Apr 20 2017

Retreat of the Cryosphere

glacier-retreatPatrick Burkhart and his colleagues recently published a review of their research on the cryosphere, which is a collective term for all the ice on the surface of the Earth. In addition to their review of the science, the new information they add is a photographic project documenting the retreat of glaciers around the globe.

The retreat of the cryosphere is one of the many lines of evidence supporting the idea that the earth has been warming over the last half-century. There are several different ways to look at this. You can look at each pole to see the extent of ice coverage at their peak in winter and minimum in summer. You can look at specific ice sheets, like Greenland. You can look at glaciers. And you can look at total global ice, the cryosphere, which of course is the best single measure.

With regard to glaciers, the authors point out that there are many variables affecting the current size of any individual glacier. It is possible but difficult to account for all these variables and isolate one as a primary cause of melting. However, you can survey glaciers from around the world, which is a good way to control for local variables. When we do this we find there is a significant trend toward glacial retreat.

Satellite images confirm this, but also simple historical photographs also provide another line of evidence. The author surveyed such photographs to document changes in the extent of glaciers from the 1970s to the present. When updated photos were not available, they traveled to the respective glaciers to take them.

Part of the reason for focusing on the photographic evidence was not only that it is a useful supplemental source of data, but because, they argue, photos tell a story that may be easier to communicate to the public. Showing a series of photos showing glaciers in retreat tell their own story which is easy to grasp.

Of course you still need to trust that the scientists are being fair in how they are presenting the photos. Are they from comparable seasons, for example. This leaves the door open for anyone motivated to deny this evidence.

Regarding the satellite evidence for contraction of glaciers they write:

These observations provide robust documentation of ice loss. Arendt et al. (2013) reported a mass-balance for glaciers in the Gulf of Alaska of −65 ± 11 Gt/a from 2003 to 2010 from the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE), which compared well with their determination of −65 ± 12 Gt/a from the Ice, Cloud, and land Elevation Satellite (ICESat) based upon glacier elevation changes.

They go on to further review the published evidence, with similar results.

They also point out a couple of factors significant to glaciers. Warming from increasing atmospheric concentrations of CO2 should and do cause relatively more warming at higher altitudes, where glaciers often exist. Therefore glacial melt will be greater than predicted for average global temperatures.

Further, as glaciers melt they expose darker land underneath, which absorbs more heat from the sun, resulting in a positive feedback loop increasing the melting of glaciers. You have probably noticed this effect on your driveway. Once the ice gets thin enough the sun’s rays are able to reach the dark pavement below, and this greatly accelerates ice melting.

Further, glaciers often exist in locations where the environment is very close to the melting point, and so small changes in temperature could have a significant effect on melting.

arctic monthly_ice_03_NH_v2.1Arctic sea ice (not covered in this paper) is another part of the story. There has been a steady decline of total arctic ice over the last 30 years. Here is the latest graph, showing a new low for maximum arctic ice in 2016. There has been a steady decline of 2.74% per decade.

Of course, year to year there is variability, even though the long term trend is obvious. During the last short term uptick the global warming deniers declared that arctic ice was “recovering.” They will probably say that again during the next upward fluctuation.

The story of antarctic ice coverage has been more complex. It has been slowly increasing over the last few decades, which of course has also been a talking point for global warming deniers. But, total polar ice has been decreasing. Further it seems that the extent of antarctic ice coverage has been increasing as an artifact of melting ice sheets leading to more ice in the surrounding oceans.

Remember, the arctic has no land mass. It is all sea ice. Antarctica is a continent with ice on top, so the dynamic is different.

In any case, in 2017 the ice figures for March show that both poles have reached a new minimum, with a sharp recent dip in total sea ice.

Let’s also not forget Greenland, which is losing about 281 billion metric tons of ice per year.

If we look at both poles, Greenland and Iceland, and the world’s glaciers, the picture is clear. The cryosphere is contracting, and apparently at an accelerating rate.

If there were no political implications to these established facts, I don’t see how there can be much debate about them. But of course, for those who don’t like the ultimate implications of melting ice – some of the proposed solutions to this apparent problem, they deny the problem (so-called solution aversion).

This is counterproductive. There is a strong and real scientific consensus that the globe is warming on average, the cyrosphere in total is contracting, and there are potential negative, or at least very expensive, consequences to this. There is also a strong consensus that the primary driver of this change is manmade release of CO2 into the atmosphere.

It is sad that so many people feel the need to deny the science with bad arguments, cherry picked data, and dubious logic, even appealing to implausible conspiracy theories. Rather, if you don’t like the proposed solutions, then come up with better ones. That is where the debate should be, not rehashing the science because you don’t like the results.

Interestingly, a recent review of the implications of climate change for the energy industry concludes that the fossil fuel industry is already doomed. The trends are clear, sustainable energy is gaining traction and is getting more cost effective, with the added benefit of not releasing CO2. Simply put, renewable energy sources are the future. As the authors say, that train has left the station. Getting it back is not going to happen.

The fossil fuel industry might as well get on board and start transitioning to the technologies of the future.

179 responses so far

179 Responses to “Retreat of the Cryosphere”

  1. Sophieon 20 Apr 2017 at 8:30 am

    Can’t wait to see all the special pleading to explain this away.

  2. tmac57on 20 Apr 2017 at 10:24 am

    I think we have now entered the phase of AGW denial where most now grudgingly admit that the globe is warming, and that we are, at least, partly to blame, but they still want to argue that maybe our contribution isn’t the main reason, and even if it is, more carbon is good for plants, and “Hey! I kinda like it not being so cold in the winter”.
    And of course the ultimate fatalistic position of “There’s no way we can do anything substantive about it now, so let’s just keep digging this grave for humanity, because think about the poor people around the world…don’t they deserve to have cheap (as in fossil fuel, especially coal) energy. Think about the suffering babies, beautiful, beautiful babies in India!”.

  3. MosBenon 20 Apr 2017 at 10:37 am

    tmac, I wish that was where we are, but I predict that some time in the next few hours we’re going to see the regular crowd come in here to talk about how AGW is a total fraud, talk about the warming pause, accuse scientists of being either greedy or buckling to peer pressure, etc.

  4. Atlantean Idolon 20 Apr 2017 at 10:45 am

    According to Dr. Judith Curry’s recent Senate testimony, ice is increasing in western Antarctica but decreasing in eastern Antarctica.

  5. Atlantean Idolon 20 Apr 2017 at 10:50 am

    continuing from the Science and Politics thread where I’m having technical difficulties posting:

    There was a time when I accepted the IPCC’s summary statements uncritically before I read some investigative reporting revealing that it is far from the immaculately objective academic organization it’s proclaimed it to be.

    I’ve listened to scores of interviews with reputable scientists who explained how climate science has been misrepresented in the media, and how the funding apparatus is biased in favor of AGW study and against natural variability. There’s no grand conspiracy, just a malevolent invisible hand acting on a perverse incentive structure.

  6. Atlantean Idolon 20 Apr 2017 at 11:01 am

    There is a strong and real scientific consensus that the globe is warming on average, the cyrosphere in total is contracting, and there are potential negative, or at least very expensive, consequences to this. There is also a strong consensus that the primary driver of this change is manmade release of CO2 into the atmosphere.

    Is there a credible survey you can provide to support these claims?

  7. Atlantean Idolon 20 Apr 2017 at 11:03 am

    The last claim in particular.

  8. Steven Novellaon 20 Apr 2017 at 11:31 am

    AI – https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

    Seriously, if at this point you are going to play that game, and can’t even spend 10 seconds on Google, you should not expect to be taken seriously.

    You should also consider the possibility that your “investigative journalism” is little more than an industry hit job against inconvenient science.

  9. Atlantean Idolon 20 Apr 2017 at 12:17 pm

    The primary reference on Nasa’s page is the Cook survey that produced the oft-repeated 97% statistic. That survey has been thoroughly discredited in a review published in the Journal Science and Education:

    http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11191-013-9647-9

    The review found that only 41 out of the 11,944 published climate papers Cook examined explicitly stated that Man caused most of the warming since 1950.

    The statements of the politically complaisant governing boards of the scientific societies NASA lists do not reflect the even the views of those societies’ members, let alone their entire related fields.

  10. Atlantean Idolon 20 Apr 2017 at 12:19 pm

    The investigative journalism I was referring to is that of Donna Laframboise, who has no connection to the fossil fuel industry.

  11. Steven Novellaon 20 Apr 2017 at 2:40 pm

    AI – you are spouting mindless propaganda. Legates criticism is total nonsense, and doesn’t understand how literature searches are done. Cook’s study searched for any study that mentioned global warming. They then went through abstracts and counted paper which expressed an opinion about whether or not human activity is the main cause of global warming. Of those that did, 97.1% agreed that global warming is mainly human caused.

    Legates wants to count all the papers that did not express an opinion either way. That is utter nonsense.

    There are also other studies looking at the literature and showing that the vast majority (that are relevant) conclude global warming is happening and is man made.

    You also cannot just dismiss out of hand official opinions of scientific organizations that review a topic and then publish their findings.

    This is pure denialism. Show me a scientific organization that had reviewed the science and came to a different conclusion. Show me a review that finds that more than a tiny minority of climate change papers dispute AGW.

    The evidence supports the conclusion that there is a strong consensus. Your refusal to acknowledge that makes you a denier.

  12. Lightnotheaton 20 Apr 2017 at 2:45 pm

    One tactic of deniers is to point out where there is or could be bias, and then make an unwarranted leap to at least imply that therefore, this bias has lead to widespread falsifucation and/or misinterpretation of scientific data. If you think bias leads to such falsification or misinterpretation, show your NON-CHERRY-PICKED evidence of that. Also, explain why you are not using the same reasoning in other cases, such as GMO safety evidence, where the consensus happens to align with your ideology.

  13. bachfiendon 20 Apr 2017 at 4:01 pm

    Atlantean Idol,

    On the previous ‘Science and Politics’ thread you made numerous AGW denial claims, which I addressed. You then commented on my replies to just two of them, leaving the others unaddressed.

    You now are making many AGW denial claims on a new thread.

    I can’t understand why you’d be having problems posting on the ‘Science and Politics’ thread.

  14. Yehouda Harpazon 20 Apr 2017 at 4:47 pm

    > # Steven Novellaon 20 Apr 2017 at 2:40 pm

    > Legates wants to count all the papers that did not express an opinion either way.

    That is inaccurate.
    The full text of legates is here:
    http://www.climaterealists.org.nz/sites/climaterealists.org.nz/files/Legatesetal13-Aug30-Agnotology%5B1%5D.pdf
    Cook is here:
    http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024/meta

    Legates displays the table below, which they claim to be a breakdown of the numbers
    in the Cook paper. The first number is the number of abstracts,
    the second number is percentage of the total number of abstracts, amd the third
    number percentage of the number of abstracts that express an opinion.

    Cook puts the first three categories as “Endorse AGW” in their table 3,
    and the sum of the percentage in the last column for these gives the 97.1%.
    Legates puts as endorsing only the first category, which gives them the
    “41 out of the 11,944” that “Atlantean Idol” above mentioned..

    Legates also mention the question of abstract that don’t express an opinion,
    but only as a side comment. The main trick is to use only category 1.

    It would be a fair comment to say that Cook should have made it clearer that
    they include implicit endorsement in the 97.1%. At the least the abstract needs to
    mention it. But they did compensate for that by asking the authors to self-rate, which
    gave the same result.

    { The extra line in item 1 is in the original tabl.e Legates claims that inspection
    showed that of the 64 papers in item 1, 23 did not not actually endorse. I didn’t
    find explanation of what this inspection was. }

    1 Explicit, quantified endorsement (standard definition of consensus) 64 0.54 1.59
    Actually endorsing the standard definition upon inspection 41 0.34 1.02
    2 Explicit, unquantified endorsement 922 7.72 22.97
    3 Implicit endorsement 2,910 24.36 72.50
    4a No position 7,930 66.39
    4b Expression of uncertainty 40 0.33 1.00
    5 Implicit rejection 54 0.45 1.35
    6 Explicit, unquantified rejection 15 0.13 0.37
    7 Explicit, quantified rejection 9 0.08 0.22

  15. Steven Novellaon 20 Apr 2017 at 5:00 pm

    What do you mean, “standard definition of consensus?” You’re just making that up.

    The question is – is there a strong consensus of scientific opinion based upon the weight of the scientific evidence that AGW is real? Cook’s paper absolutely supports this position.

    You will notice I did not give the “97% of scientists” fallacy to try to quantify it specifically based on a single paper. What is shows is that the majority of papers that are relevant to the question either explicitly or implicitly endorse AGW. Very few call it into question.

    Most papers about evolution don’t explicitly say, “By the way, we think evolution is really real.” They simply implicitly endorse evolution by taking it as a given and not questioning it. Same thing for germ theory, or anything else similar. If you are following on the premise that a theory is true, then you are implicitly endorsing it, and that is a perfectly reasonable way to assess a consensus.

    This is a great example, though, of how you can move the goalpost to come to whatever conclusion you want.

  16. michaelegnoron 20 Apr 2017 at 5:46 pm

    I’d like to get all worked up about the AGW/ice melt/polar bears dying Apocalypse, but I’m still waiting for the Malthusian (19th century) Apocalypse, the Eugenic Apocalypse, the Pesticide/DDT Apocalypse, the Overpopulation (20th century) Apocalypse, the Global Cooling Apocalypse, the Alar on Apples Apocalypse, the Acid Rain Apocalypse, the Ozone Hole Apocalypse…

    Sorry, Greenies. New Apocalypses gotta wait in line.

  17. michaelegnoron 20 Apr 2017 at 5:47 pm

    Big Question:

    When AGW crashes and burns, what’ll be the next Apocalypse?

    My bet’s on the Ocean Acidification Apocalypse!

    Any takers?

  18. ScubaSharkyon 20 Apr 2017 at 5:49 pm

    Let’s not forget that Cook isn’t the only paper quantifying the consensus on climate change.

    Consensus papers:

    Oreskes:
    http://science.sciencemag.org/content/306/5702/1686

    Cook:
    http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002/pdf

    Anderegg:
    http://m.pnas.org/content/107/27/12107.abstract

    Verheggan:
    http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es501998e

    Powell:
    https://scienceprogress.org/2012/11/27479/

    Farnsworth:
    http://m.ijpor.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2011/10/27/ijpor.edr033.short

    Zimmerman
    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2009EO030002/full

  19. Lightnotheaton 20 Apr 2017 at 6:03 pm

    Big Question:

    When it’s pointed out that michaelegnor’s apocalypses are absurdly exaggerated straw men, what will be his next move?

    My bet’s on more absurdly exaggerated straw men!

    Any takers?

  20. MosBenon 20 Apr 2017 at 6:46 pm

    You give him too much credit, Lightnotheat, it’s been pointed out to him that his examples are absurd straw men many times, but he trots them out every time as if nothing has happened. He will not change his mind, he just comes in to strike his defiant pose for a while.

  21. bachfiendon 20 Apr 2017 at 6:48 pm

    Michael,

    The ‘DDT apocalypse’ didn’t happen because sensible restrictions on its use in agriculture were put in place. If its profligate industrial usage had been maintained from the ’50s, with its half life in the environment of around 11 years, just about now (after around 5 half lives) it would be reaching its maximum concentration in the environment, and as a result plateauing.

    We actually, as a result, don’t know definitely whether we missed a bullet or not. I suspect we did.

    You persist in lying that DDT was banned in malaria control. The 2001 Stockholm Convention, which banned the use of DDT and 11 other persistent organic pesticides in agriculture (once the convention was ratified by a certain minimum number of countries), allowed an exception for infection control such as malaria (which includes spaying of DDT on internal walls).

    Malaria control isn’t the simple matter that the simpleminded such as you imagine it to be. As it typical for conservatives, you have no concept of nuances. You want to see everything in black or white, ignoring the greys, even if (and you usually are) wrong.

