David Evans falls off the Global Warming Woo Wagon too!

[kallsop]

No smoking hot spot (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24036736-7583,00.html)

1. The greenhouse signature is missing. We have been looking and measuring for years, and cannot find it.
2. There is no evidence to support the idea that carbon emissions cause significant global warming. None.
3. The satellites that measure the world's temperature all say that the warming trend ended in 2001, and that the temperature has dropped about 0.6C in the past year (to the temperature of 1980).
4. The new ice cores show that in the past six global warmings over the past half a million years, the temperature rises occurred on average 800 years before the accompanying rise in atmospheric carbon. Which says something important about which was cause and which was effect.
The last point was known and past dispute by 2003, yet Al Gore made his movie in 2005 and presented the ice cores as the sole reason for believing that carbon emissions cause global warming. In any other political context our cynical and experienced press corps would surely have called this dishonest and widely questioned the politician's assertion.


Oops. Another unhappy Global Warming customer.

[casebro]

As only one component of "The World Wide Consensus", I've got to say Evans sums it up in a nut shell.

[Moochie]

Well, GW or not, I still smoke. But I give it up before bedtime every day.


M.

[mhaze]

No smoking hot spot . (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24036736-7583,00.html)

Oops. Another unhappy Global Warming customer.

Good article.

David Evans | July 18, 2008

I DEVOTED six years to carbon accounting, building models for the Australian Greenhouse Office. I am the rocket scientist who wrote the carbon accounting model (FullCAM) that measures Australia's compliance with the Kyoto Protocol, in the land use change and forestry sector.

....I started that job in 1999 the evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming seemed pretty good: CO2 is a greenhouse gas, the old ice core data, no other suspects. The evidence was not conclusive, but why wait until we were certain when it appeared we needed to act quickly? Soon government and the scientific community were working together and lots of science research jobs were created. We scientists had political support, the ear of government, big budgets, and we felt fairly important and useful (well, I did anyway). It was great. We were working to save the planet.


But since 1999 new evidence has seriously weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause of global warming, and by 2007 the evidence was pretty conclusive that carbon played only a minor role and was not the main cause of the recent global warming. As Lord Keynes famously said, "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"

[lomiller]

Hot on the heels of your other drive by thread that proved to be 100% false you present us with this one. Evans is a long time denier so the only way he would be “off the woo” is if he bothered to read a science journal. Like most of his ilk, Evans has not relevant credentials in climatology, he’s basically just some guy writing his opinions on the itenrweb.

Since I addressed that very quote in that other thread, I won’t bother to do so here. Perhaps while you are over there reading my post you can address the questions of why you posted something so blatantly untrue.

[lomiller]

http://www.desmogblog.com/who-is-rocket-scientist-david-evans


Here's the research database entry on David Evans:

No peer-reviewed articles on climate change


And


According to his bio, Evans claims to be a 'Rocket Scientist' and one article claims that he is a 'Top Rocket Scientist.' While Evans background does show that he has a PhD in electrical engineering, there is no evidence that he was ever employed as a rocket scientist.


Nothing to see here folks, just like the last thread the OP started…

[mhaze]

http://www.desmogblog.com/who-is-rocket-scientist-david-evans
…

A new Low in pathetic "references" , Lomiller cites Desmogblog. Thanks, very revealing . Who is Desmogblog and what are their financial interests?

Who is James Hoggan? (http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=2c07121b-85c2-4799-9aaf-0c2688bf5ca1&p=1) (Financial Post, Canada)"So who is James Hoggan? He's a public relations man, based in Vancouver. His firm, James Hoggan and Associates, is positioned as a feel-good local operation with clients in all the "right" public and private sectors. He also sits on the board of the David Suzuki Foundation.

One of his side efforts is a blog operated out of Hoggan and Associates. Funded by retired Internet bubble king John Lefebvre, the blog has one full-time and three part-time staff. They spend their time tracking down and maliciously attacking all who have doubts about climate change and painting them as corporate pawns.

There has been no mention on the blog, nor on The Fifth Estate, of James Hoggan's client list. They include or have included the National Hydrogen Association, Fuel Cells Canada, hydrogen producer QuestAir, Naikun Wind Energy and Ballard Fuel Cells.
Hoggan, in other words, benefits from regulatory policy based on climate change science.

Hoggan, paid PR man, no background in science, Lomiller's reference for the smear on David Evans.:clap:

[David Wong]

Wow, so with the 50,000 scientists in the other thread, this makes 50,001!

It's a good thing I only read the thread titles and don't actually follow up to find out if they're factually correct!

I bet there isn't a single scientist left who believes in this global warming silliness!

[ksbluesfan]

David Evans is an electrical engineer. He's not a geologist, climatologist or a rocket scientist.

I knew I should have started a new thread rather than putting the David Evans article in an existing AGW thread.

[lomiller]

A new Low in pathetic "references" , Lomiller cites Desmogblog. Thanks, very revealing . Who is Desmogblog and what are their financial interests?


Don’t confuse my post with your own garbage links where you cite people completely unqualified in the field they are discussing. The author of that particular site is as qualified as anyone to comment on the background and qualifications of David Evans.

I also find it interesting that you presume the site is “unreliable” not on credentials, citations or material being discussed but where the author stands politically relative to yourself. Not that we needed any further proof, but this really does show clearly that you base your views not on the science but on your politics.

[Megalodon]

It's funny that mhaze, who linked to a ID website as a global warming reference, would have the gall to complain about anyone's choice of source.

Wait, funny is not the word... depressing, that's it

[varwoche]

since 1999 new evidence has seriously weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause of global warming What evidence, one wonders?

by 2007 the evidence was pretty conclusive that carbon played only a minor role and was not the main cause of the recent global warming <loud guffaw>

So we know for sure that carbon emissions are not a significant cause of the global warming. <louder guffaw> For sure huh? Now it can be said with some confidence that he's a clueless pseudo skeptic.

