How to Talk to a Climate Sceptic

Thanks! I am bookmarking this post, because I have a friend who visits my blog frequently and thinks that he is a sceptic because he doesn't buy global warming. My own defenses have been rather weak, because I haven't got the training to analyze climatology.

The version here is more compact and hence easier to navigate in my browser (Firefox 3), but (for now) I greatly prefer the version here, simply because the individual articles are not (yet) suffixed with reams of denialist spam.

in IE too, it is a bit more compact over there, 9 1/2 page-downs versus 12 here. Oh well! I will be following the comments on the articles here, I just could not keep up over there as all comments on the 5-15+ Grist posts per day come in a single listing. So I hope we will manage some useful discussion and I will certainly control any spam-like behaviours!

Where ever you read it, glad people find it useful! (more articles coming soon)

Glad to hear it! Yes, I've found your guide a very handy reference tool, and a useful springboard to the primary literature.

Two things:
I love physics. As such, I have to dispute your assertion that GW is anthropologic. I would gladly go over the math with you; however, there is not enough space here. Study the laws of thermodynamics - Laws, not theories and not consensus.

I am involved in a study of cosmic rays. Your points totally leave out various other cosmic and solar factors.

Sorry, meant cosmic radiation, not rays.

hi coby and so on,

i have only one question: in the long climate history there can not be found one correlation between co2 rising and temperature rising. every time the temperature was rising many decades befor the first co2 signal was registratet. today it must be different, we should accept, or what? if the co2 has an initial effekt on temperature, why had this effekt never been registratet bevore? for that i did not found any answer in the web in no ipcc report, never ever. can anybody help me?

regards

chris (meteorologican, so you can talk sientiffic...)

Hi chris,

I refer you to several articles in the section [Stages of Denial - I.3.3 - It's Not Caused By CO2], specifically, "CO2 Lags not Leads", and "Historically CO2 never causes warming", and there are other related entries.

If you still have questions, please ask them under those articles. Thanks for the comment!

hi guys,

yes i did look at all the articles in the sections, but: there is a forcing by around 1-2w/m² given to co2. this solar back radiation forcing must have been the same in history and at least on the landscapes there must be found a signal a few years later. so for me this is the most important point of all the theories and it is not explained seriosly. everybody knows the effect of geernhouse gases, but the effekt of co2 is not found in history. i can not help, but there is a big carelessly in the articles and studies.

chris,

Your question is unclear. You acknowledge that greenhouse gases have an effect, CO2 is a greenhouse gase, so what are you missing?

Thanks for an excellent commentary, and for not ducking the issues that are flying around.

I have three questions about the scientific process. (I agree with your point that real science is made in the serious journals, not in position statements and conferences - I did a science PhD myself.) My questions are:

1) What about positivity bias: the well-known effect that negative results are less likely to be published? Would researchers whose results did not predict global warming or support other aspects of the "consensus" be less likely to pass peer review?

2) What about self-censorship bias? Notoriously, early measurements of the speed of light tended to cluster around the most recent measurement by a "great scientist", and this lack of objectivity delayed convergence on the now-accepted value. Climate change modellers whose results diverged from the "consensus" might similarly be less likely to report, especially as the field has so much political as well as scientific pressure in it.

3) What about funding-induced bias? There is now (rightly) a fair amount of funding available for research into global warming. Professorships, entire research departments, and even global institutions depend on it. How much funding and job security is available for research that attacks the "consensus"? This is important, because a theory is only as good as the strength of the attacks it has withstood.

Many thanks, and good luck with your contributions to the public debate.

[Hi Rob,

I don't doubt that the biases you mention are real and could effect the progress of research. I would note two things though, firstly the first two effects you describe probably had to be overcome to get where we are. Global warming research is not new and it has taken a long time for the current consensus to emerge. Even now IPCC projections continue to be very conservative and many predicted effects are happening much faster than expected - arctic warming, sea ice melt, permafrost response. But your points are taken.

Secondly, the funding bias you mention seems apply pressure in the opposite direction. NASA is having its earth sciences budget slashed for example. And there is plenty of special interest money around supporting guys like P. Michaels and S Fred Singer and the Soon's etc.

Again though, your points are reasonable, scientists are human and humans have all kinds of concsious and un conscious biases. We must look carefully at all our information.

Thanks for the comment!

Coby]

Hi coby,
Im from Sri Lanka and im 16 years old.Ill be participating in a debate on the the 5th of September and the topic for the debate is "the inconvenient truth is that there is nothing we can do about global warming so quit trying".Ive decided to oppose the topic.If it's no trouble could you point out what sort of arguments the Proposition could come up with.(so far im guessing they would take the anti AGW standpoint and say that its all natural so lets quit trying).What ive thought of doing is approaching this issue by first substantiating the AGW theory and then saying "even if, for arguments sake" AGW theory is wrong does this mean we cant do anything about global warming and quit trying natural or man made because at the end of the day it is still harmful.And of course i will be asking the legitimate question of "at what point do you say that we cant do anything about global warming?" but do you think the proposition would likely go with an anti AGW argument or come up with something else? if you think they are what kind of tips could you give me?
Im asking you these questions because i admire your blog and because im feeling kinda confused (partly because i watched "the great global warming swindle" and then "the inconvenient truth") and i think you can help me.Thank you.

This is an interesting site--having read oodles of articles and comments on this subject,I am still an opan-minded sceptic.I am old enough to remember the dire predictions of an impending ice age .I believe it was in 1973 that it was postulated that we were all going to die from the extreme cold.I read everything I could find on the subject and, taking into account that the scientific results of the research were compiled by "climate change experts",I remained on the fence but wary.What happened to this climate change certainity?

Hi Dianne,

Please see this article:
http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/02/they-predicted-cooling-in…

There was no agreement of climate experts about severe cooling in the 70's, just some exagerated media stories.

Wow. Cool site with lots of work. It must have taken you ages but you have done a good effort.

Many thanks for the hours of hard work and careful thought you've clearly put in to this site. Two topics I haven't seen addressed in this list (although I may have missed something) are:
1. the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine petition, which claims 30,000 scientist signatories who question consensus about global warming
2. claims that the IPCC is dominated by a clique, as in this article:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24315169-7583,00.html

It'd also be great to have available quick background guides to the organisations behind claims like these. Sourcewatch is very helpful in this regard, but to have brief info on your site could save me some effort!

Thanks for the feedback Gordon! Yours is a good suggestion, one I have thought of already...so many ideas so little time ;-)

Maybe soon though!

Coby,

First, thanks for a great resource. I've referenced this (and Skeptical Science) frequently, and I'm glad to see it on ScienceBlogs. Frequent Deltoid commenter cce has put together a similar layman guide that's worth looking into as well.

Regarding the Oregon Petition, though, there's a great resource available at Things Break. Be sure to look through the comments. CCE's addressed it as well. Hope that helps, if you choose to do this as a topic.

Here's the mindset one needs to have:

http://dailyelitist.com/?p=83

I would like to thank you for your article. Please continue keep it up to date!

Because I lean a certain way politically, I was trending to Global Warming Skepticism. I like to think of myself as a rational person and the arguments the skeptics make do make sense if you are not aware of the evidence refuting their points. It is difficult to find the answers when you do not know where to look, you haven't been reading scientific journals for decades to track the issue, the skeptical sites do not link to counter arguments and you do not know how old their information is. Thank you for providing a handy primer spelling it out!

I am now free to oppose proposed political measures addressing global warming without knowing whether I am a denialist or a dupe of the alarmists.

I hope others on my side will endeavor to keep themselves informed so that they do not lose credibility when making their points. It is ok to oppose kyoto, cap-and-trade and using corn for ethanol, even if anthropogenic global warming does exist. Please let us not appear to be anti-science.

And hopefully we can all agree, More Nuclear Energy! ;)

Great resource! My Noel with GR study:D
Thanks for share.

This is incredible. Let's turn this into an e-book that people can send all over the world. Email me: scott@creativecitizen.com

Really fabulous work here and thank you! The world needs this...

I'm sorry, but this "guide" is political in nature not scientific. Normally I stay out of things American, but I cant resist. Just so you dont put me in some pollitical group, some background I am european, an athiest, married to a catholic, and get paid to do research science for a large biomedical company. That out of the way, lets pick something at random:

"It's cold in Waga Waga"? that is answered in something similar to calling someone an idiot and walking away.

For example, I have just done a random temperature graph Ala Google
( http://images.google.com/images?um=1&hl=en&safe=off&q=temperature+graph… , Seventh result, Mean Maximum Temperature Graph
600 x 440 - 10k - gif go to the site to get the data)
for boulder colorado (not the whole world, but I have better things to do)using the data Here:

http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/Boulder/Boulder.mm.maxt.html
(Found with the above search)
Do one yourself, I am too lazy to upload mine.

Why (using their colour coded breakdown) is 1951 - 1960 the hottest decade on record? not the hottest year, the hottest day, or the hottest month, but the hottest decade at 66.1775 degrees average for the ten years. Has boulder been cooling since the hottest year on record (1954 at 69.81666667 degrees)? Granted, the latter decades appear to have a bias at first glance, but considering the average of 64.73959735 for the period covered in the date, that is within expected standard variance. You cant just waffle on about that and make it go away out of sheer boredom, you have to get data showing something different.

If you want to convince people:
first show data that is accurate
explain that there have been no "corrections" made to the data
explain exactly how the data was obtained
explain how this can be reproduced
show that the world warms and cools because CO2 % rises and falls
ask someone else to check what you did, to make sure you are not cheating

That is how science works. Political retoric won't change that.

The above data in CSV format for anyone interested:

Year,JAN,FEB,MAR,APR,MAY,JUN,JUL,AUG,SEP,OCT,NOV,DEC
1893,42.91217391,44.96,51.58782609,60.66434783,68.54521739,78.38347826,83.31652174,80.86695652,74.33043478,64.3,50.6,49.5
1894,43.9,37.7,54,66,68.54521739,78.38347826,81.6,80.6,74.33043478,64.40173913,51.78086957,41.6
1895,39.7,37.8,47,66.8,70.6,72.7,83.31652174,80.86695652,74.33043478,64.40173913,51.78086957,44.92608696
1896,42.91217391,44.96,51.58782609,60.66434783,68.54521739,78.38347826,83.31652174,80.86695652,74.33043478,64.40173913,51.78086957,44.92608696
1897,42.91217391,44.96,51.58782609,60.66434783,69.5,74,81,78.3,75.6,61.6,51.1,39.9
1898,39.9,48.2,45.6,59.8,60.8,77.1,82.2,84.2,73.7,60.4,47.3,39.2
1899,41.4,28.4,45.9,62.5,70.6,78.9,81,83,78.3,61.4,58.6,47.1
1900,49,43.8,56.1,56.3,71.5,81.9,82.5,84.7,73.1,69.4,58,50.5
1901,49.1,40.8,51.7,58.6,70.8,78.2,87.8,83.3,75.4,67.4,61,46.8
1902,43.1,49.9,49.8,61.1,70.6,79.9,81.5,84.2,74.8,65.7,53.8,48
1903,49.5,33.1,47.9,60,66,71.4,82.7,82.6,73.5,63.4,56.1,51.9
1904,43.7,54.1,57.3,61.4,66.8,72,79.7,83,76.5,67.2,61,48.1
1905,39.2,37.8,54.7,56.4,63.3,77.2,79.2,84.9,79.1,60.2,54.4,46.9
1906,50.4,50.1,39.1,62.1,69.4,75,77.3,80.5,73.4,64.6,48.8,51.9
1907,46.1,54.8,60.6,58.9,60.6,75.3,82.5,82.1,75.6,66.1,52.4,47.2
1908,48.2,50.3,57.5,65.8,66.9,76.5,81,78.7,78.8,59.6,49.4,45.1
1909,49.2,44.4,42,51.3,66.6,77.1,83.4,84.2,74.2,63.2,52.9,29.8
1910,42.2,42.7,64.7,66.5,67.1,80.1,83.31652174,80.86695652,77.9,70.4,59,47.5
1911,52,42.8,59.5,62.7,71.6,82.6,80.7,84.1,78.9,60.7,51.7,44.92608696
1912,42.91217391,44.96,43.8,55.9,68.5,74.4,80.6,82.5,68.2,62.9,56.9,44.3
1913,44.2,35.9,49.1,62.4,69.3,78.8,82.3,83.9,72.8,61.2,58.3,39.3
1914,50.9,45.6,56.1,61.7,69.2,82.2,83.6,82.8,81.1,67.5,62.1,35.9
1915,43,48,42.8,63.1,67,75.9,81.4,76.8,74.8,69.4,56.2,47.6
1916,39,50.8,62.3,62.5,72.5,81.4,87,78.6,76.1,62.4,47.8,36.1
1917,40.1,44.4,43.4,57,60.6,82.5,90.4,83.6,77.7,66.1,60,51.9
1918,35.9,51.1,61.1,55.5,74.1,83.7,86.6,86.5,72.9,66.3,49.6,43.2
1919,47.6,45,52.5,62.8,71.9,83.7,87.8,86.7,78.7,63.7,50.5,51.5
1920,51.2,46.7,52.6,51.3,68.8,77.1,85.5,81.6,76.5,66.5,48.9,45.2
1921,46,50.1,59.6,58.8,70.1,78.8,86.4,84.1,80.6,72.6,59.2,49.5
1922,40,43.5,54.8,58.4,70.9,85.2,83.5,86.8,81.5,67.1,49.3,49.5
1923,49.4,41.6,45.8,59.7,67.6,76.3,82.8,79.4,72.7,53.2,53.7,44.9
1924,41.3,52.2,38.5,61,66.2,83.2,84.2,86.1,69.8,66.7,58.7,38.1
1925,43.9,55.3,59.8,64.9,70.8,79.3,86.1,80.5,76.9,51,51.2,42.5
1926,40.8,49.9,47.4,56.5,68.8,77.4,83.4,85.2,74.9,72.2,56,44.7
1927,51,51.9,51.3,63.6,75.4,77.5,84.7,79.1,76.2,70.5,59.5,40.8
1928,49.5,45.7,52.6,60.8,69.9,74.4,84.1,84.2,80.4,65.7,53.5,44.2
1929,39.3,36.5,51.7,59.7,69.5,83.3,88.4,86.4,72.5,66.7,46,51.6
1930,29.4,54.7,50.8,69.7,68.4,84.6,87.2,82.4,78.4,63.8,55,45.5
1931,48.1,50.9,50,61.3,69.3,85.3,90.7,86.2,82.7,68.1,51.8,46.9
1932,44.6,53.2,46,66.2,73.7,79.4,88,86.5,79.7,65.2,57.7,35.4
1933,47.8,42.6,56.6,60.2,67.3,86.1,89.5,82.2,80.6,73.4,61.2,56.9
1934,52.2,49.5,60.5,65.3,78.5,85.4,90.8,87.2,77.9,73.9,57,49.4
1935,53.2,53,57.3,59.1,59.9,79.5,87.7,85,77.7,66,48.8,47.2
1936,44.5,42.6,56,63.5,73.6,82.1,88.3,85,77.9,61.2,55.5,47
1937,29.3,45.8,49,61.6,71.2,76.3,85.4,88.1,79,66,52.4,44.2
1938,45.7,47,52.7,61.6,64.1,78.7,85.1,85.9,76.6,66.5,46.8,43.3
1939,45.3,36.5,52.9,61,73.8,80.7,87.9,81.5,76.3,63.6,52.2,50
1940,34.1,44.6,54.3,57.6,70.1,82.4,84.2,81.7,72.3,65,44.7,41.5
1941,43.1,45,44,51.2,68.4,73.5,81.8,78.7,69.4,58.4,54.6,45.5
1942,41.2,34.7,47.9,62.7,68.6,76.4,85.7,82.4,72.8,60,54.8,48.1
1943,46,52.8,49.1,67.2,64.1,77.8,87.6,86.1,75.8,66.5,55.1,44.2
1944,42.5,42.8,44.5,52.8,68.5,76.5,82.1,83.7,74.6,65.5,52.2,44.5
1945,44.1,43.2,53.2,52.5,68.7,72.3,83.9,82.9,71.9,68,54.4,42.5
1946,44.5,49.6,58.2,68.2,61.6,81.4,85.2,81.4,74.7,59.7,47.7,49.6
1947,43.5,43.2,47.8,57.2,65.6,74.3,83.31652174,89,83.8,70.3,46.6,48.1
1948,42.1,42,47.4,66.8,73.1,81.4,89.8,88.8,83.3,69.2,51.5,44.5
1949,34.1,46.8,54.9,66.5,73.1,80.6,88.5,88.1,80.8,65.7,66.8,50.1
1950,46.1,54.5,54.1,64.2,68.5,84.1,84.7,85.5,74.3,77.4,56.1,52.4
1951,42.5,49.3,50.4,59.4,72.6,75.5,89.2,85.2,78,64.7,53.7,42.7
1952,47.9,50.2,47.8,63.5,71.3,89.6,89.7,87.1,83.1,72.1,48.8,47.5
1953,55.2,48.3,59.7,57.4,67.8,85.8,89.2,87.4,84.9,70.7,57.9,47.1
1954,53.4,61.2,49.2,71.2,72,87.2,92.8,88.5,81.1,68.8,59.6,52.8
1955,42.4,42.3,51.5,67.2,73.9,78.7,91.2,87.5,80.3,71.7,51.8,49.5
1956,48.3,41.9,56.1,62.2,75.5,89.9,87.5,85,84.5,72.9,54.1,51.5
1957,39,54.9,53.7,55.5,66.3,81.6,88.6,88,78.3,65,50.6,56
1958,48.7,51.8,43.3,57.3,76.9,84.4,85.3,88.3,80.6,70.8,56.8,48.9
1959,45.2,42.3,53.3,60,69.5,85.3,86.9,87,74.8,63.7,55.8,51.5
1960,43,38.4,52.4,65.8,72.8,85.3,87.7,88.4,80.6,67.6,57.6,47.4
1961,50,52.1,51,61.8,71.6,80.6,86.3,85.5,70.6,66.2,49.7,41.5
1962,39.1,46.2,49.6,66.6,74.4,79.9,86.3,88.2,77.8,71.4,59,50.9
1963,36.9,52.9,53.8,65.5,77,83.6,91,82.6,81.5,72.7,58.1,46.5
1964,47.5,43.7,49.2,62.6,73.9,79.2,91.3,85.3,79.2,70.4,53.6,48.2
1965,49.9,45.9,43.4,64.7,72.1,78.2,86.2,83.7,68.8,72.5,58.6,50.6
1966,44.8,43.8,60.6,62.6,77.9,81.4,91.2,85.2,78.2,69,56.4,46.3
1967,49.4,51.5,60.8,65.9,67.7,73.9,85.4,83.6,77.9,70.3,54.6,39.9
1968,46.7,48.2,57.7,58.9,69,84.9,86,83.4,78.6,70.1,49.8,44.9
1969,49.4,48.9,47.5,67.6,74.3,73.7,89.1,88.7,80.4,52.9,54.4,47.6
1970,45.7,55.3,48.5,58.3,74.6,78.7,86,86.5,73.9,58.9,52,46.6
1971,45.9,44.6,53.5,61.1,67.1,84.1,86.1,86.3,73.1,63.7,53.7,44.8
1972,46.3,52.8,61,62.7,70.2,82.4,85.2,83.1,76,65.2,45,40.5
1973,41.2,47,50.4,55.9,69.3,82.8,84.3,88.1,73.3,69.9,51.3,46.9
1974,41.8,51,59.5,61.2,77,83.5,88.4,83.4,75.2,67.3,51.9,43.8
1975,45.5,46.1,51.9,58.1,67.8,78.7,87.1,86.3,75,70.6,51.5,49.8
1976,46.1,53.7,52.1,62.1,69.7,82.1,88.5,84.4,74,64.3,52,50.1
1977,42.3,51.4,53.7,63.1,74.5,86.7,88.2,82.1,81.5,69.1,53.7,49.8
1978,38.6,39.9,56.6,62.8,70.6,81.4,89.4,85.4,81.1,69.5,52.4,40.7
1979,35.7,50.5,54.3,63.9,68.54521739,78.38347826,87.7,81.1,81,70.9,46.9,52.3
1980,40.8,49.2,51.5,61.5,68.8,89.5,90.9,87.1,81.4,67.1,56.5,57.2
1981,52.2,53.8,55.1,71.2,67,84.9,87.6,82.5,79,62.7,57.3,48.2
1982,47.3,49.6,57.6,65.6,69.3,76.2,86.2,86.3,73.2,63.8,51.78086957,47
1983,42.91217391,44.96,49.9,55.7,66.2,77.2,87.3,90.2,82.7,70.3,54.1,31.7
1984,43.5,48.9,53.3,56.9,76.2,80.3,89.1,85.6,76,58,54.9,48.1
1985,39,43.4,55.6,65.5,74.6,83.8,85.9,89,73.5,66.8,41.5,43.9
1986,57.1,49.5,62.2,64.1,71.2,83.7,86.3,84.9,72.6,63.6,53.3,45
1987,45.6,48.1,52.6,68,71.7,83.7,88.6,82.9,77.1,67.9,53,41.7
1988,40.9,49.5,54.2,66.5,73.5,85.7,88.4,86.9,77.3,69.8,54.2,45.4
1989,49.5,35.3,60.1,65,74,78.6,89.5,80.86695652,74.33043478,64.40173913,51.78086957,44.92608696
1990,42.91217391,44.96,51.58782609,60.6,68.9,86.4,81.6,82.8,77.9,68.7,57.8,40.4
1991,42.3,53.2,55.1,59.9,71.6,79.9,84,82.4,75.7,66.5,47.2,46.9
1992,48.2,52.2,54.8,68.1,73,76.4,83,80,79.4,68.4,45.3,41.2
1993,39,40.9,53.9,60.2,70.5,79.3,84.3,80.86695652,73.4,61.6,48.1,47
1994,47.3,45.2,57.5,61.5,77,86.8,86.3,85,79.7,63,47.6,48.4
1995,46.9,51.7,55.2,57.2,62.4,76.1,86,89.8,73.7,66.6,57.8,48.3
1996,42.8,51,51,64.1,73.4,82,85.4,85.2,75.4,66.7,53.7,49.1
1997,43.6,43.3,60.7,55.5,71.5,80.3,86,81.5,76.8,66.5,49.6,44.3
1998,48.6,48,52.1,59.1,74.2,77.6,86.6,84.9,82.3,62.8,55.2,44.1
1999,48.9,55.4,60.3,56.8,69.9,80.1,88,82.8,73.1,67.8,63.4,49
2000,47.9,54.1,56,67.6,76.6,82.8,89.8,88.2,79,62.9,43.4,43.5
2001,44.2,43.7,52.5,63.9,72.2,85.1,89.9,86.1,80.5,68.9,57.2,47.1
2002,45.1,50.6,52.7,68.4,71.2,87.1,93.4,87.8,77.6,58.2,52.6,48.3
2003,53.9,43.1,56.4,64,71.6,76.2,92.4,87.3,75.6,73.5,49.8,48.3
2004,47.3,45.7,62.8,61.4,74.2,76.2,83.5,81,77.9,65,50.6,48.3
2005,47.2,49.7,53.9,61.7,70.6,79.9,91.5,84.2,81.6,66.3,58.4,45.6
2006,53.3,46.4,52.3,69.7,76,88.8,88.8,85.3,72.9,63.5,56.4,46.3
2007,39.6,47.4,61,60.6,72.6,84.6,90.3,88.8,79.6,69.7,58.7,42
2008,43.4,49.5,54,63,71.6,82,92,84.4,76.2,66,59.5,45

