Andrew Bolt welcomes Al Gore to Australia with a column that accuses Gore of being “one of the worst of the fact-fiddling Green evangelicals”. Bolt writes:

Well, here are just 10 of my own “minor quibbles” with Gore’s film. These are my own “inconvenient truths”, and judge from them the credibility of Gore’s warnings of the end of all civilisation.

So let’s assess Bolt’s 10 “inconvenient truths”. I’ll classify them as either:

  1. wrong, or
  2. not wrong but misleading, Bolt having omitted other facts that undercut his position, or
  3. a valid point about Gore’s movie.

To get a passing grade Bolt needs 5 out of 10. Let’s go:


1: Gore claims that a survey of 928 scientific articles on global warming showed not one disputed that man’s gasses were mostly to blame for rising global temperatures. …

In fact, as Dr Benny Peiser, from Liverpool John Moores University has demonstrated, Gore relies on a bungled survey reported in Science.

Peiser checked again and found just 13 of those 928 papers explicitly endorsed man-made global warming, and 34 rejected or doubted it.

This one is wrong. Even Peiser has admitted his analysis was full of errors.

2: Gore says the man who first made him realise we were heating up the earth was his late professor, oceanographer Roger Revelle, who noticed carbon dioxide levels were increasing.

In fact, Revelle shortly before his death co-authored a paper warning that “the scientific basis for a greenhouse warming is too uncertain to justify drastic action at this time”.

This one is misleading. Bolt does not mention that Revelle died in 1991. Needless to say, the scientific basis has strengthened since then.

3: Gore says ice cores from Antarctica, that go back 650,000 years, show the world got warmer each time there was more carbon dioxide in the air.

In fact, as the University of California’s Professor Jeff Severinghaus and others note, at least three studies of ice cores show the earth first warmed and only then came more carbon dioxide, many hundreds of years later. So does extra carbon dioxide cause a warming world, or vice versa?

This one is very misleading. Let’s look at what Severinghaus says about this:

Does this prove that CO2 doesn’t cause global warming? The answer is no.

The reason has to do with the fact that the warmings take about 5000 years to be complete. The lag is only 800 years. All that the lag shows is that CO2 did not cause the first 800 years of warming, out of the 5000 year trend. The other 4200 years of warming could in fact have been caused by CO2, as far as we can tell from this ice core data. …

In other words, CO2 does not initiate the warmings, but acts as an amplifier once they are underway. From model estimates, CO2 (along with other greenhouse gases CH4 and N2O) causes about half of the full glacial-to-interglacial warming.

Note that Severinghaus was the authority Bolt cited.

4: Gore shows a series of slides of vanishing lakes (like Lake Chad) and snow fields (like Mt Kilimanjaro’s) and blames global warming for it all. …

Mt Kilimanjaro was losing its snows more than a century ago, not because of global warming, but–says a 2004 study in Nature–largely because deforestation has cut the moisture in the air.

This one is wrong. Eric Steig explains:

The Heartland Institute’s propagation of the notion that the Kilimanjaro glacier retreat has been proved to be due to deforestation is even more egregious. They quote “an article published in Nature” by Betsy Mason (“African ice under wraps,” Nature, 24 November, 2003) which contains the statement “Although it’s tempting to blame the ice loss on global warming, researchers think that deforestation of the mountain’s foothills is the more likely culprit.” Elsewhere, Heartland refers to this as a “study.” The “study” is in reality no scientific study at all, but a news piece devoted almost entirely to Euan Nesbit’s proposal to save the Kilimanjaro glacier by wrapping it in a giant tarp. The article never says who the “experts” are, nor does it quote any scientific studies supporting the claim.

Bolt didn’t even get the year of the non-study right.

5: Gore shows scary maps of how New York and Shanghai would drown under 20 feet (600cm) of water if all Greenland’s ice melted.

In fact, various studies say Greenland’s snow cover–and Antarctica’s–is increasing or stable. The scientists of even the fiercely pro-warming Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predict seas will rise (as they have for centuries) not by Gore’s 600cm by 2100, but by between 14 and 43cm.

This one is wrong. Firstly, the IPCC projection for 2100 is 11-77cm. Secondly, recent evidence suggests that the eventual rise will be 400-600cm. Eric Steig writes

Projecting forward in time, the implication is that our future will also see 4-6 m of sea level rise, and that — given the recent evidence for accelerated flow of both Greenland and Antarctic glaciers — this may occur much faster than we expect.

6: Gore claims the seas have already risen so high that New Zealand has had to take in refugees from drowning Pacific islands.

In fact, the Australian National Tidal Facility at Tuvalu in 2002 reported: “The historical record from 1978 through 199 indicated a sea level rise of 0.07 mm per year.” Or the width of a hair.

Says Auckland University climate scientist Chris de Frietas: “I can assure Mr Gore that no one from the South Pacific islands has fled to New Zealand because of rising seas.”

This one is wrong. The South Pacific Sea Level and Climate Monitoring Project 2005 report on Tuvalu says:

The sea level trend to date is +5.0 mm/year but the magnitude of the trend continues to vary widely from month to month as the data set grows. Accounting for the precise levelling results and inverted barometric pressure effect, the trend is +4.3 mm/year. A nearby gauge, with a longer record but less precision and datum control, shows a trend of +0.9 mm/year.

And despite de Freitas’ denial, people have fled to New Zealand from Tuvalu:

Seeing themselves as climate refuges some Tuvalans are already leaving their islands, moving their communities to higher ground in a new land. … Fala and Suamalie, along with international environmental activists, argue that Tuvaluans and others in a similar predicament should be treated like refugees and given immigration rights and other refugee benefits. This tiny nation was among the first on the globe to sound the alarm, trekking from forum to forum to try to get the world to listen. New Zealand did agree to take 75 Tuvaluans a year as part of its Pacific Access Category, an agreement made in 2001.

Bolt’s score so far is 0 out of 6. Even if he gets the next four, he still won’t pass. But I’ll keep going.

7: Gore claims global warming has helped cause coral reefs “all around the world” to bleach.

In fact, new research from the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration shows the seas rapidly cooled from 2003 to 2005. And most bleaching is caused by El Nino events.

This one is misleading. Because of global warming, El Nino events are warmer than they would have been. The National Geographic reports:

“By and large, reefs have collapsed catastrophically just in the three decades that I’ve been studying them,” said Nancy Knowlton, a marine biology professor at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in La Jolla, California. …

[She] notes that corals live precariously close to their thermal limits.

As a result, even the most isolated reefs are vulnerable to the effects of global warming.

“These increasingly warm temperatures that we’ve been seeing in the last couple of decades have been tipping reefs over in terms of these fast bleaching events,” she said.

Bolt’s got three chances left to at least get one right.

8: Gore claims hurricanes are getting worse because of global warming, and he shows pictures from Hurricane Katrina.

