Step Into the Climate Time Machine
A “reformed climate skeptic” has just published an intriguing book, titled Deep Future, which this article calls
the long, long view on climate change.
I find the book’s purpose fascinating, given that we can’t see our way to thinking several decades ahead, much less thousands of years into the future. Still, I welcome this new dimension to the climate debate.
Umm.. it left me laughing. This is what is called “witnessing”.
After decades of being subjected to EXACTLY the same in my Christian family and community, I’m startled by the similarity of “witnessing” format, and I chuckle at the rarity of instance and the clear celebration of the occasion – that someone was “converted” is so notable, they felt it significant enough to record on video.
What’s being witnessed is the birth of a religion. There’s a whole load of problems that even I can see with the summary of Curt’s latest study – dependence on climate models and stupid statements like:
“I’m a reformed climate skeptic,” Stager says. “The only thing that is increasing now that should be making temperatures go up is greenhouse gases “¦ and we’re the ones releasing most of those greenhouse gases.”
Except we’re not, and I find it, frankly, gobsmacking to hear a PhD state that we are. But then he’s “witnessing” for climate alarmism, so all is explained. Stupid.
Simon, don’t forget, the guy has to try and sell his book. Read the blurb, and laugh or puke.
I particularly like the bit where he says it’s the events of the last decade that have convinced him (when the temperature hasn’t risen at all).
@1 Simon Hopkinson:
This is what is called “witnessing”.
…
What’s being witnessed is the birth of a religion.
Interesting, Simon. In your mind, how would someone distinguish between a genuine change from skeptic to inline with the mainstream based upon an examination of the evidence, versus your proposed “religious conversion” take?
Except we’re not, and I find it, frankly, gobsmacking to hear a PhD state that we are.
What do you mean by this? I read his statement to mean that humans are responsible for most of the recent increase in GHGs. I didn’t think this was something that “skeptics” were still denying. Can you elaborate?
tb, I read “we’re the ones releasing most of those greenhouse gases.” to mean “we’re the ones releasing most of those greenhouse gases.” How else does one interpret the words “we’re the ones releasing most of those greenhouse gases.”?
http://www.cartoonsbyjosh.com/nursing_the_statistics2.jpg
@4 Simon Hopkinson:
Absent anthropogenic emissions, though, GHGs wouldn’t be rising. The context of his statement in reference to potential drivers of recent warming (as opposed to the relative sizes of natural vs. anthropogenic emissions) is pretty hard to miss.
It worries me greatly that such a relatively uncontroversial point such as this can be so easily misinterpreted.
“Absent anthropogenic emissions, though, GHGs wouldn’t be rising.”
Do you have any evidence for this?
To me, it sounds just like another “not even wrong” uncontroversial consensus point.
We can’t say for certain that GHGs wouldn’t be rising, and the C13/C12 ratio human signature claimed does not withstand examination of detrended Mauna Loa data.
I do not generaly re-post, but with this I will make an exception
Nothing changes
love these headlines
Cartoon that summarizes the historical reporting
http://bit.ly/aVQyxO
For the global cooling from 1880s to 1910s, the headline in The New York Times on 24-Feb-1895 was PROSPECTS OF ANOTHER GLACIAL PERIOD
http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?_r=2&res=9F02E1D8163CE433A25757C2A9649C94649ED7CF
Opening this one is worth it for the temp graph alone
For the global cooling from 1940s to 1970s, the headline in Newsweek on 28-April-1975 was THE COOLING WORLD.
http://bit.ly/X403E
Simon, we can’t say many things for certain, but how do you explain the very sudden rise in atmospheric CO2 concentrations and simultaneously explain where the enormous amounts of CO2 being released by burning fossil fuel are going rather than in to the atmosphere?
Does it worry you that your arguments are based on the pedantry of deliberately misunderstanding a simple concept?
8#
I like the graph…
Maybe if all the climate scientist presented their graphs in a Farenheit scale instead of celsius, we might all get scared again 😉
Heraclitus, I don’t dispute that there are anthropogenic contributions to atmospheric CO2. But I will not turn a blind eye to the fact that the signature that is claimed is conspicuous only by its absence. It’s not there!
