While the United States is now back at early 1990s levels of CO2 emissions, thanks to a switch to natural gas in the energy sector and a moribund economy, that doesn't apply to Asia. The middle class in China alone has a population that exceeds the entire USA and they all want, and are getting, cars and air conditioners and a better life and the emissions to go along with it. Globally, greenhouse gas emissions have continued to rise but warming, the telltale sign of climate change, has not.
Since 2000, global warming has tapered off and virtually no one in the climate science community predicted that could happen.
Yet lots of people outside the climate science community - especially in the numerical modeling community - predicted it just might. Because numerical models are tricky and trying to account for all of the knobs that go into feedbacks in a climate model is extra difficult. Because nature is, and always has been, a bitch. She is not linear and she is not predictable. People who know how to build numerical models know that the more variables you have, the more difficult it is to converge on a good answer. People who insist their p-values are accurate while running the wrong model are not going to give us a right answer just because they do a Bayesian analysis over and over.
The UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), to their credit, has never predicted temperature rises would be linear. They leave wild claims to ThinkProgress and Mother Jones and Grist to make stuff up. Instead, the IPCC recognizes that short-term trends can actually mask the long-term effects of climate change. So while the usual suspects spent 2012 insisting the Great Plains drought and superstorm Sandy were 'aggravated' by climate change (when they weren't outright insisting they were caused by it) the reality is they were just natural events. You know, nature.
Ed Hawkins of University of Reading told Graham Lloyd of The Australian that surface temperatures since 2005 are at the low end of the projections of 20 climate models and they will soon be below projections. Well, journalists are out to shake people up so the implication in that is 'maybe models were exaggerated' but it's like saying 'acid rain is down now, so it was never a problem' or 'the world did not collapse due to Y2K so it was never a problem' - of course it was a problem, and it was fixed and that should be a win. Part of the reason why that isn't stressed more is because activists like Union of Concerned Scientists and Greenpeace make money scaring people about science, not talking about what has gone right.
Yet temperatures are still far higher than a century ago, assuming data from then are accurate. Claims that warmer temperatures will be good for plants and the planet are as suspect as any other claim. We can't risk the future on those models either.
The good news is, we have a breather, but let's not be like a cigarette smoker who goes up to 3 packs a day because they didn't get cancer this year - we can't get all crazy and convert all of our nuclear submarines back to coal because this isn't over - with climate, it is really hard to know, but we do know that if you bend something long enough, it is likely to break. Yes, activists got too crazy and declared the science settled in 2001 but, as Jeff Masters, director of meteorology at the Weather Underground, had to concede in early 2011, "Have we learned a great deal since the IPCC 2001 report? I would say yes, we have. Climate science, like any other field, is a constantly evolving field and we are always learning." Deniers also can't declare the issue settled and that global warming is not going to happen, it could come roaring back even worse than expected. What we do know is that heat-trapping water vapor models were overly pessimistic - feedbacks are hard to accurately quantify - or there are natural variations no one anticipated, in a 'we don't know what we don't know' sense. That's science, folks.
So while we won't abandon nuclear energy and natural gas and fire up the coal plants again instead, we also shouldn't get too zany and waste another $72 billion on corporate welfare for alternative energy companies just because we know we still need a clean energy future; as we have found with wind and solar, the promise of all those 'green jobs' disappears fast when the subsidy checks run out. It doesn't mean that pollution is not bad for us, it certainly is, but there is a basic research problem that needs to be solved before a technology investment should be made. The number of instances where progressive government has created an industry and the private sector took over without subsidies are still sitting at zero.
A decade ago political pundits, especially in science media, framed it as simple - you either accept global warming or you are anti-science. It was never so simple. Conservatives, reviled by the progressive super-majority in media anyway, accepted climate change but were not buying global warming, and they may have been onto something. It wasn't a good term, scientifically, and insistence that it was became the realm of fanatics in blogging, not scientists. It led to green fatigue among the public.
Basically, we caught a break and a good thing we did because there is no basic research solution coming for greener energy any time soon. Solutions are likely to come from the private sector, not government-controlled science, but the private sector is being vilified. The recent standard government methodology, that they will 'subsidize an industry so the corporations we hate will take it over and save us all' has been somewhat dopey. Exxon or BP or whoever activists hate the most due to media reports this week are not the enemy, nor are they in some vast conspiracy against the environment, they just know science in a way no one at Greenpeace or Sierra Club or Union of Concerned Scientists does. And they are skeptical banning their business will fix the problem. They have a point. Canada banned the pollutants that would supposedly fix the ozone problem and it still went up.
Yes, we have gaps in understanding and yes, it was scientifically dumb to ever claim the issue was settled and to use hate speech on anyone who disagreed with even the most flawed models, but it wasn't the bulk of the 10,000 climate scientists doing solid research who said the dumb stuff, it was five hysterical ones who get all of the media attention precisely because they were willing to be outrageous on the record.
Just because warming has not continued to climb does not mean it won't, and anyone rationalizing entrenched positions at this point is selling their politics; science can be funky but you don't have to be an earth science expert to know pollution is bad.
Global Warming Slowed Down While CO2 Emissions Rose - What's The Rumpus?
Comments
So, if there is not so much warming, what do we make of this finding then?? http://tinyurl.com/cxuktxk
not to mention that the data on ocean temps do not show any levelling off, and the vast bulk of rising heat on the planet is there, not the atmosphere.
I have to add that this article is Americo-centric. If you lived in Australia (amazingly, people do) and experienced what we had early in the year (records tumbling, then falling the very next day, etc.) you wouldn't be trotting out this stuff.
Stephen Mugford
not to mention that the data on ocean temps do not show any levelling off, and the vast bulk of rising heat on the planet is there, not the atmosphere.
I have to add that this article is Americo-centric. If you lived in Australia (amazingly, people do) and experienced what we had early in the year (records tumbling, then falling the very next day, etc.) you wouldn't be trotting out this stuff.
Stephen Mugford
Stephen Mugford (not verified) | 04/21/13 | 19:36 PM
Ocean surface temps aren't really increasing, there's a lot of noise about deep ocean temps going up, but our ability to sample deep ocean temps are way worse than our surface temperature records. Lastly from what I've ready the deep ocean increase amounts to something less than 0.1 degree. What you see is that surface temperatures are not rising as the models projected, and are currently almost at the very bottom edge of model projects, and the activist climate scientist are worried, not that temps are going up, that they were very wrong.
—
Never is a long time.
Mi Cro | 04/22/13 | 07:53 AM
You said "'the world did not collapse due to Y2K so it was never a problem' - of course it was a problem, and it was fixed and that should be a win."
I disagree. The so-called Y2K bug was blown way out of proportion, in my opinion, and never was a problem that needed to be fixed. Some programs did have a problem, but they were obsolete and unreliable anyway, so the billions of dollars spent on the Y2K frenzy were wasted.
The same thing seems true of climate science. You are right -- there might be a problem burning coal, gas and oil to get our energy, and we just do not see it yet. But it may also be that things are heating up more among climate scientists than in the atmosphere. We have to decide issues like this without knowing the right answer. Pretending that we do know and that the "science is settled" makes no sense.
I disagree. The so-called Y2K bug was blown way out of proportion, in my opinion, and never was a problem that needed to be fixed. Some programs did have a problem, but they were obsolete and unreliable anyway, so the billions of dollars spent on the Y2K frenzy were wasted.
The same thing seems true of climate science. You are right -- there might be a problem burning coal, gas and oil to get our energy, and we just do not see it yet. But it may also be that things are heating up more among climate scientists than in the atmosphere. We have to decide issues like this without knowing the right answer. Pretending that we do know and that the "science is settled" makes no sense.
John Smith (not verified) | 04/18/13 | 15:40 PM
I disagree. The so-called Y2K bug was blown way out of proportion, in my opinion, and never was a problem that needed to be fixed. Some programs did have a problem, but they were obsolete and unreliable anyway, so the billions of dollars spent on the Y2K frenzy were wasted.
The first thing you should consider is that a business won't spend billions of dollars fixing something that they don't need.
—
Never is a long time.
Mi Cro | 04/19/13 | 08:17 AM
Hank Campbell | 04/19/13 | 09:38 AM
Businesses often spend money on things they don't need. In the United States, the Securities & Exchange Commission required all public companies to take some actions related to Y2K. Customers demanded the rest. As I mentioned below, I wasn't some bystander watching. I was involved in the thick of the Y2K frenzy. In my mind, it was one of the worst examples of risk management I have ever seen.
At least, until the climate change debate came along. Here again, few people are looking at the problem trying to get a handle on the risk and the things we can do to manage them. Instead, we get alarmists battling with skeptics. People fighting over beliefs, and all we do is make a tempest in a teapot and spent a lot on things that mean little, if anything. We can only hope that the results are just as benign with climate change as with the Y2K bug.
At least, until the climate change debate came along. Here again, few people are looking at the problem trying to get a handle on the risk and the things we can do to manage them. Instead, we get alarmists battling with skeptics. People fighting over beliefs, and all we do is make a tempest in a teapot and spent a lot on things that mean little, if anything. We can only hope that the results are just as benign with climate change as with the Y2K bug.
John Smith (not verified) | 04/19/13 | 12:38 PM
In my mind, it was one of the worst examples of risk management I have ever seen.As I've said in other comments. This was not a risk issue. The error was known, it was identifiable, and it was correctable. Risk had nothing to do with it.
—
Mundus vult decipi
Gerhard Adam | 04/19/13 | 13:48 PM
The Securities and Exchange Commission considered the Y2K problem to be a risk management issue. Public companies had to treat it as such in the MD&A in our 10-Qs and 10-Ks. We had to assign a board member to be in charge of it, as well as a company executive. It was a risk because no one knew the extent of the problem.
Your definition of risk management appears to be managing for problems we are not aware of. In my mind, that's not really what risk management is. Risk management is when you decide what to do in the face of uncertainties about the extent of a problem. The Y2K problem was, as you say, that the change in year from 1999 to 2000 might cause some computers to malfunction. But how big a problem would there be? Would airplanes fall out of the sky? Would elevators stop working? Would banks lose billions of dollars in improper fund transfers? What should we do about it? Nobody knew. We could only guess. We had to decide what to do about a potential problem based on limited information. That is risk management.
Climate change poses a similar risk. For example, with climate change, we have evidence that the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is increasing. We have evidence that we humans are contributing to that increase in carbon dioxide. We have evidence that temperatures have been increasing, particularly in areas like the Arctic. We have evidence that if we humans continue to burn fuels like oil, coal, and natural gas that we might cause catastrophic climate change. But how likely is that? How large is the risk? What should we do about that? Nobody knows. We can only guess. That is risk management.
One problem is that it's hard to evaluate risk management, even in hindsight. As we have seen, you and I disagree about the Y2K problem. People still debate whether the huge stimulus Barack Obama insisted on did any good. Indeed, people still debate about what caused the Great Depression to occur and to linger. We'll never know for sure. An old joke indicates the problem. A man walked into his friend's yard and asked "what's that big pile of dung over there for?" "It keeps the elephants away." "But there are no elephants around here." "See? It works."
Your definition of risk management appears to be managing for problems we are not aware of. In my mind, that's not really what risk management is. Risk management is when you decide what to do in the face of uncertainties about the extent of a problem. The Y2K problem was, as you say, that the change in year from 1999 to 2000 might cause some computers to malfunction. But how big a problem would there be? Would airplanes fall out of the sky? Would elevators stop working? Would banks lose billions of dollars in improper fund transfers? What should we do about it? Nobody knew. We could only guess. We had to decide what to do about a potential problem based on limited information. That is risk management.
Climate change poses a similar risk. For example, with climate change, we have evidence that the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is increasing. We have evidence that we humans are contributing to that increase in carbon dioxide. We have evidence that temperatures have been increasing, particularly in areas like the Arctic. We have evidence that if we humans continue to burn fuels like oil, coal, and natural gas that we might cause catastrophic climate change. But how likely is that? How large is the risk? What should we do about that? Nobody knows. We can only guess. That is risk management.
One problem is that it's hard to evaluate risk management, even in hindsight. As we have seen, you and I disagree about the Y2K problem. People still debate whether the huge stimulus Barack Obama insisted on did any good. Indeed, people still debate about what caused the Great Depression to occur and to linger. We'll never know for sure. An old joke indicates the problem. A man walked into his friend's yard and asked "what's that big pile of dung over there for?" "It keeps the elephants away." "But there are no elephants around here." "See? It works."
John Smith (not verified) | 04/19/13 | 14:25 PM
When the public in its infinite wisdom, or the officials they elect in their divine knowledge, decree that we had better do something or else, and we do, it is VERY AGGRAVATING to hear it said that the fact that we went and did it at gunpoint in some way validates any of: the excuse for making us do it; the right of those who thought we should do it to not only have that opinion but to enforce it; and especially the idea that all of us together can legitimately compel a single one of us. Y2K was like the Apples or the Commies under the bed. A non-problem, better met by telling the public to go to hell and using deadly force if they disagreed, than by using exactly those methods to cause the appearance of acknowledgement of the public's concerns. To hell with what people think, that's their problem.
johnwerneken (not verified) | 04/21/13 | 01:47 AM
Some programs did have a problem, but they were obsolete and unreliable anyway, so the billions of dollars spent on the Y2K frenzy were wasted.Wow, are you ever out of touch. Y2K had the potential to be a disastrous problem, but it was averted because people actually fixed it.
To suggest that these programs were obsolete and unreliable ... haha ... you clearly have no real knowledge about computing systems.
I always love when people claim to know what is "obsolete". It usually means that their knowledge is derived solely from the "toy" they have on their desktop.
http://www.science20.com/gerhard_adam/blog/hacking_mainframe_computer-109137
—
Mundus vult decipi
Gerhard Adam | 04/19/13 | 09:00 AM
Gerhard Adam, people have studied the Y2K problem to see if the immense sums spent "preparing" for the year 2000 were needed. There is no evidence that they were. Russia and South Korea spent almost no money preparing for the date change. They had no more problems than other countries who spent billions. The scare, it seems, was worse than the reality.
