Nature mag: extreme cold is global warming

Just loving this global warming

Because as we all know, everything and anything is now blamed on global warming, er, climate change. Extreme heat, of course, more rain, less rain, extreme cold, more hurricanes, fewer hurricanes, you name it. In fact, I’d like to ask one of these authors what weather phenomenon they could identify that wouldn’t indicate climate change. Probably none. It’s the climate change lottery where every alarmist is a winner!

The numerous recent examples of unusual cold in the southern hemisphere have all but gone unreported in the mainstream media, but the journal Nature, which has already made up its mind on climate change (it’s all our fault), realises it can’t ignore it any more and … blames the recent extreme cold in South America on “climate change”:

With high Andean peaks and a humid tropical forest, Bolivia is a country of ecological extremes. But during the Southern Hemisphere’s recent winter, unusually low temperatures in part of the country’s tropical region hit freshwater species hard, killing an estimated 6 million fish and thousands of alligators, turtles and river dolphins.

Scientists who have visited the affected rivers say the event is the biggest ecological disaster Bolivia has known, and, as an example of a sudden climatic change wreaking havoc on wildlife, it is unprecedented in recorded history. [Funny, I thought it was just weather…]

“There’s just a huge number of dead fish,” says Michel Jégu, a researcher from the Institute for Developmental Research in Marseilles, France, who is currently working at the Noel Kempff Mercado Natural History Museum in Santa Cruz, Bolivia. “In the rivers near Santa Cruz there’s about 1,000 dead fish for every 100 metres of river.”

And then the inevitable:

With such extreme climatic events potentially becoming more common due to climate change, scientists are hurrying to coordinate research into the impact, and how quickly the ecosystem is likely to recover.

It’s getting rather tedious now, don’t you think?

Read it here. (h/t Climate Depot, WUWT, Bishop Hill, etc etc)

Comments

  1. It’s pretty interesting, we’ve had extreme weather due to blocking patterns in the northern hemisphere, near record antarctic ice and in the Washington DC where I live, we had the snowiest winter ever that is being followed by a summer that may set a record for days over 90. Oddly enough, the current record for persistant heat here was 1988, 2 years after a solar minimum. How long will it take for these brilliant climate scientists to acknowledge that there is a solar activity effect on the weather and that its not always warmer?

  2. Sean McHugh says:

    I think I’m getting it:

    Antarctic cold snap = climate change = Global Warming

    Therefore: cold snap = Global Warming

    Therefore: cold = warm

  3. Dr Ken Lynn says:

    Climate sceptics seem to be unable to grasp the difference between global warming and climate change. Climate is driven by energy inputs. If those energy inputs increase then climatic variability will increase. Yes you will get hotter summers and colder winters in places which are sensitive to atmospheric circulation changes. The real worry is if a tipping point is reached which causes a permanent shift in global climates. There are many countries where even a slight change will be catastrophic. Heavy rain makes countries like Pakistan, Bangladesh and Western China potentially uninhabitable in regions now heavily populated. Note the extreme heat and fires in northern Russia made living in Moscow and surrounds a health hazard. Yes we can hope that the solar cycle may diminish and offset the CO2 etc increase, but thats all it is, hope.Foretunately science research goes on regardless of beliefs, wishes and opinions.

  4. The Loaded Dog says:

    “Foretunately science research goes on regardless of beliefs, wishes and opinions.”

    Indeed, and so do the research grants searching for that elusive little thing called proof.

  5. The Loaded Dog says:

    “Dr” Ken Lynn, thanks for clarifying for us the “authority” you may be seeking to argue your case by. But I for one am not impressed by the title.

    Try to remember this. When there are billions and billions of tax dollars at stake sceptics do not have to prove a thing. All they need to do is raise sufficient doubt. Which clearly they have done.

  6. Sean McHugh says:

    @Dr Ken Lynn said:

    “Climate sceptics seem to be unable to grasp the difference between global warming and climate change.”

    ‘Global warming’ is used for hot-weather Armageddon signs and ‘Climate change’ is used for all-weather Armageddon signs. That’s one difference. Another difference is that hot signs are embraced a lot more than cold signs. That’s why the heatwave in Russia was all over the MSM while the massive damage the people and wildlife, in the freezing tropics of South America, was hushed. Best to ‘disappear’ cold where possible and if not possible, try to fit it into the paradigm with sneers and false certitude.

