back to article Climate-change scepticism must be 'treated', says enviro-sociologist

Scepticism regarding the need for immediate and massive action against carbon emissions is a sickness of societies and individuals which needs to be "treated", according to an Oregon-based professor of "sociology and environmental studies". Professor Kari Norgaard compares the struggle against climate scepticism to that against …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. jake Silver badge

    OK, I'll bite ...

    "Prof Norgaard holds a B.S. in biology and a master's and PhD in sociology."

    We should listen to Prof Norgaard's opinion on climate why, exactly?

    The mind boggles ...

    1. Sir Runcible Spoon Silver badge

      Sir

      Mine too. I mean, there's a difference between 'denial' and 'yet to be convinced' surely?

      1. Bill Neal
        Unhappy

        Re: Sir

        Why do so many people wrongly assume the "consensus" is unanimous? I mean even if we accept that we impact this planet in many ways, there is no universally accepted method of how to control the weather, or if nature can/will right itself as it has many times before humans existed. There is still a debate and the data gathering continues to clear our understanding. Why do so many people insist on assuming the hypothesis is correct before the result is known? That is not science. If you are not questioning the information being fed to you, then climatology may as well be scientology.

        1. Steven Roper

          @Bill Neal re: Climatology and Scientology

          To me, the two are the same thing in essence. This professor's sanctimonious attitude in wanting to "cure" those who don't drink the Kool-Aid is typical of this mentality: if you don't believe in body thetans - or human-induced climate change - you must be sick and need help.

          I personally find that professor's attitude extremely offensive, and it does nothing to sway me towards the ranks of the faithful; in fact, it makes me want to become even more staunch in my viewpoint: Is the climate is changing? Yes, but it's been changing continuously since the Earth was formed 4 1/2 billion years ago. Are humans causing the climate to change? I very much doubt it. The size of us and all our machinery compared to the size of the Earth is so insignificant, one might as well say that a flea can kill an elephant, as to say that we have a measurable effect on an entire planet's climate.

          1. Dr. Ellen
            Flame

            Re: @Bill Neal re: Climatology and Scientology

            Meh. I'm seventy now, and white, and for all my life have been told by assorted Black Spokesmen (Al Sharpton is the current pinnacle of the bunch) that I, like all whites, am racist. I don't think I agree, but so many authority figures tell me so ...

            So now Professor Kari Norgaard comes along and calls me a denier. I'll live with it. It'll probably go neatly alongside the Scientologists' opinion of me.

          2. PatrickEB

            Re: @Bill Neal re: Climatology and Scientology

            I agree that the comments by this person are just silly. The failure to grasp a subject should not mean the person should be 'treated' as if they had some form of disorder or disease.

            However, nor should they be considered capable of understanding the issues at hand.

            For everyone who says "I don't think so" should come the reply "So?". Unless they're an expert in the area, it really doesn't matter what they 'think' or 'believe'. Most people don't have the ability to understand the maths and the scientific research behind the issue. However, they do look at the weather and so have 'an opinion'.

            Professionally I've always listened to people who think something - that doesn't mean they know what they're talking about.

            What about General Relativity? What about gravity? How about people express an opinion on that? I guess they don't because they can't 'see it' and can't 'feel it' in the way that makes sense scientifically. I mean we all know 'light exists' and we 'see things' and things 'fall down' but beyond that...

            The professor is an idiot...but that doesn't mean those in the general population who 'think' something know what they're talking about either.

          3. Naughtyhorse

            Re: @Bill Neal re: Climatology and Scientology

            funny you should mention fleas and elephants

            <petard>

            http://www.ehow.com/info_8782868_effects-ticks-elephants.html

            </petard>

            the fact you 'very much doubt' human activity is causing CC says rather more about your understanding of the subjects than the chemistry/physics involved

            remember the ozone layer?

            remember how as a child in the 70's I could run around all day in the sun and never even knew what SPF meant? Or never even heard the word melanoma til the mid 80s?

            now an unhealthy exposure to the sun's radiation is counted in minutes per day

            and what caused the change in that little lot?

            the combined efforts of the aerosol spray and air con industries

            i very much doubt that they were ever much bigger than say, the steel/coal/petrochemical/big agri industries

            The sad fact of the issue at hand is that CC deniers are not, in the most part, driven by beliefs in evidence counter the the climate chance affirmers, it's a political/economic viewpoint. -the ones that are driven by scientific beliefs are just bad scientists :-)

            Im not so bothered cos i'm pretty sure it's already too late, by some considerable margin. So we (as a species) are pretty much fucked no matter what we do. but it wont be my problem, as i'll be dead before it really kicks in, and as for the future generations? Well thats their problem! once they have finished paying down the debt from out economic miracles, i daresay climate armageddon will be a merciful release for them.

      2. C 2
        FAIL

        Re: Sir

        Methinks it is in the way this whole issue is phrased ..

        "The good prof is in London at the moment for the "Planet Under Pressure" conference, where she presented a paper on Wednesday dealing with how best to do away with the evil of scepticism and get the human race to focus all its efforts on saving the planet."

        The planet doesn't need saving, it'll be just fine. We OTOH ... will be nothing more than a very interesting layer in the fossil record, if we don't save our own wasteful butts.

        What's more <rant>

        I've often wondered if we are capable of screwing this up bad enough to bring earth up to Venus like temps of around 800 degrees. Then again as a race we aren't being very proactive about ANYTHING. I imagine our electrical grid and other technology we depend upon, but don't protect, might be wiped out by a massive solar flare like the Carrington Super Flare back in 1869. A smaller event could easily wipe out most of our electrical grid, leaving it down until replacement parts can be built .. the multi-million $$ parts at the critical points of failure have a 1+ year lead time, and utilities are too cheap to keep a spare on hand.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_storm_of_1859

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grid_%28electricity%29#Aging_Infrastructure

        </rant>

        Cheers

        1. Mussie (Ed)

          Re: Sir

          Pardon my ignorance but wouldnt the spare parts be toasted by the solar flare just as badly as the parts beng used ?

      3. Graham Wilson
        Flame

        @Sir Runcible Spoon -- Re: Sir -- And surely??

        And surely it's also a belief that we can't just shift around humankind's burning of carbon-based fuels for 10s of thousands of years and of fossil fuels since sometime before the Industrial Revolution in only a few years as environmentalists, their social engineers and other climate zealots would have us do?

        Especially so, given the fact that clean replacement technologies are very immature and are still being developed.

        It's crazy. We need to respond more to climate zealots than we do to climate change, for climate zealots are an immediate short term danger whereas climate change is the lesser threat--as its a known longer term engineering problem that will be solved within sufficient time.

        Sensible people need to declare war on climate zealots, it's not a case of vise versa as they'd have us believe.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: OK, I'll bite ...

      I think you missed the point. You are supposed to listen to Prof Norgaard's opinion on the need for improving science communication. This is because of the fairly obvious failure of large

      sections of the population to understand scientific topics and methods. Climate science is an example of this communication failure.

      Whether you like it or not, and whether you agree with any particular current scientific consensus is irrelevant to the process of learning to communicate that science better. Why do they believe it? Why do you not? (or v.v.). Are there ways communication can be improved?

      1. Martin Yirrell
        Boffin

        Re: OK, I'll bite ...

        'twas once scientific consensus that the Sun went round the Earth. I always thought that consensus was the bane of science, like in evolution, AGW etc.

        1. PatrickEB

          Re: OK, I'll bite ...

          Actually it was NOT the consensus of scientists...they didn't exist at the time.

          It was the consensus of those who controlled thinking and ideas aka religious bodies.

          Please don't confuse the two.

        2. Jean-Luc Silver badge
          Boffin

          Re: OK, I'll bite ...

          >I always thought that consensus was the bane of science, like in evolution, AGW etc.

          So are you saying that the current consensus about evolution theory being quite likely to be correct is a problem for science? What alternative theories have shown scientific basis for their acceptance again?

      2. James Micallef Silver badge
        Facepalm

        @AC 09:56

        Sure, if you're talking generally that it's a good idea for scientists to be able to better communicate their ideas, I'm 100% behind that... but that's not what she's saying... she's saying that her sociological techniques are needed to convince people that climate change is a huge, immediate, panic-inducing problem, and the implication is that communicating teh science alone will not do that, and there needs to be some underlying sociological bag of tricks to get the job done.

        Her deep south racism / slavery analogy also implies "I'm right, and everyone who doesn't agree with me is no better than a racist yokel". Over-the-top rhetoric apart, this analogy is wrong for two reasons (1) While it's possible for scientists to convince reasonable people of their theories by providing proof, some people (of whom there seems to be an abundance in the US deep south) are not going to be convinced, because said proven theory goes against a deep-seated belief that they hold, so accepting that theory would mean rejecting themselves (2) a better analogy to use in this case is evolution/creationism rather than climate change/climate denialism, because in the first case there is actually over a hundred years of solid science stacking up and backing evolution. For climate change, while there is strong evidence of warming, the 'human-caused' element still hasn't been properly calculated, let alone the 'what do we do about it?' part

        1. Kevin 6

          Re: @AC 09:56

          "For climate change, while there is strong evidence of warming, the 'human-caused' element still hasn't been properly calculated, let alone the 'what do we do about it?' part"

          Pretty much I will not argue that the climate is changing, like you said my argument is the human caused element.

          If they look at core samples (yes the creationist will scoff at me) there has been shown cycles where the earth heated up way before humans existed like it is now then the temps plummet drastically (ice age type plummet). From what I remember reading(been quite a while it was before the human done global warming trend started) based on the core samples it seems we are currently in an excessively long cycle of warmth, and the heat up prior to the drop is pretty much over due. If anything IMO we might be accelerating it by a handful of years, but never the less it's something that was coming anyways.

          For the record my sister who is working on a B.S. in bio sounds just like this one in ranting and raving about how climate change is completely human caused without ever taking a class, or reading one book on earth science.

      3. sisk Silver badge

        Re: OK, I'll bite ...

        "This is because of the fairly obvious failure of large sections of the population to understand scientific topics and methods. Climate science is an example of this communication failure."

        I think people find it difficult to understand climate science more because we constantly see conflicting articles on the subject from people who all claim to have authoritative credentials. The population's (mis)understanding of the scientific method can't really be blamed for that.

        I believe this week we're being told 'Everything's fine, noithing to see here. Move along.' Next week we'll get told that we're all going to die in megatsunamis from melting ice caps or some such doomsday scenario and the week after that it'll all be blamed of cow farts or decomposing fish and the next week we'll be back to being told it's part of a natural cycle of that it's all in our heads. With so many 'experts' is it any wonder the population is confused about climate change?

