Catholicism and Climate Change

[Ender]

If you start with a temperature record, and then you apply adjustments to that temperature record, what you now have is an adjusted temperature record. Since the talk that I made the comment in relation to was talking about temperatures and not “ENSO-adjusted temperatures”, NOAA’s results (actually Jones’ results) are irrelevant.

All of the temperature records that are discussed are adjusted temperature records; no one uses raw data. I am struck by your insistence that an adjusted temperature record is not a temperature record when in fact all temperature records are adjusted.

- NOAA never claimed that for the decade ending in 2008 there was zero warming.

• What they actually said was that the HadCRUT temperature record adjusted for ENSO had a zero trend for that decade.

I think this pretty well captures the dispute. Is your position that when NOAA said the decadal trend was 0.00 degrees that’s not the same as saying there was zero warming for a decade *because *they removed the spurious ENSO contribution? Are you suggesting that, had the ENSO contribution been negative, they could have left it in and validly claimed a decade of cooling? You may claim that NOAA was wrong in making the claim of zero warming for a decade but it’s not reasonable to hold they didn’t make the claim.

The trend in the ENSO-related component for 1999–2008 is +0.08±0.07°C decade–1, fully accounting for the overall observed trend. The trend after removing ENSO (the “ENSO-adjusted” trend) is 0.00°±0.05°C decade–1, implying much greater disagreement with anticipated global temperature rise.

NOAA: - Warming over the last decade was X.

• The ENSO contribution over the last decade was X.
• Without ENSO the decadal trend was 0.00.
  Jason: - "NOAA never claimed that for the decade ending in 2008 there was zero warming."

It really stretches the meaning of words to contend that “the trend after removing ENSO was zero” doesn’t mean “there was zero warming.”

Ender

 

[kimmielittle]

Just because the science seems to be right , doesn’t mean we should believe it. After all there are more people in the US than anywhere else who believe the earth is only 6000 years old and people once rode dinosaurs and if they can be positive about that, there is no reason why they can’t be positive about global warming being a hoax as well.

I’m almost positive this will appeal to the “mindless echo chamber” crowd , As some call them. I can almost see them clapping for you now ]

Sadly, you do your cause a great disservice, IMHO

One does not have to believe in AGW, to be a conservation /eco-friendly ally. It is this strange incomprehension that seems to run rampant amongst “Green” groups, that turn the dog - to bite his own tail.

 

[kimmielittle]

The fact is that the jury decided their actions were not unlawful.

Actually, not so.

The jury defended their motivations… NOT their actions.

IMHO it is a shame that this Judge / Court allowed this case to be hijacked. And it is a shame the Prosecution failed.

The Necessity Law reads in part.

(2) A person does an act under duress of circumstances if- (a) he does it because he knows or believes that it is immediately necessary to avoid death or serious injury to himself or another, and (b) the danger that he knows or believes to exist is such that in all the circumstances (including any of his personal characteristics that affect its gravity) he cannot reasonably be expected to act otherwise. It is for the defendant to show that the reason for his act was such knowledge or belief as is mentioned in paragraph (a)."
The defence would not apply to a person who knowingly and without reasonable excuse exposed himself to the danger known or believed to exist; the accused would have the burden of proving that he had not so exposed himself if the question arose.

lawteacher.net/criminal-law/cases/necessity.php
Notice the Time constraints of Duress

You could say that a firefighter who broke down a door to rescue a baby trapped in a burning building without permission from the owners commited the crimes of tresspassing, breaking and entering, and damaging property that did not belong to them. But you’d be laughed out of town if you did.

No, A firefighter saving a baby, is under the “necessity” of time to act immediately…i.e., A “clear and present or immediate danger”. He / They don’t have time to stop and paint vandalize ] property, as did this group…

The law isn’t always as stupid as you make it out to be. Neither are we.

I agree to the first part BUT you sure have me wondering about your “ends justifying the means” level of intelligence.

Climate change protesters who ambushed and hijacked a power station coal train failed to convince a jury today that their actions were justified by the “imminent threat” of devastation from global warming.
The 22 men and women, including a senior university lecturer, teachers and film-makers, were convicted - after less than two hours of deliberation - of obstructing the service carrying 42,000 tonnes of coal to Drax in North Yorkshire last June.
Their hopes of repeating the “Kingsnorth Six” judgment last September, when activists who defaced a power station chimney were acquitted by a Kent jury, were dashed by a judge, who refused to admit arguments that the hijack was “necessary and proportionate to prevent the greater crime of carbon pollution”.
Although he eventually allowed an unexpectedly large amount of evidence about climate change to be heard, Judge James Spencer refused to let expert witnesses such as Nasa scientist, Prof James Hansen, address the seven women and five men on the jury at Leeds crown court. In a pre-trial ruling he said that to do so would allow the protesters "to hijack the trial process as surely as they hijacked the coal train".

guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jul/03/drax-coal-train-trial-guilty

It seems Mr. Hansen et al isn’t to proud of his actions in the court case he helped. This has been removed from his Wikpedia pages. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Hansen

