Go  |
New |
Find |
Notify |
|
Reply |
|
Admin |
New PM! |
|
quote: IOW he's either a shameless liar or an ignoramus on a subject he sees fit to spout off about.
You will find better on many "sceptic" sites. Why would The Times print this tripe?
Look at it this way, if Bellamy were warning us of the dangers of AGW with the same level of knowledge as he has now, the establishment would be falling over themselves to award him a "nobel peace prize"! |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by realprimate: quote: Originally posted by John_M:
How do people assess the credibility of Bellamy's article? Are there any pieces of it that are doubtful?
My own opinion is it's a whole load of it.
Thanks, but perhaps others will comment, especially M Batchelor or Roger58, who seem enthusiastic about it. |
| |
|
|
quote: Thanks, but perhaps others will comment, especially M Batchelor or Roger58, who seem enthusiastic about it.
M Batchelor and Roger are happy enough that a mainstream "news"paper (adopting Justice Burton's use of quotation marks  ) has printed the article - its content is irrelevant. The contents of the article are what I term a classic "Tory argument" - it's nothing to do with whether it's right-wing or not, it is simply the classic method of argument that many Tory politicians with legal backgrounds use. Basically, you throw out hundreds of arguments that support your case none of which are valid in the hope that just one of them will confuse the judge or jury (or the reader or listener) and thus create a small amount of doubt in the mind. The problem with Tory arguments is that they are very time consuming to rebut. It takes more effort to rebut the arguments than to make them, and when you've finished rebutting them, your opponent merely says "Ah but..." and repeats all the arguments with minor changes to them and adds a few new ones. Let's take this paragraph from the article: quote: A recent survey of Klaus-Martin Schulte, of Kings College Hospital, of all papers on the subject of climate change that were published between 2004 and February of 2007 found that only 7 per cent explicitly endorsed a “so-called consensus” position that man-made carbon dioxide is causing catastrophic global warming.
To rebut this you have to point out that this is a classic strawman argument that misrepresents the "so-called consensus" position. But even if current existence of "catastrophic global warming" were the consensus position there would be many papers that did not explicitly refer to the consensus position either because there is no need to state the obvious (how many geology papers reference plate techtonics, how many astronomy papers reference the big bang/steady state discussion, how many biology papers reference evolution/intelligent design) or because it is irrelevant to the particular area of research. Furthermore, such an argument is in contradiction to the rest of the piece. If climate scientists are "alarmist" how come so few of their papers explicitly refer to "catastrophic global warming". |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by M Batchelor:
Look at it this way, if Bellamy were warning us of the dangers of AGW with the same level of knowledge as he has now, the establishment would be falling over themselves to award him a "nobel peace prize"!
Why do you say that? It makes no sense at all. |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Steve_M: M Batchelor and Roger are happy enough that a mainstream "news"paper (adopting Justice Burton's use of quotation marks ) has printed the article - its content is irrelevant. The contents of the article are what I term a classic "Tory argument" - it's nothing to do with whether it's right-wing or not, it is simply the classic method of argument that many Tory politicians with legal backgrounds use. Basically, you throw out hundreds of arguments that support your case none of which are valid in the hope that just one of them will confuse the judge or jury (or the reader or listener) and thus create a small amount of doubt in the mind. The problem with Tory arguments is that they are very time consuming to rebut. It takes more effort to rebut the arguments than to make them, and when you've finished rebutting them, your opponent merely says "Ah but..." and repeats all the arguments with minor changes to them and adds a few new ones. Let's take this paragraph from the article: quote: A recent survey of Klaus-Martin Schulte, of Kings College Hospital, of all papers on the subject of climate change that were published between 2004 and February of 2007 found that only 7 per cent explicitly endorsed a “so-called consensus” position that man-made carbon dioxide is causing catastrophic global warming.
