TheJournal.ie uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Click here to find out more »
Dublin: 11 °C Sunday 26 May, 2013

Column: The science is robust. Human-driven climate change exists.

Scientific discoveries constantly make us revise what we know about the world – so why do some people still stick to dodgy dogma when climate change is a fact, asks John Gibbons.

John Gibbons

DO YOU RECKON GPS is a hoax? How about x-rays? Or satellite communications. Or perhaps the Internet, smartphones or germ theory. Or how about evolution? What these seemingly unrelated themes have in common is that they are just some of the rich fruits of a century and more of astonishing advances in real scientific understanding.

Humanity has achieved more progress, in everything from healthcare and life expectancy to transport and communications, since the mid-19th century than in all of previous recorded history. The reason for this bloom of extraordinary breakthroughs has been the primacy of what’s known as the scientific method.

Until the last century or so, much of what passed for knowledge was in reality little more than old wives’ tales. Dodgy dogma, whether promoted by Popes or princes was, until well into the modern age, more highly valued than knowledge acquired through the meticulous, evidence-based method of measurement, experimentation and systematic enquiry.

What makes the scientific method so uniquely effective in advancing knowledge is its dogged pursuit of provable truths and the ruthlessness with which ideas without evidence are cast aside. Rigorous science is the reason why jet aircraft rarely fall from the sky, and for that matter, why someone can click a button on a computer anywhere in the world and instantly access this article. This isn’t magic, it’s science.

Scientific truths frequently collide with vested interests

Scientific truths frequently collide with vested interests. In the 17th century, Galileo Galilei famously fell foul of the Roman Catholic Inquisition for his heresy in observing that the Earth was not, after all, the centre point of the universe.

Science once again clashed with powerful interests in the 1960s, following the discovery of strong links between cigarette smoking and lung cancer. This triggered a pitched battle between medical science and the tobacco industry.

Adopting what became known as the ‘Tobacco Strategy’, the industry spent millions spreading doubt and disinformation in a bid to discredit medical science and befuddle the public about the risks of smoking. A favourite tactic was recruiting ‘reliable’ researchers to carry out pseudo-science with the sole aim of at creating a phoney ‘debate’ about cigarette safety. The tactic was enormously effective, and it delayed regulation of tobacco products by decades.

During this time, millions died of smoking-related illnesses, unwitting victims of this industry triumph in undermining the medical evidence. “Doubt is our product,” a tobacco executive cheerfully remarked at the time.

While the tobacco wars have largely ended, a far greater conflict between scientific evidence and powerful corporate interests has erupted. The new battleground is carbon dioxide (CO2), the chief by-product of the burning of fossil fuels.

A massive international scientific effort has focused in recent decades on establishing why the Earth is warming at an unprecedented rate. The findings are unambiguous: the heating is driven by the ‘greenhouse effect’ as tens of billions of tonnes of CO2 from human activities accumulate every year in the atmosphere.

The science is extremely robust. For instance, NASA calculated that around two thousand billion tonnes of ice have melted in Greenland and Antarctica in the last five years. That’s the staggering rate of 45 million tonnes of ice melting every hour, during that period.

The message from science is clear: humanity needs to drastically and permanently reduce the amount of CO2 we emit, or face a climate Armageddon this century. These basic facts are perceived as a real threat by the trillion-dollar fossil fuel industries.

Like the tobacco companies before them, Big Energy is now fighting tooth and nail to convince the public not to trust the hard evidence, and to instead place our faith and our future in the word of paid liars and PR shills.

Big Energy is once more resorting to the favourite route of promoting junk science

Big Energy is once more resorting to the favourite route of promoting junk science and phoney controversy, while attacking the integrity of real scientists. Industry-funded neoliberal lobby groups like the Heartland Institute do the dirty work of muddying the water, conning the media and convincing the public that the looming climate catastrophe is just some left-wing alarmism.

The Heartland Institute recently suffered a highly embarrassing leak of internal documents (a disgruntled climate scientist tricked them into emailing him the information). The documents reveal the eye-watering cynicism of these lobby groups and their absolute contempt for science. Apart from funding systematic attacks on science, the Institute is also investing heavily in campaigns to get bogus climate science taught on the public school curriculum in the US.

Nina Fedoroff, president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) said last week she was “scared to death” by the success of the anti-science zealots. “We are sliding back into a dark era,” she warned.