Dear all,

today, February 10, 2009, I had to read in a Chilean newspaper (Publimetro) in a margin note that an expert, Milutin Milankovic, now assured that the global warming is not human-made. Can this be understood in the light of recent climate research? And why only in a margin note? Is that considered to unquestionable, and therefore true?

Regards - David.

Hi David,

Since Milutin Milankovic died in 1959, the question is not why is this in a margin note, but why is it 50 years late? :-)

You might be interested in these two articles related to Milankovic cycles:

This is a natural cycle

CO2 lags temperature

if i saw you in person, i would gush with appreciation.

i don't gush.

did you get paid for this or was this a labor of love? i've forwarded it on to some skeptics. let's see what kind of response i get.

thanks again for your work.

Thanks for the nice feedback, mofem : )

No I did not get paid for that, but I'm sure glad I did it. Best wishes.

Thank you for puting this together. It is a substantial work. I am a "skeptic" and I am drawn to see what the points are that you wish to use to protect what is an ideology rather than an investigation based on scientific investigation. I would like to point a few things out ona broad scale everyone seems to be rebreathing their own vapors this will create too much CO2 and you will all pass out a much more imediate problem than you profess.

Real Climate is a web site started by AL Gore's Press Secretary Arlie Schardt http://www.activistcash.com/biography.cfm/bid/2808Al I am not going to rain on any one's parade but it is really important to investigate the source of those offering helpful opinions.http://www.activistcash.com/organization_overview.cfm/oid/110

[Real Climate was not started by and is not run by or influenced by any PR organization. Nor did Real Climate produce the IPCC reports or the 150 years of scientific research on which the report is compiled. If you wish to advance an ad hominem argument, at least get your ad hominems straight!
- coby]

I AM NOT advocating this particular website's opinions either they all disgust me. But I think and dig in and apparently that is a problem. What see makes me worry for my country. I would like it to be successful. Decisions made upon ideological errors have real world consequences.

[Your criticisms advanced on this site seem remarkably ideological. ei, Al Gore is involved so it must be wrong. At least that is the only point you have made thus far!]

These organizations are interested NO 1 in Political power by offering disinformation and protecting ideologies. not the best solutions. Don't get sucked in, be a skeptic! Let your understanding evolve. Science advances one idea at a time.

By the way you should refute the Milankovitch cycle with more than a post mortem Ad Hominem atttack on the fact he is dead. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles

[I supplied to links to articles about the subject. And noting he is dead and therefore not advancing sceptical theories today is hardly an ad hominem attack!]

Keep at it!

Cheers! Phin Sprague

Hey, your boy won the White House, you can knock off the climate bull shit hysteria at Real Climate; find some other way to raise taxes to pay for your Lear Jet fantasy. Besides, there is no military draft with a hot war going on, requiring changing the subject to global cooling and the first Earth Day for New Left chicken hawks who couldn't work up the courage to show up with their home boys, the Vietcong. Get a life, dude.

Rob Romano -

[Rob Romano's comment was removed for failure to provide a real email address. I also thought it was clear he was commenting on the set of articles without actually reading them. Rob, if you're around and are serious, try again with something specific, or at least mention an article that illustrates your position.

Adam, thanks for answering, here and elsewhere!

- coby]

If you're looking for the consensus opinion amongst climate scientists, then you're currently in the wrong camp. Consensus lies very strongly in the direction of AGW.
http://www.eecg.utoronto.ca/~prall/climate/pix/climate_views_bar_chart_…
The vertical axis on this chart ranks scientists by number of citations, and each row shows the percentage of 'alarmists' vs 'skeptics'. A more thorough explanation is here: http://www.eecg.utoronto.ca/~prall/climate/climate_authors_table.html

It is indeed a very complex subject. But the way you've framed global warming is backwards, in my opinion. Global warming is, at worst, a devastating reality and, at best, a diversion from other environmental issues.

However, if you post some specific concerns you have about the list, and why you think certain arguments are invalid, then we can address your thoughts specifically.

Don - LULZ WHUT?

There's an excellent article at PJM today that points up the half-assed nature of your efforts on this site.

It's one thing to be smugly victorious, though it lacks class, but you FIRST have to prove your case. Your counter-arguments (very few of which address the scientific questions) do you a disservice, since they lack intellectual rigor. It's just a smug circle-jerk for people who want consensus based on shallow rhetoric. You're the 'self-satisfied AGW' Ying to the 'ostrich in the sand' Yang of the more extreme people who are in denial on environmental issues.

C+. Good effort as regards intentions, but I think you can do better on the ratiocination and methodology.

Professor Hazlitt

I instruct a course with students who have a broad range of climate change knowledge... one crazy notion that has popped up repeatedly lately: The moon's orbit is expanding, (I believe this is true in principle, but students are citing huge numbers "the moon is moving away from the Earth at a rate of 5 miles/year" EEK!) and the moon's increasing distance is responsible for stronger hurricanes and shifts in precip. I want to challenge this absurdity, but I can't find it mentioned, even on the zanier websites. Has anyone heard this before?

slf....

Regarding the Moon's orbit expanding. I can't really believe someone would want to challenge such a notion. Look, nobody wants a denier for a teacher, and it sounds like you are one step away from being labeled a goal post moving strawman.

Here's my advice:

First, I think it is best to be honest with the students and tell them that there are poor people in the world who are suffering. Bring out their compassion.

Next, make sure they know the suffering is do to the hording and wasteful use of the worlds resources by wealthy nations.....particularly the greedy and imperialistic United States. This creates a feeling of guilt and/or anger depending on what part of the world you are teaching.

After that, you'll want to throw some fear into the mix. This is really quite easy, scary words are good, but it would be best to combine the words with pictures of death, destruction, famine and catastrophes etc......get them all worked up. Don't forget to throw in a few pictures of smoke stacks and cute animals to really pull at those heart strings.

Then you want to slightly touch on the subject of fairness and changing the world government to help spread the benefits of wealth and growth.

Now is the time you hit them with it.......THE MOON'S ORBIT IS EXANDING! WE DON'T HAVE MUCH TIME!

That's it. Now you can just sit back and wait.....their imaginations will take it from there.

Be reassured that many of these students will go on to become politicians and scientists.

If you still insist on challenging the absurdity, perhaps you can respond to them with an absurd solution....
http://movies.yahoo.com/movie/1808403329/video/2961617#2961617

SLF -

I haven't heard that either, but if you get a reference from them, you'll be on much better footing.

How do you make heads and tails with this article:

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/Global-Warming/Antarctic-ice-growin…

Just curious...

Bill.

There is something you need to understand. Seeking a response to an article like that on this post is insignificant. The response is already predetermined.

Please let me explain....

The subject of this post is "How to talk to a Climate Skeptic". What does that tell you?

First, there is more concern about rehearsing prepared answers to any information, questions or articles that contradict a belief then there is about content, listening or dialogue etc. Remember... "The debate is over".

In other words, the main purpose is to prove your article wrong before it is even entered on this site, and believe me, it's wrong. In most worlds that's being closed minded, but this is earth.

Second, please realize that everything, including your linked article, can be related to climate change and all climate change can be related to man.

With that said, I still think you deserve some kind of response for your efforts. You asked how does one make heads or tails out of the article? After a thorough reading, and at the risk of being labeled a denier, I think I can answer it as well or better than anyone on this site can....

Tails.

I am really not trying to be a cad, but what you wrote does not make sense. To say, "believe me, it's wrong' is not science. There are hundreds of scientists -- good ones -- who do not believe in anthropogenic global warming. That's the bottom line truth. If this is the case, which it is, then how can it be 'scientifically' true and beyond debate? Science, by definition is verifiable through empirical data that anyone, even the layman, can see. To say, 'But it's true' does not make it true anymore than me saying the sky is green makes it green.

Bill

I'm with you on this....read it again.

I was being sarcastic at the expense of a site that's sole purpose (how to talk to a climate skeptic) is to inform people to how to say "your wrong".

It doesn't make any sense.

That's why I said.... "in most worlds that's being closed minded.....but this is earth."

Our species has gone insane.

Not all of our species. Just a few. And their numbers shrink every day. This AGW idiocy has nearly finished its run. I just can't wait until the next 'climate crisis,' and the inevitable 'the global warming scare was all media, no scientists believed it' line when I bring this current folly up.

Bill -

That article may be presenting accurate information, but the original article in The Australian's sub-header summarizes it best: ICE is expanding in much of Antarctica, contrary to the widespread public belief that global warming is melting the continental ice cap.

The public believes this, it's not a surprise to anyone following the science. It's not new information.
http://nsidc.org/seaice/characteristics/difference.html (scroll to bottom)

And besides, this is a result that is actually predicted in many of the models.
http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/02/antarctic-ice-is-growing…

Betula -

First, there is more concern about rehearsing prepared answers to any information, questions or articles that contradict a belief then there is about content, listening or dialogue etc. Remember... "The debate is over".

This is because we hear the same old, discredited 'skeptical' arguments recycled over and over by people who think they are privy to some fantastical new information. So, yes, most of the responses are prepared, simply because the same talking points are brought up over and over again. There are only so many ways to respond to "ZOMG, global warming stopped in 1998!!1!eleven!" or "HAI GUYS, ANTARKTEK EYS IZ GROWIN'". Besides, what we are doing here IS dialog. Those who come with questions who are genuinely interested in learning the science are answered as best as possible. Those who come simply to snark are dismissed as ideologue trolls.

Betula,

Sorry about my first email. I realized after the fact that you were being facetious. I have an uncle who has swallowed this whole thing hook, line and sinker and will not ever entertain the thought that there may be legitimate alternative explanations. It is a form of fundamentalism if you ask me. Many of these people are either atheists or some variation and this is there raison de etre.

Adam says...

"Besides, what we are doing here IS dialog. Those who come with questions who are genuinely interested in learning the science are answered as best as possible."

So this is a school where people come to learn and Adam is on the faculty?

Ill Considered University (ICU)....."Where it's our way or the highway"

Freshman Year Semester 1

1. How to talk to a student skeptic 105...........3 credits
2. Scare Tactics for desired results 101..........3 credits
3. How to build a scarecrow 105...................4 credits
Note: This is a hands on outdoor course. Be
sure to bring plenty of warm clothing.
4. Using uncertainy to obtain certainty 101.......2 credits
5. An Inconvienient class with a movie 111........3 credits
6. Finding and releasing your inner C02 101.......1 credit

Bill -

Many of these people are either atheists or some variation and this is there raison de etre.

Yes, notorious atheists like the Catholic Church.
http://www.catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=19830
http://media.www.theloquitur.com/media/storage/paper226/news/2008/04/10…

Seriously, do you people even bother to do any basic research before you say something? If you don't want to be bothered with being factually accurate, you could always just take Betula's route, you know, and hide behind snarky comments. It frees you from having to put any thought into it, and keeps you safe and warm in a nice protective cocoon, keeping that big bad reality out.

Adam...

You just accused Bill of not being factually accurate for this statement....

"Many of these people are either atheists or some variation and this is there raison de etre."

Your proof is that many in the Catholic Church want to fight Global Warming.

He didn't say ALL are atheists, just as I assume you aren't saying ALL Catholics.

So how is he not "factually accurate"?

And why would you say I'm "safe and warm" in a cacoon?

If warm is "safe" and warming is "dangerous", are you saying warm is a contranym?

Perhaps in your confusion, you are convincing yourself to believe the things you say.

And knowing you would mention it, that would be "cocoon".

Betula -

It appears you are correct, I misread his statement. It is not factually incorrect, and my apologies to Bill. Many atheists, in fact, do believe the science behind global warming, along with many theists (and I can only presume) agnostics. So, it is merely an irrelevant statment.

If warm is "safe" and warming is "dangerous", are you saying warm is a contranym?

Still playing word games, then? You know very well what I mean.

And no, I don't care that you misspelled cocoon, I had misspelled it myself until Firefox's spell-checker caught it for me.

This is a serious question although it may at first not seem to be. I've been reading a lot on global climate change when all of a sudden I thought, How do we know what temperature the earth should be? Why is warming considered bad while cooling is considered good? or should we hope the temperature of the earth remains at exactly this temperature? How do we know what to hope for?

Hi catman2,

It is a reasonable question for sure. Please check out this article for an explanation.

catman2

You may have noticed that Coby gave you a pre packaged answer that doesn't answer your questions.....

"the critical issue with what is going on today is not where the temperature is or would be and not with what it may end up being. The critical issue is how fast it is moving."

Maybe this will help...

1. We don't.
2. It shouldn't be that way. There are positive and negative aspects to both. We only hear the negative.
3. The earth has never remained at the exact same temperature and never will. But think of the horror if it were to remain at the temperature it is today, given all the flooding and drought and catastrophes going on in the world. Why just the other day there was a huge snow storm in Colorado. Let's hope the earth doesn't stay this temperature.
4. Hope for change.

To Bill, post 37. The story does some what contradict the AGW theory doesnt it. In fact the Wilkins ice shelf which just melted.....ooops sorry just broke off makes up less than 1% of total ice extent and will end its days floating as an ice berg. When you consider the Titanic was taken out by a berg perhaps this sort of thing is a natural occurance and not AGW after all.

Hang on a second i just read Adams post (42) well that settles it then, if this result was predicted by the models then it must be AGW then mustnt it?

Jesus wept.

Story doesn't contradict AGW it is actually in line with climate change. Most of ice on antarctica (as opposed to arctic sea ice) is on land or derived from land based precipictation (precipitation key word here)

Over most of antarctica its to cold or conditions don't favor precipitation and with warming and climate change you should see more.

Antarctica is warming!!!!!!!!!!!!!

http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/met/gjma/
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/01/warm-reception-to…
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v457/n7228/full/nature07669.html

the authors of which commented
"We now see warming is taking place on all seven of the earthâs continents in accord with what models predict as a response to greenhouse gases.

Post 42 has it - same recycled denier garbage that's been discredited over and over

Noelogizer,

I had a bit of a chuckle at your links so i decided to give you 3 of my own.

http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/snow_job_in_antartica/

http://icecap.us/index.php/go/political-climate/when_propecies_fail_ii_…

http://icecap.us/index.php/go/political-climate/going_cold_on_antarctic…

And just so there is no confusion

http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/update_sun_and_ice/

This is a bit old but still a good read

http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/proof_we_are_causing_polar_warm…

So please take a fresh grip on reality rather than computer models.

How to talk to a AGW fanatic? - difficult - does it occur to you that the AGW hypothesis is crumbling and debunked as it fails 2 crucial tests of any testable hypothesis?:
1. It is not based on any historical empirical evidence that CO2 causes global warming.
2. It has not made any accurate predictions (such as the extent of warming - all these predictions have been wrong)
Has it occurred to you that it is you who might be in denial?
".. most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives." Leo Tolstoy

Seems like we're tied up in the details of this theory or that theory or how irresponsible a person is for not supporting AGW corrective measures.

Of course this is all unnecessary as the actual temperatures, ice extents etc. play out in contrast to what the AGW models predict.

I look forward to the next round of explanations on AGW and the current state of temperatures and trends merely as entertainment.

Its not entertainment when a fanciful hypothesis which has failed to predict anything and is not founded on empirical evidence gains political clout and starts hurting my pocket. When I realise that I've been duped, I'm not amused, I'm angry. How dare they. Actually we have something to fear from the climate, but its not global warming, its global cooling. When the Swede Svante Arrhenius, first published a paper in 1896 arguing that CO2 could raise global temperatures, he was laughed to scorn. Thousands of scientists for half a century agreed he was wrong. So much for science by consensus! He was proved subsequently right that CO2 was a greenhouse gas, but was wildly off his predictions. What is forgotten is however he was quite rightly scared of another ice-age and thought that CO2 would save the planet by warming it. Today the AGW gang have turned CO2 into the bogey man. The defining climatic feature of the last 2 million years have been the ice ages with brief warm periods of about 10,000 years interspersed in between. We are on the latter end of that 10,000 years today. We should be grateful for a warmth we have the warmer the better. I'm freezing where I am in NZ. A few centuries would be just great. But the cold is going to come.

Your list of assertions is unhelpful because it lacks references to any evidence supporting your assertions. In your blog, a serious reader cannot find the sources for either the statements you assert to be specious, or the evidence you claim contradicts them. Is this kind of abuse typical of climate science?

Thought you all would want to see this.
(For various reasons)

http://www.youtube.com/homeprojectDE

||Please note, none of the comments were meant to elicit a firestorm of responses, just points to converse, thanks.||

This is a really valuable resource. Skeptics will recycle an arguments when they think its previous demolition has been forgotten, so it is useful to have a list of them.

This guide (the old location) is roughly the 6th result when googling 'climate change sceptic'.

Great work Coby!

Brilliant. I love it.

I've got an idea for the follow up which is what I'm experiencing at the moment. I dont so much have to convince people that climate change is real, as convince them that they need to start changing their behaviour. And it would be great to compile a list of rebuttals to some of the really lame and often infuriating reasons for why we shouldn't do anything.

A real classic is (living in South Africa, and therefore not an Annex 1 country) "if America isnt compromising on their lifestyles and reducing their emissions, why should I compromise on my lifestyle."

Climate change is real..... big deal. That's like saying water is wet.

Explain to me why a computer model that assumes no change in global temperatures is 24X more accurate at modeling the real world data than an IPCC blessed model?

Sounds to me like the IPCC stuff is flawed.

