Posted by: graemebird | February 28, 2011

My Enormous Contributions To The Field Of Climate-Science

Not long ago I felt provoked into a burst of self-promotion. Someone on the climate rationalist side of the argument running me down, in an oh so friendly way, in front of someone from the fraud side of the debate:

I was the first person to suggest that the fact that water was more viscous when cold helped explain the step-fashion nature of cooling and warming on a multi-decadal basis. I was the first person I can find who hypothesized a direct relationship between the resistance-to-circulation of the currents, and the equilibrium heat content of the globe ((((holding energy input constant)))) via Stefan-Boltzmanns law.

Others have mentioned this but not before me as far as I know. And I plugged this concept all over the place

In philosophy I was the first person I know of to articulate that only convergent evidence gave us rightful certitude and not deductive exactitude or anything else. I know that everyone with any commonsense already acts like they know this but its a serious philosophical point.

I was the first person to make the heater-in-the basement versus the heater-in-the attic analogy to show that not all DELTA-JOULES are equal. And that therefore the INCOMING Joules that the CO2 was absorbing or scattering (ie the joules that extra-CO2 negated from the lower atmosphere) may well be more important than the theoretical extra joules through back-radiation.

I was the first person to bring marginalist thinking to the problem and showed why we have to assume that the effect of the CO2 will be less than if we were in an aggregated and averaged environment as in the models.



  1. Fucking hell Soon. I’m fine with the Randi debunking of that part of hemeopathy that is to do with diluting active ingredients 1000 to 1000 000 times. But are you saying that this malign history is the sum total of homeopathy?

    If so you know a lot more about it than me.

    And why mix that up with special relativity. Any competent logician can refute special relativity FOR ALL TIME in less than 1000 words.

  2. Make no mistake about it. Steve Kates aside, the Catallaxians are obsessively lusting after a carbon tax. Don’t believe their lame denials. Its a mania with them as it was a mania with John Humphreys.

    Sinclair Davidson tries to hide it but his obscene lust leaps off the page. He is a pervert.

    “The solution to that problem would be to make the carbon tax revenue neutral not budget neutral. Cut payroll tax, cut personal income tax and/or cut corporate tax.”

    Why the fuck are these lunatics into revenue neutrality? They are deranged. This is another obsession with these sickos. And where is this anti-economics that the carbon tax will pay for anything coming from ……


    Thats a little bit too difficult for catallaxy to understand.

  3. Watching the triangulating Sinclairs deep romance with the carbon tax makes one feel dirty. Its like being forced to watch ugly people fornicate.

    “The test the government faces is in abandoning the more expensive programs. In the presence of a well-defined, well-designed carbon tax all those other schemes simply become corporate welfare……..”


    Face it. He’s a traitor.

    • Worse. He’s a Christ-Killer.

  4. I’ll attempt not to dry-wretch while I point out what ought to be brazenly obvious to all:

    “The test the government faces is in abandoning the more expensive programs. In the presence of a well-defined, well-designed carbon tax all those other schemes simply become corporate welfare……..”

    How the fuck are these programs not corporate welfare now?

  5. “There is another problem with this scheme. It has the potential to generate vast streams of revenue to the government. Governments quickly become addicted to easy money.”

    Let not your triangulating cosmopolitan heart be troubled. There is not going to be any revenue windfall dopey. There will be a revenue drought.

  6. Mark Hill desperately in love and waltzing around the room with the carbon tax.

    “Liberalising the nuclear power industry is the most positive thing we can do for Australian employment, exports, regional/remote development and carbon abatement.”

    Tribal requirements can make the carbon tax sometimes seem like the ‘love that dare not speak is name” But don’t doubt it. Mark Hills romance with the carbon tax fills his feeble heart.

    • Jew Bastard

  7. How’s this for extremism in CO2-bedwetting. Mark Hill denying his passion for a carbon tax:

    “If we deregulated nuclear, ag (via soil carbon capture), aquaculture (via iron seeding) and industry (coal fired energy no longer subsidised to manufacturing), emissions would fall, without a tax. We could even cut the usurious and inequitable fuel excise. As the tax base would broaden, we could cut income taxes by raising the TFT and abolish payroll tax.