Junk climate science attracts a faithful following from people who feel threatened by the message that there are real, immovable limits in the path of irresistible economic growth. Climate deniers come in many guises. RTÉ’s Pat Kenny for instance, in an interview with Professor Richard Somerville late last year, one of the world’s top climate experts, challenged mainstream science as though it were some vast green conspiracy.

“We are all born mad”, wrote Samuel Beckett, “some remain so”.

John Gibbons is a specialist environmental writer and commentator, tweets @think_or_swim and is online at Thinkorswim.ie.

Read next:

Comments (56 Comments)

  • hate to say it but u said it first. if you doubt it, you are indeed an idiot. the evidence is overwhelming, it is happening. what is perhaps in doubt is the eventual effect of the warming. many of the predictions are based on computer simulations so while they are indicators, they are not definitive answers. for example if scientists predict a 1m rise in sea levels in 5 years and it happens, they are vindicated, but if the levels don’t rise much they are villified. that does not mean that climate change is not happening, it just means it is behaving in a way we have not predicted yet; which is worrying.

    Reply
  • UK Met office only have records for the UK.

    These poor guys are watching the effects of Climate Change – http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-17295862 – and 100,000 of them have to abandon their country to the sea because of it.

    Reply
    • Ciaro 08/03/12 #

      So the planet is not warming in the UK?

      Reply
    • Aoife 08/03/12 #

      Ciaro, the UK is not the planet. The general theory is the average global temperature will rise, but average temperatures in specific locations (particularly for us and the UK) will not. Climate change is far more than a simple, static rise in global temperatures.

      Taken from the Open University’s website: http://www.open.edu/openlearn/society/international-development/environmental-science/taking-the-temperature

      Secondly, while it is true that the Earth’s surface is, overall, warming, the trend is not evenly spread. In the Northern Hemisphere recent warming has been more marked at mid to high latitudes. However, some parts of the North Atlantic have actually cooled as a result of changes in ocean circulation patterns! [...] The reason is twofold: temperature is the trigger for other changes in the climate including: sea level, rainfall, sea ice melting, land ice retreat, extreme events, etc and a whole host of other ‘climate change indicators’; secondly while our knowledge of global mean surface temperature increase is uncertain, it is much better than our historical knowledge of other changes in the other climate indicators.

      Reply
    • Coral islands grow as sea levels rise,unfortunately sea levels appear to be static and may have indeed started to fall again (Houston and Dean 2011).
      The Maldives which have also cried wolf are building new airports…….

      Reply
    • Aoife 08/03/12 #

      Sorry, should have put that last paragraph in quotation marks; it’s from the Open University site.

      Reply
  • While John Gibbons is busy boning up on the hypothetico-deductive method and induction, I thought I’d comment on this comment of Uncle Mort:

    “that the science is corrupt as shown beyond doubt by the release of the second tranche of emails known as CG2”

    I’m convinced that this sort of thing is quite widespread, even in legitimate sciences. Since they remain legitimate and good sciences despite this sort of corruption, I don’t think it can be all that important or damning (although it is still corruption, of course). – Science is a social process in which recognition is a sort of “currency”. In trying to gain recognition, scientists strive to discredit other scientists’ theories, at the same time as protecting their own. In trying to ensure that other scientists don’t get recognition they don’t deserve, scientists can be quite sneaky and secretive, and worse.

    It’s not all that big a deal, it seems to me, as legitimate sciences still manage to deliver the goods in the form of better explanations and more reliable predictions (which is essential for good performance in tests, one of the most important sorts of evidence).

    All the same, I agree with you that the science in question here is corrupt beyond redemption. This is not because the individuals involved are any worse than the rest of us, but because unbeknownst to them, they are following a methodology that was discredited long ago. Essentially, they are following Francis Bacon’s idea to “observe and extrapolate” instead of Galileo and Boyle’s (and many others’) idea to “guess and then test”. The result is something that hardly counts as science at all.

    Reply
  • The world would be a different place if Al Gore hadn’t been robbed in the Presidential election.

    Reply
  • Nobody denies climate change, but some scientists deny that humans are the main culprits. Nowhere in this hypocritically emotional article was that refuted. Fail.

