Bob Ward on the Science Show says:

I looked at one example by Bob Carter, it was published in an Australian economics journal a couple of years ago called Economic Analysis and Policy. And I noted first of all that it had a quote in it, attributed to John Houghton who was a senior member of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. It includes a quote in there that John Houghton has never said, he’s never written and never said, yet it is in this paper by Carter. So that was wrong, I knew.

But the more I looked at the paper, almost on every sentence there was a question over its accuracy, and I went through one by one, and in the end I couldn’t write a paper short enough for publication that detailed all the problems, so I just had to identify the most serious. And he goes from making claims about a correlation between temperature and the Sun, he quotes a paper that’s been shown to have used inaccurate data but he forgets to mention that, it’s got dodgy statistics about the impact that carbon dioxide has on temperature, and he actually cites for his calculation a website about fossils of West Virginia. That is not science, that’s just desperately seeking bits of information to back up a theory.

So when I went through I found so many glaring errors in it, it seemed to me that it was probably the worst paper that had ever been published about climate change and it just goes to show that the sceptics if they really want to can usually find a place to get their views out.

In a world that contains papers by Archibald, Khilyuk and Chilingar, that’s a big call. Mind you, the Carter’s paper is dreadful and is an embarrassment to Economic Analysis and Policy. Ward’s critique has just been published alongside a very weak reply from Carter. Carter only attempts a defence on one point and that just underlines what a poor scholar he is.

In his paper Carter claimed:

Yet even educated persons mostly have no comprehension that the overwhelmingly dominant greenhouse gas is water vapour a minor greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide causes less than 4% of the warming produced by all atmospheric greenhouse gases [8]; and that human emissions represent just a tiny portion (~3%) of that 4%.

Carter has been making this argument since 2005 at least. Back then he was citing Steve Milloy as his source

Ward corrects him:

These figures are completely inaccurate. Carter (2008) cites as a source for these figures a page (Hieb 2003) posted on a website about ‘Plant Fossils of West Virginia’.
One of the many erroneous assertions made by Hieb (2003) was that the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide is 368.4 parts per million (ppm) of which the anthropogenic contribution is 11.88 ppm. In fact, the current atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide is 387 ppm (Tans 2010), having increased steadily from a pre-industrial level between 1000 and 1750 AD of 275 to 285 ppm (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2007a). When other compounds such as methane are also taken into account, the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases is estimated to be about 435 ppm of carbon-dioxide-equivalent, and increasing at a rate of about 1.5 ppm each year (Bowen and Ranger 2009).
There is little dispute within the scientific literature that human activities have been the main cause of the increase of more than 100 ppm in the concentration of carbon dioxide since industrialisation (i.e. almost ten times the rise claimed by Hieb (2003)). The IPCC (2007a) concluded:

“The primary source of the increased atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide since the preindustrial period results from fossil fuel use, with land-use change providing another significant but smaller contribution”.

I should note that Hieb cites the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center as the source for his claim that the anthropogenic contribution to current CO2 levles is just 11.88 ppm even though the CDIAC says no such thing.

Now consider Carter’s response:

As Robert Ward asserts, it is indeed true that there is more than one set of such estimates, and one could well have a highly technical discussion about them. But like many other similar discussions that are already available on the web, this would resolve nothing and the ambiguity would remain. The reality is that our quantitative knowledge about the planetary carbon dioxide cycle is limited, and different scientists have different views about which are the best estimates.

To put this matter in proportion, it is helpful to reflect on the estimate of Canadian climatologist Tim Ball that the total human production of carbon dioxide (7.2 Gt C/year; IPCC, 2007) is more than four times less than the combined error (32 Gt) on the estimated carbon dioxide production from all other sources, estimates that range between 192 to 224 Gt/year. The perspective that follows is that even were human emissions to be reduced to zero, the difference would be lost among other uncertainties in the global carbon dioxide budget.

Notice that while Ward’s point was that there was no scientific support for Carter’s claim, Carter just pretends that Ward was saying that there were different numbers out there. And of course the real reason why Carter won’t get into a technical discussion is that there is no support for Hieb’s 11.88 ppm figure. And the only thing he does offer is a claim by Tim Ball (for which Carter provides no cite at all – did the journal editor even read Carter’s reply before publishing it?) that the number too uncertain to be known — which surely does not support Hieb’s clam to know it to four significant figures. For a lucid account (with the sort of scientific references that Carter can’t give) of why we know that the increase in CO2 since 1750 is anthropogenic see Skeptical Science.

Comments

  1. #1 Barry Woods
    October 7, 2010

    and Bob Ward’s Climate science qualifications are……

    …..what exactly, compared to the scientists he attacks…

    Bob is a paid pr guy, for the Grantham Institute, named and funded by a hedgy, looking for the next money pot..

    Talk about vested interest…

    Whilst of course having no problem, as a board member of the Science and Media centre, taking funding from Exxon Mobil… (fossil fuel denial machine ‘bogeyman’ of choice)

    I keep asking them for my ‘deniar’ checque, but it never comes (joke)

    http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/pages/about/smc_board.htm

    http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/pages/about/funding.htm

  2. #2 cynicus
    October 7, 2010

    So, many sceptics have no humour, others are intellectually bankrupt, but I sense strong in them is the ideologue.

  3. #3 Marco
    October 7, 2010

    The CO2 increase not being anthropogenic in origin is really utterly laughable, and so easily refutable that I don’t understand why people don’t use this simple example:

    1. We know the amount of CO2 that humans emit into the atmosphere quite well: about 7 GtC/y. The error in that estimate is quite small
    2. We know the increase in atmospheric CO2 also quite well, and it’s about half that of the human contribution. That is, the growth in atmospheric CO2 is LESS than the amount we put in.
    3. This means that all combined natural sources take up more CO2 than they (again, combined) emit. Regardless of how much they emit, they MUST take up more than they emit, or the atmospheric CO2 concentration would increase by MORE than our human contribution. Much more, even, if we are to believe Carter’s doubt on anthropogenic emissions as the source. Simple, Q.E.D. and all that.

  4. #4 Dave H
    October 7, 2010

    Shorter Barry Woods:

    Look over there! Don’t pay any attention to all these glaring “science” problems, just listen to my hypocritical ad hominem!

    And for future reference, if you have to tack “(joke)” on the end, it probably isn’t funny.

  5. #5 Marco
    October 7, 2010

    Barry, the sad story is that someone like Bob Ward has infinitely better and more factual arguments than Bob Carter. In other words, Bob Ward is clearly objectively better qualified to talk about climate than Bob Carter.

  6. #6 Dave R
    October 7, 2010

    Barry Woods:
    >and Bob Ward’s Climate science qualifications are

    What qualifications do you think are required in order to check whether a source actually says what it is quoted as saying?

    Ward’s qualifications would matter if he was making unsupported claims backed only by his own authority. But he is not doing that. All his claims are supported by citing appropriate expert sources. So in questioning his qualifications you are committing the Ad Hominem fallacy.

    Carter, on the other hand, is making unsupported claims. But of course you have no problem with Carter doing that, because his crackpot claims are what you want to hear.

