Mere correlation does not prove causation and that is a major point most non-scientific do not get.  Yes, more CO2 from anthropogenic sources such as smokestacks and tailpipes do correlate very well. But geogenic and biogenic sources contribute massive amounts as well, and the trend has been for the climate to warm if you look at estimated temperatures periods of over thousands of years.

Partial, incremental, plausible causation is one of the hardest to prove. It is not as simple as testing a hypothesis against a room full of experts and wonks. If the Earth was in fact warming on its own without the benefit of us humans, then those "feedback loops" would exist at least in elementary form. In fact, major shifts in global climate such as in the dinosaur ages have absolutely nothing to do with anthropogenic inputs:  a good part of the northern US used to be covered in glaciers for example, after a period of jungle-like tropical growth.

To date, the consensus is that man-made inputs of CO2 and other greenhouse gases have pushed the envelope to move climate change faster that what we had expected. This is a very critical point, that man-mad inputs have somehow acted in a manner that accelerated global warming. But to say that "man caused climate change and global warming" would be enough to expose you as an outright fraud and possibly an idiot.

What has happened over the last 25 years is that scientists have begun to bring some clarity to climate change issues regarding partial correlation, causation, interactions, and effects. Has anything been "proven"? Again I would have to say the evidence is overwhelming to such a degree that objectors have little ground to argue aside from exceptions to the rule, such as anomalies that show climate cooling.

In most cases of applied science, as opposed to our theoretical cousins, having some clarity and a preponderance of evidence is what matters. Good article, sir.
/sammie

Onward through the fog

In fact, the 10,000 years or so since the last deglaciation have seen first a temperature rise to the Holocene thermal maximum of about 5-8,000 years ago followed by a slow decline to the start of the Anthropocene a couple of hundred years ago (and with lots of little vulcanism-induced bumps and shimmies along the way, e.g. the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age).  Like the glacial cycles themselves, the long-term climate trend in interglacials is controlled by orbital (Milankovitch) cycles; i.e. planetary wobbles that affect the way sunlight falls on the Earth.  Study of these cycles shows that the small temperature decline since the mid-Holocene should be continuing (IIRC for another one or two thousand years).  

IOW, it's not really much of a leap of logic to pin the present warming to GHGs since of the factors that could do the job they appear to be the only one that's changed.  See Chapter 6 of the AR4 WG1 report (not a difficult read IMHO) for the details of this and other aspects of paleoclimate.

AAPG is responsive and a members organization (and I can assure you the majority agreed with the earlier position statement, but leadership was weak), AGU is a closed, political organization for it's elites that rejects members input.

The problem, of course, is the difference between unanimous and consensus.  There's probably no statement that could be written that every single one of the AGU's 50,000 members would agree with, so the goal is to write a statement that most members would agree with.

As the AAPG episode shows, if you don't do that, enough members complain that things change.  If one member (you) out of 50,000 complains, nothing happens.  And that's how it should be.  

As I said above, if there were general outrage about the AGU's statement, it would change.  That there's not shows that it does represent the feelings of the organization, excepting a very very small minority.

For example, I could send in an ad saying, "gravity is a hoax," and I think it would (correctly) be rejected.  There is a minimum level of credibility that material in EOS must pass,  and I suspect your views do not pass that threshold.

And I would also reiterate that everyone had an opportunity to send comments on climate change to the committee drafting the statement ... and that the data (the AAPG's experience) shows that this system does work.

If you get a chance, please post what you wanted EOS to print on this thread, and everyone can see if it's reasonable or not.  

Take the AGU's statement, for example... "The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance".

If Andrew wants to argue that it is meaningful for the AGU to make such statements, he ought to be able to explain how the climate is - or ever was - "balanced". What was it balanced on?

Similarly, the AGU statement says "Many components of the climate system ... are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural"

What does Andrew Dessler believe is a "natural" rate of change? Do the IPCC explain what "balance" is? Do they offer explanations as to what "natural" rates of change are?

Andrew does not seem interested in the substance of arguments which appear to concur with the "consensus" position. It only matters to him that they appear to agree with a broad but meaningless position that "global warming is happening", or "we support the IPCC". But even support for the IPCC of this kind does not reveal any analysis by which the position can be legitimised. To say it is worthwhile is not the same thing as agreeing with anything it publishes.

The silly statement by the AGU, like Andrew's own silly statements, will do more to undermine the consensus position. Andrew should be looking for agreement between scientific arguments, not friends in high places agreeing with each other.

Does the fact of the 'democratic' organisational structure of the AGU mean that its statements reflect the views of its membership? Only to the extent that the President of the USA reflects the views of the American people. So, all Americans are Republicans and "deniers". Naturally, non-republicans remain in the USA, because staying is preferable to leaving. Or, according to Xchopp - they are too lazy/distracted.

Curiously, Xchopp tells me that the extension of my argument is that "most of the AGU members are mistaken in their view that global warming is a serious and unusual problem".

I have no opinion on what the view of the majority of the AGU membership is- I'm not the one pretending it's important, or that it can be detected from the non-migration of its membership. All I was attempting to explain was that if the statement is reflective of the membership, it would be interesting to know exactly what the climate is supposed to be "balanced" on (sky-hooks, perhaps?), such that it produces "natural" "patterns" and rates of change. They are clearly terms with zero scientific meaning, and it surprises me that 50,000 scientists would get behind what appears to be pseudo-science.

