主播大秀

Some people slag off the Americans for the same reason that football fans hate Manchester United: they are successful. Instead of envy, we should be examining the US proposals on Climate Change rather than condemning them out of hand.

Barrie (#1) My sentiments exactly.

I've sounded off over this in a couple of other (hastily written) comments in other 14th Dec threads, remarking on what appears to me to be arrogant abuse of the word 'research', especially in the context of Policy Exchange's recent nonsense. The 主播大秀, sadly, is not entirely blameless in my view.

This sort of 'clever' hyperbole is now endemic and is indicative of something having gone terribly wrong.

hello again brossen 99 - I now understand better what you mean by eco-fascists. I think the problem is the word fascist - to me it means simply a banding together of poor people under a strong leader to defeat rich bankers and "the devouring trades of usury", "the inclosure of pasture" etc.

But you are using it to mean rich hypocrites who pretend to be "green" and don't really give up anything, meanwhile their "green" restrictions make poor people suffer, when they are already living an extremely green life anyway due to not having much.

So I definitely absolutely agree with you.

I do think the word fascist is unclear though - surely it is usually used by wealthy people to desbribe poor people getting mad and militant - I think history bears this out, fascist movements have toppled wealthy elites, not supported them. They seem to be more effective than communism, for some reason.

A lot of posh journalists say the nationalist movements in Palestine, Iran, Iraq and Arabia are "fascist" - to me they are desperate, extremely poor, tramped underfoot by foreigners as well as their own elites, and have decided to get scary or they will die. I think if the unions stopped using "fascist" as a criticism, the poor would get somewhere because all the poor would unite. Fascism doesn't really mean anything more sinister than "bunch of arrows", stronger than a single arrow. (I looked it up in Wikipedia).

Any more quotes from Uriah Heep? - I was a Doors fan mainly, don't remember Uriah Heep but they sound as if they have lasted better, like The Who - I missed out on them too, I was too posh. I have repented now though and seen the error of my ways.

"I learned something from Bee Movie" said John Harris. Oh really? Such as the "fact" that all bees are male? Just like Antz, this misses out the most interesting thing about bees - they're virtually all FEMALE. Males are just flying sperm. They aren't workers - and even workers aren't condemned to spend their life in the hive - as they get older, the go out and forage. Seinfeld could, of course, have written a film with a female stand-up in the lead role, but somehow he didn't... And bees can fly in the rain, it just depends how heavy it is. Come on - use your brains! The idea that this is is some way "educational" seems strange. Natalie Haynes was right. But Harris was right on one point - Shrek 3 was absolutely dire.

Ed - yes there are, but the US government isn't preoccupied with targets. They prefer practical solutions which deliver both environmental and economic benefits. There is a danger that we create Green Poverty under the banner of saving the planet.

Ed (#10)

"Have you actually studied the IPCC reports? Actually read them? And, if so, can you please provide a refutation or two - a specific criticism of a specific statement?

I thought not."

You have the answer a priori?

Does this accurately represent your conception of science? Do you think it's all about rhetoric/argument? If so, you're not a scientist by training or inclination.

Have a look at the IPCC 'technical summary', and when you do, look at each temperature graph bearing in mind that the temperature change is usually in the order of +/-1 degree with the error bars usually about half that. Then bear in mind that the data observations are generally just over 100 years or so (thermometers are a relatively new invention as are scales of measurement) and ask how the line fitted through the data points was
chosen.

I think from what you've written, you may have seriously misunderstood the critical point which Barrie was making. It's one which I've made elsewhere in other contexts, i.e that science is about making useful, testable predictions based upon explicit, unequivocably reliable functional relations and measurements, i.e. where one has control over ones variables. This is what's missing in so much of this climate change research (despite appearances). It's a golden opportunity for political ideologues to hijack the science in return for funding which is why so many are wary. The required long-term direct measures of temperature change just aren't available in conjunction with human activity to convince the sceptics that temperature rises are primarily or significantly anthropogenic.

Science isn't advanced by ARGUMENT and persuasion. It depends on demonstrable, replicable, prediction and control, and to some of us, the IPCC reports DO resemble 'think tank' publications (albeit better versions than those from 'Policy Exchange', Civitas, the JRF etc) than they do conventional scientific research publications. It should be clear from looking through the IPCC reports that they are targeted at an
'educated' but lay readership, not at sceptical scientists.

Go to page 63 of 74 of the technical pdf summary and read the uncertainties critically. That's what any reputable scientist would look for. Here's one example:

"Knowledge of the contribution of past solar changes to radiative
forcing on the time scale of centuries is not based upon direct
measurements and is hence strongly dependent upon physical understanding."

p63 of 74

As it is, this looks like another nightmare which politicians can compete to save their electorates from, and for others, just a gravy train.

I agree with Andrew Cobb on John Harris's comment about having 'learned something' from Bee Movie. What he learned was, perhaps, an entrenchment of myth. But here is something to add to John's point: male bees don't have stingers either. Neither do drones collect pollen or make wax. If John Harris would like to learn something, here's a starter for 10:

Wrapped over the knuckles for going beyond her brief? Is this evidence that the USA doesn't believe the IPCC's apocalyptic science but does have major fears of a 'watermelon' plot to damage their world economic interests given they (and the rest of the the developed world) have outsourced their manufacturing to the developing world?