There is no evidence to support the idea that carbon emissions cause significant global warming. None. <loudest guffaw> And now it can be said with some confidence that he's a whacked out zealot, due to these ludicrous absolute statements.

the temperature has dropped about 0.6C in the past year Even if this were true (I don't think it is), year to year fluctuations are insufficient to draw conclusions from given the multi-decade trend.

[technoextreme]

Oops. Another unhappy Global Warming customer.
Can we get someone who is actually a climatologist who changes his mind? This has just as much relevance as George W. Bush's opinion on rocket science.
David Evans is an electrical engineer. He's not a geologist, climatologist or a rocket scientist.
Ahhhh..... I wonder if Australia has the equivalent of a PE license. He could probably lose it for fraud. Though now that I think of it his explanation does make a bit of sense because one would have to be an expert in twenty disparate fields in order for one to qualify as a rocket scientist. Would that be aerospace engineering? On third thought rocket scientist is a loaded term.
Wow, so with the 50,000 scientists in the other thread, this makes 50,001!
Technically it depends on your opinion whether or not engineering is even a science.

[mhaze]

David Evans is an electrical engineer. He's not a geologist, climatologist or a rocket scientist.


An electrical engineer is an excellent choice for someone capable of writing computer programs describing the noise, positive and negative feedback loops, etc related to climate.

Let's see....what was the job of David Evans? Writing computer programs relating to climate.

[jj]

An electrical engineer is an excellent choice for someone capable of writing computer programs describing the noise, positive and negative feedback loops, etc related to climate.

Let's see....what was the job of David Evans? Writing computer programs relating to climate.

Computer scientists write programs. Electrical engineers model circuits, do DSP, and other things, none of which are related to highly nonlinear, noisy climate models.

Your reference to "positive and negative feedback loops", I think, summarizes your understanding. There is feedback. Positive and negative are just descriptions of the transfer function of the feedback.

A network that has positive feedback at one frequency may be negative at another, or vice versa.

EE's in general MAY be good at writing computer programs, or they may not be. It's an orthogonal qualification to programming ability.

Some EE's know how to run perceptual experiments. I do. Many haven't a clue.

Some EE's can still design with vacuum tubes. I can.

Some EE"s can still design with transistors. I can do that too.

Some can tell you how the human cochlea is a transmission line filter. Some can't.

Some can write good nonlinear models, some can't. Again, orthogonal.

Some may know basic acoustics, some advanced acoustics, some may even know acoustics well enough to start to be able to model weather. Some may not.

Oh, and yes, I'm an EE.

His being an EE is irrelevant. What has he published in refereed scientific journals?

[MattusMaximus]

I just wonder if the title of this thread is meant to convey "fact" or "satire" :rolleyes:

[mhaze]

Computer scientists write programs. Electrical engineers model circuits, do DSP, and other things, none of which are related to highly nonlinear, noisy climate models.our reference to "positive and negative feedback loops", I think, summarizes your understanding. There is feedback. Positive and negative are just descriptions of the transfer function of the feedback.A network that has positive feedback at one frequency may be negative at another, or vice versa.
EE's in general MAY be good at writing computer programs, or they may not be. It's an orthogonal qualification to programming ability.
Some EE's know how to run perceptual experiments. I do. Many haven't a clue.
Some EE's can still design with vacuum tubes. I can.
Some EE"s can still design with transistors. I can do that too.
Some can tell you how the human cochlea is a transmission line filter. Some can't.
Some can write good nonlinear models, some can't. Again, orthogonal.
Some may know basic acoustics, some advanced acoustics, some may even know acoustics well enough to start to be able to model weather. Some may not.
Oh, and yes, I'm an EE.
His being an EE is irrelevant. What has he published in refereed scientific journals?

His being an EE is not irrelevant, as you have noted, some of them may be well suited to the job. What has he published, etc? Is that relevant? Judge the guy according to what he said he did, etc. What did he say he did?I DEVOTED six years to carbon accounting, building models for the Australian Greenhouse Office. I am the rocket scientist who wrote the carbon accounting model (FullCAM) that measures Australia's compliance with the Kyoto Protocol, in the land use change and forestry sector.

So that's what he did. There is no assertion that there are or are not peer reviewed articles. He's been on the inside of the "carbon accounting industry". Got disgusted with it, left, and writes about it.

Take it or leave it.

An interesting question is whether it takes a "climatologist" to make the four points that David Evans makes, which are noted in the OP. Or are they self obvious? Evans goes on to make numerous points about the implications of bad public policy for society, in a newspaper article. These are not exactly issues one would expect to hear from a "climatologist", and neither are they issues that one evaluates the merit of the speaker on based on some type of peer reviewed publish record.

Asserting that someone involved in "climate accounting office" for six years has nothing meaningful to say about the likely impacts of bad public policy and crude implementations of taxation schemes based on poorly understood science seems ridiculous.

[blutoski]

An electrical engineer is an excellent choice for someone capable of writing computer programs describing the noise, positive and negative feedback loops, etc related to climate.

Let's see....what was the job of David Evans? Writing computer programs relating to climate.

That's one of the dumbest statements I've heard in a long time. Think about it: it would mean that software developers are universally qualified to be an expert in any field, since anything can be modelled in a program. A truly ridiculous premise.

Any hacker can write a program. What they're not qualified to do is verify if the model constructed has any validity within its field of focus.

ie: as a software developer, I can write a program to model chemical bonding. But a chemist would be appropriately qualified to verify whether the model is accurate. Even if the model is accurate, is the input data valid? How would a programmer know without consulting with experts in the relevant field?

There's an expression in programming that applies here: "Garbage in; garbage out."

The question about his publishing history is precisely relevant, since we're asking a scientific question. Have his models been reviewed for accuracy by scientists? Apparently not.

It's easy to interpret this as a situation where a contractor code monkey found conflict with his employer because he had a political axe to grind and/or just didn't understand the nuances of an unrelated field of knowledge.

Happens all the time.