    I certainly understand what one of my physician tutors once meant when he said decades ago that surgeons generally are good with their hands, but not great thinkers. You confirm the truth of his comment whenever you unleash one of your ridiculous claims, amusing though they are.

  22. bachfiendon 20 Apr 2017 at 6:53 pm

    MosBen,

    It says nothing for the moral compass of Believers such as Michael Egnor with their ‘Objective Morality’ (trademark pending), that they lie so shamelessly. And repeatedly.

  23. RickKon 20 Apr 2017 at 7:05 pm

    Really Michael? 2000 years of waiting for Jesus and you’re criticizing other people’s failed end times predictions?

    Tell me, what level of DDT would you find accceptable in your daughter’s breast milk?

  24. tmac57on 20 Apr 2017 at 7:58 pm

    MosBen- “I predict that some time in the next few hours we’re going to see the regular crowd come in here to talk about how AGW is a total fraud, talk about the warming pause, accuse scientists of being either greedy or buckling to peer pressure, etc.”

    Well of course, and it has already started, but these people are just the usual suspects, and I don’t think they represent the larger denier/uncertain crowd from my observation.
    Take Judith Curry for example, the go to ‘expert’ that deniers like to quote, she, along with Roy Spencer, John Christy, Bjorn Lomborg etc. fall more in the lukewarmer category as opposed to the out and out denier. They are apologists, trying to find some daylight between the scientific consensus, and trying to make it ok to slow-walk any mitigation of CO2 because it possibly might not be all that bad, and possibly might be hard to do, and possibly might harm the economy, and…well, you get the idea.
    Their whole shtick is to create fear, uncertainty, and doubt about AGW, and cause so much confusion in the public mind that they don’t know who’s telling them the truth, and in the U.S. at least, they have been pretty successful so far, especially among the GOP politicians. Their conservative constituents are not completely buying it though nowadays. They are increasingly ahead of their representatives in understanding that AGW is real, it is us, and it is NOW!

  25. michaelegnoron 20 Apr 2017 at 7:59 pm

    @Rickie:

    [Really Michael? 2000 years of waiting for Jesus and you’re criticizing other people’s failed end times predictions?]

    The analogy between AGW and religion is apt. AGW (like Malthusianism, eugenics, pesticide hysteria, etc) is a nature religion, with it’s own ten commandments, sin, redemption, heaven and hell. You’ve even got a money-hungry televangelist (Al Gore).

    [Tell me, what level of DDT would you find accceptable in your daughter’s breast milk?]

    I’d accept DDT levels orders of magnitude higher than concentrations of plasmodia.

    DDT is harmless to humans. Unlike malaria.

  26. tmac57on 20 Apr 2017 at 8:14 pm

    Here’s the level of ‘information’ that often passes as ‘truth’ in climate denial circles:

    https://youtu.be/870BhdD2_h4

    Alex Jones ranting. Enjoy!

  27. michaelegnoron 20 Apr 2017 at 8:36 pm

    [“They are increasingly ahead of their representatives in understanding that AGW is real, it is us, and it is NOW!”]

    Repent! The Day of Judgement is upon us! Repent, Recycle, to be saved! Hail Gaia!

    AGW is just 21st century gnosticism. Denialists are the heretics. It’s funny, if it weren’t so corrupt.

  28. bachfiendon 20 Apr 2017 at 8:47 pm

    Michael,

    ‘I’d accept DDT levels orders of magnitude higher than concentrations of plasmodia’ (in your daughter’s breast milk)?

    So you’d accept no DDT in your daughter’s breast milk? Zero times 100 or even 1,000 is still zero. Malaria is transmitted by the passage of infected red blood cells with the malaria parasite. There aren’t any red cells in breast milk (unless the nipples are cracked and bleeding).

    Anyway. You’re still an unapologetic liar. For someone who claims that Christianity provides ‘objective morality’ you’re a very poor excuse for a human being. I’d be embarrassed to be making so many blatant lies.

  29. michaelegnoron 20 Apr 2017 at 8:52 pm

    Apropos Sunday’s “Science March”, on Earth Day, here are some of the hilarious predictions made by scientists on the original Earth Day:

    https://www.aei.org/publication/18-spectacularly-wrong-apocalyptic-predictions-made-around-the-time-of-the-first-earth-day-in-1970-expect-more-this-year-2/

    Scientists 1970: the Apocalypse is upon us!

    Scientists 2017: the Apocalypse is upon us!

    Same cr*p. The crazy never ends.

  30. Lightnotheaton 20 Apr 2017 at 9:02 pm

    Hey, I won my bet!

    New absurd straw man: AGW as religion.

    Of course if you follow this “my skeptical critics are no less religious than me, it’s just a different religion” concept to its logical conclusion, we might as well stop arguing about anything altogether. The answer to ANY argument would be just that: Well, that’s just your different religion talking. A variation of the classic “well, that’s just your opinion.”

  31. bachfiendon 20 Apr 2017 at 9:03 pm

    Michael,

    ‘Repent! The Day of Judgement is upon us!… AGW is just 21st century gnoticism. Denialists are the heretics’.

    I find that very funny. The Gospel according to John and Revelations are both gnostic texts. You’re actually a heretic whenever you quote from either.

  32. Lightnotheaton 20 Apr 2017 at 9:39 pm

    I don’t find myself holding my breath waiting for Michael to say something like “The GMO’s-are-safe crowd practice a technology-as-savior religion, with it’s own ten commandments, sin, redemption, heaven and hell. You’ve even got money-hungry televangelists (Monsanto commercials).” No, in this case the scientific consensus is in synch with his ideology, so now it’s the anti-GMO denialists who are the dogmatic relgionists.

  33. Sylakon 20 Apr 2017 at 10:10 pm

    I loaded this article this morning on my phone browser. I couldn’t finish it because of work and I was dug the dogged away from it by a interesting article that deconstruct the verdict the clown Theater ( Sorry, marketing stunt, oh, sorry trial) against monsanto that the sgu Facebook shared . So tonight I’ve finished this, excellent as always, piece by Dr Novella. At the end I was itching to get my regular dose of entertainment by micheal egnor ( like a lot of skeptics, I have a weird fascination for non sense) . At the bottom, I saw only Sophie’s comments. I was like “whaaaat”. Fully disappointed. Egnor is denying faster than is own shadow normally! And I remember, “right, I’ve loaded it this morning”. Hit the refresh and ta damn! 2 deniers! Although AI is boring in my opinion, not enough greenie straw man. ( although I will say it’s kind of a compliment, giving egnor crazy comments even for a pseudo science crank).

    Slightly off topic.. 281 billion tons of ice.. Each year… And despite these loses being big, it’s still small compared to the total of ice. Those numbers are just staggering. How much ice is there? Damn you the universe and your way of destroying my puny human sense of scale!

  34. yrdbrdon 20 Apr 2017 at 10:26 pm

    Eggnore:

    When science claims that Einstein rose from the dead and ascended bodily into the eternal physics lab; that Michael Faraday’s mom never had Ess-Eee-Ecks; that Isaac Newton heard voices telling him to murder his son, then heard other voices telling him, whoah dude, don’t! When all that happens, please by all means continue with your science equals religion claims. Until then, stop with the bullshit.

  35. bachfiendon 20 Apr 2017 at 10:45 pm

    yrdbrd,

    LOL. It has to be a sign of desperation when religionists such as Michael Egnor, having subconsciously realising that the claims of religion are just so ridiculous, attempt to impugn science they don’t agree with, for ideological reasons, as being religion.

  36. Lightnotheaton 21 Apr 2017 at 12:48 am

    Let’s focus on the issue of the consequences of AGW. The denialism of AGW, after all, is largely motivated by resistance to the governmental actions we might take to combat negative consequences we think will result from it. And here, as I’ve said before, a more reasonable case can be made that either the consequences won’t be all that bad, or the things we do to combat it will have even worse consequences. In the end I dont agree with that, but I’d like to hear responses to several points.
    One is, what about the record we already have of negative predictions that scientists have made about the future? Is it fair to say that taken as a whole, most of them have been too pessimistic? If so, can we infer that the negative predictions re AGW may also be?
    I refer you to the article Michael Egnor linked to above, about dire predictions made on Earth Day 1970 that turned out to be far too pessimistic. Disregarding the horrible messenger for the moment, how do you respond to it? I can think of at least three problems with the article. One is the conflating of environmental activists with scientists; another is paying disproportionate attention to Paul Ehrlich who was somewhat of an outlier in how dire his predictions were; and most importantly, there is the fact that at least a large part of the reason the doomsday scenarios didn’t occur is because we took actions as a result of those warnings. But still, the article seems to me to do a reasonable job of showing that many if not most scientists in the relevant fields did not foresee the positive things that would happen to prevent the mass starvation and other catastrophic events they predicted.

  37. tb29607on 21 Apr 2017 at 2:41 am

    Is there a study of any kind that suggests a globally sustainable consumption rate per person?

    The average consumption of resources by the average person in a developed country is unsustainable if the world population were raised to “first world” average consumption. So it seems that improving third world countries to first world standards of living means striving for an unsustainable goal.

    Being from a very conservative part of the U.S. my experience has been that even the evil “Fox GOPers” try to adjust environmentally deleterious behaviors if given specific actions and goals (like recycling, stopping littering, etc.). People tend to get frustrated with nebulous “we need to stop AGW” statements because there are no ideas or suggestions for individual helpful actions. And please do not tell me to call my elected official because without viable suggestions the call goes nowhere.

    In my opinion, a potentially beneficial discussion, would be about the level of individual consumption which would be sustainable for the global population.

  38. Steven Novellaon 21 Apr 2017 at 7:09 am

    Regarding ME – This is an excellent example of the power of narratives. He has a theory that sounds nice, he has it all wrapped up in a neat bow, and it makes him sound clever. He will never give it up just because of evidence. Nuance and exceptions (you know, like reality) just muddy the narrative.

    There is no one more closed minded than someone who thinks they are right, that they have seen the pattern and have the ultimate wisdom. Especially if they can express it in a pithy paragraph or less. Beware the pithy statement, it’s a trap (even that one).

    The implication of his narrative is that there will never be a big threat to our health or our civilization. Because he could just call it the next apocalypse and make his clever religious analogies.

    Rather, we need to evaluate each claim on its own merits. Sure, there are patterns of human thought that inform our analysis, but we still have to do an individual assessment.

    GMOs are basically safe.

    DDT hysteria was overblown, but it was also probably good that we reduced its use because of resistance. On the other hand, outright banning was misguided and had negative consequences.

    Overpopulation claims were certainly overblown, but at some point we need to reach an equilibrium point with human population.

    Antibiotic resistance is a very real problem, and we need to take it seriously.

    There is no autism epidemic, and vaccines are perfectly safe.

    I doubted the more dire predictions of the Y2K disaster, but any significant problems were averted by a deliberate program to update software.

    And – we can’t just keep pumping CO2 into the atmosphere and assume there will be no consequences. The science suggests otherwise.

    Of course the ultimate irony is, if we prevent the worst case scenario by taking reasonable steps, the deniers will say there was never a problem in the first place. If the worst happens, they will say it could never have been avoided anyway. They are immune to evidence, and everything fits their narrative because of post-hoc reasoning.

  39. bachfiendon 21 Apr 2017 at 7:34 am

    Steven,

    As I’ve noted many times, DDT was never banned for infection control.

    America banned it for agricultural use in 1970. The 2001 Stockholm Comvention banned it and 11 other persistent organic pesticides once a minimum of countries ratified the treaty, which was achieved in 2004 (for some strange reason, perhaps related to GW Bush, America didn’t ratify).

    An exception to the banning of DDT was infection control, including malaria.

    So – DDT use in agriculture is banned. DDT use in malaria control is allowed and hasn’t been banned.

    I don’t think you ought to concede anything to Michael Egnor unless it’s one of the (very) rare occasions he happens to be right (I suspect usually by accident).

  40. BillyJoe7on 21 Apr 2017 at 9:26 am

    Here is David Gorski setting the record straight on DDT:

    https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/zika-virus-microcephaly-and-calls-to-bring-back-ddt/

    Ultimately, the EPA held seven months of hearings in 1971-1972 where the evidence for and against DDT was presented, and in the summer of 1972, William Ruckelshaus, the EPA’s first Administrator, announced a ban on DDT use in the US for most uses, although he did not ban its manufacture or sale overseas and there was an exception for public health; e.g., malaria control. Indeed, the US continued to manufacture and export DDT until the mid-1980s. In the following years, agricultural use was banned in most developed countries. Most recently, the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants took effect in 2004 and restricted DDT use to vector control. Specifically, the convention exempts public health use within WHO guidelines from the ban. Today, approximately 3,000 to 4,000 tons of DDT are used each year for vector control, usually application to the inside walls of homes to kill or repel mosquitos, a technique known as indoor residual spraying.

    Debunking one of the common myths about DDT:

    one claim frequently made in defense of DDT is that in Sri Lanka, DDT dramatically decreased the incidence of malaria, such that when the spraying stopped only a handful of people suffered from the disease, but that from 1968 to 1970, malaria came roaring back to infect 1.5 million because Sri Lanka could no longer use DDT. In Merchants of Doubt, Oreskes and Conway point out that this doesn’t tell the whole story, namely that Sri Lankans did use DDT when malaria came roaring back in 1968 but it couldn’t control the mosquitos because resistance had developed; in fact they used ever greater amounts of it, to no avail. They had to switch to malathion, a pesticide to which their mosquitos hadn’t yet developed resistance.

    Here is the article from which David Gorski got his information:

    http://www.somesnarksareboojums.com/blog/?p=62

    In that article, there is a link to the EPA’s 173 page “Recommended Findings, Conclusions and Orders” regarding DDT after their 7 month hearing.

    Perhaps Michael Egnor’s parish priest could give, as penance for transgressing the 8th of The Ten Commandments, the reading of all 173 pages of this report .

  41. Steven Novellaon 21 Apr 2017 at 9:43 am

    Bach – thanks for the clarification. My summary was misleading.

  42. Atlantean Idolon 21 Apr 2017 at 9:55 am

    Steve:

    As you pointed out, the Cook paper is a literature review, not a survey of the opinions of individual scientists. The number of papers Cook excluded on the grounds that no opinion was expressed was about 8000. According to Legates, Cook excluded papers that expressed the opinion that there was insufficient evidence to take a side on AGW one way or the other. These absolutely should have been counted. It’s completely dishonest for Cook to treat those scientists who did not express an opinion in a particular paper on climate as though they had no opinion on AGW.

    Also, Legates found that Cook did not consistently apply the standard definition of AGW in his classifications, and that many of his classifications were simply wrong.

    As I said, the scientific organizations proper do not review the science and publish their findings. Their governing boards merely issue politically expedient statements that don’t reflect any sort of consensus among the societies’ members. A number of scientists, including Nobel laureate Ivar Giaever, have resigned from their societies in protest of this misrepresentation.

    I’d like to see a survey of actual scientists in all relevant fields that poses this question: Do you agree with the following statement: Absent human activity, the increase in global temperature since 1880 would be less than half of what has been observed.

  43. BillyJoe7on 21 Apr 2017 at 10:03 am

    The second link in my post above has a graph depicting the production, consumption, and export of DDT over time. It shows that the consumption of DDT peaked in 1959 and was down to a minimal level by 1972 when those recommendations came out.

    Not the first time we’ve caught Michael Egnor blatantly lying.
    (I’m not buying that he is misinformed, he has been corrected too many times)

  44. Yehouda Harpazon 21 Apr 2017 at 10:53 am

    > # Steven Novella on 20 Apr 2017 at 5:00 pm

    > What do you mean, “standard definition of consensus?” You’re just making that up.

    I copied it from the article under discussion (to which I have included a link).

    Was that really that difficult to see from my post?

  45. Pete Aon 21 Apr 2017 at 11:19 am

    Atlantean Idol,

    I think it unfair to ask anyone the question: Do you agree with the following statement: Absent human activity, the increase in global temperature since 1880 would be less than half of what has been observed.