    Reply
    • Turkey by name, turkey by nature. The “some scientists deny”, who are they exactly? How come none of them have published in the peer-reviewed scientific press in the last decade and more? Name one National Science Academy anywhere other than North Korea that does not accept anthropogenic climate change? Oh dear. Not one.
      You’d think these fearless hoax-busting scientists you refer to would be happy to put their “evidence” to be judged by their scientific peers…but no, instead they run it in denialist Murdoch rags like the Wall Street Journal and via hate radio stations. They don’t address the science ‘cos they’ve got nothing. Nothing, that is, but smear, innuendo, doubt-mongering and obfuscation. Just like Big Tobacco, come to think of it. Still, there will always be plenty of turkeys out there prepared to gobble gobble up this garbage!

      Reply
    • Dear John Gibbons,

      Instead of making fun of people’s names, and using crude political caricatures, try saying what you think constitutes “evidence” for a scientific theory. Then we can move out of the gutter of journalism and into the broad sunlit uplands of scientific epistemology.

      Reply
    • “hypothetico-deductive method, unlike the inductivism of climatology. sociology and psychology… methodology and epistemology of science” Wow Jeremy, what an impressive grasp of obscure terminology!

      Evidence. There’s a tough one. Let me drag myself from the gutter towards Jeremy’s broad sunlit uplands for a moment…how about I quote the following statement, agreed and signed by 18 major US scientific societies and organisations, namely: American Association for the Advancement of Science; American Chemical Society; American Geophysical Union; American Institute of Biological Sciences; American Meteorological Society; American Society of Agronomy; American Society of Plant Biologists; American Statistical Association;
      Association of Ecosystem Research Centers; Botanical Society of America; Crop Science Society of America; Ecological Society of America; Natural Science Collections Alliance; Organization of Biological Field Stations;
      Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics; Society of Systematic Biologists; Soil Science Society of America
      University Corporation for Atmospheric Research:

      “Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver. These conclusions are based on multiple independent lines of evidence, and contrary assertions are inconsistent with an objective assessment of the vast body of peer-reviewed science. Moreover, there is strong evidence that ongoing climate change will have broad impacts on society, including the global economy and on the environment. For the United States, climate change impacts include sea level rise for coastal states, greater threats of extreme weather events, and increased risk of regional water scarcity, urban heat waves, western wildfires, and the disturbance of biological systems throughout the country. The severity of climate change impacts is expected to increase substantially in the coming decades”

      Jeremy, feel free to quote your “evidence”. Alas, Wikipedia, the Heartland Foundation, the Cato Institute and related echo chambers for industry-funded climate denial don’t count. Spare us the anecdotes, just let’s stick to the peer-reviewed evidence and the (reputable) organisations prepared to back this.

      Reply
    • John Gibbons,

      You do realize “greenhouse gases” include water vapor, methane 25x, nitros oxide etc etc. A very broad spectrum, and an ocean away from your CO2 statements. Is this distinction lost on you?

      As regards the dramatic predictions of doom, you must also be aware these are constantly being discredited.

      Some balanced thinking please, for man who argues against dogma, some would say you are hypocritical

      Reply
    • You “evidently” have given little or no thought to scientific methodology or to the interesting and deep reasons we might have to believe or doubt that a scientific theory is true.

      If the best you can do is appeal to authority, and make crude hints that your opponents are politically motivated, you’re not up to this sort of discussion. I’m not impressed.

      Reply
  • what a pile.. the day you reject doubt/debate from science is the day you reject science, this article is overloaded, overemotive opinion. To be pedantic, but logical for a minute, name just one entity on this planet that doesn’t effect the climate & vice a versa..?

    Reply
  • Ciaro 08/03/12 #

    Read the article again you morons. It’s not scientific, it’s emotive. If you want to debate this important issue don’t use words such as Armageddon, tabloid journalism.

    Reply
    • Because, of course, Armageddon and tabloid journalism don’t exist either do they … just like a heliocentric solar system doesn’t, or a billions of year sold universe, or evolution through natural selection, or ………….

      Reply
    • And what is the word ‘robust’ supposed to mean? If it means “worthy of belief”, then he’s going to have to roll up his sleeves and get involved in a discussion of what makes a scientific theory or model belief-worthy, reliable, trustworthy, likely to be accurate, etc.

      That would be a discussion within scientific epistemology. It would discuss scientific methodology, the nature of evidence, the role of observation, the reliability of induction, the necessity of testing, and so on.

      What we get instead is yah-boo politics, quasi-religious apocalypticism and cheap authoritarianism.

