Thursday, December 17, 2009
The world's climate is in the very best of hands
The prosecution rests.
When a lying, exploiting, oil-exporting neo-Communist dictator gets applause from the people who are proposing to restructure the world's economy based on a computer model, only a fool would not wonder whether there were something else going on in Copenhagen.
35 Comments:
By 
JPMcT, at
Thu Dec 17, 07:09:00 AM:
Is there any better confirmation of the concept that GREEN IS THE NEW RED???
By 
, at
Thu Dec 17, 08:08:00 AM:
By , at
Thu Dec 17, 08:52:00 AM:
In support of a Green world, gasoline in Venezuela costs in the neighborhood of 20 Cents US per gallon.
Were the delegates applauding that factoid?
By Steve M. Galbraith, at
Thu Dec 17, 09:56:00 AM:
The desire to save the world is often a cover for those that wish to rule it.
Red meets green. Green says welcome.
By Brian, at
Thu Dec 17, 10:08:00 AM:
The Australian is a much worse version of the Washington Times, so I'd discount anything that it reports.
Evidence of that is that it would give Andrew Bolt a platform. He's sufficiently awful to have earned his own category at Deltoid:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/politics/bolt/
By , at
Thu Dec 17, 10:42:00 AM:
Brian, instead of engaging in ad hominem attacks, why don't you evaluate what is in the article? Just wondering.
BTW, it is standard operating procedure for Chávez's PSF fans and Chávez himself to reflexively attack anyone who brings to light anything that might result in negative opinions of Thugo. Interesting to see that you engage in the same tactic.
By , at
Thu Dec 17, 10:42:00 AM:
Kind of hard to watch the wheels come off the fictitious AGW wagon, isn't it, Brian? Perhaps your non-published in the peer-reviewed climate research literature dilettante ass will feel compelled to lash out by challenging me to a bet, no? Thing is, the "numbers" you'll want used to settle the bet have been "generated" by the very same frauds who have laughably been arguing for "context" in terms of the ClimateGate e-mails. Pass the popcorn!!
By Dawnfire82, at
Thu Dec 17, 10:46:00 AM:
Did they fake the video showing Chavez speaking at the event behind the 'Copenhagen COP15' sign as well? That's some pretty fucking sweet CGI.
Is ABC, also linked, in on the conspiracy too?
Yes, you should completely discount anything it reports if you don't like what it says and merely dismiss it as the rambling of a discredited and ridiculous rag, videos and supporting links notwithstanding; that's both honest and effective.
By , at
Thu Dec 17, 11:56:00 AM:
TH captured the right tone, "...only a fool..."
By , at
Thu Dec 17, 12:26:00 PM:
Of course, it goes without saying Brian both wants to change the subject and posts a non-denial denial of the subject he writes about.
TH posted about the enslaving of the masses nature of Copenhagens prime movers, and Brian responds with church doctrine. Worse, he cites a non-denial denial of the article he does want to talk about. The Russians have asserted that temperature studies excluded the vast bulk of actual temperature data from their stations. The rebuttal he cites says "who cares, since the massaged data from the stations we did capture matches the massaged data we would have used had we chosen not to ignore much of Russian territory altogether". How about we stay on topic, and keep our religious ravings to the climate post?
By Brian Schmidt, at
Thu Dec 17, 03:27:00 PM:
Anon, do you consider Christy and Spencer to be part of the conspiracy? I'm happy to bet you using their data.
If it makes you happy, neither I nor Obama are Chavez fans. I could point to a Saudi oil minister saying the same nonsense I see on denialist websites - does that do much to prove a point?
Talk about ad hominem....
By TigerHawk, at
Thu Dec 17, 03:30:00 PM:
I think, Brian, the point (of the applause) is that the delegates and politicians at Copenhagen are, by and large, Chavez fans.
By , at
Thu Dec 17, 04:12:00 PM:
Does anyone here think Brian isn't either 1) deluded and/or 2) purposefully spreading disinformation?
I for one think it's the latter. This has implications, as Brian isn't a lone operator.
What Is To Be Done?
