Remember how Ian Plimer claimed that he could not recall where his dodgy figure 3? Well now he has resorting to lying about the source. In a talkback radio debate (about 4 minutes from the end) with Steven Sherwood, Plimer claimed that the graph came from page 21 of Klimafakten, a book published by the German government in 2001. That’s a straight-up lie.

The graph came from Durkin’s Great Global Warming Swindle. I’ve overlaid the graphs below so that you can see that they are identical. Just put your mouse on the graph to change it to the Swindle one. Notice that he copied the labels on the graph and the comparison to the right.

i-e1aa2fd7c048a807e77dc6592a293231-plimerfig3.png

And no it’s not possible that Klimafakten copied the graph from the Swindle, since it was published before the Swindle. Nor is it possible that both got it from the same source, since Swindle copied it from the Oregon Petition, but got the horizontal axis wrong, an error that Plimer faithfully reproduced.

And the Swindle graph was only ever included
in the initial broadcast in the UK — it wasn’t in the version shown
in Australia or released on DVD. So Plimer didn’t get it directly from the
movie. He must have got it from one of the websites that posted
screenshots of the graph. But all of those pages were criticising
Durkin for posting an incorrect graph of temperatures. Plimer knew
that the graph was wrong and decided to include it in his book anyway.

And just to remove any doubt here, in a debate with Barry Brook before Plimer’s book was published, he showed the Swindle graph and Brook told him that it was wrong, and that even Durkin had retracted it.

The best match I can find to Plimer’s claimed source is this book. It was published in 2000, not 2001 and it wasn’t published by the German government but rather edited by someone who works for the German government, but by Plimer citing standards, that’s a perfect match.

If anyone can lay their hands on a copy and check page 21 for me, I’d much appreciate it. Plimer fans should have an especially strong incentive to do this, because if I’m wrong I’ll end up with egg all over my face. But I’m not.

Update: bluegrue tracked down a copy of Klimafakten:

I have located a copy of Klimafakten by Ulrich Berner. All data of the figures are sourced in the appendix. On page 21 you find two figures. Fig 2.9 depicts Friis-Christensen and Lassen (1991), temperature and solar cycle length. Fig 2.10 is Svensmark and Friis-Christensen (1997), cosmic ray flux and global cloud cover. In chapter 11 there are several figures using smoothed GISTEMP data around page 210. All of the figures are faithful reproductions of the original data, none of them has a fudged time axis like the figures of Durkin and Plimer. Berner’s Klimafakten is definitely not the source of Plimer’s figure 3.

Thanks to Jo Abbess, I have a copy of Berner’s figure 2.9:

i-c5cf573bc234fe48162ad99243fa3d71-klimafaktenfig2.9.jpg

That’s obviously different from Plimer’s figure 3.

Comments

  1. #1 Mark Byrne
    May 21, 2009

    Greig @293

    As you know, CO2 alone cannot explain the PETM warming event, and current theory relies on the massive release of methane from the melting of sub Arctic clathrates. This requires special circumstances of ocean circulation and warming, a CO2 trigger alone cannot and does not explain the process, and there is no evidence that the special circumstances for rapid clathrate release exist now.

    Greig, perhaps you were tired when you wrote this? The PETM is an example of warming initiated by CO2 (or CO2e). It is also provides example of previous amplifying feedbacks and slow nature of previous regulatory feedbacks.

    Also, the warming occurred over a long period (10,000 years), and there is no evidence that methane emissions from clathrates can occur more rapidly.

    The warming occurred over 10,000 years, which was coincided with CO2 release over 10,000 years. We are set to release the same about of carbon in just 100 years. That is the same addition of CO2, but 100 times faster.

    Therefore the PETM does not necessarily mean that we face immediate and rapid (“dangerous”) global warming, eg over the next century. And considering the impact on humans of the return of then next ice age, then perhaps a period of warming over the next 10,000 years could be a blessing.

    Greig, it depends on the learning you take from the PETM. I’d suggest that you consider all relevant factors, what is the same, and what is different between our current CO2 release and warming, and that of the PETM. Considering all factors, it would be folly to say that because warming took 10,000 years as mean we have 10,000 years. You’d also be wise to consider the impacts we are starting to witness already.

  2. #2 Gaz
    May 21, 2009

    Greig #255: “Plimer acknowledges throughout his book that CO2 is probably but one of many factors. That is his thesis.”

    Ah baloney, Greig, it’s the thesis of every scientist who’s ever said or written anything about climate science.

    If you think it distingusishes Plimer from anyone else then you really need to educate yourself.

    I mean, seriously, even just read the summary section of the IPCC report on the scientific basis for global warming and you’ll be at least aware of how Plimer misrepresents what they are saying. Or even just browse chapter 9 (Understanding and attributing climate change).

    Here they are:

    http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf

    http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter9.pdf

    Greig #264: You say: “Your comment (‘This is well known to anyone with even a passing interest in climate science.’) shows your intellectual arrogance.”

    It is not “intellectual arrogance” to point this out. I just happen to think it would be useful to people with no knowledge of the field to know they’re being hoodwinked.

    I mean if you have read what the IPCC actually says, then listen to how Plimer represetns what they say, you will not be able to avoid being be struck by the gaps between the two.

    He is not writing it for “everyone”, as you say, he is writing it for “people who know virtually nothing about the field”.

    Presumably that’s why he felt comfortable in using such misleading graphics to support his claims.

    By the way, do you realiae how lame it sounds when you claim a graph covering 6 1/2 years tells you something meaningful about what’s happened over a 10-year period?

    Have a look at some of the graphs on this page, for example.

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/notes#wti

    Now pick a few 6 1/2 year periods at random. What do they tell you about the longer trend? Nothing? Exactly.

    Now, I don’t know whether you’re a troll deliberately trying to muddy the waters, or if you’re genuinely don’t know how uninformed you are.

    Either way, all I can say is that if you or anyone else is convinced by Plimer’s book, you should put it down, go and educate youself about the science, familiarise yourself with the data sources, then go back and read Plimer again.

    Don’t believe anyone here – see if it stands up to your own scrutiny.

  3. #3 Dan L.
    May 21, 2009

    Gaz: “Don’t believe anyone here – see if it stands up to your own scrutiny.”

    Of course, you realize his “own scrutiny” is adjusted to produce the desired result, right?

  4. #4 janet Akerman
    May 21, 2009

    Al Gore is a dirty liar.

    Gore showed the kiddies a map of Africa and South America and told them he though they would fit together.
    Then he showed the kiddies the chart of temperature and CO2 and said they look the same.

    That is a lie! They are not the same. Sure they might look the same. Sure he can hide behind the fact that he didn’t say they were the same. But he implied they were the same. HE SAID THEY LOOK THE SAME. Or that they fit well, or something. What ever, it was a Howler!

    Its dishonest to show raw data and imply it looks the same.
    It is better to show them selected parts of the data. Preferably select portions of data that don’t play into the prejudice of warmists.

    Sometimes it is necessary to relabel the axis from 1980 to 2000, but only if it faithful demonstrates a point that is known to be accurate.

    To suggest this is lying smacks of hysteria. And are you suggesting that Plimer intentionally lied on radio 2GB about his source? Get real. Plimer intended to use a chart by Friis-Christensen and Lassen, so he told the public it was from Klimafakten (a chart by Berner). How was he supposed to know that he’d actually source his chart from Durkin?

    And besides, you fairies make no difference anyway. The book is going gang busters, and who needs to check their sources when most of us can tell the truth from our gut?

    If Plimer is in anyway inaccurate this reflects more on the bias of science than anything else. The truth in Plimer’s work will be demonstrated as soon as we privatize science.

  5. #5 Dan L.
    May 21, 2009

    janet Akerman: “And besides, you fairies make no difference anyway. The book is going gang busters, and who needs to check their sources when most of us can tell the truth from our gut?”

    Gut feeling:

    Gastrointerologists have determined that the human gut contains no rational thoughts.

    What the human gut IS full of is generally well known.

  6. #6 naught101
    May 21, 2009

    Greig: What would it take to convince you that global warming is happening?

  7. #7 Greig
    May 21, 2009

    [bluegrue] ” Finally, IIRC you admitted, Greig, that Plimer’s book is the first time that you read up on climate and the book is more or less your entire source of knowledge. ”

    I have been studying the issue of climate change for 20 years (although I am not a professional in the field) and I am tertiary qualified in a scientific field. I have read dozens of books on the subject, of various slants.

    [Mark Byrne] “The warming occurred over 10,000 years, which was coincided with CO2 release over 10,000 years. We are set to release the same about of carbon in just 100 years. That is the same addition of CO2, but 100 times faster.”

    Mark, as you well know, CO2 does not alone explain the PETM observation. CO2 is regarded as a trigger only. It requires the release of clathrates, and several other factors regarding ocean mixing and circulation. And it was the clathrates (methane) that took 10,000 year to release, and only through a somewhat remarkable venting process.

    You are ASSUMING that simply because we are releasing CO2 faster, means that the whole PETM-like warming will occur faster. That is a huge and unwarranted assumption on your part which is not proven by the evidence. And I note, this is the same error that Gore makes in his presentation of the Vostock graph.

    It is tiresome being lectured to by someone who can make such a basic scientific error.

    [Gaz] “I mean if you have read what the IPCC actually says, then listen to how Plimer represetns what they say, you will not be able to avoid being be struck by the gaps between the two.”

    I am also struck by the gaps between the IPCC peer-reviewed submission papers, and what appears in the Assessment reports and Summary for Policymakers. And I note Plimer spends some time on pointing out the differences (ie the “missing science” he refers to in the title.) as well as the reasons why the gaps exist.

    [naught101] Greig: What would it take to convince you that global warming is happening?

    From # 297: For the record, I am quite convinced that the basic science of climate change demonstrates that CO2 is implicated in observed global warming, but that more work needs to be done to determine what is going to happen as CO2 rises to 550 ppm and beyond. The science is not settled. I am not convinced that it will result in catastrophe, and that is the extent of my scepticism.

    Finally, I am quite aware that a 10 year period is not as good as a 30 year period in exposing a trend, so please do not try to explain that again (methinks the lady doth protest too much). I am just saying it is interesting data and agree with Plimer that it demonstrates the OBVIOUS and uncontested case that there are factors other than CO2 at work. Nothing more. OK?

  8. #8 Dirk Hartog
    May 21, 2009

    It seems to be that this thread has more than the usual amount of noise. While “Janet Akerman”, “Sally Johnson”, “Jamana”, etc, may be engaged in parody, their humor falls rather flat. They should head over to http://denialdepot.blogspot.com/ where they can have endless fun.

    Killfiles aren’t the answer.

    Here is a proposal: how about using a different text color for posts from identified trolls? I’m thinking various shades of gray, all the way to white. Sensible moderators could be given a button to click, and all posts (or, optionally, just the clicked post) from the troll would be grayed out.

  9. #9 John Mashey
    May 22, 2009

    re: #308 Dick Hartog

    1) Killfiles are *part* of the answer, because they help each reader make their own decisions beyond those of the moderator. They just don’t work anywhere near as well as they did in the good old USENET days, 20+ years ago.

    2) I’ve suggested elsewhere that a good feature would be that each thread could have “shadow thread”, to which any given post could be sent, with crosslinks. Then a reader could read the main thread and ignore the rest if they like. This is akin to TIm’s use of a “Tim Curtin” prison thread on occasion.

    I think it is very likely that many posts are intended to:

    a) Confuse the unwary, but failing that

    b) Fill up the thread with so much junk, that the Signal-noise ratio gets so low that nobody can stand to read it, thus burying useful commentary. Sometimes, just writing nonsense and insulting people is sufficient to get *other* people to fill a thread.

    Some people are subtle at this, some not so subtle.

    A really *good* discussion is one in which:

    a) One starts with a confusing situation, with multiple viewpoints.

    b) Serious, civil arguments are made, and either the viewpoints converge somewhere and people learn new information OR

    perhaps there is still disagreement, but the positions are sharpened, and at least people agree on what they agree on, agree on what the disagree on, and agree on what is still unclear.

    c) The best of all is when someone presents a view that changes my mind on a topic, especially if it’s one I actually had a serious opinion on.

    Unfortunately, some people are complexifiers, or confusion-amplifiers, either naturally or on purpose. They are way more time-wasting than people with strong opinions, but who at least seek clarity and closure. They tend to take meetings into side-tracks, love bureaucracy, and generally dissipate energy. Programmers of this sort generate over-complex solutions and unmaintainable code.

    All this applies to blog threads as well.

  10. #10 Richard Simons
    May 22, 2009

    bluegrue, Richard Simons, Gaz et al: think… what do the surnames Akerman, Blair and Albrechtsen and the forenames Janet, Piers and Tim have in common?

    I have to admit, I have no idea what they have in common. I’m afraid you’ll have to explain.

  11. #11 Mark Byrne
    May 22, 2009

    Greig @ 307

    Mark, as you well know, CO2 does not alone explain the PETM observation. CO2 is regarded as a trigger only. It requires the release of clathrates, and several other factors regarding ocean mixing and circulation. And it was the clathrates (methane) that took 10,000 year to release, and only through a somewhat remarkable venting process.

    Grieg , the clathrates are methane clathrates. The methane is part of the CO2e , about which the Enhance greenhouse effect is concerned. It was the CO2e that took 10,000 years to release.

    You are ASSUMING that simply because we are releasing CO2 faster, means that the whole PETM-like warming will occur faster. That is a huge and unwarranted assumption on your part which is not proven by the evidence. And I note, this is the same error that Gore makes in his presentation of the Vostock graph.

    I’m afraid you’ve failed to show the logical flaw. You’ve simply asserted a baseless opinion. Here is the logic you need to address: faster release of CO2e leads to faster rise in CO2e concentrations. In turn, leading to faster warming.

    It is tiresome being lectured to by someone who can make such a basic scientific error.

    This, well, I just wanted to emphasis that you said it.

  12. #12 nauhgt101
    May 22, 2009

    “I am just saying it is interesting data and agree with Plimer that it demonstrates the OBVIOUS and uncontested case that there are factors other than CO2 at work.”

    Yes and no. It does demonstrate that there a many factors that influence noise levels. It demonstrates nothing about the factors influencing climate trends, because the 8/11 year downward trend does not have any associated changes in forcings to explain it. Ergo, it’s just noise. (unless it’s the trough in TSI, in which case the shit is about to hit the fan).

  13. #13 Mark Byrne
    May 22, 2009

    Hi Richard,

    Cut and past the names into google, you’ll probabily find the connection quickly. They are all Murdoch opinion writers.
    (Austrlian)

  14. #14 Mark Byrne
    May 22, 2009

    Greig @307

    I am just saying it is interesting data and agree with Plimer that it demonstrates the OBVIOUS and uncontested case that there are factors other than CO2 at work. Nothing more. OK?

    Is Grieg the fastest post shifter in the west?

    I’ve been running a wee thread of discussion with Grieg for a while here. I’ve found he jumps from one claim to the next, changing positions all over the place. Just check back through your threads and notice how when you privide Grieg with information to correct one of his claims, he acts as though the issue was something else.

    Now Greig seems to have come to the claim, that he is only saying CO2 is not the factor at work. That is Plimeresque, acting as though anyone says CO2 is the only factor.

  15. #15 Greig
    May 22, 2009

    [Posted by: nauhgt101] “the 8/11 year downward trend …”

    Ahem, did you say TREND?

    “…does not have any associated changes in forcings to explain it. Ergo, it’s just noise. ”

    Or it could be that we are seeing a combination of a negative feedback from water vapour/clouds and/or ocean circulation/mixing phenomenon, which are not noise, but actually critical impacts on climate change that overwhelm CO2 forcing.

    Although, of course we will have to wait 20 years before we should be bothered asking questions, and keep our minds firmly shut, because 10 years is not enough observation to represent a trend. :(

  16. #16 Greig
    May 22, 2009

    [Posted by: nauhgt101] “the 8/11 year downward trend …”

    Ahem, did you say TREND?

    “…does not have any associated changes in forcings to explain it. Ergo, it’s just noise. ”

    Or it could be that we are seeing a combination of a negative feedback from water vapour/clouds and/or ocean circulation/mixing phenomenon, which are not noise, but actually critical impacts on climate change that overwhelm CO2 forcing.

    Although, of course we will have to wait 20 years before we should be bothered asking questions, and keep our minds firmly shut, because 10 years is not enough observation to represent a trend. :(

  17. #17 Janet Akerman
    May 22, 2009

    Bluegrue,
    If you need a second opinion about Greig’s statement, I can vouch for him

    I have been studying the issue of climate change for 20 years (although I am not a professional in the field) and I am tertiary qualified in a scientific field. I have read dozens of books on the subject, of various slants.

    Like Grieg, I have been studying the issue of climate change for 20 years. I heard about it in 1988 and have heard more and more since.

    I am also tertiary qualified in a scientific field, though as you might guess I never worked as a scientific field.

    I have read dozens of books on the subject. At least it feels like dozens. Or to be truthful, I’ve felt a dozen books (read all their titles). I was waiting for the right one to come along. Now I have it!

  18. #18 naught101
    May 22, 2009

    Greig: TREND. Yes. the 8/11 year TREND. Which happens to be statistically insignificant.

    “Negative feedback”: Greig, a negative feedback doesn’t happen by itself. A feedback is always a response to some other factor. And if that factor contines to get stronger, a negative feedback will usually get stronger too.

    Think about it like this: a pendulum is dropped from a small height, as it swings, a friction force, acting as a negative feedback, will slow it down. If you start putting a force on the pendulum to speed it up, it will swing higher, and move faster. The friction force (negative feedback) will also increase, but not enough to compensate, until you stop the force on the pendulum. For any given external force, there will be a set equilibrium where the force matches the friction, and the oscillations will not get longer or shorter.

    Negative climate feedbacks can not “overwhelm CO2 forcing” – they can only help define the new equilibrium. That’s why clouds an ocean circulation are not considered forcings.

  19. #19 bi -- IJI
    May 22, 2009

    Shorter Greig:

    A strong upward trend in temperatures in the last 30 years doesn’t prove global warming.

    However, a statistically insignificant upward trend in temperatures in the last 10 years does prove global cooling.

    If you dispute this, then you’re being closed-minded.

  20. #20 bluegrue
    May 22, 2009

    Richard,
    I fell for Janet Akerman hook, line and sinker, as I lacked the necessary cultural background. Here are the people the names were taken from: [Janet Albrechtsen](http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/janetalbrechtsen/), [Tim Blair](http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/timblair/) and [Piers Akerman](http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/piersakerman/). They are conservative Australian journalists with vocal denialist stance. I’ve had to google these names myself to understand it. Dear Aussies, please play nice with us Non-Aussies.

    I have to agree with John Mashey, the flood of satire entries seriously degrades the usefulness of this blog. As much fun as it may be to the writers, the signal to noise ratio has gone pretty low. Could you please tone it down a bit. TIA.

  21. #21 bluegrue
    May 22, 2009

    [Greig]
    >>[bluegrue] ” Finally, IIRC you admitted, Greig, that Plimer’s book is the first time that you read up on climate and the book is more or less your entire source of knowledge. ”

    >I have been studying the issue of climate change for 20 years (although I am not a professional in the field) and I am tertiary qualified in a scientific field. I have read dozens of books on the subject, of various slants.

    OK, I seem to have misremembered and because of my misconception, I had cut you some slack so far – undeservedly so, as it seems.

    Please answer me these:
    1. What is your range for climate sensitivity on doubling of CO2. You have so far danced around providing hard numbers in your arguments, using qualitative statements only (like e.g. with regard to the ups and downs in fig. 3.). Mine is the IPCC’s: likely range 2°C to 4.5°C, best value 3°C. What’s yours?
    2. Do you agree, that figure 3 in itself, as printed in Plimer’s book, is doctored and that the deliberate inclusion of such a plot would constitute scientific misconduct? And don’t give me your bizarre rationalization, that Plimer actually wanted to use Friis-Christensen/Lassen as figure 3.

  22. #22 Greig
    May 22, 2009

    [Steve Chamberlain | May 21, 2009 6:33 AM]

    According to http://www.atse.org.au/index.php?sectionid=555

    Wind power has a current capacity of 950 MW, which at a capacity factor of .4, means it produced less than 1% of the electricity in Australia. Solar power, less than 0.1%. Lets say solar+ wind = 1% of the total MWh produced. Coal accounts for about 90% of the MWh produced. So if solar and wind get 6.7% of the subsidies pa that coal get, then on a /MWh basis, they are getting about 6 times the subsidies that coal gets.

    Solar and wind get 6 TIMES the subsidies offered to coal.

    Myth Busted.

  23. #23 Dirk Hartog
    May 22, 2009

    Re #309 John Mashey

    Killfiles may work for the 0.1% of people who have set them up.

    I’m concerned about Joe Sixpack who comes to read this blog, and finds some threads full of noise. If trolls were in a light shade of gray, Joe could skip past them in the certain knowledge that he wouldn’t be missing anything.

    All it takes is one button on each post, and a login system for moderators (or perhaps we can just rely on Tim’s good judgment). Click the button, and Sally Johnson’s deranged nonsense will almost disappear into the background. A 6-point font would help too.

  24. #24 bi -- IJI
    May 22, 2009

    Shorter Greig:

    If solar and wind power are not cheap, then we should pretend that global warming isn’t a problem.

  25. #25 Greig
    May 22, 2009

    [#319: bi -- IJI | May 22, 2009 3:49 AM]

    “A strong upward trend in temperatures in the last 30 years doesn’t prove global warming.
    However, a statistically insignificant upward trend in temperatures in the last 10 years does prove global cooling. If you dispute this, then you’re being closed-minded.”

    Classic strawman.

    I have never suggested, nor do I believe, that there is not a statistically significant upward trend in global temperatures for the 20th century. What is more, evidence suggests that CO2 is implicated.

    However the “trend” from 1940 to 1976 and from 2000 to present holds information too. Ignore it at your peril.

  26. #26 bi -- IJI
    May 22, 2009

    Shorter Greig:

    I don’t deny that there was a strong warming trend in the last 30 years caused by CO2. However, the strong cooling trend from 1940–1970 suggests we should ask questions and ignore any answers given. (Aerosols? Nyah nyah nyah!) Ergo, we should do nothing about global warming.

  27. #27 Greig
    May 22, 2009

    [Posted by: bluegrue | May 22, 2009 4:09 AM]

    “1. What is your range for climate sensitivity on doubling of CO2. You have so far danced around providing hard numbers in your arguments, using qualitative statements only (like e.g. with regard to the ups and downs in fig. 3.). Mine is the IPCC’s: likely range 2°C to 4.5°C, best value 3°C. What’s yours? ”

    Good question, I am a sucker for quantification.

    I completely agree that the current IPCC documentation lead to the above figures. And I agree with them, assuming the current models are restricted to excluding advanced cloud theory, evaporative cooling effects, ocean circulation and mixing, and cyclical trans oceanic air pressure variation.

    I believe that if you include the above factors they introduce negative feedbacks that will reduce the impact of CO2 dramatically, and so I believe a figure of 1 degC per doubling is more realistic.

    I also believe that a warming of 1-2 deg per century will have almost no net negative impact on the environment (previous IPCC asseessment have reached this conclusion), and that as Plimer suggests such warming is well within the range of natural variation.

    The science is not settled, we have a really, really long way to go before we have the answers quantified sufficiently to set good policy.

    “2. Do you agree, that figure 3 in itself, as printed in Plimer’s book, is doctored and that the deliberate inclusion of such a plot would constitute scientific misconduct? And don’t give me your bizarre rationalization, that Plimer actually wanted to use Friis-Christensen/Lassen as figure 3. ”

    I have sent an email to Ian, and I am not going to respond to this until I get his response. Last email from him, he was in Adelaide airport, and curious as to how the science in his book was being questioned in this blog.

  28. #28 bi -- IJI
    May 22, 2009

    Shorter Greig:

    The IPCC gives such and such estimates for climate sensitive, but I believe they’re wrong. Therefore, the science isn’t settled.

    As for whether Plimer is guilty of scientific misconduct, I think I’ll ask Plimer himself. Perfect logic!

  29. #29 bi -- IJI
    May 22, 2009

    s/sensitive/sensitivity/

  30. #30 Greig
    May 22, 2009

    [Posted by: bi -- IJI | May 22, 2009 4:19 AM]
    “If solar and wind power are not cheap, then we should pretend that global warming isn’t a problem.”

    When we KNOW global warming is a problem (ie results in a net negative impact relative to natural climate variation), we should reduce emissions.

    If we determine that it is good policy to reduce emissions, it MUST be affordable both to western and developing countries.

    In that case, perhaps we should consider nuclear, since renewables are MUCH more expensive, and emit more CO2. (References available on request)

    [Posted by: bi -- IJI | May 22, 2009 4:42 AM]

    “I don’t deny that there was a strong warming trend in the last 30 years caused by CO2. However, the strong cooling trend from 1940–1970 suggests we should ask questions and ignore any answers given. (Aerosols? Nyah nyah nyah!) Ergo, we should do nothing about global warming.”

    There is a cooling trend from 1998-2008, and aerosols are not implicated. (nyah nyah nyah). So perhaps we should take a breath and pursue answers before making (unscientific) assumptions.

  31. #31 Greig
    May 22, 2009

    [Posted by: bi -- IJI | May 22, 2009 4:47 AM]

    “The IPCC gives such and such estimates for climate sensitive, but I believe they’re wrong. Therefore, the science isn’t settled.”

    No. You BELIEVE they are right, and therefore the science is settled.

    And as a sceptic, I have to say, that is not the way of science, which is to question and propose ideas that better match the observations.

    How do you explain the temperature “trend” for the last 10 years. Noise? ROTFL.

  32. #32 sod
    May 22, 2009

    How do you explain the temperature “trend” for the last 10 years. Noise? ROTFL.

    Greig, you are getting the most basic facts wrong again and again and again.

    the trend over the last 10 years is UP.

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/from:1999/plot/wti/from:1999/trend

    it is perfectly consistent with theory.

    Solar and wind get 6 TIMES the subsidies offered to coal. Myth Busted.

    this is a completely flawed approach. in totals, a well established technology (fossile fuels) is getting significantly more subsidies, than the new energy. they do so, even though they cause significant external damage. (the repairs of which should be factored in as subsidies as well)

    When we KNOW global warming is a problem (ie results in a net negative impact relative to natural climate variation), we should reduce emissions.

    this is great. the same people, who deny that we can sum up temperature from the past, to get a trend of global means, want a perfect account of future effects, before they take action. classic.

  33. #33 Barton Paul Levenson
    May 22, 2009

    Sally Johnson writes:

    Looking at the anomolies:

    0.473 (2003) > 0.447 (2004) < 0.482 (2005) > 0.422 (2006) > 0.405 (2007) > 0.323 (2008)

    Appears to be a lot of global cooling according to the recorded data. Sound the ALARM!!!

    Of course it went up in some years and down in other years, Sally. That doesn’t mean anything. We’re talking about the trend, which is still up. Please take an introductory course in statistics, or just google for the phrase “sample size.”

    The World Meteorological Organization defines climate as mean regional or global weather conditions over a period of 30 years or more. That’s how long it generally takes to pick climate trends out of the weather noise.

  34. #34 Barton Paul Levenson
    May 22, 2009

    Greig posts:

    Throughout this thread, there is general agreement that a 10 year trend is weather (and proves nothing, so should be dismissed) yet a 30 year trend (eg from 1970 to 2000) is climate, and is very important. That is cherrypicking.

    No, Greig, that is not “cherrypicking” [sic]. That is “having an adequate sample size.” Will you PLEASE study a little introductory statistics.

  35. #35 Barton Paul Levenson
    May 22, 2009

    Greig writes:

    [Barton Paul Levenson] “Wind power is cheaper than coal or nuclear NOW.”

    Incorrect. Nuclear is much cheaper, including waste management and decommissioning.

    Wind electricity currently costs 9 centers per kilowatt-hour in California. Coal costs 10, nuclear costs 15.

    [Barton Paul Levenson] “And the “cost” of coal and oil doesn’t factor in the damage they do to the environment, nor the threat they pose to collapse human agriculture through global warming.”

    Wow, collapse of agriculture? And they call me a troll?

    Global warming will mean more drought in continental interiors, and the fresh water supplies to a billion people in Asia and Latin America will dry up. Ask the Australians, who have lost a third of their agricultural production to drought just in the last few years. Yes, global warming may cause the collapse of human agriculture. That’s kind of why I want to stop it.

  36. #36 Barton Paul Levenson
    May 22, 2009

    Greig writes:

    In that case, perhaps we should consider nuclear, since renewables are MUCH more expensive, and emit more CO2.

    Do the laws of physics operate differently in your parallel universe?

  37. #37 bluegrue
    May 22, 2009

    Greig wrote:
    > I completely agree that the current IPCC documentation lead to the above figures. And I agree with them, assuming the current models are restricted to excluding advanced cloud theory, evaporative cooling effects, ocean circulation and mixing, and cyclical trans oceanic air pressure variation.

    > I believe that if you include the above factors they introduce negative feedbacks that will reduce the impact of CO2 dramatically, and so I believe a figure of 1 degC per doubling is more realistic.

    This believe is based on what research? Give cites to peer reviewed literature. The climate models do quite well in explaining the temperature record of the 20th and 21st century, there is little room for great new discoveries.

    > I have sent an email to Ian, and I am not going to respond to this until I get his response.

    I’m looking forward to read his defense of figure 3.

    > How do you explain the temperature “trend” for the last 10 years. Noise? ROTFL.

    Make your mind up. 10 years, i.e. 1999(!)-2008), which gives you a statistically not significant upwards trend, or your 11 year “need-to-include-1998″ cherrypick? All of this has been pointed out to you. Ask yourself, what has become of the great [1987-1996 cooling](http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1880/to:2009/plot/gistemp/from:1987/to:1996/trend)? Never heard of that one? Oh, I just see, I was soooo unfair. You do not get the cooling 1998/1999 to present cooling if you use GISTEMP. Let’s try again, using HadCrut (which excludes the polar regions). Relief, there is the [recent cooling again](http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1880/to:2009/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1987/to:1996/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1999/to:2009/trend). Ooops, now we have lost the 1987-1996 cooling; pitty that, we barely knew you.

  38. #38 bluegrue
    May 22, 2009
  39. #39 Steve Chamberlain
    May 22, 2009

    Richard #310
    As bluegrue (#320) says, these are all columnists in the employ of Rupert Murdoch. In itself not a barrier to good journalism, but what is noteworthy is that they all share a similar “position” on climate change, and all wrote pieces lauding Plimer’s recent… err, book.

    Fianlly, to Richard, bluegrue (#320) and others, I apologise for:
    1) Assuming an (almost) entirely Australian readership here and
    2) Contributing to excessive “noise”

    I daresay the drugs will kick in soon…

  40. #40 Janet Akerman
    May 22, 2009

    Point taken bluegure (and John),

    I’ll resist for a little longer between the posts

    :)

  41. #41 Dirk Hartog
    May 22, 2009

    Re: #327 Greig

    Last email from him, he was in Adelaide airport, and curious as to how the science in his book was being questioned in this blog.

    Perhaps also ask him who paid for his airplane ticket. Adelaide University? The SA Government? Or maybe the Institute of Public Affairs and its donations from mining companies.

    Also ask him how he sees his conduct with respect to the University of Adelaide code of conduct http://www.adelaide.edu.au/hr/policies/polbrowse/wkplrelations/code\_of\_conduct.pdf which requires, amongst other things, that commentary from academic staff should “observe the highest ethical and professional standards.”.

    Finally, ask him whether the financial rewards and media notoriety from publishing his book are worth the complete trashing of his professional reputation.

  42. #42 TrueSceptic
    May 22, 2009

    320 bluegrue,

    It seemed obvious to me that ‘Janet Akerman’ was a parody, but the name meant nothing. It was only when I googled those names myself that I saw the connection.

    (I’m in the UK, not Aus.)

  43. #43 Bernard J.
    May 22, 2009

    It is tiresome being lectured to by someone who can make such a basic scientific error.

    This is exactly what professional climate scientists think about:

    1. denialists/ideologues
    2. lay people with ‘gut-feelings’
    3. people with a ‘teriary degree in science’ who have read a couple of opinions but who have not critically analysed a comprehensive and representative body of literature using the appropriate methodologies
    4. ‘emeritus’ academics who presume that their expertise instantly transfers to fields outside their experience, and who use such to support/justify their own world views

    The thing is, none of the people above actually know (or are willing to acknowledge) that they’re in error; it is the beleaguered climate scientists who are inundated with the repeated basic errors of the denialist crowd.

    If there is any doubt, consider how fervently the Plimer supporters ignore Plimer’s many errors and distortions of science, or dismiss them as ‘insignificant’, where in any other context (e.g. the perceived errors in Mann’s ‘hockeystick’) such would be rabidly pounced upon time and again.

    “Basic scientific errors”? Indeed…

  44. #44 bi -- IJI
    May 22, 2009

    Shorter Greig:

    I said ‘I believe the IPCC’s climate sensitivity is wrong’. This proves that the true unthinking believers are Global Warmists. I also believe that there is a cooling trend in the last 10 years. I don’t have any calculations, but there’s definitely a cooling trend.

    Therefore, we should do nothing about global warming, unless it involves nuclear power (and possibly tax cuts, and DDT). Perfect logic!

  45. #45 Richard Simons
    May 22, 2009

    I fell for Janet Akerman hook, line and sinker, as I lacked the necessary cultural background. Here are the people the names were taken from: Janet Albrechtsen, Tim Blair and Piers Akerman. They are conservative Australian journalists with vocal denialist stance. I’ve had to google these names myself to understand it. Dear Aussies, please play nice with us Non-Aussies.

    Bluegrass (and Steve), thanks for the explanation. After I sent the e-mail I wondered if it was something like that, but it’s been at least a couple of years (to the best of my knowledge) since I’ve seen an Australian and I’ve never seen The Australian. Still, I find the discussion of what they and others are doing is interesting.

  46. #46 Lee
    May 22, 2009

    Greig:
    “However the “trend” from 1940 to 1976 and from 2000 to present holds information too. Ignore it at your peril.”

    The trend from 1940 to 1976 is 37 years – time enough to determine a robust trend. Those end points can be statistically supported by change point analyses – temperature trends had a statistically significant change at each of those dates. We have a mechanistic explanation. There is more in play than ‘noise’ or weather.

    The period from 2000 until now is not yet 10 years. It is inadequate, given the noise in the record, to determine a statistically significant trend, much less one that is robust. The amount of noise in the system is expected on occasion to give this much deviation from the trend, for this long. And statistical change point analyses applied to the record do NOT find that 2000, or any year within 25 years of it, represents a change in the long term trend.

    The only information the “trend” from 2000 (which is not a separate trend by any significant measure) holds, is that it is within what is expected from noise. Duh.

  47. #47 Mark Byrne
    May 22, 2009

    Greig # 330

    When we KNOW global warming is a problem (ie results in a net negative impact relative to natural climate variation), we should reduce emissions.

    Greig, that is a really interesting idea. How long will it take for us to stop AGW? And when will you “know” global warming is a problem?
    Also Greig, do you think there is much more warming is calculated to be in the pipeline?
    And do you reckon that worsening droughts, longer fire seasons, shrinking artic ice and warming implications for frozen methane might have some people thinking warming might already be a problem?

    “I don’t deny that there was a strong warming trend in the last 30 years caused by CO2. However, the strong cooling trend from 1940–1970 suggests we should ask questions and ignore any answers given. (Aerosols? Nyah nyah nyah!) Ergo, we should do nothing about global warming.”

    Ah! That would be the strong cooling trend from 1940 to 1970 in Plimer’s fake graph. So that’s the reason Plimer wanted the fake data, so you cool say there was a strong cooling trend from 1940 to 1970. Even after so much exposure you still want to depend of the fraudulent data? I suggest you look at the [real data]( http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/04/the_science_is_missing_from_ia.php) where the rapid rise in temp then rapid cooling finished before 1950 from whence warming recommenced.

    There is a cooling trend from 1998-2008, and aerosols are not implicated. (nyah nyah nyah). So perhaps we should take a breath and pursue answers before making (unscientific) assumptions.

    Did someone say unscientific assumptions? I’ll think you will find the literature does attribute aerosols with masking current warming. Its estimated to be masking about [40% of the warming]( http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/03/06/how-much-warming-in-the-pipeline-part-ii-abcs/).

  48. #48 bluegrue
    May 22, 2009
  49. #49 John Mashey
    May 22, 2009

    re: #323 Dirk

    Peace. These are all complementary; I don’t think killfiles are a replacement for moderators and user feedback.

    Let me try again:

    MODERATORS,READERSHIP, THE READER

    1) Moderators need controls.

    I think your graying out is worth trying, I think shadow threads are worth trying. I like the latter idea because it minimizes the number of lines on a screen, i.e., as something moved to shadow thread uses 1-2 lines, no matter how long the post was. (I sometimes read blogs on my iPhone, and some formats can be agonizing).

    These sorts of things should be tried, as long as they are no more work for a moderator.

    2) It’s good for readers to have input (and both thumbs-up & thumbs-down), with input summarized. Care must be taken of course.

    3) It’s nice if readers have controls based on input from the above, i.e., “I trust this moderator, if they greyed one out, or moved it to a shadow, don’t bother to show” or “if enough other readers have rated this post badly, don’t show it to me”.

    4) It’s nice to have killfiles, once one has decided there is no value, whatsoever, ever again, in seeing someone’s posts. I just wish they worked as well as they did in the old USENET days (very difficult, of course).

    HUMANS,RELEASE 1.0

    We have higher bandwidth, more pixels, better graphics …but we are still have Release 1.0 brains/visual systems, and strong limits on speeds of reading lexical tokens.

    (This is why, in the programming world, I have long advocated writing code at the highest level (least tokens) feasible. See slide from 1977 Small is Beautiful talk, or maybe Hardware, software, wetware from 1996, findable in some college libraries.

    Anyway, we humans are limited in our I/O rates, and it is all too easy for signal to be lost in noise, even without people doing it on purpose. We need every bit of help we can get to help us efficiently winnow grain from chaff, since:

    Human Release 2.0 is far, far off…

  50. #50 Greig
    May 22, 2009

    [Mark Byrne #347 ] *Greig, that is a really interesting idea. How long will it take for us to stop AGW?*

    Humans cannot stop global warming or cooling, which occurs naturally. How long until we remove any potential anthopogenic influence on climate change? That answer depends on when there is international agreement to reduce greenhouse emissions. That is not going to happen soon.

    [Mark Byrne ] *And when will you “know” global warming is a problem?*

    Not when. **IF!** We do not know **IF** it is a problem. There needs to be proof that there will be a net negative impact.

    This question raises the issue of the precautionary principle. The problem here is not that we take precautions, but that we may be choosing actions that are absurdly damaging (economically and environmentally) relative to the net negative impact we are trying to address. We need more information on the cost of AGW before we can quantify the actions we should take.

    There are many very misinformed people who are using the climate change agenda to pick technological winners, like solar and wind power, on the basis of ideology rather than rationale. They also propose unilateral action on emissions control, without understanding the economic imbalance that this will cause.

    [Mark Byrne ] *Also Greig, do you think there is much more warming is calculated to be in the pipeline?*

    Based on what assumptions? Maybe, maybe not, the science isn’t settled.

    [Mark Byrne ] *And do you reckon that worsening droughts, longer fire seasons, shrinking artic ice and warming implications for frozen methane might have some people thinking warming might already be a problem?*

    Worsening droughts are a problem that occur naturally.

    See http://www.csiro.au/files/files/pofg.pdf
    *Some as yet unidentified long-distance mechanism links sea-surface temperature changes in the tropical Pacific and Indian Oceans.*
    and
    *The Indian Ocean Dipole (IOD) is an oceanographic phenomenon affecting climate in the Indian Ocean region.
    The IOD involves an aperiodic oscillation of sea-surface temperatures, between “positive” and “negative” phases. A positive phase sees greater-than-average sea-surface temperatures and greater precipitation in the western Indian Ocean region, with a corresponding cooling of waters in the eastern Indian Ocean—which tends to cause droughts in adjacent land areas of Indonesia and Australia.*

    Bushfires are a natural part of living in Australia. Problems arising from fires result from a failure of managing the process of living with the environment. The idea that reducing CO2 will reduce fire damage is ridiculous.

    Melting arctic ice does not impact directly on the biosphere, unless you believe any of that nonsense about polar bears. If arctic ice is melting, it is a phenomenon that may result in a positive feedback on warming (changed albedo). But the process is not yet observed over a long enough timeframe to quantify.

    The melting of frozen methane also does not directly impact the biosphere, but like changed albedo may also be a positive feedback, but again we have not been measuring this effect for long enough to determine if it is a significant trend.

    So you raise the untested and unquantified feedback mechanisms, but declare the negative feedback mechanisms that I postulate as irrelevant.

    And what about all the good things that arise from warming? Longer growing seasons, opening up new agricultural resources, higher crop yields, etc. It is all in the IPCC peer-reviewed documentation.

    The science is not settled.

  51. #51 John Mashey
    May 22, 2009

    re: 1945-1980ish cooling

    1) Recall that Mt. Pinataubo’s colling effects were well-predicted by the models of the time.

    2) Put together:

    GISS temperature, especially Northern Hemispher, where most sulfate aerosols are generated.

    and

    Historical sulfur dioxide emissions 1850-2000, especially Figure 3, and focus on N. American + Europe (and maybe E Asia) from 1945 to 1975/1980.

  52. #52 Greig
    May 22, 2009

    [Greig] *I believe that if you include the above factors they introduce negative feedbacks that will reduce the impact of CO2 dramatically, and so I believe a figure of 1 degC per doubling is more realistic.*

    [bluegrue] *This believe is based on what research? Give cites to peer reviewed literature.*

    Which part of **the science is not settled** don’t you understand?

    [bluegrue] *The climate models do quite well in explaining the temperature record of the 20th and 21st century, there is little room for great new discoveries.*

    Nonsense on both counts. Why do you think the IPCC places so much variation in the climate predictions?

    What is more, NASA’s Roy Spencer has theorized [here](http://climatesci.org/2008/04/22/internal-radiative-forcing-and-the-illusion-of-a-sensitive-climate-system-by-roy-spencer/) that temperature trends for the last 100 years can be modelled by using only internal radiative forcing mechanisms eg ocean mixing/circulation and cyclical air pressure variations and to a confidence factor of .96 ! Spencer acknowledges (as do I) that CO2 may still be implicated, but…

    *Based upon the evidence, it seems likely that the neglect of sources of internal radiative forcing has resulted in diagnosed feedbacks which give the illusion of a climate system that is more sensitive than it really is. This has then led to the development of climate models which produce too much global warming in response to the external radiative forcing caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions.*

    **The science is not settled.**

  53. #53 Mark Byrne
    May 22, 2009

    Greig @ 350

    Mark Byrne #347 ] Greig, that is a really interesting idea. How long will it take for us to stop AGW?
    Humans cannot stop global warming or cooling, which occurs naturally. How long until we remove any potential anthopogenic influence on climate change? That answer depends on when there is international agreement to reduce greenhouse emissions. That is not going to happen soon.

    Greig, now that you’ve answered you own straw man question, go back and address the question I asked.

    [Mark Byrne ] And when will you “know” global warming is a problem?
    Not when. IF! We do not know IF it is a problem. There needs to be proof that there will be a net negative impact.
    This question raises the issue of the precautionary principle. The problem here is not that we take precautions, but that we may be choosing actions that are absurdly damaging (economically and environmentally) relative to the net negative impact we are trying to address. We need more information on the cost of AGW before we can quantify the actions we should take.
    There are many very misinformed people who are using the climate change agenda to pick technological winners, like solar and wind power, on the basis of ideology rather than rationale. They also propose unilateral action on emissions control, without understanding the economic imbalance that this will cause.

    Again Greig, now that you’ve answered you own straw man question, go back and address the question I asked, replace when with if (if you like).

    [Mark Byrne ] Also Greig, do you think there is much more warming is calculated to be in the pipeline?
    Based on what assumptions? Maybe, maybe not, the science isn’t settled.

    Except I link to science and you just say whatever you like.

    [Mark Byrne ] And do you reckon that worsening droughts, longer fire seasons, shrinking artic ice and warming implications for frozen methane might have some people thinking warming might already be a problem?
    Worsening droughts are a problem that occur naturally.
    See http://www.csiro.au/files/files/pofg.pdf Some as yet unidentified long-distance mechanism links sea-surface temperature changes in the tropical Pacific and Indian Oceans. and The Indian Ocean Dipole (IOD) is an oceanographic phenomenon affecting climate in the Indian Ocean region. The IOD involves an aperiodic oscillation of sea-surface temperatures, between “positive” and “negative” phases. A positive phase sees greater-than-average sea-surface temperatures and greater precipitation in the western Indian Ocean region, with a corresponding cooling of waters in the eastern Indian Ocean—which tends to cause droughts in adjacent land areas of Indonesia and Australia.

    Except worse droughts, worse floods, worse fires, shrinking ice etc are predicted by the enhanced greenhouse effect. Ocean phenomena are also consistent with a rapid forced change in the climate.

    Bushfires are a natural part of living in Australia. Problems arising from fires result from a failure of managing the process of living with the environment. The idea that reducing CO2 will reduce fire damage is ridiculous.

    Nice dodge Greig, I said longer fire seasons. Longer fire season are caused by longer season with high temperature and less rain. Interesting to see what you see as ridiculous though.

    Melting arctic ice does not impact directly on the biosphere… If arctic ice is melting, it is a phenomenon that may result in a positive feedback on warming (changed albedo). But the process is not yet observed over a long enough timeframe to quantify.

    You really contradicted yourself there.

    The melting of frozen methane also does not directly impact the biosphere, but like changed albedo may also be a positive feedback, but again we have not been measuring this effect for long enough to determine if it is a significant trend.

    And another contradiction, in the same sentence even. I guess the biosphere must be unconnected to the climate in your thinking.

    So you raise the untested and unquantified feedback mechanisms, but declare the negative feedback mechanisms that I postulate as irrelevant.

    Yeah, except the mechanism I describe are described as present risk in the literature. Your mechanism are currently just hopes with current estimates being negative feedback will take thousands of years to overcome the Enhanced Greenhouse Effect.

    And what about all the good things that arise from warming? Longer growing seasons, opening up new agricultural resources, higher crop yields, etc. It is all in the IPCC peer-reviewed documentation.

    Oh I’ve read it, and so I know the gains are only regional and even those peter out by the end of the century. In the mean time no banana for the most vulnerable on the planet.
    Grieg I noticed you didn’t want to talk about “the strong cooling trend between 1940 and 1970” Why is that?

  54. #54 Greig
    May 22, 2009

    Greig writes: *In that case, perhaps we should consider nuclear, since renewables are MUCH more expensive, and emit more CO2.*

    In a fit of outrage Barton Paul Levenson writes: *Do the laws of physics operate differently in your parallel universe?*

    Barton, your assumption that nuclear power produces more indirect CO2 than solar and wind power is based on assumption and prejudice and not demonstrable fact.

    See [here](http://www.world-nuclear.org/education/comparativeco2.html):

    Indirect emissions per grams CO2/kWh

    Solar PV 100-280

    Wind 10-48

    Nuclear 9-21

    Source IAEA 2000, Vattenfall 1999, Vattenfall’s life cycle studies of electricity, also energy data 2000.

    **Myth busted!**

  55. #55 Greig
    May 22, 2009

    [Byrne] *I guess the biosphere must be unconnected to the climate in your thinking.*

    By *impact* on the biosphere, I mean demostrable harm to flora and fauna. I thought that was obvious, but perhaps not.

    Changing climate, whether natural or anthropogenic, does not necessarily harm flora and fauna. Perhaps this is a novel concept to you?

    As for responding to the rest of your post, I don’t see the strawman arguments that you see. I have pointed out how much of the observed environmental changes are linked to natural phenomenon.

    And I have also shown how your claims of major positive feedback are not yet observed for long periods (yet are in the literature), yet other similar negative feedback phenomenon are ignored (and not in the literature) and that this leads to the conclusion that … wait for it…

    **the science is not settled!!!**

  56. #56 Bernard J.
    May 22, 2009

    Greig has a mantra:

    The science is not settled.

    Amongst climatologists, it is just about as settled as anything in science can be.

    I am curious as to why you, a person with no qualifications in climatology (just as Plimer is, by the way) believes that you know better than those trained and working professionally in the field.

    And here’s a challenge for you – prove your point using the science’s professional literature, and not the blog sites of ideologues.

  57. #57 bluegrue
    May 22, 2009

    #352
    Greig, don’t expect anyone to take you serious, if you respond to a request for peer-reviewed literature to substantiate your argument by shouting “___The science is not settled___”

    > Nonsense on both counts.

    Wrong. You obviously need to read up, here’s a starter:
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm

    Spencer’s article is over a year old. That’s more than enough time to publish his findings in a peer-reviewed journal, however Spencer decided not to do so. Science is not done on blogs, I’ll wait for the paper.

  58. #58 Lee
    May 22, 2009

    Greig, stop being a fool. You just claimed that potential soruces of negative feedback are ignored. What the hell do you thin are the hottest areas of research in climate modeling right now? Cloud dynamics is right up there.

    No, clouds are not fully understood – but they are not complete mystery, either. We have physical constraints on possibilities, form theory and models, and from real world observations. We know enough to limit the possible range of effects, and we know that there is not enough negative cloud feedback available to substantially offset the water vapor / albedo feedbacks.

    Be also have estimates of sensitivity from non-model-based studies – relating calculated changes in solar forcing to the temperature changes at glacial-interglacial transitions, for example – and all those studies converge on a value of 3C / 2xCO2. A sensitivity of 1 doesnt allow glacial transitions.

    Your belief, not supported with any studies, but only with a shouted ‘the science is not settled’ is unscientific. Please at least be honest enough to admit you don’t care what the science says, you just want to believe what you believe..

  59. #59 Steve Chamberlain
    May 22, 2009

    Greig #322:
    Solar and wind get 6 TIMES the subsidies offered to coal.
    Myth Busted.

    Well I don’t think so, but I’ll get back to you on that later.

    In the meantime, I can’t see how you can justify taking $$ subsidy figures for one Australian state ONLY and apply those to ALL power generation figures across the country. I’m not saying you CANNOT, just that you have not justified your assumption that you can. Secondly, governments have been subsidising the fossil fuels industries a lot longer than renewables, so if we are to build the capacity of wind, solar etc. we need to stump up the readies and stop using the investment costs as an excuse to do SFA. As the ATSE (your link above) states in a submission to the Garnaut review (http://www.atse.org.au/uploads/GarETSCP.pdf)

    In Australia the coal sector is advantaged in relation to other energy sectors in terms of government support. Thus the technology ‘playing field’ is already tilted…. The absence of coordinated and consistent government assistance to low-carbon energy sources, by comparison with the coal industry, effectively creates an additional hurdle for these energy sources as they try to gain a foothold in the market…

    Finally, irrespective of whether your assertion about relative subsidy levels is right or wrong, it still doesn’t account for the true costs of fossil fuel extraction and use. Leaving aside contributions to GHGs, the costs of fossil fuel extraction and use must account for loss of biodiversity, loss of otherwise productive land, pollution (waterways, air, soil), rehabilitation of land once mining becomes economically unviable and so on – as Barton Paul Levenson and others explain above. As Riedy (Inst. Sustainable Futures, UTS 2003 at http://www.isf.uts.edu.au/publications/CR_2003_paper.pdf) discovered, subsidies to the fossil fuel industries in 2001/2 were about AU$9bn, and that’s just the identifiable portion. Riedy concludes:
    The public funds currently used to subsidise fossil fuel production and consumption could justifiably be used to subsidise the emerging sustainable energy industry, as establishment of this industry would constitute a public good.

    IMO we cannot afford to continue as we are on the basis that it’s all too hard to change, and it will all cost too much. This myopic, money-is-all outlook is what helped get us where we are now, and will do nothing but create significant costs (economic, social and environmental) for future generations.

  60. #60 Greig
    May 22, 2009

    [Bernard J.] *Amongst climatologists, it is just about as settled as anything in science can be.*

    That depends on whether you are talking about the connection between CO2 and climate being real, or if you are talking about predicting climate change catastrophe. The former is generally agreed, the latter definitely not.

    There are literally thousands of scientists in relevant fields (climatology, geology, paleoclimatology, etc) who strongly disagree with the IPCC4A, and they ARE qualified to have an opinion. Kinninmonth, Spencer, Lindzen … just a few names that spring to mind.

    Do you read the IPCC literature? Do you not see the caveats, the caution over errors, the variations in predictions? *”as settled as anything in science can be”*? The mind boggles!

    [bluegrue] *Spencer’s article is over a year old. That’s more than enough time to publish his findings in a peer-reviewed journal, however Spencer decided not to do so. Science is not done on blogs, I’ll wait for the paper.*

    Firstly Spencer’s paper has been submitted for peer review. I expect it will be published soon.

    Secondly, I find it remarkable how so many people are wedded to the peer review process, and yet hang their hats off predictions of climate catastrophe in the IPCC Assessments that have not passed peer review, but that have essentially been selected by a vote of hands, and the decision of very few individuals.

  61. #61 Greig
    May 22, 2009

    [Steve Chamberlain] *IMO we cannot afford to continue as we are on the basis that it’s all too hard to change, and it will all cost too much. This myopic, money-is-all outlook is what helped get us where we are now, and will do nothing but create significant costs (economic, social and environmental) for future generations.*

    So, forget the cost to consumers, forget the impact on industry, jobs, etc.

    Your view is we should select energy technology for ideological reasons.

    I rest my case.

  62. #62 Greig
    May 22, 2009

    [Lee] *Greig, stop being a fool. You just claimed that potential soruces of negative feedback are ignored. What the hell do you thin are the hottest areas of research in climate modeling right now? Cloud dynamics is right up there.*

    Of course, I know that. I mean that the fact that these issues are still to be concluded upon, is not making its way through to policy makers.

    And I really strongly disagree with your view that even including these issues, that climate sensitivity will remain unchanged, and will settle on 3degC/doubling. What is more, I cannot stress enough the importance of getting this right, because if the sensitivity is more like 1-1.5degC per doubling, then current policy direction is seriously WRONG, and we will be hamstrung with decisions that will cause enormous long-term damage to the environment and economy.

    But we’ll just have to agree to disagree there, because … well you know …

  63. #63 Steve Chamberlain
    May 22, 2009

    Greig #350:
    Bushfires are a natural part of living in Australia. Problems arising from fires result from a failure of managing the process of living with the environment. The idea that reducing CO2 will reduce fire damage is ridiculous.

    And your substantiation for this assertion is….?
    Read Hennessy et al 2005 (http://www.cmar.csiro.au/e-print/open/hennessykj_2005b.pdf) or summary at: http://www.csiro.au/science/Climate-Change-Fire-Weather.html
    The study found that the increase in fire-weather risk [under is generally largest inland. The combined frequencies of days with very high and extreme Forest Fire Danger Index ratings are likely to increase in south-east Australia by:
    • 4–25 per cent by 2020
    • 15–70 per cent by 2050.

    So the Bushfire CRC and CSIRO are being “ridiculous”?

    Greig #355:
    Changing climate, whether natural or anthropogenic, does not necessarily harm flora and fauna.

    And #350:
    And what about all the good things that arise from warming? Longer growing seasons, opening up new agricultural resources, higher crop yields, etc.

    And what about increasing desertification, increased bushfire (Hennessy 2005), increased drought (Hennessy 2004, 2005), erratic rainfall patterns, loss of alpine habitats, lack of opportunities for movement of flora and fauna due to reduced areas of suitable habitat (due to warming climate, land clearing, loss of corridors and links due to climate change and land clearing), sea level rise inundating sensitive coastal ecosystems (fish hatcheries, migratory bird habitats) and inundating low-lying fertile agricultural lands yada yada yada????

    How about doing some reading first, or would you rather just blather the first thing that wanders into your head?

    Hughes, 2003 (Austral Ecology (2003) 28, 423–443
    Quote from abstract:
    Future impacts [of climate change] on particular ecosystems include increased forest growth, alterations in competitive regimes between C3 and C4 grasses, increasing encroachment of woody shrubs into arid and semiarid rangelands, continued incursion of mangrove communities into freshwater wetlands, increasing frequency of coral bleaching, and establishment of woody species at increasingly higher elevations in the alpine zone. Modelling of potential impacts on specific Australian taxa using bioclimatic analysis programs such as BIOCLIM consistently predicts contraction and/or fragmentation of species’ current ranges. The bioclimates of some species of plants and vertebrates are predicted to disappear entirely with as little as 0.5–1.0C of warming.

    Fitzpatrick et al 2008 (Global Change Biology 14; pp1-16): “Climate change, plant migration, and range collapse in a global biodiversity hotspot: the Banksia (Proteaceae) of Western Australia”
    Quote:
    Across all climate_migration scenarios, 66% of species were projected to decline, whereas only 6% were projected to expand or remain stable. Between 5% and 25% of species were projected to suffer range losses of 100% by 2080, depending mainly on climate scenario. Species losses were driven primarily by changes in current precipitation regimes, with the greatest losses of species projected to occur in a transition zone between wet coastal areas and interior arid regions and which is projected to become more arid in the future. Because the ranges of most species tended to collapse in all climate scenarios, we found that climate change impacts to flora of southwestern Western Australia may be large, even under optimistic assumptions regarding migration abilities.

    Was this what you had in mind when you say “What about all the good things?”

  64. #64 Chris O'Neill
    May 22, 2009

    Greig:

    There are literally thousands of scientists in relevant fields (climatology, geology, paleoclimatology, etc) who strongly disagree with the IPCC4A, and they ARE qualified to have an opinion.

    and the best that Greig can come up with out of these “literally thousands” are:

    Kinninmonth, Spencer, Lindzen … just a few names that spring to mind.

    Care to name any properly reviewed paper that any of these three have published that contradicts the IPCC’s view of global climate sensitivity?

  65. #65 Steve Chamberlain
    May 22, 2009

    Greig #361:
    Your view is we should select energy technology for ideological reasons
    So, forget the cost to future generations, forget the impact on future industry, jobs, food production and society, forget fires, storms, rising sea levels, droughts and biodiversity loss.

    Your view is we should sit here and do nothing for no good reason.

    Brilliant.

  66. #66 bi -- IJI
    May 23, 2009

    Shorter Greig:

    T3H SCIENZ IZ NOT S3TTL3D!!!!1111111!!!!!!oneoneone I said ‘I believe that the IPCC is wrong’. Now, this’ll ordinarily mean that I’m an unthinking believer of stuff, but after a bit of thinking, I mean unthinking, I discovered that “I believe” is the “E = mc²” of Liberal Fascism, which means the real unthinking believers are the Global Warmists.

    Also, I 100% enthusiastically embrace nuclear power, and I think subsidizing other kinds of alternative energy is simply Wrong Wrong Wrong. Again, this’l ordinarily make me an unthinking believer… but I found that “I ♥♥♥ NUCUL3R POW3R!!!” is really the “F = ma” of Liberal Fascism, which means — once more — that the real unthinking believers are the Global Warmists.

  67. #67 Greig
    May 23, 2009

    [Steve Chamberlain] *So, forget the cost to future generations, forget the impact on future industry, jobs, food production and society, forget fires, storms, rising sea levels, droughts and biodiversity loss.*

    Steve, you are leaping to the false conclusion that renewable energy will be a good solution to resolve those issues. I beg to differ.

    *Your view is we should sit here and do nothing for no good reason.*

    Is that my view? Thanks for advising.

  68. #68 bi -- IJI
    May 23, 2009

    Shorter Greig:

    You’re wrong! I’m right! Period!

  69. #69 bi -- IJI
    May 23, 2009

    Greig, by the way, do you still think that Plimer’s, um, intended graph might have come from a research paper written in Tibetan and published in an obscurely prestigious Basque journal called Euskara Klimazientzia? And not from Martin Durkin?

  70. #70 Dan L.
    May 23, 2009

    > Greig: There are literally thousands of scientists in relevant fields (climatology, geology, paleoclimatology, etc) who strongly disagree with the IPCC4A, and they ARE qualified to have an opinion.

    What’s that nasty, moldy smell? Hmmm…could it be…

    [THE OREGON PETITION???](http://www.oism.org/pproject/)

    aaaarrrggghhh!!

  71. #71 Steve Chamberlain
    May 23, 2009

    Greig #365
    Steve, you are leaping to the false conclusion that renewable energy will be a good solution to resolve those issues.

    And your evidence that an untrammelled reliance on fossil fuels will sort these issues out is… where?

    Back to Greig @ #361:
    So, forget the cost to consumers, forget the impact on industry, jobs, etc.
    Your view is we should select energy technology for ideological reasons.
    I rest my case.

    Greig, if you want to “rest your case” on an inference, be my guest. If it makes your life easier to say that my principles and those of people like me are mere ideology, it is your right to do so. But I’m not the only numpty in the world who gets to see environmental havoc most days of the week and who is convinced there are less damaging ways of living a good life.
    “Nowadays people know the price of everything and the value of nothing.” (Wilde)

  72. #72 Michael
    May 23, 2009

    Sorry guys, but Greig is right on one point – the science is not settled!!!

    But it’s only trivially true.

    the science is not settled!!!- TM, on a whole lot of things. Like the human body. We still aren’t sure how the brain works, we still don’t fully understand even something as simple as pain.

    Thankfully, the next time you go to hospital you’ll be spared the terrifying possibility of being treated by Dr ‘the science is not settled!!!’ Greig who would refuse you treatment on the grounds that….well, you know…..

  73. #73 Greig
    May 23, 2009

    *And your evidence that an untrammelled reliance on fossil fuels will sort these issues out is… where?*

    Strawman. I never made such a claim.
    What I do believe is that it is better for the global environment to bring as many people up to Western living standards as fast as possible, and that low-cost energy is critical in achieving that. I therefore believe gas, hydro, and nuclear are the most important energy technologies for the next century.

    *Was this what you had in mind when you say “What about all the good things?*

    Actually …

    [Climate change may help rainforests](http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article2500311.ece)

    [Climate results in fewer deaths from cold](http://news.scotsman.com/climatechange/Climate-change-is-good-for.2814470.jp)

    [Climate change is good for birds](http://royalsociety.org/news.asp?year=&id=1688)

    [Sea Levels](http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA551_Climate_Change_Sea_Levels_0307.html)

    [Moderate increases in temperature and nitrogen from atmospheric pollution actually improve forest productivity.
    ](http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/10/081021214850.htm)

    etc etc etc.

    There are literally hundreds of such studies.

    *What’s that nasty, moldy smell? Hmmm…could it be…
    THE OREGON PETITION???
    aaaarrrggghhh!!*

    Yet another strawman (I have lost count now). Actually I was referring to the [Bali Open Letter](http://ivo.co.za/2007/12/14/bali-100-scientists-appeal-for-reason/) amongst other things.

    Does anyone here seriously think that every qualified scientist in the world agrees with IPCC 4th Assessment? Really? Some I know refuse to endorse it purely on the basis that it was written under the process of consensus. It is a seriously flawed document.

  74. #74 Barton Paul Levenson
    May 23, 2009

    Greig writes:

    Secondly, I find it remarkable how so many people are wedded to the peer review process, and yet hang their hats off predictions of climate catastrophe in the IPCC Assessments that have not passed peer review, but that have essentially been selected by a vote of hands, and the decision of very few individuals.

    The IPCC report is a review OF the peer-reviewed literature. Have you even read it?

  75. #75 Dr Dave
    May 23, 2009

    Greig said “There are literally thousands of scientists in relevant fields (climatology, geology, paleoclimatology, etc) who strongly disagree with the IPCC4A, and they ARE qualified to have an opinion.”

    and

    “Yet another strawman (I have lost count now). Actually I was referring to the Bali Open Letter amongst other things.”

    Please tell us how many of the signatories of the Bali letter are from the fields of “climatology, geology and palaeoclimatology” (or does “etc” include social science, mechanical engineering and economics?). Does Nigel Lawson (who was Chancellor of the Exchequer in Margaret Thatcher’s government of the late 1980’s) count in your world, as he is included as a signatory? Even if you somehow manage to count them all, please also let us know where the remaining 1900 (to make “thousands”) “scientists in relevant fields (climatology, geology, paleoclimatology, etc)” are listed.

    You have stated in relation to the Oregon petition “Yet another strawman”, so clearly this is not included in the “etc”.

  76. #76 naught101
    May 23, 2009

    John Mashey:
    2) It’s good for readers to have input (and both thumbs-up & thumbs-down), with input summarized. Care must be taken of course.

    I agree, something like digg/slashdot would be good, where if the average is below a certain threshold, the post is hidden, and can be expanded with javascript. Could also color posts above a certain threshold to mark them as worth reading.

    That’s always the problem with running your blog on someone else’s setup – you can’t modify/expand the codebase

    Greig:
    If arctic ice is melting, it is a phenomenon that may result in a positive feedback on warming (changed albedo). But the process is not yet observed over a long enough timeframe to quantify.

    Greig: how long is long enough for you? We have good measurements stretching back decades, and decent ones stretching back a lot further.

    Greig
    the science is not settled!!!

    No, of course it isn’t. We also don’t know what matter is made of, or what gravity actually is, and we sure as hell know bugger all about economics. But in most of those fields, what we do “know” is a pretty good approximation to reality. That’s all science ever is. That’s all it ever can and will be.

    Climate science is currently a decent approximation to reality. We certainly have no competing hypotheses that are any where near as good. Until we do, it seems best to use what knowledge we have, and that seems to work reasonably well: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Climate%5FChange%5FAttribution.png http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=1187&tstamp=&page=17

  77. #77 bi -- IJI
    May 23, 2009

    Shorter Greig:

    The IPCC is wrong. Why? Because I believe the IPCC is wrong. This shows, again, that the true unthinking believers are the Global Warmists.

    And, the globe is cooling, and global warming is good for the planet. Last but not least, 100 scientists = thousands of scientists.

    My logic is perfect.

  78. #78 Observa
    May 23, 2009

    Greig #41

    Tim, rather than call Plimer a liar over the sourcing of the graph, please advise: what is you point? Is the conclusion that Plimer reaches regarding the graph correct, or not. If not, what does the graph really look like, and why is Plimer’s conclusion therefore wrong.

    To be honest, accusing Plimer of lying sounds hysterical and very unprofessional. Even worse, considering it looks likely that Durkin and Plimer appear to have used the same source, Klimafakten (originally from Euskara Klimazientzia), exactly as Plimer says, ie he wasn’t lying but simply mistaken about the year of publication (2000 rather than 2001).

    Greig #187

    …Accusing Plimer of lying sounds hysterical and very unprofessional. Even worse, considering it looks likely that Durkin and Plimer appear to have used the same source, Klimafakten (originally from Euskara Klimazientzia), exactly as Plimer says, ie he wasn’t lying but simply mistaken about the year of publication (2000 rather than 2001).

    Greig #48

    On P25 of H+E, Plimer uses the figure 3 graph to make the following point:
    Fig 3: Thermometer temperature measurements in the 20th Century showing both cooling and warming. The cooling was during and after WW2 industrialization emitted increasingly large amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. The 20th Century like any other time period was one of both warming and cooling.


    I stand by what I said. The claim that Ian Plimer is a liar sounds hysterical and unprofessional. This is compounded by the fact that the source of the graph is irrelevant to Plimer’s case, and makes it appear you are clutching at straws to demonise Plimer, rather than debate the conclusions that he is drawing. Are we debating climate change, or are we playing the man? I maintain, this blog is dedicated to the latter.

    Greig #52

    None of what you have said contradicts Plimer’s statement: “Thermometer temperature measurements in the 20th Century showing both cooling and warming. The cooling was during and after WW2 industrialization emitted increasingly large amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. The 20th Century like any other time period was one of both warming and cooling.”

    Plimer did NOT make the point that the “cooling was substantial”. That is a fabrication on your part.

    Greig #325

    However the [cooling] “trend” from 1940 to 1976 and from 2000 to present holds information too. Ignore it at your peril.

    Greig #86

    [Mark Byrne] “Grieg, your proposition doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. Plimer used Durkin’s chart to show the scale of warming and cooling. In Plimer’s fake data the warming and cooling look only a little different. The the real data warming far out weighs cooling. The fake equivalence between warming and cooling couldn’t be made with the real data.”

    Plimer does NOT draw any conclusion on the scale of warming and cooling, and the “fake equivalence between warming and cooling” is a strawman that you have fabricated.

    Greig #190

    …I cannot verify whether Plimer was honest in stating that the figure comes from Klimafakten. Can you? If not, you do not have the right to make assumptions.
    But all this nonsense completely misses the point. Plimer does not draw any conclusion form the graph other than to state the OBVIOUS, that there has been warming and cooling during the 20th century. So why does it matter where he got the graph?

    Greig #67

    If you read Plimers statement with regard to figure 3, this is all he is saying, no more, no less. He is simply drawing attention to the fact that there are many factors at work.

    Greig #59

    … [i] So Greig, would you say that on your reading of H+E, your impression was that “The 20th Century, like any other time period, was one of both warming and cooling.” implied that the cooling was A) comparable to the warming, B), more significant than the warming, or C), less significant than the warming? [/i]

    Plimer has made no such implication, one way or the other. And it is irrelevant to the point that Plimer is making, which is that CO2 levels do not correlate strongly with global temperature. ie on the basis of this alone the hypothesis is falsified. Observed global warming during the last 100 years cannot be explained by the increase of GHGs alone.

    Greig #193

    … the fig 3 graph could be replaced with any of the graphs that have been deemed correct on this thread, and Plimer’s conclusion would still be correct. Therefore the source of and accuracy of the graph is irrelevant to Plimer’s argument.
    Now if Plimer had drawn a conclusion about the start and end date of periods of cooling, or that the cooling was large compared to the warming, then I would be baying for blood along with the rest of you. But he didn’t make any such claim.

    Greig #325

    However the [cooling] “trend” from 1940 to 1976 and from 2000 to present holds information too. Ignore it at your peril.

    Greig #216

    My hat is off to bluegrue for doing the research, he beat me to it. It appears that Plimer has got his sourcing wrong, exactly as Lambert has said.

    However, on viewing fig 2.9, it seems that all Plimer had to do was use that graph and it would have illustrated his point even better than the graph he actually showed.

    So its pretty obvious what has happened. Plimer had intended the Friis-Christensen and Lassen (1991), temperature and solar cycle length graph to be at fig 3. In Durkin’s words “There was a fluff there”.

    Greig #294

    [Dave] “So… why not use a graph that actually covers the last ten years, namely a plot of 1999-2008? Give me one good reason that an argument for a temperature trend over a period of ten years would not be bolstered by a graph actually covering those ten years unders discussion.”

    I have seen plots that include the period 1998 – 2008, and in my opinion they strengthen the view that there is cooling over the last 10 years. However, you also have to explain the massive El Nino in 1998, which is a weather event, and that complicates the matter somewhat. I can only assume that Plimer did not want to show 1998, because it would confuse the issue of weather and climate. And Plimer’s book focusses on periods of thousands and millions of years.

    Throughout this thread, there is general agreement that a 10 year trend is weather (and proves nothing, so should be dismissed) yet a 30 year trend (eg from 1970 to 2000) is climate, and is very important. That is cherrypicking. All data is important in attaining an understanding of climate change.

  79. #79 bluegrue
    May 23, 2009

    Greig, great misrepresentation
    >[Climate change is good for birds](http://royalsociety.org/news.asp?year=&id=1688)

    The actual title: “Climate change good for the Birds?”
    Excerpts from the article
    >This long-term study suggests that effects of global warming are complex. “We believe that short distance migrants may benefit from global warming through higher reproduction and shorter migration,” explains Dr. Jenni. “In contrast, trans-Saharan migrants may not gain the same benefits. Global warming could thus be a serious threat to some long-distance migrants and one reason for the recent decline of such species in Europe.”
    >…
    >This long-term study suggests that effects of global warming are complex. “We believe that short distance migrants may benefit from global warming through higher reproduction and shorter migration,” explains Dr. Jenni. “In contrast, trans-Saharan migrants may not gain the same benefits. Global warming could thus be a serious threat to some long-distance migrants and one reason for the recent decline of such species in Europe.”

    So actually the scientists find that there is a shift, where short distance migrants may benefit at the cost of long distance migrants. I read this as a possible loss of biodiversity in Europe.

    So not only does Greig turn a question into a statement, he also only cherrypicks, that short distant migrants may benefit, glossing over the accompanied disadvantages to long distant migrants.

    The “fewer deaths from cold” is of course Lomborg recycled, “sea levels” comes from a think tank and improved forest productivity reads:
    > He’s found that the trees grow faster at higher temperatures and store more carbon at greater concentrations of nitrogen, a chemical constituent of acid rain, providing there is sufficient moisture.

    >”It may well be that increasing temperature and nitrogen deposition are good things, up to a point,” Burton said.

    Greig, do you actually read what you are linking to, or do you expect nobody to check the stuff, so that you get away with your misrepresentation? For someone claiming tertiary qualification in a scientific field, you are playing very fast and loose with your sources. Ever heard of codes of conduct? Let’s have a look at the [American Physical Society's Guidelines for Professional Conduct](http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/02_2.cfm), emphasis added :
    > Fabrication of data or ___selective reporting of data with the intent to mislead or deceive is an egregious departure from the expected norms of scientific conduct___, as is the theft of data or research results from others.

  80. #80 naught101
    May 23, 2009

    Greig #187

    it looks likely that Durkin and Plimer appear to have used the same source, Klimafakten (originally from Euskara Klimazientzia)

    I can’t find Euskara Klimazientzia on google (I’m guessing it means “Basque Climate Science”?). Know where I can find a reference?

  81. #81 Dan L.
    May 23, 2009

    >> What’s that nasty, moldy smell? Hmmm…could it be… THE OREGON PETITION??? aaaarrrggghhh!!

    > Greig: Yet another strawman (I have lost count now). Actually I was referring to the Bali Open Letter amongst other things.

    Ah. But you said thousands, didn’t you? The Bali letter had an order of magnitude fewer than that, didn’t it?

    Since the only list of purported “skeptics” that runs to thousands I know of is the OP, I naturally presumed that’s what you meant.

    Where is your reference documenting “thousands?”

  82. #82 Markhc
    May 23, 2009

    Ray #264

    Any investor should know, if there’s uncertainty about the product, you hesitate about investing, and you certainly don’t put all your eggs in one basket.

    Interesting Ray, how would you divide you eggs on the response to climate change? Using your investing analogy, is Plimer the equivalent of [Bernie Madoff?]( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Madoff)

  83. #83 bluegrue
    May 23, 2009

    Dan L.

    don’t waste time hunting down that journal. It was invented in a scathing, hilarious satire by [Marion Delgado #28](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/05/ian_plimer_lies_about_source_o.php#comment-1635037) on this very page. Greig immediately parroted it, taking it for truth and obviously without doing the simplest background checks, typical pseudo-skeptic fashion. Observa’s collection a few posts up shows you just how imaginative and frantic Greig becomes, when it comes to defending Plimer on figure 3.

  84. #84 bluegrue
    May 23, 2009

    naught101,

    my previous comment was meant for you.

  85. #85 Chris O'Neill
    May 23, 2009

    Some Greig translations and propagations:

    Short, intense drought causes increased greenness becomes:

    Climate change may help rainforests

    Warming results in fewer deaths from cold in Scotland and more deaths from heat in somewhat warmer countries becomes:

    Climate (change) results in fewer deaths from cold

    A paper in 2003 saying climate change is good for some birds and bad for others becomes:

    Climate change is good for birds

    The IPCC separates sea level rise forecast into non-ice-cap and ice-cap caused becomes:

    Sea Levels (won’t rise as fast as previous statement)

    Moderate increases in temperature in a cold climate and nitrogen from atmospheric pollution actually improve forest productivity becomes:

    Moderate increases in temperature and nitrogen from atmospheric pollution actually improve forest productivity.

  86. #86 TrueSceptic
    May 23, 2009

    383 bluegrue,

    Indeed. Marion has a great gift for satire. I’ve nearly been caught out myself.

  87. #87 TrueSceptic
    May 23, 2009

    297 Greig,

    “You all, including Tim Lambert, should be ashamed of the way you conduct yourselves in this public forum. It is hypocritical, disrespectful, indulgent and rude. I am quite glad I don’t know any of you personally.”

    I missed that earlier. Let me say that the feeling is mutual. I wouldn’t trust you to give simple directions or the time of day.

  88. #88 Marion Delgado
    May 23, 2009

    bluegrue:

    At this point I officially declare myself lost in the mirror maze :)

  89. #89 bluegrue
    May 23, 2009

    Marion,
    just make sure, you do not end up in [pitch black places](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grue_%28monster%29). ;-)

  90. #90 Marion Delgado
    May 23, 2009

    I like killfiles heaps, and it’s the reason I never look at anything that can use them in anything but Firefox.

    The idea that there’s a difference between the noncommunicative spamming of the same old crap 100x per post and Viagra spam leaves me cold.

  91. #91 Marion Delgado
    May 23, 2009

    Parting shot – the Michael Duffy files is a good site to keep track of the players in the Aussie climate debate, IMO.

    http://themichaelduffyfiles.blogspot.com/2009/04/piers-akerman-666-mark-of-beast-abc.html

  92. #92 Greig
    May 23, 2009

    *Thankfully, the next time you go to hospital you’ll be spared the terrifying possibility of being treated by Dr ‘the science is not settled!!!’ Greig who would refuse you treatment on the grounds that….well, you know…..*

    Yet ANOTHER strawman. Refuse treatment? At what point have I ever expressed the view that we should do nothing? Why are you attributing arguments to me, that I have never expressed? Are you so threatened by what I am saying? Why else would you choose to engage in such self-deception.

    *Please tell us how many of the signatories of the Bali letter are from the fields of “climatology, geology and palaeoclimatology” (or does “etc” include social science, mechanical engineering and economics?).*

    Nearly all of the [Signatories](http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=164004) are from relevant fields, and if this is how many scientists can be gathered to put their name to a view, imagine how many more there are. What is more, I would argue that economics and engineering are relevant fields, since these are the expert people who effect policy for addressing climate change. Unlike climatologists, they are expert in fields that can quantify the negative economic and technological ramifications of taking action to reduce CO2 emissions, and can help to make balanced decisions on climate change policy. Global warming policy is not the sole domain of a specific scientific field, it affects EVERYONE. To argue otherwise is intellectually arrogant and elitist.

