My Photo
Mobilise this Blog

Google

InvestigateDaily

INVESTIGATEMAGAZINE.TV

Kiwiblog

New Zealand Conservative

InvestigatePodcast

AmCam News Tips

  • Have you got mobile camera pix of breaking news, or a first-hand account you've written?
    email Investigate now on publicity [at] investigatemagazine.com and we'll get you online
Blog powered by Typepad

« A definitive thumping of RealClimate.org... | Main | Air Con - the interview »

Comments

Adolf Fiinkensein

Please send a copy of this to the idiot Kiddy Doctor who, after a whole month's study, is advising Mr Key we should all panic about global warming.

David White

And to the tree-hugging Dr from Nelson who is also panicking.

Ian Wishart

On the one hand, Sir Peter Gluckman....

peter

Ian .. Is it not time you publicly and noisily called John Key and Nic Smith to account.

And to build your case, Can't you find any mud on them at all.

Come on - I seem to remember Nick was deputy leader for National for a record setting two weeks, am I right?

He got mixed up with some fundamentalists you devoted a front page of Investigate to!

Shane Ponting

Where's the obligatory "ha ha ha!" peter? You are letting your image slip....

Sam Vilain

Here's a fun game you can all play.

Go to scholar.google.com, and put the names of three people on the list in. What field are they researching in?

Here's three to start:

Harold M. Agnew: Nuclear Physicist, Biologist

E.O. Lawrence: Nuclear Physicist

Sol Aisenberg: Chemist

Bonus points for finding a single researcher who has published a paper actually related to climate change!

Sam Vilain

Go on Ian, Investigate

Find a single scholar who actually has credibility in the science of climate change.

Ian Wishart

I'm sorry Sam, you are entirely correct. Atmospheric physics has nothing to do with climate.

Meanwhile, in the real world, it's worth noting that when challenged the UN IPCC has conceded that fewer than 20% of its reports were written by people with "Any" dealings with climate at all.

And, of course, IPCC head Rajendra Pachauri is a train engineer and Al Gore's a politician, and neither you nor Gareth Renowden nor Russell Brown have any climate science qualifications either.

Russell Brown

Gee Ian, if you were to list the names and qualifications of all the APS members who do not agree with the signatories to the letter, I bet your blog post would be even longer.

For the record, the most recent report on energy efficiency from the APS contains the following passage:

Without question, the United States faces a greater energy risk today than it has at any time in its history. But the nation and the world face another risk that was barely recognized thirty-five years ago. Global warming and the potential it has for causing major disruptions to Earth’s climate are scientific realities. The precise extent of the human contribution to global warming still needs deeper understanding, but there is virtually no disagreement among scientists that it is real and substantial.

The physics and chemistry of the greenhouse gas effect are well understood and beyond dispute. Science has also achieved an overwhelming consensus that the increase in greenhouse gases is largely of human origin, tracing back to the Industrial Revolution and accelerating in recent years, as carbon dioxide and methane—the products of fossil fuel use—have entered the atmosphere in increasing quantities.

Modeling the climate has proven to be a complex scientific task. But although the models are far from perfect, many of their predictions are so alarming that conservative, risk-averse policymaking requires that they be considered with extraordinary gravity.

As the Prime Minister's Chief Science Advisor has noted, there will always be those who demur with the mainstream understanding of the science: he offered the example of those who maintained that AIDS was not linked to HIV. I do not say this in the hope or expectation that any rational argument will find purchase with you.

cj_nza

Sam, I could not find a scientific field of study that is called “climate change”.

Ian Wishart

Russell, it's not an appeal to authority, which bunnies on the Left repeatedly do by holding onto the IPCC reports like they found them on Mt Sinai.

What it DOES illustrate is there is strong disagreement within the scientific community about the truth or extent of AGW theory.

And for what it's worth, so far worldwide more scientists have publicly identified themselves as climate sceptics in some sense than have positively identified themselves as believers.

You are correct in asserting that professional bodies have issued edicts supporting AGW theory, but those edicts have been highly contentious within the membership, as one journal editor found recenty to his chagrin.

Scientists at the coalface resent their paid secretariats attending a one hour Al Gore climate change course and then signing the whole industry up publicly to AGW belief.

Ian Wishart

And Sam, further to your daft challenge here, are you trying to suggest Fred Singer has no climate papers to his name?

The reality is that most of the scientists on that list have worked in the climate/atmospheric/geophysics/astronomic areas, as well as chemistry.

The laws of physics and chemistry and central to the climate debate. There is no separate magic category of climate laws.

Don't be such a ponce.

Sam Vilain

Oh, I'm a ponce, am I? Defamation!!

The reality is that most of the scientists on that list have worked in the climate/atmospheric/geophysics/astronomic areas, as well as chemistry.

Bullshit. I looked up the first three on that list and they were all doing stuff in completely different scientific fields.

I repeat and clarify my challenge: find me one paper by one person on that list which has anything to do whatsoever with the science of climate change.

In fact, go find me three people on that list with such papers because you have made your claim bolder by saying that most of them have worked in relevant areas. Or show me one paper they have come up with which puts them in a special place to comment on the science.

All you have so far is Fred Singer, who is such a well known crank. But you don't need to argue against that claim - find more qualified scientists! You said most!

I once investigated a Wikipedia list in this fashion and it was formative in my own perspective on climate change.

Ian Wishart

I had a hunch you were a Wikipedia groupie...first error in life. Wikipedia is fine for non-contentious undisputed facts. It is utterly unreliable on anything disputable.

