Hi Rob Mercel,


Based on the outcome of the Peter Gleick 'issue' above, I'm going to keep this simple. Let's just look at their summary:
Robustness of the Mann, Bradley, Hughes reconstruction
of Northern Hemisphere surface temperatures:
Examination of criticisms based on the nature and
processing of proxy climate evidence


Not forgetting that it's about the Northern Hemisphere, rather than the global picture.

Regards

-------------------------
Geoff Benn BSc (Hons) CEng MIET, Twitter: @GeoffBenn
Truth will ultimately prevail where there is pains taken to bring it to light. George Washington.
skepticalscience.com: "getting skeptical about global warming skepticism"

It seemed like quite an easy question: What do plants "eat".
Please try again without any unnecessary obfuscation.

Thanks.

-------------------------
Richard Winstone MIET

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
Edmund Burke
Irish orator, philosopher, & politician (1729 - 1797)

Geoff,

The carbon dioxide plant food hypothesis seems to work well in agriculture, an abundance of food in our supermarkets doesn't seem to have poisoned anyone. Ontario view

Geoff, you seem desperate to cling on to a none issue. I will continue to research this issue but I would politely request that you might use some engineering methodology to determine what might be reality.

Regards

Dave

I thought we had agreed that these were both true?

"There is an almost conclusive body of evidence to support the existence of man-made climate change"

"There is an almost conclusive body of evidence to support the existence of natural climate change"

-------------------------
Richard Winstone MIET

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
Edmund Burke
Irish orator, philosopher, & politician (1729 - 1797)

Have some maths: 2 + 2 = 4
Now understand that I am funded by Big Oil.

When your head has stopped spinning, try this:


Scientific American claims that:

"On February 20, Peter Gleick, a nationally known expert on water resources, admitted that he had obtained the documents by posing as a Heartland board member."

That is "wire fraud" and is a federal crime in the USA.

-------------------------
Richard Winstone MIET

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
Edmund Burke
Irish orator, philosopher, & politician (1729 - 1797)

In response to your SkS article may I suggest that this describes the skeptical viewpoint quite well. (Not that every sceptic has exactly the same views, of course.)

Climate of Scepticism

-------------------------
Richard Winstone MIET

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
Edmund Burke
Irish orator, philosopher, & politician (1729 - 1797)

Coincidentally, WUWT has a posting on how various organisations have retrospectively changed temperatures for undefined reasons. Again, most of these "corrections" make the present hotter and the past colder.

There are many links to the animated graphs I was referring to above.

Cooling the Past and Warming the Present

Again, I ask, if the science really is so overwhelming, why do they need to do it?

-------------------------
Richard Winstone MIET

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
Edmund Burke
Irish orator, philosopher, & politician (1729 - 1797)

More on the dodgy analysis and maths front - percentages.

How many times have you seen: "97% of climate experts agree humans are causing global warming?"

In the best traditions of this forum I pasted that from the Skeptical Science site. One of the quoted "peer-reviewed" references is Doran et al (2009).

Their survey comprised 3,146 earth scientists and two questions. Question 2 of the survey was: "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures? This is quite similar to the question being asked here.

Note the SkS quote says "humans are causing" while the question actually asked in the survey is "human activity is a significant contributing factor".

The paper concludes that 97.4% of "specialists" answered "yes" to the question.

This all sounds quite impressive until you actually read the report to find that although all the above is true, the 97.4% refers to only 75 carefully selected scientists.

So next time you see a claim that "97% of climate experts agree humans are causing global warming" remember that the question asked was actually slightly different and only 75 "specialists" said yes anyway.

My question would be: "Why are scientists carrying out such a survey?" This is not how science is done. You do not ask everyone in favour of gravity to raise their hands. That is a political process.

-------------------------
Richard Winstone MIET

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
Edmund Burke
Irish orator, philosopher, & politician (1729 - 1797)

Geoff,

You seem confused. Your 'dodgy analysis' was performed by independent forensic experts who specialize in the subject.