      Reply
    • You’re calling people Morons ? That’s the pot calling the kettle a void of colour if ever I read it…

      Reply
  • When the owners of the oil corporations have invested enough money in renewable energy to be able to guarantee control of that industry in the future, then we will see a major change in efforts to combat climate change. When there is any chance of their profits being put at risk, the silly debates against it will continue. “Now is not the right time…”, “It would cost too much money…”, “The world economy is too fragile as it is…”…As if all that is going to matter when the temperature of the earth is five degrees warmer than average.

    Reply
  • Terrible article.

    It is a great defense of scientific method and human advance, also highlights previous clashes.

    I can agree that climate change is occurring an has been occurring since the beginning of time. We have been warming constantly since the last ice age. And if the cycle continues once again we will at some stage start to cool.

    The main problem with the article is the unambiguous link to CO2. Yes it is a greenhouse gas, but a very weak one compared to water vapor and methane.

    Also the causal link between Co2 rising and temperature change has not been proven, it is the best current theory we have and I agree it contributes

    However the scientific method you so strongly advocated had not proven its effects through experiment. For example there should be atmospheric heating due to CO2 at a predicted height….why has testing failed to find it?

    It following strict scientific method the evidence would indicate CO2 is not the most important factor driving climate change. The question should be what is ??

    Reply
    • Oh dear. Another armchair climate science expert! You should write up your findings without delay and submit them to one of the major scientific journals, for review, scrutiny, comment, publication and international recognition!

      It’s not every day that a non-expert overthrows decades of work by thousands of actual scientific experts. Your Nobel Prize awaits once you’ve established scientifically how everything the international scientific community has established by direct measurement, observation, modeling and analysis is, well, wrong, and you are uniquely right. That may be how student debating societies work, but not science.

      Reply
    • I’m never claimed to be an expert, I am expressing my informed opinion. I have a healthy interest in this area and am a trained scientist very familiar with the scientific method.

      It seems to me you are playing the man and not the ball, which does you no favors.

      Climate change is a reality, the clinate has never been stable or remained the same. So change is to be expected, it is clearly changing too fast too just natural, so we need to find the factors contributing. CO2 has always been a simplistic model, reflected by all scientists as the only and primary cause.

      Yes the theory had consensis for a while, but now the evidence is not supporting the CO2 primary driver theory. (look up the experiements)

      There exists already debate within the scientific world on this subject, I am not raising anything that a expert would deny is true. Are you challenging the facts in my post or my right to tell them?

      I challenged your view and illustrated why with logical reasoning and the supporting facts.

      Are you aware that methane is 25x more potent as a greenhouse gas, and has risin dramatically faster than CO2. Fact.

      Reply
    • P.S. this isn’t denying human contribution to climate change, just the simplistic reduction to CO2. There are many other factors, and they can all be found in your peer reviewed journals, the science is there.

      Could there be a vested interest in making the culprit CO2?

      Reply
    • Trained scientist ? Really – what’s your arena ? Because you’re ignoring the scientific consensus here. CO2 levels have direct correlation with increasing global temp.

      Maybe NASA are just making this up ?

      http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

      Or maybe the NOAA are involved in a secret conspiracy ?

      http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010/20100728_stateoftheclimate.html

      Oh wait… maybe it’s not CO2? Yup it is..

      http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.htm

      Or perhaps…

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

      ..which has all citations to the relevant academic papers in the article. There is no denying anthropogenic global warming any more than there is denying HIV causes AIDS

      Also;

      “However the scientific method you so strongly advocated had not proven its effects through experiment. For example there should be atmospheric heating due to CO2 at a predicted height….why has testing failed to find it?”

      You are utterly talking rubbish on this one – a quite look at computational models would tell you it has been found by everyone.

      Bottom line – anyone denying climate change and its causes is ignoring the science.

      Reply
    • @DavidRobertGrimes

      Thanks for your reply, but it looks like you are arguing against a position i did not take.

      I would firstly refer you to my posts, where if you read them it is absolutely clear i do not deny climate change.
      It is happening and there is a contribution by human activity, or anthropogenic if you prefer (i find it a little pretentious).

      All you references confirm this, climate change has been measured and is real. I agree, and am aware of them, and the all refer to greenhouse gases (including CO2) NOT just CO2 itself.

      My questions related to the contribution of CO2, a greenhouse gas, but very weak compared to methane (25x more potent), water vapor (immeasurably more potent), nitrous oxide (298 more potent) etc, all of which have have increased.

