Well, we do have Tim Lambert's discovery of Schulte's plagiarism in attacking Oreskes last Summer, presumably with Monckton's support.
We need to check them out for plagiarism. I think Steve Milloy is the most likely, although I don't have any proof of it, just a feeling.
Looks like he's hitting home runs.
When the alarmists start attacking the player and not the ball, you know they are losing the argument.
Nick
Nick, they've already been proven wrong, but that doesn't seem like enough to convince folks like yourself. That's why I think it would be helpful to show that some of them are lying thieves.
Actually, completely the opposite.
Here's a challenge for you. We take Hansen's alarmist 1988 paper which contains a prediction. We take the Scenario A prediction that is in line with what has happened with non human causes for climate change and CO2 output.
When the global average temperature for a month is lower than the prediction, you pay me a pound. When its above, I pay you.
ie. The bet is whether or not Hansen's prediction is true or not.
All scientific, because its an apriori prediction and test.
Nick
"I think many climate denialists don't believe what they're saying or at least are willing to be deceptive to push their opinion."
What makes you think that?
And do you really think they're *more* "willing to be deceptive to push their opinion" than those most strongly wedded to the other side of the argument? Such as, say, Tamino? Or Gavin? Really?
In any case, you've hit on an interesting idea. Currently, plagiarism-checking like this gets done in a random fashion. People like Goeglein get away with this crap because there's nobody systematically checking. But what if there was? If we could come up with a good mechanism for vetting newspaper columns, keeping track of which ones have been vetted, and suggesting new ones to check, it would be a waste to limit the search to "denialists". Make it a general-purpose thing. Kind of like Anthony Watts' SurfaceStations project.
Regarding your Walter Williams comment, I'm pretty sure you've been had. Yes, a guy who goes by the blog name "William Walters" made a bunch of stupid comments. What led you to the conclusion that these posts were made by the actual Walter Williams rather than some troll? "William Walters" did a fine job of hijacking the thread, whoever he was.
If this troll is really a conservative, he picked the name because he *likes* Walter Williams. If he's really a liberal, he picked the name because he *dislikes* Walter Williams. On the third hand, maybe his name really is "William Walters". I'd give any of those a higher probability than that the actual Walter Williams chose to weigh in in such a manner.
Glen - I've got no objection to people checking anybody who publishes material, no matter which side of the debate they're on.
I think the subset of skeptics that I label denialists are more likely to commit plagiarism because they keep changing what they say, from "there's no warming" to "it's a sunspot cycle" to "it's a 1,500 year cycle" depending on how far they can twist irrefutable facts to support their political views. Of course I acknowledge that not all of them are like this, and even ones like Milloy that are purposefully deceptive might have moral qualms against intellectual theft. But then again, maybe not.
Nick, I've got plenty of bet offers on this website if you're interested. I stake my position on what the IPCC consensus represents, not on what one scientists says. I'm somewhat familiar with the Scenario A argument you've made - not sure what I think of it yet.
Nick, I've got plenty of bet offers on this website if you're interested. I stake my position on what the IPCC consensus represents, not on what one scientists says. I'm somewhat familiar with the Scenario A argument you've made - not sure what I think of it yet.
You should be, since its one of the major bits of evidence used behind some of the IPCC reports. Hansen is also one of the main reasons why I'm skeptic.
The reason it's a neat bet, is that making it 50-50 you would win some because of random variation, I would win some because of random variation. You can then apply the binomial distribution to get an accurate measure of just how good the theory is in practice.
I'm not surprised you won't take the bet. You would lose.
Perhaps you can answer why each time the IPCC report comes out, the rate of increase stays the same, but they have to keep rebasing the temperature to the prevailing temperature at the time?
ie. It's a case off our prediction didn't work, can we have another go?
Nick
Nick- Hansen said in 1988 that Scenario B was the most likely outcome, and of course you're avoiding that one. I skimmed arguments for why Scenario A should be considered instead as his most likely - I didn't think they were trivial, but would like to hear a response from his side. Regardless, I'll go with the IPCC.
Wanna give a link to your rebasing statement? I'm happy to bet against the 1950-1980 average, so that should resolve your issue unless I misunderstand it.
