The victim mentality of conspiracy theorists

bob-carter

Bob Carter, formerly an adjunct professor at James Cook University

Conspiracy theorists seem to see conspiracies in even the most innocent things.  Then again, politically motivated activists will invent conspiracies if they think this will present them as a victim. This appears to be happening around Bob Carter, one of the darlings of the local climate change deniers/contrarians/pseudosceptics.

Just look at the (unattributed) conspiracy story local climate change pseudosceptic Richard Treadgold is attempting to promote in his blog post Heated climate debate continues.

Bob Carter was a Professor and Head of School of Earth Sciences at James Cook University (Townsville) between 1981 and 1999. Subsequently he was an adjunct research professor at the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at the James Cook University from 1998 to 2005 and a visiting research professor in geology and geophysics at the University of Adelaide from 2001 to 2005. And an adjunct research professor again at the James Cook University until the end of last year. According to Brisbane-based journalist Graham Readfearn:

“Professor Paul Dirks, head of school at JCU’s School of Earth and Environmental Sciences where Bob Carter’s affiliation was held, has told me that since 1 January 2013, Bob Carter has had “no official status” at JCU. He said Bob Carter’s previous adjunct status ceased on that date.”

What is an adjunct research professor?

You can find out at the James Cook University’s web page Adjunct Appointments. In this case it’s a bit like an emeritus professor. An unpaid position at the university for a retired academic. They are not open-ended -“Appointments will be normally be made for periods of up to three years and may be renewed.”

So, in summary Carters unpaid adjunct position expired at the end of last year. It was not renewed. And he had long before (1999) retired from his job as a Professor at that university.

Mind you, that has not stopped people like Treadgold and other climate change psuedosceptics referring to Carter as a Professor at James Cook University. You would think these sources would have stopped using that title and affiliation by now. As Readfern says:

“Several of these groups still describe Bob Carter as having an affiliation with James Cook University, which, as I’ve just clarified, ended six months ago. I’m sure they will all be diligently edited to reflect Bob Carter’s actual non-status with James Cook University.

I mean, we wouldn’t want anyone being misled now would we?”

Well, perhaps some of these people have decided to stop misleading and admit Carter is no longer holds affiliated to James Cook University. But why waste the opportunity to present themselves as persecuted and victims?

A “contemptible, poisonous  blatant act of bureaucratic bigotry”

Treadgold decides to treat expiration of Carter’s adjunct status as a “dismissal:”

“Professor Bob Carter (an expatriate Kiwi) lost his job the other day at James Cook University (JCU) in Townsville. He had worked there for 31 loyal years, . . . . . Significantly, because it led to his dismissal, Bob made an honourable name for himself and earned a world-wide reputation for remaining faithful to scientific principles while analysing the outrageous predictions from global warming alarmists. He was never afraid to speak out against the alarmists and their dubious claims.

Dismissing him with a blatant act of bureaucratic bigotry will deepen the shame of its perpetrators whenever the history of “man-made” climate change is recalled.”

He goes on to call the expiry, sorry “dismissal,” of the adjunct position a “contemptible action” arising from “poisonous, irrational thinking.”

Although Treadgold doesn’t attribute his story or give any sources he clearly relies on fellow climate change pseudosceptic Jo Nova’s blog article JCU caves in to badgering and groupthink — blackballs “politically incorrect” Bob Carter. That article is similarly challenged by lack of reliable sources or attribution.

But despite the normal rapidity with which the climate change pseudosceptic/contrarian/denier internet echo chamber circulates such stories of victimhood this one doesn’t seem to have any legs. It was half-heartedly tweeted by Christopher Monckton, the Galileo Movement and a Sydney journalist Micky Mantell.

Bit of  a fizzer this time Richard?


NOTE: Some information on Bob Carter’s links in the climate change pseudosceptic movement (thanks to Graham Readfearn):

Bob Carter is the Science Policy Advisor at the Institute of Public Affairs in Melbourne, the chief science advisor to the International Climate Science Coalition, a director at the Australian Environment Foundation, a member of the academic advisory council of the UK’s Global Warming Policy Foundation, an adviser to the Australia-based Galileo Movement, science adviser to the Science and Public Policy Institute, a patron of the UK’s anti-climate legislation group Repeal The Act, an advisor to the European Institute for Climate and Energy (EIKE), an advisor to the Australian Climate Science Coalition and an inaugural founder of the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition.

Similar articles

About these ads

210 responses to “The victim mentality of conspiracy theorists

  1. Ken. you sure do have a cold heart. Quite sad, really.

    Like

  2. Explain yourself, Ron.

    Like

  3. As I tried to impress upon those at Climate Conversation Group, maybe the university is just allowing Bob more time off so he can get a paying paper-round and contribute to NIWA’s costs. Carter was quite prepared to contribute an affidavit (or rather, part of the prolix argument) as part of the action against NIWA.

    Like

  4. One factor is that adjuncts usually use office space. Most university departments don’t have a lot, so there is a limit to how many adjuncts you can fit, they are usually given that status only if they are still actively contributing to research or they are actively teaching. In my department we have had a number of adjuncts not renewed recently, nobody had any problem with them, we just need to make room for new staff.

    Like

  5. I wonder what the position is with their debt – they really avoid talking about it.

    Like

  6. Can anybody think of any of the “scientists” of the climate denial movement under the age of 60?

    (…awkward silence…)

    Ok so….can anybody think of any that will never see 70 again?
    Ah.
    Hmm. It’s a very narrow demographic and a very small list of names.
    On the other hand there’s NASA.
    NASA and every single scientific community on the planet.
    (shrug)

    “Finally, and most unfortunately, there is Emeritus disease, a problem that is found in every area of academic controversy. The typical sufferer is an older male, with the archetypal case being the holder of an emeritus position. Unfortunately, aging tends to go along with both a hardening of intellectual arteries and an unwillingness or inability to keep abreast of recent developments in the field in question, with the effect of dogmatic attachment to views formed long ago. Having taken a view of an issue on the basis of very limited consideration, they remain dogmatically attached to it until the end of their days.
    (Looking at the description, I’m obviously a high-risk candidate for going emeritus myself. That’s one reason I try to engage in discussion with people holding a range of views from which I might learn something, most recently economists of the Austrian school).
    Unfortunately, Emeritus disease has a bad prognosis. As Max Planck observed long ago…

    a new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.

    Link

    Like

  7. Can anybody think of any of the “scientists” of the climate denial movement under the age of 60?

    Locally, there is Willem de Lange, whom I went to school with.

    http://sci.waikato.ac.nz/about-us/people/delange

    But I get your drift.

    Like

  8. I really ought to provide some support for my claim that de Lange is a “denier”. He’s certainly a contrarian.

    Andrew Bolt quotes De Lange: http://anhonestclimatedebate.wordpress.com/tag/dr-willem-de-lange/

    and so do our friends at CCG: http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/2012/04/levitus-rewarmed/

    about which Renowden, at Hot Topic comments: http://sciblogs.co.nz/hot-topic/tag/waikato-university/

    Like

  9. Not sure of his exact age but he’s clearly a giddy young teenager in comparison to his denier peers. Never heard of his name before. No doubt as the other “big” names die off, his will be quoted more and more for a sound-bite or two in the long, dreary years ahead. He has something to look forward to. Good catch, Richard. ;)

    So that’s one (alibet obscure example)…

    Like

  10. There’s an old saying, “To be old and wise, first you have to be young and a bloody idiot.”

    So the CSIR claimed, “The report predicts average temperatures to rise by more than three per cent on 1990 levels by 2070… ”

    I guess a 9 degree increase in temperature is something to be concerned about.

    Like

  11. Unfortunately, Ron, time by itself is not a cure for idiocy.

    Like

  12. Ken, are you speaking from personal experience? :-)

    Like

  13. Yes, have known a few old idiots, and keep coming across them. They seem strangely attracted to weird commenting on blogs.

    Like

  14. Ken, do I take it that with regard to AGW, you are in the, “The science is settled” camp?

    Like

  15. Ken, do I take it that with regard to AGW, you are in the, “The science is settled” camp?

    Here’s an opportunity to act your age Ron. Keep going.

    Like

  16. And here was me actually believing Ken when he said that science was never settled… LOL

    Denier, contrarian, critically thinking scientist… what’s in a name…????

    Like

  17. This little anecdote reminds my of some scientists I’ve worked with over the years.

    THE WHITE LIE CAKE
    Have you ever told a white lie?

    Alice Grayson was to bake a cake for the Baptist Church Ladies’ Group in Tuscaloosa , but forgot to do it until the last minute.

    She remembered it the morning of the bake sale and after rummaging through cabinets, found an angelfood cake mix & quickly made it while drying her hair, dressing, and helping her son pack for scout camp.

    When she took the cake from the oven, the center had dropped flat and the cake was horribly disfigured and she exclaimed,

    “Oh dear, there is not time to bake another cake!”

    So, being inventive, she looked around the house for something to build up the center of the cake.

    She found it in the bathroom – a roll of toilet Paper.

    She plunked it in and then covered it with icing. Not only did the finished product look beautiful, it looked perfect.

    And, before she left the house to drop the cake by the church and head for work Alice woke her daughter and gave her some money and specific
    instructions to be at the bake sale the moment it opened at 9:30 and to buy the cake and bring it home.

    When the daughter arrived at the sale, she found the attractive, perfect cake had already been sold.

    Amanda grabbed her cell phone and called her mom. Alice was horrified-she was beside herself! Everyone would know!

    What would they think? She would be ostracized, talked about, ridiculed!

    All night, Alice lay awake in bed thinking about people pointing fingers at her and talking about her behind her back.