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          @sisk: Re: OK, I'll bite ...

          " this week we're being told", "Next week we'll get told" -- yeah, sure, IF you rely on the media for your science.

          Alternatively, read the scientific literature, follow the deluge of different takes on similar topics, the sames takes on different topics, very specific results, very abstract but general results, experimental results, theoretical results, theoretical models of experiment, experiments testing theories, computational results, theories testing computation (and vv), computations of experiments (and vv), it goes on and on and on. Oh, and reviews of the literature, summaries, commentary, comment-and-reply sequences, gradually evolving consensus and disagreement. Watch as controversial subjects become settled, settled subjects (rather more rarely) get thrown open or become controversial again. Marvel at how some simple insight can spawn a subfield of its very own, or kill one stone dead. And that's only a small part of it.

          Then, once you've gained some expertise and a broad picture of the state of play, then come to a conclusion. You might need a PhD (or do the same amount of work anyway) in order to reach that conclusion.

          THEN you can complain (if you still want to)

          Relying on the two-or-three sides to a story version, or the Harry-Potter pitches as repeated by the media really gives you no clue at all. Your complaint is not due to a failing of science. It's due to your laziness in expecting the media or news websites to give you a fair picture of science.

          "With so many 'experts' is it any wonder the population is confused about climate change?" - and that is especially confusing, since most scientific experts tend to be in agreement about climate change. Perhaps there's some work to be done on science communication to the general public? Maybe someone will attempt to bring that to our attention.

          1. PatrickEB

            Re: @sisk: OK, I'll bite ...

            This

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: OK, I'll bite ...

          ""This is because of the fairly obvious failure of large sections of the population to understand scientific topics and methods. Climate science is an example of this communication failure."

          This as Ass Backwards. The real problem is the opposite. Global Warming scientists were so successful at promoting their ideas that the world is now well down the path to a complete disruption of the economic, political, and social structures of westernized countries.

          Why is this a problem? Because the scientists did not follow scientific methodology to arrive at their conclusions, making it almost impossible independently test the results.

          The vast sums of money involved means that, even now, when the problems with the methodology are becoming increasingly apparent, it will be many years, if at all, before the situation is reversed.

          Scientific Method

          1. Observe some aspect of the universe.

          2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with what you have observed.

          3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions.

          4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results.

          5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation.

          http://physics.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node6.html

        3. Steve Knox Silver badge
          Boffin

          Re: OK, I'll bite ...

          "I think people find it difficult to understand climate science more because we constantly see conflicting articles on the subject from people who all claim to have authoritative credentials. The population's (mis)understanding of the scientific method can't really be blamed for that."

          Yes, it can. If the population understood the scientific method, they wouldn't be looking for the claimants' "authoritative credentials": they'd be looking for the source data and methodology.

    3. Audrey S. Thackeray

      Re: OK, I'll bite ...

      "We should listen to Prof Norgaard's opinion on climate why, exactly?"

      Same reason as we should listen to yours, I guess.

      Luckily her opinion on climate change is not what she is putting forward here - it's her opinion on the "misfit between dire scientific predictions of ongoing and future climate changes and scientific assessments of needed emissions reductions on the one hand, and weak political, social or policy response on the other,"

      It might not be terribly useful or important but she isn't mouthing off about something she's not qualified to comment on.

      1. Adam0625

        Re: OK, I'll bite ...

        Sorry, Audrey. But her opinion on climate change is EXACTLY what she's putting forward. So munch so that she believes anyone who disagrees with her needs treatment. The very idea is repugnant.

    4. Adam0625

      Re: OK, I'll bite ...

      I do not think the good professor cares whether or not we listen to her opinion. In her mind, the science is settled. She has a Borg mentality. Her proposition is assimilation. Can you say re-education camp?

  2. g e

    I'll consider myself cured, then

    When everyone agrees that all the climate 'science' has been independently peer-reviewed and that what's left is as real and factual as it can be.

    There, warmologists, the cure lies within your own hands.

    NB I don't not-believe in global warming, just the highly lucrative shrieking of 'man-made' by our new plutocratic warmology elite who have shiny new lifestyles to maintain.

    1. Si 1

      Re: I'll consider myself cured, then

      You can't call it global warming any more, they had to change the name to climate change after the warming stopped about 10 years ago.

      1. g e

        Re: I'll consider myself cured, then

        Ahhh of course, a politically correct/markety thing, like BC/BCE and AD/CE, then?

        Inconvenient bloody weather, eh?

        LOL

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: I'll consider myself cured, then

          AD/CE is not political correctness AFAIK.

          It's down to "the most accurate". No one argues over a date in the calendar. Using a persons birth date could get complicated if we find out it was wrong or people don't know who that person is. :P

      2. NomNomNom

        Re: I'll consider myself cured, then

        " they had to change the name to climate change after the warming stopped about 10 years ago."

        Really so what was the IPCC, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, called before they changed their name 10 years ago?

        P.S the warming hasn't stopped.

        1. Dodgy Geezer Silver badge
          FAIL

          Re: I'll consider myself cured, then

          P.P.S Yes, it has. Even the global warming scientists admit this.

          In one UEA e-mail, Trenberth admits it’s a "travesty" that "we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment." But Trenberth’s "lack of warming at the moment" has been going on at least a decade...

      3. Burb

        Re: I'll consider myself cured, then

        "after the warming stopped about 10 years ago."

        Not this one again...

    2. DrXym Silver badge

      Re: I'll consider myself cured, then

      Define "independently reviewed" please. I think you will discover that scientific papers submitted to the leading journals related to climate, or indeed any other scientific field are rigourously peer reviewed.

      So who else do you think should be doing the reviewing if not experts in the fields in question? Cranks? Global warming deniers? Blogs? The court of public opinion?

      Funnily enough 9/11 "truthers" also demand independent review. By demanding an independent review they can deny the results they don't want to hear, shift the goalposts and still cling onto their conspiracy theories.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: I'll consider myself cured, then

        "Funnily enough 9/11 "truthers" also demand independent review. By demanding an independent review they can deny the results they don't want to hear, shift the goalposts and still cling onto their conspiracy theories."

        To be fair there is plenty of room for conspiracy theories in 9/11 without having to shift the goalposts. For instance, why, when the President's schedule had been publicly known for months, was the elementary school he was visiting not considered a potential target (which would have prompted the Secret Service to mount a quick evac) and how did a pilot whom witnesses say couldn't competantly pilot a single engine plane pull off on extremely difficult manuver in a jumbo jet to hit the pentagon? There are still a lot of unanswered questions there.

        And no, I'm not a conspiracy theorist....I don't attribute to malice what is easily explained by stupidity, especially where the Bush administration is concerned.

        1. DrXym Silver badge

          Re: I'll consider myself cured, then

          "To be fair there is plenty of room for conspiracy theories in 9/11"

          There really aren't. Those questions you ask have mundane explanations which don't require conspiracy. e.g. the guy aimed the plane at the pentagon - a massive recognizable building - and hit it, but certainly not the skilled pilot you claim as clipped poles and demolished generator buildings demonstrate. This site more than adequately tells you everything you need to know with supporting links - http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/911pentagonflight77evidencesummary.

    3. HeNe
      Holmes

      Re: I'll consider myself cured, then

      I don't not-believe, but neither am I convinced.

      I believe the raw data and procedures must be published and successfully replicated, and independantly examined.

      Peer review has mutated into the monkeys-ladder-bananas-waterhose indoctrination.

      At one time, it was the quote-scientific-un-quote consensus that illnesses were caused by evil spirits.

      At another time, it was the quote-scientific-un-quote consensus that illnesses needed to be cured by "bleeding" the patient.

      "Effectively communicating" these consensuses to the masses would not make the consensuses "correct", it simply would make them more widely-accepted.

      When scientists work on communicating a set of beliefs instead of finding the truth, they are no longer scientists. Instead, they are religious figures, shills, tools, demagogues and politicians.

      1. Burb

        Re: I'll consider myself cured, then

        "I believe the raw data and procedures must be published and successfully replicated, and independantly examined."

        You mean like the recent BEST study for example?

      2. Marshalltown
        Unhappy

        Re: I'll consider myself cured, then

        The truly sad side of things is that the data is actually spotty, almost certainly biased, is known to be correlated to change is regional populations, and offers no true "natural" base line. We know we have an effect on our environment, but we really have no idea how to measure it.

    4. MichaelC58

      Re: I'll consider myself cured, then

      I agree, but even consensus peer-review alone is not enough to dictate critical public policy. It is only the first vetting process. You don't get to sell drugs based on peer-reviewed validation studies. You don't get to build and fly passengers in aeroplanes designed to peer reviewed designs. You have FDA and Aviation regulators to challenge, verify and validate the work before lives are put at risk.

      That's because peer-review almost never involves verification of raw data and is subject to fads, group bias and confirmation bias and funding capture. When you then add a significant body of highly qualified scientists dissenting, often at risk to their own position and funding, you would be mad to base public policy on it.

      The climate change science supporting a green industry worth over a trillion dollars has not been subjected to a single quality standard or a public independent regulator, the model software code never independently audited and qualified, never tested in independent laboratories, the raw data and their adjustments seldom made public. You could not market an aspirin based on the quality of climate science data. So it is lunacy to be restructuring the world by it.

  3. Wilseus

    This sounds like typical socialist dogma to me: dare to have a different opinion to us? Then you're a sexist/racist/homophobe/out of touch toff (delete as appropriate)

    1. frank ly Silver badge

      Actually,

      It sounds like fascist dogma, or communist dogma, or corporatist dogma, or morarchist dogma (just change the bogeymen to suit).

    2. DrXym Silver badge

      Someone needs to look up what dogma means. Science is not governed by dogma. If someone were able to produce an explanation of climate change which was better supported by the evidence then it would be the favoured explanation and the others discarded.

      1. MichaelC58

        Naive science

        That's the naive school child's understanding of how science should work.

        When you introduce billions of dollars, environmentalist advocates, politicians, careers, whole departments, socialist ideology and United Nations power interests, you don't think science might work an a touch differently?

        OK, assume that undisputable proof that cGAW was not dangerous was discovered tomorrow. Do you think all the scientists, their institutes, university departments, government departments and the trillion dollar carbon offsets and green industry would say:

        "Oh, my bad, there is now a better natural explanation of recent warming " and all resign and

        shut down their empires at the end of the day?" Of course not, they would fight to the death.

        In science even without the giant politics and industry of climate change, you typically have to wait until the thought leaders resign or die off before a consensus opinion is changed. Take the DDT - malaria debacle. DDT has been re-approved only now, 30 years after 'Silent spring' and millions of Africans killed by malaria.