    >I keep asking them for my ‘deniar’ checque, but it never comes

    They may be getting desperate, but they are unlikely ever to be desperate enough to employ a cretin like you.

  7. #7 Former Skeptic
    October 7, 2010

    Carter only attempts a defence on one point and that just underlines what a poor scholar he is.

    “Poor Scholar?” You jest, Lambert! Don’t knock Bob Carter like that! After all, he’s got a PhD in post-normal science where making, erm, stuff up is required.

    Oh, and folks who’ve been here long enough will remember this gem at RC, where he did a Tom Fuller after getting schooled in the comments.

  8. #8 Wow
    October 7, 2010

    > and Bob Ward’s Climate science qualifications are

    He can read English and understand words spoken in English.

    That is all he needs know to say this:

    > And I noted first of all that it had a quote in it, attributed to John Houghton who was a senior member of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. It includes a quote in there that John Houghton has never said, he’s never written and never said, yet it is in this paper by Carter. So that was wrong, I knew.

    But apparently Barry you don’t know how to read English words and completely missed it.

    Poor Ole Barry.

    In the words of Joe Danby in “Support your local Sherrif”: He’s got a heart as big as the whole wide world, but he aint got a single brain in his body.

  9. #9 Fabio Maximus
    October 7, 2010

    Bob Ward has as many peer reviewed papers on climate science as Tim Lambert. Lambert may have him overall though, it seems through Lambs has published one or two over the past 20 years.

    Crikey!

    It is worse than the blind leading the blind, it is the wannabes leading the wannabes.

    Watch Lambs disappear this down the memory hole. Thusly the screen shot.

  10. #10 Wow
    October 7, 2010

    Fabio can’t read either and doesn’t know that all you need to know to work out if a statement about something someone said was correct or not is not to have a climate paper in a science journal, but to be able to comprehend the english language.

    Oh, and have a working brain.

    Poor Fabio.

  11. #11 Andrew
    October 7, 2010

    Poor Fabio

    Fabius Maximus is a collection of retired higher ranking US military types who generally write thoughtful coherent articles on politics c.f. Iraq, Afghanistan, the state of the US, financial issues etc. They do however behave oddly wrt to climate science – which is a little disconcerting given the quality of their other stuff, and consequently a little sad.

  12. #12 Wow
    October 7, 2010

    So, he’s a drawful of socks, then?

  13. #13 Barry Woods
    October 7, 2010

    Bob Ward managed to get deleted by the BBC, in the BBC Newsnightcomments thread when Andrew Montford appeared on Newsnight, a little while ago..

    As he is uusally one of the first people they would get onto Newsnight…

    Maybe Bob’s malign influence is on the wane even at the BBC, his attack PR skills are not working as well any more..

    Looking at his recent output, he has become part of the story, which is not good if you are in his sort of role.

    http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2010/10/4/still-spinning.html

    May, I ask the regulars here, what each of you do personally to prevent what you believe in. ie reduce your own CO2 emmisions…

    As I had pretty much done ALL the ideas suggested in the 10:10 Campaign ‘No Pressure’ class of children, AND i don’t fly, mainly to save energy costs, waste etc, good finacial sense…..

    what has Wow done personally doen to reduce CO2, for example,

    My sister in law is a senior Green, but she does LIVE the lifestyle, putting aside her tiny ‘carbonfootprint’. She is also living proof, that healthy eating, no alcohol, exercise, watch the e-number, no-GM, vegetariannism, is actually very good for her health.. 45 last week, and still gets asked for ID (she does dress like a student though, pink bits in her hair and platform boots, she also has been to many a rally, been interviewed by the BBC and authorised to speak to the media on behalf of the green party

    I don’t criticise her, because she LIVES what she believes in, unlike the Al Gore’s and Franny’s of the world…

    We do discuss it, I don’t call her an ‘alarmist’, she doen’t call me a ‘deniar’ and we probably agree on 90% plus of environmental issues. She is also a very nice poerson, and is traine in PR, postive is always the best aproach, the comment here are whole, destructive to the cause.

    I imagine my ‘carbon footprint’ is lower than many (ALL the Celeb’s 10:10 ers ) that would preach patronisingly from on high, to people with much less afluent, less consumptive lifestyles…..

    My sister in law and many of her green friends are let down by those people, as are all the real envionmental issues, ignored by the CAGW delusion.

  14. #14 MFS
    October 7, 2010

    Shorter Barry:

    >Look at the birdie! Monkeys!!!

    And of course

    >AL GORE!!!

    Pretty pathetic attempt to distract. [Again](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/10/bob_ward_thinks_that_bob_carte.php#comment-2843946), and for the [third time](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/10/bob_ward_thinks_that_bob_carte.php#comment-2843965), Barry, in case you are as incapable of following a logical argument as you appear to be: Bob Ward (or substitute any other person here) needs no expertise in climate science or any other field, in order to draw attention to claims that can be shown to be false.

    Resorting to ad hominem brings you no credibility. Have you no other way of defending Carter? Is Carter really so full of crap there is nothing you can say to support his arguments? Is attacking Ward’s (irrelevant) climate expertise the best case you can put forward?

  15. #15 chek
    October 7, 2010

    [“Barry Woods” said: “May, I ask the regulars here, what each of you do personally to prevent what you believe in. ie reduce your own CO2 emmisions…”](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/10/bob_ward_thinks_that_bob_carte.php#comment-2844125)

    I’m detecting the tell-tale symptoms of brentus hargreavus stalkerus here…

  16. #16 jakerman
    October 7, 2010

    Two points for Barry and Fabio,

    1) neither of them offer any technical defense. They like Carter seek to avoid such;

    2) They are making and appeal to authority, they lose any appeal to authority to the IPCC.

  17. #17 John Quiggin
    October 7, 2010

    I wrote a piece on the same topic and for the same issue, IIRC.

  18. #18 J Bowers
    October 7, 2010

    13 Barry Woods — “I imagine my ‘carbon footprint’ is lower than many (ALL the Celeb’s 10:10 ers )”

    As I pointed out in the 10:10 comments the last time you pulled that meme…

    “Do they? The film’s director got to know 10:10 while on a cross-Europe cycle ride to Cop15. That’s one down…”

  19. #19 M
    October 7, 2010

    Eh. G&T and Chilingar & Khilyuk are still worse than the Carter paper in my book.

    Tailing along behind Carter are Archibald, Essenhigh, Jawoworski (sp?), and Beck. (actually, did Beck publish anywhere other than E&E? I don’t think E&E should count for this competition)

    -M

  20. #20 Dave H
    October 7, 2010

    Barry Woods:

    > May, I ask the regulars here, what each of you do personally to prevent what you believe in. ie reduce your own CO2 emmisions…

    I cut down on my energy consumption by killfiling vacuous thread-derailing trolls. PLONK.

  21. #21 Anonymous37
    October 7, 2010

    For a lucid account (with the sort of scientific references that Carter can’t give) of hy we know that the increase in CO2 since 1750 is anthropogenic see Skptical Science.

    Just a heads-up about 2 typos I caught, Tim.