What is more interesting is that Xchopp would defend such terms, not by explaining them, but by transforming the statement so that it reads (in his head), "global warming is a serious and unusual problem". Xchopp is defending a different statement - one that the AGU did not make.

Xchopp continues, what planet am I on? Well, obviously a different one to the earth scientists who would get behind the idea that the climate is "balanced". I call my planet "Earth". I am very interested in hearing more about the planet that the AGU membership inhabit. It sounds very different to my own, which is far more chaotic. They ought to spend some time here, explaining how a 'balanced' climate developed on whatever distant planet they hail from, and to see how different our own climate is.

If benp, sammyowl, or manacker were to submit a fictional manuscript to a novel printer and they don't publish it, that doesn't mean they are suppressing free speech. The publishers just think that people won't buy it.

Free speech is like the free market, if people want  to hear it the publishers will accept it, if they don't too bad for you.

Can anyone name anything in the human world that is more sublime than a responsible, able and courageous scientist who eschews political convenience, economic expediency and the hoarding of endless wealth in order to speak out loudly and clearly for new and unexpected science, especially when the unforeseen, good evidence has great explanatory power and profound implications for the future of the family of humanity on Earth?

Steven Earl Salmony
AWAREness Campaign on The Human Population, established 2001
http://sustainabilitysoutheast.org/

He does it to pursue an agenda which is morally bad - he wants to get rid of people, and to regulate human fertility to achieve "sustainability".

How does he advance his argument? By invoking the panic and alarm generated by the incautious statements that the likes of Dessler and the AGU have issued.

"First they came for the 'deniers'... Then they came for the babies..."

Let me try a second time.  I am certainly not pursuing "an agenda which is morally bad" nor am I suggesting anything remotely related to getting "rid of people" by any means.  Where do such ideas come from?  It appears that these pernicious ideas you wish to attribute to me actually come from you.

What I am trying to communicate is that the family of humanity faces a growing myriad of global challenges --  air pollution, sea and land contamination, global warming, peak oil, diminishing global supplies of grain, overfishing, the dissipation of Earth's scarce resources, desertification, deforestation, urban sprawl and autoban congestion are examples -- that could soon become unsustainable on a finite planet with the relatively small size and make-up of Earth. What people generally appear not yet to be see clearly enough is that the looming threats to human wellbeing and environmental health can be directly related to the current huge scale and anticipated growth of skyrocketing absolute global human population numbers.

That is to say, the unrestrained increase of per-capita consumption of limited resources, the unbridled global expansion of human production/distribution capabilities, and the rapid rise of numbers of Homo sapiens worldwide are occurring synergistically and could be fast approaching a point in history when these distinctly human, global "over-growth" activities are patently unsustainable.

Your thoughts and those of other Gristians are invited.

Sincerely,

Steve

Steven Earl Salmony
AWAREness Campaign on The Human Population, established 2001
http://sustainabilitysoutheast.org/

My point was intended just to illustrate that the unscientific and political statements given by science academies lead to some dark and nasty ideas... Get into bed with the AGU under the pretext of "good science", and wake up with a misanthropic population cult.

Dessler and his ilk do not seem to understand why that is problem from the point of view of advancing the idea of a "consensus" position on the science and politics of global warming, which unifies all people who would agree that "global warming is happening". While there may be some sound science going on, that "consensus" includes a variety of perspectives - many of which are quite distasteful according to genuinely liberal values.

Or maybe it's not a problem for him. Andrew, what do you think? Is it a logical consequence of "climate science" that the number of people on the planet needs to be reduced? Should people themselves be rationed? It's all well and good telling us that the science is settled, what does it actually mean?

Regarding the AGU, note that attendance at the fall meeting is now well in excess of 10,000.  Were there a groundswell of concern about the leadership, it would be pretty noticeable given that those halls are pretty well swarming with journalists.  I would point to the reception that Al Gore received when he spoke at the meeting in 2006 as evidence that the membership is in tune with what the leadership is doing.  If anything, the new statement is more conservative than what the membership might want (unsurprising given the nature of large organizations).  

BTW, there would be no impediment to a member or members circulating a protest petition at the annual meeting.  Let us know how that works out.
 

Ben P, in your comments to A. Dessler you state that "'consensus' includes a variety of perspectives - many of which are quite distasteful according to genuinely liberal values."  The history of science indicates with remarkable clarity that advances in science have also "been distasteful" and objectionable to people holding values in conflict with new and usually unforeseen scientific evidence.  Copernicus, Galileo, Newton and Darwin are adequate examples of scientists whose views were at least initially found to be distasteful to many people.  Each of these giants of science produced good but unwelcome evidence, just like Rajendra Pachauri (with whom I and others had lunch just last week) and the other Nobel Prize-winning scientists have brought forth. Yes, the introduction of unanticipated science seems to regularly come into conflict with human values.

Ben P, you have also stated that I "appear to have confused virtue with the scientific method."

Not I, but you are the one who is confused. The science of climate change evidently conflicts with YOUR liberal values and YOU are reacting to that insult, I believe. The evolution of science is replete with examples of individuals in denial such as you are evincing.

