Mod+ 234. GLOBAL WARMING, CLIMATE CHANGE AND OUR ILLUSION OF CONTROL

[Vortex]

And on another point, Will, why should psi proponents be more gullible than


Bucky, I agreed with your post, but it's a nuanced agreement, hence this reply. The key thing I agree with is "artificially induced anxiety". If I look at it philosophically, it's interesting that the CAGW fad is primarily being driven by the developed nations, which for the most part have been predominantly Christian in the past. With Christianity came the emphasis on guilt; even if you had been a good person all your life, you were born with original sin and baptism was supposed to remove the stain of that: but still, we saw ourselves as constantly inclining to sin and constantly having to be vigilant against its influence.

With the decline in the overt practice of conventional religion (I suppose the USA and some European nations are a little behind the trend here), the underlying force of Christianity, to my mind, is still in play. Psychologically, we feel the guilt of the analogue of original sin. We are incorrigible sinners in need of salvation. The CAGW motif is a modern mythological symbol to which people can attach the notion of salvation for the good (the well-meaning warmists) and damnation for the evil (those dastardly deniers).

However, just as salvation through baptism and being born again in Christ is just a motif, so is salvation through striving for a low carbon footprint. And just as it was dangerous to challenge the church, it is dangerous to challenge the Global Warming Establishment. At the very least, you will be vilified and labelled and people will construct stories about your motives, centred around the belief that you are inherently evil because you don't worship Christ's replacement, Gaia, who, like Him, is being crucified by sinners.

CAGW is often called a religion by its critics, and that may be nearer the mark than they realise. As in religious circles, there's a lot of hypocrisy. My carbon footprint is very small, not because I think it matters a jot, but because I have little cause, desire or need to consume fuel. I live in a modest and well-insulated house, drive infrequently, and hardly travel. Look at many of the vociferous media proponents of CAGW. Well-off politicians and jet-setters--under the new canon egregious sinners--lecturing much poorer people about the need to seek salvation. It's like the fat and comfy ecclesiastics of old: they're even in favour of selling indulgences in the form of carbon credits. They're misappropriating money from the poor and projecting an image of saintliness whilst doing it.

Their congregation is more sincere than they, but being deceived. They want to have a sinful enemy to vilify so that they can feel righteous and gain the kingdom of heaven. They refuse to look at counter-evidence, because it must be false by definition: evil people are incapable of telling the truth, right? We no longer have heathens and homosexuals to disdain, but rather the equivalent of holocaust deniers who've been reading Mein Kampf and swallowed it whole.

And in the midst of all the hysteria, what is being lost sight of is scientific evidence contrary to the dogma. It's being lost sight of because it isn't regarded as scientific evidence--that could only be what supports the dogma; the rest can be safely ignored. Put it in the analogue of the Roman Catholic Index, the Librorum Prohibitorum, which lists the books that the congregation must not read on pain of excommunication.

Trouble is, Bucky, I'm an incorrigible sinner. If someone tells me not to read something, or if I do, to ignore it, I seek it out to see what the fuss is all about; and have discovered so much distortion and even downright lies in the canonically sanctioned writings that I have become not just a sceptic, but a cynic. It's beyond my comprehension how any intelligent person could have swallowed the rhetoric so uncritically; how they continue to swallow it even as more and more wheels are coming off the bandwagon. Only religion can have this effect.

Great, Michael. You have the like of another badly incorrigible sinner, principal cynic, and literally "unsavoury" personality (me). :)

In fact, the general sociocultural mechanism you noticed was mentioned before by others, such as Michael Crichton (with regards to CAGW movement), or, on more general level of social philosophy and psychology, by the devout critic of psychiatry Thomas Szasz. The latter made a large historical work documenting the repeating pattern of labelling, public defamation and redemptive sacrifice of "wicked" and "vicious" minority by a "righteous" and "virtuous" majority, as well as general creation of existential meaning for the dominant majority through this cruel actual implementation of "salvation" semiotics.

(It does not mean that Szasz was totally right. Regarding many things and topics, he was badly wrong - for example, he was was a total skeptic towards social sciences in general, and everything paranormal and spiritual in particular, simply because of his life-long philosophical devotion to atheistic existentialism. But one should learn not only from the persons and groups with whom one mostly agree, but also from the persons and groups with whom one largely disagree. There are no totally "right" or "wrong" people, and one should learn to discriminate the evidentially acceptable parts of the views of the particular person or group from the unacceptable ones. Robert Anton Wilson invented a good term to modify one's inner dialogue and psyche towards achieving such goal: sombunall, the shortened verson of some-but-not-all. So, I can agree with sombunall views and positions of Thomas Szasz, as well as can agree with sombunall views and positions of R.D. Laing, or Wilhelm Reich, or other controversial people. I, for example, agree only with sombunall views and positions of Robert Anton Wilson, not with all of them... It would certainly please RAW, who is now might be busy exploring post-mortem realities: he never told the people that they should agree with him, but dedicated his life to teaching them how to think freely and critically.