In fact, America has this year had fewer hurricanes than usual. And most hurricane experts agree with Dr Chris Landsea of the US National Hurricane Centre, who says “there has been no change in the number and intensity of (the strongest) hurricanes around the world in the last 15 years”.

This one is wrong. Most hurricane experts don’t agree with Landsea on this point. Gavin Schmidt summarizes:

Basically, although everyone acknowledges that there are data problems early in the record, it seems clear that there has been a global rise of the most intense hurricanes over the last 30 years and the most obvious explanation is that this is related to the contemporaneous increases in tropical SST in each basin.

Two chances left.

9: Gore claims warming is causing new diseases and allowing malarial mosquitoes to move to higher altitudes.

In fact, says Professor Paul Reiter, head of the Pasteur Institute’s unit of insects and infectious diseases: “Gore is completely wrong here.” Reiter says “the new altitudes of malaria are lower than those recorded 100 years ago” and “none of the 30 so-called new diseases Gore references are attributable to global warming”.

This one is misleading. Other experts disagree with Reiter. For example, Paul Epstein, an expert in tropical health at the Harvard Medical School writes:

Insects and insect-borne infections are being reported at high elevations in South and Central America, Asia, and east and central Africa. Since 1980 Ae. aegypti mosquitoes, once limited by temperature thresholds to low altitudes, have been found above one mile in the highlands of northern India and at 1.3 miles in the Colombian Andes.

And

Could global warming be contributing to the resurgence of malaria in the East African Highlands?

A widely-cited study published a few years ago said no, but new research by an international team that includes University of Michigan theoretical ecologist Mercedes Pascual finds that, while other factors such as drug and pesticide resistance, changing land use patterns and human migration also may play roles, climate change cannot be ruled out.

“Our results do not mean that temperature is the only or the main factor driving the increase in malaria, but that it is one of many factors that should be considered,” Pascual said.

Last chance for Bolt.

10: Gore never even hints at other possible explanations scientists have given for the warming globe.

And here’s just one: increased solar activity. That’s a theory suggested by leading American scientists such as Sallie Baliunas, Willie Soon, Fred Singer and Frederick Seitz, past president of the National Academy of Sciences.

Some even predict we’re about to suffer a new bout of global cooling. Says Professor Bill Gray, world hurricane authority from Colorado State University: “My belief is that three, four years from now, the globe will start to cool again.”

This one is wrong. For increased solar activity to explain recent warming, their would have had to have been an actual increase in solar activity. RealClimate:

Regardless of any discussion about solar irradiance in past centuries, the sunspot record and neutron monitor data (which can be compared with radionuclide records) show that solar activity has not increased since the 1950s and is therefore unlikely to be able to explain the recent warming.

As for Gray, he says it will cool, but he won’t put his money where his mouth is.

Final score for Bolt: zero out of ten. Not just a failure, a miserable failure.

Comments

  1. #1 Hank Roberts
    September 15, 2006

    #2: http://home.att.net/~espi/Cosmos_myth.html
    See the page for full text and references, Last updated 7/6/06.

    “…. Revelle was hoodwinked, in my view. Perhaps more severe terms are deserved. My personal conversation with Roger shortly after the publication of the Cosmos article gave me the very strong sense that he was intensely embarrassed that his name was associated. He seemed noticeably relieved when we agreed together that perhaps the readership of the Cosmos Club journal would be small and limited. Little did either of us anticipate at that moment what was really going on and what would follow.

    One has to ask, given the above circumstances, why is this Cosmos article so widely referenced and so constantly held forth as a “Revelle paper”?

    …. Over ten years ago, I was forced by a SLAPP suit to retract my statements exposing the Cosmos myth described here. Likely to prevail at trial because my statements were true, I regretted deeply that I could not then afford to continue. I had hoped, in settling, that the other side would honorably let the Cosmos paper and this issue slide into obscurity. This did not happen. In 2003, Singer published a book chapter, titled The Revelle-Gore Story: Attempted Political Suppression of Science, that presented the story the way he’d like it to be known. His story villifies both me and Al Gore. The editor of that book swallows the story and echoes the condemnations in his own introductory chapter. And the objectionable use of this Cosmos article by the very participants in its creation has not ceased (see Balling, SEPP, May 2006).

    This shameful manipulation and exploitation of the life and teaching of a great scientist and humanitarian cannot stand. For my friend and colleague, for all those who have been misled by this Cosmos myth, and for the honor of a courageous and committed politician and journalist, it is important that I hereby fully rescind and repudiate my 1994 retraction and make available the evidence that supports my statements.

    J. Justin Lancaster
    espi@att.net

  2. #2 Hank Roberts
    September 15, 2006

    10.
    From today’s email from the inimitable Benny Peiser:
    CCNet 123/06 – 15 September 2006
    EXCERPT:
    (1) SCIENTISTS PREDICT SOLAR DOWNTURN, GLOBAL COOLING
    New Scientist magazine, 16 September 2006
    http://www.newscientist.com/unpwlogin.ns

    “… Sami Solanki and his team at the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Katlenburg-Lindau, Germany, have looked at the concentrations of carbon-14 in wood and beryllium-10 in ice as far back as back 11,000 years ago. The similarity of the fluctuations in both isotopes convinced them that they were seeing effects due to the sun. The peaks and slumps showed a recognisable pattern: “Periods of high solar activity do not last long, perhaps 50 to 100 years, then you get a crash,” says Weiss. “It’s a boom-bust system, and I would expect a crash soon.”

    “…. the most recent calculations by Solanki’s team suggest that the sunspot crash could lead to a cooling of the Earth’s atmosphere by 0.2 °C. It might not sound much, but this temperature reversal would be as big as the most optimistic estimate of the results of restricting greenhouse-gas emissions until 2050 in line with the Kyoto protocol.
    [Note, Kyoto amount dismissed as trivial by opponents -hr]

    “… The coming years could settle the sun’s role on temperatures once and for all. If the expected sunspot crash does takes place, Solanki’s work could receive dramatic confirmation. “Having a crash would certainly allow us to pin down the sun’s true level of influence on the Earth’s climate,” says Weiss.

    “None of this means that we can stop worrying about global warming caused by emissions into the atmosphere. “The temperature of the Earth in the past few decades does not correlate with solar activity at all,” Solanki says. He estimates that solar activity is responsible for only 30 per cent, at most, of the warming since 1970. The rest must be the result of man-made greenhouse gases, and a crash in solar activity won’t do anything to get rid of them.

    “What might happen is that the sun gives the planet a welcome respite from the ravages of man-made climate change – though for how long, nobody knows. During the Little Ice Age, the fall in average global temperature is estimated to have been less than 1 °C and lasted 70 years. The one before that persisted for 150 years, but a minor crash at the beginning of the 19th century lasted barely 30. For now, we will have to keep watching for falling sunspot numbers. “The deeper the crash, the longer it will last,” Weiss says.

