The Australian renews its war on science by printing an opinion piece by Richard Lindzen. Arthur Smith comments:

From his latest piece one can only conclude that either Lindzen has descended into the epistemic closure of paranoia and conspiracy theories that has become far too prevalent among some Americans lately or, worse, that he is consciously participating in the malicious disinformation campaign on climate that has recently been extensively documented by Greenpeace and elsewhere

Smith gives a detailed analysis of how he came to this conclusion.

Marc Ambinder also weighs in:

“Climate Science In Denial,” reads a Wall Street Journal op-ed headline. “Global warming alarmists have been discredited, but you wouldn’t know it from the rhetoric this Earth Day.”

Actually, the subhead should be revised: “Global warming denialists have been re-discredited, but you wouldn’t know it from the rhetoric in today’s Wall Street Journal.” Far be it from me, a non-scientist, to dispute the scientific expertise of an MIT professor of meterology, Richard Lindzen, but then again, Lindzen’s selective recitation of the litany of arguments against global warming practically begs a rebuttal.

There’s so much that is wrong with Lindzen’s piece that there’s plenty left for me. Lindzen writes:

In addition, numerous professional societies, including the American Society of Agronomy, the American Society of Plant Biologists and the Natural Science Collections Alliance, most of which have no expertise in climate, endorse essentially the following opinion: that the climate is warming; the warming is due to man’s emissions of carbon dioxide; and continued emissions will lead to catastrophe.

We may reasonably wonder why they feel compelled to endorse this view. The IPCC’s position in its Summary for Policymakers from its Fourth Assessment (2007) is weaker, and simply points out that most warming of the past 50 years or so is due to man’s emissions.

Let us check to see what they actually endorsed:

Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is
occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the
greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver.
These conclusions are based on multiple independent lines of evidence,
and contrary assertions are inconsistent with an objective assessment of
the vast body of peer-reviewed science. Moreover, there is strong
evidence that ongoing climate change will have broad impacts on
society, including the global economy and on the environment. For the
United States, climate change impacts include sea level rise for coastal
states, greater threats of extreme weather events, and increased risk of
regional water scarcity, urban heat waves, western wildfires, and the
disturbance of biological systems throughout the country. The severity
of climate change impacts is expected to increase substantially in the
coming decades.

That is what the IPCC report says, and Lindzen surely knows it. It seems that Lindzen simply does not care whether what he writes is true or not.

Lindzen’s not all bad — it was another one of his opinion pieces that started my blogging about climate change. My conclusion, way back in 2004:

I find Lindzen’s systematic misrepresentation of the report that he helped author completely inexcusable.

Comments

  1. #1 Rob O'C.
    April 27, 2010

    George Grisanovitch wrote:
    > I cannot understand by what logic one feels compelled to
    > automatically group everyone that has questions (for
    > whatever reason) with creationists, or the tobacco lobby,
    > or holocaust deniers, or right-wing crackpots.

    You behaved like a [concern] troll, of which Deltoid has had plenty over the years.

    Why are you so aghast at such a predictable reaction?
    Your posting history elsewhere doesn’t bolster your reputation one whit.

    The saturation argument is a canard.
    There appears to be no upper limit to CO2 concentration at which absorption stops. That’s what spectroscopy finds. Are you disputing fundamental physics?

    See here:
    [RealClimate](http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/a-saturated-gassy-argument/)

    [Skeptical Science](http://www.skepticalscience.com/saturated-co2-effect.htm)

    You go on to write:
    > The warming has been irregular and not directly consistent
    > with the steady increase of CO2.

    There are other forcings in play. CO2 is an important factor, not the only factor. See the difference?

    > For what it’s worth, a fragile Jones recently admitted
    > there has been no statistically significant warming since
    > 98.

    Phil Jones was given a leading question about a non-statistically significant trend (1998-2010 is too short a period of time to determine a meaningful trend).

    [Skeptical Science](http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998.htm)

    [Open Mind](http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998.htm)

    > It must be CO2 because we can’t think of anything else
    > reminds me of argument for the existence of God.

    Strawman argument. CO2 isn’t the only player in the game, and you admit as much with your later comment on forcings.

    CO2 is an important factor in the recent warming because:

    [solar activity doesn't explain the trend](http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm)

    [it isn't cosmic rays](http://www.skepticalscience.com/cosmic-rays-and-global-warming.htm)

    [it isn't a change to global reflectivity](http://www.skepticalscience.com/earth-albedo-effect.htm)

    [it isn't CFCs](http://www.skepticalscience.com/CFCs-global-warming.htm)

    [it isn't ozone](http://www.skepticalscience.com/ozone-layer-global-warming.htm)

    [cloud feedbacks are not enough to explain warming](http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/01/lindzen-and-choi-unraveled/)

    Arguing for a hitherto undetected factor that is more powerful than the known forcings in the absence of evidence seems much more faith-based than your strawman argument that ‘it must be CO2′.

    > Arguing from ignorance, no matter how smart we might be
    > or how deeply we have looked is not an argument that
    > glorifies us.

    It certainly doesn’t glorify you.

    You claimed earlier to have looked at Real Climate and Skeptical Science. You don’t seem to have understood what you read there, if anything; the comment about ‘çircumstantial evidence’ reveals deep ignorance about scientific method.

  2. #2 George Grisancich
    April 27, 2010

    Rob O’C @ 100,

    I see you suffer from the same name calling and chest pounding prior to discussion. Or was that your attempt at humor?

  3. #3 Watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com
    April 27, 2010

    Poor Lindzen, he seems to have fallen prey to exactly the same trap as Plimer. I recently caught Plimer [lying again about the level of CO2 from volcanoes](http://watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com/2010/04/21/ian-plimer-caught-out-again-co2-is-magic-argument-continues-to-lie-about-volcanoes/) is greater than human emissions – despite the repeated attempts to point out his basic error of facts, Plimer continues to well, errr… tell a porky.

    BTW, also going to tag team you Deltoid on Murdoch paper’s war on reason….

    [HUN War on Science #6: What IPCC models failed to predict... more babes in bikinis.](http://watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com/2010/04/27/herald-sun-war-on-science-6-what-the-ipcc-models-failed-to-predict-more-babes-in-bikinis/)

    Luckily, the HUN corrects this glaring and shocking failure of the IPCC. Bikini-gate will bring the whole rotten edifice that is science crashing down!

    /wink

  4. #4 jakerman
    April 27, 2010

    George will you engage in the questions of substance?

  5. #5 George Grisancich
    April 27, 2010

    Rob O’C @ 100,

    My surname is not Grisanonvitch. Please leave out the childish insults.

  6. #6 John
    April 27, 2010

    My surname is not Grisanonvitch. Please leave out the childish insults.

    Tone troll. You lied to us so I wouldn’t be dictating behaviour.

  7. #7 George Grisancich
    April 27, 2010

    jakerman @ 103 wrote:

    “George will you engage in the questions of substance?”

    Indeed I will, as I did with James Haughton @ 96.

  8. #9 George Grisancich
    April 27, 2010

    jakerman @ 103,

    I think I’ll sit back and see how many more choose to insult my name. Argue against me. Ask me to support my beliefs. Fine.

    Insulting my family name is unacceptable under any circumstances. Especially from cowards not posting under their full or real names.

  9. #10 jakerman
    April 27, 2010

    >*Another day, another stupid statement from the El Gordo troll, since there is no causal connection between the highlighted portion and the clause that follows.*

    >*Again, the El Gordo troll surely knows this, but I thought I’d get in first so nopbody else need point this out.*

    Fran’s statement still holds. No need for anyone to waste time time with EG.

