Monday, September 08, 2008

a challenge to climate change denialists

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This is primarily aimed at the racist CCD David Duff and the CCD Bishop Hill but I'm happy for anyone to chip in. I might regret this but we'll just have to see.

Duff et al, I invite you to post a peer-reviewed reference supporting your position of denial. I'll make a special exception for it. That's a promise.

However- and do take note of this Duff as your cherry-picking of references makes me very wary of offering you any sort of licence to abuse others' ignorance- your reference cannot simply be methodological critiques a la McIntyre & McKitrick (2005). I am talking about original, peer-reviewed research that demonstrates that anthropological forcings are negligible in comparison to natural ones.

I'm actually interested to see what you come up with.


Addition:

Anyone interested in entering the discussion should focus on this paper, as preferred by Duff.

33 comments:

  1. It'll be one or more of:

    a. Steve McIntyre
    b. Peer review is worthless
    c. Steve McIntyre
    d. Peer review is Venal scientists colluding
    e. Steve McIntyre deserves a medal
    f. Peer review is fascist
    g. Scientists are Stalinist
    h. I *heart* Steve McIntyre
    i. Trotsky, Lenin, Chairman Mao, Marx, Hitler, Scientists!
    and bonus points for
    j. Al Gore (is fat)

    ReplyDelete
  2. You asked for it:

    1,500-Year Climate Cycle:
    A 150,000-year climatic record from Antarctic ice(Nature 316, 591 - 596, 15 August 1985)- C. Lorius, C. Ritz, J. Jouzel, L. Merlivat, N. I. Barkov
    A Pervasive Millennial-Scale Cycle in North Atlantic Holocene and Glacial Climates(Science, Vol. 278. no. 5341, pp. 1257 - 1266, 14 November 1997)- Gerard Bond, William Showers, Maziet Cheseby, Rusty Lotti, Peter Almasi, Peter deMenocal, Paul Priore, Heidi Cullen, Irka Hajdas, Georges Bonani

    An Inconvenient Truth:
    An Inconvenient Truth : a focus on its portrayal of the hydrologic cycle(GeoJournal, Volume 70, Number 1, September, 2007)- David R. Legates
    An Inconvenient Truth : blurring the lines between science and science fiction(GeoJournal, Volume 70, Number 1, September 2007)- Roy W. Spencer

    Anthropogenic:
    Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide(Energy & Environment, Volume 10, Number 5, pp. 439-468, 1 September 1999)- Arthur B. Robinson, Noah E. Robinson, Willie Soon
    Global warming(Progress in Physical Geography, 27, 448-455, 2003)- W. Soon, S. L. Baliunas
    Human Contribution to Climate Change Remains Questionable(American Geophysical Society, Vol 80, page 183-187, April 20, 1999)- S. Fred Singer

    Antarctica:
    A doubling in snow accumulation in the western Antarctic Peninsula since 1850(Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 35, L01706, 2008)- Elizabeth R. Thomas, Gareth J. Marshall, Joseph R. McConnell
    First survey of Antarctic sub–ice shelf sediments reveals mid-Holocene ice shelf retreat(Geology, v. 29; no. 9; p. 787-790, September 2001)- Carol J. Pudsey, Jeffrey Evans

    To be continued ...

    ReplyDelete
  3. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  4. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  5. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Actually, I'm rather bored with it now so I won't continue. In each section I chose 2 or 3 papers at random *leaving considerably more behind*, and I am only approximately a third of the way down the list!

    "Settled science"? Heh, heh, heh.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Duff, you're an idiot. I haven't got time to read all those papers and I'm absolutely sure that you haven't read them either but have simply copied them from some other CCD's list.

    I will indulge your stupidity by not deleting the first section and doing what I can with that. Not that you deserve it. Prick.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Happy reading! I have scores more where they came from. And with unerring inaccuracy you miss the point completely - again! You don't have to read them, I haven't; nor do you have to comment on them. It was *you* who threw down a challenge to *me* to produce AGW sceptical but peer-reviewed papers. I have done so and I have a list of over a hundred waiting in the wings, so your challenge is met and you were wrong and I was right.

    In the meantime:

    "a challenge to climate change denialists"

    "primarily aimed at the racist CCD David Duff"

    I'm going to put this in capitals so do try and read it very slowly and carefully:

    I AM *NOT* A CLIMATE CHANGE DENIER.

    Got that? Or would you like me to write it again:

    I AM *NOT* A CLIMATE CHANGE DENIER.

    I do hope that finally sinks in.

