catallaxy files

catallaxy in technical exile

Critiques of the Stern Report

with 212 comments

In Reason magazine Ron Bailey criticises the Stern Report (link via JC). Money quote:

    … the report, compiled by former World Bank economist Nicholas Stern, cheerily concludes that humanity will only have to spend the equivalent of 1 percent of gross domestic product to avert the looming catastrophe.
    Consider that the current global GDP is about $45 trillion. That translates into the claim that really bad weather 100 years from now can be avoided at the cost of spending only $450 billion per year from today until GHG gas concentrations are stabilized at some acceptable level in the atmosphere. Of course, that means that that $450 billion won’t be spent on other things, but presumably it won’t be a total waste.
    Stern makes his case by combining worst case climate model predictions with worst case economic model predictions. The predictable result is disaster 100 years hence. For his economic analysis Stern essentially uses the A2 storyline from the Third Assessment Report, issued in 2001 by U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. That storyline supposes relatively slow economic growth (2 percent per year), global economic autarky, continued population growth, and retarded technological progress.

Tyler Cowen also casts a critical eye on the Stern Report, focusing on its lack of transparency in its treatment of discount rates (which make a difference to how we estimate future costs and benefits of action and inaction).

Finally, Bjorn Lomborg also digs in, arguing that ‘Given reasonable inputs, most cost-benefit models show that dramatic and early carbon reductions cost more than the good they do’.

Advertisements

Written by Admin

November 5, 2006 at 8:29 am

Posted in Uncategorized

212 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Jason, I am concerned that Stern has based his report on only one potential solution to global warming, namely, stabilisation of GHG emissions. (Refer Chapter 8 – Challenge of Stabilisation)

    Even if the science shows that global warming is caused by GHGs (which I don’t dispute), it does not follow that reduction of GHG emissions, in particular CO2, is the only way to avert global warming. It is one way. But science may yet provide for much more cost effective ways to reduce the planet’s temperature.

    For example, the fact that aeroplane contrails have been shown to cause atmospheric cooling, points to the possibility of alternative approaches.

    sivle-ised

    November 5, 2006 at 9:19 am

  2. Good to see Stern taking some good front-on hits from our defensive line!

    Rafe Champion

    November 5, 2006 at 1:06 pm

  3. Rafe
    He wants us to spend 450 billion but the report doesn’t say what it used as the discount rate.

    JC.

    November 5, 2006 at 2:24 pm

  4. “Finally, Bjorn Lomborg also digs in, arguing that ‘Given reasonable inputs, most cost-benefit models show that dramatic and early carbon reductions cost more than the good they do’.”

    As Eban Goodstein demonstrated a while back, an astrologer, witch doctor or fortune teller is more likely to be have a better idea about costs and benefits than an economist.

    Here are some examples where hysterical and shrill mainstream economists have got their cost-benefit analyses horribly wrong:

    Asbestos
    Benzene
    Chlorofluorocarbons
    Halons
    Vinyl chloride

    Anyone for a tarrot card reading?

    http://www.prospect.org/print/V8/35/goodstein-e.html

    melaleuca

    November 5, 2006 at 2:41 pm

  5. We have to remember that we are not talking, for policy purposes, about the difference between climate change and no climate change.

    The climate always changes.

    We are instead talking about the difference between one projected amount of Industrial CO2-release and another projected amount of Industrial CO2-release.

    The difference between these two different… or virtually any two different projections of industrial CO2 release, in the next century, in terms of how that will affect outcomes is absolutely minimal.

    This is where Stern and others come off the beam by not emphasising up front that all we choose between is how much CO2 we release. And that we don’t get to choose between stasis and change.

    Speaking before the Cato institute in 2002 Patrick Michaels put forward his estimates between a projected level of CO2 output if nothing was done.

    He then estimated the difference between this and the outcome of a projected output of CO2 release based on the unrealistic idea that every country in the World joined and faithfully followed Kyoto.

    Now it must be emphasised that its this hypothetical difference that a pretty reasonable calculation can be estimated for. Not any actual forecast.

    In any case he made it that the difference would be 0.07 of 1 degree Celsius in 50 years.

    And 0.14 of 1 degree Celsius in 100 years.

    We ought not be spending a damn cent if this is the sort of magnitude of difference its going to make.

    GMB

    November 5, 2006 at 2:41 pm

  6. Marvellous argument Munn………… (not.)

    Show me the science Munn.

    Show me the science.

    Not too big on the science are you bud?

    GMB

    November 5, 2006 at 2:44 pm

  7. Put on the kid gloves when handling Munn, he’s our man in deep cover ….

    But seriously global warming and CFCs are 2 different things. I think CFC was a genuinely strong case of little cost and substantial benefits from cutting emissions. And what does kicking the whole of economics because one fellow (Hahn) got it wrong many times get you Munn? Economists designed the SO2 trading system that cut SO2 emissions by factories, tackling acid rain. The Stern report is written by an economist dare I remind you?

    Jason Soon

    November 5, 2006 at 2:58 pm

  8. “But seriously global warming and CFCs are 2 different things.”

    Indeed. But from a policy point of view we only face the choice between two differenct outputs of industrial CO2.

    Sterns report doesn’t start with this. I would suggest its just too flawed to be worth considering. Maybe you could find some tidbit in it here and there thats worthwhile. I don’t know.

    But this idea that we don’t have to spend much. Spend much for what? We cannot be unclear on this.

    We are asked to spend 1% of GDP to reduce our projected CO2 output. From one projected level down to another.

    Now as we have seen going from a do-nothing-estimate to a religious-global-compliance-of CO2 estimate…..

    ……. that gets you only .14 of a single degree Celsius the difference.

    Now is Stern talking MORE OR LESS SEVERE then that with his 1% GDP JIVE?

    With his 1% GDP to DO SOMETHING as opposed to a 5-20% benefit.

    More or less severe?

    Because if the difference is only .14 degrees Celsius how can he be laying on us this 5-20% crap.

    All he’s doing is assuming change. And then he’s got to be comparing this to stasis.

    Else he’s really just talking nonsense.

    In any case more CO2 ought to be seen to add to and not subtract from global GDP and obviously so.

    Because of the great benefits to plant and animal life, reduction of temperature differentials and so forth.

    So we would be better off adding 1% or 2% on account of this extra CO2.

    They take speculative stuff and predjudice it over stuff we already know. Thats the alarmist technique all the way down the line.

    GMB

    November 5, 2006 at 3:12 pm

  9. So Munnckin everyone’s cost benefit analysis is wrong but Stern’s is right.

    If you think he’s right, tell us what he used as the discount rate.

    The point that lots of sane people are making is that wealth will allow us to deal with the effects of global warming if indeed there are material problems.

    Anyway, as Bird said, show us the science, Munnchkin.

    JC.

    November 5, 2006 at 3:27 pm

  10. This book appears to be free to download in parts on pdf.

    Its called Climate of Fear. By Thomas Gale Moore.

    He’s an economist. And he’s just taken the exaggerated IPCC projections of the turn of the century as if they were true. He hasn’t tried to argue with them at all.

    Working with these warming figures he concludes that warming is a good thing that ought to deliver net benefits. As you would think just from common sense.

    GMB

    November 5, 2006 at 3:30 pm

  11. This book appears to be free to download in parts on pdf.

    Its called Climate of Fear. By Thomas Gale Moore.

    He’s an economist. And he’s just taken the exaggerated IPCC projections of the turn of the century as if they were true. He hasn’t tried to argue with them at all.

    Working with these warming figures he concludes that warming is a good thing that ought to deliver net benefits. As you would think just from common sense.

    http://www.cato.org/pubs/books/climate/climatepdf.html

    Now in the economics side must we predjudice Stern over Nordhaus? or Nordhaus over Moore. When it ought to be pretty clear that at a first glance the figures ought to be on the positive side?

    GMB

    November 5, 2006 at 3:32 pm

  12. Munn

    While on the subject of estimates and predictions, you may want to look at the absolute shit that comes out from the “goreen Paaiy” about how we’re all going to die of food poisoning as a result of eating GM crops. Get off your little soap box , Munnchkin. The people you support are the most horrendously stupid / dishonest bunch of wankers the world has seen for some time.

    JC.

    November 5, 2006 at 3:35 pm

  13. If you look Bailey’s criticism you will see that he argues Stern took the most pessimistic scenario from the Intern-government panel and ran with those. There are sever scenarios from the Inter-government. panel in terms of range.

    When we get right down to it global mean temp has been estimated to have gone up .7 degs in the past 100 years. this is the number that has spooked so many people. Its pathetic. If you had looked at the number in the 70’s it would have showed a cooling trend.

    JC.

    November 5, 2006 at 3:41 pm

  14. Jason Soon says:

    “The Stern report is written by an economist dare I remind you?”

    Yes, and I have no interest in reading it beyond newspaper reports. No amount of number crunching can predict the cost of something as complex as AGW.

    I’m not kicking the whole of economics but I am pointing out that economic modelling has a dismal track record. I’m not sure why you are blaming it all on Hahn- the article I linked to doesn’t. Economic modelling cannot work in all but the simplest of cases. For instance, it is impossible to predict future technological innovation and so it cannot be properly factored into a model. This is bleedingly obvious.

    And Cambria, fuck off you twerp. And please stop sending dozens of filthy comments every day to my site, loser. If you keep it up I’ll seek an inervention order. I assume you don’t fancy a trip to a Magistrate’s Court in Melbourne?

    melaleuca

    November 5, 2006 at 3:44 pm

  15. Munn Listen up, doofus.

    Do you even undertand what your link is saying. Can you even figure out the glaring error that silly link is making:

    Here it is:

    ” When forecasting the costs of new environmental regulations, economic analysts routinely ignore a primary economic lesson: Markets cut costs through innovation. And innovation can be promoted through regulation. This history is worth bearing in mind as we approach the most important environmental controversy to date—how to deal with the crisis of global warming.”

    Munn. you doofus, if you’re going to accept that innovation is going to cut the cost of implemention fo a new regulation you are also going to have to assume innovation is going to happen without the regulation.

    How do i know:

    The US economy is 3 times bigger than it was in 1970, yet, it is also about 25% lighter than it was. It means we are richer while using less materials etc.
    You can’t account for innovation on one side of the ledger without allowing for it on the other.

    You need to stay away from those AA….er Goreen paaiy meetings, Munn. They just lower your IQ every time you attend.

    JC.

    November 5, 2006 at 3:54 pm

  16. JC
    I suggest you stop provoking Munn. Your comment about GM foods was off topic and anyway Munn has always been sensible on that issue.

    I’m removing any further flame war ‘fighting words’ between you two. You’re both in Melbourne. I suggest you two get together and work your problems out.

    Jason Soon

    November 5, 2006 at 3:57 pm

  17. “And Cambria, fuck off you twerp. And please stop sending dozens of filthy comments every day to my site, loser. If you keep it up I’ll seek an inervention order. I assume you don’t fancy a trip to a Magistrate’s Court in Melbourne?”

    JC objects to this suggestion [EDIT BY ADMIN]

    JC.

    November 5, 2006 at 3:59 pm

  18. Bullshit jason.

    He’s a fiflity racist prick. and I will never stop unitl he apologises for his filfthy behaviour at this site.

    He sole my identity and has written numerous racist comments directed to towards me.

    Let’s get real here.

    The racist lowrent scum bag is not going to get awy with it.
    He has made comments attacking my views numerous times both at this site and others.

    Munn, you filfthy low life scum. I’ll see you in court anytime.

    JC.

    November 5, 2006 at 4:03 pm

  19. He doesn’t need to apologise to me, JC. Munn has appeared conciliatory and I’m calling it a clean slate. If you want him to apologise to you, make that clear. I’ll let that last one through but that’s it. This feud is between the both of you.

    Jason Soon

    November 5, 2006 at 4:07 pm

  20. Jason
    Why did you edit that comment? The lowrent prick is threatening me and he shouldn’t be allowed to get away with it.

    Munn. I’ll be happy to see you in any court anytime you racist little prick. maybe you may want to explain to the judge how you stole my idnetity and wrote numerous racist comments dirctd towards me.

    Jason

    The racist has attacked my comments many times about differing subjects. He wants special treament. He get a pasting everytime until he apologises.

    JC.

    November 5, 2006 at 4:08 pm

  21. That Thomas Gale Moore book again.

    I”ll just reccomend 1 chapter of it that brings up stuff that isn’t getting enough of an airing.

    http://www.cato.org/pubs/books/climate/023-68.pdf

    Thats the topic which is called:

    Historical Evidence On Climate And Human Well-Being.

    Now the upshot is that we KNOW this. We know that the warmer times are the better times and the colder times are the more miserable times.

    Ergo more warming is a net benefit and not a net cost.

    So we ought to be adding and not substracting from GDP due to more CO2 and hence a warmer then otherwise climate.

    But this chapter understates the case. Because this is not a warming due to a hotter sun we are anticipating. We are anticipating a warmer climate then otherwise due to more CO2.

    And more CO2 warms the drier air. And it warms it more in the winter. And the drier air is the colder air.

    So it ought to produce even more benign and better weather then if it was going to warm via extra solar radiation.

    And of course the extra CO2 means more explosive plant and therefore also more bountious animal life. Moreso then a colder climate sure. But also more then if the warming is coming due to the sun and not due to CO2.

    So whereas you will see from this chapter that we ought to be adding on percentage points to GDP and not taking them off. Despite this it must be remembered that Moore is understating the case.

    GMB

    November 5, 2006 at 4:10 pm

  22. Enough of this gang tackling boys, you are wasting petrol that you need to take the ball up some place else.

    Rafe Champion

    November 5, 2006 at 4:14 pm

  23. Fine then. Let Munn apologise to me then. But he isn’t going to get away with it until he concedes he’s done wrong.

    His offense of posting racist rants is actionable and would be defined as a hate crime.

    In any event, all I have done is to explain why his views are stupid.

    Jason, Mind you the hyprcritical little prick is howling like a gal, yet his racist actions at this site have been worse.

    JC.

    November 5, 2006 at 4:14 pm

  24. Rafe
    He threatened me . Yet he has posted numerous filfthy racist comments about me.

    1. He can’t stand the similar, but les harmful treament at his site, Yet he was more than happy to do it here.

    2. All I have done is attack his rank stupidity in respect to his ideas on this topic. And he is stupid.

    Mind you, that’s all I have said at his site in addtion to calling him a racist worm.