  22. #22 Cedric Katesby
    October 7, 2010

    Shorter Barry:

    “Look at the birdie! Monkeys!!!”

    And of course

    “AL GORE!!!”

    lol.

    Science deniers deserve nothing but contempt.

  23. #23 jo abbess
    October 7, 2010

    Please be nice to Barry Woods, people.

    He’s really interested in Global Warming, and he’s on the polite end of the spectrum of “sceptics” and deniers.

    I can’t think of the last time he came up with a truly original idea – but citing the work of McIntyre/Morano/Molloy/Monckton is not necessarily a crime if he believes they have valid authority. We’ve all trusted charlatans from time to time, I suspect.

    How about offering him some nice easy-on-the-stress-levels things to read and follow-up ? He can read, if he puts his mind and time to it.

    Groupthink Hug,

    jo.

  24. #24 James Haughton
    October 7, 2010

    The “anthropogenic contribution” furphy is actually more subtle than a blatant lie. Carter et al are deliberately confusing “cause” and “origin”.
    About 100 ppm of the 387 ppm CO2 is caused by human coal-burning, forest clearing, etc; but of the individual CO2 molecules floating around in the atmosphere, much fewer than 100/387 are produced by coal burning. The reason is simple; because the atmosphere is well mixed, the human emissions are absorbed by plants too, and displace naturally emitted molecules that would otherwise be absorbed.

    In any one year, only a small fraction of the CO2 in the atmosphere is anthropogenic in origin, because the anthropogenic-produced (as opposed to caused) amount in the atmosphere is the bit that hasn’t been absorbed yet, not the total production or the total excess displaced CO2. It will be a fraction of the anthropogenic emissions equal to the fractional excess of total emissions over total absorbtions, ie 1-3% or so.

  25. #25 jakerman
    October 7, 2010

    [James’s point](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/10/bob_ward_thinks_that_bob_carte.php#comment-2844544) can be illustrated with bucket model.

    The volume of water in my bucket is 270 ml.

    There is a tiny hole in my bucket, it leaks at 100 ml/hour.

    This rate happens to be the same rate that the bucket is filled from a sump pump return. So the water remains at 270 ml.

    But if I add by hand an extra 1 ml/hr for 110 hours the volume rises to 380ml.

    Hence my contribution of just 1% of the flow rate has raised the volume by 40%.

    In short, Carter is confusing flow rate with volume.

  26. #26 ginckgo
    October 7, 2010

    I have personally worked with Bob Carter in the past, and have great respect for his understanding of carbonate sedimentology and marine geology. He also seems to know a decent amount about palaeoclimates. So it is with great regret that I see him thrashing about seemingly blindly when it comes to AGW. I guess that’s a big lesson in doing science: even people you respect can be wrong.

  27. #27 Bernard J.
    October 7, 2010

    It seems that many, if not most, AGW deniers are arithmetically incompetent. How many times now on Deltoid alone have people had to explain, as James Haughton did above, how it is that the annnual human-emission increment of CO2 adds to the natural dynamic equilibrium in the atmosphere? I know that I’ve lost count of the number of times I have tried to straighten out a Denialatus.

    The extraordinary thing is that the idiotors editors of Economic Analysis and Policy do not understand that it is a simple matter of compound interest on a balance sheet that otherwise has balanced annual income and expenditure. One really has to wonder at the competence of economists who do not appreciate the simple equilibria that underpin what is early-level high school mathematics.

    Of course, one also has to wonder at the competence of Carter, who wrote that travesty of a ‘paper’ in the first place. It seems to me that Carter is either incompetent in even high school mathematics and science or he is deluded, if he truly believes that his paper is an accurate reflection of the science he covers. In my opinion the alternative is that he is a deliberate obfuscator and liar – I can think of no fourth explanation for his nonsensical pronouncements, unless one of his family members is being held hostage by a genuine Evil Climate Denialist…

    I hope that Carter is reading this, and that in a pique of high dudgeon he attempts to sue me for libel. I will happily defend my personal opinions in court, using his paper as a part of my body of evidence for justifying my opinion. I am sure that I can call upon many enthusiastically-willing expert witnesses to help me make my case, and I would greatly relish to opportunity for a legal taking-down of Carter’s garbage.

    Come on Bob, come and get me. Monckton won’t do so, so maybe you can be my guinea-pig.

  28. #28 Michael
    October 8, 2010

    jo @ 23;

    It’s already been done.

    Barry comes back spouting the same nonsense.

  29. #29 John
    October 8, 2010

    Ginckgo, good on you for seperating science from personality, something most deniers are unable to do. After all, Monckton sounds right, so he must be!

  30. #30 Wow
    October 8, 2010

    > He’s really interested in Global Warming, and he’s on the polite end of the spectrum of “sceptics” and deniers.

    ?

    OK, maybe this is a case of “Damned with faint praise”, but no. He isn’t on the polite end of any spectrum.

    After all, would someone *polite* say what he said in post #1?

    No.

    Would someone polite do what he says he’s done in the case of 10:10 and hound a teacher about a movie the children are never going to see in school?

    No.

    He’s a vicious little tyrant who wants it all for himself.

    We wouldn’t let Hannibal Lecter off because he’s less wasteful than other serial murderers, would we?

  31. #31 Wow
    October 8, 2010

    > what has Wow done personally doen to reduce CO2, for example,

    More than you, Bob, as I’ve told you before, but, you’re Bent aren’t you. The Goldfish Memory gives you away.

    > I’m detecting the tell-tale symptoms of brentus hargreavus stalkerus here…

    Meep meep.

    Pity, just like Wile E Cyote (whose name is Mud, or Ralf), dropping an anvil on this clown doesn’t stop him, he just comes back with even more idiotic antics.

  32. #32 Barry Woods
    October 8, 2010

    Well I have decide to do something..

    A email I sent this morning to my Infants Schoold headtecher..

    Dear miss xxxxxx

    As I discussed with you, what the campaigning organisations bring into school, is very different from what they put out ‘officially’ online..

    There is a danger that parents and children consider these SAFE or appropriate websites or youtube material, or internet blogs BECAUSE these people have come into school..

    The groups, heavily promote there material on all the new media, facebook, twitter,official youtube groups, etc,
    where advertsising standards DO NOT APPLY. They are deliberately targeting the young…

    In the article (towards a the end) in the link below are some of the worst ads..
    From Greenpeace, 10:10 wwf (earth hour), government and other mainstream eco groups.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/07/if-you-ever-needed-an-example-of-liberal-media-bias-in-the-usa-here-it-is/

    It ends with a particulary awful picture of a child in a noose, standing on a block of melting (artic) ice.
    That was prominent at Cannes 2009 film festival, a partner of that groups includes the WWF
    http://www.act-responsible.org/ACT/ACTINCANNES/THEEXPO2009.htm

    However, there are numerous other videos, whilst not as graphic, which are just as corrosive, in a slightly more subtle way..

    ie GreenPeace’s 4×4 add with an office worker… (spiting, ostracising, name caling, bullying, in an corporate office)
    http://www.youtube.com/v/NOr6EFoXZMk?version=3

    Finally the video from the Cop15 Copenhagen Opening Conference video. all over the media, BBC, Sky, ITV (especially the last bit of the clip)

    The Cop15 Opening Copenhagen Conference video…
    At the end, a small child running from a tidal wave (IPCC say 59cm in 90 YEARS) the child leaps into a tree,

    left dangling as the sea rushes underneath her, then she starts SCREAMING..

    http://www.youtube.com/v/NVGGgncVq-4?version=3

    This LIE gave my 5 year old daughter nightmares, she still asks about the child..
    She doesn’t understand why someone would make a video like that if it is not true..