Unlike the sanitized world of SkS where inconvenient truths are hidden so as not to offend the readership, sceptical sites tend to put forward the whole truth.

Again you have put up a wall of cut and paste but what you appear to have overlooked is that all the points you noted had been taken into consideration by the forensic experts before they reached their conclusion that Gleick was, on the balance of probabilities, the forger.

You also appear to remain ignorant of other supporting evidence; evidence which came from the forged document had led many to believe that Gleick was responsible before he admitted the fraud.

He was even asked if he was the forger but failed to respond.

I am still unaware of any investigation that cleared Gleick of forgery and you have still failed to cite one.

The press release from the Pacific Institute is carefully worded so as to avoid the forged document.

The term 'interaction' excludes the forged document. The forged document may have referred to the Heartland Institute but there was no 'interaction'.

Again Geoff,

You claim that you want to discuss the maths and science yet when presented with a table of verification statistics you once more resort to cut and paste.

What is your personal opinion of Wahl & Ammann's R2 verification statistics?

In your own words please.

A quick look at history and common sense:

Snow a thing of the past

Common sense

Do we ever learn

Just a few things that caught my attention today, how any organisation can assert that they have all the answers is beyond comprehension.

Regards

Dave

Recent posts have demonstrated admirable passion and persistence on both sides of this debate - especially by Geoff.

Most of us engineers are not climate scientists, which is a highly complex and rapidly developing subject. My simplistic view of it is that a stable global climate, which earth has experienced for around the last 10k years, exists because of a very delicate balance between large warming and cooling forces; most of these forces cannot be influenced by mankind but an exception could be warming caused by increased greenhouse gases (principally CO2 from burning fossil fuels and rain forest destruction). Is this additional greenhouse gas going to cause significant warming of the planet and if so by how much?

That question, especially the second part, can't be answered with 100% certainty; but the vast majority of the world's most senior scientific establishments (National Science Academies, in the UK the Royal Society) consider that there is risk of dangerous warming due to man's activity - I accept that collective expert view. (I sometimes think it amazing that a few hundred ppm of CO2 can have so much effect but then remember such things as the need for certain trace elements for plant growth or the consequences of a drop of arsenic to the human body.)

If significant warming should occur, the possibility of positive feed-backs affecting the present climate equilibrium does seriously bother me (although I don't think it will be in my life time). Two such feed-backs are caused by reduced arctic sea ice cover in summer and melting of frozen tundra releasing trapped methane. I believe that current climate models do not incorporate these feed-backs, which could result in our planet becoming pretty inhospitable to man. Evidence indicates that very rapid climate change has occurred in the past; my worry is that the next could be self inflicted. Although there is no certainty, surely precautionary action would be wise.

I'll just give one citation, which I was led to by the IAP (Inter Academy Panel: The Global Network of Science Academies, representing 105 countries):-
http://www.science.org.au/reports/climatechange2010.pdf

I've just been back for a re-read of the statements by Peter Langdon & Johnny BalI and a look at the vote (49% yes/51% no); although I voted 'YES' (and obviously remain firmly in that camp), there is much in the 'no conclusive body of evidence....' statement that I can go along with, eg:-

'... There is much evidence to show that we are the greatest burden that Earth has to bear. To simply rape the earth of all its fossil-fuels would be gross folly....

But we are a burden to the Earth and reducing that burden is our responsibility. The answer is engineering greater efficiency.....

Whatever our future problems, including unburdening the planet, engineering is our only salvation, and improvements are huge in every aspect. Recent miracles will be dwarfed by those we will achieve in the future. But only if we put our faith in leading-edge engineers finding the best and safest way forward.....'

Is it possible for us all to agree that, since the majority of humanity's energy requirement comes from unsustainable resources, a major objective for our profession should be reduction of carbon consumption?