    JC.

    November 5, 2006 at 4:20 pm

  25. REMOVED FOR REPETITION

    (Edit by admin – JC that’s enough, you’ve repeated yourself 3 times already)

    JC.

    November 5, 2006 at 4:31 pm

  26. Munn says:

    “For instance, it is impossible to predict future technological innovation and so it cannot be properly factored into a model. This is bleedingly obvious.”

    This is another example of rank stupidity that passes for thoughtful analysis from racist ignoramus green twit.

    Draw up a chart of all the innovations that have gone into cars since the days of the early model T and you can see that like all predictions we can at least extrapolate with a long or short term moving average line over time.

    One marker for innovation is of course the rate of productivity increase. While some in the Green party would make you believe bosses can only achieve these increases by using a horsewhip on workers, the reality is that productivity is a closely tied marker to innovation. This rate has been expanding and is sure to point in more upwardly with larger computing power. We can’t 100% say that innovation is going to continue at a fast rate, but we can attach a high probability that it will.

    JC.

    November 5, 2006 at 5:28 pm

  27. In the same book

    http://www.cato.org/pubs/books/climate/103-128.pdf

    Here we have various estimates of the costs to GDP of a warmer world by a few economists.

    They tried to figure it out for the US economy. Now this isn’t really what we are talking about remember. Since our choices only consist of various levels of CO2 output.

    Its on page 25 out of 26.

    Anyhow it was

    1. Cline (4.5 farenheit increase) (study in 1992) Estimated cost of 1.1%

    2. Nordhaus (5 degrees, 1991) cost 1%

    3. Frankhauser, 4.5, 1995, 1.3%

    4. Titus, 7, 1992, 2.5%

    5. Tol, 4.5, 1995, 1.5%

    These guys are all a bunch of bums.

    But the author himself estimated:

    6. Moore, 4.5 degrees Farenheit increase. He estimates a gain to the economy of 1%. Which is a bit more like it.

    Compare these to the frantic Stern report.

    The bad craziness has built up a lot more since then. But the actual estimates of likely warming have fallen.

    GMB

    November 5, 2006 at 5:41 pm

  28. Just remember JC, allocasuarina is the botanical name for a she oak.

    rog

    November 5, 2006 at 9:27 pm

  29. The irony is that both Munn and JC apparently agree that Stern report is crap!

    Correct me if I am wrong.

    Boris

    November 6, 2006 at 1:25 am

  30. “Finally, Bjorn Lomborg also digs in, arguing that ‘Given reasonable inputs, most cost-benefit models show that dramatic and early carbon reductions cost more than the good they do’.”

    Non-alarmists are way too much on the defensive in these matters.

    It ought to be the standing assumption that restricting CO2 doesn’t only cost a bunch, doesn’t only not acheive much ‘good’. But that the goal of it is actually harmful.

    Since its CO2 that is good and particularly if you have some affinity and concern for the natural world.

    We must not respond to all this hyperbole and hysteria by meeting these clowns halfway.

    The alarmists are predjudicing speculation over what we know.

    And what we know is that:

    1. The planet is nicer when its warmer.

    2. The natural tendency is towards glaciation most of the time.

    3. Extra CO2 boosts the natural world.

    We KNOW all this. Whereas the alarmists build up their four-horsemen scenarios by layering speculation on speculation.

    GMB

    November 6, 2006 at 7:39 am

  31. Sinclair Davidson

    November 6, 2006 at 11:03 am

  32. I saw pictures of the protests against global warming on the TV.

    And the mad bastards were protesting nuclear power as well AND AT THE SAME TIME.

    In a related note Mark Banisch is trying to convince himself that he is part of the reality-based community.

    GMB

    November 6, 2006 at 11:47 am

  33. Lomborg accusing others of cherry picking. That’s rich.

    The best critique of the Stern Report which I’ve read (it’s certainly better than the garbage that Sinclair is linking to) is by Richard Tol and can be found here.

    On a larger note, I see the Stern report as a lost opportunity. There is a pressing need to a comprehensive review of the economics of climate change, but it appears that Stern didn’t do it.

    Ken Miles

    November 6, 2006 at 12:17 pm

  34. Ken, where’s your sense of humour? I just loved the protesters walking though the cold to protest global warming. Laughed and Laughed.

    What people are ignoring also is the repudiation Stern has of the Royal Society. They claimed people were concentrating too much on uncertainty, while Stern talk much about it. (mind you, Stern only really talks about risk and not Knightian uncertainty. Wise man, Stern. Knows what he doesn’t know).

    Sinclair Davidson

    November 6, 2006 at 12:25 pm

  35. “The planet is nicer when its warmer”

    That’s your opinion, Birdy. And you call yourself a Neanderthal … huh ..

    Jason Soon

    November 6, 2006 at 12:28 pm

  36. Its not my ‘opinion’.

    Thats the actual history of the matter.

    Thats the science of the matter if you like.

    GMB

    November 6, 2006 at 12:32 pm

  37. “On a larger note, I see the Stern report as a lost opportunity. There is a pressing need to a comprehensive review of the economics of climate change, but it appears that Stern didn’t do it.”

    Is there REALLY a pressing need?

    We have a bunch of studies out there. I suspect that the pressing need to review them and clean out the bullshit-momentum bias in them all.

    I think there is a pressing need just to defeat this fraudulent movement.

    You cannot get this much mass-hysteria out there and expect the economists making these reports not to compromise somewhat with the strength of that current.

    GMB

    November 6, 2006 at 12:39 pm

  38. Ken, where’s your sense of humour? I just loved the protesters walking though the cold to protest global warming. Laughed and Laughed.

    I probably do have my humour detector tuned wrong. But global warming + cold weather jokes are as old as bristlecone trees.

    What people are ignoring also is the repudiation Stern has of the Royal Society. They claimed people were concentrating too much on uncertainty, while Stern talk much about it. (mind you, Stern only really talks about risk and not Knightian uncertainty. Wise man, Stern. Knows what he doesn’t know).

    I thought that the Royal Society were complaining about the use of dishonest propaganda rather than concentrating on uncertainty.

    Ken Miles

    November 6, 2006 at 12:47 pm

  39. You cannot get this much mass-hysteria out there and expect the economists making these reports not to compromise somewhat with the strength of that current.

    Actually I would expect any expert (economist or not) to not to compromise themselves. At stake lies their reputation. For example, any “expert” who claims that global temperatures have fallen since 1998 can be safely ignored.

    Ken Miles

    November 6, 2006 at 12:50 pm

  40. From the Royal Society letter,
    ‘…, or overstating the amount and significance of uncertainty in knowledge …’

    The other two thing the Royal Society was complaining of were ‘outright denial’ and ‘conveying a misleding impression of the potential impacts of anthropogenic climate change’.

    Yet Sir Nick seems to think that uncertainty (what he calls uncertainty, but actually risk) is a major problem. You’d think he would have cleared any confusion with the Royal Society first.

    Sinclair Davidson

    November 6, 2006 at 2:20 pm

  41. Miles

    Is that like saying that Gobal warming will cause forced marriages and impact of gender inequality? Would you say these idiots along with green party members should be ignored too?

    J.C.

    November 6, 2006 at 2:28 pm

  42. JC, can you please repeat that in English?

    Ken Miles

    November 6, 2006 at 2:49 pm

  43. Sinclair, the Stern report doesn’t contradict the Royal Society letter. There are uncertainties in climate change. However, it is common for pseudoscientific groups to play up these uncertainties or to invent uncertainties of their own.

    Evolutionary biology provides an example of this. There are uncertainties in biology over the contributions to evolutionary change due to genetic drift and natural selection. But many of the creationists try to give the illusion that there is uncertainties to the theory itself.

    Ken Miles

    November 6, 2006 at 2:56 pm

  44. Miles

    Don’t be such a useless prick.

    Stern said that AGW threatens gender equality and increases forced marriages.

    You say that people who argue global temps haven’t increased since 1998 shouldn’t be listened to.

    Would you say that sterns comment is as bad?

    J.C.

    November 6, 2006 at 3:13 pm

  45. On page 33 of the Stern Report,
    “The risks and uncertainties around the costs and benefits of climate policy are large;
    hence the analytical framework should be able to handle risk and uncertainty explicitly.”

    Then the very next sentence,
    “For the moment, we do not make a distinction between risk and uncertainty, but the
    distinction is important and we return to it below.”
    Then we see,
    “Uncertainty affects every link in the chain
    from emissions of GHGs through to their impacts. There are uncertainties associated, for
    example, with future rates of economic growth, with the volume of emissions that will follow,
    with the increases in temperature resulting from emissions, with the impacts of these
    temperature increases and so on.”

    Further done the page, “many of the ‘true’ uncertainties around climate-change policy cannot themselves be observed and quantified precisely”.

    Hmm, that’s not what the Royal Society seemed to suggest.

    Coase once said (paraphrasing Joan Robinson) that we weren’t surprised to see the man take the rabbit out of the hat once we had watched him putting the rabbit into the hat. Sir Nick putting the rabbit into the hat,
    “This approach to uncertainty, combined with the assumption that the social marginal utility of
    income declines as income rises, implies that society will be willing to pay a premium
    (insurance) to avoid a simple actuarially fair gamble where potential losses and gains are
    large.”

    And, yet, Sir Nick tells us that the ‘true’ unceratinties are unknown and cannot be observed.

    Sinclair Davidson

    November 6, 2006 at 3:39 pm

  46. JC, of course I wouldn’t say that they are as bad.

    The global temps comment is false.

    The gender inequality comment is a suggestion. And one which isn’t inconceivable.

    Ken Miles

    November 6, 2006 at 3:47 pm

  47. Stern states that there are uncertainties.

    Royal Society complains about exaggerating uncertainties.

    The total statements are not in contradiction.

    Ken Miles

    November 6, 2006 at 4:06 pm

  48. Okay. If you don’t know what the uncertainties are – as the Stern report concedes – how can you possibily know that any speculation about those uncertainties are exaggerated (as the Royal Society argue)?

    if a climate change sceptic were to agrue that the greenies don’t know what the impact of climate change might be (as Stern admits) is this exaggeration? Mind you, not that the greenies haven’t been up to a bit of exaggeration themselves 🙂

    Sinclair Davidson

    November 6, 2006 at 4:17 pm

  49. Sinclair Davidson

    November 6, 2006 at 4:49 pm

  50. Most of the significant uncertainties are to do with predicting future emissions and local effects of the warming – not with the basic science. That climate change is occurring because of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions is not in dispute by anybody bar the pseudoscientists.

    Here’s an example of a scientific uncertainties in climate change.

    Climate sensitivity is a measure of how the global temperature changes when carbon dioxide doubles and the system is given time to reach equilibrium. It is used as a tool to compare model outputs.

    There are uncertainties as too what the real climate sensitivity is. But we are reasonably sure that the climate sensitivity is between 2 and 4 degrees.

    So well there are uncertainties in the science, they are well quantified.

    Importantly for climate change sceptics, there is no evidence for climate sensitivity is approx. zero.

    Ken Miles

    November 6, 2006 at 4:56 pm

  51. Found this over at Andrew Bolt’s place.

    The guy who wrote this is batshit crazy. He uses the work of Gavin Menzies – who believes that China discovered America, Australia, the North Pole, New Zealand (and set up colonies before being wiped out by the Maori – all without leaving a single scrap of archaeologically evidence).

    Ken Miles

    November 6, 2006 at 5:02 pm

  52. ‘Most of the significant uncertainties are to do with predicting future emissions and local effects of the warming – not with the basic science.’

    not to put too fine a point on the matter, but it is the ‘predicting future emissions and local effects of the warming’ that we’re concerned about.

    ‘So well there are uncertainties in the science, they are well quantified’.

    Uncertainty can’t be quantified. Risk can be quantified.

    ‘The guy who wrote this is batshit crazy. ‘
    maybe, but there are two graphs. One we know is wrong. the hockey stick. the other one must be a problem for the human centred warming hypothesis.

    Sinclair Davidson

    November 6, 2006 at 5:10 pm

  53. how anyone can take a report that doesn’t tell you the discount rate it uses, but argues women are going to be forcibly married off while gender inequalities increase…..all this as a result of AGW is a joke. You’re a joke for siding with it

    J.C.

    November 6, 2006 at 7:09 pm

  54. “There are uncertainties as too what the real climate sensitivity is. But we are reasonably sure that the climate sensitivity is between 2 and 4 degrees.”

    This doesn’t make sense because you haven’t specified what period of time you are talking about. Let’s say it is 100 years. I’ve just talked with the climate expert (who used to run these models at MIT and now works for the US weather centre) and he told me that there are huge uncertainties of qualitative nature (mainly to do with parametrisation of clouds and their albedo, but also with atmosphere-oceans interaction).

    With this in mind we may have to redefine who is doing science and who is doing pseudo-science.

    Boris

    November 6, 2006 at 8:02 pm

  55. Isn’t it amazing, Boris? All the non-scientists are more certain we are going to perish if we don’t spend $450 billion per year than some real scientists doing real work.

    Ken Miles is a non climate scientist. He knows for sure. Go figure that. I guess he gets his science from that other climate scientist, Johnny Quiggler.

    J.C.

    November 6, 2006 at 8:12 pm

  56. I’ve been told gender inequalities are a serious issue and not to be taken lying down!

    This is the sort of argument used by those who like to include philosophy into the equation, just to muddy the waters.

    I’ve also been told that there is no doubt that the debate is over, Ant. Albanese is one who is fond of the phrase. He says that the only way for Aust to beat climate change is to sign Kyoto and to turn our solar industry into one that will equal coal. How we can change the global weather by reducing our 1% of global emisions is beyond me.

    In Ant’s mind there never was a debate, it was a directive from Sussex St, he’s only another enthusiastic ALP branch stacker.

    rog

    November 6, 2006 at 8:16 pm

  57. jc, and you know what? Some time ago GMB asked me why my friend (climate scientist) does not publish his opinion/findings. So last month I was in the US, and I asked this guy precisely that question. And you know what he answered: there is nothing to publish really. Every serious cilmate scientist knows that uncertainties are large, probably as large as the effect itself. For the record, he actually advocates some cautious measures, such as carbon tax. And unlike Bird, my firend thinks that CO2 generated warming may be harmful (on balance).