    The next day, Alice promised herself she would try not to think about the cake and would attend the fancy luncheon/bridal shower at the home of a fellow church member and try to have a good time. She did not really want to attend because the hostess was a snob who more than once had looked down her nose at the fact that Alice was a single parent and not from the founding families of Tuscaloosa, but having already RSVP’d, she
    couldn’t think of a believable excuse to stay home.

    The meal was elegant, the company was definitely upper crust old south, with 20 guests in total, and to Alice ‘s horror, the cake in question was presented for dessert!

    Alice felt the blood drain from her body when she saw the cake!

    She started out of her chair to tell the hostess all about it, but before she could get to her feet, the Mayor’s wife said, “what a beautiful cake!” 95 percent of the guests totally agreed.

    Alice, still stunned, sat back in her chair when she heard the hostess (who was a prominent church member) say,

    “Thank you, I baked it myself.”

    Alice smiled and thought to herself, “God is good.”

    Like

  18. RonL doesn’t disappoint.

    Like

  19. Thanks Richard…:-) Would hate to disappoint.

    Like

  20. Ron – regarding your silliness about “settled science” – have a look at Poisoning the well with a caricature of science

    Like

  21. Ken, I’m confused… I thought the AWG science was settled..!?!? Are you suggesting it’s not?

    I have read your diatribe with a touch of Cedricesque…

    Loved this bit

    “This sort of caricature of science is an unpleasant attempt to play the man and not the ball. Using the old poisoning the well fallacy to discredit the contrarian without dealing with the science.”

    That’s exactly what this blog is about… trying to ridicule the person along with denigrating senior scientists.

    Very unprofessional and very childish meesthinks, and very cold hearted. Certainly not conducive to a good means of communicating science.

    Like

  22. Yes, Ron, I know you are confused. It shows.

    Like

  23. I thought the AWG science was settled..!?!?

    There is consensus amongst the scientific community as to the causes of recent warming trends, in fact, it’s overwhelming amongst those scientists specialising in the study of climate.

    This claim is different to the one you are confused about.

    Like

  24. I recently saw reference to a recent paper showing 97% of climate scientists agreed that AWG was real… I haven’t been able to get hold of the paper that found that. Do you have it?

    Like

  25. Ron, with your self-claimed skills you will have no trouble finding that paper for yourself. There are lots of comments on the internet – and lots of attacks (as you expect) from the climate change contrarians/pseudosceptics/deniers (with who you will no doubt agree).

    Perhaps, though, you should read the IPPC reports to actually see what climate scientists are saying. These review all the published peer reviewed literature and provide the most authoritative overview.

    Like

  26. Ken, despite my ability to find needles in internet hay stacks, I have been unable to find any recent paper showing 97% of climate scientists agreed that AWG was real…

    I heard that John Cook had published one, but I can’t find any. Could you be so kind as to provide a link to the decisive paper?

    And for the record, others comments don’t particularly interest me.

    Like

  27. And before you jump on me, when I say, “And for the record, others comments don’t particularly interest me.” I’m just referring to this paper I can’t find.

    Like

  28. I’m just referring to this paper I can’t find.

    If you can’t find a paper then that means…you can’t find a paper.
    (shrug)
    There is a scientific consensus on AGW just as there is a consensus on Evolution, Gravity and the Moon Landings.
    If you have a problem with AGW, then take it up with NASA. Let them tell you about the 97%. This isn’t hard to find out.

    .

    Like

  29. WTF Ron – this is arrogant – “Could you be so kind as to provide a link to the decisive paper?”

    I am not your dogsbody. You want me to do your work for you.

    No, I won’t search out and provide a link for you. I have enough going on in my own life at the moment.

    Get off your backside and do your own search.

    Like

  30. I’m just referring to this paper I can’t find.

    try skeptical science website

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-advanced.htm

    Naomi Oreskes is mentioned in the link, you may find her a useful source of information :
    Merchants of Doubt (1of 6)

    In this clip

    she cites National Academy of Science announcing a consensus in 1979.

    Like

  31. LOL… I love it when people can’t meet a challenge with anything but ridicule… especially people espousing to be guardians of the truth… :-)

    Thanks Richard for the 1979 ref.

    Cedric, your response states the obvious… thanks… So, Ken, Can I take it from your response that it doesn’t exist…???

    Like

  32. No, you can’t Ron – as you well know. But you can take it that I think you are a pathetic sham not to be able to find such things in your own. It’s an extremely simple task these days.

    Pathetic.

    Mind you, it probably does indicate that underneath it all you do at least know how to find experts on the blogs. It’s just that you are so lazy your expect them to do your work for you.

    Like

  33. Hey, Ken, now that you’ve vented, I’ve found the paper that lead to the recent headlines… turns out I had it all along but didn’t recognise it as it says no such thing… Wot a hoot… LOL…

    Like

  34. Do I detect the early signs of dementia there, Ron?

    Like

  35. mmm so let”s see

    Environmental Research Letters Volume 8 Number 2
    John Cook et al 2013 Environ. Res. Lett. 8 024024 doi:10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024

    http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/

    Letter [mmm… it’s a letter…]

    “We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics ‘global climate change’ or ‘global warming’. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. For both abstract ratings and authors’ self-ratings, the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time. Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research.”

    mmm… so they looked at 11,944 papers… 2/3rds the papers expressed no opinion… less than 1/3rd endorsed AGW…

    and the headlines/claims include such distorted and falsified statements such as…

    97% of climate scientists agreed that AWG was real…

    about 97 per cent of 4000 international scientific papers analysed in a University of Queensland-led study were rated as endorsing human-caused global warming. [noting that 11,944 papers were actually analysed…]

    Survey finds 97% of climate science papers agree warming is man-made

    All totally false claims…

    I wonder what scientists who call themselves objective minded skeptics would think of that kind of dishonest distortionist reporting?

    Any thoughts Ken?

    Like

  36. Ken, on cue, asks, “Do I detect the early signs of dementia there, Ron?”

    Nah, Ken, just a disconnect between what the distortionist statements have been saying and the source ‘definitive scientific study’ written up a a letter.

    Like

  37. No, I expect that sort of contrarianism from you Ron. I was commenting on you not being aware of something staring you in the face. So unaware that you expect others to go out and do the searching for you.

    Like

  38. You should write a stern letter to NASA Ron. Then one to The Surgeon General. Then one to The Royal Society. Then one to…

    Like

  39. I think Ron finds it easier to write stern comments to us, Richard.

    He should really get his own blog – then he might actually find people who want to listen to him rave on like this.

    Like

  40. Right. One academic paper.

    http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article

    The paper does include references to other studies which found similar results, should you be inclined to follow them up. I am not aware of any studies which contradict these findings to any substantial degree, though the public perception of climate scientists’ degree of agreement on the topic is apparently a different matter.

    Like

  41. So, where do we start… let’s start at the beginning… always a safe place to start…

    “1. Introduction
    An accurate perception of the degree of scientific consensus is an essential element to public support for climate policy…”

    So we start with the need for a “perception” to get public support for policy… Do I hear the words of a Spin Doctor here?

    Chris, the paper was widely reported as having made certain claims which are quite false.

    In fact, the second claim above is a press release from the authors themselves…

    about 97 per cent of 4000 international scientific papers analysed in a University of Queensland-led study were rated as endorsing human-caused global warming.

    11,944 papers were actually analysed…. not a claimed 4,000.

    “It’s official: scientists agree global warming is man-made…”

    http://www.gci.uq.edu.au/news/its-official-scientists-agree-global-warming-is-man-made#sthash.mNroCOmd.dpuf

    Note the info-graphic… claiming 97/100 scientists agree.

    Note the reference… to someone elses paper, not theirs…

    Note: “For example, if 97 per cent of doctors told you that you had smoking-induced cancer, you’d take action: quit smoking and start chemotherapy to get rid of the cancer.”

    But 97 percent of scientists in their study never agreed anything… isn’t this a lie?

    No mention of the fact that roughly 8,000 papers made no judgement at all.

    What dishonest science.

    And self-defined objective skeptics find that OK?

    Dishonesty obviously knows no bounds… this paper achieved its objective… it created a perception… it also becomes part of science’s problem… credibility…

    What a hoot… and to think this blog involved criticism of alleged dishonesty…

    Is there a mirror in the house?

    Like

  42. Ah, I see you have indeed located the paper whilst I was typing up my response. And proceeded to talk about it in isolation, with no mention of any of the other work it references, including similar academic reviews and direct surveys of climate scientists.

    Now, while I wouldn’t say the literature survey in and of itself constitutes ‘proof’ that 97% of climate scientists endorse AGW, it is certainly telling that, in those papers where a position is taken, 97% go with AGW.

    In regards to the total proportion of papers which take no position (35.5% according to self-rating), I don’t think this can be taken as fence-sitting. The field of climate science does, after all, include palaeoclimate. Any study which looks exclusively at what the climate was like at some time before the industrial revolution is, by definition, not going to take a position on AGW.

    I have no particular interest in another endless argument over the technicalities of a single paper. I will note that you yourself brought up the 97% figure, and have been provided a good starting point if you want to figure out what the research says on the matter. I’m quite satisfied that one side of the argument enjoys a clear majority of climate scientists, whatever the precise figure may be.

    Like

  43. But Chris, the paper wasn’t a literature review… it was presented as a scientific review of scientists views and reviewed thousands of papers and found 2/3rds of the papers didn’t express a view but the results miraculously are presented as ‘irrefutable proof’ that 97 percent of scientists (based on someone else’s research) support the AWG hypotheses…

    Chris, with the greatest of respect, this paper is dishonestly represented by both the media and the authors themselves.

    For the record, the papers that take no position are 2/3rds, not 1/3rd…

    My point isn’t about 97 percent… it’s about one side of a debate bagging the other for being dishonest when the dishonesty permeates both sides.

    Dishonest science and dishonest reporting of science only brings science itself into disrepute; don’t you think? This is about credibility… Ken bagged Carter’s and others credibility… I look forward to him bagging dishonest science whatever side of a debate it is on.