BEE-MOVIE

Hollywood and the rest of the media (rather like Policy Exchange), doesn't let reality get in the way of their good work.

Ask Al Gore.

And if you disagree, well, that's probably because you're either 'boring', have no 'imagination' are no fun or must have something 'wrong' with you (i.e. you're bad for business). Did you see Bee-Movie's author on Jonathan Ross? They may be funny, they may be wealthy, but that's usually because at heart they're just not very nice.

Yet many in their audiences wonder why they're 'depressed', have low 'self-esteem' or aren't 'successes'.

Fact:- It's the dream-weavers, comics and spin-doctors who CAUSE problems for just about everyone other than themselves.

Brossen99 post 9 - "somewhere deep within there is a person you are somehow abusing by being the person you are using" - is that Uriah Heep? - I like it. I am wondering why they called themselves that now. Will go to www.

About polar bears etc. - what I think is that they are dying precisely because influential humans put polar bears and other luxuries ahead of their own human labour force, and have done for centuries. Even quite lowly humans will often show more affection to a pet than their own family. But it all starts at the top - if moneymakers would only understand that they only make it from natural resources and human sweat, they would plough it back instead of using it to pave paradise and make even more money than anyone could possibly need. Polar bears etc. going, are the inevitable end result of all this.

I have gone to Ed Iglehart's links for another look - he often links to Garrett Hardin who long ago declared he was not primarily interested in saving animals, he likes the human race best. Hardin is a bit cryptic about the solution - he points out that neither marxism nor a free market free-for-all help at all, but he seems to say vaguely that only abandoning pride will work, also there are too many people wonderful though they are. He seems to say that nature will take revenge in a spectacular way and solve any problems that way - looks as if he was right. If that is his final message, I'm not surprised he is a bit cagey, he would sound like an old testament prophet or the imams on Borneo after the tsunami if he was explicit. People like those prophets don't say humans are powerless to alter their behaviour, but they insist it must be altered in one simple, puritanical, direction. We must not jet around saving wildlife, we must look inside ourselves and change our own domestic lives.

If nothing else, you and ed are helping me survive the cornucopia of Christmas without being sectioned! It does seem a wee bit calmer this year - hope this is the start of a long and increasing trend.

On Bee Movie, I agree with Andrew Cobb on John Harris's comment about having 'learned something' from Bee Movie. What he learned was, perhaps, an entrenchment of myth. But here is something to add to John's point: male bees don't have stingers either. Neither do drones collect pollen or make wax. If John Harris would like to learn something, here's a starter for 10:

On Bee Movie, I agree with Andrew Cobb on John Harris's comment about having 'learned something' from Bee Movie. What he learned was, perhaps, an entrenchment of myth. But here is something to add to John's point: male bees don't have stingers either. Neither do drones collect pollen or make wax. If John Harris would like to learn something, here's a starter for 10:

Adrienne,

The theory of CO2 driven warming gives 3 main predictions that are being observed. 1) Cooling of layers above the effective radiating layer (the strato- & mesosphere). 2) The observed trend in diurnal range (day-night temperature difference). 3) The continued warming trend - without CO2 there is no reason to expect a continuation. So in a Popperian sense CO2 theory is falsifiable and is withstanding the 3 main tests of falsification.

The early loss of the Arctic ice cap is a secondary impact of the initial warming. Our failure to predict it is not key to the theory that human CO2 emissions are driving the current warming. Instead of the Arctic one could cite the expansion of the tropics (already as great or greater than what models project for the whole of the 21st century! - Siedel et al, Nature, 2007). Or one could cite Holland and Webster's confirmation of a trend in Hurricanes that is well ahead of model projections, together with a modal behaviour that models do not reproduce at all. Another key projection "undershoot" is that the reduction of ocean uptake of CO2 already seems to have started, decades before hypothesised to do so - thus the ocean is soaking up less of our emissions at this early stage in the process.

In fact if one takes a broad view, the IPCC are looking "wrong" in that they are overly conservative in certain key respects (science is typically conservative).

Bali is really rather depressing.

But as Lonnie Thompson pointed out in his recent lecture at the American Geophysical Union conference (using the example of the American Dust Bowl): Us humans tend to wait for disaster before responding. So it's hardly surprising.

The trouble is if we wait for the climate to scare us into making the sort of swingeing cuts needed to address climate change effectively, we'll be committed to far worse impacts.

Frankly, I don't know if I'm more appalled or more in despair.
The concept of recycling goes back to the 1930s - starting in Nazi Germany where raw materials could not be imported in sufficient quantities because of monetary restrictions. Then of course it took of during WWII in most afflicted countries - I refer interested readers to the excellent diaries collected by the Mass Obeservation Institute, which have recently been published.

In the early 1970s it was again about saving scarce resources, such as oil, and get housing to an energy efficient standard. These standards were well researched and published in architectural literature by the early 1980s. Such housing could easily have been build since then - too expensive, wasn't it ...