Of course, no one can ever prove whether Y2K preparations were worthless, just like we cannot prove climate change is due to humans. There's no way to run real experiments, so speculation remains as important as the science.
By the way, I do have experience in this area. I have a degree in computer science and spent my decades-long career working in Silicon Valley. In the run-up to the Y2K changeover, I was an executive at a multinational public company that made mission-critical software. Among other things, I was in charge of our company's Y2K efforts. I even gave talks at a few Y2K seminars, urging people to calm down and be realistic when many others were preparing for Armageddon. Turns out nothing happened.
Of course, no one can ever prove whether Y2K preparations were worthless, just like we cannot prove climate change is due to humans. There's no way to run real experiments, so speculation remains as important as the science.
By the way, I do have experience in this area. I have a degree in computer science and spent my decades-long career working in Silicon Valley. In the run-up to the Y2K changeover, I was an executive at a multinational public company that made mission-critical software. Among other things, I was in charge of our company's Y2K efforts. I even gave talks at a few Y2K seminars, urging people to calm down and be realistic when many others were preparing for Armageddon. Turns out nothing happened.
John Smith (not verified) | 04/19/13 | 12:18 PM
Certainly there were segments of the media that over-reacted by claiming that everything from microwave ovens to cars would stop working, but such silliness is no basis for dismissing the importance of the Y2K problem and the efforts to resolve it.
—
Mundus vult decipi
Gerhard Adam | 04/19/13 | 12:41 PM
—
Mundus vult decipi
Gerhard Adam | 04/19/13 | 13:13 PM
Of course. I understand what the Y2K problem was.
My point is that by 1999 the software in which a programmer used only two digits to indicate a year was obsolete and unreliable anyway. For example, at that time none of our company's software had been written prior to 1990. By then the idea that a programmer would write a date using only two digits for the year in order to save two digits worth of memory was almost laughable. People only did that in the 1960s and 1970s. In computer terms, that was ancient history.
Certainly the Y2K problem was a problem. But it was a minor problem. Software is buggy. We deal with problems like that all the time. But people -- both inside the industry and out -- reacted way out of proportion to the risks. It was hilarious, in hindsight. Like flocks of Chicken Littles running around crying "the sky is falling."
Unfortunately, with the climate change issue we see the same thing. Al Gore. Bill McKibben. Joe Romm. These people have no idea of how to manage risk. And they don't care. They appeal to people's emotions instead of their minds. Then we waste money on things that don't help and leave the problem to resolve itself. Or not, as the case may be.
My point is that by 1999 the software in which a programmer used only two digits to indicate a year was obsolete and unreliable anyway. For example, at that time none of our company's software had been written prior to 1990. By then the idea that a programmer would write a date using only two digits for the year in order to save two digits worth of memory was almost laughable. People only did that in the 1960s and 1970s. In computer terms, that was ancient history.
Certainly the Y2K problem was a problem. But it was a minor problem. Software is buggy. We deal with problems like that all the time. But people -- both inside the industry and out -- reacted way out of proportion to the risks. It was hilarious, in hindsight. Like flocks of Chicken Littles running around crying "the sky is falling."
Unfortunately, with the climate change issue we see the same thing. Al Gore. Bill McKibben. Joe Romm. These people have no idea of how to manage risk. And they don't care. They appeal to people's emotions instead of their minds. Then we waste money on things that don't help and leave the problem to resolve itself. Or not, as the case may be.
John Smith (not verified) | 04/19/13 | 13:36 PM
My point is that by 1999 the software in which a programmer used only two digits to indicate a year was obsolete and unreliable anyway.Wrong. It's amazing that you would even suggest that large corporations were using computer systems with unreliable software. In fact, it's often the newer systems that have been demonstrably less reliable.
In computer terms, that was ancient history.Ancient history is a term used by those that don't understand computer technology. Systems have continued to grow and evolve. Just like the ability to have personal aircraft like Cessna's didn't replace B-747's, neither did the PC replace large computing systems. I realize that many people believe the fantasy that large systems have been replaced by server farms, but they clearly don't understand large computing requirements [please don't use Google as the sample/excuse].
I'm not sure you actually understood the problem. It certainly wasn't a matter of simply the programming. Often data centers would have terrabytes of data in files and data bases that were still reflecting two digit years. This is precisely why one of the techniques used to correct the problem was called "windowing", where the program would simply use some arbitrarily selected date [i.e. such as 20] and simply assume that anything between 0 and 20 would be the 21st century and all other values would be the 20th century.
—
Mundus vult decipi
Gerhard Adam | 04/19/13 | 14:47 PM
"In fact, it's often the newer systems that have been demonstrably less reliable."
So you're suggesting that in 1999 the software that was written in the 1960s and 1970s was more reliable than the software written in the 1990s? I would disagree. In fact, my experience was that any software where reliability was an issue -- in other words, any mission-critical software -- was robust and reliable enough to get through the change in date without any issues. That is why I think the whole Y2K frenzy was a waste of money and time.
But we could argue about this forever. In a way, that's my point. We see people arguing on the Internet over all these kinds of issues. Climate change. Economics. Health care. As you have done, you resort to belittling me and questioning my credentials. While I have tried to avoid that, it's not that I have any winning arguments that I could type here anyway. So we all engage in meaningless debate and problems never get solved.
That's why, in political philosophy, I'm a libertarian. We all think differently. If a man does not keep pace with his companions, perhaps it is because he hears the beat of a different drummer. Let him step to the music which he hears, however measured or far away.
So you're suggesting that in 1999 the software that was written in the 1960s and 1970s was more reliable than the software written in the 1990s? I would disagree. In fact, my experience was that any software where reliability was an issue -- in other words, any mission-critical software -- was robust and reliable enough to get through the change in date without any issues. That is why I think the whole Y2K frenzy was a waste of money and time.
But we could argue about this forever. In a way, that's my point. We see people arguing on the Internet over all these kinds of issues. Climate change. Economics. Health care. As you have done, you resort to belittling me and questioning my credentials. While I have tried to avoid that, it's not that I have any winning arguments that I could type here anyway. So we all engage in meaningless debate and problems never get solved.
That's why, in political philosophy, I'm a libertarian. We all think differently. If a man does not keep pace with his companions, perhaps it is because he hears the beat of a different drummer. Let him step to the music which he hears, however measured or far away.
John Smith (not verified) | 04/19/13 | 17:26 PM
So you're suggesting that in 1999 the software that was written in the 1960s and 1970s was more reliable than the software written in the 1990s? I would disagree.In the first place, you're behaving as if software is some fossilized remnant of code. Software evolves and is updated, and it changes as requirements change, errors corrected, features added. So, to comment on software "written in the 1960s and 1970s" is simply disingenuous.
In fact, if one looks at software evolution from the 1970s, I would certainly argue that it is the most reliable software on the planet. One can easily see this in operating systems and subsystems that have followed that evolutionary path.
However, I also find your reference to reliability suspect. Even software in the 1960s had to actually work. So, functionality already had to be reliable. After that, the only thing left is error handling, which clearly did evolve over the decades.
You're absolutely right that I"m questioning your credentials. You made a claim that the I/T industry, government, and corporations were spending billions of dollars on a non-existent problem, while you claim that it was all wasted effort since none of the software was any good.
The truth is that the major systems used today [Yes, even UNIX] are all decades old, so your claim about such software being unreliable simply isn't true. Are you arguing that UNIX [developed in 1974] is an old, arcane, obsolete system? If not, then why not? If you're arguing that it evolved to keep pace with technology, then why would you be so narrow in your view that you wouldn't credit other systems with similar changes?
Which is more reliable? z/OS? UNIX? Windows? The truth is that the least reliable system is also the youngest.
Sorry if you don't want to engage in this debate, but you're the one that made an outrageous claim, so it's incumbent on you to defend it, beyond simply making up anecdotes.
—
Mundus vult decipi
Gerhard Adam | 04/19/13 | 18:46 PM
I don't mind debating. But I think belittling another person's comments and questioning their credentials is bullying. I don't do it, and I don't like people who do.
To respond to your argument, I think you misunderstood me. I know UNIX is still around. But it is not the same UNIX that was used in the 1970s. Just as the hardware we use today is not the same hardware we used in 1974. Had people in 1999 been using the 1974 version of UNIX, they might have had a problem. (Although I doubt it. As I'm sure you know, dates in UNIX never had a Y2K problem.) They weren't. By 1999, no one was using a 1974 version of UNIX. They could not have. It didn't run on the computers of 1999. And no one was using the computers of 1974. Why not? Because by 1999, the hardware and software of 1974 was obsolete and unreliable.
Getting back on point, Hank Campbell said in his article that people should not say that "'the world did not collapse due to Y2K so it was never a problem' - of course it was a problem, and it was fixed and that should be a win." I disagree with that. I think Y2K was never a problem (or perhaps I should say, never more than a minor problem), and the time and money spent to fix the so-called problem was immensely out of proportion to the risk that was presented.
Why do I think that? As mentioned, I had a lot of personal experience with the Y2K problem, right down in the trenches. In addition to that, in 2003 I was asked by a company I consulted for to assist them with risk management. In a report I wrote, I used as an example the Y2K problem. To prepare that report I did a lot of research.
As far as I could find, the change in century did not cause a single fatality in any country around the world. It did not cause a single injury. It did not cause any damage to property. It did not cause any monetary harm. None at all. That was true in every country around the world, in countries where billions of dollars were spent and in countries in which nothing was done. No harm anywhere. The only scattered problems that the change in century caused were easily corrected and were not more bothersome than the bugs that bug software users all the time.
To apply that to what Hank Campbell said, I think it is important to consider whether the climate models, and the clamor about climate, are exaggerated. I think it is important to consider how big the risks regarding climate are, and what we can do about them. In fact, that should be the heart of what we are talking about.
The parallel is not exact, but it's similar to the "smoking causes cancer" debate. First of all, smoking does not cause cancer. In fact, most smokers do not get cancer. And plenty of people who do not smoke get cancer. The causes of cancer remain largely a mystery, although we understand some of the mechanisms involved.
But it does seem increasingly clear that smoking increases the risk of cancer. The numbers are compelling. Even we accept that smoking greatly increases risks, what should we do about smoking? Raise the price of cigarettes? Put graphic pictures on cigarette packaging? Plaster pictures of a woman with a hole in her throat on the Internet? Ban smoking altogether? It's hard to know what to do.
Same with climate change. Does it help to say that of course it's a problem, and we should fix it, and that will be a win? I don't think so. Of course, what Hank Campbell is saying is much more nuanced than that. And many people, such as Matt Ridley whose video someone linked to in the comments here, do take a careful look at these issues.
But I do think that many times we do not give the issues the attention they deserve. Managing the risk of climate change is very important. Running around like Chicken Little shouting "the climate is changing! the climate is changing!" does not help.
To respond to your argument, I think you misunderstood me. I know UNIX is still around. But it is not the same UNIX that was used in the 1970s. Just as the hardware we use today is not the same hardware we used in 1974. Had people in 1999 been using the 1974 version of UNIX, they might have had a problem. (Although I doubt it. As I'm sure you know, dates in UNIX never had a Y2K problem.) They weren't. By 1999, no one was using a 1974 version of UNIX. They could not have. It didn't run on the computers of 1999. And no one was using the computers of 1974. Why not? Because by 1999, the hardware and software of 1974 was obsolete and unreliable.
Getting back on point, Hank Campbell said in his article that people should not say that "'the world did not collapse due to Y2K so it was never a problem' - of course it was a problem, and it was fixed and that should be a win." I disagree with that. I think Y2K was never a problem (or perhaps I should say, never more than a minor problem), and the time and money spent to fix the so-called problem was immensely out of proportion to the risk that was presented.
Why do I think that? As mentioned, I had a lot of personal experience with the Y2K problem, right down in the trenches. In addition to that, in 2003 I was asked by a company I consulted for to assist them with risk management. In a report I wrote, I used as an example the Y2K problem. To prepare that report I did a lot of research.
As far as I could find, the change in century did not cause a single fatality in any country around the world. It did not cause a single injury. It did not cause any damage to property. It did not cause any monetary harm. None at all. That was true in every country around the world, in countries where billions of dollars were spent and in countries in which nothing was done. No harm anywhere. The only scattered problems that the change in century caused were easily corrected and were not more bothersome than the bugs that bug software users all the time.
To apply that to what Hank Campbell said, I think it is important to consider whether the climate models, and the clamor about climate, are exaggerated. I think it is important to consider how big the risks regarding climate are, and what we can do about them. In fact, that should be the heart of what we are talking about.
The parallel is not exact, but it's similar to the "smoking causes cancer" debate. First of all, smoking does not cause cancer. In fact, most smokers do not get cancer. And plenty of people who do not smoke get cancer. The causes of cancer remain largely a mystery, although we understand some of the mechanisms involved.
But it does seem increasingly clear that smoking increases the risk of cancer. The numbers are compelling. Even we accept that smoking greatly increases risks, what should we do about smoking? Raise the price of cigarettes? Put graphic pictures on cigarette packaging? Plaster pictures of a woman with a hole in her throat on the Internet? Ban smoking altogether? It's hard to know what to do.
Same with climate change. Does it help to say that of course it's a problem, and we should fix it, and that will be a win? I don't think so. Of course, what Hank Campbell is saying is much more nuanced than that. And many people, such as Matt Ridley whose video someone linked to in the comments here, do take a careful look at these issues.
But I do think that many times we do not give the issues the attention they deserve. Managing the risk of climate change is very important. Running around like Chicken Little shouting "the climate is changing! the climate is changing!" does not help.
