Ping Bil Slowman; The global warming hoax reveiled

On a sunny day (Sun, 29 Nov 2009 10:32:54 -0800 (PST)) it happened Bill Sloman wrote in :

Now all you need is to understand climate cycles a bit betetr.

hehe. Joerg, I'm Swedish. Transparent skin, freckles, starkly blonde hair (lightly golden, I'm told), and I develop 2nd degree blisters after 20 minutes in the LA sun. As you can imagine, I __love__ overcast skies!!! (Which I may still keep a lot of, up here.)

Proof is not to be had in science. It's something you learn to live with and even embrace with understanding.

I think you must be referring to those letters I recently downloaded (cripes, that was a lot to wade through) when saying "tricks." I've used the exact same term in my own work, though. And I think you may have in yours, as well. And neither of us meant it in a bad way or a disingenuous one. I use the term, not infrequently, when talking to other mathematicians about some approach to solving a problem. In short, I saw nothing particularly sinister on that point. I did find some aspects of what I read objectionable, though. But none of it affected my opinion about the broader science conclusions. Just of people. Oh, well.

I have watched as the science has gone from fits and starts (for example, with R&S 1971 paper on CO2 and aerosols) and uncertainty everywhere to a re-alignment and a course that has gradually improved over time. You probably have NOT (but you may have) have spent as much time as I have, reading early papers, reading criticisms of them, seeing how certain initial impressions were challenged, fixed, rechallenged, etc. I have watched and read. And I've seen the transitions as new ideas, better quality minds were injected into the field, and science tools were applied, and watched the overall quality of the work product improve over time. I've been following all this since about 1987, when I was first got involved in Dobson meters and had all manner of science reports tossed at me. I now frequently write lead researchers, directly, and ask for copies of their work and some discussions, at times. I don't even waste a moment doing that when I want to know more, now. And that experience has been generally good, as well, though not always.

In short, it's not a matter of entirely looking from the sidelines or entirely just placing my "trust" somewhere. That trust has been earned by hard work, both on my end and theirs. I am still nothing more than an amateur, here. And I still interpret science work product incorrectly because I don't fully grasp all the ideas. And I get my face slapped, at times, by those scientists who feel a need to let me know when I mis-state their work product or the overall arch of some area they are working within. And I have learned the hard way, by trying my own hand at the physics and deduction to specifics, that their work (where it is better understood and I have a chance at taking my own pot-shot at it because I don't need to worry so much about whether or not it is well-grounded and can find a variety of sources which agree) is applied appropriately. So it is a little more than simple acceptance of their authority. I've questioned things at times when the knowledge was less-certain, gotten the fuller taste of their opinions at the time, tried my own hand at it, and then watched over time as the data and experimental results gradually came in over time... and saw just how well they had informed me at the outset about not only what they felt they knew, but also what they felt they didn't know. Their scores, by my measure, were remarkable. So it's been earned.

This is a summary report intended to do a quick paste-up of the most recent published results. It isn't intended to make the attribution, itself. That is the purpose of the IPCC's formal process and has already been well documented via the IPCC AR4 (and the TAR, if you want to go back that far.) Attribution is a matter of a lot of different papers, too. And it also develops out of the fact that no one has been able to successfully provide an alternative theory that can explain what is now the overwhelming weight of abundant observation.

If you see correlated noise spikes in some signal node and you also _know_ that there is a handy, low impedance output clock source somewhere that just happens to have the same frequency, and no one else has a good alternative for you... well, you pretty much feel like you _know_ what the cause is. And, in fact, there is abundant theory in electronics to tell you, as well, exactly _how_ the one can couple into the other. Plus, you then have pretty good knowledge about how to abate the problem, based upon those theories.

Of course, if someone _did_ come up with another viable theory and if that theory _could_ also explain those noise spikes, then you'd have to consider that, as well.

If someone (not an electronics engineer, but someone who is a welder, let's say) just says to you, "well, there is no _proof_ of your theory about the source of the correlated noise" you'd probably just go and 'fix the problem' with a solution developed out of well-understood theory and show them that it fixes the problem. In the Earth's case, we can't do that. It would be nice if we could, because then you'd be convinced. But sadly, the experiment is ongoing right now and we are all engaged in arguing about what solution to try and no one is willing to yet get behind your solution or mine or any one else's. So we are just stuck, looking on.

In the case of the correlated noise in a circuit and that welder who isn't convinced (but must be before he will allow you to screw with his circuit), if you weren't allowed to try your solution just to see, then you'd still know you were right because you have abundant theory and experimental result and practice from elsewhere to make you very certain you know the right answer... but you'd be barred from "proving it" because that welder (and other welders, janitors, business managers, and pretty much everyone around the place) won't let you show them until you prove this specific case.... which you can't, unless you are allowed to try your hand and show them.

Similar thing. We are in a situation where the science had reached the point where attribution is unambiguous given the lack of an alternative (and there is no other viable alternative that explains observation, right now) and where existing theory does actually explain it (some of the theory, such as radiation physics, is extremely well understood both within and without the laboratory environment and can be fairly easily shown to anyone who cares enough to work for their own opinion.)

Well, I think that is your political choice to make. As it is, others. I've been involved both directly (in developing and testing instrumentation) and indirectly (as a hobbyist looking on from the outside) for many years now. And I've completely disagreed with the central thrust of active climate scientists beforehand and was, slowly over time, forced piecemeal to change my opinion. It's been a long, hard path for me and it took many years to gradually come around through hard work and effort __ON MY PART__.

You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make them drink. In the end, the only way to know yourself is to apply your skills and talents directly to some aspect or facet and see where it takes you. And I mean, seriously and fully engage yourself. I've done that. It was painful and a damn lot of time and effort on my part. Sometimes, I wish I'd just accepted things and not wasted that time. But I did and in the process I have earned my thick callouses.

Like playing guitar, you don't get the callouses just standing on the sidelines and kibitzing about it. Or complaining about the music you hear. You get the scars and callouses by working out, yourself. Making it personal and paying the price.

Been there, done that, learned my lessons.

That wasn't it's purpose. It's a summary designed to fold in new information. You need to go back to the IPCC AR4, in particular Working Group I's work. And even then, all you get is a summary as the IPCC AR4 doesn't do the actual observation and theoretical work. All they do is interpret and summarize the actually work. For the actual knowledge, you have to go find all the relevant source materials and read each and every one of them and then sit down and try your own hand at it.

You are asking a cat to act like a dog. The report (nor any of climate science) attempts to "prove" anything. But you are totally wrong to say "all assumptions." That is obviously over-reaching, and I am pretty sure you know it is, too. Even if you were right on the broader point (which you aren't), you must know that is going overboard. (There is no need to make absolute statements to make your point -- all it shows me is that you feel the need to speak more loudly, to shout, in order to make your argument seem stronger.)

Proof isn't to be had. You know that. And "it" isn't "all assumptions" and you know that, too.

Hehe. I've no idea what it says!! I assume you are right and that it will show growth. It's just that I wasted my time finding that damned stuff so I was darned well going to pass it on to someone!!

The point I was making isn't the above thread of thought. I would have imagined that you'd have remembered where I went. But it seems you've lost your way in all these details. My apologies.

My point doesn't depend on whether or not ONE particular glacier is growing or shrinking or whether or not someone can offer a specific explanation about it, either way. Climate is averages. You point to a specific glacier (or set of glaciers) and point out that they are growing, as though that is meaningful. My point is that an isolated data point, whether that data point covers 1 year or 30 years, has no importance whatsoever when discussing 30-year _global_ averages. You need to be comprehensive in your view. You weren't. That was my point. End of story.

I've read through a lot of them. I find two main issues there that offend my sensibilities. But they aren't things that in any way affect my understanding of climate science, itself. No, I'm not going to go into the details right now. Because it would only be a distraction into my emotional reactions (and perhaps yours) and that takes away from a discussion of science theory and observation.

I don't think you did point out anything. You need to be comprehensive in your view, before you can do that. And so far as I've seen, not only have you not done that but you haven't indicated to me a willingness to do it in the future, either. I don't know anything about this, except one or two summaries I've glimpsed. I know I don't know anything here. And I'm quite willing to walk this path with you, if you are serious about it. I've no idea where it would take us. Perhaps we'd wind up exactly where you predict we would, largely ignorant right now. Perhaps somewhere entirely different. I don't know. But without supplying our intellects and hard work, we never will now for ourselves, either. And my point is that unless and until you (or I) do the work at hand, our opinions on this subject really aren't worth the electrons with which they are written.

You and I look at similar things and reach different conclusions. I will argue that the reason has nothing to do with differences in life perspectives -- because you and I, I think, have already tested enough of that and I believe that while we would disagree about some things I think you and I would agree about a lot more. And I know enough to trust your intuition, experience, and general background. I believe that it is because you simply haven't put in enough personal sweat here. And I think that is all it is.

On the subject of the exchanges, I've read a lot of them myself. And in a couple of cases, can say that I 'kind of' know the individuals involved and enough of what was meant. As I wrote, there are two things that bothered me after going through years of such exchanges. But none of it affects the actual _work_ I've done or the understandings I've earned in the process or the opinions of my own I've changed as I've learned over time. That is all personally my own sweat and effort and no one can take that away from me -- least of all two things I find unprofessional in tone, but otherwise not affecting what I've learned and done. And as I said, I'm not going to divert a discussion and have to deal with your emotions, my emotions, and the emotions of others in some free-for-all -- few of whom have actually spent any significant part of their own life's blood on the subject. I know what I'd wish a few had had better sense than... but I live with the good and bad in all of us, so I can take a longer view here.

Jon

te:

penedBill Sloman

edia, no energy=3D

port goods, the=3D

some paper man=3D

ll these

esn't know

cientists?

e who

y quite

field

tor?

at.

you

oved_

nyone

The deceit I practice? Perhaps you'd like to identify a specific deceit. I've certainly told you things that you don't believe, but it would have been deceitful to tell you what you wanted to hear.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

oman

This is pretty much my understanding of the climate cycles up to now

Since our injecting loads of CO2 into the atmosphere - enough to cause enough heating already to substatially decrease the ice-cover within the Arctic Circle - seems to be over-riding the positive feedbacks that amplifed the the small forcing from the Milankovitch Effect enough to let it explain the ice age to interglacial oscillation, this is of strictly historical interest.

I can't really see the necessity to understand something that isn't happening any more.

Idiot conservatives do keep on acting as if the world hasn't changed right up to the moment that the change overwhelms them, so it probably wouldn't be a good idea to acquire you "understanding" of natural cycles, or your total ignorance of the physics that drove them.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Careful. A friend of Swedish descent with similar skin complexion died from melanoma about three years ago :-(

Nope, I haven't. And won't. Don't ever use that word in anything that is to be submitted to agencies such as FDA or FAA ;-)

I don't mind the word but in the context it sure sounded like an attempt to "somehow" paper over the recent cooling trend. Because it doesn't fit into their grand scheme I guess.

Mine has not been so good. Upon very polite requests I was at times basically told to go away. I have published stuff myself and every single inquiry was answered to the best of what I could do. I consider that a matter of decency but some scientists nowadays seem not to. This was back in the 90's when it required much more work, copying, buying stamps, writing envelopes, trudging down to the mailbox (in Europe they don't pick up at the house mailboxes). Nowadays all they'd have to do is send a link.

Anyhow, a refusal to disclose underlying data makes me extremely suspicious and distrustful of scientific "work".

Ok, great that you had such experience. I often didn't. What I do not like is that people who aren't climate scientists and have not put a lot of work into it are sometimes brushed aside. I would never ever do that to a novice or a casual requester. It's against my moral principles.

To say it arrogantly I believe I have a better handle on that noise stuff than many climate guys on the climate :-)

Exactly. And that (considering others) is one of my points of contention with IPCC.

Meantime we are missing the boat in so many more important areas. Like developing safe and efficient nuclear power generation. Everyone wants electric cars to be the future, wants it carbon-free, and nobody has the foggiest idea where the juice shall come from. Instead we are pushed towards wasting our time and energy with carbon credits, taxes and whatnot. That's what I am squarely against. If we are concerned about the environment, and I am, then we've got to roll up our sleeves and find technical solutions for the real issues at hand. Like what our energy sources will be in the future.

We do have alternatives. Nuclear power is just one example but it ain't ready yet. If we'd only be willing to invest in the research again instead of imposing some carbon tax that just feeds yet another fat bureaucracy.

Agree. But nevertheless every one of us has to build their opinion about it (along with a gazillion other issues) because eventually we'll be asked to make some decisions. Be that at the ballot box or elsewhere. And not everyone has the time or intellectual wherewithall to delve deep into the matter. Therefore, many of us must rely on being fed the "condensed version". That version must be credible to the people and I think many climate scientists have done themselves a great disservice by their behavior, and I don't just mean the recent emails.

But is was sure written in that style, along the lines "you've got questions, we've got the answers". While they don't have them.

There is no proof. But there is clear evidence of some past things, like the stuff I pointed out. For example, the notion that many glaciers have been mostly free of ice not too long ago is fact. There is proof. Roman coins have no ability to "tunnel themselves" through thick ice and land at just the right spot.

I wasn't meaning you but the thought process of many other AGW prononents including some in this NG.

It ain't end of story for me. For example I am not a proponent of simply papering over the recent cooling trend. That is not just an isolated event. A trend that obviously has even some bigshot climate scientists from the AGW party concerned, as evidenced in the leaked emails.

I believe the findings by the Swiss at Schnidljoch were pretty powerful. If you don't think so, ok, then we differ in opinion here.

But I believe the skepticisim towards some conclusions is worth it, because they may be premature. That's my whole point.

That's where we differ a bit and I think that's ok. My position is that it is not always necessary to put tons of sweat into an issue to develop an opinion on it. There are only about 700,000 hours in the average person's life and that's a limit. Sometimes we must trust experts. To me that trust is very important.

Good points.

It was meant as an example. A pastor who cruises around in a Rolls Royce and preaches modesty will not find a lot of followers.

He needs all these gigantic mansions to "deliver his message"? ROFL! Now that really takes the cake ...

Ah yes, critical voices are political harrassment. Where have I heard that before? No, we really don't want to go there ...

Because they were not proof. Not a single speck of evidence in there where they were caught _fudging_ science. Just the usual propaganda that less and less people believe.

Oh dear, the fact you've reached that conclusion reinforces my original view. Your comprehension abilities are woefully lacking. Don't bother to explain how you reached that conclusion.

Grin. The company of those who post erroneous information about the status of an author.

And you could have just written "Although France gets the majority of its electricity from nuclear energy, its total energy..." That would have been clear writing. No need for a "fact check".

That you didn't write clearly (and surely you don't expect others to use a higher level of clarity than you're prepared to express yourself) reinforces my original view that you misread Bill's statement as refering to France's total energy use.

It was only misleading for those who missed the word "electric".

So you should have stated that rather than offering a "fact check."

-- Regards Malcolm Remove sharp objects to get a valid e-mail address

The poorest countries don't burn enough fossil carbon that serious CO2 reduction would involve them, and the human costs of not reducing our CO2 are also very likely to be immense, especially in poorer countries, which are already having trouble growing enough food to feed their people.

Climate researchers are entirely aware of their obligations to be honest and keep and open mind - particularly when they are all aware that if they did find a convincing alternative explanation for the last century's worth of of global warming, they'd become media stars and be catapulted to the top of their profession.

The denialist web-sites that you seem to patronise are under no such obligation to be honest, and they'd lose their subsidies if they admitted that the scientific case for anthropogenic global warming was actually rather solid - as it is.

And don't take James Arthur's word for it - he has now twice demonstrated that he doesn't know what he is talking about, despite his claims of high-placed friends in climatological circles and intimate acquaintance with their computer code.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

This is one more of James Arthur's fatuous opinions. There are sceptcal senior scientists around - albeit not many of them, and their sceptical papers regularly get falsified - but they aren't being lynched.

Very possibly. But nobody has produced any evidence to show that any climate scientist has actually been intimidated. It is frequently claimed by the denialist propaganda machine, who have to find some way of explaining why the vast majority of climate scientists regard anthropogenic global warming as a well-established theory, but they have yet to find a convincing example of actual intimidation.

Lindzen did claim that Hendrik Tennekes was fired from his job as the head of Royal Dutch Meteorological Institute because of his sceptical views, but in fact he retired at 65 - he might have been able to continue working if he been working for an American or Australian institution, but the Dutch are still depressingly age-ist.

Inspiring stuff, if totally irrelevant.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

te:

ve

te a

ple who

or

John Field's self-image is healthily positive, but regrettably unrealistic.

No need to pretend.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

ote:

ave

ate a

ople who

for

mb

to

is

now

Sure, and you KNOW that the moon is made of green cheese.

More like the dregs of the usenet'svast collection of kooks.

Fine. I've been posting for more than decade now, so I really ought to be a by-word.

lways had

What do you want to know about? I'm not going to get a job as a climate scientist, but at least I know enough to be able to demonstrate that James Arthur doesn't know what he is talking about.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

le

Sure. I've seen it happen. I once inadvertently provoked a Ph.D. researcher at Texas Instruments (U.K.) into doing it to himself.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

The circuit that squegged in real life used bipolar transistors.

The LTSpice model with MOSFETs didn't squeq either, but I'll get worried about that when I've got around to building an real example. It's taking longer than it should.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

at

The weaknesses of the Gummel-Poon model are well known - thats why the VBIC model was developed. My current suspicion is that failure of the Gummel-Poon model to replicate the avalanch break-down of the reversed biased base-emitter junction may have something to do with it.

It isn't a Royer oscillator, but a Baxandall Class-D oscillator - the Royer inverter produces a square wave, the Baxandall a tolerably good sine wave. And the real circuit that squegged used bipolar transistors.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Presumably you mean Viscount Christoher Monckton, despite the fact that he isn't a climatologist

He does fancy himself as a climatologist, but he isn't all tha convincing in the role

He's actually an enthusiastic self-publicist, which probably explains why he made the challenge.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 16:12:56 -0800, Joerg wrote:

I'm careful. I don't take chances. I spend time outside at latitude

Speaking of which, my most energetic time ... the moments outside when I'm at my peak and absolutely loving it is when there is a deep layer of snow (three feet or more) and ice about and it's a semi-clear night with just a few clouds and some brisk winds blowing about, with ambients from about -5C to +4C. I consider 4C to be t-shirt weather and often go outside with shorts and t-shirt at those times.

I'm basically "at home" with snow and ice. It's my element.

hehe. Well, I think these letters were private, as well. I use such lingo all the time with folks I know well and personally trust. If some of my private emails to companies were released, there are some I'd definitely wish were better expressed.

I read the same text (well, I don't really know that... did you read the emails in their fuller context or did you read someone else's "selection" of them?) And as I said, there were two things that bothered me. But none of it changed the attribution of 'recent' climate forcing, in my view.

You mention "sounded like," above. I really don't want to get into the details for reasons I've already stated, but I would just like to suggest that 'sounds-like' does not mean 'is.' You may feel there is a strong argument in there. I don't, after having read a lot of it.

I think the only way to find out about their motivation is to ask them about it. And you've already said as much as the fact that you wouldn't trust their responses to such questions. So that pretty much leaves this discussion at a stand-still.

I find that surprising. I'd have to read your exchanges, though.

Hmm, would you like to make _them_ public, just as this recent disclosure seems to have done for others? (Do you feel confident enough about your communications here that they could survive my scrutiny in this public forum? Or would you feel a lot like some of these scientists may?) Just teasing, really.

But I have to say that the worst I've experienced from a scientist is being ignored. And many of the papers have multiple authors, so I'm always able to secure papers I want without paying for them. Also, I can get the conversations I want.. just not always _when_ I'd like them. An example I remember well was a case where the scientist had been off in Japan for a month and I felt ignored. But when he got back, I got a phone call and we talked for a while -- both about his trip and what he felt was brewing as a result, as well as what I'd originally been asking after.

I simply lack an explanation for your experiences, given mine.

In general, there is no profit for a science team to duplicate work. If they duplicate the work and get the same or similar results from it, they've merely stared at their belly buttons and wasted a lot of money in the process. If they duplicate the work and find an error, then a correction is made and science moves on. But the team doesn't really get much credit for it. It reflects more upon the team that made the error. The ones finding it merely did a 'clean up' job that shows they can follow procedure like they should be able to and really doesn't reflect on their creativity and ability to "do science." So again, they wasted their time even if they helped fix an error that someone else should have caught.

An example of this later case is the artifact of the diurnal correction that had been incorrectly applied to MSU T2LT raw data by Roy Spencer and John Christy. For years, scientists outside this inner circle had been "clubbed" by the University of Alabama's results that conflicted with pretty much every other approach by teams all over the world. Both Spencer and Christy were repeatedly asked to go back through their methodology to see if they could find an error. Over and over, they insisted they didn't need to do that. Finally, Carl Mears and Frank Wentz apparently got sick and tired enough with the continuing conflict that they decided to waste their own precious time to duplicate the efforts by Spencer and Christy. That effort, by all rights, should have been Spencer and Christy's efforts. But since they weren't taking action, if finally all came to a head. In any case, Mears and Wentz went through all the trouble to secure the data sets and then attempt to duplicate the processing. In the end, they discovered an error in the diurnal correction used by the Alabama team. Once shown their error -- and it took them four or five months to admit it -- they publicly made corrections to their processing and republished old data which then, while on the lower end of the spectrum, was "within" the range of error of the results of other work long since published. At that point, though, Spencer and Christy's work had been tarnished and Remote Sensing Systems began publishing their own analysis in parallel. It happens. But there isn't much credit given for this. Just credit taken away.

Most scientists want to find creative new approaches to answering questions that will confirm or disconfirm the work of others -- not duplicate the exact same steps. Or they want to solve new problems. That illustrates creativity and leads to a reputation. Novelty is important.

_Methods_ and _results_ are disclosed, though. But software programs and interim data aren't that important. If you are going to attempt replication (and sometimes you do want to, as mentioned), you want to do it with a "fresh eye" to the problem so that you actually have a chance to cross-check results. You need to walk a similar path, of course. To do that, you want to know the methodology used. And of course you need the results to check outcomes in the end. That's all anyone really needs.

If you are creative enough to take a different approach entirely in answering the questions, then you don't even need that.

The methods and sources used are an important trail to leave. And they leave that much, consistently. Beyond that, it's really just too many cooks in the kitchen. If you can't dispute or replicate knowing methods and sources, then perhaps you shouldn't be in the business at all.

When you say "underlying data," I haven't yet encountered a case where I was prevented access if I were able to show that I could actually understand their methods and apply the data, appropriately. That's rare, in my case, of course. But in the few cases where I've asked, I have either been provided sources for the data (without question) or else, when asked, it was clearly not with an eye to block my access but really to ascertain whether or not I was able to understand it. It takes time to explain things and they have a right to weigh if it is worth their time and effort trying to educate every tom, dick, and harry that comes by their way. But I can't recall ever being denied something that I actually wanted. Perhaps, because I know my limitations and don't ask for something I'm not prepared to use (or learn about before asking for it.)

Not in my experience.

If you want to point out the specific letter that bothers you (quote a significant sentence or two so I can find it in my saved copies), I'd be happy to look at the case and see what I think of it. I might even write and ask about it -- though I won't necessarily expect an answer. Might get one, though. But I could at least offer my take on it, if I knew a specific case you were considering.