    Boris

    November 6, 2006 at 9:11 pm

  58. that’s intersting, Boris. That’s similar to what another real climate scientist told to me. he runs a blog- James Annan.

    He thinks there is about 3 deg warming at the poles and 5.5 at the equator. Hardly the disaster these ghouls are suggesting.

    He added in fact that we ought to worry more about getting most of oil from the middle east because it is so unsable than being panicked about agw.

    Meanwhile the ghouls are telling us we need to spend 1% of global GDP on very uncertain modeling.

    the basis os these models is quite easy to understand. What is hard to figure is the input. How much warming is there going to be? The effect of new technolgy? Population levels?

    It’s a friggin waste of money.

    Did you notice how Miles couldn’t bring himself to disavow the crap about gender and forced marriages. This is another religious believer who thinks that if you don’t go to church on Sunday bad things will happen.

    J.C.

    November 6, 2006 at 9:31 pm

  59. He thinks there is about 3 deg warming at the poles and 5.5 at the equator. Hardly the disaster these ghouls are suggesting.

    Are you out of your mind??

    This would be a disaster.

    JohnZ

    November 6, 2006 at 9:42 pm

  60. how so John?

    If you’re going to explain gender issues we already know.

    J.C.

    November 6, 2006 at 9:45 pm

  61. “He thinks there is about 3 deg warming at the poles and 5.5 at the equator. Hardly the disaster these ghouls are suggesting.”

    This sounds ass-backwards right there.

    You would expect the Poles to warm up more and the equator at the heat of the day to stay about the same. Maybe gain a litttle bit in the nightime.

    GMB

    November 6, 2006 at 10:13 pm

  62. “jc, and you know what? Some time ago GMB asked me why my friend (climate scientist) does not publish his opinion/findings.”

    I don’t think that would have been me.

    GMB

    November 6, 2006 at 10:15 pm

  63. Here’s James Annan’s musings on Stern’s report.
    The basic premise is that Stern has used very low probability estimates and used them to reach a conclusion.

    In other words it’s horrible report. And no, he’s not in the pockets of the cigarette or candy industry.

    http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/

    Tuesday, October 31, 2006
    A stern review of Stern
    Not really stern, more disappointed, but it was too obvious a pun to ignore. I’ve had a quick look at the climate science bit (the full report is here), and I don’t much like what I’ve seen. He briefly cites our work only to ignore it – I certainly don’t blame him personally for this, he can only use what climate scientists tell him and there’s no doubt that our work is far from the “consensus” of the peer-reviewed publications in this area. However, it is also evident that the “consensus” is seriously flawed on this point, and it is disappointing that no-one else seems prepared to admit it or even discuss the matter in public.

    From my brief glance, it seems like he uses two climate sensitivity distributions, one based on the 1.5-4.5C of Wigley and Raper (drawing on the IPCC TAR) and another higher range based on Murphy et al 2004. While he doesn’t go as far as to use some of the rather silly pdfs that have been presented, he’s clearly been strongly influenced by them, mentioning a 20% chance of climate sensitivity exceeding 5C a few times. Of course most of the exciting numbers being quoted from his report are those arising from the highest end of the higher range that he uses. I’ve said before and I’ll say it again, it seems quite a hostage to fortune to base policy decisions entirely on stuff that we are all pretty confident will not happen (but merely disagree on the definition of “pretty confident”).

    Our work has been published for a full 6 months, and a fair number of people working in the field first saw it over a year ago, so there has been plenty of time for some sort of response (I don’t necessarily mean a direct comment on it, but rather new publications which take account of the arguments we have presented here and again here). So far, we’ve only managed to screw out some rather limited comments from Allen and Frame, and that only through the tactic of singling them out for direct criticism. Nevertheless, they have admitted (or perhaps I should say boasted, since they seem to consider it a feature not a bug) that they do not believe the results that they themselves have generated – and note further that this admission is not merely made with reference to the particular GRL paper in question, but is a general comment on the methods they and others have widely used. One IPCC AR4 author has also admitted privately via email that he is “pretty confident that the sensitivity range is 2 to 4 K or smaller” but he’s never published anything like that. Come on guys (and girls), it’s time to come clean before this mess gets any worse. Just because it’s in the forthcoming AR4 doesn’t mean you have to defend the “consensus” to the death. At the workshop I attended this summer, someone made the (at the time) amusing comment to the effect that it would be scary what was going on in probabilistic climate prediction, were it not for the fact that it was being ignored by the politicians anyway.

    Well, it’s no longer being ignored.

    On top of the high climate sensitivity range, Stern uses the rather extreme A2 scenario (and essentially describes it as “business as usual”) for his projections, even though it is already clear even 5 years on that we are falling behind this emissions pathway. I really think it’s time the economists got their act together on this. And then he adds some feedbacks on top, based on results like those of the Hadley Centre model which has an extreme Amazon dieback due to having way too little rainfall in this region even before any global warming is considered. If the Japanese model had this behaviour everyone would just say it’s a crap model but because it is HADCM3 it is supposed to be alarming 🙂 I see RP also has some criticism of the hurricane stuff. FWIW, I don’t support him 100% on his general approach (too much “its not proven” and not enough “what is a realistic estimate”) but I think he’s more right than wrong. Anyway, my main beef is with the probabilistic estimation, because that’s what I understand best. It seems crystal clear that the methods are intrinsically faulty – indeed the errors seem rather elementary once they are stated clearly – and it is long past the time that people should have been prepared to accept this and talk about it openly. Nature’s comment that our criticisms “apply more generally to a widespread methodological approach” is hardly a valid defence of the science! Stern’s results appear to be heavily dependent on the small probability of extremely bad consequences, so these problems may substantially weaken the value of his report. OTOH, it might be the case that even with a climate sensitivity of 2.5C and assuming a more moderate “business as usual” emissions growth, mitigation is still amply justified (personally I think action is justifiable on a number of grounds irrespective of the supposed “climate catastrophe”).

    I might add some more after reading it more carefully. Or I might just let those conscientious blokes at RealClimate do it better 🙂

    Tuesday, October 31, 2006
    A stern review of Stern
    Not really stern, more disappointed, but it was too obvious a pun to ignore. I’ve had a quick look at the climate science bit (the full report is here), and I don’t much like what I’ve seen. He briefly cites our work only to ignore it – I certainly don’t blame him personally for this, he can only use what climate scientists tell him and there’s no doubt that our work is far from the “consensus” of the peer-reviewed publications in this area. However, it is also evident that the “consensus” is seriously flawed on this point, and it is disappointing that no-one else seems prepared to admit it or even discuss the matter in public.

    From my brief glance, it seems like he uses two climate sensitivity distributions, one based on the 1.5-4.5C of Wigley and Raper (drawing on the IPCC TAR) and another higher range based on Murphy et al 2004. While he doesn’t go as far as to use some of the rather silly pdfs that have been presented, he’s clearly been strongly influenced by them, mentioning a 20% chance of climate sensitivity exceeding 5C a few times. Of course most of the exciting numbers being quoted from his report are those arising from the highest end of the higher range that he uses. I’ve said before and I’ll say it again, it seems quite a hostage to fortune to base policy decisions entirely on stuff that we are all pretty confident will not happen (but merely disagree on the definition of “pretty confident”).

    Our work has been published for a full 6 months, and a fair number of people working in the field first saw it over a year ago, so there has been plenty of time for some sort of response (I don’t necessarily mean a direct comment on it, but rather new publications which take account of the arguments we have presented here and again here). So far, we’ve only managed to screw out some rather limited comments from Allen and Frame, and that only through the tactic of singling them out for direct criticism. Nevertheless, they have admitted (or perhaps I should say boasted, since they seem to consider it a feature not a bug) that they do not believe the results that they themselves have generated – and note further that this admission is not merely made with reference to the particular GRL paper in question, but is a general comment on the methods they and others have widely used. One IPCC AR4 author has also admitted privately via email that he is “pretty confident that the sensitivity range is 2 to 4 K or smaller” but he’s never published anything like that. Come on guys (and girls), it’s time to come clean before this mess gets any worse. Just because it’s in the forthcoming AR4 doesn’t mean you have to defend the “consensus” to the death. At the workshop I attended this summer, someone made the (at the time) amusing comment to the effect that it would be scary what was going on in probabilistic climate prediction, were it not for the fact that it was being ignored by the politicians anyway.

    Well, it’s no longer being ignored.

    On top of the high climate sensitivity range, Stern uses the rather extreme A2 scenario (and essentially describes it as “business as usual”) for his projections, even though it is already clear even 5 years on that we are falling behind this emissions pathway. I really think it’s time the economists got their act together on this. And then he adds some feedbacks on top, based on results like those of the Hadley Centre model which has an extreme Amazon dieback due to having way too little rainfall in this region even before any global warming is considered. If the Japanese model had this behaviour everyone would just say it’s a crap model but because it is HADCM3 it is supposed to be alarming 🙂 I see RP also has some criticism of the hurricane stuff. FWIW, I don’t support him 100% on his general approach (too much “its not proven” and not enough “what is a realistic estimate”) but I think he’s more right than wrong. Anyway, my main beef is with the probabilistic estimation, because that’s what I understand best. It seems crystal clear that the methods are intrinsically faulty – indeed the errors seem rather elementary once they are stated clearly – and it is long past the time that people should have been prepared to accept this and talk about it openly. Nature’s comment that our criticisms “apply more generally to a widespread methodological approach” is hardly a valid defence of the science! Stern’s results appear to be heavily dependent on the small probability of extremely bad consequences, so these problems may substantially weaken the value of his report. OTOH, it might be the case that even with a climate sensitivity of 2.5C and assuming a more moderate “business as usual” emissions growth, mitigation is still amply justified (personally I think action is justifiable on a number of grounds irrespective of the supposed “climate catastrophe”).

    I might add some more after reading it more carefully. Or I might just let those conscientious blokes at RealClimate do it better 🙂

    J.C.

    November 6, 2006 at 10:16 pm

  64. Sorry GB

    “He thinks there is about 3 deg warming at the poles and 5.5 at the equator. Hardly the disaster these ghouls are suggesting.”

    This sounds ass-backwards right there.

    You would expect the Poles to warm up more and the equator at the heat of the day to stay about the same. Maybe gain a litttle bit in the nightime.

    You’re right, It is the other way round. My mistake.

    J.C.

    November 6, 2006 at 10:18 pm

  65. “Actually I would expect any expert (economist or not) to not to compromise themselves. At stake lies their reputation. For example, any “expert” who claims that global temperatures have fallen since 1998 can be safely ignored.”

    No thats bullshit Miles.

    Technically speaking 1998 is the peak year. I mean one expects these things to pick up again. It might be just that 11 year cycle.

    What with CO2 still accumulating one would expect that record year of 1998 will get beat.

    If there is an 11 year solar cycle then one would lay even money that this record will be beat by 2010.

    But thats the peak year so far right.

    So you see you were being unsafe in your predjudice.

    GMB

    November 6, 2006 at 10:21 pm

  66. However, it is also evident that the “consensus” is seriously flawed on this point, and it is disappointing that no-one else seems prepared to admit it or even discuss the matter in public.”

    Read the comment again and again. This is coming from a real climate scientist. If Johhny Quiggler tells you that the science debate is over, you may want to ask the kid if he would like to debate this with a climate scientist.

    J.C.

    November 6, 2006 at 10:36 pm

  67. One thing that comes across as really dubious is the idea that the higher end (the low probability end) heating will or yet even COULD be accompanied by widespread droughts.

    Because dry air would allow for the radiation out into space of all these excess joules.

    Like today I read in the paper they were talking about 7 degrees celsius increase.

    And there was a picture of Tamworth in 2004 and a make-believe one at 2040.

    And the 2040 Tamworth is just desert.

    But this 7 degrees JIVE (if they are talking world wide averages) could only really be possible (one would think) if there was widespread tropical conditions. Since those areas that had little cloud cover and low moisture in the air would be like holes that all the extra Joules could use to escape into space.

    The thing about 65 million years ago when it was 10 degrees on average warmer. Well it was just tropical everywhere. And the Antarctic land-mass wasn’t over the Poles.

    The reason why I say this is that a black body in space radiates out these Joules into space to the fourth power when referenced on the Kelvin Scale.

    Now of course the CO2 will block some of that. But only a little bit. The whole catastrophic heating JIVE relies on the CO2 leading to a knock-on effect with the water vapour. And the additional water vapour is what is alleged to send things spinning out of control.

    But so long as there is all this dry air around HOW CAN THIS BE. I mean the dry air will heat up quickly in response to CO2 its true. But if the whole planet starts heating up substantially, if there is still dry air around that will act a bit like tiny leaks in the balloon.

    In fact I would argue that we surely cannot have anything to worry about until the Antarctic gets close to 0 degrees celsius in the winter.

    Because the deal is that cold hair simply cannot hold the water vapour.

    From memory I think that it gets to about -70 degrees Celsius in the Antarctic Winter.

    Which is about 200 Kelvin I think.

    Now to my way of thinking these guys aren’t thinking like Austrian economists. They aren’t thinking marginally.

    I think they are likely doing there average temperature calculations as if the whole world had an averaged air moisture readiing. And then only sorting out the regional impact after that.

    Supposing we had this idea that we weren’t going to spend a cent unless the Antarctic winter temperature got to -20 degrees C in the winter.

    I think we would be entirely safe.

    Because the difference would be between Kelvin 200 and Kelvin 250 or so.

    250/200 to the fourth power would be 2.44

    So whatever the Joules lost into space that was happening before it would be at least twice as much after. That is 2.44 less whatever the CO2 blocks out.

    And anywhere that was still arid…… Well at first of course the CO2 holds in the heat .
    But what I’m saying is that after the entire globe has warmed up it woud be the arid places that would be funnelling a lot of this heat into space in the night-time.

    Its a difficult thing to talk about because we are only talking about the DELTA of everything.

    GMB

    November 6, 2006 at 10:51 pm

  68. Jessh , the artic winter is -70degs and these ghouls are asking us to spend 450 dolls in present value dollars every year until Co2 is stabilized.