    Tell us, where was the “tipping point” in earth’s ancient past when the atmospheric CO2 was much higher than it is now?

    Rain needs clouds and clouds produce negative feedback. The AGW doomsday theory requires a positive feedback system. If it were a positive feedback system, CO2, which is necessary, natural and NOT a pollutant, would have already done in the planet.

    Oh, and by the way Dr. Lynn, the NOAA has determined the heatwave in Russia was not man made, so you better inform them it was due to Global Warming . . . er, Climate Change . . . whichever is the most convenient.

  7. Even though extreme weather events do not predicate AGW, or overall climate change, there are some interesting localised intensities that are beginning to demonstrate a pattern.
    These oscillations in natural and normal weather would appear to be symptomatic of underlying variations in global energy balance. There’s no suggestion that human activity is implicated, just that all the complex & interacting energy flows may be starting to show changing relationships. Turbidity vs. volatility?

  8. to Dr. Lyman,
    Please don’t take this the wrong way but when I hear the term “tipping points” I see a sales pressure, not science. I follow Dr. Roger Pielke Sr.’s blog quite closely and he’s had a series of articles on the total ocean heat content. Since the deployment of the Argo Bouy network and data collection on a large scale began in 2003, the accurately measured total ocean heat content has been stable. If we were moving toward the edge of a cliff, the oceans which contain 80% of the surface heat should show at least some trend but there is none. It doesn’t seem the earth is ready to run off a cliff. As far as circulation patterns go, it also seems solar affects on the weather (as distiguished from climate) explain the blocking patterns better than changes in CO2 and they reveal themselves in the historic record. Its also interesting that the UK Met office’s global circulation models missed the artic pressure changes last fall and winter (so they botched the seasonal forecast) but many meteorologists who had a good grasp of weather history called the cold winter temperatures in norther Europe correctly.

  9. Dr Ken Lynn says:

    Thanks for the people who commented. Your replies were quite sensible and not the raving ratbag rants I expected. First having a Ph.D in physics and being a member of the European and American Geophysical Unions does not necessarily make you a complete twit and a member of a grand conspiracy. It does make you aware of the complexities of climate which I do not claim to understand. Do any of the people who replied think they do? I would make my position clear.
    1. Mankind has produced an accurately measured increase in greenhouse gases over the last 90 years. This will produce some change in the climate. Whether it is the main current source of change is possibly debatable. Yes these man-made changes may or may not be swamped by natural changes but do you you want to bet the future on it at the present rate of increase?
    2. Hydrocarbons gases increasing the ozone holes have successfully been turned around because there was a simple and cheap technical solution which did not really bother anybody.
    3. Any major reversal of man-made increases in green house gases will be economically very difficult and probably unobtainable because the political costs involved are too great, for developing countries in particular. In that sense, I proffer little hope for effective action.
    4. A shift away from fossil fuels is all to the good to preserve finite resources and reduce atmospheric pollutants. (Anybody been to Beijing on a bad day?) so if we can, why not do so?.
    5. I would ask you all, what would you consider to be proof of man-induced climate change? I would suggest that for it to become so obvious that even you would agree, it will be past correcting and catastrophic.
    6. Yes we can all cherry pick particular results which meet our preconceptions. I could do that too but why bother? Anyone one who agrees with us is clearly an expert and anyone who doesn’t is a dill or worse!Personally I tend to favour the global satellite measurements. It is the only way to get a whole earth picture.
    7. As any geologist will tell you, the earth has had many climates some of which have changed with frightening speed. This is what I mean by tipping points. Personally I think we will just have to learn to adapt, preferably without the usual Malthus combination of war, hunger and pestilence.
    8. I am also interested in the psychology of denial. Some people always want to see so-called experts as being wrong. It is good for their ego.
    Cheers
    Ken

  10. “Climate is driven by energy inputs. If those energy inputs increase then climatic variability will increase. Yes you will get hotter summers and colder winters in places which are sensitive to atmospheric circulation changes.”

    So adding energy to a system can make it colder? How so?