        So, no "research science" alone can not drive critical public policy, it must be "regulated science" by independent, nay, adversarial regulation agencies verifying all the data, all the adjustments and all the conclusions.

    3. Figgus

      If you don't agree with climate change, please submit yourself to the nearest government population harmony center for... reeducation.

      We're here to help you.

    4. Goat Jam

      Scratch a lefty/green and underneath you'll find a totalitarian who would lock you up in a re-education camp for your own good.

      Meanwhile, here in Australia, our local Green Senator Bob Brownshirt has just finished explaining to us that the reason we have not been contacted by alien civilisations is because they "extincted themselves" in the same way that we will if we don't bow down at the Church of Climate Change.

      http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion/bob-browns-alien-theory-is-off-the-planet/story-e6frfhqf-1226312863119

      This guy is a true lunatic.

      He is currently off at some green-socialist talk-fest proposing a Totalitarian Green Flavoured One World Government, for the good of Mother Gaia of course.

  4. K Silver badge
    Mushroom

    Hey doc..

    .. Or do you prefer Crusading Quack?

    The only sickness here is your lack comprehension that people have the right to disagree.

    Fact is few people will disagree that the climate is changing, but environmentalists have cried wolf for decades, they've spent billion upon billions on trying to prove their theories.. yet they've still not delivered ANY kind of proof!

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      @K Re: Hey doc..

      "spent billion upon billions", eh? And in the same interval, the western world has probably spent the same on catfood.

      1. John Angelico
        Coat

        Re: @K Hey doc..

        On catfood? That's probably done more than all the billions spent on "climate research" then. At least cats are companion animals that give their people the semblance of a pleasant lifestyle. :-)

        1. Dave the Cat
          Devil

          Re: @K Hey doc..

          I'm sorry but I completely disagree, cats are four legged incarnations of lucifer himself. It's proven fact that when a cat looks at you it's trying to work out the best way of blinding you. I read it in stories so it must be true.

  5. Dogface

    These are the kind of people who are behind Agenda 21.

    http://endoftheamericandream.com/archives/al-gore-agenda-21-and-population-control

    1. Matthew 17

      Avoiding the tinfoil hat for a moment...

      Given the rising global population and the fact that it's set to continue, an over crowded world where it's difficult to feed and water everyone isn't going to be much fun. Sure technology will find a way to ensure everyone is fed but all that would happen is the population would grow again until there's a bottleneck again.

      If it were any other species there would be a cull or at least controls in place to manage the population.

      Whilst no-one would advocate a cull encouraging people to breed much less can only be a good idea as I can't see any benefit for trying to have as many people as possible on this planet.

      1. Arnold Lieberman

        Re: Avoiding the tinfoil hat for a moment...

        You don't *need* to manipulate people to reduce population growth. All you need to do is give people the chance to get out of poverty - and the best way of doing that is to give them access to plentiful quantities of cheap energy with which they can make life more comfortable and productive. Then the pressures on having a large family (because survival rates are low and children are a resource that can be put to work) dissipate. OK, so on a per capita basis CO2 might go up, if there's a lower population then the total CO2 (or whatever gas is flavour of the month) will go down.

        Gaia needs nuclear/shale/whatever.

      2. CD001

        Re: Avoiding the tinfoil hat for a moment...

        Soylent Green - that is all.

      3. Bill Neal
        Pint

        @Matthew17

        can't see any benefit for trying to have as many people as possible on this planet? Easy; colonization of those nearby 100 earth-like planets without a serious genetic bottleneck. We're going to need alot of people to throw at that challenge someday. Especially if we are to overpopulate the natives, assuming there are any.

        1. NomNomNom

          Re: @Matthew17

          lol @ all those alien civilizations who mistakenly think we are rapidly building up an army

      4. Keep Refrigerated
        Facepalm

        @Matthew 17 Re: Avoiding the tinfoil hat for a moment...

        Let me guess, you live in a city, London by any chance? Get outside of the M25 once in a while, the world isn't as overcrowded as you think.

        It's a logistics problem, not a population problem - everyone crowding to the same tiny patch of land for similar jobs and amenities. You can build skycrapers as high as you want, but expanding things like tube tunnels, streets and infrastructure doesn't come as easy.

      5. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Avoiding the tinfoil hat for a moment...

        For each additional person, you have one more for digging wells. For each additional person, you have one more for planting crops. For each additional person, you have one more for sustaining the population.

        Need proof? Why do people move to cities if a large population is so impossible to support?

  6. Pete 2 Silver badge

    communicationg science

    > a "science of communicating science"

    Isn't that one of the things education is supposed to be about? If you try to communicate a concept without the recipient having the intellectual tools to understand it, all you get is folk-lore, superstition and regulations.

  7. Nev Silver badge
    Go

    Re-education camps...?

    It's Year Zero time!

  8. The Bit Wrangler

    Doddle

    The "treatment" is easy. Simply show the world the overwhelming evidence that actually proves the case rather that a couple of studies that imply it. Asking people to make huge, negative changes to their lifestyles is always going to be a difficult task but backing up the need to do so with some actual evidence would start the consensus required rather than simply telling people "but it's true".

    I'm climate agnostic, I can believe the climate is changing (in fact I'd be astonished if it wasn't, that's what climates do) but if we're affecting that change in any way or if we can actually do anything to prevent catastrophic change I just don't know. I simply haven't seen enough evidence one way or the other, certainly not to push the stop button on the industrial world. I hear that the scientific community has reached this consensus but they've unilaterally failed to convey the evidence to the public. Until they do that massive change will be impossible.

    1. NomNomNom

      Re: Doddle

      "The "treatment" is easy. Simply show the world the overwhelming evidence that actually proves the case rather that a couple of studies that imply it."

      It's not about proof it's about a threat. It's like hearing an asteroid is heading our way and people are demanding proof that it will hit us and bemoaning that studies only "imply it" will hit us as if therefore it's a non-threat.

      As the professor says: "In many discussions in the last 30 years, climate change has been seen as either a hoax or fixable with minimal political or economic intervention, said Norgaard"

      "At the personal level, climate-change information raises fear about the future, a sense of helplessness and guilt. These emotions clash with individual — and often national — identity, sense of self-efficacy and the need for basic security and survival. In small groups, interactions often subvert political conversations and/or submerge the visibility of climate-change issues. At the macro level, or society at large, the co-authors point to an absence of serious discussion of climate change within U.S. Congressional hearings and in media coverage."

      1. GettinSadda

        Re: Doddle

        It's not about proof it's about a threat. It's like hearing an asteroid is heading our way and people are demanding proof that it will hit us and bemoaning that studies only "imply it" will hit us as if therefore it's a non-threat.

        So you seem to be saying - if the claim is big enough, the level of proof required is negligible?

        I think there may be a flaw in your logic

    2. NomNomNom

      Re: Doddle

      Also I hasten to add when you say: "Simply show the world the overwhelming evidence that actually proves the case rather that a couple of studies that imply it."

      If that strategy worked there wouldn't be so many creationists in the US. The professor is right, a lot of opposition to science is ideological and born of convenience (ie: what's in it for ME to believe in evolution?)

      1. Turtle

        @NomNomNom: Try it like THIS.

        "The professor is right, a lot of opposition to science is ideological and born of convenience (ie: what's in it for ME to believe in evolution?)

        Or:

        "The professor is right, a lot of support for global warming alarmism is ideological and born of convenience (ie: it's psychologically comforting for ME to believe in, and politically useful for ME to have other people believe in it.)"

        1. NomNomNom

          Re: @NomNomNom: Try it like THIS.

          True Turtle, but the professor is specifically talking about the psychological means by which societies and individuals (and register articles?) ignore or belittle threats. It's not just specific to climate change.

    3. DrXym Silver badge

      Re: Doddle

      "Simply show the world the overwhelming evidence that actually proves the case rather that a couple of studies that imply it."

      Shifting the goalposts or making unreasonable demands of proof is just a form of denialism. I could equally demand you show me the evidence that proves smoking will kill you from lung cancer. I could point out studies which demonstrate beyond any doubt that it greatly increases your chances of dying of lung cancer including incidence of deaths amongst smokers vs non smokers. But I couldn't *prove* you're going to die of lung cancer. Nor could I prove that if you did die of lung cancer that it was caused by your smoking even if it was likely.

      So science can't prove what's going to happen in the future. All it can do is compellingly demonstrate (and it has) that climate change is occurring, that mankind has significantly contributed to it and some likely scenarios for what will happen if it continues. Anyone with any sense should listen. That includes nations who will find themselves fighting over resources, extreme weather events, rises in sea levels and all the rest.

      1. The Bit Wrangler

        Re: Doddle

        You say "compellingly demonstrate that CC is occurring that mankind has significantly contributed to it and some likely scenarios for what will happen", I say "proof". I think mine is snappier and yours is more factually correct. I've seen neither.

        Don't get me wrong, I've seen all sorts of reports that make headway (for both arguments) but none that has enough weight to warrant or proclude the wholesale change to the way people live their lives. I suggest this is the problem.

        The Lung Cancer/Smoking analogy is nearly good except there are physical and psychological addictions in addition to the simple habit and reluctance to change. The science of the connection between lung cancer and smoking is, of course, complicated and offers sources of deniability (Japan paradox for example) but the case has been made to the point that people do smoke less these days (and the majority of the population support removal of smoking in public places).

        Evolution, similarly, offers deniability in that the mechanisms aren't completely understood but the massive weight of evidence in support that there haven't been this range of species on Earth for the lifetime of the planet points toward evolution being closer to the answer than creationism. People whose faith is shaken by the idea will use the deniability to justify their faith but the consensus is fairly easy to follow.

        None of this is the case for CC, we're told there's scientific consensus but the reasons for that consensus are a lot less obvious, there's also a lot of evidence that supports the negative case. (For example the Vostock ice-core data clearly debunks the idea that CO2 lags temperature but it also debunks the idea that the reverse is universally true). Until the evidence clearly leans one-way or the other you cannot possibly suggest fixes, even more so if those fixes negatively impact peoples' lives). Why can't they get on with the science and suggest fixes when it's actually more understood ? Why do we have to act NOW when there's not enough evidence to suggest that acting will have a positive effect?

        Sure, an asteroid might be heading towards Earth but do we know for certain that it's going to hit or is getting Bruce Willis to dust off his vest and go drilling actually going to divert it towards us ?

  9. Ian Stephenson Silver badge
    Facepalm

    So basically...