    Like

  44. What does “endorse AGW” actually mean anyway? Is like a product endorsement? E.g 97% of footballers endorse Adidas gear.

    Like

  45. Ron, you say “Ken bagged Carter’s and others credibility… I look forward to him bagging dishonest science whatever side of a debate it is on.”

    1: Wrong, I didn’t “bag Carter.” This was not an article on Carter’s presentation of science – it was bagging Treadgold for his misrepresentation of the issue – the completion of Carter’s contract. Just look at the purple prose he used, and no facts to support him.

    Even Andy had to pull him up on the “dismissal” charge.

    2: As for bagging dishonest science – you will note than I do quite a bit of that here – but I always try to establish the facts and explain the problems with the science.

    I have lately been doing that with the fluoridation issue, and will continue to do so as it is an ongoing problem.

    I have also done it with the climate change issue. There is incredible rubbish being promoted in both areas which needs challenging.

    Of course, I also get a lot of rubbish from pseudoscience and contrarian/denier types in comments here. Some of the commenters are real jerks who will swear black is white or start using the most vile language when shown to be wrong.

    Like

  46. Ken, not only a cold heart, but a sad dishonest one too… tragic, really… The blog is not only callous, it is dishonest.

    Like

  47. I think the true picture on the Carter issue lies somewhere between the angles presented by Ken and Richard T.

    Bob Carter’s position as Adjunct Professor was an honorary one, and he has been quite clear about this.
    however, there is also a picture that Bob Carter’s positions on climate change didn’t fit well with the authorities at JCU and they felt it easier to not renew the position.

    Carter spent 31 years teaching and researching at JCU, so you can’t really use excuses like expiry of tenure or lack of desk space as you might with a postdoctoral fellow. He was asked to relinquish his JCU email address which is basically a no cost service to JCU, so clearly JCU wanted to distance themselves from Bob Carter

    It doesn’t surprise me that this has happened. However, the only reason I had heard of James Cook University was because of Bob Carter, and now their reputation is firmly attached to this episode

    Like

  48. Andy, when I retired I came back to work for a short while on contract to finish some commercial work I was involved in. That contract was not renewed – but no one goes around bleating about that.

    When I retired I effectively lost my office space, my email and personal access to my data on the computer network. That is the formal aspect of finishing employment these days. While on contract I had to take my chances with office space and access my data through other’s passwords.

    I spent about 40 years doing scientific research, almost all of at with DSIR, MAF and AgResearch. Yet I didn’t expect any special treatment or emeritus status.

    I am not surprised this happened to me, it happens to everyone. It would be absolutely pathetic for anyone to go around squawking about my “treatment” the way Treadgold is currently acting.

    As I said, victim hood, or martyrdom is a common psychological condition of conspiracy theorists.

    Like

  49. I have exactly the same situation in my department in an Australian University, we can’t just keep retired people on as adjunct, this is different to emeritus, it is only for people active in the department. We have someone who must have served for a similar time in exactly the same situation, including losing email address. He has done nothing wrong, nobody has any problem with him, it’s just that he is retired and is no longer in the department. Uni departments just don’t have the resources these days to let retired professors hang around for the sake of it. As stated in the original posts adjuncts are for fixed terms, usually someone who retired will get adjunct status for one term out of courtesy but after that they are out unless they are actively contributing.

    Like

  50. So, in academia, people get old and retire and..are let go.
    Gosh, whodathunk!?!
    Sometimes they get 10 points and a gold bar in the form of being an adjunct or emeritus but, evidently, that to shall pass or just not be given in the first place.
    Well….clearly it’s evidence of a conspiracy. ;)
    Hmm…
    Imagine the froth and fury if Carter dropped dead of a heart attack eighteen months from now? Would that be more grist for the conspiracy mill or would the deniers do the numbers and go “Oh, that’s sad but he had a good innings”?

    Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

    Like

  51. Ron, as I have said, I am uninterested in endless argument over any one paper. Do some research and see what other figures you can find if you want to put a number on the proportion of climate scientists who endorse AGW.

    As to Bob Carter, I have to ask: Has Carter himself made any allegations of bias on the part of JCU? Because if the person who has supposedly been wronged has made no complaints, and barring some kind of evidence of misconduct on the University’s part, I think they get the benefit of the doubt.

    Like

  52. Pingback: The Daily Blog Watch Monday 1 July « The Daily Blog

  53. Bob Carter is interviewed on 2GB here

    http://www.2gb.com/audioplayer/9976

    I think he also has a PhD student he is currently supervising

    Like

  54. Andy, I was also a supervisor of a PhD student when I retired. Forgot add that. Perhaps people should have demanded that I kept my affiliation and it benefits despite retirement?

    Like

  55. But thanks for the link Andy. A great illustration of the incredible bias by some people in the media – even Carter seemed embarrassed.

    However, call me cynical, it also makes obvious why this little issue is being raised six months after the event. (His contract finished at the end of 2012).

    Carter has a new book coming out and could do with a bit of publicity/promotion. I guess this artificial issue is the beginning of his book tour.

    Like

  56. Just listened to the tape… I now agree with you Ken. This is prima facie evidence that the guy is an obvious nutter!!! Clearly he’s an obfuscating idiot. He clearly deserves to be vilified and disparaged as you are doing, Ken. You are doing a great service to the cause… maintaining science’s credibility. How dare someone have an opinion that is different to their boss. How dare an academic speak their mind in public. I mean, what is this world coming to? Of course science should be decided by consensus. How dare anyone think differently!

    Keep up the good work, Ken. Credibility bias indeed. How dare that someone, having written a book, would want to sell it… what a nutter!

    Like

  57. Thanks very much for your endorsement of my position, Ron.

    You won’t mind if I selectively quote pieces will you? I am learning a bit from FANNZ.

    Like

  58. Ken, it seems that you would probably have to have a tie breaker regarding selective-quote-pieces, although, from what I can gather at least FANNZ paraphrased, rather than demonstrating selective-bias.

    If ever you need a reference, or a referee, I would only be too willing to brag on your ability to make normal look suspicious. I’m sure it’s a gift. :-)

    Talking of gifts, I saw some of your paintings online… now that is truly a gift. Well done and no doubt it gives you a pleasant counterbalance in your life.

    Like

  59. Is wonder, Ron, if you actually have finally got the message from my post. You refer to the “ability to make normal look suspicious.” That is the very thing I have criticised Treadgold and his mates for.

    Like

  60. In the 2GB interview, Bob Carter made it fairly clear that one of the reasons that his position was not renewed was because the University was spending a lot of time defending Carter’s various statements in the media and elsewhere. Therefore he was seen as a liability to them.

    I guess in a corporate environment, this might be normal behaviour. Since Universities are now basically as extension of the corporate structure that produce “products” in the form of graduates, and critical thinking is no longer a requirement, then I can understand their position.

    Like

  61. Andy, I checked on the JCU website… yes, the university does entertain the thought about critical thinking… but there are no links on the hard-science sites… AGW evangelists obviously think that independent critical thinking is old school… I guess redundant skills like that aren’t needed in today’s MacScience young persons world.

    Thinking about thinking – ResearchOnline@JCU
    “Unless we stop and think about thinking, critical thinking can be elusive.

    Thinking about thinking is a form of metacognition. It requires effortful understanding of the thinking process and an ability to exert control over it.”

    http://eprints.jcu.edu.au/17368/

    Like

  62. Ken said, “Is wonder, Ron, if you actually have finally got the message from my post. You refer to the “ability to make normal look suspicious.” That is the very thing I have criticised Treadgold and his mates for.”

    Yes, Ken, I know… and it’s something you are quite skilled at also. I think the old-farts saying is something like, ‘the pot calling the kettle black.”

    Like

  63. Bit rich, Ron, seeing you are doing this very thing yourself in this discussion..

    However, I am well known for admitting mistakes when I make them, even apologising. It’s always the best way.

    So you are welcome to point out situation where I have clearly called the kettle black. If I think you are correct I will withdraw and apologise. Of course, the evil may reside in the onlooker in this case.

    Like

  64. Ron, your meta-thinking link is enough to drive a man to meta-drink.

    Like

  65. Nah, Ken. I wouldn’t want to overload your spam filter! :-) I could start with your comments about fluoride, but I don’t think you’d be wanting to re-litigate that here.

    Like

  66. Andy, are you being critical? Or just thinking??? :-)

    R

    Like

  67. God, you guys waste time. Do you not have jobs or other useful preoccupations? Something constructive to do?

    Always amazes me that these self- employed people never seem to do a scrap of work.

    Like

  68. You know, on listening to that, I hear no expression of moral outrage on Carter’s part, and I noted him correcting the host on some of his statements. Of course, the volume of condemnation cranked right back up again the moment he was off the air.

    Ron, while I’m sure you think you’re being satirical, I think your post represents the kind of parody of the scientific community which the other side of the debate seems determined to promote. Carter has not been silenced, and people are quite capable of learning his views or those of various other contrarians. Certainly there are quite a few people out there who’ve put time and effort into publicising those views. The publicity Carter has gained as a result of losing his position has done his publicity no harm – I for one had never heard of the man before.

    The consensus, in many regards, is a bit of a red herring. Science does, after all, progress based on evidence. There does, however, seem to be a tendency for contrarians to appeal to the consensus as the reason their evidence gains no traction, rather than buckling down and amassing sufficient evidence to overturn the existing consensus and substitute their own.

    Like

  69. Carter also wrote a book called “Climate, the Counter Consensus”, by the way.

    Anyway, this 97% consensus thing is a load of BS. It has been debunked many times and the latest SkS paper is seriously flawed. You can find out yourself since I need to do some work as I am self-employed

    Like

  70. Talking about seriously flawed papers, Andy, you will just love this one I will refer to in a later comment. It’s a real doozy.