  10. #11 Watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com
    April 27, 2010

    @ 96 George Grisancich

    With very good reason we group the deniers with the tobacco lobby and other anti-science movements;

    The denial movement grew directly out of the tobacco lobby in the early 1990′s with Steven Milloy’s “The Advancement of Sound Science Association” (TASSA). The very same lobby groups set up, funded and supported by tobacco interest also [started to deny climate change](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advancement_of_Sound_Science_Center):

    *”Initially, the primary focus of TASSC was an attempt to discredit research on Environmental Tobacco Smoke as a long-term cause of increased cancer and heart problem rates in the community—especially among office workers and children living with smoking parent. It subsequently advanced industry-friendly positions on a wide range of topics, including global warming, smoking, phthalates, and pesticides. Later still, they extended the role of TASSC to Europe using Dr George Carlo. TASSC used the label of ‘junk science’ to criticise work that was unfavorable to the interests of its backers….”*

    [Documents obtained through the litigation process](http://watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com/the-damning-evidence/) clearly outline out exactly *how* these lobby groups came to select climate science as their next target after they lost the second hand smoke issue. TASSA operates still and runs the site “Junk Science”. It accepts funding from energy companies, and Milloy appears on Fox News all the time.

    Here is the *original* memos that outlined how they did it and why:

    *“As a starting point, we can identify key issues requiring sound scientific research and scientists that may have an interest in them. Some issues our European colleagues suggest include:

    * Global warming .
    * Nuclear waste disposal .
    * Diseases and pests in agricultural products for transborder trade .
    * Biotechnology .
    * Eco-labeling for EC products .
    * Food processing and packaging

    In each of these issues, there has been considerable discussion as to whether sound science is being used as a basis for these decisions.

    The diversity of these issues, and their tremendous impact upon business and industry, provides an excellent “tie-in” to the work TASSC is currently undertaking in the United States. In addition, our European colleagues suggest that there is heightened interest among members of the media in issues of scientific integrity. For example, the New Scientist, a British publication, recently printed a series of articles on the use of science in the environmental debate…”*

    The deniers blew up “climategate” into a scandal that really wasn’t there. Actually, we have the evidence – real, tangible evidence – of their deceit which they work very hard not to admit in public.

    My personal challenge to deniers is to read the original leaked documents that show exactly how they manipulate, lie and mislead.

    Go on, read them.

    Then come back and discuss. Please.

    If you are a true sceptic, then be prepared to examine the evidence. Otherwise, it concern trolling.

    Please, explain away the very clear evidence of deceit – not quotes taken out of context, not cheery picked data but the full text memo’s and documents which clearly outline how they aimed to shape public opinion.

    I’ll be here waiting. See you soon.

  11. #12 jakerman
    April 27, 2010

    So George, you prefer to focus on the non-science. And you decline to engage on the [questions of substance](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/the_australians_war_on_science_50.php#comment-2466033).

  12. #13 P. Lewis
    April 27, 2010

    Guys and gals, you should see George’s near contemporaneous (21-23 April) output elsewhere before engaging him. He started here on 26 April with the concern troll act to hook you and now he’s reeling you in.

    He is disingenuity personified. It’s another Brent-type episode.

  13. #14 Jeremy C
    April 27, 2010

    George,

    I think you are atracting a lot of negative reaction because of two things:

    1. You write with a condescending manner, as perhaps demonstrated by your discursive style in answering points put to you

    2. You have been distinctly economical with the truth regarding where you are coming from and your history on the topic of AGW.

    Now in this instance you might be genuine but the posters here have been subject to the above two points for years by deniers who have not been honest in public discourse and these deniers continue without let up even when the science is spoon fed to them. If you are genuine then perhaps you are going to have to take a bit of time to think about how to demonstrate it here. Repeating that you really do desire to know if CO2 is causing warming doesn’t really cut it because of what deniers have done this many years and as people have pointed out to you there are many places you can go to for information that requires thinking plus some high school and perhaps under grad physics texts to help. But you have to sit down and work with the stuff rather than immediately coming back. Most subjects require thinking as discourse takes place. The questions you are asking seem to be ‘directional’ questions i.e. what direction do I take to get to the shops.

    I have a question for you. In your posting of @96, you used a number of units in sections 1 and 2 that seem to show you are confused about what you are thinking about. Can you explain how you were using these units, what they are and where you got the information.

  14. #15 Lotharsson
    April 27, 2010

    …[at] what CO2 concentration do we reach absorption saturation…

    As others have pointed out, we don’t. The “saturation” argument is usually made by those who don’t understand the physics – admittedly because often all they’ve heard is a simplified explanation that leaves out some of the dynamics.

    The key insight is to ask yourself what happens after a CO2 molecule absorbs an outgoing IR photon? Does the CO2 molecule hold on to the extra energy forever? If not, where does it go? And what happens then, and after that?

    Or to attack it another way – if an atmosphere has enough CO2 to absorb essentially all the outgoing longwave radiation in the CO2 absorption bands within the first few metres of atmosphere above the surface, can any longwave radiation ultimately escape the atmosphere – and if so, how?

    In other words, how does the presence of extra CO2 ultimately contribute to a change in the radiation balance at the top of atmosphere?

    You might also look at the satellite measurements of outgoing longwave radiation to see how attenuated they are in the CO2 absorption bands (coupled with knowledge from experiments that the absorption bands widen as CO2 concentration increases). There seems to be room for plenty of additional CO2 reduction of outgoing longwave radiation yet.

    It must be CO2 because we can’t think of anything else…

    …apart from the fact that’s a somewhat misleading representation of the argument – what do you suggest we attribute it to if (a) the evidence fits CO2 + known feedbacks within the uncertainty bands we currently have; (b) several different lines of evidence all suggest equilibrium climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 concentration is most likely in the range of 2-4.5 degrees C; and (c) the evidence doesn’t fit every other explanation proposed over the last several decades?

    Indeed I will, as I did with James Haughton @ 96.

    Will you now reconsider your answers in the light of information provided in response to your answers? Have any of them changed, or are susceptible to change pending further confirmation of the points raised?

  15. #16 P. Lewis
    April 27, 2010

    Momentarily succumbing to “feeding the troll”, before imploring people to follow John’s and Dave H’s advice about George…

    GG, have you got Vince’s “Goddit?” yet, because when you ask “can that not be expressed as 190,260GW/YEAR? it suggests that, despite your assertion to the contrary in the same breath, you don’t really know the difference between power and energy?

    If it helps, then, before I take up John’s and Dave H’s advice, think of the linked article’s points on ocean heat and NPPs in this way:

    “…the planet has been accumulating heat at a rate of 190,260 [GJ/s]…”.

    “…a typical nuclear power plant has an output of 1 [GJ/s], imagine 190,000 nuclear power plants pouring their energy output directly into our ocean…”

    After all, it is a well-known fact of which you must have been aware (seeing as you said you knew the difference between power and energy) that 1 W = 1 J/s and that 1 W h = 3.6 kJ.

    [PS Good <rant> Arthur.]

  16. #17 Lotharsson
    April 27, 2010

    It’s another Brent-type episode.

    I got that impression pretty early on, but I’ve been waiting for a little more data…

  17. #18 Lotharsson
    April 27, 2010

    One very interesting comment from George:

    I have taken the time to read all the TAR and all the AR4, along with the reviewers’ notes FOD and SOD for AR4. That’s The IPCC third assessment report, and fourth assessment report and the first order draft and second order draft for the AR4 A daunting and somewhat boring undertaking. I have also red as many of the supporting documentation and referenced papers as I have been able to get my hands on publicly. I did this because for many years, I was convinced that man was responsible for global warming and climate change. That is until I took even the most basic look at the underlying data and reports. The more I looked, the less evidence I found.

    After the mega billions spent trying to find evidence of a link between GHG and rising temperature, no such link yet exists.

    Regardless of how positively the argument is framed in the media, not a single shred of evidence exists that confirms the theory of AGW.

    …Sadly all the studies show only surface warming.

    …The only evidence the IPCC offers is its climate models.

    I have to say that given George’s questions on this thread, it looks like either he is gilding the lily in that comment, or that he really didn’t understand the evidence he was reading – or (more likely given other evidence) he’s a bog standard denialist.

  18. #19 Watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com
    April 27, 2010

    And from George? Silence…

  19. #20 chek
    April 27, 2010

    Anyone else find it strange the way these “libertarian” types invariably act like unpaid, indentured vassals for the corporate agenda?

