The Australian is notorious for its attacks on climate science and its hypersensitivity to criticism, so this segment on the Science Show on the psychology of the rejection of climate science where this Maurice Newman opinion piece in the Australian was (correctly) described as “drivel” was pretty well guaranteed to draw lots of responses. So far there have been eight published. On the front page of Tuesday’s paper we had the headline “It’s OK to link climate denial to pedophilia, ABC tells ex-chairman Maurice Newman” (search for it if you wish to read the article).  You have to read right to the end of the article to find out that the headline is completely false:

In its direct response to Mr Newman, the ABC maintained it did “not equate climate change sceptics to pedophiles”.

So they didn’t say it was OK, but rather denied doing it.  Because they didn’t.  Here’s what Robin Williams said on the Science Show:

What if I told you that paedophilia is good for children, or that asbestos is an excellent inhalant for those with asthma? Or that smoking crack is a normal part and a healthy one of teenage life, to be encouraged? You’d rightly find it outrageous. But there have been similar statements coming out of inexpert mouths again and again in recent times, distorting the science.

The example of a similar statement that Williams gives is Todd Akin’s claim that rape cannot cause pregnancy.  Williams did not equate Akin with a pedophile, but rather said that Akin made an outrageously false and unscientific claim,  A statement equating a group with pedophiles would look like this:

“The wind-farm business is bloody well near a pedophile ring. They’re f . . king our families and knowingly doing so.”

Of course, that wasn’t published by the ABC, but by The Australian (search for “Wind farm scam a huge cover-up” by James Delingpole) and yesterday The Australian was forced to publish this:

Third, it has concluded that the report of the anonymous remarks concerning paedophilia, a very serious and odious crime, were highly offensive. The Council’s principles relate, of course, to whether something is acceptable journalistic practice, not whether it is unlawful. They are breached where, as in this case, the level of offensiveness is so high that it outweighs the very strong public interest in freedom of speech

As you might expect, rather than admit that the two cases were different, The Australian’s Nick Leys complained that the ABC was being held to a different standard.  As did The Australian in an editorial.  And they also published a ridiculous rant from Delingpole making the same complaint (“Where free speech is as dead as the dodo”).  Also saying the same thing was a column by Christopher Pearson (“Climate lunacy rules at Aunty”).  I imagine there will be many more over the next few weeks.

The Australian also used this as an excuse to publish more drivel from Newman (“ABC clique in control of climate”):

We have seen the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change discredited. We know the science is less robust. And, for the past 16 years, mother nature has been kind to the sceptics. Because Williams says the entire globe is threatened in a way that is pretty dire doesn’t make it so. Yet the “weight of evidence” argument is often used as a licence to vilify holders of alternative views. As a taxpayer-funded organisation, the ABC shouldn’t even have a view on global warming. What it does have is a duty to all Australians to broadcast honestly the best available evidence on both sides of the argument so that we can make up our own minds. This is not happening.

You could make up your mind as to whether Newman’s claim that there has been no global warming for 16 years by looking at the data. Here, from woodfortrees.org, is a graph showing the temperature trend from 1980 to 1996 (the green line) and global temperatures since 1980. The data shows that in the last 16 years temperatures have been mostly above the trend line.

Newman also claims:

In March 2010 as chairman, I addressed an in-house conference of 250 ABC leaders. In a speech titled “Trust is the future of the ABC”, I asked, “how might we ensure in our newsrooms we celebrate those who interrogate every truth?” I lamented the mainstream media’s role as an effective gatekeeper. It was too conformist and had missed the warning signs of financial failure. I blamed group think and used climate change as an example. My mistake was to mention climate change.

Actually, Newman’s mistake was to smear scientists, accusing them of lacking in moral and scientific integrity and basing all this on a some blog posts.

Update: The Australian refused to print a letter from the ABC correcting the record.

Comments

  1. #1 adelady
    city of wine and roses
    December 21, 2012

    The worst thing about The Oz, the very worst thing, is that I now find myself bored with this claptrap. I can’t even rouse myself to irritation or annoyance.

    Morally, I and everyone else should be more enraged, more offended, with each additional item of evidence of their agenda. I feel weak and demoralised that this piling on makes me numb. I just hope this is a temporary thing – and that my ennui doesn’t coincide with too many other people responding the same way. If we allow ourselves to be human and have the occasional period of burn-out, others who’ve regained their energy after their little time out will keep things ticking over for us until we’re back.

    But it still feels icky.

  2. #2 Chris O'Neill
    December 22, 2012

    there has been no global warming for 16 years

    This, of course, comes from corrupting “no statistically significant warming” into “no warming” for the less complete Hadcrut3.

    I predict the denialists are going to keep claiming no warming since September 1997 for a few more years yet by using their corrupted version of “no statistically significant warming”.

  3. #3 Peter F
    Roma
    December 22, 2012

    Tim I think you have missed the point. Whether the planet is currently in a warming phase or cooling phase is largely irrelevant. The geologic record shows us that the planet has gone through many heating and cooling phases over its history – most recently warming from 800 to 1300 and also in the holocene only a few thousand years ago. The point is that people like yourselves always show temp data over a very short time period to support your own view – and you have done it again here – taking data from 1980 onwards. When climate change advocates, such as yourself, as prepared to provide temp data from about 5000 BC to the present time, and explain the several heating and cooling cycles that have occurred since then, a number of us will take you seriously. But whilst you only show limited data to prove your own point, you are not being honouring the real science. The earth has been here about 4.9 billion years – how about we talk about temps over a bit longer than 30 years which is what you are doing here.

  4. #4 bill
    December 22, 2012

    The Australian‘s current defensive denialist hysteria rather reminds me of the NRA’s current defensive denialist hysteria. The ludicrous level of epistemic closure combined with embarrassingly histrionic rhetoric is completely comparable.

    This is what angry old white men are like, at heart.

    And then there’s the scrawny, oily gits. Delingpole is a symptom of the age. Ugly.

  5. #5 Bernard J.
    December 23, 2012

    I saw the Newman piece but I missed Delingpole’s screed. Once again Tim you’ve come to the rescue of those of us who are allergic to reading too much of the Australian.

    It’s been discussed many, many times before but one can only conclude that this campaign against climatological science is deliberate. If it wasn’t, then the Australian is a sheltered workshop for journalists and editors who are insufficiently-skilled in their chosen field of work to be able to operate in mainstream media.

    The only good thing about having them put their nonsense in print is that one day the rest of the country will be able to identify those who participated in causing mortal delay on mitigation action. I continue to hope that there may be a legally-based retribution for such people, but even if they escape that there will be moral retribution.

    Sadly, there is no come-uppance that will ever balance the share of harm that the Australian’s staff is wringing on the planet. Not even eternal pain and damnation in the lakes of fire in the Christian Hell would cut it…

    [Note to the Australian – my comments above are different to saying that I think that your staff should be tortured. Your homework for next year is to understand why]

  6. #6 MikeH
    December 23, 2012

    On a more positive note, News Ltd has posted a loss of $476.7 million for the financial year ending June 30.
    I no longer get a paper delivered. Young people people are getting their news and views online.
    The Australian is the paper of the old cranky white guy. Not good to have a business plan aimed at a dying demographic.

  7. #7 janama
    December 23, 2012

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1997/plot/rss/from:1997/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1997/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1997/trend

    who did you say were the denialists?

    If you and the rest of the warmists were so damn correct in your science why isn’t the world taking notice? Instead we have another failed lovefest at Doha and the world is ignoring you and your prophesies of gloom.

    I’m currently in Dubai where they generate 23GW of power by burning Gas – they don’t give tuppence for your silly AGW ideas. Qatar, where the meeting took place generates 3GW of power for their 2mil population – also 100% from fossil fuels – they don’t give a stuff about your silly ideas as well.

    You, Robyn Williams and the ABC need to take optical viagra and have a long, hard look at yourselves!

  8. #8 bill
    December 23, 2012

    Boring. Next.

  9. #9 MikeH
    December 23, 2012

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=47

    who did you say were the denialists?

    I vote for the cherrypicker!

    63% of Indonesian men smoke. Following the blockhead’s logic, smoking is no longer bad for you.

  10. #10 janama
    December 23, 2012

    the world’s really worried about CO2 production.

    ““Thanks to abundant supplies and insatiable demand for power from emerging markets, coal met nearly half of the rise in global energy demand during the first decade of the 21st century,” said Maria van der Hoeven, the Executive Director of the Paris-based International Energy Agency.

    Economic growth is expected to push up further coal’s share of the global energy mix, “and if no changes are made to current policies, coal will catch oil within a decade,” she said in a statement.

    The latest IEA projections see coal consumption nearly catching oil consumption in four years time, rising to 4.32 billion tons of oil equivalent in 2017 against 4.4 billion tons for oil.”

    http://www.saudigazette.com.sa/index.cfm?method=home.regcon&contentid=20121223146837

  11. #11 janama
    December 23, 2012

    MikeH – Lambert said this:

    “You could make up your mind as to whether Newman’s claim that there has been no global warming for 16 years by looking at the data.”

    I gave you the last 16 years of data – how is that cherrypicking?

  12. #12 MikeH
    December 23, 2012

    janama – not only do you have to cherry pick the start year, you have to pick a superceded temp series and even then there is still warming albeit not statistically significant.

    From 1997
    Hadcrut3 – Trend: 0.012 ±0.131 °C/decade (2σ)
    Hadcrut4 – Trend: 0.049 ±0.126 °C/decade (2σ)

    And exactly what are you proving? That the laws of physics changed in 1997? You are one El Nino away from having your childish argument look as moronic as your argument about coal use.

    Here is the escalator again but in higher resolution – clearly your eyecrometer is not working.
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics/Escalator10-12.gif

  13. #13 bill
    December 23, 2012

    Ah, one of the ‘this blog belches carbon’ brigade. Thinks the laws of physics are decided by popular plebiscite. Great respecter of Arab opinion on those occasions that it happens to coincide with his. What else does ‘everyone in Dubai’ believe, incidentally? All 100% correct, then?

    In short, as I said; boring. Next.

    And, indeed, one more El Nino and by their own logic this lot – who also simultaneously believe the very warming they deny is caused by the sun, cosmic rays, or mystical and laughably unevidenced ‘natural cycles’ whose duration expands as required – will all have to go down to the nearest harbour to, in the immortal words of Fred Dagg, ‘pull a wave over their bonces’. It’ll be that much easier with the ocean that little-bit higher!

    Relax: that, of course, would be consistent, so there’s little danger of it ever happening…

  14. #14 janama
    December 23, 2012

    I picked a land based temp reading and a satellite reading – as you say the warming is not statistically significant which is what Newman claimed.

    I’m not suggesting the laws of physics changed in 1997, I’m saying the CO2 effect, as determined by the physics, is at the point in it’s logarithmic curve where a 9% increase in CO2 over 16 years is not significant in regard to global temperature. At max a doubling of CO2 will cause 1.2C increase and that could in fact be a good thing as the biosphere increases with CO2 increase. Any further increase due to CO2 is the pure speculation of computer models. The leveling of the past 16 years surely shows the models to be wrong.

    I didn’t put an argument regarding coal – I just posted an article stating what is happening regards the world’s use of coal. You can draw your own conclusion.

    The escalator is real cherry pickin!

  15. #15 bill
    December 23, 2012

    Yep, that’s right, fool – 42 years of very-statistically-significant-indeed warming is ‘cherry-picking’, whereas you have your’ lack of significance’ pearl to clutch (for the time being), a magical, undevidenced belief in a convenient sensitivity, and, of course, all those wise folks in Dubai on your side…

  16. #16 janama
    December 23, 2012

    42 years of .6C warming that levels off over the past decade is nothing to get your knickers in a knot about, and please refrain from personal abuse, you only insult yourself.

  17. #17 Bernard J.
    December 23, 2012

    Ah, janama returns after a blissfully extended absence…

    His commentary recalls for me a_ray’s observation at Pharyngula:

    “This is what happens when you send stupid to college. Rather than drinking deep at the font of knowledge, they just gargle and spit it out.”

  18. #18 Lionel A
    December 23, 2012

    jamana playing with wood, here is another example:

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1995/plot/rss/from:1995/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1995/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1995/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1995/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1995/trend/plot/hadcrut4nh/from:1995/trend

    Now what do you see amongst the trees? Oh. And think about all that Arctic ice melt – why is that happening?

    …9% increase in CO2 over 16 years is not significant in regard to global temperature.

    How would you know as the system has not yet reached equilibrium. Only when it does, and it only will if we stop increasing the amount of GHG up there, will we able to put an absolute value on climate sensitivity.

    This is what you, assisted by the likes of Lindzen and his acolytes, are ignoring inertia.

  19. #19 janama
    December 23, 2012

    So what Lionel – the only wood worth it’s salt is the RSS trend that is as good as flat – showing NH only is fiddling the books IMO.

    “Oh. And think about all that Arctic ice melt – why is that happening?”

    Didn’t you read the NOAA press release that mentioned the cyclone that broke up the ice and drove all the ice southward where it melted! Oh, you probably didn’t because the MSM didn’t print it.

    “How would you know as the system has not yet reached equilibrium”

    Exactly when has the system ever reached equilibrium? the climate is an active, varying, unpredictable system.

    I see you are still only capable of abuse and ad hom Bernard.

  20. #20 Lotharsson
    December 23, 2012

    So what Lionel – the only wood worth it’s salt is the RSS trend that is as good as flat – showing NH only is fiddling the books IMO.

    When you account for known natural variation (e.g. here) and warming of the oceans, we’re still accumulating heat energy at a substantial rate.

    Only a fool would look at that data and argue that something/someone is “fiddling the books”, or that warming isn’t happening, or whatever.

    Didn’t you read the NOAA press release that mentioned the cyclone that broke up the ice and drove all the ice southward where it melted!

    Didn’t you know that similar storms have occurred in earlier years without anywhere near as large an effect? Why might that be?

  21. #21 Chris O'Neill
    December 23, 2012

    On a more positive note, News Ltd has posted a loss of $476.7 million for the financial year ending June 30.

    Strange business is News Ltd. When it’s not making a loss, it normally makes very little profit and pays bugger-all dividend.

  22. #22 Chris O'Neill
    December 23, 2012

    I predict the denialists are going to keep claiming no warming since September 1997 for a few more years yet by using their corrupted version of “no statistically significant warming”.

    e.g.

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1997/plot/rss/from:1997/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1997/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1997/trend

    as Bill said. Boring.

  23. #23 Bernard J.
    December 23, 2012

    I see you are still only capable of abuse and ad hom Bernard

    Well, when you present no scientific case all that is left for me on which to comment is your inability to present a coherent rational case. If that requires an assessment that appears indistinguishible from what resembles ad hominem, then that is simply a reflection of your incapacity to make your case.

    Of course, if I am wrong you should be able to present in one or two posts an evidenced-based, referenced, point-by-point rebuttal of the following:

    CO2 is a ‘greenhouse’ gas
    the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing
    humans are responsible for the increase in atmospheric CO2
    climate sensitivity is around 3 degrees Celcius per doubling of atmospheric CO2
    the planet is warming as a result of the increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration
    natural forcings do not account for the observed warming
    the cryosphere, hydrosphere, and biosphere are all demonstrating empirically-provable responses to the planet’s warming
    an increase in the mean global temperature of 3 dgrees C will have serious negative impacts on the global ecosystem
    a doubling of atmospheric CO2 will have serious negative impacts on the global marine ecosystem through the resultant ocean acidification synergising with temperature increase
    an increase in the mean global temperature of 3 degrees C above the Pre-Industrial Revolution baseline will have serious negative impacts on the ability of global human society to maintain its coherence
    an increase in the mean global temperature of 6 degrees C above the Pre-Industrial Revolution baseline will almost certainly destroy global human society, and probably even most regional human societies
    an increase in the mean global temperature of 6 degrees C above the Pre-Industrial Revolution baseline will lead to a great extinction event
    the planet’s warming is superimposed on background ‘noise’/variations resulting from the combination of natural forcings separate from human ‘greenhouse’ gas emissions
    these background ‘noise’/variations resulting from the combination of natural forcings have resulted in a 2-standard-deviation variation of ± ~0.2 degree Celcius/decade for the last three or so decades
    this background ‘noise’/variation means that, statistically, a certain minimum period of time is always required in order to observe the most recent portion of the signal emerging from the noise
    this minimum period of time required to statistically identify signal from noise is currently at least 15-17 years.
    cherry-picking intervals shorter than the period required to observe signal emerge from noise, in order to make claims about the underlying trend, is poor statistical practice
    deniers are cherry-picking intervals shorter than the period required to observe signal emerge from noise, in order to claim that warming has stopped, and in complete ignorance (whether deliberate or otherwise) of the statistical condition noted above
    the net consequence of (timely) mitigation against ‘greenhouse’ gas-caused warming would be positive for human societies
    humans have almost certainly left it too late to mitigate to avoid the First-Chapter consequences of global warming
    if humans don’t move to mitigate in the very near immediate future they will have almost certainly left it too late to mitigate to avoid the Second- and subsequent-Chapter consequences of global warming
    at this point the primary reason for human inactivity with respect to mitigation is the concerted and deliberate campaign of denial by ideologues and vested interests who want to maintain the fossil fuel paradigm
    it will always be better for humans to mitigate to reduce warming than not but the return on any such action will diminish the longer we wait, to be effectively zero at the point at which mitigation is no longer possible, by which time global human society will be threatened as referred to above.

    That’ll do for starters. Others may want to add to that list.

  24. #24 Bernard J.
    December 23, 2012

    Damn.

    The new blog format doesn’t automatically number the list.

  25. #25 Bernard J.
    December 23, 2012

    I see you are still only capable of abuse and ad hom Bernard

    Well, when you present no scientific case all that is left for me on which to comment is your inability to present a coherent rational case. If that requires an assessment that appears indistinguishible from what resembles ad hominem, then that is simply a reflection of your incapacity to make your case.

    Of course, if I am wrong you should be able to present in one or two posts an evidenced-based, referenced, point-by-point rebuttal of the following:

    CO2 is a ‘greenhouse’ gas
    the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing
    humans are responsible for the increase in atmospheric CO2
    climate sensitivity is around 3 degrees Celcius per doubling of atmospheric CO2
    the planet is warming as a result of the increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration
    natural forcings do not account for the observed warming
    the cryosphere, hydrosphere, and biosphere are all demonstrating empirically-provable responses to the planet’s warming
    an increase in the mean global temperature of 3 degrees C will have serious negative impacts on the global ecosystem
    a doubling of atmospheric CO2 will have serious negative impacts on the global marine ecosystem through the resultant ocean acidification synergising with temperature increase
    an increase in the mean global temperature of 3 degrees C above the Pre-Industrial Revolution baseline will have serious negative impacts on the ability of global human society to maintain its coherence
    an increase in the mean global temperature of 6 degrees C above the Pre-Industrial Revolution baseline will almost certainly destroy global human society, and probably even most regional human societies
    an increase in the mean global temperature of 6 degrees C above the Pre-Industrial Revolution baseline will lead to a great extinction event
    the planet’s warming is superimposed on background ‘noise’/variations resulting from the combination of natural forcings separate from human ‘greenhouse’ gas emissions
    these background ‘noise’/variations resulting from the combination of natural forcings have resulted in a 2-standard-deviation variation of ± ~0.2 degree Celcius/decade for the last three or so decades
    this background ‘noise’/variation means that, statistically, a certain minimum period of time is always required in order to observe the most recent portion of the signal emerging from the noise
    this minimum period of time required to statistically identify signal from noise is currently at least 15-17 years.
    cherry-picking intervals shorter than the period required to observe signal emerge from noise, in order to make claims about the underlying trend, is poor statistical practice
    deniers of human-caused global warming are cherry-picking intervals shorter than the period required to observe signal emerge from noise, in order to claim that warming has stopped, and in complete ignorance (whether deliberate or otherwise) of the statistical condition noted above
    the net consequence of (timely) mitigation against ‘greenhouse’ gas-caused warming would be positive for human societies
    humans have almost certainly left it too late to mitigate to avoid the First-Chapter consequences of global warming
    if humans don’t move to mitigate in the very near immediate future they will have almost certainly left it too late to mitigate to avoid the Second- and subsequent-Chapter consequences of global warming
    at this point the primary reason for human inactivity with respect to mitigation is the concerted and deliberate campaign of denial by ideologues and vested interests who want to maintain the fossil fuel paradigm
    it will always be better for humans to mitigate to reduce warming than not but the return on any such action will diminish the longer we wait, to be effectively zero at the point at which mitigation is no longer possible, by which time global human society will be threatened as referred to above.

    That’ll do for starters. Others may want to add to that list.

  26. #26 Bernard J.
    December 23, 2012

    Double damn. I previewed on another blog and the numbers were there.

  27. #27 Bernard J.
    December 23, 2012

    [Trying for third time lucky…]

    I see you are still only capable of abuse and ad hom Bernard

    Well, when you present no scientific case all that is left for me on which to comment is your inability to present a coherent rational case. If that requires an assessment that appears indistinguishible from what resembles ad hominem, then that is simply a reflection of your incapacity to make your case.

    Of course, if I am wrong you should be able to present in one or two posts an evidenced-based, referenced, point-by-point rebuttal of the following:

    1. CO2 is a ‘greenhouse’ gas
    2. the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing
    3. humans are responsible for the increase in atmospheric CO2
    4. climate sensitivity is around 3 degrees Celcius per doubling of atmospheric CO2
    5. the planet is warming as a result of the increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration
    6. natural forcings do not account for the observed warming
    7. the cryosphere, hydrosphere, and biosphere are all demonstrating empirically-provable responses to the planet’s warming
    8. an increase in the mean global temperature of 3 degrees C will have serious negative impacts on the global ecosystem
    9. a doubling of atmospheric CO2 will have serious negative impacts on the global marine ecosystem through the resultant ocean acidification synergising with temperature increase
    10. an increase in the mean global temperature of 3 degrees C above the Pre-Industrial Revolution baseline will have serious negative impacts on the ability of global human society to maintain its coherence
    11. an increase in the mean global temperature of 6 degrees C above the Pre-Industrial Revolution baseline will almost certainly destroy global human society, and probably even most regional human societies
    12. an increase in the mean global temperature of 6 degrees C above the Pre-Industrial Revolution baseline will lead to a great extinction event
    13. the planet’s warming is superimposed on background ‘noise’/variations resulting from the combination of natural forcings separate from human ‘greenhouse’ gas emissions
    14. these background ‘noise’/variations resulting from the combination of natural forcings have resulted in a 2-standard-deviation variation of ± ~0.2 degree Celcius/decade for the last three or so decades
    15. this background ‘noise’/variation means that, statistically, a certain minimum period of time is always required in order to observe the most recent portion of the signal emerging from the noise
    16. this minimum period of time required to statistically identify signal from noise is currently at least 15-17 years.
    17. cherry-picking intervals shorter than the period required to observe signal emerge from noise, in order to make claims about the underlying trend, is poor statistical practice
    18. deniers of human-caused global warming are cherry-picking intervals shorter than the period required to observe signal emerge from noise, in order to claim that warming has stopped, and in complete ignorance (whether deliberate or otherwise) of the statistical condition noted above
    19. the net consequence of (timely) mitigation against ‘greenhouse’ gas-caused warming would be positive for human societies
    20. humans have almost certainly left it too late to mitigate to avoid the First-Chapter consequences of global warming
    21. if humans don’t move to mitigate in the very near immediate future they will have almost certainly left it too late to mitigate to avoid the Second- and subsequent-Chapter consequences of global warming
    22. at this point the primary reason for human inactivity with respect to mitigation is the concerted and deliberate campaign of denial by ideologues and vested interests who want to maintain the fossil fuel paradigm
    23. it will always be better for humans to mitigate to reduce warming than not but the return on any such action will diminish the longer we wait, to be effectively zero at the point at which mitigation is no longer possible, by which time global human society will be threatened as referred to above.

    That’ll do for starters. Others may want to add to that list.

  28. #28 janama
    December 23, 2012

    Oh Bernard – let’s discuss your rant!

    1. CO2 is a ‘greenhouse’ gas

    No One disputes that.

    2. the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing

    No one disputes that.

    3. humans are responsible for the increase in atmospheric CO2

    well to some extent – a small change in ocean temperature will create more CO2 increase than we could ever dream of producing.

    4. climate sensitivity is around 3 degrees Celcius per doubling of atmospheric CO2

    Where do you get that from? most scientists agree a doubling of CO2 results in a 1.2C change in global temperature. Only computer modelers with their positive feedback fantasies suggest more, I assume you are a modeler?

    5. the planet is warming as a result of the increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration

    There is no correlation to support that claim – hence the 9% increase in CO2 over the past 16 years whilst temps have remained constant.

    6. natural forcings do not account for the observed warming

    Which natural forcings are you referring to?

    7. the cryosphere, hydrosphere, and biosphere are all demonstrating empirically-provable responses to the planet’s warming

    Do you mean the missing hotspot?

    8. an increase in the mean global temperature of 3 degrees C will have serious negative impacts on the global ecosystem

    strawman – you have no evidence such a warming will occur other than computer models that have been shown to be unreliable.

    9. a doubling of atmospheric CO2 will have serious negative impacts on the global marine ecosystem through the resultant ocean acidification synergising with temperature increase

    It has been shown that the marine ecosystem experience pH changes everyday way beyond the minute difference dissolved CO2 creates.

    10. an increase in the mean global temperature of 3 degrees C above the Pre-Industrial Revolution baseline will have serious negative impacts on the ability of global human society to maintain its coherence

    You have given no evidence for your projected 3C increase in global temps and such a statement is just ridiculous – man has survived a lot more than a 3C change in temperature. Today was 3C warmer than yesterday.

    11. an increase in the mean global temperature of 6 degrees C above the Pre-Industrial Revolution baseline will almost certainly destroy global human society, and probably even most regional human societies

    See answer to previous outrageous prediction! You’re off you f**kin rocker!

    12. an increase in the mean global temperature of 6 degrees C above the Pre-Industrial Revolution baseline will lead to a great extinction event

    Show me one example of extinction that is attributable to man’s burning fossil fuels.

    Here’s the latest extinctions – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_extinct_animals_of_Australia

    13. the planet’s warming is superimposed on background ‘noise’/variations resulting from the combination of natural forcings separate from human ‘greenhouse’ gas emissions

    That’s just gobbledygook!

    14. these background ‘noise’/variations resulting from the combination of natural forcings have resulted in a 2-standard-deviation variation of ± ~0.2 degree Celcius/decade for the last three or so decades

    more gobbledygook

    15. this background ‘noise’/variation means that, statistically, a certain minimum period of time is always required in order to observe the most recent portion of the signal emerging from the noise

    so 16 years isn’t long enough for you?

    16. this minimum period of time required to statistically identify signal from noise is currently at least 15-17 years.

    so 16 years shows nothing – what’s your point?

    17. cherry-picking intervals shorter than the period required to observe signal emerge from noise, in order to make claims about the underlying trend, is poor statistical practice

    really? thanks for the lesson in statistics.

    18. deniers of human-caused global warming are cherry-picking intervals shorter than the period required to observe signal emerge from noise, in order to claim that warming has stopped, and in complete ignorance (whether deliberate or otherwise) of the statistical condition noted above

    forgive me if I think what you are saying is total codswallop! as does the rest of the world. – don’t let me interrupt your fantasy though.

    19. the net consequence of (timely) mitigation against ‘greenhouse’ gas-caused warming would be positive for human societies

    how do you come to that conclusion? where has warming ever been detrimental to human society? I know that a freezing cold climate is being detrimental to the peoples of northern Europe as I type this! Your computer models didn’t predict this did they?

    20. humans have almost certainly left it too late to mitigate to avoid the First-Chapter consequences of global warming

    That’s pure speculations based on NO evidence…do you call yourself a scientist or are you just another computer programmer with an inflated self importance.

    21. if humans don’t move to mitigate in the very near immediate future they will have almost certainly left it too late to mitigate to avoid the Second- and subsequent-Chapter consequences of global warming

    so all the scientists that advise the world governments are wrong? otherwise they would be doing everything in their power to avoid the disaster you espouse – unfortunately you are being ignored, ever occurred to you you may be wrong?

    22. at this point the primary reason for human inactivity with respect to mitigation is the concerted and deliberate campaign of denial by ideologues and vested interests who want to maintain the fossil fuel paradigm

    When I put fuel in my car or turn on an electric heater I do not class myself as an ideologue – you may – I don’t.

    23. it will always be better for humans to mitigate to reduce warming than not but the return on any such action will diminish the longer we wait, to be effectively zero at the point at which mitigation is no longer possible, by which time global human society will be threatened as referred to above.

    Since when has warming ever been a problem to mankind. The Roman’s didn’t wear Togas for nothing, the Brit’s grew grapes where they won’t grow today, and the Vikings thrived in Greenland. Warming is good!

    you lost me with your stupid science fantasy – it’s so full of holes I doubt your mind can even hold it together and keep you sane, get real Bernard – your case is over and out!

  29. #29 Lionel A
    December 23, 2012

    Didn’t you read the NOAA press release that mentioned the cyclone that broke up the ice and drove all the ice southward where it melted! Oh, you probably didn’t because the MSM didn’t print it.>

    Thinking that others commit errors of omission simply because that is how you work betrays unbalanced logic.

    Of course I knew about the August Arctic storm which broke up ice weakened by melt. Why did it melt first is what you need to consider.

    Your biggest error of omission seems to be believing what you read on WeUseWishfulThinking and ClimateDespot both infamous for distorting any scenario.

    Now if you were to read this What Role Did the Arctic Storm Play in the Record Sea Ice Minimum? then yoiu would be better informed seeing as that source relies upon the input of many accredited scientists and not one-string ex-weather men (unqualified) and a PR blow-hard or the largely lacklustre MM wherein physics, chemistry and many other appropriate sciences seem a foreign land.

    It seems that deniers are being directed to this ‘honey pot’ with new ones, or are they socks, popping up every day now..

  30. #30 Lionel A
    December 23, 2012

    And from the blog of a respected scientist here is something to consider, it refers to the state of the ice and also the difference in conditions to other recent key melt years, furthermore it was posted the day before the storm hit: Harbinger?.

    You were saying?

  31. #31 GSW
    December 23, 2012

    @janama

    Your response to Bernard, beautifully argued if I may say!
    ;)

  32. #32 janama
    December 23, 2012

    Lionel A – it’s clear there are other forces in action regards arctic ice. Perhaps submarine volcanoes that are active in the area could be the cause. It’s know there is volcanic activity in the Greenland Sea that links to the volcanic activity in Iceland.

  33. #33 chek
    December 23, 2012

    Griselda simpered: “Your response to Bernard, beautifully argued denied if I may say!”

    And yes, there is a difference, moron.

  34. #34 chek
    December 23, 2012

    Janama is under the impression that folksy tales of Roman drunks and invisible volcanoes prove no global warmings, but strangely missed out on the opportunity to remind us of the China-Greenland trans-polar wine trade.Butis still banging the 16 year drum, thus we have yet another moron, lecturing.
    .
    When’s someone gonna withdraw the funding to mitigate against that?

  35. #35 Chris O'Neill
    December 23, 2012

    At max a doubling of CO2 will cause 1.2C increase

    But somehow we’ve got 0.8C increase with half a doubling and heat going into the oceans as well.

    It’s the magic pixie dust heat source wot dunnit.

  36. #36 Ian Thomson
    Riverina
    December 23, 2012

    janama,
    They BELIEVE mate and some of them even speak in tongues,
    Facts are not part of that belief system, nor are real world, “folksy” observations., unless they are computer generated.

  37. #37 bill
    December 23, 2012

    ‘Submarine volcanoes’? Are you guys still trying to run with that one? Give me a freakin’ break!…

    Pyjamarama is just the bog-standard, hand-waving, unevidenced, “my hubris beats yer fancy book-lernin’ any day” Denialist article.

    And still very, very boring.

    Has scored some serious fawning from beta-male supreme GooSeyWuh, though, so the narcissist’s preening regard is confirmed and it must all seem worth it, somehow…

  38. #38 Lotharsson
    December 23, 2012

    No One disputes that.

    Wrong in your very first response – not a good start.

    Only computer modelers with their positive feedback fantasies suggest more…

    And entirely unacquainted with the evidence as well.

    Most of your other responses are wrong or confused or even flat out attempts to evade the question by misdirection, but since pointing that out in detail won’t make any difference to you I’m not going to spend time on it today.

    Better trolls please.

  39. #39 Lotharsson
    December 23, 2012

    Your response to Bernard, beautifully argued if I may say!

    GSW self-demonstrates that s/he has no ability to separate fact from error or fallacy from logic and is apparently smitten by easily detected sophistry – or is just trolling.

    Better trolls please.

  40. #40 Vince Whirlwind
    December 24, 2012

    Ian Thomson, what facts are you concerned about, that others are ignoring?

    Where do you go to get your facts? From the experts? or from dodgy oil-funded ex-weathermen with no qualifications relevant to climate science and a long history of emitting anti-science?

    If you choose to get your “facts” from the latter, why are you criticising others for placing their beliefs above real-world facts?

    And as for Janama who apparently believes the Arctic melt is being caused by undersea volcanoes…..how much more retarded can you get than to be part of Janama’s fan-club?

  41. #41 Anthony David
    December 24, 2012

    Positive feedbacks are a part of the natural world, as are negative feedbacks. The earth system is a complex beast. Factoring in positive greenhouse feedbacks is the only way modellers can get the Earth out of an Ice Age for example. Solar forcing alone is not going to do it. Palaeoceanographers were among the first to raise concerns about future scenarios, based on what they had gleaned from the past . If anyone has an alternative, detailed explanation with details for the rapid change from glacial to inter-glacial conditions, I’m all ears.

  42. #42 ianam
    December 24, 2012

    No One disputes that.

    Liar.

    The rest of your claims are lies as well.

  43. #43 ianam
    December 24, 2012

    Your response to Bernard, beautifully argued if I may say!

    If there was every any doubt that GSW is a liar, idiot, and ignoramus ….

  44. #44 ianam
    December 24, 2012

    Perhaps submarine volcanoes that are active in the area could be the cause.

    Perhaps an inoperable brain tumor is the cause of your ignorance, stupidity, and intellectual dishonesty.

  45. #45 ianam
    December 24, 2012

    I see you are still only capable of abuse and ad hom Bernard.

    As he has repeatedly demonstrated, he is capable of more … but it is wasted on stupid ignorant dishonest intellectually lazy garbage like you.

  46. #46 janama
    December 24, 2012

    Apparently none of you have read up on the 1.4 million estimated active submarine volcanoes so it’s pointless mentioning it as is the volcanic faultline north of Iceland running into the Siberian sea.
    I suppose you can’t model volcanoes hence the ignorance of them

  47. #47 dexitroboper
    December 24, 2012

    The Oz is still at it, declining to print a letter from the ABC correcting their front page headline. http://about.abc.net.au/press-releases/letter-to-the-editor/

  48. #48 bill
    December 24, 2012

    ‘Estimated’ by whom, precisely? Ian bloody Plimer?

    First, define a ‘volcano’. Then tell us how your submerged volcanoes compare to their terrestrial equivalents.

  49. #49 adelady
    city of wine and roses
    December 24, 2012

    1.4 million eh?

    And what evidence do we have that these volcanoes have either
    1) increased in number or
    2) increased their activity or, maybe …
    3) increased both.

    When did this increase start?
    Compared to what previous period?
    Who has measured this?
    Where are the numbers?

    Seeing as you know more about this than I do, I’d appreciate some references to track down.

  50. #50 adelady
    city of wine and roses
    December 24, 2012

    Just to be perfectly clear in case the above wasn’t …

    It doesn’t matter if there are 14 million undersea volcanoes if their activity hasn’t changed.

    Whatever influence they do or don’t have is only relevant (to 27 consecutive years in which the temperature of every single month is higher than the 20th century average) to considering the extent and the causes of recent warming if they’ve changed in a significant way. .

  51. #51 bill
    December 24, 2012

    Ah, that was going to be my next question. ;-)

    I’ll lay long odds that our learned friend will simply bolt or change the subject. Even by the standards of Denialist tropes the whole ‘magical undersea volcanoes’ shtick is ridiculous.

    Though I’m sure these denailist Walter Mittys really imagine there’s 1.4 million Mount Etnas under the sea that are not only responsible for all the Carbon Dioxide – after all, only agenda-driven hardcore socialists like the USGS disagree – but they’ve even managed to melt the Arctic over the last three decades without anybody noticing.

    It is extremely difficult not to be outrightly contemptuous of the purveyors of such specious drivel.

  52. #52 Vince Whirlwind
    December 24, 2012

    Even magicker – these undersea volcanoes are managing to melt the sea ice from the top AND the land ice.

    Janama is just retarded. GSW is an agenda-driven agent of misinformation. The rest of them are dupes.

  53. #53 GSW
    December 24, 2012

    @Vince

    “GSW is an agenda-driven agent of misinformation”

    I haven’t been pushing any misinformation. That’s all on your side- links to sks, Romm and tamino for goodness sake.

    These guys are about as “agenda-driven” as it gets.

  54. #54 Michael
    December 24, 2012

    The denialsists seem to have latched on to the dispargement of ‘models’ are some kind of talisman.

    Never mind that much of the technology they use and rely on daily involves modelling of all kinds.

    Anti-scientific gibberish at its finest, from our dim-wiited deniers,

  55. #55 Eli Rabett
    http://rabett.blogspot.com
    December 24, 2012

    To get back to the interesting parts about paedophilia, does this remind the bunnies about something?

  56. #56 chek
    December 24, 2012

    “The denialists seem to have latched on to the dispargement of ‘models’”

    Even funnier is that self-appointed denier fluffer and assistant encourager in chief Griselda once (implausibly) claimed ‘a background in particle physics’. Surprisingly, a fellow traveller has never been corrected on the subject of wicked, evil models by someone whose “work” would be impossible without them.

  57. #57 Lotharsson
    December 25, 2012

    These guys are about as “agenda-driven” as it gets

    Agreed. The agenda at sites like SkS and Tamino is substantiated information and analysis.

    That contrast was your point, right?

  58. #58 spottedquoll
    7 Hollow Log, Deep in the Forest (though close to chickens)
    December 25, 2012

    Aah, it’s all the undersea volcanoze! I had a play with this a couple of years ago, and this is wot I rote!

    “I was having some fun over at The Land the other week with one of the denizens claiming undersea volcanoes are responsible for the melting of the Arctic ice cap. While he wanted to rant about conspiracies and all that he does raise an interesting point which has made me think, just how much heat (and of course energy) do volcanoes need to add to the oceans to actually make any difference? So I figured I might do some calculations, there are a number of assumptions I will make and I’ll be quite open about them, I will however be generally erring on the conservative side.

    It’s going to get a little complex but none of the calculations are all that difficult, grab a bit of paper and a pen.

    We’ll assume a rise in average ocean temperature of 1 degree over 100years, assuming that this is constant throughout the water column (if it were due to volcanic activity the difference would be higher the lower you go as that’s where the heat source is but to make it easy I’ll stick with a one degree warming throughout the column), so how much energy does this take?

    From basic physics we know that it takes 4.2 Joules of energy to raise the temperature of one gram of water by one degree Celsius (I’m assuming fresh water, I do know it’s salt water but the difference in the end will only be minor), from a quick Google search (http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2001/SyedQadri.shtml) we find that the worlds ocean volume is around 1.3-1.4 billion cubic kilometres.

    Assuming one gram of water equals one millilitre (yes, I do know the density will be a little different with salt water but in the end it really won’t make much difference), one cubic metre will equal one million millilitres (1 x 106 ml) , one cubic kilometre will equal one million billion millilitres (1x 10^15 ml) and will require 4.2 x 10^15 Joules to warm it by one degree, so the whole ocean will require 4.2 x 10^15 x 1.3 x 10*9 or 5.46 x 10*24 Joules of energy to raise it by one degree (this does make a very, very big assumption that there’s no energy lost from the system, counting in energy loss this figure would be much higher).

    That’s a lot of joules, so what does this equate to? Another Google search on “world energy consumption” tells us the average annual energy consumption is roughly 5 x 10^20 Joules (my search said 4.74 x 10^20 but I rounded it up just for ease of calculation) so dividing or 5.46 x 10^24 by 5 x 10^20 gives us 10920 years of the worlds energy use would raise our oceans by 1 degree Celsius.
    So what? I hear you quite rightly say, “the energy comes from cooling magma not from burning coal” so what we need to know are the melting point of magma and the specific heat capacity (specific heat capacity is how much energy it takes to raise one gram of a substance by one degree Celsius).

    Another Google search on “magma melting temperature” gives an answer of between 700 and 1300 degrees to melt it depending on the makeup of the magma, in this case for ease of calculation we’ll pick a mid point of 1000 degrees. As for specific heat capacity, granite has a specific heat capacity of 790J/kg/degree or 0.79J/g/degree (we’ll round it up to 0.8J/g/degree for easier calculations, don’t worry this works out as more heat released for less weight which helps out the conservative nature of the calculations).

    Time for a breather? Just to reiterate, we’ve figured out how much energy it would take to warm the world’s oceans by one degree Celsius, what we’re doing now is figuring out how much volcanic magma we would need to heat it by that much, as I’ve said, I’ve made a number of assumptions but they should result in a fairly conservative answer.

    Ok, the amount of energy going into melting something should be the same as that released when it solidifies and cools so to raise 1 gram of granite to melting point of around 1000 degrees from a starting temperature of 50 degrees (it’s a lot hotter at the bottom of the oceanic crust than it is at the top so I figured 50 degrees would be a reasonable average), would require 950 (the temperature difference) multiplied by 0.8 (the specific heat capacity) or 760 Joules, that would also be released as it cools and solidifies.

    So, what does that mean? Fair question, how many tonnes of magma would need to cool from 1000 degrees to 50 degrees to release that sort of energy?

    Taking our 5.46 x 10^24 Joules of energy needed divided by 760 gives us 7.2 x 10^21 grams or 7.2 x 10^15 Tonnes. Granite has a density of around 2.7T/m3 and basalt around 3T/m3, for ease of calculations I’ll go with the basalt density which gives 2.4 x 10^15 cubic metres or 2.4 million cubic kilometres of magma needing to be produced by the worlds mid ocean ridges, volcanoes etc over 100 years to raise the oceans temperatures by 1 degree celcius (remember I’m assuming no loss, the actual number would be much higher).

    As this mostly happens in the oceans and the oceanic crust is between 7 and 10km thick, we’ll assume a thickness of 10km giving 240 000 square kilometres of oceanic crust formed in 100 years.
    Actually, it isn’t, that assumes all the action happens at the mid ocean ridges where the crust is formed and nothing at the subduction zones so I’ll halve it assuming (quite reasonably I think) that there’s as much energy released at the subduction zone as at the mid ocean ridges, so we’re looking for 120 000 square kilometres of new ocean crust formed in 100 years (remember, this is a conservative estimate, the actual number would be much more). Again using Google there’s around 80 000km of mid ocean ridge which means they’d have to widen by 1.5km in a century, or again being nice 750 metres either side meaning the continents would have to move at least 7.5 metres a year this is around 150 times faster than they are currently moving and to move 150 times faster you’d need 22 500 times the energy (remembering basic physics F=MV2).

    These figures are very much in the lower end of the ballpark so if there is an influence from oceanic volcanoes on sea temperature and climate change we can see that it is very, very little. ”

    Lotsa ballpark, back of the envelope calculations but what it means is that if it is undersea volcanoze then runaway subduction (TM to some crazies) is happening.

    Adelady’s questions are quite relevant and if Bib and Bub can come up with numbers somewhere in the ballpark then they may be worth listening to.

    Just this humble marsupial’s opinion.

  59. #59 janama
    December 25, 2012

    Hillier & Watts (2007) surveyed 201,055 submarine volcanoes estimating that a total of 3,477,403 submarine volcanoes exist worldwide.

    The volcanic area I was referring to is the Gakkel Ridge that expands from Iceland, you know where the volcano was recently erupting, into the Siberian sea.

    http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2005/2005GL023767.shtml

    It’s easier to heat water from below than from above as in a kettle – try heating your bath with a hair drier.

  60. #60 janama
    December 25, 2012

    This also goes to the fact that the northern hemisphere is warming yet the southern and equator isn’t.

    http://www.climate4you.com/images/MSU%20UAH%20TropicsAndExtratropicsMonthlyTempSince1979%20With37monthRunningAverage.gif

  61. #61 chek
    December 25, 2012

    Er.. jamona if that was the case wouldn’t the deep ocean be warmer than the upper layer? Except it isn’t? And how are those freshwater lakes forming on top of the polar ice if being melted from below?

    Do you think there may even be an orchestrated campaign of sciency-sounding nonsense being sold to know-nothings desperate not to believe anything the IPCC says?

  62. #62 Lotharsson
    December 25, 2012

    …try heating your bath with a hair drier.

    Because, as we all know, hairdryers heat by radiating electromagnetic ener…oh, wait.

  63. #63 bill
    December 25, 2012

    ‘The Gakkel Ridge’ ‘that expands from Iceland’, eh? Oooh, detail to add verisimilitude; doesn’t that sound all sciencey!

    So tell us about the change in its recent activity, then, Pyjamarama. Papers from any reputable journal, please.

    If you ever do decide you actually want to learn stuff, and not just regurgitate half-digested chum specifically designed to appeal to willfully self-deluding idiots, do try to wean yourself off the Right Wing blogs, eh?

  64. #64 janama
    December 25, 2012

    ah chek – so all those active volcanic plumes at the join between plates and the submarine volcanoes gushing CO2 and hot water are cooling the oceans – got ya!

    Yes Lotharsson, the hairdryers heat the surface and the result is water vapour.

  65. #65 Lionel A
    December 25, 2012

    janama in payamas:

    This also goes to the fact that the northern hemisphere is warming yet the southern and equator isn’t.

    This based on a crap from morohasy which is totally at odds with what real scientists are reporting:

    Dr. Eric Rignot at AGU .

  66. #66 Chris O'Neill
    December 25, 2012

    The Australian is notorious for its attacks on climate science and its hypersensitivity to criticism

    and its hypersensitivity to criticism leads it to conducting a war on journalism in which it gives people the “Oz treatment”.

  67. #67 Chris O'Neill
    December 25, 2012

    janama:

    so all those active volcanic plumes at the join between plates and the submarine volcanoes gushing CO2 and hot water are cooling the oceans

    So you think that just because such volcanos exist, therefore they must be the cause of Arctic warming.

    What a moron.

  68. #68 Michael
    December 25, 2012

    Is janama as stupid as it makes out?

  69. #69 janama
    December 25, 2012

    “June 26, 2008 — A research team led by the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI) has uncovered evidence of explosive volcanic eruptions deep beneath the ice-covered surface of the Arctic Ocean. ”

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080625140649.htm

    similarly with Greenland

    http://icons-ak.wunderground.com/data/wximagenew/e/ElijahSentFromHeaven/0.jpg

  70. #70 Lotharsson
    December 25, 2012

    Yes Lotharsson, the hairdryers heat the surface and the result is water vapour

    ROFL! You really don’t get the points people make, do you?!

    …all those active volcanic plumes at the join between plates and the submarine volcanoes gushing CO2 and hot water are cooling the oceans …

    Did you actually think someone that? Did you fail to understand what they were saying? Or did you avoid responding to what they were actually saying because you couldn’t answer it?

    As previously pointed out the relevant question is not whether they are injecting heat into the oceans, but whether they have recently started injecting heat at a higher rate thus causing ocean warming, or whether they’re injecting heat at much the same rate as they have for a long time which won’t cause warming because the heat injection at the bottom and the heat loss (e.g. from the top) will be roughly in equilibrium.

    And as pointed out above if they were injecting more heat now than before then it would be warming from the bottom, not (as we can see) from the top.

    You clearly don’t have enough knowledge/science to make the kinds of claims you’re making.

    (And no, the existence of volcanic eruptions in the Arctic doesn’t imply what you claim it does. See the earlier parts of this comment – and the one that gives you a rough estimate of how much energy would have to be released to create the kind of warming we see – which is simply not in evidence – an amount that happens to be entirely consistent with the radiative imbalance observed at the top of the atmosphere.)

  71. #71 janama
    December 25, 2012

    Lionel A – in the video you posted Dr Rignot admits the Antarctic isn’t warming – so what’s your point?

  72. #72 Ian Forrester
    December 25, 2012

    A simple question for janama, for how long do you think these undersea volcanoes have been emitting their magma and heat? A few years, a couple of hundred years or millions of years? If I remember correctly tectonic movement has been going on for just about all the time that the earth has existed and associated undersea volcanic activity has been going on at approximately the same level for an equivalent time period. Since you claim that the undersea volcanoes are responsible for recent ocean warming of 0.1 degrees C per decade (http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1960/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1960/trend) the oceans should have all boiled away in about the first 1000 years of this activity starting about 4 billion years ago. Please explain to us how this hasn’t happened and that even though these volcanoes have been emitting the same amount of heat and energy for millions of years they have only started to warm the oceans 50 or 60 years ago? Which is, incidentally, the same time period over which real scientists have shown CO2 to be warming the globe.

  73. #73 Lionel A
    December 25, 2012

    Lionel A – in the video you posted Dr Rignot admits the Antarctic isn’t warming – so what’s your point?

    You clearly didn’t pay attention to all of it!

  74. #74 Bernard J.
    December 25, 2012

    Janama.

    You still haven’t understood even the basics have you? Of either the science, or the politics.

    1. CO2 is a ‘greenhouse’ gas

    No One [sic*] disputes that.

    As has already been noted above, you are wrong. There are quite a few people who dispute this.

    3. humans are responsible for the increase in atmospheric CO2

    well to some extent – a small change in ocean temperature will create more CO2 increase than we could ever dream of producing.

    Thus far the oceans have been a net sink for CO2. You are wrong to suggest that the warming-related ocean out-gassing is at present contributing to atmospheric CO2 increase.

    However in the future, as temperatures continue to warm, the oceans will no longer be a net sink and then they will outgas CO2 to the atmosphere. And that will warm the planet even more

    4. climate sensitivity is around 3 degrees Celsius per doubling of atmospheric CO2

    Where do you get that from? most scientists agree a doubling of CO2 results in a 1.2C change in global temperature. Only computer modelers with their positive feedback fantasies suggest more, I assume you are a modeler?

    Where do I “get that from”? Why, from the professional literature of course.

    When you say that that “most scientists agree a doubling of CO2 results in a 1.2C change in global temperature” you are attempting to fool the uninformed by ignoring the fact that this figure refers to the transient sensitivity, sans feedings-back. Feedings-back are an integral and an unavoidable physical reality – as nearly all scientists and even many engineers well understand. And feedings-back determine equilibrium climate sensitivity, which is the parameter that affects the future most dramatically.

    It seems to pan out around 3 degrees Celsius, or a little more:

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/fasullo-trenberth-2012.html

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/huber-and-knutti-quantify-man-made-global-warming.html

    Depending on your definition of ‘equilibrium’ that sensitivity value could be even higher:

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-sensitivity-feedbacks-anyone.html

    Oh, and transient climate response may be a little higher than you are prepared to concede, especially if your concession is for your perception of equilibrium climate sensitivity:

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/gillett-estimate-human-and-natural-global-warming.html

    You don’t like modelling? Well, that’s your problem, because models are quite reliable:

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm

    But it’s not only modellers that find positive feedings-back. Empirically-based studies agree:

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-sensitivity.htm

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/hansen-and-sato-2012-climate-sensitivity.html

    Perhaps you are hoping to fool us with the Lindzen and Choi version of low sensitivity. Heh, that ostrich never flew:

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/Lindzen-Choi-2009-low-climate-sensitivity.htm

    Schmittner et al. (2011) didn’t gather much more air under their wings either:

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/Schmittner-climate-sensitivity-goood-bad-ugly.html

    So, you are wrong again.

    5.the planet is warming as a result of the increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration

    There is no correlation to support that claim – hence the 9% increase in CO2 over the past 16 years whilst temps have remained constant.

    There is a correlation to support the consensus claim – only a statistical illiterate would claim otherwise.

    With respect to the temperatures over the last 16 years, I refer you once again to the idea of noise superimposed over a signal – a concept to which you are obstinately and recalcitrantly refractory.

    Perhaps you need a clear example. Imagine that it is a month before summer solstice. It’s been cooler for the last three or four days than it was last week. Does this mean that the increasing insolation resulting from the annual axial progression of the planet does not warm the Earth?

    Only an idiot would say so, and yet it is the same process with which you engage to compare climate signal to noise.

    Any room on your plate for another ladleful of wrong?

    6. natural forcings do not account for the observed warming

    Which natural forcings are you referring to?

    All recognised natural forcings.

    7. the cryosphere, hydrosphere, and biosphere are all demonstrating empirically-provable responses to the planet’s warming

    Do you mean the missing hotspot?

    No, I mean the demonstrable changes in the natural world to a warming planet.

    If that doesn’t shake your tree try using Google Scholar and “climate change” or “global warming” combined with “biological change (or response)”, “cryological change (or response)” and “hydrological change (or response)”.

    Oh, and the hotspot isn’t missing. And if it were, it would mean that the way we understand the physics of any planetary warming is awry, not just the physics of human-caused warming. We know that it is warming, ergo a hotspot is expected. If there’s no hotspot it does not mean that our observation of warming is incorrect, it means that we are failing to detect a hotspot, or that the science of hotspots is not as clear as we thought.

    Your strawman is immaterial to the fact of warming, and there’s now another big helping of wrong on your dinner plate.

    8. an increase in the mean global temperature of 3 degrees C will have serious negative impacts on the global ecosystem

    strawman – you have no evidence such a warming will occur other than computer models that have been shown to be unreliable.

    Wrong.

    There is much evidence that warming will occur. Basic radiative physics indicates that it will. Paleoclimate data indicate that it will.

    And once again, your claim about the unreliability of “computer models” is – what’s that word again? – wrong.

    9. a doubling of atmospheric CO2 will have serious negative impacts on the global marine ecosystem through the resultant ocean acidification synergising with temperature increase

    It has been shown that the marine ecosystem experience pH changes everyday way beyond the minute difference dissolved CO2 creates.

    You are confabulating the results of diurnal fluctuations with those of long-term fluctuations.

    Many species can handle short deviations from their preferred physiochemical envelopes, even at regular and frequent intervals. It’s why penguins can dive for fish, and lizards can run across hot sand. However long-term decline in the mean pH of seawater has serious and even catastrophic consequences for the metabolisms of calcium carbonate metabolising flora and fauna, especially with respect to their abilities to deposit and maintain external calcium skeletons.

    There’s also the matter of hydronium ion metabolism, especially in the context of electron transport chains, but this has not been large on the radar at present. However it matters for many species, particularly at the gamete/zygote/embryo stages. Rest assured that future work will show that non-calcium exoskeletoned species will also suffer with any decrease of pH below 8.0.

    So basically – you’re wrong.

    10. an increase in the mean global temperature of 3 degrees C above the Pre-Industrial Revolution baseline will have serious negative impacts on the ability of global human society to maintain its coherence

    You have given no evidence for your projected 3C increase in global temps and such a statement is just ridiculous – man has survived a lot more than a 3C change in temperature. Today was 3C warmer than yesterday.

    Once again you are confabulating short-term resilience with long-term tolerance.

    A change in the mean annual global temperature of 3 degrees Celsius has profound impacts on the biosphere, including but not restricted to forests, fisheries, crop productivity, disease distribution and water distribution. Human societies as we recognise them in any form – from the Palæolithic period onward – have all evolved and existed during the Holocene, which is characterised by a remarkably consistence mean global temperature that has varied since the last glacial maximum through an estimated mean range of less than a degree.

