Friday, February 28, 2014

Gosh, who do I believe?

Who do I believe:

a.  the 2011 "stagflation" flag waving economist who regularly shills for donations to his* prominent anti climate science "think tank" (even though its financials indicate it has a retained surplus of $1.5 million) who rubbishes climate scientists and gets a thrill every time he reads something about the "pause" in global average temperatures.  (The IPA's latest brilliant idea is for numbskulls to donate $400 to get their name on the back of a book about climate change with contributions by the sharpest scientific minds in the world:  Andrew Bolt, Delingpole, Monckton, Roskam, Watts, etc.   As someone says in comments "Can’t see much point in this. Looks too much like preaching to the choir."   Is the IPA finally reaching the limits of separating fools from their money?  The true scandal about this is that donations are tax deductible.)

You see, what really annoys me about Davidson is his disingenuousness - he is running the line now that people are only being reasonable in being reluctant to take economic action like carbons taxes or ETS's when they see that scientists are saying that there is a "pause" the causes of which are still being investigated.

He completely fails to mention in posts like that that he personally is actively involved in promoting in the public the complete disbelief  that climate change is a real and serious problem that deserves a politic response now.    And the people he helps promotes to the public (see his shilling of the IPA book) are not scientifically credible at all.  They aren't even scientists in most cases.

He is essentially, involved a vain project of arguing that because he thinks he's being reasonable, despite not believing a clear scientific consensus, everyone else who agrees with him is also being reasonable.

He claims "success" because he (and his buddies) manage to convince some fools to join him in his ideologically motivated foolishness.   That just intensifies the degree of foolishness on display.

or:

b.       Actual scientists:
US and British scientific academies said Wednesday there was a clear consensus that climate change is real and will have serious disruptive effects on the planet.
The US National Academy of Sciences and Britain's Royal Society said they were making the joint declaration in hopes of moving the public debate forward—to the question of how the world responds, instead of whether climate change is happening.
"It is now more certain than ever, based on many lines of evidence, that humans are changing the Earth's climate," the joint publication said.
"The atmosphere and oceans have warmed, accompanied by sea-level rise, a strong decline in Arctic sea ice, and other climate-related changes."
The academies cautioned that science inherently cannot settle every detail and that debate remained on some specifics, including how much climate change is linked to extreme weather events.
But it said scientists were "very confident" that the world will warm further in the next century and that a rise by just a few degrees Celsius would have "serious impacts" that are expected to include threats to coasts and food production.
I also note that scientists and others are making an increasingly clear case that "the pause" is in fact rather illusory.

Have a look at David Appell's post in which he takes all the graphs from Tamino's recent post looking at how you can graph the recent temperature record.

Then note that the number of extremely hot days over land is still on the way up, regardless of what the global average has been doing for the last 10 to 20 years:
Extremely hot temperatures over land have dramatically and unequivocally increased in number and area despite claims that the rise in global average temperatures has slowed over the past 10 to 20 years.
Scientists from the ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science and international colleagues made the finding when they focused their research on the rise of temperatures at the extreme end of the spectrum where impacts are felt the most.
"It quickly became clear, the so-called "hiatus" in global average temperatures did not stop the rise in the number, intensity and area of extremely hot days" said one of the paper's authors Dr Lisa Alexander.
"Our research has found a steep upward tendency in the temperatures and number of extremely hot days over land and the area they impact, despite the complete absence of a strong El NiƱo since 1998."
The slow down in the global average surface rise seems to be increasingly well understood in terms of ocean winds and their effect on heat transfer in the oceans (which are warming) and the under-appreciation of the effects of volcanoes.  Neither of which can anyone really expect to be permanent features of the next century.

I just hope for the next El Nino to come sooner rather than later, for the sake of getting denialists further scientifically marginalised than they already are.

*  in the sense that he is a "senior fellow" of it - not that he personally runs or controls it

13 comments:

nottrampis said...

Tamino had a really good article on this and completely busts apart the Davidson line which is goebbelsing.

I remember telling Him on Catallaxy to man up and simply say he believes there has been a structural break in rising world temperatures. He DELETED the comment and said I could only comment as Homer Paxton not not trampis.

Davidson couldn't lie straight in bed!

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
nottrampis said...

really what has he said that was 'left wing'?

Anonymous said...

a) campaigning against Davidson, (b)attacking the IPA, (c) assuming that "climate change is real" is the same as "we should take political action now".

nottrampis said...

what an idiot you are. Davidson is a fraud as is the IPA.
I have shown numerous examples of that.He thought the tightest budget in living memory was expansionary.

As for climate change it is real and as I stated previously Tamino demolishes the 'pause' theme.

another demolishes the stats argument
' He talks about a “pause” in global temperature rise over the last 15 years. Do a simple search on “up the down staircase” and you will see that any increase comes in fits and starts. When temperatures have be rising for 100 year looking at any 15 year period is ill advised. That is Statistics 101.'

so in effect Steve hasn't shown himself in the slightest to be leftwing. simply not stupid
like some people!

Steve said...

Homer, in light of sensitivities over the use of the word "fraud" with Michael Mann, I prefer not to use the term here, even for RMIT economists!




Steve said...

Anonymous, your comment was deleted for swearing. Not allowed at this blog.

People can get the gist of it from the following comments anyway (that I've "outted" myself as a left wing activist.)

nottrampis said...

okay but I have shown numerous instances of him being xxxxxx.

Fancy thinking believing in climate change is left wing!

Anonymous said...

So you're going to leave the "Davidson is a fraud" comment up?

Steve said...

My guess is that SD would view the use of the word in the same way that National Review considers it applies to Michael Mann:

"In common polemical usage, “fraudulent” doesn’t mean honest-to-goodness criminal fraud. It means intellectually bogus and wrong."

So, if you (anon) are taking the side of Steyn and NR, which I am sure you are, I am sure you can reassure SD as to the meaning of the word in this context.

Anonymous said...

So you're relying on the fact that Davidson is broad minded to excuse defaming him? A bit hypocritical on your part don't you think?

nottrampis said...

really as I showed in my quote Davidson either does not understand very basic statistics or is being loose with the truth.

Anonymous said...

How's skanky ho going?