    As a last resort, we could have 30 year tax exemptions for the extent a person or firm is carbon neutral.

    As a last resort with no recourse, we could levy the tax like Humphreys proposes, linked to a futures market for temps and invest the proceeds in reforestation.

    The last two options have not been ever justified by a reliable CBA.”

    He seems to be rather upset about these trace gases.

    The globe is cooling you blockhead Mark. What are you going to do about this fear-provoking climate variation?

  8. Look at these graphs. What horseshit. What compels people to believe this nonsense? I’ll bet that all the usual suspects at Catallaxy think these are okay graphs.

  9. Here’s another one. This time by the most dishonest division of one of the most dishonest outfits in the world.

    No doubt SOON laps this all up without ever once suspecting that he’s been lied to.

    • Fucking Hebrew Science Working Scum

  10. Pretty easy fellas. All you need is two records. An honest temperature record and an honest CO2 record, and show that the CO2 levels are influencing the temperatures. If its happening this will be easy.
    While you are at it you could then put together some evidence for the USGS lie that underwater volcanic emissions are about the same as the above ground volcanic emissions.
    If you cannot do the above you are going to have to admit that you are stooges or compulsive liars. Simple as that.

    February 28, 2011 at 11:18 pm | #58 Reply | Quote

    How cool is this. I’m on a thread with the moron John Mashey.

    • Bird

      Did you send that email to …………. Hamilton?

      • Yes but it wasn’t a threatening letter. As he acknowledged by return email. Sorry but I’m going to have to edit out that rude word you used to describe him.

      • bird

        You call him a …….. in an email and you delete my reference to him as a ………… or whatever I used?

        Are you in some mental stupor?



        I don’t mind giving anti-social scheming criminals like Hamilton a hard time. But I’ll not be like Bahnisch and hide behind a string of anonymous comrades who libel people and ideas on a daily basis and that cunt feel he doesn’t have to take direct responsibility for it. You come under your own identity, morally its as much your responsibility as mine.

  11. What a Dirty Jew Bastard

    Posted Thursday, 3 March 2011 at 3:20 pm | Permalink
    “So let me get this right. All the thousands of climate scientists around the world who believe are wrong because “their understanding of climate is unbelievable crude.”

    Yeah you got it. Although we are not talking thousands. We are really talking just a few bully-boys. The people with a less crude theory of climate keep their head down or they are out there in the skeptic camp.

    The standard model is quite literally a flat earth model. It bears no resemblance to the planet earth. They need a model which is less aggregated and averaged to bring some reality back to it.

    Where do we expect extra CO2 to add more joules then it subtracts? The answer is that we expect this only where the air is dry. Dry air is usually cold air and seldom is dry air over the oceans. So there really isn’t much chance of the CO2 leading to any substantial increase in oceanic heat content. If you cannot affect heat content then you can have no serious warming. Since extra joules in the atmosphere are basically ephemeral.

    I used to use an analogy a lot to do with the heater-in-the basement versus the heater-in-the attic, to show that not all DELTA-JOULES are equal. And that therefore the INCOMING Joules that the CO2 was absorbing or scattering (ie the joules that extra-CO2 negated from the lower atmosphere) may well be more important than the theoretical extra joules through back-radiation.

    But even if one suspects that there is a net gain in joules where the air is dry, when you take a more marginalist approach its very hard to see where the extra CO2 can be doing much at all. All such considerations are ethnically cleansed out of these crude averaged and aggregated models. You aren’t going to see this if you average the worlds water vapor so that your models water vapor levels are really low.

    Also since they were looking at temperature and not heat content, they failed to realize that water vapor is almost everywhere a negative feedback. That is to say water vapor being produced from the ocean is a massive refrigerant for the ocean. The watts per square metre model appeared to be a land-lubbers model. Land and not ocean-focused.

    Its basic mistakes like this, along with a obsessive allergy for evidence that made me give up on these clowns. You cannot reason with them. The best you can do is to try to get them sacked.

