see that there would be less production, therefore less tax, on top of that there is government handouts & military expenditures.

“The notion that authority can placate the force of nature predates history itself. Human sacrifice and stripping of wealth”

That was because of superstition & religion, as well as a lack of understanding. Through science, we understand a lot about our earth now.

“We do not easily judge their skills; we cant call the BBB or buy consumers digest to rate them. That’s why government needs to be strictly contained. ”

Weak excuse. It’s dawning on you isn’t it that to provide private police, ambulance, firemen, judges etc, in a privatized world, someone has to pay. The cost has to be passed on. To rate them requires the private sector to recoup costs of doing that. Then who rates the raters? Then who rates the raters of the raters & on it goes. In a privatized world, who pays for defense? And who are they acting on behalf of? Who pays for people to maintain parks, sewers & water?

“I’m a conservative(small government) There is no political party as of yet that expresses my ideals but the tide is changing”

Doesn’t that tell you something? That maybe it’s an unrealistic fantasy? Every conservative government who hits the campaign trail nearly always says “we need smaller government!”, “there is too many bureaucrats!!” …then they set about creating a bigger government once elected with even more bureaucrats. It’s dog whistle politics & conservatives fall for it every time.

producing the same old turds, which is what you get when you have practiced digging in a midden.

Examples:

‘In Mann’s hockey stick case, the review meant nothing since no one had access to either the data or the software that magically produced the hockey stick. In this case “peer review” could only have meant that someone had run it though a spell checker at best.’

and

‘Mann’s peer reviewed hockey stick nonsense was fully peer reviewed and published with no one asking for the data or the software from which its glaring errors in its amateurish statistical methods could have easily been derived. This was the paper that launched 100,000 buruecrats [sic] at costs of untold billions.

Nobody checked the work- why would they if it suited their agenda and had no knowledge required to deconstruct its nonsense.’

What absolute and utter BS. You have been told about this before.

You clearly have not taken in pointers in this very thread to the sheer number of lines of scientific inquiry using a variety of sources of data, not only temps, not only tree rings, that have produced this hockey stick like shape for temperature trends over the last two millenia.

The fact that you repeat, yet again this tired old chestnut, demonstrates your inability to learn and use rational thought. You are either mentally impaired or, more likely, ideologically blinkered.

I try again:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/09/hey-ya-mal/

http://deepclimate.org/2009/10/30/briffa-teaches-but-will-mcintyre-ever-learn/

http://akwag.blogspot.com/2010/08/enough-ado-about-hockey-sticks-worst-is.html

Access to data:

The irony is that McIntyre had no need for FIAs as he had the data all along. As for software to run it, it is the accepted way of doing things for those wishing to replicate, or not, the work of others independently is to do their own independent programming (this is how man, many others have checked all lines of data and come up with the same general result. Maybe that is where poor Steve hit a brick wall – he didn’t know that that was what REAL scientists do or he was incapable of doing it. So Steve started to throw his toys out of the pram, and continues to do so it would seem from the latest brouhaha.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/wheres-the-data/

and if you miss the link in that:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/

‘The fact that you can not see the obvious connection illustrates just how flawed your ability to think logically is - You may have even been one of those che’ t-shirt wearers I was speaking of earlier.’

Oh contrare. I was a trained aviation engineer with a background in science and mathematics working on heavy metal (which demanded a high degree of logical thought in debriefing aircrew after sorties and carry out the myriad of technical tasks which such employment made necessary frequently) whilst wearing uniform which job occasionally brought me geographically close to good ol’ Che’ but that was about it. And no, I never did buy one of those Che’ beach towels available at many points where we had ports of call around the Caribbean and Florida.

Your language betrays your ideological blinkers here, blinkers which make you avoid even studying anything which challenges that weird cognitive framework of yours. Oh and I have studied psychology too as part of a teaching degree course along with cognitive development (or lack thereof in some), one based heavily once again on mathematics and science.