In October 2007, six [Greenpeace]] activists painted [graffiti]] on a chimney of the [Kingsnorth power station]] in [Kent]], England, which cost £30,000 to remove. Hansen was called as a defense witness to testify about the danger of climate change, saying “somebody needs to step forward and say there has to be a moratorium, draw a line in the sand and say no more coal-fired power stations.”{{cite web | authorlink = [Greenpeace]] | title = Court deals Major Blow to UK coal-fired power plans | publisher = [Greenpeace]] | date = 2008-09-10 | url = greenpeace.org/international/press/releases/court-major-blow-to-uk-coal-10092008 | accessdate = 2009-02-08}}http://www.independent.co.uk/enviro...-flames-of-coal-power-station-row-918057.htmlBBC NEWS | UK | England | Kent | Nasa expert meets Kingsnorth duo

===Role as a climate activist===

en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=James_Hansen&diff=385866171&oldid=385864149

Can you please direct me to a direct quote, by Mr. Hansen, that states he doesn’t support vandalism, and trespassing saboteur acts?

 

[kimmielittle]

Are you seriously still confused by this?

An invite…actually, no…a challenge

FUD – Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt…might work here. How well does it stack-up with the big boys.

If you accept this challenge…I’ll be And probably other readers here ], waiting your comments to/on these link pages… I’ll be looking for your nick ]

Just go to comments section at the bottom of these pages.

wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/23/a-strange-problem-with-the-ipcc-numbers/#more-26886

And

wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/23/more-oddities-with-the-ipcc-numbers/

You should have no problem with these IPCC numbers, I’d think.

 

[portarica]

I’m almost positive this will appeal to the “mindless echo chamber” crowd , As some call them. I can almost see them clapping for you now ]

Sadly, you do your cause a great disservice, IMHO

One does not have to believe in AGW, to be a conservation /eco-friendly ally. It is this strange incomprehension that seems to run rampant amongst “Green” groups, that turn the dog - to bite his own tail.

I don’t think poking fun at the groups that believe that dinosaurs were ridden by humans hurts any cause except religious fundamentalism. What hurts the cause of preserving the earth for future generations is that some people believe that thinking the earth is only 6000 years old is a reasonable position and discounting science to hold that position is not damaging to our future.

You are right that one doesn’t have to believe in AGW to be eco- friendly, but by the same token if someone is eco- friendly they would still want to reduce the amount of CO2 produced by humans because those CO2 producing actions are also generally actions that produce human damaging pollution in a more general sense.

So do we reduce CO2 producing because it is just bad for us or because we don’t want to harm our neighbors or because we love the labeling of the problem as AGW?

Peace

 

[JasonSB]

All of the temperature records that are discussed are adjusted temperature records; no one uses raw data. I am struck by your insistence that an adjusted temperature record is not a temperature record when in fact all temperature records are adjusted.

We went over this before.

Any measurement made with a real-life instrument must be adjusted to remove known errors in order to maximise the accuracy of the measurements.

I gave an example before – we used to make instruments with a raw measurement accuracy of 100 microns and a post-calibration measurement accuracy of 2.5 microns.

In the case of the temperature record, the instruments themselves will obviously be calibrated, so before the very first number is even written down there will be an “adjustment”. Known errors like the Time Of Observation Bias, which was quantified and verified during the 80s, must also be corrected for. Changes in instrumentation (like from Stevenson Screens to MMTS’s) must be quantified and corrected for. UHI and microsite issues must be quantified and corrected for. All of these corrections have been documented and discussed in the literature and all are necessary to determine the actual physical reality as accurately as possible.

Once you’ve done that, you have an actual temperature record.

What Jones et al did then is take that actual temperature record and construct simple models of various cyclic phenomena to try to tease out their effects from the temperature records – not to make the actual temperature record more accurate, like all the above adjustments do, but rather to detect the underlying trend more readily. In essense, to ask “What do we think the actual temperature record would have been if ENSO didn’t exist”, and so on.

The impacts of ENSO and volcanic eruptions on global-mean temperature are estimated using a simple thermodynamic model of the global atmospheric–oceanic mixed layer response to anomalous heating. In the case of ENSO, the heating is assumed to be proportional to the sea surface temperature anomalies over the eastern Pacific; in the case of volcanic eruptions, the heating is assumed to be proportional to the stratospheric aerosol loading. The impacts of dynamically induced atmospheric variability on global-mean temperature are estimated on the basis of the covariance between the land–sea temperature difference in the Northern Hemisphere and the sea level pressure field.atmos.colostate.edu/ao/ThompsonPapers/ThompsonWallaceJonesKennedy_JClimate2009.pdf

This is something completely different to the earlier adjustments and, clearly, much harder to verify and open to dispute – as I’m sure it would be if it had shown the trend was actually twice as big for that decade instead of zero, eh?

I think this pretty well captures the dispute. Is your position that when NOAA said the decadal trend was 0.00 degrees that’s not the same as saying there was zero warming for a decade *because *they removed the spurious ENSO contribution?

There are many reasons why I said:

• NOAA never claimed that for the decade ending in 2008 there was zero warming.
• What they actually said was that the HadCRUT temperature record adjusted for ENSO had a zero trend for that decade.

1. The second statement is a perfectly valid mathematical statement applied to a time series. It is just as valid as me taking the temperature at one minute intervals for ten minutes in the middle of the day and announcing that the trend in temperatures over that ten minute period was 0.00. It is mathematically correct, but what does it mean?