No, I find myself sucking in air through my teeth when people, like you, use words like “enormous” referring to anthropogenic CO2 contributions (I found an ENORMOUS spider this morning. REALLY ENORMOUS!! Almost half an inch leg span!!), and when Curt Stager use terms like “most of the greenhouse gases”, referring to anthropogenic contributions of CO2, when this is simply NOT accurately describing our contribution to the make-up of atmospheric greenhouse gases.
No, my arguments are not based on pedantry of deliberately misunderstanding a simple concept, my arguments are specifically against your deliberate miscommunication of scientific evidence.
Perhaps you’re so accustomed to alarmingly misrepresenting the physical proportion of the beast that you are actually deaf to your own distorting mantras.
Oh gloriana.
Keith, can I humbly request a borehole-type thread for the likes of Simon…
Simon, do you really not consider it appropriate to use the word ‘enormous’ to describe quantities of CO2 capable of increasing atmospheric concentrations by 40%?
Heraclitus, I think that there is a burden of responsibility to act with greater care in describing anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere in terms of atmospheric make-up. Scientifically rather than “alarmistically” speaking, of course.
A 40% increase in atmospheric CO2 is observed, as it has indeed been observed in the past, of which an indeterminate proportion is certainly anthropogenic. The 40% increase in CO2, in terms of atmospheric make-up, should be described as a change from 0.00028% to 0.00039% – an increase of 0.00011% of the atmosphere. Whether or not this increase is significant (and I would not necessarily argue that it isn’t significant), my objection remains with the failure of advocacy scientists to present the science proportionately.
It comes as no surprise that Marlowe objects to demands for this kind of proportionate language and would have my views spirited away from sight. But my objections are the same as they would be to scarelore headlines in Japan, like “40% INCREASE IN TOKYO RADIATION DETECTED”. I find it interesting AND telling that many who would object to scary storytelling over the Fukushima incident have no issue with the same kind of language in regard to atmospheric CO2. Conversely, I object to the scary language in both contexts.
Why should it be described as a change from 0.00028% to 0.00039% rather than as a 40% increase? The only reason for this as far as I can tell is to give the impression to scientifically illiterate people that the change is minute, whereas infact it is enormous and very significant. Next you will be saying the resultant increase in temepratures due to direct forcing from a doubling of CO2 is tiny because it is a change of only about 1 degree Kelvin.
In terms of atmospheric make-up, 0.00011% is how much CO2 has increased. Scientifically illiterate people are far more likely to be mislead by the figure 40% when such figures are delivered without context. IN context it would be more responsible to give the increase in terms of a “110ppm increase”, which is still a 40% increase, but has the effect of separating out those who are scientifically literate enough to understand the implications of 110ppm while preventing scientifically illiterate people from running with scarelore impressions, like “nearly half the atmosphere is CO2!!”
But, all said, I’m all too aware that the cold light of reasonable and rational descriptors don’t help the AGW “cause” and so I recognise that this kind of responsible presentation of scientific evidence – being mindful of, and considerate of how the information will be received and interpreted – is unpalatable to alarmists.
“and the C13/C12 ratio human signature claimed does not withstand examination of detrended Mauna Loa data.”
Hmm… Could you develop?
110ppm increase is only meaningful if the pre-industrial average of about 280ppm is also given. I’m still not quite sure why 40% is considered inappropriate given that it communicates the key problem, which is the significant increase in forcing from CO2.
Can you give any examples where irrational and unreasonable descriptors have been used in the communication of climate change? I would say that the 0.00011% is unreasonable and deliberately deceptive. Can you give any equivalents to this?
Simon doesn’t like the description “ocean acidification” so him regarding this CO2 language as “alarming” is of no surprise.
I’m here to witness as a reformed “believer”.
With a background doing practical conservation, a love of nature, and a civic sense of duty, I took it all in.
What undermined my faith was the fact that no-one was doing anything serious. The planet was going down the gurgler and the solution was changing our freakin’ lightbulbs.