  13. Barry are you referencing to temperature or heat content? Conceptually when you reference to heat content, water vapor production becomes a negative feedback in most places, because of the refrigerant effect of evaporation. But then again if we aren’t getting the dust or the cosmic rays for cloud formation that wouldn’t hold true and it would be a positive feedback in a slightly longer time horizon perhaps.
    The way I see it you have a number of different climate zones. And the only real difference when the planet warms up is the tropical zone expands and pushes the other zones North, South and up the mountains. Because it would seem that the tropical zone is the only zone where evaporation isn’t a strictly negative feedback when it comes to heat content.
    So supposing we went through a really bad heating like 55 million years ago. Well its been suggested that we could shield the atmosphere with SO2 rockets, sent out of commercial airliners when we crossed near the equator and over the water. But another way would be simple ionisation of the air to bring on rainfall. With the hope of getting the tropical zones to contract. and pull all the other zones back.

  14. When I sent that email to Clive, which he acknowledged by return email wasn’t threatening (ie by saying that if he got a threatening email he would alert the police) he had just gotten through a monumental Stalinist rewrite of history. He had done this with the assistance of comrades within the ABC. And they were comrades too. Because they had given him a totally unprecedented four articles in a row to ply this fiction of an anti-science conspiracy on the skeptical side of matters. A skeptical conspiracy persecuting people.

    In other words he was laying down a Stalinist retouching of history. Just as surely as comrade Trotsky was airbrushed out of various photos, here was Clive airbrushing the actual history of continual persecution of anyone who stood up to the global warming fraud juggernaut.

    Back in 2003 when I first went onto the internet I was really polite to everyone. But when I went to ask questions about global warming (and I WAS then pretty green) I’d get on these sites and be persistently abused, for merely asking questions in a pretty persistent way. By not taking evasiveness for an answer. You could get banned and persistently belittled for simply trying to get at the truth. So by about 2005 I had thought, “no these days are over” if I thought the belittling was going to start I’d get a kick to the throat in right at the beginning.

    I was fully aware of the relentless ostracism and penalties to the careers of scientists who stuck to their scientific values, and therefore called this leftist science fraud into question. And this is definitely a leftist fraud. This is no mere collegial disagreement.

    The tendency of any supporters of skeptical scientists getting nasty is very recent. I thought it was just me. But its pretty clear now that peoples tempers are boiling over at this constant Soviet-style propagandizing to us, on the basis of a brazen science fraud. People are not happy at Clives crowd hijacking the various school programs and lying to children in national socialist fashion.

    After Tony Jones and George Monbiot set Ian Plimer up, on live television (on the basis of an outrageous lie perpetrated by the USGS) …. after that I naturally emailed Monbiot and swore at him relentlessly and the only response I detected was the mysterious temporary disappearance of the source study for the USGS lie.

    You see Clive is alleging co-ordinated action but its really his crowd and it always has been. As far as I knew (at the time) I was the only one taking this sort of action, and always under my own name.

    But you see Clives historical rewrite is as if Clive and his bully-boys have spat on the Dalit women,every day of the week for ten years, and the very first time a few of them react to this spitting campaign, he and his ABC bully-boys orchestrate an historical rewrite of the entire history of the case.

    Crikey is a respectable left-of-centre outfit and more-or-less well regarded even by hard rightists like myself. But Clive is poison to Australian society, with his scheming, his dishonesty and his Stalinist instincts. If Crikey wants to stay respectable it ought not tolerate, much less patronise, a poisonous cultural virus like Clive Hamilton.

  15. Okay so you get the new rules. You can come on and use swear-words in relation to the schemer Clive Hamilton. You can call him names. But only under your own true identity. Because I’m not Mark Bachnisch and I’m not hiding behind a whole lot of anonymous comrade bully-boys to evade responsibility.

    There’s a difference when it comes to Cambria. Because thats straight retaliation for lying to Tal and convincing her I don’t understand economics.

  16. Another rule. If you maintain anonymity you must refer to nobhead as “The schemer Clive Hamilton.”

    Anyway. I’ll see if I can dredge up my correspondence with Clive Hamilton. Its by no means my wittiest effort. But it wasn’t meant for publication. Nor was I writing an email that the girls were going to read. Until now that is. This was private correspondence between myself and Clive. Let the record show that he broke that sacred confidence first.