    That is an anthropogenic global warming question, it is not an anthropogenic climate change question. They are very different questions due to three factors:

    1. The enthalpy of fusion [aka: latent heat of fusion] of water: to melt ice at 0 °C into water requires 333.55 kJ/kg, but there is no rise in temperature;

    2. The albedo of Antarctic snow-covered ice is ~0.8, which is 13 times greater than the albedo of an open ocean (~0.06).

    3. Evaporation from the oceans increases rapidly as the temperature rises above 0 °C, which is crucially important because water vapour is a much more powerful greenhouse gas than is carbon dioxide.

    AGW, being based in very small global temperature variations, completely hides from the observer of its data the huge regional and global changes in climates.

  46. Sarahon 21 Apr 2017 at 11:54 am

    Right on time, here comes the deniers.

  47. tmac57on 21 Apr 2017 at 11:54 am

    Good points Pete A! I will add to that that the ocean is a massive heat sink that takes in and stores about 90% of the excess heat energy caused by the greenhouse effect. But that energy isn’t just sitting there static, doing no harm. It is affecting the health of the oceans, and is periodically released back into the atmosphere in the form (as you stated) of water vapor, and the engine behind hurricanes, high straight line winds, tornadoes, and torrential rains.
    And concerning the “Cook survey is wrong” talking point, it is worth pointing out that there are now at least 7 such studies that range from 93% to 100% of climate scientists agreeing that the earth is warming due to our influences.

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

  48. Sarahon 21 Apr 2017 at 11:57 am

    Except none of those apocalypses were based on scientific research, Egnor. I’d also point out that in the case of pesticides, we cracked down hard with regulation.

  49. Sarahon 21 Apr 2017 at 11:58 am

    Regarding the ozone hole problem, we massively cracked down on the problem chemicals that were causing it.

  50. Atlantean Idolon 21 Apr 2017 at 12:08 pm

    tmac57: You do know that skepticalscience.com is Cook’s website, right? Given his track record in literature review I would be skeptical of his meta literature reviews also.

  51. RickKon 21 Apr 2017 at 12:12 pm

    Sarah, Egnor’s point is that the crackdown on pesticides was unnecessary, as was the crackdown on CFCs. His point is that people get in the way of valuable economic activity to save an environment that doesn’t need saving. His point is we can dump whatever chemical crap we want to into the environment, pump 100 million years of sequestered carbon into the atmosphere, and breed like aphids, and we’ll all be fine. Or the world will end and God will save the morally superior Egnors of the world and wreak vengeance on the rest of us. Either way, he’s fine and anyone who says otherwise is a Liberal and a Greenie.

    See the power and peace of mind that comes from having a fact-immune personal narrative?

  52. tmac57on 21 Apr 2017 at 12:34 pm

    Atlantean Idol- Yes I am aware that it is his site, and a damn good one at that!
    Cook only did one of those studies, and in any case, you are making a genetic fallacy. You would need to refute those other 6 studies individually, but you really haven’t even successfully refuted Cook’s as far as I can see.
    Deniers are really good at slinging mud without sound evidence to back up their rhetoric. The research literature on climate is stacked massively against their narrative, so lashing out and degrading is their go-to tactic rather than pointing to any solid research to back up their claim, and any that they do use, has usually been shown to be in error. See Richard Muller’s about face on the ‘urban heat island effect’. He went from AGW skeptic to acceptance once he confirmed what scientists had been saying for 30 years, but at least he did what a real scientist is supposed to do…he accepted what the data were saying.

  53. Lightnotheaton 21 Apr 2017 at 12:43 pm

    Steven, Bachfiend, Billyjoe7,
    You have tangentially addresses some of my points about the Earth Day 1970 predictions article, but not the main thrust of what I was getting at.
    Is it fair to say that, in general, scientists of the early 1970s were too pessimistic in their predictions about the future? Or was this a case of conflating scientists with environmental activists, cherry picking the most extreme doomsayers, etc.? I’m just asking for information here. What was the actual scientific consensus back then?
    Second, if the consensus back then was indeed overly alarmist, is it reasonable to infer that something may be missing in our models that predict mostly negative consequences of AGW? If not, why not?

  54. Steven Novellaon 21 Apr 2017 at 12:56 pm

    Most of the problem with doomsaying is that it takes a current trend and then argues – if this trend continues without change, then something horrible will happen.

    The problem with this is – trends rarely just keep continuing without change.
    The game often changes because of new technology. It is usually not zero sum.

    With climate change scientists are saying – if we keep pumping previously sequestered CO2 into the atmosphere, here are the range of possible results.

    It’s more like saying, if we don’t fix the Y2K bug, these bad things can happen. Then we fixed it.

    With climate change, we also know the game is changing. Technology is changing it. The question becomes, is it changing fast enough? Once we put CO2 from the ground into the carbon cycle, it stays there. We would have to actively take it out to reverse the problem. What we have been doing, and hopefully this will continue, is decreasing the rate of increase of our CO2 production. This will hopeful lead to decrease the rate of CO2 release. Eventually it should get to net zero, or even net negative.

    In the meantime, what will happen? If sea levels rise in the meantime, and we have to relocate millions of people, move our farmland, species go extinct, etc. it won’t matter that much that we eventually fix the problem. The damage will have been done.

    But of course the AIs and MEs of the world rail against the most shrill end of the spectrum, when the calmer voices are simply saying, Hey, it is probably cost effective for us to accelerate the rate of transition to clean energy. Reducing pollution alone is worth it, and we just may also prevent some negative climate consequences. They never address the reasonable position because they can’t.

  55. edamameon 21 Apr 2017 at 2:14 pm

    Can anyone recommend a good book on global warming and AGW in particular, that gets into some of the modeling issues and such? Not a book on mathematical modeling per se, a popular book that is authoritative and considered accurate and informative and awesome, that addresses some of the questions the “deniers” bring up.

    I need to learn more about this.

  56. Pete Aon 21 Apr 2017 at 2:28 pm

    edamame,

    In my humble opinion, anyone who recommends “a good book on global warming and AGW in particular” is very likely to be a person who has abjectly failed to understand not only the essential [vital?] difference between “temperature change” and “climate change”, but also fundamental physics — especially thermodynamics!

  57. edamameon 21 Apr 2017 at 2:32 pm

    PeteA if that’s the case the book should also cover that 🙂

  58. MosBenon 21 Apr 2017 at 2:38 pm

    The question of time scale is a good one, Steve. You’ll often see climate science deniers assert that humans will be fine, that the world won’t end, etc. Except that nobody is literally saying that the world will end, and the vast majority agree that humans as a species will survive. It’s a question of what costs will the change will be and is that a good trade off for doing nothing in the short term? Developed countries are in the best position to mitigate or reduce the effects of climate change, but are we willing to allow massive harm to happen to people in less developed countries? Even within developed countries, poor individuals will likely face a much higher climate-change related burden than affluent individuals. Is that something that is acceptable? The assertion that transitioning to to carbon-neutral or carbon-negative economies will be a massive economic burden is often thrown around by the deniers, but that’s a much less settled issue than AGW.

    It’s interesting to me that the deniers have chosen the basic AGW science as the hill to die on. It seems like it would be much easier to argue, and the data is far less settled, on questions about what the economic burden of climate change would be compared to the burden of switching to a post-carbon economy, or the timeline on which that would take place. It’s like arguing that the round-Earth theory is a scientific conspiracy rather than arguing about the most efficient routing of airplanes.

  59. Pete Aon 21 Apr 2017 at 2:58 pm

    edamame, As far as I’m aware there is no branch of physics dedicated to the promotion of thermostatics, however, I am fully aware of the difference between the static logic[1] that is used in AGW denialism, and the temporal logic[1] that is used in climate change science.

    [1]
    Edward de Bono (1991), I Am Right, You Are Wrong: From This to the New Renaissance: From Rock Logic to Water Logic;

    Edward de Bono (1993), Water Logic: The Alternative to I am right You are Wrong.

  60. Lightnotheaton 21 Apr 2017 at 3:19 pm

    Well said, MosBen. It’s also interesting how sure the deniers are that taking governmental action will do more harm than good. Why so much doubt about basic science coupled with so much certainty about much more complex economic issues? Hmmm, I wonder if ideology plays a role?

  61. daedalus2uon 21 Apr 2017 at 4:55 pm

    If you want a good and complete and comprehensive discussion of climate science, this is a pretty good resource.

    https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

  62. tmac57on 21 Apr 2017 at 5:09 pm

    On the question of the relative economics of acting now on climate change vs waiting, economist William Nordhaus whose work has often been cited (misused) to support the idea that we can wait to start mitigation of AGW without any costs, has now updated his economic models and while he had always advocated early action of putting a price on carbon, he now says the situation is much more urgent.

    http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/2017/0201/Why-a-climate-economist-is-giving-carbon-s-social-cost-a-second-look

    And here is an older opinion piece where Nordhaus addresses the misuse of his work by so called skeptics to prop up their false narrative:

    http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2012/03/22/why-global-warming-skeptics-are-wrong/

    The bottom line is, the longer we wait, the more expensive it will be.

  63. BillyJoe7on 22 Apr 2017 at 1:43 am

    LNH,

    I wasn’t addressing the Earth Day 1970 predictions article.
    I was calling Michael Egnor a liar.
    (Not an accusation because, like Ian Wardell, Michael Egnor is a proven liar)

    But the article is BS.

    Have a look…no consensus science predictions are even mentioned, only the opinons of individual scientists. Ironically, the writer then makes a prediction at the end of the article which we should obviously ignore just like the predictions of the individual scientists that he just disconfirmed.

  64. Steven Novellaon 22 Apr 2017 at 8:27 am

    For interest: https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/04/once-more-with-feeling-climate-models-dont-exaggerate-warming/

    Also, interesting how the AGW deniers here are getting scarce. That is the pattern I observe often – once we get down to the details which show their propaganda to be BS, crickets. Or they move to a new point, or a new thread.

    They never admit error, adjust their opinions, or give a definitive rebuttal.

    Propaganda talking point, the Cook article has been destroyed.
    In fact, it hasn’t. It shows exactly what it purports to show. They make up criteria about explicit vs implicit endorsement, then complete make up the notion that consensus = explicit only. This is complete BS.

    I would argue that implicit endorsement is a stronger reflection of consensus. There is such a consensus, that scientists take it for granted and don’t feel the need to explicitly state it. Evolution is the best example. Papers on evolution take the fact of evolution as a given, because it is an established consensus fact. If you just counted up explicit endorsements, the percentage would be tiny and not a reflection of the strong consensus.

    What history has shown, however, is that the deniers will not admit this point, rebut this point, or stop using their propaganda talking point just because it has been eviscerated. And that is how you know who is on the correct side of a debate.

  65. BillyJoe7on 22 Apr 2017 at 9:26 am

    Examples from my own experience with deniers:

    Ivan Grosny given direct quotes proving he was wrong about the bristlecones and climate change and simply ignoring this evidence and disappearing till next time climate change is mentioned, but never again mentioning those bristlecones.

    Michael Egnor crapping on about “hide the decline” and then disappearing after being shown a direct quote from an IPCC report that had clearly explained the decline long before so called “climategate”. And, of course, the graph showing dramatic decreased use of DDT long before any government action.

    Ian Wardell continuing to lie about Dan Dennett’s views after been shown direct quotes clearly indicating otherwise and being given an extended version of a selective quote that clearly demonstrated how he had misinterpreted something Dennett said.

    But they all come back loaded to the gills with their BS.

  66. Atlantean Idolon 22 Apr 2017 at 11:18 am

    Steve:

    I never claimed that consensus is exclusively limited to explicit endorsement. As we can see from the breakdown YH kindly posted above, implicit endorsement (as defined by Cook) was only 25% of the papers. Richard Tol found that three-quarters of the papers should not have even been classified as such.

    Tol has an excellent summary of the flaws in the Cook report:

    http://richardtol.blogspot.co.uk/2015/03/now-almost-two-years-old-john-cooks-97.html

    His key findings:

    -The sample was not representative
    -The sample was padded with irrelevant material
    -There was high inconsistency between the reviewer’s classifications
    -The review was hastily performed
    -The reviewers went out and collected substantially more data AFTER the bulk of the analysis had been performed, likely because they found the initial results unsatisfactory

  67. Atlantean Idolon 22 Apr 2017 at 11:56 am

    You never addressed YH’s point about the standard definition of AGW. This is the crux of the whole discussion: There is a HUGE difference between stating that Man has SOME role in global warming versus Man is the MAJOR driver of global warming. I provided a definition of the latter (which I term strong-form AGW) in my previous post.

    You also didn’t address the point I made in that post: That the fact that an author of a paper does not express an opinion on AGW in that particular paper does not mean he has no opinion on the subject. The “97% of scientists agree” claim is for this reason utterly unjustified by the Cook report.

    Something you might not know about me: I’m one of your biggest fans. I actually spoke to you at NECSS once. Like you, I used to believe that there was a strong scientific consensus that Man is the major driver of recent warming (though my attitude toward mitigation was more in the Bjorn Lomborg camp).

    After reading IPCC Exposed by Donna Laframboise and listening to interviews with reputable scientists (a number of whom are left-leaning environmentalists) I became more skeptical of strong-form AGW. Dr. Patrick Moore, a co-founder of Greenpeace, and Dr. Judith Curry, a researcher who became skeptical of the way the IPCC computer models have been handled, made a particularly strong impressions on me. These people haven’t taken a penny from the fossil fuel industry, and even if they have, motivated reasoning isn’t necessarily wrong and disinterested reasoning (if there is such a thing) isn’t necessarily right. What matters is the merits of the arguments and the quality of the supporting data. I haven’t seen any recent evidence that convinces me there is a scientific consensus on strong-form AGW. I highly recommend hearing out some of the scientists I’ve listened to. Maybe then we can suss out exactly how our views diverged. It would also be helpful to stop lumping honest, data-driven skeptics like me in with cranks like Egnor under the “denier” label. That some people in this comment section have started applying this label even to those like Lomborg is disturbing, to say the least.

  68. michaelegnoron 22 Apr 2017 at 1:14 pm

    AI:

    [It would also be helpful to stop lumping honest, data-driven skeptics like me in with cranks like Egnor under the “denier” label.]

    Ouch.

    But not really. I actually take a lot of pride in being called a ‘denier’ and, on AGW, a “crank”. The reason is that AGW doesn’t deserve the kind of respect you give it. Your posts are intelligent, honest, data-driven, all things that AGW is not.

    It’s a pearls-before-swine thing. These b*stards don’t deserve a shred of respect. AGW swine deserve mockery, and if I had my way, criminal prosecution if they use a cent of public money for their hoax. You flatter them by giving detailed thoughtful arguments.

    They are the Bernie Madoffs of the science world. They deserve contempt and worse. I do my part to provide it.

  69. mumadaddon 22 Apr 2017 at 1:21 pm

    “They are the Bernie Madoffs of the science world. They deserve contempt and worse. I do my part to provide it.”

    By spitting bilious rantings about the apocalypse and Jebus on SN’s blog? Is that all you’re doing? Could you contribute more, I wonder? You’re not a very productive producer of contempt, so far as I can tell.

    Prove me wrong!

  70. mumadaddon 22 Apr 2017 at 1:28 pm

    ME’s latest influential book/study post on Steve Novella’s blog: How I Caused the Undoing of AGW Denial-Denial by Being Contemptuous and Ranting About the Apocalypse and Jebus on Steve Novella’s Blog.

    I read it — wasn’t very good.

  71. Atlantean Idolon 22 Apr 2017 at 2:06 pm

    Dr. Egnor,

    With friends like you who needs enemies?

    There is a kernel of truth in the points you have made on this blog about the abuse of science in service of totalitarian political ideology. You undermine substantive discussion of an immensely complex, controversial issue such as climate change with gross oversimplifications of other complex issues such as DDT policy, however.