    “There is a dangerous flip side to this coin. If global warming does slow down or partially reverse with a sunspot crash, industrial polluters and reluctant nations could use it as a justification for turning their backs on pollution controls altogether, makingmatters worse in the long run. There is no room for complacency, Svalgaard warns: “If the Earth does cool during the next sunspot crash and we do nothing, when the sun’s magnetic activity returns, global warming will return with a vengeance.”

    END EXCERPT, taken from CCNet 123/06 – 15 September 2006

  3. #3 Hans Erren
    September 15, 2006

    re 8:

    As Roger Pielke Jr stresses again and again:

    You can’t detect a global warming signal in the hurricane damage statistics.

  4. #4 mark
    September 15, 2006

    Great post. I was hoping you’d give Bolt a serve.

  5. #5 Hank Roberts
    September 15, 2006

    >Peilke, hurricane damage

    Sure. But if you want to show people that a stronger hurricane does more damage, you show what happens when it happens to hit something manmade. All agree the vast majority of hurricane damage is due to building where they may land.

    To show that a .45 bullet does more damage than a .22 bullet, you don’t show pictures of them flying by missing the targets, you show what they do to a target when they happen to hit it.

  6. #6 Jay
    September 15, 2006

    In point number two, you claim Bolt is misleading because he doesn’t mention that Revelle died in 1991 and that research has continues since then. This would seem to have nothing to do with Bolt’s point that “the man who first made (Gore) realize that we were heating up the Earth” stated that the “the scientific basis for a greenhouse warming is too uncertain to justify drastic action at this time”. What is the case now is irrelevant. What is being pointed out is a possible discrepency between what Gore claims to have been taught by someone and that person’s public position on the topic. If you want to argue that Revelle actually did hold that human-caused global warming was occuring then make that point. Bolt:1 Lambert: 0 Gore: -1

    You also refer to point 3 as misleading. Point 3 being that “Gore says ice cores from Antarctica, that go back 650,000 years, show the world got warmer each time there was more carbon dioxide in the air.” while the fact is that ice cores show warming preceding increases in CO2. Bolt does not make the claim here that CO2 doesn’t cause global warming, he is disputing a factual claim of Gore’s. In order for this to be misleading you would have to show that he either misrepresented Gore’s position or that the ice cores show warming always following increased CO2 instead of vice versa. Bolt may indeed believe that CO2 doesn’t cause warming but that isn’t his claim here. In order to label his statement as misleading it would be useful to actually address what he is saying here instead of a straw man. Bolt: 2 Lambert: 0 Gore: -2

    Regarding point 4, you concentrate on the nature of a source in Nature but completely neglect to address whether that source was factually correct or the correctness of Bolt’s two points that the glacial recession on Kilimanjaro dates back to at least 1912 and possibly to the 1850’s and also that the recession is due to decreased cloud cover caused by deforestation instead of global warming as Gore claims. By any measure, it is you who are misleading here by once again attacking something other than what Bolt actually said. Bolt: 3 Lambert: 0 Gore: -3

    In point 6 Bolt claims that Gore’s maps showing sea level increases of 600cm are far larger than the IPCC’s prediction of 14 to 43cm. You assert that the IPCC projection is actually 11 to 77 cm. Finally, you have caught Bolt in an error. Unfortunately, since you list no sources whatsoever for the numbers which would make the IPCC wrong and Gore right, you have lent enormous credibility to Bolt’s position that Gore was wrong. Bolt: 3 Lambert: 1 Gore: -4

    In point six Bolt is challenging Gore’s implication that people are being forced to flee Pacific islands because “the sea levels have *already* risen so high” (emphasis mine). Your quotes do not show that encroaching seas have forced people to relocate to New Zealand. Quite the contrary. “Seeing themselves as climate refuges some Tuvalans are already leaving their islands, moving their communities to higher ground in a new land.” The word ‘already’ indicates that sea levels have not made this move neccessary at this time. And looking at the Pacific Access Category by which these people immigrated to New Zealand, I see that the reasons it sites for those islanders wanting to move are: “Work opportunities, education and family” but no mention of the ocean swallowing their homes. I have to side with Bolt because there is absolutely no evidence of these migrations being due to encroaching sea levels. Bolt: 4 Lambert: 1 Gore: -5

    Point 7 says that “Gore claims global warming has helped cause coral reefs ‘all around the world’ to bleach.” while the truth is that the seas were cooling during the time period Gore is talking about and that all bleaching was due to ENSO. Your rebuttal, such as it is, is that global warming makes ENSO temperatures even warmer. You completely ignore the point about ocean temperatures declining and so don’t address how global warming would create general cooling while inducing even warmer ENSO conditions. At least you didn’t claim that global warming causes ENSO. Bolt: 5 Lambert: 1 Gore: -6

    You score a hit of sorts on point 8. It’s true that he claimed most hurricane experts agree with Landsea which is not true. However, you go by using a quote that attributes the increase in more intense hurricanes to increased ocean surface temperature. If it were that simple then the overall number of hurricanes would also have increased since higher sst would cause more tropical depressions and storms to reach hurricane status. Since the overall number of hurricanes has actually decreased, something much more complex than we understand must be going on. Bolt: 5 Lambert: 2 Gore: -6

    In point 10, Bolt claims that “Gore never even hints at other possible explanations scientists have given for the warming globe.” You then go on to attack the example that Bolt gives of an alternate explanation but he is not asserting the truth of that theory, he is demonstrating that respectable scientists have differing theories explaining global warming but that Gore ignores all but the one he agrees with. (Whether Bolt himself does the same is not germane to whether his criticism is valid.) You once again fail to even attempt to address the substance of Bolt’s point. Without any evidence to the contrary, I’m awarding this one to Bolt. Bolt: 6 Lambert: 3 Gore: -6

    The only miserable failure I see here is your utter inability to engage in a cogent discussion of your oppnent’s claims. At least Bolt didn’t point out the hypocracy of Gore flying around the world in a private jet in order to tell people to radically change their lives in order to burn less fossil fuel.


    “There seems to be little doubt that the present period of unusual warmth will eventually give way to a time of colder climate.”
    NY Times, Jan. 19, 1975.

  7. #7 Hilll Billy
    September 15, 2006

    Has someone refered this to media watch, emailed it to Andrew Bolt, placed it on his blog, emailed it to the Herald Sun editor, and also put a complaint into the press council?

  8. #8 Hans Erren
    September 15, 2006

    And during the Clinton administration the final Kyoto negotiations were held at the UNFCCC Conference COP6 in The Hague, The Netherlands, 13 – 24 November, 2000. The negociations collapsed because the US delegation under Al Gore leadership proposed to dilute the protocol by including the forests (of which the US has a lot). This proposal was torpedoed by Europe so Gore had an excuse to leave the conference and step out of Kyoto.