By , at
Thu Dec 17, 04:19:00 PM:
Andrew Bolt reports on the tyrant Chávez’s speech at Copenhagen where tyrant Chávez spoke in support of the goals of the Copenhagen conference. Chávez expressed support for socialism, an indispensible part of Chavista tyranny, and got thunderous applause and standing ovations for his efforts.
I point out the absurdity of Chávez being considered an ally of the people at the Copenhagen conference, given that the pump price of gasoline in Venezuela is around 20 cents US per gallon.
Brian engages in an ad hominem attack on Andrew Bolt, not addressing what Andrew Bolt had reported on.
I call Brian on his ad hominem attack, and request that instead he “evaluate what is in the article.” I point out that Chávez and his allies also engage in adhominen attacks, which should indicate to those who are interested in a discussion worthy of the name that engaging in ad hominem attacks is not precisely the way to go.
Instead of responding to my request to evaluate what is in Bolt’s article, here is Brian’s response: “Talk about ad hominem attacks.”
Conclusion: is it really worth having a discussion with Brian?
By , at
Thu Dec 17, 04:26:00 PM:
Hilariously, Monckton does Copenhagen.
By , at
Thu Dec 17, 04:42:00 PM:
Ironically, dealing with Brian here for a few months actually got me to dig into AGW as he got my BS detector to read "11." Until then I had accepted the common understanding that there must be at least some truth to AGW, and thought it was just the political response to AGW that was bent. I'm now convinced that AGW is a total crock. It's the Big Lie.
AGW has already had big implications. It's already started to poison international relations. Domestically, the Energy bill is an abomination. Although the Energy bill has low chances of being enacted, the EPA has already declared CO2 to be a pollutant as an end run. As it develops regulations, the EPA could shut down almost any enterprise larger than a candy store for CO2 emission crimes. The door has already been opened to class action lawsuits.
Environmental plaintiff lawyer Brian smiles at all this, I'm sure.
Obama and the Greens are totally deluded. The path they want to put us on over Energy is dangerous in so many ways. In worst case scenarios oil is the only thing we need to import. There's just a small chance of a Mideast-driven oil shock happening, but it'd be disastrous. Even without a Mideast crisis, we have an exposure here if the dollar keeps weakening. I suppose we could always invade Mexico and Canada.
Windmills and solar are a sideshow. They'll never reliably replace even half the power we get from the 100 old nuclear reactors we're currently operating. The answer has to be "all of the above" and fast. There's actually a lot of promise in new-age nuclear and in new natural gas fields -- they're there ... we just don't drill.
Sarah Palin should go after Al Gore on AGW. Anyone listening out there?
What Is To Be Done?
By TigerHawk, at
Thu Dec 17, 06:58:00 PM:
I like Brian. He argues reasonably and with links and in a non-trollish way. Do not chase him off.
By , at
Thu Dec 17, 07:20:00 PM:
"He argues reasonably"
Many seem to disagree. But it's your bat, your ball.
By , at
Thu Dec 17, 07:21:00 PM:
Reading about how CRU is alleged to have omitted the cooler stations in Russia, how the number of stations has declined in the last 40 years or so, and reading how most of the declines were in rural areas away from the urban heat effect, leaves me with a question or two I cannot answer:
How do you know if the earth's temperature has been correctly measured?
Where is the best place to measure it?
If the percentage of urban heat island stations increases, should the average temperature be adjusted downward?
Does the world get cooler if I add another station in the Arctic?
The more I think about it, the idea of trying to determine the temperature of the earth from an ad hoc collection of discrete weather stations seems insane. If you can determine the temperature of the earth for the last 1000 years from 30 trees, why can't you do it with 30 weather stations? And just where would you put those 30 weather stations to get the correct reading?
Harold Hill been through here lately?
M.E.
By Brian, at
Thu Dec 17, 11:00:00 PM:
Appreciate the comment, TH. I'll try to keep the tone appropriate, and to limit my bet offers to responses to skeptics making testable predictions (and maybe giving JP notice so he can skip the offending sentence).
As to Bolt, my point was that you can't trust anything he says. I don't know the others at the Australian, but I do know the Australian's reputation based on what Tim Lambert writes.
Anyway, the clip at Bolt's doesn't have much more thunderous applause for Chavez than it has for the president of Mali. You can try to hear the "deafening" applause at 8:40 in the clip.