    Are they friggin mad?

    It seems they just want to spend other people’s money all the time, even for bullshit reasons.

    Makes you wanna buy a Big engined suv just to piss these ghouls off.

    Get a sticker that says ” doing my bit to warm the planet”.

    J.C.

    November 6, 2006 at 11:00 pm

  69. Employing your usual strawmen, I see. I haven’t read the inequality statements in context so I can’t really comment but I will observe that it was stupid for Stern to put them in since it gives denialists a ready supply of factoids to trot out to distract from the main argument.

    The temperature change you cited (3 degrees) is in the middle of the range predicted by the IPCC – good to see you accept the consensus, JC.

    And Bird, a Catallaxy comments box is not the best place to explain your theory. How about you write it up properly at your blog, cite your sources and then try and get it peer-reviewed and published?

    JohnZ

    November 6, 2006 at 11:15 pm

  70. yes john . it’s the middle of the estimates. Fancy that. And your point is what exactly, that the middle is the mean? We know that?

    Does stern use the mean?

    J.C.

    November 6, 2006 at 11:25 pm

  71. No point, JC, I was just surprised – I had you pegged as an anti-science denialist. My bad.

    Given you accept the IPCC’s temperature predicitions, how about having a look at what they think 3 degrees will mean for the world?

    JohnZ

    November 7, 2006 at 12:14 am

  72. “No point, JC, I was just surprised – I had you pegged as an anti-science denialist. My bad.”

    The alarmists are anti-science-denialists JohnZ.

    Get it right fella.

    GMB

    November 7, 2006 at 12:47 am

  73. denailist? Of what that carbon forcing causes warming? That there is a STRONG probability and not a certainty of AGW.

    That’s not the hard bit, John. The hard part is trying to figure out all the complex issues that go with the science. What the Ghouls don’t get is that the science has nothing to say about technological improvment and financial inducements to phase in new tech.quicker. Population changes by mid century etc.

    Most also fail to take into account the effect greater wealth will have to absorb changes.

    You’re not a stern man, like miles who thinks gender issues need to be taken into account.

    You can be honest about this. Own up john

    J.C.

    November 7, 2006 at 12:48 am

  74. “Employing your usual strawmen, I see. I haven’t read the inequality statements in context so I can’t really comment but I will observe that it was stupid for Stern to put them in since it gives denialists a ready supply of factoids to trot out to distract from the main argument.”

    Might I ask you to stop this continual fucking idiocy JohnZ.

    It is the alarmists that are in denial.

    GMB

    November 7, 2006 at 12:51 am

  75. You should really ask if I give a shit about AGW. I don’t. I couldn’t care less if humans are king pins 300 years from now.

    The world will survive and we may give another mammal the chance to take over from where we left off.

    How about Dolphin man or some other mammal.

    I couldn’t care less. So have a good time and stop worrying John

    J.C.

    November 7, 2006 at 12:56 am

  76. “And Bird, a Catallaxy comments box is not the best place to explain your theory. How about you write it up properly at your blog, cite your sources and then try and get it peer-reviewed and published?”

    You know the only thing that bugs me about Sacha is that he always pushes this very silly idea.

    Now on the other hand JohnZ… Many things bug me about you.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Anyhow we see by what I said above that it seems very unlikely that any of the very warm periods that the planet has gone through could have happened if land mass was over one of the poles.

    Because the Poles or those areas near have several months of endless day and several months of endless night.

    And so if there is a massive land-mass over one of the poles it beggars belief to think that the temperature isn’t going to fall close-to or below zero as the months of darkness continue.

    So that therefore there will be no moisture in the air. Since the air cannot hold water vapour at low temperatures.

    So the heat would tend to just radiate into space.

    Of course a great deal more heat would radiate into space at the moment in places like the Sahara desert where its hot as well as dry.

    But its this deal about the energy slipping out of the dry areas to the FOURTH POWER of the temperature Kelvin…..

    This deal about all these Joules slipping out into space with such ease in the dry areas…..

    Its this idea that makes catastrophic warming such a very dubious concept while the continent of Antarctica sits right over the Poles like that.

    “And Bird, a Catallaxy comments box is not the best place to explain your theory. How about you write it up properly at your blog, cite your sources and then try and get it peer-reviewed and published?”

    Didn’t I tell you?

    YOU ARE THE ANTI-SCIENCE DENIALIST.

    Actually you are not really fucking interested in the science are you?

    In fact your attitude was GET THAT SCIENCE AWAY FROM ME.

    Its pretty much anything to get the science away. Take it away! TAKE IT TO YOUR OWN BLOG!

    Thats your message right?

    My message is:

    “SHOW ME THE SCIENCE”

    Show me the science JohnZ.

    GMB

    November 7, 2006 at 1:12 am

  77. GB
    if he says that crap again, tell him to take a hike. It’s not his business where you wanna post it.

    Get lost john.

    J.C.

    November 7, 2006 at 1:38 am

  78. being a melbourne cup day the analogy of the bolting horse is apt; Rupert Murdoch has come out and said that the planet deserves the benefit of the doubt.

    Its not all bad news, to effect a global climate change agreement will require acknowledgement by greenies of globalisation.

    http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20714144-30417,00.html

    92% of people have come out and said that climate change is real and we have to do something (something – anything – just do it!)

    rog

    November 7, 2006 at 6:21 am

  79. The shorter Jc: I don’t give a fuck.

    I wish the “sceptics” were as honest as you rather than trying to muddy the science debate.

    I recommend you spread your views far and wide – and as loudly as possible.

    GO!!!!!

    JohnZ

    November 7, 2006 at 8:09 am

  80. http://www.mises.org/story/2372

    Here is Reismans take on the Stern report.

    GMB

    November 7, 2006 at 8:16 am

  81. Thats a remarkable two-step you got going there JohnZ.

    Put words in the fellows mouth and then build on that make-believe.

    Where’s the science John?

    Its pretty evident that you are just going with the mindless assertions tsunami.

    GMB

    November 7, 2006 at 9:02 am

  82. Actually its worse then that isn’t it.

    I mean if you actually talk about the science of it anti-science alarmist-denialist acts like you’ve said something entirely inappropriate……

    ‘Don’t sully this discussion with any talk of actual science you lout’ would seem to be the attitude.

    GMB

    November 7, 2006 at 9:16 am

  83. You should really ask if I give a shit about AGW. I don’t. I couldn’t care less if humans are king pins 300 years from now.

    The world will survive and we may give another mammal the chance to take over from where we left off.

    How about Dolphin man or some other mammal.

    I couldn’t care less. So have a good time and stop worrying John

    Pretty unambiguous, I would have said.

    The IPCC report is here. Please tell us what sections you dispute.

    And for god’s sake format your ideas neatly and coherently. I have neither the time nor patience to wade through 6 pages of badly formatted waffle.

    JohnZ

    November 7, 2006 at 9:34 am

  84. Don’t fucking ask me to dispute a fucking UN report idiot.

    Which part do you think proves catastrophic warming?

    Jeepers. What a fucking idiot. Giving me the UN as the authority.

    >>>>>>>>>>>

    I’ll give you an example of typical stupidity from the scientists in this area. How they will not back up what they say.

    (Kind of like you John. Now where is the science that even lends evidence to catastrophic warming. You won’t fucking find it in an IPCC report thats for sure….. Which page of the report is the evidence hiding?)

    The guy who was the catalyst for all this nonsense is Jim Hansen.

    Looking at his slides for a presentation he made in Denver one can see the following inconsistency.

    On the one hand he claims that there can never be another glactiation ever again unless the human race becomes extinct.

    But scrolling down we see this is untenable even by his own evidence presented.

    Since he projects his business-as-usual CO2 levels.

    And in this projection CO2 never gets as high as 600 parts per million. And promptly starts declining at 2 per cent per year.

    Now I know why he tries to twist it to say that our 39 million year ice age is at an end.

    Because he’s the idiot who started this hysteria. And it had already gotten into full swing before anybody said…… HEY… WHAT GIVES…. ISN’T OUR PLANET USUALLY COVERED IN ICE?

    Well what does a fraudulent movement do when confronted with a mistake of this magnitude?

    They go on the attack claiming that an ice age can never happen again.

    But this is contradicted clearly by the dudes own data on the very same presentation.

    GMB

    November 7, 2006 at 9:57 am

  85. Now John

    “Show Me The Science”

    doesn’t mean making a link to an alarmist pdf and leaving it at that.

    So show me the science.

    Or is this just a faith-based movement?

    GMB

    November 7, 2006 at 10:03 am

  86. Bird, you’ve previously admitted that AGW is happening but said that it was actually a good thing.

    What is your current position?

    JohnZ

    November 7, 2006 at 10:31 am

  87. I should also point out that neither Hansens or the IPCC models back-test.

    Now how can a soothsaying computer simulation that doesn’t back-test be contrued by anyone as evidence?

    Here’s a pdf highlighting some weaknesses in these models.

    The dumb bastards only accounted for direct effect of changes in solar radiation…. to the extent that they even took the sun into consideration at all.

    Here is a pdf that redresses some of that.

    http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/2006GL027142.pdf

    Imagine not taking the sun into account when it comes to making a projection?

    And when we know solar radiation and world average temperature changes correlate so damn well.

    GMB

    November 7, 2006 at 10:31 am

  88. As I’ve said before, Graeme, you’re turning yourself inside out on this trying to have two bob each way.

    Jason Soon

    November 7, 2006 at 10:32 am

  89. “Bird, you’ve previously admitted that AGW is happening but said that it was actually a good thing.
    What is your current position?”

    You fucking idiot.

    Thats STILL my position. Since thats the truth of the matter. And I’ve never once said anything different.

    GMB

    November 7, 2006 at 10:34 am

  90. So then, broadly speaking you agree with the “alarmist” IPCC – you just dispute what the consequences will be.

    JohnZ

    November 7, 2006 at 10:38 am

  91. You are such a shithead JohnZ.

    Whats this ‘admitted’ JIVE.

    What a XXX to word it that way.

    Whats to ‘admit’ you jerk.

    This is a planet usually covered in ice. So there better fucking be some warming effect.

    Fortunately there is.

    GMB

    November 7, 2006 at 10:40 am

  92. You are dluting your own message by still apparently trying to discredit the warming effect, fella. You’re bamboozling yourself.

    Jason Soon

    November 7, 2006 at 10:44 am

  93. “So then, broadly speaking you agree with the “alarmist” IPCC – you just dispute what the consequences will be.”

    I wouldn’t take them into account at all unless you can ‘SHOW ME THE SCIENCE’ as to where the claim of catastrophic warming is coming from.

    You’ve got to get right at it and not be wasting time referencing third parties.

    This is a planet that is in an ice age. This is a planet usually covered in ice and totally inhospitable.

    Thats your starting point. So what have you got?

    Why are you claiming catastrophic WARMING (of all things) when that is your starting point.

    I mean we are entitled to some evidence.

    GMB

    November 7, 2006 at 10:46 am

  94. “You are dluting your own message by still apparently trying to discredit the warming effect, fella. You’re bamboozling yourself.”

    You fucking lying bastard.

    Retract your fucking lie asshole.

    NOW.

    Show me the science.

    Or admit I’m right.

    GMB

    November 7, 2006 at 10:52 am

  95. Where was I trying to discredit the warming effect you fucking asshole?

    GMB

    November 7, 2006 at 10:57 am

  96. All I’m saying, Grand Mufti of Bamboozlement, is that you seem to be contradicting yourself just for the sake of scoring points. If you admit that global warming exists then why are you taking issue with the IPCC for saying the same thing?

    Jason Soon

    November 7, 2006 at 10:58 am

  97. Bird – How many degrees warmer do you think the world will be in 2100?

    JohnZ

    November 7, 2006 at 10:59 am

  98. When has a computer simulation been considered the bees knees when it comes to EVIDENCE?

    Does everyone understand this?:

    A computer simulation………… That does not backtest……..DOES NOT WORK……….. and is not evidence.

    Now it might be insulting to our intelligence that we can all be taken in by the sheer scale of bullshit momentum.

    But get used to it.

    Because we always are taken in, in this way. And this anti-science alarmist-denialist JIVE is the best you-beaut example of virtually everyone being taken in by bullshit-momentum that is out there.

    The demonisation of McCarthy is another.

    But in fact bullshit-momentum tends to trump reason where-ever the two clash.

    GMB

    November 7, 2006 at 11:06 am

  99. John
    get out from under the table and don’t worry. We’re not going to warm to death in our lifetime.

    Bird’s got a point though. This place is mostly a frozen dump during most of its time. Why the heck are we even worried about a few degs warmer. In fact we ought to be celebrating it.

    Life needs warmth and water as the Amozon basin would attest and the poles do as well in the opposite way.

    This whole AGW scare thing reminds me of bad trading. Role with your winnings and cut losses. Humanity is on a winner… more warmth, faster growth etc but we want to stop a good thing happening. It’s like we don’t want good things happening.

    J.C.

    November 7, 2006 at 11:09 am

  100. “All I’m saying, Grand Mufti of Bamboozlement, is that you seem to be contradicting yourself just for the sake of scoring points.”

    No I’m not contradicting myself. Shit Jason. I thought you were John.

    But never once have I contradicted myself. And I’ve not taken issue with the IPCC for saying the greenhouse gasses have some warming effect.

    So why are you making this bollocks up?

    Whats wrong with you?

    This is a planet that is usually covered in ice right?

    We can’t predict exactly what the climate will be exactly like right?

    So we need an insurance policy against catastrophic cooling. Since history gives us no evidence for catastrophic warming these last 39 million years right?

    Now other people. Not being very bright are putting about this idea of catastrophic warming. Catastrophic WARMING of all things.

    But there is a problem with that.

    They have no evidence.

    Since the evidence so far consists of computer simulations that don’t back-test, and therefore don’t work, and therefore aren’t evidence.

    So no you are wrong. I haven’t once here contradicted myself.

    GMB

    November 7, 2006 at 11:17 am

  101. But this scare campaign will never stop until most of us are back in the caves. They don’t want human progress , GB. They hate it because it may mean someone is doing better than they are.