Now go back up thread and visit the places indicated and follow embedded links - this is what somebody interested in truth would do at this point, but will you?

‘Science is not dome by voting, its done by offering predictable results which the AGW con artists have yet to do.’

Oh! How little you know or how well you lie – which is it?

If that is the continued standard of response then I will leave you to your digging as the stench in your hole is becoming unbearable from all the faeces you drop.

All of your verbiage can be deconstructed by “erase the emails and hide the data”

You are totally unresponsive to the issue: who checked Mann’s data, computer code, and statistical methods? How was it “peer reviewed”

Name the individuals, if you can’t show me who reviewed Mann and how they did it then “peer review” in AGW is simply a prop like a hollywood western movie set.

Further, peer review is capable only of invalidating a process, experiment, or theory, It can never validate real science.

If you quarrel with that you tell me all I need to know about your ability to comment on anything remotely connected with real science.

Sir Gareth:

When you find yourself in hole and want to get out, it’s best to stop digging.

Your supercilious tirades against legitimate climate scientists and the overwhelming body of scientific evidence supporting the theory of anthroprogenic global warming suggests that you are driven by a political ideology.

If we were in a court of law, your comment would be declared non-responsive.

I have a lot to learn about your progressive science. At some point one wonders why you expend energy (and carbon dioxide molecules) avoiding the question while at the same time characterizing me.

I am not impressed by “overwhelming evidence” the concept that Jesus Christ was the son of God or that AGW is real although partisans of both positions would point to the overwhelming evidence of the belief that drives their separate organization.

Do you think climate science should drive public policy?

What is the term we use to describe the venue of public policy?

If we have no public policy over the funding of AGW science or public policy driven by its tenets then I certainly would hold no antithesis towards its belief.

I have no ax to grind in gravitational theories, if you hold that an overwhelming consensus of physicists declare that’s its all caused by gravitons I would say ho-hum, just as I do with quantum mechanics - ho hum. Neither idea is correct in the long run but I can accept that if they are useful to someone then so be it.

I distrust all science driven by government particularly when the science suggest a larger role for government.

What was wrong with Nazi science; its protagonists were indisputably experts in their field and they arrived at overwhelming consensus too?

Why were the founders adamantly opposed to state based religion?

Do you think they may have seen religion as a tool to centralize power and undo personal liberty?

Could a state funded science agenda pose the same problem - or is it that scientists are just better people and more trustworthy than the clergy?

What if state based science came to a very supportable decision that homosexual activity poses a burden to society and declared it illegal and therefore a punishable crime?

I believe the Germans came to this conclusion at the very pinnacle of modern science in medicine, in psychology, in the arts, in literature, etc. and all during the early 1930’s. Their science was well ahead of ours and government education was universal. Our man on the moon program was driven by Nazi science. We must have faith in their methods of science - correct? If state based science declared Jews to be subhuman it must be correct - right? If their science required homosexuals to be put to death in the name of saving their society it should be so - correct? If they declared CO2 to be a dangerous gas and restricted its use of fuels it must be correct-right?

We can use government science to inform and direct any human activity - correct?

State science trumps personal liberty - correct?

State religion is very very bad for doing exactly the same thing - correct?

Phil M:

Thanks for the link to the science journal rankings.

For what it’s worth, trying to reson with Sir Gareth is akin to peeing into the wind.

Sir Gareth belongs to the “I’ve made up my mind. Don’t confuse me with the facts” School of Thought.

You are correct that I’ve made up my mind; at some point the jury must render its verdict and one thing I am pleased to see is my view is the majority view. The same type of politics that swept this crud in our door is going to sweep it out.

Here is your problem: despite running relentless AGW indoctrination programs from toddler to graduation day the only consensus that has formed is that our government schools are among the worst in the world. This is so particularly in math and the hard sciences which might explain why teaching leftist theory in place of real science is not working out very well; our companies have to hire Vietnamese when they need young people to do the math.