To rebut this you have to point out that this is a classic strawman argument that misrepresents the "so-called consensus" position. But even if current existence of "catastrophic global warming" were the consensus position there would be many papers that did not explicitly refer to the consensus position either because there is no need to state the obvious (how many geology papers reference plate techtonics, how many astronomy papers reference the big bang/steady state discussion, how many biology papers reference evolution/intelligent design) or because it is irrelevant to the particular area of research. Furthermore, such an argument is in contradiction to the rest of the piece. If climate scientists are "alarmist" how come so few of their papers explicitly refer to "catastrophic global warming".
Contrarians seem quite able to make contradictory claims. This stems from suspending critical thinking and true scepticism in order to pursue their agenda. The Schulte paper was an attempt to refute Naomi Oreskes's prior paper. Oreskes has, in turn responded to Schulte. This is easy to find. |
| |
|
|
Let's strip down and analyse David Bellamy's Times article. PARAGRAPH 1 Personal view on worry - subjective truth PARAGRAPH 2 Temperature and CO2 since 1998 - objective truth PARAGRAPH 3 AGW science contaminated by politics - objective truth Name-calling by AGW supporters - objective truth PARAGRAPH 4 Similar dogma in history - objective truth Unreliability of computer models - objective truth PARAGRAPH 5 Ideal scientific process - objective truth Available data resources - objective truth PARAGRAPH 6 20th century temperature fluctuation - open to interpretation 1970's ice age scare (involving James Hansen) - objective truth PARAGRAPH 7 Ice age to AGW scare - objective truth PARAGRAPH 8 Hockey stick graph as invalid - objective truth IPCC relegating use of the graph - objective truth PARAGRAPH 9 Constantly fluctuating climate - objective truth Warmer climate coincides with UK's industrial revolution - objective truth PARAGRAPH 10 CO2 is rising - objective truth Temperature not increasing in step with CO2 - objective truth PARAGRAPH 11 Influencing factors other than CO2 - objective truth PARAGRAPH 12 Malaria unrelated to temperature - objective truth PARAGRAPH 13 $50 billion spent on propaganda - subjective truth PARAGRAPH 14 AGW consensus survey - objective truth PARAGRAPH 15 Recent events not unusual - objective truth PARAGRAPH 16 Examples of similar historical scares - objective truth PARAGRAPH 17 Questionable conduct of a science body - subjective truth It is difficult to fault what Bellamy says, which is perhaps why AGW supporters resort to making personal attacks on the man instead. |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Roger58: Let's strip down and analyse David Bellamy's Times article. PARAGRAPH 1 Personal view on worry - subjective truth PARAGRAPH 2 Temperature and CO2 since 1998 - objective truth PARAGRAPH 3 AGW science contaminated by politics - objective truth Name-calling by AGW supporters - objective truth PARAGRAPH 4 Similar dogma in history - objective truth Unreliability of computer models - objective truth PARAGRAPH 5 Ideal scientific process - objective truth Available data resources - objective truth PARAGRAPH 6 20th century temperature fluctuation - open to interpretation 1970's ice age scare (involving James Hansen) - objective truth PARAGRAPH 7 Ice age to AGW scare - objective truth PARAGRAPH 8 Hockey stick graph as invalid - objective truth IPCC relegating use of the graph - objective truth PARAGRAPH 9 Constantly fluctuating climate - objective truth Warmer climate coincides with UK's industrial revolution - objective truth PARAGRAPH 10 CO2 is rising - objective truth Temperature not increasing in step with CO2 - objective truth PARAGRAPH 11 Influencing factors other than CO2 - objective truth PARAGRAPH 12 Malaria unrelated to temperature - objective truth PARAGRAPH 13 $50 billion spent on propaganda - subjective truth PARAGRAPH 14 AGW consensus survey - objective truth PARAGRAPH 15 Recent events not unusual - objective truth PARAGRAPH 16 Examples of similar historical scares - objective truth PARAGRAPH 17 Questionable conduct of a science body - subjective truth It is difficult to fault what Bellamy says, which is perhaps why AGW supporters resort to making personal attacks on the man instead.
Now sit on the naughty step. Adults are discussing complicated issues. |
| |
|
|
Paragraph 1
His view
Paragraph 2
False - ocean heat content has continued to rise up to 2003 though it's levelled out after that. Atmospheric trend has continued to rise.