The point I want to make is that Governments and NGOs have been guilty of not doing anything to conserve scarce resources for well over 30 years. Now again it is for single citizens to save this - switch off that - change lightbulbs - recycle ...

No-one ever takes any of the big industries to task: what about fuel-saving cars? Don't mention hybrids!
Thirty years wasted ...

What about packaging, what about saving water during manufacturing processes?
Tirty years wasted.

What about efficient waste disposal, combined with heat?
Thirty years wasted.

What about efficient agriculture?
You guessed it!

Its time we grasp the fact that what we can do (and of course should do, as a matter of course) is peanuts compared to what could have been done and wasn't - by governments and big industries.

Instead we've had thirty years of waste everywhere, and still have that (its called 'consumerism'), but the least efficient and most vulnerble link in this chain - the citizen - is expected to 'save the planet': not the big industries, not governments by imposing restrictions, demands, time-limits, on them.

Its yet another cosmetic approach, which makes everybody feel guilty so they cahnge their lightbulbs and get cotton bags from Third World Countries - but the planet won't be 'saved' by these piddling methods.

People in governments all over the world, in industries everywhere haven't listened for thirty years - does anybody really think that, except for soundbites, anything real and profound will be done to 'save' the planet?

Dream on - and don't forget to book your skiing chalets and your next summer holidays - in Bali, of course.

Frankly, I don't know if I'm more appalled or more in despair.
The concept of recycling goes back to the 1930s - starting in Nazi Germany where raw materials could not be imported in sufficient quantities because of monetary restrictions. Then of course it took of during WWII in most afflicted countries - I refer interested readers to the excellent diaries collected by the Mass Obeservation Institute, which have recently been published.

In the early 1970s it was again about saving scarce resources, such as oil, and get housing to an energy efficient standard. These standards were well researched and published in architectural literature by the early 1980s. Such housing could easily have been build since then - too expensive, wasn't it ...

The point I want to make is that Governments and NGOs have been guilty of not doing anything to conserve scarce resources for well over 30 years. Now again it is for single citizens to save this - switch off that - change lightbulbs - recycle ...

No-one ever takes any of the big industries to task: what about fuel-saving cars? Don't mention hybrids!
Thirty years wasted ...

What about packaging, what about saving water during manufacturing processes?
Tirty years wasted.

What about efficient waste disposal, combined with heat?
Thirty years wasted.

What about efficient agriculture?
You guessed it!

Its time we grasp the fact that what we can do (and of course should do, as a matter of course) is peanuts compared to what could have been done and wasn't - by governments and big industries.

Instead we've had thirty years of waste everywhere, and still have that (its called 'consumerism'), but the least efficient and most vulnerble link in this chain - the citizen - is expected to 'save the planet': not the big industries, not governments by imposing restrictions, demands, time-limits, on them.

Its yet another cosmetic approach, which makes everybody feel guilty so they cahnge their lightbulbs and get cotton bags from Third World Countries - but the planet won't be 'saved' by these piddling methods.

People in governments all over the world, in industries everywhere haven't listened for thirty years - does anybody really think that, except for soundbites, anything real and profound will be done to 'save' the planet?

Dream on - and don't forget to book your skiing chalets and your next summer holidays - in Bali, of course.

DE-REGULATION MEANS ANARCHISM (SMALL GOVERNMENT)

First, the problem is control over variables, and second, the establishmnet of truth in science is not established by convention/popular (or celebrity/authority) endorsement.

Question:- Is it not the case that ice-core samples show that CO2 rose (hundreds of years) AFTER warming, and that the story put out now is that whilst this is accepted (as that's what the data shows, who could deny it?) it's now asserted that anthropogenic drivers EXACERBATE warming through a 'feedback loop'.

Not 20 years ago it was said by climatologists that technically the climate is a complex dynamical system and therfore indeterminate (only subject to statistical modelling with very large chaotic error terms meaning that one has to run run thousands of alternative models). Now, levels of certainty are sddenly back. When did the maths and physics change? The point here is tat there are limits to science imposed by maths, and this opens some areas (neuroscience is another) to exploitation by dream-weavers.

Question:- What drove the original (pre-human) warming, and how do we empirically show today that rises in CO2 (and other gases) are not once again, merely the consequence of warming?

The only way I see this ever being resolved empirically is if emissions were (magically) cut and monitored GLOBALLY to levels significantly lower than those of today (which would cost the developed world a fortune as prices of manufactured goods would rise given so much is outsourced to developing countries) and then watching to see if temperature came down.

As I see it, the developed world's governments' concerns are that if it's not anthropogenic (they have doubts because its not proven/provable now), there would just be enormous economic costs AND a 'watermelon' coup (which is what I fear this is really all about, i.e the ambitions of the Socialist International aka Democratic Socialists/Trotskists).

How likely do you think it is that anyone in the free. de-regulated, world, can get the 'deregulated' busionesses which have elected them start regulating again on the required scale? See Kyoto, see Bali.

This would demand a global Commanding Heights on a scale which put (allegedly unmanageble in principle) GOSPLAN and GOSBANK to shame - and the necons have been busy taking such regimes apart for decades.