      You say “CO2 levels have direct correlation with increasing global temp.” that is true, I agree with you.
      However correlation does not mean causation, this is a fundamental scientific concept, which surely you can understand. With a correlation it could be temperature driving increases in CO2 or the other way around or a third factor driving both.

      You say “You are utterly talking rubbish on this one – a quite look at computational models would tell you it has been found by everyone.”

      The computational models predict it, and it is missing in reality and has been tested by experiment (remember what that is? the fundamental scientific method?)
      The experiment is to prove or disprove the scientific theory that CO2 is a primary driver of warming, as predicted by the computational models.

      The computer models predict significant warming in the troposphere over the tropics, this warming is directly caused by CO2. This is predicted in the IPCC reports over and over, and is the most important experiment for the CO2 driven warming theory. Radiosondes have not found any temperature increase, using direct air measurements.

      The above are facts.

      I agree that anyone denying climate change is ignoring the science. However anyone blindly blaming CO2 in isolation is also ignoring the science, and worse……shows a complete lack of independent thought and analysis.

      Reply
  • Ciaro 08/03/12 #

    In Ireland 20% of our greenhouse gases are produced by cattle yet the government chooses to tax fuel used to heat our homes!
    While the climate may be changing, we are being fucked over by taxes.

    Reply
  • Ciaro 08/03/12 #

    So if you doubt global warming you’re an idiot? This article is a total nonsense and is really poor journalism.

    UK met office records show that the planet temperature has remained the same since 1997, why?

    Reply
    • This is true, and the moon landings never happened either, why this beermat I have here completely exposes it as a hoax.

      Reply
    • Also, why would you trust the UK met office records, but not the rest of the scientific community?

      Reply
    • @ Ciaro. Climate change is change in the global climate. Global warming, which is something you are referring to in your post, is only one element of climate change. Rather than looking at one element of climate change from one local organisation detailing a small snippet of time, why not look at the actual evidence.

      Reply
    • The Fact that people are still debating this simply demonstrates we are F****d. If you have any inckling of a scientific background you cannot doubt it.
      Put bacteria in a closed system, they grow until they use up their resources and then die. Thats the way we are going without a change
      Put it this way, if its wrong and we act , we all benefit from a better living environment,
      If its right and we act , ….eh… we all benefit from a better living environment

      Whats to debate?

      Reply
    • Ollie Pinion wrote:

      “Put bacteria in a closed system, they grow until they use up their resources and then die. Thats the way we are going without a change”

      No, that’s the way we a ARE, and always have been, and that’s the way all life always has been, since life first emerged on Earth. The population is always at a “ceiling” set by the food supply. The human population rose in recent centuries because of cheap food, mostly the result of cheaper energy. It did not rise because “it’s been a long time since Adam and Eve first started reproducing”!

      Global climate change — assuming it is actually happening — is absolutely normal, because change is normal. It will probably mean more plant life, because plants thrive in warm co
      nditions, with more CO2, and greater humidity. More biomass is on the whole good for life in general.

      Climate “science” is religious hysteria, inspired by ignorance of evolution.

      Reply
    • The only reason why we do most things is for personal gain. Rich businesspeople won’t change their industrial processes unless it presents some financial gain. sustainability costs money but yields no extra profits. People are very good at rationalizing their selfishness. That is why its up to us to vote with our wallets by only buying sustainable products and push for legislation forbidding pollution.

      Reply
    • Pat Ryan 08/03/12 #

      @Jeremy Bowman

      I’m confused as to why you think Climatology has anything to do with evolution?

      Climatology is an old branch of physics (and occasionally chemistry).

      Evolution is the unifying theory of modern biology.

      Either you don’t understand what you’re saying half as well as you think you do (Amusing as I find your argument to be. Allowing humanity to overpopulate and die so it can be replaced by a new organism more adapted to a future environment that is toxic to us is a novel argument, even if it is unintentional.) or you are intentionally trying to conflate them in the minds of an observer so that people who think one of the theories is rubbish become more likely to believe both theories are rubbish.

      Reply
    • @Pat Ryan

      “I’m confused as to why you think Climatology has anything to do with evolution?”