John Smith (not verified) | 04/19/13 | 20:36 PM
In addition to that, in 2003 I was asked by a company I consulted for to assist them with risk management.What does 2003 have to do with anything? You don't seem to understand that this isn't merely an assertion about wasting money, you're essentially alleging that all the individuals from programmers up to I/T management of lying. You're asserting that billions were spent, but if there was no work to be done, because it was a minor problem, then you're claiming that all these professionals essentially defrauded companies out of their money.
The majority of the issues related to home-grown code that was and still is prevalent in most large organizations. In many cases, it was specifically related to data files and data bases that had existed for decades, so it wasn't simply a matter of software capability, but also of application program conversion coincident with data conversions.
So, while you can flippantly declare that corporations routinely waste billions of dollars, as I said, you are also disparaging the supposed recipients of those billions as being dishonest.
While you may think I'm being harsh on you, it seems that you only have some anecdotal information to support your position. As someone that was equally in the trenches and actively engaged in scoping many of these projects, I find your assertions inaccurate and suspect.
As far as I could find, the change in century did not cause a single fatality in any country around the world. It did not cause a single injury. It did not cause any damage to property. It did not cause any monetary harm. None at all.I find your analysis suspect, when you determine that countries that spent billions versus those that didn't experienced no problems. Yet, that was precisely the point in spending that money. So, your examination doesn't shed any light on the issue, except to claim that because there was no problem, there was no work done.
So, I'll ask the question as plainly as I can. If the billions spent were wasted, then who collected it and why isn't this considered fraud? Do you have any evidence, that money was spent, but no software was changed or upgraded. Do you have any evidence that people were simply receiving funds and doing nothing. This is what you're claiming occurred, so where's the evidence?
Also, relating back to your point about climate science, you're wrong. Climate science can be legitimately challenged based on the accuracy of their models and whether there is adequate risk assessment and whether models are accurate enough to propose solutions. However, to compare that to software that can be clearly identified, quantified and corrected ... it's not even in the same ballpark.
So, you can march to whatever drummer you like. You can believe what you like. What you can't do is accuse a huge number of people of being stupid, liars, and thieves. For that, I'm calling you out.
—
Mundus vult decipi
Gerhard Adam | 04/19/13 | 21:08 PM
"So, while you can flippantly declare that corporations routinely waste billions of dollars, as I said, you are also disparaging the supposed recipients of those billions as being dishonest."
Oh my, you've led a sheltered life. Try working as a government consultant. It may not be dishonest (mostly), but you still don't always sleep well. We stay awake at night coming up with new and novel ways of spending the Governments money and generating billable hours. It's what we do. Personally, I like getting paid for studies on how to save the Government money by limiting useless and/or redundant studies...
"Do you have any evidence that people were simply receiving funds and doing nothing. This is what you're claiming occurred, so where's the evidence?"
No dear, you're being deliberately obtuse. He's claiming that the Y2K problem was largely a fabricated "disaster", the impact of which was not borne out by any coherent method of risk analysis, and a whole lot of people happily made lotsa money cranking out "fixes" for largely non-existent or minor issues. Receiving funds for performing pointless and futile work that meets the requirements of the SoW is not the same as performing "no work". Though you feel just as greasy either way.
Oh my, you've led a sheltered life. Try working as a government consultant. It may not be dishonest (mostly), but you still don't always sleep well. We stay awake at night coming up with new and novel ways of spending the Governments money and generating billable hours. It's what we do. Personally, I like getting paid for studies on how to save the Government money by limiting useless and/or redundant studies...
"Do you have any evidence that people were simply receiving funds and doing nothing. This is what you're claiming occurred, so where's the evidence?"
No dear, you're being deliberately obtuse. He's claiming that the Y2K problem was largely a fabricated "disaster", the impact of which was not borne out by any coherent method of risk analysis, and a whole lot of people happily made lotsa money cranking out "fixes" for largely non-existent or minor issues. Receiving funds for performing pointless and futile work that meets the requirements of the SoW is not the same as performing "no work". Though you feel just as greasy either way.
Geoff (not verified) | 04/20/13 | 18:18 PM
—
Mundus vult decipi
Gerhard Adam | 04/20/13 | 19:14 PM
OK, now I'm offended. I was a government contractor and now consultant. I'm honest. I work hard both to produce value for my fee and to save my customers money both now and in the future. Spending time just to come up with ways to generating billable hours IS dishonest. STFU
I suspect that the bulk of the above discussion is between a young, silicon valley brat and an older, large corporation type. The brat HAD no data before 1990 so he didn't have a historical data problem. The Brat had shinny new PCs instead of old mainframes. The Brat doesn't know what FORTRAN and COBOL are. The Brat never delved into ROMs or EPROMs - at least ones less than a few months old.
We all speak from our experiences. In my little corner of the world old data and firmware sure as hell were a problem.
I suspect that the bulk of the above discussion is between a young, silicon valley brat and an older, large corporation type. The brat HAD no data before 1990 so he didn't have a historical data problem. The Brat had shinny new PCs instead of old mainframes. The Brat doesn't know what FORTRAN and COBOL are. The Brat never delved into ROMs or EPROMs - at least ones less than a few months old.
We all speak from our experiences. In my little corner of the world old data and firmware sure as hell were a problem.
PsySciGuy (not verified) | 04/27/13 | 13:54 PM
John: like many people, you "think Y2K was never a problem (or perhaps I should say, never more than a minor problem), and the time and money spent to fix the so-called problem was immensely out of proportion to the risk that was presented." But they and you are wrong. It was potentially a vast problem, as I believe this paper explains comprehensively: http://fm2x.com/The_Century_Date_Change_Problem.pdf
I think the paper covers all the points you've raised above. I suggest you read Section 5 (page 13) in particular.
I think the paper covers all the points you've raised above. I suggest you read Section 5 (page 13) in particular.
Robin Guenier (not verified) | 04/21/13 | 12:05 PM
Certainly modifying programs was one part of the problem, and locating all the references, etc. could represent a lot of work. However, if a date was stored as a two-digit value in a file, then the problem became more logistically intense.
Bear in mind, that this wasn't a case of normal program testing. This change had to occur on live data, in production environments. As a result, if a file was changed, then it had to be coordinated so that the file was copied, updated, and reloaded while simultaneously ensuring that every program referencing that file were also updated. Even the simple act of modifying a program's data definitions, couldn't be done without simultaneously changing all other programs and files involved. In addition, every backup that existed for that file also need to be replaced to reflect the modified data.
The problem itself was trivially simple. The logistics, the management, and the coordination to ensure a non-disruptive transition was significantly more involved.
Let's also be clear that we aren't talking about a few dozen programs or files. We're generally referring to several thousand files, and thousands of programs in a mid-size corporation. As I mentioned previously, every program and every file had to be examined for the problem. Then changes had to be coordinated to be non-disruptive. It wasn't simply a matter of doing a scan and replace function.
NOTE: In your paper you mentioned the expense of disk and limited storage as a driver for using two-digit years. While this was certainly a factor, I believe the primary driver was the use of punched cards. With their 80-byte limitation, those two extra digits really were significant.
—
Mundus vult decipi
Gerhard Adam | 04/21/13 | 12:18 PM
I worked as a consultant doing change management during the Y2K nightmare. The company I worked for was a huge utility company in the UK who ran their entire operation on a collection of bizarre old mainframes and several million lines of COBOL that no-one completely understood. They spent a fortune fixing that code base for Y2K but it was a fraction of the cost of replacing the code with a modern system.
If we hadn't done the good, structured, tested job that we did, several million people would have gone without water and gas in January 2000 and an unknown number of them would have died. We know that because we did tests to check how bad the problem was and watched the billing system estimate that the last time people had paid their bills was in 1899 and cut off their supply (yes that's a simplification for dramatic effect, but it's pretty much what would have happened).
In other words, yes we could do experiments with the Y2K bug, so we know exactly what the effect was going to be and exactly what we needed to do to prevent that, which we did. Private business doing its thing perfectly.
This is, however, not the case with AGW, which we can't test or experiment on so we can only model using very rough computer simulations, which are now proving to be inaccurate. So we have no idea what effect is going to be, and no idea what we need to do to prevent it.
If we hadn't done the good, structured, tested job that we did, several million people would have gone without water and gas in January 2000 and an unknown number of them would have died. We know that because we did tests to check how bad the problem was and watched the billing system estimate that the last time people had paid their bills was in 1899 and cut off their supply (yes that's a simplification for dramatic effect, but it's pretty much what would have happened).
In other words, yes we could do experiments with the Y2K bug, so we know exactly what the effect was going to be and exactly what we needed to do to prevent that, which we did. Private business doing its thing perfectly.
This is, however, not the case with AGW, which we can't test or experiment on so we can only model using very rough computer simulations, which are now proving to be inaccurate. So we have no idea what effect is going to be, and no idea what we need to do to prevent it.
Cheerful Chap (not verified) | 04/22/13 | 13:58 PM
Hank Campbell | 04/22/13 | 15:03 PM
—
Mundus vult decipi
Gerhard Adam | 04/22/13 | 15:10 PM
People seem to have gotten tired of the Y2K debate, but I thought your post was good, Cheerful Chap, and want to respond. I agree with you that Y2K did present problems, and that buggy systems had to be corrected or there would be harmful errors. Where I disagree is with those who think that lives were threatened, or property, or even civilization itself. In my mind, the Y2K bug was never that kind of threat.
For instance, in the example you gave, I doubt whether anyone would have died. Had the computer billing program issued millions of shutoff orders, wouldn't someone would have noticed? I doubt if millions of people would have had their water and gas shut off in January 2000 even if you had not solved the problem.
To be clear, I don't think there was any scam or dishonest activity going on in the leadup to the year 2000. At least, I never saw any. But I did see a frenzy build in which predictions became increasingly apocalyptic and frightening. Money was spent and regulations were made and enforced well beyond what made sense. That often happens, as Matt Ridley points out in his interesting article "Apocalypse Not" in Wired magazine: http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2012/08/ff_apocalypsenot/all/
That's why I see a parallel between the Y2K bug and climate change. Just as with Y2K, there is a legitimate risk with climate change. Simple physics tells us that the increasing carbon dioxide in the air must be having an effect of some kind. There is a risk there.
But just as with Y2K, it's hard to get a handle on the magnitude of the risk. Indeed, we are still hotly debating how big the risk of Y2K was even 13 years after it happened. When risks are hard to evaluate, we seem to have a tendency to fear the worst -- as Matt Ridley quotes writer Gary Alexander, we humans seem to be apocaholics.
That's why I tend to discount both of the extremes. I think a lot of people -- Al Gore, Bill McKibben, Joe Romm -- are apocaholic Chicken Littles, and add little of value to the needed discussion of what to do. Similarly, I think those who say we do not need to worry also help little. To me, the voices of value are people like Bjorn Lomborg and Matt Ridley, who see a possible problem but not a coming catastrophe.
I may be wrong. There may be nothing to worry about with carbon dioxide. Or we may be headed to a hell on earth, overheated and pocked with dry oil wells. As you say, Cheerful Chap, we have no idea what the effects are going to be, and no idea what we need to do to prevent it. We'll never know for sure.
But we can guess. And we do have some information to guide our guesses. Let's hope we do it wisely.
For instance, in the example you gave, I doubt whether anyone would have died. Had the computer billing program issued millions of shutoff orders, wouldn't someone would have noticed? I doubt if millions of people would have had their water and gas shut off in January 2000 even if you had not solved the problem.
To be clear, I don't think there was any scam or dishonest activity going on in the leadup to the year 2000. At least, I never saw any. But I did see a frenzy build in which predictions became increasingly apocalyptic and frightening. Money was spent and regulations were made and enforced well beyond what made sense. That often happens, as Matt Ridley points out in his interesting article "Apocalypse Not" in Wired magazine: http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2012/08/ff_apocalypsenot/all/
That's why I see a parallel between the Y2K bug and climate change. Just as with Y2K, there is a legitimate risk with climate change. Simple physics tells us that the increasing carbon dioxide in the air must be having an effect of some kind. There is a risk there.
But just as with Y2K, it's hard to get a handle on the magnitude of the risk. Indeed, we are still hotly debating how big the risk of Y2K was even 13 years after it happened. When risks are hard to evaluate, we seem to have a tendency to fear the worst -- as Matt Ridley quotes writer Gary Alexander, we humans seem to be apocaholics.
That's why I tend to discount both of the extremes. I think a lot of people -- Al Gore, Bill McKibben, Joe Romm -- are apocaholic Chicken Littles, and add little of value to the needed discussion of what to do. Similarly, I think those who say we do not need to worry also help little. To me, the voices of value are people like Bjorn Lomborg and Matt Ridley, who see a possible problem but not a coming catastrophe.
I may be wrong. There may be nothing to worry about with carbon dioxide. Or we may be headed to a hell on earth, overheated and pocked with dry oil wells. As you say, Cheerful Chap, we have no idea what the effects are going to be, and no idea what we need to do to prevent it. We'll never know for sure.
But we can guess. And we do have some information to guide our guesses. Let's hope we do it wisely.
John Smith (not verified) | 04/22/13 | 16:13 PM
I'm a COBOL programmer with intimate knowledge that Western Civilization as we know it would have coillapsed without the massive Y2K fixes.
Was money wasted? Yes, I saw hundreds of millions wasted, and yet without the billions spent utilities could not have billed, banks could not have kept accurate books must less issued monthly statements, the Big Three could not have manufactured automobiles...the list goes on.
Was money wasted? Yes, I saw hundreds of millions wasted, and yet without the billions spent utilities could not have billed, banks could not have kept accurate books must less issued monthly statements, the Big Three could not have manufactured automobiles...the list goes on.
Brian Allan Cobb (not verified) | 04/21/13 | 05:22 AM
—
Thor Russell
Thor Russell | 04/18/13 | 16:34 PM
In the mean while, there's evidence that the planet is greening up.
As for acidification, it seems there is already a natural wide range of pH, so it might not be as big of an immediate concern.
—
Never is a long time.