  11. “I am also interested in the psychology of denial. Some people always want to see so-called experts as being wrong. It is good for their ego”.
    Who are the experts?
    Global warming and climate change are certainly real. They’ve been real throughout Earth’s history, from the Roman and Medieval Warm Periods, Little Ice Age and Dust Bowl – to countless other cycles of warming and cooling, flood and drought, storm and calm, open Arctic seas and impassable ice.
    Humans clearly influence weather and climate – at least on a local scale – through heat and emissions from cities and cars, our clearing of forests and grasslands, our diversion of rivers.
    Are humans causing imminent, unprecedented, global climate change disasters? And can we prevent those alleged disasters, by dramatically increasing the price of carbon, drastically curtailing hydrocarbon use, slashing living standards, and imposing government control over industries and people’s lives?
    On that, the evidence simply is not there – a reality underscored by the glaring fact that the headline-grabbing disasters and nearly one-third of all the citations in the IPCC’s massive 2007 climate report were not peer-reviewed studies. They were newspaper articles, student papers, and even press releases from climate activists and lobbyists.
    That leaves us with crisis scenarios conjured up by computer models that reflect CO2-centric assumptions, presume clouds exert only warming influences, and rely on temperature data that come from urban heat islands or have been manipulated by the modelers.
    Psychology of denial????

  12. Ken,
    Just my view on your points.

    1. Yes these man-made changes may or may not be swamped by natural changes but do you you want to bet the future on it at the present rate of increase?
    (probably best answered by your point (3))

    2. Hydrocarbons gases increasing the ozone holes have successfully been turned around because there was a simple and cheap technical solution which did not really bother anybody. (again see point (3) I don’t know if the ozone hole has turned the corner? and I’m sure you meant Chlorofluorocarbons, must’ve been a Freudean carbon slip not a teflon one!)

    3. Any major reversal of man-made increases in green house gases will be economically very difficult and probably unobtainable because the political costs involved are too great, for developing countries in particular. In that sense, I proffer little hope for effective action. (very true)

    4. A shift away from fossil fuels is all to the good to preserve finite resources and reduce atmospheric pollutants. so if we can, why not do so?. (Totally agree, but such a shift should not be predicated on a pet theory enhanced by fancy computer predictions)

    5. I would ask you all, what would you consider to be proof of man-induced climate change? I would suggest that for it to become so obvious that even you would agree, it will be past correcting and catastrophic.
    (no MEWP, no warming 6000 years ago, continued warming since 1998)

    6. Yes we can all cherry pick particular results which meet our preconceptions. I could do that too but why bother? Anyone one who agrees with us is clearly an expert and anyone who doesn’t is a dill or worse!Personally I tend to favour the global satellite measurements. It is the only way to get a whole earth picture.
    (everyone likes people that agree with them that’s what consenus science is, I agree with you on the satellites)

    7. As any geologist will tell you, the earth has had many climates some of which have changed with frightening speed. This is what I mean by tipping points. Personally I think we will just have to learn to adapt, preferably without the usual Malthus combination of war, hunger and pestilence.
    (these past climates have all been naturally caused, why is the current small perturbation any different or so important on a geological scale?)

    8. I am also interested in the psychology of denial. Some people always want to see so-called experts as being wrong. It is good for their ego.
    (the AGW theory is valid and should be critically assessed like any scientific theory and that is what is belatedly happening. How can we deny something that may or may not happen? There are so many parallels of the AGW argument with religion, surely this is obvious to any thinking person?
    Regards,
    David

  13. WillR: a simple example – adding energy to a fridge (electrical, via a compressor) makes it hotter outside and colder inside. Similarly, increase inputs (or changed distribution) of energy may have an effect on energy flows, resulting in more extreme temperatures. Obviously the overall system has more energy overall; but weather is dynamic – you cannot deduce much from a snapshot.

  14. The Loaded Dog says:

    Dr Ken Lynn. Your response was also sensible and I too do not claim in any way to understand the complexities of climate science. Your post raised some issues in my mind which I raise below.

    You speak of increases of manmade greenhouse gases over the past 90 years but let’s cut to the chase here Dr. We all know the push by authorities is to limit manmade carbon dioxide emissions by limiting supply and placing a price on it. The other greenhouse gasses although relevant are simply incidental to the strong push to reduce manmade carbon dioxide.

    Now on that point, a person with even the most basic understanding of economics would be well aware of the flow through effect of placing an increased cost on energy. The cost of almost everything imaginable would increase. After all, it is the burning of “fossil fuels” resulting in the “dangerous levels” of c02 emissions we are constantly told of that provide the vast majority of the worlds power. Thus if there is a price on C02 emissions even the lettuce I buy at the local store will increase in price.

