SandyS (6:54 PM): good point – a projection on my part, perhaps? I doubt that I am actually teaching anyone here very much at all, other than how dim Rodents can be.

I think Chandra’s blindness is quite wilful; consider this:

> the human contribution to the observed
> increase in CO2 is considered to be a very
> small proportion (circa 3%), so how can it
> be a given that a reduction in human
> emissions will result in a lowering of the
> concentration?

CO2 levels have increased by 40% in 150 years. I don’t recognise your 3%.

I have seen that figure of about 3% of the CO2 rise being human-produced CO2 quoted in quite a wide number of publications, and have stated it in several posts on this site; no-one has yet corrected me. Is it wrong? IS the entire 40% increase in CO2 concentration solely caused by humans? I suspect not, though will not be offended if I am corrected.

Of course, there is the standard disbelief in the “hiatus”, obviously not understanding that a plateau is a plateau, and is generally higher than what was before, though there may be some higher points, as well as some lower. This does not preclude the possibility of another slope – either up or down – but that fact does not remove the reality of the plateau; a point that almost all the major climatic bodies (GISS, UKMO, IPCC et al) accept; why do people like Chandra reject it?

At least

Climate has changed drastically in the past…

is a form of acknowledgement that climates can change without the influence of humans, even if the meaning of my original message was lost. Perhaps I was being too cryptic.

However,

That your views align so strongly with the interests of powerful resource extraction industries...

makes me reject any further discourse with this person, as it so obviously indicates Chandra to be utterly blinded by ideology, and holds a position that is unassailable by mere reason.

Anyhoo… to return to the original subject (great title, by the way – and how many recognise its source? – or, indeed, remember the name of the person, himself!): Ruth, you do make a very, very important observation; if it is a misunderstanding, then it is so basic that any other claims can be totally dismissed.

Thanks Chandra mate, see you do add value...

BH Discussion: Warmism, a new form of global cult?

(thought it was better as a new discussion)

Martin

> His telling me that a new graduate in molecular
> physics could not immediately earn a living …

I think what I said was rather more nuanced.

> It is absolutely certain that Chandra will not have
> even the slightest inkling what this says about …

Pot calling kettle black. You are unaware of your ignorance of my level of knowledge ;-) I am aware of what this says of his intellectual level (as it was in the 40’s and 50’s) but I didn’t say Lewis was incapable of learning CS. I have however seen no evidence that he actually took the time to read much or any CS before his letter. Maybe you have some records of where he refuted specific CS claims before writing his letter - that would support your case. As it is it looks like a case of ageing physicist syndrome (for which there is an excellent xkcd cartoon, if I can find it I will post it).

Big Oil

> Professor Lewis … evaluated the possibilty of 'nuclear winter' - climate change … computer modeling of climate scenarios.

Unlikely that he actually did any of the modelling though. And he would noy have believed the results of unvalidated models anyway.

Radical Rodent

> I have seen that figure of about 3% … in quite
> a wide number of publications, and have stated
> it in several posts on this site; no-one has yet
> corrected me.

You really don’t understand how it works here, do you? A sceptic can publish any sort of twaddle in an argument with a warmist and nobody here is going to correct you, even though plenty might know what you write to be false. This site is not about the science. Science is just a bystander in a political fight.

> Of course, there is the standard disbelief in the
> “hiatus”, … why do people like Chandra reject it?

I don’t know whether there has been a pause or not but I do know that anything that is quoted as 'since 1998' is misleading.

> … is a form of acknowledgement that climates
> can change …

Where has anyone denied that?

Chandra
How about using blockquote tags rather than the > character, which makes your postings more difficult to read than they already are?

Many thanks

Martin,

> Here's what you actually said: "... However, I
> would be rather surprised if many new graduates
> could, on their own, make a living in such a
> manner without that period of post-grad training."

The nuance is in the important words “on their own”. More broadly you were trying to argue that an English graduate has no need for years of study in order to understand climate science on the basis that a graduate in molecular physics (who was originally numerate and has studied MP for years) can successfully apply his learning. That’s like saying that I should have no trouble understanding French because you did a 3 year course in plumbing and have fitted a new lavatory to you own satisfaction (pun intended).

On Hal Lewis, did he write anything on the subject that shows he has read the literature? Did he provide any evidence for his accusations of fraud against a whole profession?

> And obviously when resigning … he would
> not have bothered to read up on the subject …
> - it's just not the sort of thing people bother do is it?

Not if you already ‘know’ the answer.

Found it:http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2556#comic

Chandra, Chandra, CHANDRA!!!

Time to come in!!! Get inside now and have your bath.