    If you aren't a warmist then you must be mentally ill and your opinions can be safely ignored?

    Sounds like just what the frothinggreenies ordered!

    1. Audrey S. Thackeray

      Re: So basically...

      That might be an accurate summary of how the Reg has presented this (knowing the response these sort of articles generate) but that's not exactly what Norgaard is saying.

      She might be working with the assumption that climate change is happening, that we don't want it to happen and that we can do something to mitigate / prevent the negative effects but basically it's a fairly ordinary paper on the resistance of individuals and societies to change, with a climate change wrapper.

      It's not really much of a story but it hits enough of the right buttons to get us commentards out in force.

  10. Miraclefish
    Mushroom

    Wait...

    "Scepticism regarding the need for immediate and massive action against carbon emissions is a sickness of societies and individuals which needs to be "treated"

    "Professor Kari Norgaardn holds a B.S. in biology and a master's and PhD in sociology."

    ...but nothing about Climate Change? Back in your box, please, sir. Come back when you have a real science.

    1. NomNomNom

      Re: Wait...

      "Scepticism regarding the need for immediate and massive action against carbon emissions is a sickness of societies and individuals which needs to be "treated"

      Don't confuse that for something the professor actually said. Read the article.

  11. Alex Rose
    Black Helicopters

    Unaware?

    "*Admittedly Psychohistory only worked on huge galactic civilisations, and then only if the people being manipulated for their own good were unaware that the science of Psychohistory existed - neither of which are the case here."

    I was unaware that physchohistory actually exists outside of the Foundation series until you implied in that sentence that it was more than just a tool of Hari Seldon. Tell us more - the public has a right to know what is being done in our name in Vulture Central!

  12. Josh 15
    Big Brother

    There is only One Truth and it is non-negotiable.

    This is how the New World order will be. There is only One Truth and it is non-negotiable. Those who cannot or will not accept the 'sustainable' CAGW manifesto, those who wilfully refuse the approved ('settled') doctrine of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming, are to be described in sneering tones as 'confused', as 'deniers' and suggestions will therefore be made in the press that they should be imprisoned for crimes against humanity.

    This is right. This is noble. This is because sacrifices to our freedom, to our expression and to our individuality have to be made if we are truly to move towards a sustainable global future - a future in which the wealth of richer nations will be redistributed to 'less developed nations' by UN mandate (Agenda 21), a future in which UN-appointed 'Climate Courts' will hand out punishments to climate offenders in defence of the rights of Gaia (supreme above all humanity). The up-coming Rio Earth Summit in June will hopefully see much of this ratified into binding law right under the noses of indifferent global media organisations and ignorant, cowardly national governments.

    We are hopeful. The future belongs to us. We are almost there.

    1. Audrey S. Thackeray

      CAGW

      How long will these initials get?

      It used to just be "GW". I guess the A got added when the W became difficult to deny, has the C been added because the A is now similarly awkward?

      1. ChilliKwok
        Meh

        Re: CAGW

        'GW' is for the estimated 0.8oC of global warming that occurred last century (none since 1998)

        'A' is for Anthropgenic, to distinguish between natural warming which we know has occurred countless times over Earth's 4Bn year history, and hypothetical man-made warming.

        'C' is to distinguish between beneficial and harmful warming. It is generally agreed that a couple of degrees of warming would be beneficial to most countries (longer growing seasons, less deaths from cold, less storms as the temperature differential between the poles and equator drops).

        Therefore, alarmists need to prove all three: C, A and GW to justify the Trillions being spent on this bollox.

    2. perlcat
      Trollface

      Re: There is only One Truth and it is non-negotiable.

      Don't forget this phrase -- it goes well with "We are hopeful. The future belongs to us. We are almost there.":

      "We are great. We are free. We are wonderful. We are the most wonderful people in all the jungle! We all say so, and so it must be true."

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bandar-log

  13. Anonymous Coward
    Flame

    Munumentally Arrogant

    And grossly insulting to boot.

    The flame icon doesn't even begin to represent how I feel about it, so I'll stop there.

  14. Spearchucker Jones
    Go

    I WANT to believe in global warming.

    I really do, 'cos it's frikkin freezing in here!!

  15. frank ly Silver badge
    Big Brother

    With tears in my eyes, ...

    ... I came to realise that I loved Professor Norgaard.

  16. Adam Trickett
    Boffin

    She has a point

    Ignoring global warming it's self, what she is say is:

    1) There is something bad that is going to happen but it hasn't happened yet (e.g. death from lung cancer)

    2) You will have to change your behaviour now and you will not like it (e.g. giving up smoking)

    3) There are powerful vested interests who don't want you to change and are putting our messages that tell you that you do not want to change (e.g. tobacco companies)

    4) It is easier to hear and believe the story that say you don't have to change than it is to believe the story that you do have to change.

    Ignoring the rights and wrongs of the argument, it's much easier to convince people they don't need to change their behaviour because nothing bad will happen than it is to convince people that they need to change their behaviour because something bad will happen.

    So if you do think something bad will happen you have to work much harder than the camp that thinks nothing bad will happen. If you want to change people's behaviour on mass you have to work at a different level than just rational arguments because it's not going to work.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: She has a point

      I don't disagree with you, but to me, it seems the difference is that with the smoking example, even smokers generally accept the statistical evidence that not all smokers will get cancer but continue smoking anyway hoping it wont happen to them, whereas the evidence is not as accepted for some reason in the same way for mmgw.

    2. CD001

      Re: She has a point

      1) There is something bad that is likely to happen (e.g. death from lung chancer); your actions may well be adding to that bad thing happening (smoking) ... but if you stop smoking the bad thing may well still happen; you may still die of lung cancer. The chances are lessened but not negated. Something else may give you lung cancer, something completely outside of your control.

      2) You will have to change your behaviour now and you will not like it (e.g. giving up smoking) - to greatly reduce the chances of the bad thing happening.

      3) However, even if you do stop this particular bad thing happening, other bad things are still going to happen. If lung cancer doesn't get you something else will ... you are, in fact, still going to die.

      Back to climate change...

      Even if we do manage to maintain the Earth in its current chilly state, so desirable for human life, for the time being - it can't last. If the human species survives long enough to evolve into something else, that something else will, by definition, be able to cope with the planet in whatever state it's in... otherwise it will have gone extinct.

      In the past this planet has both been much hotter and much colder than it is now; life has carried on. There's still a couple of billion years for life to adapt before the planet becomes inhospitable to any form of life.

    3. Pat 4

      Re: She has a point

      The problem I have with this argument...is that I do not know ONE single skeptic who does not want clean air, less waste, less pollution, a better world and puppies...

      It's something that really pisses me off whenever the subject comes up, because to alarmists, the moment you imply that there's a hint of a possibility of the theory not becoming true, or not being as bad as some say... you have been paid for by big oil companies and you want the earth to turn into a big smouldering ruined chunk of oily space junk....

      THAT... is simply not true.

      I AM all for reducing pollution, oil consumption and energy waste. I AM ALL FOR eliminating pollution as much as possible... I do NOT believe that burning fossil fule is the best long term solution for mankind...

      But at the SAME time... I HAVE some doubts about how right models that cannot work backwards in time can be about the future. I have VERY reasonable doubts about the integrity of very influential climate change "scientists", and I am not convinced that AGW will be as bad or have as bad consequences as the alarmists claim.

      And I do not see any kind of problem with my personal beliefs, and I KNOW for a FACT that a very significant number of people think just like I do... yet... we basically get sh1t on by warmists every time we say anything...

      1. Munix

        Re: She has a point

        WHen you have done as much work on the issue, and have come up with a different conclusion then you can have your say and it will have some worth.

        I thought people reading the register could count past ten without taking their shoes off.

    4. ChilliKwok
      Meh

      Re: She has a point

      Uh, the well-worn alarmist smoking analogy:

      1) The link between smoking and cancer has been proven by real world double blind experiments comparing outcomes of smokers and non-smokers. There has been no such proof nor evidence of CAGW. In fact there's an absence of evidence. No warming since 98 despite CO2 increase, no hot-spot as predicted by models. No ability of GCMs to predict weather 6 weeks ahead, never mind 100 years in the future.

      2) The Medieval and Roman warm periods and the little ice age tell us that periods of warming and cooling occur completely naturally. (There's no smoking/cancer analogy for this )

      3) smoking is an unnecessary habit with no benefits to the individual so there is no cost to giving up smoking. By contrast cheap fossil fuelled energy is the basis of our entire culture and society. The costs of deindustrialising society are huge.

      You can always tell someone has no decent arguments when they make idiotic comparisons between completely different situation (global warming = lung cancer and fossil fuels = smoking) or they try to demonise or dismiss those who respectfully disagree with them as mentally ill.

  17. Big_Boomer
    Mushroom

    Arrogant and stupid

    It's amazing that someone with all those letters after her name can be so stupid.

    Perhaps if she ever crawled out of her Ivory Towers and did some real work in the real world then she may recognize that suggesting that everyone else should think what she thinks is tantamount to proposing global brainwashing. Land of the Free (to do and think what you are told!).

    I prescribe 3 months of working in a soup kitchen helping feed the homeless.

    That should give her a reality check as to what really matters to people.

    1. Audrey S. Thackeray

      Re: Arrogant and stupid

      "I prescribe 3 months of working in a soup kitchen helping feed the homeless."

      I applaud your hard work in this sphere (you have done this yourself, right?) but I would say that Kari Norgaard has approached this level of social involvement with her work with the Karuk Indians in the Klamath River valley where government food aid has replaced their previously salmon-based diet following damming which blocked the salmon runs.

  18. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    "Prof Norgaard holds a B.S. in biology and a master's and PhD in sociology."

    Right he knows a lot about climate then, we should all drop any previously held opinions because he says so.

    Lets all submit ourselves to our nearest centers for re-education to prevent further thought crimes against the dogma.

  19. 404 Silver badge
    Childcatcher

    Yep Yep

    Those bastard peasants caused the Little Ice Age from the 16th through 19th centuries - right after the Global Warming they created, burning down the Middle East during the Crusades....

    Said it before and I'll say it again: When their climate computer models can accurately predict weather that has ^already^ happened, I will believe what those same models predict for the future.

    Humans are so damn arrogant... We don't know it all and won't for some time to come.

    "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it. Fifteen hundred years ago everybody knew the Earth was the center of the universe. Five hundred years ago, everybody knew the Earth was flat, and fifteen minutes ago, you knew that humans were alone on this planet. Imagine what you'll know tomorrow." - Name the Quote.