    You know the reason i would like to see the race die out? It’s to get rid of the bad DNA getting passed about by the leftists. They have totally destroyed our places of higher learning, media , government etc etc. When you have such large number of these idiots who want to give away $450 billion every year all in the name of evironmentalism I say its time we simply didn’t reproduce any longer and give other species time to evolve. They could be more fucking sensible than we are having to surround ourselves with these nutballs.

    John.

    You’re free to join the libertarian party, but wouldn’t you be happier with the socialist greens?

    J.C.

    November 7, 2006 at 11:21 am

  102. another article

    it is predicted to be 0.5 C warmer at the end of the century…

    but theres no confidence factor, something could change and it could be three degrees colder, or three degrees warmer…we just don’t know…

    but its definitely not worth worrying about…the technological change in the next 100 years will swamp any climate change…

    i’m so glad no-one is doing anything about global warming…man what a disaster that would be…

    c8to

    November 7, 2006 at 11:27 am

  103. Here’s Johnny Quggler today doing to humor what he does to economics.

    The Quiggler says:

    Which of these claims has not been put forward by prominent global warming denialists ?

    A Cycle analysis by a well-known astrologer proves that global temperatures will soon decline
    B Data supporting global warming was faked by NASA along with the bogus moon landings
    C There is no such thing as global average temperature, and therefore the whole idea is meaningless
    D A voyage through the Arctic Circle by the Chinese fleet in 1421 proves that temperatures were much higher then

    Answer over fold

    You’re right C8to tech will swamp temp.

    oh, no we can’t too much of a goof thing is how these nuballs think.

    J.C.

    November 7, 2006 at 11:32 am

  104. we need a new culture in the west that celebrates achievement and progress…

    it starts by saying that almost everyone in the world would rather live in a rich liberal democracy than some tin pot little dictatorship…

    then it celebrates 10,000 years of human progress and civilisation…the universities teach how much man has freed himself from famine, disease and tyranny…it signposts the failures and horrible wars as well, but it is not pessimistic, it is optomistic and embraces change and progress…

    it celebrates how the market has provided unimagined wealth, health and education to more people than ever before, who are living longer, more peacefully and more pain free than ever before…

    the old left gets irradicated and instead of moping around humanism it becomes lets change the world through our work and progress humanism…

    the old right gets irradicated and instead of being conservative becomes cautiously progressive…embracing change while preserving institutions that have served us since the greeks and romans invented them…

    everyone will feel that they have a place in the society, ending mopey depressed whining (especially of students and academics) because there will be no government handouts to sit around and whinge about things…

    can you imagine?

    c8to

    November 7, 2006 at 11:34 am

  105. i havent really bothered to read quiggin or any left blogs in at least a year…its far too predictable…

    theres nothing there except the same old pessimism…

    bird and the other writers and commenters here contain far more interesting ideas than anything the pessimists have said in the last 50 years…

    c8to

    November 7, 2006 at 11:36 am

  106. i cant wait till theres no ice in the arctic…

    imagine lazing on a beach in greenland with 24 hours of sunlight…id migrate!

    c8to

    November 7, 2006 at 11:44 am

  107. You’re right c8to.

    Bird is taking bits here, bits there and created a theory. He is very interesting. Moreover it sounds plausible too.

    The doom mongers are starting to get stale.

    J.C.

    November 7, 2006 at 11:44 am

  108. i wonder when john will ditch the last of his green-socialist hangups and become a real optimist like the rest of us…

    i dare say another thirty years of the climate change alarmists being completely wrong should do it…

    c8to

    November 7, 2006 at 11:45 am

  109. The bullshit never ends with the modellers.

    Hanson seems to be adding the various forcings together. As if they block out absolutely distinct bands of radiation.

    The IPCC used to base its models on CO2 increasing at 1% per year rather then the reality which is under 0.4% per year.

    Can someone even give me the SLIGHTEST bit of evidence for catastrophic warming?

    Imagine that. All this fuss over computer simulations. COMPUTER SIMULATIONS THAT DON’T WORK.

    They don’t work because they don’t back-test. So that they aren’t evidence.

    Now what was the OTHER evidence people had?

    They didn’t HAVE anything else.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    On another note.

    It seems that with solar radiation variability we have a number of cycles superimposed on eachother.

    We have the familiar 11 year cycle. We have another 87 year cycle. We have a 210 year cycle.

    And these appear to have a net effect leading to a very clear 1470 year cycle.

    These are pretty short-run cycles when compared to the three Malinkovitch orbital cycles.

    So we have all these oscillations imposed on eachother.

    Now to my mind there would be a critical question to ask oneself if one wished to figure out what the next few hundred years will bring us.

    And that is……. HOW ARE THESE OSCILATIONS COMBINING ON WHERE THE ICE-FRONTS ARE RIGHT NOW.

    You see the climate modellers seem to be just adding all the Joules together and subtracting others and the Albido effect just thrown in. Which might be OK for a pretty static model.

    But what I want to know about is the ice-front and conditions say 20 kilometers ahead and say 50 kilometers behind that ice-front.

    Because ice moves like a river. And here we have at least 6 oscillations (11, 87 and 210 for the sun and the three very long-term Malinkovitch ones…..) and we want to know how thats going to affect each of the ice fronts.

    I say this as a lead-up to pointing out the idiocy of the alarmists when confronted with the fact that the planet tends towards being covered with ice.

    They have come up with a new ploy.

    They dismiss this basic fact by citing a speculative report. And in this report some fellows have found a prior Malinkovitch setup where the interglacial lasted a very long time. And it allegedly looks pretty similiar to the current orbital cycle.

    So in thier stupidity on that slim basis alone they have totally dismissed the idea that we are more prone to catastrophic cooling then anything else.

    They dismiss it as if in this one case alone things can be absolutely certain to run the exact same course as this different yet allegedly similiar Malinkovitch cycle.

    Ass-Hats the lot of them.

    But you see the rather random element involved here. You are counting on the oscillation to affect the local area(the local area around the ice-front) in such a way as to make the ice either move forward or back.

    The nature of the oscillations is that the effect will not be uniform in all areas and particularly not when combined with currents and winds and other weather patterns.

    We want to know whats happening around the wall of white death.

    Now we cannot predict these things real well.

    The take-home-story is however that THERE IS A BIAS TOWARDS CATASTROPHIC COOLING.

    And now the good news?

    CO2 works better to trap heat wherever the air is dry.

    50 kilometers (lets say) back from the ice front where the force comes to push the ice forward the air will ALWAYS be dry. Because cold air cannot hold water vapour.

    So the second take-home-story is that WE HAVE OUR INSURANCE POLICY AGAINST THE COOLING BIAS.

    To be sure its a weak heating force. And one would not think it would be enough to save our asses from another mini-ice-age or a larger one.

    But its always there PRECISELY where you need it. Its always there acting on the dry air just where the ice is.

    As there is no real possibility of catastrophic heating while there remains large arid areas on this earth………

    Then what we can say is that elevated levels of CO2 are our ultimate insurance policy against nasty climate changes sneaking up on us.

    Just the opposite of what these science-worker bums have been telling us.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    You see.

    You got to stick with me.

    I’m the only guy who shows you the science.

    GMB

    November 7, 2006 at 12:00 pm

  110. Graeme
    John is right on one thing. You should stick all this up in one post on your blog. It’s a bit hard to follow scattered over so many comments. We’re not as smart as you, you see [haha, just joking]

    Jason Soon

    November 7, 2006 at 12:02 pm

  111. c8to:

    What is your position?

    a) That the IPCC predicted temperature rise is correct but it will be good for us.
    b) That the IPCC predicted temperature rise is incorrect.

    JohnZ

    November 7, 2006 at 12:18 pm

  112. “The models assume 1 per cent per annum, more than two and a half times too high. In 2001, the UN used these and other adjustments to predict a 21st-century temperature increase of 1.5 to 6C. Stern suggests up to 10C.”

    From C8tos article. Just what I was saying.
    >>>>>>>>>>
    I think the key thing here is marginal analysis.

    Suppose the whole world had no arid places. And the effect of night and day were averaged out. And the effect of clouds and water vapour were averaged out.

    Then you could do what the modellers appear to be doing.

    You could just add and subtract all these Joules. And most of the feedbacks would then be positive.

    So the CO2 would increase the water vapour, which would increase the CO2 from the ocean, increasing the water vapour more, and the ice would melt reducing the Alido effect, that is the amount of radiation sent out to space and then of course this would mean still more water vapour….. and its an upward spiral to Venus.

    But now start thinking marginally.

    When you have a cloudless dry day just how fast do we lose that energy.

    In winter when I was a kid. You wake up in the morning. And if there had been now wind at night particularly and there was no clouds in the sky the grass would be covered with frost.

    But those were the days that would warm up quickly. And by 11am it could be quite hot.

    Now notice how the fourth power effect of black-body radiation works if we are thinking marginally.

    If there is large arid AND PARTICULARLY HOT places like the Sahara or most of Australia…. These are going to be like holes in the hot air balloon in terms of the extra joules being generated flowing out from sundown on.

    Now imagine how it was 65 million years ago.

    Thats where most of the earth really was steamy.

    What if we had, at that very moment, managed to generate all the industrial CO2 and put it into the earth right then?

    Well hell I don’t know. Its at least PLAUSIBLE that the earth could just keep on getting warmer and warmer with all these positive feedbacks.

    But this just seems crazy-talk so long as we have the Antarctic at sub-zero in Winter and all these other typically dry as dust areas.

    I really do think this is a mammoth failure to do the Menger/Jevons thing and think marginally.

    And the fact of these arid regions means we need to predjudice the lower end predictions.

    Since a great deal of these extra Joules should escape.

    But we have to be careful since a habit has been built up of mistaking a prediction OF WHAT THE EFFECT OF A CHANGE IN THE CO2 WOULD BE……

    With a prediction of how the actual climate will turn out.

    Anything under 1.5 degrees sounds alright as a prediction of the effect of the extra CO2 by the end of the century…..

    Anything under about that would sound alright to me.

    But the effect of the sun oscillating up and down is another thing.

    So the effect of the delta of the CO2 is not to be confused with any soothsaying.

    GMB

    November 7, 2006 at 12:28 pm

  113. “c8to:
    What is your position?
    a) That the IPCC predicted temperature rise is correct but it will be good for us.
    b) That the IPCC predicted temperature rise is incorrect.”

    I’ll tell you what it ought to be. That the IPCC is not even in consideration.

    Since they have a computer simulation that doesn’t backtest, they therefore have no evidence at all.

    And plus they have a history of using outrageously dishonest assumptions.

    Like the assumption of CO2 increasing by 1% compounding when it appears to be only .4%

    GMB

    November 7, 2006 at 12:33 pm

  114. my position is that 0.5C is the best prediction for temperature rise but that the variance is huge, and the confidence is low…

    and that 0.5C will 100% undoubtedly not hurt us at all, and most likey will be a benefit…

    finally, if every human disappeared tomorrow the temperature would change in 100 years irrespective…

    ive said the same thing for about the last two years…

    c8to

    November 7, 2006 at 12:37 pm

  115. plus i agree with GMB that whatever these computer model nuts and the UN et al say is completely irrelevant since they are loons…

    furthermore most scientists are loons, so its only worth listening to the elite, and making up your own mind based on available data…

    it matters not one iota to me that 10,000 scientists, or doctors or hollywood stars or anyone else signs some stupid document…

    i can find you 10,000 scientists that believe in god but it doesn’t make it any less preposterous…

    c8to

    November 7, 2006 at 12:40 pm

  116. John
    Are you getting all this down as Professor Graeme speaks? I hope you are, as I hope we don’t have to repaeat all this stuff on the next AGW thread. Sit the hell down and pay attention.

    JC.

    November 7, 2006 at 2:21 pm

  117. Biblical creationists have been so successful in
    disseminating information that counteracts evolution/millions of years, that as soon as anything arises that remotely looks like it could in some way support evolutionists/millions of years, it almost immediately becomes headline news.

    However, claims such as sea mammals with supposed legs have been made many times before—and AiG has numerous articles refuting these outrageous claims, e.g. Refuting Evolution chapter 5.

    furthermore most scientists are loons

    Interesting

    Are you getting all this down as Professor Graeme speaks?

    Lift your game, JC, your trolling efforts are transparently pathetic.

    JohnZ

    November 7, 2006 at 2:32 pm

  118. JohnZ
    Before you spit ball creationists i suggest you ask yourself why was Larry Summers fired?

    Then take a real good look around and reach for a bucket.

    There isn’t enough information to understand what GB is saying here.

    Do what I do straddle the fence and accept Pascal wager could offer better odds.

    JC.

    November 7, 2006 at 2:45 pm

  119. There isn’t enough information to understand what GB is saying here.

    Darn right.

    JohnZ

    November 7, 2006 at 2:46 pm

  120. More explanation

    I will always forgive creationists because they are (SINCERELY) deluded, but I want to stay on the good side of these dudes in case they’re right. These guys believe the (wrong) stuff but with all their soul.

    But look at the soulless creatures whom had Larry Summers fired because he believed in gender differences and spoke up about it. This comes from the supposedly greatest university on earth???? Give me a brake.

    Now there are three of us saying it Me GB and now Cato. John, leave that mirthless nutball leftist religion and join us in holy matrimony. We are a big tent on the right.

    Now, roll up your long socks, sit down and pay attention, kid. The professor is speaking to you. Listen up.

    JC.

    November 7, 2006 at 2:54 pm

  121. I want to stay on the good side of [creationists] in case they’re right.

    There goes your commitment to science.

    join us in holy matrimony. We are a big tent on the right.

    Sounds more like an organised casual clusterfuck that Christian marriage, Joe. But go ahead, I’m not one to peer into bedrooms (or tents).

    Liam

    November 7, 2006 at 3:12 pm

  122. Laime
    It was a joke, you idiot.

    Just like the time I said i was going to run all beret, turtle neck goofballs off the road.

    You’re such an idiot.

    In any event do you agree or disagree with Summers sacking?

    “I’m not one to peer into bedrooms (or tents).”Exactly stay outside this tent, while I’m taking a piss, doofus.

    JC.