You see our young people want jobs too and most of these jobs require that the employer actually use them to create wealth. Green socialism does not do this so green jobs are “unsustainable” in the vernacular of the left. You see, we have already run out of the other peoples money that was to drive the “green economy”

Both the economic and the political numbers are terrible for AGW and the Republicans who used to run on AGW (Newt, Gingrich, Tim Pawlenty, et. al) are now running from it; so is the left - can you believe the left now hates ethanol (except in the states that produce it.) Just last year it was to be our savior; thus spoke the greenies.

Meanwhile Al Gore is now blasting Obama openly for failing to carry out actions on AGW essential to growing Al’s fortunes. But Al is a failed politician while Obama is a very successful politician which means he senses which waters will float his canoe and AGW apparently is now a seen as a dry creek bed for him. The fascist corporations like Enron, Goldman Sachs, and GE who were counting on AGW to float their otherwise failed businesses across the finish line are now in despair.

Meanwhile the coal we are not using to produce competitive energy in the US is being shipped to China to build one coal fired power plant per week. Yes China has been investing in our “green ignorance” by selling us solar panels on the credit card made with an energy policy based upon economic rather than political considerations.

No one is going to be courting the greenies in the next election which will in all likelihood end with a Republican congress and Republican president.

If by some strange twist of fate the greenies were actually correct and the “average” temperature of the earth is a degree or two warmer one hundred years from now no one really gives a crap.

AGW comes in somewhere after public water fluoridation in issues that drive today’s politics; we will vote for cheap gasoline (drill baby drill) and cheaper electricity ($.04 per kwh as opposed to four times that rate to run our Government Motors $48,000 golf carts (the volt)

While you are still crackpot socialists, it really doesn’t matter anymore; try howling at the moon, it may be more effective for your cause.

I’m more interested in socialism science which I call ‘scientism’ (belief based science) as a threat to our long term economic survival as the BRIC nations bury us by doing the real sciences.

Come on, who hid data?

Mann, the data from witch his famous hockey stick was generated was available only to him as merged data from several sources.

Who erased emails?

No one, these supposedly computer savvy twits were unaware that email cannot be erased. What they (Trenberth) did was tell their co-conspirators to erase the email. Are these people at all connected with how computer software actually works?

This is an important since the pseudo-science called “climate science” is supposed to be an amalgam of many facets of the true sciences (physics, chemistry, biology, mathematics, computer sciences, etc.) How telling that these twits don’t understand the medium they use to generate their crackpot theories.

And what is this poppycock that one has to generate their own computer code to check the validity of Mann’s Who owns this code? Hint: who paid his salary?

You know you can’t make up the rules to suit your case as the fraud is exposed. When the card says: “go to jail, go directly to jail, do not pass go, do not collect 200 dollars”, that’s what it means, there is no “unless you are an AGW scientismist” sub-clause.

RE: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/09/hey-ya-mal/

http://deepclimate.org/2009/10/30/briffa-teaches-but-will-mcintyre-ever-learn/

http://akwag.blogspot.com/2010/08/enough-ado-about-hockey-sticks-worst-is.html

The first site you list is a fraud by my own experience, further Mann is in control of its editorial content - you put the indicted on the jury.

Ive seen the defense, its weaker than the Casey girl’s on trial for murder: “A dog buried the bones in the swamp”

‘And what is this poppycock that one has to generate their own computer code to check the validity of Mann’s Who owns this code? Hint: who paid his salary?’

And with that you have demonstrated, yet again, how little you know about how science is conducted. That is how it is done. Nothing to do with changing any rules. Its just that like you McIntyre was not a scientist and was out of his depth.

Now, do yourself a favour - start learning about:

How science is progressed.

How quantum mechanics and thermodynamics tell us that GHGs are for real.

How isotopic analysis informs on the large fraction of extra GHG in the atmosphere is down to human activity.

How climate models are created and tested and what they are created for.

How peer review is conducted.

The long history of fossil fuel funded doubt mongering.

Discover what is realy happening in the world WRT cryosphere and species loss and more worrying how this could rapidly increase in acceleration. You do know what the e function means, Yes?

I have had enough of your willful ignorance.

RE: “And with that you have demonstrated, yet again, how little you know about how science is conducted.

Errr… you got me there, all I have ever done in this regard is generate computer code for the Boeing 777. I guess this is trivial stuff so the fact that every line of code that I wrote had to be documented and tested by an independent team should make me pretty naive in this regard. I should have told Boeing that my code was none of their damn business and if they wanted to test it they should write their own damn code. They didn’t do this so I will fly on the 777 without too much fear. Dont ask me to fly on a aircraft designed by AGW scientismists.

As to your charge I that I don’t know how AGW scientism is done; guilty as charged, but then again it isn’t really science is it?

RE “, do yourself a favour - start learning about:

RE: How science is progressed.”

Science doesn’t “progress”, technology does and knowledge sometimes does but (real) science rests on the same principles it always has; I can’t speak with authority on the pseudo-science of AGW.

RE: “How quantum mechanics and thermodynamics tell us that GHGs are for real.”

Greenhouses are small affairs with glass separating the interior from the exterior; claims that the boundary-less atmosphere works just like a gardener’s greenhouse are over the top nonsense.

Does moist air retain heat better than dry air, of course. The role of the trace gas called CO2 as significant in driving the climate engine remains a fantastic unprovable speculation; ie a convenient belief system for destroying liberty and promoting statism; statists embraced it universally. They need no proof.

RE: “How isotopic analysis informs on the large fraction of extra GHG in the atmosphere is down to human activity.”

If you are talking about carbon-14 it informs nothing; yes ancient carbons are depletedof C14, the air-water carbon exchanges are far more significant as are natural carbon cycles occurring on the surface of the earth and in the depths of the oceans. Further, the formation of heavy isotopes are not constant. The signals are too small and the noise is too great - ditto for bristle cone pines as temp proxies. All junk science.

The only way this fake science works is to mine data for the conclusions you want.

RE:” How climate models are created and tested and what they are created for.”

You cannot model what you don’t understand. These models are not science. They are pseudo science in that they only project the prejudices of their creators. This fact is made abundantly clear by their constant revision to accurately “post-dict” they cannot predict.

I could equally make models “postdicting” the DJIA while constantly manipulating them to accurately reflect what has already occurred. Don’t bet on any such models “predicting” which way the DJIA will be jerking one month, one year, or one century from now. You will lose.

RE: “How peer review is conducted.”

I’ve seen it and it isn’t worth a pinch of sh!t. The agenda promoting journals look out as to who butters their bread and act accordingly. They pass Mann though a spell checker and call it “peer reviewed” while real un-funded science is routinely rejected.

In the end peer review proves nothing anyway; real science is not driven by the acquiescence of government paid authorities in promoting their own careers.

RE: “The long history of fossil fuel funded doubt mongering.”

Sorry the argument doesn’t have merit; I can equally say that the 80 billion or so spent on AGW by career bureaucrats are also career protecting. The difference being that exxon-mobile at least produces what EVERYBODY wants while AGW scientism produces only endless streams of BS

RE” have had enough of your willful ignorance.”

Spoken like the true loser; get out of the ring then; I’ll keep striking blows to the frauds that enter.

With aplogies to Mick, Keith, Bill, Brian and Charlie.

‘Errr… you got me there, all I have ever done in this regard is generate computer code for the Boeing 777. I guess this is trivial stuff’

Compared to understanding and modelling climate – yes it is trivial stuff.

What was your area of investigation mechanics and structures, systems or aerodynamics?