    When attempting to engage others on a controversial topic, you need to understand your interlocutors in the full context of their background and the forum in which the topic is discussed. You first began engaging with Dr. Novella on the subject of Intelligent Design creationism, a genuine instance of science denial. You know full well that the overwhelming majority of posters here, including skeptics of climate alarmism, reject the pathetic pseudoscience of ID creationism you endorse. You know full well that your association with the ID movement tarnishes the credibility of your commentary on AGW here, and instead of attempting to honestly engage with Novella on actual climate science you do nothing but rant against grotesque straw man versions of his positions.

    Even though I disagree with Dr. Novella on matters such as anthropogenic greenhouse gas sensitivity and energy policy, I still respect him immensely for the great work he has done in promoting science literacy. I suggest you show him a modicum of that respect and address his arguments thoughtfully for once. I take the time to debate these issues with Steve because we’re both willing to change our minds on such issue in accordance with the state of actual science, though we may disagree on what the state of science actually is. AGW is an issue on which my views have evolved. It doesn’t surprise me that yours don’t appear to, or even be capable of doing so, given that you don’t believe in the science of evolution.

  72. tmac57on 22 Apr 2017 at 2:28 pm

    Patrick Moore was not a co-founder of Greenpeace, even though he portrayed himself to be. And in any case his PhD is in ecology from 1974.
    So he has no education in and has done no published research in climatology that would be relevant or current enough to cite as a reputable scientist worth listening to to counter the massive amounts of data from those who actually are active climatologists and other scientists who are in the thick of current research on the effects of climate change.

  73. mumadaddon 22 Apr 2017 at 3:03 pm

    Michael,

    I mean it! Show us the other ways you’re combating ACC science, or the public’s acceptance of it, with your contempt!

    Maybe you’ve organised the LiveAID equivalent of contempt? Or something..?

  74. Sophieon 22 Apr 2017 at 3:16 pm

    It’s absolutely breathtaking to hear Atlantean lecture another troll on how to be a better troll. Atlantean has also expressed support for misogyny and racism on this blog. Ask him about feminism.

  75. Lightnotheaton 22 Apr 2017 at 3:39 pm

    Atlantean Idol,

    I agree that you are far more reasonable than the ranting, insulting, lying creator of absurd straw men that is Michael Egnor.

    By the way, my position has evolved somewhat too, but in the opposite direction. I now think the consensus regarding AGW, and the science undergirding that consensus, is somewhat stronger than I originally thought. This evolution has come about largely as a result of reading through the many threads on this subject found in this blog, which I discovered about a year ago. I think this kind of extended back and forth between informed people such as yourself who are at least trying to avoid logical errors.

    I don’t always agree with Dr. Novella, but I think he is right a lot more often than you, and I think one very important reason for that is that he tries very hard to avoid ideology, and to be aware of his own biases and how they could be influencing his reasoning. Whereas with you, the influence on your thinking that stems from your libertarian ideology really shines through. As with the Cook article. Dr. Novella has repeatedly said there are other reasons to think the consensus level is very high, and talked about the actual science that leads to there being a consensus, and points out that implicit consensus can be more powerful than explicit consensus, but you keep on going back to the point about the lack of explicit consensus in the Cook article. Looks like you are starting with the desire that there not be a consensus, and then, consciously or not, looking for arguments/evidence that support that view.

    Ideologically-driven arguments have a lot in common with the advocacy arguing you see in courtrooms. Each side starts with a predetermined position and then marshall evidence and logic that supports the position. The cases built for each side can sound very impressive, but this selling, not reasoning.

  76. Lightnotheaton 22 Apr 2017 at 3:55 pm

    was writing that in the midst of doing other things and made some mistakes. meant to say that looking through those extended debates was a really good way to inform oneself and maybe even to change opinions

  77. bachfiendon 22 Apr 2017 at 3:59 pm

    Atlantean Idol,

    For an AGW denier and someone who claims to have learned a lot from contrarians, you’re particularly ill informed about climate science and the basis for AGW, as shown by your not particularly cogent arguments in the ‘Science and Politics’ thread.

    I do agree with your opinion concerning Michael Egnor though. He’s a pathological liar. It’s just as well his religion provides him with some ‘objective morality’, otherwise he’d be a worse liar than he is.

  78. michaelegnoron 22 Apr 2017 at 4:31 pm

    AI:

    [I suggest you show him a modicum of that respect and address [Steven’s] arguments thoughtfully for once]

    An anonomous commentor puts up a few quasi-literate posts, and now he’s dispensing advice on respectful discourse.

    *sigh*

    Steven and I have spent years (the better part of a decade) exchanging viewpoints in a very public forum, and doing so under our own names, at real risk to our professional lives. I have written hundreds of blog posts addressing Steven’s views, in excruciating detail, which have been read by people around the world probably millions of times. Steven has done the same, and for that I do respect him. We disagree on much, but both he and I have addressed each other’s views with exemplary thoughtfulness for many years.

    You hide behind anonymity, post a few marginally thoughtful comments, and proceed to lecture ex-cathedra on your high standards of discourse.

    Different viewpoints earn different kinds of commentary. I disagree strongly with materialists and Darwinists, but there are real differences of opinion on the mind and on evolution between honest and intelligent people, and I (and Steven) address these differences basically respectfully and in great detail.

    AGW is another matter. It is self-evidently a fraud, just the most recent of two hundred years of scientific apocalyptic hoaxes. Tens of millions of people have died as a consequence of this cr*p– people starved in famines made more lethal by Malthusian hysteria, girls murdered at birth in China by the tens of millions because of the One Child Policy– a policy explicitly advocated and developed by scientists in the West, and tens of millions of innocents who have died unnecessarily of insect-borne diseases like malaria because of greenies pushing junk eco-science who deprived them of life-saving pesticides and repellants like DDT that saved millions of lives in the developed West, but are considered too dangerous to save innocent lives in Africa and other poor regions.

    The defenders of the latest Science Apocalypse don’t deserve respect. You are largely right on the facts about AGW, but you don’t understand the visciousness and malice of it’s proponents.

    I debated scientific and philosophical topics for a decade, in excruciating detail, with the owner of this blog and with many other people. I don’t need your advice about proper discourse. So I suggest, whatever-your-name-is, that you take your advice on ‘respectful scientific discourse’ and stick it…

  79. bachfiendon 22 Apr 2017 at 4:41 pm

    Michael,

    You’re a pathological liar and a very poor advertisement for the ‘objective morality’ of Christianity. It’s been pointed out to you many times that DDT has never been banned for the control of malaria, but you persist in repeating your bogus claims without ever addressing the facts.

    You’re clueless and extremely ignorant. You push your ignorance as an apparent matter of pride as advancing your delusional ideology. If you managed to ever engage in a honest debate concerning the issues, then you’d deserve respect.

    But you don’t. Derision is the only response you deserve.

  80. Creeping Malaiseon 22 Apr 2017 at 4:48 pm

    Science journalist Peter Hadfield has an excellent Youtube channel where he discusses climate change at length. His repeated skewerings of Christopher Moncton are pure gold:

    https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCljE1ODdSF7LS9xx9eWq0GQ

  81. Sophieon 22 Apr 2017 at 5:53 pm

    Egnor,

    have written hundreds of blog posts addressing Steven’s views, in excruciating detail, which have been read by people around the world probably millions of times.

    LMAO! Source please? Show me how your entries have “millions” of views.

  82. Sophieon 22 Apr 2017 at 6:30 pm

    Egnor,
    I know nothing about you, well knew nothing. I see you are surgeon apparently. But when I tried to find your blog on google the first 10ish results are posts on other blogs, including this one, explaining how you are wrong. There is also a rational wiki page chock full of references explaining in detail the problems with your arguments. When I Alexa’d your evolutionnews blog I see it’s in the global top 150,000ish sites, and 50k in the USA this puts you in the same rank as some very obscure stuff I have literally never heard of.

    It’s interesting that your detractors that link heavily to your site, have more of an online presence than you. You have some views every month, they don’t number in the millions. If you want to add them all up over the years, but that’s problematic, as not all those people stay and read your work as we can see from the average time they spend on your blog. They could also be the same people who follow you over time. Either way it’s not close to millions.

    Does all that mean your are wrong? No. A minority position doesn’t automatically mean an incorrect position. Galileo gambit and persecuted religious martyr arguments aside. It just means no one cares about your arguments. The internet has decided that the attacks on your work are more significant than your work.

    You could be right. But a quick examination of your work reveals numerous errors and motivated reasoning galore. Go check out your oldest posts, see how far the science has come in just a few years, see how wrong you were. When experts in a field, which you have no expertise in, come out and unanimously decide your work is flawed, your work is probably flawed.

    You are obviously a skilled professional, but expertise does not generalize. Ever hear of the Dunning-Kruger effect? I could be the best surgeon in the entire world, and still have nothing meaningful to contribute to evolutionary biology. I would not even realize how incompetent I am at evolutionary biology. I am skilled at some things, and hopelessly bad at other things, this is a part of life.

    You are more complicated than this effect though. You also have a bigger problem wherein you start with the answer, GOD, and then working backwards to make things work out. I’m just wondering, why are you a surgeon? Didn’t medicine come from the fact that faith healing doesn’t work? Why can’t the faithful just miraculously heal others? Your entire field represents progress and a movement away from fundamental ancient religious ideals.

    I have no idea why people are comparing me to you. Just shows how pathetic the comments here are, and I can sympathize with your plight but I would not stay here for close to a decade. It seems like you didn’t even bother to learn some of the critical thinking stuff Steven is always talking about. I believe modern evolutionary theory is legitimate, I’m an atheist, I am not you.

  83. michaelegnoron 22 Apr 2017 at 6:33 pm

    S:

    My personal blog had about 2000 views per post, and ENV has (I estimate–I don’t have the data personally) an order of magnitude more than that. Steven and I also had a debate on NPR. Given 100 (at least) posts on mind-brain topics, times 20,000 views each, is 2 million.

    Just an estimate- that’s where the ‘probably’ comes from.

    I should point out that in 2008 “Egnor” was the most mentioned name in the science blogsphere– more than Dawkins, etc. Of course, it was generally accompanied by obscenities, but…

    My point is that Steven and I have a long history of rather extensive public debate.

  84. michaelegnoron 22 Apr 2017 at 6:44 pm

    Sophie,

    [You also have a bigger problem wherein you start with the answer, GOD, and then working backwards to make things work out. I’m just wondering, why are you a surgeon? Didn’t medicine come from the fact that faith healing doesn’t work? Why can’t the faithful just miraculously heal others? Your entire field represents progress and a movement away from fundamental ancient religious ideals.]

    It turns out that theology is not something you know anything about either. The idea that a Christian shouldn’t practice medicine because ‘faith miraculously cures things’ is so stupid that I’m surprised to hear it even from an atheist.

    Healing is fundamental to Christian life. Some of the healing is spiritual, and a lot of it is physical. Of course doctors and nurses and other healthcare workers can be and are Christians–Christianity plays a huge role in Western medicine.

  85. mumadaddon 22 Apr 2017 at 6:56 pm

    Michael,

    “Steven and I have spent years (the better part of a decade) exchanging viewpoints in a very public forum,”

    “I have written hundreds of blog posts addressing Steven’s views, in excruciating detail, which have been read by people around the world probably millions of times.”

    “both he and I have addressed each other’s views with exemplary thoughtfulness for many years.”

    “and I (and Steven) address these differences basically respectfully and in great detail.”

    Or you’re a liar who’s had his his arse handed to him in public at least 10 times in the last year, yet continues to parade it around in front of the very crowd who watched it happen..?

    Whilst trying to play that shame sodden last resort card you had in your back pocket — FALSE EQUIVALENCE…

    ..? 😉

  86. bachfiendon 22 Apr 2017 at 7:06 pm

    Michael,

    No one would bother reading your very stupid evidence free opinions if you were posting anonymously. It’s fascinating seeing someone who obviously must be intelligent enough to become a neurosurgeon write such nonsense.

    Christians developed medicine and surgery because faith based treatments obviously didn’t work, as shown in the Black Death in the 14th century.

    It isn’t something to be proud about. It was a necessity forced by the failure of Christian theology and ideology.

    You don’t ‘debate’. You make evidence free assertions, refuse to respond to criticisms, and then repeat – many times – your assertions as if they weren’t already disproved many times previously.

  87. Sophieon 22 Apr 2017 at 7:19 pm

    Egnor,
    I just explained the problems with adding up numbers like that. It’s like when Sean Spicer was causally adding all the tens of millions of views of the online streams of the inauguration. Stream hits in that context mean people who clicked it, not how many people watched the whole thing or even more than 5 min.

    It’s the same with your posts. It could be the same 2000 people over time. That doesn’t equal millions ever. You could also be counting people who just clicked and left when they saw your name or the first 10 fallacies. Or people like me who clicked to see if the articles I was reading were properly referencing and representing your work.

    I didn’t mean that Christians can’t be doctors. Pretty obvious I didn’t say that, I said your field represents the failure of faith-based healing. An atheist can get a brain tumor removed by an atheist neurosurgeon and have the same chances at recovery as anyone else. Prayer and religiosity has no effect. It’s been studied.

  88. michaelegnoron 22 Apr 2017 at 9:32 pm

    S:

    [I didn’t mean that Christians can’t be doctors. Pretty obvious I didn’t say that]

    That’s what you said, implicitly. Otherwise, why would you juxtapose my profession with my Christianity. You shouldn’t say stupid things.

    [I said your field represents the failure of faith-based healing.]

    If you mean that neurosurgery works better than Benny Hinn, yea.

    The relationship between Christianity and medicine is ancient and deep, and I won’t waste my time recounting it. Medical advancement is cultural as well as scientific, and Christianity was central to the culture of healing and care for the sick and charity and investigation of nature according to reason, all of which are the endowment Christianity has given to the West. If you really think that the development of medical practice and science had nothing to do with Christianity or was opposed to Christianity, you’re too ignorant to bother with.

    [An atheist can get a brain tumor removed by an atheist neurosurgeon and have the same chances at recovery as anyone else.]

    No kidding.

    [Prayer and religiosity has no effect. It’s been studied.]

    Prayer of supplication (to which you are referring) is only one type of prayer. Prayer of faith, prayer of thanksgiving, prayer of worship, prayer of consecration, etc are other kinds of prayer. There is no question that Christians are happier and healthier than non-believers–that’s been studied too (I guess you forgot about that).

    As to whether prayer of supplication for healing works, I have personal experience and I emphatically believe it does. I pray for my own health, the health of my family and friends, and the health of my patients.

    If you are to actually make a case that prayer is ineffective, you’ll have to define the kind of prayer you deny, and then you’ll have to actually look at the evidence. For example, healing at Lourdes by our Blessed Mother is very well documented by independent medical experts. Over 60 cures have been verified that cannot be explained by medical science.

    I see the power of God’s healing in my work regularly– physical, emotional and spiritual healing. My primary work is of course secular medicine, but God’s grace and healing are clear to me and to many of my colleagues and patients.

    When you deny the reality of the experiences of countless people–people who know a lot more about prayer and healing than you do– you don’t know what you’re talking about.

    There’s an arrogance to atheism that is repellant.

  89. Sophieon 22 Apr 2017 at 10:00 pm

    Christianity and medicine are connected so deeply huh? Who’s the most famous ancient physician? Hippocrates. Was he Christian? No. He also predates the myth of Jesus by centuries. Did other places where Christianity didn’t exist, have any kind of medical knowledge? Yes, many places. As was previously mentioned, it was precisely the failures of faith healing that lead to modern medicine in the west.

    Also there are Jewish hospitals with a proud and rich history.

  90. michaelegnoron 22 Apr 2017 at 10:10 pm

    S:

    [Did other places where Christianity didn’t exist, have any kind of medical knowledge?]