    So, I can see the doubt in her eyes when I say, it isn’t true………………..

    They are deliberately targeting the young, a compilation of offical, (UN, UK government, 10:10, greenpeace) clips in this video

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100056892/pachauris-strategy-terrorize-the-children/

    Do you ever meet with other Headteachers in the area, may I ask you to discuss this with them and to show them these videos,
    to demonstarte my concerns and the risks to children (probably more the older junior – secondary).
    these are ALL offical mainstream ‘responsible’ groups or government sponsored/funded
    (imagine what the more extreme groups linked to the above are like!)

    Whether or not anybody agrees or not with what they are promoting, is NOT the issue, the concern is how they are doing it.

    It is all very negative with the threat of violence or acts of violence to animals and children..
    With an underlying message of bullying to conform with there views.

    Nothing positive

    I am very proud that my daughter is a member of the eco-team for all the real environmental reasons.

    Best Regards

    Barry Woods

  33. #33 Paul UK
    October 8, 2010

    >Bob is a paid pr guy, for the Grantham Institute, named and funded by a hedgy, looking for the next money pot..

    Yes a capitalist funding a ‘warmist’ institution, whatever next?
    Follow the money and you find diversity.

  34. #34 snide
    October 8, 2010

    Bob Carter’s only talent is being able to sound completely sincere and reasonable while telling blatant lies. He usually hides out at ‘Counterpoint’, where he doesn’t have to worry about being exposed for the liar he is. They meekly accept everything he says, since they appear to understand very little of what they are even trying to ask him.

  35. #35 Bernard J.
    October 8, 2010

    In his reply to Ward, Carter says:

    The arguments he raises are weary ones, and have been put to bed by qualified, independent
    scientists many times.

    I have several questions for Carter, the answers to which he should be able to rattle off with lightning speed if they are so robust:

    1. Can Carter provide a list of the rebuttals to Ward’s points?
    2. Can Carter provide a list of the authors of these rebuttals to Ward’s points?
    3. Can Carter provide lists of the qualifications and of the demonstrations of the independence of the authors of these rebuttals to Ward’s points?
    4. And, for completeness, can Carter provide a list of the publication sources and of the review methodologies of these rebuttals to Ward’s points?

    I’d happily bet a redback that he can’t produce any such comprehensive list of rebuttals of Ward’s points, that stands up to impartial scrutiny.

    If he can do so on this thread by the end of the month, I personally will declare my allegiance henceforth to the Denialist side – as well as posting Carter that redback.

  36. #36 Boris
    October 8, 2010

    I love when skeptics play the appeal to authority card.

    It’s the NAS of all industrialized nations vs. Bob Carter, whose ideas were relegated to an economics journal. Good luck.

  37. #37 Barry Woods
    October 8, 2010

    Will Tim let me reply, or is a longer post stuck in the spam filter. Just a letter I wrote to my child’s headteacher.

  38. #38 Michael
    October 8, 2010

    Bazza, it’s most likely caught in the tedious filter.

  39. #39 Wow
    October 8, 2010

    > Just a letter I wrote to my child’s headteacher.

    Why?

    > It took 1 minute 12 secoonds, for her to ring up 10:10, withdraw the school from 10:10 and say to them that the school would have no further involvement…

    Or did you not actually ring her?

    Maybe you want to get her to withdraw from 10:10 *EVEN MORE*!!!

  40. #40 Knightly
    October 8, 2010

    #1, you’re right, we shouldn’t take his word for it just because we like what he’s saying.

    That said, what are your actual objections? You gave us some reasons to question him. That’s a good start. Now what, precisely, should we be questioning about what he said? Should we simply not trust him, “just because?”

    Even if he’s a hypocrite and a monster, that doesn’t automatically make him wrong. If you have an objection, state it. If you want to attack the man for disagreeing with you, there are places for that.

  41. #41 John
    October 8, 2010

    @ Barry,

    Being stuck in the filter probably means your angry missive has a word like “fra*d” in it. I await it with baited breath.

    Also, in writing to a teacher I hope you used better grammar than you do here.

  42. #42 elspi
    October 8, 2010

    That is going to leave a mark.

    A real flogging that was.

    I have actually refereed such a “spanking” before.

    Each and every claim in Ward’s paper will have been check by the referee and found totally true (otherwise the referee would have removed it).

  43. #43 Barry Woods
    October 8, 2010

    41

    RealClimate style.. Deleting comments, rather than face them.. Hero

  44. #44 chek
    October 8, 2010

    There’s no obvious signs of disgust or shock and awe on the Local Ed. Authority grapevine or teacher message boards.

    Perhaps I should be looking under advice requests to see if there’s any recent posts on what female staff should do when being harrassed via phone and letter by lone nutters?

  45. #45 BArry Woods
    October 8, 2010

    41 – sorry my mistaek thought I was being taken down..
    I presume my reply is still stuck inthe spam filter..

    Only Tim knows what was in the ‘spam’ filter..

    Why can’t he decide..

    I know. I’ll post it elsewhere, say Bishop Hill…
    If anyone wants to see what was so bad…..

    Or you can just live in this la la land where everyone that disagrees with you, is a fraud, or big oil funded deniar..

    I see Jo abbess said hello..

    Occasionally I comment on her blog, she look lonely.. usually no comments…

  46. #46 P. Lewis
    October 8, 2010

    RealClimate style.. Deleting comments, rather than face them.. Hero

    It’s currently about 03:30 in Adelaide, so if that message was sent 3 or 4 hours ago and is stuck in a spam filter, then it is likely to still be there until TL rescues it at some reasonable time of the (local) day… well after breakfast I’d say.

    I’ve had this happen before, as have others on here. … But perhaps it has been deleted, for which there is usually a good reason, but allowing a post and disemvowelling is TL’s usual first action. So, until you have evidence that it has been deleted (have you?), then wiser counsel is advised.

  47. #47 cynicus
    October 8, 2010

    jakerman is plagiarising an example from the late Stephen Schneider and I bet he would be proud of you! :-)

  48. #49 dizzy
    October 8, 2010

    I think I know that “website about fossils of West Virginia.”

    // The intentions of Mother Nature were not to preserve this fossil […] of the Appalachian Coalfields.
    In 1985 a private entrepreneur named Carl rescued this fossil. Carl worked to remove the last 60 feet of rock over it, to get at the coal beneath it. His investment to do this in 1985 was $7 million of heavy equipment (992-C loader/ 777 haulers, D-8 class dozers, etc.). He hired 35 people at $45,000+/ year, many of whom had previously known perpetual welfare and food stamps. Carl made the land owners wealthy by paying them generous coal royalties for the privilege of mining.

