Undaunted by the dismal failure of its war on science, the Australian presses on, with a piece by Dennis Jensen. Oops, that’s not the link, this is the link:

It has been an article of faith for many years that humans are gradually destroying the environment, and are specifically responsible for global warming via man-made carbon emissions. On Monday, The Australian published results of a poll showing 96 per cent of the population believes climate change is wholly or partly caused by humans.

Actually it was 80%. It doesn’t inspire confidence when the Australian can’t even report their own poll correctly.


But any detailed scrutiny of scientific data shows that the environment is quite stable. There are even suggestions the world’s temperature has decreased in recent years.

Any real climate change in the past century has been at a glacial pace (that is, the speed of a glacier that is not melting because of the globe’s supposedly soaring temperatures). Far greater periods of environmental change have been recorded in history without any human intervention. The Ice Ages, anybody?

I just want to stress that these are two successive paragraphs. I did not have to snip anything to bring them together. Jensen says the environment is “quite stable” and then he brings up the example of the Ice Ages. The Ice Ages seem to be pretty good evidence that the climate system isn’t particularly stable.

We laugh today at those who once believed the world to be flat, but see no irony in the widespread acceptance now of equally spurious claims made in the name of science, as in the climate debate.

Yes, Jensen just claimed the scientific consensus on global warming is as spurious as the flat Earth theory. (And it’s a myth that scholars believed in a flat Earth during the Dark Ages.)

Comments

  1. #1 llewelly
    July 29, 2008

    Careful Tim. They’ll bite your kneecaps off.

  2. #2 Nick
    July 29, 2008

    I recommend “The Newspaper Everything Book: How to make 150 useful objects from old newspaper” by Eisner and Weiss(Dutton-Sunrise,1975). ” At first, we were sceptical as you may be. But as we worked and experimented with newspapers…we discovered that well-designed newspaper products have durability, strength and aesthetic appeal.” Clearly, there is some use for Jensen’s work.

  3. #3 ChrisC
    July 29, 2008

    Wow…. Just wow…

    Of all people in the Australian Parliament , Jensen, having worked as a research scientist with a PhD in physics, should know better than to make stupid claims like “Far greater periods of environmental change have been recorded in history without any human intervention. The Ice Ages, anybody?” as though the existance ice ages somehow:
    1) have been completely missed by climatologists;
    2) argues against AGW;
    3) have not been properly understood in the context of decreasing TSI forcing as a result of orbital variations (with, I might add, a strong secondary role played by CO2 feedback loops, such as increased uptake of atmospheric CO2 by oceans as in response to cooling).

    The stupid, it burns white hot. This is bad, even for the Oz.

  4. #4 MarkG
    July 29, 2008

    Yeah, depressingly stupid comments. Not because they’re printed in Australia’s Only National Newspaper, but because Jensen clearly has the background to read the science and understand it beyond a Rush Limbaugh level.

    Dr Jensen: Good luck with selling your soul to get conservative brownie points in The Australian. I hope that works out well for you.

  5. #5 charlesH
    July 29, 2008

    It seems to me that if one really believes co2 is harmful then more nuclear is the realistic alternative. Nations are not going to give up low cost 24/7 energy.

    thorium is the green nuclear
    http://www.energyfromthorium.com/

    http://www.forbes.com/opinions/forbes/2008/0811/094.html

    “A number of influential people in Russia, China, India, Indonesia and Vietnam say the planet is now entering a 30-year cooling period, the second half of a normal cycle driven by cyclical changes in the sun’s output and currents in the Pacific Ocean. Their theory leaves true believers in carbon catastrophe livid.

    To judge by actions, not words, the carbon-warming view hasn’t come close to persuading a political majority even in nations considered far more environmentally enlightened than China and India. Europe’s coal consumption is rising, not falling, and the Continent won’t come close to meeting the Kyoto targets for carbon reduction. Australia is selling coal to all comers.”

  6. #6 arby
    July 29, 2008

    argh. rb

  7. #7 WotWot
    July 29, 2008

    Dr Jensen: Good luck with selling your soul to get conservative brownie points in The Australian. I hope that works out well for you.

    Jensen is an interesting case study in how philosophical and political beliefs can override technical training and competence. Just goes to prove that a PhD is no guarantee of anything.

    A number of influential people in Russia, China, India, Indonesia and Vietnam say the planet is now entering a 30-year cooling period, the second half of a normal cycle driven by cyclical changes in the sun’s output and currents in the Pacific Ocean. Their theory leaves true believers in carbon catastrophe livid.

    At the wilful stupidity of the authors of such articles. The sun’s overall output has not fundamentally changed in at least 30 years, and this lack of change does not correlate with changes in global temps, so how can it possibly be responsible for the global warming trend over that same period?

    And did you wonder why the author did not name some of these ‘influential people’? Might it be because either a) they do not exist, or b) they are not climate scientists?

  8. #8 Chris O'Neill
    July 29, 2008

    Jensen, having worked as a research scientist with a PhD in physics, should know better

    Jensen does not have a PhD in Physics going by the title and school of his PhD thesis:

    “Duplex Toughening of Zirconia-Based Ternary Alloys”, Department of Materials Engineering.

    Jensen is a metallurgist and hasn’t even done as much physics as a lowly electrical engineering graduate. Normally you wouldn’t get to be called a physicist unless you’ve done more than a physics major in final year. I’m not a physicist but at least I’ve done more physics than Jensen.

    Jensen is a fraud and is trying to help make the Australian Liberal party a fraud. I love ironbar, BTW.

  9. #9 bi -- IJI
    July 29, 2008

    > And did you wonder why the author did not name some of these ‘influential people’?

    It’s a consp– *zot*

    > It seems to me that if one really believes co2 is harmful then more nuclear is the realistic alternative.

    Well, as always, the problem isn’t global warming, it’s that the solution doesn’t involve multi-zillion-dollar mega-gizmos.

    And by the way, when it comes to building such mega-gizmos, any amount of government intervention is perfectly OK. As long as it drives out the Phantom Soviet Empire.

  10. #10 Chris O'Neill
    July 29, 2008

    Sorry, I was a bit careless with my links.

    Jensen does not have a PhD in Physics going by the title and school of his PhD thesis:

    “Duplex Toughening of Zirconia-Based Ternary Alloys”, Department of Materials Engineering.

    Jensen is a metallurgist and hasn’t even done as much physics as a lowly electrical engineering graduate. Normally you wouldn’t get to be called a physicist unless you’ve done more than a physics major in final year. I’m not a physicist but at least I’ve done more physics than Jensen.

    Jensen is a fraud and is trying to help make the Australian Liberal party a fraud. I love ironbar, BTW.

  11. #11 ChrisC
    July 30, 2008

    Well, I stand corrected regarding Jensen’s PhD topic, but, as an engineer by training (although I’ve sorta swaped fields now) who spent a few years working in and amongst metalugists, I feel my point still stands. Jensen should know better.

    His arguments are more akin to Andrew Bolt or Tim Blair esq grasping at straws rather than something put forward by a knowlegable scientist. The world is moving on, and with the likes of Jensen, Iron-bar, Heffo and Dana “we’re aborting ourselves to extinctio” Vale on board, the Libs risk being left behind, or being dragged kicking and screaming into the present.

  12. #12 ChrisC
    July 30, 2008

    Oopps… “in” should be replaced with “with” above. I really need to learn how to use the preview function.

  13. #13 Bernard J.
    July 30, 2008

    WotWot notes:

    Jensen is an interesting case study in how philosophical and political beliefs can override technical training and competence. Just goes to prove that a PhD is no guarantee of anything.

    Another case is the embarrassing excuse for a biologist, our old mate Jen. She’s at it again, and just when I thoght that her roll-call of howlers for threads this month couldn’t get any worse she squeezed this one, Join the Bloggers: Check the Temperature Data, in at the end.

    For starters, have a look at the red trendline in her first graph.

    As I said, an embarrassment to biology, and to PhD level science in general…

  14. #14 WotWot
    July 30, 2008

    For starters, have a look at the red trendline in her first graph.
    As I said, an embarrassment to biology, and to PhD level science in general…
    Bernard J.

    Wow, that is a serious howler, notice how that red line trend just blindly walks straight through the 2005 peak, as if it did not exist.

    Not to mention in the next graph (from Hansen) she indulges yet again the fraudulent trick of using the extreme El Nino 1998 starting point.

    And, of course, still gives herself plenty of wiggle room by saying that of course temps could start rising again.

    This sloppiness would fail first year uni science, nay, year 10 high school.

  15. #15 Barton Paul Levenson
    July 30, 2008

    Charles H posts:

    It seems to me that if one really believes co2 is harmful then more nuclear is the realistic alternative. Nations are not going to give up low cost 24/7 energy.

    thorium is the green nuclear http://www.energyfromthorium.com/

    http://www.forbes.com/opinions/forbes/2008/0811/094.html

    “A number of influential people in Russia, China, India, Indonesia and Vietnam say the planet is now entering a 30-year cooling period, the second half of a normal cycle driven by cyclical changes in the sun’s output and currents in the Pacific Ocean. Their theory leaves true believers in carbon catastrophe livid.

    1. This identical post was also posted to RealClimate. I was just there and saw it. Charles H. is a spammer.

    2. Renewables are more realistic than nuclear for cutting CO2 emissions. Wind is already cost-competitive, solar is getting there. And both can be deployed far faster than nuclear plants.

    3. The unnamed “influential people” have come up with a theory that seems to ignore a big, glaring fact — that solar output has been remarkably stable for the past 50 years.

    Judith Lean’s TSI figures

  16. #16 Dano
    July 30, 2008

    BPL:

    That comment was also somewhere else that I’ve forgotten & I chuckled about how the spammer must be purposely vague in order to have an argument. Didn’t know at the time it was spam, but it was easy to tell it was templated.

    Best,

    D

  17. #17 bi -- IJI
    July 30, 2008

    While we’re on the subject of spam, I’d like to spam about another piece of stupid from Luboš Motl, as well as a proposal for a petition by yours truly.

    (Sorry, the open thread just went off the front page…)

  18. #18 Lloyd
    July 30, 2008

    Akerman in this morning’s Tele is a pearler.
    http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/piersakerman/

    “Singer and a team of renowned international scientists earlier this year published a report titled “Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate”, under the banner of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (N).

    It should be mandatory reading for all who wish to participate in the climate debate – be they policymakers, private individuals or representatives of business organisations.

    After rigorously examining the same data as the IPCC, particularly the claim that “most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely (defined by the IPCC as between 90 to 99 per cent certain) due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations,” (emphasis in the original), and reached the opposite conclusion – namely, that natural causes are very likely to be the dominant cause.

    Unlike the hysterical IPCC report, which was riddled with errors and mis-statements, ignored available scientific data, and has already been contradicted in several major areas by more recent research, the N authors don’t say that anthropogenic greenhouse gases cannot produce some warming, but they do say that the evidence shows that they are not playing a major role.

    This report – so far unchallenged”

    Not one to understate the case he concludes that ‘policy made by panicky politicians is generally worthless, in this case it would not only cost millions of Australians their jobs, it would collapse the economy and steal the future from our children’

    Extraordinary they pay this man to write….I want his gig!

  19. #19 ChrisC
    July 30, 2008

    Man…I wish I could have Akerman and Jensen’s gig. These days, whenever I write a report for work, pretty much every statement other than the bleeding obvious needs to be backed up by research, my own or someone elses.

    These guys seem to be able to write whatever they want. Just make shit up. I’m getting sick of rigour and ethics…want Piers’ job

  20. #20 mikesmith
    July 30, 2008

    Re: Llyod…

    Anything to sell papers, even if it is completely wrong. Ironically, the more the media write lies about anthropogenic climate change, the slower humanity will response. The global economy will then most likely collapse (due to perfect storm that is climate change, peak oil, etc) and then less papers will be purchased in the future.