As to IPCC uncertainty modelling:

Ed. The point is that birth rates in the free (liberal democratic - aka democratic socialst/social-democratic) developed world are dysgenically differential. I've said enough about the drivers of that. Suffice it to say that those drivers are driven by political correctness/human rights which is just expanding the impulsive consumer market through a pernicious route which is now beneath most people's PC radar (which gets weaker and weaker through time by this insidious dysgenic process).

Your endorsement of passive 'culling' can only make matters worse, the alterantive is the EU proscribed Chinese way.

China, like N Korea and the Middle Eastern 'evil dooers', is Stalinist. Their system of government would be the only one which had any hope of controlling emissions as the means of production are state controlled.

The free (anarchistic) world is busy vilifying/subverting these governments as oppressive tyrants/'evil dooers' in breach of UN Human Rights (Trotskyite politics). Look at the 'choice' of parties one has in the Lisbon Treaty's FCHR (red lines aside).The choice appears to be between democratic socialism or social democracy. No 'Nazi', Commanding Heights in sight. It's been like that since the end of WWII.

Look at the local vilification (inquisition) of the much maligned 'Islamo-fascist' Muslims....(and their support by China/Russia).

Then think 'watermelons' and the US at Bali.

Ecology is science, environmentalism is ideology

Organic is science, local is ideology

environmental and local ideologies are elitist fantasies

the problems in the here and now are as ever famine, pestilence and war

look after the here and now and the future will take care of itself

Adrienne,

Actually over 20 years ago it had already been realised that whilst in the short term (30 years) there is an emergent order. Climate can be accurately predicted.

You may find Hansen et al 1981, of interest: you can download the actual paper there. Column 3 page 1, and continuation overleaf is an excellent explanation of the so-called greenhouse effect.

However from their abstract:
"the anthropogenic carbon dioxide warming should emerge from the noise level of natural climate variability by the end of the century, and there is a high probability of warming in the 1980s."
2 correct predictions.
and
"Potential effects on climate in the 21st century include the creation of drought-prone regions in North America and central Asia as part of a shifting of climatic zones, erosion of the West Antarctic ice sheet with a consequent worldwide rise in sea level, and opening of the fabled Northwest Passage." The drought trends described are ongoing, we've lost much of the ice on the Antarctic Peninsular although thankfully the West Antarctic Ice Sheet may still be stable (Jury is not in). This year the Northwest passage was truly open and navigable as never before in recorded history (if thinks "Amundsen" I advise they read about his expedition).

In short, that's a pretty successful set of predictions for any theory. 5 out of 6 is not bad - especially with a very early model.

There's been no basic change to the maths or physics. The evidence just keeps clearly pointing to CO2 as the driver for this warming, after over 100 years the theory has not been refuted, despite repeated attempts to do so.

Previous warmings have been due to solar impacts and ice sheet withdrawal (amongst other factors). There is no evidence to show that any such alternate factor applies now.

Hello again Ed.

AN ARGUMENT TO GO NUCLEAR (& CRIPPLE YOUR NPT ENEMIES?)

#33 - Beware of government scientists. Look at figures 6 & 7 and don't cherry pick from the paper. First paragraph, last page, points 2 & 3.

Plus:

a) middle paragraph page 960 (4/10 of pdf).
b) third column paragraphs at the top of page 961 (5/10 of pdf).
c) last third column paragraph page 963 (7/10 of pdf).

Note, these were inductive, empirical MODELS and the problem then, as now, is the dearth of longer term data on solar luminosity etc. The early 80s were when Western politicians were pushing for nuclear energy in the wake of the geo-political/economic problems of the 70s, i.e. when there was great pressure from Thatcher and other friends of Israel, to reduce dependency on fossil fuels (mainy oil (for what should be obvious economic/political reasons). This was a good way to keep the oil rich Middle Eastern and other developing (socialist) countries in their place given the highly technical nature of nuclear energy and dependency on the West given the NPT. As I see it this is mainly energy politics (cf. Russia vs Europe, USA vs Iran/S America/Saudi Arabia).

See Table 2 p. 964. Does this not make you think that this is more about nuclear vs fossil fuel costs, the high cost of oil given its scarcity, and the very obvious geo-politics/economics which dominate the news, rather anything to do with 'saving the planet'?

As I read the literature, there isn't much dispute about recent global warming, just whether it's periodic and whether we're just in an up-phase at the extended present. Nor is there much dispute over CO2 being a correlate of warming, but is it just that? Does it lead, or does it follow?

The main concern seems to be the size of the anthropogenic contribution relative to natural drivers (to both CO2 and warming) and the degree of control which governments have over any of this given global liberal-democratic geo-politics. The USA clearly doesn't want Iran to go nuclear at any cost (Iran has never said it would wipe Israel off the map), so why has the USA come down so heavily on Iran? Might it be that if Iran could export more of its oil, its economy, and regional anti-USA influence would increase?

Adrienne,
(Sorry but this will be a long one.)

I agree with what Ed states above.

I do not cherry pick, I always read the full report and often the bulk of the referenced papers. My point remains - 5/6 is a good hit rate.