I like to think about the cool party he might be having with the Great Chaos Goddess Eris beyond time-space. :D)

I think such "salvationism" is one of the main differences of organized institutional religion and ideology (at least, Western religion and ideology) from free and open spirituality and philosophy. Religion and ideology is quite negativistic in nature. They always base on three basic assumptions: 1) that people once were pure, but somehow failed and is now dirty and wicked by nature; 2) that there is a possibility for salvation via uncritically accepting the Dogma of True Purity; 3) that people who refuse to accept this Dogma are "unsavoury", irredeemably wicked ones, and must be "punished" and neutralized before they corrupt the world even more. To put it short, organized institutional religion and ideology based on diesease-mongering, fear-mongering and - most importantly! - enemy-making. They can only exist as long as the Enemy is somewhere nearby, and have to be destroyed - this is the only chance for the Fallen Ones (e. g. us) to redeem their sinful nature.

The free spirituality and philosophy is entirely different here: they are positivistic - in the sense that they do not need Evil Forces to fight against; they appeal to natural humane impulses to explore, create, conceptualize, communicate and develop, which truly flourish only if one does waste one's existence with hatred and fear. They say that people can find their path of ascension in their selves and with others - not in dogma beyond their selves, against all the others. There is no real enemy anywere. We are not fallen ones. We can find our destiny without attacking ones who (think or do something) we dislike. The only true barrier between us and our potential is not some innate wickedness of ours, or the evil forces working against us - it is our own stupidity and blindness, which can be won without war on anyone, but with learning and development.

We are not intrinsically bad. Neither are others. We have no real reason to bathe in guilt and shame, to "punish" ourselves and others. We can reach new heights - if we stop persuading ourselves that we are chained in the abyss.

 

[Bucky]

@Michael Larkin : loved your post :)
It reminded me of a short sketch by Dylan Moran. Here it is, in hope to lighten the discussion a bit :)

On a more serious note I would partly agree with your psychoanalysis. I agree about the exploiting the guilt factor... but this is an easy task because that guilt is a real thing. It works because we are indeed guilty for trashing this place and some of the environmental concerns are no joke. Of course we are spoon fed from scientific authorities, world institutions, governments etc... and we humans seem to very much need authorities, in one way or another the majority really wants a paternal figure to tell them what to do. It is reassuring, and convenient.

I'd make the (pretty obvious) parallel with the ever impending terrorist threat. No one can deny that there are a problem or two on that front, but the whole issue is a terrific weapon in the hands of governments to manipulate the public opinion and pass all sorts of outrageous laws (e.g. world wide unrestricted communication monitoring) in the name of a plausible threat.

 

[Alex]

This is kind of a difficult subject, imo. Because it would be the perfect excuse for all the miopic, short-term, stupid decisions that our politicians make almost on a daily basis. Profit is king, to hell with the consequences. See what I mean? (although the "profit" part is between the lines) What's all the fuss about control? Eat your chicken McNuggets, drink your 128oz glicemic bomb and enjoy life!

It's a double edged sword and it's difficult to discriminate which is which. There are different priorities, but above all there's a pervasive mind control via the mainstream media. There's just a tiny minority of people that has the time and will to go beyond the surface and avoid being spoon-fed.

It reminds of Epictetus who wrote:
Make the best use of what is in your power, and take the rest as it happens...

Which I think inspired the popular Serenity Prayer:

God, give me grace to accept with serenity
the things that cannot be changed,
Courage to change the things
which should be changed,
and the Wisdom to distinguish
the one from the other.

thx. always amazes me to hear words from 2000 years ago that so perfectly resonate with our condition.

 

[cker]

Stewart says: ...If all we end up with is a cleaner earth through our misguided efforts then I'm fine with that.

Misguided? maybe... but this is the bottom line isn't it? Yes, there is corruption on either side of the (every) issue. Yes, it makes no sense to give more control and power to those who will exploit. Yes, the issue is probably more complex than our current models can handle. Yes, we can argue till the day we know FOR SURE...in which case we'll all be dead if we are dead wrong....but debating in this case because of the unknown, complex aspect of the problem is a waste of creative time. We can all agree that 'clean and safe' must be the goal on a planet of 9 B and growing. What is the 'cleanest' technology we have? Why not take the energy spent in the unending debate and work together to improve it? If you want to argue that 'cleanest' should not be our goal then please pack your bags and leave the planet.