    So when I personally look at what proof is needed to warrant a substantial increase in my cost of living I expect far more than what is currently on offer.

    You write “I would ask you all, what would you consider to be proof of man-induced climate change?”

    I think a more pertinent question might be what do YOU think is a reasonable standard of proof given that you state the following:- “Any major reversal of man-made increases in green house gases will be economically very difficult and probably unobtainable because the political costs involved are too great, for developing countries in particular. In that sense, I proffer little hope for effective action.”

    Since you ask though I will give you an insight into my line of thought, and it’s this. If the earth has had similar climate in its history to what we have now then the whole theory of CAGW is compromised is it not? I can only speak for myself in that I have NOT seen convincing evidence to date that negates the existence of warmer periods of the earth’s history such as the medieval warm period. Nor have I seen convincing evidence that explains periods of the earth’s history where c02 levels were much higher than they are today. And yet we are still here and the earth continues to roll on despite what alarmists keep telling us.

    However, what I have seen is ample evidence of skulduggery, bias and manipulation of data by the so called experts in the field. The first question then that is raised in my mind is if the science is so strong as the likes of Al Gore would constantly tell us, why the need to withhold data from scrutiny, why the need to massage and manipulate data and shout down as “deniers” any person who questions the above activities?

    Finally, in relation to your last point I would be careful if I were you. You state you are “interested in the psychology of denial.” and that “Some people always want to see so-called experts as being wrong. It is good for their ego.”

    So you infer that anyone who does not take the so called “consensus” of “experts” as gospel truth as being in “denial” and attempting perhaps subconsciously to bolster their ego.

    So firstly I would ask you Dr Lynn do you believe in God? Secondly I would ask if you don’t is this because you are just wanting to see so called experts in the field as being wrong? Thus according to your own statement it could be argued that you too are a denier and that you are denying simply because it’s good for your ego.

    Just as science cannot prove the existence of a spiritual realm so it cannot prove the existence of CAGW. It can provide some evidence for both but in order to believe one way or the other with the evidence on hand one has to take a leap of faith.

    It is extremely interesting that both lines of thought prophesy of impending doom for mankind unless drastic change is made to our way of life. Its’ also interesting that one has to have complete faith in Science and the honour of Scientists to accept the theory of CAGW.

    When it comes to my money however, I am not personally inclined to take a leap of faith unless we are speaking of a religion and it is done of my own free will.

    After all. Science is NOT a religion is it?

  15. Dr. Lynn,
    You had a good post until your last point, ‘8. I am also interested in the psychology of denial. Some people always want to see so-called experts as being wrong. It is good for their ego.’ I decided that little remark needed answering.
    The “psychology of denial” can also be called being older and wiser. I don’t know how long since you got your PhD but I suspect it hasn’t been long. People my age (I got my Ph.D. in Chemistry in 1979 so do the math) have seen several potential “apocoalypses” come by in our lifetimes where the science says disaster is only a few years away unless we act now. The only thing about CAGW that makes it different is that is seems to have more legs, most likely because of the taxes that can be raised to save ourselves from ourselves and the commissions to be made on selling the air we breath. Could you explain to me what drives young educated people to want to conform rather than show a natural skepticism that is essential to scientists?

  16. Sean McHugh says:

    Dr Lynn,

    Have you examined the Climategate e-mails and the scientific method they reveal? What do you think of Michael Mann’s Hockey Stick?

  17. Dr Ken Lynn says:

    Just a few final comments to specific points raised.

    1.There are no “experts” in cutting edge science. This is a term used by non-scientists

    2.Loaded dog –
    (i) science in a subject like climate is not about “proof” but the collection and analysis of experimentally determined facts hand in hand with attempts to find models which fit those facts based on a gradually improving application of basic physics

    (ii) past natural climate change is a fact and illustrates that there is no “permanent” natural climate for the earth. Chaotic changes can occur produced by apparently trivial events. As illustration, Nature has produced many mass extinctions of species but currently we are doing it instead, particularly in Australia. Mankind is also a natural phenomena.

    3.Sean – (i) I will send you a review of how sensitive the ocean current system is to Arctic change and its effect on climate.
    (ii) CO2 is not a pollutent but part of climate stability/instability – change it at your risk.