    1. This post has been deleted by its author

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: "Five hundred years ago, everybody knew the Earth was flat"

        Even if that was not true 500 years ago, but maybe 5000 years ago or never, it doesn't invalidate his argument. Don't get lost focussing on the wrong detail.

        1. NomNomNom

          Re: "Five hundred years ago, everybody knew the Earth was flat"

          What is his argument? An appeal to ignorance?

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: "What is his argument? An appeal to ignorance?"

            Yes, I think so. I think he's arguing that, since we don't know everything about the climate, therefore we cannot possibly know anything about it.

            Talk about denial.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: "What is his argument? An appeal to ignorance?"

              "Yes, I think so. I think he's arguing that, since we don't know everything about the climate, therefore we cannot possibly know anything about it."

              Or that since we don't everything about the climate, as you just admitted, we shouldn't pretend we do.

            2. 404 Silver badge
              FAIL

              Re: "What is his argument? An appeal to ignorance?"

              I will talk about denial.

              How can you come to a conclusion on ^anything^ without all the facts? You can have a general idea, theory, or best guess, but without a total understanding how something actually works, that's all it is, a guess.

              We're still discovering how things work. Every day there are new facts to contemplate, whereas climate warming global change people deny any new evidence, claiming their 'science' is set in stone, not to be questioned in any way.

              I say Bullshit.

              1. Martin
                FAIL

                Re: "What is his argument? An appeal to ignorance?"

                Actually, I think you'll find it's the other way round.

                Science, being science, is generally adjusted to fit the facts. That includes climate science. That's why the predictions are adjusted as we get more data.

                Deniers are the ones who deny evidence, spout FUD and make dogmatic statements with no evidence. The above post being a classic example.

          2. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: "Five hundred years ago, everybody knew the Earth was flat"

            "Fifteen hundred years ago everybody knew the Earth was the center of the universe. Five hundred years ago, everybody knew the Earth was flat, and fifteen minutes ago, you knew that humans were alone on this planet. Imagine what you'll know tomorrow"

            From reading that it seems to me his argument is that we have form for repeatedly thinking we understand all there is to know about a topic, only to discover later that what we thought was the irrefutable truth, was in fact not quite the whole story and we shouldn't have been such sanctimonious gits about it at the time.

        2. Some Beggar
          WTF?

          Re: "Five hundred years ago, everybody knew the Earth was flat"

          What? It completely invalidates his argument. It's an endlessly repeated piece of bunkum used by everybody from homeopathy proponents to creationists. It's the standard fall-back argument of anybody wanting to cast doubt on the scientific method. It is bollocks, pure and simple.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: "Five hundred years ago, everybody knew the Earth was flat"

            It isn't casting doubt on the scientific method, as you say. It's casting doubt on the whole "Global Warming is proven. Everybody knows it's a fact, so you must be an idiot if you don't believe in it." BS that people like you spout. He's pointing out that "Everybody knew" a lot of other things in the past, and they tried to force their "facts" on everybody else, only to be proven wrong by the scientific method.

          2. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: "Five hundred years ago, everybody knew the Earth was flat"

            "What? It completely invalidates his argument"

            This is what pisses me off about the alarmist method of "discussion". The guy gave a string of things scientists used to believe were true but later changed their minds about, to demonstrate that just because "evidence" is presented today, it doesn't mean the scientists are necessarily correct in their interpretation of it. The warmist defence to that argument? One of the events in the list he gave may have been listed as 500 years ago when in point of fact it happened much longer ago than that - therefore it completely invalidates his argument. What bollocks. As I said above - focussing on the wrong point. Typical politician's tactic of seizing on a minor innacuracy and arguing about that rather than the overall point being made.

            1. Some Beggar
              FAIL

              Re: "Five hundred years ago, everybody knew the Earth was flat"

              Twaddle. He gave precisely the same half-witted arguments as Creationists and alternative therapists. It's always been a crap argument. It always will be a crap argument. The fact that half a dozen half-wits on here think it is coherent doesn't stop if being a crap argument.

    2. ukaudiophile

      Re: Yep Yep

      "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it. Fifteen hundred years ago everybody knew the Earth was the center of the universe. Five hundred years ago, everybody knew the Earth was flat, and fifteen minutes ago, you knew that humans were alone on this planet. Imagine what you'll know tomorrow." - Name the Quote.

      OK, I'll bite, Men In Black, Agent K (Tomme Lee Jones) addressing agent J (Will Smith) before he joins the MIB.

    3. doctariAFC

      Re: Yep Yep

      Men in Black - Tommy Lee Jones to Will Smith as Tommy Lee is offering Smith a job at MIB....

      This entire article speaks volumes about these ideologues. They are getting a royal beat down by the science itself, them employ what is known as cognitive dissonance to explain away the truth with more make believe, and then when that still doesn't work because they still make no sense, despite the fact peer-reviewed (not independent reviewed, but peer-reviewed)science shows their assumptions are completely all wet, its "re-education" camps for you.

      There will come a point in time when the chaffe will need to be removed from the wheat, and that day is coming sooner rather than later.....

      Either that, or just hit the globe with a few EMP weapons and the emissions problems are solved in a second.... And it didn't cost everyone trillions to solve, either....

  20. Michael Nielsen
    FAIL

    USSR again

    The communists did this in the USSR, they treated people who didn't believe in the Socialst/communist ideals, sending them into drug treatments, in the name of mental health.

    If the world cannot accept diverging points of view, then we have lost all freedom, and it's time to start the wars again, to regain our freedom.

    BTW there is no such thing as a climate sceptic, nor a climate denier, no one denies that there is a climate, nor that it can change.

    This kind of thinking is indicative that this is not a sciencetific debate, but rather a religious debate, and is no better than other religions - thou. shall believe or perish!!!

    The only thing is, that there is a group of us, who have not yet seen any convincing data that supports the contention that Humans control the climate via CO2 (or even can control it), and thus CO2 is the only factor, of impotance. Particularly when we look at other research, where temperature maps with near perfect correlation to the energy output of the sun.

    When you compare CO2 with temperature, then it's only in the last 30 years or so that the curves match.. Prior to that period, CO2 was lagging temperature by around 800 years, indicating that temperature drives CO2, and not the otherway around..

    I'm an engineer, and I like to make up my own mind, and as yet, the AGW fanatics, have provided nothing to convince me, other than IT IS THE CASE!!!!!! I actually still believe that the case against AGW is the strongest.. But no one will provide facts to me, only highly manipulated data sets, like the infamous hockey stick, and simliar dataset, which ignore historical information - such as the little iceage/middle age warm period.

    It would suit the debate, if when reports were publicised, that it included references to the research papers, which further more would give access to the raw data and methods, so that other people can verify the results, however, most of the data, and papers are restricted access - why, if it is so important ?

    1. NomNomNom

      Re: USSR again

      "Particularly when we look at other research, where temperature maps with near perfect correlation to the energy output of the sun."

      It doesn't:

      http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm

      "CO2 was lagging temperature by around 800 years, indicating that temperature drives CO2, and not the otherway around.."

      It doesn't:

      http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm

    2. NomNomNom

      Re: USSR again

      I also find it odd that you profess all these arguments for why you don't accept man-made global warming and you claim you want to see evidence but you haven't bothered to google for any answers.

      Because if you typed CO2 lags temperature into google you'd get lots of information about the subject you clearly are unaware of.

      Either that or you've chosen to ignore it and repeat the claim that temperature causes the CO2 rises "not the otherway round"

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: USSR again

      And this is why Engineers should be running the planet not the 'Pope of the MMAGW cult'.

      1. Uncle Slacky Silver badge
        Trollface

        Reasons why engineers shouldn't rule the world

        http://spectrum.ieee.org/telecom/security/extremist-engineers/0

        "The paper cites evidence that engineering graduates are much more religious and politically conservative than those pursuing other courses of study. ”People gravitating toward engineering already have those views,” says Hertog. ”Engineering seems to attract a larger share of people drawn to rule-bound systems, compared with other scientists who primarily work on open-ended questions and might be more skeptical.”

        http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/why-are-so-many-would-be-terrorists-engineers-1.263214

        "...engineering as a field of study and a profession tends to attract people who seek certainty, and their approach to the world is largely mechanistic. So they are characterized by a greater intolerance of uncertainty - a quality that is evident among extremists, both religious and secular."

        1. Figgus

          Re: Reasons why engineers shouldn't rule the world

          Or, to paraphrase, engineers can do MATH and have LOGIC and REASONING, as opposed to other scientists who just GUESSTIMATE at whatever idea is most convenient or interesting to them at the time.

          Of COURSE they are going to be considered more conservative, since they will stick to what works and not to what they wish was going to work.

          Engineers also tend to be conservative voters for the same reasons. Math and economics are not dissimilar, and engineers understand that money, like energy, can't just be created on a whim.

          TL:DR version: Engineers know when things just "don't add up".

          1. Wayland Sothcott 1 Bronze badge
            Meh

            Re: Reasons why engineers shouldn't rule the world

            "engineers understand that money, like energy, can't just be created on a whim."

            Engineers may think that about money and energy but Bankers create money on a whim and scientists believe in infinite energy.

    4. Audrey S. Thackeray

      Re: USSR again

      "The communists did this in the USSR, they treated people who didn't believe in the Socialst/communist ideals, sending them into drug treatments, in the name of mental health."

      Any Godwin's Law experts care to rule on this?

      1. Some Beggar

        Re: USSR again

        My meter reads 0.78 Godwins but it's been a while since it was calibrated.

      2. oddie
        Pint

        Re: USSR again

        better than that, I'll jump into the hole with a shovel myself... godwin, are you in here? goooodwiiin!?:

        We need sceptics, people who dare to opose established views, even when those views are so generally accepted that oposing them invites ridicule or physical harm. We need them even just to make sure we don't become entrenched in our own reality so heavily that we stop questioning things.

        Like the white rose gang of Munich in the early 1940's, or brave merkins suggesting that 'some' socialist ideas might be good during the mcarthy years, or, even the BNP in british politics today, sceptics should never be run out of town. if they stick to ideas and not violence (I support the right of the BNP to exist as a political party, as much as my right never to vote for them (if I was allowed to vote on this rainy island..).

        Sadly this rarely happens: mcarthy used the organisations available to him to hunt down his own countrymen because of their political beliefs, hitler had the leaders of the white rose gang beheaded, and a worryingly large number of people who I've met who describe themselves as liberal (UK meaning, not US) seem to want horrible things to befall BNP supporters.