    Anyone else who has private correspondence with me can have total confidence that it will never see the light ……. Actually I’ve just gone and talked myself out of it. Its a scary thought to think how matters would go if we followed Clives lead and revealed private correspondence. I’ve just gotten a case of the fear and trembling. Not in relation to my two emails to Clive. Which I really did want to publish.

  17. I feel I’m in a non-violent form of war. I want cheap energy. I’m the cheap energy candidate. I want national but more importantly local sovereignty. Clive Hamilton wants the sovereignty to lie only with international taxeaters.

    Lefties often say that I am like Beetlejuice. Say my name three times and I’ll likely show up. The stupid bastard Hamilton mentioned my name instead of just mentioning the email. He really gave me a lot of leeway to hit back for a change:

    “Let’s have that evidence then you Stalinist c**t. Either come up with the evidence or admit publicly that you are a fraud and kill yourself. What a complete c**t you are.”

    So come on Hairshirt Hamilton. I wrote this a long time ago. Its not okay to tell lies about an Australian (newspaper) war on science, to organise petitions for a new tax, to pursue globalist (ie treasonous) goals further eroding the sovereignty of the Australian electorate. To undermine the responsiveness of already unresponsive Australian politicians. To libel every honest scientist in Australia. To practice demagoguery in order to incite the eschatological-utopian instincts of hard leftists everywhere. To campaign maliciously for restricting Australian freedoms and lifestyles. To try and subject people like me to surveillance. To play down the reality of the Quixotic draft Copenhagen treaty.

    You think its okay to do all this year in year out and not respond to a request for evidence?

    You have to be joking Mate. Its not okay. Its far from okay.

    You see I think you are a coward who wants to be on the other end of the entire muscle of state apparatus. Guns money cops intelligence and armed forces. I think you are a big coward that want all this on your side since utopians are nothing if not Quixotic. Utopian socialists are big fat dreamers but sometimes their malicious dreams come true. And here I don’t want to alienate small government egalitarians. I’m an egalitarian myself.

    But supposing I were to show up at your place of work and ask for some evidence in person? What would you do? Would you burst into tears? Would you squirt a few? Would you cry in front of everyone?

    You know what you need. You need an honest CO2 record that goes back as far as possible. You need an honest heat content or temperature record that goes back as far as possible. You are allegedly a trained economist. If you have both of those you ought to be able to show causation if your movement isn’t fraudulent.

    Show up with the evidence or retract. Hurry up about it. Or hide that gleaming head from public debate until the end of time.

  18. Birdie, from one autodidact to another: check out this great site!

    There is a sale on till 10th March – some really cheap prices – DVDs or CD

  19. Yeah it looks good. If I could bring my quant skills up to date I could go so far as to submit papers in economics and climate science. Not that they’d be published but I could certainly produce them.


  20. This one moderated at Crikey. Probably due to the three links.

    Ha Ha. Sorry Elan. They mentioned my name three times so I had to show up. Hence all the emails. But maybe we can end this scam once and for all.

    Does anyone believe these three graphs? Bear in mind that year-long averaged temperature is really just a spin-off of oceanic heat content. So does anyone believe that the Northern Hemisphere temperatures were on average half a degree higher these days, when the Northern Hemisphere is under snow, then during the 30’s …. the dust-bowl years ….. those years that spawned the “Grapes Of Wrath”?

    Crikey readers don’t need to be dupes. There is nothing that compels anyone to be so stupid as to imagine that these graphs represent any honest rendering of the data. When Climategate hit, which proved it was a racket, it really was old news to me. I knew they were faking the data a long time before. One reason is I compared the satellite data to the Hadley and Goddard riggups. It was a Sesame street moment. One of these things is not like the other. One of these things just doesn’t belong.

    But it wasn’t just that. They did not make proper adjustments in the early 90’s when all the Siberian measuring sites went out of operation. They keep on adding tropical third-world sites. Now Hadley is adding temperature from the oceans to keep the upward trend going. And everyone knows that deep water holds the heat better else why does the mist rise from the swimming pool in the early morning? Why is the diving pool warmer than the big pool at morning training? To be adding ocean regions over time is straight fraud.