    4. Staal – don’t shoot the messenger! Should scientists shut-up so as not to frighten people if they see evidence of major risk ?

    5. Dave B One of the most important things a scientist can do for their reputation is to prove a “consensus” view is wrong. We all try to do it. Yes you got me on Chlorofluorocarbons, I couldnt think of the right word.

    6.Yes I have confidence in my fellow scientist to get things right. Science is self-correcting. Your views are based on the outside looking in (do you trust your mobile phone or use a GPS? its all based on the same basic scientific methodology). Blogs are mostly just hot air but can be entertaining and occasionaly edifying.

    7. If I was a inspirational guru I would ask you to embrace economic change and see it as an opportunity not a disaster.

    8. Re Armageddon. A catastrophy is something that happens to you, if it happens in Pakistan it isnt.

    7. For a good example of science working look up Argo (oceanography) on Wikipedia and read the links in ref.10

  18. @Dr Ken Lynn: most of the catastrophic projections of AGW are based on models which have strong positive feedbacks resulting in a climate highly sensitive to small perturbations. The doubling effect of CO2 is minimal, since the absorption is logarithmic, and the majority of the warming occurs from the first 20ppm of CO2. There is no empirical evidence to back up these positive feedbacks, just assumptions from prehistoric records that other climate drivers were too weak to cause the changes in observed temperature, ergo the climate must be sensitive. Dr Roy Spencer has recently published a peer-reviewed paper on climate feedbacks – you may find his summary interesting: Link.

    I don’t want to get into these kind of issues, but referring to the “psychology of denial” in those that question the consensus deflects from the real issue: whether the science is genuinely reliable and impartial.

    Thanks for your contributions to the debate.

    Simon
    ACM

  19. Dr Ken Lynn says:

    Sorry to get out of order. In reply :
    15. Sean – I am now 70 and received my Ph.D in 1973! I am still very active (look me up on Google Scholar as K.J.W.Lynn). Yes there have been other scares which did not eventuate but this one is more widely based. It still doesnt mean we will see a major change in our lifetime which is trivial on a geological scale. I am not as cynical as you because I read the news and arguments from within the field. People are unaware of how delicately our over-populated species depends on the climate not changing even trivially.

    16. I never took any notice of Mannings hockey stick because, as with Gore, it was a PR exercise on the basis that the public has to be dumbed down to. An advertising agency would say this is the only possible approach. As you have seen, this approach works both ways! I have seen plenty of real science diagrams that are more accurate and come from a range of measurements in different fields which point in the one direction.

    As to the so-called climate-gate. Most scientists hoard their data at least until it has been analysed and published to avoid being beaten to the punch. I was prone to do this in my younger days when I was trying to establish a scientific reputation. Science is a very competitive business and works most effectively when there are a lot of players as in this case. There are always competing views and people whose speculations you abhor or you regard as rivals

    . These days most big geophysical projects produce so much data that it is all posted on the internet since no one person can explore every possibility. There is much older satellite data which still has not been analysed. When I die there are boxes of paper records from 40 years back which will all go to the dump. I am desperately trying to pick the important bits. Most working scientists dont have time to waste on arguing with people who are not conversant with their field. The annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union has 800 sections and a cast of thousands, all exhibiting their work for examination and argument.

    My wife tells me to stop wasting time on a blog. I have two meetings of my own to report to in the next 4 months. Hope I did not miss something.
    Cheers
    Ken

  20. Sean McHugh says:

    Dr Ken Lynn,

    You refer us to science ‘working’ in Argo (oceanography) on Wikipedia in ref.10. It has the problem of ARGO seemingly reading cold oceans:

    “Instead, he’d be talking about how it was all a mistake…What we found was that ocean heating was larger than scientists previously thought, and so the contribution of thermal expansion to sea level rise was actually 50 percent larger than previous estimates.”

    I think we have all heard the warmists employing heating-faster-than-we-previously- thought line plenty of times, Ken. I doubt anyone here will see that as Climatology showing humility. In fact, it’s hard to think of a more annoying self-serving cliché. Have you considered that every “faster than anyone thought” trumps the previous “faster than anyone thought”? After several iterations, it becomes, “faster than, faster than, faster than, . . . . . . anyone thought. Well I’m going to predict that the earth will heat up and self destruct at noon tomorrow. After that, no one can ever use the “faster than anyone thought” line again for global warming. We’ll never have to hear it again.