Thanks for the comic link Chandra..flicked through a few pages, some were really quite funny and clever. Bookmarked.

I do actually collect comics in paper form as a hobby....Have done the last few decades...

A

Not if you already ‘know’ the answer.

And, you, Chandra, “know” that that is exactly what Hal Lewis “knew”…

…… ….

… ...

..

/facepalm

Yes Martin I'm an ignorant oik. But for all your and Lewis' erudition, you still cannot support the idea that Lewis knows what he is talking about on climate or has any evidence of fraud beyond saying that he is a clever man. If he had seen flaws in the science wouldn't a true scientist have written them down (with pages of equations, being a physicist), given presentations, tried to convince the physics world that they were wrong? Since when was "I'm a genius, believe me" enough to convince a 'sceptic' of anything.

In my reading of the Hal Lewis letter, he does state specific issues – the apparent abandonment of the Society’s own constitution, and its hostile response to any questioning of the climate change mantra, and suppression of any discussion about it. His description of the issues would make them very easy to verify. So, whether or not Hal Lewis “knows” anything about climate change is utterly irrelevant, and a straw-man; his resignation is over the subversion of ethics of a once-highly respected organisation, all, it would seem, in the pursuit of money.

However, even though probably never having heard of the APS before, Chandra “knows” Hal Lewis is wrong.

Where is Monty and his love of irony?

Hal Lewis thought that the global warming scare was a scam. You don't have to be a physicist to think that. His reasons were that he believed the money pouring into science had made scientists who would otherwise dismiss it keep schtum. They're opinions and anyone can have them - or indeed share them with Lewis, which I do.

The reason he resigned from the APS was that a small number of people met at a lunch and decided that the APS would make a statement on climate change. This was done without consultation with the members and stated the evidence for climate change was "incontrovertible", Lewis complained at the use of the word "incontrovertible" as unscientific and got the signatures of 200 members for a review of the statement, which was the number required by the rules of the APS . He was ignored by the leaders of the APS and so resigned from it.

The APS is reviewing its position on climate change as we write, and has taken evidence from prominent sceptics as well as others. Should they decide on a new statement whatever view is expressed I doubt very much it will contain the word "incontrovertible". Lewis was right that word has no place in the scientific lexicon.

I have often wondered what is in the minds of people, like the, APS, Royal Society and the Met Office that break years of traditionally neutrality to become open supporters for political causes. They stayed admirably silent when the cult of Eugenics was at its height.

This post was to give background to the other posters more interested in knowing what Hal Lewis was about.

Chandra, there's need for you to make any response I'm not interested in the least what you have to say, you come on this blog claiming to be an ignoramus and that proud boast has more than been proven by your contributions. There's no need to provide more evidence thank you. We get it.

[pointless pedantic ad hom crack coming up] Clearly Monty isn't an English graduate, or he wouldn't repeatedly refer to a boson named after someone called Higg.

It turns out that Lewis _did_ know something about climate, writing in his 1992 book Technological Risk

"All models agree that the net effect will be a general and global warming of the earth; they only disagree about how much. None suggest that it will be a minor effect, to be ignored while we go about our business."

and

"the bottom line is that the Earth will be substantially warmed by the accumulation of man-made gases mainly carbon dioxide... The only option in the long run is to decrease the amount of waste gases in the atmosphere."

(http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Hal_Lewis)

Indeed Chandra.

However, as the facts change then so should one's mind. To do otherwise is to wait until the truth stabs ones eyes out.

I would hope you can accept this axiom.

I and everyone else here knows your position but I again ask that you retain a significant streak of doubt in your mind as to what you currently hold to be "true".

I also was as firmly committed to the "belief" as you still appear to be now. You know this. I helped out on many occasions at election time with leafleting/door-knocking for the local Green Party candidate.

I REFUSED to own a car for over six years because of my own belief. I flew only once during that time.

I also paid a voluntary energy levy of 10% on my bills to subsidise wind-farm construction for many years.

I put my own money where my mouth was. How many can say the same?.

However, I began to question matters and there is little point in us rehashing that out with each other Chandra. We are both currently committed to our respective stance and that is OK.

It remains very firmly my own view that you will be feeling rather sheepish in the next few years as the real world just passes you by.

Do engage if you feel the need to.

As an aside Chandra if the facts (as I see them of course) change in the future I will seamlessly and quite comfortably become an "alarmist" again without a hint of dissonance. I really would. To do otherwise would be irrational.

Alright old chap. See you around again.