    So they are continually faking data.

    Here’s Goddards riggup:

    There is no point saying “ho ho conspiracy ho ho” because we already know its a fake. And there is nothing to compel you to believe this nonsense.

    All that aside we know that they are rigging the data to an even greater extent than I’m implying. Since when you just throw in the raw data without processing this is what you get:

    All unrigged data so far gives us the 30’s as the hottest decade. Thats really the end of the matter.

  21. Also Philomena, I would need to study basic astronomy to write a paper on climate science:

    Posted Friday, 4 March 2011 at 1:21 pm | Permalink
    “We agree on one thing, being the spectacular failure of AGW proponents in prosecuting a political case for action.”

    Rohan they don’t have a scientific case either. They ignore the role of electrical energy coming from space weather. They ignore the fact that water vapor production has a negative effect on heat content and so they erroneously consider water vapor to be a positive feedback when it can only be that under special circumstances. They ignore the fact that CO2 can block incoming as well as outgoing joules. And that joule for joule the former has to be much much more important than the latter.

    They are not really conducting science in any sense of the word. They don’t take responsibility for other peoples bad science and merely hand it on as if they were placing their role as bureaucrats over their role of scientists. They have not and will not justify the very high figures they place on the role of backradiation. The magnitude of the backradiation effect is simply unknown. The only thing that is known is that it is far smaller than any mainstream estimate since the estimate for the totality of the greenhouse effect is placed there on a “god of gaps” basis.

    While estimates for a straight doubling of CO2 are quoted on a by-partisan basis at 1 degrees F ……. scandalously rounded up to 1 degrees C …… While these estimates would be reasonable were it the case that backradiation was responsible for the entirety of the temperature anomaly we know for a fact that backradiation is not responsible for all of this.

    The whole things a shambles. And I will take anyone on in a debate on the logic of this matter.

    Posted Friday, 4 March 2011 at 1:46 pm | Permalink
    Yes the process of peer review has something to do with science properly considered. But the dogma of peer review does not. The matter of peer review ought not arise in our discussions except perhaps as a way of verifying that data has been properly compiled. We ought concentrate on the “logic upside-down pyramid” alone. Because in this story even the data compilation of peer review has been broken …….. when it comes to this one subject.

    Ask me anything about the logic of matters. Don’t ask me for quantitative work. You can find it if you look for it but I’m not going to. But if you wish to understand how the entire edifice stands up (or teeters) on a logical basis I can answer any questions you feel you need to know.

    This is no line-ball call. No one needs to get a research grant or go back to school to refute this monstrosity. This is the biggest incident of wrong-way-Corriganism in the history of mass-media. If anyone feels they are half-way smart you can follow the logic with me and I will show you just how stupendously wrong this movement is.

    I’ll never be evasive about any QUALITATIVE questions you ask me. I’ll get back to you on anything. But I won’t get back to you today on anything because I fear I must be trying the patience of the crikey moderators.

    If you can follow the logic of this story, should I make some sort of blunder that does not stack up to the empirical evidence, that will be revealed soon enough.

  23. There are so many to choose from. I’m going to order a couple. I’ve sent it to a few people including one who with his wife is homeschooling his three children plus one more child he’s just become guardian for as her only parent is dying and the little girl is best friends with his eldest primary school age son.

    This one sounds like you.

    “Each of these techniques deduces the existence of dark matter or dark energy from the gravitational fields they cause. But what if our theory of gravity is faulty? Could adjustments to Einstein’s general theory of relativity, which forms our modern understanding of gravity, do away with the need for the dark sector?

    You explore a theory called Modified Newtonian Dynamics, which successfully dispenses with dark matter in individual galaxies. This theory fails, however, when applied to clusters and has nothing to say about the expansion of the universe.”

  24. Yeah thats a very good approach. Apriori there is a lot of “dark matter” in that we don’t expect the planets to stop at pluto. We would expect planets Jupiter-sized and above and below to be in the gaps between stars but far enough away not to be detected.