 

[Michael Larkin]

I'd like to remind everyone that this thread is less about CAGW than it is about the way mainstream scientists and others unfairly protect their position from contradictory data. It is less about whether CAGW is happening than the way it is treated by those who argue for it. Let's keep our eye on the ball here so that we can remember why this issue matters to Skeptiko. After all, if we can be open-minded enough to consider the evidence for psi, can't we do the same with data that disputes CAGW? Or are we one-trick ponies that decide when we'll pay attention to the data and when we will ignore it?AP

Point taken, Andy. That said, sometimes one has to mention the nature of the beast, how many legs it's got and how badly it smells. ;) One thing that intrigues is that some psi/spiritual proponents seem to conflate an environmental issue like CAGW with spirituality. It lies quite close to the New Age boundary: about as far as one can go without people thinking of one as an actual New Ager. It's quite closely related to Political Correctness, IMO the scourge of our times: the virtual instantiation of Orwellian Newspeak.

 

[Michael Larkin]

Stewart says: ...If all we end up with is a cleaner earth through our misguided efforts then I'm fine with that.

Misguided? maybe... but this is the bottom line isn't it? Yes, there is corruption on either side of the (every) issue. Yes, it makes no sense to give more control and power to those who will exploit. Yes, the issue is probably more complex than our current models can handle. Yes, we can argue till the day we know FOR SURE...in which case we'll all be dead if we are dead wrong....but debating in this case because of the unknown, complex aspect of the problem is a waste of creative time. We can all agree that 'clean and safe' must be the goal on a planet of 9 B and growing. What is the 'cleanest' technology we have? Why not take the energy spent in the unending debate and work together to improve it? If you want to argue that 'cleanest' should not be our goal then please pack your bags and leave the planet.

Nothing, but nothing, is 100% pure with no downside. Energy, whatever its source, always carries a cost. Coal and oil have costs, but look what they've done and continue to do for you as you sit at your computer engaging in this debate. Think of the peasant in rural India and what it can do for him and his family, and whether the good will outweigh the bad. India has a lot of coal, and wants to use it just as we did to get where we are now. Until and unless some other practical power source eventuates (and solar power/windmills simply ain't it), they are going to go for coal in their energy mix. Coal that has saved an enormous number of lives through enabling the development of infrastructure, including sewerage systems, which are the single most important factor in saving lives since the dawn of humanity. Forget modern medicine: adequate human waste disposal systems dwarf it in terms of improving the human lot.

India is going to stick up two fingers at the West, and good luck to them. Especially when CO2 is actually a beneficial gas that we could probably do with more rather than less of. Ask any plant what it thinks about it, and why the planet is actually greening and becoming more productive:

 

[Psiclops]

Like many issues today with so much information and disinformation about I find it hard to pick my way through it.

So sometimes I defer to people I respect as better informed than I - people like Jim Torson a good friend of mine who I alerted to this interview.

Jim has given me permission to post his thoughts - originally sent to me personally.

But first a short bio on him to identify him as a credible person.


Brief Bio of Jim Torson

I spent ten years developing image processing software at the National Radio Astronomy Observatory Very Large Array (VLA) radio telescope in New Mexico. I also spent twenty years developing image processing software at the U.S. Geological Survey Astrogeology Research Program. This involved work on a number of NASA planetary spacecraft, e.g., Galileo at Jupiter, Mars Exploration Rovers, Mars Odyssey, Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter, etc. This also involved work on the GLIMS project (Global Land Ice Measurements from Space), which uses satellite images to monitor Earth's glaciers. In the early 1980s, an astronomer at the VLA showed me his copy of the so-called Sturrock Report (Report on a Survey of the Membership of the American Astronomical Society Concerning the UFO Problem). This began my study of various anomalies where conventional science gets it wrong because they refuse to seriously examine the data, e.g., UFOs, various psychic phenomena, low energy nuclear reactions (a.k.a. "cold fusion"), NDEs, etc. Since I retired from the U.S.G.S. in 2006 I have continued to study the climate change issue as well as various anomalies.

Jim writes:

I listened to the podcast. Wow.

I also browsed through the comments on the forum. I haven't looked at the Skeptiko forum much, but just the other day you had said that the Skeptiko forum was a little more adult than some others and that the dialogue is intellectual. Well, that certainly wasn't the case for this. There was some attempt at pointing to the actual science, but that was mostly shouted down.