    November 7, 2006 at 3:21 pm

  123. JC,

    As I’ve pointed out before Summers wasn’t sacked he resigned, he continued on for a year after the gender differences incident and it was mostly due to oppositions to other reforms he was trying to put through that made him resigned. Sure his comments made him some enemies, but it didn’t get him sacked.

    Steve Edney

    November 7, 2006 at 3:34 pm

  124. Edney, cut JC some slack – I’m sure he _sincerely_ believes his Summers story.

    And after all, isn’t that what really matters?

    JohnZ

    November 7, 2006 at 3:39 pm

  125. Steve
    It was a huge part of the resignation/firing. In any event even if you are correct he was forced to splurge 50 big ones to buy them off.

    One of he gals almost fainted as a rsult of his speech. She almost fainted!!!

    JC.

    November 7, 2006 at 3:42 pm

  126. JC,

    I’ve no doubt the reaction was over the top and demands at the time he resign uncalled for and that the incident set some people permantly against him.

    However, there was a lot of other stuff going on with the reforms he was trying to push through that were more to do with it than his comments.

    Steve Edney

    November 7, 2006 at 3:54 pm

  127. JC says:

    “Laime
    It was a joke, you idiot.

    Just like the time I said i was going to run all beret, turtle neck goofballs off the road.

    You’re such an idiot.”

    Why do you find it necessary to insult everyone who disagrees with you? Were you brought up to behave like that? You are single-handedly wrecking this site.

    melaleuca

    November 7, 2006 at 4:22 pm

  128. maybe, but there are two graphs. One we know is wrong. the hockey stick. the other one must be a problem for the human centred warming hypothesis.

    Actually, Sinclair, the second graph is a fabrication. It is based off a graph that appeared in the first IPCC report which was meant to give a qualitative view of past climate change. The Telegraph pseudoscientist has made it quantitative by adding a scale. More importantly, it isn’t based off measurements, but rather some scattered observations. When better data was obtained, the worlds scientists moved away from it.

    Ken Miles

    November 7, 2006 at 4:29 pm

  129. This doesn’t make sense because you haven’t specified what period of time you are talking about. Let’s say it is 100 years. I’ve just talked with the climate expert (who used to run these models at MIT and now works for the US weather centre) and he told me that there are huge uncertainties of qualitative nature (mainly to do with parametrisation of clouds and their albedo, but also with atmosphere-oceans interaction).

    There are slightly different definitions of climate sensitivity which have different time frames.

    I’m surprised that your friend appears to unaware of all of the research in this area. While a GCM can be used to measure climate sensitivity, much simpler models (such as energy balance models) can also be used which have the benefit of eliminating virtually all of the parameters.

    With this in mind we may have to redefine who is doing science and who is doing pseudo-science.

    Yeah Boris, you’ve convinced me. If caught between a scientific theory which has a long history of successful predictions, is published in scientific journals and is endorsed by all of the relevant scientific societies; and a peusdoscience doesn’t publish peer reviewed work, who’s adherents will latch on to any point as long as its stupid and which relies on science fiction authors to get its point across – maybe I should change . At the same time, I can re-examine my position on crystal gazers, flat earthers, creationists, abiotic oilers, and all other intellectual equivalents of a climate change deniers.

    Ken Miles

    November 7, 2006 at 4:45 pm

  130. we need a new culture in the west that celebrates achievement and progress…

    No c8to, what you want is a culture which is completely decoupled from the real world. A kind of fantasy land where gases don’t absorb infra-red radiation, where heat doesn’t make water expand, where problems can just be pontificated away.

    But don’t worry, the great thing about modern society is that one can enjoy the benefits that science has brought and decry science all at the same time.

    Ken Miles

    November 7, 2006 at 4:51 pm

  131. that’s intersting, Boris. That’s similar to what another real climate scientist told to me. he runs a blog- James Annan.

    He thinks there is about 3 deg warming at the poles and 5.5 at the equator. Hardly the disaster these ghouls are suggesting.

    Not meaning to rain on your parade, but James Annan is far from a friend of the global warming skeptics. He has been bashing them on usenet for a very long time, sometimes writes articles for Realclimate.

    His work suggests that the climate sensitivity is approx. 3 degrees, in contrast to Boris’ anonymous friend. And also in contrast to Boris’ friend he publishes his work in scientific journals.

    And if you do feel like betting on future warming – he’s the guy who went around challenging climate skeptics to bet over future warming. One good quote:

    I’ve recently been trying to establish consensus on the subject of global temperature rise, by arranging bets with sceptics who claim that the IPCC TAR is overly alarmist. Richard Lindzen was the first I noted who forecast here that over the next 20 years, the climate is as likely to cool as warm, and said he would be prepared to bet on it. However, when challenged to a bet, it turns out that he expects odds of 50:1 in his favour, ie he will only bet on the chances of cooling being at the 2% level or higher, far short of his 50% claim. My quick and dirty estimate above based on the IPCC TAR suggests that they would put the probability at more like 10%, so his offer actually appears to affirm the IPCC position. He also suggested an alternative bet (see here for my comments on this article) based on the amount of warming: >0.4C warmer and I win $5,000,

    Ken Miles

    November 7, 2006 at 5:03 pm

  132. Munn
    When do ever come here and not act outraged about something that doesn’t conform with your view of things?

    I really think you ought to be the last person to talk after what you did on the banking thread. That was possibly the worst act of abuse ever seen on a blog. It all started over the fact that I disagreed with you about Fred Argy. So unless you apologise please don’t ever judge others.

    JC.

    November 7, 2006 at 5:27 pm

  133. Miles

    Stop playing the strawman. Who’s talking about sceptics on this thread? Why the hell are you even bringing them up anyway?

    We’re debating is how useless the stern report is. Annan bags the idiot ( stern), as you can see if you had bothered to look at one of the comments above where I copied and pasted his comments and linked to it.

    Now you’re derailing this thread talking about sceptics. What a suckhole your are.

    Munn.

    Miles is a prefect illustration why abuse comes in handy.
    1. The thread is about Sterns report.
    2. Annan ( a wroking climste scientist) made a comment critical of the report which I copied ansdpasted.

    3 Now Numbnuts is telling us Annan is critical of sceptics.

    4 You then ask me why I go hard on numbskulls like Miles.

    What do you reckon, Steve. is miles a numbnut or isn’t he for doing what he’s doing.

    JC.

    November 7, 2006 at 5:37 pm

  134. Miles is doing a public service, you should listen we he speaks, JC.

    c8to – How about sticking around and actually arguing this thing out to the end? Your modus operandi seems to be show up, take a few pot shots, ignore the refutation of your position, rinse, repeat.

    JohnZ

    November 7, 2006 at 8:48 pm

  135. John
    Stop being a dick.

    Annan criticised Stern for getting his science wrong… using the worst/ low probability scenarios to base his report.

    Miles then comes on and says Annan criticises sceptics.

    Well. ok So what. How is that pertinent to the thread? Listen to miles? Listen to what?

    JC.

    November 7, 2006 at 8:54 pm

  136. You should listen to Cato. His your friend and wants to help you.

    JC.

    November 7, 2006 at 8:55 pm

  137. some people work eight hours a day not in front of a computer so cant spend all day fighting and trawling blogs…

    besides…its not worth arguing it out…the facts are there, my position has been stated…QED…

    c8to

    November 7, 2006 at 10:50 pm

  138. miles, where did you get your bachelor of science? i’ll go head for head with you on 100 randomly selected scientific topics and you’ll get crushed…

    then we’ll do 100 randomly selected maths problems…

    100 randomly selected logic problems…

    100 randomly selected short programming questions…

    actually just pick any discipline you like and we’ll go head to head…

    if you win you can lecture me on high school science which everyone already knows and no-one is disagreeing with…

    yours is the most useless comment for a while…

    c8to

    November 7, 2006 at 10:54 pm

  139. i’ll bet miles or anyone that the poorest fifth of the world’s population will have a higher gdp per capita over the next 20 – 50 years than they do now…

    put up or shut up…it is you who live in the fantasy land where esoteric climate bullshit is more important than human welfare…

    c8to

    November 7, 2006 at 10:57 pm

  140. Cato
    You see what I mean about leftiies.

    You wanna redo that stuff you wrote earlier about lefties getting it all together. They can’t. They’re too far gone.

    Miles is typical of this cult needing mass intervetion with prozac.

    JC.

    November 7, 2006 at 11:00 pm

  141. ha…what a joke!

    just read the complete thread up to my previous comment and no-one has substantively disagreed with any of my points…

    whats up with that modus operandi…why should i stick around to defend myself when no-one even bothers to mount an argument…

    what will happen is some people may argue about something different for a while, then we return to square one, and then i will restate my perfectly consistent and reasonably position and then we will repeat that process all over again…

    theres no point arguing in these situations since people aren’t going to change their position…hopefully though the progress of time will show the climate change alarmists to be wrong, but by then they will have some other pet issue to decry…

    c8to

    November 7, 2006 at 11:03 pm

  142. c8to, you guesstimated 0.5 degrees of warming over the next century.

    Could you tell us how you arrived at this figure?

    JohnZ

    November 7, 2006 at 11:11 pm

  143. Have you got a pen and plenty of paper handy, John? This is now two professors who are are speaking to you. Please listen.

    JC.

    November 7, 2006 at 11:18 pm

  144. Ken Miles:

    1) Without the time frame the prediction you cited is meansingless. Obviously 3 degrees in 10 years is different from 3 degrees in 1000 years.

    2) This aside, your IPCC estimate of 10% probability of cooling corresponds to about 2 degrees RMS error. Which is comparable to warming prediction itself (3 degrees). That’s all my friend was saying.

    3) And stop smearing someone you don’t know. You don’t get a position at MIT if you don’t have a clue. Or you don’t have a good publication record. But I am not going to reveal his name, for it is not my business. Also in the current CLIMATE it may have consequencies.

    c8to: why are you joining the abusers? What makes you think you will beat Ken in science problems?

    Boris

    November 7, 2006 at 11:29 pm

  145. LOL! This is the Fight Club for nerds …

    Jason Soon

    November 7, 2006 at 11:34 pm

  146. i’m willing to risk it, boris…the odds are highly in my favour…id take that bet with a random human being, and even a random PhD science grad…

    im not an abuser…if he wants to imply that i dont understand high school physics and live in a fantasy land thats his problem when he gets burned…

    the 0.5C figure is just the midline continuation of recent trends…but theres a high variability…its just an out of the air guess, which is as good as anyone elses…

    if it gets 5 degrees warmer in 100 years i’m still not worried…

    we’ll be fine…GDP will be higher than now, GDP per capita will be higher than now, and GDP per capita of the poor will be higher than now…that i am sure about…and willing to bet on (not that it makes much difference because long bets usually aren’t worth anything except the accolade)

    c8to

    November 7, 2006 at 11:54 pm

  147. You’re right, jason. They’re such pathetic stoushes it’s almost embarrassing being on the same thread.

    Look at Boris and Miles.
    Both would walk out of a fight without even touching one another to the boos of the audience. They would even shake hands at the end.

    JC.

    November 7, 2006 at 11:54 pm

  148. “The Telegraph pseudoscientist has made it quantitative by adding a scale. ”

    Now why do you say that Miles?

    You can’t back that up can you.

    You’ve got to concentrate on SHOWING US THE SCIENCE for CATASTROPHIC global warming. Not for these little tangential matters.

    GMB

    November 7, 2006 at 11:58 pm

  149. “No c8to, what you want is a culture which is completely decoupled from the real world. ”

    We might call this DOING A QUIGGIN.

    I mean you are not really interested in showing us any evidence for CATASTROPHIC warming. You don’t HAVE any evidence for CATASTROPHIC warming.

    But you want to loudly proclaim that the left is the REALITY-BASED-COMMUNITY.

    But thats ridiculous. The left are full of shit and wrong about everything.

    And all this fantasising about being part of this elite reality-based community rather then just a bunch of ratbags is a distraction from your filibuster against giving us any science which points to CATASTROPHIC warming?

    Show…. us…. the …… science.

    GMB

    November 8, 2006 at 12:03 am

  150. “c8to, you guesstimated 0.5 degrees of warming over the next century.
    Could you tell us how you arrived at this figure?”

    No no. Stop right there.

    We cannot have you derailing things when you, or anybody else has come up with the slightest evidence for CATASTROPHIC global warming.

    Now these distractions have got to stop.

    What is your fucking case.

    You’ve got a million computer simulations. None of them which backtest.

    So just slow down. Stop trying to throw it back on the people who don’t wish to steal off business.

    And SHOW US THE SCIENCE….

    (Third parties. What is this filibuster telling you?…..They really don’t have squat.)

    GMB

    November 8, 2006 at 12:09 am

  151. Cato
    The thing all these anti-reality bozos don’t want to even engage in is the argument about the higher GDP number. They can’t handle the world getting richer. They break into a cold sweat over that.

    4.5% growth rate in World GDP of present $45 tillion in 100 years will be US$ 3670 trillion.

    Australian per cap GDP over the same period with a starting point of $US36,000
    an incomprehensible $2.9 million per year.

    Swing that around where they are stealing 1% of GDP for he same period.

    World GDP Aust per cap
    US$1400 trill 1.1 million.

    1% really does matter, especially if it is a probability estimate based on worst case low prob expectations.

    JC.

    November 8, 2006 at 12:10 am

  152. “c8to – How about sticking around and actually arguing this thing out to the end? Your modus operandi seems to be show up, take a few pot shots, ignore the refutation of your position, rinse, repeat.”

    Man if that aint ever leftist-projection.

    Show us the science.

    Show us the science for CATASTROPHIC global warming.

    Or admit you are wrong.

    GMB

    November 8, 2006 at 12:12 am

  153. Quiggin keeps harping on about how small devoting 1% of GDP is to this dubious claim.

    devoting 1% over 100 years works out close to US$ 2200 trillion. This would have to be the worst trade in the history of the world. EVER!.

    It would make the kids at long term capital look like babes in the woods.

    Losing that sum down the gurgler of an international agreement would be horrendous. this is truly shocking advice.

    JC.

    November 8, 2006 at 12:20 am

  154. Shit JohnZ is an annoying piece of turd.

    I re-read it all in chronological order… And JohnZ basically comes up with nothing at all. And then at comment 117 he creates a mindless diversion which works for awhile.