    But the mainstream theory of dark matter was a disgraceful fudge factor as conceived.

    What is this only parent dying of. If the quacks say she has a year to live she ought to be readily savable.

  25. I think a lot of the things you challenge and question can be categorised as “wicked problems”. Of course you are drawn to these because you have a sharp, genuinely skeptical and endlessly enquiring mind. Wicked problems and associated tools and concepts are an interesting and useful framing of disputed knowns and the recalcitrant unknowns and a way forward for all sides – i.e. us as a whole – absent the heated accusations and belittling.

  26. “That dead terrorist female harlot, who murdered 35 people by committing suicide, will she also be given 72 virgins upon reaching paradise? Or is it just for slutty male suicide bombers?”

    Gabrielle you don’t understand the Islamic theology. Under Islam Satan isn’t the epitome of evil. He’s the great tempter. But in both theologies temptations are often cursed in twisted ways.

    “That dead terrorist female harlot, who murdered 35 people by committing suicide, will she also be given 72 virgins upon reaching paradise? Or is it just for slutty male suicide bombers?”

    Gabrielle, where do you imagine that they get the 72 virgins from? You see the sting in the tail of this deal is its the devil that is laying out the offer and obviously so. The worm in the apple is that its always the same 72 virgins. And so these bastards get stuck in a whorehouse where no-one ever cleans the sheets or changes the one mattress.

  27. Graeme, “Gabrielle” on Cataplexy is C.L. having a bit of fun and shoring up his own position. Everyone there knows this.

  28. Well in that case the Catholic scholar needs to shore up his learning when it comes to Islamic theology.

    In any case I’ll need more convincing. Yes I certainly get annoyed with the way CL treats you, but I don’t think he could act like a girl if he ate sheila pills with his coffee every week for a year.

  29. That’s the whole point. Gab is as feminine as smelly jocks. Gab is a bogan he.

    Look, my best guess is CL is a 55-65 year old paraplegic who broke his spine diving or motorcycling in his teens to early 20s. He’s never worked in the paid workforce. He was educated in the rural sticks of Qld to secondary level. He’s never been to university. He probably received his secondary education and some post secondary in a Catholic boarding school for potential seminarians. He may have done a couple of years there before the accident.

    He’s definitely a virgin. And like JC, lonely as hell, which is why both he and now “Gab” post on that blog from first thing in the morning till last thing at night 24/7.

    It’s a fabulous case study in alienation, loneliness, and aggression. He lashes out ridiculously because it makes him feel recognised and thus alive. Otherwise he would be isolated in his no doubt run down depressing flat in suburban Brisbane and no one would know he is alive or interact with him.

    He’s even, childlike, got his imaginary friend “Gab” who agrees 100% with everything he says, even the most misogynist, dumb arse and contradictory brain farts.

    Sorry. Trust me. Completely implausible.

  30. Well I take note of your opinion but I must reserve judgement. To my mind he can be an objective thinker so I’m always upset when he goes on holidays from objective thinking. When he does so it is analogous to a cardinal on holidays prior to the advent of hand-held cameras. He goes from one extreme to another. The most objective and intelligent man in any room, and then its the opposite like some 1950’s cardinal in a Mexican whorehouse. I still listen carefully to his opinion and its easy to see when he’s not the objective scholar. So its not like he’s going to sway me in the wrong direction. I’m not powerfully happy with him lately but I’ll let it slide.

    • Apt observation. The 1950s may well have been seminal years in the formation of his character and world view. It would explain a lot too.

      The cardinal analogy is also apt given the virtual universal cover-up of child sexual abuse by Catholic bishops and parish priests throughout the world and in Australia, something CL always implicitly and hotly defended.

      He even repeatedly mocked this in relation to cases I mentioned from my own experience as a Catholic with relatives in the priesthood and convent and knowledge of vast numbers of people who like myself were educated in Catholic schools, the sexual abuse history of which has now become common knowledge.

      There is a high incidence of regular sexual activity among Catholic male clergy. I guess some of them go to brothels, and men like CL – if he was able to walk and had functional sexual apparatus, two big ifs – would prefer such outlets.