There is always going to be a debate when over 50% of your counter-arguments are specious at best.
I am personally convinced that climate change is occurring however I'd say half of your counterpoints are as debateable as the arguments against climate change and thats a win for no-one.

Shoshin -

Climate change is real..... big deal. That's like saying water is wet.

Explain to me why a computer model that assumes no change in global temperatures is 24X more accurate at modeling the real world data than an IPCC blessed model?

Sounds to me like the IPCC stuff is flawed.

http://www.ipcc.ch/graphics/graphics/ar4-wg1/jpg/faq-8-1-fig-1.jpg
(WG1, Chapter 8, FAQ 8.1, p.600)

If you can provide simulations that hindcast the 20th century 24x more accurately than that, and still show flat temperatures, well, I have to say I'll be mighty impressed.

Re this site. I have developed a positive connection between the Electron and the Nucleus of all atoms that show the relationship between the electron to its nucleus that generates what science has been calling Gravity. This point indicates to me that there is a positive magnetic effect being emitted from the Earth that is equal to what science is calling the Magnetosphere. This Magnetosphere is also reacting to our Sun's Heliosphere that reversed its magnetic polarity on the 15 February 2001. http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2001/ast15feb_1.htm.
It was this switching that is generating our present Climate Change as it is changing High pressure systems that are being now over Australia as they were our previous Summer Highs. This is why we are having drizzle in our current Winter season as well as the current drought, ie: the Highs are now averaging just over 1025 mb. Rain will only fall when these Highs are near 1020 mb and below.

CO2 has nothing to do with this Climate Change.

As has been already mentioned in some of the above reports indicating that CO2 follows behind the natural rise of planet Earth's temperature by some 200 to 8O0 years. This solution is positively shown in ICE core samples taken from both poles by a scientist member called 'Vostok" Look it up and you will see his graphic proof. His findings dates back to over 400,000 years. It is a natural cycle.

The ice shelves breaking in the Antarctic is basically happening because of the FACT that the land mass of this part of the world is rising. It is also why land masses are falling in many parts of the world as well as in the Indian Ocean. The Tectonic plates that are constantly moving. It is not sea rising as spoken of. If you want proof of this, look carefully at the British Isles. Scotland and Wales are rising while London area is falling, due to the tectonic plates tilting. Australia is rising and moving north about 200mm per every 100 years.

I have more if need. I am not a Climate Change skeptic, I am aware of the truth and understand the reason why this is happening. There is money in it for Governments.
There is some good coming from it though. It has made mankind aware that Carbon Dioxide is being emitted with Carbon Monoxide and the latter is the prime cause for the smog we see in our cities. Electric cars need to have just as much CO2 to make the electricity to drive the car or to make them move with the Hydrogen systems.

Mankind is paying with one hand and taking it away with the other hand, pocketing it in the bank trust.

tomw

Thomas T. S. Watson -

CO2 has nothing to do with this Climate Change.

As has been already mentioned in some of the above reports indicating that CO2 follows behind the natural rise of planet Earth's temperature by some 200 to 8O0 years. This solution is positively shown in ICE core samples taken from both poles by a scientist member called 'Vostok" Look it up and you will see his graphic proof. His findings dates back to over 400,000 years. It is a natural cycle.

Read here:
http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/02/co2-lags-not-leads.php

and here:
http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2009/06/revisiting_co2_lags_not_l…

This has been extensively studied and analyzed. Hope this helps!

Thank you Adam. I am aware of those two addresses.

Climate Change is upon us now. The Highs that are now passing over Australia are SUMMER highs. The averaged Highs for our past Summer were 1016mb and the Lows were 1001.4mb. These values we should be experiencing here, now. Except, now we are experiencing Highs of 1028mb in June. This is a Summer High.

Green's, please check your atmosphere charts and ask. Why is it so? The G8 summit program is leading our Industries down a dead end alleyway with no escape. We must all look carefully at what and where our Australian nation is heading. I feel that we are heading for a financial and industrial collapse if this CO2 is accepted and passed by our present Government. Bring on more MP of the caliber of Fielding who has asked the question. Please, prove to me that CO2 has the capacity to change Climate Change? He has not been shown any proof.
tomw

Green's

Your knickers are showing. Climate science is based on physics, not ideology.

Thomas T. S. Watson

Please, prove to me that CO2 has the capacity to change Climate Change? He has not been shown any proof.

I'm tired of repeating the same stuff over and over again for someone who doesn't do any background research and then claims there's no 'proof'. Considering anything I point you to will be dismissed out of hand, what evidence would satisfy you?

The First Global Revolution
is a report by THE COUNCIL OF THE CLUB OF ROME
184 pages well worth reading if you want to know where all this rubbish comes from !!

Its interesting to me that apparently intelligent and scientifically literate people appear on these discussions as GW skeptics. As a person with a science background (a doctorate in molecular biology) I have read about global warming for many years in the journals we keep around the lab, such as Science and Nature. I've been interested enough to read several good books on both climate change and energy as well. To my point of view the people who are making all these supposedly thoughtful and careful arguments against human greenhouse gas emissions as a cause of global warming are missing the point. Science is a matter of probabilities, anyone who has worked in any truly scientific field of science is well versed in statistics. OK, the skeptics could turn out to be correct in the end, (lets all hope and pray that they are), that global warming is not driven by our emissions, but the probability of that is low, unfortunately. What is the probability that the very long term and highly international work on climate change that shows the that human green house gas emissions are decisive in causing global warming is just flat out wrong? I put the probability of that as being quite low, a skeptic may put it for some reason as high, but no actually intelligent and scientifically literate person can give it a 0 probability. Given the weight of the science saying that climate change is happening and is human driven, only someone with an ideological agenda could be so blind as to put the probability of the existance of human driven and potentially disastrous climate change as an inconsequentially low number.

In my mind the people who post on these sites acting as intelligent skeptics who have studied the data and are just not convinced are most likely working for some conservative organization, because no one who actually understands science can just write this issue off. I won't argue with the skeptics, they are simply people with the wrong set of values, because to understand that there is some non-negligible probability of a human caused climate disaster is to be concerned, unless you just think that the environment was given to us by god to do with as we like and that all will turn out according to his plan. James Watt rides again, right?

Despite the constant declarations of victory by the skeptics, the reality is that around the world the majority among scientifically literate people who believe that climate change is real, caused by human emissions, and is potentially catastrophic is only growing over time. You can debate the fine points of this or that piece of evidence, but you cannot give an extremely low probability to the hypothesis that the majority of climate scientists who connect climate change with human emissions are correct if you are actually an educated and scientifically literate person. People who realize that there is a non-negligible probability of a climate disaster that can have huge human and ecological consequences and just don't give a damn anyhow have values that make talking to them a waste of time.

By the way, my politics are moderate and I have an equal lack of attraction to both the right and left. Donât get me going on the ideas the left has on fighting global warming, they are as bad and un-scientific as the ideas the right has on whether climate change is human driven. Bad, ideologically-driven pseudo science is everywhere and is harmful from either side.

Ian,

I have to wonder when you make statements like

"In my mind the people who post on these sites acting as intelligent skeptics who have studied the data and are just not convinced are most likely working for some conservative organization, because no one who actually understands science can just write this issue off."

So, if I look at the science and do not agree that the theory of CO2 based AGW as currently presented, then I have to be working for a "conservative organization." Since your a scientist, go to the the discussion here:
http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2009/05/comment_on_unproven_model…

I present ~17 studies that indicate that the models are not good enough to make policy decisions on.

Vernon,

Now tell me how many studies say that human greenhouse gas emission are responsible for climate change that has catastrophic potential? Nearly an uncountable number, as you know. And the ratio between the frequency of each point of view? And yet you ignore the climate change side and favor not acting yet. If you are an intelligent person who understands something of how science works then you understand that there is at least a sizable probability that the âglobal warming communityâ is correct, even if you do not completely buy the whole set of theories. That very large chance should make you highly concerned, concerned enough to act.

If your son had just received a diagnosis from his cardiologist saying that his cardiovascular system is in serious trouble and that changes in his diet needed to be made to avert a potential catastrophe youâd make those changes, wouldnât you, instead of quibbling about how the tests work? And yet an ecological catastrophe just leaves you wanting to argue that sometimes cardiologists or scientists are wrong (as they sometimes are, thatâs how science works).

What is at work here are your values, more than likely, not your intelligence. Values that do not react to a vast body of evidence supported by the vast international majority of climate scientists claiming that we are on our way to a climate catastrophe are dangerous in my opinion. I hope they are wrong too, but Iâm in favor of hedging our bets.

The intelligent discussion now is about what to do to lower our emissions significantly. Thatâs a huge task, the activist left does not begin to realize how huge and makes silly arguments about wind power and solar electricity as if we could nibble our way out while feeling good about our little sacrifices. Some of the largest elements would be: more nuclear power, limiting US population growth, which is almost entirely driven by illegal immigration, conserving electricity like crazy, as use of electricity in homes in the US makes nearly double the contribution personal autos do to greenhouse gas emissions, making smaller more fuel efficient vehicles and driving them less, and participating in international treaties in a meaningful way. The scope of the problem is still dismaying, to believe the best estimates of the scientific community we need to cut our present emissions in half and then wait a century for the system to recover. If this is so, and due to the high stakes involved it is prudent to believe so, even if it may be revised in the future in either direction, then cutting by less than 50% only gets you to the same dismal target more slowly. Removing (by magic!) the entire US contribution of 25% only would get us halfway to the target, thatâs how large the problem is.

As well, to make the argument about reducing our GG emissions even stronger, most of the things that help have many other powerful effects, the best being to reduce the energy driven power and influence of thugs like Vladimir Putin, Hugo Chavez, and that unspellable @#$%?@ Iranian bastard and to make it less likely that we will have to send an endless stream of patriotic young men and women off to their deaths defending the worldâs energy supply (which I say as a former National Guard infantry soldier myself, whose former unit has been all over Iraq and Afghanistan, after my time). Its later than we think, and neither hippy arguments about solar power nor conservative denials of the connection between humans and climate change will help us.

I present ~17 studies that indicate that the models are not good enough to make policy decisions on.

And the first one I looked at said "we can reduce the uncertainty of sensitivity to doubliings of CO2 by about 1/3".

In other words - the models are good, here's a proposal to make them *better*.

We certainly can make policy decisions based on knowing that climate sensitivity to doubling CO2 lies in the range 2C-4.5C.

And if the paper you cite can improve that range to 2.5C-4C, why, even better.

Ian - with all due respect, your lengthy post indicates you've fallen for the fallacy of accepting that Vernon actually understands what those 17 papers say ... Vernon's got a downright Wattsian ability to draw exactly the opposite conclusion from a paper than the conclusion drawn by the authors.

Ian,

ignoring dhogaza, I do happen to believe that increasing CO2 will cause temperatures to rise. That is not the issue. The issue is what is the sensitivity of the climate, i.e. are the feedbacks over all positive or over all negative. If you bother to actually read the IPPC 4th AR, the IPPC is quite clear that of the climate drivers (aerosols, water vaper & clouds, solar, etc.) the overall understanding is quite low, however, the understanding for GHG's (not counting water vaper) is high.

Now the fallacy of your argument is that climate science is not to the same level as modern medicine. While not everything is know about the human body, and I am an engineer, not a doctor, I would suspect that we most likely have a quite high but not complete understanding of the human body. Climate science is no were near that level. As is documented in the IPCC reports.

While the people working on climate science are intelligent and dedicated, the models are not yet at a level where policy could be based on them.

The models are using parameters that get tweeked to fit the past century, and actually are quite impressive. But until we have enough understanding of the drivers so that we could actually model the actual process, the models have many issues.

Personally, until the models can show how the climate both terminates and enters a glaciation period and can accurately show the MWP, RWP, LIA, and other cool periods, then they are not ready to base policy on. For example, if you go to RC, there is currently a study being discussed that shows that the climate shifts from warming to cooling and that the last shift just happened and warming may resume in 2020. None of the models even hinted this but it appears to be accurate.

That is why I do not believe the models are good enough to base policy on.

Shorter Vernon, "let's waste even more time, let's do nothing since the models are not at 100% accuracy only in the mid to low 90's".

As you have been told before, things are looking a lot worse than what was predicted only a few years ago. This is confirmed by both models (which you don't understand) and by actual observations and measurements (which you refuse to look at).

Vernon does nothing while climate races to a state which will be very bad for civilization as we know it.

Surely Vernon raises a point that deserves an answer. Did any of the models predict, or even hint at, the likelihood of no warming until 2020, as is now being opening discussed on Real Climate? If this projection is correct, it would mean 22 years (since 1998) with no warming and some cooling. Is that not so?

In repeating Vernon's question I am not saying the models failed to make such a prediction, because I don't know if they did or didn't. Nor am I saying that one point like this would invalidate the entire validity of models.

Nevertheless, surely Vernon's question is worth responding to, isn't it? That's all I am saying.

Ian does not like the studies or the facts I present so how about...Dr. Terrence Joyce, Senior Scientist, Physical Oceanography and Dr. Lloyd Keigwin, Senior Scientist, Geology & Geophysics of Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution.

Models of the overturning circulation are very sensitive to how internal mixing is parameterized. Recall that internal mixing of heat and salt is an integral part of overturning circulation. One recent study shows that for a model with constant vertical mixing, which is commonly used in coupled ocean-atmosphere climate runs, there is only one stable climate state: our present one with substantial sinking and dense water formation in the northern N. Atlantic.

With a slightly different formulation, more consistent with some recent measurements of oceanic mixing rates that are small near the surface and become larger over rough bottom topography, a second stable state emerges with little or no deep-water production in the northern N. Atlantic. The existence of a second stable state is crucial to understanding when and if abrupt climate change occurs. When it occurs in model runs and in geological data, it is invariably linked to rapid addition of fresh water at high northern latitudes.

And now perhaps you begin to see the scope of the problem. In addition to incorporating a terrestrial biosphere and polar ice, which both play a large role in the reflectivity of solar radiation, one has to accurately parameterize mixing that occurs on centimeter to tens of centimeter scales in the ocean. And one has to produce long coupled global climate runs of many centuries! This is a daunting task but is necessary before we can confidently rely on models to predict future climate change.

Besides needing believable models that can accurately predict climate change, we also need data that can properly initialize them. Errors in initial data can lead to poor atmospheric predictions in several days. So one sure pathway to better weather predictions is better initial data.

For the ocean, our data coverage is wholly inadequate. We canât say now what the overturning circulation looks like with any confidence and are faced with the task of predicting what it may be like in 10 years!

Efforts are now underway to remedy this. Global coverage of upper ocean temperature and salinity measurements with autonomous floats is well within our capability within the next decade as are surface measures of wind stress and ocean circulation from satellites.

The measurement of deep flows is more difficult, but knowledge about the locations of critical avenues of dense water flows exists, and efforts are underway to measure them in some key locations with moored arrays.

Our knowledge about past climate change is limited as well. There are only a handful of high-resolution ice core climate records of the past 100,000 years, and even fewer ocean records of comparable resolution. Better definition of past climate states is needed not only in and of itself, but for use by modelers to test their best climate models in reproducing what we know happened in the past before believing model projections about the future. We are not there yet, and progress needs to be made on both better data and improved models before we can begin to answer some critical questions about future climate change.

Originally published: February 10, 2003
Last updated: May 21, 2009

Did any of the models predict, or even hint at, the likelihood of no warming until 2020, as is now being opening discussed on Real Climate?

What is this "openly discussed" bit? Science is always open. And so what if Swanson and Tsonis are right? They aren't saying that CO2 sensitivity is less than models suggest. They're saying the energy is being stored in the system (ocean, really) and will be released even more rapidly after 2020.

There is *nothing* in that paper that suggests that we should not take action now. There is *nothing* in that paper that suggests the physics that describes how adding CO2 to the atmosphere increases in energy in the ocean and atmosphere is wrong. In fact, that paper is entirely *based* on the standard physics of CO2-forced warming.

No, models don't predict such a lengthy pause in warming. How would they? Swanson and Tsonis present no physics to back up their idea. There's nothing to model! If they're right then the physics will need to be worked out.

However, if they're right ... it won't change the prediction for warming by 2100. They're just talking about the system responding in step-function rather than like an inclined plane (in both cases with noise overlayed on top).

Why do denialists drool over papers that don't support their denialist position? I think I know - they don't really care that temps will rise regardless, their hope is that they can delay action another decade until it's too late.

If this projection is correct, it would mean 22 years (since 1998) with no warming and some cooling. Is that not so?

And if they're wrong, it will be one more triumph for the physics and the model implementations that you are so derisive of, right?

And in either case - it doesn't change the overall picture. Adding CO2 at the current rate will lead to temp rises of at least 3C by 2100. Swanson and Tsonis don't disagree with where temps will end up - just the shape the curve will take on its way there.

The models are using parameters that get tweeked to fit the past century, and actually are quite impressive. But until we have enough understanding of the drivers so that we could actually model the actual process.

Vernon has been told hundreds, if not thousands, of times that this description of how GCMs work is flat-out wrong.

Here's the documentation for GISS GCM Model E that makes it clear that Vernon's wrong.

Vernon will, of course, keep repeating his erroneous description until the day he dies.

The existence of a second stable state is crucial to understanding when and if abrupt climate change occurs. When it occurs in model runs and in geological data, it is invariably linked to rapid addition of fresh water at high northern latitudes.

Vernon doesn't understand that they're talking about the fact that current ocean circulation models will miss flips to other stable states ocean circulation, therefore ABRUPT climate change.

In other words, they're too conservative. More evidence that some researchers think things are likely to be much worse, rather than better, than current model projections.

dhogaza,

why do you keep misrepresenting what the authors are saying?

From an interview on carbonpurging, which is hardly a skeptic site.

http://carbonpurging.com/blogs/mjewett/2009/04/01/exclusive-interview-w…

CP: Would a break in the mean global temperature trend suggest that anthropogenic sources are or are not the main cause of average warming global temperatures from 1880 onward?

AT: If the overall warming is due to anthropogenic sources (and not some unknown very low-frequency feature of our climate system), then a break will indicate that at this point the natural variability signal is stronger than the anthropogenic signal.

He is quit plainly says that if the warming stops, the natural climate variability is stronger than the anthropogenic one.

He is quit plainly says that if the warming stops, the natural climate variability is stronger than the anthropogenic one.

AT THAT TIME.

So, yes, during that period of time. Just like every other bleeping climate scientist on the planet says. For instance, La Niña was overwhelming the warming signal in 2008.

If this weren't true, global temps would rise monotonically every year. No climate scientist expects that.

Utterly uncontroversial, utterly understood by climate science, utterly irrelevant to your denialist blather.

If you read closely, Vernon, you'll see that he didn't actually answer the question: " ...main cause of average warming global temperatures from 1880 onward?"

He's just saying that a break right now would indicate that AT THIS POINT - not before, not after - natural variability is obscuring the signal.

Man.

I don't think you've learned a single thing in all the years you've haunted climate sites. You've certainly not improved your ability to understand what scientists are saying.

I wouldn't want you engineering anything I have to use.

Sorry guys, never could write anything short but I'll try. I'm not a climate scientist and I have no wish to masquarade as one. I do have some concept however of how science works and how scientific disagreements look. I'm a biologist, a parent, a musician, and strangely, a translator of Russian. I do not begin to have time to make myself an amatuer expert on climate models. I have done more than a little reading on the climate research but in the end I need to accept the work and the concensus of experts. What I smell in the reading I've done is that the data on climate change come from many different sources and corroborate each other that global warming is the result of our greenhouse gas emissions. One thing I am quite personally familiar with is the idea that while the data from one experiment often seem to be poorly focused and not completely satisfying, when you add that data to that from many different types of other experiments and they all point in the same direction, then the feelings of doubt you have about your first source of data become much lighter.

It is clear to me that the majority of experts have pooled an immense amount of data from a hage variety of sources and are able to make a consistant picture from it. Its enough for me. Since the global climate is an immense and highly complex system with chaotic elements, they may turn out in end the to have made some inaccurate conclusions. Thats science, we do our best but we are not gods.

It may go against the nature of the technical discussion on this site but I'll say that for a private person to be attempting to make their own conclusions and theories on a subject as complex as climate is like having your own personal amateur unified field theory. Its just plain silly to pretend to be a climate expert if you are not. There is a high probablility that the concensus of the experts bears a closer resemblance to the ultimate truth than the opinions of the proportionately rather small number dissenters in the field. The expert concensus is that we are in big trouble. Its enough to act on.

