There’s a spat between Richard Tol and Bob Ward I haven’t paid any attention to. It seemed boring until I saw a tweet today from Tol which claimed Ward admitted to lying. I rarely hear anyone make such an admission. Naturally, I was curious.
It turned out Tol’s claim was misleading. Ward hadn’t admitted to lying. He said some things, and Tol interpreted them, in their totality, as Ward admitting to lying. Whatever. It was boring, but it wasn’t a complete loss. I discovered an interesting abuse of the IPCC process which Tol defends. It’s not surprising he defends it given he’s apparently the one responsible for it.
Guys, the global warming debate is over. We’ve alwaysn know the greenhouse effect is real. Now though, we know exactly how strong the greenhouse effect is. Skeptical Science tells us so:
Let’s summarize several basic facts, which we will then use to reproduce Figure 1:
- Doubling the CO2 concentration (which is equivalent to 3.7 W/m2 increase in radiative forcing) causes temperature increase of 3°C.
Would you look at that? It’s not just a fact Earth’s sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 is 3°C. It’s a basic fact. If you don’t believe it, you’re just a dirty denier who refuses to admit the obvious.
And that includes the stupid Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, previously considered to be representative of the consensus on global warming. Those idiots just told us:
Equilibrium climate sensitivity is likely in the range 1.5°C to 4.5°C (high confidence), extremely unlikely less than 1°C (high confidence), and very unlikely greater than 6°C (medium confidence).
Clearly, they don’t know what they’re talking about. They aren’t aware it’s a basic fact the climate sensitivity is exactly 3°C.
Can you imagine anything so ridiculous?
Philosophy was once a passion of mine. I viewed it as a field of intellectual problems which required no specific knowledge, the perfect mental exercise. Then I got older. I realized what I viewed as philosophy was an ideal far removed from what philosophers actually do.
I lost interest in the field, but I never lost interest in the idea. I still love to examine philosophical issues, and I like when it involves other topics I’m interested in. Today I’m going to talk a bit about one philosophical issue involving global warming.
It’s important to check your work. It helps prevent you from publishing stupid mistakes. It’s also important to check other people’s work. That helps prevent you from believing people’s stupid mistakes. Sadly, in the internet age of near-instantaneous communication, people often do neither.
I’m often unsure of whether or not I should try to draw attention to silly conversations I have. On the one hand, a discussion between me and another person need not be promoted for all to see. On the other hand, this blog is about absurdity in this world, and people often provide it in direct communication with me. I’ll provide an example.
The last post in this series showed Michael Mann’s 2008 paper depended entirely upon the use of two things: tree ring data and the Tiljander series. It also showed those Tiljander series were suspect. Today I’ll show they are worse than suspect. Michael Mann’s use of them was absurd.
I asked a number of men if they were wizards. They said no. I guess women are wizards.
I asked a number of global warming proponents if they believed the moon landing was faked. They said no. I guess global warming skeptics believe the moon landing was faked.