Andy

AJ:
Do facts change? Or is it our awareness of facts that changes? Perhaps it is our interpretation of observations that change – the Sun rises in the east, tracks across the sky, and sets in the west; our original interpretation of this observation was that the Earth was static and it was the Sun that moved; it is an observable fact, and all sorts of elaborate ideas were concocted to explain it. We now know differently, and are convinced of another, simpler (therefore, to our logic, more rational) explanation; the facts did not change, merely our awareness, or, perhaps more accurately, our interpretation of our observations; as our observations increased, so did our awareness.

Of awareness, it is interesting how we can see things yet not be aware of them. This was demonstrated admirably in a Christmas lecture shown on the BBC (2011 or ’12, can’t remember which) where the audience was asked to count the bounces of a ball on a tennis racquet. All dutifully began counting. No-one saw the gorilla in the room, as a man in a gorilla suit cavorted in background. Hidden in plain sight, you might say; a tactic used by magicians the world over (and not just magicians, as is increasingly becoming obvious).

To highlight the flaws that can exist in human logic, I have heard of a tribe to which 2+2 did equal 5. To perform the sum, they would have two pieces of string, and tie two knots in each. Two strings; two knots in each. To add the two, you have tie the two pieces of string together (they are not “added” otherwise). How many knots do you now have? Whether or not the story is true, the logic displayed is impeccable – and utterly wrong, of course.

Some people, however, cannot see a fact if it was staring them in the face. Some people seem to revel in their ignorance, positively wallowing in it, taking great pride in it. Some people seem desperate to find offence in what others may say, whether or not any actual reference is made to or about to them.

Very, very few people manage to combine all three of those traits; Chandra shows every sign of being one of those people.

By the way, AJ, impressed by your level of commitment; I, too, have always been concerned about the human influence on the many habitats – often not, it would appear, for the benefit of the habitats or their denizens – and remain so, though not to your levels. I have also been very aware of the “Do as I say, not as I do” attitude of a lot of the “green” leaders (Al Gore’s concerned look as he helicopters over the Arctic (Antarctic?) wastes being a very, very good case in point).

I have been involved in projects to clear wastelands, resurrecting wetlands and woodlands, often to the verbal encouragement of the local council – for them to then raze it, as someone comes up with a more “profitable” use for the area.

I once looked on wind turbines as a good sign of progress; then I saw once-glorious moorlands covered with a “farm”. Then I realised that they were not just a pole stuck in the ground, with a fan at the top. They need foundations – big, heavy, widespread foundations; foundations that can only be made by digging up acres of that wonderful, rich peat, and pouring hundreds of tons of concrete in. Yes, eventually the moors will recover, and, in a few millennia, archaeologists will ponder over what strange rites were performed on these plinths atop the mountains; but they do remain a loss to our present. A huge visual, environmental and financial loss.

Radical Rodent

I have been involved in projects to clear wastelands, resurrecting wetlands and woodlands,

Not wishing to take the thread on another excursion or denigrate your work but I'm not sure this is always a good thing. In the former case nature does a pretty good job of sorting out wastelands on its own, often adding to the biodiversity of an area. Just because humans created the wasteland and not a volcano/tsunami/landslide it doesn't necessarily mean that making it "better" is a good idea. It is also debatable whether changing something back to what it was n thousand years ago is a good thing. Everything has moved on and who should play God and say the the inhabitants of the new wetland have more rights than the inhabitants of the land as it is now? Woodland tends to support a more diverse population than the blanket bog that covers the ancient woodland in Scotland and Ireland, should we try and change it back though? Derelict canals probably support more wildlife than a reactivated one used by a few narrowboat enthusiasts, yet it appears reactivating a waterway for leisure pursuits is considered a good thing.

That's not to say that stuff like Rhododendrons, Japanese Knotweed, Mink and Grey Squirrels aren't a problem. Each case needs to be taken on its own merit, which I'm sure you did.

Just something that people need to consider before undertaking these projects.

That is a point well made, RR (your post at Mar 31, 2014 at 6:48 AM).
I think the analogy can be extended further to cover climate models (and every other type of model in the physical sciences).
How often do we hear words to the effect of

"But they are constructed on basic, undisputed physics...".

Well, yes, of course they are (we hope). Picking an example, that CO2 absorbs in the infra-red is certainly undisputed (by me, at least. I have observed it in the laboratory). But that doesn't mean every important interaction, ramification, corollary, or interdependent contingency of other factors in the outside world is adequately described by the models. That is the heart of the matter. The physics (and chemistry and biology) encoded could be completely correct, but if it is seriously incomplete, it may as well be wrong. And if the predicted results don't match observations....