    Like

  71. I am of course referring to the brilliant paper ‘Quantifying the consensus on global warming in the literature’” by the well-known Nobel Prize Winner and consultant to the IPPC, Christopher Monckton of Brenchley, in that highly regard peer reviewed science journal “The Official blog of Australia’s (AEC registered) NO CARBON TAX Climate Sceptics party (NCTCS).”

    Bloody hell, the paper is so brilliant it even has 55 references in it – can’t ask for more than that!

    It’s a critical assessment of Cook’s paper and the data Cook used which shows you guys are just complete pussys.

    So much for Ron’s pathetic conclusion that “less than 1/3 of the papers support AGW” our hero finds only 0.3% do (he subtitles “0.3% CONSENSUS, NOT 97.1%”).

    Just shows what you can do with a classical education and a self-declared ability to manipulate differential equations.

    He has certainly left you guy’s in the shade, hasn’t he?

    Like

  72. Ken, I assume you will be providing a detailed post debunking these claims by Monckton?

    Like

  73. Also, note that Richard Tol calculated that the figure was 98% according to the methodology used by SkS, so they can’t even count.

    Like

  74. No, Andy, bit pointless isn’t it? I can form my own assessment of the relative preponderance of active “sceptics” amongst the climate science community just from my reading. Don’t need all this playing around with figures. Have not read either of these papers and don’t intend to.

    Like

  75. I object. Ken says, “Always amazes me that these self- employed people never seem to do a scrap of work.”

    I’ll have you know I’ve been working on scraps all day. I love scraps. :-)

    What’s you problem with scraps?????

    Like

  76. What do you rely on for income, though Ron?

    You seem to behave like one of these wasters I keep hearing about, you have so much time.

    Are you on a benefit?

    Like

  77. Ken said, “Don’t need all this playing around with figures. Have not read either of these papers and don’t intend to.”

    Ken, it tells! That. my friend, is how modern day science is done… Look around, find a crowd going somewhere, jump in front and claim. ‘Voila, we have a consensus, therefore it is!”

    I guess to add credibility, one creates a model… actually, a dozen models, to back up ones consensus, even though none of the models can predict what happened 10 minutes ago.

    Like

  78. Ken starts some investigative research, “Are you on a benefit?”

    No… are you? :-))

    Like

  79. Is that really necessary, Andy? Speaking from personal experience, I have to say that my default position is that any claim made by Monckton requires verification from independent sources. So if you can find somebody else who’s come up with the 0.3% figure, maybe we’ll talk.

    Like

  80. What is the source of you income, Ron? You don’t seem to do any work.

    Like

  81. 0.3% does stretch credibility a bit, but others have claimed figures in the 30% range. Given that some of the papers in the 97% part are written by people that SkS proclaim to be “deniers”, you have to wonder

    Like

  82. Just as a point of interest, Ron, would you care to back up that “this is how modern day science is done” comment with examples from other fields which you feel illustrate similar behaviour? You’ve expressed this belief in regards to fluoridation and climate change. Care to add anything else to your list?

    Like

  83. Chris, the scaremongering Pandemic Industry would be another good example…

    Like

  84. Here’s a classic example of David Copperfield style science.

    Note false header, given credibility by an infographic relating to someone else’s research, and then a false summary to their own research.

    http://www.gci.uq.edu.au/news/its-official-scientists-agree-global-warming-is-man-made

    Like

  85. Keep going. You’ve basically tarred all scientists equally with that brush, I would have hoped you’d be able to list more than three examples.

    Like

  86. Oh, Ron, you are back. I thought you conscience was playing up – but I suppose you were having afternoon tea and a wee snooze after a torid days work.

    I repeat:

    “What is the source of you income, Ron? You don’t seem to do any work.”

    Like

  87. Anyway, this 97% consensus thing is a load of BS. It has been debunked many times and the latest SkS paper is seriously flawed. You can find out yourself since I need to do some work as I am self-employed.
    (Andy waves his hands furiously and beats a hasty exit)

    That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

    If you want to claim that “this 97% consensus thing is a load of BS” then that’s something you need to demonstrate.
    Plus you should contact NASA about it. They seem to think it’s legit.

    So the choice is to go with NASA and what they say on their website about the 97%…or…to go with some guy assuring us that it’s BS.
    Hmmm.
    Whom to believe? Yep, it’s a tough one.
    Creationists argue this way too.

    Like

  88. I was referring to the skeptical science paper, as it happens

    Like

  89. Ah, NASA… strange how their lead evidence is a paper by a student.

    This is the paper that got the headlines… and the press release would have done david copperfield proud.

    Note false header, given credibility by an infographic relating to someone else’s research, and then a false summary to their own research.

    http://www.gci.uq.edu.au/news/its-official-scientists-agree-global-warming-is-man-made

    Then this is this totally false graphic…

    Like

  90. Should read, Then there is this totally false graphic…

    Like

  91. SkS included papers from the following sceptics in their 97% consensus

    Willie Soon, Craig Idso, Nicola Scafetta, Nir Shaviv, Nils-Axel Morner

    Like

  92. So, Ron, looks like you have something to hide, eh?

    Like

  93. 17/5/2013

    http://climatestate.com/2013/05/17/ninety-seven-percent-of-scientists-agree-climate-change-is-real-man-made-and-dangerous/

    in particular…

    Totally false… then, after they get the headlines they change the graphic with no fanfare…

    Like

  94. Obama tweets that warming is dangerous, but the study didn’t conclude that, neither does the graphic state that.

    This is the key problem here. Most sceptics also agree that co2 causes some warming, it is the degree and whether it is dangerous.

    Like

  95. Come off it, Andy. Your mates switch from one view to another. Richard Cummings, poor soul, for example claims to have proved our fundamental understanding of greenhouse gases is dead wrong. CO2 doesn’t increase heat retention because there has been no temperature increase in the last 17 years despite CO2 increasing.

    And of course anyone who accepts the fundamental understanding of these gases is childishly ridiculed. You do it yourself.

    Like

  96. And of course anyone who accepts the fundamental understanding of these gases is childishly ridiculed. You do it yourself.

    No I don’t

    Feel free to make anything else up about me, Ken?

    Like

  97. For the record, Ken, I am quite happy to ridicule alarmist statements like that made by Obama, who seems to think the planet will “boil over” if we don’t do something about GHG emissions

    This is somewhat different to making more measured statements about the properties of greenhouse gases

    Like

  98. There you go, Andy. Your treatment of Obama is one of ridicule.

    Like

  99. And, Andy, look at the way you and your mates froth at the mouth and go into ridicule mode when the name Michael Mann is mentioned.

    Like

  100. Obama deserves to be ridiculed if he thinks the planet will “boil over”.

    And as for Michael Mann, he might be the last man standing in the shootout at the Hockey Stick Corral.

    Even Briffa has removed the hockey stick from his Yamal reconstruction., but you knew that didn’t you?

    Like

  101. Ken, if you read Andy’s comment, he was ridiculing the statement.

    By the way, the old sweat/perspire adage comes into play here… if you don’t froth at the mouth when names like Carter or Monkton are mentioned, what is all that white foamy stuff around your lips??? :-)

    Like

  102. I see the underemployed are out in force again today. Where do you guys get your income? How do you finance such a lifestyle?

    Andy – your reaction to both Obama and Mann shows how unreasonable you are. They are both people worthy of respect – and they do get it from those who understand the issue (well, actually Mann more than Obama – who is after all a politician).

    As for Mad Monckton – well you can see how many people just treat him as a joke – for good reason. I mean – to claim that only 0.35% of climate scientists accept the overview of the IPCC on climate change and its causes – bloody pathetic. And that is just a typical example.

    Now that is a case where ridicule is justified.

    As for carter – never read any of his books so can’t comment. But look at how he was the chief witness for the local climate denial/contrarian/pseudosceptic group attempt to reverse NIWA’s finding in court – doesn’t exactly recommend him as sensible, does it?

    By the way, how is the repayment of NIWA’s expenses going? You guys seem to go very quiet when the issue comes up.

    Like

  103. Ken, for the record, I’m not a believer or a non-believer.

    When I see Wall Street relocating or building fortresses to prevent inundation of their share-pits then I’ll start taking things seriously.

    When I see large corporates such as the ASB and (in planning stage) Fonterra move their corporate headquarters into precincts that are destined to be under several metres of water as the Antarctic ice shelve melt I scratch my head and ask, why would they do that if they were concerned about the claimed catastrophic effects of global warming?

    When I read, and have been reading for several years, that the Arctic Ice is going to be melted by 2015, I wonder what more I can do… isn’t replanting/restoring 20,000 native plants enough for one person to do?

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/earth-insight/2013/may/02/white-house-arctic-ice-death-spiral

    So I think I’ll just wait a couple of years and see if the Arctic Ice is still there… now don’t get me wrong… I’m no rocket scientist on things like this, but if I were a betting man I know where I’d be placing my bets.

    If the ice has melted, as all the kings scientists and all the kings men are predicting, then I’ll become a believer… if not, then I guess I’ll just enjoy the holidays at the rent-a-bach.

    Like

  104. “I see the underemployed are out in force again today. Where do you guys get your income? How do you finance such a lifestyle? ”

    and you, Ken?

    Like

  105. I guess I need to learn to respect our glorious leaders more.
    Maybe I should make a US flag with pictures of Obama and Mann on it, and wave it in the street singing “God Bless America”

    Like

  106. You know, Andy, it is possible to have a middle-ground whereby you disagree with somebody’s views while still according them a modicum of respect.

    On Monckton, I have to say that he comes across as rather on the crazy side independent of what he has to say on climate. He has after all stated that, among other things, he believes the UN is secretly (or perhaps openly) plotting to herd us all into concentration camps and sterilise us with vaccines.