        Sceptics are good, it's when they dissapear that things get rocky (and Im not 100% convinced that the good sociologist meant that we should start re-education programmes, call me sceptic :)

        disclosure: I'm a 80/20 (maybe 75/25) convinced that we have a case for human made global warming, and convinced of the science behind CO2 = greenhouse gas. However, if a scientist wonders if C02 = greenhouse gas is indeed correct and starts looking into it then I will await the results of his or her research rather than ridicule them for looking into my established conviction.

        Friday = beer.

        1. Audrey S. Thackeray

          @oddie

          We certainly do need sceptics.

          And this particular academic would argue that she's on the sceptical side - her point is that individuals and societies are preserving the status quo in the face of evidence from climate scientists who are sceptical that this is the best thing to be doing.

          From an academic point of view the climate science isn't the issue here, it's the strange inertia even in response to a significant threat - the 'boiling frog' idea.

          disclosure: I've got no idea if there's any human-made global warming and don't particularly care

          Friday = booze (but I do not want to get off the fence on the specifics)

    5. Uncle Slacky Silver badge
      Boffin

      Re: USSR again

      "temperature maps with near perfect correlation to the energy output of the sun."

      Er, no it doesn't. Solar energy output has been pretty constant (over its 11- and 22-year cycles) for quite a while now - see for example

      http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/effect-of-sun-on-climate-faq.html#Figure_2 (reference to the source paper is on the same page)

  21. ukaudiophile
    Alert

    Those who do not blindly believe in Anthropomorphic Climate change are simply saying that the present evidence presented is of insufficient quality to convince them.

    The climate change models are provven to be inaccurate, I have not heard of a single prediction made by a climate change model which has actually tracked with what is happening in the real world, there would appear to be many contra indicators that anything we do is having a measurable effect on the climate. I have still to see the evidence which shows a climate change which is irrefutably caused solely by something man has done, which could not possibly have happened without man's influence. I am sure if that could be shown, then we could start talking about the supporters of anthropomorphic climate change actually having a fact to work with, up to now everything is conjecture based on manipulated data and questionable models.

    If the Prof. is suggesting that we should be made to believe in anthropomorphic climate change, rather than the onus of irrefutable proof being put on those expecting us to change, then maybe the salutation of Prof should be changed to reverand?

    1. Uncle Slacky Silver badge
      Boffin

      Science is not in the business of "proof"

      If you're waiting for scientific proof, you'll wait forever. Science is about "disproof" (falsifiability) - if AGW is theorized (on the basis of available evidence, modelling etc.), then attempts must be made to disprove it - if it continues to resist all such challenges, it is a valid theory, but it can *never* be proved formally.

      We do many other things in life on the basis of such theories (gravity, relativity, evolution etc.), in fact we often RELY on them, so why the lack of confidence in this one specific area of science? I suspect, like creationists, it would require a change to your worldview that you're not willing to make, because it goes against your (unscientifically acquired) belief system.

      As J. K. Galbraith put it, "In the choice between changing one's mind and proving there's no need to do so, most people get busy on the proof."

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Science is not in the business of "proof"

        "if AGW is theorized (on the basis of available evidence, modelling etc.), then attempts must be made to disprove it - if it continues to resist all such challenges, it is a valid theory, but it can *never* be proved formally."

        That is why conspiracy theories won't go away.

        Just because you postulate something based on "evidence" that the rest of see as manipulated and partial, doesn't mean we should all spend our lives and money trying to disprove you. Without evidence that we can all believe in as opposed to opinion and conjecture, you haven't fulfilled the first part of your statement, which if fulfilled would mean you were taken seriously by the rest of us.

      2. Omgwtfbbqtime Silver badge
        Boffin

        Re: Science is not in the business of "proof"

        Ok, I have a theory.

        HADCRU deliberately falsified their results, manipulated their models and data as the results obtained did not match their world view.

        This is supported by my observations of the climategate emails in the press, their refusal to release the raw data for review by independent third parties, the exclusion of datasets that contradicted their "truth" and their gaming of the peer review process.

        Exercise for the warm-mongers/frothinggreenies: disprove the above using scientific method.

        Wow - just realised I can change the name I post under. There is enough information above to identify my original posting name.

        1. NomNomNom

          Re: Science is not in the business of "proof"

          "Exercise for the warm-mongers/frothinggreenies: disprove the above using scientific method."

          Simple:

          Other groups have produced the same results.

          Did you somehow miss the whole BEST thing?

          1. Omgwtfbbqtime Silver badge
            FAIL

            Re: Science is not in the business of "proof"

            where?

            I notice you did not disprove any of observations.

            1. NomNomNom

              Re: Science is not in the business of "proof"

              I didn't need to.

              The scientific results hold up. Others reproduced the temperature record results. The BEST analysis for example. Even before climategate other groups had found the same amount of global warming as the CRU team using independent methods.

              Your "observations of the climategate emails in the press" are thus irrelevant and we have to wonder how you could draw the wrong conclusion that the temperature record results were in error.

              1. Omgwtfbbqtime Silver badge
                FAIL

                Re: Science is not in the business of "proof"

                Ummm.. no.

                the point was you cannot disprove my theory.

                My theory in no way mentioned whether or not there is climate change.

                just that HADCRU did not perform science and were not willing to stand by their bodged theories in front of truly unbiased review.

                go froth elsewhere.

                1. NomNomNom

                  Re: Science is not in the business of "proof"

                  I can disprove your theory. Your theory is that the CRU falsified their results.

                  A prediction of that theory would be that the CRU results cannot be reproduced by others.

                  That prediction fails.

                  1. Omgwtfbbqtime Silver badge

                    Re: Science is not in the business of "proof"

                    Really?

                    using all the data?

                    Or still just the edited subset that supports this?

                    Examples please.

                    No comment on the gaming of peer review either so I assume you agree they did?

                    1. NomNomNom

                      Re: Science is not in the business of "proof"

                      All the data. The idea that CRU had falsified the data was ridiculous considering all the other bodies were reporting similar results:

                      http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics/Various_Temp.png

                      Plus more since, including non-scientists. are they all in some global conspiracy?

                      No, they didn't game peer review either. You can find discussions about three papers they didn't like in the climategate emails and expressed outrage over. Their words show they didn't like the papers because they thought the science in them was crap, not because they found the papers threatening.

                  2. Adam0625

                    Re: Science is not in the business of "proof"

                    So what you're saying is that if I clip the tree ring data showing a temperature decrease (instead of a temperature increase as the hypothesis predicted) and substitute thermometer data which shows the desired increase, that I have effectively reproduced the results. Sure, that works. It's unethical, but it works.

              2. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Re: Science is not in the business of "proof"

                "The scientific results hold up. Others reproduced the temperature record results."

                Not independently. They used the adjusted data provided by the original global warming troika.

                1. NomNomNom

                  Re: Science is not in the business of "proof"

                  ""The scientific results hold up. Others reproduced the temperature record results."

                  Not independently. They used the adjusted data provided by the original global warming troika."

                  Wrong. They used the raw data.

      3. TheOldBear
        Holmes

        Re: Science is not in the business of "proof"

        <q>

        If you're waiting for scientific proof, you'll wait forever. Science is about "disproof" (falsifiability) - if AGW is theorized (on the basis of available evidence, modelling etc.), then attempts must be made to disprove it - if it continues to resist all such challenges, it is a valid theory, but it can *never* be proved formally.

        </q>

        Actually the burden on proponents of a hypothesis [before it graduates to being a 'theory'] is to provide one or more testable predictions. These would be tests / predictions that would have a different outcome if the hypothesis was a better description of the world than the current, generally accepted theory.

        The problem with the CAGW hypothesis is that it fails to accurately predict anything - even [as best as we can measure] the current global climate vs predictions made in the 1980's and 90's [e.g. the hockey stick graph and the underlying model's extrapolations].

        What we have seen is all manner of weather events [measured as warmer, cooler, wetter, dryer, with tropical storms, absence of tropical storms....] claimed to be 'consistent with' CAGW scenarios.

      4. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Science is not in the business of "proof"

        "If you're waiting for scientific proof, you'll wait forever. Science is about "disproof" (falsifiability) - if AGW is theorized (on the basis of available evidence, modelling etc.), then attempts must be made to disprove it - if it continues to resist all such challenges, it is a valid theory, but it can *never* be proved formally."

        Rubbish!

        1. Observe some aspect of the universe.

        2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with what you have observed.

        3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions.

        4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results.

        5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation.

        http://physics.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node6.html

  22. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Science first

    Any group that needs to sack people for holding the "wrong belief", or withholds data, or gives it more weight that it actually shows, or insults other scientists, in my opinion, can not have a very good case.

    Good science is self-evident, and the fact that there is no "smoking gun" shows that there is not overwhelming evidence for man-made climate change. I have no doubt that there is good evidence for it, but that is not the same thing.

    1. Martin
      WTF?

      Re: Science first

      Good science is self evident?!

      Let me just mention a few items:-

      Newton's laws of motion

      Special relativity

      Quantum Mechanics

      Plate Tectonics

      Evolution

      Genetics and DNA

      Those are all, unarguably and undeniable, good science. They were all far from self evident when they were first postulated.

      I have a horrible feeling that in a hundred years time, AGW will also be on this list.

  23. Boris the Cockroach Silver badge
    Devil

    I bet

    the russians are rubbing their hands with glee at the news

    First they can sell us the gas/oil we need, then they can open all those 're-education' centers to keep us skeptics from 'harming' the population and charge $1000/yr to keep us.

    I'm an engineer, in my world something works or it does'nt, in either case its my job to find out why and work out a way of fixing it.

    According to the eco-movement the temperature rise is caused by C02 emissions, so why are they so opposed to nuclear power when it produces next to no CO2 per Kw ?

  24. Filippo

    The problem of communicating science is very real. This should be clear even to people who disagree with climate change - forget climate change, think about other topics that are way more clear-cut, and *still* become controversial out of sheer ignorance. Think about all the people who are against vaccination, for example. Or evolution. Think about homeopathy. There's no good reason for which these topics should still be debated, and yet they are.

    1. oddie
      Thumb Up

      actually...

      both the way we vaccinate as well as the theory of evolution have changed over the years.. neither was born 'perfect' with no need to ever question or try to improve on. Creationists might take things a bit too far, but there still is not a complete concencus on evolution by science (not if the general theory holds, but some of the details).. there's still quite a few things we're trying to figure out :)

      Homeopathy is different as it is based on an outright lie, that a lack of something in water can cure things which are unrelated (but, by all means, let is disprove it with science rather than just scoffing at it repeatedly :)

  25. Churro Joe
    Mushroom

    So she flew to London to tell us that?