The science of climate change is not something I welcome.  It is something that is.  Whatsoever is is, is it not?  What we wish to be real; what values we hold dear; what we ardently believe to be true, mean nothing if good science directly opposes our wishes, values and beliefs.  There are no exceptions, I suppose.

Perhaps this is at the core of the difficulty you and I are having with our communication.  I do not like the science of climate change any more or less than you do.  But I will not engage in some sort of rear-guard action to deny the evidence of good science because I do not like what the science is showing me, as in instances when good scientific evidence happens to be politically inconvenient, economically inexpedient and socially disagreeable.

Who knows, perhaps changes in the way we organize and operate the global political economy are in the offing, whereby we move from unsustainable current operations toward sustainable business practices in the future.

A conflict between science and values is evident, but that conflict appears to be in your head, Ben, not mine.

Sincerely,

Steve

Steven Earl Salmony
AWAREness Campaign on The Human Population,
established 2001
http://sustainabilitysoutheast.org/

Steve says that "balance" "refers to the relatively narrow range of natural climate conditions that have prevailed during the present interglacial..."

We can form a paraphrase: "The Earth's climate is now clearly out of ... the relatively narrow range of natural climate conditions that have prevailed during the present interglacial..."

But how is being outside of a range (which it is only assumed to exist "naturally") necessarily "out of balance"? "Out of range" is not "out of balance". Steve - and perhaps the AGU - has confused "different" with "unbalanced".

The next sentence of the AGU statement reads:

"Many components of the climate system--including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons--are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural..."

All that the two sentences now mean is that "the Earth's climate is now clearly [not natural]. Many components of the climate system ... are [not natural]"

I'll ask again, what is a "natural" rate of change, and how has it been identified? What is "balance", and how has "balance" been observed? Observing that something is different is not the same thing as observing a lack of balance.

What this means for us now is that if we add enough heat to the system to melt much of the present ice we will transition into a new warmer climate state that will not quickly recover even if we immediately reduce GHG levels back to pre-industrial levels.  It's problematic that lags in the climate system make it hard to know when such a line has been crossed.  

My suspicion (I'm not a scientist, akthough I know many scientists share this concern) is that we've already crossed one line that will result in a loss of much of the Greenland Ice Sheet and the entire West Antarctic Ice Sheet.  There's a line beyond that one that involves a loss if the remaining GIS and a partial loss of the East Antarctic Ice Sheet and yet another one beyond that that involves a loss of all of the ice (which among other things will result in a sea level rise of 70 meters or so).  Even the most extreme such state will eventually recover back to the base climate state (which is a function of things like continental position that are beyond our ability to fiddle with), but as this could take a couple hundred thousand years it's hard to distinguish from permanent in a functional sense.

When considering these possible outcomes it's important to bear in mind that the planet has been free of permanent ice for most of the last half-billion years.  The present cold climate is a rarity.

1. Where is the beginning?

It appears global challenges and threats like climate change and resource depletion are direct results of the huge scale and unbridled growth of human over-consumption, overproduction and overpopulation activities worldwide, which are occurring synergistically and at an accelerating rate everywhere on the surface of the Earth. We have to begin to see the ways human beings colossally interfere in the workings of the natural world. But of all the ways human interference occurs in the world we inhabit, such interference begins with the propagation of the human species. I would like to submit to you that more people equals more interference; less people equals less interference; and, in any case, no people means no human interference.

2. How has it been possible for there to be a six-fold increase in absolute global human population numbers in the past 150 years?

We have learned from the good science of Russell P. Hopfenberg and David I. Pimentel something simple and straightforward: human population numbers are a function of food supply and the population dynamics of Homo sapiens are essentially similar to, not different from, the population dynamics of other species. Therefore, from a global population perspective, more food equals more people; less food equals less people and no food means no people. The spectacular improvements of food production and distribution capabilities in the 20th century alone have unexpectedly given rise to the skyrocketing human numbers we see overspreading the Earth today.

3. How is the near-exponential growth of human population numbers supposed to stop?

According to Hopfenberg and Pimentel, the human population will grow as long as food is made available to the species and will not level off in the middle of this century as has been projected ubiquitously by the normal science of human population dynamics. Normal science has no sensible explanation for how the stabilization of population numbers of the human species on Earth in the year 2050 will automatically occur, given the fully anticipated young age distribution of a global population of 9+/- billion people at that time. Normal science has nothing reasonable to say about how billions of fertile young people, who are expected to be capable of reproducing in 2050, will be doing with their sexual instincts and drives other than what human beings have been doing during the past several thousand years.

4. If we can so clearly see the nearly exponential increase of absolute global human population numbers in our time, can we not begin now to acknowledge that what goes up can (must) also come down?