    Personally, it would take some pretty damn awful behaviour for me to compare anybody to Monckton. Bob Carter doesn’t come remotely close.

    Like

  107. I’ve never heard Monckton say anything about concentration camps and sterilisation, not in the literal sense anyway

    He might have been using some rhetorical techniques unknown to the man in the street, of which I am sure there are obscure Latin phrase that describes them

    Like

  108. Suddenly we hear the “not in the literal sense anyway” argument. Now care to apply that to your claimed Obama’s “boiling over?”

    Andy, you biases are showing.

    As for the respected scientist Mann – I did detect some frothing. Definitely..

    Like

  109. I guess spying on citizens via PRISM and bombing civilians with drone aircraft requires some pretty huge respect.

    Like

  110. “respected scientist Mann”

    by you maybe. Not so much his fellow climate scientists. Richard Muller for example

    Like

  111. Hang on Ken, SkS release a report that shows “97% of scientists endorse AGW”. Then Obama makes an assertion that “97% of scientists endorse AGW and it’s dangerous”

    Where did the “dangerous” come from?

    Is it because he is respected he can make it up?

    Like

  112. Andy, it may well turn out to be dangerous if indeed 97% of scientists do endorse AGW.

    It’s like endorsing political parties… so, 97% of scientists support AGW? Why would anyone do that? Crazy… nutters… !!!

    Like

  113. Andy, as well as frothing you are flailing around. Mann certainly does have respect from the scientific community. He continues to publish and his papers get accepted. His critics don’t have that respect – in fact Wegman has reviewed quite a bit of condemnation fir his plagiarism and that if his students..

    Meanwhile you and your mates continue to bad mouth Mann and circulate stupid myths about his work.

    It’s pathetic.

    Like

  114. Having attended one of Monckton’s talks, it sounded pretty darn literal to me. There was also talk of how evil Bill Gates is. What with his plan to reduce the world’s population by killing them off with vaccines and all.

    Like

  115. Was there any mention of Chemtrails and HAARP?
    Those guys are pretty batty

    Like

  116. By the way, Bill Gates is evil – Windows 8 is his secret plan to destroy humanity by getting us addicted to the Start Menu and then removing it from us
    (even if he doesn’t work there full time, he still has influence on the company)

    And then look at Balmer – what a nutter

    Like

  117. Let it all come out, Andy. You will feel better afterwards.

    Like

  118. Ron, I am sure you are aware that, when people say they endorse AGW, they mean they endorse the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming as the theory which best fits our observations of the world.

    As opposed to throwing their votes behind warming the planet, as you would have it in your attempt at ridicule.

    Like

  119. Ken, take a look at Balmer and compare to the softer tones of “Mad Monckton”

    Like

  120. While it is possible that Monckton subscribes to the conspiracy theories about chemtrails or HAARP, he did not include them in the content of his talk. I suppose we should give him the benefit of the doubt, barring some evidence one way or another.

    Like

  121. Ron, I am sure you are aware that, when people say they endorse AGW, they mean they endorse the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming as the theory which best fits our observations of the world.

    It doesn’t though. In fact, Hans von Storch recently stated that if we have another 5 years of no warming, we will have to completely revisit the models as no modelled scenarios have 22 years without any measurable warming in the atmospheric temps.

    Like

  122. Ken, you didn’t mention Moncktons “one-time call for AIDs sufferers to be segregrated from the healthy population.”

    http://openparachute.wordpress.com/2013/04/04/i-was-wrong-about-lord-monckton/

    But wait, did he really say that?… well, in January 1987 edition of The American Spectator, (Vol. 020 Issue 001 (January 1 1987)) he wrote a letter “AIDS: A British View,” regarding responses of governments and public agencies to the threat to mankind from the rapid spread of AIDS and its related diseases…

    One aspect of what he said was, “there is only one way to stop AIDS. That is to screen the entire population regularly and to quarantine all carriers of the disease for life.”

    In 1987, I suspect that was the only way to stop the spread of AIDS… many actually advocated quarantine, and indeed it was practiced in certain cases.

    Today, with ?40 million infected with HIV it would obviously be impossible to do…

    Back in the 80’s many practices were scandalous compared to today. Hep C in donated blood is a classic example.

    Like

  123. Chris B. I’ve planted 20,000 native plants in restoration programmes and project managed the planting of another 100,000 or so… what has been your contribution to leaving the planet a better place?

    Like

  124. I’m aware you don’t believe that, Andy. But this is what people mean when they say they endorse AGW.

    Like

  125. Chris said, “Ron, I am sure you are aware that, when people say they endorse AGW, they mean they endorse the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming as the theory which best fits our observations of the world. ”

    Ah, so they don’t really know… they just going with a ‘best fit.’

    Some people, like myself, look at these doomsday claims and apply some degree of reality check and ask the question, Has the sea level really risen in Tuvalu and not neighbouring islands to cause inundation? Or have the atols sunk?

    If Wall Street is going to be inundated with rising sea levels, where are the plans to move to higher ground???

    Like

  126. Re the Chemtrails people – they supported Monckton in coming to NZ but turned against him when he refused to endorse their madness.

    Currently they are supporting and promoting the anti- fluoridation campaigners. Helped organise and publicise the recent Auckland meeting.

    Like

  127. Chris, will they still “endorse” AGW in 5 years time when it has failed all verification tests? (Maybe)

    Like

  128. But, Andy, you “endorsed AGW” just a few comments back. It was just that you think (or perhaps hope) that the greenhouse gases will have a slightly smaller effect that current science estimates.

    Are you chopping and changing? Flip flopping?

    Like

  129. I didn’t “Endorse” AGW. AGW implies that a small change in the GHG forcing will cause a measurable (and potentially dangerous) amount of warming

    The two are not the same thing

    Like

  130. (This of course is the problem with these 97% surveys. The definitions are so vague as to make the surveys useless)

    Like

  131. Andy I quote:

    “Most sceptics also agree that co2 causes some warming, it is the degree and whether it is dangerous.”

    Seems to be the current position of most climate scientists is that CO2 is one pf the factors causing warming and that human activity (fossil fuel burning) is very likely to be the cause.

    As I said, you just come in at the lower end of this effect compared with the current understanding if climate scientists. Simply a matter of degree. In contrast to your mate Cummings who claims to have proved our understanding if the fundamental properties of greenhouse gases wrt to IR us wring.

    But then you flip flop. You aren’t a supporter if Key, are you?

    Like

  132. Yes, Andy, vague enough to go from 97% to 0.34%!

    Reminds me if those characters who “proved” the existence of their god using Bayesian stats and got something like 97% probability. Another group did the same thing and got 0.7%!

    Like

  133. Maybe Ken could explain what the AGW theory actually is, in quantitative terms, and what would disprove it.

    Like

  134. AGW theory is not a term I use, Andy. Too vague.

    But if Cummings wants to prove that the fundamental properties of greenhouse gases have changed its simple enough to measure the IR absorption spectrum. If they no longer absorb IR then he has proved science wrong. All from tapping away on a keyboard, copying and pasting, in his basement.

    He could then expect to get a phone call from Stockholm.

    Like

  135. Ron, I’m not entirely sure what you hope to accomplish by digging up further silly things Monckton has said. I did track down the original article, which somebody has helpfully put up, and if you would care to defend Monckton on this one, you should perhaps do so after reading the entire thing.

    http://www.ethiopianreview.com/articles/85529

    Further, why exactly are you trying to play the Holier Than Thou card? I don’t see how the question of who has done more environmental work is relevant to who is correct about science. I certainly don’t recall trying to lord any environmental credentials over you, nor to infer that not believing in global warming somehow makes you an immoral or anti-environmental person.

    (for the record, the answer is “I have contributed a decent amount of environmental volunteer work, though probably not as much as you, considering I suspect you have a fair number of years on me. I have no burning desire to keep count of the number of trees I have planted, especially not as something to lord over people on the internet.”)

    Like

  136. As to your derision of “best fit,” Ron, you may wish to retract that one. Even the best scientific theory, be it relativity, evolution, what have you, is in truth a coherent body of work which best approximates reality as we understand it. Any of these is subject to being modified, overturned or replaced if we come up with something which better explains our observations, or if those observations contradict the predictions of the theory.

    Like

  137. Actually, Chris, it’s not a bad read and in the context of 1987 was not too radical. He succinctly discusses the totalitarian/libertarian ethical issues… and in a sense reached the same position that Ken and other self-proclaimed skeptics take with fluoridation.

    You’ll note his conditional, ‘if a vast majority agreed…’ or words to that effect. I guess he would have had Ken’s backing for a binding referendum. If they had had those back in the day, then for sure, many communities would have done exactly what he proposed.

    Many public health officials quarantined otherwise healthy people simply because they thought they had a deadly flu virus as recently as 2009… remember? We had urgent epidemic legislation enabling the prime minister to declare such sinister public health practices.

    AIDS is an excellent example of how ‘vast majority’ of scientists scenarios got things wrong… and that wasn’t too long ago. remember the ‘if, not when’ influenza pandemic in 2009/2010 that killed far fewer people than a normal flu virus?

    Like

  138. It’s not ‘derision’ … it’s just that I thought the science was settled… now I find out it’s just a ‘best fit.’ ie, it’s not settled at all.

    Like

  139. Oh, and it’s now a theory… not fact.

    Like

  140. A theory so vague we cannot define it, yet based on this vague theory we can generate millions of dollars of research grants and claim that 97% of scientists vaguely agree with this vague theory. We can also vilify anyone who disagrees with our vague theory, even if they agree with it vaguely

    Like

  141. Andy, you are frothing again. I am getting the spittle even here.

    Like

  142. Please Ken, don’t share you fantasies with us. It is unbecoming

    Like

  143. It is, isn’t Andy?

    Like

  144. Ken, for the record, I’m not a believer or a non-believer.

    Either you accept what NASA and every single scientific community is trying to tell you or you don’t. It’s not a matter of belief. Science is not a religion. It works differently.