But if he wants to persuade us that he's right, he's going to have to support his sweeping statements, he's welcome to submit his findings to his choice of many peer-reviewed journals instead of basically issuing a screed/polemic via press release.

[a_unique_person]

http://www.desmogblog.com/who-is-rocket-scientist-david-evans



And



Nothing to see here folks, just like the last thread the OP started…

If you read is bio



I DEVOTED six years to carbon accounting, building models for the Australian Greenhouse Office. I am the rocket scientist who wrote the carbon accounting model (FullCAM) that measures Australia's compliance with the Kyoto Protocol, in the land use change and forestry sector.


He's an applications programmer, for a business application monitoring the use of a commodity. He knows no more about Greenhouse science or modeling than I do. But he's got his 15 minutes of fame.

[a_unique_person]

So that's what he did. There is no assertion that there are or are not peer reviewed articles. He's been on the inside of the "carbon accounting industry". Got disgusted with it, left, and writes about it.

That's right, it's an industry just like any other, the commodity is CO2. I'm sure he could move right into any other applications programming role quite comfortably tomorrow.

[lomiller]

An electrical engineer is an excellent choice for someone capable of writing computer programs describing the noise, positive and negative feedback loops, etc related to climate.


I happen to be an electrical engineer, so you’ve apparently just accepted my credentials as a subject mater expert in my own right :boxedin:

[Megalodon]

I happen to be an electrical engineer, so you’ve apparently just accepted my credentials as a subject mater expert in my own right :boxedin:

Nah, it only counts if you have the right opinion: the wrong one...

[lomiller]

Nah, it only counts if you have the right opinion: the wrong one...

Lol too true, anyone who agrees with him is “a valid expert”, anyone regardless the qualifications who doesn’t “is not”.

[Megalodon]

One year ago, the delayers were harping about an oceanographer that turned out to be a construction worker.

So the reality-based people are getting used to the tactic... and you have to admit: we get some laughs out of the "experts"...

[CapelDodger]

I just wonder if the title of this thread is meant to convey "fact" or "satire" :rolleyes:

That should definitely be clarified.

[CapelDodger]

There is no assertion that there are or are not peer reviewed articles.

So there might be peer-reviewed papers he's too modest to mention, and it's all those might-be's that make your world bearable. I understand that. I don't sympathise, but I understand.

[Megalodon]

BTW, we discussed this "expert" here before, and I brought up his publication "list" and field of work... let me search for it.

ETA: the search function is driving me insane... I'll try again tomorrow.

[CapelDodger]

ie: as a software developer, I can write a program to model chemical bonding. But a chemist would be appropriately qualified to verify whether the model is accurate.

The chemist will poke it till it breaks down, but won't complain if they have to poke really hard.

[blutoski]

Take it or leave it.

I'll have to leave it, for reasons cited. There's a need to distinguish between signal and noise. Peer review is part of that.



An interesting question is whether it takes a "climatologist" to make the four points that David Evans makes, which are noted in the OP.

To "make" the points? No.

To be regarded as probably correct? Yes.

They sure seem like summary views about climatology.




Or are they self obvious? Evans goes on to make numerous points about the implications of bad public policy for society, in a newspaper article. These are not exactly issues one would expect to hear from a "climatologist", and neither are they issues that one evaluates the merit of the speaker on based on some type of peer reviewed publish record.

Which are not in the OP, and not being addressed by subsequent posts. They sound like politics, and there's no barrier to entry on political opinion. Which is why I ignore political screeds as I consider them less than uninformative.




Asserting that someone involved in "climate accounting office" for six years has nothing meaningful to say about the likely impacts of bad public policy and crude implementations of taxation schemes based on poorly understood science seems ridiculous.

The words "involved in" is too vague. A janitor in the courthouse is 'involved in' the justice system. I don't pay a lot of attention to his opinions on legal rulings.

Also, the phrase "poorly understood science" is repeating his claim to support his claim, which makes your above paragraph an exercise in question-begging.

[jj]

His being an EE is not irrelevant, as you have noted, some of them may be well suited to the job.


In other words, you insist that his EE is relevant, even though you, yourself, admit that it is IRRELEVANT!?!? Could you please make up your mind, and stop claiming that black is white and white is maroon?


What has he published, etc? Is that relevant?

Yes, please show me his mainstream, peer-reviewed scientific papers on global warming.

Not something that demonstrates he can get a computer to add.

It would appear that your own words serve your hero very poorly, and that you, yourself, have indicted him for stepping out of his field.

ETA: And I'm an EE,too. So how come you don't take my word for it?

[gdnp]

I will note that Kallsop heavily redacted the original article without noting the places that it was snipped. Here is one of the excluded sections:


1. The greenhouse signature is missing. We have been looking and measuring for years, and cannot find it.

Each possible cause of global warming has a different pattern of where in the planet the warming occurs first and the most. The signature of an increased greenhouse effect is a hot spot about 10km up in the atmosphere over the tropics. We have been measuring the atmosphere for decades using radiosondes: weather balloons with thermometers that radio back the temperature as the balloon ascends through the atmosphere. They show no hot spot. Whatsoever.

Here is another:

The world has spent $50 billion on global warming since 1990, and we have not found any actual evidence that carbon emissions cause global warming. Evidence consists of observations made by someone at some time that supports the idea that carbon emissions cause global warming. Computer models and theoretical calculations are not evidence, they are just theory.

A nice example of the fuzzy-headed thinking that the deniers use. I do not have the expertise to criticize the substance of his claims, but I can challenge the logic.

In the first quote he claims that the absence of a "greenhouse signature" proves that the greenhouse effect is not the cause of global warming. Why does he believe that a greenhouse signature would be present if CO2 were causing a greenhouse effect? Is it because we have observed such signatures in prior cases of greenhouse effects? Obviously not: we have no prior history to fall back on. Therefore, I assume this greenhouse signature is theoretical, based on computer models. So it appears to me that he is claiming that AGW has been invalidated because it does not agree with a prediction of computer models.