    It’s six degree warmer now than during the last glacial maximum. Another six degrees would place us close to the warmest point in the planet’s history for the last 55 million years, and not far behind the warmest it’s ever been. And there’s a very good likelihood of exceeding six degrees Celsius increase in mean global temperature with ‘business as usual’ carbon dioxide emissions.

    Humans would not be able to live well on a plane that warm – if we could indeed live at all. Our physiologies simply aren’t designed that way (no endotherm’s is), and the stuffing-up of the planet that would accompany such a profoundly quick increase in temperature would guarantee that our post-oil/coal technologies (if anything significant exists) would not save us.

    There’s a pattern emerging here janama – you are wrong.

    11. an increase in the mean global temperature of 6 degrees C above the Pre-Industrial Revolution baseline will almost certainly destroy global human society, and probably even most regional human societies

    See answer to previous outrageous prediction! You’re off you f**kin rocker!

    Um, you are “f**king” wronger.

    See my previous uncontroversial response to your blather.

    12. an increase in the mean global temperature of 6 degrees C above the Pre-Industrial Revolution baseline will lead to a great extinction event

    Show me one example of extinction that is attributable to man’s burning fossil fuels.

    Ah, another wrong-headed straw man.

    And easily pummelled.

    Of course you are ignoring the fact that we’ve only been seriously warming the planet for four or so decades, and extinction from climatological pressure usually takes longer than that. Extinction is not immediate. Ask me the same question in another few decades and the list will be long and rapidly growing, and it will include some iconic species. If you’re an Australian janama you should visit our ‘Snowies’, because the mountain pygmy possum will only exist in zoos in another few decades.

    But it’s not just alpine and polar species that are being impossibly painted into the ecophysiological corners. Ranges are shifting and contracting everywhere, and the effects of warming are interacting with disease, human-caused habitat destruction, competition with human-transported exotics, human pollution, and sundries other confounders.

    13. the planet’s warming is superimposed on background ‘noise’/variations resulting from the combination of natural forcings separate from human ‘greenhouse’ gas emissions

    That’s just gobbledygook!

    Only if one is statistically ignorant.

    And wrong.

    14. these background ‘noise’/variations resulting from the combination of natural forcings have resulted in a 2-standard-deviation variation of ± ~0.2 degree Celcius/decade for the last three or so decades

    more gobbledygook

    And more statistical ignorance.

    And more wrongness.

    15. this background ‘noise’/variation means that, statistically, a certain minimum period of time is always required in order to observe the most recent portion of the signal emerging from the noise

    so 16 years isn’t long enough for you?

    Not if it includes cherry-picked dates and doesn’t account for the current noise over signal.

    But then, I’m of the scientific bent.

    Unlike yours, which is bent wrong

    16. this minimum period of time required to statistically identify signal from noise is currently at least 15-17 years.

    so 16 years shows nothing – what’s your point?

    My point is that you are statistically-innumerate, -illiterate, and -ignorant, all rolled into one big ball. My point is that you are comparing apples to deniers’ turds, which have a particularly rank odour.

    My point is that your bastardisation of all that is logical, and rational and scientific stinks of wrong.

    17. cherry-picking intervals shorter than the period required to observe signal emerge from noise, in order to make claims about the underlying trend, is poor statistical practice

    really? thanks for the lesson in statistics.

    It seems to be the first lesson that you’ve ever had.

    It obviously didn’t stick though, because it made no difference to you being gobsmackingly and predictably wrong.

    18. deniers of human-caused global warming are cherry-picking intervals shorter than the period required to observe signal emerge from noise, in order to claim that warming has stopped, and in complete ignorance (whether deliberate or otherwise) of the statistical condition noted above

    forgive me if I think what you are saying is total codswallop! as does the rest of the world. – don’t let me interrupt your fantasy though.

    Pardon me if I won’t forgive you.

    And I rather think that your comment about “the rest of the world” thinking that the science I quote is “codswallop” is, now let me think about it for a moment… wrong.

    But be my guest if you can prove your claim. Remember though that it only takes one black swan…

    19. the net consequence of (timely) mitigation against ‘greenhouse’ gas-caused warming would be positive for human societies

    how do you come to that conclusion? where has warming ever been detrimental to human society? I know that a freezing cold climate is being detrimental to the peoples of northern Europe as I type this! Your computer models didn’t predict this did they?

    I come to “that conclusion” by reading the science.

    To date humans have not experienced warming outside of the Holocene envelope, so your question is another straw man. However, the effects of global warming are anticipated in regional warming, which has been detrimental to societies whenever drought, disease, dustbowls and other ecosystem collapse, fire, famine and fighting for limited resources occur.

    Current local cold in a small part of the world today is not a reflection of global warming impact over the next decades, centuries and millennia. To imagine that it is is profoundly egocentric of you.

    And wrong.

    Yes, “computer” do “predict” winter in Europe for quite a while yet.

    So again you are, as is your habit, wrong.

    20. humans have almost certainly left it too late to mitigate to avoid the First-Chapter consequences of global warming

    That’s pure speculations based on NO evidence…do you call yourself a scientist or are you just another computer programmer with an inflated self importance.

    Excuse me if I snort derisively in your direction.

    My comment is supported and reflected by many climatologists and physicists. If you got out of your parents’ basement and darkened the doorway of a university, or even just used g00gle scholar, you’d understand this.

    I call myself a concerned scientist, a very worried scientist.

    I call you a denialist with an inflated capacity for being wrong.

    21. if humans don’t move to mitigate in the very near immediate future they will have almost certainly left it too late to mitigate to avoid the Second- and subsequent-Chapter consequences of global warming

    so all the scientists that advise the world governments are wrong? otherwise they would be doing everything in their power to avoid the disaster you espouse – unfortunately you are being ignored, ever occurred to you you may be wrong?

    The scientists who advise governments are doing everything in their power to attempt to avoid the disaster that they and I anticipate. It seems that the only ignoring around here is that in which you have engaged with respect to what’s happening beyond the door of that basement of yours.

    I continually reassess my knowledge of the science, hoping against hope that climatologists, physicists, biologists and ecologists are wrong. I hope for nothing less. The enormous weight of evidence suggests the exact opposite – that the consensus and my acceptance of it are not wrong.

    That same weight of evidence clearly indicates that you are wrong.

    22. at this point the primary reason for human inactivity with respect to mitigation is the concerted and deliberate campaign of denial by ideologues and vested interests who want to maintain the fossil fuel paradigm

    When I put fuel in my car or turn on an electric heater I do not class myself as an ideologue – you may – I don’t.

    You have an army of straw men.

    The ideology is not in an isolated instance of the use of fossil energy.

    It is in the resistance to moving humanity forward so that we don’t rely on fossil energy, and that in so doing we provide ourselves, our descendants, and the biosphere with the best chance in the future of the opportunity for life that we enjoy today.

    That’s were your ideology creeps in.

    So now you’re chowing on wrong for dessert.

    23. it will always be better for humans to mitigate to reduce warming than not but the return on any such action will diminish the longer we wait, to be effectively zero at the point at which mitigation is no longer possible, by which time global human society will be threatened as referred to above.

    Since when has warming ever been a problem to mankind. The Roman’s didn’t wear Togas for nothing, the Brit’s grew grapes where they won’t grow today, and the Vikings thrived in Greenland. Warming is good!
    you lost me with your stupid science fantasy – it’s so full of holes I doubt your mind can even hold it together and keep you sane, get real Bernard – your case is over and out!

    Warming has been a problem for “mankind” when it pushes us and/or our biology-based primary industries beyond our ecophysiological envelopes. Incipient global warming will be all the greater a problem for these same reasons.

    Unsurprisingly, you are dead wrong about grapes in Britain.

    The Vikings in Greenland were a group of recalcitrant ignorers of the ways of the natural world, who refused to adopt technologies sympathetic to the environment in which they lived, who were never prosperous to begin with, and who were wiped out be a very slight change in the mean regional annual temperature.

    Which only goes to prove my point, and refute yours.

    My case remains as solid as ever, which is to say rock solid, whilst yours disappears faster than smoke in a hurricane.

    You have yet to point out any holes in the consensus science, you have engaged in much fantasy of your own but show none on my behalf, the only sanity in question here is yours, and my case is backed by evidence.

    Your case is just bursting at the seams with wrong.

    [*I gave up on all the other sics – there were too many to bother…]

  75. #75 janama
    December 25, 2012

    Yes I did – and I heard a lot of “we don’t know” in his talk.

    2012 was a record antarctic sea ice extent

    http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=79369

    and here’s the arctic temperature since 1900 which clearly shows the arctic warming since 1980 but not warming more than in the 40s.

    http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/ArcticIce/Images/arctic_temp_trends_rt.gif

  76. #76 Lionel A
    December 25, 2012

    An increase in Antarctic sea ice does not imply that the Antarctic is not warming, what it does fall in line with is an increase in glacier flow and increasing water vapour falling out as snow, but not much in the Eastern Antarctic which is as described almost a desert.

    The warming of the West Antarctic peninsula is very real as this tells:

    Antarctic Peninsula: rapid warming

    and this tells what it means for some Antarctic inhabitants:

    THE FEROCIOUS SUMMER Palmer’s penguins
    and the warming of Antarctica – PDF
    .

    Your point is…?

    Looks broken to me.

  77. #77 Lionel A
    December 25, 2012
  78. #78 bill
    December 25, 2012

    Is janama as stupid as it makes out?