    When I see Wall Street relocating…

    So…NASA can say what it wants but you are waiting for Wall Street to do something…for some reason?
    That’s stupid. There’s no other way to describe it.

    ….why would they do that if they were concerned about the claimed catastrophic effects of global warming?

    Why would you care what they do?
    It’s the science that counts. The work. Science is the study of reality.

    When I read, and have been reading for several years, that the Arctic Ice is going to be melted by 2015…

    Clearly, you have not been looking at NASA and every single scientific community on the planet.

    … now don’t get me wrong… I’m no rocket scientist on things like this…

    Oh I don’t think there’s any danger of anyone mistaking you for a rocket scientist.
    On the other hand, plenty of rocket scientists at NASA.
    It’s a big part of what they do.

    http://climate.nasa.gov/

    Like

  145. Andy: Maybe Ken could explain what the AGW theory actually is, in quantitative terms, and what would disprove it.

    Ken: AGW theory is not a term I use, Andy. Too vague.

    Oddly enough, NASA takes the time to explain this one.
    (Hint. They have a website)

    A theory so vague we cannot define it…

    NASA doesn’t seem to think it’s ‘vague”. On their website, they spend quite some time going into the details and explaining their work over the many decades. That work is continuous.

    …we can generate millions of dollars of research grants…

    This is conspiracy thinking. The work that NASA and other scientific communities does, goes back decades. It’s not controlled by any one board doleing out grant money or any one nation or any one political party. You don’t get right-wing national governments coming to power, only to see the scientists change their tune on AGW to keep the money flowing. It doesn’t work like that. The peer-reviewed research has been consistantly growing in detail and depth and all in one general direction no matter how unpleasant the news might be or who’s in political power.

    What NASA is saying now is the same thing they said under LBJ and Reagan and Bush Senior and Bush Jnr. Only now they have more detailed records and better computers and satellites.

    Climate Science 1956: A Blast from the Past

    Like

  146. “Oh, and it’s now a theory… not fact.”

    Okay Ron, whenever somebody makes the comparison between “sceptical” attitudes towards global warming and evolution, I want you to look back at that sentence and think about whether they might have a point.

    “Evolution is not a fact. It’s only a theory.” Words creationists live by.

    Like

  147. Cedric, so you are a disciple of “You are either with us or you are with the terrorists.” And of cause, we all know the outcome of that moral blackmail…

    Why on earth does someone have to take a position on anything? Don’t we live in a democracy? Jeez, wayne, my father spent the best part of five years of his life in the Egyptian deserts fighting for our freedom of speech… are you saying that was in vane?

    Surely you are not saying we should accept authorities’ opinions just because they are in authority? If science was like that, which it shouldn’t be, then consensus would mean nothing ever changed. Real science is never a democracy.

    Like

  148. What’s AGW got to do with evolution/creation? I thought they were different topics. Are you suggesting there are two teams that back either this group of contentious issues or that group of contentious issues. Is that how high-science works…? Sounds more like politics to me.

    Like

  149. Oh, and it’s now a theory… not fact.

    Well, I’m embarrassed. Good catch, Chris. That will teach me to skim read.

    “Evolution is not a fact. It’s only a theory.” Words creationists live by.

    Indeed they do.

    What’s AGW got to do with evolution/creation? I thought they were different topics.

    Only the labels are different. The way people argue about them is the same.
    Your own words are a sweet, sweet, el primo example of this.

    Oh, and it’s now a theory… not fact.

    In this example, there’s no need for me to even switch the labels. It’s just perfect the way it is. We can use it for any science denial topic. An anti-vaxer could use it or a climate denier could use it or a creationist could use it.
    And they do…

    Claim CA201:
    Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact
    .

    Like

  150. Yes, Chris, good catch.

    But I don’t think Ron understands what he has done – poor soul.

    Like

  151. Cedric, it was Chris who called it a theory… not me!

    From my understanding of science, when a theory is proven, it becomes an established as fact… is the claim that the Arctic circle will fully melt within 2 years due to AGW a theory or a fact? Your call…

    Like

  152. Ken said, “But I don’t think…”

    Well said, Ken!! :-) You are spot on…

    Like

  153. No – Ron still doesn’t understand.

    Like

  154. Yes Ron, I did use the word theory, and that you went “aha! Not a fact!” speaks very badly of you. I suspect it would earn you the instant enmity of a great many biologists.

    Like

  155. Cedric, so you are a disciple of “You are either with us or you are with the terrorists.” And of cause, we all know the outcome of that moral blackmail…

    If you feel that I’m morally blackmailing you then feel free to quote me…but that’s not what I’m doing.
    Either represent my postion accurately or admit you are just engaging in building a strawman.

    Why on earth does someone have to take a position on anything?

    You don’t. Only if you have a position on something you should be willing to justify that position with evidence and be prepared to change your position to account for a better argument or evidence that may come along.

    Don’t we live in a democracy?

    Science is the study of reality. Reality is not decided by opinion poll.
    If you are diagnosed with cancer, it doesn’t care if you vote for it.

    Surely you are not saying we should accept authorities’ opinions just because they are in authority?

    No, of course not. I talk about NASA all the time. It’s not because they are just “an authority”. It’s because they do the work. They are pioneers in climate research and they have the tools and the technical know-how to study such a complicated field. It’s hard to come up with a better source of scientific information on climate change. I can look at their website and read about their conclusions in plain English. I can double check anything they say by going to any other scientific community from and of the physical sciences and read the same thing. I only need primary, scientific sources of information. I’d don’t get stuff second-hand from blogs.
    Ken’s blog is great, for example. I like being here. But I’d never just take Ken’s word on anything important like climate change and he would not expect me to.
    He might come up with a pithier expression or a more illustrative way to describe things but it’s only in support of the mainstream science. He’s not some lone, aging crack waving his fist in the air at the grand global scientific Marxist conspiracy or some such silliness.

    If science was like that, which it shouldn’t be, then consensus would mean nothing ever changed.

    The consensus has changed. It’s changeable. That’s a good thing. That’s how people win Nobel Prizes. Scientists are praised and rewarded for changing the consensus. Only you have to do the work. And there’s a LOT of work.
    Griping on a blog in an echo chamber nursing home lauching spurious court challenges and then losing does not come to the same thing.
    Once upon a time, climate change was not accepted. Then consensus changed.
    That happened the boring, old fashioned way. It had nothing to do with Al Gore. It had a lot to do with NASA and the U.S. Defense Department and other scientific bodies.

    Real science is never a democracy.

    Sure. It’s a meritocracy. Based on the work.
    That’s why there’s a global scientific consensus on climate change that encompasses every single scientific community on the planet and why there an overwhelming body of peer-reviewed literature from all the physical sciences using multiple, independent lines of evidence going back many decades.
    A scientific consensus is a result.
    You have to look good and hard as to how that result came about.

    Evolution and Global Warming Denialism: How the Public is Misled

    Like

  156. From my understanding of science, when a theory is proven, it becomes an established as fact…

    Let me help you with that.

    Science Works! Scientific Theory Explained

    Like

  157. Cedric rambles… “Science is the study of reality. Reality is not decided by opinion poll.”

    Hang on a minute… haven’t we been hearing about these 97% of scientists, and ‘the science is settled’ and there is no debate…????

    In this case, evangelists of climate change are hanging on the democratic vote of ‘97% of scientists.’

    You claim “Science is the study of reality.” Now, let’s think… “The Arctic sea ice will be melted by 2015.” Reality? Absolutely not. Maybe? We’ll know in two years, but I, an ignorant person who apparently knows nothing about the scientific method, very much doubt it. Is it speculation? Definitely… theory? yes… reality… pass the bucket.

    According to climate change evangelists, climate change is change attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and excludes natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods.

    According to ordinary people, such as myself, climate change is change attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere as well as natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods.

    But hang on a minute, it seems that scientists can’t make up their mind…;

    “Climate change in IPCC usage refers to a change in the state of the climate that can be identified (e.g. using statistical tests) by changes in the mean and/or the variability of its properties, and that persists for an extended period, typically decades or longer. It refers to any change in climate over time, whether due to natural variability or as a result of human activity. This usage differs from that in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), where climate change refers to a change of climate that is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and that is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods.”

    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/mains1.html

    And we have climate change evangelists come on here and claim that Science is the study of reality… This definition of science is unreal! Would the real definition of science please stand up????

    Like

  158. Would the real definition of climate change please stand up?

    Like

  159. Be careful Ron, keep fizzing and you might explode.

    Like

  160. Fizzing? FIZZING?… nah, just enjoying myself.

    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/mains1.html

    And we have climate change evangelists come on here and claim that Science is the study of reality… This definition of science is unreal!

    Would the real definition of science please stand up????

    Like

  161. Oh, I’m sorry Ron.
    Yes, the silly IPCC and UNFCCC. Making their use of terminology clear.

    It appears you work as Richard Treadgold does and only an official definition of climate change (or anything else) will do.

    With the Queen’s signature or without? (obviously the Surgeon General’s endorsement will be insufficient.)

    Like

  162. No, Ron. You have been banging on about the 97%, having brought up the topic in the first place, and the rest of us have largely ignored your efforts to discredit the idea of a consensus or to convince us that it’s not an accurate figure. Indeed, Ken has been quite clear that he does not approve of the word “settled” being used in regards to science.

    I said a while back that I was uninterested in endlessly arguing over a single paper, and that you could look into the matter for yourself and work out an appropriate figure for the degree of consensus if it was important to you. I’m more concerned with the evidence both sides have put forward in support of their ideas.

    So, as seems to be a habit with you, you have been arguing (though I’m not quite sure with whom, as you seem to have gotten no bites so far as I can see) an irrelevant point and trying to bootstrap it into your true goal – to convince us that the consensus viewpoint is wrong.

