March 2012 Open Thread

Comments

  1. #1 Scribe
    March 1, 2012

    Radio Ecoshock : Free the Climate Scientists

  2. #2 Dave H
    March 1, 2012

    BBD left this link in comments at Kloor’s. Adam Curtis, excellent as always:

    [The bizarre story of thinktanks](http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/adamcurtis/2011/09/the_curse_of_tina.html)

  3. #3 JPGK
    March 1, 2012

    [Scientists to construct artificial human brain by 2023; rat brain by 2014](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_rPH1Abuu9M&feature=player_embedded)

  4. #4 Amoeba
    March 1, 2012

    Re: Scribe @ 1.
    Link does not work.

  5. #5 Lionel A
    March 1, 2012

    Scribe

    No active html behind what looks like a link in your #1

  6. #6 Chris Winter
    March 1, 2012

    The actual title of the Radio Ecoshock podcast is [Free the Scientists](http://www.ecoshock.net/eshock12/ES_120229_Show_LoFi.mp3)

  7. #7 Lionel A
    March 1, 2012

    I would like to take this opportunity to raise awareness of a process afoot to undermine any progress made in the UK with respect to reducing GHG levels and pursuing a low too none fossil fuel based economy.

    The is to have selected ‘skeptics’ brief members of our legislature through the machinations of non-legislature members such as Christopher Monckton.

    There have now been two seminar sessions the first on November 30 2010 delivered by Phillip Stott, Ian Plimer, Donna Laframboise, Ruth Lea and Matt Ridley , which may already have been discussed elsewhere here.

    The second was just this last February 22 2012 with Richard Lindzen delivering the message, which message was almost a boiler plate copy of his testimony to the US House Subcommittee on Science and Technology hearing in November 2010.

    A pdf of his presentation was available at Curry’s house but strangely missing one of the slides.

  8. #8 John Mashey
    March 1, 2012

    re: #4, thanks for the plug!

  9. #9 MikeH
    March 1, 2012

    @3
    The rat brain has already been done. Check out the Jonas thread :-)

  10. #10 chek
    March 1, 2012

    In a similar vein MikeH, I had been going to suggest a working prototype denialist brain by next Tuesday.

  11. #11 StevoR
    March 1, 2012

    Well I made an interesting discovery a few days ago :

    One of the many howlers in Plimer’s book that struck me as an unfathomably bad one even in my former climate contrarian phase was this one :

    “In 1998, the Hubble telescope showed that a moon of Neptune (Triton) *had warmed* since it was visited by the Explorer (!?!?!) space probe in 1989.”
    - Page 129, Ian Plimer, Heaven & Earth, Connor Court, 2009. (Unbolded brackets original – not the emphasised WTF one!)

    Which, as someone whose love of astronomy was inspired in part by the 1989 Voyager II fly-by of Neptune immediately had me thinking “Explorer?” Huh?!? What the ..?” There was one & only one spacecraft to ever fly past Neptune and that space probe – as I thought everyone knew – was ‘Voyager 2′.

    It was a well known fact and such an incredibly basic error that a minutes research would show that I found it hard to understand how Plimer could possibly make it or allow it to stand.

    Well, recently I was reading – out of morbid curiosity – contrarian Christopher Booker’s The Real Global Warming Disaster and guess what I read on page 188 of that :

    “This had first been noticed in 1998 when researchers at MIT reported that, according to observations by the Hubble telescope, Triton the largest moon of the planet Neptune seemed to have heated up significantly since it was visited by the Explorer space probe in 1989.” (Lack of italics for Explorer original.)
    - Page 188, Christopher Booker, The Real Global Warming Disaster, Continuum International Publishing, 2009.

    Aha! The exact same dreadful, unfathomable basic error in misnaming Voyager II as Explorer and since that’s a fairly unusual and basic mistake I’d never encountered before it surely couldn’t be co-incidence and must mean that Plimer copied Booker.

    Or did it? Because the next thing I did was check the publication date and realised that Booker’s book and Plimer’s came out in the same year. So was it Booker copying Plimer, Plimer copying Booker or perhaps both copying a third source that started making that mistake with both blindly copying and failing to check something that should set off alarm bells instantly as erroneous?

    Either way, an interesting piece of info that I thought I’d mention here in case people were interested or could enlighten me further.

    Does anyone know which book came out first or have seen a further source(s) older or newer of this “Explorer” for “Voyager II” mistake meme?

  12. #12 ianam
    March 1, 2012

    Scientists to construct artificial human brain by 2023; rat brain by 2014

    Uh, no … Markram is prone to ridiculously grandiose claims. And consider that we have no idea what the structural difference is between a functional human brain and one that is comatose … or worse, the brain of a global warming denier.

  13. #13 StevoR
    March 1, 2012

    Of course the whole “other planets are warming” thus its not us causing Global Overheating canard has been frequently and long since debunked in many places such as here :

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BSXgiml5UwM&list=PL029130BFDC78FA33&index=54&feature=plpp_video

    My favourite out of all the Climate Crocks series.

    Plus here :

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-on-mars.htm

    As well as here :

    http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/04/29/is-global-warming-solar-induced/

    via the Bad Astronomy blog with some great graphics and a lot of other places too.

    Hmm .. can we now post links via cut’n'paste method as usually allowed? Looking like it on preview – good.

  14. #14 ianam
    March 1, 2012

    Or to put it another way, it’s crap. Please don’t propagate this nonsense, which unfortunately has a serious chance of sinking €1 billion that could be put to much better use.

  15. #15 StevoR
    March 1, 2012

    Yes -linkage via cut’n'paste now works fine. Thanks.

    BTW. This :

    http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/1998/triton.html

    seems to be the original (probably?) press release on Triton warming – and it names the craft as “Voyager” (they could’ve added the ‘II’ suffix but oh well) and also notes :

    The moon is approaching an extreme southern summer, a season that occurs every few hundred years. During this special time, the moon’s southern hemisphere receives more direct sunlight. The equivalent on Earth would be having the sun directly overhead at noon north of Lake Superior during a northern summer.

    So as with Pluto it is almost certainly a seasonal warming effect that we are witnessing.

    (Incidentally Voyager II only saw about half of Triton due to the fly-by geometry and lighting conditions. Wish there was another mission so we could get as good a view of the the rest of that small, fascinating world.)

  16. #16 Composer99
    March 1, 2012

    StevoR: Those are howlers indeed.

    Take two temp measurements of a moon of Neptune, compare them to the massive and growing temperature record of the Earth (surface temps, OHC, global heat content, etc) and try to tell us the former is of more significance than the latter?