  20. #21 John
    April 27, 2010

    Give him a chance, WTD. He needs to research his answers from AlGoreLied.com before he can respond here.

  21. #22 Watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com
    April 27, 2010

    @ 120 John… your right, time to zip round the denial blogosphere and marshal the “facts”.

  22. #23 Derecho64
    April 27, 2010

    Has anyone heard of a deranged fellow named “iamdigitap”?

    I made some comments on Marc Ambinder’s column over at The Atlantic, and then this guy popped up and went on a three-post rant (lots of words in ALL CAPITALS) giving the Monckeyton view of things.

    I believe this individual to be mentally ill.

  23. #24 Chris O'Neill
    April 27, 2010

    Grisancich:

    Since the article claims 190,260 GiGaWatts (sic) of energy going into the oceans each year,

    No it doesn’t. It says 190,260 gigawatts of power are going into the oceans (in the form of heat). The amount of energy going into the oceans each year is 190,260 gigawatt-years.

    can that not be expressed as 190,260GW/YEAR?

    No, because the unit GW/YEAR is meaningless in this context. The unit you really mean is the GW-YEAR, i.e. a gigawatt MULTIPLIED by a year.

    If so, then the 1GW typical nuclear power plan produces 1GW/hr x 24hrs x 365day = 8,760GW/YEAR

    No, the 1GW power station produces 1 GW-YEAR/YEAR = 1GWhr x 24hrs/day x 365day/YEAR = 8,760GWhr/YEAR

    Is there anything wrong with these two assumptions?

    Yes, heaps, as I pointed out.

  24. #25 Dave H
    April 27, 2010

    I don’t see George’s posts (thank you killfile) but I do feel the urge to respond to some quotes others have made:

    > I cannot understand by what logic one feels compelled to automatically group everyone that has questions (for whatever reason) with creationists, or the tobacco lobby, or holocaust deniers, or right-wing crackpots.

    George, your first questions here were treated politely and you received honest responses. I for one tried to lay out the basic physics for you in an easily digestible form and you showed no interest, engagement or even a glimmer of understanding. You dismissed all reasonable responses casually as “circumstantial” and pretty soon it became clear that you arrived under false pretenses.

    Based solely upon the evidence at hand, I conclude you are a lying, dishonest, ignorant, time-waster. That you complain about ill-treatment adds hypocritical whiner to the list.

    When you say things like this:

    > It must be CO2 because we can’t think of anything else

    I can only conclude you have difficulty with reading, comprehension, and very simple logic.

    James showed that *we had reason to suspect CO2 from fundamental physics*, that we calculated its effects and compared them to reality, and that we diligently ruled out other alternatives. This is the precisely the opposite of the way you have represented the argument.

  25. #26 Tacroy
    April 27, 2010

    I’m confused. How is misspelling his name as “Grisanonvitch” an insult? I do that sort of thing all the time – I just decide a name is Russian or German or whatever, and interpolate the spelling of the end based on what language I assumed it was. This can end badly if I’m setting up someone’s user account, but it’s an honest mistake. If it’s not, I just don’t see how it’s insulting at all.

    It’s almost like George realized he was on the ropes, and grasped at the earliest opportunity to take umbrage and leave.

    Surely, if that’s not the case, he’ll answer some questions of substance. Otherwise he’s just taking the coward’s way out.

  26. #27 Watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com
    April 27, 2010

    @126 Tacroy – yep, once he had to start supporting his unsupported claims with evidence he took his leave. At heart, that is what is denial is about: the moment the facts become discomforting or one’s cognative dissonance feels threatened the denier runs.

    It’s not cowardice – it’s how they preserve the idea they are “right” and the warmists, Al Gore, IPCC, scienitsts and “reality based community” are lying.

  27. #28 Tacroy
    April 27, 2010

    Oh I forgot to add that those aren’t my opinions, it’s just that I’m continuously hassled by well-meaning friends telling me that George Grisancich has no basis in reality for his position. Whenever I counter with the stuff he’s said, like the magnificent posts at 42, 50 and 78 they always laugh at me and tell me that they contain no proof.

    If none of that stuff he’s said is proof, then what can I tell them is definite proof that George has an opinion supported by the facts?

  28. #29 Vince Whirlwind
    April 27, 2010

    Well, he wasn’t much of a stayer, was he!?

    Unlike the other pair of retards I could mention, who are still hanging around here despite being exposed as morons with every new post they offer us.

  29. #30 jakerman
    April 27, 2010

    Two [little questions](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/the_australians_war_on_science_50.php#comment-2466033), then suddenly a contrived excuse used to avoid to engaging in the substance.

    Nice blow up George, very convincing.

  30. #31 John
    April 28, 2010

    His excuse will probably now be that global warming is a hoax because we weren’t polite to him. Sure, he may have lied but it’s our fault for forcing him to lie. He’s the victim here, don’t you see? All he wants is the truth

  31. #32 George Grisancich
    April 28, 2010

    My apologies for not replying sooner. Other commitments, and fresh developments, have kept me busy elsewhere.

    Here’s a little mood setter from Andrew Bolt:

    >THE great fraud has been found out, and his country saved – for now – from the greatest of his follies.

    >Here’s the worst lie that Kevin Rudd, perhaps our most deceitful Prime Minister, once told about global warming and his Emissions Trading Scheme: “The biggest challenge the world faces in the decades ahead is climate change.

    >“It is the great moral and economic challenge of our time.”

    >But on Tuesday Rudd decided “the great moral challenge” of our time wasn’t, after all.

    >It was just “a” challenge, he said. And with public trust falling in his ETS “solution” – a great green tax on gases – he cut and ran.

    >His ETS would be shelved until at least 2013. Two elections away. Yet only last year this same Government claimed “delay was denial”, and we could not wait to save “our jobs, our houses, our farms, our reefs, our economy and our future”. To stop “700,000 homes and businesses” on our coast from drowning. (Another lie.)

    [I'm sure you can't wait to hear what else he had to say](http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/column_rudd_chokes_on_his_own_great_lie/)

    Why am I telling you this, and why does it matter? Simple. The Australian government has dumped their ETS legislation. This is the ETS we had to rush through parliament before Coppenfloppen, otherwise Australia would be unable to hold its head up. We had show our leadership. We are now going to wait until after 2012 to see what the rest of the world is doing.

    The U.S cap-n-trade Waxman-Markey bill is effective dead, now Sen. Graham seems to have withdrawn his support for a [replacement climate bill](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/24/john-kerry-puts-climate-b_n_550828.html) that he was co-sponsoring. Like Rudd, Obama has dropped his [climate change tough talk](http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/19/us/politics/19climate.html) and has shifted focus to energy security and green jobs in his [state of the union address](http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/28/us/politics/28obama.text.html?pagewanted=all). The same is happening in other countries.

    All this adds up to the same thing. Politicians have woken up to the fact that cure is worse than the climate change disease. They have woken up that if they foolishly impose additional and unnecessary taxes on their citizens they will not only lose elections but needlessly cause suffering. They have woken up to idiots like Hansen, who is endorsing [calls for acts of sabotage and environmental terrorism in blowing up dams and demolishing cities in order to return the planet to the agrarian age](http://wearechangemelbourne.org/newsupdates/climate-change/1648-the-telegraph-would-you-buy-a-used-temperature-data-set-from-this-man.html), claims he later tried to [distance himself from.](http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2010/20100325_Clarification.pdf)

    They have woken up to the multi-billion dollar environmental machine that values all life other than human. They have woken up that environmentalism is little more than the [new religion](http://www.quadrant.org.au/magazine/issue/2008/9/our-new-established-religion) and global warming is its [crisis d'jour](http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/environment/epa/5271-EPA-Fascism-versus-America-The-Failed-Predictions-the-Environmentalists.html)

    I know none of this will sway you “champions of the environment”. I know it will only strengthen your resolve, double your efforts to make us see the light. Only fools would advocate banning fossil fuels while [over a billion people](http://www.worldmapper.org/display.php?selected=179) live on $1 per day or less. You condone the [diversion of food production](http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jan/22/quarter-us-grain-biofuels-food) and [forest destruction](http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1725975,00.html) for the production of biofuel. Soon, farmers will [grow trees](http://cleantechnica.com/2010/03/02/money-doesnt-grow-on-trees-but-biofuel-does/) instead of food because it is more profitable. Already people are dying because food production diversion to biofuels. Jean Ziegler, while he was the The United Nations special rapporteur on the right to food said, ["Biofuels are a crime against a large part of humanity"](http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/UN_rapporteur_calls_for_action_on_food_crisis.html?cid=6618846)

    Regardless of ANY validity to your CO2 is causing warming argument (which you clearly demonstrated), we must first find affordable replacements for our cheap fossil fuels. Otherwise those advocating CTS, or limits on the use of fossil fuels are really only sentencing billions to death but are too stupid or gutless to understand or admit this. Good intentions are meaningless without good outcomes.