I think one most sensible people distinguish when to spend their time and when not to. You do that. So do I. Some people writing in this group (and other groups) are both ignorant AND willfully so AND where it is clear they won't spend their own time "getting better." If you decide that is the case, you don't write. Why should you? We all have better things to do. On the other hand, if you have a serious inquiry from someone who _is_ ignorant but at least shows some earlier work -- even if that effort was in the wrong direction, it was engaged seriously -- then you may feel better about trying to correct them or point out some thought of yours that may help them.

Climate science is fraught with well-funded confusion, discord, and the sewing of far less certainty where there is far more available. Some scientists are ... wary. They've been caught flat-footed. (I have been, too.) They might imagine a sincere request, respond in a fair minded way, and have it cherry-picked and plastered without context or understanding. At some point, one gets kind of sick and tired of that, you know?

I do my diligence, first. By reading their recent work and related materials, for example. When I write to them, I almost always have something to say that shows them that I've done some work on my own. That always seems to help a lot. It shows I respect their time by first spending my own and therefore am obviously not out to just waste theirs. A dialogue can start from there. But it really helps to not ask others to spend their time when you haven't spent your own, first.

In a similar way, it helps to know that someone has at least tried to understand a BJT and maybe even build some things they want to understand a little better, but don't, when posting a BJT question. If a poster hasn't ever read a single page of a single book on the subject, never tried anything, and just jumps in with some completely random request for "plase expln me how the bjt wroks?" question, well... yeah.. it's not likely to get anything but suggestions to go put in some time first (and maybe even learning some English, too.)

Scientists are people.

Well, between you and me, I bet you do. Climate is _very_ difficult to master. Science breaks down into two main approaches -- reductionism and large number statistics. Reduction works great on problems where ignoring small influences leaves a "good enough" understanding. Statistics work great in large numbers of events. But for systems with large numbers of highly correlated, but complex interactions then neither reduction nor statistics work all that well. Disease flows through populations fit this latter case. There are well known processes by which disease passes from person to person, but the processes by which people interact are... difficult to fully master. Statistics doesn't work nearly as well as you might imagine because these processes don't fall into nice Poisson events that integrate into nice gaussian bell shaped distributions. And there are so many important factors that reductionism is tough going, as well.

For a time, climate science was more like that Gordian Knot. Data was scarce, theories were available but nowhere near enough of them, etc. But as time went by, those large-scale important interactions were gradually teased apart. Today, it's still very difficult work but at least more tractable than before. I don't want to minimize the difficulties. But I also don't want to suggest that they haven't been addressed with hard and largely successful work.

Well, you can make the point. But you really have no idea because you haven't put in the work required. So how should I take this 'point'? It really isn't made until it is made from an informed position. Otherwise it's just a random shot in the dark.

Well, I'm not going to argue much here. Nuclear power can be safe -- the problems are mostly with people, not technical ones. A totally safe reactor (you could use dynamite to blow the control rods out of it) was demonstrated back in the 1950's. It's old news. But the politics and profit motives are another thing. I completely agree on the electric car point you make. On the carbon credit/tax/whatever issue, I think we are sadly stuck with the politics of power and capital and I don't know what to do there. We should have a carbon tax and ALL of the money received from it should go straight back to the public and NOT into the pockets of politicians and capital. But the problem is, while we may be able to pass laws here, money and power will make damned sure their pockets are lined and that everyone else loses out. And the public will NOT support graft like that. So until they can find a way to get that back into _our_ pockets and not relining the pockets of those already lined with gold... I don't think the public can get behind the idea. Yet everything else will fail to achieve the needed results. Oh, well. Life (or the lack of it) in the real world.

The only thing left is to do what you suggest... roll up our sleeves and work at real issues facing us. I think those nearer the top of the food chain will keep fighting each other and the rest of us so as to see who is left in the game of "musical chairs" they are involved in right now. It's up to us, or not.

Hmm. I hadn't read this, earlier. ;) You anticipated my reply and I anticipated yours, too. As I said, the public won't get behind a carbon tax that will merely line the pockets of power or capital. So we agree there.

Nuclear power has a number of very good alternatives, if we can just get around to fashioning the right people-mechanisms around them. I've written at some length on these subjects and won't bore you with that unless you ask. But suffice it that I see the nuclear power problem as essentially a human one. Solve that and the rest unfolds. Technical and science knowledge is already there, ready to go. (And there are human systems that can work... I know of a few... but enough people with opportunity to move on this simply won't go there because of some handcuffs that may mean to them, so we collectively remain at square one.)

Do you remember watching "China Syndrome?" Jack Lemmon played a character who _knew_ things cold, but couldn't communicate the technical issues to a listening public who wasn't ready to understand them and could only see a "crazy man" talking. Yet he was right. The problem was that the issues themselves required education and training to fathom well. And the public couldn't follow.

Suppose, just for argument's sake, that there is a group of people with a lot of capital at risk and a sincere desire to control the voting public on an issue.

People respond well to the science of emotional appeal and propaganda. (In fact, the science is so well refined now that it is sometimes scary.) Sound bites are easily manufactured and played. Emotional wedges found and used. Images, not facts, presented.

An example is McDonald's ads. They show happy faces on a beautiful family, with nary a care in the world between them. Not a word about the quality of the food, what nutrition is provided, etc. Nothing technical, at all. No evidence presented. Just pretty images that convey emotional well-being and goodness. And it works. Well.

Now, for argument's sake, let's say there is a group of scientists who have a very difficult, very technical subject that taxes the very state of human science. It's not even easy if you are trained in the subject to get your mind wrapped around the bulk of it. These scientists have two choices. They can face the pretty images and nice platitudes with more of their own and just play out the battle on the same propaganda battleground and forget wasting any effort on the facts. Or they can focus on the facts... and lose the audience in the process. Either way, they lose. They lose the audience if they try to convey the complex issues, the knowns and unknowns, etc. And in losing the audience, lose the war. If they choose to go with the propaganda approach and do the pretty picture and sound bites crap, they fail because they lose the one advantage they actually OWN.... the science facts in the situation... the one, single thing that actually separates them from the public fray of every other political issue. And when they sink to that level, they will get uncovered for their perfidy. And even if their competition is equally guilty, the public won't care because the scientists will have lost their respect.

If you haven't gotten it yet, I think almost all of the chips are on the side of those willing to use all means necessary. The scientists can't let themselves slide to that level. But in refusing to be just as bad, just as willing to use any tool that works, they bind their own feet and give the other side no contest at all.

The only real choice they have is to stay the course and retain the one thing they have -- science fact. But that means they are running a race with a gunny sack tied around their feet and the other sides are having a hay day with that. Oh, well. They can only hope that they can run the turtle's race and believe that slow and steady will win. Maybe it will, maybe it won't.

Yes, it is frustrating. And yes, sometimes that frustration reaches out in letters. Oh, well.

They do, really. Have you ever cracked open a book on these subjects? Try, "Atmospheric and Oceanic Fluid Dynamics," for size. Then repeat yourself above. It's there, Joerg. It's just damned hard to master well. You need to work. That's the problem here.

Again, we are going to go back and forth. Make a commitment to gain a comprehensive view here. Until then, I've nothing to add. I'm ignorant on the subject and I'm not willing to work for a serious opinion here if you aren't, too. One good turn deserves another. But if you won't work for it, why should I?

I don't think anything has been papered over. Climate scientists are always working at difficulties and trying to find answers. Same with evolution, though I don't mean to suggest that climate science is as well understood, yet.

I don't know anything comprehensive about that. So no real opinion about it.

Well, that is a point you can always keep. It's not a discerning one, though, because it is "always true" and makes no distinctions.

You are wrong on this. You really need some thick callouses developed from real, hard work of your own. And that's where I'll leave that.

Thanks. I've enjoyed your replies, as well.

Jon