    Funny how some of the people who are most vocal about how everybody should change their habits think that this should apply to everybody but them. If we're really causing apocalyptic warming, then why is the solution always to force the poor to make sacrifices (by way of green taxes)? If you really believe it's going to be that bad, why not start setting a good example by riding around in a horse and cart?

  26. Simon B
    FAIL

    Maybe if the world's experts made it's mind up and stop moving the goal posts people WOULD believe! One moment ice caps are melting, the next 'but others are refreezing'. It's pollution ... but then we find somehing like it was worse and more fire and brimstone back in the days of the dinosaur. It's a cycle and the ice layers show historical changes liely because of sun cycles and tide changes, no it's not it'schopping down tree's ... etc etc etc. Make your fecking minds up!

  27. lumpaywk

    more dribble to put cash in the pockets of these idiots. Current climate change is natural development of the world and as for co2 that takes 200's of years to make any effect and is more to do with farming than cars and industry. You know its all garbage when the same people tell you to use solar panels that cause more harm than the powerstations they replace or hybrid cars that do more damage than a land rover. Its all about who profits and ther eis big cash changing hands and they try to put people down like this who voice out. Its a form of social repression much like that of dictators only more underhanded and seedy.

  28. Eddie Edwards
    Facepalm

    Wow

    "actual real climate scientists who know some maths"

    So you accept that actual real climate scientists know something of what they're talking about?

    That's a turnaround.

    Perhaps you could stop listening exclusively to the dissenting voices amongst them and take notice of the consensus now.

    1. Omgwtfbbqtime Silver badge

      Re: Wow

      Yes, there are a few out there.

      Not all of them mind as this statistician is keen to point out:

      http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=195

  29. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    All of this is somewhat missing the point... The fact of the matter is we cannot preclude global warming through belief, decide what action needs to be taken and make your case.

  30. Some Beggar
    Happy

    Brilliant.

    Within hours of publication, this has generated a whole stream of drooling halfwits demonstrating _exactly_ the issues of ignorance and prejudice that the sociologist wants to be addressed.

    I assume that was the purpose of the article?

    1. This post has been deleted by a moderator

    2. Figgus

      Re: Brilliant.

      I drive a ULEV, recycle everything I can, and I have got to tell you:

      I see more ignorance and prejudice from the AGW crowd than I do the "deniers". This whole "you must be mentally ill if you don't agree with us" attitude is nothing new out of that camp.

      1. Some Beggar

        Re: Brilliant.

        @Figgus

        Read the article rather than Lewis's moronic interpretation. Nobody mentions mental illness.

  31. Martin
    FAIL

    Lewis Page has done it again.

    The very first sentence of the article is completely misleading, in a way that the Discovery Institute or Answers In Genesis would be proud of.

    There is no indication or even an implication that 'Scepticism regarding the need for immediate and massive action against carbon emissions is a sickness of societies and individuals which needs to be "treated"'.

    In fact the press release states that "From a sociological perspective, resistance to change is to be expected...People are individually and collectively habituated to the ways we act and think."

    It also says that ""This kind of cultural resistance to very significant social threat is something that we would expect in any society facing a massive threat."

    There is no suggestion whatsoever that this sort of skepticism is a "sickness of society". On the contrary, it says that this behaviour is to be expected.

    But I've given up expecting fair or reasonable discussion on this subject on El Reg.

    1. aelfheld

      Re: Lewis Page has done it again.

      "Resistance at individual and societal levels must be recognized and treated [...]"

      As you seem incapable of actually comprehending the written word, why should anyone much pay attention to your blithering?

      1. NomNomNom

        Re: Lewis Page has done it again.

        "Scepticism regarding the need for immediate and massive action against carbon emissions is a sickness of societies and individuals which needs to be "treated""

        !=

        "Resistance at individual and societal levels must be recognized and treated"

  32. jaycee331

    Jury still out != Denier

    This is why the debate has become so rotten. You have to either be a believer or a denier.

    I am neither, I'm just waiting for irrefutable evidence that demonstrates climate science has been able to successfully model the chaos theory of our ecosystem. I am yet to see any report that fits that criteria and doubt we will for many years.

    I would suggest it is those who have already made their made up based on incomplete evidence that need therapy... well no, not therapy actually, just an education in the concept of critical reasoning and a grounding that all you are told to believe is not always true, , especially when it's coming from vested interests.

    1. Some Beggar
      FAIL

      Re: Jury still out != Denier

      I assume you take the same stance on homeopathy (which has effectively the same level of 'controversy' as climate science)? You're happy to accept that water might be a miracle cure until somebody provides IRREFUTABLE evidence?

      Being arrogant enough to think you know better than the overwhelming majority of experts is not being a sceptic. It is being an idiot.

      1. Adam0625

        Re: Jury still out != Denier

        Science does not validate anthing by consensus, as is implied here. If a single individual can display empirical data that conflicts with or confounds a theory, then the theory needs to be modified or scrapped. In the case of CAGW, this conflicting/confounding data and alternate explanations to events that supposedly PROVE CAGW are coming out in a steady stream. If one chooses to believe a theory in the face of such data, one is engaged in a political and/or religious crusade, not science.

        1. Some Beggar
          Thumb Down

          Re: Jury still out != Denier

          @Adam0625

          The reason the overwhelming majority of relevant scientists support the current consensus on climate change is because the overwhelming weight of evidence is in favour of it.

          The default position on any technical topic in which one is not an expert should be the accepted majority view. Particularly when it is held by a very considerable majority. This has nothing to do with climate science. It is a simple and sensible and humble position for life generally.

          Waffle about religious crusades and creationist-style casting-of-doubt arguments are the resort of the feeble witted and cowardly. No offence.

          1. Adam0625

            Re: Jury still out != Denier

            @Some Beggar

            No offense taken. I worry, though, about anyone who merely defaults to a majority opinion and does not take the time to study all sides of an issue. In the case of CAGW, the science can be technically daunting. If that is too daunting, though, one can simply review the graphs of temperature change, Arctic ice change, sea surface temperature, sea level rise, etc. to see that the data is moving in the wrong direction to support CAGW. CO2 does indeed have an effect. It is simply small relative to natural effects.

    2. aelfheld

      Re: Jury still out != Denier

      By the standards of the warm-mongers, you're a denier.

  33. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Science is skeptical...

    Science is all about being skeptical. The two most scientific words in the English language are "Prove it".

    Even if I am a slavering, "Einstein was in on the cover-up! Relativity is a lie the Global Conspiracy uses to hide The Truth That The Aliens Are Here And Are Running Things!", if I re-run the Michelson-Morley experiments, with modern equipment, and can show a result that is NOT consistent with General Relativity, and publish my results, with enough information that my experiments can be independently reproduced, then it doesn't matter that I am a complete nutter, it is the duty of any phycisist to at least attempt to check my work, and if it pans out, to acknowledge that "He may be nuts, but his results check out!". NOT to say "He is one of those Relativity Deniers, we need to re-educate him and all his followers."

    One of the things that worries me is that many of the people crying the loudest about climate change are insisting upon severe changes in how we live - changes that will have enormous negative effects. And rather than acknowledging the severity of those effects - going into detail how they will indeed impact us, realistically and frankly, and then showing the science of why those severe results are still better than the results of ignoring the issue - those people tend to just gloss over the negatives with "but CLIMATE CHANGE - your arguments are invalid!".

    And I ask this: IF the results of not changing our ways are so severe that we all must be asked to suffer, THEN how come the people who are the most strident about this are not INSISTING that we do a Big Project, a la the Apollo Project, to design a state of the art, type accepted, mass produce-able nuclear power plant, and start building them and replacing every combustion power plant on the planet? We know how to do this, we know it can provide base load that wind and solar cannot, we know it will at least buy us several decades to work on the other solutions, and it will reduce the pain and suffering needed to achieve the goal of reversing any anthropogenic element of climate change. Logically, it is the highest probability of success action we can take at this time. Yet, it is curiously absent from the discussion - so is the real goal other than reducing anthropogenic climate change?

  34. aelfheld

    Paging Felix Edmundovich

    "It's for your own good."

    The rationale of totalitarians throughout history.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Trollface

      Re: Paging Felix Edmundovich

      I initially read that as

      "The rationale of trolltalitarians throughout history."

      That should be a new word, IMHO.

  35. BigFire
    FAIL

    Lysenkoism

    Hum. I'm pretty sure he's heard of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism">Lysenkoism</a>? If not, there's a helpful link.

  36. Anonymous Coward
    Thumb Down

    What do AGW scientists think about their work?

    The CRU emails released in 2011 shows just how "settled" AGW "science" is. The numbers are the file numbers of the emails of the CRU scientists, followed by their names: The POLITICAL nature of AGW "research" is obvious.

    1485- Mann:

    the important thing is to make sure they're loosing the PR battle. That's what the site [Real Climate] is about.

    1682- Wils:

    [2007] What if climate change appears to be just mainly a multidecadal natural fluctuation? They'll kill us probably [...]

    4241- Wilson:

    I thought I'd play around with some randomly generated time-series and see if I could 'reconstruct' northern hemisphere temperatures. [...] The reconstructions clearly show a 'hockey-stick' trend. I guess this is precisely the phenomenon that Macintyre has been going on about.

    1939- Thorne/MetO:

    Observations do not show rising temperatures throughout the tropical troposphere unless you accept one single study and approach and discount a wealth of others. This is just downright dangerous. We need to communicate the uncertainty and be honest. Phil, hopefully we can find time to discuss these further if necessary [...]

    2884- Wigley:

    Mike, The Figure you sent is very deceptive [...] there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model results by individual authors and by IPCC [...]

    4716-Adams:

    Somehow we have to leave the[m] thinking OK, climate change is extremely complicated, BUT I accept the dominant view that people are affecting it, and that impacts produces risk that needs careful and urgent attention.

    4758-Osborn:

    Because how can we be critical of Crowley for throwing out 40-years in the middle of his calibration, when we're throwing out all post-1960 data 'cos the MXD has a non-temperature signal in it, and also all pre-1881 or pre-1871 data 'cos the temperature data may have a non-temperature signal in it!

    5131-Shukla/IGES:

    ["Future of the IPCC", 2008] It is inconceivable that policymakers will be willing to make billion-and trillion-dollar decisions for adaptation to the projected regional climate change based on models that do not even describe and simulate the processes that are the building blocks of climate variability.

    4184- Jones:

    [to Hansen] Keep up the good work! [...] Even though it's been a mild winter in the UK, much of the rest of the world seems coolish - expected though given the La Nina. Roll on the next El Nino!