The caused me to examine the evidence for myslef instead of taking the priests on trust. What a crock it was.
Curt plays the usual cards, including:
accumulation of evidence
no other explanation
consensus of experts
All 3 of these could apply equally to UFOs.
“110ppm increase is only meaningful if the pre-industrial average of about 280ppm is also given.”
This is precisely my point, when I say that it: “has the effect of separating out those who are scientifically literate enough to understand the implications of 110ppm while preventing scientifically illiterate people from running with scarelore impressions [..]”
The difference between you and me seems to be that I’m interested in having the science responsibly communicated with the maximum of context (and moreover, as in this particular point, not misleadingly scary in the absence of full context) while you’re apparently just interested in communicating a policy imperative. While it’s popular to blame journalists for the breakdown in confidence in scientists because of their failings with regard to science communication, it seems quite apparent that the responsibility falls heavier on the scientists for creating and perpetuating the scarelore.
Journalists, given a scary science press release, and given their general lack of scientific understanding (being predominantly students of humanities), can’t necessarily bear all the burden of blame for the haemorrhaging of confidence seen in science recently. Scientifically illiterate people are not bound to remain scientifically illiterate but, if allowed or even encouraged to form a faulty impression by scientists, are perfectly capable with time to disseminate the actual context of the scary scientific headlines and become resentful of those who wilfully exploited their ignorance in order to coerce them. It is this twisted presentation of science, with an ideological/political advocacy flavour, that is the primary cause of the loss of confidence in climate science and which is, by scientific institutions’ failure to address the issue, continuing to damage sciences broadly.
My objection remains the twisted communication of scientific knowledge and my concern remains the damage to the credibility of science as a result (and I still object to junk science like the hockey stick, but that’s one we can go at another day). I am still, as I always have been, a defender of the scientific method, of rationality and reasoning. That I find myself in conflict with climate scientists so frequently on these specific fronts is damning.
Let me clarify: What this means is that a scientifically literate individual might ask “110ppm? How much is that an increase over? 280ppm? Bloody hell, that’s 40%!” while a scientifically illiterate individual might say “oh.”
There is no damage, no scaremongering. Knowledge is transferred. Some people might even be alarmed, but only those with the where-with-all to understand the implications of the increase. It is important, after all, to have a more complete understanding of the implications of an increase of 110ppm of CO2 in order to properly form an opinion on it, whether positive or negative. But at least the only opinions that can be formed are INFORMED opinions. Right? Where’s the foul?
So Simon, I notice you haven’t given any examples of this irresponsible scientific communication. From what I can understand of your last two posts you agree with me that it would be appropriate to talk about an increase of 110ppm from a pre-industrial level of 280ppm, or a 40% increase. You presumably also now accept that figures like 0.00028% of the atmosphere are misleading and irresponsible in the context of communicating the science to a general audience, at least without the additional context of the 40% increase.
No, Heraclitus, you shouldn’t presume such things. I doubt very much that my point is lost on you. Whether you agree or not with my point about appropriate communication in the context of how that information will be received remains unclear, however. I won’t presume.
There are hundreds of examples of dismally malformed scientific reporting, from the infamous dying polar bears to the notorious Himalayan glaciers and far, far beyond. The most entertaining compilation (albeit somewhat annoying at the same time) is the “warmlist“, maintained by numberwatch.co.uk. In there you’ll find many concurrent examples of “[insert location here] warming faster than anywhere else on the planet!!” and a veritable litany of pure alarmist conjecture regarding the imminent impacts of purported global warming/climate change/climate disruption.
Simon, rather than giving an ehaustively tedious list of possibly dubious journalism could you not pick out the examples of irresponsible scientific communication that you want to use to back up your argument? Surely that would be easy to do given that you think there are so many egregious examples.
I have little idea what your point is if you think that it is not appropriate to communicate the fact that CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere have risen by 40% since the start of the industrial revolution. It is evident to any informed person not determined to mislead those unfamiliar with science that talking about CO2 concentrations as 0.00028% of the atmosphere would be a failure of communication.