Mr. Ed: you'll be happy to learn the issues you raise are addressed in the instrumental record, constructed independently by several research groups, as well as being irrelevant to ocean records and to the two major satellite reconstructions. Not to mention radiosonde.
By , at
Fri Dec 18, 12:06:00 AM:
As to Bolt, my point was that you can't trust anything he says. I don't know the others at the Australian, but I do know the Australian's reputation based on what Tim Lambert writes.
So prove to us that Chavez did NOT say what Bolt said he said. We are waiting with bated breath.
Perhaps instead of initially attacking Andrew Bolt, the messenger of bad news for you, it might have been better had you replied thusly: "While I mistrust Andre Bolt, he has documented that a tyrant, liar and hypocrite is on my side at Copenhagen. I need Chavez as an ally against AGW like I need Bull Connor's assistance against racism, or the likes of Elliot Spitzer or Tiger Woods as poster boys in a campaign highlighting those who have followed the path of marital fidelity." (or the Governor of South Carolina, for that matter.)(I assume that you would have fact checked the article.)
Any proponent of the accuracy of AGW and the need for action to mitigate same, who is halfway decent, should feel shamed that someone the likes of Hugo "20 cents a gallon" Chavez had attached himself to your cause. Since you state you are not a Chavez fan, I get the impression that on some level, you agree with my previous sentence.
Your attacking the messenger, instead of dealing with what the messenger said, discredits you.
Moreover, as others have already pointed out, the topic of the thread was NOT your opinion of Andrew Bolt, but what Hugo Chavez said at Copenhagen. I find it sad that in all you have written on this you have not expressed any opinion on the actual topic of the thread: what Hugo Chavez said at Copenhagen.
By Brian, at
Fri Dec 18, 12:45:00 AM:
Boludo, I'm intrigued that you're surprised at Chavez' statements. Sounds like the normal tripe he'd come out with to me.
As for Chavez believing in AGW, he may also believe in evolution and may have said so at some Venezuelan university. That doesn't discredit evolution.
I think Bolt would disagree with you and agree with me about his article - it's not about what Chavez said, which is predictable, but the audience's reaction to it. Where I disagree with Bolt, besides generally not trusting anything he says unless I can get some verification of it, is that the audience reaction at minute 8:40 in the video doesn't seem "deafening" to me.
By Gary Rosen, at
Fri Dec 18, 01:09:00 AM:
"Sounds like the normal tripe he'd come out with to me."
So why is this creepy, brutal thug a major speaker at the Copenhagen conference on "climate change"? Isn't that a strong indicator it's just a cynical political enterprise? And don't try to weasel out, Bri, by taking a cheap shot at some skeptic. This conference is supposed to be the AGW mecca.
By Brian, at
Fri Dec 18, 01:48:00 AM:
Gary, he's the head of state, and there's no purity test for attendance.
By , at
Fri Dec 18, 02:10:00 AM:
Boludo, I'm intrigued that you're surprised at Chavez' statements. Sounds like the normal tripe he'd come out with to me.
Where do I show surprise at his statements? I daresay I have listened to a lot more of his Alo Presidente sessions and such – in the original Spanish- than you have. While much that Chávez says saddens me, little surprises me any more.
What surprises me is that the organizers of the Copenhagen conference considered him a fit speaker, and that the delegates saw fit to applaud him. Caracas Chronicles put it rather well.
Cheering Chávez as he lectures you on climate change is like cheering Joseph Fritzl as he lectures you on fatherhood.
What also surprises me is that you do not admit to any discomfort with his speaking up for your cause, even though you admit you are “no fan” of his.
As for Chavez believing in AGW, he may also believe in evolution and may have said so at some Venezuelan university. That doesn't discredit evolution.
If you believe that Hugo “20 Cents a Gallon” Chávez and Al “Reduced Energy Consumption is for Thee Not for Me” Gore are credible spokesmen for AGW, you have drunk some rather strong Kool-Aid.
By , at
Fri Dec 18, 08:05:00 AM:
Hillary warmed up the crowd at Copenhagen yesterday for Obama's arrival today:
" ...this is one of the most urgent global challenges of our time, and it demands a global solution. Climate change threatens not only our environment, but our economy and our security -- this is an undeniable and unforgiving fact."