    And thereafter he is just mindlessly sticking with his story but will not give us anything to back it.

    Notice how he tries to just put everything on the guys who aren’t putting about this concept of catastrophic warming.

    Like this UN crowd has a simulation that doesn’t backtest and therefore doesn’t work and therefore isn’t evidence and if it was up to JohnZ we would have to do this massive side-winder distraction pulling it apart rather then take on the issue head-on.

    Now can any of you assholes come up with some evidence for CATASTROPHIC warming?

    Where is this KILLLER-FACTOID that you have been saving up for so long that your cult will not tell us about?

    Where is your killer-factoid that will turn the tables on the unbelievers?

    I can’t seem to even fucking SHAME it out of you guys.

    GMB

    November 8, 2006 at 12:23 am

  155. GB
    Are you kidding me?

    They’re all trying to barge through the locked door attempting to steal $2,200 trillion on the back of a program that can’t back test. You fucking kidding me?

    JC.

    November 8, 2006 at 12:28 am

  156. Lets look at the myriad ways in which taking a marginal approach seems to suggest that the extra joules from the industrial CO2 will tend to, in the long run, only heat things by a fairly small amount.

    Imagine if you have two areas of 100 square kilometers each.

    And they have a temperature of 20 degrees Celsius. And we are here not assuming any greenhouse gasses.

    Lets say they both radiate 100units of energy per hour out into space in the first hour directly after sunset.

    So the total amount of energy they will radiate out is 200 units.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    But supposing you’ve figured out precisely what this 200 units would be in Joules.

    Then the fellow setting you this task comes along and says…. “No no. We need to do it again. See what we did the first time is average the temperature over both areas. We have to disaggregate this and try again….

    ….Since in reality the first area is 60 degrees celsius… And the second area is minus twenty degrees Celsius…….

    Now you might not know right off the bat what the answer is. But will it be more then 200 units that get radiated out into space?

    Would that be your best guess?

    More or less then 200 units?

    Given that it works to the fourth power of Kelvin I suggest that it surely would be more then 200 units this time.

    Lets see.

    If 20C degrees leads to 100 units in area A then the lesser radiation should be something like……

    ((253/293) to the fourth power)) multiplied by 100 units.

    which works out at less then 56 units.

    But what about the other area? That was the Antarctic. How about Death Valley?

    Death Valley ought to give off something like:

    ((333/293) to the fourth power)) times 100 units.

    This comes to 167 units

    167+56 units equals 223 units.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Ok how about thinking marginally for water vapour. I’m assuming that the CO2 is going to disperse pretty evenly. But the water vapour content of the air is highly variable.

    In area A we have a 100 units of mass of water vapour in the first kilometer above the ground. Same for area B.

    This time both areas are 30 degrees Celsius. And they both lose 100 units of energy from dusk until dawn.

    But now the person paying you to work things out comes back. And he says wait minute. We really had only 10 units of water in the first area and 190 in the second.

    Will more heat get dispersed in total?

    This is a little more difficult to say. But generally having more of the same greenhouse gas within certain ranges is not always going to have a straight additive effect.

    For example with CO2 the extra warming effect is thought to be closer to logarithmic then additive for the relevant range.

    So you multiply by .4% compounding the increase in the extra temperature isn’t thought to be in the first instance ITSELF compounding. Rather a small ADDITION is made of roughly the same amount with each year.

    In my example though the 190 units doesn’t hold the heat 1.9 times as well as the 100 units. Maybe only 1.2 times (lets say) at first. But the thing is that once the temperature starts dropping the air won’t hold all the water vapour. Since cooler air can only hold so much. So that comes into play too.

    And I’ll say also that the 10 units in the first area isn’t enough to stop the temperature from dropping 20 degrees overnight
    >>>>>>>>>>>>

    I guess the point I’m making is if we think marginally and we take into account all these oscillations… (day and night, the seasons, three Malinkovitch oscillations, 2 or three Solar oscillations, different water vapour content of areas, different temperatures of areas)…

    I guess what I’m saying is that taking a marginal analysis rather then an aggregated analysis will likely tell us that a good part of the extra Joules from the industrial CO2 are likely to be funnelled back out into space…

    So long as we retain Antarctica where it is and there are still a few deserts around at least.

    So its very hard to see how this catastrophic global warming can occur until the air over Antarctica in winter gets warm enough to hold some amount of water vapour.

    Or until we have steamy jungle-like conditions over the former deserts of the earth.

    GMB

    November 8, 2006 at 1:16 am

  157. “Yeah Boris, you’ve convinced me. If caught between a scientific theory which has a long history of successful predictions”

    Now what would that be?

    You are so fucking dumb Miles. Your reasoning is circular. And all you are doing is sorting people into believers and heretics.

    GMB

    November 8, 2006 at 1:21 am

  158. They are just computer simulations JC.

    Its very hard to get them to spell out all their assumptions. And so you don’t know what they’ve included.

    No none of the catastrophic ones back-test.

    I mean its cool if someone comes and tells me they’ve got one that does. I’ll stand corrected.

    I swear I cannot shame evidence out of these people for catastrophic warming.

    I’ve tried real hard for awhile now. And the warmers will reference the UN crowd.

    And whether they are Proffessors or not they’ll basically be trying all these distractions on just like you see JohnZ and Miles doing.

    All the same techniques. He’s a real scientist and this guys been discredited and this study said this and that.

    But there so far appears to be nothing there. I mean when you bear in mind the sheer frequency of catastrophic cooling and the rather glaring absence of catastrophic warming for millions of years.

    GMB

    November 8, 2006 at 1:29 am

  159. I just read the Monkton thing.

    Its terrific. Marvellous to be able to put that together.

    GMB

    November 8, 2006 at 2:36 am

  160. Bird – I’m asking questions because your positions are not clear;

    You seem to claim simultaneously that AGW is real and will help stave of glaciations, but at the same time say it’s all a load of leftist rubbish.

    JC admits that AGW is real and the temperature is likely to rise by 3 degrees but doesn’t give a fuck.

    c8to estimates that the temperature will rise by half a degree but hasn’t provided many details and is trying to distract us with a GDP strawman. c8to, what do you think the atmospheric C02 concentration will be in 2100?

    JohnZ

    November 8, 2006 at 7:20 am

  161. global warming is simultaneously real and most of the science reported in the press is leftist rubbish…nothing contradictory about that…

    im not going to provide many details because there are none…im honest and not deceptive…

    i dont really care what the CO2 concentration will be in 2100, nor do i care about how much ice there will be in the artic circle (less is better) – i’ll just say right here now that all i care about (wrt to global warming) is human welfare…

    nough said…

    c8to

    November 8, 2006 at 9:10 am

  162. and no i don’t estimate that the temperature will rise by half a degree…its almost certain to rise by anything but that, or get colder…

    that is the mean base prediction…but its not the mode…we have no idea what the true odds of any of this occuring are…we just don’t have the data…or the theoretical framework to predict temperature in 100 years…

    if you think so you may as well believe in astrology…now who’s being unscientific?

    c8to

    November 8, 2006 at 9:12 am

  163. No. You are fucking lying. My position has been entirely clear the whole time.

    So just stop this fucking idiot lying.

    Now.

    What is your evidence for likely CATASTROPHIC warming.

    Now I’ll answer your questions if you just stop lying.

    What a fuckwit you are to just carry on lying like this.

    GMB

    November 8, 2006 at 9:12 am

  164. my last point is the bottom line in the discussion…

    if you disagree, find me someone who predicted a-priori that antarctica would cool while CO2 and global temperature went up slightly…

    c8to

    November 8, 2006 at 9:13 am

  165. finally, look at the underlying psychology…

    john argues the point because he likes to argue against us, feels that he has science on his side, and its his last hangon belief of a green-left youth…

    the rest of the left like to argue the point because they like to be depressed pessimistic imbeciles, like to hate governments like bush and howard, yet simultaneously think collectivism solves everything and like to feel superior by going to films like “an inconvenient truth” and congratulate themselves on how globally aware they are compared to their fellow man…

    john humphreys is probably a good neutral reference…but i’m sure he doesn’t think we know enough to do anything about global warming…

    c8to

    November 8, 2006 at 9:17 am

  166. “You seem to claim simultaneously that AGW is real and will help stave of glaciations, but at the same time say it’s all a load of leftist rubbish.”

    What a fucking dishonest statement to make. After you have thread after thread of me basically saying the same shit.

    Why don’t you just admit that you have nothing to indicate Catastrophic warming?

    You never admit when you’ve got nothing. It doesn’t matter what the subject is. You’ve never made the provisional retraction which says “Gee. You know I hadn’t really thought about it. You are right. I don’t really have any evidence to suggest this”.

    Instead you just come back here and fucking lie that I’ve been somehow inconsistent about this.

    GMB

    November 8, 2006 at 9:27 am

  167. Look JohnZ.

    We are not going to let you weasal out of it by this burst of dishonesty.

    Where is the evidence for your belief in CATASTROPHIC! warming?

    Surely in all this support you are giving the alarmists you must have stumbled upon some sort of evidence for this stuff.

    Now stop throwing it back on to us. I can answer your questions but the point is its just going to be you dodging and filibustering.

    Now surely you’ve got some evidence somewhere.

    Computer simulations that don’t back-test and have no established success in frontesting aren’t evidence.

    So what is the evidence.

    Fucking hell you prick. Can you just stop dodging for once and either come up with something or admit you haven’t got anything.

    GMB

    November 8, 2006 at 9:35 am

  168. So c8to, your claims are:

    1) That there is not enough evidence for climate change and the huge body of peer-reviewed science is written by “loons”.

    2) Atmospheric CO2 concentration doesn’t matter. Not an entirely accurate characterisation of your position – but it will do until you nominate how many PPM you would feel comfortable with.

    3) Melting of the arctic doesn’t matter, even though it would probably imply that the Greenland and Antarctic icecaps have also melted and caused sea level rise.

    Agree with the above summary?

    As for the psychology, I could just as easily charge you with “zealous convert syndrome” – an attempt to make up for previous malthusian sins 🙂

    JohnZ

    November 8, 2006 at 10:15 am

  169. John

    Please listen to these guys, will you. They’re busy people. Take notes if you have to, but please listen up. You’re learning something here, doofus. You ought to ask Miles to attend the workshop as well. He would learn a lot too.

    JC.

    November 8, 2006 at 10:19 am

  170. No don’t put words in his mouth dickhead.

    Where is your evidence for CATASTROPHIC warming?

    You know I wouldn’t always mind you throwing it back all the time if it wasn’t just a filibuster and in fucking bad faith.

    Now where is your evidence for CATASTROPHIC warming?

    GMB

    November 8, 2006 at 10:26 am

  171. Come on John you prick.

    Where is your evidence for CATASTROPHIC global warming?

    GMB

    November 8, 2006 at 10:29 am

  172. JC: This is what I imagine you as.

    Very excitable but too small to actually participate.

    Bird: Please link to the post where I used the word “catastrophe”.

    JohnZ

    November 8, 2006 at 10:30 am

  173. No no.

    Stop the distractions fuckhead.

    Either come up with the evidence for CATASTROPHIC warming or admit that you have none.

    GMB

    November 8, 2006 at 10:35 am

  174. Third parties ought not conclude that this lack of evidence is some sort of problem with JohnZ or Miles alone.

    For sure these guys have problems. Mindless belief in the alarmist point of view is likely the least of their handicaps.

    But everywhere you go on the net you will find that the alarmist side NEVER gets to the meat of it the way that Monkton so skillfully did and also Art Robinson so skillfully did.

    Instead they will dismiss the opposing, non-alarmist, point of view (the point of view that CO2 has some effect, but that its unlikely to be catastrophic or even all that large).

    Most of the guys who run alarmist blogs filter them ruthlessly. And will only let you dig a little bit before closing you down.

    People pushing the alarmist case will dismiss any contrary study on the basis of the tiniest statement in the study not relevant to the general thrust of the argument.

    Quiggins quiz is the sort of template for this JIVE.

    These bastards want to rip us all off a trillion dollars at least by their own admission on the basis of something they can find no evidence for.

    They are constantly muddying the waters by confusing the issue between whether the warming is human-induced or not…. whereas its obvious in an ice-age that the real issue is whether its harmful or not. Now we can’t yet forecast where the climate will go so all we can do is point out that warming is a priori good because the natural tendency is towards catastrophic cooling.

    This ought to be absolutely fucking obvious to everyone. Even a smart 7 year old ought to be able to grasp this issue of balance of probabilities.

    Part of this relentless silliness is to focus therefore on trying to actually predict temperatures…. even without some estimate of what the sun will do.

    Unless you are positing a theory of what the sun will do you obviously have no hope of predicting the average temperature in 2100.

    If the sun is at its warmest in more then a millenium then, without any more information then that, the solar bias would have to be downwards now wouldn’t it.

    And since we expect there to be more CO2 in the air in 2100 then there is now that gives us a small upward bias.

    But if anyone comes to you and says he’s from the UN and has a peer-reviewed simulation with so much computer power making some sort of Soothsaying predictions of Catastrophe its all going to be crap unless they are sussing out the suns cycles and have some theory about that.

    In any case we don’t live for any one year. We don’t just have to worry about 2100. We have to worry about 2020 for example. When China will be at a very dangerous level of power.

    Some Russian guys who DO try and track these solar variations think that there is strong cooling coming up. Now obviously if thats so having more rather then less CO2 in the atmosphere is a good thing.

    Its a good thing anyway.

    We are in an ice age.

    The bias is towards catastrophic cooling.

    There is no chance NO CHANCE of catastrophic warming anytime soon unless the sun starts acting in some sort of absolutle freakish way.

    In fact its really hard to see how there ever could be such a scenario until the South Pole is clear of its landmass.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Now what exactly is there thats unclear here?

    GMB

    November 8, 2006 at 11:01 am

  175. Bird
    I wonder how C8to feels about you thrashing his mate like that? 🙂

    Jason Soon

    November 8, 2006 at 11:34 am

  176. Jase
    Birdy has a point. He’s spent a lot of time teaching John lots of things but he’s proving to be such an ugrateful bastard. We all have to sympathize with how bridy feels.

    All JohnnyZ has to do is tell Birdy how he arrives at the gloom and doom scenario.

