As Estimates For Sensitivity Lower, The Debate Has Gotten More Vicious

Skeptic blogger Jo Nova has always been one of my favorites, primarily because she tries to go beyond the old arguments and is willing to dig deeper to find and then make her points.

Jo has a post up with a brilliant chart showing the trend in estimates for sensitivity, reproduced here (red line is ECS, blue is TCR):

climate_sensitivity5

I’m sure a chart like this has the potential to be a Rorschach test of people’s sense of sensitivity, but for me it says that science works–that when temperatures began to stall despite exploding levels of CO2 emissions, scientists went back to the books and reworked the calculations and the numbers that served as inputs to those calculations.

I wish I had a corresponding chart that showed the level of virulence in attacks on anyone who opposed the Alarmist Konsensus. I believe it would show that right around the time of publication of lower sensitivity estimates in 2008 and again in 2012, the Alarmists with an axe to grind started looking for skeptic necks. It was then that attacks became alarmingly personal and ad campaigns shifted from pictures of cuddly cute polar bears to fanatics with red buttons blowing up skeptical children.

When those interested in public policy started reacting reasonably to these new scientific findings, such as with the Hartwell Paper, Fast Mitigation and The EcoModernist Manifesto, the Alarmists just shifted their attacks from the skeptics to the lukewarmers, using the same shabby tactics and insults, although they added new ones like ‘mitigation skeptic’ and ‘delayer’.

However, this has led to a bit of a reversal where the Konsensus ends up referring to older research as support for their nightmarish pronouncements and ignoring the more recent science that depicts a world that can thrive as well as survive the climate change that is coming. As an example, Michael Tobis just recently wrote ‘Lindzen has long since jumped the shark’, blissfully unaware that recent science has revived Lindzen’s concept of an Iris hypothesis.

Alternatively, the Konsensus tries to remain unaware of what saner people are advocating, which leads to absurdities like And Then There’s Physics writing post after post about how fuzzy he is on what EcoModernists are proposing, what Fast Mitigation really is and what Lukewarmers  really  think. He is eternally ‘struggling to understand’, but not struggling enough to actually read what we write.

Eli Rabett, on the other hand, isn’t struggling at all. He understands that his Stalinist position on climate purity is threatened by compromise and he will use any tactic to undermine any reasonable position, even to the extent of projecting ‘stalinistic’ to his opponents. (As I am to the left of Rabett on the political spectrum, I feel free to criticize his hypocrisy.) I guess he doesn’t own a mirror. Like any good Konsensus leftist atheist, he  wrote  five  posts in a week praising Pope Francis’ encyclical, finding moral support in the writings of a Pope he wouldn’t listen to on any other issue ranging from abortion to gay rights.  ATTP limited himself to one.

As with other insane arguments such as the one regarding divestment of fossil fuel stocks (they should realize at some point that another party must buy the stocks they are so eager to be rid of) or determining in advance how much of our fossil fuels we must leave in the ground (wouldn’t it be useful to learn how much we have and how much we are likely to need first?), the Alarmists move ever farther from the science and ever deeper into their own dark fantasies.

Maybe it’s not the current Pope or his encyclical they like so much–maybe they just long for the days when the Church could just organize an Inquisition…

14 responses to “As Estimates For Sensitivity Lower, The Debate Has Gotten More Vicious

  1. I know I’m a broken record, but I keep complaining about the use of RCP8.5 by climatologists as the “base case” for further climate investigations. For example, here’s a recent paper on the possible impact of an observed reduction in solar UV:

    “Regional climate impacts of a possible future grand solar minimum”

    “Here, we explore possible impacts through two experiments designed to bracket uncertainty in ultraviolet irradiance in a scenario in which future solar activity decreases to Maunder Minimum-like conditions by 2050. Both experiments show regional structure in the wintertime response, resembling the North Atlantic Oscillation, with enhanced relative cooling over northern Eurasia and the eastern United States. For a high-end decline in solar ultraviolet irradiance, the impact on winter northern European surface temperatures over the late twenty-first century could be a significant fraction of the difference in climate change between plausible AR5 scenarios of greenhouse gas concentrations.”

    Unfortunately their cases use RCP8.5, the extreme outlier designated by the IPCC. Therefore when further research is carried out building on an extreme case we tend to get skewed (some may say useless) results. I can show hundreds of similar examples, all built on high sensitivity AND ABSURD AMOUNTS of fossil fuel resources.

    http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2015/150623/ncomms8535/full/ncomms8535.html#author-information

  2. the Alarmists move ever farther from the science and ever deeper into their own dark fantasies.

    Maybe it’s not the current Pope or his encyclical they like so much–maybe they just long for the days when the Church could just organize an Inquisition…

    And you wonder why I no longer take you seriously. Okay, maybe you don’t wonder why, but I don’t. However, don’t let that stop you from being certain that the only problem in this whole topic is the Konsensus (using a “K” again, illustrating why noone should take you seriously, especially when you complain about the tone of others).

    blissfully unaware that recent science has revived Lindzen’s concept of an Iris hypothesis.

    Are you blissfully unaware that what the recent science did was show that even in an extreme Iris scenario, the effect is relatively small?

  3. Tom, your essay must be right on target- a true neverwuzzer has tried to dismiss it.

  4. You are mistaken. Eli Rabett has posted support for papal statements against abortion and gays.
    here ,
    here ,
    here ,
    here , and here .

  5. Mike N,
    To grant you good faith in your post, did you bother to read the Rabett stew of your links?
    Not *one* of them demonstrates what you claim from what I can read. None of them even speak to the topics you claim they do. They do all show the Rabett’s own charming style. The comments in support mostly show the strange conspiratorial thinking regarding skeptics, along with apocalyptic fixation.
    But nothing in support of papal statements on gays or abortion. Only some enemy-of-my-enemy support on death penalty issues.
    Thanks for wasting minutes of my life.

    • Hunter, those are the same links as the original post. My point was that the encyclical criticizes abortion and gay rights.

  6. ‘Like any good Konsensus leftist atheist, he  wrote  five  posts in a week praising Pope Francis’ encyclical, finding moral support in the writings of a Pope he wouldn’t listen to on any other issue ranging from abortion to gay rights. ‘

    Christ!

    I’ve been very puzzled by this. It appears religious leaders can get very positive feedback from the leftist media, for example. What exactly makes religion kosher doesn’t come to me, but apparently there is good religion, like islam extremism excluded, and bad religion of which Jehova’s Witnesses are a ‘good’ example.

    It appears as if leftists didn’t understand the unindividualistic basic tone of practically all religion, and accepted religion only as a personal, individual choice, as if it ever was like that.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s