If human numbers have increased rapidly, then the human species can choose to take responsibility for decreasing its numbers and doing so just as quickly. According to good scientific evidence produced slowly and incrementally over the past 30 to 40 years by Dr. Jack Alpert, but not yet reasonably and sensibly examined either here or in most other discussions, the implementation of a "one child per family" policy would result in a rapid decline in the global human population. Jack is advocating the formation of a constituency large enough to persuade people of child-bearing age that having one child per family is the most humane, powerful, reasonable and sensible way to protect the future for their children and to preserve the Earth for coming generations. This is not to say that all the responsibility for saving life as we know it and the integrity of Earth falls upon this group of people. Of course not. Every human being will have a role to play in mitigating the damage being done now as human beings ravage and threaten to overrun the Earth. For example, people who over-consume will be given incentives to consume less; people who produce goods and deplete resources in ecologically unsound ways will be prohibited from engaging in unsustainable business practices.

Sincerely,

Steve

Again, what is the "balance" (or tipping point) which the AGU says has been observed, "clearly"? What is a "natural" rate of change?

An interesting thing to notice is that Steve's "key concept", and his fear about the imminent collapse of GIS and WAIS are not reflected in the IPCC literature.

IPCC WGI AR4 (FAQs, pg 123) is relatively clear about this. "Abrupt climate changes, such as the collapse of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, the rapid loss of the Greenland Ice Sheet or large-scale changes of ocean circulation systems, are not considered likely to occur in the 21st century, based on currently available model results."

and

IPCC WGI AR4 (Synthesis SPM pg 13) also says: "Partial loss of ice sheets on polar land could imply metres of sea level rise, major changes in coastlines and inundation of low-lying areas, with greatest effects in river deltas and low-lying islands. Such changes are projected to occur over millennial time scales, but more rapid sea level rise on century time scales cannot be excluded. {3.4}"

Century, times scales - never mind millennial - give us a great deal of time to deal with the problem of sea level rise as it affects human society, yet Steve worries that our "transition into a new warmer climate state that will not quickly recover". The transition to these states isn't quick either, according to the IPCC. There is little confidence in the IPCC reports about Steve's fears, and there doesn't seem to be much discussion of tipping points, other than to imply no more than that they "cannot be ruled out".

The difference between what the IPCC say, and what Steve says the AGU say indicates that there is a disparity between the outputs of the two groups of scientists. Yet to highlight this inconsistency is to identify oneself as a "denier" - in Andrew's language. If one can maintain the IPCC position against the AGU's statement, and be a denier, what does that make the AGU, who now seem to be as far away from the IPCC as are many sceptics? What does it make Andrew, who seems to be happy to assume any position on AGW, just as long as it is against the deniers, and damn the inconsistency?

The alarmists and anti-sceptics have allowed their arguments to become inconsistent and unscientific. They depend on a consensus position, but the more they do to attempt to explain what that position is, the more it reveals that they themselves are "out of range" of the consensus argument. This has given rise to the dark and weird moral crusade that the other Steve wants us to join, and which the rest of the movement to act on climate change is impotent to challenge. That makes it so much easier for sceptics to attack the positions here on Gristmill. Andrew recently wrote that his colleague was "surprised that how little substantive criticism the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report had received since its release just about one year ago". That's because the IPCC reports do not tally with the reports about what the IPCC have said. As we say on our blog, "the 'denial machine' is way behind the warmers - media, politicians and the IPCC itself - when it comes to misrepresenting what the IPCC reports have to say... Dessler is doing the trolls' work for them". http://www.climate-resistance.org/2008/02/desslers-grist- ...

Just to rub your nose in it, though:

The science in the WG1 report is now nearly two years old, and there's been a lot of ice sheet science done since then.  The AGU statement benefited from that and other recent work.  

Did I say "imminent"?  No.  I said "relatively fast."  Note that the IPCC said "more rapid sea level rise on century time scales cannot be excluded."  More recent work seems to be headed in that direction.  It doesn't sound as if you pay attention to that literature, but see e.g. Rohling et al (2007).  See also this current news.

In any case, you missed the key point I made, which is that the commitment to the transition will be made long before it's actually seen.  That's true even if we're talking about a scale of one or two hundred years rather than a thousand years.

Now, you're confident that a worst-case scenario along the lines of a ten meter rise in two hundred years is something we could adapt to without too much strain (as compared to the strain of sharp emissions reduction in the near future), but I would disagree.  Consider, for example, the implications on ocean productivity of losing all of the current estuaries.  They do re-establish, but on a scale of more centuries.  As well, we have the small issue of ocean acidification.

The science aside, it seems obvious that you think in terms of these things only relative to your own lifetime, and within those terms your views are very possibly reasonable.

There's a lot more, of course, but you're not listening.  

Well, the article in question does not attribute the changes in Antarctic ice flows to humans:

"Much higher up the course of the glacier there is evidence of a volcano that erupted through the ice about 2,000 years ago and the whole region could be volcanically active, releasing geothermal heat to melt the base of the ice and help its slide towards the sea."

No mention of CO2. No mention of global warming. Another example of how alarmists will attribute anything to anthropogenic CO2, without even bothering to check whether the evidence supports their case - if there's a change in climate it must be because of a'genic CO2, they reason. And yet he tells me that I'm not listening.

Steve nicely avoids the question of what "balance", "tipping points", and "natural rates of change" are, and how they have been identified. I find his response that they have all magically appeared since IPCC AR4 very unconvincing. The question is still open, and the point that there are disparities between the IPCC and the AGU still stands.

A further inconsistency in his argument is that he says to me "the commitment to the transition will be made long before it's actually seen" and then he says to Steve, "it's rather likely that we will see considerable population reduction this century via warfare, starvation, disease etc".