    You can get your medical care in China. I’ll get mine at St. Mary’s Hospital (Mayo Clinic).

    [As was previously mentioned, it was precisely the failures of faith healing that lead to modern medicine in the west.]

    Faith and medical care have coexisted for all of human history. Your narrative of ‘first there was faith, then we got science’ is idiotic drivel.

    The Scientific Revolution was Christian through and through. All of the great scientists who founded modern science were religious, nearly all were Christian (Copernicus, Galleo, Newton, Kepler, Faraday, Maxwell, Pasteur, ….)

    You atheists played no role whatsoever. But that’s no surprise–what insight into nature does ‘sh*t happened for no reason’ provide?

  91. bachfiendon 22 Apr 2017 at 10:24 pm

    Michael,

    ‘If you are actually going to make a case that prayer is ineffective, you’ll have to define the kind of prayer you deny, and then you’ll have to look at the evidence. For example, healing at Lourdes by our Blessed Mother is very well documented by independent medical experts. Over 60 cures have been verified that cannot be explained by medical science’.

    That’s such a laughable assertion. The 69th and last supposed miraculous cure was in a woman with episodic hypertension due to a phaeochromocytoma (a tumour of the sympathetic nervous system which produces excessive amounts of catecholamimes such as adrenaline or nor-adrenaline).

    Spontaneous remission of phaeochromocytomas due to spontaneous avascular necrosis within the tumours is a well recognised medical phenomenon, so they’re certainly not a case of ‘cannot be explained by medical science’.

    A miracle which ‘cannot be explained by medical science’ would be something along the lines of regrowth of an amputated limb, which never happens.

    You have a bizarre idea as to what constitutes a miracle (as was repeatedly demonstrated by you on your now defunct blog). The supposed 2nd miracle credited to Pope John Paul II (the spontaneous disappearance of a so-called fusiform aneurysmal of a cerebral artery following prayer) is eminently explicable as a transient aneurysmal dilatation of a cerebral artery – due to migraine (as the patient’s family doctor had diagnosed).

    Christianity didn’t lead to progress in medicine and science. Progress happened despite Christianity. Just because its early proponents were Christians (and everyone had to be at least nominal Christians – being an atheist or labelled as an atheist were very much life threatening) doesn’t mean that Christianity caused the progress.

    Having an ideology that has the delusion that miracles (contradictions of the regularities of nature) are possible is opposed to the ideals of science.

    Christians might be happier than non-believers (I doubt it though), but I regard it to be similar to claiming that alcoholics are happier than non-drinkers.

  92. Lightnotheaton 22 Apr 2017 at 10:30 pm

    When you deny the reality of the research results of countless scientists-scientists who know a lot more about science than you do– you don’t know what you’re talking about.

    There’s an arrogance to Michael Egnor that is repellant.

  93. Sophieon 22 Apr 2017 at 10:32 pm

    Now you don’t like China? I was clearly referring to history. You must have known this, because you also were/are talking about history. It’s a fact that literally the most famous example of medicine in antiquity is Hippocrates. It’s in every medical textbook. He was around well before the myth of Jesus took off. He wasn’t a Christian. It’s just that your argument about the development of medicine, has to ignore the quintessential physican. And that’s just the start, you start with a cherry-picked historical record.

    You do this because you already know everything. You know the answer to all questions. God is the answer. You start from there and then work your way backwards filling in the details with confirmation bias and motivated reasoning. It can’t possibly be that your specific religion had no impact on the birth of medicine, you can’t possibly be wrong so you find the details to fit your conclusion.

    As for atheists contributing nothing to science… I don’t even know where to start. I feel like I shouldn’t take the bait.

  94. michaelegnoron 22 Apr 2017 at 10:35 pm

    [When you deny the reality of the research results of countless scientists-scientists who know a lot more about science than you do– you don’t know what you’re talking about.]

    Oh, I don’t deny the results. I think that AGW is the result they obtained. It’s just that they’re frauds, and the data is cooked. To ‘hide the decline”, so to speak.

  95. bachfiendon 22 Apr 2017 at 10:38 pm

    Michael,

    ‘You atheists played no role whatsoever. But that’s no surprise – what insight into nature does ‘shit happened for no reason’ provide?’

    That’s another one of your laughable assertions. Atheists will look for real causes not just ascribing them to miracles or God’s actions – done for unknown mysterious reasons’.

    Returning to the spontaneous ‘cure’ at Lourdes of hypertension due to a phaeochromocytoma. The pure Christian approach would be to pray for a miracle. The rational approach would be to remove the tumour, including possibly embolising its blood supply and causing avascular necrosis.

  96. michaelegnoron 22 Apr 2017 at 10:42 pm

    [As for atheists contributing nothing to science… I don’t even know where to start. I feel like I shouldn’t take the bait.]

    Atheism contributed nothing whatsoever to the Scientific Revolution. Nada. Zippo.

    There essentially were no atheists in science until the mid-20th century, long after the Scientific Revolution had flowered.

    Atheism is a pitiful ignorant metaphysical mistake. It’s a blight on humanity–a glaring example of culpable human ignorance. It is parasitic on Christian civilization, and it degrades civilization wherever it is found.

  97. michaelegnoron 22 Apr 2017 at 10:44 pm

    [The pure Christian approach would be to pray for a miracle. The rational approach would be to remove the tumour, including possibly embolising its blood supply and causing avascular necrosis.]

    If Darwinism is true, whence the desire to help a competitor heal?

    Atheists can’t even explain basic human kindness.

  98. Sophieon 22 Apr 2017 at 11:20 pm

    Egnor,
    It’s just intellectually dishonest to say the things you say. You are once again neglecting historically relevant contextual details. This is a pattern in your writing, you cherry-pick examples and arguments from history. Because you know the answer, god is the answer, Christianity is the best and it’s flawless, you know this to be true deep in your heart, so you work backwards and make up a story to fit your answer.

    Yeah more people were religious back in the day, the first widely available book in the west was the Bible, everyone went to church, there are many sociological reasons for why people were not publicly announcing themselves as atheists. Atheism was also tossed around as an accusation to attack many thinkers. There are so many reasons why people would be shy about this, I think in some cases, depending on the time period it was illegal to be atheist. It was certainly social suicide. Here’s a rundown of the history of this in the Age of Enlightenment:
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism_in_the_Age_of_the_Enlightenment

    Wherever Christianity is found throughout history we can also find many negatives. War. Crusades. Systematic subjugation of women. Intolerance. Forced conversions. Exorcisms. Child abuse.

    Anyone can cherry pick history and neglect important details.

  99. bachfiendon 22 Apr 2017 at 11:21 pm

    Michael,

    Atheists can certainly explain basic human kindness. Humans are a social animal living in co-dependent groups. The wellbeing of the individual is strongly dependent on the wellbeing of the group. Very much a non-zero sum game.

    And ‘the desire to help a competitor heal’ can easily be explained by the motive of monetary gain. Although most ‘competitors’ aren’t competitors – they’re allies or potential allies.

    You’re very laughable with your ridiculous nonsensical arguments.

  100. Sophieon 22 Apr 2017 at 11:25 pm

    Egnor,

    If Darwinism is true, whence the desire to help a competitor heal?
    Atheists can’t even explain basic human kindness.

    Now it’s really obvious you didn’t take an introductory evolutionary biology class. Your Egnor-ance is showing.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altruism_(biology)

    Literally a fundamental part of any basic evolution class is a discussion about altruism. Turns out many atheists can explain this quite easily.

  101. Lightnotheaton 22 Apr 2017 at 11:37 pm

    Sophie,
    I’ll certainly give you this: Your confrontational style is wonderfully well-suited for dealing with Michael Egnor. His responses to get ever more unhinged, making his amazing level of bias and motivated reasoning ever clearer. Thanks for getting him to dig his own grave!

  102. Sophieon 22 Apr 2017 at 11:40 pm

    Haha you are not supposed to openly talk about these things. You are revealing my whole technique. Yeah it’s a lesson… I’m not sure what I’m learning. But I’m learning something.

  103. bachfiendon 22 Apr 2017 at 11:41 pm

    Sophie,

    Michael Egnor is a very dishonest ‘debater’. He’s elevated to an art form a type of Gish Gallop making numerous unsupported evidence free assertions.

    I would like to call it the ‘Egnor Evasion’. He makes an assertion, such as his claim that medical science can’t explain ‘miraculous’ cures, I note that it can (spontaneous remissions as in the phaeochromocytoma at Lourdes or misdiagnosis as with the so-called fusiform aneurysm), and he ignores the rebuttal, moving on to something vaguely related.

    It’s pointless arguing with Egnor, great fun though it is.

  104. Sophieon 22 Apr 2017 at 11:46 pm

    You have to admit, it was fun watching him skip right over Hippocrates in his historical Christian-medicine theories.

    Hippocrates? Screw that nobody.

  105. Lightnotheaton 22 Apr 2017 at 11:52 pm

    Totally agree about Egnor’s Gish Gallop. The main reason to engage with him is to demonstrate that he’s using that technique, along with all the other ones he uses. To present him as an example of extreme motivated reasoning run amok. Certainly not to try to change his mind!

  106. Sophieon 23 Apr 2017 at 12:01 am

    Well I dunno, I have mixed feelings. I think it’s useful to engage. Like in the long term memory discussion, I just asked Ian: what would it take to prove you wrong, what evidence would you find convincing enough to disprove your theories about consciousness? He openly said: nothing, I can’t be wrong, it’s like 2+2=4 you can’t disprove that.

    I think it became really obvious to everyone that it wasn’t a reasonable argument he was making. It’s useful to engage. It’s too easy to just turtle and attack. I always try to remember that most people are closer to Egnor than they are to me. Millions voted for Trump. Alex Jones has millions of listeners. It’s not helpful to just isolate ourselves from these people, we have to honestly try to engage the best we can.

  107. RickKon 23 Apr 2017 at 12:10 am

    *sigh* There’s that over-protesting again: “Atheism is a pitiful ignorant metaphysical mistake. It’s a blight on humanity–a glaring example of culpable human ignorance. It is parasitic on Christian civilization, and it degrades civilization wherever it is found.”

    This emotion is driven, I believe, by the fact that intellectually, he realize that “God” is a human invention and “Jesus” was just another wandering preacher who was inflated into something more by a zealous cult – basically an earlier version of Joseph Smith. Michael just can’t accept that morality could simply have evolved from the fact that cooperative societies are advantageous, and that things like empathy and altruism might just have evolved because they make for stronger, more resilient social groups. He spends so much vitriol fighting against unguided evolution, in part, because deep down he knows it’s perfectly plausible and highly likely.

    But if evolution is unguided, then Michael isn’t known personally to the creator of the universe and his smug moral superiority (which drips from every post) doesn’t have the Yahweh Seal of Approval. And that is simply unacceptable – he simply cannot see himself as anything other than the universe’s purpose. But of course, he’s admitted that neurosurgeons are big on ego, so it all fits.

  108. Lightnotheaton 23 Apr 2017 at 12:11 am

    Sophie,
    Yes, the usefulness of engaging with people like Egnor lies with what others can learn from seeing how their biases lead them astray. People can notice their own cherry picking, arguing from incredulity, etc., when they see others doing it so blatantly.

  109. Lightnotheaton 23 Apr 2017 at 12:12 am

    Begin to notice it a little, at least. Or such is my hope.

  110. RickKon 23 Apr 2017 at 12:16 am

    Sophie said: “I think it became really obvious to everyone that it wasn’t a reasonable argument he was making.”

    Just keep in mind – we knew years ago that neither Ian nor Michael have any interest whatsoever in making reasonable arguments. Fifty discussion threads from now, when Michael is posting the same cut&paste summaries and Ian is still including links to his blog in every post, you may also see the futility of “engaging”.

    But good on you for trying.

    That’s one of things I admire about Steve – he almost always engages respectfully, even in the face of Egnor’s blatant and repetitive dishonesty.

  111. Sophieon 23 Apr 2017 at 12:31 am

    A question about evidence should have been asked of Ian much earlier in that discussion, in my opinion. But yes certainly I would likely feel differently if I was putting up with this behavior for years. So many forces are working to pull us all apart though, we need to be friendly with the people we have good reason to hate. What’s the alternative? Us all in our own echo chambers isolated from everyone. If me and Egnor were trapped in a difficult real world scenario I like to think he would work to help me survive. If I accidentally sideswiped his car I would apologize and swap insurance info or whatever. If his dog ran away and was found in my backyard I would return it. Lol these are things I think about. We need to work together and have such giant hearts that it doesn’t matter how much they stomp on us.

  112. Lightnotheaton 23 Apr 2017 at 12:40 am

    Sophie,
    “Egnor and I.” Sorry, couldn’t resist. Carry on..

  113. BillyJoe7on 23 Apr 2017 at 2:10 am

    Stages in the genesis of a liar.

    Being ideologically motivated to believe certain claims as being true.
    Repeat a claim that supports your ideology without checking for its veracity.
    Being shown unequivocal evidence that the claim is not true.
    Ignore the evidence that the claim is not true.
    Repeat the claim.

    Michael Egnor has been through all these stages for numerous claims he has made.

    Conclusion: Michael Egnor is a liar.

  114. BillyJoe7on 23 Apr 2017 at 2:39 am

    Michael Egnor:

    “If Darwinism is true, whence the desire to help a competitor heal?”

    Others have already referred to your ignorance of basic evolutionary theory.

    (And I will add that it is quite extraordinary that you are so ignorant of evolutionary theory given your claim that it is bv||$h!+. You actually have to understand something in order to legitimately criticise it!)

    But the other point that we don’t have to like “survival of the fittest” to accept that it is true in nature.
    We, as thinking rational human beings thanks to our genes, don’t have to be victims of our genes.
    We can actually use contraception after all.

    (Yeah, I know, contraception is against the wishes of Baby Jesus)

  115. bachfiendon 23 Apr 2017 at 3:21 am

    I wonder if Michael Egnor has realised that he can’t defend the truth claims of Christianity, so he’s forced to claim that Christianity produced Western science and medicine (and as a result, China without Christianity and atheism produced nothing).

    A very good reason why modern science and medicine developed in Europe and not in China as that China had very fine porcelain and Europe had glass.

    Of the two, glass is much more useful. Besides being used in making stained glass windows for cathedrals, it’s an essential for making lenses for telescopes and microscopes. Telescopes first had a military application. It was a considerable advantage to be able to see the enemy kilometres away when the effective musket range was less than 300 metres.

    Galileo’ telescope came from technology developed during the Dutch revolt of the late 16th, early 17th centuries.

    Having microscopes allows the study of germs and the development of germ theory.

    It’s difficult to imagine how chemistry as a science could have developed without glass test tubes, flasks and tubing.

    If it had been reversed and China had glass and Europe had fine porcelain, then it’s likely that China would have conquered Europe (and Michael Egnor would be musing about what it is that allowed Buddhism to develop modern science and medicine).

  116. chikoppion 23 Apr 2017 at 4:27 am

    [michaelegnor] Faith and medical care have coexisted for all of human history. Your narrative of ‘first there was faith, then we got science’ is idiotic drivel.
    The Scientific Revolution was Christian through and through. All of the great scientists who founded modern science were religious, nearly all were Christian (Copernicus, Galleo, Newton, Kepler, Faraday, Maxwell, Pasteur, ….)
    You atheists played no role whatsoever. But that’s no surprise–what insight into nature does ‘sh*t happened for no reason’ provide?

    Erm…so science, which has nothing but disdain for “faith” of any form, is a triumph of religious thought?

    Maybe, just maybe, the church was once a dominant socio-political force that provided institutional consistency, wealth, and political legitimacy at a time when Balkanized nations were beset by turmoil. However, education and literacy is no longer the purview of various religious sects and it turns out that science doesn’t depend on scripture at all.

    Welcome to the 21st century. It’s much nicer here. And no, sh*t doesn’t happen for no reason. Sh*t happens for lots of reasons, all of which are discovered methodologically. The enlightenment superseded dogma with reason. To whatever extent the institution of religion played a role, thanks for that. But we’ll take it from here.

  117. BillyJoe7on 23 Apr 2017 at 4:47 am

    Atlantean Idol,

    “Tol has an excellent summary of the flaws in the Cook report:
    http://richardtol.blogspot.co.uk/2015/03/now-almost-two-years-old-john-cooks-97.html
    His key findings:
    -The sample was not representative
    -The sample was padded with irrelevant material
    -There was high inconsistency between the reviewer’s classifications
    -The review was hastily performed
    -The reviewers went out and collected substantially more data AFTER the bulk of the analysis had been performed, likely because they found the initial results unsatisfactory”

    All Tol’s points are personal opinons not facts of the matter.
    Except for the last point which is simply disingenuous – they simply updated the search to the present.
    And totally missing from his criticism is any mention of the second phase of study which was to ask the authors of the papers they included for their views on AGW – 97.2% supportedthe consensus.
    The fact of the matter is that there is no valid criticism of how Cook conducted his research, just other ways it could legitimately have been performed.
    Tol is free to repeat the exercise using his own criteria.

    Interestingly, Tol’s paper did not pass peer review.
    If you are wondering why, here are the reasons on Richard Tol’s own blog:

    http://richardtol.blogspot.com.au/2013/06/draft-comment-on-97-consensus-paper.html

    Also here is a pertinent quote from Richard Tol:

    “There is no doubt in my mind that the literature on climate change overwhelmingly supports the hypothesis that climate change is caused by humans. I have very little reason to doubt that the consensus is indeed correct.”

    So, despite all his personal opinionating about Cook’s report (rejected by the peer reviewers), he actually agrees with its consclusions.
    Who would have thought that from your postings on the subject.

  118. Ian Wardellon 23 Apr 2017 at 8:15 am

    Billyjoe
    “Ian Wardell continuing to lie about Dan Dennett’s views after been shown direct quotes clearly indicating otherwise and being given an extended version of a selective quote that clearly demonstrated how he had misinterpreted something Dennett said”.

    It’s you that’s the liar. As you say, he was directly quoted and he explicitly says he is a p-zombie.

    So stop calling me a liar you despicable ass.

  119. RickKon 23 Apr 2017 at 8:24 am

    Sophie: “So many forces are working to pull us all apart though, we need to be friendly with the people we have good reason to hate.”

    Thanks Sophie – I’m sure I speak for the other commenters when I say that we appreciate the time you take out of addressing the core debate to critique and correct the tone and approach each of us takes.

  120. RickKon 23 Apr 2017 at 8:49 am

    chikoppi said: “Erm…so science, which has nothing but disdain for “faith” of any form, is a triumph of religious thought?”

    Michael has stated that the scientific method – fact-based, self-testing approach – was developed largely by white, Christian males. And without white, Christian males, we wouldn’t have made the great advances in understanding how our universe works. He glosses over the well-documented struggles of great thinkers like Darwin and Kepler and Copernicus to accept truth that was in conflict with their faith. And (ironically, given his love of Aquinas) he doesn’t mention the role the Greeks played in laying the foundation of Western thought.

    Overall, he feels that the intellectual and social advancement provided by white, Christian males wasn’t achieved by other cultures, so it must be due to some inherent superiority. This is all laid out clearly in an earlier thread on immigration.

    If you read that, you’ll see that Michael made it very clear that if we don’t check our immigration, our society could suffer any number of terrible fates:
    – Our sense of family and community could erode as much as it has in Central and South America;
    – We could become as slothful and un-industrious as South Asians;
    – We could suffer the undisciplined squalor of the Japanese;
    – We could suffer the loss of faith of the Muslims;
    – We could lose all ambition like the Chinese;
    – And of course there’s just the general social breakdown that occurs when women have equal voice.

    These are just some of the terrible fates that can befall us if we allow the erosion of white, male, Christian dominated society that brought us to the lofty and enviable position we find ourselves in today.

  121. Sophieon 23 Apr 2017 at 10:07 am

    Rickk,
    I’m not here to tell anyone what to do, sorry if it came across like that. Do what you want, use whatever strategy you think works best. I was simply referring to the current state of things.

    As skeptics we tend to think that if only Egnor knew what we know, he would agree, so we bombard him with our facts. We live in a time period where everyone has their own media sources and collection of positions they think are factual. They don’t trust our sources. Egnor has gone so far down his chosen bath, that he writes his own blog on the evolutionary science he disagrees with.

    It’s easy to see a future very soon where we all just hate each other and can’t communicate because part of communication is referencing a shared body of knowledge. Egnor has different language than us already, his words do not mean the same thing our words mean. For him, a cherry picked historical record is evidence, for us, it’s almost incoherent.

  122. Atlantean Idolon 23 Apr 2017 at 10:08 am

    tmac57:

    Dr. Moore’s emphasis is on the beneficial effects of increasing CO2 concentration. Geologically speaking, Earth is in a CO2 famine. It wasn’t all that long ago in Earth’s history that CO2 fell to 180 ppm, which is perilously close to plants’ minimum survival requirement of 150. His expertise in ecology absolutely qualifies him on this matter.

  123. Atlantean Idolon 23 Apr 2017 at 10:24 am

    bj:

    -Data collection should never follow analysis in any experiment. This is basic scientific rigor. Cook’s “update” is a blatant violation of blinding protocol.

    -Only 1200 authors of 2142 papers in the study self rated. The 97.2% figure is only among self-raters who expressed an opinion on climate change in the papers reviewed. It’s completely worthless as an indicator of opinion among climate scientists, and even the definition of who qualifies as a climate scientist is slippery.

  124. Sophieon 23 Apr 2017 at 11:07 am

    Atlantean,
    CO2 famine? Ecology?
    The relevant expertise in a discussion on climate change is climate science. Evidence from ecological sources is relevant but we are not talking about just plants. Plants love CO2, no question. Does the discussion stop there?

  125. BillyJoe7on 23 Apr 2017 at 11:12 am

    Atlantean Idol,

    You missed this vital point:

    Cook’s paper was accepted by the reviewers and Tol’s was rejected.
    Did you read the reasons the reviewers rejected Tol’s paper
    Tol’s criticisms were considered to be emotional, un-scientific, and unjustified.
    In other words, the reviewers disagree with your assessment of Tol’s paper.
    And guess who has the expertise?

    And did you miss Tol’s quote where he agrees with Cook regarding the consensus.
    Here it is again:

    “There is no doubt in my mind that the literature on climate change overwhelmingly supports the hypothesis that climate change is caused by humans. I have very little reason to doubt that the consensus is indeed correct”

    He simply would have done the study differently.
    The reviewers suggested he do his own study and put it up for review, but they affirmed that Cook’s study was sound and that its conclusions were justified and that the authors’ self reports supported those conclusions.
    Again, guess who has the expertise?

  126. BillyJoe7on 23 Apr 2017 at 11:18 am

    Ian Wardell,

    Okay you’re not a liar.
    You are an ignorant fool who has no ability to comprehend what he reads even when he is spoon fed, like I did on that thread.
    I spoon fed you like a baby.

  127. BillyJoe7on 23 Apr 2017 at 11:31 am

    Here, I’ll make it real simple:

    Dennett rejects epiphenomenalism.
    Dennet said that IF epiphenomenalism is true we are all zombies.

  128. Atlantean Idolon 23 Apr 2017 at 12:49 pm

    Sophie:

    Ecology is indeed germane to the climate discussion. Calcareous sea-creatures combine CO2 with calcium oxide to form their shells, which is what limestone (calcium carbonite) is made of. The vast bulk of sub-surface carbon is sequestered in in limestone, and the sequestration process has been depleting the atmosphere of CO2 for tens of millions of years (while high temperatures persisted, I should add). The release of CO2 into the atmosphere by Man may have averted an ecological catastrophe.

    My criticism of Egnor for his creationism is completely consistent with my opposition to third-wave feminism: both are forms of biology denial.

    BJ:

    That Tol’s criticism was rejected by a particular journal says nothing about it’s validity. As Legates pointed out, peer-review in politically charged fields lends itself easily to censorship. For what it’s worth, Cook had one of his follow up papers rejected from Earth System Dynamics:

    http://www.earth-syst-dynam-discuss.net/4/C400/2013/esdd-4-C400-2013.pdf

    I read the quote in its full context. Tol apparently believes that AGW is a problem serious enough to warrant mitigation efforts. Given that he rejects the largest study of AGW scientific opinion to date it is unclear what he actually bases his policy opinion on (not that his opinion on policy is all that relevant to his criticism of the Cook report).

  129. Atlantean Idolon 23 Apr 2017 at 12:52 pm

    correction: calcium carbonAte

  130. Ian Wardellon 23 Apr 2017 at 1:50 pm

    BillyJoe7
    “Here, I’ll make it real simple:

    Dennett rejects epiphenomenalism.
    Dennet said that IF epiphenomenalism is true we are all zombies”.

    No, not least of all because epiphenomenalism rules out p-zombies *by definition*.

    He’s saying that he is a p-zombie with respect to the type of consciousness epiphenomenalists believe in. In other words, he is a p-zombie with respect to the commonsensical notion of consciousness — the type of consciousness that almost everyone who has ever existed believes in. That is to say the notion we experience qualia and exhibit intentionality.

    So, he definitively has admitted he thinks he’s a p-zombie.

  131. Sophieon 23 Apr 2017 at 2:09 pm

    Atlantean,
    You’ve previously expressed support for gamergate, Milo Yiannopoulos, and defended some of his sexist and racist actions.

    Third wave feminism is the easiest to defend. It straight up acknowledges the biological differences between males and females. It accepts biological realities like transgendered people. I wish I knew what you were talking about.

    I feel the need to mention that feminism at its core is very simple, it’s the idea that women should have rights equal to those of men. Is that what you oppose? That’s a huge core element to this wave feminism, so when you express opposition without clarity it’s hard to see that you don’t oppose that.

  132. tmac57on 23 Apr 2017 at 2:10 pm

    Atlantean Idon- “Dr. Moore’s emphasis is on the beneficial effects of increasing CO2 concentration. Geologically speaking, Earth is in a CO2 famine. It wasn’t all that long ago in Earth’s history that CO2 fell to 180 ppm, which is perilously close to plants’ minimum survival requirement of 150. His expertise in ecology absolutely qualifies him on this matter.”

    Has Dr. Moore published any peer reviewed research on this, or is this just an opinion? In any case, regardless of that, there is more than enough plausible reasons t o believe that that is a very simplistic view of the pros and cons of increased Co2 in the atmosphere to the levels that we are on track for unless BAU is turned around, and ASAP.

    Just like too much of anything good for us, there are limits at which they cross the threshold into being bad for us, too much food, vitamins, sun exposure, even water.

    The oceans are becoming more acidic (30% so far) due to increased Co2 uptake, for example: https://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/What+is+Ocean+Acidification%3F

    While plants need Co2 for growth, and some increase is positive, there is evidence that that may not continue to be positive beyond a certain point:
    https://phys.org/news/2015-06-carbon-dioxide-air-restrict-ability.html

    So, the story is much more complex, and looking at only one side of the equation is foolhardy. We are already seeing negative effects on the environment, and the fact that we can’t undo the emissions already done, and in fact are continuing on a pace to more than double what we have experience over the last 400,000 years in a remarkably short time, should be of great concern because we don’t completely know what the outcome will be. That is not a reason to be comfortable and carefree: https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/CarbonCycle/page5.php

    I’ll post one more link next comment

  133. tmac57on 23 Apr 2017 at 2:16 pm

    AI- Finally, concerning the notion that our planet is “in a Co2 famine” let’s just look at the normal range from which our species has emerged, flourished and grown exponentially until the last couple of hundred years:

    https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/24/

    and:

    http://www.climatecentral.org/news/the-last-time-co2-was-this-high-humans-didnt-exist-15938

  134. Atlantean Idolon 24 Apr 2017 at 9:46 am

    Sophie: I’ve never expressed support for GamerGate before on this blog, so let me do so now:

    Damn right I support GamerGate!!! I’m a gaming fanatic who was mortified to see finger-wagging harridans like Anita Sarkeesian smear my beloved hobby as sexist. GamerGate was noble, spirited uprising of overwhelmingly decent folks who merely want to be left alone to enjoy what they love. People who seek to purge others’ entertainment of content they personally dislike can go f**K themselves.

    Milo is a heroic crusader for free speech. SJWs resort to labeling him as racist/sexist because they have no arguments against him.

    Like GamerGate, feminism was once a noble movement for equal rights. Once a movement achieves its aim, however, it typically disbands. American women are now fully equal to men in fundamental rights as citizens (in certain areas men actually have become second-class citizens: The Red Pill, a documentary on the men’s rights movement directed by a former feminist, is very much worth watching). This is not to say that outcomes between the sexes are equal nor should they be, given the different choices men and woman make, some of which are biologically influenced. Feminism in America has overstayed its welcome; its remnants are mostly bitter female chauvinists in gender studies departments who spread ridiculous conspiracy theories about the “patriarchy”.

  135. Atlantean Idolon 24 Apr 2017 at 10:14 am

    tmac57: Average indoor air CO2 concentration is more than twice atmospheric levels. Your exhalation is 40,000 ppm. Humans can tolerate levels of several thousand ppm with little more than the occasional headache.

    https://www.nap.edu/read/12529/chapter/10

    I never claimed the benefits of CO2 are the whole story, but they are an important consideration:

    http://www.co2science.org/

    There’s a lot of good info on this site about marine biological response to acidification.

    You are right that humans evolved in a specific climate: a tropical one! Why else do so many retirees move south? It wasn’t until relatively recently that humans were able to survive in places such as Canada and Northern Europe. The whole “humans evolved in such and such an environment” argument doesn’t cut it; it ignores the most important human attribute of all: adaptation. With modern technology humans are exponentially more adaptable than they ever have been. No matter what moving average you use (looking at you, bachfiend) climate related fatalities have declined precipitously over the past century. The generally accepted figure is 98% adjusted for per reported event, not for population growth.

  136. bachfiendon 24 Apr 2017 at 4:34 pm

    Atlantean Idol,

    It’s idiotic statistics claiming that technology has resulted in a 98% decline in ‘climate change’ disaster related fatalities by comparing a 5 year period 1900-04 (which included a major drought causing a million plus death rate due to a major famine) with another 5 year period over a hundred years later.

    It’s using dubious data (what counts as a climate change disaster?). And it’s cherry picking the data, poor quality though it is. But it’s typical for someone who thinks that global temperature has plateaued for 20 years – the so-called global warming pause was cherry picked by AGW denialists as early as 2005 by picking as a starting point 1998 which was an abnormally warm year due to a strong El Niño event and finishing with a cooler year in 2012 due to a moderate La Niña event.

    The last few years (despite your claim) have shown increasing warming.

    And it’s irrelevant that humans can live inside with a higher CO2 level. The greenhouse effect of increasing atmospheric CO2 is global warming. Just because rich American retirees want to move to Florida is irrelevant. The effect of global warming on future global food production is complex, including desertification and heat waves.

    I don’t think you can decide what argument you want to use to ignore AGW. You’re claiming that it’s not happening. And simultaneously claiming that it is, but it’s going to be great.

  137. Sophieon 24 Apr 2017 at 5:56 pm

    Atlantean idol,
    There we go the rawness has emerged. You are red-pilled then? You are escaping the matrix of feminism? Fly Neo, fly.

    It’s really difficult to take your thoughts on climate change seriously once we discover you are openly misogynistic. The two should not be related I know. But they are, we all know exactly how they are too.

    They both speak to a profound misunderstanding and disconnection with the world around you. Someone who thinks men and women are now equal in America, despite the Mount Everest of evidence to then contrary, would probably also ignore all the evidence or the melting cryosphere.

    You are a gamer? Go back to playing your games, and masturbating to those ultra popular female streamers who make thousands of dollars a day, just sitting there playing the same game you play. The end is nigh.

  138. BillyJoe7on 25 Apr 2017 at 12:07 am

    Atlantean Idol,

    “Feminism in America has overstayed its welcome; its remnants are mostly bitter female chauvinists in gender studies departments who spread ridiculous conspiracy theories about the “patriarchy””

    You are simply describing an extreme form of feminism to which you are the complementary extreme. Feminism has along way to travel yet. Until women with the appropriate level of ability are no longer denied positions because of the fact that they are women, feminism will remain relevant. Feminism has nothing to do with denial of differences, just denial of opportunity.

    Sophie,

    They are connected in another way. One of AI’s heroes has written two books, one that has been described as anti-feminist, and the other anti-climate change (disparaging the IPCC). I have not read either so the sources I found could be wrong.

  139. Atlantean Idolon 25 Apr 2017 at 10:10 am

    bachfiend:

    In 2014 Dr. Ross McKitrick published a statistically robust identification of the hiatus beginning in 1994:

    http://file.scirp.org/pdf/OJS_2014082814175187.pdf

    The two years since have been warmer than average but this says nothing about CO2 sensitivity. 22 warming-free years during which more than one third of all man-made CO2 has been emitted does.

    Sophie: Only 18% of Americans identify as feminist:

    http://www.vox.com/2015/4/8/8372417/feminist-gender-equality-poll

    It is reasonable to assume that the other 82% are not opposed to equal rights for women. I’m certainly not. The toxic elements of contemporary feminism are a major reason why many eschew the label.

    Your disgusting comment at the bottom of your post is typical of SJW crybullies: you goad, stereotype and smear until you get a righteously indignant response, then you retreat behind the banner of “but I’m only for women’s equality! You’re not against equality are you?” Give us all a break.

    BJ:

    Female applicants to STEM faculty positions are twice as likely to get hired simply because of their sex:

    http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/2015/04/women-preferred-21-over-men-stem-faculty-positions

    Single women under thirty earn more than men:

    https://www.theguardian.com/money/2015/aug/29/women-in-20s-earn-more-men-same-age-study-finds

    Middle to upper class women in America are arguable the most privileged group in human history, if not the happiest. Yes there will always be sexism and we should do our best to combat it even if we disagree on the methods. My position is that true feminism is simply humanism; equal rights for women implies equal rights for men. Repudiation of the feminist label does not make one a misogynist.

  140. Atlantean Idolon 25 Apr 2017 at 10:11 am

    bachfiend:

    In 2014 Dr. Ross McKitrick published a statistically robust identification of the hiatus beginning in 1994:

    http://file.scirp.org/pdf/OJS_2014082814175187.pdf

    The two years since have been warmer than average but this says nothing about CO2 sensitivity. 22 warming-free years during which more than one third of all man-made CO2 has been emitted does.

  141. Atlantean Idolon 25 Apr 2017 at 10:12 am

    Sophie: Only 18% of Americans identify as feminist:

    http://www.vox.com/2015/4/8/8372417/feminist-gender-equality-poll

    It is reasonable to assume that the other 82% are not opposed to equal rights for women. I’m certainly not. The toxic elements of contemporary feminism are a major reason why many eschew the label.

    Your disgusting comment at the bottom of your post is typical of SJW crybullies: you goad, stereotype and smear until you get a righteously indignant response, then you retreat behind the banner of “but I’m only for women’s equality! You’re not against equality are you?” Give us all a break.

  142. Atlantean Idolon 25 Apr 2017 at 10:12 am

    BJ:

    Female applicants to STEM faculty positions are twice as likely to get hired simply because of their sex:

    http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/2015/04/women-preferred-21-over-men-stem-faculty-positions

    Single women under thirty earn more than men:

    https://www.theguardian.com/money/2015/aug/29/women-in-20s-earn-more-men-same-age-study-finds

    Middle to upper class women in America are arguable the most privileged group in human history, if not the happiest. Yes there will always be sexism and we should do our best to combat it even if we disagree on the methods. My position is that true feminism is simply humanism; equal rights for women implies equal rights for men. Repudiation of the feminist label does not make one a misogynist.

  143. Sophieon 25 Apr 2017 at 11:58 am

    About the feminism label, all that means is people don’t understand what the word means. Red-pilled misogynists like you, have distorted the meaning of feminism by fighting online with other idiots who also don’t understand what the word means.

    Feminism at its core is not something to be worried about. It stands for equality. The idea that you think women are the most privileged group in America is heartbreakingly naive.

    As a woman I can tell you it’s pretty interesting to walk alone down an regular street in an average American city. Random strange men say the most inappropriate things to me. Harass me, walk beside me to try to talk, follow me, try to get my number, touch my arm to get me to remove my headphones so they can tell me how much prettier I would look if I “smiled.”

    When I get to work I have to look a certain way, if I don’t wear makeup and put a lot of effort into my appearance, my boss asks me if I’m “tired” because I “look tired and sad,” on those days. My boss routinely comments on my appearance, refers to me as blondie, inappropriately puts his hand on the small of my back, he lingers in hugs a little too long. My male coworkers just roll out of bed, come to work, and take home more money for the same exact work. If I get chosen for a special project they passive aggressively ask me if I’m sleeping with the boss.

    Yes I’m oh so privileged and lucky to be a woman in America.

  144. Atlantean Idolon 25 Apr 2017 at 12:05 pm

    You’re too funny.

  145. Sophieon 25 Apr 2017 at 12:09 pm

    You deny climate change and believe women are more privileged than men. Are you a trump supporter too?

  146. BillyJoe7on 25 Apr 2017 at 1:00 pm

    Atlantean Idol,

    I can’t believe you’re still mistaking “surface air temperature” for “global temperature”.
    More than 93% of the heat goes into the oceans.
    There is not, and never has been, a hiatus in “global warming”.
    That is a denial of basic physics.
    The “Greenhouse Effect” is real, if CO2 increases, global energy balance increases.

  147. Sophieon 25 Apr 2017 at 3:45 pm

    Hey if it’s a toss up between climate change and feminism, I’d rather have you believe in climate change. We will have plenty of time to discuss the equal treatment of women if we avert the coming crises. A billion climate refugees over the next few decades is a more pressing issue. Syria crisis has already been linked to climate change, failing farms, drought, famine.

  148. bachfiendon 25 Apr 2017 at 4:36 pm

    Atlantean Idol,

    You’re kidding, aren’t you?

    Ross McKitrick publishes a paper in 2014 cherry picking the data set (including the highly problematic satellite data which have to be heavily massaged to cancel out the problems with orbital decay and the problem that the satellites aren’t consistently measuring the temperature in the same location at the same time of day and year), looking for a starting you he can use to postdict a ‘pause’ after the event.

    You’re too easily convinced by a large number of complex calculations. I’d like to see a competent statistician analyse the paper. I’ve looked on the Internet. The only mentions I can find is on AGW denialist websites.

  149. tmac57on 25 Apr 2017 at 7:08 pm

    bachfiend- ” I’d like to see a competent statistician analyse the paper. I’ve looked on the Internet. The only mentions I can find is on AGW denialist websites.”

    Ask, and ye shall receive :

    https://tamino.wordpress.com/2014/12/04/a-pause-or-not-a-pause-that-is-the-question/

    Note the update that has a link to a RealClimate post related to this.

    And lastly, that was 2014, and since then the trend has been so clearly upward that only a denier would continue pushing the ‘hiatus’ line.

  150. bachfiendon 25 Apr 2017 at 9:41 pm

    Atlantean Idol,

    Your move?

  151. Atlantean Idolon 26 Apr 2017 at 9:50 am

    Have you even read the abstract? The study was designed to MINIMIZE the effects of endpoint cherry-picking. The study included both the HadCRUT4 surface temperature series and lower troposphere data from UAH. Dr. John Christy at UAH had already corrected for orbital decay as well as stratospheric spillover for the tropospheric data set. Also, UAH includes weather balloon data, which does not suffer from orbital decay.

    Satellite measurements, which can plumb multiple levels of the atmosphere where temperature is more horizontally consistent, are understood to be generally more reliable than surface measurements, which suffer from a number of confounding factors: the difference between land/ocean gathering techniques, the urban heat island effect, the difference in the number of stations in the northern vs. southern hemispheres, the loss of thousands of stations in the fall of the Soviet Union (where temperatures were underreported for energy rationing) and a small sample size in the late 19th and early 20th century.

    No data set is perfect. The best data we have aggregated across altitudes show no statistically significant warming for the past 24 years.

  152. BillyJoe7on 26 Apr 2017 at 11:16 am

    Atlantean Idol,

    And apparently you still believe the following:

    “Satellite measurements, which can plumb multiple levels of the atmosphere where temperature is more horizontally consistent, are understood to be generally more reliable than surface measurements”

    Even those who produce the satellite data acknowledge that direct surface temperature measurements are more reliable than the indirect satellite measurements which don’t even directly measure temperature.

    And the “Heat Island Effect” has been shown to be a myth.

    And I see you have now retreated from “there has been no warming” to “there has been no warming in the lower troposphere”. But you are still wrong. And you’ve got the wrong argument. Global energy balance has shown a progressive upward trend for the last fifty years in line with a progressive upward trend in CO2 levels and in line with the basic physics encompassed by the term “The Greenhouse Effect”. You are in denial of long established basic science.

  153. BillyJoe7on 26 Apr 2017 at 11:24 am

    The following is from a paper authored by John Christy and others:

    “Previously reported discrepancies between the amount of warming near the surface and higher in the atmosphere have been used to challenge the reliability of climate models and the reality of human-induced global warming… This significant discrepancy no longer exists because errors in the satellite and radiosonde data have been identified and corrected. New data sets have also been developed that do not show such discrepancies.”

  154. tmac57on 26 Apr 2017 at 4:58 pm

    BillyJoe7- I don’t know if Christy is talking about UAH or RSS or both, but take a look at this post by Tamino from Nov 2016 that is pretty convincing that newer satellite data sets for RSS are bringing the balloon and satellite data into harmony with good correlation, and show…guess what? The surface, balloon, and satellite data all show a lot of warming.

    https://tamino.wordpress.com/2016/11/27/which-satellite-data/

  155. BillyJoe7on 26 Apr 2017 at 5:53 pm

    tmac,

    Yeah, Atlantean Idol I is wrong on so many levels it’s hard to know where to begin.
    Of course, AI starts and finishes with climate contrarians and climate deniers so he is always wrong.

    Here is a rare instance of a climate denier actually admittig he was wrong.
    (This is so rare that it is worth quoting and is directly relevant to AI’s discredited argument which is so out of date it’s not funny)

    Bob Carter in a telegraph article in 2007:
    “Satellite measurements indicate an absence of significant global warming since 1979, the very period that human carbon dioxide emissions have been increasing rapidly. The satellite data signal not only the absence of substantial human-induced warming but also provide an empirical test of the greenhouse hypothesis – a test that the hypothesis fails.”

    Bob Carter when questioned about the article:
    “By mistake the graph that was reproduced in the Telegraph article was for the middle troposphere. Though it does not materially affect the argument or conclusions, I am embarrassed by it because it can be made to look as if I was pulling a swiftie – which I wasn’t (intending to).”

    This guy at least is honest enough to also admit that the lack of warming in the troposphere is evidence that “the greenhouse effect” is false. But watch while AI sqiggles and sqirms his way around that because, as he surely must know, “the greenhouse effect” is solidly established physics. There is no question that “the greenhouse effect” is real. Climate scientists knew the original satellite measurements had to be wrong because if conflicted with firmly established science. So they looked for the reasons why the satellite data were wrong…

    The errors in the satellite data were uncovered and corrected gradually over many decades and resulted in the original conclusion that it showed cooling of -0.05 degrees per decade to showing warming of +0.129 degrees per decade which is much closer to the more reliable surface measurements of +0.162 degrees per decade. Also, the uncertainty in the original satellite data was five times greater than for surface data and, at present, it is still about double the uncertainty in the surface data. And this is all acknowledged by those who produce the satellite data.

    My advice to people like AI is to get a thorough grounding in what the consensus view is on any topic – what the majority conclude and why they conclude this – before paying any attention to the minority or fringe view. Otherwise you will not understand why the fringe view is wrong and will tend to swallow what they say without question – because, in your ignorance, you don’t know the questions to ask. This is especially true if what the fringe says is in line with your religious (ME) political (AI), or philosophical (IW) views.

  156. bachfiendon 26 Apr 2017 at 6:24 pm

    AGW denialism may also have religious as well as political motivations.

    Ross McKintrick is a member of the Cornwall Alliance, which is an evangelical organisation and which rejects global warming for purely religious reasons.

  157. tmac57on 26 Apr 2017 at 6:33 pm

    BillyJoe7- Yeah, that’s some good advice (probably falls on deaf ears though). I would also add, to look and listen to how climate scientists (not pundits and politicians) advance their evidence. Do they use lots of ad hominems toward their opponents? Do they engage in lots of informal fallacies (cherry picking for example)? Are they sarcastic and snarky? Do they respond directly to challenges of their data, or do they deflect and use tu quoque tactics instead?
    None of those tactics necessarily mean they are wrong, it’s just red flag material.

    Concerning climate scientists who admit being wrong, maybe the best (pun intended) example is Richard Muller, who famously was in a widely shared video of a talk where he attacked the so called ‘Climate Gate’ scientists especially the ‘hide the decline’ out of context quote, and the ‘hockey stick’.
    Of course he dove into the BEST project with dagger drawn to slay the ‘urban heat island’ monster, and ‘right’ the ‘phony’ data, only to be flabbergasted that it was correct all along that AGW is real, and correlated nicely with CO2 , and that his (and a breathlessly waiting host of deniers) criticisms were simply wrong.
    But to his enduring credit, he swallowed his pride and owned up to his error, even under much pressure to recant. That took some courage.
    Now that’s a lesson for anyone who cares about the truth of a matter, and not about being right. People will actually admire someone who can change their mind when the evidence demands it. That’s an admirable trait, not a flaw.

  158. tmac57on 26 Apr 2017 at 7:02 pm

    bachfiend- Roy Spencer is also a Cornwall Alliance member.
    And check out this gem from Craig Idso, one of Atlantean Idol’s sources on CO2 benefits:

    https://web.archive.org/web/20160507164127/http://www.co2science.org/education/reports/stewardship/StewardshipandSustainableDevelopment.pdf

    From that piece:

    “Indeed, even now, we may already be unknowing participants in the great plan, as our burning of fossil fuels releases long-sequestered carbon to the atmosphere, awakening earth’s plant life from the lethargy of the low CO2 concentrations under which it has basically slumbered throughout the entire history of man. Let us deeply consider these matters—even prayerfully—before we put forth our arm to steady the ark of God. He is clearly capable of doing His own work.”

    Soooo….just chill out y’all, God’s got your back. CO2 is literally a ‘Godsend’!

  159. bachfiendon 26 Apr 2017 at 8:42 pm

    Atlantean Idol,

    Your move again. Many, if not all, of your sources are religiously motivated not science based.

    If you want to continue the argument, then you need to find better sources or admit that you’re religiously motivated too.

  160. tmac57on 26 Apr 2017 at 9:23 pm

    John Christy taught as a missionary in Kenya, and later earned a Master of Divinity degree from Golden Gate Baptist Seminary according to Wikipedia. Not that there’s anything wrong with that, but there seems to be a thread of believing in a higher authority that might influence some scientists to be a bit too sanguine about our species heading toward a possible apocalypse.
    Just a thought.

  161. BillyJoe7on 27 Apr 2017 at 7:48 am

    Atlantean Idol,

    “this says nothing about CO2 sensitivity. 22 warming-free years during which more than one third of all man-made CO2 has been emitted does”

    IF there has been no warming for 22 years during which time 1/3 of all anthropogenic CO2 has been emitted, THEN climate senitivity is zero. AND The Greenhouse Effect is falsified.

