Noteworthy excerpts:
"'That is a general principle of logic: correlation does not prove causality,' said Robinson. 'In this case, hydrocarbons don’t correlate with the temperature; the sun does.'
'There is nothing in the correlation that leads us to say it’s all the sun,' said Robinson, 'but there is everything in the correlations to say that it isn’t hydrocarbons; they have no measurable factor.'
Robinson contends that unlike the United Nations’ discussions in Kyoto, his research has been done in the proper manner dictated by the scientific community. Replies to inquiries of his petition have varied; Robinson would not detail how great the response was, but he noted that negative replies were simply 'vulgar.' (I can only imagine!)
'I can’t imagine anyone with a background in science proceeding this way,' said Robinson, 'where we have a political movement which wants to turn off the energy source that 85 percent of America is fueled by on the basis of a committee that got together to give an answer on a problem that is so far unsolved.'
'Are we really going to take away the human right to use energy, which is the currency of technology and progress; not only for the American people, but for the poor people around the world, on the basis of this nonsense? It’s just not right, and it’s certainly not science."
The false religion of GW is beginning to unravel. Many are seeing it for what it is, a carbon trading scheme set up by a few to control the economy of the world. This came from the Australian today:
ReplyDeleteKEVIN Rudd is being urged today to dump mandatory renewable energy targets in Australia if an emissions trading scheme is introduced.
The Productivity Commission has warned that demands Australia use more renewable energy - including solar, water and wind - will distort the operation of an emissions trading scheme that simultaneously encourages a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.
It will not increase the abatement of emissions, but threatens to distort the market, particularly against low-emission gas options, and add to the price of energy.
Robinson's a protein chemist. His "Oregon Institute of Science and Mathematics" has eight faculty listed; none of them are climate scientists or geologists, most are biochemists or doctors, one's a veterinarian, and two are dead. Most of their business is selling an educational program for home schoolers.
ReplyDeleteI got their petition project letter; It included a deceptive but glossy article on global warming that included many patently false assertions and a number of other distortions. They apparently mass-mailed this to every single working doctor and scientist in the country, and some who just have a B.S. in some kind of science or math field. It's no surprise that they got a bunch of people, most of whom have no expertise in anything resembling climate science, to send in their card, but it's nothing more than a political stunt.
There are some valid, interesting controversies in the field of climate change, and the question of what, if anything, we should do about it is very complex, but these guys are not even trying to be part of that intelligent discussion.
And how many on the IPCC were actual climate scientist? Dang few.
ReplyDeleteDavid Pearce, UK economist.Christopher Francis Patten, politician in the UK.Michael Heseltine, politician UK ;Rajendra Kumar Pachauri is an economist and environmental scientist;Richard S.J. Tol is a Research Professor at the Economic and Social Research Institute;
Prof.Dr.Ir. Pier Vellinga, costal engineer who worked for the Dutch government and companies with operational knowledge required for investment decisions related to climate change,( do you smell the money):Dr Robert Watson received a PhD in Chemistry;
These do not agree with IPCC:
Christopher Landsea, formerly a research meteorologist; Kevin E. Trenberth is head of the Climate Analysis Section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research.;Roger A. Pielke (Sr.) is a climatologist;
These are just a few. Your argument against Robinson fails since those you seem to adhere to also fail to meet your qualifications.
Next!
Huh? When did I mention the IPCC? Regardless, the IPCC works on more than just the science aspects of climate, so it stands to reason they'd have economists, environmental scientists, and politicians involved. The OISM groups is specifically criticizing the science, and they're not trained in relevant fields.
ReplyDeleteThere are undoubtedly a number of scientists with climate-relevant background who think global warming isn't human-derived, but their numbers are far smaller (by a factor of about 100) than those who are. That their numbers are smaller doesn't make their arguments invalid, but it means the "31,000 scientists" figure in this particular exercise is a crock in a number of ways.
Ticker, you will notice that Dave doesn't address the points Robinson brings up.
ReplyDeleteAt least he's stopped referring to people like Robinson as "fringe scientists", or "oil company hacks".
I think he's learned his lesson on that sort of thing.
And of further interest, why have we not even heard from the True Believers about items like this?
ReplyDeleteSurely they can't invent some way to rationalize why that sort of thing has no impact of their cherished "Scientific consensus" on "Anthropogenic Global Warming" scam, can't they?
OK, here you go:
ReplyDelete'That is a general principle of logic: correlation does not prove causality,' said Robinson. True.
'In this case, hydrocarbons don’t correlate with the temperature; the sun does.' False. Hydrocarbon release correlates very well with temperature; better than long-term sun records.
'I can’t imagine anyone with a background in science proceeding this way,' said Robinson, 'where we have a political movement which wants to turn off the energy source that 85 percent of America is fueled by on the basis of a committee that got together to give an answer on a problem that is so far unsolved.' Nobody sane is arguing that we should quit using fossil fuels without an alternative in place. Complete straw man.