Mi Cro | 04/19/13 | 09:43 AM
The world has experienced over 330 consecutive months (28years!) of higher than average (pre-oil) temperatures. That's like flipping heads 330 times in a row. The odds this is just chance is equal to one divided by the total number of stars in the universe.
In a stable climate, there would be about the same number of warmer and cooler than average months.
Just as in a climbing stock market there are short term "downs" , but the trend is upwards. You can always find a small period of down temperature fluctuations, but the trend is upwards. It HAS to be, given the nature of CO2 and the increasing CO2 emissions, close to a trillion tons spewed into our fragile atmosphere; the trapped energy must go somewhere.
In a stable climate, there would be about the same number of warmer and cooler than average months.
Just as in a climbing stock market there are short term "downs" , but the trend is upwards. You can always find a small period of down temperature fluctuations, but the trend is upwards. It HAS to be, given the nature of CO2 and the increasing CO2 emissions, close to a trillion tons spewed into our fragile atmosphere; the trapped energy must go somewhere.
jfree (not verified) | 04/18/13 | 20:42 PM
—
Never is a long time.
Mi Cro | 04/19/13 | 08:15 AM
That statement is, quite simply, unsupportable by the facts; which are that despite an almost 10% increase in atmospheric CO2, temperatures have not increased since 1997.
Andrew Allison (not verified) | 04/20/13 | 20:03 PM
"Scientists say", is not a valid form of reasoning. I know that AGW has never been anything but a Eugenics scam on the basis of fundamental physical principles, coupled with an understanding of the authoritarian nature of the Malthusian elite. Hank is supposed to know some physics, but he does not bother to think for himself, he just trusts 10,000 so-called scientists, who are basically cowards in it for the money. He ignores that fact that over 30,000 published physical scientists long ago called bunk on this whole business. Hank as well is thinking with his own interests in mind, he worries that he will never get anywhere in the world if he doesn't go along with the in crowd. Stan Lippmann, Ph.D., J.D.
Stan Lippmann (not verified) | 04/18/13 | 21:28 PM
Hank as well is thinking with his own interests in mind, he worries that he will never get anywhere in the world if he doesn't go along with the in crowd.I hope you are smarter about your PhD field than you are about me or Science 2.0. Virtually nothing in your comment was correct. Anyone who knows me or the history of this site would laugh at most of your claims.
Hank Campbell | 04/19/13 | 00:47 AM
—
Begin with this assumption: it's all a joke. Then you will see the humour in everything.
Greg Morris | 04/19/13 | 02:23 AM
The global warming scare has always been blown way out of proportion and it is a problem in that it has destroyed the credibility of the entire environmental movement. Despite all the hysteria there is simply no need to rush out and follow Al Gore's program which would bankrupt the world, cause immense suffering among the billions of world poor and produce little if any benefit.
Fact: Temperatures today are far below the maximum level attained since the last Ice Age- this means that talk of impending doom is nonsense. There is no imminent permafrost meltdown releasing huge amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. If global warming is bad and man caused, we have plenty of time to act.
Fact: Carbon dioxide emissions can be dramatically lowered, quickly and at little cost by simply replacing all coal plants with nuclear energy when the plant becomes obsolete. With mass production and more coherent regulatory environment, nuclear can be not only cost competitive but cheaper than coal, oil or gas in electric production
Fact: Temperatures today are far below the maximum level attained since the last Ice Age- this means that talk of impending doom is nonsense. There is no imminent permafrost meltdown releasing huge amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. If global warming is bad and man caused, we have plenty of time to act.
Fact: Carbon dioxide emissions can be dramatically lowered, quickly and at little cost by simply replacing all coal plants with nuclear energy when the plant becomes obsolete. With mass production and more coherent regulatory environment, nuclear can be not only cost competitive but cheaper than coal, oil or gas in electric production
jagiela (not verified) | 04/19/13 | 01:01 AM
Why is anyone talking about Al Gore? He wasn't even at the last Democratic convention because no one cared about his plan. We can't talk about science and the future when people are invoking Al Gore. It's not 2006 any more. Also, "The Day After Tomorrow" is not in theaters, so we need not worry about that.
Hank Campbell | 04/19/13 | 08:46 AM
Nuclear is only expensive in the West where it is cobbled by a massive regulatory scheme that is designed to push up its cost and not really to promote safety. Nuclear power plants built in the 1960s (which were safer than coal plants and which have never had a serious safety or environmental issue) where built for about half what a plant of today costs in America (adjusting for inflation). Now its political impossible to change that without the environmental movement coming to its senses.
But no need to worry- most power plants are being built in the emerging markets of Asia and nuclear thrives there. India and China have large scale nuclear programs- programs that can compete with coal plants that don't even have scrubbers. As mass production moves in and the safety of nuclear becomes unquestioned, the costs will plummet and nuclear is likely to take over without any government interference.
But no need to worry- most power plants are being built in the emerging markets of Asia and nuclear thrives there. India and China have large scale nuclear programs- programs that can compete with coal plants that don't even have scrubbers. As mass production moves in and the safety of nuclear becomes unquestioned, the costs will plummet and nuclear is likely to take over without any government interference.
jagiela (not verified) | 04/19/13 | 09:38 AM
Nuclear plants are being built here too; but the government has to underwrite half of the cost.
Hank Campbell | 04/19/13 | 09:43 AM
Nuclear plants are being built here too; but the government has to underwrite half of the cost.
Is this because of technology costs, or because of legal, financial or insurance costs?
I know licensing, and the cost of lawsuits is huge, underwriting such expensive, and legally precarious ventures can be deal killers, and getting the gov to put some skin in the game can relieve investor angst, or has building the technology become that expensive?
—
Never is a long time.
Mi Cro | 04/19/13 | 10:03 AM
It's true, they have fewer environmental or safety cost concerns - because no one can ever sue if a company kills them. They're a communist dictatorship.
Hank Campbell | 04/19/13 | 11:33 AM
—
Never is a long time.
Mi Cro | 04/19/13 | 12:12 PM
We have to go where the facts takes us. While it may surprise us that Red China has a better track record on nuclear regulations than America, that is where the facts take us. Their plants are at least as safe as ours and they simply don't cost anywhere near as much.
However, if it makes you more comfortable, you can look to India, a viable democracy that has nuclear construction costs that are even lower than China's. Asia is building nuclear power plants by the bushel and the pace will only accelerate. They build them because its the cheapest way to deliver the power their people need to live. Remember, these plants are competitive with coal plants that don't even have scrubbers so these nukes would crush America's coal industry in a matter of five years if given a chance.
However, if it makes you more comfortable, you can look to India, a viable democracy that has nuclear construction costs that are even lower than China's. Asia is building nuclear power plants by the bushel and the pace will only accelerate. They build them because its the cheapest way to deliver the power their people need to live. Remember, these plants are competitive with coal plants that don't even have scrubbers so these nukes would crush America's coal industry in a matter of five years if given a chance.
jagiela (not verified) | 04/20/13 | 13:13 PM
Actually we need to talk about Al Gore and the frauds at the IPCC who introduced alarmist and unscientific data into reports that had direct effect on public opinion and government action. To ignore their fraud is to grease the skids for the other charlatans who not only continue to pollute science but also insist we pay for their bogus activities. To forget the past is to risk a repeat.
Harkin (not verified) | 04/30/13 | 05:05 AM
Miles of ice core samples taken from Antarctica show that for 800,000 years, temperature and CO2 levels have waltzed virtually hand in hand. Just a little time lag between CO2 rise and temperature rise.
You can see the graph here: http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-climate-bomb-failures-to-confront-the-u...
@Abettervision
You can see the graph here: http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-climate-bomb-failures-to-confront-the-u...
@Abettervision
ImagineProgress (not verified) | 04/19/13 | 02:35 AM
Your fact proves that this is a scam. Notice that the CO2 lags the temperature rise by 800 years on average, proving that the sun is driving the process (duh), and when it warms up, more CO2 bubbles out of the oceans like a warm can of soda. I published the electron temperature of solar flares at 5 million degrees in Astrophysical Journal in 1987, based on atomic line brightness ratio techniques developed by tokamak fusion device experiments and atomic modeling code used at Livermore Labs for nuclear simulations. The variable soft x-ray flux selectively heats the outer ionosphere which sets the global plasma physics boundary condition which governs surface temperature through equations of continuity. It has practically nothing to do with total insolation, a fact which throws most people off track. The originator of this cockamamie 4 C warming panic in 1896 was Sven Aarhenius, President of the Swedish Eugenics Society. The same 4 C fraud was promulgated by Nixon, Moynihan, and Panetta when the pushed to set up the EPA in 1970 to promote ZPG, de-industrialization, and this scam in particular, along with the ozone-hole scam, to destroy any competition to their plan to remain supreme political masters on this planet. Hank, I apologize for presuming you know anything about physics. My Ph.D. is in radiative transfer in ionized gases, such as at the edge of a fusion plasma or solar plasma, I tend to forget that it puts me in a very small category of people who are actually qualified to discuss global warming seriously, including most people who claim to be "climate scientists". The worst offenders in this business are those who actual do know a little about plasma physics, like failed plasma physicists John Holdren and James Hansen. Even though you fall for this environmental wack-job conspiracy, you delude yourself that you're not one of them since you supposedly debunk really dangerous illegal human experimentation with things like vaccines and GMO. The consistent pattern in your attitudes is to be on the monied-side of every issue, like I alluded to earlier. The global warming fraud machine is pushed by all the quasi-monopolists, like the big oil companies and big banks. You appear to be a corporate stooge more than anything else. And I don't see anything in your background which would entitle your opinion about global warming to any respect. You are no more than a scribbler, as evidenced by your insulting and dismissive opinion of me, who happens to be qualified in this area.
Stan Lippmann (not verified) | 04/19/13 | 03:09 AM
They somehow think that "PhD" is a magical incantation that protects them from being considered idiots.
—
Mundus vult decipi
Gerhard Adam | 04/19/13 | 07:37 AM
Did you or did you not write the following?
The vaccine program, just like the global warming program, are key prongs of the British Empire's plan to kill 6 billion of us and reduce the rest to their slaves. Megan is in on it, like most pampered baby boomer elitists.
and
spearofodin, what is your spear made out of, paper? You are a product of a century of brainwashing by fabian socialists like that homosexual Keynes. It's not surprising that the Richmond VA fed is flying the rainbow gay banner. Gaybama is just getting his jollies by leaving a phyrric legacy. Just like in the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, once the feminists and gays take over the institutions, the fall is close behind. All that has really been going on since John Law started this train wreck in motion with Louis XIV. mechanistic materialism has foolishly held sway. But now we better understand that in the Reimannian manifold of ten dimensions, time, physical illusion, spirit, and soul, the atheists are have just been resting on one leg of the stool. If you are so blind that you can't understand that the carrot seller will sell his carrots to the man with the silver coin instead of the one with nothing at all to trade for the carrots, then I am more confident than ever that when the globalist scam comes crashing down, I'll be able to dominate the brainwashed and disoriented like you.
Here's the link: http://www.theworld.org/2012/06/on-climate-deniers/
—
Begin with this assumption: it's all a joke. Then you will see the humour in everything.
Greg Morris | 04/19/13 | 09:23 AM
The devil is the "virtually hand-in-hand". Had the charts been overlain, I suspect that they might show that CO2 is a lagging, not a leading, indicator. The actual CO2 versus temperature data since 1997 clearly demonstrate that AGW is a myth.
Andrew Allison (not verified) | 04/20/13 | 20:12 PM
This is an excellent article. It points to societal issues which involve, but go beyond the consequences of America's climate change conflict. I engineered a score of nukes and two score fossil fueled power plants, and from personal experience know how difficult it is to avoid GIGO runs, computer models which only generate waste paper. I know that if the technical standards of "knowing", certainty, extant in the climate change technology, had been used in the power industry, large portions of America would be uninhabited, radioactive and dark. Guessing is not allowed where life and death issues are at stake.
Climate change science is something I know nothing about; I may be the only person on earth who holds this position. By induction, I gather that millions of faux educated are certain that mankind will destroy the earth via carbon dioxide primarily because they hate Exxon. They have no valid firm technical basis for their position. There is a hideous number of well fed prominent scientists who lie through their teeth. The primary result of climate change is the epic loss of trust in scientists; they are no better than trolls. And in recent years, government leaders have given tens of billions of pure green energy money to their buddies, while destroying their enemies via technically foolish regulation. They inflict $100 in cost, for a penny of benefit.
I have concluded from my experience that perhaps 90% of the first cost of a power plant is dictated by federal regulations. Much of it is waste. The government can make any technology too expensive to use, or totally free, by modulating subsidies, mandated purchases, regulation or laying the cost on the taxes of yet to be born tax payers. I am certain that any major nation which abandons its native carbon fuels will cease to exist.
Reviewing these cards, I advise all bright young teens to avoid science and engineering in America. There is an enormous risk that some politician or lawyer will destroy your career when you have kids to feed and a mortgage. I recommend that all young Americans learn Mandarin, because climate change will be resolved in that language. America has failed this challenge.
Climate change science is something I know nothing about; I may be the only person on earth who holds this position. By induction, I gather that millions of faux educated are certain that mankind will destroy the earth via carbon dioxide primarily because they hate Exxon. They have no valid firm technical basis for their position. There is a hideous number of well fed prominent scientists who lie through their teeth. The primary result of climate change is the epic loss of trust in scientists; they are no better than trolls. And in recent years, government leaders have given tens of billions of pure green energy money to their buddies, while destroying their enemies via technically foolish regulation. They inflict $100 in cost, for a penny of benefit.
I have concluded from my experience that perhaps 90% of the first cost of a power plant is dictated by federal regulations. Much of it is waste. The government can make any technology too expensive to use, or totally free, by modulating subsidies, mandated purchases, regulation or laying the cost on the taxes of yet to be born tax payers. I am certain that any major nation which abandons its native carbon fuels will cease to exist.