    Carl spent a fortune on operating supplies and taxes, which gave many more people good jobs and paid for building good roads to get them there. …//
    The Strip Miner

    It also has a Global Warming Test

  49. #50 jakerman
    October 8, 2010

    cynicus, long may his ideas live.

  50. #51 jakerman
    October 8, 2010

    BTW cynicus thanks for the reference, I forgotten from whom I’d come across that idea. Schneider was great at making ideas accessible and hence stick.

  51. #52 Michael
    October 8, 2010

    Which takes one back to his SBS appearance, and using this same anaolgy to the GP in the audience, who feigned (I hope!!) not to understand it.

  52. #53 Billy Bob Hall
    October 8, 2010

    Thanks to Billy Bob Hall for bringing the excesses of Robyn ‘100 metres sea level rise’ Wiliams into the spot-light again.
    I notice Robyn had no intention of interviewing Bob Carter when the paper was first published. No of course not, there is a blanket ban on interviewing Bob Carter on ‘your ABC’.
    And how convenient, that someone has taken the time to criticize the paper Dr Carter is a Co-Author of, just when he is about to launch his new book. How convenient indeed.
    Robyn Wiliams should be fired.

  53. #54 Tim Lambert
    October 8, 2010

    Barry Woods, your lengthy off-topic comment is in the spam filter and it is not coming out because it has nothing to do with the topic of this post.

  54. #55 Michael
    October 8, 2010

    Yes!, the Tedious Filter has picked out Barry.

    Nice work.

  55. #56 Barry Woods
    October 9, 2010

    oops wrong topic..as it was about 10:10..Ok to put it in that one.

  56. #57 TomG
    October 9, 2010

    I do believe poor Barry lost track of which site he was on.

  57. #58 John Mashey
    October 9, 2010

    I’m too busy to look, but I’ve heard rumors that Carter has a book coming out and that it relies on a certain Wegman Report.
    Anybody know anything about that?

    Some have expressed dismay that Oz only has one entry in SSWR’s “books-that-use-Wegman” list (i.e., Plimer), and mro aer always welcome. There are bound to be revisions.

  58. #59 John
    October 10, 2010

    Barry, the software can’t move comments so you’ll have to repost it there yourself. Seeing as you’re quoting an email you wrote, cutting and pasting it exactly the way you originally typed it here should be a cinch.

  59. #60 Rob
    October 10, 2010

    CLIMATE DATA DOES NOT SUPPORT MAN MADE GLOBAL WARMING.

    Here is what the data says in black and white.

    http://bit.ly/de8ihf

    1) Global warming rate of 0.15 deg C per decade from 1910 to 1940, which gives a global warming of 0.45 deg C during the previous 30-years warming phase

    2) Global warming rate of 0.16 deg C per decade from 1970 to 2000, which gives a global warming of 0.48 deg C during the recent 30-years warming phase

    As a result, the effect of 60 years of human emission of CO2 between the two warming phases on the global warming rate is nil.

    The data, the science, does not support the theory of man-made global warming.

    The observed warming is NATURAL.

  60. #61 Bernard J.
    October 10, 2010

    Sigh.

    There is not bottom to Stupid, or to the cave from whence the [Agents of Stupid](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/10/bob_ward_thinks_that_bob_carte.php#comment-2850247) issue forth.

  61. #62 Rob
    October 10, 2010

    (Continued to Post 57)

    And, most important, there has been little warming since 2000 as shown in the following plot:

    http://bit.ly/aDni90

    Conclusion: The theory of man-made global warming is scientifically baseless.

  62. #63 jakerman
    October 11, 2010

    Rob is Girm@

  63. #64 Rob
    October 11, 2010

    (Continued to Post 59)

    And, important also is that with INCREASE in human emission of CO2 for 30-years from 1940 to 1970, the global mean temperature actually DECREASED, disproving the theory of man-made global warming as shown in the following plot:

    http://bit.ly/9UvZjy

  64. #65 jakerman
    October 11, 2010

    Rob is Grim@

  65. #66 Lotharsson
    October 11, 2010

    > …with INCREASE in human emission of CO2 for 30-years from 1940 to 1970, the global mean temperature actually DECREASED, disproving the theory of man-made global warming…

    Rob, as has been explained many times to people making the same claim, that would only be true if CO2 were the **only** factor influencing climate change at the time. But **no-one** with any serious climate science credentials says that.

    It’s like you saying “I pressed down a bit harder on the accelerator back there and I went a little slower, thus disproving the theory that more fuel makes my car go faster”, only to have your passenger point out that your “disproof” is invalid because you pressed down a bit harder as you were going up a *really* steep hill…

  66. #67 Lidya
    October 11, 2010

    Man-Made Global Warming=> “It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist.”

    http://bit.ly/9L3sCi

  67. #68 Robert Murphy
    October 11, 2010

    “Yet even educated persons mostly have no comprehension that the overwhelmingly dominant greenhouse gas is water vapour a minor greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide causes less than 4% of the warming…”

    That’s because most educated people know that’s a lot of horse hockey. Water vapor, while having the largest greenhouse effect (about 40-70’something percent- it’s not a static figure) is a feedback not a forcing in our atmosphere. The rising CO2 is acting as a forcing however. And CO2 contributes about 25% of the greenhouse effect, not anywhere near 4%.

  68. #69 Richard Simons
    October 11, 2010

    . . . human emissions represent just a tiny portion (~3%) of that 4%. [the claimed contribution of CO2 to atmospheric warming]

    Where did you find this nonsense? I think you are confusing annual production with the amount present in the atmosphere.

    As an analogy, suppose a couple have annual income and expenses both equal to $49,000, then the amount in their bank account will remain constant at, say, $10,000. However, their child starts earning $1,000 a year and adding the money to the family bank account. After 5 years, they will have $15,000 in their account (neglecting interest). Did the child add $5,000 to the family savings? Your argument would be that they only contributed 1/50 of the increase, or 2%. Which do you think is the more appropriate description of the cause of the increase in the bank account?

  69. #70 Bernard J.
    October 12, 2010

    Carter must be enjoying the Wegman distraction.

  70. #71 Fabius Maximus
    October 12, 2010

    Re: Andrew’s comment at 4:16 pm

    Fabio Maximus” is not the same as “Fabius Maximus”. CO2 matters, but so does spelling.

    “They do however behave oddly wrt to climate science – which is a little disconcerting given the quality of their other stuff, and consequently a little sad.”

    Almost all the climate science articles mentioned on the FM website are from peer-reviewed journal. Most of them major journals. See the list of citations [here](http://fabiusmaximus.wordpress.com/science-other). The goals:

    1) showing that the consensus asserted in the general media does not well represent the actual state of climate science, and
    2) that the current level of knowledge is an inadequate basis at this time for massive public policy action. Additional funding — much larger funding — is needed.

    That Andrew finds citations of journal articles to be “sad” is … interesting.