    The [view expressed]( http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=164002) in the Bali Open Letter does not deny that CO2 causes climate change, but rather looks deeper into taking a more balanced and pragmatic approach to a resolution:

    *While we understand **the evidence that has led them to view CO2 emissions as harmful**, the IPCC’s conclusions are quite inadequate as justification for implementing policies that **will markedly diminish future prosperity**. In particular, it is not established that it is possible to significantly alter global climate through cuts in human greenhouse gas emissions. On top of which, because attempts to cut emissions will slow development, the current UN approach of CO2 reduction **is likely to increase human suffering from future climate change rather than to decrease it**.*

    The answer is in influencing technological and social change in a direction that **positively benefits the environment and ALL of humanity**. The ideologically and politically based pursuit of CO2 emissions targets and unaffordable renewable energy technologies are not the answer and do not achieve that end. Do not let the empty rhetoric of politicians (eg Turnbull, Rudd, Wong, Garrett, Brown, Milne etc), who only want your votes, fool you into believing they are engaged in positive action.

    Now read back up through the posts in this thread. Observe how much time and effort has been wasted over the sourcing of one figure in a book, and in claiming I am a denialist, and that Plimer is a liar, etc etc. Get a grip people. Stop bowing down to the IPCC lead authors, and think for yourselves. Debate, learn, open your minds, accept others views (they may know something that you do not, shock horror).

  93. #93 luminous beauty
    May 23, 2009

    Grieg has indeed evolved along the denier/inactivist chain of moving goalposts:

    1.) Climate change is not happening.

    2.) It’s happening, but it’s not human caused.

    3.) It’s human caused, but it will be mostly benign.

    4.) Well, maybe it’s not so benign, but nothing free markets can’t fix. Besides, it’s just a bunch of poor brown foreign people dying like flies and none of our concern.

    5.) We were wrong, but it’s too late now.

    Good for him.

  94. #94 Dave
    May 23, 2009

    Greig:

    > What is more, I would argue that economics and engineering are relevant fields, since these are the expert people who effect policy for addressing climate change. Unlike climatologists, they are expert in fields that can quantify the negative economic and technological ramifications of taking action to reduce CO2 emissions, and can help to make balanced decisions on climate change policy.

    Do you realise you’ve nullified your own argument?

    You’re advocating the position that experts in a specific field should be given pretty much supreme weight when they voice an opinion in that area – which means that on the one hand climate scientists must defer to the expertise of economists on economic matters – *but by the very same logic* economists must defer to climate scientists on climate matters.

    As such, the IPCC report must be regarded as unassailable and incontrovertible, and economists must use all of that information as a given – with no debate on the science whatsoever – when forming an economic opinion.

    And yet you’re harping on about a letter that takes a position in direct opposition to the actual science behind the IPCC report, and that is full of garbage like:

    ” despite computer projections of temperature rises, there has been no net global warming since 1998. ”

    So which is it – are scientists in their given field experts or not?

    > Now read back up through the posts in this thread. Observe how much time and effort has been wasted over the sourcing of one figure in a book,

    The figure that – let me remind you – was the point of the blog post. You’re the one wasting all the time, changing the subject, throwing out as much irrelevant smokescreen as you can and spreading disinformation. You’ve yet to provide evidence to contradict the original post.

    > and in claiming I am a denialist,

    Your actions speak volumes.

    > and that Plimer is a liar,

    His actions speak volumes.

  95. #95 Dr Dave
    May 23, 2009

    Greg, OK, by defining almost any discipline (e.g financial economics – Milne; power engineering – Walker) as relevant you have 99 of your 2000 (I am sure that we can agree that Nigel Lawson (Lord Lawson) certainly doesn’t count – right?).

    Now please list the other 1991, or the source that details them.

    Let me guess, that’s not settled either?

  96. #96 Greig
    May 23, 2009

    *don’t waste time hunting down that journal. It was invented in a scathing, hilarious satire by Marion Delgado #28 on this very page. Greig immediately parroted it, taking it for truth and obviously without doing the simplest background checks, typical pseudo-skeptic fashion.*

    Since I found the [Basque Centre for Climate Change](http://www.bc3research.org/) which provided a link to [this](http://www.bc3research.org/images/stories/new_in_aldaketa_16_13-06-08.pdf) I really had no reason not to believe this post. Although now the comment about the author being Tibetan sounds wierd, and if it is a joke, it is in somewhat poor taste. So is the comment about Swahili.

    It should be noted that bad parody is when it is not recognised as a joke. I noticed how Janet Akermann fooled a fair few people here too, but that is only a measure of how poor the parody is.

  97. #97 Observa
    May 23, 2009

    Slightly more condensed:

    Greig #48

    On P25 of H+E, Plimer uses the figure 3 graph to make the following point:
    Fig 3: Thermometer temperature measurements in the 20th Century showing both cooling and warming. The cooling was during and after WW2 industrialization emitted increasingly large amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. The 20th Century like any other time period was one of both warming and cooling.
    … the source of the graph is irrelevant to Plimer’s case, and makes it appear you are clutching at straws to demonise Plimer, rather than debate the conclusions that he is drawing.

    Greig #325

    However the [cooling] “trend” from 1940 to 1976 and from 2000 to present holds information too. Ignore it at your peril.

    Greig #52

    None of what you have said contradicts Plimer’s statement: “Thermometer temperature measurements in the 20th Century showing both cooling and warming. The cooling was during and after WW2 industrialization emitted increasingly large amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. The 20th Century like any other time period was one of both warming and cooling.”

    Plimer did NOT make the point that the “cooling was substantial”. That is a fabrication on your part.

    Greig #325

    However the [cooling] “trend” from 1940 to 1976 and from 2000 to present holds information too. Ignore it at your peril.

    Greig #86

    [Mark Byrne] “Grieg, your proposition doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. Plimer used Durkin’s chart to show the scale of warming and cooling. In Plimer’s fake data the warming and cooling look only a little different. The the real data warming far out weighs cooling. The fake equivalence between warming and cooling couldn’t be made with the real data.”

    Plimer does NOT draw any conclusion on the scale of warming and cooling, and the “fake equivalence between warming and cooling” is a strawman that you have fabricated.

    Greig #325

    However the [cooling] “trend” from 1940 to 1976 and from 2000 to present holds information too. Ignore it at your peril.

    Greig #190

    …I cannot verify whether Plimer was honest in stating that the figure comes from Klimafakten. Can you? If not, you do not have the right to make assumptions.
    But all this nonsense completely misses the point. Plimer does not draw any conclusion form the graph other than to state the OBVIOUS, that there has been warming and cooling during the 20th century. So why does it matter where he got the graph?

    Greig #325

    However the [cooling] “trend” from 1940 to 1976 and from 2000 to present holds information too. Ignore it at your peril.

    Greig #67

    If you read Plimers statement with regard to figure 3, this is all he is saying, no more, no less. He is simply drawing attention to the fact that there are many factors at work.

    Greig #59

    … [i] So Greig, would you say that on your reading of H+E, your impression was that “The 20th Century, like any other time period, was one of both warming and cooling.” implied that the cooling was A) comparable to the warming, B), more significant than the warming, or C), less significant than the warming? [/i]

    Plimer has made no such implication, one way or the other. And it is irrelevant to the point that Plimer is making, which is that CO2 levels do not correlate strongly with global temperature. ie on the basis of this alone the hypothesis is falsified. Observed global warming during the last 100 years cannot be explained by the increase of GHGs alone.

    Greig #325

    However the [cooling] “trend” from 1940 to 1976 and from 2000 to present holds information too. Ignore it at your peril.

    Greig #193

    … the fig 3 graph could be replaced with any of the graphs that have been deemed correct on this thread, and Plimer’s conclusion would still be correct. Therefore the source of and accuracy of the graph is irrelevant to Plimer’s argument.
    Now if Plimer had drawn a conclusion about the start and end date of periods of cooling, or that the cooling was large compared to the warming, then I would be baying for blood along with the rest of you. But he didn’t make any such claim.

    Greig #325

    However the [cooling] “trend” from 1940 to 1976 and from 2000 to present holds information too. Ignore it at your peril.

    Greig #294

    [Dave] “So… why not use a graph that actually covers the last ten years, namely a plot of 1999-2008? Give me one good reason that an argument for a temperature trend over a period of ten years would not be bolstered by a graph actually covering those ten years unders discussion.”

    I have seen plots that include the period 1998 – 2008, and in my opinion they strengthen the view that there is cooling over the last 10 years. However, you also have to explain the massive El Nino in 1998, which is a weather event, and that complicates the matter somewhat. I can only assume that Plimer did not want to show 1998, because it would confuse the issue of weather and climate. And Plimer’s book focusses on periods of thousands and millions of years.

  98. #98 Greig
    May 23, 2009

    *1.) Climate change is not happening.
    2.) It’s happening, but it’s not human caused.
    3.) It’s human caused, but it will be mostly benign.
    4.) Well, maybe it’s not so benign, but nothing free markets can’t fix. Besides, it’s just a bunch of poor brown foreign people dying like flies and none of our concern.
    5.) We were wrong, but it’s too late now.*

    Wow, 5 comment in a row, **none of which can be attributed to me!** Going for the record, LB?

  99. #99 bluegrue
    May 23, 2009

    > Observe how much time and effort has been wasted over the sourcing of one figure in a book, and in claiming I am a denialist, and that Plimer is a liar, etc etc.

    Most of the time was wasted on absurd excuses and rationalizations on your part for Plimer’s behavior. The source of the figure 3 is the very topic of this post and you have done your best to derail the discussion. So don’t complain about all the wasted time.

    To get back on topic, what has become of your e-mail exchange with Plimer? Any new revelations where Plimer got figure 3 from?

  100. #100 Michael
    May 23, 2009

    Nearly all of the Signatories are from relevant fields, and if this is how many scientists can be gathered to put their name to a view, imagine how many more there are. What is more, I would argue that economics and engineering are relevant fields, since these are the expert people who effect policy for addressing climate change. Unlike climatologists, they are expert in fields that can quantify the negative economic and technological ramifications of taking action to reduce CO2 emissions, and can help to make balanced decisions on climate change policy. Global warming policy is not the sole domain of a specific scientific field, it affects EVERYONE. To argue otherwise is intellectually arrogant and elitist. – ‘Greig’

    OK, who is it this time? Marion?, Frank??.

    You know it’s not proper etiquette to use their actual screen name.

    This one killed me – “Global warming policy is not the sole domain of a specific scientific field, it affects EVERYONE. To argue otherwise is intellectually arrogant and elitist” – the next IPCC will include TV weather presenters and airconditioning manufacturers.

    The view expressed in the Bali Open Letter does not deny that CO2 causes climate change….” – ‘Greig’.

    Sure it doesn’t,
    -“climate change, a natural phenomenon”
    -“carbon dioxide (CO2), a non-polluting gas”
    -“The average rate of warming of 0.1 to 0. 2 degrees Celsius per decade recorded by satellites during the late 20th century falls within known natural rates of warming and cooling over the last 10,000 years”
    -“there has been no net global warming since 1998. That the current temperature plateau follows a late 20th-century period of warming is consistent with the continuation today of natural multi-decadal or millennial climate cycling.”
    -“new peer-reviewed research has cast even more doubt on the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused global warming”

    The answer is in influencing technological and social change in a direction that positively benefits the environment and ALL of humanity” – ‘Greig’.

    Yeah, yeah, ……NUCLEAR POWER!!!!

    Now stop it. All this parody is amusing, but I want to hear the latest idiocy from the real deal.

Current ye@r *