    I have no words to describe how shameless Booker & Plimer would have to be to propagate such flim-flam.

  17. #17 marion Delgado
    March 2, 2012

    Any Australians remember a deodorant ad for “Uncle Sam?” I can still hear it in my head:

    “You need Uncle Sam, you need Uncle Sam the deodorant protection in the stars-and-stripes can!”
    “It’s the perfect connection for fellows and girls, and under your arm it’s the top of the world!”
    It had a groovy guy and girl and was kind of psychedelic

  18. #18 MikeH
    March 2, 2012

    Bob “discount” Carter provides a sworn affidavit in support of NZ deniers a month before the Heartland budget document was made public in which he says:

    “I receive no research funding from special interest organisations such as environmental groups, energy companies or government departments.”

    http://hot-topic.co.nz/the-carter-controversy/

    Good one Bob.

  19. #19 Marco
    March 2, 2012

    MikeH, he would be correct in his claim, in a very narrow way. You see, the money he receives from Heartland is for co-writing the NIPCC report, which involves no research.

    And if that is too weak, he can still point out that Heartland is not an environmental group, energy company or government department…

  20. #20 rhwombat
    March 2, 2012

    marion@17. Ohhh yes. It was rare that I watched the commercials in those days, but that ad seemed particularly crass after the Moratorium marches and the Whitlam dismissal. I am showing my age.

  21. #21 Doug
    March 2, 2012

    Much excitement in the contrarian blogoshpere over a presentation by Richard Lindzen at a public meeting at a committee room at the House of Commons

  22. #22 chek
    March 2, 2012

    But then there’s also a manufactured excitement in the contrarian blogosphere every week. Nose-ring led consumers need product.

    What was the name of that German ‘father of the Greens’ a while back? It hardly matters, or matters about as much as who had the No.1 single the week after Christmas. I suspect from our Scandinavian visitors’ comments that next week it will be a new paper from Svensgard.

    It’s all part of the process that let’s them kid themslves they’re ‘making progress’.

  23. #23 Dave H
    March 2, 2012

    @Doug #21

    WTF? How did that come about?

  24. #24 lord_sidcup
    March 2, 2012

    I understand Lindzen warned against “science in the service of politics” in his address to a bunch of politicians at an event organised by a political lobby group.

  25. #25 Lionel A
    March 2, 2012

    Doug @21 and lord_sidcup @24 see my #7 post above.

    Dave H @23, good question.

  26. #26 StevoR
    March 2, 2012

    Interesting article here :

    http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2012/southern-ocean-climate-0228.html

    via MIT about the southern oceans role in the thermohaline oceanographic part of the climate system if folks are interested.

    Also any one know if its normal for the Co2 Now site to be stuck behind a month or so given its current main page :

    http://co2now.org/

    Far as I can get is still on January 2012?

    @16.Composer99 | March 1, 2012 10:42 PM

    StevoR: Those are howlers indeed. Take two temp measurements of a moon of Neptune, compare them to the massive and growing temperature record of the Earth (surface temps, OHC, global heat content, etc) and try to tell us the former is of more significance than the latter? I have no words to describe how shameless Booker & Plimer would have to be to propagate such flim-flam.

    Well, the howler I was referring to was getting the name of the one & only spacecraft ever to visit Neptune so terribly wrong – but you’re right, there’s certainly that too! Good point.

    I’m sure we can think of a few apt words to describe Plimer & Booker even if we can’t print them.

  27. #27 Dave H
    March 2, 2012

    @Lionel A

    Strange. I totally skimmed over your original comment without reading it. Perhaps because it contained the word “Monckton”, leading my brain to temporarily shut down in self-defence.

    The video is just terrifyingly bad, from how much I’ve been able to bear to watch so far. Seriously, they need someone with half a brain sat there pointing out the errors and lies.

    He actually said that there is nothing in the IPCC reports about species loss. He actually said that, and its plainly not true. Really, that’s a lie. I mean, we’re used to dissembling, and misrepresentation, and distortion and omission, but that is just a flat-out lie.

  28. #28 David Duff
    March 2, 2012

    As your ideological ‘sun’ sinks slowly in the west, well, actually it’s sinking everywhere but you’re all so busy trying to make excuses for your own “very naughty boy“, ‘On yer bike’ Gleik, you maybe haven’t noticed but, alas, the fact is no-one is listening to you anymore and a lot of your erstwhile supporters are quietly sidling out of the nearest exit – ‘splitters’, I know!

    However, talking of the sun sinking – it really is! We all love the sun when it has a severe dose of acne, you know, spots all over its face, but just at the moment it looks as though its acne has been cured because Cycle 24 is pathetic! And fewer sun spots *probably* means a chilly, not to say, icey, future. I only tell you this, in strict confidence of course (well, hardly anyone outside your sect reads this blog anymore so there’s not much risk of a leak), now is the time to practice one of those imperceptible shifts from global warming to global cooling, you know, just like the reverse one you did back in the ’70s.

    Either that, or chuck it in altogether and find a new hobby. I do realise how important ‘end of the world’ scenarios are to your inner well-being so if you ask me nicely I can tell you about a big lump of space rubble due to ‘hit’ earth in about 40 years. Of course, in this context you need to place inverted commas around the word ‘hit’ because it’s about as likely as, er, well, global warming really. Anyway, I’ll be dead by than so I don’t care but if it cheers you lot up then I’m happy.

  29. #29 Stu
    March 2, 2012

    Duff, please stop posting while drunk.

  30. #30 Dave H
    March 2, 2012

    > Comment by David Duff blocked. [unkill]​[show comment]

    Ah, that always brings a smile to my face.

  31. #31 guthrie
    March 2, 2012

    If we can find out if any MP’s attended the lecture in the HoC, we can then write to them pointing out how they have been lied to. The problem seems to be finding out who was there.

  32. #32 chek
    March 2, 2012

    Reduced to wishful thinking now, eh DavidWank, you silly old duffer? And so in that vein perhaps Gleik may get a Congressional Medal for uncovering a subversive plot to dumb down future citizens by corrupting them with Heartland branded pseudo-science lies.

    Seriously Wankybabe, if every time one of you morons proclaimed final nail in the coffin or its ilk, the proverbial coffin would now be approaching the centre of the Earth at speed under the accumulated weight of iron.

  33. #34 guthrie
    March 2, 2012

    Thanks Lionel A, looks like only nutters attended then. How’s your dissection of LIndzens presentations going?

  34. #35 Lionel A
    March 2, 2012

    Slowly, due to other commitments but one thing I had bother with was getting a fresh copy of his page 32 chart of AMSR-E Sea Ice Extent for October 11 2010 from IJIS , I set up all the numbers in the left pane, Submit and get the map but then ‘Data of Sea Ice Extent’ lands me at a October 3 2011 chart. Not that this matters that much in the grand scheme of things considering his cherry pick on a cherry.