    Seriously Ken, how can it be happening faster than anyone thought, when even Phil Jones of the Climategate CRU, conceded that there hasn’t been any significant warming over the last 15 years? In fact, there has been cooling over the last nine!

    Further on Ref. 10:

    Sea Temperature:

    http://tinyurl.com/33ezjq5

    “May 25, 2010…7:00 am
    Lack Of A Trend In The Ocean Surface Temperature Since 2000 – Its
    Significance

    In the Lyman et al 2010 paper [that I have discussed in two
    posts; see and see], there is the interesting statement that

    “…sea surface temperatures have been roughly constant since
    2000…””

    and:

    http://tinyurl.com/2f67xua

    “Still Cooling: Sea Surface Temperatures thru August 18, 2010”

    And on Sea Level (also in Ref. 10):

    http://tinyurl.com/y8wxjz7

    “Global Sea Level Decrease 2004-2010”

    The graph that follows that comment is from ARGO data, a global network of
    buoys that measure sea level and sea temperature. Recall that ARGO was cited in your Wiki Ref. 10.

    http://www.heliogenic.net/2010/02/17/sea-level-rising-not-lately/

    “Global sea level decrease 2004-2009”

    Next is a very comprehensive study of 12 Pacific islands which concludes negligible sea level change between 1993 and 2010.

    http://tinyurl.com/2eukayp

    ” If these and other similar disturbances are ignored, almost all of the
    islands have shown negligible change in sea level from 1993 to 2010,
    particularly after the installation of GPS leveling equipment in 2000.”

    Dr. Ken Lynn said:

    “8. Re Armageddon. A catastrophy is something that happens to you, if it happens in Pakistan it isnt.”

    But a catastrophe is not the same thing as the Armageddon, as prophesied by the various cults, is it Ken?

    If you get a chance, I would still like to know what you think of Michael Mann’s Hockey stick.

  21. Sean McHugh says:

    Dr Lynn said:

    “3.Sean – (i) I will send you a review of how sensitive the ocean current system is to Arctic change and its effect on climate.
    (ii) CO2 is not a pollutent but part of climate stability/instability – change it at your risk.”

    With a double take, I see I am the intended Sean. There are actually two of us in this thread.

    Thank you, I would like to see the review (link?). However, even if the ocean currents are sensitive to the Arctic, that doesn’t demonstrate global warming and global warming doesn’t demonstrate that the warming is unprecedented and/or that man is to blame – or that a dumb ETS, down under, will fix it.

    I’m glad you agree that CO2 is not a pollutant. Does it not bother you then, that is the AGW movement, it is officially identified as a pollutant? Doesn’t this ring some sensibility warning bells?

  22. The Loaded Dog says:

    Dr Lynn,

    Your statement below is very telling to me and I will address all of the problems I see with it as follows:-

    1. “Yes I have confidence in my fellow scientist to get things right.”- So your confidence is based in complete faith in the science and the honor of the scientists as I outlined above. I have a big problem with that as having worked in a government department for the last 20 years I have witnessed firsthand the political interference in the effective running of the department. I have also witnessed firsthand how data supplied by that department and required by the government to continue funding gets fudged and is then reported to the public to support a particular message.
    I have NO reason to believe this does not occur amongst Scientists funded by government and further I would say if you believe Scientists are not capable nor likely to fudge data that you are simply naive. And amazingly so given your age. (This is not meant to be insulting by the way)

    2. “Science is self-correcting.” (I agree that PURE science is self correcting)

    3. “Your views are based on the outside looking in.” This reads like you are admitting to being subjective and not objective?

    4. “do you trust your mobile phone or use a GPS? its all based on the same basic scientific methodology.”

    Using an analogy of me trusting my mobile phone or the reliability of my GPS is flawed as you would well know in that mobile phones and GPS are (last time I checked) inanimate objects and therefore not subject to that unreliable little thing called human nature including bias in its various forms, groupthink, pride or fear of continued employment or promotional opportunities, need to feel accepted in a group etc etc etc.

    I am basing my judgment on the way humans behave after 20 years as a professional investigator with a background dealing with the dark side of humanity. I have NEVER in that time, nor in my life come across a human that is completely trustworthy and pure, (this includes decent people and professional’s who still subconsciously have agenda’s) Based on this I am extremely suspicious of this so called science given all the other facts that raise doubt over its authenticity.