For me, the debate is over on whether human emissions are capable of destabilizing our climate. Ideally we should cut our greenhouse gas emissions to a level where natural sinks can remove them. In practice, this is going to be very, very tough, most activists have no realistic notion of just how tough.

Its dramatic, which I do not like to be, but unfortunately what I see in my own crystal ball are catastrophes, we will not react with full determination until climate change is producing a steady stream of catastrophes. Farmers are people who depend on climate and need just the right amount of rain sun, warmth etc. or crops fail. They will be the ones most affected by climate change. The human food supply is already strained to sustain our global population, without changing the conditions that farmers work under. It seems obvious to me where this is going.

I am truly amazed at the lack of organization and intelligent discussion in the scientific community when it comes to the next step, how we humans can obtain the energy we need to run our technological society, while cutting greenhouse gas emission in half. The legeslative responses I have read so far have been comical. The ideas I've heard from activists are even more comical. This is the next great debate and it has hardly yet begun in earnest.

Nope, not short. Just can't do short.

Ian -

I am truly amazed at the lack of organization and intelligent discussion in the scientific community when it comes to the next step, how we humans can obtain the energy we need to run our technological society, while cutting greenhouse gas emission in half. The legeslative responses I have read so far have been comical. The ideas I've heard from activists are even more comical. This is the next great debate and it has hardly yet begun in earnest.

Not to sound rude, but I completely disagree with most of this. There's a lot of discussion surrounding the specific ways to address reduction of carbon emissions. For one example, check out the Princeton Stabilization Wedge game:
http://www.princeton.edu/~cmi/resources/stabwedge.htm

Additionally, once there is a good structure in place putting caps on carbon emissions, money will naturally flow to the most efficient and clean technologies (especially with cap-and-trade). While the current legislative structures for this are wholly inadequate, as you state, getting strong, world-wide caps in place will get us most of the way there.

I do disagree with you that we need to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 50%.... we need to do far more than that.

One part of your comment that I do agree with is:
"Its dramatic, which I do not like to be, but unfortunately what I see in my own crystal ball are catastrophes, we will not react with full determination until climate change is producing a steady stream of catastrophes."

I fear that you are correct about that, but I sincerely hope not.

The truth about the use of parameters in GMC's from a review of current studies:

Lohmann et al (2005)

http://www.mpimet.mpg.de/fileadmin/atmosphaere/acc/Lohmann__etal_subm_B…
Thorough validation of aerosol-cloud interactions with observational data is missing
in all climate model simulations of anthropogenic aerosol effects on clouds. There are
some physical arguments in particular related to the treatment of the indirect effects,
why estimates of the aerosol impact by current general circulation model (GCM)
parameterizations suggest a stronger than expected cooling.

Eisenman et al (2007)
http://www.geo.arizona.edu/bgdl/geos596h/Eisenman_etal_2007.pdf
This implies that the simulated cloud cover and associated downwelling radiation in most
of the GCMs analyzed here would have caused dramatically unrealistic sea ice thickness. However, adjustments to model parameters such as the ice albedo are sufficient to
compensate these errors, thereby leading to unrealistically good simulations of present-day ice conditions.

And I could keep going but why load up the site when you can read them your self here:\

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=parameters+in+GCM+"global+climate+models"&hl=en&scoring=r&as_ylo=2004

Sorry dhogaza, I know that you are being told that they do not use parameters but if you though about it, you would know that they have to. How else do they try and add in all the climate drivers that we know little about.

The truth about the use of parameters in GMC's from a review of current studies:

Lohmann et al (2005)

www.mpimet.mpg.de/fileadmin/atmosphaere/acc/Lohmann__etal_subm_BAMS.pdf
.... There are some physical arguments in particular related to the treatment of the indirect effects,why estimates of the aerosol impact by current general circulation model (GCM)
parameterizations suggest a stronger than expected cooling.

Eisenman et al (2007)

www.geo.arizona.edu/bgdl/geos596h/Eisenman_etal_2007.pdf
... However, adjustments to model parameters such as the ice albedo are sufficient to
compensate these errors, thereby leading to unrealistically good simulations of present-day ice conditions.

And I could keep going but why load up the site when you can read them your self here:\

scholar.google.com/scholar?q=parameters+in+GCM+"global+climate+models"&hl=en&scoring=r&as_ylo=2004

Sorry dhogaza, I know that you are being told that they do not use parameters but if you though about it, you would know that they have to. How else do they try and add in all the climate drivers that we know little about.

Sorry dhogaza, I know that you are being told that they do not use parameters but if you though about it, you would know that they have to.

That's not what I've said. Go read more closely.

As usual, upon reading the abstract of the first paper you cite, I see that you misunderstand at least one of the following:

1. What they're talking about regarding parameterization within the models

2. What denialists are talking about when they talk about models just having parameters that are tweaked to fit preconceived assumptions.

3. That I understand the difference between #1 and #2, and that when I point out over and over that #2 is false, I'm not speaking about the kind of parameterization ala #1.

Vernon will, of course, keep repeating his erroneous description until the day he dies.

I'm a prophet. I wonder if my skills would work on the stock market?

dhogaza,

you keep making the claims. The IPCC, Hansen, and most every other climate scientist agree that our level of understanding of clouds, aerosols, seas, solar, etc is low except for GHG's and that does not include water vapor or methane deposits. All of those are represented in the GCMs as parameters that have been tweeked to try to get a best guess of what the actual value would be if the science knew the processes and could define them.

So, put up or shut up time. How did they determine what the parameters were for those aspects the were known to exist but not understood enough to be modeled. My money is on tweeking until you get a rough fit, which all the write ups I have read say. If it was not done that way, then how was it done?

I have yet to see you present study, etc. that shows how the parameters used in GCMs were determined for those aspects which we do not understand.

Adam,

I don't think you're rude, please feel free to disagree. Maybe I should phrase my statement better, there is plenty of talk about individual parts of the puzzle, whatâs lacking is any big picture plan that makes the cuts come out near 5%, let alone 50% For one example, according to the data in a US DOE pdf file that I downloaded several years back, US electric consumption is responsible for about 36% of US GG emissions. Letâs say we somehow kept our population static and were able to cut these electric related emissions by 50% due to conservation and efficiencies in generation. Since the US is responsible for ~25% of human GG emissions that 50% improvement (cutting the 36% by half) would add up to about a 4.5% decrease in human GG emissions. Personal autos in the US account for about half of the volume of GG gas emissions that electricity usage does. So a 50% improvement in auto emissions (in other words a miracle) would net another ~2% cut in total human GG emissions. The total for these two huge steps would be a 6-7% reduction in human GG emissions IF you keep the US population static and make huge 50 improvements in both electricity usage and personal auto emissions, which are levels of improvement that no one has any realistic plans for at present. Meanwhile, China will simply continue to increase its energy consumption and will more than eat up the entire 6% of GG emissions we Americans might hypothetically cut.

I'm not saying we should not all make every effort to conserve, I'm just saying that to move from the exponential increases in human GG emissions that we have now (2008 was an exception due to the financial turmoil) down to merely linear increases, then a zero slope, and then finally to drastic reductions, well, so far many of us have been at working to conserve for quite a while and we still have exponential increases in total human GG emissions. I'd love to see competent analysts show me a realistic plan that would cut human GG emissions by 50%. People get so caught up in the individual ways we can save energy that they do not see the big picture, which is that these savings don't add up to much compared to the size of the problem. Sorry to be a downer, but they don't. I'd love to see significant money spent studying the feasibility of removing carbon from the atmosphere, I have no idea if that can be done at a significant level, and as far as I know, no one else has either, but it is one option that should be analyzed.

Anyone who is curious about where our (US) human GG emissions come from, piece by piece, can download a pdf file from the dept of energy that dissects all this. http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/flash/flash.html
For Claifornia here is a pdf on GG gases http://www.energy.ca.gov//reports/600-02-001F/2002-09-14_600-02-001F.PDF

Interesting site. Why is this indoctrination needed if the science actually stands on its own?

Clearly it does not.

Steve Buza: That's the same argument that creationists use.

When you hear arguments like "it's cold outside right now therefore global warming's a LIIEEEE", if you are at all familiar with the basic science, at least four inaccuracies in that statement should jump out right away. Pointing out those problems does not mean that the science is flimsy -- merely that it is being attacked (in this case by incompetent non-scientists). Pointing out what science *really* says (something that anyone with scientific training can deduce, but not everyone has this training) isn't indoctrination, it's just swatting down a straw man.

Exactly the same thing happens with evolution: People who don't understand the simple mechanisms of the theory strike out at their straw-man version of it. This doesn't mean evolution's a theory in crisis, or that the science isn't settled - merely that there's a manufactured public controversy that better science education can (hopefully) address.

It's for that reason - education - that this site and others exist.

See also the Dunning-Kruger effect, and note what role training has on it.

Steve Buza -

Why is this indoctrination needed if the science actually stands on its own?

Why do I need to be indoctrinated at school with the theory of gravity, or algebra? Clearly, the science/math should be able to stand on its own, no?

Coby, Thank you for taking the time to put together this site. I've learned a ton about this difficult topic over the last week or so and look forward to learning more.

Anthropogenic global warming may be 100% real but the above is conclusory and thus reinforces skeptics' objections to 99% of global-warming rhetoric. It assumes from the title onward that skeptics are wrongheaded and need to be "straightened out." There's a religious zealotry to it.

Adam - you are confusing indoctrination with education. Science isn't an ideology - it's methodological empiricism for non-subjective truth - and therefore isn't equiavlent to what I'm guessing you are trying to compare it with - religious dogma.

Funny!! "How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic" does also fit if your talk to the opposite to a "Climate Skeptic"

The Mythbusters did once successfully test that a rope made from human hair was sufficiently strong to allow someone to escape from prison.

Thank you for having this site.
It is hard trying to reason with the skeptics when one is not a scientist, and they say "well, show us the science", because they think that will end the argument since no layman has the means to present it to them. Bravo!

One skeptic argument you did not address is the variants of "mankind/human activity is to puny to affect the whole earth". This despite the fact we have cut how many thousand km's of canals, made many damns and artificial lakes, levelled mountains, and paved over huge swaths of land with roads and urbanization. 6-7 billion people on earth and there are people who think that somehow this has no significant effect on the world. *sigh*

Hi ,
Thanks for putting this site up and being patient with people even when feel frustrated.
I am actually inspired to study Enviromental science , climatology or renewables at undergraduate or postgraduate level (I already have a degree but could do an Open University undergraduate degree or a PHD or masters) can you tell me what would eb a good field to go into for which there is a demand ?

@whiskey echo, throw back the question: ask them whether they think volcanoes affect climate/weather (the vast majority do). Then ask (or demand) they compare the emissions of volcanoes with emissions by human activity. They'll be shocked to find that they cannot claim the emissions by humans are much smaller. By that, they then have to dismiss any effect of volcanoes on climate/weather, which brings them at odds with other deniofriends.

Stand back. Watch the squirming. Enjoy!

Thank you for putting together such a great resource. I'll refer everybody I know who want to know more about this "climate stuff debate" here.

Nothing here will make a dent in the true climate skeptic, but then again nothing will...well, perhaps maybe a heavy enough club or something... ;-)

Great work anyway!

This is the latest from Richard Lindzen...

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/cooler_heads_lindzen…

According to Ross Gelbspan in a 1995 article in Harper's Magazine, Lindzen "... charges oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services; his 1991 trip to testify before a Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels and a speech he wrote, entitled Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus,[28] was underwritten by OPEC."[29][30] However, according to Alex Beam in a 2006 article in the The Boston Globe, Lindzen said that although he had accepted $10,000 in expenses and expert witness fees from "fossil-fuel types" in the 1990s, he had not received any money from these since.[31] Lindzen has elsewhere described the Gelbspan allegation as a "slander" and as "libelous."[32][33]
Lindzen has contributed to think tanks including the Cato Institute and the George C. Marshall Institute that have accepted money from ExxonMobil.[30]

How can Lindzen, a member of the National Academies be wrong about the consensus?

Well every major scientific society on the entire planet with relevant expertise disagrees with him. Even the National Academy of Sciences, which he is a member of, disagrees with him. Here is a press release released in 2005 which opens with the words âClimate Change is realâ. Itâs conclusion begins with âWe urge all nations, in the line with the UNFCCC principles, to take prompt action to reduce the causes of climate change, adapt to its impacts and ensure that the issue is included in all relevant national and international strategies.â It is signed by:

Academia Brasiliera de Ciências, Brazil
Royal Society of Canada, Canada
Chinese Academy of Sciences, China
Academié des Sciences, France
Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher, Germany
Indian National Science Academy, India
Accademia dei Lincei, Italy
Science Council of Japan, Japan
Russian Academy of Sciences, Russia
Royal Society, United Kingdom
National Academy of Sciences, United States of America

http://logicalscience.com/skeptics/Lindzen.htm

Oh and more from Lindzen from the BBC :

Richard Lindzen, Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, who describes Exxon Mobil as "the only principled oil and gas company I know in the US."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6595369.stm

Hes well known to be members of several organisations that receive lots of money from exxon mobil - a real shame shows that money can corrupt anyone.

Lindzen is the ace in the hole for skeptics until they find out he does not even dispute the fundamental AGW hypotheses. He simply claims that:

(1) the temperature changes we have witnessed and will likely experience are within known natural variation, (which is theoretically possible but ignores the fact that there is no guarantee that the warming--*however* much we are responsible for--cannot still do us harm);

2) it has been hyped and politicized by some (which is probably true enough, but then that is probably true of everything--someone will always politicize some issue, but that has no bearing on whether that issue is worth addressing)

(3) the costs of addressing it are prohibitive (which ignores the costs of current policies and the collateral benefits of action on AGW, but then again at this point Lindzen is completely outside his expertise)

But once you get your denier past the delusion that Lindzen is some sort of "proof" that AGW is unreal you might get somewhere.

Skip

*** Heads UP ***
Some one setting up CRU ***

See link > http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comme…

The director of Britainâs leading Climate Research Unit, Phil Jones, has told Investigate magazineâs TGIF Edition tonight ..."It was a hacker. We were aware of this about three or four days ago that someone had hacked into our system and taken and copied loads of data files and emails."â¦

TGIF asked Jones about the controversial email discussing âhiding the declineâ, and Jones explained what he was trying to sayâ¦.

So the 1079 emails and 72 documents seem indeed evidence of a scandal involving most of the most prominent scientists pushing the man-made warming theory - a scandal that is one of the greatest in modern science. Iâve been adding some of the most astonishing in updates below - emails suggesting conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organised resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more. If it is as it now seems, never again will âpeer reviewâ be used to shout down sceptics.

So the 1079 emails and 72 documents seem indeed evidence of a scandal

Dream on. The scandal is, of course, the fact that the denialsphere seems to think that committing a felony by hacking into a server and stealing content is somehow the right thing to do.

Paul:

Are you just going to believe that guy's inane generalization about things he has not even read? Any fool can claim *anything* about what the emails supposedly demonstrate as long as he cherry picks words like "trick", etc. And the whole thing about going after deniers credentials, etc. That is not a conspiracy to fool people about the science of warming but an (arguably nasty, to be sure) way of fighting people you think are *wrong*.

Follow the link, scan some of the emails yourself. Its just a bunch of emails between academics. You can twist anything out of context and make it sound like its something its not but eventually someone will be able to read the whole story.

So why don't you, me, and the rest just wait a bit and lets see what the denialsphere comes up with about the supposed "smoking gun" proving its a coverup, hoax, etc. Lets just see, Paul. If you're going to throw your blanket on this pony, you need to man up and ride the distance with us. Giddyup.

These guys who think they've just broken up Climate-gate,are I strongly suspect, in for a big ass surprise.

Skip

Skipper,
Whoa, boy!

See the title -

**Heads Up**
Someone sets up CRU**

It's simply a news story linked here for general interest.

Same story is posted with comments on RC.

I didn't write any of that crap.

You get out of it what you will.

Frankly, nothing will come of this. Professionals don't develop conspiracies via emails for chris'sakes.

And scientists know this type of thing can't be faked. It's in the open for all to see. There are independents from all over working on the same data.

Easy now, it's gonna be alright.

You gotta laugh at the desperation of the deniers.

Skipper,
Here's one that's come out, just now seeing some press.
Yah, ya gotta laugh sometime, enjoy!

From: George Soros
To: Al Gore ,fat@xxxxx.xxx, t.boone.pickens@xxxx.xxx
Subject: Socialist plan to take over the World
Date: Mon., 16 Nov 2009 13:31:15 +0000
Cc: w.buffett@xxx.xx.xx

Dear Al and T.,

After all this time and money spent, we can finally say that our view is aired consistently by the MSM. We now own The Washington Post editorial board (except for Will, who still insists on publishing the truth about AGW), and at the New York Times we just added Friedman to our payroll; but Rich and Kristof have been doing fairly well for us there. In short, climatofascism can now enter its next stage. With the help of the liberal noise machine at MSNBC and the blogs, we can now delude the rest of the American public into taking "action." Romm, Revkin, Dave Roberts, Zimmer are all fighting hard to keep the message fresh. We're a little concerned with Oolius at the moment. He might be going rogue in which case we'll have to terminate his contract. Otherwise we're in good shape. Once this catches on, we'll be making trillions of dollars in so-called "alternative" energy. I know you are, T-Bone, but Al, are you fully invested in this yet? I know you've been busy with your book cover, but it's really time *now* to leverage the equity in your mansion. [...]

Good AM Paul:

Well if I was wrong about the hair trigger forgive me, but consider the context:

Deniers dogma blog this this site all the time, citing shit they never read because someone *told* them it proved a point.(E.g., such as someone we both know recently and implicitly did with Lomborg, only to admit [more honorably] later that he never read Lomberg).

Skip

Skip,
thank-you,
[I made no claims then or now about having read Lomborg.]

And to refresh >
Here is what was said about Lomborg

-----------------------------
Skip to N -
Let me guess:
You've been reading Lomborg?

Skip
Posted by: skip
-------------------------------
Paul to N-
N,
there are certain people whose opinions or thoughts are not allowed here.
Lomborg is one of them.
if you seek open discussion, go to another blog.
-------------------------------------
Paul to Skip -
skip,
thanks for the comments.
Apparently you haven't been around to see the flame-throwers when someone asks "the wrong question".

So we'll see how it goes, from now.

Posted by: PaulinMI
---------------------------------

I recognized the name (Lomborg) from reading this site and have not seen favorable comments about him and subsequently warned N of same.

I made no claims then or now about having read Lomborg.

As one can not edit a post,
I offer a slight correction.

Not sure where I saw Lomborg, (could be here, but maybe not) but believe he is one who proposes spending on other problems to spending on CO2 reduction.

Damn I hate this he-said; she-said dickering but when you distort the record, Paul, I have to call you on this.

I had *twice* asked you if you read Lomborg and you *twice* ignored me. I was a making a point and you bally well knew it which is why you dodged me--until finally cornered, at which point you threw your hands up in the air and innocently cried, "Oh, well, I was never claiming to have read *Lomborg*!"

Since that's the case, Paul, then what *possible* business would you have claiming there are certain people whose opinions or thoughts are not allowed here.Lomborg is one of them. if you seek open discussion, go to another blog.

other than

I recognized the name (Lomborg) from reading this site and have not seen favorable comments about him and subsequently warned N of same.

Guess why those comments are not "favorable", Pual? Because Lomborg makes *vacuous* arguments. If you think there has been any lack of "openness", you are free to identify it and take us to task.

Not sure where I saw Lomborg, (could be here, but maybe not) but believe he is one who proposes spending on other problems to spending on CO2 reduction.

So you're trying to get your digs in after all--you just don't want to have to face the music if your arguments/sources don't wash.

Don't try to play King Lear's Fool, Paul. Its the same thing with this email hack thing. Since you've been giving us grief about AGW/policy responses, you can't just throw a blog quote at us and expect (at least speaking for myself anyway) to just think its in good fun.

Skip

Ahh, so there it is.

Now I see your point.
You took my ignoring the question about reading Lomborg as a dodge, but I was ignoring it because, well it was minor (in my mind) to the point I was making.

Now, my apology for the confusion.
Accepted?
---------------------------
Continuing-
The point I was making about rough treatment if discussing the wrong people or ideas was withdrawn at your request as I responded "So we'll see how it goes, from now."

OK?

-----------------------------

And it's not in good fun. I saw it yesterday (about CRU hack) and did not see it noted here, so I did as a service.
OK?
-------------------------------

That is all.