  35. #36 ianam
    March 2, 2012

    Cycle 24 is pathetic! And fewer sun spots probably means a chilly, not to say, icey, future.

    No, it means that it’s chilly now, moron …

  36. #37 ianam
    March 2, 2012

    I’ll be dead by than so I don’t care

    So so much truth in that.

  37. #38 ianam
    March 2, 2012

    check: You shouldn’t play that game with the Swede, because you’re wrong about Curry … she’s a full-fledged denier now.

  38. #39 GSW
    March 2, 2012

    Dave H #27

    “He actually said that there is nothing in the IPCC reports about species loss. He actually said that, and its plainly not true. Really, that’s a lie. I mean, we’re used to dissembling, and misrepresentation, and distortion and omission, but that is just a flat-out lie.”

    I have watched the video Dave and that isn’t what Lindzen said. He was talking about advocates putting ‘spin’ on the full IPCC report. Lindzen knows that WG2 deals with, amongst other things, species loss. He was a lead author on AR3 WG1, he is familiar with the process and the full range of the subject matter.

    In this context he was being supportive of the actual ‘science’ in the full IPCC reports and bemoaning the distortions subsequently related by advocacy groups for “the greater good”.

  39. #40 bill
    March 2, 2012

    Youshe people, hey what, I mean youshe people, well you’re just, you’re ideo-logic-’l, that’sh what you aresh, an’ your wrong, juss dead wrong, ideo-logic-’ly. N’anyway I don’t care ‘cosh I’ll be dead soon ‘n’ it’s the Sun ‘nyw’y ‘n’ all that. ‘N’ there’ll be an iceberg soon. Whoopsh; age! Ther’ll be an ageberg soon. Rememmer I told youshe…

  40. #41 FrankD
    March 2, 2012

    StevoR,

    I bigger geek than I would need to track down the dates with certainty, but Plimer and Booker both copied it. I don’t know which, if either, copied from the other, but the meme dates from a year before the publication H&E and TRGWD (if not earlier). I’ve narrowed the window slightly, but there’s still more digging required

    Most frequently cited is a financial news email called the The Fleet Street Letter. I haven’t managed to get an exact date, but by mid-March 2008, several I’m-a-well-off-but-angry-white-guy-with-a-mid-life-crisis blogs were citing a a mailout from the FSL (mostly via another such mailout, “The Daily Reckoning”:
    >Global warming – a new religion By Brian Durrant: “However, there is an inconvenient truth for Mr Gore. Astronomers have noted in 1998 that Triton, Neptune’s largest moon, seemed to have heated up significantly since it was visited by the Explorer space probe in 1989. Moreover, in 2002 it was reported that the temperature on Pluto had risen by two degrees Celsius in 14 years.”

    The page below dates to some time after early 2009, but appears to be a rehosting of a page written in or shortly after December 2007:
    >”It had first been noticed in 1998, when researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology reported that, according to observations by the Hubble telescope, Triton, the largest moon of the planet Neptune, seemed to have heated up significantly since it was visited by the Explorer space probe in 1989. Frozen nitrogen on the moon’s surface appeared to be melting into gas”.
    http://world-news-research.com/contrarianview.html

    He cites as the source for this comment, the revelant news report from MIT
    >”A Massachusetts Institute of Technology researcher has reported that observations obtained by NASA’s Hubble Space Telescope and ground-based instruments reveal that Neptune’s largest moon, Triton, seems to have heated up significantly since the Voyager space probe visited it in 1989. The warming trend is causing part of Triton’s surface of frozen nitrogen to turn into gas, thus making its thin atmosphere denser”.
    http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/1998/triton.html

    I wonder if Plimer or Booker provide citations – if they point to the original MIT release, what are the odds of them independently making the same boner?

  41. #42 Dave H
    March 2, 2012

    @GSW

    Lindzen:

    > What has become commonplace in this, is for somebody to say “global warming is going to destroy the habitat, its going to get rid of species, its going to do this, that”, and they will cite as their authority the IPCC – and you can’t find it in there.

    IPCC AR4:

    > Overall, climate change has been estimated to be a major driver of biodiversity loss in cool conifer forests, savannas, mediterranean-climate systems, tropical forests, in the Arctic tundra, and in coral reefs (Thomas et al., 2004a; Carpenter et al., 2005; Malcolm et al., 2006). In other ecosystems, land-use change may be a stronger driver of biodiversity loss at least in the near term. In an analysis of the SRES scenarios to 2100 (Strengers et al., 2004), deforestation is reported to cease in all scenarios except A2, suggesting that beyond 2050 climate change is very likely to be the major driver for biodiversity loss globally. Due to climate change alone it has been estimated that by 2100 between 1% and 43% of endemic species (average 11.6%) will be committed to extinction (DGVM-based study – Malcolm et al., 2006), whereas following another approach (also using climate envelope modelling-based studies – Thomas et al., 2004a) it has been estimated that on average 15% to 37% of species (combination of most optimistic assumptions 9%, most pessimistic 52%) will be committed to extinction by 2050 (i.e., their range sizes will have begun shrinking and fragmenting in a way that guarantees their accelerated extinction). Climate-change-induced extinction rates in tropical biodiversity hotspots are likely to exceed the predicted extinctions from deforestation during this century (Malcolm et al., 2006). In the mediterranean-climate region of South Africa, climate change may have at least as significant an impact on endemic Protea species’ extinction risk as land-use change does by 2020 (Bomhard et al., 2005). Based on all above findings and our compilation (Figure 4.4, Table 4.1) we estimate that on average 20% to 30% of species assessed are likely to be at increasingly high risk of extinction from climate change impacts possibly within this century as global mean temperatures exceed 2°C to 3°C relative to pre-industrial levels (this chapter). The uncertainties remain large, however, since for about 2°C temperature increase the percentage may be as low as 10% or for about 3°C as high as 40% and, depending on biota, the range is between 1% and 80% (Table 4.1; Thomas et al., 2004a; Malcolm et al., 2006). As global average temperature exceeds 4°C above pre-industrial levels, model projections suggest significant extinctions (40-70% species assessed) around the globe (Table 4.1).

    What a massive liar. Your interpretation is funny – as an example of “advocate spin”, Lindzen chooses something that very definitely *is* in the IPCC report.