Regards.......Clive

Clive Brown MIET

-------------------------
clivebrown

An issue which you raised, and then suggested was something warranting your further research. More recent science:

peer-reviewed research article
As carbon dioxide rises, food quality will decline without careful nitrogen management


Carbon dioxide could reduce crop yields



Agriculture and Food Supply Impacts & Adaptation


Regards

-------------------------
Geoff Benn BSc (Hons) CEng MIET, Twitter: @GeoffBenn
Truth will ultimately prevail where there is pains taken to bring it to light. George Washington.
skepticalscience.com: "getting skeptical about global warming skepticism"

They are both true. Is that a problem? Your post seems a bit pointless. Except that it's good to know that you agree with both

Regards

-------------------------
Geoff Benn BSc (Hons) CEng MIET, Twitter: @GeoffBenn
Truth will ultimately prevail where there is pains taken to bring it to light. George Washington.
skepticalscience.com: "getting skeptical about global warming skepticism"

And in the UK...?
Another pointless post. I've already pasted that. But it doesn't mention forgery. Note the page title:
And 3rd page


Regards

-------------------------
Geoff Benn BSc (Hons) CEng MIET, Twitter: @GeoffBenn
Truth will ultimately prevail where there is pains taken to bring it to light. George Washington.
skepticalscience.com: "getting skeptical about global warming skepticism"

Yes the 'skeptics' seem to have a whole load of 'views', each one seems to enjoy a variety of myths as part of their mix. WUWT has presented so much rubbish that I won't spend further time on it.

Regards

-------------------------
Geoff Benn BSc (Hons) CEng MIET, Twitter: @GeoffBenn
Truth will ultimately prevail where there is pains taken to bring it to light. George Washington.
skepticalscience.com: "getting skeptical about global warming skepticism"

Scientists will be doing what they consider to be scientifically correct. Because you've decided not to trust scientists then you have a real problem on your hands.
More WUWT, sorry SkS might not be perfect, but WUWT just presents far too much rubbish to be worthy of consideration.

Regards

-------------------------
Geoff Benn BSc (Hons) CEng MIET, Twitter: @GeoffBenn
Truth will ultimately prevail where there is pains taken to bring it to light. George Washington.
skepticalscience.com: "getting skeptical about global warming skepticism"

"climate experts" / "specialists" - well I'd hope they would be carefully selected, unlike the thousands who signed the Oregon Petition...

Over 31,000 scientists signed the OISM Petition Project


Regarding the 97% would you like to suggest who was excluded when they chose the 75 carefully selected scientists? Ideally someone who actually has main-stream peer-reviewed published climate science?

Regards

-------------------------
Geoff Benn BSc (Hons) CEng MIET, Twitter: @GeoffBenn
Truth will ultimately prevail where there is pains taken to bring it to light. George Washington.
skepticalscience.com: "getting skeptical about global warming skepticism"

It's not my 'dodgy analysis', it was presented by WUWT. My understanding and point is very clear: the experts are clearly distancing themselves from the conclusion by clearly stating that the data is insufficient. They clearly state that it's worse than "simply disastrous."...

Sceptical sites, especially WUWT, tend to present without consideration for context and understanding of significance, ie. mis-information and hence the raising of doubt. That's not truth in my book.

And you're ignoring (blind to?) their warnings concerning the dangerous nature of the conclusions.



If WUWT can't present the most convincing evidence then I'm certainly not going to go digging.

Gleick denied forging the document.

He is innocent until proven guilty. As far as I'm concerned the worse than "simply disastrous." analysis above .


Regards

-------------------------
Geoff Benn BSc (Hons) CEng MIET, Twitter: @GeoffBenn
Truth will ultimately prevail where there is pains taken to bring it to light. George Washington.
skepticalscience.com: "getting skeptical about global warming skepticism"

My own words are simple: they concluded that though there were problems, overall it was correct. I won't be trusting sites which present mis-information and dodgy busted myths who claim to challenge that. And hence I won't be wasting my time digging into relatively insignificant details.


Regards

-------------------------
Geoff Benn BSc (Hons) CEng MIET, Twitter: @GeoffBenn
Truth will ultimately prevail where there is pains taken to bring it to light. George Washington.
skepticalscience.com: "getting skeptical about global warming skepticism"