    ReplyDelete
  9. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAHAHAH

    I quote Duff the climate change denier:

    Well, that, of course, is your *opinion*, to which you are fully entitled, believing, as you do, that:

    1. Global temperatures are increasing, and,
    2. That the cause of it is man-made.

    On the other hand, it is my *opinion* that you may, or may not, be right on the first, but that you are probably wrong on the second.


    Your own words reveal your lying tendency. You explicitly state your belief that climate change is not a product of mankind's activity.

    And how do you know that these papers provide evidence in support of your this denial if you haven't read them? Are you an idiot? You certainly seem to be if you think you can point to a reference and say it supports your position without being aware of its contents! But then you seem to think that Marc Morano can compose an evidence-based argument so it is obvious to me that your belief in climate change not being primarily the result of human activity is purely a matter of faith.

    Its alarming what people do in the name of faith.

    You see, Duff, you have missed the point here. My invitation was to provide a reference that unequivocally evidenced a lack of human influence in the recent change in global climate. My words are on the post above in black and white for you to read again and again (as are my prescient misgivings about the quality of your response). No matter how many times you read that post it will not change to read "please bombard me with references to papers which might contain some detail of relevance to this discussion but that you're not aware of, never having read them".

    Please don't continue humiliating yourself. I find it rather sad and pathetic. If you have some evidence to place before me you are still welcome to do so but if you continue to post rubbish here I will resort to my usual (and eminently sensible) policy of just deleting the rubbish you write.

    ReplyDelete
  10. That list is flypaper for credulous morons, half the papers in that list are not AGW skeptical in the slightest. The first one, for example. How embarrasing!

    ReplyDelete
  11. "My invitation was to provide a reference that unequivocally evidenced a lack of human influence in the recent change in global climate."

    Take your pick!

    Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide(Energy & Environment, Volume 10, Number 5, pp. 439-468, 1 September 1999)- Arthur B. Robinson, Noah E. Robinson, Willie Soon

    Global warming(Progress in Physical Geography, 27, 448-455, 2003)- W. Soon, S. L. Baliunas
    Human Contribution to Climate Change Remains Questionable(American Geophysical Society, Vol 80, page 183-187, April 20, 1999)- S. Fred Singer

    Industrial CO2 emissions as a proxy for anthropogenic influence on lower tropospheric temperature trends(Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 31, L05204, 2004)- A. T. J. de Laat, A. N. Maurellis
    Implications of the Secondary Role of Carbon Dioxide and Methane Forcing in Climate Change: Past, Present, and Future(Physical Geography, Volume 28, Number 2, pp. 97-125(29), March 2007)- Soon, Willie

    Methodology and Results of Calculating Central California Surface Temperature Trends: Evidence of Human-Induced Climate Change?(Journal of Climate, Volume: 19 Issue: 4, February 2006)- Christy, J.R., W.B. Norris, K. Redmond, K. Gallo

    Modeling climatic effects of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions: unknowns and uncertainties(Climate Research, Vol. 18: 259–275, 2001)- Willie Soon, Sallie Baliunas, Sherwood B. Idso, Kirill Ya. Kondratyev, Eric S. Posmentier

    Modeling climatic effects of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions: unknowns and uncertainties. Reply to Risbey (2002)(Climate Research, Vol. 22: 187–188, 2002)- Willie Soon, Sallie Baliunas, Sherwood B. Idso, Kirill Ya. Kondratyev, Eric S. Posmentier

    Modeling climatic effects of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions: unknowns and uncertainties. Reply to Karoly et al.(Climate Research, Vol. 24: 93–94, 2003)- Willie Soon, Sallie Baliunas, Sherwood B. Idso, Kirill Ya. Kondratyev, Eric S. Posmentier

    On global forces of nature driving the Earth's climate. Are humans involved?(Environmental Geology, Volume 50, Number 6, August, 2006)- L. F. Khilyuk and G. V. Chilingar

    Quantitative implications of the secondary role of carbon dioxide climate forcing in the past glacial-interglacial cycles for the likely future climatic impacts of anthropogenic greenhouse-gas forcings(arXiv:0707.1276, 07/2007)- Soon, Willie

    The continuing search for an anthropogenic climate change signal: Limitations of correlation-based approaches(Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 24, No. 18, Pages 2319–2322, 1997)- David R. Legates, Robert E. Davis

    ReplyDelete
  12. 0.5/10
    Epic fail.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Thank you, 'Anon', that was a really incisive, scientific critique. How do you manage it all on your own?

