Calm down, Geronimo.

Perhaps now you appreciate why I disengage when my opposition goes off track, rather than expressing my true opinion.

Martin A

Remember Tamsin Edward's blog on this topic?

http://blogs.plos.org/models/climate-scientists-must-not-advocate-particular-policies/

And the diversity of comments here.

http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2013/8/1/tamsin-and-the-hornets-nest.html

Do I not look calm to you EM?

"Perhaps now you appreciate why I disengage when my opposition goes off track, rather than expressing my true opinion."

Nope I don't appreciate why you disengage, in fact I simply don't understand what you're talking about. Most of what you say on here seem like opinions to me, are you suggesting that they're not your true opinions? That there's another set of opinions you have that and you disengage when they begin to surface?

Geronimo

You said

"the alarmist scientists are political pawns, some willingly, some unwittingly, in an attempt to get control over every facet of our lives by the environmentalists.

I'm not a conspiracy theorist, our would be tormentors have written it all down in the writings of Maurice Strong, Agenda 21 and the Club of Rome's aims and objectives"

That is conspiracy theory, based on evidence as tenuous as the plasma in the fluorescent tube by whose light I am writing this. The rest of your last three comments is similarly specious.

If this is your idea of proof, you are yourself deluded. If this is the material you would use to debate the science with the scientists, be glad that noone in the trade will bother to swat so insignificant a fly.

If you want proper evidence, go read AR5 WG1. Then come up with a better explanation, not this denialist blather.

When you discuss the science sensibly I enjoy the debate. When you wander off into this near-paranoia, there is no point.

Well at least you've been provoked into giving your true opinions EM, and you must feel better for that.

"That is conspiracy theory, based on evidence as tenuous as the plasma in the fluorescent tube by whose light I am writing this."

Here from wikipedia is the definition of a conspiracy theory:

"A conspiracy theory is an explanatory proposition that accuses two or more persons, a group, or an organization of having caused or covered up, through secret planning and deliberate action, an illegal or harmful event or situation."

Just so you understand a conspiracy theory is a post hoc theory. So whatever it is I was saying wasn't a conspiracy theory.

I pointed to the writings of Maurice Strong, Agenda 21 and The Club of Rome, they are there for you to see, as are the agendas of the various failed COPs which strongly support policies coincident with the aims and objectives of the above mentioned. By definition none of these are conspiracies because they're not in secret - ..."our would be tormentors have written it all down in the writings of Maurice Strong, Agenda 21 and the Club of Rome's aims and objectives" was kinda the clue.

You clearly misunderstand what a conspiracy theorist is, but that's OK it's common in these days for people not to given the way it's thrown around to win arguments.

"If this is your idea of proof, you are yourself deluded. If this is the material you would use to debate the science with the scientists, be glad that noone in the trade will bother to swat so insignificant a fly."

Well you at least got one thing right I am an "insignificant fly". But I'm not sure what you think I offered as proof. Proof of what?

So you can better understand what I'm saying I'll try to explain it for you. The science has nothing to do with this other than it is a vehicle for powerful groups to impose their political philosophies and belief systems on the rest of us. The evidence doesn't have to be sought because as I've said before, they've written their goals down and they're right there present at all the COPs trying to impose their political will on us through the science. They've even admitted they're using the science to do that. Read them, I'm not making anything up.

"If you want proper evidence, go read AR5 WG1."

Let's get something understood, the IPCC was set up to identify the human influence on the climate, it doesn't have a remit to do science, other than science that proves humans are causing catastrophic climate change. If it doesn't do that it's failed. In TAR and AR4 the climate science community backed itself into a corner and it's difficult to see how they can get out of it. AR5 looks as though the first inklings of what they've done and where they are have dawned on the community and there is a little more circumspection in the forecasts of doom and gloom, but they've a long way to go.

"Then come up with a better explanation..."