‘so the fact that every line of code that I wrote had to be documented and tested by an independent team should make me pretty naive in this regard. I should have told Boeing that my code was none of their damn business and if they wanted to test it they should write their own damn code. They didn’t do this ’

Well if Boeing didn’t use a totally independent code approach to checking your methodology then I would be very surprised as it goes against all principles of aviation safety – which is back up, back up, back up. This is why all systems from flight control through power generation (engines) to avionics and systems important to safe recovery, i.e. landing gear have redundancy built in.

If Boeing relied upon your code alone for any particular developmental element then they would be open to censure.

Remember, I told you that I was once an aviation professional.
One more point, I wonder how Airbus industries would get on if they issued FIA requests for your’s, or Boeing’s data and code?

‘so I will fly on the 777 without too much fear. Dont ask me to fly on a aircraft designed by AGW scientismists.’

WTF are ‘scientismists’? Other than possibly the fogs of obfuscation pumped out by the likes of Lindzen, Spencer and Michaels, Christy too increasingly.

‘As to your charge I that I don’t know how AGW scientism is done; guilty as charged, but then again it isn’t really science is it?’

Now we have self confessed willful ignorance. Surprise, surprise, once again your lack of clarity of thought betrays you. Remind me never to fly on a 777.

‘Science doesn’t “progress”, technology does and knowledge sometimes does but (real) science rests on the same principles it always has;’

Your ignorance must be a great comfort to you. Without science there would be no technology.

‘Greenhouses are small affairs with glass separating the interior from the exterior; claims that the boundary-less atmosphere works just like a gardener’s greenhouse are over the top nonsense.’

Admittedly, and all climate scientists appreciate that a greenhouse partly works by preventing heat convecting away and thus the greenhouse analogy cannot be taken too far. However if you had to study propulsion systems and aerodynamics you should have been exposed to the science of thermodynamics, blackbody radiation (Boltzman) and quantum mechanics.

The point is that what comes in must be balanced by what goes out. In other words the radiation leaving the black body of the Earth system must balance the radiation coming in. CO2 is a molecule which resonates to the frequencies of light on, and around, the frequencies of infra-red. As it does this it absorbs energy. The CO2 also reacts to much of the IR bouncing back from the surface and thus becomes an energy emitter warming the atmosphere. Adding more CO2 enhances the effect.

The natural carbon cycle runs over periods of decades, centuries and millennia depending on the conditions of a multitude of other elements of the whole earth system, and certainly runs too slowly to react in the way we would like to the steady drip, drip drip of extra CO2 being put in the atmosphere by human activities.

Think of the CO2 atmospheric budget is being composed of the principle loan, the amount of CO2 already, in the atmosphere, and the interest due on that loan being the amount added every year over and above that drawn down into the system. If the interest payments, extra CO2, are not kept in check then the amount due increases. Only when you start to pay back the principle as well as any interest due do you gain control over the finances.

That CO2 is a GHG is proven science, not myth. That CO2 is building up in the atmosphere is know empirically by measurement. That the extra fraction of CO2 up there is of human activity origin is known by isotopic analysis – and NO it is not Carbon 14 that is the smoking gun – wrong isotope. Thus you have once again betrayed your ignorance.
Your rant about water vapour betray your ignorance yet again – you clearly do not understand the difference between a forcing (adding CO2) and a feedback (increase in water vapour).

‘Does moist air retain heat better than dry air, of course.’

Investigate the importance of the lapse rate.

‘You cannot model what you don’t understand.’

Agreed. How on earth you managed to model anything worthwhile to Boeing is a puzzle.

Climate models are built upon empirical data and run for ‘what if scenarios’. Over time, with improvements in data gathering, computer performance a a growing understanding of the elements which affect climate, the models can be improved greatly and have been. This is not to say that many early climate models were not worthwhile – they yielded important results which clarified the behaviour of some elements and pointed the way to where more research (data collection) and model refinement was required.

Study this and use as a basis for further learning via links within:

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

However, these models did not come from nowhere. As has been pointed out time and time again there has been a growing body of knowledge of thermodynamics, black body radiation, the electromagnetic spectrum and atomic physics on which current theory (in the scientific sense) is built. Science works by imagining a hypothesis to test which experiments are carried out.