I didn't say those terms had magically appeared since the AR4.  Regarding their definition, I actually think I covered the concepts reasonably well.  If you want formal definitions based on those concepts, you should be able to manage on your own.  

Disparities between the AGU statement and the AR4?  Sure, since they were written at different times based on different science.  But I seem to recall saying that.  Are you murky on the point that the science might change over two years?

As for your last paragarph, did you notice that the first quote referred to the melting of the ice sheets and the second one to the sociopolitical consequences of Tibet losing its glaciers mid-century?  Other than both being consequences of global climate disruption, I didn't say they were related.

So, summing up, you managed to misunderstand or misconstrue everything I said.  Just out of curiosity, do you ever get the sense that people become frustrated interacting with you?

What makes the whole thing more bizarre is that probably the solution to over-population would appear to be to emulate what has evolved in the advanced nations, where declining birth rates are beginning to be seen as a future wealth PROBLEM.

You have been severally asked about what should be done by the wealthy nations to relieve the gross suffering of many millions in Africa, and YOU have remained silent.  It would seem that with a relatively small unselfish redistribution of world GDP, there could be huge improvements there, and with improved life expectancy and knowledge etc, the appalling suffering, conflict, and the birth-rate would fall.

Perhaps the birth-rate in South America could be reduced by the CIA assassinating the Pope(s), and then corporate interests making big sales in condoms?

But as I've said elsewhere, you may find more productive discussion on other blogs with environmental bent other than AGW, such as at Green Options.
You are taking-up too much page space here!

I can assure him that it is because I can read that I have been able to identify the inconsistent use of the expressions "balance", "natural rates of change", and the allusion to "tipping points" across the AGU statement, IPCC AR4 Assessment Reports, and his and Andrew Dessler's posts here. Steve does nothing to address that inconsistency, other than to further it.

Steve now tells me, for example, something about the speeds at which ice sheets can respond to warming "of any sort". He refers to the BBC article, which discusses a rise in sea levels of 25cm in just 'decades' as a consequence of geology. Let me ask Steve again, what is a "natural rate of change" if natural processes can outpace anthropogenic rates of change by an order (or two) of magnitude? What is natural "balance" if natural processes can disturb it?

If I want "formal definitions" to resolve this inconsistency, he says, I must "manage on [my] own". But I want Andrew Dessler and Steve Bloom to address the inconsistencies in their own arguments. This is, after all, a debate. They do seem to be fans of inconsistency, but I would rather not do their debating for them, by making sense of their nonsense.

I am not surprised Steve is frustrated, but he ought to take responsibility for his own emotions. And if he wants to change the world, he ought to provide a consistent argument, not expect to be treated as a planet-saving superhero, just because he believes his intentions to be pure. It's the world he needs to convince, not himself.

"As an AGU member, I must once again protest the recently released position statement by the Council.  As in my 2003 objections, this does not represent my scientific views, nor the views of many AGU members.  It is acceptable for the Council to express their opinions on this issue (it is a free country and this is a hot Hollywood topic that gets free press), but please leave me, and the many other AGU members who reject your one sided, subjective scientific views and attached political agendas, out of this.  You do not speak for the all membership here, and if you wish to run for election to AGU office on a platform of AGW promotion and political support, please make that clear when we vote for officers and section presidents.  You should issue a clarifying statement to the press about the narrow opinions expressed in this statement.  To continue to leave the impression that you are representing the views of all 50,000 members is dishonest and contemptible.  Thank you."

The lack of outrage by the membership over this statement shows that the AGU's statement does indeed represent the general opinion of the membership.  See my post above for an example of what happens if you try to put out a statement that doesn't agree with the membership.  

I suggest you resign from the AGU.  If enough people did that, you'd get the AGU to change --- like the AAPG experience shows us.  

I would certainly resign if the AGU put out a statement that disagreed with what I think is responsible science.  In fact, I'd organize a mass resignation to put maximum pressure on the AGU leadership. One thing you've demonstrated will not work is whining.

I wonder how many of the 50,000 AGU members would a) noticed, or b) cared about the statement.

Of course, he "would certainly resign if the AGU put out a statement that disagreed with what I think is responsible science". But that's because he is principally an activist, not a scientist.

Furthermore, and this irks me a bit, any science is conducted based on a set of assumptions and personal perspectives. There is no pure science that exists in a vacuum. Closest attempts to pure science receive Ig Nobel Awards, or obscurity, which is the appropriate reward. Science is a human endeavor aiming to, at least hypothetically, impact human lives or perspectives.

Also, while Steven Earl's statements are off topic, and very difficult to address, they are a crucial part of the current global climatic, ecological and economic system. However, it does belong in a different thread.

Inasmuch as I enjoy the repartee, and intend to keep leading the AWAREness Campaign on The Human Population for several more years if my long-suffering spouse of 36 years allows it, please know that I hope more favorable circumstances in other threads will make it possible for us to exchange perspectives on the Gristmill Blog in the near future.

Sincerely,

Steve

Steven Earl Salmony
AWAREness Campaign on The Human Population, established 2001
http://sustainabilitysoutheast.org/

Chris Landsea resigned with an open letter when his "group's" (IPCC leadership) position did not reflect its member (Landsea) correctly.