In answer to your points

Graph 6 shows what basic physics tell us - emit more CO2 and you get more warming.

Graph 7 shows how they support the first prediction I relay in my quotes of the abstract.

I am all too aware of the issues that remain to be resolved. However that was a 1981 paper, since then issues have been clarified, e.g. Annan & Hargreaves use of bayesian analysis and a wide selection of observations narrowing climate sensitivity to around the Charney sensitivity of ~3degC (using a more formal evidenced method than Charney's early estimate).

I have concerns about regional climate projections as I have stated in a RealClimate thread on that issue earlier this year. That does not change the global energy balance implications of increasing CO2 and the ensuing temperature increase. The models point the direction I don't think they're a map.

a) There is doubt about the "exact" insolation levels prior to the satellite data. But the satellite data clearly shows (Frohlich PMOD) no trend in insolation(INcoming SOLar radiATION) since 1978, during which time global average temperature has gone up 0.6degC and (crucially) the stratosphere and mesosphere have cooled (they'd warm with an increase in insolation). There is no reasonable doubt to allow claims of a solar cause in the last 30 years of warming.

b) Global average temperatures are now greater than in the 1940s (but I'm not clear what you mean by this selection).

c) In 1981 they had to use a posteriori selection of solar variability. Since then the most recent research (Frohlich, Lockwood, and others) has actually downplayed the role of solar variance in both the post and pre 1970 periods! You are wrong in claiming a current "dearth" of solar data.

However none of this changes the fact that in 1981 Hansen's team made 6 predictions, 5 of which have then been born out by observation, only one of which is unresolved. Not only that but in Hansen 1988 a specific model projection was made which is still on track. e.g.

There is no reasonable doubt that increased CO2 causes temperature increases. It's infra-red signature has been measured by satellite, the SIO network (e.g. Mauna Loa)measures the presence of CO2 in the atmosphere using it's infra-red spectrum. So CO2 is trapping infra-red radiation that would otherwise radiate to space, that implies a change in the energy balance of the planet, which in turn implies a warming. This is basic physics.

With regards the glacial lag of ~800 years in one of the papers where this is noted ["Atmospheric CO2 Concentrations over the Last Glacial Termination." Monin et al, Science Vol291 5/1/01] they show that warming/cooling of the southern ocean causes most of the CO2 changes and that the "lag" does not challenge the warming role of CO2. Indeed as it is the small initial impact of the Milankovitch cycles on that drives the ice-age changes, one would not expect to see CO2 change before temperature! The difference now is that as the oceans are taking up CO2 and acidifying, we know the same process as the ice-ages is not involved. This often stated time lag is a complete red-herring in the current context.

Nuclear etc is irrelevant to the scientific question of identifying the impact of CO2 increases. Trying to imply that there is a conspiracy in the science is preposterous given the intensity of the efforts to dismiss this issue over the last 30 years. If the so called sceptics had a case it would be strong enough to dominate in the body of literature. Yet it does not.

Ed (#35) "I've examined (again, for I first read this paper years ago) the sections you indicate, and find nothing at all which degrades the validity of the paper, the research methods or the conclusions - rather the reverse."

Which simply goes to show that, once again, you haven't carefully read what I've written. But as 'females' aren't much good at ****ing contests let's leave it at that shall we ;-)

My reference to those sections of the paper had nothing to do with my 'degrading the validity of the paper'. All you've shared with us, it would seem, is your misunderstanding of what I've posted and the difficulty you have reading scientific papers. Read the following, paying particular attention to what Hansen is quoted as saying (CO2 and aerosols, non-linearities etc), and then re-read what I originally wrote, and what I subsequently drew attention to in the '81 paper. Why did I do that?

As to Hansen and the politics of all of this, here's a quite remarkable statement from a government scientist:

"In my more than three decades in the government I've never witnessed such restrictions on the ability of scientists to communicate with the public,"

All UK government scientists, especially senior ones, know that non-specialist Civil Servants put restrictions on what they can say, write etc (this partially why I provided the C.P Snow link - one culture aims to write well and spin a good, persuasive tale, the other does precisely the opposite, they savage fairy tales). Is it not the same for government scientists in the USA? Perhaps not. He certainly got a lot of media attention throughout didn't he?

May I suggest that you forget modesty Ed? Show us your scientific credentials and your publication record. You should be proud to do that and it would be informative.

To repeat, as I see it, science/research is not about argument, consensus and authority, that's the domain of politics, PR etc. It's about prediction, control and its limitations as Hansen well knows (see first link).

Sadly, more and more people today appear to read and write (look up 'idioms of propositional attitude' as these include 'reading' and 'writing') non-extensionally. Ordinary language is just a modus vivendi. I've suggested why we are in trouble here. Whilst on the subject, bear in mind that in Factor Analysis one rotates axes to render factors and their loadings poles apart.

Ed. Which magic nano-pixies have been going about removing all the aerosols?

Do you remember when I corrected you about the consequences of that 'zero TFR' that you were erroneously advocating not too long ago? It shows you don't know how the terms are used. That's usually a cue to start listening to someone. Are you sure you're as familiar with science as you claim?