Paragraph 3
Subjective view of scientists. But scientists think he's ill-informed, not a heretic.
Paragraph 4
He's not a heretic, and he doesn't know his facts. He should at least read the IPCC technical summary (a mere 147 pages) which he clearly has not. Plus strawman argument - what does he mean by "imminent catastrophe". How imminent, how catastrophic and for how many people. Would the flooding of 20 million people in Bangladesh due to sea-level rise this century count?
Paragraph 5
Much of the name-calling comes from the "sceptic" side (arch doomster is Bellamy's term, elsewhere we read of alarmist, greeny, lefty, eco-nazi etc.)
Paragraph 6
Wrong. This is an error from the blogosphere. The temperature peak of 1934 was a US peak not a global peak - even most deniers know that.
Paragraph 7
Wrong. The "hockey stick" is not a computer program, has not been discredited and is included, along with other similar reconstructions, in the latest IPCC report (Diagram TS-20 page 55 of the Technical Summary - I'm looking at it right now - The "hockey stick" is the dark purple line).
Paragraph 8
Irrelevant. Yes, the scientists know about climate change cycles. So what!?
Paragraph 9
Irrelevant nonsense about the fabled MWP. I believe grapes are grown in Scotland now.
Paragraph 10
Irrelevant. Yes, scientists know about other climate drivers (the sun, aerosols etc.).
Paragraph 11
I commented on this bizarre paragraph already.
Paragraph 12
Irrelevant. A minor and disputed point about polar bears. But one can't have a sceptical article without having a go at Gore can one!?
Paragraph 13
Interesting. But why would historical information about malaria be relevant when there are other things that can cause it to be spread.
Paragraph 14
Irrelevant. No idea where he gets that figure from. Propaganda doesn't change the essential scientific findings.
Paragraph 15
The survey hasn't even been published yet - if Schulte expects to find the explicit predictions of "catastrophe" in a science abstract he doesn't know anything. Scientists would not tend to do so even if they were implicitly predicting catastrophe. I can cite many studies that implicitly predict catastrophe (floods, droughts, heat-waves, hurricanes...)
Paragraph 16
Again an irrelevant point about past climate change. Plus a misrepresentation of Lovelock.
Paragraph 17
Again an irrelevant point about past climate change. And why shouldn't the Royal Society express concern about a newly discovered phenomenon?
Paragraph 17
The Royal Society already accept that CO2 is not the only driver, but currently it is the main driver of climate.
|
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Steve_M:
Paragraph 9
Irrelevant nonsense about the fabled MWP. I believe grapes are grown in Scotland now.
.
I think one of the largest grapevines in Britain is grown in a vinehouse near Stirling which is quite near Glasgow. I don't think it's warm enough in Scotland for wine grape production outdoors though. But grapes are grown at Ryedale Vineyards near York, North Yorkshire. |
| |
|
|
Can one of the heretics tell me what is the mechanism by which temperature drives up CO2 in the atmosphere by a lag of 800 years, please? (assuming the core sample data are correct, that is)
¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸ ¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸ buzz buzz buzz¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸ ¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
Chronic cherry-picking again Steve_M? By doing this you are only CONFIRMING the underlying points about corruption raised by Bellamy. Note how I listed EVERY point made in Bellamy's article and responded to each one by assigning a subjective/objective truth value. Again (and re-numbered), with your comments considered:
PARAGRAPH 1 "Am I worried..."
Personal view on worry - subjective truth
PARAGRAPH 2 "No, because..."
CRU graph: Since 1998 the global temperature of the planet has not risen - objective truth
PARAGRAPH 3 "Yes, because..."
AGW science contaminated by politics - objective truth
Name-calling and vilification by AGW supporters ("denier" etc) - objective truth
PARAGRAPH 4 "I am happy to be branded..."
Similar dogma in history - objective truth
*"Bangladesh" "imminent catastrophe" your emotional contamination of science.
Unreliability of computer models - objective truth
PARAGRAPH 5 "Name-calling..."
Ideal scientific process - objective truth
Available data resources - objective truth
PARAGRAPH 6 "The last peak..."