  21. #21 James Haughton
    July 30, 2008

    What was particularly amusing was that his blog appears under a banner proudly proclaiming that News Limited is about to become certified carbon neutral.
    I left a comment calling on Piers to resign in protest, but somehow I doubt that will happen. Still, if anyone would care to second the suggestion…

  22. #22 bi -- IJI
    July 31, 2008

    Lloyd: As far as I can tell, the “NIPCC” is composed of one man, S. Fred Singer. :)

    James Haughton: I think Piers can resign and then claim that he was pushed, and then there’ll be more grist for the conspiracy mill…

  23. #23 climatepatrol
    July 31, 2008

    I found the original context of this flat earther piece:

    There is another piece of evidence that runs counter to the global warmers’ view. The major scare issue with global warming is that of melting polar caps, particularly the Antarctic ice cap. All models for global warming have the maximum increase in temperature occurring at the poles, for good reason: the absorption of heat by greenhouse gases occurs predominantly at temperatures that are common at the polar regions. So, given this, maximum heating should be observed at the polar regions. The problem for the global warmers is that this is not happening. Of more than 10 measurement stations in Antarctica, only one, on the Ross Ice Shelf, shows the warming trend. The rest exhibit no such heating. There is much other data pointing to the fallacy of the global warming scare campaign. Despite this, the global warmers want us to not only bet our economy but, more likely, significantly damage our economy on a theory that will probably go the way of the flat earth theory: restricted to a few adherents who have become totally divorced from reality.

    Dennis Jensen MP, First speech to parliament, 2004.

    Well, the flat earthers were a sect, they are a sect and may be will be… It doesn’t matter whether Al Gore calls those who doubt a catastrophic effect of human induced greenhouse gases on the climate “flat earthers” or Dennis Jensen predicts a future AGW society to be like the flat earther society.

    I think the point that Dr. Jensen makes is that the AGW research program has reached the level of a religion where it is hard to kill any wrong conclusions with new facts, such as better understood natural influences on the climate.

    For this reason, I wouldn’t be surprised if for instance this hypothesis will not pass any peer review.

  24. #24 bi -- IJI
    July 31, 2008

    climatepatrol: unless by “original context” you mean “totally different piece”… no, that’s not the “original context”.

    > I think the point that Dr. Jensen makes

    Yeah, the ‘facts’ suck, but the conclusion still rocks! Typical inactivist logic. It should be obvious by now who are the true ‘religious zealots’ — as if it’s not obvious already.

    (But of course, there’s always the good old mantra: The Alarmists Are Just As Bad… The Alarmists Are Just As Bad… The Alarmists Are Just As Bad… Om… Om… Om…)

  25. #25 dhogaza
    July 31, 2008

    Climate Patrol might be more credible if he, and his sources, understood that warming on the Antarctic Continent has not been predicted to rise as rapidly as at the polar ice cap.

    When observations meet *actual* predictions, it’s hard to say they refute the predictions.

    In order to claim refutation, you have to MAKE SHIT UP, like “climate science predicts both poles will warm equally” or somesuch.

    Climate Patrol might spend some time considering whether or not he should build his case on outright lies or not.

    Oh, and measurements from the majority of the 16 or so stations in the Antarctic do show warming, not necessarily statistically significant, which technically puts CP’s source in the “misleading” but “not exactly wrong” since the “trend” word was used.

    But observations are not inconsistent with observed global warming and predictions regarding slower warming in the Antarctic. That’s an outright lie by CP’s source.

  26. #26 dhogaza
    July 31, 2008

    For this reason, I wouldn’t be surprised if for instance this hypothesis will not pass any peer review.

    No one else will be surprised, either, but not for the reason you think.

    Sometimes junk science really IS junk science. The right-wing credentials of the Lavoirier society regardless.

  27. #27 climatepatrol
    July 31, 2008

    @dhogaza, #25

    Well, is the issue about the missing GH signature in Antarctica and the missing hot spot over the tropics settled by now? I thought it wasn’t. That’s why I copied this part of Jensens’ speech. I am aware of that signatureThis signature is controversal too. But there are indeed parts in Jensen’s speech which were obviously wrong claims. That’s why I didn’t paste ‘em here. Best, CP

  28. #28 climatepatrol
    July 31, 2008

    I failed with one link. Sorry. Anyway – a very informative blog sheding at least some light is this: Forcast earth.

  29. #29 Bernard J.
    July 31, 2008

    Climatepatrol.

    After correcting your composition, it parses much more scientifically…

    I think the point that Dr. Jensen [should have] ma[de] is that the [Denialist] program has reached the level of a religion where it is hard to kill any wrong conclusions with new [or indeed with any] facts, such as better understood [human] influences on the climate.

    Oh, and for your edification, the ABC’s Four Corners is running an episode next Monday (4 August) on the melting Arctic.

    I am sure that you will have your responses already scripted, data notwithstanding…

  30. #30 bi -- IJI
    July 31, 2008

    > Well, is the issue about the missing GH signature in Antarctica and the missing hot spot over the tropics settled by now?

    Chicken chicken chicken!

    Let’s call it a draw!

  31. #31 dhogaza
    July 31, 2008

    Well, is the issue about the missing GH signature in Antarctica

    Once again, with emphasis – when a denialist *insists* we should be seeing something in Antarctica that climate scientists DO NOT PREDICT, it is not climate science that’s wrong.

    Got it? So, yes, you’ve pointed out the issue, and Jensen’s (strawman) prediction, counter to the claims of science, has not come true, as one expects with strawmen.

    Yet the fact that the majority of stations (something like 16 for the entire continent, coverage is scarce) do show warming is certainly not inconsistent with warming, is it?

    Right? Gonna argue that they should all be showing cooling if the globe is actually warming, or what?

    and the missing hot spot over the tropics settled by now? I thought it wasn’t

    1. The “missing hot spot” is not a signature for CO2-forced warming, no matter how many of your denialist heros say it is. It’s a prediction of warming NO MATTER WHAT THE CAUSE.

    2. The “missing hot spot”, as predicted given the observed warmth, isn’t a huge change and difficult to tease out from the limited datasets available that were never designed to measure such a thing, and of course the signal is noisy. Real Climate had a couple of inline links indicating the picture’s becoming clearer, though – and that it’s inline with predictions.

  32. #32 Chris O'Neill
    July 31, 2008

    All models for global warming have the maximum increase in temperature occurring at the poles,

    The north pole actually.

    for good reason: the absorption of heat by greenhouse gases occurs predominantly at temperatures that are common at the polar regions.

    What garbage. The main reason there is an amplification effect near the poles is because of feedback from reduced snow area. It’s much easier for snow area to reduce near the north pole than near the south pole. To reduce it significantly near the south pole requires the Antarctic ice-cap to melt to ground or sea level, something that’s not going to happen for a long time.

    I think the point that Dr. Jensen makes is that the AGW research program has reached the level of a religion where it is hard to kill any wrong conclusions with new facts,

    The point Jensen makes is that he believes this to be true and as evidence he provides absolute garbage. So Jensen put this crap in his first speech to parliament, did he. Gee, it must bother him real bad. What a nutcase.

  33. #33 Lloyd
    July 31, 2008

    Try googling Pier’s main ‘scientific’ source the “Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (N)” Apparently Dr S. Fred Singer and team of ‘renowned international scientists’ but the reality seems to be just Fred Singer and a wonderful organisation called the Heartland Institute publishers of that rivetting best seller “Please Don’t Poop in my Salad and other Essays Opposing the War Against Smoking”.

    Way to go Piers!

  34. #34 Dano
    July 31, 2008

    Oh, look:

    climatepatrol spamming comments again, and folk feeding troll allowing him to spam comments.

    Huh.

    [killfile], folks. [killfile].

    Life is spent with a much lower diastolic blood pressure with [killfile].

    Did I mention [killfile]?

    Best,

    D

  35. #35 climatepatrol
    August 1, 2008

    @dhagoza and Chris

    I was thinking about this when mentioning the missing GH signature. My question remains, why the GH trace gases don’t cause any warming over inland Antarctica over 100 years? Is there no water wapor feedback in sub zero temperatures? Seriously, I have wondered for some time why the dry winter air in Siberia shows significant warming and Antarctica doesn’t.

    As to the other issue, thank you but I better stick to http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/05/tropical-tropopshere-ii/>realclimate because the definition “hot spot” is bad for the blood pressure.

  36. #36 Chris O'Neill
    August 1, 2008

    All models for global warming have the maximum increase in temperature occurring at the poles,

    BTW, this implies models do not have the maximum increase in temperature occurring at the south pole. Thanks for providing a link that shows Jensen’s claim is crap, cp.

  37. #37 Phila
    August 1, 2008

    The Ice Ages, anybody?

    The Ice Ages are just a theory; they never happened. The evidence is spotty, at best. And what little there is of it is open to conflicting interpretations, as anyone who examines it honestly will concede.

    But any scientist who dares to point out these perfectly obvious facts is promptly denied grant money by the academic elite, if not drummed out of academia altogether, and thus the Ice Age Swindle continues to be presented to our children as fact.

    Fortunately, you can’t bury the truth forever, and ordinary people are starting to realize that the Emperor has no clothes.

  38. #38 Bernard J.
    August 1, 2008

    Re: #37.

    Crikey, another conspiracy theory. They pop up like mushrooms.

    I think the only spotiness here is our theorist’s grasp (or lack thereof) of evidence…

  39. #39 WotWot
    August 1, 2008

    Bernard J, #37 seems to me a parody of denialist clichés. Check the poster’s blog link to see which side of the debate they are on

  40. #40 Phila
    August 2, 2008

    Crikey, another conspiracy theory. They pop up like mushrooms.

    I was just kidding! Unfortunately, this sort of rhetoric is already so over the top that it’s impossible to parody it….

  41. #41 dhogaza
    August 2, 2008

    Seriously, I have wondered for some time why the dry winter air in Siberia shows significant warming and Antarctica doesn’t.

    I have no idea, but the only thing important regarding climate science is that models *predict* a difference.

  42. #42 Bernard J.
    August 2, 2008

    Phila.

    Mea culpa

    For impuning your parody as ‘spotty’, I am sorry. It had been a long day and a short night.

    And you are correct – trying to parody denialism these days is a herculean task, because any parody is bound to be excelled somewhere in the world by at least one serious Denialist cannard. One only needs to read some of the posts on Deltoid to demonstrate this!

    It really is becoming so that the difference between a joke and seriousness in that camp is impossible to distinguish (especially if one is exhausted and the discriminometer has flatlined!).

    What does this say about the level of discernment that the denialist crowd (do not) employ in coming up with their theories?

    Of course, my own discernment was hiding in the top paddock yesterday!

    The sad thing is, for any Denialist who pops up to say “see, Bernard shot from the hip”, it wouldn’t surprise me if there’d be a dozen others who read Phila’s post and assimilate the ‘suppressed fact’ that the Ice Ages never happened!

    I should have followed your link, but I am wary now of wandering into cesspools of paranoia, denialism and fundamentalism, so I baulked. Silly me – I had quite a lot of fun reading your pages!

    Sorry again matey – you sounded so much like some of the trolls who stumble in here.

  43. #43 climatepatrol
    August 4, 2008

    @Chris
    #36 Jensen’s ” …at the poles” was indeed wrong. In the winter air in Siberia though, there must be another reason than polar amplification driven by lost snow albedo. If you could just make sure, Obama gets the science right as he gets elected President. In his speech in Berlin, he spoke about “Arctic icecaps melting because of cars in Boston, etc”. How many icecaps are there in the Arctic??

    @dhogaza. #41
    I see. No doubt about that. Thanks.

  44. #44 sod
    August 4, 2008

    36 Jensen’s ” …at the poles” was indeed wrong. In the winter air in Siberia though, there must be another reason than polar amplification driven by lost snow albedo. If you could just make sure, Obama gets the science right as he gets elected President. In his speech in Berlin, he spoke about “Arctic icecaps melting because of cars in Boston, etc”. How many icecaps are there in the Arctic??

    climatepatrol, my advice to you is the same as always: do more READING and less posting!

    tamino has written two very good articles about temperature in the northern and the southern hemisphere.

    http://tamino.wordpress.com/2007/10/30/frozen-north/

    http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/01/17/down-under/

    in short:

    * temperature at both poles is INCREASING.

    * temperature at the north pole has increasing much FASTER than the global average.

    * the opposit is true for the south pole. (it is INCREASING slower).

    so Obama has the science right. rising temperature will lead to malting capS. for the meantime, increased snowfall might have a different effect at parts of BOTH poles….