    2440-Jones:

    I've been told that IPCC is above national FOI Acts. One way to cover yourself and all those working in AR5 would be to delete all emails at the end of the process

    1577-Jones:

    [FOIA, temperature data]

    Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we get - and has to be well hidden. I've discussed this with the main funder (US Dept of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station data.

    The "HARRY_README.TXT" from the 2009 released FOIA data tells a dismal tale of the condition of the data on which the "hockey stick" and AGW models were based.

    The only thing "settled" about AGW are the proposed "solutions" -- massive worldwide redistribution of wealth and control by the UN of all nations.

    1. NomNomNom

      Re: What do AGW scientists think about their work?

      Cherrypicked snippets out of 10 years of emails and you can't even interpret those right. I am not wasting my time going through the whole list, the first one will show my general point:

      "1485- Mann:

      the important thing is to make sure they're loosing the PR battle. That's what the site [Real Climate] is about."

      You think that is incriminating? You think that shows their research is political? There is certainly an interpretation of that sentence that is incriminating, if you assume a bunch of stuff and imaginate, but to push that interpretation as FACT you've avoided and ignored the far more obvious benign interpretation.

      Which is typical of how climate deniers approach the climategate emails. Not ones to let a little uncertainty get in the way of their smears.

      What is the obvious benign interpretation? Well given you are probably blinded by bias on the subject of climate I'll demonstrate it using an example from a different field of science: evolution.

      A lot of vocal evolution skeptics out there, they like to write letters and put articles in the media about how evolution is a lie and scientific support for it is crumbling. They try to get creationism taught in schools, etc.

      Any scientist who is willing to put their head above the parapet and fight back against such misinformation should be commended. But according to you if we found emails from a biologist reading:

      "the important thing is to make sure they're loosing the PR battle. That's what the site [Real Biology] is about."

      This would incriminate them and demonstrate their research was political.

      What a joke.

  37. doctariAFC

    I wise man once said "Skeptical scrutiny leads to deep thoughts, not deep nonsense".

    It is no surprise that the MMGW crowd wants to silence skeptics, as they want to hold onto their nonsense to rape the world of treasure, while foisting an unprecedented violation of our natural rights to use our resources. Its tyrannical control found as the end result, wrapped nicely in a trumped up crisis made "important" due to hyperventillation.

    Meanwhile, the biggest loser in this entire thing, beyond the people themselves, is science itself.

    Science is not determined by consensus, never has been and never will be, no matter how hard you pound your fists and stomp your feet.

    The reports that have been shown to be bogus was not fraudulent data, rather cherry picked data. That has been proven, and when one removes variables from a model to get the model to tell you want you want it to say, that equates to fraudulent representation of the results. Since none of the work that makes up the "groundbreaking report" was ever successfully peer-reviewed, and indeed once the truth of the cherry-picking was disclosed, this invalidates the report, and certainly at least illustrates what was done was NOT science. Its a sham.

    Skeptical scrutiny leads to deep thoughts, not deep nonsense.

    In order to preserve the deep nonsense which will lead to big piles of treasure, it is no wonder they want to shut down the skeptics. And whenever you are in doubt, just follow the money.

  38. JP19

    shoulder to shoulder

    "academics such as herself must stand shoulder to shoulder with the actual real climate scientists".

    Erm I think she means snout to snout in the same trough.

  39. John Smith 19 Gold badge
    Thumb Down

    So make people more obediant to propoganda or teach critical thinking and analsysis.

    Anyone remember the phrase "The right to think for yourself is the only freedom anyone really has."

  40. Admad

    Prof Norgaard holds a B.S. in biology - a BS huh? No kidding.

  41. Shane 4

    7 billion top predators and climbing, Not having any impact on the planet? Yeah good one! lol

  42. heystoopid
    Boffin

    Baloney Detector

    Baloney Detector :https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUB4j0n2UDU&hd=1

  43. BoscoH
    Paris Hilton

    Anybody post a picture yet?

    Here she is:

    http://www.clas.pdx.edu/newsletters/1010/Kari.JPG

    Paris, because if you average the two of them, you get a 3.

  44. Adam0625

    Treatment available

    The good professor seems unable to grasp that treatment is already available and that skeptics of CAGW practice it daily. It's called the scientific method. It states, quite simply, that if empirical data can be found which is inconsistent with the hypothesis, then the hypothesis needs to be modified or scrapped. It has been used appropriately and effectively to show that there are indeed inconsistencies between the hypothesis (that increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels will cause CATASTROPHIC changes to the biosphere) and the empirical data needed to support it.

    Not surprisingly, little effort appears to be going into reviewing the hypothesis while much effort is obviously going into denigrating those that have found fault with it. This is no longer science. It's political theater.

  45. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Skepticism is healthy

    My wife holds a degree from MIT and a PhD in Environmental Engineering. She is also an expert in computer modeling of the environment. She is still waiting for definite proof of man-made global warming....or any signs of intelligence from this author.

  46. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Re-education is not for the likes of us

    The good Prof is suggesting that it is the scientists themselves that need re-educating with communication skills as they obviously flunked the first education, witness the numbers of creationists about despite scientists knowing about evolution for ages and trying to communicate these ideas to rednecks, the rednecks still abound, therefore scientists (generally) are rubbish at it. (including the Prof herself as I still think she is a dangerous idealogue)

  47. itzman
    Facepalm

    The Truth now redefined as what we can get oeople who know nothing about a subject, to belive..

    ..oh sorry. That's always been the way religion works, hasn't it?

    1. Wayland Sothcott 1 Bronze badge
      Big Brother

      Re: The Truth now redefined as what we can get oeople who know nothing about a subject, to belive..

      How you do it is to say the people who don't agree with you are just not smart enough to understand. As another commenter did, you call the people who don't agree, or don't understand names like red necks. That makes people want to be with the smart and brainy set who agree with global warming or evolution or whatever theory. Only a few people actually understand this stuff in reality and those people could be lying or have it totally wrong and most of us would not know.

  48. Wayland Sothcott 1 Bronze badge
    Coat

    Ugly Betty

    Must be pretty smart then.

  49. Yamal Dodgy Data
    WTF?

    NSFW: It's hideously fugly

    After seeing a photo of Ms Kari Norgaard

    .. you'll all realise who really needs treatment

    http://www.freedumbnation.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/UglyAssProfessor.jpg

  50. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    It's a bit mean ...

    ... to trash her for her looks (as a few above have done). And it tends to detract from any serious point to be made about what she has proposed.

    I'm still bloody annoyed at the arrogance of her ideas regardless of her looks ( and I wonder how pretty/handsome the average commentard is anyway).

    1. Yamal Dodgy Data
      Devil

      Not mean at all

      Every woman has the right to be ugly, but she's abusing the privilege!

      her head would even give Freddy Krueger nightmares,

      ..... explains why she's a miserable misanthropic wretch.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Not mean at all

        I'll concede the "miserable misanthropic wretch" part.

  51. Paul Hovnanian Silver badge
    Big Brother

    Isn't this the way the Soviet Union used to deal with dissent?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_abuse_of_psychiatry_in_the_Soviet_Union

  52. Ernie Kaputnik

    Wow! How Orwellian of the Green Weenies

    Wow! Just wow!

    It's not enough for beard-scratching liberals to control the media, government, healthcare, and schools, and what is or isn't OK to say in public. Now they want to control the way we think. Is this the Soviet Union, China, North Korea or Cuba? Somebody remind me because I could have sworn this was the USA. (Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness)

    Wonder how long it will be until they start rounding us up and sending us to re-education camps or insane asylums because we disagree with them. I guess political correctness wasn't enough for them. Now they are proposing "thought police" to enforce "thought crimes".

    How Orwellian of the idiots in ivory towers.

    Tell you what, Professor: I'll accept global warming, climate change or whatever you are calling this scam today as soon as the you knuckleheads can accurately predict the weather every day for next 30 days. How's that sound, Buttercup?

    Until then, I'm not convinced. So, go soak your head, smoke another joint, or hug your favorite tree, but leave me, my thoughts and opinions alone.

    What a douche.

    Sincerely,

    Ernie Kaputnik

  53. Lyn123

    What the professor chooses to ignore:

    "The earth is 4.5 billion years old and has gone through five glaciation periods. Man wasn’t around for the first four. Between each glaciation period the earth warmed up be coming hot by our standards. We started coming out of the last glaciation period about ten thousand years ago. We are not out of it yet, we still have glaciers. As we continue to come out of it, it will warm up, becoming hot, then the pendulum will swing the other way bring us a cooler climate, even another glaciation period. No world government or any other legislative body can change that. It is amazing that the once great science magazine fails to consider science instead wants to become a political rag instead of a great science magazine. Climate change is real, but faith based climate change is not."

    1. NomNomNom

      Re: What the professor chooses to ignore:

      We finished coming out of the last glaciation period 8,000 years ago. It's not an explanation for the recent warming. Listen to the climate scientists please, they do know what they are talking about.

      1. Adam0625

        Re: What the professor chooses to ignore:

        @NomNomNom

        We skeptics are indeed listening to the climate scientists. They are telling us that there is empirical data that conflicts with the hypothesis and that there are alternate hypotheses that can explain the majority of the warming we have experienced over the past few hundred years. If you disagree, then you are not looking at ALL of teh science.

    2. Some Beggar
      WTF?

      Re: What the professor chooses to ignore:

      I should imagine this has been ignored for the same reason the article ignores the early family life of Jane Austen ... because it has absolutely bugger all to do with anything in the article. Derp derp derp.

  54. Helloworld

    Grants please

    The climate change gravy train is rapidly coming off the rails. Looks like the good professor is trying to get her piece of the action before it crashes completely.

  55. T J
    Megaphone

    Chaotic Irony

    I find it mildly amusing. Dear Isaac's little maths idea would never have worked due to being infinitely subject to initial conditions - but when, he was writing, Chaos was not fashionable maths. That is to say, its full impact on pretty much everything had not been fully recognized at the time. (Also let's face it, he was rubbish. Almost none of his writings have stood the test of time and Yes, that includes his robot stories. He was a hack.)

    We now know you can't predict roulette and can only limitedly predict the weather, 'psychomaths' never stood a chance.

    But the irony comes from the fact that the idiots 'denying' (I put in quotes to be gramatically and semantically correct - you cannot 'deny' a fact) anthropically forced global warming are usually pig ignorant morons who have never heard of such a thing as Chaos Theory.

    Etc.

  56. Munix

    All commentards

    When the commentards have spent as much time and come up with another outcome, then they have the right to believe it. Untill then shut the f.up.

    I thought people that read the register could count past ten without taking their shoes off.

This topic is closed for new posts.

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019