'Are we really going to take away the human right to use energy, which is the currency of technology and progress; not only for the American people, but for the poor people around the world, on the basis of this nonsense? It’s just not right, and it’s certainly not science." No, it's not science at all; at that point, it's economics and policy.
"False. Hydrocarbon release correlates very well with temperature"
ReplyDelete"
No, sorry.......not established by any acceptable studies.
Here's Professor Lindzen's testimony from 2001 which effectively puts an end to that particular incorrect talking point:
"However, even ignoring this central question, there actually is much that can be learned simply by sticking to matters where there is widespread agreement. For example, there is widespread agreement.....
-- that major past climate changes were either uncorrelated with changes in CO2 or were
characterized by temperature changes which preceded changes in CO2 by 100's to thousands of years."
Oh wait, I forgot.....Dr. Richard Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology
at MIT, is just some "fringe scientist" according to our friend Dave, Professor of Geology at Guilford College.
Yes, I understand how that sort of thing works, indeed.
And then we have this:
"Some studies get the full media treatment because they support global warming claims. The others just get ignored.
A recent paper titled 'Atmospheric CO2 Concentrations over the Last Glacial Termination' by Monnin et al. appeared without fanfare in Science (Science, vol.291, p.112, 5 Jan 2001), and addressed a long-standing point of contention between promoters and sceptics of global warming.
During the transition from the last Ice Age to our present Interglacial (or warm period), did rising CO2 cause temperatures to rise, or did rising temperatures cause CO2 to rise? Global warming promoters frequently claimed or implied the former as a means to `prove' that CO2 really can warm the planet.
Although it has been known for a long time that CO2 changes were correlated with temperature changes, the question as to which causes which has been a controversial issue. No more. We now know for sure.
The authors examined samples from a recent ice core extracted from the Concordia Dome in Antarctica (75°06'S 123°24'E) in 1999, and which has provided a better dating resolution than previous Antarctic or Greenland cores. According to the authors, "We found that the start of the CO2 increase lagged the start of the dD (temperature) increase by 800 ± 600 years, taking the uncertainties of the gas-ice age difference and the determination of the increases into account." Even allowing for error factors in the time resolution, the temperature-to-CO2 sequence was quite clear.
The above graph (colour indicators added for clarity) shows the relationship between temperature, CO2 and methane during the Glacial-Interglacial transition, the temperature clearly leading CO2 (three matched transitions shown by blue arrows). The `YD' refers to the `Younger Dryas' cooling episode and `BA' refers to the `Bølling/Allerød' warming episode, both in the North Atlantic and mainly affecting methane. Since temperature clearly leads CO2, that means the rise in temperature caused the rise in CO2. Notice also that at the start point of the Holocene period 10,600 years ago, CO2 had risen sharply during the immediate previous centuries, with no apparent effect on temperature which had already levelled out a thousand years earlier. That suggests that CO2 has only a very weak effect on climate.
If you first learned about these new findings here, thank the media - they only run stories that promote warming.
It is the lemming scientiest of the IPCC who rejected Robinson's views so there was no need to mention directly the IPCC. These lemmings automatically disregard any facts that would dispute their "consensus" views. Only problem, as I pointed out, there ain't no consensus except among the "Stern-ly Gored" lemmings of the IPCC.
ReplyDeleteThe Monnin et al. study's figure has been altered on the site you link to; the original paper, which you can read for free on the Science magazine site if you register, made no such assertion of causality. In fact, they cite a 10% error in dating in their gas vs. ice age estimates, and the 800 year difference your site makes such hay about is less than 10% of the age involved. The gas trapped in ice isn't the same age as the ice, so the dating is tricky. The data you cite don't prove squat in this regard, and the authors make no claim similar to your linked site.
ReplyDeleteAnd even if there were something to the claim, the end of the last ice age 14,000 years ago is a very different scenario than the current situation, where we know we're adding a huge amount of fossil CO2 (much more, actually, than the glacial-interglacial variations discussed) to the atmosphere.
Lindzen's a smart guy, and has had an important career in climate research. However, testimony to Congress isn't the same thing as published research. There are plenty of folks with credentials similar to Lindzen's who find his arguments less than compelling. Here's a detailed, and I think fair, critique of Lindzen's main points when he made a similar presentation to the British government.
In other words, you don't dispute the fact that CO2 lags behind the temperature. Your information is an attempt at rationalizing your viewpoint in lieu of the what's actually been placed in evidence
ReplyDeleteThat's all I need to know.
Um, no, that's not what I said. I said your source had not proved, as you asserted, that it does lag. Which you haven't. In fact, Monnin's written several other papers that accept and build on the concept of anthropogenic warming.
ReplyDeleteI also said that the relationship between CO2 and ice retreat at the end of the last ice age isn't comparable to the situation now, which it isn't, for the reasons I mentioned. CO2 and temperature are closely linked, and they reinforce each other. What's different now is that we're pouring a bunch of CO2 into the atmosphere that hasn't been there for millions of years.