Paul Reiter did the same.  And there are others.

Of course, most did not go that far when they saw that their "science" was being "bent" by the political reviewers of the SPM report.

So the shoe fits both sides of the argument: Andrew's heavily funded side that ensures an inflow of grant money for the scientists and the less funded side that is willing to forego this inflow but wants more honesty and less arrogance in the reports.  But money talks, as we all know, so there are probably only a few scientists distancing themselves from the mainstream source of funding.

But it sure does confirm again that the scientific debate on AGW is far from over.

For a recent report in the Journal of Physicians and Surgeons entitled "Environmental Effect of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide", which debunks a lot of the IPCC claims and projections check:
http://www.jpands.org/vol12no3/robinson.pdf

Max

I could have sworn that Physicians and Surgeons don't do climate research, but I guess I was wrong. I could have also sworn that this 'review' was a scandal involving mostly fictitious Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, National Academy of Science, and the editorial board of Climate Research, but I guess I was wrong there also.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Oregon_Institu ...

And umm... yea, physicians and surgeons, yep... Man, could not see that one coming. That one's a great joke! Do people really fall for it?

Andrew says "it makes no sense for a scientist whose primary interest is increasing funding to argue that the science is settled".

And yet...

We can see that climate scientists are still engaged in climate research. So, if, as Andrew also maintains, the science is settled, and [almost all?] scientists are of the consensus position, then [almost all?] scientists are also frauds, for accepting money where there is no need of further research.

He has not read IPCC WGII AR4 then.

Unfortunately, your logic in this postulation is convoluted.

For an effective counter-argument check Richard Lindzen's take on this topic:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220

Lindzen refers to a "triangle of alarmism": "Ambiguous scientific statements about climate are hyped by those with a vested interest in alarm, thus raising the political stakes for policy makers who provide funds for more science research to feed more alarm to increase the political stakes."

If I say, "there has been a bit of warming over the past hundred years with some alternate multi-decadal cycles of warming and cooling, but this has been around 1 degree C since records started back in 1850, and it appears to be part of a natural cycle as we are coming out of a period of harsher climate called the Little Ice Age, so there is no real problem", I will get no funding from politicians at all. (No crisis = no funding.)

If I say, "model studies show that there could be a serious future problem from human-caused warming that may accelerate and we need to do more research to find out just how bad this warming and its impacts on humans as well as the environment will really be plus what steps need to be taken now to avert this potential disaster", I will get funding, particularly from those politicians that see some benefit from the whole hysteria. (Probable serious crisis, but we need to do more work to see just how bad = lots of funding)

That's the argument, Andrew, not your rather illogical take on the argument.

Regards,

Max

Now that's a lot of cash.  I only wish that being a mainstream scientist paid that well.  

Obviously, according to your logic, skeptics can't be believed because of all the money they get.  

Keep trying.

Do you know how much Al Gore gets? And he's not even a scientist. You're missing a trick.

Hi Andrew,

So Lindzen gets $10,000 for a speech?  This is a pretty irrelevant argument, Andrew.

Al Gore has made close to one hundred million since he left Washington.  How much does he charge for a speech (also irrelevant)?

What is relevant, however, are the many billions of dollars of taxpayer money being spent on "climate research", because the "researchers" are clever enough to cast the current changes in climate as a potential future disaster that needs more work to be fully understood.

Follow the money trail, Andrew.  It's not going to the skeptics.

Nice try, anyway.

Regards,

Max

Tax payers would be up in arms if the government gave money to lying, fraudulent hacks. Max that is why they are not getting money, there is no way that government money is being spent on the junk that you have been spouting on about on this blog for far too long now. Go and read some science papers, not the rubbish that you spend all day on.

Good grief, enough is enough of your persistent drivel.

His short bursts of explanation are as 'powerful' as some of the other posts here, so I wonder what would really come out of the debate anyway.

"persistent drivel"... "Keep trying"... "Do people really fall for it"...

All very illuminating stuff, though I'd expect more from a climate science Professor.

Well that journal also offers such great science like claims that evolution isn't fact its an immoral religious system and the HIV virus does not cause AIDS. This journal is not on the Medline/Pubmed or the World of Science databases. I wonder why not?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_American_Phys ...

Quackwatch calls The Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons "fundamentally flawed"

http://www.quackwatch.org/04ConsumerEducation/nonrecperio ...

What makes Atreyger believe that I am disputing the idea that climate shifts, or has shifted? I haven't discussed it.

What I have discussed is the disparity between statements about the shift which are supposed to represent a consensus, and what is the best way to respond to climate shifts based on that "consensus".

atreyger should check the global temperature record before he shoots off incorrect statements.

Based on the surface temperature record of the UK's Hadley Centre, the most recent period of temperature increase showed a linear increase of around 0.18 degrees C per decade since 1976, with the rate slowing down to around 0.06 degrees C per decade in the most recent decade since 1998.

This was preceded by a period of cooling from around 1940 to 1976.

Before this we had a period of warming from around 1906 to 1940, where the linear decadal rate of warming was around 0.16 degrees per decade.