I don't have to have a better explanation, there is clear evidence of global temperature variations in the records as big as today, so the null hypothesis is that it's a natural cycle. Why would you expect me to explain a natural cycle?

As for your own "proofs", and indeed the "hundreds of independent lines of evidence" they are evidence of global warming, not of the effect CO2 has had on global warming. Glaciers have melted in the recent past sufficiently enough for us to find bodies in them four thousand years old. So asking me to prove there isn't a God doesn't add anything to the discussion. I can't but don't have to because there's no evidence the other way, just faith.

"... this denialist blather."

Have you just run up the Jolly Roger? Are we seeing the real Entropic Man at last? I welcome you on this site because you, and others like you in the past, challenge our echo chamber. Clearly we are an irritating bunch because our would be superior intellects invariably resort to invective. I don't blame them with me because I admit to being an insignificant fly, but there are others who don't deserve the invective.

Martin A

There was some discussion of the question of political activity among climate scientist last Summer. Tamsin Edwards argued that they were better as advisors on the science, rather than as advocates for policy. She's a climate modeller, of consensus views, and more willing to engage with sceptics than most.

Bishop Hill put her article up, among others and there was considerable discussion on BH about it. The majority agreed with her, that scientists should stay out of politics. I also see considerable hostility to politically active scientists such as James Hansen and Michael Mann.

Personally I think that it takes a certain type of personality to enjoy politics. I' d keep my head down and work through IPCC. I get abuse enough here, without going out in the public arena.

Martin A

Coming back to the original theme, I was reminded of an old suggestion that there are two types of scientist. Like most such "two types" ideas it had severe limitations. It did however give food for thought and bears on our different viewpoints.

Type 1 scientists have expertise in a mature science such as chemical analysis, where there is universal agreement on the theory. They apply that expertise to engineering, forensics, immunology etc. I worked for such as a lab technician briefly in a hospital lab. They are brilliant at carrying out test 147/B2 on a blood sample to the limits of accuracy and sensitivity of which the test is capable. And then advising a doctor of the implications for the patient.

Type 2 scientists tend to work around the edges, in sciences which are still developing. There may be competing theories and considerable uncertainties. Type 2s revel in exploring the unknown, discovering something new and unexpected .

Type 2s tend to regard Type 1s as staid, conservative and unimaginative; unwilling to adopt new ideas.

Type 1s trend to regard Type 2s as dangerously unstable, unwilling to commit to a firm position and willing to accept all sorts of daft ideas on minimal evidence. They are also a threat, since a Type 2 might discover something which renders test 147/B2 obsolete, along with the carefully nurtured skills needed to carry it out.

Both are necessary. Type 1s wield existing knowledge to the best advantage of civilisation. Type 2s extend the boundaries, discovering new knowledge and problems with old assumptions.

Unfortunately, the two approaches tend to require different personalities. Engineers and medical scientists would tend to be Type1; climate scientists Type 2.

I suspect that Michael hart and yourself are Type 1, while I lean towards Type 2. This may explain why we disagree. Probably both of us are right, within our respective terms of reference.

Remember your Kipling -

" There ane nine and twenty ways

To say the tribal lays.

And every single one of them is right! "

Hi Chandra

Don't know about the Ridley piece. Honestly haven't read it.

Ok then, if adaptation is the only game in town and it's deemed necessary you ask whether we (the "west") should pay for it?.

In principle I don't have an outright objection to providing aid to anyone at all (after all, the west has developed advanced industrial societies off the back of their cheap resources and often labour...not being political and "right-on" with that, just a fact) but I would hope that it wouldn't be unconditional.

What do you think to that Chandra? Fair comment?Robust?! (Put the word in to attempt to not appear to be going off topic cos I think we are Chandra....Said "we" note, not "you" so put your rhetorical knives away now!!!).

A

Hi Martin

Completely agree with your position. Completely. Any country that can "afford" a space programme and a nuclear weapons programmes (including a ballistic missile system) should simply not have aid in any form. Before that triggers the "you racist" software in individuals anywhere I feel just as strongly about such for ourselves too.....