I'm now pretty sure that you're not a scientist. Go on... you can admit that ;-) Guess how people like me can tell?

No offence. I suspect we may agree on many other things, but we won't on this.

It's what's gone so wrong today. Too many people now making all sorts of assertions, regardless of the facts of the matter, because they don't know, and won't lsten.

#40 "Despite your opinion, I have little difficulty reading scientific literature."

In other words, you'll just ignore my assessment and carry on regardless. But how do you know that you have 'little difficulty' Ed? How much professional experience have you had in reviewing, criticing and teaching researchers? None I suggest.
We have bad scence all about us and half a population that thinks itself educated whilt all the evidence suggest that standards are falling.

So how do you 'know'? Who told you you that you had 'little difficulty'? MSc's are two a penny, that's a good part of the problem that I've been 'banging on about' elsewhere.

Please, no more fortune cookie comments about hubrism Ed.

These are not ad hominem's (please look up what the ad hominem fallacy is, it belongs with arguments from authority or consensus). My remarks are specific criticisms of your pseudo-scientific behaviours and I have said what is wrong with the science in this area, I'm not interested in quibbling over minor details when the major problems are a) the source of data, b) the scaling and dodgy graphs, and c) measurement or the lack thereof because of the non-linearities/number of variables and interactions.

The moderators are being selective about what they're putting up. I have responded yesterday and today to both you and to your anonmymous supporter, drawing your attention to Lawson's 2006 speech, the Lords' 2006 report upon which it was based, criticims of Stern, and I've cited a couple of things which Hansen has said/shown elsewhere in a recent paper. None of this has appeared.

You're a politico 'true believer' Ed, you're not a scientist.

These are not ad hominems. Please look up what the ad hominem fallacy is. It belongs with arguments from authority or consensus. My remarks are specific criticisms of your pseudo-scientific behaviours. I have said what's wrong technically with the 'science' in this area. I'm not at all interested in quibbling over minor technical details when the major problems are a) the source of data, b) the scaling and dodgy presentations/graphs and c) measurement or the lack thereof because of the non-linearities/number of variables and their interactions.

You need to stand back from all of this and get a sense of perspective.

The moderators are being selective about what they're putting up. I responded yesterday and today to both you and to your anonmymous supporter, drawing your attention to Lawson's 2006 speech, the Lords' 2006 report upon which it was based, criticisms of Stern, and a couple of things which Hansen has said/shown elsewhere in a recent paper. None of this has appeared.

SCALING

The most obvious question is whether we're just in the up phase of a regular, albeit very long term, temperature cycle where short term predictions are inevitably going to be born out from any model which closely fits the *available* short-term data which is regressed against it getting hotter over a relatively short period. Neural nets are essentially regression equations, i.e. they are inductive models and as such prone to 'superstitious' sampling of obvious/salient/available variables. As more variables are plugged in, the models become ever more beguiling (see the government's CVA model in education which is more obviously ideologically driven - search in vain for any genetic contribution, it's all environmental ;-)).

A couple of Hansen broad-brush comments for context:

Hansen is "..also noted for publishing "an alternative scenario" for global warming which states that in the past few decades the warming effect produced by increased CO2 has been largely offset by the cooling effect of aerosols also produced in burning fossil fuels, and that most of the net warming so far is due to trace greenhouse gases other than CO2."

"Warming in recent decades has been driven mainly by non-CO2 greenhouse gases (GHGs), such as chlorofluorocarbons, CH4, and N2O, not by the products of fossil fuel burning, CO2 and aerosols, the positive and negative climate forcings of which are partially offsetting. [...] This does not alter the desirability of limiting CO2 emissions, because the future balance of forcings is likely to shift toward dominance of CO2 over aerosols"

Looking at figures 1 & 2 in the 2007 paper below, and the apparent ~100Ky periodicity, is it not easy to see how the entire climate area could have been hijacked by apocalyptic activists plus scientists chasing grants in this ever more commercialised, competitive, glossy PR driven, celebrity culture we now live in. See The Lawson (2006) and the Lords reports (2006).

Hansen et al (2007)

Lawson (2006):

Lords (206):

Ed You clearly don't understand, and there's little likelihood that you ever will I suspect. Science is all about scepticism, falsification, not verification.

I've explained to you before that science is EMPIRICAL, i.e. it's not about logical validity, arguments from authority (or from anywhere else). The logic/maths in science is just a lowly hand-maiden to the empirical observations/measures/data and the required long-term measures are either unavailable being distorted by global warming crusaders some of whom are celebrity endorsing the IPCC reports..

It's the assumptions (measures/observations) which matter in science, i.e what one measures and how one does so (ice core samples, how long does it take for the ice to seal in the gases? What was the rate of snowfall 100,000 years ago?). Truth isn't established through argument, or by convention. Yet this is the language which is used to sell the global warming story. Scientists are trained to eschew it, non-scientists are trained and employed for excelling in it. These behaviours are poles apart.

I advise you and anyone else who is concerned about this to carefully read 'Two Dogmas of Empiricism' and 'The Scope and Language of Science' as they, along with 'Word and Object' all but destroyed philosophy and any prospects for truth via logic/analyticity. As it is, you persist in showing me that what you don't understand this.