The first statement is an interpretation of the second in terms of the world’s climate, and the first statement simply isn’t supported by the second. This is why you don’t find it in the NOAA report. Instead they say things like “We can place this apparent lack of warming in the context of natural climate fluctuations…” and then go on to show that the natural variability of climate models with a steady 0.2C/decade trend also incorporates decades with 0.00 trend. In other words, a decade-long trend of 0.00 degrees tells you nothing about whether there has been “zero warming” – the random fluctuations about the warming trend are large enough that the trend itself can be completely disguised by those random fluctuations over that time period.

 

[JasonSB]

Cont.

Finally – if you’re going to claim that the result is phsically meaningful to the real world, then you’re going to have to explain why all the other temperature reconstructions have a much higher trend for that decade. UAH, RSS, and GISS all had much larger rises for the decade 1998-2009; if you applied the ENSO correction to the GISS data it would still be the same trend as the original HadCRUT data! You can’t claim “no warming” for that decade if you have to ignore 3/4 of the global temperature reconstructions in order to make the claim.

1. As I keep saying, if others are making statements about global temperatures, then comments about ENSO-adjusted global temperatures are irrelevant to those statements. If they wanted to make statements about ENSO-adjusted temperatures then they could have but they chose not to. Why? Well, because as soon as you allow Jones to adjust the temperature record to remove ENSO, why not allow other effects to be removed as well? If you correctly remove all of those effects, then you really do improve the signal to noise ratio and allow the underlying trend to be seen more clearly, and it’s obvious to me that the last thing these commentators want is for that to happen – as long as the trend remains obscure they can keep using any natural dips to cast doubt on AGW and postpone action as long as possible.

To prove my point, I took the ENSO-adjusted data that NOAA used and tried to remove the effect of the solar variations as well. NOAA did not bother doing that because they satisfied themselves that they had already proved their point that the zero trend was meaningless, but given your comments it looks like they were premature. (“Other factors, such as data biases and the effect of the solar cycle (Haigh 2003), may also have contributed, although these results show that it is not essential to invoke these explanations.”)

http://img8.imageshack.us/img8/7228/pmodadjusted.jpg

Look at that graph very carefully.

In the background, in grey, is the normal HadCRUT temperature record.

In red is my calculation of the change in temperature caused by the variation of the solar irradiance. To calculate the change in temperature I used a value of 0.76 °C/(W/m[sup]2[/sup]), which is just below the middle of the estimated range of 0.54-1.2 °C/(W/m[sup]2[/sup]) and happens to minimise the variation in the trend.

The blue line is the ENSO-adjusted HadCRUT data that NOAA used with my solar insolation adjustment applied.

Note:

1. The trend from 1979 to 2009 is 0.202 °C/decade once both ENSO and SOI are corrected for.
2. The trend from 1999 to 2008 is 0.212 °C/decade once both ENSO and SOI are corrected for. This is the same decade that NOAA claimed the zero trend for when ENSO alone was removed. According to the above calculation, the zero trend was entirely because of the declining solar insolation from 2002 onwards.

Now I’m not going to claim that the above temperature record is “the truth” – I just want to drive home the point that I can take another known physical effect, use a physically-plausible computation of its impact*], and completely change the result. If this calculation was done in a way worthy of a journal paper, removing the effect of the change in SOI would have to increase the trend for that decade because the SOI was declining.

• Actually, the impact probably isn’t as large as that, because the instantaneous climate sensitivity is lower than the long-term sensitivity.

 

[JasonSB]

Are you suggesting that, had the ENSO contribution been negative, they could have left it in and validly claimed a decade of cooling?

They could claim that the actual temperature record showed a negative trend (and therefore it would be what people were referring to when they talked about the temperature record) but it still wouldn’t have allowed them to claim a decade of cooling because as soon as you put the decade in context you can see that the warming has not only continued unabated but that it actually accelerated. The apparent cooling (as NOAA described it) is merely an artefact of the fact that early on in the decade the climate went way above trend and subsequently corrected itself. The underlying trend is not only still there but it actually climbed to be higher at the end of that decade than it was at the beginning of it. (The 20-year trend in the ENSO-adjusted data at the start of that decade was 0.118°C/decade; at the end of that “zero-trend” decade it was 0.201°C/decade – nearly double.)

You may claim that NOAA was wrong in making the claim of zero warming for a decade but it’s not reasonable to hold they didn’t make the claim.

“We can place this apparent lack of warming in the context of natural climate fluctuations other than ENSO using twenty-first century simulations with the HadCM3 climate model…”

If they did make the claim, you’d be able to quote it. The reason they qualified the statements about the physical interpretation of the trend is because they know there is a difference between the two statements, as I’ve explained.

The trend in the ENSO-related component for 1999–2008 is +0.08±0.07°C decade–1, fully accounting for the overall observed trend. The trend after removing ENSO (the “ENSO-adjusted” trend) is 0.00°±0.05°C decade–1, implying much greater disagreement with anticipated global temperature rise.

“We can place this apparent lack of warming in the context of natural climate fluctuations other than ENSO using twenty-first century simulations with the HadCM3 climate model…”

NOAA: - Warming over the last decade was X.