The words "in principle" does rather hide a few things.

I was also very very clear that such aid shouldn't be "unconditional".

I can't agree that it is NECESSARILY harmful and in all cases though. Sorry Martin, just can't. Do you ever give to a charity by the way?

I've just had a thought in response to "from poor people in rich countries"...Yup, agreed. The thought........shame it can't be forced from the rich people in poor countries though isn't it?...Just a thought.

Anyhoo....I am going well off topic. Apologies.

A

Robustly so however.....

Geronimo

We've had fun shouting at each other, now let's play with the science.

You said

"There is clear evidence of global temperature variations in the records as big as today, so the null hypothesis is that it's a natural cycle. Why would you expect me to explain a natural cycle?"

Shall we teat the robustness (however it is meant) of this null hypothesis?

There are two cycles within the 120 years of global records available. I suggest you, and anyone else interested, read up on the Atlantic Meridional Oscillation (AMO) and the 11 year solar cycle.
You might also download this graphic of the last 120 years global temperatures.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A2.gif

We will also need a mutually acceptable temperature graphic for the previous few hundred years. Please find one and Iet me know where to copy it.

I'll be back this evening.
"

"I get abuse enough here, without going out in the public arena."

Quite so EM, I have just been accused of being a "conspiracy theorist", making "specious" comments, "deluded", an "insignificant fly" and talking "denialist blather" in a single post by one of the contributors here.

I don't read every post but I've not noticed anyone aiming similar invective at you. This is a site where strangers come to exchange ideas in good faith no one should expect to be abused or sneered at. We can have robust (that word again!) exchanges for sure, why not? Even make mild fun of each other, but abuse doesn't help and,indeed, may do damage to the victim's self-esteem. And we wouldn't want that, would we?

EM. I wasn't aware I was shouting forgive me.

Let's use this map:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png

Here's my scientific position:

Everyone agrees that CO2 causes energy in the 4 and 15 micron bands to be absorbed and emitted by CO2. Everyone agrees that human emissions have increased CO2 in the atmosphere, and everyone agrees that the temperatures have risen by around 0.8C.

Here's what I believe the scientists don't know:

1. How much heat is actually attributable to CO2. And how much is natural variations. We appear to have started our instrumental records during the LIA, which itself may be the lowest temperatures we've seen during the holocene;

2. The scientists cannot build models that can foretell the future state of a coupled non-linear chaotic system and they've told us they can't in IPCC TAR3 WGI 14.2.2.2. So all the projections are actually hocus pocus;

3. The future state of society for given scenarios.

Yet they've pushed for a reduction of CO2 which just isn't going to happen in the real world unless we can get the Chinese, Indians, Brazilians, Mexicans and South Africans to freeze taking their people out of poverty. Good luck with that one.

There is no effective renewable energy solution on a global scale. I'm a fan of renewable energy it's a wise course to take for a lot of reasons, but the only effective renewable is nuclear, and of course, the environmentalists have lobbied governments world wide not to use it.

Meanwhile we've spent hundreds of billions of dollars on renewable energy subsidies and climate science research which I believe would have been better spent on developing cleaner safer nuclear reactors.

So what's to talk about? I'll confess to you that unlike Martin A and many others on this blog I didn't start out believing that in CAGW. It is a characteristic of the dumber human to doubt everything,.(I do it all the time if anything is going to get my suspicions raised it's a sentence that starts with the words "Scientists say..." Anything starting with those words in my experience has a probability close to zero of being true). Having looked at it on day one it didn't make sense to me then, and it makes even less sense scientifically now.

What I have come to understand though is that it really isn't about science it's about environmentalists and their fellow travellers getting total control of our lives and forcing their belief system on the rest of us. And of course if you want evidence read Agenda 21, the Club of Rome and the writings of Maurice Strong. The have a plan, they didn't invent the CAGW meme, but they've given it legs.