Well, there are reasons for not using scenario B. Hansen put in a volcanic erruption to show its effects. Over the post Pinatobu period there has not been a major erruption. Scenario B therefore has a downward bias that makes the prediction look better than it should. (The erruption that didn't happen would have depressed temperatures.
The claims are still being made that we have an escalating CO2 problem. That's scenario A.
The temperature record that is used is also important, and here one needs to used the satelite data, not the fudge stuff that climate audit and other's are showing to be so full of holes as to be worthless.
Nick
Brian: Hansen actually said Scenario B was "perhaps" the most likely. Somehow that qualifier keeps disappearing...
I don't regard the changing claims as dishonest. What's that old saw, something like: "When the facts change, I change my opinions, sir. What do *you* do?" Some people (say, Paul Erhlich) have a very low barrier to accepting we're-all-gonna-die-unless-we-change-our-evil-ways scenarios, whereas other people have a higher barrier. People who have the higher barrier are bound to have not just one but rather a /list/ of prerequisite claims that need to be proven before they are willing to accept the overall catastrophist position.
So if you win one intellectual battle, you haven't won the war. Those who keep claiming "the debate is over" remind me a little of Bush standing before that "Mission Accomplished" sign. 
Look, the 'most likely' includes a volcanic erruption that didn't happen.
Perhaps you would like to say does that make his prediction
1) too low
2) too high
3) spot on (for the right reason)
Each of the scenarios had a dependency on anthropogenic CO2 production.
A was high, B middle and C low.
Since we had high CO2 production, that means the prediction is A.
You're trying to pick the prediction that fits after the fact, ie. Make a post ante selection, not look at the a priori prediction.
Like I said Nick, I saw the argument a while back, thought it might have some validity, but would have needed to look at it more closely and the counter arguments. But I don't plan to, because I'm not betting based on what Hansen said in 1988, or Ehrlich in 1968, or Arrhenius in 1896. They don't represent the state of the science. I'm arguing from and am willing to take a priori the IPCC predictions as the bases for my bets.
If you want an argument on Hansen's 1988 predictions, Tim Lambert might be a better one to try it out on.
Glen - to go from "the data doesn't support global warming" to "the data supports only temporary natural global warming" to "the data supports a 1500 year cycle of natural warming" isn't changing their opinion to match facts, it's mangling facts to support hypotheses that no matter what, keeps them from doing what they don't want to do. It's dishonest. My second choice for potential plagiarist is the guy who I think went through this process, Fred Singer. Again, just a hunch.
Off topic: Bill Gray appears to be looking for a wager that there will be cooling in 10 years
http://www.businessandmedia.org/
...0304113132.aspx
On topic:: Nick is grossly misrepresenting Hansen's 1988 paper. The folks over at Deltoid have already demolished the distorted claims he advances (or that he's plagiarized from Stevie Mac?)
Thanks Winnebago - I doubt Gray is really interested in betting - he refused my bet offer several years ago.
Do you know the specific Deltoid post that dealt with this Scenario A issue? What I'm familiar with there is the whole subject of Scenarios B and C being deleted from the graphs, and Nick raises a somewhat separate issue.
On topic:: Nick is grossly misrepresenting Hansen's 1988 paper. The folks over at Deltoid have already demolished the distorted claims he advances (or that he's plagiarized from Stevie Mac?)
--------------
No. I've done my own analysis of the data versus Hadcrut3.
Its shows that Scenario A is completely wrong. 1 year in 23 which creeps in as just over prediction. Since it is a 50-50 bet, you can plug that into a binomial model and the chances of that are effectively zero.
Scenario C is also wrong.
The assumptions of Scenario B, particularly the bias introduced by including a putative volcanic erruption also make it wrong.
In other words, given the proverbial barn door, Hansen didn't hit it.
You are right on the bet front. Very few will take bets that are constructed on a large number of 50-50 predictions.
Couple that with the standard IPCC trick of changing the predictions every report, because their previous predictions were wrong ...
Nick
Nick,
Very interesting, but you see I'm a complete climate idiot ... silly old me will only ever believe what the IPCC, all major national scientific bodies, and thousands of professional climate scientists tell me about AGW. I know its hard for you to accept, but some f***stick on a blog droning on about the errors in Hansen's paper and the IPCC continually changing predictions ... well ... it kinda makes me think that that droning poster is a complete and utter goose.