This was preceded by a period of cooling from around 1880 to 1906.Before this we had a period of warming from around 1860 to 1880, where the rate of warming was 0.20 degrees per decade, or slightly higher than it has been during our most recent warming period since 1976.

So we have had multidecadal swings in temperature change since the record started and the most recent warming did not happen "way quicker than in any other time for which we can derive data", as atreyger erroneously suggests.

And if it has now slowed down to 0.06 degrees C per decade it's going to take a lot more than "twenty years down the line" before the "climate shifts to an obviously different pattern" as atreyger alarmingly projects.

Relax, atreyger, you don't need to be hysterical because of some computer-generated virtual impending disasters.  Things are OK out there in the real world.

As for "there is no other explanatory reason besides GHGs", how about a less arrogant "we just don't know everything about what causes climate changes yet"?

Max

No surprise that it atracted one of the most virulent strains of dimbulb limboob troll disease, the aussie version.

Universal global virtual mental healthcare?  I think it is possible if fora like this are recognized as valid dioagnostic tools.  

Local psychologists take note, powerful presciption drugs would seem to be warranted in many of these cases.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

Heres how a blog discussion with Andrew works.

Andrew starts off with a lead story about scientific groups that sometimes have internal dissenters who do not agree with the groups' "party line" on a scientific (or political) issue.  The implication Andrew wants to get across is that the (more savvy) members support the IPCC version of AGW even when the (more hide-bound) group leaders or managers do not, suggesting that this provides proof that there is a scientific consensus on AGW.  "I hope it is just as clear that the large number of statements by professional organizations supporting the mainstream view of climate change is an extremely powerful reflection of the strong consensus that exists in the scientific community."

I counter with the fact that this works two ways, and cite the example of scientific experts in their field who have disagreed with the IPCC "party line" on the scientific area where they are the experts.  I mentioned that a small number of these even went so far as to resign from IPCC involvement, even though there are not many who have gone this far, since this could endanger their receiving future research grants.

Andrew changes the subject to research funding and cites a previous blog lead article he has written that states, in effect, that agreeing on a consensus belief should actually result in less research funding than having divergent opinions on climate change, implying that the scientists are not toeing the "majority consensus line" on AGW in order to get more research grants, but, just the opposite, by agreeing to the consensus view they actually reduce the amount of research money they will get.  

I point out to Andrew that this reasoning is flawed, since only by agreeing with the so-called mainstream view which predicts an imminent disaster can the climate scientists continue to get their massive funding from the politicians (that exploit this virtual impending disaster), quoting an opinion of Richard Lindzen on this subject, which cites the "no crisis=no funding" principle.

Andrew changes the topic again, this time by attacking Richard Lindzen personally for charging $10,000 for a speech, saying this is more than mainstream climate scientists get, and in effect comparing a paltry $10,000 with the billions of dollars of taxpayer money that are being spent for "climate disaster research".

So round and around we go.

Then some of Andrew's surly surrogates, like josullivan58 or ian forrester, get in the act and start spewing venom, such as "Tax payers would be up in arms if the government gave money to lying, fraudulent hacks", "enough is enough of your persistent drivel", etc. etc.

Believe benp is spot on when he says, "Andrew seems very reluctant to enagage in discussion."

Max

The period 1860-1880 had the highest linear rate of increase since Hadley Centre records started at 0.20 deg C per decade.

This was slightly higher than over the most recent period, 1976-2007, where the rate was 0.18 deg C per decade.

From 1860 to 1880 atmospheric CO2 rose by a total of about 3 ppm.

From 1976 to 2007 atmospheric CO2 rose by 48 ppm.

But, then again, from 1940 to 1976, CO2 increased by 26 ppm while temperature decreased.

Hmmm... Oh well.

Max

We've heard some "yah-yahing" concerning the "scientific qualifications" of the group, i.e. "since these guys are medical docs, what do they know about climate?"

At least one of the authors (Willie Soon) is a serious and respected scientist, himself.  But, more importantly, the papers cited in this report come from serious scientific journals.  As an example, 10 each come from Nature and Geophysical Research Letters, 9 from Science, 6 from Journal of Geophysical Research and 3 each from Journal of Climate and Astrophysical Journal.

The authors of these papers are legitimate scientists in a climate-related field.

There are other sources that relate more to fertilization of plants by CO2, energy costs from various alternate sources, etc.

Then there are non-scientific sources, such as Al Gore's film "An Inconvenient Truth" and various op-ed articles.

Some examples:

The report cites a study in Science by Keigwin that showed that temperature during he Medieval Warm Period were around 1 degree C warmer than today, based on isotope ratios of marine organism sediments in the Sargasso Sea.

It cites studies by Oerlemanns et al in Science and Greuell et al in Journal of Geophysical Research that showed that glacier melting started well before significant human CO2 emissions started and has continued at the same rate since then.

It also makes reference to reports by Soon in Geophysical Research Letters and Hoyt et al in Journal of Geophysical Research, which show a good correlation between Arctic air temperatures and solar activity.

It shows the multidecadal swings in temperature occurring since 1880 based on the NCDC NOAA surface temperature record.

It lists data from the US National Climatic Data Center showing that the number of severe hurricanes in the USA has decreased slightly from 1950 to today.