    In an idle moment I began reading one or two of these papers and came across this. Note especially the final sentence which might provide comfort for you. What the authors are saying is that AGW *might* be occurring but the science today does not permit a proof. Very sensible of them. The inference, of course, is that anyone who claims that it is, er, "settled science" is a buffoon:

    "ABSTRACT: A likelihood of disastrous global environmental consequences has been surmised as a
    result of projected increases in anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. These estimates are based
    on computer climate modeling, a branch of science still in its infancy despite recent substantial strides
    in knowledge. Because the expected anthropogenic climate forcings are relatively small compared to
    other background and forcing factors (internal and external), the credibility of the modeled global and
    regional responses rests on the validity of the models. We focus on this important question of climate
    model validation. Specifically, we review common deficiencies in general circulation model (GCM)
    calculations of atmospheric temperature, surface temperature, precipitation and their spatial and temporal
    variability. These deficiencies arise from complex problems associated with parameterization of
    multiply interacting climate components, forcings and feedbacks, involving especially clouds and
    oceans. We also review examples of expected climatic impacts from anthropogenic CO2 forcing. Given
    the host of uncertainties and unknowns in the difficult but important task of climate modeling, the
    unique attribution of observed current climate change to increased atmospheric CO2 concentration,
    including the relatively well-observed latest 20 yr, is not possible. We further conclude that the incautious
    use of GCMs to make future climate projections from incomplete or unknown forcing scenarios is
    antithetical to the intrinsically heuristic value of models. Such uncritical application of climate models
    has led to the commonly held but erroneous impression that modeling has proven or substantiated the
    hypothesis that CO2 added to the air has caused or will cause significant global warming. An assessment
    of the merits of GCMs and their use in suggesting a discernible human influence on global climate
    can be found in the joint World Meteorological Organisation and United Nations Environmental
    Programme’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports (1990, 1995 and the upcoming
    2001 report). Our review highlights only the enormous scientific difficulties facing the calculation
    of climatic effects of added atmospheric CO2 in a GCM. The purpose of such a limited review of
    the deficiencies of climate model physics and the use of GCMs is to illuminate areas for improvement.
    Our review does not disprove a significant anthropogenic influence on global climate."

    ReplyDelete
  14. Today != November 2 2001

    0/10.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Duff if you post any more lists of papers I will delete them. I asked you for one reference. Just one. That will allows us to analyse it in detail without becoming distracted by your spurious torrent of misinformation, which we have previously established you haven't even read. As you seem somewhat taken by the 2001 paper shall we concentrate on that one?

    Word to the Anonymous massive.

    ReplyDelete
  16. 'PS', this is what *you* wrote:

    "However- and do take note of this Duff as your cherry-picking of references makes me very wary of offering you any sort of licence to abuse others' ignorance- your reference cannot simply be methodological critiques a la McIntyre & McKitrick (2005). I am talking about original, peer-reviewed research that demonstrates that anthropological forcings are negligible in comparison to natural ones."

    Please note that you complained about what you call my "cherry-picking", and then you continue by "talking about original, peer-reviewed research", which is a collective phrase meaning a *plurality*. Honestly, I do hope you write your thesis in clearer English than you produce here. I have offered you a "plurality" and you can take your pick.

    Apologies again, but for your and 'Anon's' benefit I am going to type this in capitals because you seem to be unable to understand logic:

    YOU CLAIM THAT AGW IS A SETTLED SCIENCE. I HAVE PRODUCED JUST A TINY FRACTION OF A HUGE NUMBER OF PEER-REVIEWED PAPERS WHICH CAST DOUBT ON THE PROPOSITION. AS *I* INDICATED ABOVE, ONE OF THE AUTHORS OF ONE OF THE PAPERS SPECIFICALLY MAKES CLEAR THAT HIS PAPER DOES NOT *DISPROVE* AGW ONLY THAT THE METHODS USED SO FAR TO SUBSTANTIATE IT ARE SO WRONG THAT THEY HAVE FAILED IN THEIR PURPOSE, THUS, AGW IS NO MORE THAN AN UNPROVEN HYPOTHESIS.

    ReplyDelete
  17. I almost forgot. This is for 'Anon':

    "Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica" by Isaac Newton published in 1687.

    In case you miss the point (as though there was any doubt!), let me just repeat the date:

    1687!

    So, exactly what did you mean by your last and less than useful comment?

    ReplyDelete
  18. Duff, old research may not necessarily be bad research but science advances at a rate that makes the mind boggle. Our Anonymous friend has every right to question the relevance of your reference as it is seven years old. Climate research was still hitting its stride back then and only recently has the computing power necessary to simulate the complex systems of the planet reasonably accurately been affordably achieved.