Many of the people working within climatology do not have enough control over their variables to make the confident assertions which we're seeing them allegedly making. When one looks closely at Hansen's work, one sees caution if one reads carefully enough.

There's more politics and economics going on here than there is science (as is the case with many of the big issues which pre-occupy people today).

I know this admonition won't stop your or others' from your enthusiastic activism, any more than it will stop you predicting a financial apocalypse or from saying that rapid depopulation ('culling') through below replacement level birth rates amongst Europeans is somehow good for the world. People like yourself won't let the evidence get in the way of their ideology. They know a priori what's happening, and in a narrow-indictively way they seek and they find all of the 'evidence' they require to reinforce their prejudices and sell their stories.

PS Tu quoque is fallacious too.

Ed You clearly don't understand, and there's little likelihood that you ever will I suspect. Science is all about scepticism, falsification, not verification.

I've explained to you before that science is EMPIRICAL, i.e. it's not about logical validity, arguments from authority (or from anywhere else). The logic/maths in science is just a lowly hand-maiden to the empirical observations/measures/data and the required long-term measures are either unavailable being distorted by global warming crusaders some of whom are celebrity endorsing the IPCC reports..

It's the assumptions (measures/observations) which matter in science, i.e what one measures and how one does so (ice core samples, how long does it take for the ice to seal in the gases? What was the rate of snowfall 100,000 years ago?). Truth isn't established through argument, or by convention. Yet this is the language which is used to sell the global warming story. Scientists are trained to eschew it, non-scientists are trained and employed for excelling in it. These behaviours are poles apart.

I advise you and anyone else who is concerned about this to carefully read 'Two Dogmas of Empiricism' and 'The Scope and Language of Science' as they, along with 'Word and Object' all but destroyed philosophy and any prospects for truth via logic/analyticity. As it is, you persist in showing me that what you don't understand this.

Many of the people working within climatology do not have enough control over their variables to make the confident assertions which we're seeing them allegedly making. When one looks closely at Hansen's work, one sees caution if one reads carefully enough.

There's more politics and economics going on here than there is science (as is the case with many of the big issues which pre-occupy people today).

I know this admonition won't stop your or others' from your enthusiastic activism, any more than it will stop you predicting a financial apocalypse or from saying that rapid depopulation ('culling') through below replacement level birth rates amongst Europeans is somehow good for the world. People like yourself won't let the evidence get in the way of their ideology. They know a priori what's happening, and in a narrow-inductively way, they seek, and they find, all of the 'evidence' that they require to reinforce their prejudices and sell their dogma to unbelievers.

Over the next few years, you will see the things that I've 'predicted' happen in education, crime etc, and a good part of the reason why those things will happen is because people LIKE yourself do not listen to anything but what they already know, i.e. they think in terms of coherence (intension) rather than empirical fact (extension). That's largely because our developed world educational systems have been selecting on verbal skills most, i.e. a predominantly 'feminine' genetic traits, it's why most of our manufacturing has gone to the developing world, and why we're now nearly 80% Service Sector. Yet you want to reduce the birth rate in the depopulated part of the world and the mean IQ.

Oh, and don't 'take offence' Ed. The fear of causing offence is largely why we're now in this mess. Your sensitivity is also a very female disposition.

PS Tu quoque is fallacious too.

Ed (#50). Yes, dfepopulated. How many times does it have to be said that the indigenous white European population is now well below replacement level with its TFRs between 1.1 and 1.8 and what that means in terms of negative population growth which is just temporarily masked by better health care resulting in an greater ageing population)? The great immigration influx from outside Europe has been to compensate for this. Not only that, but there are more births to lower IQ than higher IQ people (hence falling standards and rising crime), which is being made worse by these governments sending the brighter 50% of the population to university, meaning they delay having families and some (1/3 of the last analysed female cohort, having none because they compete in the work-place or leave it all too late).

I remind you that 99.9% of London's population growth over the next 30 years will be in Ethnic Minority Groups and most of that growth will be in East London boroughs. Our national population growth from 1950-2000 was tiny (a good part due to immigration and births to BME groups), whilst low IQ Nigeria, Pakistan etc trebled. The USA is in the same mess. People like Sachs, (Stern etc) mislead non-discerning people to look globally not locally.

You have been conned, or else you are colluding with the con.

I should have known better. Have a good Xmas Ed, and if you can bear it, give some thought to how climate change and differential fertility/dysgenesis are fundamentally different.

Ed (#56). No, I am not interested to know something you've just fond out Ed. You really must take on board that readers and posters to this blog also have 'day jobs', and many will have looked more crtically into what I have said (if they are not ware of it already). Look up the ETS repor.

Basically, what you are referring to does not consider race. As in London, the White USA population in general is also headed to become a minority through immigration and higher Hispanic/Black birth rates. The high USA birth rate is primarily amongst the (Catholic) Hispanics. Until recently, large numbers of Hispanics were putting themselves down as Whites (i.e not Black) in teh US census (so they now have a new category. Next to the Black Americans, the Hispanics have the next lowest IQ.