In the second quote, he looks at computer models and claims that just because observed global warming is predicted by computer models that factor in CO2, this not evidence that CO2 is the cause of global warming because "computer models and theoretical calculations are not evidence, they are just theory".

So if the evidence contradicts one prediction of the computer model the entire theory is wrong, whereas if the evidence agrees with the main contention of the computer model he denies the use of models is even valid.

Come on, Dale. We expect more from a "rocket scientist".

[CapelDodger]

I will note that Kallsop heavily redacted the original article without noting the places that it was snipped.

Drive-by artists cut-and-paste; it's the basic architecture of their world-view, IMO. Some other redactor neglected the ellipses.

[SezMe]

kallsop, I'm happy to see you around. I thought you dropped off the edge of the Earth when you didn't appear in the 50,000 satire thread to stand up for yourself.

[TrueSceptic]

If you read is bio

He's an applications programmer, for a business application monitoring the use of a commodity. He knows no more about Greenhouse science or modeling than I do. But he's got his 15 minutes of fame.
For anyone who wants to know what FullCAM is (http://www.greenhouse.gov.au/ncas/reports/fullcam-usermanual.html).

[TrueSceptic]

In the first quote he claims that the absence of a "greenhouse signature" proves that the greenhouse effect is not the cause of global warming. Why does he believe that a greenhouse signature would be present if CO2 were causing a greenhouse effect? Is it because we have observed such signatures in prior cases of greenhouse effects? Obviously not: we have no prior history to fall back on. Therefore, I assume this greenhouse signature is theoretical, based on computer models. So it appears to me that he is claiming that AGW has been invalidated because it does not agree with a prediction of computer models.

The answer is much simpler. The claim that a hotspot in the tropical troposphere is a GHG signature is false. The hotspot is a signature of any warming, however caused. The real issue is the accuracy of the measurements.

[CapelDodger]

There has not been a public debate about the causes of global warming and most of the public and our decision makers are not aware of the most basic salient facts

Beggars belief, frankly.

Like the rest of this nonsense, it's just a blank statement with no supporting evidence, argument, or overlap with the observable world. The word "alarmist" pops up right on cue, of course.

No wonder someone as shallow as kallsop feels an affinity for this jerk.

[mhaze]

This thread is ridiculous, really - think about it. Some guy that walks out of a really dumb government bureocracy with fat, high paying jobs in Australia. He writes a few articles about it. Newspapers, etc pick it up since it's obviously of public interest. He knows a bit about the subject, has some credentials and makes no exaggerations about what he has done.

Most people would read the newspaper, blog or web article and just lodge a few factoids away from it, read it find it was of no interest and move on, or whatever - read the whole thing, etc. It's just a newspaper article.

Warmers? Oh my, my. They have to jump all over it with some weird type of theory, pull in smear reports from paid PR men, make claims that the individual could not be listened to if he didn't publish, etc, etc,etc. Yep. Small minded radical fringe environmentalists would do that. That is part of the reason that they are called Warmers, a lack of balance, judgement and rationality.

Originally Posted by mhaze
Take it or leave it.

Originally Posted by Blukoski
I'll have to leave it, for reasons cited.

Which makes perfect sense to me given your viewpoint. But making a big deal of a "newspaper article" is beyond belief...

[a_unique_person]

This thread is ridiculous, really - think about it. Some guy that walks out of a really dumb government bureocracy with fat, high paying jobs in Australia. He writes a few articles about it. Newspapers, etc pick it up since it's obviously of public interest. He knows a bit about the subject, has some credentials and makes no exaggerations about what he has done.



No, the problem is that, once again, the story is not what it is presented as. An applications programmer who has nothing to do with the science of AGW or working on the GCM models, is presented as someone who does both.

Two facts.

Evans has nothing to do with the science of AGW.
Evans has nothing to do with modelling climate change.

[Pixel42]

This thread is ridiculous, really - think about it. Some guy that walks out of a really dumb government bureocracy with fat, high paying jobs in Australia. He writes a few articles about it. Newspapers, etc pick it up since it's obviously of public interest. He knows a bit about the subject, has some credentials and makes no exaggerations about what he has done.

Most people would read the newspaper, blog or web article and just lodge a few factoids away from it, read it find it was of no interest and move on, or whatever - read the whole thing, etc. It's just a newspaper article.

Deniers? Oh my, my. They have to jump all over it, gloat about it, start threads on it on boards like this one, post it to existing threads on global warming wherever they can find them *, pretending that it's of enormous significance and "proof" that the previously convinced are abandoning AGW like rats deserting a sinking ship ...

[* http://www.doctorwhoforum.com/showthread.php?t=186721&page=14

Yes that's a global warming thread on the Doctor Who forum, where the resident denier posted this article even before kallsop posted it here.]

[JoeEllison]

Wow, kallsop starts another thread with a title that is a flat-out lie. Once again, I am Jacks complete lack of surprise.

[mhaze]

This thread is ridiculous, really - think about it. Some guy that walks out of a really dumb government bureocracy with fat, high paying jobs in Australia. He writes a few articles about it. Newspapers, etc pick it up since it's obviously of public interest. He knows a bit about the subject, has some credentials and makes no exaggerations about what he has done.

Most people would read the newspaper, blog or web article and just lodge a few factoids away from it, read it find it was of no interest and move on, or whatever - read the whole thing, etc. It's just a newspaper article.

Deniers? Oh my, my. They have to jump all over it, gloat about it, start threads on it on boards like this one, post it to existing threads on global warming wherever they can find them *, pretending that it's of enormous significance and "proof" that the previously convinced are abandoning AGW like rats deserting a sinking ship ...

[* http://www.doctorwhoforum.com/showthread.php?t=186721&page=14

Yes that's a global warming thread on the Doctor Who forum, where the resident denier posted this article even before kallsop posted it here.]

No, Pixel. I assume that most people who have been around for a while know that David Evans has been occasionally popping up for several years. There is not any "new news" here, just a newspaper that picked up his story as a public interest item. By the way your link no worky.