Heraclitus, I take, secondarily, an issue with journalism, as I’ve made clear. Principle responsibility for the idiotically alarmist headlines falls squarely on the advocacy scientists. If the scientists have felt misrepresented by journalists’ interpretations of their press releases, we would see some evidence of that. Do you know of any?
I’ve repeatedly made clear that I regard simply stating that atmospheric CO2 has increased by 40% is a deficient communication of the science of atmospheric CO2, just as stating a % increase in radiation in Tokyo is a deficient communication of the situation resulting from Fukushima. I have made this point explicitly already. Both are devoid of context and accordingly are alarming in tone. And, again, I will point out that a 40% increase in atmospheric CO2 has not been shown to have a dangerous impact on the climate.
That atmospheric CO2 concentration increases can be described as +0.00011% is merely an example of how the science can be communicated differently and less alarmingly (and with more context) than your “40% increase”. I don’t think that you misunderstand me, I think you’re being purposefully disingenuous.
As for examples of idiotic scientific advocacy alarmism, I’ve picked out a few. Since you’re determined to maintain the charade that there hasn’t been any idiotic bandwagon-riding by climate scientists, start with these pieces. If you don’t like them, pick a few at random for yourself from the warmlist I linked earlier:
http://www.sify.com/news/climate-change-leads-to-psychiatric-illness-news-national-jegnGhfjiha.html
http://www.energybulletin.net/node/53693
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article3037440.ece
http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/news/article-1027624/Killer-stingray-British-coast-experts-warn-arrive-global-warming.html
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article767459.ece
http://www.brainbasedbusiness.com/2007/03/expect_smaller_brains.html
http://www2.timesdispatch.com/lifestyles/2010/apr/10/i-oxyg0305_20100408-224502-ar-163494/
I’ve posted a response, but it’s stuck in moderation. I will post the rest of the comment, without the links you requested:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
March 21st, 2011 at 5:48 pm
Heraclitus, I take, secondarily, an issue with journalism, as I’ve made clear. Principle responsibility for the idiotically alarmist headlines falls squarely on the advocacy scientists. If the scientists have felt misrepresented by journalists’ interpretations of their press releases, we would see some evidence of that. Do you know of any?
I’ve repeatedly made clear that I regard simply stating that atmospheric CO2 has increased by 40% is a deficient communication of the science of atmospheric CO2, just as stating a % increase in radiation in Tokyo is a deficient communication of the situation resulting from Fukushima. I have made this point explicitly already. Both are devoid of context and accordingly are alarming in tone. And, again, I will point out that a 40% increase in atmospheric CO2 has not been shown to have a dangerous impact on the climate.
That atmospheric CO2 concentration increases can be described as +0.00011% is merely an example of how the science can be communicated differently and less alarmingly (and with more context) than your “40% increase”. I don’t think that you misunderstand me, I think you’re being purposefully disingenuous.
As for examples of idiotic scientific advocacy alarmism, I’ve picked out a few. Since you’re determined to maintain the charade that there hasn’t been any idiotic bandwagon-riding by climate scientists, start with these pieces. If you don’t like them, pick a few at random for yourself from the warmlist I linked earlier:
Simon, of course I don’t think that just saying 40% increase in CO2 without context is sufficient, but it was you who said that it shouldn’t be used and instead should be described as an increase from 0.00028% to 0.00039%, which would be deliberately deceptive and patently dishonest. The more context the better in my view, including the context that on any rational consideration of the evidence the resulting changes in climate will be, on balance, bad for human civilisation.
I am not clear what I am supposed to be looking at in your links, which again are examples of journalism that may, or may not, be less than ideal. Rather than giving a long list of readng like this can you not just point out the examples of poor scientific communication, on a par with your own suggestion of using 0.00028%?
I’m also not clear what you would expect to see in terms of evidence of scientists frustrated by misinterpretations of their press releases. I think there is little doubt that there are constant gripes of this type, but very little that can be done officially. The most common complaint is about the chosen headline and your first link is a good example of this. Other than the headline, is there anything in the piece you actually object to? It would help if you could be specific about your complaints.