    Stop typing in capitals or I will delete your posts without further consideration. Stop impugning my career as a scientist and my English comprehension as, as I will now elucidate, yours is far, far worse.

    I am complaining about your cherry-picking because you keep doing it.
    Line three of my post reads:

    "I invite you to post a peer-reviewed reference supporting your position of denial"

    That was 'reference' singular you pig-ignorant cunt. Line six also mentions "your reference"- again singular. In fact, you even typed or copied this exact phrase out in your post without apparently noticing that it was in the singular! Use of the word 'research' in this context is clearly not a plurality, dickhead. That is what cherry-picking is- selecting one piece of evidence that you feel supports your position and exaggerating its significance out of all context.

    I strongly suggest you refrain from commenting again here until you have something meaningful to respond to. This is not a slagging match, however much you try to lower it to one. Unlike you I have something useful to do with my time and I will read your reference in full before I respond. Have the decency to wait until I do so or, if you're not worried about a reasoned, evidence-based debate, I can provide fairly precise anatomical directions as to where you can shove you playground approach to debate.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Newton's theories of motion still adequately describe the world.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Punkscience- You claim to be clever, but in my view people who can only promote their views by making insulting and sneering remarks about people who disagree with them are really, unable to put coherent arguments which stand on their own merit. Grow up.

    ReplyDelete
  21. I'm not promoting my views in this thread, I'm discussing evidence-based science. There's a big difference you pillock.

    I see you didn't bring any "coherent arguments which stand on their own merit" of you own to the thread. Not really something to be proud of- performing anonymous hit-and-runs on people's threads without taking the time to legitimately challenge evidence you object to.

    Plus, do I really need to point out that its my blog and my rules? If I think you're being a twat I say so.

    You're being a twat.

    ReplyDelete
  22. What kind of fucking idiot comes to a blog called punkscience to complain about manners?

    What next - "well I'd like the Himalayas more if it weren't for all the mountains"?

    ReplyDelete
  23. MUCH sniggering!

    I'm glad someone gets me.

    ReplyDelete
  24. So, Duff, isn't pattern recognition meant to be one of the indicators of intelligence?

    ReplyDelete
  25. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  26. (By the way, if you wipe this comment as you did the other, I shall continue to re-postit enough times to ensure that both your other readers see it and draw their own conclusions.)

    Well I've drawn a conclusion: Someone needs to get a job. Or a life.

    ReplyDelete
  27. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  28. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Duff, I'm busy. I'm working on my PhD. I told you to wait until you had something of substance to respond to and I will enforce that. DOn't bother posting again until I have posted something for you to respond to. I started reading Soon et al at lunch today but didn't get too far so you're just going to have your posts deleted until I've done with it. That's how scientific debate works in my experience- you give your correspondant time to respond without showering them with extra information and abuse. You probably don't get this because you seem to have an even smaller penis than I do. That's the only explanation I can fathom for your irrepressible urge to justify your irrational hatred of science by abusing both it and its advocates. But I'm a patient guy and so I'm going to finish the article and share my opinion of it with you.

    ReplyDelete
  30. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  31. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  32. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Right then, I have finished reading Soon et al 2001 and I can happily confess that I didn't understand much of it as its a fairly comprehensive critique of General Climate Models [GCM]. I can, however,happily conclude that it does not deny the anthropogenic influence on climate change simply by reading the closing sentence:

    Our review points out the enormous scientific difficulties facing the calculation of climatic effects of added CO2 in a GCM, but it does not claim to disprove a significant anthropogenic influence on climate change.

    So, as usual Duff, you're wrong.

    In more depth, although the paper cites many examples of the failure of GCMs to accurately model temperatures by including as much empirical data and systematics as was currently available back then they do not condemn the models themselves. They actually call for greater effort to 'fill in the blanks' so to speak and to expand the models to encompass more variables. This is what climate science has been doing for the seven years since this paper was published (despite the determined efforts of certain politicians to hamstring such research by strangling its funding).

    For a glimpse of the state-of-the-art in climate modelling today, see here:

    http://ams.allenpress.com/archive/1520-0477/88/9/pdf/i1520-0477-88-9-1383.pdf

    Could I just take this opportunity to point out, once again, with relish, that David Duff is proven wrong once again. I feel vindicated. No, elated! No! I feel like I'm floating on a glistening sea of Buckfast!

    ReplyDelete

Feel free to share your opinions of my opinions. Oh- and cocking fuckmouse.