Thanks, David. A very nice round-up of the studies. Your comment speculation is a mugs game is apt. But the world is rewarding the "mugs".
The AGW thesis is a special case of the 'precautionary principle': when you have insufficient data, jump the most alarming conclusion (because that's where the funds/votes are).
It's interesting that the Australian government has been at the forefront of rejecting the 'precautionary principle' as a decision-function in agreements such as the WTO's 'Sanitary and Phytosantiary Measures' agreement (on quarantine barriers), in the U.N's 'Biosafety Protocol' (on trade in GMOs) and in the Codex Alimentarius (on international food standards and safety). They have repeatedly pointed out in those forums that the 'precautionary principle' is non-scientific and amounts to a refusal properly to evaluate available evidence and to take rational measures proportionate to the available evidence.
Rationality in one domain does not translate, evidently, into another.
Best wishes,
Peter
davids99us
· 2 months ago
Peter, I wonder what would be the distinguishing feature(s) that produce the difference in response between those domains?
Andrew
· 2 months ago
This fits well with my previous identification of two identical warming periods in the twentieth century. I still think an AGW signal could be isolated, but definitely one first has to explain why the 1911-1941 warming occurred at the same rate as the 1978-2008 one.
There is also a longer cycle with an unknown cycle length that is resulting in a net warming after each 60-year cycle.
An analogy: We have been measuring data each minute for two days now -- it went through two warming and cooling cycles and today was warmer than yesterday (the warmest yet observed!). We haven't observed long enough to see that the days are also on a yearly cycle -- each daily cycle is getting warmer in this spring, but eventually there will be net cooling in the longer term cycle.
davids99us
· 1 month ago
Alan, Quite possibly, but I am focussing on what can justifiably be inferred from these data alone.
All Comments
The AGW thesis is a special case of the 'precautionary principle': when you have insufficient data, jump the most alarming conclusion (because that's where the funds/votes are).
It's interesting that the Australian government has been at the forefront of rejecting the 'precautionary principle' as a decision-function in agreements such as the WTO's 'Sanitary and Phytosantiary Measures' agreement (on quarantine barriers), in the U.N's 'Biosafety Protocol' (on trade in GMOs) and in the Codex Alimentarius (on international food standards and safety). They have repeatedly pointed out in those forums that the 'precautionary principle' is non-scientific and amounts to a refusal properly to evaluate available evidence and to take rational measures proportionate to the available evidence.
Rationality in one domain does not translate, evidently, into another.
Best wishes,
Peter
difference in response between those domains?
There is also a longer cycle with an unknown cycle length that is resulting in a net warming after each 60-year cycle.
An analogy: We have been measuring data each minute for two days now -- it went through two warming and cooling cycles and today was warmer than yesterday (the warmest yet observed!). We haven't observed long enough to see that the days are also on a yearly cycle -- each daily cycle is getting warmer in this spring, but eventually there will be net cooling in the longer term cycle.
from these data alone.