    Cato doesn’t mind seeing JohnnyZ getting a good threashing. I bet he thinks he deserves it.

    JC.

    November 8, 2006 at 11:58 am

  177. Dudes just a hanger-on anyhow.

    Here’s an article about one of the Russians I was saying about. This was linked previously on my blog.

    http://en.rian.ru/russia/20060206/43371626.html

    “Khabibullo Abdusamatov of the Pulkovo Astronomic Observatory said temperatures would begin falling six or seven years from now, when global warming caused by increased solar activity in the 20th century reached its peak, and that the coldest period would occur 15-20 years after a major solar output decline in 2035-2045.”

    Now it might be that the patterns he’s seeing don’t pan out exactly the way he thinks. But if one wants to be a Soothsayer about these things solar variation has to be your starting point.

    I’ll try and see if I can find a proper study by this gentleman.

    GMB

    November 8, 2006 at 12:02 pm

  178. Where’s Johnnyz? Has he done a runner?

    JC.

    November 8, 2006 at 3:53 pm

  179. Nah, waiting for c8to or someone else capable of producing a decent argument.

    There’s no point taking Birdy seriously until he formats his ideas coherently and cites his sources. As for you, Yip! Yip! Yip!

    JohnZ

    November 8, 2006 at 6:15 pm

  180. You are such a fuckwit.

    Now you don’t have any evidence whatsoever that backtests do you?

    No you don’t. You are an idiot.

    But the people that have evidence that backtests find that we are headed for a cooling.

    http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/articles/Archibald.pdf

    Don’t be projecting your complete stupidity and total lack of evidence onto me fuckhead.

    GMB

    November 8, 2006 at 6:20 pm

  181. Johnny ZZZ

    How bout you answer Birdy’s questions to you while you’re waiting?

    JC.

    November 8, 2006 at 6:21 pm

  182. From the abstract:

    To provide a baseline for
    projecting temperature to the projected maximum of solar cycle 25, data from five
    rural, continental US stations with data from 1905 to 2003 was averaged and
    smoothed. The profile indicates that temperatures remain below the average over
    the first half of the twentieth century.

    Let’s take a closer look, shall we:

    data from five rural, continental US stations with data from 1905 to 2003 was averaged

    One more time: five US stations.

    Gawd, Birdy, surely you can do better than this drivel?

    JohnZ

    November 8, 2006 at 6:32 pm

  183. Show me the science JohnZ.

    Instead of just bullshitting all the time give us the science for catastrophic warming.

    We will be going through a cooling phase soon.

    GMB

    November 8, 2006 at 6:33 pm

  184. Gb, JohnyZ’s answer to your question

    JC.

    November 8, 2006 at 6:35 pm

  185. Come on JohnZ show me the science.

    Where is your evidence for catastrophic global warming.

    GMB

    November 8, 2006 at 6:37 pm

  186. Come on you fucking asshole JohnZ.

    Where is your evidence for catastrophic warming?

    GMB

    November 8, 2006 at 6:38 pm

  187. “data from five rural, continental US stations with data from 1905 to 2003 was averaged”

    I don’t want to get sidetracked with this assholes new attempt at distraction. But that graph he’s referring to is backed up by satelite data and is not central to what the argument is.

    The deal is not what happens to five stations in rural America. The deal is putting together the shape of the suns oscillations in past periods and using that to sort out where we think we are going over the next two solar cycles (that is the next 2, 11 year cycles).

    The author cites a number of different predictions on this. And their is some consensus here. The consensus is that the next two cycles will be very cold ones.

    Now there is massive evidence of the correlation between what the sun does and where the climate goes.

    So we can be reasonably confident that we will be getting colder pretty soon.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Your distraction didn’t work shit for brains.

    Now.

    Lets see the evidence for catastrophic warming….

    GO!!!!!!

    GMB

    November 8, 2006 at 6:44 pm

  188. This is why I’d prefer to wait for someone capable of coherent argument.

    The abstract to that paper reveals a ridiculous methodology, and two minutes of googling reveals a crank who collects “hourly temperature data” at his vineyard as if this was a substitute for international teams of scientists and weather stations measuring the temperature all over the world at several atmospheric levels.

    But Gullible Graeme bought it hook line and sinker. Hardly surprising given his approach to facts and logic but you’d think he’d a little less naiive after 40 odd years.

    JohnZ

    November 8, 2006 at 6:49 pm

  189. Whoops, that link should point here.

    Wow, just wow. So debunking the paper you are using to support your argument is a distraction now?

    I think we can safely add climate change to the list of issues one should never discuss with GMB.

    JohnZ

    November 8, 2006 at 6:52 pm

  190. Where is your evidence for catastrophic global warming?

    Hurry up you fucking idiot.

    GMB

    November 8, 2006 at 6:59 pm

  191. Where did I talk about catastrophic global warming?

    Hurry up you fucking idiot.

    JohnZ

    November 8, 2006 at 7:01 pm

  192. Johnny
    Lets cut to the chase and hear this explanation from you. Evidence of this cataclysm please.

    No pussyfooting or giggling anymore. We want to hear it from you.

    Failure to do so will result in extreme prejudice.

    JC.

    November 8, 2006 at 7:04 pm

  193. If you don’t answer this we’re going to revoke your membership to the LDP and slap with a fraud wrap.

    We’re not going to have leftis posing as libertarians and ruinig the party for others. Enough is enough.
    Munn would love to have you join the greens. There is an IQ prerequisite though . You have to be 33 or less to become a member. You’d romp it in Scooter.

    JC.

    November 8, 2006 at 7:10 pm

  194. Third parties.

    This is the methodology holding this alarmist fraud of these commie-witch-hunters up.

    I will look to see projections of the next two solar cycles. And if anyone claims that they are going to be hot, or that we cannot know, or anything that contradicts this finding I will let you know….

    Now notice how fuckhead doesn’t have an argument at all.

    These commies always have a response like this to the science.

    Always.

    Remember how I showed Quiggin ridiculing this superb study by Monkton on the basis of a single sentence that sounded like it might have come from Gavin Menzies.

    These people are filth I tell you. And if you get about on the ether you find they all have the same excuses.

    There is no doubt that this bastard JohnZ didn’t make up these two comebacks himself.

    These will be on Quiggins site or Deltoid or any of these other anti-science-denialists sites that these intellectual frauds like Quiggin and Lambert hang out on.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    I can tell you with absolute certainty that the average temperature tracks very nicely to solar radiation such that you would see the two patterns quite clearly on a graph.

    This in no way implies no role for CO2. Only instead that its influence presumably grows too slowly to see it clearly.

    But I haven’t yet tracked down enough to satisfy myself 100% on the confidence that dudes ought to have on the next two cycles being really cold ones.

    I’m yet to see a dissenting voice though.

    Now CO2 cannot overide this in the time scale we are talking. So we will get colder if the solar cycles get colder and there can be no doubt about that.

    GMB

    November 8, 2006 at 7:10 pm

  195. GB
    I’m asking you as I think you would give a fair answer to this question.

    Where would you placeh JonnyZ’s political leanings?

    Fair answer please.

    JC.

    November 8, 2006 at 7:12 pm

  196. What a fuckwit you are.

    What a complete asshole you are.

    You didn’t DEBUNK anything you fucking liar.

    You provide a link that doesn’t debunk anything. And then you simply pretend that the link is evidence for your side of the argument.

    What a fucking completly worthless peice of shit you are.

    Now we have projections that backtest that the next two solar cycles will be cold ones. So far we don’t have counter-evidence for that.

    To debunk that contention you would have needed couter-evidence to say that no, no no, in fact there is a very good chance that the next cycle will be just as powerful as the last.

    Now you didn’t do that. Instead you provided a link and merely PRETENDED to bring forth some sort of counter-evidence.

    Now why fucking waste our time with that sort of idiocy?

    Where is your evidence for catastrophic global warming?

    GMB

    November 8, 2006 at 7:17 pm

  197. He’s a dumb-leftist.

    I’ve always thought that. I’ve never bought this cuckoo-baby-JIVE that he’s a libertarian seriously.

    GMB

    November 8, 2006 at 7:21 pm

  198. JC is definitely on the cult side of libertarianism. The silly little terrier seems to think that opinions on *physics* are in some way related to opinions on *politics*. Yip Yip Yip.

    Bird – can you cite a serious paper supporting your theory or do you only have pseudoscience from astroturf outfits?

    And I’m still waiting for you to show where I said global warming would be catastrophic.

    JohnZ

    November 8, 2006 at 7:25 pm

  199. Where is your debunking evidence that the next two solar cycles will be as strong as the last 2?

    Where is your evidence for catastrophic global warming.

    GMB

    November 8, 2006 at 7:29 pm

  200. Where is your evidence for catastrophic global warming.

    Still pushing this line O’ Gullible One? There’s no point talking to you, is there?

    I’ll wait for someone capable of reasoned analysis. c8to or Fyodor will do nicely.

    JohnZ

    November 8, 2006 at 7:31 pm

  201. JohnnyZ… Scooter. listen to me.

    Almost every position I have seen you take could be best described as campus left. I just wanna see if Birdy agrees.

    Stop derailing the thread with silly throwaways and answer the question, doofus.

    JC.

    November 8, 2006 at 7:37 pm

  202. Well there you go. I was just talking about Deltoid. And I checked out this commie JohnZ’s other link.

    Now he claimed that I was naieve for an old bugger or something to that effect.

    Now that just shows what a fucking asshole he is. Since you would expect to go to that link and we find that there is all this evidence that the next to solar cycles will be nothing different to the last two.

    Now JohnZ characterised his link as A CRANK WHO TAKES HOURLY TEMPERATURE READINGS FROM HIS VINEYARD..

    Now how being a crank and getting your wine JUST SO are connected I’ll never know. Only in the minds of complete fuckwits like Lambert, Quiggin and JohnZ.

    So you go to that Deltoid link.

    And there is nothing at fucking all in the least bit which debunks a damn thing or shows me or the author to be wrong or naive in any fucking way.

    What a fucking idiot you are you commie filth JohnZ.

    Now where is your evidence against two upcoming colder solar cycles.

    Where is your evidence for catastrophic global warming?

    I want people to consider just how pathetic these leftists are when it comes to what they think amounts to debunking things.

    Its as if they could rumble through your underpants draw, find some y-fronts….. And that would be a debunking of your findings on nuclear physics.

    That is all there is to this fraud. And yet look at all the fucking fuss this past week.

    There simply is nothing to it.

    GMB

    November 8, 2006 at 7:41 pm

  203. The only reason you’re waiting for them is because you think they won’t go as hard on you and let you off the hook.
    Dude this hook is caught in your gills and you won’t be let go that easily.
    Now answer th the friggin question.

    By the way your precious Fyodor is a denier last time I heard although tjat position could have chaged a dozen times since then depending on what site he is one.

    Cato is certainly not in your camp and you had a scrape with him over the issue. He won convincingly by the way.

    Answer the question , scooter.

    JC.

    November 8, 2006 at 7:43 pm

  204. OK we have someone else saying that solar cycle 25 (the one after next) is likely to be the coldest in centuries.

    But we have some divergence on the next cycle.

    Will update when I sort out what the story is with this.

    GMB

    November 8, 2006 at 7:45 pm

  205. GB

    It’s another way to steal money. in this case its US$2,200 trillion over the next 100 years. They even wanna steal money when they’re dead.

    JC.

    November 8, 2006 at 7:46 pm

  206. Arguing with you two is like rubbernecking at an accident – you know you shouldn’t but somehow you just can’t help it.

    Bird: As I’m sure your aware, Archy is not a crank because he makes wine and takes temperature readings, he’s a crank because he seems to think data gathered in this way is meaningful.

    Well, aware Fyodor is a sceptic… which is probably why I mentioned his name, Foxy. Yip! Yip! Yip!

    Bird – Do you or do you not believe there is a strong correlation between temperature and C02?

    JohnZ

    November 8, 2006 at 7:51 pm

  207. Being nice to you is like being nice to a tassie tiger. You know your hand is eventually gonna get ripped off the hinge. But you still try in the interests of kindness.

    Answer the question doofus.

    JC.

    November 8, 2006 at 7:55 pm

  208. What question? The one which asks me to defend a position I never took? Or did I miss something?

    JohnZ

    November 8, 2006 at 7:57 pm

  209. http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/10may_longrange.htm

    Right.

    It seems they can get a leading indicator of about twenty years as to the nature of the next solar cycle by checking out the speed of this conveyer system working in the sun.

    This may be a new discovery so don’t be letting fools like JohnZ make you think the other bloke I quoted was a crank. He was himself quoting earlier work.

    But this other fellow Hathaway appears to have discovered this leading indicator.

    The other blokes appear to have been making their prediction on the basis of past curves. So it seems that they were fitting the past data and it looked like the change was about to come in the very next solar cycle.

    But I now find that they look to have missed it by one. Which isn’t bad doing.

    Now if this conveyer is right the cycle after the next will be incredibly cold.

    Since the conveyer has slowed right down and it implies lower solar radiation then anything in centuries.

    It sounds like this will kick in around the 2020’s.

    But in any case I’ll update if anything contradicts this.

    These alarmist fraudsters have put up such a bullshit wall-of-sound over the idea that the sun was important so that it might be that these sun and star specialists might have been able to do their work with a bit of peace and fucking quiet.

    GMB

    November 8, 2006 at 7:59 pm

  210. Archies not a crank at all.

    Thats just you anti-science-alarmist denialists talking shit.

    Now where is your evidence for catastrophic global warming.

    Or is it fair to say that you have not now nor ever had any evidence whatsoever for catastrophic global warming?

    GMB

    November 8, 2006 at 8:05 pm

  211. The Great Economist reports on a scientific finding relevant to this thread.

    http://blog.mises.org/archives/005864.asp

    And here is the article he’s referencing:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/07/science/earth/07co2.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1163067203-28XQsQRBPPj4WLnDRAQFQQ

    GMB

    November 9, 2006 at 8:30 pm

  212. (via Mankiw) Sir Partha is hardly a right-wing extremist, yet he too has problems with the Stern Report,
    http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2006/11/dasgupta-on-stern-review.html

    Sinclair Davidson

    November 28, 2006 at 7:07 am


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: