Tim Lambert's weblog
Tim Lambert (deltoidblog AT gmail.com) is a computer scientist at the University of New South Wales.
Stay abreast of your favorite bloggers' latest and greatest via e-mail, via a daily digest.
« Just how many astroturf groups did tobacco fund? | Main | Curate's egg at Science-based Medicine »
Category: Global Warming
Posted on: February 24, 2008 11:43 AM, by Tim Lambert
Remember last year, when Exxon said that they would no longer fund organizations like the International Policy Network and the George Marshall Institute that misrepresent the science of global warming?
Well, they are still funding them. Also still on the list, are CO2science and the Center for Science and Public Policy.
Hat tip: Brian Schmidt.
Find more posts in: 
Politics
Comments
Tim: could you please get Exxon to use a little more quality control? Or maybe they need to spend a little more money. After alll, the lefties get some real academics suicking of the teat of the taxpayer and all we get are crappy bloggers who can't even write clearly. Sheesh.
Posted by: TCO | February 24, 2008 1:54 PM
And so what if Exxon is still funding these guys... surely you are not suggesting that this is dodgy... come on.. it must be innocent :)
Posted by: Allie | February 24, 2008 3:21 PM
TCO, why do you expect those who think that science and truth is preferable to company special interest serving disinformation, are all leftists?
Posted by: mz | February 24, 2008 5:28 PM
"are all leftists?"
because they have very simplistic minds, stupidy is the major accomplishment of right wingers (their only accomplishment)
Posted by: richCares | February 24, 2008 6:10 PM
Dude, can you rephrase that please? I'm not even defending myself (yet), but I don't track the sentence. I get the impression that I'm going to need to discuss why I haven't stopped beating my wife, but I'm not sure. The sentence is just a bit opaque. Simple it down, please.
Posted by: TCO | February 24, 2008 6:29 PM
TCO's got a point; You'd think that with all that oil money they'd get somebody better than Christopher Monckton, et al.
But maybe Exxon has a plan. After all, the lefties have to fill up their gold-plated Jaguars with something, right?
Posted by: Boris | February 24, 2008 6:45 PM
Actually we, I mean they, are being double-probation sneaky. See we're using dummies like McI and such with obbvious logical flaws to lure you into thinking that we, I mean they, aren't actually behind a diabolical plot with massive money and slick producing that will convince all right thinkers to cut trees down and buy stretch hummers.
But I confuse myself.
Posted by: TCO | February 24, 2008 7:32 PM
TCO, you didn't understand my question?
Put in another way, is someone who is interested in truth, automatically a leftist? (Of course not, you reply...)
So let's go a little further:
Or are some truths leftist (like AGW) and some rightist (Insert some thing that is uncomfortable to the left wing, and true)?
I'm trying to understand how your mind works.
Posted by: mz | February 24, 2008 9:58 PM
mz,
It's... well, I won't call it a "mind". It "works", but it doesn't work anything like what I'd call a "mind".
There's no Truth, mz. No Facts.
There's only Freedom. Or rather, £reedom. More £reedom good, less £reedom bad.
£reedom from facts is the ultimate £reedom.
Posted by: bi | February 24, 2008 10:36 PM
Yes. The truth is the truth. It doesn't matter who it makes unhappy. It just is.
rightie unhappy truth: no significant WMD were found in Iraq after we went in.
leftie unhappy truth: the Rathergate memos are isomorphic with memoes produced by MS Word default settings and have NEVER been reproduced by a vintage typewriter.
THE TRUTH IS THE TRUTH. You have to look it in the eye whether it supports your position or not. How can you monsters on both sides be so ignorant of that. The truth should rise up out of it's grave and nkick you all the asses.
Posted by: TCO | February 24, 2008 10:51 PM
TCO:
So I take it that ExxonMobil (whom ExxonMobil refers to as "we") is now in the Middle?
I mean, ExxonMobil is an oil producer, right? If there's anybody in the Middle when it comes to the great debate on the polluting effects of oil, then ExxonMobil has to be it. Obviously.
Posted by: bi | February 24, 2008 11:03 PM
TCO: "all we get are crappy bloggers who can't even write clearly"
I disagree, TCO. McIntyre is capable of writing very, very clearly. He routinely does not, however. I think that tells us something about the purpose of his writing.
Posted by: Lee | February 24, 2008 11:06 PM
(erratum: "whom ExxonMobil" should be "whom TCO"...)
Posted by: bi | February 24, 2008 11:10 PM
I think he's a lazy writer. There are a lot of signs of it. He probably could do better if he held himself to a standard, but he doesn't. Anyhow, he hasn't been published for 2.5 years. That's incredible for someone working full time in a field with such rich questions. His old lady should kick him in the ass and tell him either write real papers or get your ass back into the office.
Posted by: TCO | February 24, 2008 11:47 PM
"We" committing conspiracies is joking. Truth mattering is from the heart.
Posted by: TCO | February 24, 2008 11:51 PM
No, your "academics" conspiracy theory is a joke. ExxonMobil's efforts at pushing garbage science are widely known and well-documented.
Truth... unencumbered by facts!
Posted by: bi | February 25, 2008 12:21 AM
Even as TCO continues to push the "facts are all fact, no heart!"... it's a good idea to look at the facts:
"In his biography and in news coverage, McIntyre is reported to be a former director of several small public mineral exploration companies. But in 2003, the annual report of CGX Energy, Inc., an oil and gas exploration company, listed McIntyre as a 'strategic advisor'."
So... yeah, McIntyre is merely a crank who's drooling just for fun. My heart tells me so.
Posted by: bi | February 25, 2008 12:35 AM
conspiracy of academics = army of cats
Posted by: z | February 25, 2008 12:58 AM
bi, you are a chirpy little conspiracy nut. Bet you think 911 was done by Mossad too.
Posted by: TCO | February 25, 2008 1:00 AM
TCO keeps trying to avoid the massive documentation on ExxonMobil's astroturfings, while clinging on to his "conspiracy of academics" theory concocted from a pile of nothing.
i r in ur climat modelz stealin ur freedumz
Posted by: bi | February 25, 2008 2:59 AM
Well, I am one of these crappy bloggers who's native tongue is not even English. We do it for free because of a strong conviction. Wheather or not Exxon funds some of their favored think tanks doesn't tell us anything about the truth behind the whole issue.
Posted by: climatepatrol | February 25, 2008 5:08 AM
C'mon, guys, TCO is not that bad. He's a skeptic who actually recognizes that McI is full of it.
Posted by: Boris | February 25, 2008 8:04 AM
I'm glad TCO recongizes McIntyre is full of it, but his contention that AGW is somehow a leftist plot is fully as delusional as the most extreme charges McIntyre has ever brought.
Posted by: Barton Paul Levenson | February 25, 2008 9:15 AM
climatepatrol:
When your oft-touted "truth" is so "independent" that it's based on the $cientific work of these think-tanks, then it does tell us a great deal.
Barton Paul Levenson:
Yeah. The idea that leftist forces in the US somehow managed to coerce the whole world's scientists into pushing the AGW theory, and still not leave a single trace of their nefarious scheme... who coulda thunk it?
Posted by: bi | February 25, 2008 9:47 AM
For somewhat unrelated fun and laughter...
Over at DeSmogBlog, an idiot who calls himself co2isgoodnotbad decided to cut-and-paste the exact same denialist rant three times under the same blog post, and totally ignore all responses to it.
(Unfortunately the comment feature over there seems to be hosed as of writing this, otherwise I'd have written something about it over there...)
Posted by: bi | February 25, 2008 10:03 AM
Well duh! Of course AGW is a left wing communist plot. That's why Stalin never built any smoke belching factories or power stations.
Posted by: Neil | February 25, 2008 10:36 AM
Lambert, you forgot to note that they are also funding the George C. Marshall Institute.
Posted by: Thom | February 25, 2008 1:23 PM
Come, come Thom - funding the George C. Marshall Institute is hardly funding organizations like the George C. Marshall Institute, now is it?
Posted by: Marion Delgado | February 26, 2008 1:12 AM
23 Barton, I think I speak for most of those so called skeptics of the IPCC approach: AGW is not a leftist plot, it is part of a most comprehensive globalization plot. You find this plot in the last book of your Bible. Remember, Noah was a laughing stock, just as I am now writing this, but he turned out to be right.
Bi, coming back to my rational mode, I like to take this challenge of yours. Please tell me any statement I've made so far which source you can trace as Exxon funded scientific work, and I will try to come up with a research source idependant of the petroleum societies. Independency? I would be interested in scientific research on climate change that does not touch any of your much despised $$$ (freedom or not) but comes entirely out of a private pocket of the researcher with a genuine heart. I would truly appreciate such a source.
Posted by: climatepatrol | February 26, 2008 3:50 AM
Deltoid doesn't seem to like too many links in one reply, so I'm splitting this into two...
climatepatrol:
Um, did anyone spot the irony in the fact that (according to the Bible) Noah predicted flooding?
And I'm not even a Christian, so this whole "Bible as evidence" thing doesn't even work on me. Massive lossage on multiple levels.
You should've just used Galileo.
It's elementary, Watson. Two words: Fred... Singer. QED.
Posted by: bi | February 26, 2008 5:26 AM
To continue...
climatepatrol:
Wait, there's more. Right after you promised you'd "focus on more or less controversal papers that seem to come from reliable sources", in your very next blog post you decided to quote CO2Science (after engage in quote-mining from a bunch of other papers).
So why should I trust that you'd keep a promise when you'd already broken the exact same promise before?
Posted by: bi | February 26, 2008 5:27 AM
Bi, since you are quoting my blog post, I kindly ask you to chose between: a) You engage in a topic based discussion in my blog where everbody can make their judgment on how seriously I take inputs from commenters there and how seriously I am in finding a reliable source, OR, if you want it to be discussed here, b) Which statement from CO2 science I used do you mean exactly?
Posted by: climatepatrol | February 26, 2008 6:24 AM
Just for the records:
I agree with you. Co2 is not a paper - and their quotes have to be used with much caution. Loehle even needed to correct their misinterpretations.Posted by: climatepatrol | February 26, 2008 6:55 AM
"Wheather or not Exxon funds some of their favored think tanks doesn't tell us anything about the truth behind the whole issue."
True, but if Exxon continues the funding after stating they're going to stop,it tells you something about their honesty.
Posted by: Ian Gould | February 26, 2008 7:33 AM
climatepatrol writes:
[[AGW is not a leftist plot, it is part of a most comprehensive globalization plot.]]
It's not any kind of plot at all. It's really happening.
Posted by: Barton Paul Levenson | February 26, 2008 7:42 AM
35:
I appreciate that climatepatrol took the time to clarify what kind of conspiracy theorist he is. Kudos.
Posted by: Boris | February 26, 2008 8:26 AM
@Barton Sure, warming is happening on a long-term global scale with an increasing anthropogenic part in it (still hidden in the natural variability noise). No doubt about that. But cap and trade is part of the plot. Clinton, Barack, McCain - they all favor it. Only Ron Paul is save. Huckabee? I am not sure. - Carbon-666-trade, you see? World power - world currency - big money - EU - Nafta-->NAU (bye U.S.A.) - -->ASEAN, U.N. for the rest of the world. Next step: U.N.-->World Parliament, De Hague ---> World Court, World Council of churches ---> World Gaia Religion. It is all happening right now. Influencal - "environmently friendly people" which I'd better not name here, have already their share in the new surge. Million Dollar salaries paid for carbon trade specialists and hedge fund managers in London. There is no compare with this little exxposed charity as discussed here. "All we need is the right major crisis," David Rockefeller.
@Boris You are welcome, Boris.
Posted by: climatepatrol | February 26, 2008 9:10 AM
climatepatrol:
As seen from totally evidence-based studies of the Great Seal of the United States:"ANNUIT CŒPTIS", which means "your anus is grass"; and
"NOVUS ORDO SECLORUM", which means "we own your scrotum"
And climatepatrol will save us all from the Great Gaia Plot with his gratuitous quote-minings and writings auf Deutsch. Alex Jones, you've met your match!
Posted by: bi | February 26, 2008 10:00 AM
climatepatrol posts:
[[Sure, warming is happening on a long-term global scale with an increasing anthropogenic part in it (still hidden in the natural variability noise). ]]
It's not hidden. It's been quite clear for the past 30 years.
[[No doubt about that. But cap and trade is part of the plot. Clinton, Barack, McCain - they all favor it. Only Ron Paul is save. Huckabee? I am not sure. - Carbon-666-trade, you see? ]]
Well, no, I don't see.
If you want to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, putting a cap on them is a logical first step. The trading permits companies to select the best way they want to go about it. A similar scheme was put in place in the 1980s by the first President Bush to control sulfur emissions and acid rain. It worked. I live in Pennsylvania; you can see the trees growing back along the interstates now. Cap-and-trade is a good mechanism because it harnesses market forces to achieve a common good. What's the alternative? Direct regulation is inefficient and costly. Nobody wants a carbon tax. And doing nothing is the worst course of action we could take. There are big costs to doing nothing.
Posted by: Barton Paul Levenson | February 26, 2008 10:41 AM
Those who failed to click the first link in their eagerness to dispute its contents should read it: http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/environmental_law/2008/02/exxonmobil-de-1.html#more
Posted by: Hank Roberts | February 26, 2008 4:54 PM
Well, it is allowed to ask questions of the natural component of the warming of the past years, since it represents an upswing after a period of rather cooling, an upswing that is within the variety of upswings since the Little Ice Age.
The question is whether a worldwide crisis is so big as to justify the Nations to give up part of their sovereignity to establish a world-wide currency and to give the steering power to a small elite worldwide. I am willing to pay more taxes on gasoline and heating, provided the money stays in the country for the reserach and development of alternative energy sources. But I would not like to strengthen the authority of the Worldbank, the IMF, the Carbon Exchange Bank, the EU, the United Nations. s What did The Guardian come up with? (Thanks Hank Roberts)
Well, I don't believe in that 90% for a warming of 1.5 to 5.8C by 2100 depending on emissions. This cannot be mathematically correct. It assumes there is no God and no more natural availability in the Universe. Sorry but sometimes common sense can tell us that 'academic sense' has flaws...
Well, let's see what Exxon Mobile claims now:
Over the years the company has supported major projects at such institutions as the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Stanford University, the Australian Bureau of Agricultural Resource Economics, Batelle Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Princeton University, Charles River Associates, the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction, the International Energy Agency Greenhouse Gas R & D Programme, Yale University, The University of Texas, Carnegie Mellon University, and the Lamont Doherty Earth Observatory at Columbia University. Brookings Institution, the American Enterprise Institute, the Council on Foreign Relations and the Center for Strategic and International Studies, Global Climate and Energy Project (GCEP) at Stanford University, Partnering with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Partnering with the European Commission to study Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS).
I wonder why all the above institutions accepted money from ExxonMobile?
Posted by: climatepatrol | February 27, 2008 5:13 AM
@Barton Paul Levenson
Btw I read the joint statement of the Academies of Sciences. It has a political side. Having read more carefully the page of the "Law professors blog", I want to be more precise in my questioning: Why should I trust into the 90% confidence interval for future temperature projections based on human actions when the anthropogenic share in the past warming is not specified more precisely by the IPCC than "most" of the warming?
I'd rather believe in reports claiming that the danger of clobal cooling (with all its energy and nutrition problems involved) in the case of two 'dalton or maunder minimum like' weak solar cycles could overpower the (in that case positive) effects of AGW during the coming decades.
BTW Exxon (more clever than in the past when they almost ruined the U.S. automobile industry with their stubbornness) plays the Malaria card now. :-)
Posted by: climatepatrol | February 27, 2008 6:01 AM
climatepatrol:
Is there supposed to be a coherent argument here?
Posted by: bi | February 27, 2008 6:14 AM
@bi
That is a valid question indeed. (Oops. Natural VARIAbility I mean.). Here is my coherent argument: I wonder if this analysis is also Exxon funded.
Posted by: climatepatrol | February 27, 2008 6:46 AM
I don't know. But it quotes Christy, who is.
RealClimate has already written about the "paper", by the way.
Posted by: bi | February 27, 2008 7:25 AM
The tone of this thread is that deniers are being bought by oil. The list for Exxon shows funding of around 6.5 US dollars to a hundred or so organisation. Some like Women in Government and the John Hopkins University are not obviously just the mouthpiece for oil.
When you see X recieved, Y dollars, you also have to see if Y dollars is a signifcant part of the income for Y. Even then you have be careful about jumping to conclusions.
Posted by: sean egan | February 27, 2008 2:53 PM
The tone of this thread is that deniers are being bought by oil. The list for Exxon shows funding of around 6.5 US dollars to a hundred or so organisation.
Tim is complaining about Exxon not doing what they claim they are doing. (or actually claim that they stopped doing, while continue doing)
talking about the funding, i agree. but you can add in some other "big bullshit" questions: are the guys doing the research climate scientists? do they publish in real peer reviewed magazines? do they have a respectable reputation? did they always work for some lobby group?
CO2science is one of the worst pages on the net. plenty of people really think they do science, just because they put it in their name...
the "forecasting" paper cited by climatepatrol above fails this basic test as well..
Posted by: sod | February 27, 2008 5:29 PM
@sod
Are you as a statistician implying that the principles of econometrics have little to do with climate forcasting?
Posted by: climatepatrol | February 28, 2008 3:32 AM
Um, the RealClimate critique makes it clear that Green and Armstrong's "paper" doesn't have much to do with the "principles of econometrics".
(And even when considering econometrics, yes, climate modeling is a very different beast on econometrics, since it's based on knowledge of physical processes.)
Posted by: bi | February 28, 2008 3:48 AM
s/ on / from /
Posted by: bi | February 28, 2008 3:51 AM
sod:
And here's the billion-dollar question: Is their "scientific" work so transparently bogus that you can actually tell?
I could actually spot the σ / √(N - 1) bogosity in Douglass et al.'s International Journal of Climatology paper on my own, even before reading the RealClimate critique. I think that speaks volumes about the quality of the skeptics' "science".
Posted by: bi | February 28, 2008 4:02 AM
Posted by: climatepatrol | February 28, 2008 4:18 AM
Oops, climatepatrol's brain just exploded again. Expect him to send out coded messages about God and the Worldwide Satanic Conspiracy any minute now...
Posted by: bi | February 28, 2008 4:23 AM
"Well, I don't believe in that 90% for a warming of 1.5 to 5.8C by 2100 depending on emissions. This cannot be mathematically correct. It assumes there is no God and no more natural availability in the Universe."
So in order to be "{mathematically correct" climate modelling must take God into account?
Posted by: Ian Gould | February 28, 2008 7:31 AM
"climatepatrol":
You're right. The IPCC has assumed there is no God that could change the laws of physics at any time.
Posted by: Chris O'Neill | February 28, 2008 8:07 AM
Chris O'Neill posts:
[[You're right. The IPCC has assumed there is no God that could change the laws of physics at any time.]]
Sorry, but that's not even remotely correct. The IPCC has made no such assumption. An assumption about God's existence either way is irrelevant to the question of what the climate is actually doing. If God exists, it's entirely possible that he will miraculously intervene to stop global warming, or to do anything else that would require a miracle. But that's not something science can say anything about. Science tells you what will happen if the laws of nature are followed. It has nothing to do with events originating outside nature.
Posted by: Barton Paul Levenson | February 28, 2008 9:21 AM
Well, I'll wait and see if sod has an answer. He seems to be an expert in statistically assess the accuracy of knowledge of all interactions between present and future physical processes and their perturbations by homo economicus' interference with that system.
climatepatrol, that sentence doesn t make any sense at all. (and i still am not a "statistician")
but when you look at the question i gave you, to evaluate work on climate science, you will see how Armstrong and Co fail:
they are NOT climate scientists. (and as RC told you, they didn t ask any climate scientist either)
they do NOT publish in peer reviewed climate science magazines.
that they don t have the slightest clue on the subject, can be seen by this gem:
May 21, 1974 Scientists Ponder Why World's Climate is Changing: A Major Cooling Widely Considered to be Inevitable page 1001.
http://forecastingprinciples.com/Public_Policy/WarmAudit31.pdf
i would love to see some scientific sources for this claim!
how you can take someone seriously, who will considers scientific research worthless, when they don t cite HIS book (the definite volume on forecasting) is beyond me. but the claim that CLIMATE RESEARCHERS need help from an economics prof on the subject of FORECASTING (SIC!) is totally bizarre.
Posted by: sod | February 28, 2008 9:35 AM
@ Ian and Chris
The laws of physics and its variabilty and interactions affecting the radiation budget are not fully understood (Pacific Decadal Oscillation that changed around 1977 and again changed around 2007 (your period of spurious correlation of temperature versus CO2), the exact carbon cycle, the interaction of the various bands of solar and cosmic radiation with the atmosphere and its effects on surface temperature along with time lag, what caused LIA and could it happen again?, changing vertical temperature profile during precipitation and the cooling effect of increased precipitation, the effect of sulfate reduction of the nineties in America and Europe on aerosols and cloud formation, cloud feedback, quantification of other anthropogenic influences that are not greenhouse gas related, Or at least I don't know that the science is settled about all these questions. If it is - I don't find it in the IPCC report.
I am sorry. It doesn't add up - this 90% confidence with a range of +1.5 to +5.8C by 2100 the uncertainrty of which is claimed to depend on human policies rather than future natural variability.
Posted by: climatepatrol | February 28, 2008 9:54 AM
sod:
Oh no, not that stupid meme again...