      It shouldn’t have much to do with it – although all of the legitimate sciences “mesh” to some extent (you can read more about my opinion here: – http://www.jeremybowman.com/wordpress/?p=664 — but it’s not compulsory :P)

      My point is that talk of the coming “apocalypse” is talk that impinges on how life works, how the oceans work, how future human technology works. These are areas lie outside climatology – they involve biology, geology, even science fiction. I think ordinary readers tend to be unaware of that, because they tend to treat climatologists like they used to treat priests.

      Climatology is an old branch of physics (and occasionally chemistry).

      At best, it’s a new branch of physics. But its methodology is quite unlike physics. What you’ve just said above is a bit like saying “homeopathy is a old branch of physics”.

      “Evolution is the unifying theory of modern biology.”

      Yes, which is good, but mixed-up versions of evolutionary theory are a sort of “gold” that pseudo-sciences routinely grasp at in passing.

      “Allowing humanity to overpopulate and die so it can be replaced by a new organism more adapted to a future environment that is toxic to us”

      I haven’t a clue where you got this from – not me!

      Reply
  • The ice caps on Mars are melting as well, no doubt due to man made global warming there too…

    Reply
    • Actually it has not been proven that the ice caps on Mars are melting. They are certainly shrinking, but this is more than likely due to sublimation, rather than melting – a process which has been occurring on Mars for the last 3.5 billion years and is, contrary to popular myth, associated with that planet’s magnetic field and solar radiation causing the separation of hydrogen and oxygen molecules which are then swept off the planet by solar winds. This phenomenon is well documented even here on Earth, but unlike Mars, we are mostly protected from this by the Van Allen belt which is made possible only by our magnetic field.

      Regarding the theory that Mars is warming – well we only have a few decades of scant statistics regarding Mars’ climate to base any theory of global warming, and even then, we are not sure. Mars has a year roughly twice that of Earth’s, and hence a summer twice as long as Earth’s. We have a fairly good, but far from perfect, understanding of how climate works on a planet with a 365 day year, situated 1AU from its parent G-type main-sequence star, with an albedo of 0.367, with a magnetic field protective layer, with an atmosphere at MSL of 101 kPa comprising 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen, and 1% other elements, with 71% of the surface covered in water and over a century of accurate statistics with easy (relatively speaking) access to information on the composition of this planet’s climate and atmospherical information from the past several thousand years. Compare that to Mars which has an orbital period of 687 days, is situated 1.52AU from its parent star, with an albedo of 0.170, a negligible magnetic field, an atmosphere of 0.6 kPa comprising 95% CO2, 3% nitrogen, 1.6% argon, and 0.4% trace elements, with 0% of the surface covered in water (excluding the ice caps which, unlike Earth, are actually a composition of CO2 and H2O), only a few decades of scant statistics with little or no access to the planet’s climate and atmospheric history.

      Secondly, if the climate of Mars is warming, and it is only an “if”, it can not be anything to do with the Sun. There is some very sketchy evidence of warming on Mars, Pluto and Triton, but there is no evidence of climate warming on any other celestial body in the solar system. If current global warming was attributable to solar activity one would expect to find similar warming processes occurring on other celestial bodies withing the solar system – the simple fact of the matter is that there are no such processes which can definitively be said to be occurring except on Earth.

      Finally, Earth does go through cycles of warming and cooling. No scientist, even among those from advocating climate change, would argue with that. What’s worrying is the pace at which the climate is changing. It is changing at such a dramatic pace that the only other events in recorded history yet discovered which coincided with rapid climate change took placec in the immediate aftermath of massive meteorite impact events, mass volcanicity (such as those which occurred leading to the formation of the Siberian Traps), etc. Even the most recent Ice Ages occurred over a long period period (typically over periods of thousands of years) and coincided with temperature drops of only 4°C (on average). In contrast, we have seen a temperature increase of 0.74 °C since 1906. That is the fastest global temperature change in the Earth’s climate for over 60 million years.

      Reply
  • PS the rise in temperature forecast by the AGW alarmists is measured in 100/ths of a degree and if you plot the temperatures from 1850 to now on a graph using WHOLE degrees as most reasonable people would be familiar with then you get flat line. There is big money involved in this warming scam and a lot of effort is being put into trying to scare and control us.

    Reply
    • Pat Ryan 08/03/12 #

      So your argument is ‘if you purposefully introduce large rounding errors into your data set it makes the data look bad’. How utterly foolish. Of course introducing mistakes into data makes it look bad. It makes it wrong. And why would reasonable people only use whole degrees? I regularly use partial degrees, does this make me unreasonable? I suppose it does to you, but I guess numbers and math are not really your thing.