Begging the question? “The least squares trend for January 1999 to December 2008 calculated from the HadCRUT3 dataset is +0.07±0.07°C decade–1” Trying to rephrase their statement into exactly the form that you claim is the same and I claim is not is a little disingenuous, to say the least.

• The ENSO contribution over the last decade was X.

“The trend in the ENSO-related component for 1999–2008 is +0.08±0.07°C decade–1, fully accounting for the overall observed trend.”

• Without ENSO the decadal trend was 0.00.

Correct. (And, as I showed, without ENSO and SOI it could be very large indeed.)

Jason: - "NOAA never claimed that for the decade ending in 2008 there was zero warming."

Correct. When they talked about the data, they used the word “trend”. When they wanted to talk about the physical interpretation of that data, they qualified it with the word “apparent”. The physical interpretation of that trend being a “lack of warming” was only apparent, and as they go on to demonstrate, was merely a product of natural variability – i.e. noise.

It really stretches the meaning of words to contend that “the trend after removing ENSO was zero” doesn’t mean “there was zero warming.”

Only if you don’t understand the difference between the two. NOAA did. That’s why they used the words they did, and not the words that I’m sure you searched very carefully for.

 

[JasonSB]

Actually, not so.

The jury defended their motivations… NOT their actions.

The jury found them not guilty. Juries don’t get to say “I defend your motivation but I condemn your actions”.

IMHO it is a shame that this Judge / Court allowed this case to be hijacked. And it is a shame the Prosecution failed.

The judge, I’m sure, knows the law a lot better than you do. For example:

The Necessity Law reads in part.
lawteacher.net/criminal-law/cases/necessity.php
Notice the Time constraints of Duress

That wasn’t the defence used in the Kingsnorth court case.

The actual defence, which is spelled out as part of the act, does include the condition that the defendent must believe that the property, right, or interest being protected was in immediate need of protection and that the means of protection adopted were reasonable having regard to all the circumstances.

It also says that it doesn’t matter if those beliefs are justified or not, only that they be honestly held by the defendent.

Given that I think that the world is in immediate need of protection – in fact, we should have started curbing greenhouse gas emissions long ago – I can’t rule out the possibility that the protesters honestly believed that as well.

guardian.co.uk/environmen…n-trial-guilty

It is a shame that this Judge / Court decided to deny the jury the right to hear all the evidence so they could make up their own mind:

“The judge declared from day one that climate change was irrelevant to the trial, despite the fact that it was the sole reason for doing what we did.”

“Judge James Spencer … directed the jury at Leeds crown court that they should ignore climate change issues. He instructed them to consider only the facts of who took part in the stopping of a train carrying 42,000 tonnes of coal in June last year to Drax in North Yorkshire, the biggest coal-fired power station in Europe.”

(Ironically, that fact is apparently wrong – it was 1,000 tonnes.)

“The judge said that if the power station contributed to global warming, and all that entailed, it was for the government to attend to and not the protesters. He also said that no reasonable jury could conclude that the crime these defendants allegedly committed was either reasonable or proportionate when there were democratic processes available in this country for political change.”

So, in this case the judge decided what “a reasonable jury” could conclude and, just to make sure, made sure that his jury didn’t get to hear the evidence that he believes would lead them to the same conclusion. Now I’m sure this judge knows the law a lot better than me, but I certainly find that interesting. Perhaps he was afraid his jury wasn’t reasonable.

It seems Mr. Hansen et al isn’t to proud of his actions in the court case he helped. This has been removed from his Wikpedia pages.

Given that it wasn’t removed by Hansen (or even William Connolly) I fail to see how you can draw that conclusion. It does seem completely at odds with the picture you’re trying to portray of Hansen, but then I guess you never have felt constrained by the normal standards of consistency.

Can you please direct me to a direct quote, by Mr. Hansen, that states he doesn’t support vandalism, and trespassing saboteur acts?

Why should I? Surely the onus is on the one making the claim that he does support those things? I can’t find a direct quote from you that states you don’t support sending kittens to the moon, either, but I wouldn’t use that to argue that you did.

 

[JasonSB]

An invite…actually, no…a challenge

FUD – Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt…might work here. How well does it stack-up with the big boys.

“big boys”? Willis Eschenbach???

If you accept this challenge…I’ll be And probably other readers here ], waiting your comments to/on these link pages… I’ll be looking for your nick ]

Just go to comments section at the bottom of these pages.

wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/23/a-strange-problem-with-the-ipcc-numbers/#more-26886

And

wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/23/more-oddities-with-the-ipcc-numbers/

You should have no problem with these IPCC numbers, I’d think.

If you are unable to see the error Willis is making before you’ve even finished reading the abstract of the first post then you really should spend less time posting and more time reading.

Seriously.

Remember the car accelerator analogy I made a little while ago? In my analogy it took 20 seconds for the car to reach the new equilibrium speed after I pushed down on the accelerator. Willis is measuring the speed after 10 seconds and using that speed to calculate the “accelerator sensitivity” of the car. It’s that simple.

How Willis can claim to have discovered a “glaring discrepancy” that proves only that he has never actually read the reports he is taking the figures from is beyond me.