The USA IS better off than Europe in TFRs, but it has the same problem that the rest of the developed world has. This is basic demography. Take a cue here Ed, there is more to this than you know.

Ed (#56). I'm clearly wasting my time. You don't listen.

Have a good Xmas Ed.

Ed (#56). I know Ed. I suspect I'm wasting my time, but, for what it's worth, I reckon you need to be far more self-critical and far more diligent in your research. There's much more to this than you have looked into. Look into the changes in the last USA census, and why it had to be changed. Then look at the ethnic projections for the next 50 years and the US fertility reports produced every two years. Then look at table 11.5 in our UK ONS births stats (not just 11.1) and bear in mind that ethnicity of the mother is not recorded, just where she was born. Born in UK does not mean White British.

Have a good Xmas. If you haven't read it, get a copy of 'The Bell Curve', and focus on chapter 15 ;-(

FSS FORENSIC SCIENTISTS & DNA PROFILING ON TRIAL?

First, a rhetorical question: Given the importance of 'education, education, education', the relationship between SES, IQ and GDP, the advances in genomics and the fact that we have 560,000 cases for EACH of KS1, KS2, KS3 and KS4 each year in the DfES attainment database, why isn't New Labour profiling/regressing academic attainment (and criminogenic behaviour) against genes and why don't we use coding DNA rather than junk DNA for criminal finger-printing and biometric ID cards?

(See the judgement pdf)

Whilst page 16 onwards covers the contamination concerns specific to this case, and the fact that special handling by SOCO etc with DNA in mind was not considered in 1998 in this case, pages 25-29 are completely different in terms of criticism. These pages directly challenge the two FSS scientists' validation of their LCN technique, asserting that the two peer reviewed publications by the originating FSS scientists were not enough validation, that the FSS use of PCR/LCN, as run is not robust enough, and is also highly critical of one of the scientist's expert-witness performance in court to boot.

- In an attempt to bolster their case, the prosecution called Peter Gill, one of the inventors of the LCN technique. But under cross examination he said some of the results put forward by the prosecution were "valueless", and that LCN was a complex area in which there were "shades of grey".

That led Mr Justice Weir to say: "When this evidence is presented on behalf of the prosecution, no-one talks about it in terms of shades of grey. It's put forward as evidence I can rely on." -

Is the Polymerase Chain Reaction (pcr) itself along with SGM and SGM+ now on trial? Or is it just the use of PCR in LCN with SMG and its 6+1 junk DNA markers (i.e. too small samples, and too few marker loci?). We'd undoubtedly be better off using non-junk DNA, but it isn't used, ironically, for solely politically correct/civil liberties i.e LEGAL reasons. That is, if coding (the genes tat make us what we are rather than non-coding 'junk' which doesn't) DNA was used, DNA profiling would be far more accurate/discriminating. It could be used to identify race almost perfectly. It can't now, as it doesn't look in the right places for markers (and it could identify much else besides). The problem now is that too few (or just enough) markers are used in the wrong part of the genome (i.e. in junk DNA).

It isn't the science which is at 'fault' here, it's the law, Civil Liberties/Human Rights, respect for 'freedom' etc. We are back to biometric ID cards. To make those work one needs coding DNA. Is that what this (in conjunction with 'lost' data disks etc) is really all about? A drive towards coding DNA biometric databases?

This could prove very interesting given the extensive role which PCR plays in genetics. It will bring the law, DNA profiling, and politically correct/human rights issues to more people's attention, highlighting how the law is not making the best use of the science. Once agan, it's going to come down to Human Rights legislation, see the FCHR in the EU Reform Treaty and what that shapes us towards through fear and our excessive trust of liberty ('power to the people' does not usually mean to the man in the street alas, it means to those who do well out of the free-market

Newsnight should not let others make out that it's the science which is the problem. It's the use of the science as a technology in forensics and law which constrains it which is the problem (which is why so many bolshy scientists will appear to be 'unhelpful' I suspect, as they're having to produce tests which are limited, not by the science, but by crippling political correctness).

Look at the ethnic projections for the next 50 years, USA fertility reports produced every two years, USA immigration policy, and who lobbied for immigration. Then look at the pattern in Table 11.5 of the UK ONS births stats (not just Table 11.1) and bear in mind that ethnicity of the mother is not recorded, just where she was born. Born in UK does not mean White British. I've linked all this before elsewhere. Ask WHY there has been so much Muslim and Black immigration into London over recent decades and why there were falling rolls before (especially East London). Bear in mind current birth rates and the lurid opportunities to build and offer tempting financial products if Muslims can be secularised (hence the 'war on terror'?). A cynical game I fear if one considers the beneficiaries. Note all the Building Schools For The Future in Tower Hamlets, Newham, Hackney, Barking, Dagenham and elsewhere. The economy needs consumers/grateful migrants and their progeny, who no doubt will be made all sorts of empty promises.

If you haven't read it, get a copy of 'The Bell Curve', and focus on
chapter 15.

Then watch the ETS video and/or read the report 'America's Perfect Storm' ;-(

ONS:

ETS:

Note the silent treatment (see the video).

Have a good Xmas.