Oh, in any case, if someone did

jump all over it, gloat about it, start threads on it on boards like this one, post it to existing threads on global warming wherever they can find them *, pretending that it's of enormous significance and "proof" that the previously convinced are abandoning AGW like rats deserting a sinking ship ...

That would be as ridiculous as the Warmers doing what I said they are doing, assisted by their Paid PR Men.

[Pixel42]

I assume that most people who have been around for a while know that David Evans has been occasionally popping up for several years. There is not any "new news" here, just a newspaper that picked up his story as a public interest item.
And yet we have this thread, and deniers posting it all over the internet on threads where most people haven't "been around for a while".

By the way your link no worky.
Yes it does. Though, now I come to think of it, you might have to register to read it.

Oh, in any case, if someone did
If someone did! Have you read this thread title and OP?

If someone did! :rolleyes:

[TrueSceptic]

This thread is ridiculous, really - think about it. Some guy that walks out of a really dumb government bureocracy with fat, high paying jobs in Australia. He writes a few articles about it. Newspapers, etc pick it up since it's obviously of public interest. He knows a bit about the subject, has some credentials and makes no exaggerations about what he has done.

Most people would read the newspaper, blog or web article and just lodge a few factoids away from it, read it find it was of no interest and move on, or whatever - read the whole thing, etc. It's just a newspaper article.

Yes, ridiculous.

Most people would not even know about it because it's of zero importance. The Deniosphere, however, picks it up and makes stupid claims about it. kallsop is happy to commit another drive-by and lob the non-story through the window.

The hypocrisy and absence of self-examination of denialists is truly breath-taking.

[blutoski]

Which makes perfect sense to me given your viewpoint. But making a big deal of a "newspaper article" is beyond belief...

Beyond belief?

Our skeptical society has had a media action committee for twenty years.

We feel an important role in skepticism is to combat media distortion. Whether it's a press release by a sCAM promoter, or a press release by a AGWDenier, it's all the same to skeptics: bad science that could lead to consequences for readers justifies a response. A response will help educate readers not only in the facts of the case, but possibly inspire them to practice skepticism in future.

I don't see a reason to make a special exception for AGWDeniers.

[JoeEllison]

Yes, ridiculous.

Most people would not even know about it because it's of zero importance. The Deniosphere, however, picks it up and makes stupid claims about it. kallsop is happy to commit another drive-by and lob the non-story through the window.

The hypocrisy and absence of self-examination of denialists is truly breath-taking.

So, when an AGW denier quotes a newspaper article(or blog, or whatever) that supports their false viewpoint, it is relevant and "proves" their false point. When the article is shown to be misleading or an outright lie, other AGW deniers will attack the reality-based community for "making a big deal" out of it?

[CapelDodger]

So, when an AGW denier quotes a newspaper article(or blog, or whatever) that supports their false viewpoint, it is relevant and "proves" their false point. When the article is shown to be misleading or an outright lie, other AGW deniers will attack the reality-based community for "making a big deal" out of it?

Truth to tell, we don't get offered much to gnaw on these days. Nothing substantial, just a thin regurgitated gruel of self-reference.

Now that the hubbub has died down at the climate-crank clubhouse, the echo-chamber effect is coming across very clearly. It happens in the dying phase of any cult (which can have a very long tail, of course).

[TrueSceptic]

So, when an AGW denier quotes a newspaper article(or blog, or whatever) that supports their false viewpoint, it is relevant and "proves" their false point. When the article is shown to be misleading or an outright lie, other AGW deniers will attack the reality-based community for "making a big deal" out of it?
That's it. What still amazes (pun?) is the utter shamelessness of the hypocrisy and dishonesty. :boggled:

[JoeEllison]

Truth to tell, we don't get offered much to gnaw on these days. Nothing substantial, just a thin regurgitated gruel of self-reference.

Now that the hubbub has died down at the climate-crank clubhouse, the echo-chamber effect is coming across very clearly. It happens in the dying phase of any cult (which can have a very long tail, of course).

Giant, huge, exceedingly stupid tail? Can't we just nip it in the bud? :rolleyes:

[JoeEllison]

That's it. What still amazes (pun?) is the utter shamelessness of the hypocrisy and dishonesty. :boggled:

Maybe they think we won't notice?!?!?! Or, just as likely, they post to bolster their fellow idiots, as their fellow idiots' posts bolster them.:cool:

[gdnp]

That's it. What still amazes (pun?) is the utter shamelessness of the hypocrisy and dishonesty. :boggled:

I think a lot of it is self-delusion. They don't want to change, they don't want to sacrifice, they don't want to destroy the planet, so they convince themselves that global warming is make-believe. There may also be an element of the James Watt attitude: the earth was given to us by God to exploit, and the faster we do the quicker the Rapture.

[TrueSceptic]

I think a lot of it is self-delusion. They don't want to change, they don't want to sacrifice, they don't want to destroy the planet, so they convince themselves that global warming is make-believe. There may also be an element of the James Watt attitude: the earth was given to us by God to exploit, and the faster we do the quicker the Rapture.
That might apply to some, but there are others who know what they are doing. No one can be that delusional and still be so clever in the political/linguistic/debating sense.

[JoeEllison]

That might apply to some, but there are others who know what they are doing. No one can be that delusional and still be so clever in the political/linguistic/debating sense.
Yeah... the ones in charge know they are lying. That means the sources of the anti-AGW propaganda that the deniers always quote. All of those people are lying, and are conscious that they are lying. They count on the stupidity and delusion of the common deniers to propagate their lies.

[casebro]

I see Dave Evan's occupation to be as relevant as CapelDoger's, or MHaze's. They are all opinion, with snippets of linkage to science.

So, whose satellites show a drop in global temp? Good or bad science?

Six years is a little bit of history, enough to show some trend. 150 years is also history. But millions is too, and over millions of years, it's been hotter. CO2 has been higher. Both without man made causes. And the temp dropped, and the CO2 dropped, also without man's intervention. So I want proof that man has made the temp rise this time. Not models, not consensii. Proof.