I was up half the night tossing and turning and thinking about all this. I've been trying to figure out why I find it so troubling. (There was nothing there that I haven't heard many times before.) Here are some thoughts…

Alex is full of misinformation on the subject. It appears that much of this misinformation comes from Judith Curry. In my opinion, Curry has very low credibility.

The two guests were not very well-informed on the subject. But, Alex was a good example of a "Gish Gallop":

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

Thus, it would not have made much difference if the guests were better informed. This illustrates that "debates" like this are really a total waste of time.

Just a few days ago I said that Alex was doing a great job with Skeptiko and referred to shows number 33, 34, and 35, where Alex criticized the psi skeptics for not looking at the research. On the global warming show, Alex is doing exactly the same thing as the skeptics of psi. As you probably know, Skeptical Science is a very good place to see what the real science says about the myths from the climate change deniers:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/

Here are a few that Alex and the guests from the show should take a look at:

4. There is no consensus
6. Models are unreliable
9. It hasn't warmed since 1998
11. Ice age predicted in the 70s
17. Climategate CRU emails suggest conspiracy
20. Glaciers are growing
51. Global warming stopped in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010, ????

I think one problem with Alex is that he has seen how the scientific community gets it wrong with many of the subjects he has covered because they refuse to look at the data. He then thinks this also applies to climate change. But, the fact is that climate change is a subject that has probably been studied more than any other subject.

Alex does not seem to understand that there are two very separate questions. First, is climate change caused by humans and is it indeed a problem? The second totally separate question is, what policies should we adopt to deal with the problem (if it indeed is a problem)? He seems to think that climate scientists are pushing for certain policies and they have invented or faked the science to try to support those policies. That is totally incorrect. Very few climate scientists have been willing to enter the debate about policies to deal with the problem. (James Hansen is one of the few exceptions.)

One of the things that I found very annoying was Alex's accusation that climate scientists are faking the data. Climategate! I really got tired of Alex referring to the totally bogus Climategate accusations.

In Skeptiko shows 33, 34, and 35, Alex said that some of the criticism of Dean Radin basically amounts to accusing him of fraud and that this is a very serious accusation. That is exactly the same accusation that Alex is making about 97% of the climate scientists.

As you might know, there is an international project called GLIMS (Global Land Ice Measurements from Space):

http://glims.org/

This is intended to monitor the melting of the glaciers using satellite images. It was started by a scientist (now retired) at the USGS in Flagstaff, and I spent time working on this project. The current Principal Investigator is Jeff Kargel, a scientist who was at the USGS and is now at the University of Arizona. In the eight years since I retired, I have kept in contact with him, and I have been on the maillist for the project. During that time, I have seen NO discussion of preferred policies for dealing with climate change. None whatsoever. Also, I have not seen any indication that any of the people involved with this project have been faking data.

Awhile ago there was a 6-part series on the Weather Channel entitled "The Tipping Points." The last episode featured Jeff's research on glaciers and the episode ended with Jeff telling the leaders of the world that they should wake up and see the evidence of climate change that is right in front of their faces. However, when I stopped to think about it, I don't even know what (if any) policies he would favor for dealing with the problem. So much for the accusation that climate scientists are faking data to push for certain policies.

There is a maillist I've been on for a long time, and years ago I stopped posting anything about climate change because most of the people on the list are convinced that it just a big hoax for people to make money, i.e., basically the same things that Alex is saying. A few months ago someone posted something on the subject and then someone else suggested watching the "Chasing Ice" documentary. So, I posted the link where people could get a DVD of the documentary if they wanted to see it. The woman who runs the list posted a complaint that it was just something for people to make money on and then launched into a frequent rant about how Al Gore and others are just getting rich off the global warming hoax. This basically amounts to accusing scientists of lying and faking the data, which includes me because I have worked on GLIMS. I then posted that it had been broadcast on the National Geographic channel and included some of the evidence that the glaciers are indeed receding. She responded by telling me I should "lighten up." Why should I "lighten up" about unfounded accusations of lying and fraud? I really find it to be insulting. Oddly, all these people who complain about climate scientists making a profit by faking data seem unconcerned by the enormous profits of the fossil fuel industry, e.g., the oil industry, which is the most profitable industry in human history.

I used to subscribe to a publication called "Infinite Energy" because it seemed to be a reliable source of information on "cold fusion." Then, in 2006 they published an article by climate change denier Arthur Robinson. I wrote to them and complained. I'll forward a copy of my correspondence with them. This is another example of people studying an anomaly and finding that the scientific community gets it wrong by not examining the data and then incorrectly concluding that anything that challenges science must be valid. I did not renew my "Infinite Energy" subscription.