Reviewing these cards, I advise all bright young teens to avoid science and engineering in America. There is an enormous risk that some politician or lawyer will destroy your career when you have kids to feed and a mortgage. I recommend that all young Americans learn Mandarin, because climate change will be resolved in that language. America has failed this challenge.
Mr. R. L. Hails Sr. P. E. (not verified) | 04/20/13 | 08:49 AM
I agree with much of the premise of this article except for the author implying that a naturally occurring gas (CO2) is a pollutant. He is exhibiting the same kind of sloppy and hysterical use of the language as which he seems to oppose.
Mike Tanis (not verified) | 04/20/13 | 12:22 PM
Hank Campbell | 04/20/13 | 12:32 PM
Thanks for your reply but I hope you will reconsider your understanding of the word pollutant. I debated the original Clean Air Act when I was in high school back in '71 and '72 and pollution had an ugly face then of coal smoke and ash, acid rain, and mercury in fish that did not occur naturally in the environment.
To me your usage is still a misuse of the commonly understood definition of pollutant. Sure, anything in excess can be "bad", but defining one of the gases required for life on this planet in this fashion is too extreme for me. (If a tree could talk would it describe CO2 as a pollutant?) Otherwise a very well reasoned article. I'd give you an A- for sure if I were grading it.
To me your usage is still a misuse of the commonly understood definition of pollutant. Sure, anything in excess can be "bad", but defining one of the gases required for life on this planet in this fashion is too extreme for me. (If a tree could talk would it describe CO2 as a pollutant?) Otherwise a very well reasoned article. I'd give you an A- for sure if I were grading it.
Mike Tanis (not verified) | 04/20/13 | 12:48 PM
What's wrong with your conclusion is the underlying assumption that warming will resume and that we can do anything about it. Given the utter demolishment of the models by the data, isn't it time to start considering that, in fact, we cannot control climate and should, instead, focus on living with the results of climate change (which hominids have been doing rather well for a couple of billion years)?
Absent models (as opposed to hypotheses) that explain the fact that an almost-10% increase in atmospheric CO2 since 1997 has failed to produce warming, the answer could be that the planet is cooling. Meanwhile, imposing enormous costs in the absence of evidence is ridiculous.
Absent models (as opposed to hypotheses) that explain the fact that an almost-10% increase in atmospheric CO2 since 1997 has failed to produce warming, the answer could be that the planet is cooling. Meanwhile, imposing enormous costs in the absence of evidence is ridiculous.
Andrew Allison (not verified) | 04/20/13 | 12:26 PM
In my book I detailed the many anti-science sins of the progressive movement and while they are not correct on climate change for the right reasons - they know jack about the physics of atmospheric science, they just hate anyone who employs people - it is better to have blinders on for the right cause than the wrong one.
Hank Campbell | 04/20/13 | 12:39 PM
No, the pace has not slowed, it has essentially stopped for anywhere from 12 to 16 years in the empirical (and even ever upwardly revised) record. The observed data is on the verge of breaching the lower 95% confidence interval of the ensemble projections even though CO2 emissions have indeed been "worse than we thought." The tropospheric hot spots remain MIA. Even the Argo buoy data shows upper ocean heat content flat for over 5 years.
You also make the Panglossian Earth assumption. Even if warming were to continue its increase, there would be benefits in additions to detriments. Who's to say exactly what the optimum climate regime is? The very fact that you use the word disaster in your response is telling. Much of the pronounced warming of the 20th century occurred before significant increases in the CO2 levels in the atmosphere. In fact many of our starting baselines began a scant few decades from the end of the LIA. Yet the very natural rebound in temperatures after that event is simply assimilated into the record of human-induced climate change. Since the Holocene Climate Optimum global temperatures (by proxy) have been trending downward. I personally consider having a mile of ice sitting over my house to be far more disastrous than a shortened winter and extended growing season.
Since you claim to be a man of science, let me ask you a simple question. In order for a hypothesis/theory to be legitimate science it must have the property of falsifiability. What would falsify CAGW? Note that there has to be a hard definition. You can't say something like, "No global warming for a while." The very fact that the vocal proponents of this "disaster" never define this criteria should be the most frightening part of this crusade.
You also make the Panglossian Earth assumption. Even if warming were to continue its increase, there would be benefits in additions to detriments. Who's to say exactly what the optimum climate regime is? The very fact that you use the word disaster in your response is telling. Much of the pronounced warming of the 20th century occurred before significant increases in the CO2 levels in the atmosphere. In fact many of our starting baselines began a scant few decades from the end of the LIA. Yet the very natural rebound in temperatures after that event is simply assimilated into the record of human-induced climate change. Since the Holocene Climate Optimum global temperatures (by proxy) have been trending downward. I personally consider having a mile of ice sitting over my house to be far more disastrous than a shortened winter and extended growing season.
Since you claim to be a man of science, let me ask you a simple question. In order for a hypothesis/theory to be legitimate science it must have the property of falsifiability. What would falsify CAGW? Note that there has to be a hard definition. You can't say something like, "No global warming for a while." The very fact that the vocal proponents of this "disaster" never define this criteria should be the most frightening part of this crusade.
Tsk Tsk (not verified) | 04/20/13 | 15:48 PM
You know little about science or physics, you simply know enough to be wrong. Taking interpretations that are spoon fed to you and believing them is no great achievement. This article does not do that, I am plenty critical of flawed models, but since I do not lockstep with your weird anti-science cult I have to endure the same feel-good fallacies we have all seen a hundred times.
Hank Campbell | 04/20/13 | 19:55 PM
In order for a hypothesis/theory to be legitimate science it must have the property of falsifiability.That simply isn't true. If you were to toss a fair coin, you would expect a 50/50 distribution over a large number of trials. Falsify it. It can't be done.
More importantly, the premise is to falsify a prediction made by a hypothesis or theory. Yet, even here that isn't sufficient to render something "science" or not. It is well known that Newton's laws don't apply at near light speeds. Were they tossed out? or was it recognized that they were generally correct, and that relativity represented an extension?
These notions that all of science is a series of absolutes is simply nonsense. As Hank said, it reeks of political agenda.
—
Mundus vult decipi
Gerhard Adam | 04/20/13 | 20:10 PM
Might I respectfully suggest that you don't try and defend your arguments on line.
The simple fact is that, as shown by the data which has been widely disseminated, global temperatures have not increased since 1997 despite an almost 10% increase in atmospheric CO2. The question of what represents "short-term" is debatable (c.f. the chorus of Sandy, the drought of 2012, etc., etc. is assuredly a result of AGW), but looking at the history since 1880, it's clear that there is a roughly 30-year cycle of increasing temperature and plateaus. A scientist might think that, at best, we're about half-way through a plateau and at worst that rapidly increasing atmospheric CO2 is hold off the next ice age!
The simple fact is that, as shown by the data which has been widely disseminated, global temperatures have not increased since 1997 despite an almost 10% increase in atmospheric CO2. The question of what represents "short-term" is debatable (c.f. the chorus of Sandy, the drought of 2012, etc., etc. is assuredly a result of AGW), but looking at the history since 1880, it's clear that there is a roughly 30-year cycle of increasing temperature and plateaus. A scientist might think that, at best, we're about half-way through a plateau and at worst that rapidly increasing atmospheric CO2 is hold off the next ice age!
Andrew Allison (not verified) | 04/20/13 | 20:22 PM
Actually there's a serious reason not to allow CO2 to be defined as a pollutant. It opens us up to infinite bureaucratic bungling by the lunatics at the EPA. And that's not funny or cheap.
Mike Tanis (not verified) | 04/20/13 | 12:58 PM
The problem is both sides are anti-science when it matches their politics. Commenters here may feel it is primarily a cancer of the left, but it is no different on the right. Just about different things.
Hank Campbell | 04/20/13 | 20:14 PM
claims of anthropogenic global warming are somewhere between professional malpractice and outright fraud. When you teach students about basics of numerical modeling you tell them this: if you are not absolutely certain of your underlying physical model, you can usually cautiously use this model to interpolate your data set. What you do not do is use your model for extrapolations. And if your model shows any sign of numerical instability, otherwise known as climate sensitivity, extrapolation is verboten. Using an unproven physical model of something as complex as climate to extrapolate into a distant future and try to affect major economic and political changes on the basis of such extrapolations is wonton.
All major scientific societies failed science by joining the bandwagon to validate and enhance their own role in the society. The penalty will be further loss of public trust in science, as if science did not have enough problems already.
All major scientific societies failed science by joining the bandwagon to validate and enhance their own role in the society. The penalty will be further loss of public trust in science, as if science did not have enough problems already.
mf (not verified) | 04/20/13 | 13:39 PM
Gerhard Adam,
Based on the complete lack of empirical evidence, you have lost the Y2K argument.
Same with "climate change". The climate always changes — naturally. But carbon dioxide does not cause the changes; in fact, CO2 is the result of the changes.
The entire "carbon" scare has been one monumental hoax on the taxpaying public. More than $100 BILLION in federal grants has been wasted on 'climate change' studies since 2001. The upshot: harmless, beneficial CO2 is still rising, but global warming stopped sixteen years ago.
Ignore the climate alarmists, who are paid to sound their false alarm. Listen instead to the ultimate Authority: Planet Earth. She is telling the truth.
Based on the complete lack of empirical evidence, you have lost the Y2K argument.
Same with "climate change". The climate always changes — naturally. But carbon dioxide does not cause the changes; in fact, CO2 is the result of the changes.
The entire "carbon" scare has been one monumental hoax on the taxpaying public. More than $100 BILLION in federal grants has been wasted on 'climate change' studies since 2001. The upshot: harmless, beneficial CO2 is still rising, but global warming stopped sixteen years ago.
Ignore the climate alarmists, who are paid to sound their false alarm. Listen instead to the ultimate Authority: Planet Earth. She is telling the truth.
Smokey (not verified) | 04/20/13 | 18:40 PM
Well, feel free to go back to your "My Little Pony" fantasy land, because there are people that really do address real problems.
It doesn't matter. The Y2K problem was addressed, because it was recognized, scoped, and handled. It certainly wasn't because fools like you were out there arguing about whether it represented a risk or not. Corporations spent billions because they recognized the risks intrinsic in the problem.
Anyone that says otherwise simply wasn't there.
—
Mundus vult decipi
Gerhard Adam | 04/20/13 | 19:17 PM
God you do talk nonsense. The Y2K scare was nothing but an expensive scam, and that comes not from a "denier" but a programmer who was involved.
I strongly suspect that the global warming/climate change scare is another scam based on the likelyhood that climate sensitivity is considerably less than 2 deg per doubling.
I strongly suspect that the global warming/climate change scare is another scam based on the likelyhood that climate sensitivity is considerably less than 2 deg per doubling.
John WB (not verified) | 04/21/13 | 09:43 AM
The Y2K scare was nothing but an expensive scam, and that comes not from a "denier" but a programmer who was involved.Of course, everything is a scam when the problem is taken care of and nothing significant happens. This is simply another case of some whack-jobs with their revisionist history.
—
Mundus vult decipi
Gerhard Adam | 04/21/13 | 12:00 PM
Wrong again. I am 65; I was there. Working in a high-tech metrology/calibration lab. We were all well aware of the Y2K issue, which amounted to nothing. Less than nothing: it was a total non-event.
There was no Y2K problem. Not here in the U.S. Not in Swaziland. Not in Kiribati. Not in Argentina. Nowhere. There was simply no Y2K problem — whether money was spent on it, or not. History shows that there was no Y2K problem. None whatever.
Based on the lack of empirical evidence to the contrary, you lost the Y2K debate. The Y2K issue just did not matter. It was as much of a false alarm as the manmade global warming false alarm. They were both false alarms. Y2K=MMGW. Same-same. Both bogus.
There was no Y2K problem. Not here in the U.S. Not in Swaziland. Not in Kiribati. Not in Argentina. Nowhere. There was simply no Y2K problem — whether money was spent on it, or not. History shows that there was no Y2K problem. None whatever.
Based on the lack of empirical evidence to the contrary, you lost the Y2K debate. The Y2K issue just did not matter. It was as much of a false alarm as the manmade global warming false alarm. They were both false alarms. Y2K=MMGW. Same-same. Both bogus.
Smokey (not verified) | 04/20/13 | 19:34 PM
"There was no Y2K problem. Not here in the U.S. Not in Swaziland. Not in Kiribati. Not in Argentina. Nowhere. There was simply no Y2K problem — whether money was spent on it, or not. History shows that there was no Y2K problem. None whatever."
I'm sorry Smokey - that's wholly wrong. Read this (carefully please): http://fm2x.com/The_Century_Date_Change_Problem.pdf
PS: I suspect you're right about MMGW however.
Robin Guenier (not verified) | 04/22/13 | 09:22 AM
".....feedbacks are hard to accurately quantify - or there are natural variations no one anticipated, in a 'we don't know what we don't know' sense.'
This was true, is true, and will be true but it seems the "climate scientists" are just discovering it.. They also seem be unaware of of the notion of testing a FALSIFIABLE hypothesis - another idea waiting for them to discover. Finally, relying on data from 50, 100 or 200 years, or a 1000 years ago from tree rings and thinking they can get a precise measurement is ludicrous. LOL I mean, how do know if your are wrong? This show has been a monstrous abuse of logic and science - even sanity.
This was true, is true, and will be true but it seems the "climate scientists" are just discovering it.. They also seem be unaware of of the notion of testing a FALSIFIABLE hypothesis - another idea waiting for them to discover. Finally, relying on data from 50, 100 or 200 years, or a 1000 years ago from tree rings and thinking they can get a precise measurement is ludicrous. LOL I mean, how do know if your are wrong? This show has been a monstrous abuse of logic and science - even sanity.
James Johnson (not verified) | 04/20/13 | 19:58 PM
I do agree - and say in the article - that while we have a higher temperature than a century ago to say that we have to rely on data it is hard to be sure about. Before the 1980s, rigorous temperature-taking was just not done.