[JoeEllison]

So, whose satellites show a drop in global temp? Good or bad science?

Not NASA's. NASA called 2007 the second hottest year on record, and while they expect 2008 to be slightly cooler, they don't consider it to be anything close to the end of the general warming trend.

[a_unique_person]

Not NASA's. NASA called 2007 the second hottest year on record, and while they expect 2008 to be slightly cooler, they don't consider it to be anything close to the end of the general warming trend.

When you look at Megalodon's graphs, you can see the temperatures going up in a series of 'steps'. The decadal boundary is arbitrary, but it clearly shows the way the temperature is going up through behind the random fluctuations and weather cycles.

[JoeEllison]

When you look at Megalodon's graphs, you can see the temperatures going up in a series of 'steps'. The decadal boundary is arbitrary, but it clearly shows the way the temperature is going up through behind the random fluctuations and weather cycles.
Yes, but... the goofball deniers will claim any month cooler than the same month a year prior to be proof positive that global warming is over... and screw the evidence, and the obvious trends. The "steps" are pretty obvious over the long term, and only the anti-AGW frauds ignore them in favor of tiny slices of the temperature record.

[SezMe]

So I want proof that man has made the temp rise this time. Not models, not consensii. Proof.
A childish demand reflecting sad lack of understanding of the issue. Why not ask for proof that a 1/8 slice of peach cobbler pie with a .348 oz dollop of french vanilla ice cream on top is the perfect dessert. Not opinion. PROOF.

Both are equally likely.

[JoeEllison]

A childish demand reflecting sad lack of understanding of the issue. Why not ask for proof that a 1/8 slice of peach cobbler pie with a .348 oz dollop of french vanilla ice cream on top is the perfect dessert. Not opinion. PROOF.

Both are equally likely.

The same way that I can demand proof that cigarettes cause cancer, and reject any study that includes people who were not isolated by all possible causes for cancer besides cigarettes. Because I'm sure that the scientists can put an infant in a bubble and pump cigarette smoke into that bubble... the same way idiot deniers seem to want us to produce a second Earth where there are no variables except man-made greenhouse gases.

[casebro]

I take those responses as "the AGW theory is non-falsifiable"?

[gdnp]

When you look at Megalodon's graphs, you can see the temperatures going up in a series of 'steps'. The decadal boundary is arbitrary, but it clearly shows the way the temperature is going up through behind the random fluctuations and weather cycles.

Remember, there are some non-random fluctuations as well. We probably hit the minimum in the current solar cycle (http://space.newscientist.com/article/dn13153.html) in January. Since average global temperature fluctuates with the solar cycle, 2007 should have been a relatively cool year. Therefore, if the NASA data are correct and 2007 was the second hottest on record, then we should expect temperature increases to accelerate over the next 5-6 years as sunspot activity picks up.

[JoeEllison]

I take those responses as "the AGW theory is non-falsifiable"?

Why do you make that claim?

[MattusMaximus]

That should definitely be clarified.


I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for an answer...

... but I'll ask anyway: Mhaze, is the title of this thread "fact" or "satire" in your opinion?

[gdnp]

Can someone explain to me what it is supposed to mean when a skeptic claims a scientific theory is non-falsifiable?

I use this argument in discussions about the existence of God. Because the characteristics of (the Christian) God are defined such that no experiment could disprove his existence, I see God theory as non-falsifiable. Attempts to prove his existence through, for example, demonstrating the power of intercessionary prayer have failed, but this does not prove (to the believers) non-existence, since they can always argue that God only answers the prayers he wants to, and we can't know his mind. No possible experiment--no conceivable experiment--could disprove the existence of God to a believer.

What about science? Is AGW warming non-falsifiable because we can't produce a duplicate earth to use as a control? Does that mean we are reduced to guessing, flipping a coin, as to whether global warming is a tempest in a teapot or the greatest threat to the environment this side of an asteroid impact?

AGW theory is fundamentally different than God theory. Even though the "slam dunk" experiment cannot be performed, it can be conceived, and it can be modeled. And the results, unlike debates about the existence of God, hold real consequences.

Do we hold other science to this level of verification? Was the effect of CFCs on atmospheric ozone proven before production was curtailed, for example?

Is there a simple, falsifiable experiment that can prove evolution theory? I don't see one. It just happens to be the theory that best explains biodiversity, the fossil record, DNA homologies between similar organisms, etc.

So whats the deal? If:

1) average global temperatures are rising
2) atmospheric CO2 is rising
3) increased CO2 is secondary to burning of fossil fuels
4) CO2 acts as a greenhouse gas in the laboratory

why is it unscientific to put 1+2+3+4 together and get "AGW" as a plausible answer? If the upward trend in global temperature reverses while CO2 continues to rise, the theory will be invalidated. For those who claim AGW theory is non-falsifiable, what would you propose we do? Fiddle even though Rome may be burning?

[SezMe]

I take those responses as "the AGW theory is non-falsifiable"?
I have not doubt that you do. More's the pity.

[casebro]

J.E., and Sez Me, that was a question, not a claim, from me.

At least gdnp is discussing my question.

I propose a different non-falsifiable theory: I call it Global Unidentified Flying Object Warming (GUFOW). It looks to me that UFO emissions are the true cause of AGW. While we don't know the exact mechanism, UFO sightings have gone up since the short cooling trend at WWII. MY guess is , since some giant amount of cheap energy is available to them for interstellar travel, they are probably wasting it within our atmosphere. This is causing the direct heating of our globe. And ice core samples do show that a raise in temperatures is followed by a rise in CO2 levels. If only I could do some computer models, I could 'prove' it. Maybe Dave Evans could help me out here?

I wonder why IDers don't do some Computer Models of theology?

[Pipirr]

Can someone explain to me what it is supposed to mean when a skeptic claims a scientific theory is non-falsifiable?


I can't explain it. I've yet to see a 'skeptic' properly define what they mean when they say AGW isn't falsifiable.