If you recall high school science you should know that a part of judging the results of experiments is to consider what extraneous influences could have affected the outcome. Only when a hypothesis surmises the assault of multiple lines of experiment does it advance to a theory (accepted knowledge or fact).

The remainder of your post, like that which I have taken the trouble to answer above, is an incoherent ideological rant with a dismissive approach for you simply do not understand how science and peer review works neither do you see the nature of the imbalance between the presentations by climate scientists of merit and the dangerous and mendacious rhetoric of the ‘howler’ monkeys on their jungle drums.

I note with interest that you completely evaded the suggestion to:

‘Discover what is realy happening in the world WRT cryosphere and species loss and more worrying how this could rapidly increase in acceleration. You do know what the e function means, Yes? ’

As for me getting out of the ring. I agree with Badgersouth:
PS – Only a handful of bloggers are still following this comment thread. It’s time to let it die a natural death.’

Indeed. We shall all leave the dunce talking to himself in the corner with his incoherent, illogical rants if he does not soon see reality.

“Pride goeth before the fall.”

Now this comment is not aimed at SirGar, who is clearly beyond any reasoning being the type of narrowly educated engineer likely to add his name to dubious petitions, but at those other readers dropping in here without announcing their presence, and concerns the state of the oceans:

The state of the ocean (dire)

http://hot-topic.co.nz/

and with other clips:

World’s oceans in ‘shocking’ decline, report finds ‘speeds of many negative changes … are tracking the worst-case scenarios’ http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/06/21/249470/worlds-oceans-in-shocking-decline-worst-%E2%80%90case-scenarios-from-ipcc/

More BS, these leeches are just looking for more suckling money. Itsd always about money. Money from the people who are useful and do useful things to pure parasites. The tiny amount of CO2 that oxidized fossil fuels add to the ocean are trivial compared with the natural carbon cycle.

In addition dissolved oceanic CO2 is wonderful for our oceans. CO2 is the primary food of literally ALL sea-life. CO2 is breakfast, lunch, and dinner for phytoplankton which in turn is devoured by krill (krill is whale food) there are many other food chains in the ocean but the whale food cycle is among the shortest. Why do you greenies hate whales so much that you want to starve them.

In addition, if global warming were real it would result in a warmer ocean which by definition would be less acidic.

The hyperbolic rants of these government teat suckers grow more shrill by each passing day as more and more people realize that the US government is going broke feeding these whack jobs.

“In addition dissolved oceanic CO2 is wonderful for our oceans.”

You keep telling yourself that Chrstopher Monckton. Real science & not gareth opinion science says otherwise. A type of plankton called Pteropods make depend on the the oceans being not too acidic.

http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/2886137.htm

Scientists predict that at 450ppm they will not form shells. The flow on affect to the rest of the over fished ocean will be enormous. Denier of course will turn around & say “why didn’t you tell us?”

“In addition, if global warming were real it would result in a warmer ocean which by definition would be less acidic.”

At this point, you have proven undoubtedly that even if the worlds experts were here & told you otherwise, you would still deny it. Only your political party changing their mind or WTFUWT would change your mind. You deny reality, hence why you are a denier.

“as more and more people realize that the US government is going broke feeding these whack jobs.”

I’m sure they could cut down on their 1 Trillion dollar a year military expenditure rather than the couple of billion they spend on noble causes like science.

Sir Gareth’s posts have gone from the ridiculous to the sublimely ridiculous.

PS – Only a handful of bloggers are still following this comment thread. It’s time to let it die a natural death.

What Gareth and his ilk can’t seem to understand is that, even if all the scientific messengers were to be fired, the enhanced greenhouse effect cause by mankind’s activities would continue unabatted.

Their “kill the messenger” rants are idiotic to say the least.

Pages