20th century temperature fluctuations - false*
*although US temp records are likely to be the most reliable records in the world
1970's ice age scare (involving James Hansen) - objective truth
PARAGRAPH 7 "Then, when temperatures..."
Ice age to AGW scare - objective truth
PARAGRAPH 8 "But the computer model..."
Hockey stick graph as devalued - objective truth
IPCC relegating use of the graph - objective truth
*In their 2001 report, the IPCC deliberately highlighted the hockey stick. It appears five times, each time brightly coloured and often occupying at least half a page. No other graph is so prominent. In 2007 the hockey stick appears once, buried in a graph amongst 12 other measurements.
*In "computer model" Bellamy is probably referring to data fed into a computer which arrives at the hockey-stick shape. It has since been demonstrated that a computer can arrive at the same shape from random series of data.
* In "historical data" Bellamy is probably referring to the hockey stick using data from one tree to represent total global climate for periods prior to the 1850s.
PARAGRAPH 9 "n the Sixties..."
Constantly fluctuating climate - objective truth
Warmer climate coincides with UK's industrial revolution[/b] - objective truth
* "so what?" school boy response.
PARAGRAPH 10 "The Romans..."
Medieval warm period and Little Ice Age - objective truth
*MWP/LIA "Irrelevant nonsense" Not a scientific response - there's plenty of evidence MWP/LIA was global
PARAGRAPH 11 "There is no escaping..."
CO2 is rising - objective truth
Temperature not increasing in step with CO2 - objective truth
PARAGRAPH 12 "How can this..."
Influencing factors other than CO2 - objective truth
*"Irrelevant" Less understood (and possibly non-man-made) factors are "irrelevant" if climate science is contaminated by politics.
PARAGRAPH 13 "Let’s turn to Al Gore..."
AIT / Polar bears scare stories - objective truth
* gross Emotional contamination of science
PARAGRAPH 14 "Why create alarm..."
Malaria unrelated to temperature - objective truth
PARAGRAPH 15 "Despite the $50 billion..."
$50 billion spent on propaganda - objective truth
*Point - large sums of money are being spent as part of the contamination of science with politics.
PARAGRAPH 16 "A recent survey..."
AGW consensus survey - objective truth
*Schulte's survey followed to same parameters as the 1993 to 2003 Oreskes survey which found the majority of peer-reviewed papers then supported the "consensus view" of AGW.
PARAGRAPH 17 "Yes, melting sea..."
Recent events not unusual - objective truth
*"Irrelevant" Less understood (and possibly non-man-made) factors are "irrelevant" if climate science is contaminated by politics.
*Lovelock - gross emotional contamination of science
PARAGRAPH 18 "The year 1816..."
Examples of similar historical weather scares - relevant to the point - objective truth
*"Irrelevant" Less understood (and possibly non-man-made) factors are "irrelevant" if climate science is contaminated by politics.
PARAGRAPH 19 "Perhaps..."
Questionable conduct of a science body - subjective truth
* Royal Society - "currently [CO2] is the main driver of climate". Again, a deliberately misleading use of words... "currently" meaning "as far as we understand" or "as a proven fact today"?
It is difficult to fault what Bellamy says, which is perhaps why AGW supporters resort to making personal attacks on the man instead.
|
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Roger58: Let's strip down and analyse David Bellamy's Times article. PARAGRAPH 14 AGW consensus survey - objective truth It is difficult to fault what Bellamy says, which is perhaps why AGW supporters resort to making personal attacks on the man instead.