      But many Australian priests confirmed in new book by John Carroll simply have resorted to long-term sexual relationships with one woman, or are otherwise serial monogamists. Good luck to them, I say, though I feel sorry for the women.

      • ” He even repeatedly mocked this in relation to cases I mentioned from my own experience as a Catholic with relatives in the priesthood and convent ……..”

        He’s mocking those cases still ???? Its like he’s trying to become all thats good and bad about the Church. I’m sure he’d rather kill himself than engage in some of the types of sexual exploitation that the Church became systematically engulfed in. But why deny they had a systemic problem?

        Look I turn my palms up but what can I do? Here you have the Church with probably the greatest intellectual tradition of anything anywhere and he’s part of that. And here we have a church who has, perhaps with commie magnification ….. had a problem with sexual exploitation and kiddy sexual exploitation …. absolutely run amok in the last 40? years ……. and he’s part of the looking the other way.

        But maybe its tough to be Aquinian the whole time. I took the flak over 9/11 and speculating about certain things on Mars and the hybrid skull. Maybe its a little hard to follow that tardy rabbit down every damn hole. I’d bury the hatchet if he would be nice to you.

  31. Posted Friday, 4 March 2011 at 4:12 pm | Permalink
    Yeah I thought there was a bit of sparkle to it.

    The point is a carbon tax has been scheduled. So its not funny anymore. Everyone has to understand what I would call the “upside-down-pyramid” of atrocious pseudo-reasoning under-pinning this …. business. If you are of goodwill and you don’t know everything about the subject then you ought to ask questions from the ground up. From very most basic assumptions all the way to the top, where nationally ruinous policy is being made.

    Don’t be clogging up the works with politely worded arguments-from-authority, typed through the teeth of a poo-eating grin.

    Posted Friday, 4 March 2011 at 4:22 pm | Permalink
    Okay Freecountry. No more arguments from authority and lets sort this thing out from the ground up.


    Posted Friday, 4 March 2011 at 4:44 pm | Permalink
    Deal. First up, please show us a link to some document showing that IPCC models rely on an assumption of uniform distribution of water vapour, and second, that water vapour varies strongly enough to invalidate those models. The first part will probably be a lot harder than the second part. It is not necessary to prove the reliance for every single model; it is enough to show the reliance in one model which is widely relied upon. Ideally, for those of us like me who don’t know where to look, there would be some way of testing (eg some keywords to google) whether orthodox models have been revised to take account of that factor.

    Posted Friday, 4 March 2011 at 5:08 pm | Permalink
    We really must start from the bottom of the pyramid and work our way up. Otherwise the debate will become incoherent. Its certainly fair enough to debate what is at the bottom of the inverted pyramid. Thats something to argue about at great length. The more you argue the ins and out at the base of the inverted logic pyramid the more valid are any subsequent discussions and the more time is saved later on.

    We have to do things differently this time since a google of words have been written on this subject without resolution despite it being a very simple subject. Also we have to maximise arguments that are to hand rather than forcing homework on everyone by demanding that the other fellow pour through google scholar or file freedom of information writs to answer a question. If some claims are persistently divergent from empirical reality that comes to the surface in the by and by. So there is never an excuse to be setting homework for the other guy. Never is an over-emphasis on apriori reasoning wasted. Since resultant mistake show up bigtime and can be corrected.

    Now is the alleged doubling of the CO2 levels, holding air pressure constant, allegedly going to cause a one degree increase in average temperatures ….. is that at the base of assumptions? Or can we get closer to the bottom of the upside-down pyramid than that?

    Also a good epistemologist keeps circling over base assumptions. Since even one wrong assumption at the bottom of an inverted logic pyramid renders the whole edifice untenable.

    I’ve got the doubling creating a one degree difference …….. and certain matters to do with air pressure at the base. Do you think that we can go even more basic than that? Or is that as far to the bottom of the inverted pyramid as we can go?

    Posted Friday, 4 March 2011 at 5:29 pm | Permalink
    Just assume I know nothing about the subject but can reason with what you show me, please. If you misrepresent accepted orthodoxy at any point, I’ll just have to rely on someone being there to point it out.