So "undeniable and unforgiving fact" is the new "inconvenient truth."
If it goes to plan today, Obama & Co will commit to the emission cuts in the Energy bill -- even though the bill is stalled in the Senate -- and will presumably use the EPA end-run to achieve this if necessary. If this happens it will have devastating consequences for our economy. Does anyone here disagree? For independent reasons, we may easily achieve a 17% drop in CO2 emissions by 2010, just through a 2% annual drop in GDP, but the current planned-for CO2 cuts will guaranty that we have another lost decade, or worse. Developing ...
The Truth is Out There
By , at
Fri Dec 18, 08:53:00 AM:
Mr Ed said above: "The more I think about it, the idea of trying to determine the temperature of the earth from an ad hoc collection of discrete weather stations seems insane." I've had the same question/concern. Brian's response is "you'll be happy to learn the issues you raise are addressed in ...." so don't worry be happy. Take our word for it, we're experts.
In the last few years, physicists have started to dabble in climate science and have already developed some interesting avenues of inquiry. With just a few minutes of digging I found the following paper from the Journal of Non-Equilibrium Thermodynamics (June 2006): "Does a Global Temperature Exist?"
The underlying point is that you really can't average temperatures, as temperatures aren't additive. The authors aren't saying that you can't do climate science because of this, just that you have to be clear about what you're actually measuring and its implications:
"A given temperature field can be interpreted as both “warming” and “cooling” simultaneously, making the concept of warming in the context of the issue of global warming physically ill-posed." "Paradoxically, whether the system is “warming” or “cooling” becomes a property of the choice of average — a choice which is independent of the system."
This is a profound and deep criticism of AGW theory. I also suggest that it explains why AGW advocates can cherry pick data set to support their arguments. AGW theory is based on extrapolating from perceived 0.1C per decade changes over the last 50 years. I suggest this is much smaller than the potential for error in the supposed measuring stick that's being used.
So many aspects of AGW theory are suspect that it's positively Orwellian. That's even before you get to the politics and MSM coverage.
The Truth is Out There
Article source: http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/globaltemp/GlobTemp.JNET.pdf
By Brian, at
Fri Dec 18, 10:54:00 AM:
Anon, the "you can't average" argument has been around for a while and seems pretty ridiculous. Is Florida warmer or colder than Alaska? Their answer would be "who knows? There's no way to tell!" I wonder how they plan their vacations.
"AGW theory is based on extrapolating from perceived 0.1C per decade changes over the last 50 years."
No - AGW theory began in 1896, with CO2 identified as a greenhouse gas long before that. And the warming has been confirmed multiple times, including by satellite and radiosonde.
By , at
Fri Dec 18, 10:57:00 AM:
I disagree about Brian, TH, though it is your blog and your call. His links are to screeds, usually without any factual content at all, and his arguments are endlessly repetitive and vacuous. He's a classic troll.
By , at
Fri Dec 18, 11:31:00 AM:
The upper atmosphere is cooling dramatically. Should we be worried? Who knows, but I'm certain many will argue that fact has nothing to do with climate. Forget I mentioned it.
By , at
Fri Dec 18, 01:07:00 PM:
'Anon, the "you can't average" argument has been around for a while and seems pretty ridiculous. Is Florida warmer or colder than Alaska? Their answer would be "who knows?"
This is an example of why I partly agree with this:
"His links are to screeds, usually without any factual content at all, and his arguments are endlessly repetitive and vacuous. He's a classic troll."
I do not mind him posting in here. I value a diversity of opinion. Keeps us all on our toes. He does seem to be more concerned with being right that uncovering the truth, though. My dad was a bit like that.
Now, moving on, to the (neat) post which cited this article,
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/globaltemp/GlobTemp.JNET.pdf
It did speak to one of my worries, that being that global warming theory seems founded on an idea of temperature which seems arbitrary and which is opaque to common sense.
If you take the example of a world consisting of Florida and Alaska, the implication seems to be that you could in fact take the temperature of each and average them and that would be the average temperature of the earth. Of course maybe you would want to weight the averages for area. So maybe if you had a weather station in Alaska and another in Florida you would have the data you need.