How to make me change my mind about you though (?) ... heyyy I know ... PUBLISH something in a reputable, peer reviewed, scientific journal. You know ... something that smashes the whole crumbling house of shite that is AGW - but also stands up to rigorous analysis by real climate scientists !! Maybe then I could admit that not only was I wrong in my initial assessment but I should also appreciate your pearls of climate wisdom, your incisive mind, your peerless thought processes, your original and ground breaking methods, etc. Please, I beg you, stop talking, just publish something.
But then again ... maybe not ... you're just some f***stick on a blog aren't you.
[Please watch the expletives. Thx. -Brian]
Edited By Siteowner
but you see I'm a complete climate idiot
It shows.
What you have just shown yourself to be is someone who wants to be told what to do and what to think. Sad really.
Nick
Nick. Maybe I'm being a bit naive here but as I alluded to above, even a person of my limited mental powers should be able to expect that given the gales of scorn and derision from the AGW denialist camp, that one of you, somewhere, might have ... you know ... published some authoritative research/paper/article/booklet/journal/
scribblings-on-a-beer-coaster that survived rigorous scrutiny by professional climate scientists? An exciting new wrinkle that was rightly considered a worthy example of there being a REAL exception to current warming theory? I mean it would have to be worth millions to be the guy who wrote the paper that 'broke AGW' don't you think.
But where the f*** are they ?
This complete lack of any serious material is the great glass jaw of your AGW denialism. One light tap on the chin (mention the words 'publish' and 'review' in conversation) and you go down like a big bag of s***. Please Nick, stop talking the talk ... its time to stand up and walk the walk baby !! Go on ... submit your findings for publication (I'd suggest starting with 'Nature' or something of that stature).
Aww jeez, will you look at the time ?!! I've just gone and blabbed on and on and on and I know some personality defect will probably drive you to have the last word (or you'll just piss yourself, or explode, or something) ... so ... take it awayyy Nick ...
[Please watch the expletives. Thx -Brian]
Edited By Siteowner
"it would have to be worth millions to be the guy who wrote the paper that 'broke AGW' don't you think."
Yeah, that and three bucks might get you a cup of coffee.
In your view, where would these "millions" come from? I'm curious about the thought process that produces claims like this.
To the contrary, I've always assumed that when people are hysterical about some bogeyman, the big money comes from feeding the flames, not dousing them. Sure, Simon won his bet with Ehrlich, but who sold more books? The Population Bomb was a bestseller; The Ultimate Resource was not.
Or compare John Edwards (the talk-to-the-dead guy, not the politician) with The Amazing Randi (who debunks people like John Edwards): Which one got his own TV show and earns millions at his job?
Heck, compare a what a top television preacher makes to what somebody like Richard Dawkins makes. Every time skepticism comes up against popular nonsense, the big money is on the side of the nonsense. If AGW turns out to be nonsense, it'll eventually just fade away in favor of the next big worry. Nobody will make big bucks from having "broken" it. There's no reward for having been right in this sort of context.
Glen: "In your view, where would these "millions" come from?"
The fossil fuel industry would shower money on anyone who has a credible challenge to the climate change science. Money prizes, highly paid consultant positions, paid corporate Board of Director positions, grants galore.
Randi and Dawkins don't make anyone money from their work, but the person who "debunked" climate change would be worth billions to the industry.
Let me ask the simple question.
CO2 only hit significant levels around 1950 according to the models.
The unstated null hypothesis is that the temperature in 1950 is 'normal' and that the rise since is therfore abnormal.
Correct or not?
Nick
Sorry Brian,
Apologies for the language. I really don't have an excuse for that ... just a bit unrestrained at times I guess. I also apologise to Nick, he has at least been well tempered in his posts, perhaps his emphatic but (to my mind) bone-headed claims just fired me up.
Glen, I can only agree with you about John Edwards and assorted television evangelists but whatever Edwards and co. might flim-flam out of the gullible it is pretty small beer compared to what is at stake in the context of AGW and Brian rightly nails it in his post above.