That said, the impact of CO2 remains simple physics. A belief that you can dump anything into the atmosphere and nothing could ever go wrong is certainly not falsifiable - you know that if you have ever visited Los Angeles. No one, and I mean no one, who knows anything at all argues about the impact of CO2 itself. The argument is instead over modeling feedbacks and that may be where predictive models were too aggressive, as I wrote in the article.
Hank Campbell | 04/20/13 | 20:07 PM
Surely you jest? As noted elsewhere, we've dumped almost 10% more CO2 into the atmosphere since 1997 and the temperature has trended DOWN! Any way you look at this fact, it falsifies the primary tenet of AGW.
Andrew Allison (not verified) | 04/20/13 | 20:43 PM
Hank Campbell | 04/21/13 | 10:32 AM
LOL ... I know how YOU are wrong and I can see exactly where the "monstrous abuse of logic and science" is occurring.
—
Mundus vult decipi
Gerhard Adam | 04/20/13 | 20:12 PM
...and I can see where the abuse of sanity is coming from. You are the perfect example of why climate science is so hokey and filled witth loons who cannot possibly wrong lecturing the world on "falsifiable". You are a caricature of yourself and every sane person reading this knows you are whacky but you.
jb johnson (not verified) | 04/21/13 | 14:01 PM
I used a previous example to ask you how to falsify data based on probabilities [i.e. a simple coin toss]. I'm still waiting for an answer.
However, let's take this a step further. Were Newton's laws "falsified" by Einstein? Can natural selection be "falsified"? Koch's Postulates have certainly been "falsified", so does that render the germ theory of disease non-scientific?
—
Mundus vult decipi
Gerhard Adam | 04/21/13 | 14:26 PM
Forget falsifiability; the CO2=AGW conjecture is not even testable. And if something is not testable, it stops at the 'conjecture' stage of the Scientific Method: http://tiny.cc/unavvw
CO2=AGW [anthropogenic global warming] is not a hypothesis, because it is not testable. It is simply a conjecture, which the planet is busy falsifying: http://tiny.cc/769uvw [Note the flat temperature trend line — while the trace gas CO2 continues to rise. As we scientists know, correlation does not equal causation.]
Now, here is a chart that the climate alarmist crowd never publicizes: http://tiny.cc/4cavvw
Note that ∆T is THE CAUSE of ∆CO2 — not vice versa. There are NO similar charts showing that CO2 is the cause of rising global temperatures. None. That is only an assertion, with no scientific evidence to support it.
The alarmist crowd began with a false premise — by assuming that ∆CO2 causes ∆Temperature — when the scientific observations show exactly the opposite: rising temperatures cause CO2 to outgas from the oceans, just like a warming Coke outgases CO2. Thus: ∆T causes ∆CO2.
When you start with a false premise, your conclusions will necessarily be wrong. In fact, rising CO2 causes no measurable rise in global temperature. That was simply a spurious correlation between CO2 and T, from about 1980 – 1997. That correlation has now broken down: for the past sixteen years there has been NO measurable global warming, even though CO2 continues to rise.
Finally, note that I present verifiable, testable scientific observations here, while the climate alarmists can only make baseless assertions. No wonder they are not capable of winning an argument.
CO2=AGW [anthropogenic global warming] is not a hypothesis, because it is not testable. It is simply a conjecture, which the planet is busy falsifying: http://tiny.cc/769uvw [Note the flat temperature trend line — while the trace gas CO2 continues to rise. As we scientists know, correlation does not equal causation.]
Now, here is a chart that the climate alarmist crowd never publicizes: http://tiny.cc/4cavvw
Note that ∆T is THE CAUSE of ∆CO2 — not vice versa. There are NO similar charts showing that CO2 is the cause of rising global temperatures. None. That is only an assertion, with no scientific evidence to support it.
The alarmist crowd began with a false premise — by assuming that ∆CO2 causes ∆Temperature — when the scientific observations show exactly the opposite: rising temperatures cause CO2 to outgas from the oceans, just like a warming Coke outgases CO2. Thus: ∆T causes ∆CO2.
When you start with a false premise, your conclusions will necessarily be wrong. In fact, rising CO2 causes no measurable rise in global temperature. That was simply a spurious correlation between CO2 and T, from about 1980 – 1997. That correlation has now broken down: for the past sixteen years there has been NO measurable global warming, even though CO2 continues to rise.
Finally, note that I present verifiable, testable scientific observations here, while the climate alarmists can only make baseless assertions. No wonder they are not capable of winning an argument.
Smokey (not verified) | 04/20/13 | 20:58 PM
This article completely misses an important point, namely, that about 90% of all energy increases on the planet are absorbed into the oceans. Recent studies have shown that the oceans are absorbing energy even at depths below 700 meters. So while there may be a slowing of the warming of air globally, that is not the case with the oceans. And since melting of ice is a major problem of global warming, this is not the time for skeptics to gloat.
FAM (not verified) | 04/20/13 | 21:12 PM
Good post Hank. Thanks. I'll throw in a different spin because I'm tired of the other stuff.
At some point in the future fossil fuels may prove to be our salvation. When we start looking at long term possibilities we need to consider all the possibilities. The geologic record makes it obvious that another ice age is very possible if not certain. There are studies which suggest the last ice age ended rather abruptly, in the space of 100 years, which raises the question as to how quickly another ice age may arrive. If and mostly likely when another ice age commences we can draw a line from New York to Paris to Beijing and assume everything above that will be lost. So we will need to pump huge amounts of carbon dioxide and methane into the air to try and prevent the worst possible consequences of that.
Why are people making such a big deal out of this current period when it is widely accepted that the minimum time frame for these measurements is 30 years? For all we know the huge amount of pollution being emitted from China and India could be responsible. There are some that dispute the current claims of stabilisation.
As for the falsification issue, Popper be damned. I prefer Quine's holistic approach, that science is a network of concepts. As complexity rises falsification becomes increasingly difficult.
At some point in the future fossil fuels may prove to be our salvation. When we start looking at long term possibilities we need to consider all the possibilities. The geologic record makes it obvious that another ice age is very possible if not certain. There are studies which suggest the last ice age ended rather abruptly, in the space of 100 years, which raises the question as to how quickly another ice age may arrive. If and mostly likely when another ice age commences we can draw a line from New York to Paris to Beijing and assume everything above that will be lost. So we will need to pump huge amounts of carbon dioxide and methane into the air to try and prevent the worst possible consequences of that.
Why are people making such a big deal out of this current period when it is widely accepted that the minimum time frame for these measurements is 30 years? For all we know the huge amount of pollution being emitted from China and India could be responsible. There are some that dispute the current claims of stabilisation.
As for the falsification issue, Popper be damned. I prefer Quine's holistic approach, that science is a network of concepts. As complexity rises falsification becomes increasingly difficult.
John Hasenkam (not verified) | 04/20/13 | 21:16 PM
"you don't have to be an earth science expert to know pollution is bad" - but you do have to be a moron to think that CO2 is a pollutant.
Gary (not verified) | 04/20/13 | 22:08 PM
Gary,
Exactly; correctomundo. Only MORONS believe that CO2 is any kind of a problem.
In fact, CO2 is essential to ALL life on Earth! We exhale CO2. Plants utilize CO2 to grow: they strip out the carbon atom, and emit the oxygen molecule; we breathe the oxygen, and plants grow using the carbon: Win-win!
Only MORONS believe that "carbon" [by which they mean CO2 — a completely harmless and beneficial trace gas] is a problem. Morons are low-information voters. Unfortunately, they can vote — in many cases, multiple times.
Which explains Obama...
Exactly; correctomundo. Only MORONS believe that CO2 is any kind of a problem.
In fact, CO2 is essential to ALL life on Earth! We exhale CO2. Plants utilize CO2 to grow: they strip out the carbon atom, and emit the oxygen molecule; we breathe the oxygen, and plants grow using the carbon: Win-win!
Only MORONS believe that "carbon" [by which they mean CO2 — a completely harmless and beneficial trace gas] is a problem. Morons are low-information voters. Unfortunately, they can vote — in many cases, multiple times.
Which explains Obama...
Smokey (not verified) | 04/20/13 | 22:43 PM
Hank Campbell | 04/20/13 | 23:17 PM
That's a losing argument there, Hank.
Because CO2 is no more a 'pollutant' than H2O is. Neither one is a "pollutant".
I have been a working scientist for my entire carreer. I see the money corrupting science, and I see that you are not immune; your income depends upon your promotion of the AGW canard. Lying for money is nothing new.
And please, stop flogging your book. You do it constantly. Being such a mercenary does not add anything to your sadly lacking credibility. The "carbon" scare is on its last legs. Real science has put a stake through it's heart. CO2 contributes nothing measurable to global warming. That is a fact.
Also, this is not a Left/Right issue, much as you crave it to be. This is teastable science. And the science shows unequivocally that the CO2=AGW conjecture has been falsified. The reason you have not responded to the charts I posted shows that you have only your baseless assertions, but no testable scientific evidence.
By all means, keep digging. It is amusing to honest scientists, who know falsifiable science from your alarmist pseudo-science.
Because CO2 is no more a 'pollutant' than H2O is. Neither one is a "pollutant".
I have been a working scientist for my entire carreer. I see the money corrupting science, and I see that you are not immune; your income depends upon your promotion of the AGW canard. Lying for money is nothing new.
And please, stop flogging your book. You do it constantly. Being such a mercenary does not add anything to your sadly lacking credibility. The "carbon" scare is on its last legs. Real science has put a stake through it's heart. CO2 contributes nothing measurable to global warming. That is a fact.
Also, this is not a Left/Right issue, much as you crave it to be. This is teastable science. And the science shows unequivocally that the CO2=AGW conjecture has been falsified. The reason you have not responded to the charts I posted shows that you have only your baseless assertions, but no testable scientific evidence.
By all means, keep digging. It is amusing to honest scientists, who know falsifiable science from your alarmist pseudo-science.
Smokey (not verified) | 04/20/13 | 23:43 PM
I have been a working scientist for my entire carreer. I see the money corrupting science, and I see that you are not immune; your income depends upon your promotion of the AGW canard. Lying for money is nothing new.I am just not buying it. The fact that you jump to a hare-brained conclusion about me shows you lack any ability to do anything other than engage in motivated reasoning. I am on Team Science, not Team Republican Crackpot or Team Democratic Crackpot. I know it is hard for you to grasp but you can spend the rest of your days trying to find some link between me and whatever the "AGW canard" is and you would be just as unsuccessful as your attempts at reason. Unlike you, I don't get paid to evangelize a political belief and then find data to match it, that is plain ol' scientization of politics.
I generally respect the Watts site but you are a full-on conspiratorial loon.
Hank Campbell | 04/21/13 | 00:23 AM
Hank,
Still flogging your pseudo-science book, I see.
Folks, don't waste your money. You can see that Hank can ony insult. He has no solid scientific facts to refute what I have posted, so he throws out impotent invective, calling me a "full-on conspiratorial loon".
In fact, Hank, I have been the primary Moderator after Anthony Watts on WattsUpWithThat.com for the past six years — the site you claim to respect. I do not argue politics — YOU brought that up. Instead, I debate science. And the fact is that you have no verifiable science to support your assertions. You only have your baseless conjectures, your politics, and your personal insults.
It has been demonstrated repeatedly that carbon dioxide changes as a result of global temperature changes; CO2 does not control global temperature. That's where you are wrong, and that is the reason that all climate alarmists are wrong. They start with the wrong premise, so naturally their conclusions are wrong. Writing a book only puts nonsense on paper.
You're digging a deep hole, Hank. Like all climate alarmists, your belief is based on unscientific assertions. You call me a "loon" — but name-calling is all you've got. You are long on insults and assertions, but short on scientific facts.
I have posted solid scientific facts to support my comments. I understand that you're trying to sell a book. But the truth is that you are just another climate alarmist peddling a failed point of view. Science does not support your belief system; CO2 levels are controlled by global temperatures, as I have shown conclusively.
The entire "carbon" scare is trumped-up nonsense. The difference between you and me is that I can prove what I'm posting, while you are just making baseless assertions that confirm your alarmist belief system. That is why your side is losing this debate.
Nothing unusual or unprecedented is occurring with the climate. Everything being observed now has happened repeatedly, and to greater extremes, in the past. But so long as there is money to be made by peddling paseudo-science, the scam artists will be out in force, peddling their false alarm.
Still flogging your pseudo-science book, I see.
Folks, don't waste your money. You can see that Hank can ony insult. He has no solid scientific facts to refute what I have posted, so he throws out impotent invective, calling me a "full-on conspiratorial loon".
In fact, Hank, I have been the primary Moderator after Anthony Watts on WattsUpWithThat.com for the past six years — the site you claim to respect. I do not argue politics — YOU brought that up. Instead, I debate science. And the fact is that you have no verifiable science to support your assertions. You only have your baseless conjectures, your politics, and your personal insults.
It has been demonstrated repeatedly that carbon dioxide changes as a result of global temperature changes; CO2 does not control global temperature. That's where you are wrong, and that is the reason that all climate alarmists are wrong. They start with the wrong premise, so naturally their conclusions are wrong. Writing a book only puts nonsense on paper.
You're digging a deep hole, Hank. Like all climate alarmists, your belief is based on unscientific assertions. You call me a "loon" — but name-calling is all you've got. You are long on insults and assertions, but short on scientific facts.
I have posted solid scientific facts to support my comments. I understand that you're trying to sell a book. But the truth is that you are just another climate alarmist peddling a failed point of view. Science does not support your belief system; CO2 levels are controlled by global temperatures, as I have shown conclusively.
The entire "carbon" scare is trumped-up nonsense. The difference between you and me is that I can prove what I'm posting, while you are just making baseless assertions that confirm your alarmist belief system. That is why your side is losing this debate.