Another example is the Journal of Scientific Exploration. They have published some good articles. But, then one time I was very disappointed when they published an article on radiation hormesis. If you are not familiar with this, it is the totally bogus idea that a little bit of radiation is actually good for you. Then, at their 2012 conference, one of the speakers was a climate change denier. It would have been bad enough for him to be a speaker, but he was an INVITED speaker. I stopped subscribing to JSE.

So, as you can probably tell, I am insulted by the accusations that climate scientists are lying and faking data to push particular policies or to profit from a supposed global warming hoax.

All this causes me to question the credibility of all the stuff that Alex has done. Should I now conclude that people such as Dean Radin and Rupert Sheldrake are simply frauds or incompetent?

<end of rant>

Jim

 

[Liberty]

Like many issues today with so much information and disinformation about I find it hard to pick my way through it.
So sometimes I defer to people I respect as better informed than I - people like Jim Torson a good friend of mine who I alerted to this interview.
Jim has given me permission to post his thoughts - originally sent to me personally.

Thanks for that, Psicops. And offer my appreciation to Jim, for his courageous effort - it is not wasted. Ultimately though, this is an issue about political policy and for Most people - politics is inseperable from ideology. . . . Still - it is a worthy effort

 

[Bucky]

Alex is full of misinformation on the subject. It appears that much of this misinformation comes from Judith Curry. In my opinion, Curry has very low credibility.

As a highly uninformed person on this subject I would like to know why Curry is not credible.
According to this Wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Curry
she has very good credentials and she has simply been critical of the scientific consensus on climate change. From there to being full of misinformation there seem to be a long stretch.

I was going to read some of here material and I'd like to learn why she's not a reliable source. In which case I might move to something else.

Thanks

 

[Michael Larkin]

As a highly uninformed person on this subject I would like to know why Curry is not credible.
According to this Wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Curry
she has very good credentials and she has simply been critical of the scientific consensus on climate change. From there to being full of misinformation there seem to be a long stretch.

I was going to read some of here material and I'd like to learn why she's not a reliable source. In which case I might move to something else.Thanks

Judith Curry is the best and most balanced climate commentator on the Web. The reason she's "not credible" is because warmists fear her more than any other pundit, and all they can put forward are insults. She's a genuine, copper-bottomed expert and the sweet voice of reason. She's worth any dozen warmist pipsqueaks, even on an off-day. Go read her blog. She's what's categorised as a "lukewarmer" (same as me, actually): she accepts CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that anthropogenic CO2 may account for some degree of warming, but is very critical of the usual warmist cant.

Edit: listen to Russ Roberts' recent interview of Judith Curry:

http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2013/12/judith_curry_on.html

 

[Alex]

Like many issues today with so much information and disinformation about I find it hard to pick my way through it.

So sometimes I defer to people I respect as better informed than I - people like Jim Torson a good friend of mine who I alerted to this interview.

Jim has given me permission to post his thoughts - originally sent to me personally.

But first a short bio on him to identify him as a credible person.


Brief Bio of Jim Torson

I spent ten years developing image processing software at the National Radio Astronomy Observatory Very Large Array (VLA) radio telescope in New Mexico. I also spent twenty years developing image processing software at the U.S. Geological Survey Astrogeology Research Program. This involved work on a number of NASA planetary spacecraft, e.g., Galileo at Jupiter, Mars Exploration Rovers, Mars Odyssey, Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter, etc. This also involved work on the GLIMS project (Global Land Ice Measurements from Space), which uses satellite images to monitor Earth's glaciers. In the early 1980s, an astronomer at the VLA showed me his copy of the so-called Sturrock Report (Report on a Survey of the Membership of the American Astronomical Society Concerning the UFO Problem). This began my study of various anomalies where conventional science gets it wrong because they refuse to seriously examine the data, e.g., UFOs, various psychic phenomena, low energy nuclear reactions (a.k.a. "cold fusion"), NDEs, etc. Since I retired from the U.S.G.S. in 2006 I have continued to study the climate change issue as well as various anomalies.

Jim writes:

I listened to the podcast. Wow.

I also browsed through the comments on the forum. I haven't looked at the Skeptiko forum much, but just the other day you had said that the Skeptiko forum was a little more adult than some others and that the dialogue is intellectual. Well, that certainly wasn't the case for this. There was some attempt at pointing to the actual science, but that was mostly shouted down.