Actually I did find a rare response to the question from someone working in the field. Michael Tobis appears to be as unimpressed by the falsifiability problem as I am. A few choice quotes: (http://initforthegold.blogspot.com/2008/05/falsifiability-question.html)

AGW is not an organizing principle of climate theory at all.

Hypotheses, organizing principles, of this sort emerge from the fabric of a science as a consequence of a search for unifying principles. The organizing principles of climatology come from various threads, but I'd mention the oceanographic sysyntheses of Sverdrup and Stommel, the atmospheric syntheses of Charney and Lorenz, paleoclimatological studies from ice and mud core field work, observational work by Wigley and Jones, and computational work starting with no less than Johnny von Neumann.

The expectation of AGW does not organize this work. It emerges from this work. It's not a theory, it's a consequence of the theory.

So attacks on climate change as if it were a "theory" make very little sense. Greenhouse gas accumulation is a fact. Radiative properties of greenhouse gases are factual. The climate is not going to stay the same. It can't stay the same. Staying the same would violate physics; specifically it would violate the law of energy conservation. Something has to change.

If you want to convince me that the sensitivity is less than 2 or more than 4, you will have to provide quite a good deal of evidence, but I don;t think this is what the denialists have in mind when they ask me what would "falsify the hypothesis". In fact, though, they haven't defined their terms. If the sensititivity is less than 1, is the supposed hypothesis falsified? What if it is more than 6? If the onset time is a hundred years rather than ten?


It's an interesting read; there's more at the link.

Apparently its obvious to some people that AGW isn't falsifiable. But what precisely about it is not?

[a_unique_person]

I can't explain it. I've yet to see a 'skeptic' properly define what they mean when they say AGW isn't falsifiable.

Actually I did find a rare response to the question from someone working in the field. Michael Tobis appears to be as unimpressed by the falsifiability problem as I am. A few choice quotes: (http://initforthegold.blogspot.com/2008/05/falsifiability-question.html)



It's an interesting read; there's more at the link.

Apparently its obvious to some people that AGW isn't falsifiable. But what precisely about it is not?

It's good to read someone sum up so succinctley what the actual case is. If you look at the recent 'climate conference' in New York, Pat Michaels has already accepted that this is the case. It's not a matter of if CO2 is a greenhouse gas, it's just a matter of how much warming there will be. Time for the 'deniers' to step up and become sceptics.

[mhaze]

It's good to read someone sum up so succinctley what the actual case is. If you look at the recent 'climate conference' in New York, Pat Michaels has already accepted that this is the case. It's not a matter of if CO2 is a greenhouse gas, it's just a matter of how much warming there will be. Time for the 'deniers' to step up and become sceptics.

The expectation of AGW does not organize this work. It emerges from this work. It's not a theory, it's a consequence of the theory.

This contribution from Pipirr I find to be a quote from the first link from google <-- "Is AGW falsifiable". (http://www.google.com/search?q=IS+AGW+FALSIFIABLE%3F&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a) Many others links follow which present the skeptical argument that "AGW is not falsifiable". If Pipirr has "yet to see a skeptic present the argument" as he indicates, it is because he stopped reading at the first linky.

(Pipirr's link to Michael Tobias is an easy target for smears and invective, lack of peer reviewed publications, etc., but it is warmers who use these tactics then present someone like Tobias as authoritative. Let's just say that someone who has at the top of their website a reverent Gorean quote string....). So Pipirr, I encourage you to traverse the string of links in the first page or so of the google search, and report back with a clear exposition of what skeptics consider "AGW is not falsifiable", instead of exhibiting your confirmation bias so readily.

Leaving that aside completely, Tobias being an artist and worthy of respect in his own right, as is David Evans for obvious reasons, and looking at the substantive argument:

Many studies show the impact of solar to account for 30,50 or 69% of 20th century warming. Other studies show that 20th century warming can be entirely or mostly accounted for by natural climate cycles. Yet other studies and or IPCC claims that all of 20th century warming is due to AGW.

Obviously, natural climate cycles, solar effects, and some CO2 warming effect exist, the question is in what relative ratios and importance, and by what evidence the conclusion is derived.

Is it necessary to invoke AGW to explain the 0.7C warming of the 20th century? No. Solar+natural cycles can easily explain all 20th century warming. No AGW explanation is required nor is it sufficient.

Is it likely or possible there is some effect from CO2? The skeptical community views the effect of CO2 as between roughly to 0.0-0.4C of the 0.7C 20th century warming effect being due to CO2.

Warmology pseudoscience holds that 100% of 20th century warming is due to CO2. Obviously, there is and will continue to be a disagreements.

[gdnp]

I can't explain it. I've yet to see a 'skeptic' properly define what they mean when they say AGW isn't falsifiable.

Actually I did find a rare response to the question from someone working in the field. Michael Tobis appears to be as unimpressed by the falsifiability problem as I am. A few choice quotes: (http://initforthegold.blogspot.com/2008/05/falsifiability-question.html)

It's an interesting read; there's more at the link.


Thanks. This states far more explicitly what I thought was likely the case. Climate theory is like a strong fabric made up of many individual threads. The breaking of a single thread is unlikely to make the entire cloth unwind, but if enough threads go bad we will have to replace it with a new theory.

Which still leaves the question: theory or no, falsifiable or no, AGW is either a serious threat or a tempest in a teapot or something in between. So what is our best course of action? Wait until evidence is incontrovertible, knowing that by that time irreversible catastrophic change may already be taking place?

[Pipirr]

[I]This contribution from Pipirr I find to be a quote from the first link from google <-- "Is AGW falsifiable". (http://www.google.com/search?q=IS+AGW+FALSIFIABLE%3F&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a) Many others links follow which present the skeptical argument that "AGW is not falsifiable". If Pipirr has "yet to see a skeptic present the argument" as he indicates, it is because he stopped reading at the first linky.


I didn't use Google to find this link.

And I didn't say what you 'indicate' that I said with your use of quotations.

Do stop misquoting me.