Nothing unusual or unprecedented is occurring with the climate. Everything being observed now has happened repeatedly, and to greater extremes, in the past. But so long as there is money to be made by peddling paseudo-science, the scam artists will be out in force, peddling their false alarm.
Smokey (not verified) | 04/21/13 | 02:55 AM
I have posted solid scientific facts to support my comments. I understand that you're trying to sell a book. But the truth is that you are just another climate alarmist peddling a failed point of view.You're a goofball. At least it makes me chuckle that you keep insisting I am an "alarmist" in order to sell a book that criticizes progressives who engage in anti-science behavior. When you are a hard-right fanatic I guess the middle is the left, though.
Hank Campbell | 04/21/13 | 09:03 AM
Ad hom attacks on commenters who disagree with you show us all we need to know about your character.
John WB (not verified) | 04/21/13 | 09:48 AM
Hank Campbell | 04/21/13 | 10:30 AM
At issue are the known unknowns and the unknown unknowns. There are serious holes in the theory of CO2 forcing. The first is that the Lower Troposphere satellite measurements are diverging from modeled projections. The LT is where the first order forcing for CO2 should be taking place according to the models, yet it is not happening as projected.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/CMIP5-global-LT-vs-UAH-an...
Another inconvenience in the science is that the dominant positive feedback was supposed to be a sustained increase in atmospheric water vapor which would then increase warming because water vapor is a more potent GHG than CO2. I still read media discussions reference water vapor increase without offering support even after NASA had launched the most sophisticated water vapor monitoring system to date and it is not verifying that water vapor has in fact increased. 23 years of the best available data and NASA can't confirm the positive water vapor feedback that is a dominant contributor to warming.
http://clivebest.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/fig4c_tpw.jpg
http://www.leif.org/EOS/2012GL052094-pip.pdf
I have also looked at the NOAA Specific humidity data too and see no increase in trend there either.
Aerosol knowledge has been poor at best and positive warming feedbacks of black carbon were understated and attributed to CO2.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jgrd.50171/abstract
One has to wonder where solar physicists have been (only one solar physicist worked on 2007 IPCC AR4). Some are finally emerging and suggesting a new "Dalton minimum" may be starting in 2014 based on solar cycle analysis. If Total Solar Irradiance drops 1 watt/meter*2 for an extended period that will be significant.
To me the question is, is the science far enough along to warrant trillions of dollars of action (30+ trillion was figure based on IPCC fixes), if CO2 has only contributed 25%, or .2 degreesC of the .8 degreesC of recent warming? What if reducing black carbon, with little cost, can delay warming until we can get 4th generation nuclear up and running or make the removal of atmospheric CO2 (we already have the technology), the long term threat, more affordable? This is were active discussion should occur but is not.
I bought your book already Hank so be nice to me. :-)
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/CMIP5-global-LT-vs-UAH-an...
Another inconvenience in the science is that the dominant positive feedback was supposed to be a sustained increase in atmospheric water vapor which would then increase warming because water vapor is a more potent GHG than CO2. I still read media discussions reference water vapor increase without offering support even after NASA had launched the most sophisticated water vapor monitoring system to date and it is not verifying that water vapor has in fact increased. 23 years of the best available data and NASA can't confirm the positive water vapor feedback that is a dominant contributor to warming.
http://clivebest.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/fig4c_tpw.jpg
http://www.leif.org/EOS/2012GL052094-pip.pdf
I have also looked at the NOAA Specific humidity data too and see no increase in trend there either.
Aerosol knowledge has been poor at best and positive warming feedbacks of black carbon were understated and attributed to CO2.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jgrd.50171/abstract
One has to wonder where solar physicists have been (only one solar physicist worked on 2007 IPCC AR4). Some are finally emerging and suggesting a new "Dalton minimum" may be starting in 2014 based on solar cycle analysis. If Total Solar Irradiance drops 1 watt/meter*2 for an extended period that will be significant.
To me the question is, is the science far enough along to warrant trillions of dollars of action (30+ trillion was figure based on IPCC fixes), if CO2 has only contributed 25%, or .2 degreesC of the .8 degreesC of recent warming? What if reducing black carbon, with little cost, can delay warming until we can get 4th generation nuclear up and running or make the removal of atmospheric CO2 (we already have the technology), the long term threat, more affordable? This is were active discussion should occur but is not.
I bought your book already Hank so be nice to me. :-)
Sundance (not verified) | 04/21/13 | 16:44 PM
The situation on the IPCC was bad even before 2007. In 2001 they had thrown off anyone who disagreed with 'banning CO2 will fix global warming'. Now they have officially have a quota system for participants so not even a pretense of the best people are on the IPCC, but rather a geographic sample. So 4 people in North America are equivalent to 4 people in Africa, despite the fact that the US alone produces 32% of the world's science.
I was only not nice when a guy who says climate science is afflicted with 'hive mind' showed up here and declared me a moron and a shill for global warming because I was not part of his anti-science hive mind - that was irony, but still annoying from someone who clearly knows nothing at all about the physics of gases and just shrieks that CO2 is awesome and can never hurt anyone and I should ask a tree. You're cool, even if you tell me I am wrong, because you don't say everyone is stupid unless they lockstep with your politics. :)
Hank Campbell | 04/21/13 | 19:52 PM
A well-written, well-reasoned article, I would suggest, as another commenter already has, to re-examine the role of the oceans in global warming. It's one of the variables that the model makers didn't fully account for. Ocean temperatures, even at deep depths are rising. Not only are the oceans warming, but they're absorbing more C02, increasing their acidity.
The emerging data regarding ocean temperatures and acidity levels is an area of grave concern.
We didn't dodge the global warming bullet, the underlying science remains solid, it's just going to hit us in a different place. Instead of being shot through the lung, we're going to shot through the liver. The ultimate prognosis is just as bad.
The emerging data regarding ocean temperatures and acidity levels is an area of grave concern.
We didn't dodge the global warming bullet, the underlying science remains solid, it's just going to hit us in a different place. Instead of being shot through the lung, we're going to shot through the liver. The ultimate prognosis is just as bad.
chris (not verified) | 04/21/13 | 18:10 PM
Hank Campbell | 04/21/13 | 19:56 PM
"roaring back" -that's my greatest fear. Nature is a bitch. Regarding the human race, I swing like a pendulum. One moment I'm elated in our potential, the next I can't escape our overwhelming ignorance and pettiness. Galileo probably experienced the same reality.
chris (not verified) | 04/21/13 | 20:29 PM
Same ol same ol, global warming is real and dangerous but we have no evidence of it. The earth has been warming for 20,000 years. We are in an interglacial period so appreciate it while you can because most of the NE (including New York) and Midwest states will someday be under several feet of ice. The rest of the planet will be extremely dry, deserts will expand, tropical rainforests will die. That's what happens with global cooling! They were right the first time; the glaciers are coming, the glaciers are coming.
Morecotwoplease (not verified) | 04/21/13 | 18:27 PM
Hank,
So now you label me a "goofball"? But I note that you never answered any of the scientific points I raised.
I note also that you are still flogging your pseudoscience-based book, ignoring the fact that the Scientific Method shows that CO2 is harmless; more CO2 is simply not a problem.
And, I note that you are trying to turn 'John WB's comment above to your personal advantage. But it is clear John was referring specifically to you.
I note too that although you make random assertions regarding 'science', there are no verifiable scientific facts in your comments. What your comments amount to is an obvious attempt to flog your book, by using your priveleged position here.
I note also that your belief is that I just moderate spam, which is only a small part of my moderation duties on WUWT. Part of moderating is deleting self-serving comments that do nothing more than repeatedly flog books. WatsUpWithThat.com has become the #1 climate site on the internet in only six years, winning the Weblog Awards for "Best Science & Technology" site for the past three years running. Your blog has a lot of catching up to do. You haven't even made the playoffs once.
Finally, I note that I did not label you a "moron". But you came along, and noticed the word 'moron', and presumed that it fit you. Therefore, you adopted the label as your own. But if you will notice, I was simply agreeing with "Gary", nothing more. You are like the guy who finds a hat on the hat rack, tries it on, and says, "Hey, this fits me perfectly! Therefore, it must be my hat."
Now, to get back to the actual science of global warming, these are verifiable, indisputable scientific facts:
Global warming is natural. There are no empirical scientific measurements showing that global warming is 'man-made'. Warming has not accelerated since the end of the Little Ice Age, even though CO2 has risen by ≈40%. Therefore, the rise in CO2 has had no measurable effect on global warming. None. The belief in AGW is only a conjecture; an opinion. Speculation. That's all it is.
CO2 ["carbon" to scientific illiterates] is a completely harmless trace gas that is entirely beneficial to the biosphere. More CO2 is better. And even if CO2 doubled — which will not happen because there is not enough fossil fuel to make it double — it is still only a tiny trace gas, measurable in parts per million. In fact, CO2 is no more harmful than H2O.
But publishing those verifiable scientific facts does not sell books; climate alarmism is what sells books. Thus, in order to sell books, you have to sell your soul. That is a shame.
Have a happy Sunday.
So now you label me a "goofball"? But I note that you never answered any of the scientific points I raised.
I note also that you are still flogging your pseudoscience-based book, ignoring the fact that the Scientific Method shows that CO2 is harmless; more CO2 is simply not a problem.
And, I note that you are trying to turn 'John WB's comment above to your personal advantage. But it is clear John was referring specifically to you.
I note too that although you make random assertions regarding 'science', there are no verifiable scientific facts in your comments. What your comments amount to is an obvious attempt to flog your book, by using your priveleged position here.
I note also that your belief is that I just moderate spam, which is only a small part of my moderation duties on WUWT. Part of moderating is deleting self-serving comments that do nothing more than repeatedly flog books. WatsUpWithThat.com has become the #1 climate site on the internet in only six years, winning the Weblog Awards for "Best Science & Technology" site for the past three years running. Your blog has a lot of catching up to do. You haven't even made the playoffs once.
Finally, I note that I did not label you a "moron". But you came along, and noticed the word 'moron', and presumed that it fit you. Therefore, you adopted the label as your own. But if you will notice, I was simply agreeing with "Gary", nothing more. You are like the guy who finds a hat on the hat rack, tries it on, and says, "Hey, this fits me perfectly! Therefore, it must be my hat."
Now, to get back to the actual science of global warming, these are verifiable, indisputable scientific facts:
Global warming is natural. There are no empirical scientific measurements showing that global warming is 'man-made'. Warming has not accelerated since the end of the Little Ice Age, even though CO2 has risen by ≈40%. Therefore, the rise in CO2 has had no measurable effect on global warming. None. The belief in AGW is only a conjecture; an opinion. Speculation. That's all it is.
CO2 ["carbon" to scientific illiterates] is a completely harmless trace gas that is entirely beneficial to the biosphere. More CO2 is better. And even if CO2 doubled — which will not happen because there is not enough fossil fuel to make it double — it is still only a tiny trace gas, measurable in parts per million. In fact, CO2 is no more harmful than H2O.
But publishing those verifiable scientific facts does not sell books; climate alarmism is what sells books. Thus, in order to sell books, you have to sell your soul. That is a shame.
Have a happy Sunday.
Smokey (not verified) | 04/21/13 | 19:39 PM
I cannot figure out why you keep mentioning my book, especially since you have not read even the blurb on the back cover, but the fact that you think I wrote it to promote a partisan view of climate science just goes to show (again) that you are an agenda-based know-nothing who only chooses to accept science that matches your political beliefs. You are a wanna-be James Hansen of the right, except you have zero credibility. You are riding someone else's coattails and claiming that makes you an expert.
Your final points, where you seem to have arrived at your senses after a dozen comments of fringe lunacy, are at least germane - except you are disputing points I never made. This is what I meant about you have not read the actual article, much less anything else I have written.
Now go back to lording it over your minions and pretending you are all about transparency while you play emperor over whose comments there get to be published. I haven't moderated yours even though I think you're an idiot. That's transparency.
Hank Campbell | 04/21/13 | 20:07 PM
Hank says:
"I cannot figure out why you keep mentioning my book..." &etc.
Hank, YOU keep mentioning your book. And your lone voice, complaining about the internet Awards won by WUWT, reeks of desperation. What awards were Won by 'science 2.0'? Answer: NONE.
So, let's stay on the subject of actual science: there is NO empirical evidence that CO2 causes ANY global warming. None. CO2 is a non-event.
Once you admit to that fact, we are on the same page, and I will lay off my attacks on your pseudo-science.
It is time that honest scientists point out the fact that there is zero scientific evidence to support the notion that human activity is the cause of global warming. Pretending otherwise only supports the alarmist narrative ...no?
"I cannot figure out why you keep mentioning my book..." &etc.
Hank, YOU keep mentioning your book. And your lone voice, complaining about the internet Awards won by WUWT, reeks of desperation. What awards were Won by 'science 2.0'? Answer: NONE.
So, let's stay on the subject of actual science: there is NO empirical evidence that CO2 causes ANY global warming. None. CO2 is a non-event.
Once you admit to that fact, we are on the same page, and I will lay off my attacks on your pseudo-science.
It is time that honest scientists point out the fact that there is zero scientific evidence to support the notion that human activity is the cause of global warming. Pretending otherwise only supports the alarmist narrative ...no?
Smokey (not verified) | 04/21/13 | 20:46 PM
... there is NO empirical evidence that CO2 causes ANY global warming. None. CO2 is a non-event.Well, good, so you can post links to the peer-reviewed papers?
It is time that honest scientists point out the fact that there is zero scientific evidence to support the notion that human activity is the cause of global warming.Again ... finally we can link to peer-reviewed papers with these findings.
...and about those awards.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/03/05/1191805/-How-climate-skeptics-win-science-blog-awards
... and then there's the pseudo-science issue
http://johnosullivan.wordpress.com/2013/03/09/greenhouse-gas-errors-abound-on-wuwt-blog/
Hmmm .. I sure hope you have some peer-reviewed links.