I was up half the night tossing and turning and thinking about all this. I've been trying to figure out why I find it so troubling. (There was nothing there that I haven't heard many times before.) Here are some thoughts…

Alex is full of misinformation on the subject. It appears that much of this misinformation comes from Judith Curry. In my opinion, Curry has very low credibility.
<end of rant>

Jim

why subject us to such nonsense. one small example:

JUDITH A. CURRY

School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences
Georgia Institute of Technology
curryja@eas.gatech.edu
http://curry.eas.gatech.edu/


GENERAL INFORMATION

Education

1982 Ph.D. The University of Chicago, Geophysical Sciences
1974 B.S. cum laude Northern Illinois University, Geography

Professional Experience

2002- Chair and Professor, School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences
Georgia Institute of Technology

2006- President, Climate Forecast Applications Network LLC

1992-2002 Professor, University of Colorado-Boulder
Department of Aerospace Engineering Sciences
Program in Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences
Environmental Studies Program

1989-1992 Associate Professor, Department of Meteorology, Penn State

1986-1989 Assistant Professor, Dept of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Purdue University

1982-1986 Assistant Scientist, Dept of Meteorology, University of Wisconsin-Madison

 

[Bucky]

Judith Curry is the best and most balanced climate commentator on the Web. The reason she's "not credible" is because warmists fear her more than any other pundit, and all they can put forward are insults. She's a genuine, copper-bottomed expert and the sweet voice of reason. She's worth any dozen warmist pipsqueaks, even on an off-day. Go read her blog. She's what's categorised as a "lukewarmer" (same as me, actually): she accepts CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that anthropogenic CO2 may account for some degree of warming, but is very critical of the usual warmist cant.

Thanks.
copper-bottomed? :D Can you translate for a non native speaker?

 

[Jules]

great... how will you "hedge your bets"? What worldwide policies will you enact to effect the change you seek? How will you implement, manage and enforce them?

I have no specialist knowledge in this area Alex and I don't make policy. Wrong decisions may have been made about how to respond to the warming that has been happening over a long period - growing crops for biofuel for example. The polar bear populations are still declining and until that stops I will still presume there's a problem. Even if there was no more global warming, the planet is already too warm for the polar bears. If their populations start expanding maybe I will see things differently. Its one of those debates that either way if we get things wrong the consequences are too awful to imagine. I tend to view our progress towards understanding as something of a pendulum swing - so even though the pendulum may have gone too far I am just as wary of the swing back in the opposite direction.

 

[K9!]

why subject us to such nonsense. one small example:

JUDITH A. CURRY

School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences
Georgia Institute of Technology
curryja@eas.gatech.edu
http://curry.eas.gatech.edu/

I agree with you, Alex. There are a number of well qualified people who hold the dissenting POV on this topic. It is not a case of "the qualified people say this, and the uninformed say that". And many scientists are carefully staying out of the controversy altogether by framing their research in ways that skirts around this issue. But there are some still willing to put their credentials and opinion up for public viewing, despite the consequences they face for doing so.

Here are some examples of that:
http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/index.php?option=com_content&id=289
Note: I only gave the first 20 names due to space limits on posts.