Roger58: I'm sorry, but anyone who ascribes any credibility whatsoever to the Schulte study is having serious reality problems: - Schulte is an NHS endocrine surgeon / endocrinologist, whose own written words proved that he knew little about climate science, and was not competent to do the survey he claimed. Google: schulte nhs gives his contact info If you need endocrine surgery, do you consult a climate scientist? Sure, why not, although maybe an astrologer would be even better. - His survey couldn't even get published in the poorly-regarded Energy and Environment. - Schulte wrote a truly amazing (in the Monckton-to-Snowe&Rockefeller "apologize or resign the offices you pollute" style) letter to Naomi Oreskes (and her Chancellor), posting such letters publicly, and having them publicized (via Business Wire). BTW, some of this was done on NHS letterhead ... being American, I don't pay for the NHS... but I suspect some of you do. - Schulte was not only an outright *plagiarist* (obviously, in an effort to inflate his credibility), but he plagiarized (cut-and-paste, from the Word file) from Viscount Monckton, who in fact used provably-wrong and already-discredited material of Benny Peiser's. It certainly looks like Monckton orchestrated this affair. - How smart is it to plagiarize something, and have it published on the same website (SPPI) that hosts the source from which it was copied? Undergraduate cheaters do better than that. All this is quite well-documented. http://scienceblogs.com/strangerfruit/2007/09/ah_anothe..._in_denialism_la.phpWill get you to the most relevant threads in Stranger Fruit and Deltoid. http://www.desmogblog.com/schultes-analysis-not-published-not-going-to-beNotes the article's fate. As far as I know, the article has not been published. Schulte refused to send a copy to Oreskes, who offered to review it, but he did send it to several bloggers. You can try to get it from him. |
| |
|
|
quote:
Thanks, Steve, but I was hoping that the likes of Roger58 or one of the others could provide their explanation for why they believe that temperature preceding CO2 increases was an valid explanation against the general AGW position, since they seem to use it as one... I think the point that Steig makes in the final para about CO2 not having been above 290ppm in the last 650,000 years until the end of the 19th-20th centuries as an important one though.
¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸ ¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸ buzz buzz buzz¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸ ¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸
|
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by John_M:
[snip]
As far as I know, the article has not been published. Schulte refused to send a copy to Oreskes, who offered to review it, but he did send it to several bloggers. You can try to get it from him.
John_M, I fear that you are making a mistake. You assume that you can have a rational discussion with someone who recently posted this message? quote:
Oh dear, oh dear. Still harping on about that evil "oil-industry"? I don't know what they've done to you to upset you so much (envy, perhaps?). Why not just tell us instead why the public should see you as doing anything different to what the nazis were doing before the war? And explain to us why the release of Gore's romantic, sentimental diatribe is any different to the publication of Hitler's Mein Kampf? It's a pity, your determination to bring about a powerfully infantile fantasy-world makes you prepared to sacrifice science in order to achieve it and promote lying over truth if lies promise to bring your daydream any nearer. What a hugely disappointing self-sabotage and waste of your talent... but I suppose you take comfort by knowing you're not alone in what you are doing.
|
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by John_M: Roger58: I'm sorry, but anyone who ascribes any credibility whatsoever to the Schulte study is having serious reality problems: - Schulte is an NHS endocrine surgeon / endocrinologist, whose own written words proved that he knew little about climate science, and was not competent to do the survey he claimed. Google: schulte nhs gives his contact info If you need endocrine surgery, do you consult a climate scientist? Sure, why not, although maybe an astrologer would be even better. - His survey couldn't even get published in the poorly-regarded Energy and Environment. - Schulte wrote a truly amazing (in the Monckton-to-Snowe&Rockefeller "apologize or resign the offices you pollute" style) letter to Naomi Oreskes (and her Chancellor), posting such letters publicly, and having them publicized (via Business Wire). BTW, some of this was done on NHS letterhead ... being American, I don't pay for the NHS... but I suspect some of you do. - Schulte was not only an outright *plagiarist* (obviously, in an effort to inflate his credibility), but he plagiarized (cut-and-paste, from the Word file) from Viscount Monckton, who in fact used provably-wrong and already-discredited material of Benny Peiser's. It certainly looks like Monckton orchestrated this affair. - How smart is it to plagiarize something, and have it published on the same website (SPPI) that hosts the source from which it was copied? Undergraduate cheaters do better than that. All this is quite well-documented. http://scienceblogs.com/strangerfruit/2007/09/ah_anothe..._in_denialism_la.phpWill get you to the most relevant threads in Stranger Fruit and Deltoid. http://www.desmogblog.com/schultes-analysis-not-published-not-going-to-beNotes the article's fate. As far as I know, the article has not been published. Schulte refused to send a copy to Oreskes, who offered to review it, but he did send it to several bloggers. You can try to get it from him.