  42. #43 guthrie
    March 2, 2012

    Hey, if PLuto or triton or wherever had a 2 degree temp rise caused by the sun, that means that, since we are a lot closer and inverse square law and all that, we must have had an 18 degree increase!!!
    (based on roughly 3 times further out and so 9 times greater surface area).

  43. #44 GSW
    March 2, 2012

    Dave H

    You’ve still missed the point. It isn’t whether or not WG2 discusses “species loss”, everybody knows it does. Lindzen knows it does.

    He is talking about specific claims that are made in the form of “Enviroporn” which are not supported by, or are misrepresentations of, the papers that the IPCC bases its analysis on.

    He politely refers to this as ‘spin’. But it’s “lost in translation” + “chinese whispers”- journalists not reading or understanding the papers or IPCC reports, merely repeating the words verbatim from advocacy group press releases.

    It isn’t a hard point follow, especially if you actually watch the video.

  44. #45 Anthony David
    March 2, 2012

    A reminder of what Professor Tim Flannery actually said about rainfall in southern Australia, instead of the quote-mining being bandied about once again.

  45. #46 Dave H
    March 2, 2012

    @GSW

    So, what you’re saying is, that when Lindzen said:

    > What has become commonplace in this, is for somebody to say “global warming is going to destroy the habitat, its going to get rid of species, its going to do this, that”, and they will cite as their authority the IPCC – and you can’t find it in there.

    He actually meant to use entirely different words that mean what you want them to mean?

  46. #47 Dave H
    March 2, 2012

    Also, @GSW

    > It isn’t whether or not WG2 discusses “species loss”, everybody knows it does.

    Really? Everybody? Lindzen was addressing a non-technical audience, and your best bet is that only a tiny minority (if any) will have read *even part* of the IPCC reports – are you absolutely sure that nobody will have been misled in any way by his choice of words?

    > Lindzen knows it does.

    Which is why I’m calling this a lie, and not just being ill-informed.

  47. #48 MikeH
    March 2, 2012

    Duff @ 28 echoes the argument of solar crank David Archibald.

    from Duff

    Cycle 24 is pathetic! And fewer sun spots probably means a chilly, not to say, icey, future …

    From Archibald (2009) in the climate crank’s journal of choice, Energy and Environment

    As at late 2008, the progression of the current 23/24 solar minimum indicates that a severe cool period is now inevitable, similar to that of the Dalton Minimum. A decline in average annual temperature of 2.2° C is here predicted for the mid-latitude regions over Solar Cycle 24.”

    Archibald’s prediction plotted at SkS.

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/ArchibaldMidLat.png

    Duff is obviously envious of [John Mclean's](http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/McLean2011Failure.png) status as the denier with the most ridiculous and ridiculed prediction of global temperature.

  48. #49 Chris O'Neill
    March 2, 2012

    A reminder of what Professor Tim Flannery actually said about rainfall in southern Australia

    Of course, whenever you put this to denialists, they claim Flannery was saying the same things about more northerly parts of Australia too. When asked to supply a citation for their claims, they vanish in a puff of smoke.

    By the way, Melbourne’s reservoirs have got back to 64.4% after more than a year of mainly La Nina conditions. Flannery doesn’t look like he will be falsified any time soon.

  49. #50 ianam
    March 2, 2012

    You’ve still missed the point.

    No, we all get the point, GSW, that you and Lindzen are pathetic liars.

  50. #51 ianam
    March 2, 2012

    Meanwhile, over in the Swedish thread, GSW lies about Tim.

  51. #52 ianam
    March 3, 2012

    Not to be missed: Andrew Breitbart, dead at 43.

  52. #53 MikeH
    March 3, 2012

    What Andrew Breitbart wil be remembered for.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=R4od4QQVK1o

  53. #54 bill
    March 3, 2012

    While doubtlessly there are many who will lament the passing of Breitbart, I’m not going to be hypocrite enough to pretend I’m one of them.

  54. #55 Karen
    March 3, 2012

    Hi guy’s, remember this ?

    August 30, 2009

    It’s not drought, it’s climate change, say scientists

    “SCIENTISTS studying Victoria’s crippling drought have, for the first time, proved the link between rising levels of greenhouse gases and the state’s dramatic decline in rainfall.

    A three-year collaboration between the Bureau of Meteorology and CSIRO has confirmed what many scientists long suspected: that the 13-year drought is not just a natural dry stretch but a shift related to climate change.

    Scientists working on the $7 million South Eastern Australian Climate Initiative say the rain has dropped away because the subtropical ridge – a band of high pressure systems that sits over the country’s south – has strengthened over the past 13 years.
    Advertisement: Story continues below

    These dry, high pressure systems have become stronger, bigger and more frequent and this intensification over the past century is closely linked to rising global temperatures, they found.

    Climate data from across the past century shows the subtropical ridge has peaked and waned, often in line with rising global temperatures.

    But to see what role greenhouse gases played in the recent intensification, the scientists used sophisticated American computer climate models.

    When they ran simulations with only the ”natural” influences on temperature, such as changing levels of solar activity, they found there was no intensification of the subtropical ridge and no decline in rainfall.

    But when they added human influences, such as greenhouse gases, aerosols and ozone depletion, the models mimicked what has occurred in south-east Australia – the high pressure systems strengthened, causing a significant drop in rainfall.

    ”It’s reasonable to say that a lot of the current drought of the last 12 to 13 years is due to ongoing global warming,” said the bureau’s Bertrand Timbal.

    ”In the minds of a lot of people, the rainfall we had in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s was a benchmark. A lot of our [water and agriculture] planning was done during that time. But we are just not going to have that sort of good rain again as long as the system is warming up.”

    But not all experts agree. Murray-Darling Basin Authority chief Rob Freeman told a water summit in Melbourne last week he believed the extreme climate patterns that have dried out south-east Australia would not prove to be permanent.

    ”Some commentators say this is the new future. I think that is an extreme position and probably a position that’s not helpful to take,” he said, expressing confidence that wetter times would return.

    Dr Timbal believes 80 per cent of the rain loss in south-east Australia can be attributed to the intensification of the subtropical ridge. If the next phase of the study is approved, the scientists hope to work out exactly how rising temperatures result in a stronger subtropical ridge.

    The research program, supported by the Murray-Darling Basin Authority, the federal Department of Climate Change and the Victorian Department of Sustainability and Environment, was set up in 2006 to solve the puzzle of why south-east Australia had experienced such a dramatic loss of rain.

    The program covers the Murray-Darling Basin, Victoria and parts of South Australia.

    Monash University’s Neville Nicholls, a lead author on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change who has also published on the subtropical ridge, said he believed the program’s results were right.

    ”We did think that the loss of rain was simply due to the [rain-bearing] storms shifting south, off the continent,” Professor Nicholls said.