Why should I comment? The very first comment correctly identified and completely explained his mistake. Given the IPCC report that the figures come from explains what equilibrium climate sensitivity means, it’s amazing that he didn’t think of it in any one of his seven possible explanations. (You could argue that the eighth, “Something completely different that I haven’t thought of.” was correct, but…)

Why should I not comment? Because Watts has a nasty habit of “outing” anybody he doesn’t like. It’s even in his policy! Once he knows who someone is, he’s not averse to doing things like checking up on their children and posting the results on his blog, as Peter Sinclair discovered.

Nasty.

 

[John21652]

Czeck President Václav Klaus endorses a new book, Climate: the Counter-consensus, by Professor Bob Carter…

He says -

As someone who spent most of his life under a repressive and highly inefficient regime, I can hopefully afford to say that the previous most costly and undemocratic ‘experiment’ was Communism. That too started quite innocently, and its supporters — probably — also believed that they fought for a noble cause. When I listen to the views and arguments of the global warming alarmists, and there are many of them in Australia (I guess your country scores very highly on the worldwide ‘warmists per capita’ scale), they sound very similar to the arguments of the former politicians, journalists and public intellectuals in Communist Czechoslovakia.

 

[kimmielittle]

You are right that one doesn’t have to believe in AGW to be eco- friendly, but by the same token if someone is eco- friendly they would still want to reduce the amount of CO2 produced by humans because those CO2 producing actions are also generally actions that produce human damaging pollution in a more general sense.

Are you talking pollution or CO2? Both are entirely different.

Pollution HAS been proven harmful to our health and environment.
CO2 as the driver of climate change is an unproven hypothesis.

CO2 IS proven to be needed to ALL growth, as known, on earth. AND as YET, it is NOT known what the optimum levels of CO2 are - for needed growth.

Just as, we do NOT know what the optimum temperature for human or biodiversity is. AS it stands, from observational evidence, It seems that human / biodiversity thrives in a cycle-climatic atmosphere. But I must note, many old folks seem to like to winter in warmer climates…AND very few older folks seem to want to go from a warmer climate to winter in colder climates.

 

[kimmielittle]

Why should I? Surely the onus is on the one making the claim that he does support those things? I can’t find a direct quote from you that states you don’t support sending kittens to the moon, either, but I wouldn’t use that to argue that you did.

I understand that some have a problem with comprehension . Let me see if I can’t connect the points for you to follow easier.

In response to a question of what would it take for me to believe in AGW ? - posted by you.

I stated in my post, something to the order that ** IMHO, AGW’ers needed to separate from outlandish views such as…Hansen.
**

You responded with praise of Mr. Hansen

I responded with some quotes and actions, including Mr. Hansen supporting of Mr Farnish’s Book.

Farnish explains his desire to see rampant population reduction in the name of saving the planet.
“In short, the greatest immediate risk to the population living in the conditions created by Industrial Civilization is the population itself. Civilization has created the perfect conditions for a terrible tragedy on the kind of scale never seen before in the history of humanity. That is one reason for there to be fewer people,” he writes.
And how is the collapse of industrial civilization to be achieved? By indiscriminate acts of sabotage and eco-terrorism.
“Unloading essentially means the removal of an existing burden: for instance, removing grazing domesticated animals, razing cities to the ground, blowing up dams and switching off the greenhouse gas emissions machine. The process of ecological unloading is an accumulation of many of the things I have already explained in this chapter, along with an (almost certainly necessary) element of sabotage,” writes Farnish.
But surely the respected and authoritative individuals we have been told by the media to trust when it comes to the science behind global warming would rebuke such outlandish, deranged and extreme methods of addressing climate change?
“Keith Farnish has it right: time has practically run out, and the ’system’ is the problem,” wrote Dr. James Hansen on the Amazon website. “Governments are under the thumb of fossil fuel special interests – they will not look after our and the planet’s well-being until we force them to do so, and that is going to require enormous effort.

AND Mr Hansen’s support of vandalism and criminal trespassing.

Dr. James Hansen, the top climate scientist at NASA: “It seems to me that young people, especially, should be doing whatever is necessary to block construction of dirty (no CCS) coal-fired power plants.”

You came back, with excuses and ad hominums against Mr Dingplole [sp]

I asked you, to defend the use of “Ends justifying the means” in Catholic Teaching .

You keep trying to impress upon me and readers here, That Mr. Hansen doesn’t support…Vandalism, criminal trespassing, etc etc - As an “ends justifying the means”.

So, trying to make this simply put…The ** onus ** liability of providing evidence…would be on you.

Again, Can you please direct me to a direct quote, by Mr. Hansen, that states he doesn’t support vandalism, and trespassing saboteur acts?

Again, can you provide me Catholic Church teaching that the “ends justify the means”?

 

[kimmielittle]

“big boys”? Willis Eschenbach???

If you are unable to see the error Willis is making before you’ve even finished reading the abstract of the first post then you really should spend less time posting and more time reading.

Awww does my posting bother you???

Remember the car accelerator analogy I made a little while ago? In my analogy it took 20 seconds for the car to reach the new equilibrium speed after I pushed down on the accelerator. Willis is measuring the speed after 10 seconds and using that speed to calculate the “accelerator sensitivity” of the car. It’s that simple.

Then explain it to him.
PS there were two links ]

I mean, he does ask for help. Surely, you can provide him with the evidence…he asks for?

How Willis can claim to have discovered a “glaring discrepancy” that proves only that he has never actually read the reports he is taking the figures from is beyond me.

Maybe - you could provide evidence over there…for your above statement?

Why should I not comment? Because Watts has a nasty habit of “outing” anybody he doesn’t like. It’s even in his policy!

Nonsense…

• Internet phantoms who have cryptic handles, no name, and no real email address get no respect here. If you think your opinion or idea is important, elevate your status by being open and honest. People that use their real name get more respect than phantoms with handles. I encourage open discussion.
• Anonymity is not guaranteed on this blog. Posters that use a government or publicly funded ip address that assume false identities for the purpose of hiding their source of opinion while on the taxpayers dime get preferential treatment for full disclosure.
• A real working email address that you own (as a commenter) is required, so that I may contact you if needed. False or misleading email addresses may earn banishment. Changing handles and/or changing email addresses to get around this will also earn the same fate.
• You are responsible for your own words.

wattsupwiththat.com/policy/

Once he knows who someone is, he’s not averse to doing things like checking up on their children and posting the results on his blog, as Peter Sinclair discovered.

Nasty.

Nasty is right…Maybe it would do you good to go to the source. I believe, it was Mr Sinclair who brought his adult “College Student” Son into the picture, between them. Actually, I believe it was Mr Sinclair who was trying to pass himself off as His Son OR a College Student ].

He is not a college student, though he has a son who is of college age, a nice Ron Paul supporter, **I am told from someone who has met him. **His rather conservative son, contrasts the rather left-wing eco-activist …] father.

Awwwwww…IMHO in AGW… fear and atmosphere, seem to be - the two “commons”. I would offer to hold your hand? ]

 

[kimmielittle]

Seems Wikipedia…

Another prominent Wikipedia editor has been climate topic banned

                                           Posted on [October 15, 2010](http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/15/another-wikipedia-editor-has-been-climate-topic-banned/) by [Anthony Watts](http://wattsupwiththat.com/author/wattsupwiththat/)                    
                                           http://himaarmenia.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/wikipedia-logo.jpg?w=157&h=189I  hadn’t noticed this yesterday, but the second most prolific climate  revisionist at Wikipedia has also been banned from posting on the  climate topic.

By a vote of 4-3 Kim Dabelstein Petersen has been topic banned, just like RealClimate founder William Connolley:

William Connolley, now “climate topic banned” at Wikipedia

  				 						Posted on [October 14, 2010](http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/14/willia-connolley-now-climate-topic-banned-at-wikipedia/) by [Anthony Watts](http://wattsupwiththat.com/author/wattsupwiththat/)					
  				 						http://himaarmenia.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/wikipedia-logo.jpg?w=157&h=189Bishop Hill [had the news first](http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2010/10/14/going.html), which is fitting since Mr. Connolley is based in Britain.

In a vote of 7-0, The most prolific climate revisionist editor ever at Wikipedia, with over 5400 article revisions has been banned from making any edits about climate related articles for six months.
wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/william_connolley_topic_banned.png?w=640&h=248

Here’s the details at Wikipedia. After that time, he can reapply, per the Wikipedia rules seen here in remedy 3
This is of course just a shot across the bow, and there are easy ways to circumvent such a ban, but it is finally a factual realization by Wikipedia that the sort of gatekeeping and revisioning wars in the climate change information business are being recognized and dealt with.
Personally, I’m encouraged by some of the recent changes brought to my attention by Peter Tillman, an editor who left a comment here.
Perhaps we no longer need to disengage from Wikipedia, but rather engage it and work to make it better.

 

[JasonSB]

I stated in my post, something to the order that ** IMHO, AGW’ers needed to separate from outlandish views such as…Hansen.
**

You responded with praise of Mr. Hansen

Actually I responded by saying “Well, as long as you think in terms of “outrageous ties” in the first place – let alone with highly respected scientists like Hanson – I hold little hope for change.”

The point was that you think in terms of “outrageous ties” to people with “outlandish views”, not that you needed to justify your belief that he held “outlandish views”. Hansen might find homeless kids a cheap substitute for turkey at Christmas and it still wouldn’t affect climate science one bit because acceptance of scientific results is not dependent on our agreement with the morals or views of the practitioners but rather on the quality of their work and the results they obtain.

I have already told you where you can obtain all the information necessary to convince yourself that the results produced by Hansen are correct. Now, based on the sorts of things that have confused you so far (including the “oopsie” that Ender explained) I understand and accept that you are not equipped to do that yourself. So, instead, I’ve simply asked you to accept an obvious fact about human nature: if there was something wrong in Hansen’s work, McIntyre et al would have found it by now. You may not be able to look at the original temperature records and cross-reference them with GHCN’s copy, but the denizens of climateaudit surely can. You may not be able to understand the source code and verify that it implements the published algorithms correctly, but Steven Mosher can, and has “audited” it. There is a huge number of highly motivated and intellectually-equipped people capable of uncovering any attempts to mislead the public, and the best they’ve come up with so far is a Y2K bug in GISTEMP that made an undetectable difference to the outcome.

If you want to spend your life denigrating people instead of thinking rationally, that’s your choice. I see absolutely no point in arguing with you over whether Hansen’s appearance at a court case means he supports “sabotage” because EVEN IF HE DID it wouldn’t affect the science and if you’re determined to refuse to accept the science for illogical reasons then, as I said, “I hold little hope for change”.