    None of us would dispute that science is not decided by consensus, but it’s generally a pretty good indicator of which side has, to date, presented the more convincing arguments.

    Nobody here would suggest that science is decided by consensus, nor that we should blindly defer to authority, but this does not mean that the consensus on a particular topic is wrong. Indeed, the consensus is generally a good indicator of which side has, to date, presented the more convincing arguments. As a practical matter, the onus is on the people seeking to overturn the consensus to provide evidence in support of their own favoured theory, though scientists will carry on working regardless, either building support for a theory or identifying issues with it.

    To the sceptic’s eye, unfortunately, the campaign against climate science tends to look more like an exercise in PR than any kind of scientific endeavour. Convincing, perhaps, to the casual observer such as yourself, rather less so to anybody who critically evaluates the evidence presented by both sides.

    And yes, considering that rather large gaffe regarding scientific theories, I’m afraid I have to rate you as a casual observer on this, and probably any other topic on which you might venture an opinion in future.

    With that in mind, a suitable primer on the topic for the layperson might be Poles Apart, written from a neutral perspective by Gareth Morgan and John McCrystal.

    Have a look through, check some of their references, and then get back to us if you have questions.

    Like

  163. Blah. I see I have a duplicate sentence included above. Probably an indication that it’s time to call it a night.

    A final point, however: The prediction that we might see an ice-free arctic by 2015 would properly be referred to as a hypothesis. In and of itself, whether or not this prediction proves accurate is not going to prove or disprove global warming, though it will certainly lead to refinement of whatever set of models was used to suggest that possibility.

    While I don’t recall that I’ve seen the source of that particular hypothesis, I would hazard a guess that it’s a lower bound figure, rather than an upper bound for when we might expect the arctic to be ice-free. You might want to check out what, if any, upper bound figure climate scientists favour before declaring when global warming will be disproven once and for all. Particularly considering the amount of short-term variability in play.

    Like

  164. Ron, you don’t seem to understand the meaning of the word “theory” as it’s used by scientists.
    Nor do you seem to understand the significance of a scientific consensus.

    There’s a scientific consensus on gravity.
    And the moon landings.
    And Evolution.
    And the safety of vaccines etc.
    Climate change is in the same catagory.

    It’s NASA and every single scientific community on the planet.
    That’s easily verifiable.
    Scientific communities have their own websites and more than a few have issued their position on climate change in plain English.
    That’s just the way it is.

    Now you can ignore what NASA and every single scientific community on the planet is trying to tell you but…you have to have a really, really good reason to do so. One that doesn’t make you sound like a complete nutter.

    That Mitchell and Webb Look – landing on the Moon

    Like

  165. How can scientists expect ordinary citizens to take their “scary theory” seriously when they themselves use two different definitions to describe the same thing?

    “Climate change in IPCC usage refers to a change in the state of the climate that can be identified (e.g. using statistical tests) by changes in the mean and/or the variability of its properties, and that persists for an extended period, typically decades or longer. It refers to any change in climate over time, whether due to natural variability or as a result of human activity. This usage differs from that in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), where climate change refers to a change of climate that is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and that is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods.”

    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/mains1.html

    No one in their right mind would agree with the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) definition… but isn’t that the one 195 countries have signed up to?

    If scientists want their position to be taken seriously then they need to sharpen their communication skills.

    Like

  166. Ron is correct that the UNFCCC and the IPCC use a different definition of climate change, which is a slight problem because the UNFCCC is effectively the customer of the IPCC.

    This point was brought up in Roger Pielke Jrs book The Climate Fix

    Like

  167. I see the underemployed got out of bed a bit earlier this morning.

    What do you guys rely on for your income?

    Like

  168. I am in the pay of Big Oil, Ken

    Like

  169. Ken, I’m a disciple of the ‘work smarter, not harder’ school of thought. I can multi-task… So far this morning I’ve discussed/done the following with/for clients:

    fixing a crack in a concrete driveway that Council says needs fixing… outcome of that is Council have said they can fill the crack with silicone. Personally I’d advised filling it with a grout of some kind that would soak into and seal the crack, but the Council engineer said silicon will do;

    building a block of residential dwellings in an industrial zone using shipping containers… outcome I’m meeting with Council’s town planners next week;

    approved final survey plans for a 3-lot subdivision so the surveyor can submit s223 application for approval;

    assessed final new planted area for s224c purposes.

    Have also caught up with the news, made/had breakfast, including home made cappuccino…

    Are you out of bed yet?

    Like

  170. So, Cedric, Ken, Chris, do you agree with the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) definition of climate change where the term “climate change” means a change of climate that is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and excludes natural climate change observed over comparable time periods?

    Yes or No?

    Like

  171. So, Ron, you pad your invoices to cover the time spent Poisoning the well with a caricature of science, do you? (http://openparachute.wordpress.com/2013/06/27/poisoning-the-well-with-a-caricature-of-science/).

    By the way, current science indicates that multitasking is a myth

    Like

  172. Ken, maybe you could set up a timesheeting system on your blog so that we can deduct time spent commenting on your blog from other tasks.

    Of course this wouldn’t have to apply to public sector workers

    Like

  173. Andy, you know as well as I do that when you are not commenting here, you are commenting elsewhere. You see it as your ideological duty.

    Actually, we should be putting to you the same question we have put to Ron – why don’t you establish your own blog? I have noticed in the past that some frequent commenters here have become very capable bloggers, thereby satisfying their needs. Downside, it reduces activity on my blog (yes even you and Ron contribute to raising the value of my blog by your influence on the statistics), but if does actually improve the atmosphere.

    Like

  174. Forgot to add, Andy, how many clients have you satisfied during your multi-tasking this morning? Can you match Ron’s performance?

    Like

  175. Ken, I wish! I’m not a fan of padding invoices. Most of my work is on fixed fee terms… on that basis there are no surprises… I despise rorting… saw enough of that in my university lecturing days.

    So, science is so real that there is now a term, “current science…” Why? Does it keep changing its mind?

    I note you side step the question, do you agree with the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) definition of climate change where the term “climate change” means a change of climate that is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and excludes natural climate change observed over comparable time periods?

    Yes or No?

    Like

  176. Just the one Ken. Had a fruitful Skype session with the UK, then onto some follow up work.

    I had thought about creating my own blog. Probably not about climate change since I am a bit over that now.

    If you want us to piss off that is fine. Just say the word.

    Like

  177. No, for Christ’s sake don’t piss off, Andy. I can do with the visit and page view numbers inflation you cause.

    But, still, if you have something of substance to say a blog is the way to do it. Comments get very little notice and commenters, rather than the blogger, tend to be considered the crank.

    Like

  178. By the way, Ken, I am flattered that you follow the entire Internet and index all the comments I make.

    Are you a friend of Edward Snowden by any chance?

    Like

  179. But, a relevant point for Ron and Andy. When I was working, and it was for a crown research institute, I never had time for this sort of interaction on blogs or forums. There was always far too much work and too little time. And it is very noticeable that working scientists very rarely comment on blogs here – for the same reason. They are always so busy.

    But the self employed – that’s another sorry. Either their heart is not in their formal employment or they are just not getting the contracts. But they certainly seem to have the time.

    Like

  180. I am interested that you find my comments worthless Ken.
    Did you enjoy the one about The Climate Fix? It is a good book full of numbers.

    Of course, I could become. Warmist troll, braying about my solar panels and how stupid the deniers are,

    I love warmist trolls, especially ones that publish my contact details without my permission and make threats against me and my family.

    I find there are quite a lot of this type of people on the Internet.

    Anyway, I have do do some work now. I am currently multitasking by writing this and taking a dump at the same time.

    Like

  181. Ken, I note you side step the question, do you agree with the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) definition of climate change where the term “climate change” means a change of climate that is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and excludes natural climate change observed over comparable time periods?

    Yes or No?

    Like

  182. Speaking of multitasking, I see respected scientist Michael Mann is pretty adept, since he can write papers, tweet, ban people from Facebook and issue lawsuits against people all at the same time

    Like

  183. No, never saw that comment, Andy.

    But surely a comment is a strange place for a book review? That’s why you need you own blog if you are into that sort of writing.

    Like

  184. You didn’t see the comment?
    How about this Ken?

    Andy | July 4, 2013 at 8:11 am |

    Ron is correct that the UNFCCC and the IPCC use a different definition of climate change, which is a slight problem because the UNFCCC is effectively the customer of the IPCC.

    This point was brought up in Roger Pielke Jrs book The Climate Fix

    Ken | July 4, 2013 at 8:34 am |

    I see the underemployed got out of bed a bit earlier this morning.

    What do you guys rely on for your income?

    Like

  185. No, didn’t see it, Andy.

    I do have to be selective in what discussions I get into and that does seem to be a very boring and anti-science obsessed one which is going nowhere.

    And, yes, today is another chemotherapy day so please excuse me if my priorities don’t include such frivolities. I don’t have Ron’s self proclaimed “multiple-tasking skills.”

    Like

  186. You didn’t see it? You replied to it!

    I don’t see how discussing the IPCC and the UNFCCC defintion of climate change is anti-science, but I do agree it is very boring, like most climate change related topics.

    Like

  187. Andy, you can be pretty sure any triviality Ron is promoting is to pursue an anti-science agenda. Look at the way he squirmed because he didn’t have the courage to criticise FANNZ for misrepresenting publications in their citing..

    But I can’t remember replying to you on this issue – it doesn’t interest me. It’s a non-issue, surely.

    Like

  188. Ken, you keep avoiding this…

    Do you agree with the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) definition of climate change where the term “climate change” means a change of climate that is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and excludes natural climate change observed over comparable time periods?

    Yes or No?