Read this:

"I was making a speech to nearly 200 really hard core, deep environmentalists and I played a little thought game on them. I said imagine I am the carbon fairy and I wave a magic wand. We can get rid of all the carbon in the atmosphere, take it down to two hundred fifty parts per million and I will ensure with my little magic wand that we do not go above two degrees of global warming. However, by waving my magic wand I will be interfering with the laws of physics not with people – they will be as selfish, they will be as desiring of status. The cars will get bigger, the houses will get bigger, the planes will fly all over the place but there will be no climate change. And I asked them, would you ask the fairy to wave its magic wand? And about 2 people of the 200 raised their hands."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00q3cnl with a transcript at http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/programmes/analysis/transcripts/25_01_10.txt

Jones:

> Don't know about the Ridley piece...

Well since you 'knew' enough about the subject to accuse me of being "disingenuous" (dishonest, deceitful, duplicitous, double-dealing, two-faced, dissembling...) I thought you might at least take a look at the evidence to the contrary or retract your accusation.

Martin A, your objection to aid doesn't surprise me and I imagine it is shared by many posters here. They are happy to denounce mitigation on the basis that it will "hurt the poor", or some such, they want the state to pay for 'adaption' to warming in rich countries, a fair number probably object to being taxed at all ('cos all tax is theft, of course) and they certainly don't want any of their tax money going to help poor countries adapt. Hell no! India has nukes so the whole third world must suffer.

Chandra

Since the climate models are even worse at regional level than they are at global level, nobody knows what we might have to adapt to. If it gets a little colder in the UK, I don't think many people will expect the government to issue us with sweaters. If it gets a little warmer, I don't think people will be clamouring for the government to issue us with fans. Why is it only governments who have to to take the adaptive actions? If it gets too warm to grow wheat, why should governments pay for different crops or for the development of heat-resistant strains of existing crops? Why not leave it to farmers and agro businesses?

Martin A. Your view on aid is spot on, both the individual level and at the national level. You can't make poor people better off by giving them money. The answer lies in democracy, and the eradication of corruption, although for sure democracy is the most important. We have just finished the biggest social experiment in the history of the world, and divided it into two parts, one democratic and capitalist, one undemocratic and socialist. The former won hands down.

What the poor need is jobs, education and health care, that will only come from inward investment by greedy capitalist bastards. There's plenty of proof that once corruption is eradicated investors will come into a country, democracy means they'll stay there.

Hi Chandra

Have you please had a chance to read the EU regulatory requirements with respect to the Somerset plains? Please tell me if you haven't.

It does pertain to my comment.

Andy

Martin, you are right, my little rhetorical flourish was clearly a gross exaggeration. You merely expressed your outright principled opposition to providing aid to anyone at all.

>> @jones "In principle I don't have an outright
>> objection to providing aid to anyone at all "

> @MartinA: Well mabe you don't, but I do. It's harmful
> to everybody. ["taking money from poor people in
> rich countries and giving it to rich people in poor
> countries"]

No evidence offered except a rant about aid to a nuclear armed India. So any adaption that is needed in 3rd world countries will have to be funded by someone else, 'cos you want nothing to do with it. Presumably you also want nothing to do with any aid that builds fossil fuel power stations that your fellow commenters insist is saving the lives of the poor and is endangered by people like me. At least that would be consistent although it might open you to harsh criticism from the Drakes and Gueniers of this world (as if).

> Aid to countries with high levels of corruption
> enhances the level of venality and keeps them locked
> into poverty

So we should avoid aiding coutries that are corrupt. Is that all of the 3rd world? And does your 'principled objection' to aid extend for example to resource extraction wherever there is corruption involved (and where isn't there or hasn't there been)? Do you refrain from filling your fuel tank because the petroleum industry plays such a part in corrupting governments and officials?