John_M - a good post. Your contribution is unusable in the context of the discussion - however, it is very usable as a prime example supporting the observation that AGW science is contaminated by emotionalism. Clearly this observation can be recognised as an objective truth when posts such as yours are used as supporting evidence. If you fail to understand this (and looking at your post, I believe you might), the discussion part (PARAGRAPH 16) concerts ONLY the survey and NOT the man who conducted it. Your personal liking or disliking of the man (along with your reasons and a display of emotions he arouses in you) has nothing whatsoever to do with the quality of the survey he has made. The survey, from which he draws results, is: <<BEGIN>> use of the search terms used by Orestes (1993-2003) and use of the same ISI data base, for the period 2004-2007. <<END>> Devotionalism to an exclusive idea belongs in religion and politics. In both it is a form of (or a wish for) madness - the effects of this can be observed from the inappropriate content of your posted response (and your apparent unawareness of this). Devotionalism is an emotional/state-of-mind response to the world and does not belong in science - where it can only be a contaminant. |
| |
|
|
quote: - Schulte is an NHS endocrine surgeon / endocrinologist, whose own written words proved that he knew little about climate science, and was not competent to do the survey he claimed.
Google: schulte nhs gives his contact info
'pose plastic surgeons signing IPCC reports as scientists don't count then John eh!
|
| |
|
|
quote: quote:
- Schulte is an NHS endocrine surgeon / endocrinologist, whose own written words proved that he knew little about climate science, and was not competent to do the survey he claimed.
Google: schulte nhs gives his contact info
'pose plastic surgeons signing IPCC reports as scientists don't count then John eh!
Come to think of it John, the UK governments chief scientific adviser on climate change isn't a climatologist(he doesn't know a great deal about badgers either)
|
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by TrueSceptic: John_M, I fear that you are making a mistake. You assume that you can have a rational discussion with someone who recently posted this message? quote:
Oh dear, oh dear. Still harping on about that evil "oil-industry"? I don't know what they've done to you to upset you so much (envy, perhaps?). Why not just tell us instead why the public should see you as doing anything different to what the nazis were doing before the war? And explain to us why the release of Gore's romantic, sentimental diatribe is any different to the publication of Hitler's Mein Kampf? It's a pity, your determination to bring about a powerfully infantile fantasy-world makes you prepared to sacrifice science in order to achieve it and promote lying over truth if lies promise to bring your daydream any nearer. What a hugely disappointing self-sabotage and waste of your talent... but I suppose you take comfort by knowing you're not alone in what you are doing.
TrueSceptic - you fail to articulate what it is about the above post which leads you to fear rational discussion with its author (me) is a mistake? My post merely makes the following observations? 1) The "oil-industry" attracts the same level and tone of vilification now as the German Jews did pre-war. 2) "Envy" (of success) was the underlying, and un-acknowledgeable, cause of vilification then - as it appears be now. 3) Similarities can be observed in the a wish to close down debate and silence opposition. 4) Gore and Hitler have both aspired to be political leaders and have both released supporting media in which semi-autobigraphic emotional slush is used, in a mix with fabricated terrorising, as an attempt to manipulate an audience into accepting the author's wish to reduce or remove democratic liberty - and be seen as a beneficent 'saviour'. 5) Every person holds (at some point in their life) a strong wish to change the world into one which matches more closely with a fantasised one. In a healthy person, this fantasy belongs in infant life and is gradually rationalised in a way that allows the individual to recognise the external world and begin to make use of it (and develop and exploit their own resources). Failure at this stage leaves an individual going through life dissatisfied and forever hankering after the infantile fantasy. This can be observed when an individual latches onto a 'cause' which 'promises' to deliver an unrealistic world which more closely matches the unresolved fantasy one. This wish (which is common and knows no class boundaries) becomes a huge obstacle and waste of time to an individual's development. Note that my reference is to pre-war Germany and should be considered without the benefit of hindsight of what that period led to. |
| |
|
|