  45. #45 sod
    August 4, 2008

    sorry, many typos again. more coffee needed…

  46. #46 WotWot
    August 4, 2008

    More crap from The Oz. Global warming is pure irrational hysteria, just like racism, historical parallels leading to Nazism, loss of personal liberties, the end of civilisation as we now it, mass slaughter of pretty kittens, and no more daffodils for anybody.

    Blah blah blah.

    You all know the routine by now.

    http://tinyurl.com/6k85c7

  47. #47 Chris O'Neill
    August 4, 2008

    cp:

    How many icecaps are there in the Arctic??

    Well I wouldn’t have thought Greenland and Ellesmere Island shared the same icecap, duh.

  48. #48 WotWot
    August 4, 2008

    A little off topic, but here is a nice exposé of a standard Andrew Bolt dishonesty on a climate change related issue.

    http://tinyurl.com/5966ww

  49. #49 climatepatrol
    August 4, 2008

    @Sod
    Thanks, but I thought you have something new to add to the discussion. You may have the last word, but please, please, look at and READ this more balanced arcticle as well.

    http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2008/antarctica.jsp . How much of the Antarctic is warming?

    And how about that:
    http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-02/osu-atd021207.php

    You see. There is so much more on the planet than Hansen’s Bulldog.

    @Chris
    Thanks. Ice caps in the Arctic is the correct use. Forgive me, English is not my mother tongue, and I just wanted to make sure it is a correct use of language, rather than ice shields. It was translated wrong into German.

  50. #50 sod
    August 4, 2008

    @Sod Thanks, but I thought you have something new to add to the discussion. You may have the last word, but please, please, look at and READ this more balanced arcticle as well.

    this is from your article:

    While the observed Antarctic temperatures rose by about 0.4 degrees Fahrenheit (0.2 degrees Celsius) over the past century,

    there is no contradiction, to what Tamino said.

    the articles you linked to talk about sonmething completely different than what Obama said. they point out problems with the models. they don t contradict the WARMING.

    and your articles mention the reasons for the problems as well. one main reason is the OZONE HOLE.
    my advice keeps the same. READING first, then writing.

  51. #51 climatepatrol
    August 5, 2008

    After Sod butting in and messing it up, here my summary, then I shut up.

    About the missing greenhouse signature from the articles I linked:

    “The best we can say right now is that the climate models are somewhat inconsistent with the evidence that we have for the last 50 years from continental Antarctica. We’re looking for a small signal that represents the impact of human activity and it is hard to find it at the moment”

    David Bromwich, Ohio State University

    co-author and NCAR scientist David Schneider adds in the newer study:

    “On a positive note, this study points out that WATER VAPOR appears to be the key cause of the problematic Antarctic temperature trends in the models, which will guide scientists as they work to improve the climate simulations.”

    Heck, 0.2° “warming”. Just chose a different time frame and you get a cooling. It is statistically insignifficant.

    Using the terminology of Jensen, and this is what this threat is all about, AGW is a spurious claim if the warming doesn’t occur in remote parts of the world such as the part inside the Antarctic Westerlies, as it should according to the unreliable models.

    With water vapor (see Antarctica) and the 2-3 fold amplification of the radiative forcing owing to mainly water vapor is the main case of AGW skeptics against the AGW church.

    The problem with Jensen is, that he sees a straw that there is something wrong with AGW projections, but when speaking of it, he doesn’t get the facts right.

    I keep studying IPCC details, much better than the summary of policy makers, that I can tell.

  52. #52 dhogaza
    August 5, 2008

    As usual, climate patrol’s own source undermines his argument.

    AGW is a spurious claim if the warming doesn’t occur in remote parts of the world such as the part inside the Antarctic Westerlies, as it should according to the unreliable models.

    Yet what does his source say?

    “The best we can say right now is that the climate models are somewhat inconsistent with the evidence that we have for the last 50 years from continental Antarctica. We’re looking for a small signal that represents the impact of human activity and it is hard to find it at the moment

    In other words, models have predicted minimal warming in continental Antarctica, and teasing out such a signal from the noise that results from natural variation is difficult.

    Therefore, in CP’s world, the models are wrong.

    It’s his own world, and he’s entitled to it, just as the real world is entitled to ignore him.

  53. #53 dhogaza
    August 5, 2008

    Actually CP’s post is incoherent …