Ok, that's cool, but just in the future if you don't want to go to the mat on an issue than don't bring it up.

This is a friendly forum (sometimes) and yes you're friendly enough yourself but when bring it up it *looks* like you're saying its proving something.

That's all .. . Peace out.

Skip

You forgot the last steps:

1) Deny all contrary scientific evidence access to journals and web sites. Systematically suppress discussion. Only true believers and zealots have "proper" thoughts on climate change

2) Destroy evidence and don't comply with Freedom of Information Act. Since the data doesn't support our religion, we must destroy and hide the data.

3) Create flawed algorithms and manufacture data to achieve the desired outcome. Desired outcome is more important than being right.

4) Attack the method of discovering the cover up and fraud rather than be upset about systematic scientific suppression and fraudulent data that has destroyed the economies of several nations.

5) When in doubt, be insulting and self righteous. If a minority, always claim it's racist.

6) Contact ACORN. They will help, and have the proper methods to achieve the goals of our religion.

Weird how religious fanatics like Syrin accuse others of being part of a religion. Projecting perhaps?.

Wow, I know . . .what a remarkable posting. I just posted something on Coby's *ni sa bula* link about guys like this who like to swoop down with one drive-by post and then flee for the hills, think that somehow constitutes a win.

I wonder if its Crakar incognito.

He gave us his big you-can-take-this-blog-and-shove-it speech but whats to keep him from creating any number of other sleeper identities from which to conduct a guerrilla campaign?

Skip

Hi Skip,

Just to put your mind at ease it is not me, i have no reason to hide.

Just enjoying reading without commenting at the moment.

Cheers

Crakar

Hi all,
The political debate is certainly heating up!
I have said it before an' I'll say it again; This is indeed a political debate.
It's quite fascinatin' really!
Here's a link to a political organisation with some details of the leaked emails you may have heard about.
(I'm sure you will have heard of thosed named, before)

http://cecaust.com.au/main.asp?sub=articles&id=2009_11_23_hackers.html

I don't know if non-Australian readers here are aware, but this debate is really coming to a head in Australia right now. The proposed Emissions Trading Scheme has nothing to do with Climate at all. It is two things and two things only:
1. A Tax.
2. A "policy" for Prime Minister Kevin Rudd to take to the Copenhagen Love-in to make him look good.
The utter meaninglessness of it was proven when the Government gave in to the Oppositions demands for enormous amendments.
I desperately hope that the Opposition will have the guts to stand up for the truth!

Well, have a nice day.
Michael

Whoops!
Sorry, I have just realised that I have sorta kinda repeated old news....

Sorry about that, and welcome back Coby.
I have been to Fiji for a few holidays, and just love it.
(Naviti Resort actually)

Again, my apologies. I promise to read more before posting.....

Does anyone have a rebuttal to this:

http://2gb.com.au/index2.php?option=com_newsmanager&task=view&id=4998

I'm seriously interested in a credible answer to Alan Jones' very one-sided sceptics view that the hidden agenda behind an ETS is to form a global communist-style government. (!)

Cheers.

I got an audio file.

Is there a transcript?

Skip

No Skip, it's an audio file. I haven't found a transcript.
Hope you can find a way to hear it.

Arlyn

Dear author,

since CLIMATEGATE we, your readers, all know that most of your "evidences" are proven wrong, because scientists created false papers and false expertise's. So what?

Will you correct all your wrong arguments proven by imaginary data written by OIL-Cons payed so called "scientists"?

We all wait for your corrected articles!

Cheers

Hans from Austria

While it probably is a hit-and-wrong by Hans, I have a challenge to him:

Prove GISTEMP wrong using actual science.

Oh, and lies are not looked upon kindly. There were no false papers nor false expertise at UEA. On the other hand, there's this wonderful OISM petition, involving a faked PNAS paper...

One thing is missing:
"Global warming is a big conspiration in which every government is involved to have an excuse to push big amounts of money around the world."

The same denialism methods (appeal to authority, quote mining, pseudoscience, conflating correlation with causation, anecdotal statements and strawman arguments) are used by evolution deniers (aka Creationists), alt medicine potion pushers, HIV deniers, and, well the list goes on. Nature (the journal) has written a very clearly written editorial where they reviewed the emails, and concluded that âa fair reading of the e-mails reveals nothing to support the denialists' conspiracy theories."

Of course, they made one more critical point:

First, Earth's cryosphere is changing as one would expect in a warming climate. These changes include glacier retreat, thinning and areal reduction of Arctic sea ice, reductions in permafrost and accelerated loss of mass from the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets. Second, the global sea level is rising. The rise is caused in part by water pouring in from melting glaciers and ice sheets, but also by thermal expansion as the oceans warm. Third, decades of biological data on blooming dates and the like suggest that spring is arriving earlier each year.

We're done here.

What??? Why does this even exist? Is the Left in this much denial?

If he mentioned Moore's Law, I don't remember it. By my rough calculations of same, a comparable modern computer should do the job in under three seconds, yet somehow the accuracy hasn't trickled down to local forecasts yet.

Thank you so much! I'm in the midst of a debate with my history teacher, who is a huge skeptic and is convincing the class that global warming is a myth. This is EXACTLY what I needed.

Time to short circuit all y'alls on both sides, or as I like to call it, "How to mess up a warmer AND a denier. Goes something like this: alternative fuel, or power technologies, non-carbon, or low carbon producing. Solar, wind, tidal, hydrogen, deisel (burns cleaner, and with improvements, could burn cleaner still) and Sterling engines-which use external combustion-in other words, andthing that produces energy to power a turbine-Dean Kamen, that magnificent genius, is busy developing a Sterling for third world use.

As someone who has looked at the science, and thinks it doesn't support global warming-convict Jones and friends for fraud to gain money, and yeah, urge the climate change conference people to pass the carbon tax-people need an incentive to develop better technology-thus rendering the climate debate moot, out of the loop. As an aside, we most certainly do have more than enough fresh water, and we do have a very crap, and selfish distribution system. In other words, we can handle climate change. We're incredibly inventive, incredibly adaptable, and tough as all get out, in spite of appearances.

Sorted.

'

I'm laughing my #$% off!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/copenhagen-climate-change-confe/673651…

"In other words, we can handle climate change. We're incredibly inventive, incredibly adaptable, and tough as all get out, in spite of appearances."- Bryce Rasmussen.

Bryce definitely hasn't done much reading on the science of AGW if he thinks it can be "handled".

yep, I surely do find this site amusing-not that I'm likely to return-got more important things to do-but I love that retort-we're weak, we can't handle it, it's too much, so there, I showed ya! That, and, as usual, assumption assumption-you even know me? So, fer sure, doood, you obviously know what I've read.

now you kids keep on with your running about, yelling and screaming like chicken littles over the awful nasty global warming that your weak spines just won't be able to handle, like, oh, that one one tenth of a degree temp increase over the last hundred years OHMYGODGLOBALWARMINGISGONNAGETUS (and it'll be rilly hard to drive our rilly toxic hybrids that actually cause more toxic pollution than suvs) while the rest of the world prosecutes the snot outta IPCC for fraud to get money. See ya. Feel free to huddle in your zealous little clique, saying "WE sure showed him."

though I might ghost for the laughs.

I believe in climate change and greenhouse gases and human beings being the cause of the problem. However, I do not believe that trading permission to pollute will accomplish any improvement in the situation. Rather, I know that for decades I have had success eliminating pollution. See: http://intergon.net/phd/BoxerTQMEnv1991.html
and:
http://intergon.net/phd
in which I studied how CEOs deal with sustainability.

"So, fer sure, doood, you obviously know what I've read." - Bryce Rasmussen.

Whatever it may be Bryce, it does not seem to have cured you of ignorance concerning AGW.

"now you kids keep on with your running about, yelling and screaming like chicken littles" - Bryce Rasmussen.

Uh-oh, the denier blog retort. The picture is becoming clearer on what you've read Bryce.

"oh, that one one tenth of a degree temp increase over the last hundred years" - Bryce Rasmussen.

Bzzzzzt. Wrong. Where do you get the idea that the global temperature has only increased by that amount?. Denier blog perhaps?.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif

"while the rest of the world prosecutes the snot outta IPCC for fraud to get money." - Bryce Rasmussen.

Bryce doesn't even understand that the IPCC only summarizes the existing scientific literature. How they could be prosecuted is indeed a mystery.

"Feel free to huddle in your zealous little clique, saying "WE sure showed him" - Bryce Rasmussen

Bryce, you might feel it's okay to perpetuate denier nonsense on the internet, but I disagree. The science says we are headed for big, big trouble. Your denial isn't going to make it go away.

h.t.t.p://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-world/copenhagen-early-draft-irks-poor-states-20091209-khyg.html

Looks like the Russians have been paid to do a job again.

I don't know how you arrive at that conclusion, but ok.

Skip

Who here has any ideas how many data sets were corrupted by the frauds that were outed this week? How many OTHER reports/prophecies/predictions were based on them? I don't and I bet you all don't either. (And saying that none were is a none starter. If nothing else their data has the appearance of having been corrupted and faked.)

Y'all say that there is plenty of other evidence out there. Prove it. Remove every report they have personally touched, and every report based on what they personally touched. Then show us what's left of the science.

If you refuse to do that, then the whole AGW thing is a hoax.

mindless ego (such an appropriate name)
So let me get your points straight there.
You're saying that if we refuse to buckle to your demands then AGW is a hoax?
And you are also saying that you have no idea how many reports etc that the CRU has been involved with, and that in any case, the problem may only have the 'appearance of having been corrupted', and may not actually have been corrupted - your words not mine.
And that you also believe that there is no other climate research organisation in the world acting independently of the CRU - because you seem to be suggesting that if you remove CRU influence there is no science left?
So to summarise - you have no idea how much of a problem there is, if there is indeed a problem at all. And if we don't do as you say, that proves AGW is a hoax.
Since thats the way you approach logic, I will ask - nay demand - the same from you.
You are to do this:
The Catholic Church may have committed fraud at some time in the past (or may not have, but if nothing else it appears that they may have). So remove every piece of information related to god and jesus that they have ever been involved with, then produce that information here.
If you refuse to do that, it proves the whole christianity thing is a hoax.

How much are the annual cost, paid by the Government, for this nice little disinformation website?

Professor Bucket, kicked yourself lately?.

You "Other science" like: Own Work Is 'Consensus'

"Of the 53 coordinating lead authors, lead authors, and contributing authors chosen to write chapter 9 (Of the IPCC 2007 Report), 41 co-authored papers together ... which they then cited in the IPCC final report. In short, a close-knit group of IPCC authors cited their own prior work to justify their alarmist assertions, and then passed this off as the "broad consensus" of the scientific community, the SPPI study shows.

Disturbingly, at least eight of the authors had previously co-authored articles with Environment Canada's Francis Zwiers, raising serious concerns about their objectivity. Scientists and scientific papers that dispute and contradict the assertions of this close-knit group of alarmists were frequently and predictably ignored by them.

Moreover, lead authors frequently chose their subordinates to compose the report. For example, Peter Stott of the British government's Hadley Center for Forecasting was chosen as a lead author, and then eight additional Hadley Center staffers were chosen to work under him as contributing authors of chapter 9.

Far from ensuring a wide range of opinions from a broad cross-section of scientists, more than 20 percent of the chapter 9 contributing editors consisted of staff from the Hadley Center working in a supervisor/subordinate structure."

http://www.heartland.org/article/23694/IPCC_Author_Selection_Process_Pl…

You mean "Other Scientists" like the 140 who authored an open letter to the Copenhagen convention?

"Climate change science is in a period of ânegative discoveryâ - the more we learn about this exceptionally complex and rapidly evolving field the more we realize how little we know. Truly, the science is NOT settled.

Therefore, there is no sound reason to impose expensive and restrictive public policy decisions on the peoples of the Earth without first providing convincing evidence that human activities are causing dangerous climate change beyond that resulting from natural causes. Before any precipitate action is taken, we must have solid observational data demonstrating that recent changes in climate differ substantially from changes observed in the past and are well in excess of normal variations caused by solar cycles, ocean currents, changes in the Earth's orbital parameters and other natural phenomena."

http://www.copenhagenclimatechallenge.org/

"You mean "Other Scientists" like the 140 who authored an open letter to the Copenhagen convention?" - Mindless ego.

Oh no!. Saw that letter. And they call themselves scientists?. Being typical deniers they had to mention Polar Bears didn't they?.

No. 10 was the real doozy though. Suddenly ground based thermometers aren't good enough anymore (that warming is sure inconvenient to denial), despite the fact they show a similar warming trend to the MSU satellites.

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2009/12/07/riddle-me-this/

But this is the real whopper:

It is not the responsibility of âclimate realistâ scientists to prove that dangerous human-caused climate change is not happening. Rather, it is those who propose that it is, and promote the allocation of massive investments to solve the supposed âproblemâ, who have the obligation to convincingly demonstrate that recent climate change is not of mostly natural origin and, if we do nothing, catastrophic change will ensue. To date, this they have utterly failed to do so.

Because its an impossible standard. This basically says, "Unless you have crystal ball proving calamity, then we're justified in doing *nothing*."

This is the same bogus conflation deniers make all the time. You guys think we're all 'alarmists', and since we can't give you a 2112 apocalyptic date and time, it means denial (and doing nothing about prospective climate damage) wins by default.

Its a straw man Z. And did you actually look at the names of the signers "well qualified" in climate science? Among them is Zaworowski, Spencer . . . clowns who have been publicly vivisected on this and several other fora for abject quackery. Stick around if you want to learn more.

Skip

There seems to be a lot of discussion here about the credibility of certain people, how things are all a conspiracy, how we can't predict the future, etc, etc.
However, absolutely none of that matters - its all a sideshow which is designed to divert attention from the real issue, which is this:
The climate is changing, the globe is warming. No-one, not even the vast majority of the flat-earth society, denies that fact. It is even used by the flat-earth society in their attempts to discredit the veracity of tree ring data (you know, all the 'hide the decline' nonsense). That's the point of that discussion - the tree ring information doesn't agree with the instrumental record over the last 50 years, so how can we trust the 'hockey stick' et al.
So, we have established that the globe is warming. What do you think is causing it?
My view is that there is sufficient evidence in the hundreds of papers and millions of pieces of data to demonstrate conclusively that it is anthropogenic.
If you disagree with that, you must obviously believe it is a natural phenomenon. Fair enough - but what is your evidence? Please produce something, anything, that we can all have a look at. And no - the opinion of a blogger somewhere is not evidence. I mean a proper study, with data and sources. It doesn't have to be peer reviewed - I know how much you all think the whole peer review process is corrupted.
So there's your challenge. Stop focussing on people and who may or may not be credible. Instead, demonstrate that you can actually build a case rather than just take potshots at other people's cases. Show us all the evidence you have that the current observed increases in global temperature (over the last 100 years, not just the relatively small changes of the last 10 years or so), are natural and not anthropogenic. Simple really.
I await with eager anticipation.

Ok Mandas,

This is your theory, nay a hypothesis so why dont you explain your theory. Dont expect us to prove a negative.

You have already ignored one question i have posed to you so i dont expect you to answer anymore, so let me simply say this.

You said:

"Show us all the evidence you have that the current observed increases in global temperature (over the last 100 years, not just the relatively small changes of the last 10 years or so), are natural and not anthropogenic. Simple really."

Well according to the consensus i dont believe man had any influence on the temps 100 years ago (1909) and only had an influence from the 1940's onward as that is when CO2 levels began to rise in any meaningful/measurable fashion.

So correct me if i am wrong but i do believe the temps from 1909 to the 1940's increased therefore the temps went up when man had no influence.

Then from 1940's to the 1970's the temps went down when Co2 levels were rising but it appears that once again we had no influence.

From 1970's to around 2000 the temps went up as did CO2 so we finally have a correlation which is why you claim CO2 causes the temp to rise.

However from around 2000 until present the temps have not increased (and yes i will reproduce the email of Trenberth saying this very same thing if challenged) whilst CO2 levels have increased so once again it would appear that we had no influence on temp.

So in summary Mandas you claim the CO2 increase will cause the temp to increase however it can be shown that over the past 100 years the correlation between CO2 and temp is very poor, i am sure your explanation of this will be simple really.

I await with eager anticipation.

PS come up with a response to the CO2 sentivity issue i raised or have you forgotten?

Crakar.
bzzzzzzt fail. 0%. Failed to answer the question.
I did not ask what you think didn't happen - I asked you what you thought the causes were.
Try again. This time, don't try and suggest CO2 isn't the cause - tell me what the actual cause was.

Mandas

Here is an analogy for you.

One day everyone had a theory about something, not a perfect theory but a pretty good one, then you ride into town telling everyone that you have a new theory. Everyone says well thats great but can you prove it? And you reply i dont have to prove it you have to prove me wrong.

Well how do you prove a negative Mandas? The way science works is that you have to prove your own theory. But then again AGW isnt science is it.

Apparently you can point to....how many studies was it? Millions? i am not sure now but anyway i only asked you to point me to one. The one that shows emphirical evidence that water vapour/clouds does act as a positive feedback. A positive feedback that is causing the temps to rise and will lead to catastrophic warming by 2100 of 8 plus C.

Obviously you did not point to this study because no such study exists, so you ask me for an explanation of warming when you cannot even do it yourself. I suspect you work for the Australian Government department of rodeo clowns.

My insistance on what you accept, the hockey stick or the more conventional theory of fluctuating temps (MWP, LIA) is relevent to my answer that i give you. It is a simple question that requires a simple answer once you have done so then we can move on until such time this debate can go no further.

Stop the presses

As the demonisation of CO2 loses its lustre the copenhagen assembly of world leaders has now decided that Nitrogen is the next bad guy to tax us on.

For people like Skip who are self confessed inexperts, nitrogen makes up 78% of our atmosphere as opposed to 0.038% of CO2. The amount of nitrogen emissions is dwarfed by the very small amount of CO2 emissions from year to year.

Coby maybe you should start up another thread were the masses can debate this new and ever present threat.

"Well according to the consensus i dont believe man had any influence on the temps 100 years ago (1909) and only had an influence from the 1940's onward as that is when CO2 levels began to rise in any meaningful/measurable fashion." - Crakar.

Wrong. So much for denialist beliefs.

http://powerpoints.wri.org/climate/img001-large.jpg

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/slides/large/02.21.jpg

"So correct me if i am wrong but i do believe the temps from 1909 to the 1940's increased therefore the temps went up when man had no influence." - Crakar.

Wrong. When does Crakar think the Industrial Revolution began?.

"Then from 1940's to the 1970's the temps went down when Co2 levels were rising but it appears that once again we had no influence." - Crakar.

Wrong. Never heard of sulphate aerosols?

By sources "not that of a blogger" do you mean published in a journal? The same ones that the emails show were suborned and all had their arms twisted to prevent any such articles from appearing? (And if they did they were then blacklisted?)

The problem with these 'scientologists' is they have taken the "what if" scenario to heart. What if they are right? Then they splay all of their data to try and read the future and PROVE that they are right. (And silence anyone that might have questions or disagree with their prediction of utter calamity.)

It is not for us to prove YOUR theory. We can choose from a dozen alternatives, naturally occurring warming from the "little ice age" among them. Now YOU must prove conclusively it is NOT from any of these for your theory to stand. NOT the other way around.....

"Then from 1940's to the 1970's the temps went down when Co2 levels were rising but it appears that once again we had no influence." - Crakar.

Wrong. Never heard of sulphate aerosols? -DW-"

So then, according to your theory, all we have to do is allow CFC's again to fully counter GW?

RE:163

The problem with barring any alternative views from being aired is that if you don't publish, you don't receive grants or funding. The crooks that perpetrated this KNOW that. By blacklisting and squashing dissent, they knew that soon there wouldn't be any "reputable" studies out there.

Even so: http://www.examiner.com/x-25061-Climate-Change-Examiner~y2009m12d10-Pro…

ME:

If "alternative views" are "barred" from "being aired" then how is it you so easily come by your links that you think prove something?

Skip

Go to PBS and watch "Dimming the Sun". It was first aired 2004. Two years before Catrina, PBS aired a report about Big Easy. Nobody took any action, then we suffered New Orleans.

Hey, brainless twit (aka mindless ego) time for you to learn some science. Then you would find that sulphate aerosols are different from CFC's.

The rest of your posts are just as full of elementary errors, distortions of the truth and mindless twittering.

Sorry. Small slip on my part. (Re: CFC)

Though to be fair, the same reasons were listed for restricting them as well.... "They're killing the ozone layer!"

How's that layer doing, by the way. You know, the one that was going to take a 100 years to repair itself? If ever?

And way to drop into name calling. I've noticed that that behavior is one of the hallmarks of climatescientologists. They can't beat the reasoning, so they try and excoriate the messenger of it.

If one asks a question about why the numbers they use don't add up to real world figures, they cry and scream because someone has debased their "scriptures". Like Scientologists they declare any scientist that doesn't tow the party line to be "fair game", with all that that entails.

Truly sad. If there wasn't a trillion dollar price tag attached to this nonsense, I would call it funny.

brainless twit, are you suggesting that sulphate aerosols were destroying the ozone layer?

Wow, you are indeed brainless if you cannot get anything right.

I've read all the comments on many, if not most of the posts on this site. I asked a couple of general and specific questions.

Like other disasterists, all you can respond with are insults.
Name calling just shows your true I.Q.
So, in the future:
Bzzzzzt *IGNORE*

And for others that may see this tripe, it might help in discussing with others if one should use the more common terms for something. Like "Volcanic Emissions" instead of SA.
As for the above
... so all the hype from the 70's saying that CFC's were depleting the ozone layer and we would all freeze to death from the resultant heat loss, ie another global ice age, were just that, huh?

Way to go. When something doesn't fit your models, you intone a few bars of your favorite hymn, change the numbers, or blame it on volcanoes. Then you show it to one of your "prophets" and wait for your pat on the head.

And you want to quadruple the price of everything and tax every human in first world countries something close to $2k a year?

Yikes.

Mindless

how do you think the ozone layer is doing and what is your source?

Here you go Coby!
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/09/23/2694400.htm

I posted this link a couple of months ago.

Ian Forrester! (if I knew your middle name, I'd use it!)
Is that childish response all you can do?
It seems to me that the vast majority of your posts, say pretty much those same words.
How old are you? 12??

It is not childish to point out to intelligent posters i.e non-deniers, that most of the deniers are completely ignorant of science. They want us to believe that they are experts. Hence, I have no time for such impostors and call them on their stupidity, ignorance, arrogance and dishonesty.

You, michael are a prime example.

re: 173

See 174.. I remember reading thoroughly about it earlier this year but never saved the links. (Like most humans.) Comment 174 looks like one of them. But there were six or seven out that predicted the same thing and they showed that the hole is closing, in some cases faster than previously thought.

"It is not childish to point out to intelligent posters i.e non-deniers, that most of the deniers are completely ignorant of science. They want us to believe that they are experts. Hence, I have no time for such impostors and call them on their stupidity, ignorance, arrogance and dishonesty.

You, michael are a prime example."

Interesting that if you don't agree you must be evil, ignorant, or stupid.
You might want to be careful,
I can hear the organ playing your hymns in the background.

Nice little article here:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/3563532…

And an interesting graph showing that what we are currently going through is no big deal:

http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/hoax/forums/viewreply/392115/
Coby, I'd be interested in what you might think of it...

Brainless twit it has got nothing to do with "agreeing"
Intelligent people just get fed up with your continual spouting of nonsense.

Go and get an education then maybe you can have an honest discussion.

And please, don't threaten me, it only shows how low you are willing to stoop.

"It is not for us to prove YOUR theory. We can choose from a dozen alternatives, naturally occurring warming from the "little ice age" among them." - Mindless Ego.

How's that work again?.

"So then, according to your theory, all we have to do is allow CFC's again to fully counter GW?" - Mindless Ego.

Nope. Not unless you like the nasty side effects like acid rain. Sulphate aerosols do not persist in the atmosphere very long, as evidenced by the temporary global cooling effect of very large volcanic eruptions such as Mt Pinatubo. Therefore your genius plan would have involve ongoing emissions.
Note too that atmospheric CO2 levels have steadily increased since the middle of the 20th century and therefore even more sulphate aerosols would be required to overcome the enhanced Greenhouse Effect.

"And for others that may see this tripe, it might help in discussing with others if one should use the more common terms for something. Like "Volcanic Emissions" instead of SA." - Mindless Ego.

Sure, maybe you believe sulphates emitted from industrial smokestacks are volcanic emissions, but what does that say about your level of understanding?. Tripe?.

#174 - Michael, yes the Ozone Hole is a always a good retort to deniers who claim "but mankind is too insignificant to affect the climate/atmosphere". Nice.

#181 - the response is to sulphate aerosols, not CFC's like Mindless Ego was suggesting. He doesn't know the difference between the two.

Mindless, you said, dripping with sarcasm:
""They're killing the ozone layer!"

How's that layer doing, by the way. You know, the one that was going to take a 100 years to repair itself? If ever? "

and then when I asked you how you thought it was doing, you link to an article that says it reached its peak size three years ago, looks like it is on the mend and should be back to normal in 100 years and if not for the Montreal Protocol banning CFCs it would have been a disaster today.

Seriously, come up with an intelligent point or get out of here.

I have a quick question.

I am on another blog, where I said that I am a liberal Atheist, Darwin loving, health care reform supporting environmentalist, but here is the problem, also an AGW doubter.

The problem was, nobody believed I was any of the former things, only a lying concerned troll denier. I tried to convince them but they would not believe a word I said, claiming that it was impossible for me to be the former(liberal atheist etc) a doubter at the same time. So:

I would like to do a quick poll:

How many of the doubters/skeptics,deniers fit into the same category as me, more or less?. Are you skeptics all right wing, republican, Obama hating nut jobs?

See 178.

And

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/11/would-you-like-your-temperature-d…

Don't argue with where it is from. Argue with what it says....

From http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/11/giss-raw-station-data-before-and-…

Comment:

"Richard S Courtney (02:44:42) :

Friends:

wtf (21:55:54) asks:
Has anyone else come to the conclusion that from this point out, virtually all past climate data are possibly suspect?

Well, as my above post (Richard S Courtney (14:07:21) ) shows, 6 years ago I and the other 18 signatories to my paper tried to publish that all past climate data are certaily suspect. But our paper was blocked from publication and my complaint at the blocking is part of the hacked (?) Climate gate emails.

Kevin Kilty (14:57:24) commented on statements from my above post where I said of the Jones et al., GISS and GHCN data sets of mean global tmperature (MGT) time series:
âThese teams each provide 95% confidence limits for their results. However, the results of the teams differ by more than double those limits in several years, and the data sets provided by the teams have different trendsâ¦.â

His comment on those statements said;
âNow why wouldnât anyone notice allegedly independent estimates of the same quantity that differ by two times their respective 95% confidence intervals? 95% means something specific and to differ by two times such an interval is highly improbable. If Richard is right about this, and I have interpreted what he says correctly, why didnât more alarm bells go off? This is exactly the type of data consistency issue that eventually deflated the âPalmdale Bulgeâ.â

At least 19 of us did notice and we âheard alarm bellsâ but our paper was blocked from publication.

1. I can prove that we submitted the paper for publication.
2. I can prove that Nature rejected it for a silly reason; viz.
âWe publish original data and do not publish comparisons of data setsâ
3. I can prove that whenever we submitted the paper to a journal one or more of the the Jones et al., GISS and GHCN data sets changed so either
4. The paper was rejected because
(a) it assessed incorrect data
or
(b) we had to withdraw the paper to correct the data it assessed.

But I cannot prove who or what caused this.

pat (17:06:38) makes a comment that goes to the heart of the problem when he says:
âThis wholesale substitution of opinion for real data is simply scary.â

Yes, as I said in my above posting;
âIt should also be noted that there is no possible calibration for the estimates of MGT. The data sets keep changing for unknown (and unpublished) reasons although there is no obvious reason to change a datum for MGT that is for decades in the past. It seems that the compilers of the data sets adjust their data in attempts to agree with each other.â

In the absence of possibility of calibration what can the data be compaed to except âopinionâ?

I could have added that the recent reduced trends in the the Jones et al., GISS and GHCN data sets imply that they are now adjusted in attempt to also agree with the satellite (RSS and UAH) data sets.

E.M.Smith (21:10:33) seems to have understood the importance of my point that said;
âalthough there is no obvious reason to change a datum for MGT that is for decades in the pastâ
because he writes:

âHere is a sample of the âoldâ Orland data from UHSCN:

Not only do we lose 1883 and 1884 in their entirety, be it looks to me like the ânewâ version has cooled the past.

1934, for example, is 1/2 F colder ânowâ than it was beforeâ¦

So, I ask again: Anyone know how to do a FOIA request for the changes made, code, reasons, emails,â¦â

Adjustments to individual station records are only one of the ways the data have been changed over the years.

So, to put it kindly, it has been known for at least 6 years that the data sets of mean global temperature (MGT) time series are uncalibrated guesswork that have been repeatedly altered for a variety of unknown and unpublished reasons but publication of this knowledge has been prevented until now.

Richard"

Care to comment?

So, to put it kindly, it has been known for at least 6 years that the data sets of mean global temperature (MGT) time series are uncalibrated guesswork that have been repeatedly altered for a variety of unknown and unpublished reasons but publication of this knowledge has been prevented until now. Richard" Care to comment? - Mindless

Yup. Here is perhaps, a valid reason why his "paper" was not accepted by Nature - they just don't publish any old junk.

I admit I can't be bothered going over this nonsense in detail (it being done over and over again), but there are valid reasons why data sets have to be adjusted - site changes for instance can alter the readings, although the trend remains the same.

As far as Richard Courtney is concerned, he's hardly the source of accurate or reliable information:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Richard_S._Courtney

http://www.desmogblog.com/richard-s-courtney

I figured i better post this as no one else here will. It appears that Saint Al of the Gore has been caught lying once again.

http://w.w.w.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/copenhagen/article6…

In his latest prediction the Arctic will be ice free by 2015, this date can be added to his 2013 and 2014 predictions but this time the scientist who did the study distanced himself from Gore claiming he said nothing of the sort whats this integrity from a scientist? I hope others follow in his footsteps.

Here is another example of Gore BULLSHIT, luckily for him people around here dont mind being bullshitted to.

http://w.w.w.spectator.co.uk/essays/all/5592863/the-inconvenient-truth-…

In fact Coby my i suggest you create a special thread which can be dedicated to Gore and his bullshit.

Here is another example of Gore BULLSHIT, luckily for him people around here dont mind being bullshitted to.

Not anymore. I just accept that it will part of the decorum as long as you continue posting.

Skip

So, it seems Al Gore is not an expert in climatology and epidemiology. Oh dear, that must mean that antropogenic climate change is a myth - or is it a conspiracy?
Mind you, Paul Reiter is happy to claim to claim that "I donât dabble in climatology" at the start of his article, but to conclude it by claiming to be a sceptic. Hmmmmm - slight inconsistency there. I would have thought that if you didn't dabble in something, and you work in a completely unrelated field, that you would take the word of the experts in the field. It would appear not. I wonder what else he has an opinion on that he knows nothing about.
Oh wait - lets find out. Let's do a Google Search. Here's an interesting article....
"Reiter sits on the "Scientific and Economic Advisory Council" of an organization called the "Annapolis Center for Science-Based Public Policy." The Annapolis Center is a US think tank that has received $763,500 in funding from ExxonMobil and has been very active in playing down the human contribution to global warming".
Hmmm - that's interesting..... anything else...?? How about this...
"The UK government has said that Reiter "does not accurately represent the current scientific debate on the potential impacts of climate change on health in general, or malaria in particular. He appears to have been quite selective in the references and reports that he has criticised, focusing on those that are neither very recent nor reflective of the current state of knowledge, now or when they were published."
Hmmm - even more interesting.....

So, to conclude my previous post...
Let's try and do a LITTLE research people (especially you crakar). Articles in a newspaper are NOT authoritative sources for ANYTHING. I freely admit my comments are also not authoritative either, but see how easy it is to find something that suits your own prejudices?
If you are going to argue with anthropogenic climate change, try and argue with the science. Calling a former politician a liar is a pretty easy thing to do - and also quite pointless. Especially if the "source" of your information is so easily dicredited.

So, to conclude my previous post....
Let's try and do a LITTLE research people (especially you crakar). Articles in a newspaper are not an authoritative source for ANYTHING. I freely admit my articles are not authoritative either, but see how easy it is to find something that suits your own prejudices.
If you are going to try and discredit anthropogenic climate change, try and argue with the science. Calling a former poltician a liar is pretty easy to do - but also quite pointless. Especially when the source of your information is so easily discredited.

And to help you out with the research thing crakar, here is what Dr Wieslaw Maslowski, who is the scientist Al Gore quoted about the Arctic being ice free by 2015, actually said in a radio interview on 24 March 2008

"We speak to Wieslaw Maslowski about his prediction that by the summer of 2013, we will have completely lost ice cover in the Arctic. Dr. Maslowski says that the complete loss of summer ice may actually happen sooner."

Dr Wieslaw Maslowski: I think the media is definitely getting much more interested and the society is trying to understand what is happening out there, not only in the Arctic but also the ice shelf around Antarctica and so forth. So, definitely the interest and demand for information is much higher than couple years ago. My statement you quoted and was printed in The New York Times of 2013, my first presentation where I actually had this projection stated exclusively was about 4 or 5 years ago in San Francisco, at American Geophysical Union poll meeting. So, I'm not actually upgrading my projection, I'm just saying that it may happen sooner but we were one of the early people who were saying that it might happen within the next decade, instead of by the end of this century.

Anything else you want to add crakar?

Mandas,

I simply wanted to show everyone that Gore bullshits to everyone and as predicted we apply a double standard, "its OK to bullshit me as long as it promotes the religion" by the way here is the guys response to what Gore said

âItâs unclear to me how this figure was arrived at,â Dr Maslowski said. âI would never try to estimate likelihood at anything as exact as this.â

The response,

Mr Goreâs office later admitted that the 75 per cent figure was one used by Dr Maslowksi as a âballpark figureâ several years ago in a conversation with Mr Gore.

Now he is claiming malaria will spread to until now untouched regions, has this man no shame?

Sounds like Gore bullshit to me but the again i pray to a different God.

By the way Mandas you have fell very silent since i asked you to provide evidence as to why CO2 will cause catastrophic warming by 2100, dont tell me you were just bullshitting me?

I see Mr "I have no opinion man" is still with us enlightening us with his insightful comments of the inner workings of the human mind. No comment on the post as usual just dithering idiotic ramblings again.

The bullshit is starting to pile up

h.t.t.p://icecap.us/images/uploads/BOMBSHELL.pdf

More dodgy goings on related to Jones et al

âItâs unclear to me how this figure was arrived at,â Dr Maslowski said. âI would never try to estimate likelihood at anything as exact as this.â

The problem here is that Maslowski has apparently been changing his tune a bit over the last couple of years. Maybe in response to a little pushback by other scientists studying arctic ice, though I'm not speculating.

The reality is that Maslowski did say the things attributed to him by Mandas, and that what he says today somewhat contradicts what he said in the past.

Along with the radio interview mentioned by Mandas, there's the inconvenient truth of this BBC article that quotes Maslowski directly:

"Our projection of 2013 for the removal of ice in summer is not accounting for the last two minima, in 2005 and 2007," the researcher from the Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, California, explained to the BBC.
"So given that fact, you can argue that may be our projection of 2013 is already too conservative."

He was discussing a paper he gave at an American Geophysical Union meeting earlier in 2007.

Gore certainly didn't "bullshit" anyone, or "make shit up". He apparently was unaware that Maslowski's been "modifying" his earlier bold prediction (after all, 2013 is only four melt seasons away, now) but the outrageous accusations being made are totally unjustified.

Oh, gosh, look what Crakar's dug up:

On Tuesday, the Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) issued a report claiming that the Hadley Center for Climate Change based at the headquarters of the British Meteorological Office in Exeter (Devon, England) had probably tampered with Russian-climate data.

The IEA believes that Russian meteorological-station data did not substantiate the anthropogenic global-warming theory.

Those world-famous earth scientsists, the Institute of Economic Analysis. In a country that is betting much of its economic future on the increased export of oil and natural gas to Europe. Yeah, like they're not likely to be biased, hoo-rah.

Why is it that 99% the "damning" evidence comes from economists, retired mining engineers, high-school educated tv weathermen, etc rather than real scientists?

Crakar
Why do you continue to ignore the really good advice I keep giving you about research. This statement...
....Now he is claiming malaria will spread to until now untouched regions, has this man no shame?
Sounds like Gore bullshit to me but the again i pray to a different God....
is just plain wrong and can be shown to be wrong with a few minutes research.

Try this, for example....
"Seasonal differences in species composition were significant in western Kenya, and the proportion of An. funestus was higher in the dry season than the rainy season. Influence of temperature on vector density was significant for all three species. These results imply that climate changes alter the distribution and abundance of malaria vectors in future." (here's the link to the abstract, not sure if you can access the paper):
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12495180?dopt=Abstract

Or this.....

"Those who argue that we need not worry about small shifts in temperature should pause after considering the findings of Pascual et al. (2) that a mere half-degree centigrade increase in temperature trend can translate into a 30â100% increase in mosquito abundance, in other words âbiological amplificationâ of temperature effects. In the African highlands, where mosquito populations are relatively low compared with lowland areas (3), such biological responses may be especially significant to determining the risk of malaria." (http://www.pnas.org/content/103/15/5635.full)

There is significant debate on this issue - and there are some who claim that the increase in malaria is closely related to climate change, whilst others who claim that it has been caused by other factors. However, to claim that someone is bullshitting if they suggests that climate cahnage will affect malaria transmission rates is extremely disengenuous.
Stop acting the fool - do some research, and stop praying. It doesn't work (there is no god!)

Wow - the IEA in Russia.
You mean these guys?:
http://www.iea.org/country/n_country.asp?COUNTRY_CODE=RU

Here is some bullshit well worth a look,

h.t.t.p://pajamasmedia.com/blog/climategate-somethings-rotten-in-denmark-and-east-anglia-asheville-and-new-york-city-pjm-exclusive/

As some of you wont read this out of fear here are some examples. The NZ data was finally released after many years of secrecy (ex CRU scientist of course) and now one can see the NZ raw data shows a +0.06C increase over 100 years but low and behold the adjusted data shows a warming of +0.92C/century.

Now if you think thats bad then hold on to your hats because Darwin (Aust) has raw data that shows a -0.7C/cent trend but the "adjusted" data shows a +1.2C/cent trend. No Darwin is a small country town so why would there be an adjustment of nearly 2C!!!!

Now this is a very good example of the manufactured bullshit, oops sorry i meant global warming

h.t.t.p://icecap.us/images/uploads/Central_Park_Temperatures_Two.pdf

And no it does not end there, this type of bullshit has been going on all over the world, dropping temps from 100 years ago and jacking up the present to bullshit people like Mr "i have no opinion man".

In fact Mr "i have no opinion man" better not read any of this because once he finds out he has been bullshitted to there is no way of telling what harsh words he might have to say.

Dont worry i have plenty more global warming BULLSHIT material so stay tuned.

Mandas,

You dont give advice, you challanged me to a debate about recent warming and 5 minutes in it gets too tough for you so you simply dodge and weave, now you have abandoned that line of annoyance all together.

In regards to Gorelies, he claimed that mosquitoes carrying malaria will be able to go to higher altitudes due to GW, he pumped up this piece of crap into a scare campaign to support his own endeavours. This was a bald faced lie like many other lies he has told, mozzies have been recorded going to high altitudes for near on a century, in other words he BULLSHITTED Mr "i have no opinion man".

Dhogaza,

Thanks for your opinions on the IEA, however your opinions do not change the fact that a majority of the stations in Russia that show no warming are not used by CRU et al. Once again i will give credit were credit is due at least you do have an opinion.

Still it is another case of everyone here being bullshitted to dont you think?

In regards to Gore and Arctic ice, i will concede it appears Maslowski has had a change of heart maybe it was a sudden ping of guilt that made him come clean, either way this must now cast a doubt over his integrity or at least his ability as a scientist and his study along with his degree should be torn up.

Maybe Gore should be more careful with the bullshit he speaks in future, you know like if you are going to talk crap at copenhagen you should at least get your facts straight first, that kind of thing. Because as we know some people here dont like to be bullshitted to.

Yes crakar, I did give you advice. It was to do some RESEARCH before saying anything.
So - I will give it to you again. Do some research. It's not all that hard really. I read your post, clicked on the link, did some research, all in about 10 minutes.
If you had done that for your nonsensical post about NZ temperatures, you will see quite clearly that the site temperatures have been adjusted BECAUSE THE MEASURING SITES MOVED. Despite idiotic claims in the article on the blog site - note I said article, not a scientific paper (remember my advice about not relying on opinion pieces on blog sites), all that information is freely available here:
http://www.niwa.co.nz/news-and-publications/news/all/nz-temperature-ris…
Now, go away and try again. But this time do your research.