    Short memory?

  9. #10 John Cross
    September 15, 2006

    Jay: TO begin with you called point 5, point 6 so I guess that is Jay -1! ;)

    However to deal with some of your comments. In point 5 you claim that the fact that the IPCC shows a rise of 11 to 77 cm shows Gore wrong. In fact the two are not mutually exclusive. The IPCC prediction is for 2100 and Gore’s prediction is for the greenland ice cap melting. So instead of lending enormous credibility to Bolt he should lose 2 for being misleading. But we shall only deduct 1.

    Looking at #10, in order to counter Gore’s claim Bolt would need to present realistic theories that explain the current warming excluding AGHG. Of course there is no published literature that claims that the current rise in temperature is due to solar increases. The best you can say is to depend on Wilson’s work and this would account for at most 30% of the current warming. We are talking science here and if he wants to discuss science then he needs to present science. But I would be willing to consider any current papers on the topic that you can find from the “leading American scientists” that he mentions. Anyway, we must give Bolt another -1.

    So he now stands at 4 and ends up failing again. In fact I could argue 3 out of the remaining 4 fairly easily if you wish but I am happy enough to give him a 4.

    Regards,
    John

  10. #11 Eli Rabett
    September 15, 2006

    Like shooting bolts in the blag.

    “http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carteret_Islands”

    “The Carteret Islands (also known as Tulun or Kilinailau Islands/Atoll), Han, Jangain, Yesila, Yolasa and Piul (island) are part of Papua New Guinea located 62 miles northeast of Bougainville in the South Pacific at 4°45’S, 155°24’E. The islands are a scattering of low lying atolls in a horseshoe shape stretching around 30 kilometers in north-south direction, named after the British navigator Philip Carteret who discovered them in the sloop Swallow in 1767. As of 2005 about one thousand people live on the islands. Han is the most significant island with partial (but rapidly dying due to saltwater introgression) tree cover, the others being small islets in the lagoon.

    It was widely reported in November 2005 that the islands have progressively become uninhabitable, with an estimate of their total submersion by 2015. The islanders have fought a more than twenty years battle against the rising ocean, building sea walls and planting mangroves. However, storm surges and high tides continue to wash away homes, destroy vegetable gardens and contaminate fresh water supplies. Papua New Guinea has taken the decision in 2005 to move the population to Bougainville, four hours journey by boat. The resettlement will occur over two years moving ten famillies at a time.

    This has been attributed to rising sea levels, indeed it has been said that the islanders are the first climate refugees due to sea level rise attributed to global warming and climate change.

    In 1999 two uninhabited Kiribati islets, Tebua Tarawa and Abanuea in Tarawa lagoon, disappeared underwater.”

  11. #12 Hank Roberts
    September 15, 2006

    Shame.

    Reiterating an old and nasty industry talking point.

    You can’t have read the information about Revelle, linked above. I hope. Please do.

    Or, perhaps, you’re a lawyer?

    “… Ms. Beran’s affidavit also says: “[…] In late summer 1990, Roger started coming into the office for short periods of time and often would spend much of the time dozing. […] Sometimes he would fall asleep while he was dictating […]. I remember that even as late as November 1990 […] he was too weak to walk very far. […] Dr. Singer arrived unannounced one day in February 1991. I was unprepared for his visit, thinking that Roger had other plans for that afternoon. […] I remember feeling that Roger was cornered, because I thought I understood from the fact that Roger had procrastinated so long that this enterprise was something he didn’t really want to be involved with.” (Christa Beran Affidavit, 1992)

    “Changes to the final galley proof owing to the discussion between Singer and Revelle on February 6, 1991 in Revelle’s office comprise less than 1% of the text of the published article. Further, the changes are not wholly consistent or representative of Revelle’s known views….

    “Revelle was hoodwinked, in my view….

  12. #13 steve munn
    September 16, 2006

    Excellent post, Tim. It is shameful that the Murdoch press bankrolls so many deceitful attack dogs like Mr Bolt.

  13. #14 Hans Erren
    September 16, 2006

    Hank, there was a libel court case on particularly this case, which Singer won.

    please read this in full:
    The Revelle-Gore Story: Attempted Political Suppression of Science

    Statement by Justin Lancaster

    The late Professor Roger Revelle was a true and voluntary coauthor
    of the article entitled “What To Do About GreenhouseWarming:
    Look Before You Leap,” along with Professor S. Fred Singer
    and Chauncey Starr, Ph.D. The articlewas published in April 1991
    in the inaugural issue of Cosmos, the journal of the Cosmos Club
    of Washington, D.C.
    I retract as being unwarranted any and all statements, oral or
    written, I have made which state or imply that Professor Revelle
    was not a true and voluntary coauthor of the Cosmos article, or
    which in any other way impugn or malign the conduct or motives
    of Professor Singer with regard to the Cosmos article (including
    but not limited to its drafting, editing, publication, republication,
    and circulation).I agree not to make any such statements in future. I fully and unequivocally retract and disclaim those statements
    and their implications about the conduct, character, and
    ethics of Professor Singer, and I apologize to Professor Singer for
    the pain my conduct has caused him and for any damage that I
    may have caused to his reputation. To the extent that others,
    including Anthony D. Socci, Ph.D., Edward A. Frieman, Ph.D., and
    Walter H. Munk, Ph.D.,18 relied on my statements to make similar
    statements and insinuations, I also apologize to Professor Singer.
    I also regret that I have caused Professor Singer to incur litigation
    costs to resolve this matter.

    /s/ Justin Lancaster

    Dated April 29th, 1994.

  14. #15 Eli Rabett
    September 16, 2006

    Hans, you know very well that Lancaster’s statement was in settlement of a SLAPP suit by Singer. At the bottom of the link that Hank posted Lancaster says:

    “Over ten years ago, I was forced by a SLAPP suit to retract my statements exposing the Cosmos myth described here. Likely to prevail at trial because my statements were true, I regretted deeply that I could not then afford to continue. I had hoped, in settling, that the other side would honorably let the Cosmos paper and this issue slide into obscurity. This did not happen. In 2003, Singer published a book chapter, titled The Revelle-Gore Story: Attempted Political Suppression of Science, that presented the story the way he’d like it to be known. His story villifies both me and Al Gore. The editor of that book swallows the story and echoes the condemnations in his own introductory chapter. And the objectionable use of this Cosmos article by the very participants in its creation has not ceased (see Balling, SEPP, May 2006).

    This shameful manipulation and exploitation of the life and teaching of a great scientist and humanitarian cannot stand. For my friend and colleague, for all those who have been misled by this Cosmos myth, and for the honor of a courageous and committed politician and journalist, it is important that I hereby fully rescind and repudiate my 1994 retraction and make available the evidence that supports my statements. ”

    Which, says it all about Singer and Balling and a bit about you.