The fossil fuelers have a direct interest in keeping demand and consumption rates as high as possible and would fund anything CREDIBLE that might stall this threat to their income stream. Why wouldn't OPEC, Shell, Exxon, etc and the big coal exporters forgo a few million out of their elephantine profits to fund something that would shunt AGW down some dark alley and kill it off ? Surely they'd go for that like a rat up a drainpipe ? ... unless maybe those clear-eyed capitalists actually think the denialist arguments and tactics are so compellingly ridiculous that they would rather burn their money than fund crapulous rubbish like that out in the open ... these are the 'smartest guys in the room' after all.
(A bit more guff following on from the post above then I'll leave you to it.)
Nick, a fair question ... and I don't have your detailed knowledge to answer it so I won't embarass myself by trying.
But you know I just can't help but come back to the observation that despite all the rapturous applause about less than 400 signatures on a letter to the US Senate, the broken 'hockey stick' news, the 'No Global Warming Since 1998' findings, the lectures about why the GISS data is wrong, your 'gotcha' about CO2, the assertions of incompetent research from people who are themselves blisteringly incompetent, and the general flatulance that passes for reasoned argument from the denialist ranters worldwide (YES OK !!! ... I'll get to the end of this sentence soon!) there is still not one, single, authoritative, rigorously reviewed and accepted study, published by any denialist, anywhere, that makes any SIGNIFICANT difference to the scientific consensus on AGW. In case you had forgotten the latest IPCC report IS the consensus.
Again. Where on earth is all this big hitting AGW-debunking material hiding ?
You have some original thoughts on the matter but then will not take the step that REALLY counts and get them into the serious literature. Without that step ... well ... I think the saying is 'ya got nothin'.
The reasonable 'man in the street' i.e. me, basing my decision on the available information, must take the sensible and CONSERVATIVE path and be guided by the informed opinion, knowledge, and skills of thousands of competent and professional scientists working in the field. The professionals tell us there is a real problem and we are almost certainly the cause of it.
The only other source of information out there, the one that tells me these professionals are wrong, that it is all a tissue of lies, a leftist stunt, the research is inconclusive, or (amazingly) not cause for concern is, even after all these years, still just some ranter on a blog.
Cheers,
Chris
The fossil fuel industry would shower money on anyone who has a credible challenge to the climate change science. Money prizes, highly paid consultant positions, paid corporate Board of Director positions, grants galore.
That's an interesting theory but I'm not convinced. Perhaps you and I have different views on how science impacts policy. Let me state mine: I don't believe public policy is significantly driven by science. There's no point in wasting big bucks on scientists (on either side) because scientists have no political power.
But let's work out the logic. If AGW were a significant threat to some industry and some scientist published a decent debunking in the scientific literature, the last thing that industry would want is to give him a seat on the corporate board or give him more than token monetary support! Why not? For the exact reason evident in this thread: one way doom-and-gloomers demonize their opponents is to accuse them of being "industry shills" rather than addressing their arguments. Giving any scientist "millions" or "grants galore" would greatly weaken that scientist's ability to influence policy or scientific understanding. So it would be counterproductive. Which explains why we never see it.
It's also worth considering that the biggest players in an industry generally tend to like new regulations and regulatory agencies, seeing them as a way to hobble young upstart competitors. The big players just have to slosh a few of their "millions" at the right politicians to get their own behavior grandfathered in or get the playing field tilted to favor the home team and whatever new technologies they have a head start in. (That's how we ended up subsidizing the "biofuels" boondoggle and it's how we got an "assault weapons ban" that only applied to foreign-made weapons.)
Follow the money.
Government's love AGW, because they can then blame the tax rises on others.
They don't hypothecate the taxes.
This diverts money from areas where there are real problems now with real deaths such as malaria.
I've even come across alarmists who view people dying from malaria as a good thing, because it helps combat global warming.
"I've even come across alarmists who view people dying from malaria as a good thing, because it helps combat global warming."
Sounds like an urban legend - I'd like to see the cite.
And Glen, Exxon gives money to denialist policy groups - they would make sure that someone who could save their hide would have whatever resources he or she needed to prove the case, and then the political support to be out in front.
A good test case to examine this would be to examine corporate behavior where the enviro scare turned out to be mostly bogus, like on electromagnetic fields.
Commenting by HaloScan