Crackar said:

You dont give advice, you challanged (sic) me to a debate about recent warming and 5 minutes in it gets too tough for you so you simply dodge and weave, now you have abandoned that line of annoyance all together.

Why would anyone follow you into your ever deepening piles of bull sh!t?

You are the biggest liar and spreader of lies on this blog since you surely know that what you are spreading are lies, just from where you find them. Do you expect to find a nicely done steak in a pile of bull sh!t? I doubt it very much, so why do you keep on wallowing in it?

"Dont worry i have plenty more global warming BULLSHIT material so stay tuned." - Crackers

Yes, we have noticed.

"Because as we know some people here dont like to be bullshitted to." - Crackers

So you do it (bullshit) because some people don't like it?.

No Darwin is a small country town so why would there be an adjustment of nearly 2C!!!!

Because the thermometer was moved from town to an airport site where it's more exposed to cooler air coming off the ocean, and at some point the thermometer was placed in a stevenson screen. Both leading to cooler readings.

I thought that not too long ago both snow and crack said "goodbye". Why has crack returned?

Don't lament, Dho.

He serves his purpose; I'm glad he's back.

One regrettable thing is Crakar's inexhaustible energy for response--however weak. He dominates the links under "recent posts". But costs are outweighed by the benefits of his public self destruction, I think.

I'm a little surprised that more of Coby's denier visitors don't disavow him. I don't even tell deniers to watch *An Inconvenient Truth*, and Al Gore, whatever his failings, probably knows the issue way better than Crakar.

Skip

Ian, i asked you the very same question i asked Mandas and all you gave in response was one page from 4 IPCC reports, this one page cited a couple of predictions from a computer model. Not one shred of empirical evidence just computer predictions and you call yourself a scientist?

dhogaza,

Here is the history of the Darwin weather station in question:

Station 14016 operated from 1870 to 1941 LAT -12.4239, LONG 130.8925

Station 14015 operated from 1941 to present LAT and LONG as above.

It would seem thet station was upgraded in 1941 but the location remained the same.

Now if we look a bit closer at the data we can see station 14016 shows a significant cooling trend during this period and 14015 shows a slight warming tend.

This can be clearly seen in the concatenated data from Darwin airport (14015 & 14016 combined).

Now lets look at the "adjustments" applied to this data.

1880 to 1920 0c adjustment
1920 to 1930 -0.25C adjustment
1930 to 1940 +0.5C
Station change and an immediate + 1.0C adjustment made
1940 to present an ever increasing +ve adjustment from +1.4C to +2.4C peaking at +2.5C around 1980 and 1998.

Now there is a need to question not just beleive if there is requirement to adjust the data so much.

Retrospective adjustments:

First of all the transition from 14016 to 14015 shows no major step in the data around 1940 so why is there a +ve adjustment of 1C?

Why is the data from 1920 to 1930 adjusted down?

Why has the data been increasingly adjusted up from 1940?

Now this is an importanr point to discuss in more detail, the whole point of making adjustments is to remove any bias from the raw data. For example the UHI effect would make the raw data increase in a linear fashion over time, other station changes may have effects which would be seen as a step change in the data +ve or -ve so you may need to make a one off adjustment which is applied to the data from that point on.

But we do not see this with Darwin data, we see the raw data showing no significant trend since 1940, however if these adjustments are to be believed then we should see the raw data going negative in a very big way so a large +ve adjustment needs to be applied.

This is just one example of thousands of stations all over the world including NZ which show us the same thing. So as i said i suspect they are bullshitting us.

Unless of course you can provide information the Australian Bureau of information cannot to explain this adjustment?

As any intelligent person can see it is useless to answer crakar's questions. He has no intention of reading your answer. He will only be a typical denier and deny that your answer is factual, adequate or correct. It will either be too short, too long, too technical or too simple. I doubt very much that he has the intellectual ability to understand even some of the simple answers he is given.

I don't know why deniers like him are still allowed to post on science blogs where they just clutter up the space and get everyone extremely angry at their juvenile rantings.

You are pathetic crakar.

Here are 18 more examples of bullshit Skip can mull over during christmas.

http://w.w.w.prisonplanet.com/lord-monckton-reports-on-pachauri%E2%80%9…

Ian,

Did you attempt to explain the adjustments? No
Did you provide any relavent points that progress the debate? No

Did you have a little hissy fit? Yes
Did you call me names? Yes
Did you complain because i still have a right to post on some else's website? Yes
Did you have a little cry like a baby? Yes
Do you claim to be a scientist? Yes

Yeah - you win crakar.
You have discovered our secret. Climate change is all a lie. It's a worldwide conspiracy for scientists to take over the world and for politicians to impose new taxes on us all.
We have been doing it for years. It all started with Charles Darwin trying to deny the truth of the bible. Then of course, there was NASA, who found it was too hard to get to the moon, so they faked it all. It was Kennedy's fault, which is why we hired that gunman to stand on the grassy knoll and shoot him.
And you know why we couldn't get to the moon? It was all the aliens at Area 51. They had come to earth to speak to the Loch Ness monster and Bigfoot, and they accidently crashed into the CIA satellites in orbit which were monitoring all our thoughts.
Harold Holt knew all this. That's why we got the Chinese submarine to kidnap him when he was swimming (Australian reference there!!).
Anything I have missed?

Crakar
Some interesting papers to read re Darwin. I'm sure you will love them:

http://134.178.63.141/amm/docs/1996/torok.pdf

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/datasets/datasets.shtml

http://reg.bom.gov.au/amm/docs/2004/dellamarta.pdf

One thing we know, crack's a past master at trying to snow people with his cut and paste skills.

Summary of his post: The cut and paste source of my post doesn't understand why these adjustments were made, therefore: fraud.

Methodology: cherry pick stations like Darwin which have a confused history, insist that these indicate that the entire GHCN database consists of fraudulently manipulated data, and therefore claims of warming are fraudulent.

Meanwhile, a systematic look at adjustment trends show an overall +0.0017C adjustment per decade. Which works out to +0.017C over the lst century. In other words insignificant.

Read the comments for humorous indicators that many of the denialists don't know that trends are measured for a time series...

"This is just one example of thousands of stations all over the world including NZ which show us the same thing. So as i said i suspect they are bullshitting us." - Crackers.

http://www.niwa.co.nz/news-and-publications/news/featured/new-zealandas…

"There are eleven sites around NZ where the climate stations have not moved significantly for many decades. These sites show a warming trend of 1°C since the 1930s".

Doh!. Yes Crackers, that's why the glaciers in NZ have retreated a long way since the 1930's.

http://www.teara.govt.nz/en/glaciers-and-glaciation/2/4

This discussion between Lord Monckton and a Greenpeace campaigner at the Kopenhagen Climate Conference 2009 shows that an exchange of ideas can be done in a highly civilized manner without the need to discredit anyone. Hopefully this line of well-mannered arguing will catch on.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_ciwEI_hA0

Peter de Jong: "the world has been cooling for 15 years" is not "an idea", it's a *lie*.

As is pretty much everything else he's said at copenhagen.

Lord Monkeyton?.

@222--no need to call names, because;
@221--you're correct, it's a pack of lies and he is an arrogant fool; and
@220--This exchange is not a "discussion", it's a lying fool badgering someone who is too polite and hasn't read up enough on this site how to respond to arrogant and foolish (and lying) deniers.

Thank you for this amazing compilation of the scientific aspects of this incredible emergency. We so need a wake up call.

I just bloody well hope we are not the frogs in the slowly warming soup on the stove.

David Cale B.Sc Physics 1971

Physics instructor for 30 years.

The Life of David Cale?

Couldn't resist, Dave. Sorry.

Skip

@dhogaza (#221):
@Dappledwater (#222):
@Toby (#223):

Thank you very much for your response. Pse keep in mind, this thread is on how to respond to AGW sceptics. Iâm not sure why you seem to think name calling and calling people liars is convincing anyone, or helping the climate debate any further. Proponents seem to have a most aggressive stand. At the Kopenhagen Climate Conference Sir Christopher Monckton, who as you can see from the video is assertive but not at all violent, was beaten to the ground by the Danish police. Iâm not a sceptic, Iâm an agnostic, but I would like to try to get the debate to a more civilized and a more productive level. Lets briefly discuss a) the Monckton video, b) the historic issue, c) the morality issue.

A. Monckton supports his statements with scientific evidence. He specifically mentions some of his sources. Why donât you check his sources, as he himself urged the Greenpeace campaigner to do, and if there are any discrepancies there discuss those instead (his email address is on the web) ? Let me give you some examples:

1. âIn the last 30 years there has been virtually no change in the amount of sea ice in the world. (-) The University of Illinois takes the artic and antartic sea ice extends and plots a global sea ice extend which shows almost no change in 30 yearsâ, see Cryosphere Today (://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/);

2. âThere has been no increase in land falling Atlantic hurricanes on the United States coast for 150 yearsâ, see ://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pdf/NWS-TPC-5.pdf (page 11);

3. âThe combined frequency, duration and intensity of all the hurricanes, typhoons and tropical cyclones around the world reached its lowest point in 30 years just two months agoâ. I donât know what source Monckton used (probably NOAA data), but I believe Ryan Maue (Florida State University) is currently working on a thesis regarding the Accumulated Cyclone Energy Index (ACE), that shows there is no increase (see ://www.coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/tropical/).

B. Then there is the historic issue. When humanoids started using fire, about 1.5 million years ago, manmade CO2 was put into the earthâs atmosphere at an accelerated rate. And when at the end of the last ice age more than 12,000 years ago agriculture was used to increase food production the resulting population growth led to urbanization and worldwide deforestation that have continued ever since. How then is it possible that only after the 1750s we see an increase in atmospheric CO2 ? Also, what direct proof (i.e. isotope concentration measurements) do we have that this additional CO2 is manmade ? And why should we be more worried about global warming than about the imminent arrival of the next ice age ? We can defend ourselves against 30 feet rise of sea level (Iâm Dutch, I know we can), but we most certainly cannot defend our cities and crops against the destructive force of ice age glaciers (://www.frankwu.com/Paul3A.jpg). Also see: ://globalwarmingisunfactual.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/globalcooling.jpg .

C. Finally, there is the issue of morality. If it is not 100% certain AGW even exists and if it is not 100% certain mankind can control any climate change, AGW or otherwise, isnât it totally immoral to use money in this direction while at the very same time millions of people are suffering from hunger and illnesses that can be cured with that very same money at a 100% certainty?

===
âThink for yourselves and let others enjoy the privilege to do so, too.â
- Voltaire (1694-1778)

Peter, using references does not mean you understand them, nor that they show what you claim they show. This goes very strongly for Monckton, who's known to sprout a long list of nonsense and half-truths, making (willingly) gullible people very happy. If you want evidence: RTF IPCC report.

Regarding defending yourself against 30 feet sea level rises and your reference to being Dutch. I'm Dutch, too, but apparently have spent a few more minutes understanding the Dutch fight against water. The Netherlands can handle the occasional super-high tide. Occasional as in every x-hundred years. Have it continuously, and water will seep in. Or do you think we can continue to pump the enormous masses of water out?

Oh, regarding 100% certainties and morality: what is better, prophylaxis or treatment? Climate change is an important factor in hunger and (spread of) diseases. It does fit with your earlier comment: just keep on trying to battle the oncoming sea...

Pete Je Dong - maybe you think Monckton is credible, put that down to gullibility. He has a long track record of bullshit and crank understanding of science.

1. Sea ice - is it beyond your skill levels to even bother reading the site referenced?. This graph shows a decline in global sea ice extent:

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.wi…

But don't fret none, the Antarctic sea ice increase is only temporary and will decline as further warming occurs, especially now that the Ozone hole has stabilized:

"How then is it possible that only after the 1750s we see an increase in atmospheric CO2 ?" - Pete De Jong.

Never heard of the Industrial Revolution?.

"Also, what direct proof (i.e. isotope concentration measurements) do we have that this additional CO2 is manmade" - Pete De Jong.

http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/03/co2-rise-is-natural.php

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suess_effect

Iâm not sure why you seem to think name calling and calling people liars is convincing anyone, or helping the climate debate any further.

When Monckton says it's been cooling for 15 years, he's lying. That's not "name calling", that's a statement of fact.

Here's a plot using an index made of the four most commonly-cited temperature reconstructions, HadCRUT, UAH, RSS, GISTEMP:

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/last:180/plot/wti/last:180/trend

180 months equals 15 years.

Here's a plot using UAH alone, since it's the favorite among denialists (because it shows the least warming):

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/last:180/plot/uah/last:180/trend

As you can see, Monckton is lying.

@marco (#227)
The IPCC is a governmental organization. Because of its political nature, it can never be independent and its reports shouldnât be used in a scientific argument. Pse stick to the scientific facts.

Artificial clay layers can easily withstand 30 feet of water pressure (I know, Iâm a civil engineer). Furthermore, if we extend Holland into the sea by building the Haakse Zeedijk we create huge water depositories that relief the well pressure on the old land area. How on earth would you defend Holland against ice age glaciers ?

The morality issue is very important. We cannot spend a dollar twice. If the effects of direct treatment of climate change are not certain at all and there is a fair chance the money is completely wasted and we may still have to combat the symptoms of the change, then why not spend the money on saving peoples lives not maybe in the distant future but 100% certain TODAY?

@Dappledwater (#228)
Monckton stated "almost no change". There is no downward trend at all until 2001, and after that year its very small. You better wait until 2023 before you make such unfounded statements.

@Dapplewater (#229)
What makes you think the maximum natural absorbtion capacity of CO2 was reached exactly at the time the Industrial Revolution started ? Keep in mind that massive population growth resulting in urbanization and worldwide deforestation, resulting in the combined effect of more manmade CO2 and a reduced CO2 absorbtion capacity, had been going on centuries before.

@Dapplewater (#230)
Thanks for the links. Can you give me a graph since atmospheric isotope measuments began (1950s?)? I couldn't find one.

Good grief, Peter, now the IPCC report is a governmental organisation? It's an INTERgovernmental initiative, with only scientists involved in the actual report. Only in the summary for policymakers politicians have some influence. Interestingly, you do not consider the IPCC reports scientific enough, because of government involvement, but have the audacity to refer to the non-scientist (he's got a degree in classics!) Christopher Monckton, a former advisor to Margaret Thatcher, and heavily aligned with the most conservative part of the Tories.

Second, while clay layers may be able to withstand water pressure, we'd have to build such clay layers very deep into the earth and very high above the earth, and all around the Netherlands. We'd also have significant problems with all the waterways that go through the Netherlands, rivers like the Rhine, IJssel, Meuse are vital for many parts of the Netherlands.

And to add another part of your morality question: the Haakse Zeedijk is estimated (by those coming up with the plan, add at least a factor 2 for reality) at 40 billion euros. That's 40 billion (times reality factor) for the Netherlands alone, which could have been spent on all those high moral issues like hunger and disease elsewhere...so don't even dare to invoke morality!

Besides that, you may want to check how much money we are already spending on trying to safe people today. It is at least 60 billion annually by governments alone. If we'd also have to add money to build dikes and the like all over the world, you can perhaps see that we'd have to increase those costs by a factor 100. The Haakse Zeedijk is 180 km. 180 tiny kilometers at 40 billion euro. It may not be necessary to protect every country in a similar way, but it will easily be required for at least 18000 km of coastline. Perhaps even 180,000. What does your morality say of spending 6 trillion euro on defending the world's coastlines (and that's the only one aspect of climate change we'd have to deal with, and a low estimate at that), versus spending 6 trillion (which is much more than estimated) on reducing CO2 emissions?

@Dappledwater (#228) - Monckton stated "almost no change". There is no downward trend at all until 2001, and after that year its very small. You better wait until 2023 before you make such unfounded statements. - Pete De Jong.

From the authors of the website you referenced:

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/global.sea.ice.area.pdf

"Observed global sea ice area, deï¬ned here as a sum of N. Hemisphere and S.
Hemisphere sea ice areas, is near or slightly lower than those observed in late 1979, as
noted in the Daily Tech article. However, observed N. Hemisphere sea ice area is
almost one million sq. km below values seen in late 1979 and S. Hemisphere sea ice
area is about 0.5 million sq. km above that seen in late 1979, partly offsetting the N.
Hemisphere reduction"

"Global climate model projections suggest that the most signiï¬cant response of the
cryosphere to increasing atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations will be seen in
Northern Hemisphere summer sea ice extent. Recent decreases of N. Hemisphere
summer sea ice extent (green line at right) are consistent with such projections."

Yes, "Mocked-on" is simply playing loose with the facts. Increases in sea ice extent are not inconsistent with climate model predictions in the Antarctic, it was always anticipated it would warm more slowly than the Arctic principally because it is surrounded by a large ocean, whereas much land mass encircles the Arctic. A study on Antarctic sea ice here:

http://psc.apl.washington.edu/zhang/Pubs/Zhang_Antarctic_20-11-2515.pdf

"The reduced salt rejection and upper-ocean density and the enhanced thermohaline stratification tend to suppress convective overturning, leading to a decrease in the upward ocean heat transport and the ocean heat flux available to melt sea ice. The ice melting from ocean heat flux decreases faster than the ice growth does in the weakly stratified Southern Ocean, leading to an increase in the net ice production and hence an increase in ice mass. This mechanism is the main reason why the Antarctic sea ice has increased in spite of warming conditions both above and below during the period
1979â2004 and the extended period 1948â2004"

More relevant to the Antarctic situation though is the rapidly melting land ice.

@Marco (#233)
Sure, the IPCC is intergovernmental. But as anybody knows from similar organizations (like the WTO or the World Bank) policy recommendations can only be the result of the current political counterbalance. It would make no sense to recommend a policy that is completely different from the leading opinion.

This has nothing to do with science. Science is not a matter of majority votes at all. Keep in mind Galileo had to battle for his life against all of christian science. And Darwin or Wegener, even Einstein, had to battle against a majority view. Pse stick to the scientific facts and do keep away from the ad hominems.

A far as the defense against a high sea level is concerned: the Haakse Zeedijk around the Netherlands pays for itself (the developers made an extensive economic study on this, see their website; there is no reason why this cannot be the case elsewhere in the world), the planned large water deposits are specifically intended for storing the higher river water levels and, as I explained, they relief the increased pressure on the old land.

Also we only start building dikes when it is really necessary. The rate of sea level rise will easily permit that. This is completely contrairy to the investments weâd have to make to fight global warming by reducing CO2 emissions as this will cost us huge amounts of money without any guarantee the investment will have the desired effect and without the guarantee we do not need to spend the additional amount for building dikes etc. anyway.

Imho, as long as AGW is not 100% certain, and as long as the actual effect of the proposed CO2 reduction is not 100% certain, the morality issue stands.

@All
I have a question separate from the Monckton video. As you all may know Svensmark launched his âcloud chamberâ theory about the effect of magnetosphere induced cosmic rays on cloud production because his team found a clear correlation between solar magnetic activity and global temp (see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKoUwttE0BA ). Why was this research never addressed on this website, or have I overlooked something?

===
"As long as men are free to ask what they must; free to say what they think; free to think what they will; freedom can never be lost and science can never regress."
~ J. Robert Oppenheimer

"Dapplewater (#229) - What makes you think the maximum natural absorbtion capacity of CO2 was reached exactly at the time the Industrial Revolution started ? - Pete De Jong.

Simple, I don't. That is a strawman argument. The Earth's largest carbon sink, the oceans, are still absorbing CO2, albeit the rate is now shown to be decreasing (not good news):

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/11/091124140957.htm

Peter de Jong
You ask why no-one has addressed the hypothesis regarding the effects of cosmic rays on cloud production?
The answer is because it has nothing to do with climate change. It's just the flat earth society grasping at straws.
No-one - not even the people doing the original research - have found any significant correlation between cosmic rays and increases or decreases in cloud formation.
And are you really serious that your answer to rising sea-levels is to build seawalls everywhere? Really??!!??

@mandas (#237)
Lets talk serious. Donât you find it strange that politicians seriously claim to be able to control the temperature on earth using legislation and taxes by one tenth of a degree ? And donât you find it even more strange that many people seriously think these politicians can actually accomplish that ?

Iâm a civil engineer from Holland. As you may know for centuries the Dutch have been able to live way below sea level (current lowest land point is â21 feet) simply by building dikes and pumping excess water into the sea using wind power.