—
Mundus vult decipi
Gerhard Adam | 04/21/13 | 20:55 PM
Hank says:
"I cannot figure out why you keep mentioning my book..."
No, YOU are always mentioning your book! I'm only pointing that out.
And as usual, you have still posted no verifiable science.
Come on over to WUWT.com, and learn about the global warming scam. Gerhard can learn some facts there, too. You will both be better off.
Commenting on this very low-trafficked blog only affects a handful of readers.
You know what? I'm wasting my time here. Back to moderating on WUWT for me. You both get to have the last word here.
"I cannot figure out why you keep mentioning my book..."
No, YOU are always mentioning your book! I'm only pointing that out.
And as usual, you have still posted no verifiable science.
Come on over to WUWT.com, and learn about the global warming scam. Gerhard can learn some facts there, too. You will both be better off.
Commenting on this very low-trafficked blog only affects a handful of readers.
You know what? I'm wasting my time here. Back to moderating on WUWT for me. You both get to have the last word here.
Smokey (not verified) | 04/21/13 | 21:07 PM
For more entertainment:
http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/4385
http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2012/10/04/wuwt-taking-incompetence-to-a-w...
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2010/07/03/206352/watts-goddard-arctic-...
http://climatecrocks.com/2013/01/18/the-search-for-intelligent-life-at-w...
—
Mundus vult decipi
Gerhard Adam | 04/21/13 | 21:11 PM
Science 2.0 has 300 million hits on Google and yet zero traffic hits from Watts - that seems strange, since he is claiming they are the only science site in existence and because we are not them, we have no value to the world. Not a single person from here is spamming that site for a link to us, whereas he keeps coming here and dutifully putting his URL in his signature - so if I was as clueless as him I would ask why he keeps promoting his site every time he writes.
I get that political sites have to hire zealots but that guy really takes the cake. He's a tinfoil hat type.
But he singlehandedly took me from being called a right wing shill for Big Oil 52% of the time back to 50-50. It's rare that I get called a liberal global warming alarmist. Actual independent science scare the bejeesus out of these people so they demonize out of reflex.
Hank Campbell | 04/21/13 | 21:37 PM
LOL!!
Hank posts ZERO science, only links to has-been blogs like desmog. Could Hank be any more pathetic??
I never heard of this thinly-trafficked blog until it was linked somewhere. 300 million hits?! HA! As If!!
The Weblog Awards are the Gold Standard of web awards, and WUWT has won the "Best Science" category for three out of the past 3 years, going up against blogs like RealScience, Tamino, Bad Astronomy, etc., etc. WUWT has beaten them hands down, every time, with millions of votes cast. It's a fact. You could look it up.
For both of Hank's other readers, I say: c'mon over to WUWT, the Best Science & Technology site on the internet, and see what REAL science is all about. But of course, neither of Hank's other readers will pay any attention. Like Hank, they emit propaganda, not verifiable scientific facts. Hell, they don't even comment. Hank is all by himself here.
This is NOT about an un-read poster's flogging of his pathetic book, which is already in the bins now for 49 cents. This is about real scientific debate, based on real world facts. But as we see, Hank runs and hides out from scientific facts.
My global warming scam antennae are never wrong, and our mendacious friend Hank is a purveyor of globaloney nonsense. He knows it. And the rest of us know it, too. The proof is in the fact that Hank NEVER debates any scientific facts — he only squeals like a stuck pig when he is outed for flogging his globaloney book. Post some real science for a change, Hank — IF you can. It will be a first. Because you have yet to post a single scientific fact. Nonsense is your game, and it's lame.
Sucks to be Hank, no?
Hey, I can keep this up 24/7/365, chump. ☺
Hank posts ZERO science, only links to has-been blogs like desmog. Could Hank be any more pathetic??
I never heard of this thinly-trafficked blog until it was linked somewhere. 300 million hits?! HA! As If!!
The Weblog Awards are the Gold Standard of web awards, and WUWT has won the "Best Science" category for three out of the past 3 years, going up against blogs like RealScience, Tamino, Bad Astronomy, etc., etc. WUWT has beaten them hands down, every time, with millions of votes cast. It's a fact. You could look it up.
For both of Hank's other readers, I say: c'mon over to WUWT, the Best Science & Technology site on the internet, and see what REAL science is all about. But of course, neither of Hank's other readers will pay any attention. Like Hank, they emit propaganda, not verifiable scientific facts. Hell, they don't even comment. Hank is all by himself here.
This is NOT about an un-read poster's flogging of his pathetic book, which is already in the bins now for 49 cents. This is about real scientific debate, based on real world facts. But as we see, Hank runs and hides out from scientific facts.
My global warming scam antennae are never wrong, and our mendacious friend Hank is a purveyor of globaloney nonsense. He knows it. And the rest of us know it, too. The proof is in the fact that Hank NEVER debates any scientific facts — he only squeals like a stuck pig when he is outed for flogging his globaloney book. Post some real science for a change, Hank — IF you can. It will be a first. Because you have yet to post a single scientific fact. Nonsense is your game, and it's lame.
Sucks to be Hank, no?
Hey, I can keep this up 24/7/365, chump. ☺
Smokey (not verified) | 04/22/13 | 00:21 AM
If you can't do it, then go back to WTF. However, without scientific data ... you're just another troll.
—
Mundus vult decipi
Gerhard Adam | 04/22/13 | 07:26 AM
G. Adam says:
"This isn't about Hank. "
Of course it is. It's his article. No wonder you lost the Y2K debate, you just can't think clearly.
Adam continues:
"This is about you providing something substantive..."
As my original posts made clear, I linked to scientific facts to support my arguments. But they were completely ignored, in favor of name-calling invective. This isn't a science blog, this is a troll blog.
As John says above: "Ad hom attacks on commenters who disagree with you show us all we need to know about your character." Hank's and Adam's ad-hom attacks show that they have no character. None.
All G Adam has are his ad-hom attacks, which contain zero scientific discourse — as everyone here can see. His comments reek of psychological projection: falsely imputing his own faults onto others. But he's right about one thing. Why should anyone waste their time at this thinly-trafficked blog, when I can get several hundred times as many readers at the internet's "Best Science" site? I personally moderate 600 – 800 new comments every day there [and I am only one of eight moderators]. In only 6 years, WUWT has gotten more than one MILLION reader comments. And for every comment I approve at WUWT, there are dozens more readers who lurk but don't comment; they still read the articles and threads. OTOH, this blog has about a half dozen readers, and any real science gets completely ignored, as we've seen above.
This tiny echo chamber has too little traffic for Alexa to even notice. Commenters who want to discuss real scientific facts are ignored, or labeled with derogatory names. Since that is the best argument that people like Hank and Adam can come up with, they have obviously lost the debate. In Adam's case, that was clear with his original Y2K nonsense. And if it were not for flogging his science fiction comic book, and his constant name-calling, Hank wouldn't have much to say about anything at all.
So it is off to the internet's "Best Science" site for me, where my comments are read by literally thousands of readers. I've turned off the email notifications here, because this pipsqueak of a blog isn't worth the time. C'mon over to WUWT if y'all want to learn some real science. Because you're wasting your time here.
"This isn't about Hank. "
Of course it is. It's his article. No wonder you lost the Y2K debate, you just can't think clearly.
Adam continues:
"This is about you providing something substantive..."
As my original posts made clear, I linked to scientific facts to support my arguments. But they were completely ignored, in favor of name-calling invective. This isn't a science blog, this is a troll blog.
As John says above: "Ad hom attacks on commenters who disagree with you show us all we need to know about your character." Hank's and Adam's ad-hom attacks show that they have no character. None.
All G Adam has are his ad-hom attacks, which contain zero scientific discourse — as everyone here can see. His comments reek of psychological projection: falsely imputing his own faults onto others. But he's right about one thing. Why should anyone waste their time at this thinly-trafficked blog, when I can get several hundred times as many readers at the internet's "Best Science" site? I personally moderate 600 – 800 new comments every day there [and I am only one of eight moderators]. In only 6 years, WUWT has gotten more than one MILLION reader comments. And for every comment I approve at WUWT, there are dozens more readers who lurk but don't comment; they still read the articles and threads. OTOH, this blog has about a half dozen readers, and any real science gets completely ignored, as we've seen above.
This tiny echo chamber has too little traffic for Alexa to even notice. Commenters who want to discuss real scientific facts are ignored, or labeled with derogatory names. Since that is the best argument that people like Hank and Adam can come up with, they have obviously lost the debate. In Adam's case, that was clear with his original Y2K nonsense. And if it were not for flogging his science fiction comic book, and his constant name-calling, Hank wouldn't have much to say about anything at all.
So it is off to the internet's "Best Science" site for me, where my comments are read by literally thousands of readers. I've turned off the email notifications here, because this pipsqueak of a blog isn't worth the time. C'mon over to WUWT if y'all want to learn some real science. Because you're wasting your time here.
Smokey (not verified) | 04/22/13 | 10:15 AM
Yes, I can clearly see that science is the one activity you're not actually interested in.
I'm glad you brought up the Y2K thing again, because that illustrates even more just how delusional you are. There's an event that is readily quantifiable, and yet you continue to deny it. Typical conspiracy nonsense, because anyone that disagrees and provides evidence to the contrary is simply a crook that took advantage of a non-problem.
Yes, go back to your little troll kingdom where you can dictate what is real.
So it is off to the internet's "Best Science" site for me, where my comments are read by literally thousands of readers.Yes, and as we all know .... thousands of believers can lead to a cult, or even a religion, but we also know, they never lead to science. You're no different that the Intelligent Design websites that think that by posting irrational arguments that somehow facts will magically materialize.
—
Mundus vult decipi
Gerhard Adam | 04/22/13 | 11:17 AM
(1) He/she has a belief about CO2 that Anthony Watts does not:
Q: What is your basic position on the question of global warming? Are you a believer? A skeptic? Somewhere in between?That isn't unreasonable and it is similar to what I said in my piece; if models were overly aggressive it would account for why we aren't seeing what was predicted. I've never seen Anthony say unlimited CO2 will be fine and deny simple physics, the way this anonymous person claiming to represent him does.
A: I would call myself what some people describe as a "lukewarmer" in that the CO2 effect that people have done thousands of studies on is in fact real. However, it is not a crisis. The reason it is not a crisis is because most people do not understand the logarithmic nature of the CO2 response in our atmosphere.
(2) There are zero hits coming from that site. If an article from a science site were as bad as this weird kook is claiming, surely a real moderator who claims to be responsible for the success of that entire site would have linked to it so all of them could make fun of it. That's the biggest indicator this is a set-up. Anthony knows Science 2.0. and has linked to us in the past.
(3) The claims about traffic are not the work of anyone who knows anything about technology. They can't have 160 million readers per month, like he/she claims (using his ratios to ours) but is extrapolating using a flawed public panel service, which means he has no real knowledge of either site, Watts or us. As TechCrunch once clarified If You Cite Compete Or Alexa For Anything Besides Making Fun Of Them, You’re A Moron. Plus, if traffic is the sole indicator of quality, he/she must think HuffPo is way more accurate than Watts.
Anyone who is a technology insider also knows you don't brag about spying on your audience - and that is what he/she seems to say Watts is doing. Intrusive beacons and cookies that follow users everywhere are great if your sole interest is making money. We are not interested in money so we don't allow all those services to spy on people.
My bet: fake. So "Smokey", have Anthony write me an email and confirm you are who you say you are - he has my address, we have corresponded before - and I will let these comments stand. Otherwise, into the spam filter you go.
Hank Campbell | 04/22/13 | 11:46 AM
I can’t stand to see the Left demagogue this issue, but conservatives are damaging themselves by opposing the science instead of the misguided policy “solutions”. 500 years after Copernicus, you’d think they’d learn the lesson.
lowonprozac (not verified) | 04/23/13 | 17:28 PM
Hey guys, this comment board format is meant to suppress our thought process and reactions. I don't like it here science 20.
morecotwo (not verified) | 04/23/13 | 18:36 PM
Hank Campbell | 04/23/13 | 19:12 PM
Dang. I have to convert my coal sub back to nuclear. . . . . . . . .
SenatorSting (not verified) | 04/23/13 | 19:26 PM
Modeling without experimentation is a dream, a religious belief, a fanatical claim, or a scam. But it isn't Science.
PsySciGuy (not verified) | 04/27/13 | 14:01 PM
Hank,
You have censored me. That is the refuge of those who cannot credibly debate issues.
That is OK. You believe I am not a moderator on WUWT? But I suspect that you know the truth.
Tell you what, Hank, you post my responses, and yours will appear on WUWT. That's the essence of Game Theory: Treat others like you are treated.
Censor my comments, and yours will be censored. Fair enough?
Sincerely,
Smokey, moderator
WUWT.com
You have censored me. That is the refuge of those who cannot credibly debate issues.
That is OK. You believe I am not a moderator on WUWT? But I suspect that you know the truth.
Tell you what, Hank, you post my responses, and yours will appear on WUWT. That's the essence of Game Theory: Treat others like you are treated.
Censor my comments, and yours will be censored. Fair enough?
Sincerely,
Smokey, moderator
WUWT.com
Smokey (not verified) | 04/30/13 | 17:05 PM
Hank Campbell | 04/30/13 | 17:13 PM
One of us doesn't know what ... 'censorship' means. Hint: It is you.That reminds me of Terry-Thomas to Peter Sellers in Tom Thumb:
"There are two crooks in here and they are both you!"
Patrick Lockerby | 04/30/13 | 17:36 PM
"
(BTW 2011 is only a partial year of data)
We really don't know how warm it was then, nor how much arctic ice was actually melted.
Plus, MWP, Roman WP, Minoan WP's were at least very close to being as warm as it is now, if not actually warmer.
If the 30's and 40's were the warm part of a cycle (AMO/PDO perchance) This could have been the modern warm period, and both AMO and PDO are heading into their cold cycles.
So, we'll see if it gets cold over the next 5-10 years.