[andre]

Quote

If you have something novel to say on climate change, please let us know - we will be publishing a selection of your comments on Friday

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7081026.stm

here is my intended contribution. However the page seems not to accept it.

Quote

The new dark ages The major problem with the Anthropogenic Global Warming hypothesis is the mutilation of the scientific method. According to Richard Feynman, science isn't about knowing everything, but by making a clear distinction between what we know and what we don't know. And progressing in knowledge is not about accepting what you like to be true. On the contrary, you should do everything which is in your own possibility to try to prove yourself wrong. If you can’t, then chances increase that you may be a bit right. None of this is custom in the global warming industry.

On the contrary, we seem to know all, the debate is over etc. the scientific method has been discarded and evidence is being replaced by model predictions. I stress again, the core business of science, attempting falsification attempts, is considered a hostile act now and the perpetrators await tar and feathers. Analysing the social elements of global warming, it is astoundingly, blatantly, in conformity with all the symptoms of groupthink, formulated by Irvin Janis. And any major historic groupthink hype has almost invariably led to catastrophe.

But then again, the evidence for global warming, as it seemed so abundant in 1988 when the IPCC came into being, is disappearing slowly. The spikes in the ice cores are no longer caused by greenhouse gasses. The hockeystick is exposed as noble cause corruption. The actual temperatures refuse to go up with increasing stubbornness. Moreover, there are some serious doubts about the so called positive feedback elements so essential or tipping points and runaway climate. See: http://earth.myfastforum.org/about134.html 

Yet, the confidence in the human cause is ever growing, 90% according to the last –non peer reviewed- summary for policy makers. If the confidence is inversely proportional to the evidence then one can be sure to see groupthink. But if you want to change society you can’t afford to lose global warming as driving mechanism to control the energy balance, so it must be true at all cost. Continuing this hype may however achieve the opposite of the intention of an happy Earth. The scarifying of the rain forests, for instance, to produce biofuels. It’s the hype that threatens the extinction of numerous species, not the minor climate alleviation itself, if it persists in the first place. The sooner mankind goes cold turkey on the hype the better. It’s more than time to address the real problems.

[John Mason]

Andre, that represents a fair and inoffensive summary of your stance. Why not try reposting it but without that hyperlink? I suspect the link was automatically detected and the post filtered out.

There is no reason why the BBC should not allow all sides of the argument to be heard.

Cheers - John 

[John Mason]

Here you go - in BBC T&C:

URLs (web site addresses) can only be posted if allowed under any relevant local house rules.

Cheers - John 

[Peter H]

Quote

andre - 12/11/2007 21:03

Quote

If you have something novel to say on climate change, please let us know - we will be publishing a selection of your comments on Friday

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7081026.stm

here is my intended contribution. However the page seems not to accept it.

Quote

The new dark ages The major problem with the Anthropogenic Global Warming hypothesis is the mutilation of the scientific method. According to Richard Feynman, science isn't about knowing everything, but by making a clear distinction between what we know and what we don't know. And progressing in knowledge is not about accepting what you like to be true. On the contrary, you should do everything which is in your own possibility to try to prove yourself wrong. If you can’t, then chances increase that you may be a bit right. None of this is custom in the global warming industry.

On the contrary, we seem to know all, the debate is over etc. the scientific method has been discarded and evidence is being replaced by model predictions. I stress again, the core business of science, attempting falsification attempts, is considered a hostile act now and the perpetrators await tar and feathers. Analysing the social elements of global warming, it is astoundingly, blatantly, in conformity with all the symptoms of groupthink, formulated by Irvin Janis. And any major historic groupthink hype has almost invariably led to catastrophe.

But then again, the evidence for global warming, as it seemed so abundant in 1988 when the IPCC came into being, is disappearing slowly. The spikes in the ice cores are no longer caused by greenhouse gasses. The hockeystick is exposed as noble cause corruption. The actual temperatures refuse to go up with increasing stubbornness. Moreover, there are some serious doubts about the so called positive feedback elements so essential or tipping points and runaway climate. See: http://earth.myfastforum.org/about134.html

Yet, the confidence in the human cause is ever growing, 90% according to the last –non peer reviewed- summary for policy makers. If the confidence is inversely proportional to the evidence then one can be sure to see groupthink. But if you want to change society you can’t afford to lose global warming as driving mechanism to control the energy balance, so it must be true at all cost. Continuing this hype may however achieve the opposite of the intention of an happy Earth. The scarifying of the rain forests, for instance, to produce biofuels. It’s the hype that threatens the extinction of numerous species, not the minor climate alleviation itself, if it persists in the first place. The sooner mankind goes cold turkey on the hype the better. It’s more than time to address the real problems.

Why can't you stick to your science Andre?