  71. #72 Dave R
    October 12, 2010

    Fabius Maximus:
    >Almost all the climate science articles mentioned on the FM website are from peer-reviewed journal.

    The first section, “Articles specifically about global warming” contains 8 articles. Apart from a couple of real peer-reviewed papers that do not dispute the scientific consensus on climate change, we have G&T, a presentation by McIntyre, E&E and Inhofe. Almost bad enough to make Poptart’s list look good.

  72. #73 Fabius Maximus
    October 13, 2010

    There are 180 articles listed.

    * One article is from Energy and Environment.

    * Fourteen are by McIntyre. Twelve of these concern his struggle to get valuable data, most of it funded by taxes, released to the public. He performed a valuable public service, helping create an important precedent. One of Obama’s first acts was to require release of such research.

    The Inhofe article was listed as a reference. Which it is, a set of links to legitimate research publications.

    What’s your point?

  73. #74 Lotharsson
    October 14, 2010

    > …showing that the consensus asserted in the general media does not well represent the actual state of climate science…

    The trouble is that a list of articles does not show this, no matter how much the list compilers assert that it does.

    The consensus is formed by assessing *the entire set of scientific literature* on each particular question, and the mere existence of an article (or even articles) asserting other than the consensus on a question does not mean that the consensus was incorrectly formed. (Heck, it does not even demonstrate that the listed article was *not considered* as part of the assessment of the literature. And it most certainly does not demonstrate that any listed paper is of *sufficient quality* to merit assessment – G&T being an obvious counter-example whose presence indicates that the list compilers are unable or unwilling to assess scientific claims on their merits.)

    It should be relatively obvious why:

    > …that the current level of knowledge is an inadequate basis at this time for massive public policy action…

    …is not demonstrated by the list either, if only from considerations of risk assessment (both climate change effects **and** resource security) in the face of a degree of uncertainty. Heck, the US military strategists seem to think there’s already adequate basis to plan for climate change induced contingencies.

  74. #75 Fabius Maximus
    October 14, 2010

    Lotharsson: “The trouble is that a list of articles does not show this, no matter how much the list compilers assert that it does. … is not demonstrated by the list ”

    Yes, that’s why articles have text, which the citations support. Laypeople on both sides of the debate commonly make the mistake you describe, but you wrongly assume it here. Neither my comment nor articles assert anything so absurd.

    It’s a list of citations in 113 articles with the goal of making a two points about the climate change debate — and the need for far greater research funding.

    The list was rebuttal to a comment about sources by David R, who was responding to my rebuttal to someone confusing my work with that of “Fabio.”

  75. #76 Dave R
    October 14, 2010

    >What’s your point?

    a) That your claim that almost all of the items listed are peer-reviewed journal articles was false.

    b) That the inclusion of such tripe demonstrates that whoever compiled the list hasn’t got a clue.

    >Fourteen are by McIntyre. Twelve of these concern his struggle to get valuable data

    These are self-published rants on his website. They do not support your claim — they are further evidence that your claim was false. And McIntyre’s numerous claims have all been shown to be false. See [here](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/10/mcintyre_had_the_data_all_alon.php), for example.

    >The Inhofe article […] is, a set of links to legitimate research publications.

    No it isn’t, nor does it even claim to be. It claims to be a list of scientists who are sceptical of the scientific consensus on climate change, and as has been demonstrated, it is as worthless as your list. For example, see [here](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/12/650_international_scientists_e.php), [here](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/12/inhofe_less_honest_than_the_di.php) and [here](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/12/more_on_inhofes_alleged_list_o.php).

    >There are 180 articles listed.

    The first section was enough to draw the conclusion that whoever compiled the list is utterly clueless about the subject.

    A quick look at the rest of it confirms it, with all the rest of the usual crackpot stuff included, like Morner and Beck, along with multiple articles from anti-science bloggers and journalists like McIntyre, Watts, Solomon, Booker etc.

  76. #77 TrueSceptic
    October 14, 2010

    66 FM,

    the need for far greater research funding.

    Well at least that’s different to the usual claims that billions of dollars, or even “literally trillions” according to Donald Rapp, have been wasted on climate science (because climate scientists are only in it for the research grants, not the science). By what factor do you consider the funding should be increased? How much do you think is being spent now?

  77. #78 Lotharsson
    October 14, 2010

    > Yes, that’s why articles have **text**, which the citations support.

    I should point out that I was using “list of articles” to refer to the list of published papers, web posts and the like that appear in the FM list (a) because “paper” is an insufficiently generic term for the items on that list, and (b) because you used that definition at first:

    > Almost all the climate science articles mentioned on the FM website are from peer-reviewed journal.

    I assume your latest comment now uses “article” to refer to articles on the FM website, which is rather a different definition.

    And not having examined the articles on the website, one wonders how citing G&T (or even McIntyre) in an article advances any argument to the effect that:

    > …the consensus asserted in the general media does not well represent the actual state of climate science…

    (although it could do so if said website articles employ a strawman definition of “consensus”), or even advance the argument that:

    > …the current level of knowledge is an inadequate basis at this time for massive public policy action.

    The problem is that G&T is a terrible paper, and citing terrible papers in support of one’s arguments that the scientific consensus is not validly formed paints the author of those arguments as scientifically incompetent to render such a judgement – and/or implies that the author apparently couldn’t find a *better* paper to support their argument.

    Either way it is not a good look.

  78. #79 Fabius Maximus
    October 15, 2010

    A few points about Dave R’s comment:

    That he consider releasing public-funded data to the public as unreasonable (or crackpot) says much about his values. He could write President Obama, urging him to reverse the orders of 21 January).

    The Senate Minority staff report (Inhofe) is a set of excerpts, supported by well over a thousand links (to a wide range of publications, of varying quality). Dave R. probably did not look at it, and wrote based on the title.

    TrueSceptic: “By what factor do you consider the funding should be increased?”

    Whatever it takes, which seems reasonable considering the stakes. Guessing, I doubt the cost (both capital and operating) would exceed 1-2% of the roughly $1 trilion/year the US spends on defense and intel. The cost would be esp trival if the projects were run by an internation body, with the major nations sharing the cost.

    “How much do you think is being spent now?”

    I don’t know or care. NOAA is aprox $5/b year; NASA $18B/year — and both have broad responsiblities other than climate research. What matters is the admitted underfunding. Two examples.
    (1) Both NASA and CRU say that quality control of the temp records is minimal, done by a small staff with other responsibilites.
    (2) There are no plans to replace the vital but 13 year old ACE satellite, our early warning for solar storms (see here for details).

    Why is this controversial? Both sides should support increased funding (except for the real troglodytrs).

    I didn’t intend to get drawn into a discussion here, just correct the “fabio” confusion. Should anyone want to see some analysis of these points, see the articles (and citations) at the FM website. There is also a comment form. Goodbye.

  79. #80 Fabius Maximus
    October 15, 2010

    Lotharsson: “The problem is that G&T is a terrible paper, and citing terrible papers in support of one’s arguments that the scientific consensus is not validly formed paints the author of those arguments as scientifically incompetent to render such a judgement – and/or implies that the author apparently couldn’t find a better paper to support their argument”

    Whatever, dude. Nice to at last meet the ultimate judge of these things. Got your Nobels yet?