Posted by: bi | February 28, 2008 10:13 AM
May 21, 1975"Scientists Ponder Why World's Climate is Changing; A Major Cooling Widely Considered to Be Inevitable" New York Times, Mason 1976 Time">http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,944914,00.html>Time Jun. 24, 1974 http://wizbangblog.com/content/2006/04/02/before-global-warming-there-wa.php Earth Day 1970 sciencemag">http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/194/4270/1121>sciencemag 1976¨.
That's why we need forcasting principles. Trying to draw my attention to the little flaws of other skeptics, is the worst you can do to convince me into the 90% confidence of climate forcasting scenarious by 2100. So the the accuracy of knowledge of all interactions between present physical processes influencing the present global surface temperature, as well as all future physical processes and their perturbations by homo economicus' interference with that system will give a 90% confidence that a rise in temperature of the magnitude of 1.5 - 5.8°C will happen, depending on future greenhouse emission scenarios? What about if there is a new natural cooling on its way? Is this just noise, like the 0.75°C global cooling from January 2007 through January 2008? And don't tell me this is too short notice. 30 years is also too short. it does not cover more than a cycle of Pacific Decadal Oscillation.
I would rather believe Green and Armstrong's paper - even in the case of Exxon funding. It makes perfectly sense to me although it is obvious that Green and Armstrong are biased themselves.
Posted by: climatepatrol | February 28, 2008 12:14 PM
"conspiracy of academics = army of cats"
LOL, so true. Obviously, TCO has never sat through a faculty meeting.
Posted by: Winnebago | February 28, 2008 12:51 PM
"climatepatrol":
That's right, because God keeps interfering to make it impossible to fully understand, not because of kaos or any other natural process (but what does this have to do with Exxon going back on their word?).
Posted by: Chris O'Neill | February 28, 2008 7:47 PM
"climatepatrol":
If it makes perfect sense to "climatepatrol" then I can safely assume it's nonsense.
Posted by: Chris O'Neill | February 28, 2008 8:09 PM
Chris O'Neill:
God created ExxonMobil to test our faith. Yeah, that must be it.
Posted by: bi | February 28, 2008 9:49 PM
May 21, 1975"Scientists Ponder Why World's Climate is Changing; A Major Cooling Widely Considered to Be Inevitable" New York Times,
the NYtimes is NOT a scientific source.
but the article is pretty brilliant. you never read it, did you?
oh, and you got the headline wrong. (yours is only the second one...)
Scientists Ask Why World Climate Is Changing; Major Cooling May Be Ahead By WALTER SULLIVAN
http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/ny-times-1975-05-21.pdf
Posted by: sod | February 29, 2008 1:32 AM
Hmm, does climatepatrol understand and believe in:
Posted by: John Mashey | February 29, 2008 1:52 AM
@John Mashey I do not fully understand the 4 points you mentioned but I basically believe in them because the science is settled about these basics. My questioning regards the magnitude of this greenhouse warming within the natural "noise" (as I tried to list before) and other (not global) human impacts (deforestation, black carbon, urbanization). The general (background) greenhouse effect (as I understand it) should manifest itself best in areas not affected by human interference other than greenhouse gases, which is not the case on a time scale of - say - 100 years. Sahara and Antarctica show no warming trend. Too much noise.
I would consider the 90% confidence as mentioned to be mathematically correct if we no the power of the forcasts. But this seems to be not the case. We don't know the proportion of the anthropogenic greenhouse effect in the past warming. How much less do we no its proportion in the future. The Green and Armstrong's paper may be flawed, but its main critisism regarding the IPCC process and most particularly the IPCC blank check towards GCMs is valid.
@Chris O'Neil
. It is possible that Exxon chips in laundred money here and there if they like what people are saying about climate change. I don't expect Exxon to keep their word. Their tentacles seem to be all over...Posted by: markeebiel | February 29, 2008 5:05 AM
Oops - "How much less do we KnoW its proportion in the future". Sorry the many typoes.
Posted by: markeebiel | February 29, 2008 5:10 AM
As bi has already noticed. markeebiel and climatepatrol is both me. But the internet pseudonym should read climatepatrol. Apologies.
Posted by: climatepatrol | February 29, 2008 5:23 AM
sod:
Facts are overrated, Sir.
climatepatrol:
Ah yes, the magic words "we don't know". Spoken with such indubitable doubt.(*)
It's the same old climate models are useless meme. And guess what? It's bollocks.
Can we have something that's not already debunked a hundred times over?
(*) to borrow someone else's phrase...
Posted by: bi |