. "mutilation of the scientific record" I don't care about that allegation and jibe, what is your science not your jibe? "the scientific method has been discarded" ditto, "with all the symptoms of groupthink, formulated by Irvin Janis. And any major historic groupthink hype has almost invariably led to catastrophe." ditto, "The hockeystick is exposed as noble cause corruption" again, ditto. This is the Vill/Sunspotter line - science/data/evidence content zero.

Andre, why don't you cut out the attacks and put forward your scientific view? People have asked and asked and asked for you to put what you think down in a few succinct words so we can see what you think. You never do this :s . All we get is links, cherry picked papers, the kind of stuff in this thread, and thousands of other incomprehensible words. TBH I can see an iota of science in your submission to the beeb, not an iota. No, I see just complaint, allegation and attack. It's pretty damn thin and oft recycled gruel imo.

[John Mason]

Quote

Village - 13/11/2007 10:44 I wonder why the BBC web site wont accept a negative view of the climate hype program that they are intent on promoting?

Well, just fancy that!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7081331.stm

John R Christy - a man of similar persuasions to yourself, Vill, regarding climate modelling, gets a whole page all to himself :)

The Beeb must be getting sensitive to the accusations of impartiality that echo from a thousand threads over here! 

Cheers - John 

[andre]

Quote

Peter H - 13/11/2007 11:20

 Andre, why don't you cut out the attacks and put forward your scientific view?

okay, the clean mathematically modelled  greenhouse effect (HITRAN / MODTRAN) is very limited, in the order of magnitude of one degree per doubling CO2. Without precise empirical data it is not possible to model possible feedback effects. Both long term observations (my feedback thread) as well as short term observations (Olavi Karner) suggest a robust negative feedback, which would decrease the doubling value. That's it. Observation calculation test.

Quote

All we get is links, cherry picked papers, the kind of stuff in this thread

No it's not cherry picked at all. There are good papers with careful constructed chronologies taking non linearity in account and making comparisons with other studies and there are bad papers confusing carbon dates with calendar dates and simply using linear interpolation between a few datapoints. That's how we end up with two younger Dryases in Holland, A older wet period and a younger dry period, while in the reality the earlier period is the last Allerod spike. Does that make sense?

[andre]

See also the article  http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7081882.stm
"Understanding the climate ostrich"

So I submitted this comment:

Quote

Yet we have another discussion about the motives of not believing in anthropogenic global warming. Be it from the crowd in general or the climate skeptics who appear to have an agenda again, no doubt based on fictional conspiracy theories of bribery by the oil companies. How about a counter analysis? One may wonder why the analyst, Kari Marie Norgaard, doesn’t seem to realize that “stereotyping opposition” is a symptom by itself, symptom #5 of groupthink as formulated by Irvin Janis, after analyzing other political debacles.

One may also wonder if there are more of those eight groupthink symptoms applicable to the climate-alarmists. For instance, could “illusion of invulnerability”(#1), related to group coherence and support, have contributed to the construction of the specious hockeystick? Why? Because the constructors and the alarmist group in general have an “unquestioned belief in the inherent morality”(#6). Would Al Gore’s stance of if-you-are-not-with-us-you’re-against-us be directly translatable as “direct pressure on disagreeing individuals”(#2). Remember Stephen Schneider’s appeal to the scientists to tell scary stories while not mentioning any doubts. Could this be explained as combining symptom #2 and #6 with “self sensorship” (#3)?

Furthermore, if no doubts are mentioned, isn’t “illusion of unanimity” (#4) or the mentioning of consensus omnipresent as one of the major arguments for global warming? How about “self appointed mind guards” (#7)? Isn’t the aim of the group of the realclimate blog to unexplain any opposing scientific evidence, “rationalizating all warnings” (#8) exactly that? Isn’t the label “mind guards” also applicable for news agencies suppressing any reporting of facts that oppose the human role in climate?

Amazing that one can already trace down all eight symptoms of groupthink in the global warming community within only a few observations. Groupthink severely biases the sense for reality, which reinforces the need for some skepticism to anthropogenic global warming. Therefore, one should read the completely suppressed Independent Summary for Policy Makers to ascertain why a good deal of first class scientists have not jumped on the bandwagon, because a wrong perception of reality inevitably leads to wrong decisions. That’s why one cannot hide behind the well-known precautionary principle. Only honesty about the truth pays off in the end.

References:

Irving Janis, Groupthink, 2d ed., Houghton Mifflin, Boston, 1982.

Irving Janis, Victims of Groupthink, Houghton Mifflin, Boston, 1972.

McKittrick (editor) et al 2007, Independent Summary for Policymakers of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (Working Group I) 2007, The Fraser Institute. Text revised March 2, 2007.

[sunspoter]

From watching Autumnwatch I'd say global warming has had a positive impact on seasonal life in Britian, you get winners and loosers, I'd like to hear more about the winners of climate change, it's simply not all doom and gloom.