[varwoche]

And I didn't say what you 'indicate' that I said with your use of quotations. Do stop misquoting me. I've tried to explain to mhaze the complex concept of how quotation marks work (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3219476#post3219476) ... to no avail.

[CapelDodger]

Remember, there are some non-random fluctuations as well. We probably hit the minimum in the current solar cycle (http://space.newscientist.com/article/dn13153.html) in January. Since average global temperature fluctuates with the solar cycle, 2007 should have been a relatively cool year. Therefore, if the NASA data are correct and 2007 was the second hottest on record, then we should expect temperature increases to accelerate over the next 5-6 years as sunspot activity picks up.

2007 was slightly unusual in that it started with El Nino conditions and ended with La Nina conditions. (We currently have neutral, Es Nada conditions.) The next sustained El Nino will be one to watch.

If the solar cycle does have a noticeable climate signature, then clearly you're right about the next 5-6 years.

[CapelDodger]

Can someone explain to me what it is supposed to mean when a skeptic claims a scientific theory is non-falsifiable?

It's just a sciency sound-bite. They'll still be chanting it when the ice-caps are lapping around their ankles (while claiming that AGW must be false because their feet are cold).

[gdnp]

If the solar cycle does have a noticeable climate signature, then clearly you're right about the next 5-6 years.

Huh. I thought this was reasonably well established. I still have a lot to learn.

[CapelDodger]

Huh. I thought this was reasonably well established. I still have a lot to learn.

There's a lot of noise to eliminate, and a lot of variation in the cycles. We don't have observations of very many cycles, and a major eruption or two can easily strike off a complete cycle, so the perils of accidental data-mining are acute. People have been trying to find a signature since the solar cycle was first recognised - 1830's, I think. The earliest attempts used grain-prices as a proxy for harvests as a proxy for climate, and why not?

There's always been a healthy contingent of sceptics eager to knock down any claims. And there's been a handful of enthusiasts who never gave up. All very healthy, really. I gather that particular arms-race had a noticeable impact on the early development of statistics. (I don't have figures on that, it's just something I read in a credible source :).)

Just how robust the most recent work is I'm not able to judge. It certainly has much better data - we measure solar output directly now, not via a sunspot number proxy - but it's yet to stand the test of time. Which is to say, how robustly will it assimilate the next few cycles?

From my deep-time perspective (often mistaken for cynicism, which is an attribute of mine) I very much doubt it'll survive the slings and arrows.

[CapelDodger]

I've tried to explain to mhaze the complex concept of how quotation marks work (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3219476#post3219476) ... to no avail.

Were I designing a Turing Test Candidate I would regard the ability to interpret and assimilate an explanation as a serious challenge. Which is, I think, how Turing saw it.

Doing cut-ups of the human side of the conversation, incorporating Google-access and blogs, defining a crude ideological slant on a specific subject ... No great challenges.

Just saying.

[CapelDodger]

I still have a lot to learn.

Only about detail, IMO. You clearly know how to think and to communicate, as do so many splendid people in these Forums.

[lomiller]

Huh. I thought this was reasonably well established. I still have a lot to learn.

Of course it’s falsifiable, but that’s not what you asked for. You asked for *proof*, but science isn’t in the business of proving things, that honor goes to mathematicians and philosophers who specialize in logic.

Science is about finding the best, most likely, most useful answer. To that end you are correct it must have predictive power, and must capable of being falsified. Some people however, will only accept actual falsification as “proof” something is falsifiable. Of course this is simply an excuse to dismiss the very large body of published science out of hand.

[CapelDodger]

It's good to read someone sum up so succinctley what the actual case is. If you look at the recent 'climate conference' in New York, Pat Michaels has already accepted that this is the case. It's not a matter of if CO2 is a greenhouse gas, it's just a matter of how much warming there will be. Time for the 'deniers' to step up and become sceptics.

The Real Manhatten Project certainly exposed the broad-church nature of this particular cult. It's a rainbow-alliance. From the "it's not happening" through "it's not science" through to "the sensitivity is exaggerated". The saner voices are all being heard at the "sensitivity" end these days. Even Monckton's Embarrassment is about sensitivity.

(The Real Manhattan Project because it really happened in Manhattan, and it was really important. Simply everybody was there, even Viscount Munchkin. Not Steve McIntyre, of course; far too vulgar. Probably wears an off-the-rack suit :rolleyes:.)

[CapelDodger]

Of course it’s falsifiable, but that’s not what you asked for. You asked for *proof*, but science isn’t in the business of proving things, that honor goes to mathematicians and philosophers who specialize in logic.

Science is about finding the best, most likely, most useful answer. To that end you are correct it must have predictive power, and must capable of being falsified. Some people however, will only accept actual falsification as “proof” something is falsifiable. Of course this is simply an excuse to dismiss the very large body of published science out of hand.

Did you perhaps hit the wrong "Quote" button?

[TrueSceptic]

Huh. I thought this was reasonably well established. I still have a lot to learn.
Clearly, trends in solar radiation matter (although the magnitude of those trends is still being revised), but if the 11-year cycle is so important, why is it so hard to see in plots of global temp vs. solar irradiance? Some say that it is swamped by the noise in the system. Exactly.

[a_unique_person]

The Real Manhatten Project certainly exposed the broad-church nature of this particular cult. It's a rainbow-alliance. From the "it's not happening" through "it's not science" through to "the sensitivity is exaggerated". The saner voices are all being heard at the "sensitivity" end these days. Even Monckton's Embarrassment is about sensitivity.

(The Real Manhattan Project because it really happened in Manhattan, and it was really important. Simply everybody was there, even Viscount Munchkin. Not Steve McIntyre, of course; far too vulgar. Probably wears an off-the-rack suit :rolleyes:.)

You don't see them telling the many who still question if CO2 is even a GHG or not that it is, and that it causes warming. They are still quite happy to accomodate them. Helps build the numbers and the noise, I guess, which is all you have to do if all you want is to create a climate of doubt.