Thank you, SandyS; but, note that I said “have been” not “am”. I rarely get involved, nowadays, not least because I have little time for it, but it often seems utterly pointless. And you are right – is the result always a Good Thing? Nevertheless, it still grieves me to see some wild areas being “developed”, and I do like the idea of having navigable waterways, man-made though they may be (I wonder why the Greens haven't latched onto that one to protest about?). By the way, what is wrong with narrow-boat enthusiasm?

Michael hart: that is a good point. How much physics is actually undisputed? Can it be verified that testing of an item in the strictly-controlled conditions of a lab are going to give the same results in the uncontrolled atmosphere? I am sure it must be comforting to perform an experiment and have it turn out the results you expected, but can you really be sure that the same reactions or effects will occur outside, in the wild? Would it be possible to emulate in a lab all the known variables identified in the atmosphere? If so, how about the as-yet unidentified variables? Questions, it seems, that a lot of people are not asking.

As an aside, here’s an interesting quote, from John McTernan, a former Labour adviser: “You cannot trust people to spend their own money sensibly.” An interesting statement, utterly bereft of any sort of sensible logic.

Hi Rodent

Thank you for that. Your points got my head whirring (that's a good thing!).

I'm literally going off the cuff here with this response but I'll try to respond in a lucid manner....I'm no philosophy graduate etc or anything....

You said "Do facts change? Or is it our awareness of facts that changes? Perhaps it is our interpretation of observations that change".

That got me thinking....Hmm....If I'm cold (both a physiological and an emotional state of being note) because the temperature is a (factually) minus 10 then I go into a house where the temperature is plus 30 celsius degrees I will form the view that I'm warm. The facts in these circumstances certainly have changed so I change my mind!(Gaaawd that was so off the cuff..sorry it shows).

I liked the example of a heliocentric contrasted with a goecentric model of the "heavens". Indeed. Although what you describe as a "fact" in these terms would be more properly (I guess) be confined to the concept of a "theory" but in the middle ages they had, at best, a rather primitive scientific reasoning structure and certainly what they saw (perceived) was, at least in a rudimentary fashion, consistent with that "theory". Hopefully that addresses to a degree your point about interpretation.

One could also go down the road of the progress from flat Earth to sphere (well, actually, a sort of an ovoid but lets not fall out on that one!!!). By the way, did you know that the highest point on the Earth's surface if measured from the centre is NOT actually Mt Everest?. I think it's somewhere in Chile....An example of reality/perceptual divergence there maybe???

Or even plate tectonics?...................................

On a more prosaic level I have absolutely no issue whatsoever with "environmentalism" but such should concern itself with matters like pollution/trees and the like (but not to the point of hugging them).

I do have a view on population levels but have well and truly learned that one draws a great deal of heat when in that area so I won't!!! I'm sure you get my drift.

Windmills are an obscene waste on so many levels and they don't work on an industrial civilisational level (fine to have on on your house with back-up batteries or on your boat/caravan etc but otherwise?..(after all, every car has an equivalent of a windmill and won't run at all without such).... the environmental damage with the monsters however is nail-spittingly obscene.....in danger of ranting now so will stop (oh yes, partly because I feel like a complete chump for pouring my own cash at them.....ah well, one moves on....eventually).

I began to slowly question internally the validity of the narrative before the so-called climate-gate scandal.

I'm spiraling off Rodent but to summarise, environmentalism is a perfectly laudable aim and practice but this CO2/global warming business is nothing more than a power grab....

Don't, please, ask me for my evidence for that or peer-reviewed work...Can't be bovvered.....(would take far far too long in any fora short of an outright face to face chat for a week or so to convey all the nuance and meaning of the above statement... I suspect you see it anyway.

P.S. Oh, just hit me as I was about to sign off....Can someone out there please explain to me why hydrocarbons are called "fossil fuels"?. Genuine question based on a new emerging questioning in my mind about the narrative around peak oil etc etc...

I ask this question because apart from the fact that there are enormous lakes of methane and ethane (fossil fuels note) on Saturn's moon, Titan and that the gas giant planets also contain huge amounts of "fossil fuel" too I really have no reason whatsoever to believe that there were ever any trees or dinosaurs etc on any of those planetary bodies?.

Not being (completely) sarcastic but to be consistent with the above can natural gas be both a fossil fuel and NOT a fossil fuel?. There may well be chemical subtleties that I just don't know and am very interested in this one of late....All petrol and the like are are longer chains of methane joined up after all so is "fossil fuel" an emergent geological phenomenon which will just keep going?

Reet lad...I'm going now. Have to do the washing.....

Cheers Rodent.