    Is that really what you are saying.
    No, of course not, you’d have to be an idiot to make that claim.
    The Greenhouse Effect is established science

    What you mean is that there has been no warming IN THE LOWER TROPOSPHERE for 22 years.
    What you further mean is that PROVIDED YOU DON’T MAKE THE NECESSARY ADJUSTMENTS TO THE RAW SATELLITE DATA there has been no warming IN THE LOWER TROPOSPHERE for 22 years.

    In which case you are not saying anything.

  162. BillyJoe7on 29 Apr 2017 at 3:47 am

    It seems Atlantean Idol has retreated like the cryosphere. 🙂
    Rememeber this thread the next time he presents this same tired argument

  163. Jasonon 30 Apr 2017 at 11:51 am

    I just discovered this blog’s nickname feature, so I’m going by Jason now instead of Atlantean Idol, which is my username.

    tmac: I checked out that critique from Tamino you posted about the UAH data. It found it quite interesting from a technical standpoint. I also learned in researching it that the UAH data is calibrated with balloons but does not include their measurements in the final calculations, so thank you for that. I was unable to find a response to the criticism from John Christy or Roy Spencer so I e-mailed them about it. Tamino does not, however, satisfactorily explain the hiatus, the basic fact of which at this point is not even that controversial in the climate community. The controversy surrounding the hiatus lies providing a plausible causal mechanism for it.

    BJ:

    IF there has been no warming for 22 years during which time 1/3 of all anthropogenic CO2 has been emitted, THEN climate senitivity is zero. AND The Greenhouse Effect is falsified.

    Incorrect. CO2 sensitivity doesn’t depend solely on the greenhouse effect, which no serious scientist disputes. The real debate in the climate community is about the relative magnitudes of various positive and negative feedback mechanisms such as water vapor retention and cloud formation. There are natural variations in climate apart from human-emitted CO2 such as ocean decadal oscillations that must be accounted for as well. The IPCC’s computer models, which weighted the greenhouse effect of CO2 heavily, predicted significantly more warming over the past 24 years than has been observed, so clearly those models were biased against natural variability.

    A major prediction made by the CO2-heavy models is that the tropical lower to mid troposphere should warm relatively rapidly compared to other altitudes, and no such hotspot has been observed. This suggests that atmospheric temperature is not especially sensitive to CO2.

  164. Jasonon 30 Apr 2017 at 11:55 am

    I just discovered this blog’s nickname feature, so I’m going by Jason now instead of Atlantean Idol, which is my username.

    tmac:

    I checked out that critique from Tamino you posted about the UAH data. It found it quite interesting from a technical standpoint. I also learned in researching it that the UAH data is calibrated with balloons but does not include their measurements in the final calculations, so thank you for that. I was unable to find a response to the criticism from John Christy or Roy Spencer so I e-mailed them about it. Tamino does not, however, satisfactorily explain the hiatus, the basic fact of which at this point is not even that controversial in the climate community. The controversy surrounding the hiatus lies providing a plausible causal mechanism for it.

  165. Jasonon 30 Apr 2017 at 11:56 am

    I think it would be helpful at this point to reiterate my position on strong-form AGW, which I define as the hypothesis that absent human greenhouse gas emissions, the increase in global temperature over the industrial era would be less than half of what has been observed (humans have caused >50% of the warming, mostly over the past 50 years). This is essentially the definition that was used in the Legates review of the Cook survey. Science is never 100% settled, and my impression is that the debate surrounding strong-form AGW is nowhere close despite powerful non-scientific incentives to create a different impression. I’m about 90% confident that the truth lies somewhere between moderate strong-form AGW (~55% human warming) and zero man-made CO2 sensitivity notwithstanding the greenhouse effect. I fully admit that I have strong political views on certain mitigation proposals to the alleged problem of AGW, but these views actually have little bearing on my approach to the science itself. As I’ve stated earlier, I used to accept the notion that recent warming is almost entirely attributable to human GG emissions but having investigated the matter further I’ve become more skeptical, particularly of the IPCC and their hyper CO2-sensitive computer models. With respect to science many of us climate realists are nothing like the recalcitrant ideologues alarmists have portrayed us to be.

  166. bachfiendon 01 May 2017 at 7:32 am

    Jason (aka Atlantean Idol),

    There has been no hiatus in global warming. AGW denialists cherry picked the data set by picking the starting and finishing years after the event.

    Ross McKitrick has also engaged in a nonsensical statistical exercise in which he’s asserted that for any year in which the error bars for the satellite measurement of atmospheric temperatures (for which there are major problems regarding whether they’re actually measuring surface temperature at all) happen to overlap that of the baseline temperature, then there’s been no warming for that year over the baseline (even if the baseline temperature is way down at the bottom of the range of the error bars).

    It’s an error similar to the one Michael Egnor made when he claimed that because the error bars for 2016 give a range of plus or minus 0.1 K, and 2015 was cooler than 2016 by less than 0.1 K, then 2015 could have been warmer than 2016 (and the Earth could be cooling).

    Actually, to be accurate it should have been said that the chance of 2016 being the warmest year since instrumental measurements started was, say 45%. And the probability for 2015 was 25% or whatever. And so on. The fact remains – the overwhelming majority of the ten warmest years have occurred this century, indicating that not only has there been no ‘plateau’ but that global warming is still continuing.

    And you still haven’t answered the criticism that AGW denialism in the authorities you cite are religiously motivated, including Ross McKintrick – in the Cornwall Alliance.

  167. BillyJoe7on 01 May 2017 at 10:05 am

    AI,

    I’m sick of spoon feeding you.

    Fact: The mesosphere is cooling.
    Question: What does that tell you?

  168. Jasonon 01 May 2017 at 12:15 pm

    bachfiend:

    We seem to be at point of diminishing return in the discussion here. I’m not even sure what you’re trying to convince me of other than that the hiatus doesn’t exist. Depending on which data set you use you and which endpoints you choose you can argue that warming has either completely flatlined or not abated at all. 2015 and 2016 were el nino years, so if you choose one of those endpoints you might get a slight upward trend since 1994, which would still be a significant slowdown compared to the previous 30 years. The highly CO2-sensitive IPCC models predicted no such slowdown in warming in the 21st century, so clearly the weighting of CO2 forcing and/or positive feedbacks should be been lowered. Ceteris paribus, warming will probably resume sometime in the next few decades. I’m going to wait for hard empirical data to come in rather than put my faith in computer models with a bad track record.

    BJ:

    I’m sick of your condescension.

    Fact: Stratospheric cooling has significantly decelerated since 1994, which is a strong corroborating line of evidence for the hiatus.

    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadat/images/update_images/global_upper_air.png

  169. bachfiendon 01 May 2017 at 4:14 pm

    Jason (aka Alantean Idol),

    There’s no argument about the facts. Global warming hasn’t paused or plateaued. It’s still happening.

    It’s only when you cherry pick the data set, picking the lowest quality data set too, and set the starting and finishing points in order to get the results you want after the event, do you get the result you want.

    That isn’t being open minded about whether AGW is happening. That is being highly dishonest.

    Long term trends are important – 30 years at least – in order to avoid the year to year fluctuations due to volcanic eruptions and ENSO.

    AGW denialism isn’t just motivated by money. It’s not just fossil fuel interests. There’s also a strong religious component, as with the Cornwall Alliance. Your Ross McKitrick is a member. As is Roy Spencer.

  170. bachfiendon 01 May 2017 at 5:34 pm

    Jason,

    ‘Fact: Stratospheric cooling has significantly decelerated since 1994, which is a strong corroborating line of evidence for the hiatus’.

    I’m perplexed by your reasoning. You’ve linked to a single graph, with no indication what it means. Is it a basic graph of month to month variation or is it a 5-year moving average? Or what?

    I can’t see any trend one way or the other.

    The importance of stratospheric temperature in regard to AGW is that if the Earth’s surface is warming due to greenhouse gases, then the stratosphere should be cooler. If it’s warming due to increased solar input, then the stratosphere should be warming.

    It’s complicated by the fact that ozone is also a greenhouse gas. Reduced stratospheric ozone due to CFCs should produce stratospheric cooling. Increasing stratospheric ozone due to the phasing out of CFCs should produce stratospheric warming.

    What actually happens would depend on the balance of two opposing effects. And if they are equal, the stratospheric temperature could remain the same despite the surface warming (which you deny is happening relying on dodgy statistics and inferior data sets).

  171. Jasonon 02 May 2017 at 10:33 am

    The fact remains – the overwhelming majority of the ten warmest years have occurred this century, indicating that not only has there been no ‘plateau’ but that global warming is still continuing.

    There’s no contradiction between the 21st century years being the warmest of the industrial era and a significantly slower rate of warming within those years compared to those of the late 20th, which is the definition of a plateau.

  172. bachfiendon 02 May 2017 at 4:10 pm

    Jason,

    If you look at the bottom half of the graph, the surface temperature, there still is a warming trend regardless of whether it’s before 2000 or after 2000, so your link doesn’t seem to be supporting what you’re claiming, despite it being inadequately labellled.

    There’s no ‘plateau’ or ‘pause’.

    Would you care to link to the site which has the link to to the graphs so I can read the description of what the graphs are supposed to be showing? I had a look at the Metoffice website and can’t find the graphs there.

  173. bachfiendon 03 May 2017 at 5:37 pm

    Jason,

    You still haven’t got back to me, but returning to the link you’ve provided which you claim is ‘a strong corroborating line of evidence for the hiatus’.

    Surface temperatures show a definite warming trend since 1970, even in the suspect satellite data.

    The stratosphere has been colder since around 1994, with no apparent trend upwards or downwards since then. There’s no ‘stratospheric cooling’ which has ‘significantly decelerated since 1994’. The stratosphere has just been colder.

    The surface global warming could be either due to increasing greenhouse gases or increased solar input.

    If it’s due to increasing greenhouse gases, then the stratosphere ought to be cooling (because more heat is being retained in the troposphere, the Earth’s surface, the oceans and the cryosphere (with the melting of ice and snow).

    If it’s due to increasing solar input (because the sun is hotter), then the stratosphere should be warming too.

    It’s complicated by the fact that ozone is also a greenhouse gas, absorbing ultraviolet radiation. Recovery of stratospheric ozone following the phasing out of CFC’s should be causing the stratosphere to be warming, but it isn’t. If anything, it’s an indication that there’s something causing a counterbalancing cooling. Such as increasing tropospheric greenhouse gases such as CO2.

  174. Jasonon 06 May 2017 at 10:53 am

    tmac:

    Dr. Christy was kind enough to respond to my e-mail asking about Tamino’s criticism. He says that for the mid-troposphere, UAH correlates more strongly with other major temperature data sets including RATPAC weather ballons in 7 out of 8 instances. He attached this graph:

    https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B6Fnu4xyOB2EQXpWRkFMbzlvU3dzLU50YURjQmkxNW81TWdr

    bachfiend:

    Once more, I’ve never claimed that increasing levels of CO2 have no effect. I’m saying that in recent years CO2 has appeared to have less of an effect than the IPCC predicted. We’re looking at essentially the same data here and reaching different conclusions. The IPCC predicted no slowdown whatsoever, while the observed temperature trend since the mid 90s is not even within the lower bound of their models’ confidence interval. The climate changes on multiple timescales and CO2 is not the only factor. Even if you go by surface temperature (especially after eliminating non-NOAA compliant stations), one must still conclude that the IPCC has overweighted CO2 as a factor.

  175. BillyJoe7on 06 May 2017 at 11:30 am

    Atlantic climate denier Idol:

    “The IPCC predicted no slowdown whatsoever”

    This is a blatant misrepresentation.

    Climate scientists predicted no slowdown in the effect on global temperatures of rising levels of anthropogenic CO2. In other words, if the effect on global temperatures of all other factors, such natural weather cycles and vulcanoes, are extracted from the raw data, you will indeed get a progressive upward trend in global temperatures since 1970. That was their prediction and that is, indeed, what happened. Their climate models are pretty accurate. Climate deniers, of course, don’t care about these details, they only care about misrepresentation and outright lies driven by ideology and financial interests.

    Climate scientists know about the effect of natural cycles and vulcanoes, and they know roughly how long these cycles last, and they know that they have no long term effect on global temperatures. But they cannot predict exactly when they are going to occur. So, for example, they did not know that an El Niño event was going to occur in 1998 and several La Niña events thereafter. But, after they did occur, they could correct the raw data to extract out the influence of these events (which are cyclical and, therefore, have no long term effect) and find the inexorable upward trend in global temperatures since 1970 that they have been pretty accurately predicting all along.

    Similarly, vulcanic eruptions are unpredictable, but, once they occur, their effect can be measured and extracted from the raw data.

  176. bachfiendon 06 May 2017 at 5:38 pm

    Jason,

    You’re up to your usual tricks of linking to graphs with absolutely inadequate labelling and no explanation of what the graph actually means.

    Your comments are absolutely useless, reflecting your ignorance concerning climate science, statistics and logic.

  177. tmac57on 06 May 2017 at 7:42 pm

    Jason,
    I don’t get anything useful from that graph. Maybe Dr. Christy would like to explain, or you could copy and paste his reply for us to see what it is supposed to signify.
    But let’s take a look again at Tamino’s two contrasting graphs that should be more self-explanatory:

    “RATPAC global estimates are seasonal, so I’ve computed seasonal averages from the monthly satellite data. The match between RATPAC and UAH TMT (the slowest-warming of the five satellite data sets) is rather poor:”

    https://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2016/11/rat_uahtmt.jpg

    “The wiggles match pretty well, but not the trend — there’s a pronounced drift between them, with UAH TMT running quite a bit cooler than the balloon data. Also, the correlation coefficient of UAH TMT with RATPAC is poorer than that of any other satellite data set. This argues very strongly against the accuracy of the UAH TMT data.”

    “The satellite data set with the best correlation to RATPAC data is the one warming fastest, RSS TTT:

    https://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2016/11/rat_uahtmt.jpg

    Not only the wiggles, but the trends match. In fact the trend according to RATPAC is 1.91 +/- 0.51 deg.C/century, in excellent agreement with RSS TTT but flatly contradicting UAH TMT. It’s interesting to note that the correlation between RATPAC and satellite data sets is better for all three RSS data sets than for either UAH data set.

    Bottom line: the reasons for the recent revisions to RSS data and direct comparison to balloon data both lead me to believe that the RSS data products are distinctly superior to the UAH data. In particular, the RSS TTT product, because it has a much better correction for stratospheric contamination, seems best of all, and matches the balloon data best. It’s also the satellite data set showing the fastest warming.

    We don’t live in the upper atmosphere, we live on Earth’s surface, where temperature is measured by thermometers. Some people believe (and climate deniers want you to believe) that the satellite data sets are better than surface temperature data sets based on thermometer measurements. ‘Tain’t so. In fact, Carl Mears, lead scientist processing the satellite data for RSS, says outright that the surface temperature records are more accurate.

    The reason deniers claim the satellite data is superior is that they want to discredit the surface temperature (thermometer) record, and that’s because the surface data show so much warming. But among the satellite data sets, there’s one which shows far less warming: UAH TMT. Odd that these days they make a habit of showing that one, the one satellite data set which shows the least warming and correlates least with balloon data. Come to think of it, it’s not odd at all…”

  178. tmac57on 06 May 2017 at 7:46 pm

    Looks like I copied the first graph link twice in error. Disregard the second link, and use this instead:

    https://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2016/11/rat_rssttt.jpg

    Sorry for the confusion 🙁

  179. chazmullon 28 May 2017 at 7:05 am

    I stipulate that the Earth is getting warmer and that the Cryosphere is retreating. So what? The Cryosphere has been retreating since the Last Glacial Maximum 22,000 years ago. I am denying nothing. I completely accept the data that the Cryosphere is in retreat. However, as a skeptic, I point out that this does not mean that human beings are causing unprecedented or extraordinary warming of the planet.

Trackback URI | Comments RSS

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.