    ”Now we know the reason they have slipped south is that the subtropical ridge has become more intense. It is getting bigger and stronger and that is pushing the rainstorms further south.”

    The scientific results have implications for many state government water programs and drought funding, some of which factor in climate change. Projections for the water coming to Melbourne in the north-south pipeline are based on the assumption that Victoria will return to rainfall levels of last century.

    Melbourne’s dams get roughly a third less water than they did before the drought began in 1996.”

    Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/national/its-not-drought-its-climate-change-say-scientists-20090829-f3cd.html#ixzz1o3RMgXle

    Do you have a touch of arrière pensée ?

  55. #56 Chris O'Neill
    March 3, 2012

    Via one of those dumb trolls:

    Melbourne’s dams get roughly a third less water than they did before the drought began in 1996

    Of course we know that is no longer true because Melbourne’s dams are now overflowing. Yeah right.

  56. #57 Scribe
    March 3, 2012

    Just a whispered prayer of thanks to my imaginary friend, Jeebus, for showing the Bible belt states the Sinfulness of Denial and the Reality of Global Warming through the Awakening of Conciousness through Holy Tornado. Amen.

  57. #58 Fran Barlow
    March 3, 2012

    Climate change skeptic’s university course criticized

    A group of scientists is raising alarm about “incorrect science” in a course at Ottawa’s Carleton University that was taught for three years by a climate change skeptic.

    “We describe a case in which noted climate change deniers have gained access to the Canadian higher education system through a course taught at Carleton University,” the Ottawa-based Committee for the Advancement of Scientific Skepticism said in a report this week.

    But the course instructor, Tom Harris, denies there are any problems with the science he taught.

    CASS, which says its goal is to “critically [examine] scientific, technological and medical claims in public discourse,” said its audit of video lectures and course materials for the second-year course called “Climate Change: An Earth Sciences Perspective” found the course to be biased and inaccurate. {…}

  58. #59 Dave H
    March 3, 2012

    @Fran Barlow

    The comments on that story are depressing.

  59. #60 Lotharsson
    March 3, 2012

    Someone claiming to be one of the signatories to the recent WSJ Op-Eds has [turned up in comments](http://www.realclimate.org/?comments_popup=10829#comment-229565) on the RealClimate post by Bickmore critiquing a few of the second Op-Ed’s claims.

    He appears to assert that the post is wrong, but seems to have difficulty in stating precisely why. I wonder whether he’ll hang around and try to argue the Op-Ed’s case…?

  60. #61 Lotharsson
    March 3, 2012

    Correction: the comment I referred to was on the “Free Speech and Academic Freedom” thread – but it seems more likely to have been intended to address the Bickmore response to the WSJ Op-Ed.

  61. #62 MikeH
    March 3, 2012

    Moron @ 55

    From Barrie Pittock, Honorary Fellow, Marine and Atmospheric Research at CSIRO

    http://theconversation.edu.au/droughts-and-flooding-rains-climate-change-models-predict-increases-in-both-5470

    The relevant quote from “A Special Climate Statement from BoM” in February 2012 quoted by Pittock to help with your reading comprehension

    By contrast, dry conditions persisted during the 2010 and 2011 April to June period (the start of the early winter rainfall period) across southern Australia.

    Here follows a more detailed discussion.

    However, models and the paleo-climate record indicate that these systems will be located further polewards in general in a warmer world. This has been observed in recent decades. These systems produce rain over southern Australia predominantly in the colder months, so winter rains in southern Australia are likely to be less frequent, with heavier rain occurring further south.

    A Special Climate Statement from BoM in February 2012 summarised the real observed situation in 2010-2011 thus:

    “It was notable … that the bulk of the above average rainfall of the past two years fell during the northern wet season … with tropical influenced weather systems bringing monsoonal-like rainfall to much of the continent. By contrast, dry conditions persisted during the 2010 and 2011 April to June period (the start of the early winter rainfall period) across southern Australia.

    The high 2010 and 2011 rainfall was therefore not associated with winter-time storm systems, and did not represent a return to normal conditions over the southern Australian winter season. In this way, the recent trend of rainfall reductions in autumn and winter was not reversed by the back-to-back La Niňa events.”

    Karen/Sunspot – Do you have that sinking feeling that comes from being identified as an idiot or are you so obtuse that it has no effect?

  62. #63 Bernard J.
    March 3, 2012

    Foulspot.

    You may still pretend to be ‘Karen’, but your obsession with the Australian floods and their causations reveals you for who you are.

    Tread carefully grasshopper, or Tim Lambert might tire of your escape from the only thread on which you are permitted to post, and summarily execute your tresspassing blather.

    Oo, and as Chris O’Neill and Mike H observe, you are worse than wrong. There is one compensation however for your state of being – it permits you to live in deluded bliss.

  63. #64 Lotharsson
    March 3, 2012

    Interesting [comment](http://rabett.blogspot.com/2012/02/it-comes-in-threes.html?showComment=1330502068578#c6627909612314879464) on that Carleton Uni denialist course:

    > Mr. Harris is a MechE; as we know, the Earth’s climate is governed by a system of sprockets, springs and chains similar that found on bicycles so it’s wise to defer to his judgement. In the case of “negative discovery” I think he’s trying to use nontechnical terms to explain that we have to pedal backward in order to go forward.

    (It also notes that the lecturer’s highest degree appears to be a M.Eng. which doesn’t seem particularly relevant to teaching Earth Sciences.)

  64. #65 Ian Forrester
    March 4, 2012

    Tom Harris was hired by Tim Patterson, head of the Department of Geological Sciences at Carleton. Tom Harris and Tim Patterson go a long way back in Canadian AGW denerism.

    See DeSmogBlog:

    http://www.desmogblog.com/r-timothy-patterson

  65. #66 Billy Bob Hall
    March 4, 2012

    Thanks Anthony David #45 – Two apologies are required at least. One from the owner of this blog and also his namesake the mad lunatic wandering this wide brown land sprouting doom from ‘global warming’.
    “The dams will never fill again”. Indeed.
    Sack him now.

  66. #67 Harry
    March 4, 2012

    A WUWT classic, courtesy of McKitrick.

    “The problem the alarmists had, was that there was never anything substantial to hit back at. ”

    Unfortunately, I think he has no sense of irony.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/02/quote-of-the-week-alarmists-missing-targets/#more-58214

  67. #68 Lars Karlsson
    March 4, 2012

    Harry @ 66,

    To “paraphrase” *Pointman*:
    > Every one of the skeptics was a lone brainless zombie, who needed absolutely no logistical support of any kind to continue the fight indefinitely. The alarmists never understood this, preferring to think that there simply had to be some cerebral matter leading the resistance. While they wasted time and effort attacking targets that had no head, each of the zombies chewed on them mercilessly in their own particular way.