    “‘paper’ is an insufficiently generic term for the items on that list”

    Yawn. You’re really out of the zone.

    The articles I write cite a wide range of sources. That you can pick a few of them, ignoring the ones from journals I assume you deem OK, is nice but IMO uninteresting. Try discussing the ones from journals that meet your standards. Others might find such comments of value.

    L’s coment was too fun to ignore. Goodbye. /Addendum

  80. #81 Lotharsson
    October 15, 2010

    > Nice to at last meet the ultimate judge of these things.

    I’m not the ultimate judge. It’s a very widely held view amongst those competent enough to assess G&T.

    > You’re really out of the zone.

    I have no idea what “out of the zone” means to you, but I was pointing out that *you* were misinterpreting me.

  81. #82 Marco
    October 15, 2010

    Fabius Maximus, let me add a few other problems with your list. Just two, so it is easier for you to get through:

    1. You refer to Keenlyside et al (2008) (Latif is the co-author), AND Fred Pearce’s discussion of the paper. People who read the paper and then Pearce’s discussion…get confused. Not only does Keenlyside et al NOT predict cooling (they mention that it is *possible*, but that’s not the same as saying it will), their prediction was not that good, as they showed themselves
    http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/44617000/gif/_44617158_global_mean_temps466.gif

    2. Verschuren et al (2010) involved a disastrously poor press release. Anyone reading the paper wonders where the paper claims the current Kilimanjaro glacier melting is not due to global warming. In fact, reading the paper gives *me* the impression that there is no current drought pattern that would predict glacier melting. At the very best, this paper indicates that the current glacier melting *may* be *in part* due to insufficient rainfall.

    Rule number 1: never trust a press release. Rule number 2: never trust a journalist’s interpretation of a paper. Rule number 3: never trust Roger Pielke Jr.’s interpretation of a paper on hurricanes. He’s got vested interest in that area. This last comment is free of charge…

  82. #83 Lotharsson
    October 15, 2010

    Spent two minutes looking at some website articles from Fabius Maximus.

    Feel free to explain how they demonstrate the propositions that “…the consensus asserted in the general media does not well represent the actual state of climate science…” and “…the current level of knowledge is an inadequate basis at this time for massive public policy action.”

    [An example of important climate change research hidden, lest it spoil the media’s narrative](http://fabiusmaximus.wordpress.com/2009/05/22/climate-change/)

    This article begins:

    > The big lie of the mainstream media narrative of climate science is that the issue is settled. This is one in a series of articles showing the rest of the story, which is slowly seeping through the cracks into public view.

    It buttresses this assertion with a Christopher Booker column entitled “Rise of sea levels is ‘the greatest lie ever told’” from the Daily Telegraph in the UK about Nils Morner, and a couple of Watts Up With That posts. It contains a number of clear errors, and does little to advance its assertions on its own.

    The claim essentially relies on the strawman that “consensus” means “100% of scientists agree”, and the article makes no attempt to assess the state of science regarding sea levels or the evidence that goes against Morner’s claims.

    Then there’s [The Senate Minority report is out: “More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims”](http://fabiusmaximus.wordpress.com/2008/12/12/senate-2/) which does little more than report that Inhofe’s updated list was publicised again.

    And [No significant warming since 1995](http://fabiusmaximus.wordpress.com/2010/02/15/warming/) riffing off Phil Jones’ well-publicised comments under a misleading headline.

    I’m not seeing any attempt to accurately assess the state of the science and demonstrate the propositions claimed as motivation for writing the articles yet. Maybe they’re in the other articles – I selected these from the article list because the titles suggested they were unlikely to advance demonstration of the aforementioned propositions.

  83. #84 Lotharsson
    October 15, 2010

    I got curious why G&T was on the Fabius Maximus citation list. Its only appearance according to Google is in a 3rd-party comment towards the bottom of [this post](http://fabiusmaximus.wordpress.com/2009/06/06/nasa-3/). The comment merely gives a link and quotes the abstract. Fabius Maximus adds:

    > This is a great reference; thank you for posting. I’ve heard there was debate about this, but have never followed up those leads. I’ll add it to the list in the FM reference page.

    Readers can draw their own conclusions about the citation list and its relevance to the stated goals:

    > 1) showing that the consensus asserted in the general media does not well represent the actual state of climate science, and 2) that the current level of knowledge is an inadequate basis at this time for massive public policy action. Additional funding — much larger funding — is needed.

  84. #85 Harold Pierce Jr
    October 17, 2010

    ATTN: Deltoid Dingo Dogs!

    Monte Hieb is a chief engineer who is employed by the WV Office of Miners’ Heath, Safety and Training and is presently located in the Oak Hill Region where he works in mapping.

    BW says:

    “One of the many erroneous assertions made by Hieb (2003) was that the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide is 368.4 parts per million (ppm) of which the anthropogenic contribution is 11.88 ppm”

    He used data for October 2000, and for that year the concentration of CO2 in purified dry air was 368.4 ppmv.

    and

    “I should note that Hieb cites the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center as the source for his claim that the anthropogenic contribution to current CO2 levels is just 11.88 ppm even though the CDIAC says no such thing.”

    He cites the IEA Greenhouse R&D Programme as a source for data pertaining to “Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change”.
    The reports published by IEA are freely available to
    “members” of this organizarion and other affliated organizatons (e.g., goverments and universities). However, for non-meembers the price is $400 for any report.

    His calculations are for an atmosphere under constant illumination and with a uniform distribution of gases at constant temperature, pressure and humidity.

    He used the concentration of CO2 for purified dry air which
    does not occur in the earth’s atmosphere and is comprised of N2, 02, the inert gases, which are the fixed gases, and C02 and which is used for analysis by NDIR spectroscopy for CO2 content. He does not state the absolute humidity but is apparently about !%.

    The composition of purified dry (i.e., the relative amounts of the fixed gases and C02) is fairly uniform through out the atmosphere and is independent of location, elevation, temperature, pressure and humidity except for minor local variations in particular with respect to C02.

    Use of concentration as a metric for C02 for various climate calculations is incorrect and is fatal flaw. The metrics that should be used is either mass per unit volume or moles per unit volume. The mass or moles of CO2 in any volume of the atmosphere is a complex function of location, elevation, temperature, pressure, humidity, biologial and human activities, wind, and the present or absence of clouds, fog or rain. There is usually less CO2 in the air than is indicated by standard methods of analysis.

    Since Hieb’s claim that human contribution of 11.8 pppmv of CO2 for 2000 seems much too low, I’ll call him up and ask him where he got this value and report the info here.

    His email address is “Monte.R.Hieb@wv.gov”.

  85. #86 Lotharsson
    October 17, 2010

    > Since Hieb’s claim that human contribution of 11.8 pppmv of CO2 for 2000 seems much too low…

    He is probably reporting the proportion of CO2 molecules *currently in the atmosphere* of anthropogenic *origin* rather than the proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere that is there *due to anthropogenic factors*.