You came back, with excuses and ad hominums against Mr Dingplole [sp]

Just on this point: I responded to your Delingpole citation with:

“Well, as long as you form opinions about highly respected scientists by copying the opinions of people who are responsible for easily disproved rubbish like blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100022474/climategate-goes-american-noaa-giss-and-the-mystery-of-the-vanishing-weather-stations/ then I hold little hope for change.”

An ad hominem is only a logical fallacy if the observation is irrelevant to the argument. You posted a link to an opinion piece on Hansen by Delingpole in support of your views of Hansen. I responded that I hold Delingpole’s opinion in very little regard because of his demonstrated bias and incompetence, providing a link to prove it (as if your own link wasn’t enough!).

Need I point out the obvious fact that your argument against climate change is an ad homimen fallacy because it’s based entirely on your beliefs about the “outrageous views” of some of the practitioners that are completely independent of the science?

I asked you, to defend the use of “Ends justifying the means” in Catholic Teaching .

You keep trying to impress upon me and readers here, That Mr. Hansen doesn’t support…Vandalism, criminal trespassing, etc etc - As an “ends justifying the means”.

No. I keep trying to impress upon you that your claims that he believes the ends justify the means are not supported by the evidence you’ve presented, just as your claims that I believe the ends justify the means are not supported (and are factually incorrect).

Now I know what I believe, and I can clearly see your conclusions about what I believe are wrong. I don’t know what Hansen believes, but I see no reason to assume your conclusions about his beliefs are more accurate than your conclusions about mine.

So, trying to make this simply put…The ** onus ** liability of providing evidence…would be on you.

That’s ridiculous. You’re essentially saying: “I don’t believe in AGW because Hansen supports X. I don’t have any proof that Hansen supports X but he never explicitly stated that he doesn’t support X. If you want me to support AGW you need to show me a statement by Hansen saying he doesn’t support X.”

You know what you should be looking at? Here’s a plot of the global temperature anomaly vs CO2 concentration for the last 800,000 years, excluding the last century or so:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/t_co2_1.jpg

This shows how highly correlated temperature is with CO2, nicely confirming the theory that predicts such a link. So what’s it look like if the last couple of hundred years are included?

http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/t_co2_2.jpg

Study that graph and think about the implications for a while.

Think about how much temperature rise would be required to bring it back to the line of best fit.

Think about how much further to the right we are going to push it if we keep emitting CO2.

Think about why you consider quotes from Hansen explicitly saying he doesn’t support vandalism more persuasive than this.

“If you are keeping your head while others around you are losing theirs, perhaps you’ve misunderstood the whole situation.”

 

[JasonSB]

Awww does my posting bother you???

Merely a helpful observation. If you’d rather display ignorance than eliminate it that’s entirely your choice.

Then explain it to him.

Many already did. This is really basic stuff; if he didn’t bury his face in his palms in embarrassment after he read the very first response then piling on won’t help. Agreeing with other commenters that “Obviously incorrect, oversimplified calculations of just multiplying the radiative forcing time the equilibrium sensitivity are counter-productive.” won’t convince anybody; the readers there would either have been technically sophisticated enough to already know his mistake or impervious to explanations of what it was.

Which camp are you in? Since I assume you didn’t realise what it was just from reading it (otherwise you wouldn’t have asked me), did you understand what it was as soon as I pointed it out to you?

AR4 explicitly states that holding greenhouse gases constant at year 2000 levels would result in a warming of 0.37 relative to the 1980-1999 baseline for the period 2011-2030, 0.47 for the period 2046-2065, and 0.56 for the period 2080-2099. That’s the warming that’s being ignored in Willis’ simple calculation.

PS there were two links ]

The second was wrong for slightly more complicated reasons. If I can’t convince you of the problem with the first is there any hope of convincing you of the second?

If you’re really interested, Nick Stokes’ first reponse and the two immediately following by Fred Moolten and Frank do a good job. The best response, however, was from Steven Mosher – you know, the guy who Delingpole calls “the real hero of Climategate”:

After Willis post I did some calculations about the top speed of my Truck. Looking at the laws of physics I determined that the top speed of my truck would be approximately 120 Mph. I then studied the engine further and I found that the more gas I put in the carburator the more horse power I produced. I then studied the mechanism of the pedal and found that there was a direct correlation between putting the pedal down and increasing the flow of gas. So I have sensitivity number for the pedal position and I can measure it quite accurately.

My formula is very simple. the relationship is nearly linear. The pedal forcing causes the speed to increase. I decided i better test this. Much to my surprise when I slammed the pedal down and then looked up to to record the speed I had only achieved 60mph. My friends suggested that perhaps I should wait longer than 6 seconds to record the speed, but I explained that since I had a sensitivity for the forcing that was all I needed.

I therefore conclude that There is some missing velocity. where is it? further I think my simple experiment has uncovered a fatal flaw in basic physics. My sceptic friend noted that there was a small wind at my back at the time, he thinks that the wind causes my truck to go forward, NOT the gas pedal. So much for the theory of more horsepower equals higher speed. one guy spun his tires on ice one day, and thinks traction drives the speed, not the pedal forcing. One guy claimed he can show many examples of people putting the pedal down and going in REVERSE, negative velocity!. From these incidents it clear to me that physics must be rewritten.