      I’m sure your bankers love you when they’re skimming extra basis points off your investments or onto your mortgage “Don’t worry Uncle Mort it still rounds out to the same percentage value”.

      Reply
  • Chairman of a task force on scientific ethics and integrity of the American Geophysical Union. What a joke. More than just a “disgruntled climate scientist” no matter how you look at it. And in my opinion the attempt to minimise the importance of Mr Gleick in the climate-change movement undermines the credibility of the article.

    Reply
  • So what? Never understood why people care about global warming. It won’t affect us in our lifetime and we can do nothing to stop or reverse it. We can only slow it down and I’m not going to go to huge lengths to do so.

    Reply
  • so if you question cliamte change you are responsable fot the inquisition, dont believe in evelution and are tagged a denier. whith all its nazi connotations. not a very ration or scientific arguement is it more like the kind of BS and school bully tatic that gives the subject a bad name

    Reply
  • The usual appeal to authority, despised by genuine scientists, who welcome controversy and debate.

    Pat Kenny has a degree in chemical engineering — a genuine science which uses the hypothetico-deductive method, unlike the inductivism of climatology. sociology and psychology. Do any of the latter count as real sciences? — Not to chemists, biologists, physicists, engineers, etc.

    Only someone who knows nothing of the methodology and epistemology of science would present these half-baked humanities pretend “sciences” as characteristic of science in general.

    Reply
  • My earlier comment seems to be causing some hiccups. It contains nothing that is not already in the public domain yet it has come and gone a few times ,lets try again

    First point is that the science is corrupt as shown beyond doubt by the release of the second tranche of emails known as CG2 .Note there were 5 whitewash inquiries into Climategate ,the first bunch of emails released by the whistle-blower, there have been no inquires into CG2. Professors Mann and Jones etc have admitted that the mails are genuine. The emails show corruption of the scientific process examples being attempts by Jones to have an academic in New Zealand fired for expressing sceptical views,Jones having cronies at the BBC pull programs that did not push his agenda plus the whole ‘team’ as Mann,Jones,Hansen and others are known attempting to dictate which research was published by certain named Journals under threat of their being boycotted.
    Second point is that ‘research ‘into warming has received some 3,500 times more funding than has the sceptical side. http://joannenova.com.au/2011/11/big-oil-money-fund-warmists-confusing-attack-machine/

    NASA/GISS massage the data on climate under the hand of James Hansen as can be seen in these links regarding our very own Dublin Airport. http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=621039690003&data_set=0&num_neighbors=1 http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=621039690003&data_set=2&num_neighbors=1
    http://i54.tinypic.com/fxsf39.gif

    The recent episode of Gleick forging documents from the Heartland Inst. shows more corruption in the AGW camp.

    Reply
    • Pat Ryan 08/03/12 #

      Why are all the amounts being “added” to raw data negative?

      Because that graph of yours shows that the homogenization mechanism is getting closer and closer to the actual value (represented by 0 on the graph according to your note) showing that the homogenization is getting more and more accurate. Not that the data is being massaged.

      Makes a certain amount of sense to me, as the large negative adjustments are likely due to adjusting day time temperatures (due to lack of night time satellite surveillance in the 1880’s, which also could explain why whole years went by in which the temperatures apparently didn’t change in dublin) whereas now we have more accurate and constant monitoring.

      You’ve made some serious mistakes somewhere, and it looks like the mistake was failing to interpret your own data.

      Which btw, is absolutely hilarious!

      Reply
  • The reference to the Heartland Institute and the “disgruntled climate scientist” sounds interesting. Was the person concerned a person of standing in the climate science sector? Did he just obtain data by false pretences or did he attempt to “create” false documents? Why is the “Gleickgate” scandal being airbrushed out of the argument by the supposedly intrepid Mr Gibbons?

    Reply
    • That’s a good point. Personally, I think it’s perfectly acceptable to get information by subterfuge (for example, by pretending to be someone else). The hackers who got the UEA emails were acting responsibly, as was Gleick in getting Heartland Institute emails. But it is completely unacceptable and illegitimate to fake documents. It is interesting that Gleick seems to have been disowned by his former friends for the former, but not the latter.

      Did Gleick fake documents, or didn’t he? This is an important question.

      Reply
  • Apologies for duplicate post, disqus seems to be up to its tricks again.

    Reply

Add New Comment