  68. #69 bill
    March 4, 2012

    You can watch John Mashey talk about Heartland, Seitz, Singer, Wegman, and various other points of interest over at Hot Topic in the latest Climate show.

  69. #70 GSW
    March 4, 2012

    bill

    Watched the video bill. Not sure about the reference to mashey being a “Hobbit”. A little disrespectful I thought.

    No mention of the similarity between John Cook and Shrek however. Curious.

  70. #71 Karen
    March 4, 2012

    lol Bernard J, your such a silly duffer.

    So the climate pro’s were wrong about rain in 2008, so were you Bernard

    Tim Flannery was named Australia’s Man of the Year in 2007-for predicting that Australian cities will run out of water. He predicted Perth would become the “first 21st century ghost city,’ and that Sydney would be out of water by 2007.

    Then we have the polar bears, disappearing temperature gauges, missing data (and Micheal’s emails), glaciers not melting, snowmaggedon, low hurricane occurrence, sea levels not rising fast enough, in context emails that are out of context, hockey sticks, sheezzzz.

    “Corals will become increasingly rare on reef systems.” Dr. Hans Hoegh-Guldberg, head of Queensland University (Australia) marine studies.
    In 2006, Dr. Hoegh-Guldberg warned that high temperatures might kill 30-40 percent of the coral on the Great Barrier Reef “within a month.” In 2007, he said global warming temperatures were bleaching [potentially killing] the reef.
    But, in 2008, the Global Coral Reef Monitoring Network said climate change had not damaged the “well-managed” reef in the four years since its last report.

    Most in here can’t or won’t see these things for what they truly are, or they move the goal post and twist the fairy tale’s, you are only fueling the public’s rejection of the “cause” or “the team’s” consensus science.

    This is a WUWT post that you all should read http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/02/why-cagw-theory-is-not-settled-science/

    Bernard J, your foul mouth, bullying and innuendo are surely your most treasured attributes.

  71. #72 Bernard J.
    March 4, 2012

    [Foulspot](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2012/03/march_2012_open_thread.php#comment-6237506).

    >…snowmaggedon…

    If you’re going to maintain the pretense of being a girl, you should avoid using [terminology peculiar to 'sunspot'](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/brent_thread.php#comment-2559477).

    That aside, in what way am I “wrong” about the magnitude of this year’s and last year’s floods?

    How do you know that Flannery is wrong in predicting that Perth may become a “ghost city” this century? When did he predict that Sydney would run out of water by 2007?

    What about the polar bears?

    Which “disappearing temperature gauges”, and what does their absence mean?

    What “missing data”?

    What about “Micheal’s” [sic] personal emails?

    Which glaciers are not melting and which ones are, exactly? What do you think that this means?

    Which hockey sticks do you believe are invalid, and which ones do you accept for their demonstration of global temperature trajectory? What do you think that this means?

    Do you have the primary source for Hans Hoegh-Guldberg’s statement that:

    >…that high temperatures might kill 30-40 percent of the coral on the Great Barrier Reef “within a month.”

    because I have seen a lot of denialist regurgitation of the words, with no context supplied.

    >Bernard J, your foul mouth, bullying and innuendo are surely your most treasured attributes.

    Diddums.

    Now grow a set, lose the glass jaw, and get thee back to your own thread, where you actually have permission to discuss these matters.

    And stop pretending to be female: it’s offensive to women.

  72. #73 Trent1492
    March 4, 2012

    I just came across this Science Daily article that found a minimum impact of land cover change on the glaciers of Kilimanjaro. Here is the original article from Nature Climate .

  73. #74 mike Pope
    March 4, 2012

    A WIN FOR SCIENCE

    For the last 2 years the Virginia Attorney-General, Ted Cuccinelli has pursued climate scientist Michael Mann (he of “hockey stick” fame) and the University of Virginia, demanding they hand over all e-mails and other correspondence related to research undertaken at the University. This modern-day version of McCarthyism has just come to an end (on 2 March), when the Supreme Court of Virginia decisively ruled against Cuccinelli.

    This is not only a victory for Science but no less importantly a win for academic freedom. The ruling throws out the politically motivated attempt by Cuccinelli to destroy the right of climate scientists and University faculties to confidential correspondence. Without such confidentiality, scientists working in institutions such as universities, could have felt intimidated in what they could say or write in discussion with other scientists.

    The Harper Government of Canada, has effectively gagged all climate scientists in its employ from speaking about their work or publishing their views without first obtaining clearance from the Prime Ministers’ Office. This dangerous bid to curb freedom of speech among climate scientists should be the next target brought before the Courts.

  74. #75 Lotharsson
    March 4, 2012

    WSJ signatory Michael Kelly [doubles down](http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/02/free-speech-and-academic-freedom/comment-page-15/#comment-229688) at RealClimate, with interesting responses from Gavin Schmidt. I fear Kelly is only making himself look even more foolish.

  75. #76 Chris O'Neill
    March 4, 2012

    He predicted Sydney would be out of water by 2007.

    Also known as, proof by non-existent citation.

    What a liar.

  76. #77 John Mashey
    March 4, 2012

    re: #734
    Nit: that’s Ken Cuccinelli, who would probably not approve the image chosen for Curious Coincidences at George Mason University: Ed Wegman, Milton Johns and Ken Cuccinelli.

  77. #78 Bernard J.
    March 5, 2012

    [Lotharsson](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2012/03/march_2012_open_thread.php#comment-6237628).

    I see that Michael Kelly outs himself as a cornucopian.

    He is a discredit to the engineering profession, as a consequence of the simplistic thinking that he displays when he claims Malthus, Jevons – and implicitly Hubbert – are all wrong to predict the finiteness of both renewable and non-renewable resources. The truth is that the first two gentlemen have not been proven “wrong”: they simply haven’t yet been proven right, because they were unable to foresee certain applications of technology. However those applications are not infinitely postponing those inescapable limits, as much as Kelly might fantasise otherwise…

    As for Peak Oil, Hubbert and the modern commentators have been pretty much spot on. If Kelly imagines that there will be any significant deviation from the contemporary trend and future predictions, he’s living in la-la land.

    I’m surprised to see yet another supposedly educated person succumb to illogical analysis. This cornucopianism seems to be the technological equivalent of religosity – the atheists’ version of sky fairies, if you will, just as interstellar colonialism and cybernetic evolution seem to be the rabid technophiles’ version of immortality and heaven.