    Posted Friday, 4 March 2011 at 5:36 pm | Permalink
    But you know a little bit about it. And I don’t know all things about it. Off the cuff what do you think is behind that assumption? Why do people believe it? Do you suppose they assume this due to some sort of temperature anomaly?

    Posted Friday, 4 March 2011 at 6:07 pm | Permalink
    The most coherent account for laymen that I’ve heard, was that recent warming trends were unusual not so much in their amplitude as in their rapidity, that this correlated with a rapid release of subterranean carbon into atmospheric CO2 in the last century or so, and that the rate of aggregate warming might overcome the usual dynamic equilibrium mechanisms which at slower speeds would normally correct the effect.

    Posted Friday, 4 March 2011 at 7:10 pm | Permalink
    Yes but you are jumping half-way up the inverted logic pyramid. By the way this is no exclusive dialogue. I invite anyone of goodwill to jump in so long as we go with the rough epistemological outline I’ve layed out. Because I assure you we can resolve this matter from the policy point of view to TOTAL CERTAINTY should we go about things in an exemplary and systematic way. Wherein we max out on apriori reasoning and only force a recourse to making the other guy do homework when absolutely necessary.

    I’m trying to teach people about the scientific method.

    Posted Friday, 4 March 2011 at 7:32 pm | Permalink
    “While carbon dioxide makes up only 0.038% of the atmosphere, it is vital in the energy balance of the Earth’s surface and atmosphere. If the atmosphere contained no greenhouse gases, the surface temperature would be about 30C colder.” (David Karoly)

    You see I think that the one claim is related to this other claim. Do you have a contrary understanding? The idea that doubling of the CO2 will (in the first instance at least) increase the average temperature by 1 degree. I assume that this estimate has something to do with the assumption that David Karoly is making here.

    Now any assumption has to have three convergent lines of evidence in order for us to have rightful certainty about it. Meaning that we can only build an edifice safely on assumptions that are confirmed three ways ( we need the third line of evidence even if only as a tie-break). But nonetheless can we not say that the one assumption is likely built on the other?

    Posted Friday, 4 March 2011 at 8:53 pm | Permalink
    Okay lets move sideways to another base assumption. Since right this moment we aren’t getting a great deal of traction with the other one. Air pressure. What can we say about air pressure?

    But first what would be the effect of back-radiation were it to work as advertised? Well take the Sahara versus Singapore. Singapore has the higher average temperature. But Sahara has higher maximum temperatures. People would say that the reduction in the heat differentials of Singapore is PRIMARILY to do with backradiation. I disagree with this but I’m unable to quantify what proportion greenhouse plays.

    But here are two propositions

    1. Greenhouse, if it works as advertised, always reduces heat differentials. Between summer and winter. Between night and day.

    2. In the first instance its an open question as to what proportion of the effect of this heat differential reduction is being caused by backradiation …….. and what proportion may be caused by a range of other factors.

    After all we don’t want to be guilty of falling for some sort of “god-of-gaps” argument now do we? We don’t want to be plugging our pet theory greenhouse ….. in to fill the entirety of the mystery, every time we cannot explain an anomaly.

    Leave a Reply
    Logged in as birdsnewworld. Log out

  32. “He’s mocking those cases still ???? Its like he’s trying to become all thats good and bad about the Church.”

    Graeme, as I wrote here a long time ago, of all the men who comment on Catallaxy, the two whose minds and ways of thinking interest or engage me the least are CL and dover_beach. I really don’t care what they think or say. They teach nothing good or that people need to know. They are angry haters, that is all.

    As far as I’m concerned, politics aside, they have no saving graces. They bored me stupid when they didn’t t make me feel ill by their callous smugness.

    CL is a different kettle of fish to db in that he is actively cruel to so many people he interacts with on the blogs, people who he has far more in common with than people like me. I don’t want to dwell on this because it is not my nature to do so.

    But I will remind you, in case you forgot or missed it, that CL also, when I was posting on Catallaxy as Phil the Greek, responded with derision and ridicule to my expression of sorrow that my sister, who had been a nun since the age of 18, a Franciscan Missionary of Mary, had recently died of breast cancer.

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: