I was totally taken in by the foreword, until I read the fictious expert's name and credentials. "Prof. Long-Bore" -perfect! "Stonetablet College" - how appropriate! What a wonderful piece of sarcasm.
I'm getting my hands on this asap.

Why are all the global science experts barking up the wrong tree?

Brown paper bags of cash under the table?

G-wan. = TG

I just love how they can now prove things using computer models now. I wish I had heard of how to do this, as I am a programmer.

The Kyoto thingie (a chord - to strangle Freedom) was cooked up by Uncle Mo tse Strong for his "Cells (Habitats) for humanity (state slaves)" project. After the Coalition of the willing netted Saddam the cash for oil dried up so the Kyota thing was to kick in with cash for hot air! If Canada had re-elected Paulie II, we would have a 50 cent dollar and the Republic of Alberta would be making up their own constitution.
I doubt that Ed would be the President though...maybe Stephen Harper would have that job. Alta would not be paying for hot air or for incompetent other Canadian provinces and territories and that would leave the rest of us paying for hot air while walking and freezing in the dark.

Unfortunately, the foreword (although provided as a sarcastic comment) is precisely what seems to count for the bulk of AGW proponents arguments.

Yes, there are a few AGW supporters who argue beyond some of these points, but even they definitely fall in line with the 3rd paragraph where the credibility of all who question AGW is highly suspect.

Really, most pro-AGW stories should be placed on a satirical site like TheOnion where at least we can just enjoy their entertainment value.

I'll be looking for this book online, just in time for Christmas...

Would I be correct in assuming Bilderberg Heather Reisman will miss the joke and have special center isle displays of this book at Chapters....or will she be tipped off to its sarcastic deflating the political science of AGW and "ban" the book from sale through Chapters and indego like she does with most politically incorrect literature?

Hey Kids, let's all go down to the Chapters book burning party! We'll toast mallows on the burning Reagan Bios.

It took a few seconds to click, but it's always good to start the day with a good chuckle.

Thanks Kate.

The UN IPCC predicts that average temperatures will go up by 1.1 to 6.4 degrees Celsius over the next 100 years. http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf

Are we in Canada actually supposed to take that as a bad thing? Right now it's about 9 degrees where I am. I wouldn't mind 15.4 degrees to be honest.

There's more days where a 6.4 degree increase would be a good thing than a bad thing. And for many Canadians a 6.4 degree increase for every day of the year would be a good thing.

Well, jema54, it is a wonder you can muster the coordination to enter text on your mommy's computer.

Step back, take a quick read of the post you made and wonder at your deep, thorough and complete stupidity.

It is a marvel to behold.

Please keep posting, as it amuses so many of us who actually can clothe and feed ourselves.

"Do not read it. I have not read it, and you should not either; indeed, I threw my copy on the fire. I only regret that burning the book was my only remedy. In a better age I would have burned the authors with it."

Wonderful satire. Someone's got a great sense of humour.

Very slightly off topic: I saw a billboard that proclaims"Ethanol-Mother Natures' fuel!". Is coal, wood, and oil not also "Mother Natures'" fuel? Just wondering.

"The global temperature is warmer today than ever before in the planet's history"

Didn't the Earth used to be a molten ball of fire?

Another moonbat comes flittering out of the cave.

'tory_watcher.' I'm scared. Really, really scared.

Please keep posting. Since so many leftards quit yesterday, we're down a few to toy with.

Irwin:

Scared of what? Nobody was trying to make you afraid of anything. Just pointing out that some of you are hilariously stupid.

As to being a "leftard" - hardly. I am private sector all the way and have created more wealth than you can conceive of.

Back to the window - another order coming in....

Fantastic.

Hilarious.

Only slightly sad.

If I've said it once , I've said it a thousand times , Blame AGW on the PIRATES . Cool graph and everything !

Is it funny or just sad that, as the grandchild of German Jews who barely escaped the holocaust, and who each lost many cousins, uncles, aunts to the Nazis, that the new Church of Global Warming holds that I am equivalent to those who deny the existence of the holocaust, merely because I question certain long-term computer models?

We have been taken by storm here on Vancouver Island.. Comox .. Courtenay, Seriously..

Trees down over our neighbours building..

Heavy Tree branches hanging on wires..

Must disconnect before power goes off..=TG

"created more wealth than you can conceive of."

Oh, really? How did you assume that?

"Just pointing out that some of you are hilariously stupid."

Like your words served with ketchup?

Never trust an economist to teach you about climate science (Ross McKitrick), just as you should never trust an economist to run a country populated with human beings instead of numbers.
Christopher Essex, being one of the original "Friends of Science" group with Tim Ball is in the pockets of the energy companies.
This book originally came out in 2002 and the science behind it has been shown to be empty many times and is nothing new.

Re- TG at November 12, 2007 12:12 PM
Questions for you TG seeing you live in Comox. How long have you lived there? I left there in 1987 and at that time it was visibly evident that Comox glacier was shrinking. What is its status now? Do they still ski at Forbidden Plateau?

albatros.

Do you really think anybody is going to consider your review superior to, I don't know, Lindzen, Soon, Patterson, Tsonis, etc?

Aren't you a student?

Some of you should click on the " PIRATE " link above , it's from today's American Thinker . Looks like the seabird has a few of the Tricks of the Tirade dowm pat .

albatross39a, you are spewing talking points without basis in fact, like a usual lefty. What McKittick and Essex did was to show that the science behind Mr. Mann's hockey stick graph was in fact a fraud. This has been proven, and is on record in the US Senate. Mr. Mann's computer 'algoreithm' (not a typo - just like the reference to the big liar himself) had a well designed 'bug' that made even random sets of numbers look like a hockey stick. That is not science, its a hoax. Peer Review is not an audit of the data and processes used. That is why there is now a site by McIntyre called Climate Audit. They look at the data and programs used to "prove" global warming. The Global warming scare mongers hate this because they then have to answer serious questions - and they can't. As for your claims that sceptics are in the pocket of 'big oil'. It's pathetic, proving only your ignorance. The big money in this debate is mostly "public" - stolen from taxpayers - and granted by leftwing bureaucrats ONLY to those who will search for the elusive "proof" of man's sins. Those doing real science are left out in the cold. The founder of the Weather Channel has come out calling the politicalization of climate change science a hoax. You'd do well to listen to him. You are being scammed and lied to by the fear mongers.

Alby,

Glaciers all over the CDN west are receeding as they have since the mid-1800's after the end of the little ice age.

Glaciers grow and shrink over millenia. It's nothing new.

Yes Irwin I'm a fourth year undergrad in environment and physical geography with a focus on human influence on the environment (including climate change). This of course is far more than Ross McKitrick has done in this field. My degree will be finished this June and next year I plan to add a second degree in anthropology, probably followed the year after with a B.ed. I hold a commercial pilots licence. I’m a 25 year veteran of the Canadian Air Force as a flight engineer, which means I have traveled extensively into places that tourists fear to tread. I have been to all ten of Canada’s provinces, lived in five of them for at least four years. I've traveled the Canadian Arctic extensively in all three territories. I have stood on the southern tip of Point Pelee, the Western edge of Graham Island, British Columbia, the Northern point of Elsmere Island and climbed Signal Hill in St. John’s. If you are unaware of the significance of these four places in Canada I suggest you get out a map and take a look. I have visited 48 out of 50 US states, only missing Delaware and New Jersey. I’ve traveled to 49 different countries to date and set foot on five continents. I have shaken hands with three members of the royal family during different occasions, two prime ministers of Canada, a couple of governors general and many others interesting personalities from Soviet Generals to Norman Schwarzkopf. I have landed in mine fields, picked up dead bodies and crashed in a helicopter once. I climbed the Pyramid of Khufu, walk among the Moai of Rapa Nui, crawled inside an ancient Roman fort, driven around Loch Ness and list could go on.
I’m a really crappy typist, especially when I leave my glasses somewhere else, but in short Irwin I’m not just some 20 year old undergrad and I wasn’t born yesterday.

"Yes Irwin I'm a fourth year undergrad in environment and physical geography with a focus on human influence on the environment (including climate change)"

Weren't you recently a strong black woman with a PhD in Amsterdam?

The problem, albatros, is that it's false to assume that someone's years of life (I am presuming your birth year is 1939) can be correlated with a 'stock of knowledge' or with an ability to think critically and logically. Your years and your hand-shaking experiences don't necessarily provide knowledge.

For example, that's a very strange remark for you to make, when you say "Never trust an economist to run a country populated with human beings instead of numbers". Are you suggesting that only a medical doctor should run a country?

And- numbers, as ought to know, are a MODEL of the actual objects. Instead of storing cows in our backyards, we MODEL the value of the object (cow)into a number (itself modeled as money) and store that number. Would you prefer the cows?

An economist has the ability to understand models, and economic modeling is a basic requirement for helping ensure the robust economic health of a nation.

You, after all, focus exclusively on models - the AGW theme is based only on models - It is unfortunate that you disregard the actual facts that rebut these AGW models. You also disregard the unreliability of models - and these models in particular.

By the way, another problem with your statement is its use of the passive tense, wherein you say that "it has been shown to be empty". By whom?

And using ad hominem (in the control of oil) is never, ever, a sign of one's knowledge of critical thinking ability.

Can we get over the hockey stick now?
www.desmogblog.com/nrc-exonerates-hockey-stick-graph-ending-mann-hunt-by-two-canadian-skeptics

The "founder of the Weather Channel" is just a TV weather man, and business man, nothing more. He is no expert on climate change, but I would love to see what's in his investment portfolio.

Alby's favorite word,I.Very telling.

"Weren't you recently a strong black woman with a PhD in Amsterdam?

Posted by: Andrew at November 12, 2007 2:14 PM"

Uh, no. But I have been to Amsterdam.

albatross,
Spent too much time smoking something there.
And you are just a commercial pilot and former flight engineer. Just because you drink the kool-aid at school doesn't mean much.
enough

ET. No the 39 was my age when the handle was invented eight years ago. The point of that post was to point out that I am not a 20 year old undergrad but I also speak from experience.

"Are you suggesting that only a medical doctor should run a country?"

-Not at all human response is not predictable. If you believe modelling climate which is based on predictable science is complex, then human behaviour is immeasurable. I'm saying that those who realize that people do not act like a set of number in a society should run a country and that is where economists fail. Time and time again it has been proven that human reaction a given situation, especially when one throws in cultural change and the illogical responses by religion, cannot be predicted by numerical models.

"You, after all, focus exclusively on models - the AGW theme is based only on models"
Not at all, that is completely wrong. Models play an important part in understand the effects of climate change, but there is far more to it than that.

“By the way, another problem with your statement is its use of the passive tense, wherein you say that "it has been shown to be empty". By whom?”

How much ya got? www.sciencemag.org/

"And using ad hominem (in the control of oil)…" Have you never noticed that one common denominator in climate scepticism, money with its close friend, egoism?

by: enough at November 12, 2007 2:38 PM
"And you are just a commercial pilot and former flight engineer."

Your point?

albatross - several things:

First, economics and climate are not amenable to predictable models, which are linear, but operate in complex models. Complex modeling cannot predict with any accuracy.

Second, for your point on 'an economist should not run a country' to be valid, you'd have to show quite a few things:

-All economists think only in numerical models.
No economist can think, except within a numerical model.
The economist cannot translate this numerical model to any other kind of model.

I doubt that you'd be able to provide any proof of this.

Kindly remember that you are saying that an economist cannot think except within a numerical model, and yet, you claim that someone working in climate change, can think both within models and outside of models. Is there any reason for the difference? Do you have proof of the Closure of The Economic Mind?

Third, I think that you need to provide an opinion on what the knowledge base of a national leader should be. You are saying that they must not have any economic knowledge; what else must they not have?
Remember, the human mind thinks by means of models. That's valid in all thought.

So- what disciplines are, according to you, valid for someone to work in, and then, try to be president/pm/leader of a country?

No, I haven't noticed the common denominators in the rejection of AGW of 'oil, money, or egoism".
I certainly reject AGW and am not embedded in any of those values.
Furthermore, I'd be interested, logically, how you can connect the three.

Do all egoists also have connections to oil and to money? Isn't 'money' merely a metaphor of 'oil', and therefore, is an illogical part of the triad? It's like saying: This is my dog, Rex, pet. They 'reduce' to one object, not three.

Oh- and you haven't commented on my point that years of experience in meeting people doesn't equate to knowledge in a field. You support AGW; I don't.

albatros39a,

"I'm a fourth year undergrad in environment and physical geography with a focus on human influence on the environment (including climate change)."

This is why you have nothing intellegent to say on the subject. You aren't being educated with facts but brainwashed by ideologically driven propaganda.

For starters, you area of study has its bias in the second half of your discription of it. Real science doesn't start with assumptions and try to mine the data to "prove" it.

"Yes Irwin I'm a fourth year undergrad in environment and physical geography with a focus on human influence on the environment (including climate change)."

Well, I suppose this explains your position. As the false political ideology of AGW is being exposed, your degree, at least as it has to do with climate change, may well become an embarrassment.

Four years, damn!

Anthropology is a safe backup, I suppose. Although, economics is far safer.

alby,
"just as you should never trust an economist to run a country populated with human beings instead of numbers."
You have only as much relevance to any discussion as your experience? It follows that your experience as a commercial pilot would allow you to comment only on a limited scope such as model of aircraft you flew only during the times and specific weather pattern that you flew in. Maybe only comment on your specific employer for that period you were employed. Rather limits you in what you are authorised to comment on.
enough

enough at November 12, 2007 4:18 PM
I think you missed a few things there.

I can easily see why a second edition is necessary. There were several substantial errors in the first edition.

Tim Lambert shows that they did not calculate average temperatures since if there was missing data at a station they just filled in the gaps with zeros. Which means the average temperature in June for a station in the US could be zero!

Eli Rabitt takes a look at their thermodynamics and points out that McKitrick calculated the Stefan-Boltzmann law
based on Celsius!!!!

These are not trivial errors since each completely negates the point they were making!

Regards,
John

Alby,
Yes, I did not quote your full resume.
Out of all the jobs and skillsets in the world I take it that only your specific combination is acceptable?

Interesting that multitudes of economists have been slamming the GST reduction. Now that the PM is an economist that is not acceptable enough. Do you also have to be a special kind of economist?

I get the feeling that it is an ever moving target that would only be deemed appropriate by you. Seems kind of selfish that only you get to decide who can run the country.
enough

Too bad Alby's in the pockets of Big Carbon and Big Education. It totally invalidates anything he says.

ET. Let me just say that I have met few economist who put a human face on their numbers. Economists from Harper to Lomborg to Ross McKitrick will tell us how much it’s going to cost us if we do something about AGW, but fall short in telling us how much its going to cost us if we don’t do something. Time for me to ask you what does an economist have to do with the science of climate change? Now remember I’m not talking models, I’m talking the understanding of the physics, chemistry and biological influences behind the science, not modeling climate.
In science 1+1 will always equal 2, but when faced with the human factor and greed the outcome of 1+1 could equal three or 10. Humans are unpredictable where science is concerned. If humans were predictable we could accurately predict who will be a murderers and who will be the rapists. When it gets to climate climatologist do not attempt to predict weather, there are too many variables to attempt such a thing. Climate being science based on physics and chemistry, models can do a decent job at predicting future weather averages (climate).

"Oh- and you haven't commented on my point that years of experience..." It has absolutely nothing to do with experience in the field of climate, nothing at all. It's simply one piece of the experience collection after someone asked “aren't you a student.” Irwin asked, so I told him. I take it you were attempting to construct another straw man.

“…I certainly reject AGW and am not embedded in any of those values.
Furthermore, I'd be interested, logically, how you can connect the three...”

Are you an Albertan ET? Does your local economy depend on fossil fuels in some way? Are there religious influences preventing you from looking at the negatives of climate science and the positives of environmental protection? Are you a partisan conservative/conformist? An unwavering capitalist maybe?
I acknowledge that we as Canadians have a few things to gain from a warming world. Right now we don’t know enough about climate to understand how we can regulate the warming to benefit all of humanity around the world. We don’t even know what a optimum climate is If we knew how much CO2 we could safely dump into the atmosphere to achieve an optimum climate, I’d be the fist to say lets go for it. We don’t know how to do this and we risk crossing the line between beneficial climate changes to achieve the optimum climate and entering runaway greenhouse effect.
I certainly have things to lose by fighting climate change. I like airplanes and travel, but I know that these will have to change in a warming world. You’ll notice I said change, not go away completely. I believe if mankind did away with flying large turbine aircraft that inject tonnes of carbon into upper troposphere and lower stratosphere and returned to ocean travel, we would do more for the mankind than just helping the planet. In this day of internet, it’s rare that we need to be anywhere on the face of the planet within hours.
I own a 2007 Dodge Ram with a Hemi. I love my truck and can justify owning one by limiting its use to only when I need to use it. I take the small car when I have to or a bicycle or bus when I can. My next car I’m planning is a plug in Prius and I plan to install a small wind turbine to power it. That kind of setup should cost me almost nothing in fuel to get back and forth to town. I’m doing this to reduce greenhouse gases sure, but also because I’m cheap and don’t like giving money to oil companies.

“So- what disciplines are, according to you, valid for someone to work in, and then, try to be president/pm/leader of a country?”
Off the top of my head I’d say, lawyers are always good just as are teachers, sociologists, psychologists, and anthropologists. People like economists and geologists are good as advisors only.

"enough at November 12, 2007 5:42 PM "
Well ok enough, I suppose that is your opinion and I'll take it as just that.

Alby, my hubby has a favorite saying. "Educated into imbecility", a very apt phrase for so many people.

Albatros has also claimed to have served in the military for a decade, studied climatology and a few other carreers. Alby has claimed to be an expert in just about every field at one time or another. Not worth the time of day to debate. Deluded pathetic loser living in mom and dad's basement.

Well by all means then we should prohibit anyone who is not a part of this semi exclusive club from leading us. Lawyers, teachers, sociologists, psychologists, and anthropologists only may rule us.

To me that sounds like the logical extension of your statement. Personally, I like democracy. Freedom to choose is a good thing.
enough

Albatros39a;
I find it very concerning that before you have finished your studies or begun a career of research into AGW, you have obviously already come to your conclusions.
Of course you realize that any published conclusions you may generate in the future will be highly suspect given your documented denial of all researh that disagrees with your own personal beliefs.
Objective research generally involves ones own, while considering others' existing research - even that which you emotionally disagree with. Simply brushing off any such research as "in the pocket of oil" is academically laughable.
Do your profs encourage reaching conclusions prior to first-hand research?
Will you detach your emotional beliefs during your research?
Who grants more money on AGW research and/or propoganda - Oil Companies or Big Government/Goverment Agencies/Special Interest Groups/UN/Hollywood/Former Politicians?
Who's payroll will you be on when/if you finish your studies?
Surely you have looked into this as most people (not all i suppose) look at the related work sector in regards to a chosen field of study...

The way you have such blind faith in an unproven subject leads me to believe you are a person of great faith. Do you also subscribe to Christianity/Judaism/Islam/Buddhism?

-Albertaman at November 12, 2007 6:23 PM
No, only one career. I'm only working on the second.

-eliza at November 12, 2007 6:18 PM"
Your husband sounds like a Conservative, and we know how they hate what they don't understand.

-enough at November 12, 2007 6:39 PM
One would think somebody that has studied human behaviour would be in a better position than a leader who hasn't. That is how we ended up with a PM who believes that locking up criminals is the way to prevent crime. The problem with that is they have to commit the crime to get locked up and somebody ends up being the victim of that crime. Wouldn't it be better to have eliminated the reason to commit that crime in the first place? Nobody is threatening you choice in who to vote for. All I’m saying is that certain people’s qualifications make them much more capable of leading a nation of human beings than people with other qualifications. An economist simply lacks the understanding of human beings to make as an effective leader.

John Cross,

I've appreciated your tact. It is completely unlike the religious fervor, whipped up by the left, when it comes to this topic.

I don't think anybody here is denying climate change. In other words, the climate changes. I have observed this at my cottage, at home and on my travels.

However, and more pointedly, do you believe AGW is the main culprit in this? Do you know for a fact, whether the temperature direction is consistent enough to make factual claims based on true historical data? And most importantly, do you believe that Kyoto is the solution?

albatross - no, that won't do. You haven't explained why you declare that an economist mustn't be a leader of a country. You said - because they deal in 'numbers'.

I told you this didn't make sense - that all of us think in 'models', ie, using symbolic terms , eg. numbers or money value of house or services, numbers or amount of vitamins per day, numbers or calorie content, temperature outside, etc etc.

Now, you are backing off from your 'numbers' and adding another term - "put a human face on numbers". What the heck is that?

Your example of AGW is absolutely ridiculous. Are you serious? Are you saying that the leaders of the world's countries ought to be elected on the basis of their acceptance of AGW and their actions on dealing with it? What Cloud are you drifting on?

No leader of a country can be elected on the basis of the issue of climate change. Do you know why? Because a nation doesn't operate only within the system of climate change! How irresponsible can you get?

And remember, a LOT of scientists accept climate change but they DON'T accept AGW. So, they don't accept that man can mechanically control the climate.

Furthermore, although a responsible analyst can tell you the costs of doing X, Y and Z, eg, closing a hundred factories, building whatever, and etc, no-one on this planet, or elsewhere in the universe, can tell you the costs of NOT doing these actions. Do you know why? Because no-one knows the effects of climate change. No-one.

No, climate is not based on the mechanical principles of laboratory physics and chemistry. You are making a profound error. Climate is not analyzable by reductionist methods used in the lab. Climate is a COMPLEX SYSTEM and therefore, cannot ever be reduced to mechanical procedures.

No, my comment about your experience relates to your use of it to assert your opinion that your claims about AGW are valid.

No, I'm not an Albertan - or 'wavering capitalist'. I think, albatross, and that means that I critically examine data - and that's why I don't accept AGW.

You admit that we don't know enough about climate to regulate it! So, how can you believe in AGW? Are you serious - do you think that we humans can ever regulate climate????

Would you explain why a lawyer is a good choice as leader of a country? Do you think that someone whose only interest is in Winning The Case, rather than focusing on the Truth, is a good leader?

Would you please provide some proof that 'an economist simply lacks understanding..." That's quite a remarkable statement. ALL economists lack understanding of human nature. Incredible. Could you provide some proof? Or is this just your own personal opinion..In which case..it's confined to you.
Could you provide proof that a lawyer, sociologist, anthropologist, psychologist..'understands human nature'? Ever heard of Ruth Benedict and her outline of human nature? Did she understand it? Margaret Mead? Heh. How about Durkheim? Equal nonsense. A lawyer??? Tell us of their understanding of human nature. Tell us how valid Freud was..Heh.

Also, a teacher?[of what?] And a sociologist, anthropologist, psychologist? You do realize that you've moved your choices into the academic areas where you can get away with pure empty speculation, where you can hypothesize without any necessity for proof. So, you want, as leader, a Cloud Dweller, a utopian, someone who hasn't a clue about the practical effects of their rhetoric?

Have you read any of the outlandish hypotheses of both past and present sociologists, anthropologists and psychologists? They all live in a world of fancy. Not fact.

Oh- and could you please tell us the reasons for crime, and how to eliminate crime? You sound very sure of yourself in this area. Please inform us of the reasons for all crime.

That includes shoplifting, vandalism, drug gangs, extortion, smuggling, registering your ships in another country to evade taxes, kidnapping, identity thefts, break and enter...Please, albatros, help us. Tell us the causes of each of these crimes.

Hasn't it occurred to you that a nation rests on their economic robustness - and that therefore, an economist is a pragmatic choice?

Do you know what course you should take, albatross - but it may not be available. You should take a course in critical thinking. Or elementary logic - propositional and syllogistic. Also, the relation of algebra to logic. These would point out to you the necessity for your opinions to be grounded in fact not fancy.

What is about 'stop feeding the trolls' that you people do not understand !!! ???

Kate, any way to program so that certain posters have their comments headed;

* 'Warning; Troll Ahead. Those caught feeding will be prosecuted.' *

That's not fair ?? Vandalism is not fair either. And besides, it is Kate's blog and she can do what she wants.

Everybody deserves the benefit of the doubt --- a few times. That, IMO, has long past for some of the trolls here.

de smog is all troll all the time. (Not even nominated for best science blog) Troll comments should be defaulted there :)

"Nobody is qualified to become a statesman who is entirely ignorant of the problem of wheat.' -
Socrates on leaders.

"I do not mind lying, but I hate inaccuracy." - Samuel Butler - now how did he know about AGW?

Albatros: I'll believe this climate change stuff when you, or one of you climate change heroes, can give a reasonably accurate forecast for next weekend's weather.

""put a human face on numbers". What the heck is that?"

If you can't understand that ET there is no hope in you understanding any of it. That's often the problem with the right, you think in black and white. There is no grey in your world. You can't understand that people have reasons for straying from the norm when committing a crime. By understanding the reasons crime, it can be prevented before it is committed. In doing so live and property can be saved and money can be saved by not needed to support people in jail you adjust the cause of crime before it happens and by fixing the end result.

"Would you please provide some proof that 'an economist simply lacks understanding..."

Read anything by Bjorn Lomborg (and think critically when you do it ET).

"You admit that we don't know enough about climate to regulate it! So, how can you believe in AGW? Are you serious - do you think that we humans can ever regulate climate????"

You just love those straw men, don't you ET? Let me explain it to you in simple terms ET, just for you. We know it’s broken, we know what’s causing it. We don’t know how badly it’s broken. The problem is, with people like you running around, we can’t fix it.

"Are you saying that the leaders of the world's countries ought to be elected on the basis of their acceptance of AGW and their actions on dealing with it?"
Where did you dream up that I said that? Are you having an imaginary argument with someone else.

"No, my comment about your experience relates to your use of it to assert your opinion that your claims about AGW are valid."

My claims about the experience you are referring at that point had no connection to climate. Once again you are reading things that are not there.

“Hasn't it occurred to you that a nation rests on their economic robustness - and that therefore, an economist is a pragmatic choice?”
Absolutely not! The best choice in a leader is one that can think beyond profit in the present and consider the future of the nation. An economist should be kept on hand to advise but that is all.

"No, climate is not based on the mechanical principles of laboratory physics and chemistry. You are making a profound error. Climate is not analyzable by reductionist methods used in the lab. Climate is a COMPLEX SYSTEM and therefore, cannot ever be reduced to mechanical procedures."

Oh my, you are thick headed aren't you? Climate cannot be studied in a lab but must be broken down to its elements. You can't study oxygen isotopes but in a lab, but in order to understand climate and understanding of those isotope becomes necessary.
"No, I'm not an Albertan - or 'wavering capitalist'. I think, albatross, and that means that I critically examine data - and that's why I don't accept AGW."
That's unwavering, if you're going to quote me, at least get it right. If you are not one of those, there are more options listed above.

"...no-one on this planet, or elsewhere in the universe, can tell you the costs of NOT doing these actions. Do you know why? Because no-one knows the effects of climate change. No-one."

Temper, temper. So if in your mind nobody knows the effects of climate change, we therefore shouldn't try to avoid climate change. Is that what you are trying to say? Don't you find that just a tiny bit illogical? This isn't one of those god will save us moments is it?

I believe I have given you much more credit than you deserve ET. You have so far built several straw men. You accuse me of not thinking critically, but I am now convinced you have no clue as what that means. You are completely illogical. You are arguing about things I have not said and you are completely incapable of thinking in the abstract. I've obviously wasted far too much time on you already.
Good night.

"Wouldn't it be better to have eliminated the reason to commit that crime in the first place? "

This is brilliant Alby. But--------in the meantime, while we work on eliminating the reasons, lets

lock them up anyhow. I. for one, will feel much safer.

Horny Toad

no-one on this planet, or elsewhere in the universe, can tell you the costs of NOT doing these actions. Do you know why? Because no-one knows the effects of climate change. No-one."

And I might add no one knows what the consequences of our attempt to control climate change. Since we don't know if climate change is happening, if it is happening what is causing climate change or if our attempts to stop climate change will have positive or negative effects might I suggest our wisest choice is quit taking courses on climate change and go for a walk in the great outdoors.

There is little point in trying to argue with anonymous trolls like albatross, but for everyone else's benefit let me respond to some of his points, just to confirm the obvious point that he is prone to making stuff up.

*Christopher Essex has never been involved in the Friends of Science. Not that there would be anything wrong with it, but as a point of fact he has never been a member or an advisor.

*The claim that he is in the pay of oil companies is an accusation against his integrity, and is false and defamatory. Prove it, Albatross, or withdraw it. Otherwise you are nothing but a coward and a liar, hiding behind anonymity to throw around slander.

*The science behind TBS is supported in peer-reviewed journals and by a long list of academic endorsements which you can see at takenbystorm.info. To give 2 examples, our discussion of global temperature was the basis of an article in the Journal of Non-Equilibrium Thermodynamics earlier this year; and the problem of solving the Navier-Stokes equation is the subject of a $1 million Clay Institute Challenge. I could give other examples: the string of recent publications on nonstationarity in geophysical data; the recognition of the divergence problem in paleoclimate; the problems of subgrid-scale sensitivity in chaotic computation, etc. Not that these points would mean anything to someone who hasn't read the book.

* Albatross, you say you've done "far" more than I've done in the field. You can see my list of economics and physical science publications at http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/papers.html. My latest is in press at the Journal of Geophysical Research. I have given invited lectures on my science work at universities and labs across Canada and the US. I was one of 12 experts from around the world asked to brief the National Academy Panel on surface temperature reconstructions. You've done "far more" than all this in the field of climate science? Prove it.

* I worked on the hockey stick with McIntyre, not Essex. It's not our side that can't "get over" the hockey stick -- Al Gore keeps showing it, except he mistakenly thinks it's a Thompson ice core series (http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2335). People who think the NRC vindicated it simply haven't read the NRC report, much less the Wegman Report, which the NRC chairman endorsed in sworn Congressional testimony. The NRC endorsed all the technical criticisms Steve McIntyre and I submitted: See http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2322 and http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/trc.html.

*John C: the error Tim Lambert got excited about was not in the book. It was a numerical example in a talk we gave. Had you or he read the book you'd know this. And he evidently didn't mention the correction to the example we promptly posted in response to his email on the subject. It was just a numerical example, and easily replaced.

*Eli Rabbett made a meal out of a numerical example in C, which has been changed to K in the new edition. You and he likely never read the JNET paper where we go into the technical detail, otherwise you'd realize the numerical examples are just illustrative. If you read the book instead of just repeating rumours, you'll see that these blogotchas are trivial and peripheral to the major points in the book.

To everyone else, sorry for the interruption. Enjoy the book. And thanks, Kate, for mentioning it.

"Prove it, Albatross, or withdraw it. Otherwise you are nothing but a coward and a liar, hiding behind anonymity to throw around slander."

Lawsuit ? There are people here who know who he is.

And according to AL GORE and the society of cracked urns last year was suppost to be the wose in hurricanes and so far nothing this year ether proving GLOBAL WARMING is awhole bunch of poppycock

Wow, Ross, I thank you for your detailed post, primarily because it's so late.

All I can say is that was one of the most complete smack-downs I've seen in a long time. Note how the troll resorted to hatred after it.

We are in your debt.

That came out wrong, Ross.

I thank you, primarily because it was such an awesome smackdown. Only **secondarily** because it's so late.

Man, I need to get to bed...

Alby - you were banned once before, and I'll be more than happy to do it again.

Ross: thanks for your comment. I appreciate the fact that you are willing to join in the conversation.

Thanks also for pointing out that the example was not from a book but from a talk. Tim lists the talk as a “briefing on their book”, can you accept this? In regards to your correcting the “error”, that was well done (and also well done to share your spreadsheet with Tim). However in the bit of the e-mail that Tim posts, you did not seem to think that a correction was necessary and in it claimed that the correction was just another way of averaging and there was nothing wrong with your initial method. Since I have not seen the whole e-mail, is that an accurate summation of it?

In regards to the thermodynamic, I thought your point was that different averaging methods can create large differences in the results. If you use Kelvin as opposed to Celsius then a great deal of this difference goes away.

However, you are correct, I have not read your book. Do you have a spare you could send me (either new or old) ;) .

Thanks,
John

john cross - if you haven't read the book, then how can you inform us that there were "several substantial errors in the first edition" and that these errors were the reason for the second printing?

Ross did not "promptly" make a correction. I included his reply to my email in my post. Eventually he did make a correction, which I discuss in this post. McKitrick had to invent a new temperature scale in order to salvage his example.

In his JNET paper he has another go where he takes 30th powers of temperatures. I am not kidding.

If you want a short explanation of what's wrong with their "no such thing as average temperature" argument, read this post.

et: I never said they were the reason for the second printing; since I was not privy to the discussions about the printing I do not know the reasons. I did say that because there were errors in the first, a second would be necessary.

In regards to the errors, I do not need to have read the book to comment on specific parts of it. For example, does not seeing An Inconvenient Truth mean someone can not say it has 9 areas of misunderstanding? Regarding the specific parts, Ross correctly pointed out that his first statement was from a briefing about the book and he agrees with my second point about C and K and notes that his second edition will correct this error.

"Alby - you were banned once before, and I'll be more than happy to do it again.

Posted by: Kate at November 13, 2007 9:45 AM"

You will ban me for what?