    You see, I doubt anyone outside of a those with vested interests would agree with such an unscientific definition, and yet the UNFCCC is THE authority on this.

    If the definition is so flawed, what about the rest of their work?

    I would like to know if 97 percent of scientists agreed with this definition… I doubt whether many would… but it’s been their definition for 2 decades or so.

    Only a denialist would deny that it is a fatally flawed definition.

    Ken, are you a denialist? Yes, or no?

    Like

  189. Ron, I am not interested in your questions. You lost any credibility you might have had on such matters when you refused to answer a simple question on the way the anti-fluoridation activists are dishonestly using citations to misrepresent the science.

    I repeat, you don’t have the credibility for me to enter into any serious discussion with you.

    And I am not interested.

    There are far more important things in life.

    Like

  190. LOL… Ken, you have such a fettish with me giving you an answer on such a trivial issue as misrepresenting an abstract in a paper that didn’t show any statistical benefits from drinking fluoridated water.

    So much so that you refuse to answer the legitimate and important question:

    Do you agree with the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) definition of climate change where the term “climate change” means a change of climate that is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and excludes natural climate change observed over comparable time periods?

    It’s not my credibility at stake… if it were, do you think I’d bother entertaining myself with such meaningless blog discussions? I mean, do you think either of us are going to change the speed of the Earth’s rotation?

    I acknowledge that it would be embarrassing for you to answer the question about the UNFCCC.

    A “No” answer would obviously get you off-side with your ‘scary prophecy’ mates by acknowledging that the UNFCCC’s definition was unscientific and fatally flawed, while a “Yes” answer would be like committing scientific blasphemy in that whilst you would be defending your cult’s religious leader, you would be prostituting your personal scientific values. So I understand if you are too ashamed to answer.

    Like

  191. Not interested Ron.

    Like

  192. I gather… it’s a really, really embarrassing place to be, Ken… Damned if you do, Damned if you don’t.

    But you have to admit the UNFCCC definition is a teenie weenie bit unscientific, don’t you!

    Like

  193. No, not at all interested, Ron.

    Why don’t you service one of your many clients if you have so much time on your hands. I am off to the hospital again.

    Like

  194. Ron, I see you have missed some incredibly important words from your little quotation: “Definitions For the purposes of this convention”

    http://unfccc.int/essential_background/convention/background/items/2536.php

    Now, this is very common in such documents, which will specifically define, for clarity, key terms as they are being used in the document. Such definitions hold only when reading that particular document, and do not always match the general, commonly used definitions one might find in a dictionary or amongst the scientific community.

    This is very common in, for instance, legislation, where precision of meaning is very important, and we need to be sure readers or users are not applying their own definitions, at odds with the writers’ intended meaning. Note, for example, that the UNFCC’s definition of ‘reservoir’ is also specific to the document and at odds with what we would find in a dictionary.

    So. Please do not expect anybody to agree with this particular definition of climate change. Whilst I think I can see why climate change was defined in this way for the purposes of this specific document, that definition is not meant to apply, and should not be applied, outside it.

    You may have more luck demanding people agree to the IPCC’s definition, which seems closer to what scientists would say. They are well aware of the definition used for the purposes of the UNFCC, and note the differences between the two.

    http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/518.htm

    Like

  195. Chris, I’m totally aware of the different settings… and hence the posting of the contradictions… it’s deliberate, otherwise it would have been acknowledged as a mistake and changed two decades ago.

    Climate change (FCCC usage)
    A change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods.

    Climate change (IPCC usage)
    Climate change as referred to in the observational record of climate occurs because of internal changes within the climate system or in the interaction between its components, or because of changes in external forcing either for natural reasons or because of human activities. It is generally not possible clearly to make attribution between these causes. Projections of future climate change reported by IPCC generally consider only the influence on climate of anthropogenic increases in greenhouse gases and other human-related factors.

    http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/glossary/ipcc-glossary.pdf (1994)

    Note that the scientific community (IPCC) had to distance itself from the political community (UNFCCC). But did it?

    So you are saying it’s OK for the political wing to redefine the term to suits it’s purpose… Joe Bloggs in the street knows that climate changes all he time… even before human activity… so the politicians are hoodwinked into using/adopting an ill-defined term. Why?

    Maybe the scientist advisers set it up that way deliberately…

    Why didn’t they just refer to Anthropogenic CC… aka AGW. That would have been just as technical, meaningful and honest.

    By obfuscating the normal use of the term and using different definitions it means when a scientist and a politician are speaking, they are speaking different languages… they are talking past each other.

    A scientist says, for example, that the sea level rose 30cm last century, the politician, operating under the convention, interprets that, “F%$K, Human activity cause a 30cm rise in sea levels…!

    The scientist never said any such thing.

    Therefore, having the double-speak means the scientist sleeps well at night knowing she has spoke the truth, but sleeps with a smile on her face knowing the politician interpreted her message incorrectly.

    How honest is that?

    If the whole point of the UNFCCC is to give political traction to the IPCC one can understand it. Which came first… The chicken or the egg.

    The IPCC definition is clearly correct. The term the UNFCCC should be using is ACC or AGW.

    Like

  196. Chris, you say, “You may have more luck demanding people agree to the IPCC’s definition, which seems closer to what scientists would say. They are well aware of the definition used for the purposes of the UNFCC, and note the differences between the two.

    http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/518.htm

    What they are actually doing is stating that the UNFCCC definition is scientifically false and they are ignoring the UNFCCC definition for the sake of their credibility

    Like

  197. Ron, In all honesty, I’m uninterested in your fallback position.

    If you expected us to consider that argument, you should have been up-front about it. None of this “yes or no!” nonsense. You should have explained how it is possible for the two bodies to produce different definitions, and why you feel that is dishonest.

    I should not be able, in a civilised discussion, to complain that you are leaving out key details from your carefully selected quotation. I should not have to waste my time explaining to you, in clear and simple terms, things you are now trying to tell me you already knew.

    I am certainly not going to waste further time trying to match you paragraph for paragraph. You do, for whatever reason, seem to have far more time available to you than I do. I will simply note that I see no improvement in the quality of your arguments which would warrant further attention.

    Like

  198. In other words, Chris, you do not have a rational scientific explanation.

    I understand it must be difficult for you to swallow, but how can ordinary citizens, like me, be expected to believe this or that argument when what we hear spoken by our politicians and scientists are at cross purposes?

    I was up front… I pointed out the differences in definitions… this isn’t a PhD dissertation on the morality of scientific methodology, but it sure would make a good research topic.

    Dishonest and misleading science is wrong whether packaged in science speak or politic speak.

    This response took me 1 minute 25 seconds… a nice distraction from more mundane activities such as correcting surveyors calculations.

    Like

  199. Good Ron, I am glad that you are keeping track of time.
    This response took me 25 seconds. I will work 25 seconds longer at the end of the day to make up the lost time

    Like

  200. Andy, this response to your response to my response is being done while I wait for the jug to boil so I can have a cuppa. No char lady when one works from home, I’m afraid. It has taken the time that it has taken the jug to raise the temperature of the water 3.9 degrees Celsius. So I have a few more minutes to have a dump and whatever…

    Like

  201. Come off it, Ron, you have been dumping all day..

    Still marvel though at how little time you guys actually wok, and how little intellectual effort you devote to it. We just didn’t have that luxury when I was working for a CRI. Mind you our research was intellectually absorbing and demanding.

    Like

  202. I do intellectually absorbing work for “Big Oil”
    I can respond to comments whilst sitting on the blog or waiting for the jug to boil

    Like

  203. Freudian slip. Sitting on the blog should read sitting on the bog

    Note to use hand-wipes when using the iPad

    Like

  204. And therein lies the problem, Ron. You are apparently quite capable of rattling off whatever glib nonsense you feel like, in a very short amount of time, whereas I will actually go away, check facts, and get some context for both your claims and what the real situation is. It’s not the typing, it’s the preparation which goes into the typing. This may well explain why you appear to have so much more time that I do.

    A brief glance at everybody’s word count ought to show that you produce a hell of a lot more typing than I do, for which there are two possible explanations:

    1) You have more spare time than I do.
    2) I put more thought and effort into my posts.

    I tend to suspect the answer is a combination of the two.

    Like

  205. Chris, therein lies the problem with modern critical thinking… could be lots of other factors…

    1. You can’t type very well
    2. You are not interested
    3. You are bogging else where
    4. You are slow of thought
    5. You are… whatever.

    I put in the amount of thought that a topic deserves. Sometimes you don’t have to analyse a dunny to conclude that it stinks.

    So you think the UNFCCC definition is a non-sense too… good answer.

    Like

  206. Insert missing ‘l’ :-)

    Like

  207. I think we’re done, Ron. If we’ve been reduced to arguing about who has more time on their hands and why, I think we can conclude that discussion of any topic on its merits has long since ceased.

    Like

  208. So I take it you avoiding the question and agree that what the IPCC are actually doing is stating that the UNFCCC definition is scientifically false and they are ignoring the UNFCCC definition for the sake of their credibility.

    Like

  209. Ron, you’re attempting to convince me of a conspiracy theory. Don’t you think you’re going to have to do a bit better than rampant speculation as to peoples’ motivations?

    Like

  210. I don’t see what Ron’s problem is.

    “IPCC are actually doing is stating that the UNFCCC definition is scientifically false”

    Where does the IPCC say this? From the quote you gave, they don’t mention falsehood at all.

    “…they are ignoring the UNFCCC definition…”

    What evidence do you have for this?

    …when a scientist and a politician are speaking, they are speaking different languages… they are talking past each other.

    Well, if that’s what you think is happening then all you have to do is ignore the politicians and go straight to the scientific community.
    Easy fix.
    NASA is a good start.

    NASA | Earth Climate Change From Orbit [HD]

    Like

Leave a Reply: please be polite to other commenters & no ad hominems.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s