  15. #16 Michael Seward
    September 16, 2006

    In one letter to Congressman Jim Bates written July 14, 1988-Revelle said, “Most scientists familiar with the subject are not yet willing to bet that the [hot, dry] climate this year is the result of “greenhouse warming.” As you very well know, climate is highly variable from year to year, and the causes of these variations are not at all well understood. My own personal belief is that we should wait for another ten or twenty years to really be convinced that the greenhouse effect is going to be important for human beings, in both positive and negative ways.”

    Well, it’s been nearly 20 years since that statement was made. What do you think Revelle would conclude today?

  16. #17 frankis
    September 16, 2006

    Hans had you read Hank’s first comment way up above, the one citing a very recent statement by Justin Lancaster, when you posted just now your “Hank, there was a libel court case on particularly this case, which Singer won” comment?

  17. #18 Chris O'Neill
    September 16, 2006

    “The (year 2000 Kyoto) negociations collapsed because the US delegation under Al Gore leadership proposed to dilute the protocol by including the forests (of which the US has a lot). This proposal was torpedoed by Europe ..”

    I wonder why the US couldn’t get away with it (including forests, that is)? Australia did.

  18. #19 Joel Shore
    September 16, 2006

    Hans,

    Whatever Singer might have gotten out of his settlement of his libel suit, he certainly has come to use it to make arguments that, even if they are technically true to some small degree, hide the larger point. For example, in what you linked to, Singer says: “Moreover, Dr. Revelle’s daughter wrote a letter in response to George Will’s column, published in the Washington Post, that affirmed Dr. Revelle’s coauthorship and restated many points made in the Cosmos article. [C. R. Hufbauer, “Global Warming: What My Father Really Said,”
    Washington Post, op-ed, September 13, 1992.]”

    I just spent the $3.95 at the Washington Post archive site to buy that op-ed that Revelle’s daughter wrote and, while it may have indirectly affirmed Revelle’s authorship on that paper, it certainly did not have nearly the spin that Singer tries to on it. Here are a few quotes from the op-ed:

    Contrary to George Will’s “Al Gore’s Green Guilt” {op-ed, Sept. 3} Roger Revelle – our father and the “father” of the greenhouse effect – remained deeply concerned about global warming until his death in July 1991. That same year he wrote: “The scientific base for a greenhouse warming is too uncertain to justify drastic action at this time.” Will and other critics of Sen. Al Gore have seized these words to suggest that Revelle, who was also Gore’s professor and mentor, renounced his belief in global warming.

    Nothing could be farther from the truth.

    When Revelle inveighed against “drastic” action, he was using that adjective in its literal sense – measures that would cost trillions of dollars. Up until his death, he thought that extreme measures were premature. But he continued to recommend immediate prudent steps to mitigate and delay climatic warming. Some of those steps go well beyond anything Gore or other national politicians have yet to advocate.

    In private, he often spoke of a $1.00 a gallon tax as eminently reasonable, not “drastic.”

    All of us remember our father’s frustration at the White House award ceremony in November 1990, when he received the National Medal of Science. Told he would sit next to John Sununu, a well known advocate of the “wait and see” approach, he was delighted at the prospect of bending Sununu’s ear. When Sununu failed to appear, Revelle was disappointed, saying, “I had hoped to tell him what a dim view I take of the administration’s environmental policies.”

    Roger Revelle proposed a range of approaches to address global warming. Inaction was not one of them. He agreed with the adage “look before you leap,” but he never said “sit on your hands.”

    I encourage you to spend the money to read the whole op-ed and then see what you think about how Singer is portraying it. I haven’t quoted here as extensively as I’d like to hear so as not to go over “fair use” copyright boundaries.

    If Revelle thought a $1.00 per gallon tax on gas was reasonable 15 years ago, just imagine what he would think now that the science has gotten more certain. Don’t you think you libertarian types are being a bit disingenious claiming him to be on your side?

  19. #20 Chris O'Neill
    September 16, 2006

    “In point number two, … Bolt:1 Lambert: 0 Gore: -1″

    What happened to point number one? It’s handy when the points you lose on just happen to disappear. Part of the rules I guess.

  20. #21 Hank Roberts
    September 16, 2006

    Joel, I agree up to where you wrote “you libertarian types” — but please don’t do that labeling.

    Judith Curry identifies herself as a libertarian. She’s also a solid scientist, and you can find her repeatedly correcting misrepresentation of her work by for example Pielke Jr. on Prometheus (Google).

    There are intellectually honest libertarians, democrats, republicans, socialists, anarchists, capitalists, and lawyers. Some of any label you pick can handle science. You can’t presume someone’s unable to put facts over ideology by looking at their ideology — yes, it often happens. But please talk to the part of everyone that can be honest intellectually as the facts come in.

  21. #22 Joel Shore
    September 16, 2006

    Hank,

    Fair enough…I guess I was using “libertarian types” as a shorthand for those who believe, through some combination of scientific and economic beliefs, that essentially no government actions (other than perhaps the voluntary ones like Pres. Bush has proposed) are warranted. I have found that nearly all of the people who fall into this camp tend toward the libertarian (or conservative) persuasion…although, I agree that the converse is not necessarily true.

    Anyway, it is simply amazing that Singer is using that op-ed to support his point-of-view. He is obviously counting on people not actually tracking it down and reading it!

  22. #23 Hans Erren
    September 16, 2006

    If Revelle thought a $1.00 per gallon tax on gas was reasonable 15 years ago, just imagine what he would think now that the science has gotten more certain.

    So Revelle was concerned and opted for a 1$/gallon tax. Big deal, I am also concerned and in Holland we pay already $1 tax per litre. That doesn’t make me an advocate for Kyoto. You also cannot extrapolate a dead persons opinion into the future to your own benefit. We never will know “what he would think”.

  23. #24 frankis
    September 16, 2006

    What I do know by now Hans is that by your own demonstration here you are self-importantly full of sound and fuss and bother that signifies – nothing. Hank and Joel have utterly gutted your worthless verbiage above yet on you prattle.
    I doubt I’ll be the only one who goes back to simply ignoring the autoerotic swill you offer us.

  24. #25 Joel Shore
    September 16, 2006

    Hans,

    The point here is that Bolt said: “In fact, Revelle shortly before his death co-authored a paper warning that ‘the scientific basis for a greenhouse warming is too uncertain to justify drastic action at this time’.” He used this as a way to counter Gore’s noting that it was Revelle who first made him aware of the issue.

    However, as Revelle’s daughter noted in that article, Revelle “continued to recommend immediate prudent steps to mitigate and delay climatic warming. Some of those steps go well beyond anything Gore or other national politicians have yet to advocate.”