    If there is any ‘god’ that directs our lives, it is thermodynamics, and it has only one dictum: “I win”. Kelly would do well to remember that, and to remember that the forecastings of Malthus and his heirs are ultimately entirely consistent with thermodynamics, even if Faustian humans have managed to fiddle the calendar a little in order to stave off the inevitable ‘judgement’ day.

  78. #79 chek
    March 5, 2012

    Looks like ‘Karen’ is regurgitating the customary pre-mangled Andrew Boltisms in place of any actual science.

  79. #80 Bernard J.
    March 5, 2012
  80. #81 spottedquoll
    March 5, 2012

    Flannery’s supposed prediction of Sydney running out of water comes from this Lateline interview from 2005: http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2005/s1389827.htm

    Firstly he said Warragamba Dam had two years supply of water (something easy enough to figure out, take the volume in storage and divide by daily use + evaporation). I’ve got two years supply of water in my water tanks, hardly a controversial statement.

    He was then asked what the worst case scenario would be and he answered “Well, the worst-case scenario for Sydney is that the climate that’s existed for the last seven years continues for another two years. In that case, Sydney will be facing extreme difficulties with water…”.

    So there we go, that’s what the fuss is about. Other claims about what Flannery is supposed to have said don’t stand up to scrutiny either.

  81. #82 Karen
    March 5, 2012

    Hey chek, right on cue.

    Bolt has just posted on this subject.

    ‘http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/the_warmists_straw_man_we_never_said_it_wouldnt_rain/’

  82. #83 GSW
    March 5, 2012

    @karen #80

    It does look fairly damning when you see all those past statements from Karoly and others listed together. Do you think there is any possibility they have more of a clue now than they did then?

  83. #84 chek
    March 5, 2012

    Let’s rephrase that more realistically GSW.

    “It does look fairly damning when deniers continually cherry pick short periods and ignore [trends.](http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/trendmaps.cgi?map=rain&area=aus&season=0112&period=1970)

    Do you think there is any possibility they will ever have more of a clue”?

    The answer being ‘not a chance’.

  84. #85 Bernard J.
    March 5, 2012

    GSW.

    You appear to be playing Fergus to sunspot’s Dil.

    And we know how that ended…

  85. #86 GSW
    March 5, 2012

    Why so sensitive chek? There’s no harm in going back to look at past claims. Nobody made them say these things at the time. It’s useful bearing them in mind when they make future pronouncements.

    Do they know what they are talking about? it’s a fair question.

  86. #87 Wow
    March 5, 2012

    “Do they know what they are talking about?”

    Which “they”?

    Bolt? Almost definitely not.

  87. #88 John Mashey
    March 5, 2012

    re: #79 Bernard J
    Hat-tipping Eli, or not:
    That wasn’t Eli, it was Brian Schmidt.
    Eli owns the Rabbett hole, but Brian and John sometimes post there. [Brian was a big help for Fake science, …
    The visual style may not make it as obvious as one might like, since the author is at the end not the start.

  88. #89 MikeH
    March 5, 2012

    Sunspot @ 81 provides a broken link to a failed radio shock jock in a discussion of climate science. Tells you everything you need to know.

  89. #90 Billy Bob Hall
    March 6, 2012

    Still waiting for that apology Timbo.

  90. #91 DaveMcRae
    March 6, 2012

    Damn – I’m dark – a very good, up until today, publication/website has been The Conversation.

    I think it ran with a denier today – the old “it’s wet and cold here thus it’s wet and cold everywhere theme” but by someone a little more articulate.
    https://theconversation.edu.au/climate-and-floods-flannery-is-no-expert-but-neither-are-the-experts-5709

    Am I a little too thin skinned?

  91. #92 DaveMcRae
    March 6, 2012

    (forgot to add – it does continue on the theme that we assert we’ve caught Flannery out thus all climate science is the hoax, Fourier and his minions unmasked crap)

  92. #93 Nick
    March 6, 2012

    Dave @90,Franks has tried this ‘the experts get the physical relationship between wrong’ argument before,but it’s facetious. He seems to suggest that higher temperatures are a result only of drought,and that they cannot further dessicate already dry soils. He ignores the observation that the long term rising temperature trend overlies dry and wet periods.

  93. #94 Harry
    March 6, 2012

    @80 “He was then asked what the worst case scenario would be and he answered “Well, the worst-case scenario for Sydney is that the climate that’s existed for the last seven years continues for another two years. In that case, Sydney will be facing extreme difficulties with water…”.
    So there we go, that’s what the fuss is about. Other claims about what Flannery is supposed to have said don’t stand up to scrutiny either.”

    Which is why they need to lie when they continually beat up on him. If they actually quote him, they have nothing. All the major cities in Australia were facing extreme difficulties, which is why they all built desal plants.

  94. #95 DaveMcRae
    March 6, 2012

    Thanks Nick@91

    I must admit I don’t fully understand the ins and outs (still trying – got a couple of text but ohh I am so struggling – I’m good on the IR blocking, I love lasers, so happy with CO2 laser and the operation of a CO2 IR gas analyser, and good with satellites measuring the absorption bands deepening and hence the energy being trapped that must be taken up by the ocean/atmosphere). But the meteorology bit. I have to defer to CSIRO/NASA/NOAA etc

    But my BS detector is OK.

    Here’s someone I’ve never heard of before, Franks, who has never published a climate related paper (not in any reputable journal anyway) ripping into Karoly + CSIRO flinging about terms that sounds wizardry. Then after that, you’re left with the conclusion that he has just disproved Fourier’s Greenhouse Gas Theory. Yet the genius has never published.

    I did expect this rot to get a go in The Australian – but so sad to see pseudo-science getting into The Conversation. Why couldn’t the editor ring AMOS or CSIRO and/or say UNSW and have it checked over by a climatologist or 3 rather than assume he’s got in his hot paws the scientific discovery of 2 centuries. That’s the dumb bit :(

  95. #96 MikeH
    March 6, 2012

    Stewart Franks subscribes to the Bob Carter/John McLean theory that climate change is all down to ENSO. His claims that climate has returned to normal are nonsense. We are getting monsoonal rain in southern Australia while our winter rainfall continues below average.

    The last 2 years have set a La Nina inspired rainfall record for Australia! That’s normal?

    Here is the antidote to Franks.

    https://theconversation.edu.au/droughts-and-flooding-rains-climate-change-models-predict-increases-in-both-5470

    He makes the claim “If the observed history of ENSO and Australian flood risk is any guide to the future, then we might expect further La Niña for the next decade or so.”

    Like most climate change deniers he sees cycles in ENSO like creationists see JC’s face in their toast.