It cites two studies from Landsea (Geophys. Res. Let. and EOS), which show there has been no increase in Atlantic hurricane numbers or intensity from 1944 to today,

It refers to reports on sea level rise by Jevrejeva et al in J. Geophys. Res. And Lieuliette et al in Marine Geology, demonstrating that these started long before significant man-made CO2 emissions and have continued at the same rate since then.

It makes reference to a study by Soon et al citing reference to several sources on temperatures during the MWP and LIA, and comparing these with 20th century temperatures.

It compares records on solar activity and human hydrocarbon use with four different temperature records from NCDC NOAA, sea level rise (original studies cited above) and glacier melting (also cited above), to show that there is no correlation with human CO2 and these recorded climate changes.

It compares the NOAA surface record with the UAH satellite plus radiosonde balloon records and cites a study by Christy et al in J. Geophysical Res. to make the point that the temperature in the troposphere has risen more slowly than at the surface.

It cites reports by Goodridge in Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc. And Christy in Atmos. Env.,  which show the impact of urban heat island effect from 1940 to 1996 from 107 measuring stations in 49 California counties, linking the temperature trend directly with the population; it shows that the five of the six stations selected by NASA GISS for calculating the global surface temperature record are in highly populated counties with higher than average temperature trends.

It then goes on to debunk the "cause and effect" relationship between atmospheric CO2 and temperature (i.e. temperature rise actually came before CO2 increase) in seven interglacial periods, and compares this with the current situation.

It cites reports by Spencer et al in Bull. Amer. Meteor. and Geophys. Res Let., Renno et al in J. Geophys. Res, Soden in Journal of Climate and Lindzen in Bull. Amer Meteor., which suggest that the climate models treat feedbacks from clouds, water vapor and related hydrology incorrectly.

The rest of the report cites various sources in making the point that increased atmospheric CO2 may have some benefits for mankind and the environment, and discussion various alternate energy scenarios for the future and their impact on the environment.

So while the group who published this report is not, itself, a group of climate scientists reporting on original work, it has summarized the conclusions of a number of scientific climate studies, which were published in serious scientific journals.

What this group thinks about AIDS, US politics, abortion or any other topic is totally irrelevant to the issue here.

They have compiled some pretty convincing data from serious scientific journals that raise serious questions about the validity of the "mainstream" view on AGW.

Unless someone can show that they have grossly misquoted these reports, their argument stands.

Max

If anyone is serious about finding out the truth behind what this apologist for a scientist (manacker) is saying try here:

http://www.realclimate.org/wiki/index.php?title=OISM

and here;

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/10/ore ...

The reason these authors of the JAPS paper are not considered to be scientists is because they are guilty of the same offenses as manacker. If you do not know what real science is about then stop pretending to be one. A quick read of these links will show how badly manacker is distorting the truth.

The point is NOT whether JAPS is a group of climate scientists, or that the report they published was co-authored by a respected climate scientist, Willie Soon.

The point is that the scientific reports, which they cited were written by serious scientists and published in serious scientific journals.

Sure, they were doing this to prove a point, and (just like the IPCC does) they only quoted studies, which confirmed the points they wanted to make.

If you can show me that they have grossly misquoted these studies (please no links to RealClimate op-eds), then you have a valid point.  Otherwise you don't.  (And, P.S. try keeping cool and watching your language).

Regards,

Max

I do not spout venom.

I questioned manacker's reliance on a partisan publication that routinely misrepresents science. I can not, nor can any other person who understands science, take a creationist publication seriously. In a scientific debate there are standards that must be met to make it a scientific debate. Using the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons as a source violates basic scientific principals.

I questioned the assertion that Eos is suppressing  sammyowl's freedom of speech because Eos would not publish sammyowl's advertisement in Eos. The editors of Eos are not stopping sammyowl from expressing his views, they just don't want to publish his ad in Eos. Maybe sammyowl can submit his ad to the  Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons.

You wrote: "I questioned manacker's reliance on a partisan publication that routinely misrepresents science. I can not, nor can any other person who understands science, take a creationist publication seriously."

I understand science well enough.  I also read the JAPS report several times and checked out most of the references cited in this report (which seemed valid), but could not find anything in it about a "creationist" theory.

Can you point me to the page in this report where this is mentioned?

Regards,

Max

"I questioned manacker's reliance on a partisan publication that routinely misrepresents science. I can not, nor can any other person who understands science, take a creationist publication seriously."

Jo raises some interesting points. Without intending to 'defend' creationism, what bearing does it have on the global warming question, either that it 'routinely misrepresents science', or is a 'creationist publication', or is a 'partisan publication'? I haven't seen either the publication, or the articles in question. But it strikes me that Jo's points have nothing to do with science.

The 'scientific' approach should be agnostic with respect to creationism, and robust enough with respect to partisanship to assess the claims made by an argument. Creationist and partisan arguments fall apart in scientific evaluation because of their unsound argument, not because of the religious or political inclinations of their authors and publishers. But Jo reveals that he is not sufficiently confident in the scientific method to evaluate a claim in the 'wrong' journal.

It is convenient for Jo that Max cited a journal he was able to dismiss in this way. But if the point is to mount a serious scientific challenge to Max's argument, Jo's reply is just as shallow as a creationist or partisan attempt a