    Do you see how Bolt’s using what Revelle thinks against Gore might be slightly hampered by those facts? And, by the way, while I think it is great that you Europeans are more enlightened than us (and I mean that without any sarcasm, BTW), on our side of the Atlantic an additional tax of $1 per gallon on gasoline is unfortunately a very big deal (and would have, of course, been an even bigger deal 15 years ago in light of less certain science and given that $1 then equates to about $1.40 now just via inflation).

  25. #26 Lettuce
    September 16, 2006

    Hans:

    So Revelle was concerned and opted for a 1$/gallon tax. Big deal, I am also concerned and in Holland we pay already $1 tax per litre.

    If you aren’t intimately familiar with the American political scene, proposing a dollar a gallon tax on gasoline now would likely get you a short ride to Gitmo. Or at least the suggestion that you deserved one from the ruling party.

    Fifteen years ago? You might not get Gitmo (our techniques having not been as “advanced”), but you’d have been excluded from polite company and shoved aside to eat with Crazy Uncle Eddie at the family get togethers.

    Might as well have taken a stand against apple pie.

  26. #27 Brian S.
    September 16, 2006

    Jay sends us out on a laugh with his final quote:

    — “There seems to be little doubt that the present period of unusual warmth will EVENTUALLY give way to a time of colder climate.” NY Times, Jan. 19, 1975.

    So the NY Times realized thirty years ago that we’re in an interglacial period. I wonder when Jay will find that out?

  27. #28 Hank Roberts
    September 17, 2006

    Here ya go, Jay, this will make you feel better. Don’t look around the site, just focus solely on this chart:
    http://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/8/8f/Ice_Age_Temperature_Rev.png

  28. #29 Louis Hissink
    September 17, 2006

    Heating up the earth or that thin, insignificant whisp of gas cloaking it?

  29. #30 z
    September 17, 2006

    “proposing a dollar a gallon tax on gasoline now would likely get you a short ride to Gitmo. ”

    Note that some of the US auto companies are selling trucks/SUVs by promising to fund a ceiling on gasoline prices for a year for purchasers of their product.

  30. #31 Eli Rabett
    September 17, 2006

    You do enjoy breathing Louis, or is it optional for you?

  31. #32 lisa taylor
    September 18, 2006

    I’ve been wanting to write you about a different global warming documentary that will be released in the U.S. Nov 3, and after reading this thread, can’t imagine the discussion it might spur – not because the science is soft, but because there are so many scientists IN it!

    “The Great Warming” (info at http://www.thegreatwarming.com) does include more science, a lot on the innovative solutions being explored as well as dire predictions, and input from the religious green movement. UCS and the Climate Institute are among the organizations in the coalition that’s grown from the film and website, so perhaps some of you have heard about this tangentially already.

    At any rate, I’d invite you to visit the site, and to draw your own conclusions after the film’s US release Nov 3. Other versions have traveled the globe, and can do so again if there’s enough interest. If you DO like what you see and are willing to help spread the word or sign the Call to Action (going live on the website this week), we’d appreciate the help – we don’t have a Hollywood budget, and most of our promo effort is paid for in Canadian loonies.

    Until then, I’m going to back away slowly – it looks like this discussion is DEvolving ;> Cheers all.

  32. #33 Ian Gould
    September 18, 2006

    Heating up the earth or that thin, insignificant whisp of gas cloaking it?

    So Louis have you actually progressed in your thinking to the point where you accept that the atmospheric temperature is determined by insolation rather than radiogenic heat?

    If so, I suppose that’s a victory of sorts even if your concession on this point is singularly obtuse and gracesless even for you.

  33. #34 Paul Williams
    September 18, 2006

    Did anyone bother to read the links on malaria? Both are computer model studies, one of which DID NOT STUDY MALARIA STATISTICS. Actually I doubt that either of them did. They are both global warming propaganda pieces, just like the film.

    Benny Peiser certainly admitted to some errors in his study. (Not that his work was “full of errors”). However he stands by his conclusions. A bit “misleading” of Tim?

  34. #35 Hans Erren
    September 18, 2006

    I wasn’t familiar with the abbreviartion, but thanks for the ad hominem, lettuce.

    and the sweeping generalisation of course.

  35. #36 Ian Gould
    September 18, 2006

    “If you aren’t intimately familiar with the American political scene, proposing a dollar a gallon tax on gasoline now would likely get you a short ride to Gitmo. Or at least the suggestion that you deserved one from the ruling party.

    Fifteen years ago? You might not get Gitmo (our techniques having not been as “advanced”), but you’d have been excluded from polite company and shoved aside to eat with Crazy Uncle Eddie at the family get togethers.”

    So Hans – that’s an ad hominem – suggesting that anyone who proposed a $1 a gallon tax on petrol in the US in 1991 woudl have been regarded as unbalanced?

    I’m sorry but I don’t see it.

  36. #37 Hans Erren
    September 18, 2006

    “If you aren’t intimately familiar with the American political scene, proposing a dollar a gallon tax on gasoline now would likely get you a short ride to Gitmo. Or at least the suggestion that you deserved one from the ruling party.

    Fifteen years ago? You might not get Gitmo (our techniques having not been as “advanced”), but you’d have been excluded from polite company and shoved aside to eat with Crazy Uncle Eddie at the family get togethers.”

    Proposing a (small) 25c tax per liter would make you a political outcast?

    Why?

    The tax would benefit the government, would increase the sale of low mileage cars, would immediately clean up air pollution, and would lead to less depletion of national oil reserves.

    Like in Europe. BTW Kyoto doesn’t work.

  37. #38 Robert
    September 18, 2006

    Hans wrote:

    If Revelle thought a $1.00 per gallon tax on gas was reasonable [in 1991]

    So Revelle was concerned and opted for a 1$/gallon tax. Big deal, I am also concerned and in Holland we pay already $1 tax per litre.

    In the US in 1991, the average retail price of a gallon of gas (i.e., including then current local, state, and federal taxes) was about $1.

  38. #39 Chris O'Neill
    September 18, 2006

    “The tax (on petrol) would benefit the government, would increase the sale of low mileage cars, would immediately clean up air pollution, and would lead to less depletion of national oil reserves.”

    All laudable objectives but laudable objectives do not necessarily political popularity make.

    “BTW Kyoto doesn’t work.”

    Kyoto is meant to be temporary and experimental.

  39. #40 Paul
    September 18, 2006

    Tim,

    I find this WHOLE post misleading. You’ve been a bit stingy with the grading and should award points for partial credit. My close reading gives him a score of 2.68.

  40. #41 Dano
    September 18, 2006

    Hans, you’ve been shown before that you maluse the term ad hom. Please stop the tactic, as it is dishonest**.

    Thanks!

    Best,

    D

    ** yes, yes, I know: you’ll have to actually think and come up with another tactic. Them’s the breaks.

  41. #42 Don Baccus
    September 18, 2006

    Hans: “Hank, there was a libel court case on particularly this case, which Singer won.”