    Lord Kelvin’s unverified remark to British Association for the Advancement of Science (1900), “There is nothing new to be discovered in physics now.” is a great leveller of how cleaver we think we are. But more so, it shows that the future will bring scientific wonders beyond our current ability to imagine. I believe that the world 50 years from now will no longer be reliant on dwindling fossil fuels and if AGW was indeed a threat, it will have long ago been solved.

    So I am taking a stance. I am advocating that we continue to use cheap fuels while searching for alternatives. I am advocating we stop subsidising solar power and wind generation otherwise they will remain ineffective expensive non-alternatives and because it diverts funds away from other uses. I am advocating we replace coal powered electricity with nuclear power on an as needed basis and to meet future needs. We can replace nuclear with less potentially dangerous technology when we develop it. I am advocating we build as many dams for the production of hydroelectricity as possible. Yes, this will have an impact on wilderness areas and wildlife, but bigger issues are at stake and the environment will adapt. I am advocating that we must ensure that we keep food prices as low as possible because to let prices rise will cause many people to die. This will mean ensuring the transportation and storage of food remains cheap and efficient too. I am advocating we assist Africa, India, Asia and South America build coal fired power stations as soon as possible – hydro-electric would be better. Access to cheap energy is best way to alleviate poverty. I am betting my future to solutions as yet undreamed.

  32. #33 George Grisancich
    April 28, 2010

    I have sent through a long and detailed response that is not showing up? Tim, any ideas why not? Is there a word limit?

  33. #34 Lotharsson
    April 28, 2010

    I have sent through a long and detailed response that is not showing up?

    Sometimes comments get held up for human moderation – perhaps due to certain words they contain, or the number of links, or other criteria not known to me. Tim usually seems to get to them within a few hours to a day or so. When they show up they’re usually in posting chronology (i.e. may be further back in the thread than subsequent posts that weren’t held up), so you may want to watch out for it and post a short heads-up when it does appear.

  34. #35 George Grisancich
    April 28, 2010

    Thank you Lotharsson. Was about to re-post in 2 parts, by will hold off until I later or Tim asks me to re-post.

  35. #36 John Esq.
    April 28, 2010

    Words like “fra*d” are blocked George, so excuse me for thinking that your response may not be of the highest intellectual calibre.

  36. #37 jakerman
    April 28, 2010

    George, if your response really exists send it through in blocks with no more than 4 links per block. Or 3 links to be safe.

  37. #38 George Grisancich
    April 28, 2010

    I have emailed Tim a copy and have asked him to post it.

  38. #39 P. Lewis
    April 28, 2010

    One link wasn’t safe earlier today jakerman.

  39. #40 George Grisancich
    April 28, 2010

    Through the wonders of the interweb, my reply apeareth @ 132 above.

    Happy reading and sweet dreams. :)

  40. #41 TrueSceptic
    April 28, 2010

    132 GG,

    So you have given up talking about the science as you clearly lack understanding even of basic terms and have moved on to the usual “cure worse than disease” argument.

    My view on “sentencing billions to death”?

    The “usual” lies of the deniers are annoying enough but I feel real anger when these right-wing (insert favourite word for worst possible human being) claim that AGW is a leftist plot to kill the poor, or at least to prevent them from climbing out of poverty.

    Where have these creatures been all this time? Why haven’t they been helping the world’s poor for the last 10, 20, or 50 years? Why have they made every effort throughout history to maximise the wealth of those who already have most of it while opposing basic human rights? Why have they opposed every effort to prevent industry polluting the environment and poisoning (mostly poor) people? Why have they opposed every improvement in working conditions to protect profits at the cost of workers’ health? Where are all the power stations they could have built for the world’s most disadvantaged when CO2 wasn’t an issue? Where are all the “clean” power stations they could be building now?

  41. #42 Neil
    April 28, 2010

    “Where have these creatures been all this time?”

    Shilling for the tobacco industry.

  42. #43 TrueSceptic
    April 28, 2010

    142 Neil,

    Yes, but apart from that? ;)

  43. #44 George Grisancich
    April 28, 2010

    Trueseptic @ 142 wrote:

    >The “usual” lies of the deniers are annoying enough but I feel real anger when these right-wing (insert favourite word for worst possible human being) claim that AGW is a leftist plot to kill the poor, or at least to prevent them from climbing out of poverty.

    Right-wing? Me. ROFL. What left-wing plot are you linking me to? Are there any labels you won’t use?

    >Where have these creatures been all this time? Why haven’t they been helping the world’s poor for the last 10, 20, or 50 years?

    Where have I been. well I’ve been out help the world’s poor. I have worked for major NGOs Aid organisations for many years, and made many personal sacrifices while doing so.

    Don’t misrepresent me, and certainly don’t preach to me. I’ve put my money and my body where the rubber meets the rodd. Have you? Perhaps you have too. If so, good for you. If not, then clearly you’re a just another extremely rude, over-opinionated loudmouth.

  44. #45 George Grisancich
    April 28, 2010

    Must apologize for these all the silly typos. Recently upgraded my Mac and it came with the silly tiny little keyboard about the size of 2 sheets of toilet paper. Having 3XL hands don’t help.

  45. #46 TrueSceptic
    April 28, 2010

    144 GG,

    Well, most AGW “sceptics” *are* right-wing or libertarian. There are exceptions, I know.

    As for the rest, are you just pretending to be that stupid? Are you admitting to being a right-wing denier? That is who my rant was aimed at.

    As for the insults, reread your own offensive tripe, you “extremely rude, over-opinionated loudmouth.” (and I’ll add ignorant and dishonest in your case).

  46. #47 George Grisancich
    April 28, 2010

    Neil @ 142 replied to Trueskeptic:
    >>”Where have these creatures been all this time?”

    >Shilling for the tobacco industry.

    Seems you’ve been too busy sling mud to bother looking at your target. Check out the [Philip Morris International website](http://www.pmi.com/eng/tobacco_regulation/smoking_and_health/pages/smoking_and_health.aspx)

    >Smoking causes many serious diseases including cardiovascular disease (heart disease), lung cancer, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (emphysema, chronic bronchitis). Smokers are far more likely to become sick with one of these diseases than non-smokers. Smoking is also addictive and can be extremely difficult to stop.

    And it has been their stated position since 1999. See New York Times, [Philip Morris Admits Evidence Shows Smoking Causes Cancer](http://www.nytimes.com/1999/10/13/us/philip-morris-admits-evidence-shows-smoking-causes-cancer.html?pagewanted=1)

    Perhaps you got some of you own mud in your eyes and missed it for 11 years. My guess is you’re only repeating what you keepers have told you.

  47. #48 George Grisancich
    April 28, 2010

    Trueskepic @ 146 wrote:

    >As for the insults, reread your own offensive tripe, you “extremely rude, over-opinionated loudmouth.” (and I’ll add ignorant and dishonest in your case).

    Yes. I did go to far, and I apologize the remarks you have noted.

  48. #49 TrueSceptic
    April 28, 2010

    147 GG,

    Again you can only be pretending to be so lacking in comprehension. Shilling for tobacco is what the denialist filth merchants *used* to do until the science could no longer be denied. Lying about tobacco and health is what the tobacco industry did until the science could no longer denied.