The other day, a few years back, on WUWT we used to talk about the ocean being a giant capacitor. That was silly talk. Some guys even tried to talk about things called ‘time constants’ I think time constants can be ignored. dont you.

/sarc off

His next post is less amusing but explains the error well. He must slap his forehead a lot.

I mean, he does ask for help. Surely, you can provide him with the evidence…he asks for?

The very fact that he needs to ask for help regarding such a simple problem should automatically make you wonder why you bother reading anything he has to say. It really is a case of the blind leading the blind. When knowledgable people do respond, do you see cries of “Thank you! I understand now!”? I certainly didn’t.

Maybe - you could provide evidence over there…for your above statement?

Seriously? You actually doubt what I said?

Does the projection for “Constant composition commitment” look flat to you? ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/figure-10-4.html

Are the warming values for the “Commit” scenario all zero? ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch10s10-3-1.html#table-10-5

Don’t you notice the word “equilibrium” in the phrase “equilibrium climate sensitivity” and wonder why they talk about “Transient climate response”? ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch9s9-6.html

It’s amazing how little you know of the science given how strongly you deny it.

 

[JasonSB]

Nonsense…

Priceless.

I say: “Why should I not comment? Because Watts has a nasty habit of “outing” anybody he doesn’t like. It’s even in his policy!” You respond by claiming it’s nonsense and then quote his policy saying exactly that!

To whit: “Anonymity is not guaranteed on this blog.”

Not only does he proudly advertise that, I gave you a link of examples of him doing just that.

Perhaps the word “Nonsense” means the opposite of what you think it means?

Nasty is right…Maybe it would do you good to go to the source. I believe, it was Mr Sinclair who brought his adult “College Student” Son into the picture, between them. Actually, I believe it was Mr Sinclair who was trying to pass himself off as His Son OR a College Student ].

So you think it is right to publicise the fact that you’ve been rooting around in the personal life of your opponent and are not only “outing” them but their family members as well?

It’s very interesting the sort of behaviour you’re willing to excuse and accept.

It’s also interesting what you choose to believe in order to excuse it.

1. Did Sinclair bring up his adult college student son into the picture, between them?
2. Did Sinclair try to pass himself off as his son or a college student?

Here is Watts’ posting where he talks about Sinclair: wattsupwiththat.com/2009/07/30/on-climate-comedy-copyrights-and-cinematography/

The answer to 1 is obviously “no”. Watts brought up Sinclair’s son in that post and Watts pointed out repeatedly that Sinclair had never contacted him.

The answer to 2 is also obviously “no” – in fact, it was Watts who made up the whole “college student” thing as a clumsy and transparent way to excuse mentioning Sinclair’s son at all:

“The description portrayed him as a pretty nice guy with an alternate minded view of the world like a lot of college students have. He is not a college student, though he has a son who is of college age, a nice Ron Paul supporter, I am told from someone who has met him.”

How you got from that to your “beliefs” that, I assume, you think excuse that behaviour, is beyond me. Given your “beliefs” are obviously false, do you still find it acceptable?

Awwwwww…IMHO in AGW… fear and atmosphere, seem to be - the two “commons”. I would offer to hold your hand? ]

So now you ridicule those who feel genuine and well-founded concern about their ability to speak freely without fear or favour if they make the mistake of posting something on his board that he disagrees with?

I guess I should have stopped being surprised a long time ago.

 

[portarica]

Are you talking pollution or CO2? Both are entirely different.

Pollution HAS been proven harmful to our health and environment.
CO2 as the driver of climate change is an unproven hypothesis.

CO2 IS proven to be needed to ALL growth, as known, on earth. AND as YET, it is NOT known what the optimum levels of CO2 are - for needed growth.

Just as, we do NOT know what the optimum temperature for human or biodiversity is. AS it stands, from observational evidence, It seems that human / biodiversity thrives in a cycle-climatic atmosphere. But I must note, many old folks seem to like to winter in warmer climates…AND very few older folks seem to want to go from a warmer climate to winter in colder climates.

Did you actually read my post, the other issue with CO2 isn’t that we are making too much dry ice and as it sublimates it causes global warming, it also that the processes that produce C02 and other carbon compounds as a by product are also the ones commonly producing particulate pollution and releasing other pollutants into the air and into our water.

And you will not readily find out about some of the most serious instances of that pollution because oil and gas exploration have been exempted from the clean air, clean water and Superfund statues.

Peace

 

[JasonSB]

Seems Wikipedia…

Good example of WUWT’s reporting quality.

Q: How many editors were topic banned?

A: 16.

Q: How many of those editors were “pro-AGW”?

A: 6

Q: How many of those editors were “skeptics”?

A: 10

Q: How many did WUWT mention?

A: 2. And they got half of them wrong! (Kim Dabelstein Petersen wasn’t topic banned; he proposed a binding voluntary restriction on himself and the arbitrartion panel supported that instead. Marknutley, the “William Connelly of the ‘skeptics’ side”, tried the same thing but it was rejected and he was topic banned.)

With all those “skeptics” banned, we hopefully won’t need those six pro-science editors to keep reverting their changes all the time.