  96. #97 Nick
    March 6, 2012

    Yes,Mike,Franks frowns at climate experts making nuanced attributions from long term data,yet is happy to declare the return of normalcy after two abnormally wet years and gaze into his own crystal ball. He obviously has some axe to grind.

    Didn’t he co-author a recent paper in this area with a procedural error that undid his conclusions?

  97. #98 StevoR
    March 6, 2012

    @41. FrankD | March 2, 2012 5:41 PM :

    StevoR, A bigger geek than I would need to track down the dates with certainty, but Plimer and Booker both copied it. I don’t know which, if either, copied from the other, but the meme dates from a year before the publication H&E and TRGWD (if not earlier). I’ve narrowed the window slightly, but there’s still more digging required. Most frequently cited is a financial news email called the The Fleet Street Letter. I haven’t managed to get an exact date, but by mid-March 2008, several I’m-a-well-off-but-angry-white-guy-with-a-mid-life-crisis blogs were citing a a mailout from the FSL (mostly via another such mailout, “The Daily Reckoning”:

    Global warming – a new religion By Brian Durrant: “However, there is an inconvenient truth for Mr Gore. Astronomers have noted in 1998 that Triton, Neptune’s largest moon, seemed to have heated up significantly since it was visited by the Explorer space probe in 1989. Moreover, in 2002 it was reported that the temperature on Pluto had risen by two degrees Celsius in 14 years.”

    The page below dates to some time after early 2009, but appears to be a rehosting of a page written in or shortly after December 2007:

    “It had first been noticed in 1998, when researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology reported that, according to observations by the Hubble telescope, Triton, the largest moon of the planet Neptune, seemed to have heated up significantly since it was visited by the Explorer space probe in 1989. Frozen nitrogen on the moon’s surface appeared to be melting into gas”. [Link snipped -ed.] He cites as the source for this comment, the revelant news report from MIT

    “A Massachusetts Institute of Technology researcher has reported that observations obtained by NASA’s Hubble Space Telescope and ground-based instruments reveal that Neptune’s largest moon, Triton, seems to have heated up significantly since the Voyager space probe visited it in 1989. The warming trend is causing part of Triton’s surface of frozen nitrogen to turn into gas, thus making its thin atmosphere denser”. [Link snipped -ed.]

    I wonder if Plimer or Booker provide citations – if they point to the original MIT release, what are the odds of them independently making the same boner?

    Thanks for that.

    Turns out that Booker’s book came after Plimer’s one – later on Booker refers to H&E (page 336) as a “best seller” & refers to going to press August 2009 on P. 324 FWIW.

    Citations~wise, I’ve returned TRGWD to the library now but don’t recall seeing any cites for that whilst Plimer cites :

    MIT News Office 24th June 1998.

    Which matches the original MIT press release I linked in comment #15 (1st of March 2012 10:23 PM) here – and which correctly names Voyager as the spacecraft involved.

    Plimer also cites :

    “Global warming onPluto puzzles scientists”, http://www.space.com, 9th October 2002.

    Over the (seasonal though Plimer doesn’t note that natch!) warming on Pluto debunked at the 3 minutes 45 sec’s mark on the ‘Mars Attacks” Climate Denial Crock of the Week clip linked at #13. Seems Plimer didn’t actually read the article either.

  98. #99 StevoR
    March 6, 2012

    @28. David Duff | March 2, 2012 9:30 AM :

    As your ideological ‘sun’ sinks slowly in the west, well, actually it’s sinking everywhere.

    It is? Try telling that to the peer-reviewed literature and melting glaciers.

    However, talking of the sun sinking – it really is! We all love the sun when it has a severe dose of acne, you know, spots all over its face, but just at the moment it looks as though its acne has been cured because Cycle 24 is pathetic! And fewer sun spots probably means a chilly, not to say, icey, future.

    Funny, solar storms like this one from a month or two ago :

    http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2012/01/29/mesmerizing-towering-loops-of-solar-magnetism/

    are still happening quite dramatically. Pathetic is NOT a word I’d use to describe them.

    Interesting, the same blog noted recently that there was also the study reported here :

    http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2012/02/01/what-caused-the-little-ice-age/

    That seems to show the solar influence on the Little Ice Age was less than we used to think with volcanic activity playing a more significant causative role there.

    I only tell you this, in strict confidence of course (well, hardly anyone outside your sect reads this blog anymore so there’s not much risk of a leak),..

    Yet here you are. Are you then a sect member? Strict confidence on a public thread? Really?

    ..now is the time to practice one of those imperceptible shifts from global warming to global cooling, you know, just like the reverse one you did back in the ’70s.

    Bzzt. Wrong. That climate canard is debunked here :

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XB3S0fnOr0M&list=PL029130BFDC78FA33&index=50&feature=plpp_video

    Among many other places. To sum up, no, a majority of climatologists *always* thought global warming was more likely than global cooling even back in the 1970′s. Our understanding has of course moved on since then and the evidence for Human Induced Rapid Global Overheating (HIRGO) has grown ever stronger.

    Either that, or chuck it in altogether and find a new hobby. I do realise how important ‘end of the world’ scenarios are to your inner well-being so if you ask me nicely I can tell you about a big lump of space rubble due to ‘hit’ earth in about 40 years.

    Or alternatively we’re capable of hearing about such things as the close pass of asteroid 2011 AG5 and asteroid 2012 DA 14 and asteroid Apophis and other such space rocks for ourselves and assessing their risks calmly.

    Also, FYI I’d be much happier if HIRGO wasn’t real bI used to be a contrarian myself but was eventually convinced otherwise by the weight of evidence. It’d be great if we could keep on with business as usal consequence free – but the science shows we can’t.

    Of course, in this context you need to place inverted commas around the word ‘hit’ because it’s about as likely as, er, well, global warming really.

    Ironically enough an asteroid or comet impact on Earth is eventually inevitable – unless we act to prevent it. Due to thermal inertia we’re already comittted to and bound to have more global overheating as well. So David Duff, you are actually correct here although not in the way you think. Both are very likely although one is caused by Human activity and the other can perhaps be stopped by it.

    Anyway, I’ll be dead by than so I don’t care but if it cheers you lot up then I’m happy.

    How very charming – not.

    Got any children or grandchildren? Don’t give a durn for the future beyond your lifespan at all?

  99. #100 Composer99
    March 6, 2012

    If David Duff has any younger relatives, I’m sure they’d be delighted to know he’s been keenly hoping they have a socioeconomically impoverished future.

    I wonder what my family would say if I went around spouting off that I didn’t care about my 5-month-old’s future.

1 2 3 5