    What did they say before 1999?

  49. #50 Bernard J.
    April 28, 2010

    [George Grisancich ](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/the_australians_war_on_science_50.php#comment-2469205).

    So much of your blather is nonsense that I won’t even attempt to address most of it: I’ll leave that for other brave souls.

    In response to your last paragraph, however, I have a question for you… After you’ve flooded the world in dams to provide cheap electricity, and after you’ve smothered the planet with coal fired power stations to “alleviate poverty”, do you know what will happen?

    I’ll give you a clue. Humans will continue to live as they currently do, and expand their enterprises to the maximum permited by the energy available to them. It’s the gas (and the bureaucracy) principle. Just as when fuel is cheaper, and people drive further; or when they earn more, they spend more; or when you ‘supersize’ them and they eat more…

    And then what? The cheap fossil energy will still run out, and humanity will still face the same precipice of accute energy shortage, with an aggravating incidental of more people having been born to face the consequnces than might otherwise have been, in a planet warmer than it should be, and with more damaged resources than might have otherwise been.

    Your solution is merely a new section of freeway that moves the traffic jam from one place to another, slightly further away but far more inconvenient.

    Managing our impact on climate is a part of the greater problem of managing our profligate overexploitation of the finite natural capital of the planet. Our politicians’ hesitancy over CO2 reduction is simply a reflection of a widespread reluctance in society to address the emissions issue, and to address our overconsumption more generally.

    We get the politicians that we deserve, and unfortunately it seems that we get the idiots that we deserve too.

    Although I’m not sure that any society deserves the idiocy that is rife amongst the AGW Denialati…

  50. #51 TrueSceptic
    April 28, 2010

    148 GG,

    Thanks. What about the claims of “environmental machine that values all life other than human” and “sentencing billions to death”. Do you stand by those, and do you understand that environmentalists are often conflated with the left/socialists, etc ?

  51. #52 Jeremy C
    April 28, 2010

    George,

    You started your postings asking if CO2 aka GHG was causing global warming. If I understand your rather long rant you do accept that but don’t believe its a problem.

    Can I ask:

    1. When were you covinced of GHG causing AGW, before you started posting here or after (through reading what was posted)?

    2. What is your argument that AGW is not a problem

    3. Why the sudden rant accusing posters here of wanting to kill or enslave millions of people across the world with your expression of a materialistic philosophy ( i.e. more and more and more cheap energy at the expense of the environment whihc keep sus alive). Was that because you considered the posters here to be stoopids but are angry because your arguments were so lacking so your ego has been hurt hence the slide into rant

    4. Sooo you have worked for NGOs. Which ones and what did you do with them? I haven’t worked for NGOs but have a whole raft of friends that do e.g. Tearfund, Actionaid just to name two. I would be interested to see if you are being genuine when you say you have worked with NGO sothen tell us, because you gonna know what my next question on that is (I’ll give you a hint…. the policy of various NGOs on AGW).

    George, as I put in my question to you before, the posters here and scientists around the world have had to put up with smearing from deniers for years, hence why it you can’t gull them (why did you ever think you could). Now I don’t believe that you are being influenced by any sinister cabal of oil companies, instead my take on people like yourself is that you believe man to be the centre of the universe, a pervervsion of enlightenment thinking, free to do what ever gratifies. AGW is the universe wagging its finger and saying “don’t be silly little man, open your eyes”, and deniers can’t stand being faced with such reality.

  52. #53 Neil
    April 28, 2010

    > My guess is you’re only repeating what you keepers have told you.

    And who might *they* be, pray tell?

  53. #54 John
    April 28, 2010

    So, I was right – George’s comment was automatically blocked because of the word “fra*d”. I must be the clairvoyant of stupid.

    “There is nothing new to be discovered in physics now.” is a great leveller of how cleaver we think we are.

    I just spat drink all over my screen. Do you have no awareness?

    Right-wing? Me. ROFL.

    For someone who isn’t right-wing you certainly have extremist right-wing libertarian free market views.

  54. #55 TrueSceptic
    April 28, 2010

    Something that can be useful is to collate someone’s posts, or relevant parts of them.

    George Grisancich says: April 21, 2010 at 3:24 pm

    Global warming is a scam taht is being sold to us hook, line and sinker,

    George Grisancich says: April 22, 2010 at 6:20 pm

    Which part is good work? That he disagrees with the alarmists? Any idiot can do that. It’s not that hard because the alarmists have no real evidence.

    George Grisancich says: April 22, 2010 at 10:20 pm

    I have taken the time to read all the TAR and all the AR4, along with the reviewers’ notes FOD and SOD for AR4.

    After the mega billions spent trying to find evidence of a link between GHG and rising temperature, no such link yet exists.

    Regardless of how positively the argument is framed in the media, not a single shred of evidence exists that confirms the theory of AGW.

    It may not be a scam as some claim, but the science is very weak and a lot of people are making careers out of it now

    and then

    If all this stuff isn’t proof, then what can I tell them that is definite proof of human caused global warming? Cheers and thank you.

    Posted by: George Grisancich | April 26, 2010 4:54 AM

    Surely there must be some definitive evidence. Something the skeptics can’t say could be natural. Thanks

    Posted by: George Grisancich | April 26, 2010 5:52 AM

    So there’s nothing you can’t point me to that proves the warming is caused by CO2. Otherwise, everything else you’ve told me, numerous and compelling thought they may be, is only circumstantial. 2010 may be on track to be the hottest year ever – why does that prove it is caused by CO2?

    Posted by: George Grisancich | April 26, 2010 6:45 AM

    Yes. I’m a AGW skeptic. But I’m open-minded.

    Posted by: George Grisancich | April 26, 2010 9:23 AM

    My current positions is thus: I believe the earth has warmed in the past century but I am not convinced that CO2 is the main reason for this. I am highly skeptical that catastrophe will result from the little warming we have seen, or from the warming the IPCC predict for this century from CO2 alone. I am also not convinced that the current warming is unprecedented in the last 1500 years.

    Can you point me to some definitive evidence that CO2 is the cause if the warming and therefore cause for alarm.

    Posted by: George Grisancich | April 26, 2010 9:33 PM

    It must be CO2 because we can’t think of anything else reminds me of argument for the existence of God. Yes. AGW is real, but I believe limited and not catastrophic

    Posted by: George Grisancich | April 27, 2010 3:53 AM

    Is this someone who is confused, delusional, or just dishonest?

  55. #56 TrueSceptic
    April 28, 2010

    153 Neil,

    Well, obviously the warmofascist environazis hell-bent on establishing the socialist world government that will tax us all back to the stone age!

    (Sorry, couldn’t resist.)

  56. #57 pough
    April 28, 2010

    …sentencing billions to death…

    Finally, a voice of calm reason! It’s so nice to see something other than the usual alarmism here.

  57. #58 Chris O'Neill
    April 28, 2010

    No, the 1GW power station produces 1 GW-YEAR/YEAR = 1GWhr x 24hrs/day x 365day/YEAR = 8,760GWhr/YEAR

    I noticed that should have been 1 GW = 1 GW-YEAR/YEAR = 1GW x hr/hr x 24hrs/day x 365days/YEAR = 8,760GWhr/YEAR, not that George would have noticed.

  58. #59 TrueSceptic
    April 28, 2010

    158 Chris,

    Aaaargh!

    How about 1 GW = 1 GW-year/year = 31,536,000,000,000 W-s/year
    = 31,536,000,000,000 J/year ?

  59. #60 jakerman
    April 28, 2010

    George will go to great lengths to avoid engaging is the substance.

    George, how about [addressing my questions](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/the_australians_war_on_science_50.php#comment-2468458)?

  60. #61 James Haughton
    April 28, 2010

    George @ 96:
    “I cannot understand by what logic one feels compelled to automatically group everyone that has questions (for whatever reason) with creationists, or the tobacco lobby, or holocaust deniers, or right-wing crackpots.”