    There’s a lot of exchange between CO2 in the atmosphere and other CO2 sources and sinks, so a large proportion of the anthropogenic molecules are fairly “quickly” (in climate terms) replaced in the atmosphere by CO2 molecules of non-anthropogenic origin, but that replacement would not have taken place if the much larger anthropogenic contribution had not taken place.

  86. #87 Wow
    October 18, 2010

    Rather like the undying “Volcanoes produce more CO2 than humans EVER did”.

    It was true if you’re talking about the extinction level events from super-volcanoes.

    It’s left to the reader to find that titbit out, since they want the idea that this is CURRENT volcano activity, not pre-historic.

  87. #88 Icarus
    October 19, 2010

    Bob Carter is simply dishonest, as watching one of his presentations in a Youtube video for a minute or two will amply demonstrate. Given that, everything he says is worthless, and can be disregarded.

  88. #89 Peter Forsythe
    October 20, 2010

    Bob Ward claims in the Science Show (above) that Bob Carter’s paper (2008) “includes a quote in there that John Houghton has never said, he’s never written and never said, yet it is in this paper by Carter. So that was wrong, I knew.” (What Sir John did NOT say, according to Ward is ‘unless we announce disasters, no one will listen’).

    In his paper rebutting Carter (2008), Ward (2010), says:

    “Not only is the quote fictional, but it conveys a completely different impression from statements appearing in the ‘Preface’ in Houghton (1994), such as “scientists have a responsibility to communicate the best possible information about the likely magnitude of climate change, along with estimates”.

    So, clearly Ward thinks that it’s pretty awful to contemplate that one would “use” disasters to promote the likely magnitude of climate change.

    About the provenance of the quote, Ward says:

    It seems that the fabricated quote first appeared in a column by Piers Akerman (2006) in the Australian newspaper ‘The Sunday
    Telegraph’ (Connor 2010)”.

    But that’s not correct.

    What Houghton did say — in similar, if not *exact* words — is in an article from the Sunday Telegraph of 10 September 1995, in an interview with Frances Welsh.

    Here’s what Sir John Houghton said then:

    “if we want a good environmental policy in future, we’ll have to have a disaster”.

    I grant that that’s not *exactly* the same as what Houghton is claimed by Ward (2010) NOT to have said. But it seems to amount to pretty much the same thing, to me at least. Indeed, reviewing the 1995 statement again, I’m not sure that it’s not a touch worse than the one he’s said Not to have said…….

    In the same article, btw, Houghton also said: “God tries to coax and woo. Human sin may also be involved; the effect will be the same”…

    There’s a scan of the article here. (Courtesy John Adams)

    [BTW: a grammatical note from a pedant: the title of the Post should not be “… Bob Carter has probably published….”. (he *has* published, he hasn’t *probably* published!). It should read “… Bob Carter has published probably …..“. ]

  89. #90 Tim Lambert
    October 20, 2010

    What Houghton said is completely different in meaning from what Carter claimed he said. See discussion [here](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/akermangate_piers_akerman_caug.php).

    And you [are wrong wrong wrong on your grammatical point as well](http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/002054.html).

  90. #91 Gaz
    October 21, 2010

    But it seems to amount to pretty much the same thing, to me at least.

    They obviously don’t amount to “pretty much the same thing”, Peter.

  91. #92 TrueSceptic
    October 23, 2010

    81 Tim,

    I think you are missing Peter Forsythe’s point. He is not (I think) complaining about a split infinitive but about the word “probably” being associated with the wrong verb, namely “published”. There is no uncertainty (“probably”) about it being published. The uncertainty belongs with the phrase “worst climate paper”.

    IOW it is not a grammatical point but a semantic one. Your subject line would better convey what was meant if it had said

    “Bob Ward thinks that Bob Carter has published what is probably the worst paper on climate change ever”

    (Sorry.)

  92. #93 P. Lewis
    October 24, 2010

    If anyone wants to be pedantic, then Carter, unless he self-published in this instance, probably hasn’t published anything. It is the publisher who has published what is probably the worst paper on climate change, a paper that was written by Carter. Of course, during this chain of events, Carter will then have been published.

    Anyway, being prescriptive for the moment, the adverb “probably” (or any other adverb you probably care to choose), when used in the middle of a sentence (rather than at the front or end), goes after the “be” verb (in all its tense forms), after any auxiliary verb or before the auxiliary and main verbs.

    So, TL’s positioning of “probably” is absolutely fine. Trueskeptic’s positioning is fine, too, but the sentence is formed slightly differently to Tim’s.

    But being less prescriptive, where the adverb is placed in English can be a very fluid choice. Being reasonable, [probably] the only place you wouldn’t put “probably” is [probably] before “thinks”, [probably,] because that would change the sense. It would be the wrong adverb choice in that case anyway. A more apt adverb of certainty in that instance would definitely be “definitely”.

    [Trueskeptic: I think TL was getting at something altogether different in that link.]

  93. #94 P. Lewis
    October 24, 2010

    Oops! Truesceptic!

  94. #95 TrueSceptic
    October 24, 2010

    84 P. Lewis,

    I don’t see how the link is about something else. If it’s not just about split infinitives then it’s about grammatical pedantry in general. The semantic point stands, and I altered Tim’s subject line to make the meaning clear (IMO).

    BTW I’m used to it as “skeptic” is the US spelling. ;)

  95. #96 P. Lewis
    October 24, 2010

    Hi TrueSkeptic (tsk, tsk)

    I’m 99.99% certain that Tim knows what a split infinitive is. So, since his title to this blog piece doesn’t contain one, then, by referring to that link, it seemed to me he can only have been referring to pedantry, the “Editor, edit thyself” and the point about the pointless game of “grammar gotcha”, at least in this instance of grammar gotcha (it does have its place). If that’s not the case, then I’m sure he’ll interject.

    I can’t see that semantics really comes into it in this instance either (there is no ambiguity in reality in Tim’s title). The prescriptive rule on adverb placement has been followed by Tim to the letter. His original is fine. Your rewrite is fine. And I dare say the original respondent’s is fine (though I’d have to go back to look). And there are a few other correct (re)formulations.

    Where I’d take issue with Tim is in the length of his blog piece title, since it cuts down on the number of recent posts you can see when looking in. He is in need of a headline sub. A more succinct title is called for, one that encapsulates the gist: e.g. “Ward thinks Carter is an idiot, probably”, or “Ward thinks Carter is probably an idiot”, or…. ;-)

    Enough grammar and semantics. Time for Sunday lunch, and a glass or two. :-)

  96. #97 Gaz
    October 24, 2010

    Truesceptic is right about the ambiguity, but it’s such an obvious one that a reader automatically corrects for it and moves on.

    They do crop up from time to time in news stories in this form: “A man was found guilty of torturing his dog in the magistrate’s court today..”

    Yep, time to move on…

  97. #98 Ted Bradley
    December 9, 2010

    Nice quality of debate !? How I pray that the majority of comments posted in response to this blog were not provided by anyone with real influence or authority in the world of climate change. The idea that some of you may help decide the climate change politics of nations fills me with fear for the future of humanity.

Current ye@r *