1. Habibullo I. Abdussamatov, Dr. Sci., mathematician and astrophysicist, Head of the Russian-Ukrainian Astrometria project on the board of the Russian segment of the ISS, Head of Space Research Laboratory at the Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences, St. Petersburg, Russia
2. Syun-Ichi Akasofu, PhD, Professor of Physics, Emeritus and Founding Director, International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska, Fairbanks, Alaska, U.S.A.
3. J.R. Alexander, Professor Emeritus, Dept. of Civil Engineering, University of Pretoria, South Africa; Member, UN Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural Disasters, 1994-2000, Pretoria, South Africa
4. Bjarne Andresen, Dr. Scient., physicist, published and presents on the impossibility of a "global temperature", Professor, Niels Bohr Institute (areas of specialization: fundamental physics and chemistry, in particular thermodynamics), University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark
5. Timothy F. Ball, PhD, environmental consultant and former climatology professor, University of Winnipeg, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
6. Romuald Bartnik, PhD (Organic Chemistry), Professor Emeritus, Former chairman of the Department of Organic and Applied Chemistry, climate work in cooperation with Department of Hydrology and Geological Museum, University of Lodz, Lodz, Poland
7. Colin Barton, B.Sc., PhD (Earth Science), Principal research scientist (retd), Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
8. Franco Battaglia, PhD (Chemical Physics), Professor of Environmental Chemistry (climate specialties: environmental chemistry), University of Modena, Italy
9. David Bellamy, OBE, PhD, English botanist, author, broadcaster, environmental campaigner, Hon. Professor of Botany (Geography), University of Nottingham, Hon. Prof. Faculty of Engineering and Physical Systems, Central Queensland University, Hon. Prof. of Adult and Continuing Education, University of Durham, United Nations Environment Program Global 500 Award Winner, Dutch Order of The Golden Ark, Bishop Auckland County, Durham, United Kingdom
10. Richard Becherer, BS (Physics, Boston College), MS (Physics, University of Illinois), PhD (Optics, University of Rochester), former Member of the Technical Staff - MIT Lincoln Laboratory, former Adjunct Professor - University of Connecticut, Areas of Specialization: optical radiation physics, coauthor - standard reference book Optical Radiation Measurements: Radiometry, Millis, MA, U.S.A.
11. Ernst-Georg Beck, Dipl. Biology (University of Freiburg), biologist (area of specialization: CO2 record in the last 150 years – see paper “Accurate estimation of CO2 background level from near ground measurements at non-mixed environments”), see http://www.biomind.de/realCO2/ for more from Mr. Beck, Biesheim, France
12. Edwin Berry, PhD (Atmospheric Physics, Nevada), MA (Physics, Dartmouth), BS (Engineering, Caltech), President, Climate Physics LLC, Bigfork, MT, U.S.A.
13. Sonja A. Boehmer-Christiansen, PhD, Reader Emeritus, Dept. of Geography, Hull University, Editor - Energy&Environment, Multi-Science (www.multi-science.co.uk), Hull, United Kingdom
14. M. I. Bhat, PhD, formerly Scientist at the Wadia institute of Himalayan Geology, Dehra, currently Professor & Head, Department of Geology & Geophysics, University of Kashmir (areas of specialization: Geochemistry, Himalayan and global tectonics & tectonics and climate (Prof Bhat: “Arguing for deepening the climate frontiers by considering interaction between solar flares and core-mantle boundary processes. Clue possibly lies in exploring the tectonics of regions that underlies high and low pressure cells of the three global oscillations (SO, NAO, NPO)”), Srinagar, Jammu & Kashmir, India
15. Ahmed Boucenna, PhD, Professor of Physics, Physics Department, Faculty of Science, Ferhat Abbas University, Setif, Algéria. Author of The Great Season Climatic Oscillation, I. RE. PHY. 1(2007) 53, The Great Season Climatic Oscillation and the Global Warming, Global Conference On Global Warming, July 6-10, 2008, Istanbul, Turkey and Pseudo Radiation Energy Amplifier (PREA) and the Mean Earth's Ground Temperature, arXiv:0811.0357 (November 2008)
16. Antonio Brambati, PhD, Emeritus Professor (sedimentology), Department of Geological, Environmental and Marine Sciences (DiSGAM), University of Trieste (specialization: climate change as determined by Antarctic marine sediments), Trieste, Italy
17. Stephen C. Brown, PhD (Environmental Science, State University of New York), District Agriculture Agent, Assistant Professor, University of Alaska Fairbanks, Ground Penetrating Radar Glacier research, Palmer, Alaska, U.S.A.
18. Mark Lawrence Campbell, PhD (chemical physics; gas-phase kinetic research involving greenhouse gases (nitrous oxide, carbon dioxide)), Professor, United States Naval Academy, Annapolis, Maryland, U.S.A.
19. Robert M. Carter, PhD, Professor, Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James Cook University, Townsville, Australia
20. Arthur Chadwick, PhD (Molecular Biology), Research Professor, Department of Biology and Geology, Southwestern Adventist University, Climate Specialties: dendrochronology (determination of past climate states by tree ring analysis), palynology (same but using pollen as a climate proxy), paleobotany and botany; Keene, Texas, U.S.A.

I have no problem with anyone who questions the data on this. But at least keep in mind that there are qualified researchers on both sides of the issue. It isn't like Parapsychologists having to deal primarily will armchair critics who can't be bothered to do research or read the literature.

 

[Michael Larkin]

Thanks.
copper-bottomed? :D Can you translate for a non native speaker?

http://phrases.org.uk/meanings/copper-bottomed.html

 

[Alex]

I have no specialist knowledge in this area Alex and I don't make policy. Wrong decisions may have been made about how to respond to the warming that has been happening over a long period - growing crops for biofuel for example. The polar bear populations are still declining and until that stops I will still presume there's a problem. Even if there was no more global warming, the planet is already too warm for the polar bears. If their populations start expanding maybe I will see things differently. Its one of those debates that either way if we get things wrong the consequences are too awful to imagine. I tend to view our progress towards understanding as something of a pendulum swing - so even though the pendulum may have gone too far I am just as weary of the swing back in the opposite direction.

if you're not willing to enter a policy discussion then you're really not engaging the issue.

everyone is against pollution... but everyone is for improving the standard of living of the very poor. which policies are best?