    As for 1, 2 and 4, as other people have pointed out, a large number of AGW related Adullamites are creationists, the tobacco lobby, and/or right wing crackpots. In any case, I was making a comparison to the form of argument used by creationists, which you have in fact proceeded to use.

    As for 3, I find it amusing that, even though I have used a term originating in 19th century british politics, you still somehow manage to believe that I have called you a holocaust denier. Learn to control your projections.

    “Further, why you find it necessary to label and insult by referring to some obscure British political movement (I had to google that one) is truly irrational.”

    My God! You had to google something! I am so sorry to put you to any effort.

    Adullamite ([Cave of Adullam](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cave_of_Adullam)): “used generally to refer to groups of political outsiders plotting their comeback or the overthrow of the status quo, especially after recent defeat”.

    “The Adullamites are dangerous, because they know what they want; and that is, all the money there is going. They inhabit a series of caves near Downing Street. They say to one another, ‘If you will scratch my back, I will scratch yours; and if you won’t, I will scratch your face.’ It will be seen that these cave-dwellers are not refined, like classical men. That is why they succeed in getting all the money there is going. ” [Microcosmographia Academica](http://www.cs.kent.ac.uk/people/staff/iau/cornford/cornford2.html)

    I find it revealing that any reference beyond your education is, to you, “truly irrational”.

    “Also, I have no idea who or what GB is, and frankly do not care.”

    Lucky you.

    “I can only assume that you are compelled to first insult, before getting down to the business of open discussion, as to somehow prove you solidarity and to claim some intellectual superiority.”

    I am not compelled per se. I do it because a) it’s a fitting response to your own insults, disingenuousness and bad faith and b) because it’s fun. Likewise, I prefer to claim intellectual superiority not by insulting you but by endeavouring to show that your arguments are full of crap.

    Now we’ve beaten our chests and hurled some faeces, on to your allegedly substantive points! I will note at this point that you have, as predicted, largely followed the creationist strategy; instead of disputing the logic, you have introduced spurious arguments about saturation, temperature and CO2 not perfectly tracking each other (noone ever said they did, or would) or Phil Jones’ media appearances in an effort to turn quibbles into disproofs.

    CO2 saturation is not an issue, because the key variable is the level of CO2 in the top layer of the atmosphere and the atmosphere is not nearly saturated anyway. See [Realclimate: A Saturated Gassy Argument](http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/a-saturated-gassy-argument/).

    The fact that GHGs and temperature do not match precisely over the last 150 years is hardly suprising, given that the climate contains lots of random fluctuation (weather) and feedback effects, and is significantly influenced by aerosol emissions (which also peaked with industrialisation) and various natural and random events such as volcanoes, El Nino and the PDO. However, random events, fluctuations and cycles can only conceal, not create, long term trends. We are also quite capable of measuring them and their effects on climate, and when we do so and add all the forcings together, they match the climate record [extremely well](http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-cooling-mid-20th-century.htm).

    “I would expect to see temperature climb faster in response to CO2 when CO2 first started in increase because infrared absorption is non-linear.”

    Your “expectations” are irrelevant. What is relevant is whether the forcing [calculated](http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/08/the-co2-problem-in-6-easy-steps/), not eyeballed, from CO2′s absorption properties matches the temperature record. When added to all other known forcings, it does.

    Incidentally, it took me only a few minutes work with Google to find answers to your various questions. You should try it sometime.

    “It must be CO2 because we can’t think of anything else reminds me of argument for the existence of God”. Actually, it should remind you of the argument for the non-existence of God. Occam’s razor states that we shouldn’t needlessly multiply entities and that the most parsimonious explanation is the correct one. If we can explain temperature trends in terms of known factors, namely GHGs, which we can, it is an error to invoke additional unknown factors for which we have no evidence. This is not to say that we should not try to think of other factors, or investigate them when we have thought of them. We have done this. No other known factors match the data. The IPCC’s statement of uncertainties is rather more about the range of error bars than a claim that we can’t even account for these factors. Even with the error bars, without GHGs, we can’t explain what’s going on, with GHGs, we can.

    Whether you “believe” AGW is limited, catastrophic, or not, is a statement about your beliefs, not a statement about the reality of AGW. It is an [Argument from personal incredulity](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance#Argument_from_personal_incredulity) to suggest otherwise.

    Furthermore, since you have worked in developing countries with NGOs (as have I), you must know how extremely vulnerable peasant herders and farmers, the majority of the world’s poor, are to natural disasters such as drought, flood, epidemic, crop failure, rising salinity, hurricanes, etc. AGW will directly exacerbate all these causes of poverty, hunger and death, and given that so many people worldwide live on a knife edge, even a 1-2 degree increase in average temperature could be catastrophic in any meaningful sense of the word.

    I am also suprised that anyone who has worked in international aid would be such an advocate of massive hydroelectric projects, given the human misery and ecosystem destruction these usually cause (for example, see the World Commission on Dams report: “For example, dams have physically displaced 40-80 million people worldwide, and most of these people have never regained their former livelihoods. In many cases, dams have led to a significant and irreversible loss of species and ecosystems, and efforts to mitigate these impacts have often not been successful.” [summary](http://www.internationalrivers.org/en/way-forward/world-commission-dams/world-commission-dams-framework-brief-introduction) ).

    “Access to cheap energy is best way to alleviate poverty.”

    Most studies I have read indicate that: 1) Direct transfer payments 2) Education, particularly for women 3) Improving public health, hygeine, and public education and understanding of disease 4) Improved health care, especially vaccinations and deworming 5) Improving [human capabilities](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capability_approach) and individual/community empowerment 6) improved access to credit (disputed) 7) reducing government corruption and increasing government democratic accountability 8) Land reform (can easily be done badly and backfire) 9) Reforming institutions to be more open and market friendly (also disputed) 10) better access to information and communication and 11) better transport and access to markets are the best ways to alleviate poverty. “Cheap energy” (cheap for whom? The millions displaced by hydroelectric dams? the miners buried in a chinese coal mine or city dwellers suffering from everything from asthma to lung cancer from burning coal? urban slum dwellers who have no legal address and can’t get an electricity connection?) is waaay down the list.

  61. #62 James Haughton
    April 28, 2010

    Trueskeptic @ 156, don’t hold back like this! Tell us what you really think! ;)

  62. #63 ConcertinaTrolley
    April 28, 2010

    Hi George,
    I’m skeptical of global warming and was really excited to see you posting here. My friends keep telling me that “deniers” are a bunch of drooling dimwits and lunatics, but I’ve just been waiting patiently for your brilliant responses to some of the issues of substance addressed to you here so that I can reassure my friends that its all a hoax. I’m starting to get worried. You haven’t fallen ill, have you?

  63. #64 Lotharsson
    April 28, 2010

    Ah, the fine art of pwnage.

  64. #65 Lotharsson
    April 29, 2010

    All this adds up to the same thing. Politicians have woken up to the fact that cure is worse than the climate change disease.

    It’s amazing how the explanation you proffer is one that both fits your preconceptions – and that you apparently presume must be the only true explanation. Why, it’s almost like an argument from personal lack of imagination!

    Only fools would advocate banning fossil fuels…

    Only dissemblers would attack straw men like you just did. No, wait – there ARE other explanations, but that one seems the most likely on the evidence available to me thus far. Feel free to submit additional evidence.

    You condone the diversion of food production and forest destruction for the production of biofuel.

    You presume that which is not in evidence, at least regarding my opinions.

    And you seem ignorant that the First World has been producing far more food than it needs for many years – but not shipping the surplus off to poorer countries – and engaging in trading and other policies with the Third World that essentially transfer net wealth from the poorer countries to the richer and make it difficult for them to be agriculturally self-sufficient. It’s not biofuel production in the First World that drives Third World hunger – especially hunger over many previous decades. There’s enough food and wealth to go around – if there were corresponding political will.

    You also ignore that climate change will disproportionately impact the poorest people of the world by severely disrupting their (limited) agricultural capabilities. Driving towards this outcome even faster (as your proposals would) seems … well, misguided at best.