    Perhaps. Or just dishonest?

    I went to all the links provided, and failed to see anything that supports the ‘Arctic ocean ice melt is caused by undersea volcanic activity’ hypothesis. Let alone the notion that it’s the convenient trillions of undersea volcanoes causing the warming and the CO2.

    You see, to anyone who’s actually acting in good faith ‘we identified and described some volcanoes’ doesn’t cut it, for the reasons outline above; before finding them guilty we need – (ahem) – the smoking vent.

    Though one linked piece – provided, appropriately enough, by ‘Elijah Sent from Heaven’ – did sagely announce;

    This was one of two volcanoes that erruped [sic] under Greenland [sic – my emph.] in 2006. The volcanoes may be increasing or decreasing the “melt rate.”

    I rather think the words ‘rate of activity’ are required in the sentence for that last sentence to make any sense, but, basically, that’s the question we’re asking, and getting no answer to, beyond the usual hand-waving and willful lack of skepticism.

    And literally pathetic ‘evidence’ such as this very jpeg.

  79. #79 bill
    December 25, 2012

    Those interested in the actual reality of the Arctic crisis, on the other hand, might find the graphics at this link interesting.

  80. #80 Eli Rabett
    http://rabett.blogspot.com
    December 25, 2012

    Lotharson, also there would be a tell tale pH profile from the volcanoes

  81. #81 chameleon
    December 25, 2012

    Goodness me!
    Honestly, you people are just as vitriolic or maybe even more so than the people you are complaining about.
    In essence, I agree with the main thrust of this post that modern day journalism rarely lets the truth interfere with a good story.
    However, Robyn Williams and the Science Show exhibited similar poor behaviour in this instance & have often done so in the past.
    It was ‘infotainment’ and it deliberately used an inappropriate analogy with paedophilia.
    Not even slightly scientific in terms of the ‘physics’ of climate.
    An attempt to defend that behaviour (regardless of your perception of the intent) is no better than defending the OZ!

  82. #82 spangled drongo
    December 26, 2012

    But don’t you think Lionel that by warming the past they are cruelling themselves for future AGW “adjustments”?

    “They can’t find any recent warming, so they took a broken sensor with “intermittent gaps and other problems”, “recalibrated” it, “used computerized analyses of the atmosphere to fill the gaps” and “discovered” warming that “happened in the 1980s”. If you believe that this is science, then I strongly suggest you prep your telescope, lest you miss out on a spectacular sleigh sighting…”

  83. #83 Lotharsson
    December 26, 2012

    …there would be a tell tale pH profile from the volcanoes.

    Excellent point.

    But not one that is likely to resonate with janama, as Bernard’s epic fisk suggests.

  84. #84 Lotharsson
    December 26, 2012

    Not even slightly scientific in terms of the ‘physics’ of climate.

    Of course, to make that claim accurately one would need to recognise ‘physics’ and ‘science’ when one saw it, whereas chameleon on this and the Sea Level Rise thread clearly does not.

    And gotta love someone who feels the need to undermine whatever credibility readers who haven’t seen them comment before might be prepared to spot them by scare-quoting the term “physics”.

  85. #85 bill
    December 26, 2012

    I must say I enjoyed Bernard J’s thrashing of The Wrongster above.

    Lurkers and those who somehow have not managed to form – at any time over the last, say, um, decade or so, despite all the controvesry – an opinion on the single most crucial issue currently facing civilization might wish to read it and understand that Pyjaramarama’s wrongheaded and unrelenting wrongful wrongness is not an aberration or even a personal idiosyncrasy – this is Denial, and this is the strength of its arguments.

    Shallow old men who cannot accept that their-best-of-all-possible worlds might, indeed, be fatally-flawed, and who will stoop to any depth to avoid confronting realities their ideological blinkers refuse to transmit.

    Join them, and lose. And look just as daft.

  86. #86 David B. Benson
    December 26, 2012

    Antarctic sea ice extent is controlled by the circumpolar winds. The winds have increased due to the ozone hole.

  87. #87 David B. Benson
    December 26, 2012

    janama — Try to keep up:
    http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2012/12/can-last-glacial-maximum-constrain.html
    which includes links to excellent papers on climate sensitivity.

  88. #88 Michael
    December 26, 2012

    chameleon,

    I don’t think so.

    What’s ‘inappropriate’ about it??

    Unless you’re running with the mistaken line that he called them paedophiles, which is clearly not the case.

    Or do you think he wasalso claiming that denialists push asbestos as a treatment for asthma too?

  89. #89 chameleon
    December 26, 2012

    No I clearly said he used an inappopriate analogy Michael.
    Did you not understand the difference?
    There was no ‘unless’ about my comment.
    Lotharrson, as per the previous post, I do not know what your problem is.
    Do you think using such an analogy is a good ‘physical’ representation of current climate science?
    My point remains that I don’t believe the ABCs behaviour was/is any better than the journalists at the OZ.

  90. #90 Michael
    December 26, 2012

    My question was – what’s ‘inappropriate’ about it?

    I note you use the word inappropriate rather than inaccurate.

  91. #91 Lotharsson
    December 26, 2012

    Lotharrson, as per the previous post, I do not know what your problem is.

    That may be because, as you did on the other thread, you tried to tell me that I didn’t say what I actually said. Your comprehension skills aren’t very good in cases where comprehension would prove inconvenient.

    Such as in this case, perhaps, where your follow-up question once again shows zero comprehension of my point. (It is also incoherent – the analogy clearly wasn’t intended to be a representation of climate science whether ‘physical’ or physical.)

  92. #92 Lionel A
    December 26, 2012

    Drongo drops,

    But don’t you think Lionel that by warming the past they are cruelling themselves for future AGW “adjustments”?

    WTF is that supposed to mean?

    To so slyly slalom around the sources that I pointed you to is dishonest. But that is nothing new.

    And, garbled quotes from We Use Wishful Thinking will not cut it here and you could not even cut and paste with accuracy, too much Fosters perhaps, try Duff beer that should suit you better.

    Now this is getting tedious especially as my only good hand is now incapacitated somewhat, pecking at keys whilst trying to operate a mouse using a stick between my teeth is becoming tiresome. So until you start learning to study sources diligently and understand why your pet ideas are just so damned wrong it is adieu from me.

  93. #93 Bernard J.
    December 26, 2012

    Lionel.

    Your salvation is at hand – or not, as the case may be:

    https://leapmotion.com/

  94. #94 chameleon
    December 26, 2012

    Excuse me for being pedantic Lotharrson,
    But I commented on the use of the paedophilia ananlogy.
    So who is actually claiming people are saying/not saying what they actually said or didn’t say?
    And Michael,
    Do you think it’s either appropriate and/or accurate for the ABC to invoke an analogy with paedophilia when discussing aspects of climate science?
    I don’t think the ABC’s behaviour is any better than the behaviour at the OZ.
    So in essence I agree with the main thrust of this post that journalism standards are questionable.
    I’m unclear why Tim tried to defend one of them however.
    It would seem that would have more to do with politics than science.

  95. #95 Michael
    December 26, 2012

    chameleon,

    Accurate as an analogy -absolutely.

    Inappropriate- well, that ‘s one purely subjective. I’d just note that in the context of the discussion – anti-science denialism in the face of one ofthmost pressing issues facing humanity – it amounts to petty pearl-clutching of the most astounding triviality.

    Uber tone-trolling perhaps?

  96. #96 chameleon
    December 26, 2012

    So now my question to you Michael is:
    What’s accurate about this analogy when discussing aspects of climate science?
    I believe invoking an analogy with paedophilia has proved to be inappropriate and highly counter productive.
    It has led to people throwing insults and/or becoming defensive and no further advancement of the discussion of science.
    You however found it accurate?

  97. #97 NumbNuts
    December 26, 2012

    Bernard at some point you’re going to have to take stock.

    When Ben Santer starts to say there are problems with the theory well maybe there are http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/11/28/1210514109.full.pdf

    “The multimodel average tropospheric temperature trends are outside the 5–95 percentile range of RSS results at most latitudes.”

    The lack of statistical trend of the last 16 years is a fair period of time. Most of us are surprised and you have to retrofit “other factors” to justify your position.

    There is a no evidence of a tropospheric hotpsot and the temperature evolution curve shows as much.

    So what have you got to keep going with the faith ? aerosols, cloud feedback, IPO change, weak sun ?? or wrong models

  98. #98 Michael
    December 27, 2012

    chameleon,

    Climat escience per se, was not the topic. Robin Williams was taking about how clmate science is discussed in sections of the media and blogosphere, noting how much of it is wildly inaccurate and how that precludes rational discussion. He used some analogies to highlight just how scientifically wrong some of this stuff is.

    He was not using the analogy to talk about the actual science, which is what you seem to believe.

    The main point – you are ignoring the substantive issue to deal with stylistic trivia.

  99. #99 Lotharsson
    December 27, 2012

    Excuse me for being pedantic Lotharrson…

    But you clearly are not.

    A pedant would spell my name correctly. (But perhaps that’s being pedantic ;-)

    A pedant would not deny even tiny differences between two things, let alone large ones, when those differences are germane to the argument. You have repeatedly done so.

  100. #100 Lotharsson
    December 27, 2012

    What Michael said. (As I tried to point out to chameleon yesterday).

    (I predict chameleon will continue to argue about the tone, and is at least a 50% chance to repeat his implied claim that the analogy used was about the science rather than the pseudo-science and anti-science claims that abound in the media and blogosphere.)

Current ye@r *