    By the way. I also have no doubt that there is some truth in the science but that’s not enough I’m afraid. Humanity needs the WHOLE truth.

  23. Dr Ken Lynn says:

    Sorry about the two Seans. Now I am confused.
    Re 22. Loaded dog – We have more in common than you realise. Yes I agree with you on much of what you said as I was a Defence Research scientist with a lifetimes experience of institutional bumbling and internal politics but never had any publications stopped. My naive faith in the integrity of my fellow scientists is based first on myself and next on the scientists I know in Australia and overseas. Most scientists who remain active researchers throughout their careers are idealists for whom getting things right is everything. My own research has exploded after finally getting clear of the public service (they did let me keep all the relevant data collected for further analysis thanks to a Divisional Chief more broad minded than many).

    Re 20. My point here is that a relatively young scientist was only too anxious to give what appeared to be contrary results to his peers until new results showed him that something was wrong with his data. This required a re-calibration against a limited but independently obtained and more reliable data set (silly boy, he should have done this before he started jumping up and down). Normally such blips would never reach outside the profession. The real worry is a press who are only interested in controversy for its own sake.This is why I don’t waste time on anything not published by actual researchers in the field.

    I just read the opening statement by Simon who runs this blog and agree with it entirely. I dont have time to read all the links suggested but they look worth reading – but you still need more!

    Yes climate models as yet must be considered provisional and I await with bated breath as to whether the current solar cycle continues to be abnormal and whether there are identifiable consequences (the Maunder minimum etc).

    The good thing about the whole climate-change deal is that it has succeeded in scaring the bejesus out of the human race. There is now some hope that we won’t take our feckless planetary behaviour for granted anymore but recognise that we must take responsibility for our effect on the Earth and put much more effort into understanding possible consequences of our own and non-human variance. As to immediate economic cost, I lost far more in the recent financial collapse. The human race as a new population-exploding species on earth is the equivalent of the introduction of rabbits to Australia and just as dangerous.

    It would be interesting to know if anyone had their mind changed by reading these blogs. I suspect not.

    I think beliefs of any kind are the biggest curse of the human race. I try to avoid them and consequently have no hard and fast position either way on this blog because I just dont know enough. Hopefully another 11 years will clarify things. As to reaching the whole truth, infinite perfection can only be reached infinitely slowly and we dont have that privilege.

    I think my wife was right. I will now give this a rest and do some real work as I think I have reached the point of diminishing returns. I leave you all to further discussion.
    All the best
    Ken

  24. To the Loaded Dog,
    Regarding the statement, “science is self correcting”. You are a bit too pessimistic on this one. Remember, the climate science community is making predictions, some of them pretty wild. They just are not verifiable in the short term. However there are people keeping score (Lucia “blackboard” comes to mind) where predictions and data are brought together. There will be adjustments (and not just to the data). Scientist may be smart enough to rationalize results. Oridinary folks, not being as brilliant or in tune with the peer reviewed literature, will look how the world is changing (or not changing) and come to conclusions about the professional rationanlists. When they go to vote, they will choose representatives that will pull the plug on what they percieve as nonsense. Its already happing here in the US. Its no wonder some of the most vehement alarmists want democracy suspended.

    Sean (the other one)

  25. The Loaded Dog says:

    Point 23. Very well said Dr Lynn. Thanks for your contribution.
    Point 24. I agree Sean, I am a bit pessimistic. I don’t even trust myself sometimes…lol.

  26. Sean McHugh says:

    Dr. Lynn Said:

    “It would be interesting to know if anyone had their mind changed by reading these blogs. I suspect not.”

    Perhaps a better question would be to ask if these blogs assist people who are still making up their minds. I suspect they do. In fact, I’m quite sure they do.

    Dr. Lynn also said:

    “This is why I don’t waste time on anything not published by actual researchers in the field.”

    The main articles in the sceptical blog sites reference peer reviewed studies that detract from AGW orthodoxy. They actually provide a sot of index to affirming and detracting sources. Global Warming orthodoxy won’t provide links to the other side. So even if Dr, Lynn is only interested in published studies, the sceptical blog sites are quite useful. Dr Lynn should also keep in mind, that as evidenced by Climategate – and disturbing testimonies by those shut out – papers that don’t tow the orthodox line (heretical papers) have been largely blocked from publication. That has possibly changed a bit since the Climategate revelations.