 

[mattvw]

Point taken, Andy. That said, sometimes one has to mention the nature of the beast, how many legs it's got and how badly it smells. ;) One thing that intrigues is that some psi/spiritual proponents seem to conflate an environmental issue like CAGW with spirituality. It lies quite close to the New Age boundary: about as far as one can go without people thinking of one as an actual New Ager. It's quite closely related to Political Correctness, IMO the scourge of our times: the virtual instantiation of Orwellian Newspeak.

An interesting point to me that I noticed in this interview was that it seemed important to Rick and John that there be a consensus on this conversation. What happened to the days that debate was what allowed us to get to a better truth? Is there an unspoken agreement that we make to be part of our groups that we won’t rock the boat. Then the manipulators, either knowingly or unknowingly, add ideas to the group that you have to accept or be exiled, thus conflating environmentalism with spirituality.

I am a 50+ year old white guy that has been meditating for over 40 years. I was raised a catholic, which I have nothing to do with now and have spent the majority of my life with spiritualism as my deepest interest and goal. I spent 10-15 years as a professional alternative healer (I do it on a personal basis now). I spent many of my adult years playing in the outdoors, so I have a deep respect for the environment as well.

That is the context to show that I have some experience in the area that I’m about to have some differences with. After many years of spiritual acceptance, I chose exile over conflation. I don’t believe that you can become spiritual from a guru. I don’t believe that you can become spiritual from being told by a guru that you are free from karma. I also don’t care what spiritual things are said from what Holy Scriptures be they Christian, Buddhist or Hindu.

To know spirit is to have an experience. You can have a spiritual understanding but you have no more spiritual depth then you did before the understanding, unless something inside you changes. For that change to occur you must be open to it or opened by it but that is a force that comes from you. A guru can set up an environment that forces you to make changes inside yourself but I think this is successful much less than people think. Timing is everything and you will not become spiritual at someone else’s behest. Your clock must sync to your own moment.

I don’t think anyone is more environmental because they’re spiritual. I think we are spiritual because we are having a human experience. Whether you’re aware of it or not is another thing. It is easy though to start thinking there are better, more spiritual or some other thing, people out there. I have never met one nor seen one. I’ve looked all over the planet. We still want to believe there is someone out there that is closer to god and all we have to do is believe them or follow them and we’ll make it. I believe each one of us has to do our own work.

What does spiritual mean? Who are you that might be spiritual? Are you the body? Are you the identity? Are you your brain? These are the things each of us has to come to grips with.

 

[Michael Larkin]

http://phrases.org.uk/meanings/copper-bottomed.html

I can't figure out why Enrique and Bucky find this funny. Not that I object, of course, but it's a bone-fide expression here in the UK. Enrique, were you thinking of the other meaning of bottom? ;)

PS: Bucky, I updated my post at #167 with a link to a recent interview with Judith Curry. Highly recommended if you have an hour to spare.

 

[Jules]

if you're not willing to enter a policy discussion then you're really not engaging the issue.

everyone is against pollution... but everyone is for improving the standard of living of the very poor. which policies are best?

I am fortunate to live in New Zealand where nearly all our power comes from hydro and geothermal energy. Wind and solar energy are making an increasing contribution and tidal energy is being explored. We have financial assistance for home insulation and considerable investment in public transport. 31 miners died in the Pike River mining disaster 2 years ago and the governmental enquiry has shown the corruption and incompetence which lead to those deaths - so few here are keen on coal. In the US things are different. Over here our clean green image is our bread and butter - no contest. Everything lines up in the same direction. We still have the oil companies getting permits to do their fracking on our coastline though. The cost of petrol is high here but that's going to run out anyway. Global warming or otherwise we have to do things differently.

 

[Bucky]

I can't figure out why Enrique and Bucky find this funny. Not that I object, of course, but it's a bone-fide expression here in the UK. Enrique, were you thinking of the other meaning of bottom? ;)

Oh yea, this expression immediately imade me remember my trip to Rio many years ago; I can tell you that Ipanema is densely populated by copper- and bronze-bottomed local fauna… Oh my gone forever youth…. :(

LOL... Exactly, thought the same! :D

PS: Bucky, I updated my post at #167 with a link to a recent interview with Judith Curry. Highly recommended if you have an hour to spare.

Thanks, will check it out.