    Well, no. Singer didn’t win, the defendant settled out of court because, as he himself has said in the quotes provided by others, he could not afford to continue in the case.

    That’s the whole point of a SLAPP suit. It’s not to win, it’s to use your deeper pockets to force someone you want to shut up to do so because they can’t afford the legal costs involved in defeating the suit.

    Many states have made SLAPP suits illegal because of abuses such as the Singer libel suit. Our first amendment makes it virtually impossible to force someone to shut up, so anti-conservation/anti-environmental types invented the SLAPP suit technique to force those they disagree with to agree to shut up “voluntarily”.

    I know of one conservation organization that was sued by the timber industry because they’d won a lawsuit forcing the federal government to stop certain logging practices. The organization had to raise roughly $50,000 to defend the suit (which, of course, they won handily). Not too long after that my state made SLAPP suits illegal …

  42. #43 Hans Erren
    September 19, 2006

    Dano

    Mea culpa, tu quoque.

  43. #44 Hans Erren
    September 19, 2006

    Kyoto is meant to be temporary and experimental.

    Yeah, but it still doesn’t work.
    It doesn’t even reduce co2, it moves emissions to countries with poorer environmental regulations so the net result is an increase in real pollution: SO2 and soot. And Italy has alread announced to bail out, and Russia won’t let China win, so if they drained the benefits from Kyoto they are also out. The Dutch companies made too large estimates of their emissions so they now have credits to sell.

    It’s all hot air trading.

  44. #45 Chris O'Neill
    September 19, 2006

    Point 2. Others have dealt with this. Bolt:0

    “You also refer to point 3 as misleading. Point 3 being that “Gore says ice cores from Antarctica, that go back 650,000 years, show the world got warmer each time there was more carbon dioxide in the air.” while the fact is that ice cores show warming preceding increases in CO2.”

    Even though some warming has other causes, that does not alter the fact that warming occurred when CO2 increased. Gore’s statement is correct. Bolt:0

    “Regarding point 4, you concentrate on the nature of a source in Nature but completely neglect to address whether that source was factually correct”

    As did Bolt. Bolt had no interest in whether that source was factually correct. He was using it as authority without justifying the authority. Bolt:0

    “In point 6 (aka point 5) Bolt claims that Gore’s maps showing sea level increases of 600cm”

    if all Greenland’s ice melted, an event which would take at least several hundred years

    “are far larger than the IPCC’s prediction of 14 to 43cm”

    for the year 2100.

    Bolt uses the technique of misinforming by omission. Bolt:0

    Tim Lambert’s quotation of Bolt: ” 6: Gore claims the seas have already risen so high that New Zealand has had to take in refugees from drowning Pacific islands.”

    Other people have dealt with this, however, regarding:

    “In fact, the Australian National Tidal Facility at Tuvalu in 2002 reported: “The historical record from 1978 through 199 indicated a sea level rise of 0.07 mm per year.” Or the width of a hair.”

    I can’t be bothered finding the reference but satellite measurements show the oceans are rising at 3mm/year. Bolt:0

    “Point 7 says that “Gore claims global warming has helped cause coral reefs ‘all around the world’ to bleach.” while the truth is that the seas were cooling during the time period Gore is talking about”

    the time period being

    “In fact, new research from the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration shows the seas rapidly cooled from 2003 to 2005.”

    Even if Bolt is telling us the whole truth about “the seas rapidly cooled from 2003 to 2005″, the biggest coral bleaching events were in 2002 and 1998. So the truth is actually that this cooling, regardless of what it is, occurred after the times of coral bleaching.

    Also “and that all bleaching was due to ENSO”

    The bleaching in 1998 was during ENSO. The bleaching in 2002 was not during ENSO. Bolt:0

    ” You score a hit of sorts on point 8.”..”However, you go by using a quote that attributes the increase in more intense hurricanes to increased ocean surface temperature. If it were that simple then the overall number of hurricanes would also have increased since higher sst would cause more tropical depressions and storms to reach hurricane status.”

    Not necessarily. Forming a cyclone is a complex process depending on many factors besides sst. However, once it is formed its continued existence is much more stable and sst is one of the few things that can subsequently affect its development. The fact to keep in mind is that the warmer the ocean, the more energy is available for the atmospheric heat engine. Until we know otherwise, warming the sst is a dangerous experiment. Bolt:0

    ” In point 10, Bolt claims that “Gore never even hints at other possible explanations scientists have given for the warming globe.” You then go on to attack the example that Bolt gives of an alternate explanation but he is not asserting the truth of that theory, he is demonstrating that respectable scientists have differing theories explaining global warming.”

    Bolt’s word was “leading” scientists.

    They might be “leading” scientists at something. It just isn’t climate science. Bolt:0

    ” The only miserable failure I see here is your utter inability to engage in a cogent discussion of your oppnent’s claims.”

    Bolt would never be guilty of doing anything like that.

    “– “There seems to be little doubt that the present period of unusual warmth will eventually give way to a time of colder climate.” NY Times, Jan. 19, 1975.”

    The global average temperature in 2005 was 0.69C warmer than the global average temperature in 1974. You can rely on the NY Times.

  45. #46 Hans Erren
    September 19, 2006

    “You also refer to point 3 as misleading. Point 3 being that “Gore says ice cores from Antarctica, that go back 650,000 years, show the world got warmer each time there was more carbon dioxide in the air.” while the fact is that ice cores show warming preceding increases in CO2.”

    Even though some warming has other causes, that does not alter the fact that warming occurred when CO2 increased. Gore’s statement is correct. Bolt:0

    The gore statement on icecores may be correct but still is misleading: CO2 in ice ages acts predominantly as a thermometer and responds to temperature by approximately 10 ppm/per degree. It’s the same effect as heating a soda bottle.
    So the statement should read: “The icecores show that there was more CO2 in the air when the world got warmer”

    Bolt 1

  46. #47 Hans Erren
    September 19, 2006

    The bleaching in 1998 was during ENSO. The bleaching in 2002 was not during ENSO.

    ENSO stands for el nino southern oscillation. There is always ENSO. Perhaps you mean El Niño,
    however, 2002 was an El Niño year…

    The El Niño of 2002-2003

  47. #48 Chris O'Neill
    September 19, 2006

    “”The bleaching in 1998 was during ENSO. The bleaching in 2002 was not during ENSO.”

    ENSO stands for el nino southern oscillation. There is always ENSO. Perhaps you mean El Niño,”

    Sorry, I’m not that interested in correcting a denialist’s naming errors when dealing with their major conceptual mistakes.

    “however, 2002 was an El Niño year…”

    The El Nino of 2002-2003 (weak that it was) occured from August to May. Major coral bleaching occured early in 2002 in the southern hemisphere. The Great Barrier Reef experienced its worst coral bleaching event on record beginning in January 2002.