    Otherwise those advocating CTS, or limits on the use of fossil fuels are really only sentencing billions to death but are too stupid or gutless to understand or admit this.

    I’m not sure where you get “billions of deaths” from – but I’m sure you have well-founded numbers of deaths from the impacts of your “faster climate change in the name of more energy for the poor countries” proposal, right? And you’ve figured out the net difference with “let’s try and keep the climate so they can at least maintain their current prospects” proposals? Would references be too much to ask?

    Given that the poorest peoples of the world today don’t use much in the way of fossil fuels, how exactly does raising the price of fossil fuels hurt them? And what would the cost of mitigating any impact of a price rise be and would that be feasible to provide (e.g. by the richer countries who created most of the climate damage) as part of a climate change solution? (Once more you appear to have imagined that you have assessed all possible solutions and only the one you propose has any merit…)

  65. #66 Lotharsson
    April 29, 2010

    George links to a piece on the UN special rapporteur on the right to food, quoting “Biofuels are a crime against a large part of humanity” but somehow failing to include the following:

    A range of factors has been blamed on the food crisis, including poor harvests, partly due to climate change, rising oil prices, steep growth in demand from China and India, and the dash to produce biofuels for motoring at the expense of food crops.

    and

    Ziegler also pointed the finger at commodity speculation, claiming it was responsible for 30 per cent of the price rises, in particular hedge fund investors, who have “shifted to agricultural raw materials where yields are enormous”.

    (although someone else disputed this and the article doesn’t provide strong evidence either way)

    and

    In his address, Ziegler also took a swipe at the “absurd” policies of the International Monetary Fund, which he said forced the poorest countries to cut back on staple crops and focus on cash crops for export to help pay their debts.

    For Golay, the root causes of the current food crisis are clearly structural.

    “There are four main causes that everyone is talking about: biofuels, increased demand in China and India, higher oil prices and global warming. But the real cause is that for decades there has not been proper investment for years in local agriculture in developing countries.”

    Hmmm, perhaps it’s not quite as simple as “biofuels are doing it!”

    Especially when you consider that the prime example is US biofuel production from corn – given that corn is (a) heavily subsidised, and (b) so cheap and plentiful that it is being used for cat litter.

  66. #67 George Grisancich
    April 29, 2010

    Let’s get back to the science for now.

    First. I’ve been accused of writing in a condescending style. This may well be true, but it is unintentional as English is not my first language.

    In response to my original request for hard evidence, on more than one occasion I was directed to [Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming
    ](http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.htm). After reading it, I did say I would like to read [Harries 2001](http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n6826/abs/410355a0.html), [Griggs 2004](http://spiedl.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=PSISDG005543000001000164000001&idtype=cvips&gifs=yes&ref=no), and [Chen 2007](http://www.eumetsat.eu/Home/Main/Publications/Conference_and_Workshop_Proceedings/groups/cps/documents/document/pdf_conf_p50_s9_01_harries_v.pdf) before commenting further.

    Unfortunately, I could only read the abstracts as I’m not prepared to pay for the privilege of downloading the full text. Also, the link to [Chen 2007](http://www.eumetsat.eu/Home/Main/Publications/Conference_and_Workshop_Proceedings/groups/cps/documents/document/pdf_conf_p50_s9_01_harries_v.pdf) is not responding, so I will be skipping that. Since [skepticalscience.com](http://www.skepticalscience.com) doesn’t bother correctly attribute authorship or provide a list of references, I have no idea of the title, co-authors, or publisher for Chen. Seriously, you wouldn’t know that Harries 2001 had 3 co-authors, or that Griggs 2004 was co-authored by Harries, and it is a only conference paper. As for Chen 2007, well the title of the document in the dysfunctional link contains the words **conf** and **harries**. So my guess is that it’s just a conference paper and Harries had a finger in that article too. Great, three references given, same author in all three. It better be good!

    So Harries it is then.

    It’s a pity I’m only left with Harries, because I was hoping there would be something supporting post AR4. Some new evidence. I am curious why skepticalscience cites Harries as proof of that CO2 traps heat because the IPCC only cites Harries et al. (2001) in 2.3.8 **Observations of Long-Lived Greenhouse Gas Radiative Effects**, and not in 2.3.1 **Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide**. Regarding the IPCC assessment reports, I find the best path to understanding is to track any section through its lifecycle, [FOD](http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:FHCL:1196736) -> [reviewer comments](http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:FHCL:1199536) -> [SOD](http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:FHCL:1197085) -> [reviewer comments](http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:FHCL:1199151) -> [final report](http://www.ipcc-wg1.unibe.ch/publications/wg1-ar4/wg1-ar4.html). Doing so with Harrie et al, turns out to be interesting, as usual.

    [Expert Review Comments on First Order Draft](http://pds.lib.harvard.edu/pds/view/7795174?n=130)

    The paragraph on Harries et al. (2001) received the foillowing comments:

    **Andrew Lacis** (NASA GISS) _”This section should be omitted since radiative forcing is not an observable quantity. Flux changes at TOA and ground surface are of course observable, but they are also subject to major ambiguity since many contributing factors to the radiative fluxes may be undergoing changes that obscure the signal being sought. …”_

    **Robert E. Dickinson** (School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Georgia Institute of Technology) _”This section on long-lived GHG appears sparse and with inadequate framing. Perhaps is out of place – or not needed?.”_

    **Robert Kandel** (Laboratoire de Météorologie Dynamique, Ecole Polytechnique) _”Should so much be made of Harries et al and the Philipona et al results? They go in the right direction, but they relate results from extremely limited samples both in space and in time.”_

    **Eugene Rozanov** (IAC ETHZ and PMOD/WRC) _”I guess that they finally showed that the observed increase in LW radiation is local and reflects water vapor increase, which was not homogeneous over the (sic) Europe. I do not think these results can be used to illustrate global greenhouse effect.”_

    Although not directly related to Harries et at, I am including the next reviewer comment as it refers to the only other citation, Philipona et al. (2004) in this paragraph (actually the entire section for that matter) because it is by Philipona himself.

    **Rolf Philipona** (Observatory Davos) _”Please add this sentence: In an extended study that includes the evolution of temperature and integrated water vapor over Euroupe (Philipona et al. 2005) they show that 70% of the clear sky longwave radiation increase is due to positive water vapor feedback strong enhancing greenhouse warming in Central and Northeastern Euroupe.”_

    [Expert and Government Review Comments on Second-Order Draft](http://pds.lib.harvard.edu/pds/view/7786003?n=63&imagesize=1200&jp2Res=.25)

    There is only one comment by **Wayne FJ Evans** (NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory) It is [very long at 2 pages](http://pds.lib.harvard.edu/pds/view/7786003?n=63&imagesize=1200&jp2Res=.25), and ultimately rejected at any rate.

    What we are left with in the published report can best be described by the ending sentence, **” While both types of observations attest to the radiative influences of the gases, they should not be interpreted as having a direct linkage to the value of RFs in Section 2.3.”**

    Quite frankly, I’d say this debunks your evidence because your evidence stood atop of Harries. Everything else now falls back to tenuous links and model predictions. The hard evidence you pointed to does not hold water. The starting premise was that Harries was _”direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth’s greenhouse effect”_ is not supported by any of the expert reviewers or by the closing sentence.

    Therefore, direct evidence that CO2 is the cause of the minor increase in temperature observed during the last 150 years is not supported by evidence.

    Now where is that mythbusters burning brand, **BUSTED.**

  67. #68 George Grisancich
    April 29, 2010

    Jeremey C @ 152 wrote:

    >Sooo you have worked for NGOs. Which ones and what did you do with them?

    Please contact me by email. Happy to talk about it but certainly not on a public forum, especially one that is trashing me. co2yesorno_AT_iinet.net.au I have just set this account up for this purpose, might take an hour or so to become active.

  68. #69 George Grisancich
    April 29, 2010

    I have recently posted a lengthy rebuttal on the science and it is currently awaiting moderation. Therefore I retract any concession I gave @150.