    In examining the Creation/Evolution argument online, one reliably finds that the Evolution sites provide links to the Creationist arguments they are rebutting, while the Creationist sites reliably don’t reciprocate. There is a similar situation with Global Warming advocacy and scepticism. As in Creationism, AGW advocacy won’t provide links to detracting research.

    Dr Lynn said:

    “As to the so-called climate-gate. Most scientists hoard their data at least until it has been analysed and published to avoid being beaten to the punch.”

    That hardly describes the situation. Ken, I think your desire to stick to the mainstream information sources has left you ignorant of what Climategate is really about. It’s about dishonesty, bullying, peer-review manipulation, massaging data, calls to delete data when scrutiny threatens. It’s about program code that would produce the desired effect regardless of what data is fed in. It’s about cherry picking. It’s about ‘tricks’ to ‘hide’ the inconvenient. It’s about temperature records for stations that don’t exist. It’s about the scientists asking each other why the earth isn’t heating up like it’s supposed to.

    Dr. Lynn said:

    “I never took any notice of Mannings hockey stick because, as with Gore, it was a PR exercise on the basis that the public has to be dumbed down to.”

    That should be, “Mann’s Hockey Stick”. I agree with your scepticism of its scientific merit, but I disagree with your dismissal of its significance to Global Warming orthodoxy. Mann’s Hockey Stick was the poster child of the Global Warming and featured prominently in IPCC’s 2001 report (Bible) . It was also published in the once prestigious Nature Magazine. In one of the leaked Climategate e-mails, Phil Jones said that he used Mike’s Nature trick to hide the decline:

    http://yidwithlid.blogspot.com/2009/10/how-climate-change-gurus-faked-hockey.html

    or:

    http://tinyurl.com/ycckhnr

    Ken, would you be interested in a blog where you can discuss the matter with another physicist?

  27. The Loaded Dog says:

    Sean McHugh. You must have read my mind. You last post has raised almost everything I would have raised for Dr Lynns learned consideration.

    Some of the points you have raised explain in part the reason I am so cynical and pessimistic (as “the other Sean” has rightly pointed out, regardless of the constant re-reinforcement I receive daily via my employment)

    I would like to draw the good Dr’s attention specifically to your last two points however (in which you mention Climategate, Mann and the IPCC) given what he has stated about his personal knowledge of political interference.

    Dr Lynn, a final question of interest before closing that does not require a response but may be an interesting matter for you to reflect on.

    Have you learnt anything about the “Psychology of Denial” after conversing on this blog?

    I note you stated above that “Your replies were quite sensible and not the raving ratbag rants I expected” which indicates to me you may have been expecting something different.

    I would further suspect you may have been basing your expectations on how you would be received on this blog on a misleading perception that I would argue is common within the scientific community regarding so called climate deniers. A perception constantly re-enforced by the left wing media and upheld by government.

    This perception and dismissal of the opposing view as being held by nothing more than raving deniers and conspiracy theorists only serves to taint scientific process does it not?

    I could be wrong though!

    If however, you suspect there is some merit in the point I have raised can you see a problem to add to the other issues as raised by the other posters above?

    In closing I would like to thank Simon for the time and effort he has put into moderating the discussion on this thread. It’s much appreciated by all I am sure.

  28. Sean McHugh says:

    @ The Loaded Dog said:

    “Sean McHugh. You must have read my mind. You last post has raised almost everything I would have raised for Dr Lynns learned consideration.”

    Dr. Lynn might understandably question the worthiness of his time being spent with the small fry in a blog. But he wouldn’t realise that we are the elusive highly organised lobby that is being funded by the oil companies. What I mean is, we are the ones who are _supposed_ to be organised and funded. We are it!

    Thank you for the endorsement, TLD. I think the general agreement among the sceptics is significant because, unlike the advocates of Global Warming orthodoxy, we didn’t arrive at that agreement by doctrine and faith.

    I would also like to thank Dr. Lynn for facilitating the very interesting thread, and Simon for hosting it.

Trackbacks

  1. […] LINK AKPC_IDS += "3469,";Popularity: unranked [?] (No Ratings Yet)  Loading … […]

%d bloggers like this: