Comments on: Who swindled who?

By: Celebrating five years of blogging

Celebrating five years of blogging — Fri, 18 Feb 2011 14:38:14 +0000

[...] years of blogging. This is my 1,746th post covering news and politics, women’s issues and the environment, as well as my special causes, including missing people and hemophiliacs; my charity, Headway [...]

By: Ellee Seymour - MCIPR, PRESS CONSULTANT, JOURNALIST, POLITICAL AND PR BLOGGER. » Should Al Gore win Nobel Peace Prize?

Tue, 09 Oct 2007 06:06:38 +0000

[...] Should Al Gore win Nobel Peace Prize? By Ellee Despite what the sceptics think about climate change, Al Gore has considerably raised its profile throughout the world, he is passionately devoted to initiating international action on this. [...]

By: Ellee Seymour - MCIPR, PRESS CONSULTANT, JOURNALIST, POLITICAL AND PR BLOGGER. » Sir Alex and climate change

Mon, 26 Mar 2007 07:35:24 +0000

[...] Regarding the film, there is little I can add on this subject as it has been thoroughly aired here before. What I found most compelling was the impact of climate change on the world’s population, the climate refugees, such as Darfur, and we all know how terribly they have suffered there. [...]

By: Truth and the Devil » UK documentary follow-up

Truth and the Devil » UK documentary follow-up — Sat, 24 Mar 2007 22:08:40 +0000

[...] Stoat writes a post summing up some of these problems here. [...]

By: electro-kevin

electro-kevin — Wed, 21 Mar 2007 01:08:17 +0000

Thanks, BH & Joe,

Just re-reading Mr Durkin’s piece in the Telegraph. He is most emphatic about temperature driving CO2 “Temperature drives CO2, not the other way round. The global-warmers do not deny this. They cannot.”

He offers rebuttals for all other criticisms of TGGWS too.

By: Joe

Joe — Tue, 20 Mar 2007 18:26:35 +0000

E-K, Ockham’s razor comes from the 13th C philosopher/scientist, William of Ockham. It basically means you assume the explanation with the shortest list of possible causes. It represents an important step in the development of empirical thought. It means in essence; the simplest5 explanation is usually the right one.
Does that help?

By: Bishop Hill

Bishop Hill — Tue, 20 Mar 2007 16:28:29 +0000

Electro-kevin

I don’t think that Occam’s razor is in any way a decider. The thrust of it is that the simplest solution is the best. I wouldn’t be suggesting for a moment that this should lead to the closing down of the AGW case – as I said in my previous response, the razor would suggest we should incline towards the sceptic case, but no more than that.

By: electro-kevin

electro-kevin — Tue, 20 Mar 2007 12:54:09 +0000

Dear Bishop Hill,

Please explain more about Occum’s Razor and it’s place in scientific development. I’ve read about it on Wikipaedia. Is it used as a ‘decider’ in what is to be scientifically accepted – what prevents it being misused in order to close scientific discourse, as was your concern earlier in this thread ?

I am not sure that the Royal Society paper was in response to TGGWS (I am ambivalent about Co2 – I’m not qualified to be anything but) and you’re right, it doesn’t give much answer to the 800 year lag – I did spot an allusion to it however – that is suspicious.

I see that Mr Durkin gave a very good account of himself at the weekend in The Telegraph.

What came first, Mr Roberts ? That depends on whether you believe in Darwinism (which I do) and see a single cell creature as being an animal or as an egg.

By: Bishop Hill

Bishop Hill — Tue, 20 Mar 2007 09:39:47 +0000

Hank,

Don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying that the 800 year lag disproves AGW. Your analogy may hold. But on the other hand it may not. There are significant issues with the feedback theory – what are the mechanisms involved in starting the warming, in starting the CO2 feedback, and stopping it. These need to be explained. The sceptic view also seems to have problems, although as I’ve said, Occam’s razor would suggest that we should incline towards the simpler sceptic view.

By: Hank Roberts

Hank Roberts — Tue, 20 Mar 2007 03:33:22 +0000

Chuckle. I bring you hens and a rooster; soon you have eggs; somewhat later you have more hens and roosters and eggs. Positive feedback, limited by things like the amount of corn and availability of hawks and owls.

Now, that’s a chicken-and-egg problem, which comes first (albeit with an 8-week rather than 800 year lag.

Next experiment, I bring you an incubator with a dozen fertile eggs in it, plug it in, and leave you to watch.

Somewhat later you have more hens and roosters and eggs.

The analogy to the incubator is — the fossil fuel burned. Once CO2 or temperature start to increase, a positive feedback ensues for a while; look at the glacial record. Some ice cores show a lag; some of the latest seem to show no lag.

Either will do.