It looks to me though, so far, that "who knows" is the more intelligent answer. First of all, consider the boundaries. If the earth only consisted of Florida and Alaska, there would be the legal border between them and in our science we would be assuming that this was also a physically significant border.
This leads to more questions I cannot answer.
Where are the physically significant borders between weather stations?
Does it complicate things that within the border of Alaska you might have some areas with climates distinctly different than the climate at the weather station?
If one area of Alaska, where the station was, was cooling and other parts of the state were warming, how would we be aware of this? How would we know how to properly adjust the data of our cooly sited weather station?
I think when people more generally start asking questions like these, the alarmist response of, "trust us, we understand the science really well," may not cut it.
That leads me to a couple other questions I cannot answer.
1. How should we measure the temperature of the earth.
2. If we could measure in some way the temperature, could we correlate it to the historical record?
M.E.
By Brian Schmidt, at
Fri Dec 18, 02:47:00 PM:
Anon at 11:31 - here's the fifth sentence of the article you linked to:
"(While that may seem to contradict the idea of global warming, it has long been known that carbon dioxide causes warming in the lowest part of the atmosphere and cooling in the upper layers of the atmosphere.)"
Stratospheric cooling is considered the fingerprint of greenhouse gases. Solar influences can't explain it.
By , at
Fri Dec 18, 05:05:00 PM:
And for those interested in the lede of the article, and not blinded by religious fervor, it is
"The data, from NASA's TIMED mission, show that Earth's thermosphere (the layer above 62 miles or 100 km above the Earth's surface) "responds quite dramatically to the effects of the 11-year solar cycle," Stan Solomon of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., said here this week at the annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union.
Knowing just how the energy flowing out from the sun naturally impacts the state of the thermosphere also will help scientists test predictions that man's emissions of carbon dioxide should cool this layer."
In other words, we don't know what the truth is of CO2 impact on the outer layer of the atmosphere and we're about to learn.
Learning is good, but it requires an open mind Brian.
By , at
Fri Dec 18, 06:16:00 PM:
From "The Truth is Out There"
Brian's response to my citing a scientific article was: "Anon, the "you can't average" argument has been around for a while and seems pretty ridiculous."
I've gotten this kind of response from Brian here many times before. For awhile Brian actually pushed me to figure out that AGW science was bogus -- I don't think that was his intention -- but I'm getting diminishing returns. What's a mother to do?
This should be a silly academic debate, but unfortunately it will have very real implications. The Big Lie will be exposed at some point. I didn't used to be nutty about this, but we need to shut down the EPA and our funding for every college climate science department -- and then start over. Brian has convinced me of that. Until then, I dream of Al Gore accepting a Sarah Palin challenge to debate on this topic. She'd kill ManBearPig ... and then field dress him.
Back to the article I cited: "Does a Global Temperature Exist?" These physicists are saying that "global average temperature" is an oxymoron. They go further than this in their paper to show that your choice of method to calculate this oxymoron actually affects your outcome ... using the same data, literally one man's warming can be another man's cooling. Their observation is focused on drawing conclusions from "tight" data. If world temperatures had universally jumped 10 degrees in the last decade, or the oceans risen a foot, we'd be in the realm of practical personal observation -- but that hasn't happened, has it?. This is actually a profound insight into why the methods of AGW theory are flawed, on top of issues over how data was collected and how computer simulations were run.
By , at
Fri Dec 18, 06:52:00 PM:
I don't know how you could go about developing "macro" climate science without starting with the Sun, variations in its output and how Earth absorbs that energy. Milankovitch did seminal work on this, linking ice age cycles to specific variables in the Earth's orbit, tilt, etc ... Things like sunspots -- which affect the amount of cosmic rays that hit Earth might drive shorter cycles.
If you're looking for an atmospheric suspect, clouds would be a more likely suspect than CO2. Water vapor outweighs CO2 in the air by a factor of a gazillion to one. Some physicists suggest that the volume of cosmic rays affects the amount of cloud cover. Cosmic rays actually pack a lot of energy, so this isn't crazy.
We've made CO2 into a villain, why not H20 as well.
The Truth is Out There