    Anyhoo, I’m off for beers with friends. Back later.

  69. #70 Vince Whirlwind
    April 29, 2010

    I’m not sure I quite understand how Curious George can come up with a “lengthy rebuttal on the science” when he’s made it quite clear he has little or no understanding of basic scientific principles.

  70. #71 Fran Barlow
    April 29, 2010

    Well said James Haughton@161 above.

    It was far more than Mr Grisancich deserved, but nevertheless, a very fine piece of exposition that sits nicely with your substantial account the other day about the basic science.

  71. #72 James Haughton
    April 29, 2010

    Shorter George @ 167

    “Because various people made comments I don’t understand about a single paper I haven’t bothered to read, which I selected from a long list of papers I also didn’t bother to read, Global Warming is a myth”.

  72. #73 jakerman
    April 29, 2010
  73. #74 Jeremy C
    April 29, 2010

    George, there is a George Grisancich across the net listed as having worked for a particular NGO.

    On Bolt’s blog you refer approvingly to the NGO MSF while being corrected by a World Vision employee about disparaging remarks you make about World Vision. Those comments give me cause to think you have been exposed to NGOs.

    But thats not the point. I’m not going to email you to discuss what NGOs you may have worked for. You bring it up you can list it.

    I don’t buy your line about your condescending tone being due to english as a second language because reading your comments on other blogs more congenial to the views you have expressed here there is no hint of superority in your language.

    As to your complaint that people here have not shown why GHG is causing AGW it just comes back to my earlier comment that you are treating science as ‘directional’ i.e. ‘what are the directions to the shops’. Your long posting in which you work your way down Harries and expert comments for the IPCC draft on AR4 (I think) is an example of this and hilarious in that you triumphantly proclaim this to show that AGW is “busted”. Wonderful logic! Cherrypicking without even having looking at what the authors are saying, even Cohenite does better than that with his sciency bits

  74. #75 jakerman
    April 29, 2010
  75. #76 TrueSceptic
    April 29, 2010

    162 James,

    What did I miss out? ;)

  76. #77 TrueSceptic
    April 29, 2010

    167 GG,

    Earlier you said AGW is real. Now you are again arguing for the opposite.

    Which is it?

  77. #78 Mark
    April 29, 2010

    George it wasn’t hard to find another link to [Chen et al.]( http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.131.3867&rep=rep1&type=pdf)

    Lets look the the [Second Order Draft Comment on Harries et al]( http://pds.lib.harvard.edu/pds/view/7786003?action=jp2zoomin&imagesize=1200&jp2x=-1&jp2y=-1&jp2Res=0.5&rotation=0&n=65&op=j&bbx1=0&bby1=0&bbx2=130&bby2=100&zoomin.x=8&zoomin.y=13)

    Evans notes:

    >The fine paper by Harries et al (2002) which does a satellite comparison of the changes from the IRIS instrument in 1970 with IMG measurements of radiative trapping in 1997 has been included briefly […] This type of information demonstrating that mankind has caused an increase in the radiative balance of the planet is much more convincing than theoretical model simulations […]

    Evans’ suggestion:
    >I believe you should increase the short summary on the measurement of radiative forcing from greenhouse gases and the bright future for progress that will be made with new satellite and ground based systems […]

    >[Wayne Evans]

    Lead Author Decision on the suggetion:

    >Rejected. Surface forcing is already alluded to briefly, but is not the main focus of the chapter. […] We think our current section gives the right thrust and introduction to the discipline. It is not our job to suggest research pathways.

    So what are you claiming is wrong with Harries?

  78. #79 P. Lewis
    April 29, 2010

    TrueSceptic, I think you’ve missed out 3 zeros.

    (60×60×24×365) GW s/year = 31,536,000 GW s/year = 31,536,000 GJ/year = 31,536,000,000,000,000 J/year (or 31.536 PJ/year).

  79. #80 James Haughton
    April 29, 2010

    You guys don’t half flatter. Any blogger who was feeling bored with his job at the time would have done the same.
    Slightly more seriously, and contra various other views, I think it is worth engaging with “concern trolls” every so often because these blogs are often read by non-commentators who are actually sincere about learning the answers to the various questions posed.

  80. #81 George Grisancich
    April 29, 2010

    Mark @ 178 wrote:

    I can only guess that you have provided this to support my argument. As you note the reviewers comments have been rejected.

    Thanks for the Chen link. Pity skepicalscience.com didn’t reference or link it correctly. And thanks, was it a conference piece, or was it published somewhere? I was right on the Harries co-authorship.

  81. #82 Mark
    April 29, 2010

    George, you’d guess wrong. The suggestion that was rejected was made clear and had nothing to do with the merits of Harries. I’m surprised you didn’t comprehend this from both the statements in suggestion and the statements in rejection.

    So what is your problem with Harries?

  82. #83 jakerman
    April 29, 2010

    My my, George really is avoiding my [simple questions](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/the_australians_war_on_science_50.php#comment-2472619).

    And such a shame after George claimed he would engage in questions of substance. George was I correct with my guess?

  83. #84 George Grisancich
    April 29, 2010

    Jeremy C,

    Be careful, your comments regarding my previous employment are bordering on libelous. Don’t think for a second Tim Lambert won’t give up your email and IP address rather than put his neck on the line for you.

    Your obsession with re-posting posts I have made elsewhere are most likely cyberstalking as defined under Australian law. Certain, your behavior is unwarranted harassment.

    I am asking you, and the others that have engaged in the same behavior, to cease this behavior immediately.

    **copy emailed to Tim Lambert**

  84. #85 jakerman
    April 29, 2010

    George another contrived excuse to avoid my questions?

    How about you [just answer](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/the_australians_war_on_science_50.php#comment-2472942)?

  85. #86 TrueSceptic
    April 29, 2010

    179 P.Lewis,

    Yes, I was afraid of something like that. I should have added 9 zeroes for G (giga) but for some reason I added 6. Thanks for checking it.

  86. #87 TrueSceptic
    April 29, 2010

    184 GG,

    So, you post comments at a public blog and claim that citing them elsewhere is some sort of “stalking”.

    This is sheer fantasy. If you don’t want to get shown up for the dishonesty of what you write, consider what you post and where.

    Stop whining and answer the questions.

  87. #88 Bernard J.
    April 29, 2010

    [James Haughton](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/the_australians_war_on_science_50.php#comment-2472797).

    Your modesty becomes you, but in truth you truly pwnned GG. You cerainly demonstrated far more patience and consideration than I was prepared to expend upon GG’s nonsense, and for that I tip my hat to you.

    Speaking of [said litigiously-inclined troll](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/the_australians_war_on_science_50.php#comment-2473046), it needs to grow a spine, because there is no case at all for its hysterical claim of “cyberstalking”. Its own behaviour, on the other hand, constitutes undue agression in my not-so-humble opinion. Said troll needs to pull its head in, and grow a thicker skin.

    And a scientifically-functioning brain.

  88. #89 TrueSceptic
    April 29, 2010

    180 James,

    I agree with what Bernard and others have said about your posts. It takes a lot of patience to dismantle stupidity and dishonesty in such a painstaking way.

  89. #90 Tim Lambert
    April 29, 2010

    I have banned George Grisancich. Please do not make any more comments about him, since he will be unable to reply.

  90. #91 TrueSceptic
    April 29, 2010

    190 Tim,

    Am I allowed to ask why a ban was appropriate at such a late stage?

  91. #92 Tim Lambert
    April 30, 2010

    George was banned because of what he wrote in an email to me that he asked to be kept confidential. I think the ban was in his own best interest.

  92. #93 Paul UK
    July 14, 2010

    George said:

    >Now where is that mythbusters burning brand, BUSTED.

    erm for someone claiming not to be very familiar with English, George had a very detailed knowledge of American TV shows.
    And may I add, good use of written English that seems to contradict his own claim.

  93. #94 oto emlak ilan
    September 22, 2011

    Where have these creatures been all this time?

    Shilling for the tobacco industry.