[deleted - your comments were deleted because you insist on trashing up threads with multiple comments of nearly worthless content. In other words - the very definition of troll behavior. I have a generous comment policy here, but at some point I have to draw the line. - ED]

John, the underlying issue we discuss in the book is that, because temperature is an intensive variable, when samples are taken across out-of-equilibrium subsystems there is no statistical formula that can reduce the field to a scalar, without the resulting number losing the properties of a temperature. Hence there is "no global temperature." We discussed this in heuristic terms in the book and in formal terms in our JNET article. The spreadsheet example was not meant to show the "right" way to calculate the average, only to show that 2 different averaging rules can imply contradictory things about warming versus cooling. In this sense, the treatment of missing values represents another variant in the averaging rule, which was what I was trying to say to Tim.

Our critics keep saying we're wrong when we argue there isn't a formula to reduce a non-equilibrium temperature field to a scalar, but they never produce the formula themselves, they only criticize our numerical examples. But we can always fix the numerical examples, because the theory shows that the common averaging formulas don't resolve the underlying physical problem. This is not affected by using K rather than C.

We ourselves not trying to sell a "correct" formula, we are showing why nobody knows what the correct formula is, and why this matters for interpreting an increase in an average as "global warming". There are circumstances where the choice of averaging rule does not matter, but measuring global climate change is not one of them.

I'm afraid I can't spare a copy of TBS2, but I am sure your local bookstore can find you one!

Tim, anyone can post anything on a blog. If you have a valid scientific argument to make, publish it in a scientific journal. Like I say, if we're wrong to claim there is no formula for the global temperature, write the formula down and send it to a journal. Good luck. Send me a copy when it's published.

Ross: Thanks for your comments, but I would like to follow up a little more. First, I don’t agree with your idea of there being no temperature associate with an out-of-equilibrium subsystem. While that may be true, on the atomic level I would say that conditions of local thermodynamic equilibrium do exist. Further more these conditions do provide important information.

I just had a read through your JNET article (I assume it is Does a Global Temperature Exist?). It is an interesting read and I thank you for putting it up on your site. However I would like to look at the example there (Figure 1 Four averages over one thermodynamic system.). (I think you say you have changed it for your book, but I only have access to the article for now.) In it you say that depending on how you define average you can see that the “average” are widely different and can be both warming and cooling.

I would disagree that your example shows this. From your example, calculating the 4 different averages using Celsius I get R-1=3.8, R1=17.5, R2=23.4 and R4=27.7 which seem to agree with the results in Figure 1. However using Kelvin I get R-1=16.7, R1=17.5, R2=17.9 and R4=18.7. So the differences are much less. I also find that they are all warming.

You also say there is no physical reason to take one average over another. I disagree and would say that all we need is a simple experiment to tell us which average to use. In my experiment we take a quantity of matter in a well insulated container and to it add another quantity of matter at a different temperature. We close up the container, wait for a sufficient time and then see what the final temperature is.

Regards,
John

Hi John. Yes, if you have local thermodynamic equilibrium then you have a local temperature. There is no problem as long as the subsystem has a function of state. The problem arises if you try to use an average to define a single temperature over two out-of-equilibrium subsystems. That produces a number that violates the properties of a temperature. It may still be informative, and there are certainly cases where the average is good enough for a specific purpose (like comparing Miami and Toronto in January), but we are arguing it is not good enough for typical applications in discussing global climate change. For example, quite apart from all the problems with proxy data, trying to say if the world is warmer today than in the medieval era would certainly fall into the category where the absence of a formally-defined average matters.

The numerical example was set up to work in C, because people are used to C. If we had only calculated the linear mean nobody would blink at the claim that the system had 'warmed', so the example shows that this would change if the averaging rule changed. We could set up an example in K, with no guarantee it would work in C. The fact that the C example doesn't come out the same in K does not prove that averages computed in K always behave the same.

Your experiment concerns relaxation to equilibrium, not evolution of non-equilibrium subsystems. The mixing issue is discussed at the bottom of page 6. Even in that case the choice of average depends on assumptions about the path to equilibrium.

Thanks for your comments! -Ross

Hi Ross: Good of you to continue with this discussion. We seem to disagree on what systems are in local thermodynamic equilibrium. I would argue that a system where the free path of an atom is small compared to the distance over which the temperature changes. Thus we can consider the atmosphere (for example) to be in local thermodynamic equilibrium.

In regards to your example, I am sorry, but I do not accept your point. The averaging rules that you used were based on physical criteria (i.e. the S-B equation). These need K in order to be valid. While you can argue that there are different ways to take an average, the ways must be based in physics.

And I guess that is the point of my little thought experiment. For certain conditions, we can measure that this measurement provides guidance at to which averaging to use – simple, r=4 or sqrt (A*B). As an aside, I can think of no physical reason to have r>4.

Thanks for such an interesting discussion. Regards,
John