  48. #49 Hans Erren
    September 19, 2006

    Remote Sensing of Sea Surface
    Temperatures During 2002
    Barrier Reef Coral Bleaching
    Eos,Vol. 84, No. 15, 15 April 2003

    http://www.osdpd.noaa.gov/PSB/EPS/CB_indices/crbpub_eos15apr2003.pdf

    The key difference between the 1998 and
    2002 bleaching events on the GBR lies not in
    the intensity of the SST anomaly that caused
    each event,but in the proximity of the anomaly’s
    epicenter to the GBR.The fact that the 1998
    bleaching occurred during a strong El Niño
    and the 2002 event occurred outside an El
    Niño may be an important factor in the position
    of this epicenter.The correlation between
    SST variability on the GBR and climatic events
    such as El Niño and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation
    need further investigation.The relationship
    between bleaching in the GBR and other relevant
    environmental parameters also need to
    be investigated to better understand potential
    cause-and-effect relationships. For instance, it
    is known that factors such as light, turbidity,
    salinity, pollution, etc. also cause stress and can
    lead to bleaching in certain circumstances

  49. #50 Dano
    September 19, 2006

    Also from another paper:

    These statistics and the fact that nearly twice as many offshore reefs bleached in 2002 compared to 1998 (41 vs. 21%, respectively) makes the 2002 event the worst bleaching event on record for the GBR. Modeling of the relationship between bleaching and max3d SST indicates that a 1 °C increase would increase the bleaching occurrence of reefs from 50% (approximate occurrence in 1998 and 2002) to 82%, while a 2 °C increase would increase the occurrence to 97% and a 3 °C increase to 100%. These results suggest that coral reefs are profoundly sensitive to even modest increases in temperature and, in the absence of acclimatization/adaptation, are likely to suffer large declines under mid-range International Panel for Climate Change predictions by 2050.

    Those interested in the latest science, rather than older papers on coral bleaching, may want to begin here.

    What the mendacicizers fail to tell folk is that climate often exacerbates pathogens or other stressors, many of them made worse by human externalities.

    (Folks here know all this already, I’m just making it explicit).

    Best,

    D

  50. #51 Hans Erren
    September 19, 2006

    which means that by directly addressing the externalities (dynamite fishing, pollution, sedimentation, heavy tourism) the corals will improve, as they are likely to survive bleaching per se.

  51. #52 Don Baccus
    September 19, 2006

    “which means that by directly addressing the externalities (dynamite fishing, pollution, sedimentation, heavy tourism) the corals will improve, as they are likely to survive bleaching per se.”

    You mean pollution like anthropogenic sources of GHGs?

  52. #53 Ian Gould
    September 20, 2006

    Hans Erren: “And Italy has alread announced to bail out,”

    It has? Got a reference?

  53. #54 Ian Gould
    September 20, 2006

    “the 2002 event occurred outside an El Niño”

    You know Hans you should probably READ what you post first – just in case it directly contradicts the claim you’re trying to make.

  54. #55 Hans
    September 20, 2006

    ian please read the eos paper why 2002 was different from 1998.
    my source for Italy leaving Kyoto is from Hans Labohm
    http://www.techcentralstation.com/121704C.html
    In Buenos Aires was the announcement made not to cooperate on a Kyoto2.

    and CO2 is not a pollutant.

  55. #56 Ian Gould
    September 20, 2006

    An unsourced assertion at TechCentral Station that Italy has said it will be withdrawing in 2012 – who could ask for better proof than that?

    Why isn’t CO2 a pollutant – because its a “natural” constituent of the atmosphere?

    Guess what, so are ozone, carbon monoxide; sulphur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide.

  56. #57 Ian Gould
    September 20, 2006

    Oh look, an [official report on the 2005 Conference of Parties](http://unfccc.int/files/meetings/cop_11/application/pdf/cmp1_00_consideration_of_commitments_under_3.9.pdf)
    :

    “The EU proposed recalled, inter alia, Protocol Article 9 (review of the Protocol), decided to initiate consideration of Annex I commitments in accordance with Article 3.9, and invited parties to make submissions for further consideration at SB 24″

    I guess Tehccentralstation is just better informed on Italian government policy than Italy’s representative to the CoP.

  57. #58 Chris O'Neill
    September 20, 2006

    “”The bleaching in 2002 was not during (El Niño).”

    2002 was an El Niño year…”

    “the 2002 event occurred outside an El Niño”

    I wonder what his point was.

  58. #59 Eli Rabett
    September 20, 2006

    Per must have loaned Hans the time machine……

    “my source for Italy leaving Kyoto is from Hans Labohm http://www.techcentralstation.com/121704C.html In Buenos Aires was the announcement made not to cooperate on a Kyoto2.” (Dec. 2004)

    You may have noticed there has been a significant change of government since then. Berlusconi is not spelled Prodi.

    Never mind.

  59. #60 Dano
    September 20, 2006

    Eli sez:

    Never mind.

    I return to my comment on the other thread where I was confused about a per comment possibly being a parody character.

    per seems to be having trouble keeping his narratives effectively moving along, a kind of HansErrenified slippage.

    Shucky darns!

    Poodle poop!

    Best,

    D

  60. #61 Hans Erren
    September 21, 2006

    “”The bleaching in 2002 was not during (El Niño).
    2002 was an El Niño year…”
    “the 2002 event occurred outside an El Niño”
    I wonder what his point was.

    In an el nino year the sea surface temperature is anomalous. The early 2002 SST hot pool was sitting on top of the GBR as the EOS paper demonstrates quite clearly, but it’s overall amplitude was smaller than 1998. The 1998 SST peak was higher but not sitting on the GBR. Which means that the warm water in 2002 was el nino related, but during the el nino peak the really warm water was not over the GBR, just as in 1998.

    Anyway el nino is not anthropogenic so there is no way for mitigation. Hence the only way to protect the GBR is to address the externalities.

  61. #62 Chris O'Neill
    September 21, 2006

    “Which means that the warm water in” January “2002 was el nino” in August 2002 “related”

    You should publish a paper on this. A good title would be “Non-causal Effects of the 2002-2003 El Nino”. It would get you a Nobel prize.

  62. #63 steve munn
    October 5, 2006

    Tim,

    I thought you might be interested in this, from Crikey. [Link](http://www.crikey.com.au/Media/20061005-Climate-change-scientist-quoted-by-Bolt-fights-back.html)

    Apparently Jeff Severinghaus, Professor of Geosciences at the University of California, San Diego has e-mailed Bolt’s blog to complain about the way Bolt has misused his findings. Funnily enough, Bolt is yet to offer an apology.

The site is currently under maintenance and will be back shortly. New comments have been disabled during this time, please check back soon.