You challenged me to name just one. I did. Singer.

Try also Nicola Scafetta.

Martin Zombeck (picked at random) must have done something right because his astrophysical work is cited in someone else's paper:

"Infrared Properties of High Redshift and X-ray Selected AGN Samples- ►arxiv.org [PDF]
BJ Wilkes, EJ Hooper, KK McLeod, MS Elvis, … - LECTURE NOTES IN PHYSICS-NEW YORK THEN …, 2000 - Springer
... 1 , Eric J. Hooper 1 , Kim K. McLeod 2 , Martin S. Elvis ... to the Wien region of dust
near the sublimation temperature. ... Zombeck, MV 1990, Handbook of Space Astron ... "

Evidently astrophysicists have to know about the radiative properties of gases like CO2 because that's their job, as another Google scholar paper on Zombeck points out:

"Investigation Relative to the Roentgen Satellite (ROSAT)
GSF Center - ntrs.nasa.gov
... 4 10 PR 666-27508 666-27508 (PI: Martin V. Zombeck) 4 ... the observed x-ray surface brightness
profile and gas temperature profile to determine the distribution of ..."


I could go on, but you've already missed the point. If the ponce hat fits...

Ian Wishart

You suggested Harold M Agnew had no experience on climate issues, because of your extensive Google search.

What's this? It seems to be discussing atmospheric gases:

"Evidence for an Excited State of He^{5}
WT Leland, HM Agnew - Physical Review, 1951 - APS
... This is to be expected, since the steam was at 110°C which is considerably higher
than the average temperature of the water vapor in the atmosphere. ... "

In the same vein, I'm guessing Sol Aisenberg doesn't have a clue about the radiative properties of gases either:

"Chemical Additives and Diagnostics for High Temperature Air Plasmas.
S Aisenberg, KW Chang - 1971 - oai.dtic.mil
Accession Number : AD0748469. Title : Chemical Additives and Diagnostics for High
Temperature Air Plasmas. ... Personal Author(s) : Aisenberg,Sol ; Chang,Kuo Wei. ..."

Shall I go for the threepeat? Yeah, why not. The other character you mentioned had no training in this field is E O Lawrence:

"Passive measurement of nitrogen oxides to assess traffic-related pollutant exposure for the …
BC Singer, AT Hodgson, T Hotchi, JJ Kim - Atmospheric Environment, 2004 - Elsevier
... b EO Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Environmental Energy Technologies Division,
Indoor ... data were obtained from the Western Regional Climate Center in ..."

Putz.

ian J

Sam you old scratched record you. Praps if you stand atop the skytower with a sandwich board and shout really loadly it will become truth. In fact, if you leap off your words have that much more effect as well.

Sam Vilain

You're right, you named just one. Singer. And I laughed.

But hold on, the point you say I've missed is about to come around and thump you in the face. You shot from the hip again, and now let me show you what a clue stick looks like.

Scafetta is indeed also qualified. Well done. Scafetta and West (2005) for instance claims that '25-35% of the global warming in the 1980-2000 period can be attributed changes in the solar output'. Turns out they were using a statistical analysis only and no physical model - sidestepping all that pesky atmospheric physics and just going straight from graphs of sunspots to global temperatures like cranks like to do. Their "wavelet analysis" was like listening to an untuned radio and seeing if you could pick out sounds you were wanting to hear. Well, that's my analogy. You can of course find a more thorough description from an actual Climate Scientist.

Ok so now what of the third? Well, it's all very well and good knowing the radiative properties of gases in the X-ray bands for Astrophysics, but what does that have to do with climate change? The answer is: next to nothing. There are no X-rays in the atmosphere. That you can't see the difference between physics relevant to looking at the sky (as the ROSAT satellite is) and that of Planet Earth, well what was that quote? "From another planet?" Not even from this Solar System...

Sorry, I should have said that I was going to investigate the papers and people that you picked from the list.

Remember that feeling, Ian, that's what being hit with a cluestick feels like.

Sam Vilain

Ha... unbelievable. Of course I didn't see your second comment there when I was writing my comment.

On Harold Agnew - you think that just because it contains a few key words it is related science?

On Sol Aisenberg - do you even know what a "plasma" is? It's like a fourth state of matter, with so much energy electrons are stripped from their nuclei. Sorry, you fail.

On E O Lawrence - that paper was measuring pollutant exposure in cities. You know, those insignificant 'islands' which have nothing to do with global temperatures according to the cranks. But that's environmental science, not climate science.

Climate science, Ian. Climate science. We're looking for climate scientists. Keep investigating!

Putz

Sticks and stones may hurt my bones but names will never hurt me.

Sam Vilain

btw I've had enough Pig Wrestling for the day, have fun fuming Ian.

Ian Wishart

Like I said. Putz.

Sam, do you seriously think an astrophysicist is skilled only in X-ray bands? Or do you think there's a tiny, insy-winsy weeny chance they might be trained in the full spectrum of all the gases they deal with?

As for Scafetta, you disagree with his conclusions. So what. Doesn't change the reality that he has published in the field.

Remind me when you finally land a blow that means something, and I'll wake up. These scientists are skilled physicists. The CO2 debate is not really about climate (and let';s face it, we know diddly squat about climate compared with some of the other disciplines), it's about physics.

The only scientific discipline wedded to AGW climate change belief is, surprise, climatologists, and mostly those playing with computers like Schmidt and Mann.

The comments to this entry are closed.