Modern civil engineering will easily allow protection against another 30 feet of sea level rise. As I explained to Marco these projects pay for themselves (solar, wind, wave and tidal power, biofuels from algea, fishs farms, land reclamation, fresh water depositories, new business and residential areas, new airports and harbors, etc). Can be done anywhere (give my company a call).

@mandas (#237)
Svensmark doesnât correlate? Look at the video and check his data yourself: http://www.dsri.dk/~hsv/

@Dappeldwater (#236)
That is not what I meant. Of course the normal carbon sinks will continue to work. I meant the coincidence of this absorbtion capacity to be at its maximum right at the start of the Industrial Revolution is highly unlikely. Mankind has been putting CO2 into the atmosphere at an accelerated rate for 1.5 million years. All that time the maximum absorbtion capacity was not reached, since there seems to be no increase in atmospheric CO2 untill the 1750s. Then suddenly it starts increasing ? Not very likely. Thatâs why the direct proof (not indirect such as treerings or sponges) of manmade atmospheric CO2 is so important. Did you find a graph of atmospheric isotope measurements?

@Dappledwater (#234)
What makes you think any reduction in sea ice, or land ice, is caused by global warming, now that recent research (see http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v462/n7273/abs/nature08520.html ) has shown that the ice cap on Mt Kilimanjaro is disappearing simply because it was formed in a very wet monsoon cycle at the end of the Young Drias (about 11,500 years ago) and the climate has been to dry to sustain this ice cap ever since ?

Same research shows we are now entering a much wetter monsoon cycle again. These extreme monsoon cycles correlate with the precession movement of the earth that gives a large variation in solar influx in the Eastern Africa region. 2004 US research showed Mt Kilimanjaro to be free of ice in the time before Young Drias. Nevertheless Gore used the ice cap on Mt Kilimanjaro as an AGW example in his 2006 movie. Why?

===
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
- Voltaire (1694-1778)

@Peter de Jong:
References to Galileo, Darwin and Wegener are the tip of the iceberg of scientists going against the mainstream. Of course, a very large number of those scientists were wrong in their 'attack' on mainstream science and scientists. What makes you think current-day climate science is so wrong, and that certain 'skeptics' are right? Do note in that respect that the many ideas coming from the 'skeptics' are regularly in direct contradiction with each other. Gerlich and Tscheuschner can't be reconciled with Miskolczi. Miskolczi can't be reconciled with Spencer. Spencer can't be reconciled with Easterbrook.

And just as a bit of a background:
Galileo's mistake was to portray the pope as a fool. That got him the wrath of the church, not so much his idea. Wegener was opposed in particular by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, interestingly enough also the one geology association that is most 'skeptical' about AGW. Geologists are also today still the most 'skeptical' of all the natural scienctists on AGW.
Darwin had surprisingly little opposition from scientists. Even a significant proportion of clergyman came to his support.

"Mankind has been putting CO2 into the atmosphere at an accelerated rate for 1.5 million years. All that time the maximum absorbtion capacity was not reached, since there seems to be no increase in atmospheric CO2 untill the 1750s. Then suddenly it starts increasing" - Pete De Jong.

1.5 million years?. Don't know where you get that figure from, seeing as Homo Sapiens had not even evolved at that point in time.

Anyways, the Industrial Revolution is when mankind starts putting enormous quantities of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, overwhelming the Earth's carbon sinks ability to absorb them all. With no where else to go, they remain in the atmosphere. Pretty simple to understand I would have thought.

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/slides/large/02.01.jpg

Note that atmospheric concentrations begin their significant climb in the 1800's - not immediately, as you are claiming.

Why is it that so many people are misrepresenting the nature paper on the Kilimanjaro glaciers? The paper does not say anywhere that it currently is too dry to maintain the glaciers. Au contraire, it claims we are currently in a relatively wet period!

Oh, and if you want to know why 'Svensmark' does not correlate (and why CO2 is so obviously involved in temperature changes), see this:
http://www.agu.org/meetings/fm09/lectures/lecture_videos/A23A.shtml
I'm not going to say where Svensmark is debunked, because I think you should see the whole presentation. Just under one hour of your time well spent. I will give a hint: we have had a very clear event in recent geological history where the amount of GCRs was enormous. The climate reacted to this huge influx of GCRs by...not changing.

Oh, and Coby: I think Richard Alley's lecture cannot be promoted enough. It explains to all true skeptics that dismissing the role of CO2 does not just cause a problem to explain current climate changes, it makes it nigh impossible to explain ANY of the major climate changes in the history of the earth.

"Did you find a graph of atmospheric isotope measurements?" - Pete De Jong.

Yup. Declining carbon isotope (13)

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/allison-csiro/graphics/spu_c13co2.jpg

And carbon (14)

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/graphics/cent-scgr.gif

@Dappledwater (#240)
1.5 million years, see #226B

You better prove the earthâs sinks were overwhelmed (calculations?). Apparently, they were not when we almost completely removed and burned Europeâs old-growth forests. Those first mine steam engines couldnât possibly have increased atmospheric CO2 much more. Also world population growth in the 1st millenium (!) was 55%, from 1800 to 1900 only 69 %, from 1900 to 2000 almost 268 %. World energy consumption (fossile fuels) only increased significantly after WWII (see http://openlearn.open.ac.uk/file.php/1697/t206b1c01f08.jpg ).

Why donât we return back to normal:
âFor 80% of time, planet Earth has been a warm wet greenhouse planet. Polar icecaps are rare, plants have only be on Earth for 10% of time and 99.99% of all life that has ever existed is extinct. Global atmospheric CO2 and CH4 have been variable over time and have decreased over time whereas O2 has been in the atmosphere for 50% of time, has greatly fluctuated and has increased over time.â
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/reprint/the_past_is_the_key_to_the_pr…

And if you donât want to, how about the saturated greenhouse effect theory:
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/co2_cannnot_cause.html

@Dappledwater (#242)
Thanks for the links. Thatâs rather convincing. Now pse read my reply to Marco:

@Marco (#239): âWhat makes you think current-day climate science is so wrong, and that certain 'skeptics' are right?â

As I said, science is not a matter of majority votes. For centuries it was mainstream science in the civilized world that the sun orbited the earth. This was not only âan established factâ, it was also highly convenient politically.

Exactly the same is happening today with the AGW theory. The climate is a chaotic system that, like any other chaotic system, cannot be predicted, let alone be controlled. It is one thing if we establish a) that mankind has put additional CO2 into the atmosphere that at least for a part stays there and that b) significantly heats up the earthâs air, water and land, dwarfing any temp change from other possible causes. It is another thing altogether to claim that if we now reduce our CO2 emissions by X percent yearly for the next Y years global temp will change +Z.z degrees. This is utter rubbish, we simply cannot know that. The climate is not a film you can rewind.

Nevertheless, that is what mainstream politics wants us to believe. It gives them an argument to impose new regulations and taxes, and social and economic changes they consider âgoodâ, on all of us. This imho is fundamentally wrong.

As I said before, the morality issue is very important. We cannot spend a dollar twice. If we were to spend those 100s of billions of dollars all towards the development of nuclear fusion, we might probably have a working fusion reactor in only a few years time. Then we would have cheap and abundant energy for centuries, and there would be no need to burn any more coal and oil. Others, i.e. Nasa may want to spend all the money on an early warning system and anti-astroid nuclear defense shield, or on building a moon base and terraforming the planet Mars, as to have an alternate place for us to live in case the earth is hit by a large astroid (chance is 2% per century).

If you are going to spend so much money you need to be damn sure of yourself, as you are going to affect the lives of millions profoundly. Against AGW I favor the dikes, because we only have to start building dikes when the sea level rises, not before. Spending funds on CO2 reduction, when the outcome is not 100% certain, can never be justified against all the lives of starving and diseased people in the world that can be saved today with a 100% certainty with that very same money. To advocate CO2 reduction is therefore imho highly immoral.

@All
I have to leave for the holidays now. Thank you very much for this interesting (and surprisingly polite) discussion!

===
"Most of the major ills of the world have been caused by well-meaning people who ignored the principle of individual freedom, except as applied to themselves, and who were obsessed with fanatical zeal to improve the lot of mankind-in-the-mass through some pet formula of their own."
- Henry Grady Weaver, author of a classic book on freedom, The Mainspring of Human Progress

There's a strong answer I rarely see to those who use the "my AGW skepticism is being repressed, just like Galileo, etc." line. Major scientific revolutions and advancement are generally one directional. One starts in a position of an old, unexamined belief like "the continents don't move" or "the sun goes around the earth", and then that belief is destroyed by observation and logical thinking. I can't think of an example where such a profound shift has been subsequently reversed. Sometimes the initial position is an unknown like "what the heck causes Aids", but again, once there's a strong *examined* consensus, it's almost certainly correct.

So, the situation with AGW was that there was an unexamined belief (say, before the 60s) that said "humans can't change the climate (and generally can only pollute local areas)" that belief has been destroyed by research and observation. That will not be reversed.

Nothing I've said above should be taken to imply I think all scientific advancement is purely linear. Obviously there can be considerable muddling about before a new consensus emerges, with dead-ends considered, etc. And after the new consensus, there is still refinement. But anyone with a scientific education can point out the history of major developments in their field - and those changes are one-way.

(As an aside, I wonder if that could be an empirical definition of what is a Science. E.g. psychology would fail that test; climatology would pass.)

References to Galileo, Darwin and Wegener are the tip of the iceberg of scientists going against the mainstream.

Well, let's see ... science as we know it today didn't exist in Galileo's time. Beyond that, Galileo was supporting Copernicus, and opposing the most powerful conservative force in the world during his day - the Church - which insisted we bury our collective heads in the sands and ignore observational data when it contradicts dogma. Not much different than today when science finds itself up against the most powerful suite of moneyed interests in the world today which insist we bury our collective heads in the sands and ignore observational data when it contradicts the dogma that says we can continue to pour CO2 into the atmosphere by burning coal, natural gas and oil and do no harm.

Darwin ... evolution was accepted as a fact by many who studied the natural world in Darwin's day. What Darwin (and Wallace) provided was a *mechanism* to explain the workings of evolution. This is key to understanding why the proposed mechanism was accepted so quickly by so many of his peers. The exhaustive documentation in support of his theory helped a lot, of course. Contrast that with the "warming's cause by galactic cosmic rays!" bunch who have zilch data and very little in the way of a described mechanism to support their view, which they insist we adopt while throwing out 150 year old physics regarding GHGs.

Wegener ... no one denied the remarkable puzzle-fitting shapes of the continents, and Wegener wasn't the first to point it out. Geologists rejected wegener's continental drift notions because the *mechanism* he proposed was unbelievable and, as it turns out *wrong*. When plate tectonics came along, backed with observational data and extensive documentation, this *mechanism* for "continental drift" led to a quick acceptance that indeed, the puzzle-fitting shapes of the continents weren't just due to chance and coincidence.

Note there were some similarities between Darwin and plate tectonics ... evolution was accepted as an idea by many that fit observations in the natural world, yet no believable *mechanism* had been proposed. However Lamarck's ideas were accepted by some.

Likewise the coincidence of the shape of the continents was well-known before plate tectonics, and like Lamarck, Wegener's ideas got serious consideration by some (particularly in Europe as I understand it). Plate tectonics confirmed the idea that continents move but thoroughly debunked Wegener's proposed mechanism. Darwin's work confirmed evolution but thoroughly debunked Lamarck's proposed mechanism that attempted to explain it.

For some reason Wegener is held up as an icon by AGW denialists ... but not Lamarck. I wonder why? Is it perhaps that they overestimate the value of Wegener's contribution?

Actually the paleontologist and evolutionary theorist Stephen Jay Gould did publish at least one essay in defense of Lamarck, sort of along the lines of "he wasn't as dense as people seem to think, today" ... even if Lamarck and Wegener were wrong about mechanisms, their strong feelings about the implications of observations proved to be right.

The above was well put, Dho.

Now back to my gin and bowl games . . .

Peter de Jong,
You really should read your sources a little better. This is from:
Kristjánsson, J. E., and J. Kristiansen (2000), Is there a cosmic ray signal in recent variations in global cloudiness and cloud radiative forcing?, J. Geophys. Res., 105(D9), 11,851â11,863

"Both globally and over midlatitude oceans only, we find a decrease in total cloud coverage between 1986 and 1990 of 2%, while between 1990 and 1993 there is a slightly smaller decrease. When the results are related to temporal variations in cosmic ray activity, we do not find support for a coupling between cosmic rays, total cloudiness, and radiative forcing of climate."

Should they say that again for you? "...we do not find support for a coupling between cosmic rays, total cloudiness, and radiative forcing of climate...". Could they make it any clearer? They also makes the point that a great deal more study would be required before you could draw any definitive conclusions about whether there is ANY cosmic ray influence on cloud formation. Being an engineer, you should understand the difference between correlation and causation, and there has been NO causative link established. So, lets just put that concept to the side shall we?

And with regard to your proposal re seawalls, your response suggests you actually haven't travelled to too many other parts of the world outside Europe. Come to my country (Australia) and tell me how you are proposing to build - did I read you correctly - a seawall sufficient to keep out a 10m rise in sea level. It might seem a reasonable concept in a country with a short coastline and a relatively dense population, but you might also investigate how you could do that in other countries with long coastlines and sparse populations (and large regions of flat or below sealevel elevation, just like Australia), not to mention the environmental degradation involved in flooding large areas of the country. You might also let us all know how you propose to build a seawall around offshore areas like the Great Barrier Reef, where even a small rise in sea level or sea temperature will decimate the corals, and destroy the economy and livelihood of millions of people, let alone the disasterous effects on the ecosystem.
So come on - do a little research and actually think about what you are suggesting.

On "climategate": Nothing could be less surprising to me than the fact that the hacking of e-mails produced ugly evidence of intolerance and attempts to suppress data and punish those who have dissenting views. This happens regularly in every branch of science. Its a quite disgusting actually, but science works in spite of it. We know incomparably more about every aspect of nature, astronomy, cosmology, physics, chemistry, biology and yes, climate than we did 50 years ago. It would be nice if it were done very civilly and reasonably , but it is not, it never is. Scientists are by nature fanatics and they are in competition with one another for funding and publication. In every field, I'll name one I am intimately familiar with, the theories of the working of muscles at the molecular level, there is a central basic paradigm that has been built up and is supported by the majority of the data. Do you think that perfectly intelligent scientists who happen believe that that muscles do not work according the mechanism you read about in all the textbooks get their papers published in Nature and Science? They do not, even if they are intelligent people who have data that is arguably valid. Science has always been vicious, all I can say is that it still works. Scientists on the opposite sides of the climate change questions generally feel about each other the same way wide receivers and cornerbacks on the Green Bay Packers and the Minnesota Vikings feel about each other, warm dislike accompanied by constant trash talking. Anybody who thinks that scientists are more reasonable and temperate than the average person has not been involved in science for any length of time. This goes for scientists on the opposite side of any question, let alone for those on the opposite sides of Climate change, which involves the very real possibility of ecological catastrophe. It would be incredibly niave to expect anything less than a war between these groups. Climategate opened a door on the usual social world of science, it proves nothing at all, the vast majority of the data still point in the same direction they did before the hacker did his hacking.

The fact that all nations sent representatives to Copenhagen and all nations agreed that climate change exists and is a threat both to humanity and the entire worldwide ecosystem, tells any sensible person that this is a real and deadly serious issue. When can you ever get all the nations of the world to agree on anything and agree to invest huge levels of money to combat it together? Who would believe that the Chinese, Russians, Americans, and French would invest huge resources jointly in a phony exercise? I really feel sorry for people who are so obtuse that they are able to persist in conspiracy theories and denial when this level of international agreement exists. They are wasting their time and they will be remembered when the shit really starts to hit the fan.

Thank you Adam. I am aware of those two addresses.

Climate Change is upon us now. The Highs that are now passing over Australia are SUMMER highs. The averaged Highs for our past Summer were 1016mb and the Lows were 1001.4mb. These values we should be experiencing here, now. Except, now we are experiencing Highs of 1028mb in June. This is a Summer High.

Green's, please check your atmosphere charts and ask. Why is it so? The G8 summit program is leading our Industries down a dead end alleyway with no escape. We must all look carefully at what and where our Australian nation is heading. I feel that we are heading for a financial and industrial collapse if this CO2 is accepted and passed by our present Government. Bring on more MP of the caliber of Fielding who has asked the question. Please, prove to me that CO2 has the capacity to change Climate Change? He has not been shown any proof.

I'm with you Mr T!
(sorry, that's the best I can do. haha!)
Thank God for true democracy and reason in Australian politics. (as best as one can hope for)
The ETS, which has been mentioned here before, was a pointless, purely political policy for our Prime Minister to present at the COP15 Summit. (ha! a lot of Ps in there!)
Even the Australian Greens were against it for God's sake!
I would like to think that the lack of an ETS was part of the reason the Copehenagen Summit failed.
I think the main reason it failed was because China, which is supposed to be a Communist Utopia, is actually a Communist Capitalistor-ship! (to coin a phrase)
As much as I hate the pollution of China's greed, it has saved us all from another pointless excercise, which is the failure of the Summit to achieve concensus on the whole Carbon Debt thing.
The speech by the Fijian girl was certainly emotional, but NOT based on any scientific fact.
Did anyone else see that?
Again, I ask, where are the sea levels rising?
Surely if the sea level was rising in Fiji, or the Maldives we would see a rise here in Australia, wouldn't we?

Michael, you appear to be willfully ignorant of sea level rise. Read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_sea_level_rise#Australian_Sea_Leve…

"The London Royal Society calculates net sea level rise in Australia at 1 mm/yr[22]âan important result for the Southern Hemisphere. The National Tidal Center also graphs 32 gauges, some since 1880, for the entire coastline[23]"

That is less than the worldwide average, which is interesting (and the reasons for regional differences are discussed in that Wikipedia article) but the main thing to realize is that Australia only has a few areas that are particularly at risk (the Murray Darling estuary being one). Small island nations, Bangladesh, Venice ... obviously those places will be hurting badly long before it's even noticable in most places. I live on the rocky shore of western North America, where several inches wouldn't make much difference, but it doesn't prevent me from realizing the hardship it will cause elsewhere.

But GFW, don't you see I'm using "sea level rise" as an example of the emotive images used by the AGW movement?
The video they showed at the opening of the Copenhagen Summit did not depict a rise of 1mm per year. It appears to be intended to frighten non-thinking people with the prospect of catastrophic floods.
The animation in Al Gore's movie shows the rapid inundation of all of the current coastal land on earth.
Do you see my point?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6D7BAJf5l-w
Have a look at this guy.
At the end he says the Chesapeake Bay has already had a rise of "a foot and a half."
In the context of what he is saying and how he's saying it, it certainly is alarming. (as is the whole video)
However, when I search the internet for articles on this topic, all I can find is fearful projections based on computer models.
Surely if what he says is true, there would be news reports, or at least scientific publications outlining what's occuring?
Here's some interesting reading. There's a bit about sea level rise at the end.
http://joannenova.com.au/global-warming/england-and-kininmonth-exchange…

To clarifify my position on this subject, (let's call it Credo)
I believe that sea levels can and do change constantly, as does the earth's climate.
I do not believe that CO2 released into the atmosphere by human activity is causing the warming and melting the ice caps or expanding the ocean waters.
I believe that at the rate of 1mm/year, (if any of the IPCC's predictions are to be trusted) all life on earth (including humans and their built environment) will adapt as it has done since the beginning of time.

The fact that all nations sent representatives to Copenhagen and all nations agreed that climate change exists and is a threat both to humanity and the entire worldwide ecosystem, tells any sensible person that this is a real and deadly serious issue.

"I do not believe that CO2 released into the atmosphere by human activity is causing the warming and melting the ice caps or expanding the ocean waters." - Michael

You may very well believe the Apollo moon landings were a hoax, and that oompaloompa's make all the consumer products you buy, but so what?. Actual research and measurements prove you are wrong.

http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/sl_hist_last_15.html

"I believe that at the rate of 1mm/year, (if any of the IPCC's predictions are to be trusted) all life on earth (including humans and their built environment) will adapt as it has done since the beginning of time." - Michael.

The sea level rise is already increasing at 3.3mm per year (see link above). You do realize don't you, that previous sustained changes in temperature have lead to extinction events, and that life wasn't around 14 billion years ago?.

Well Michael, you're wrong. Increased CO2 really does warm the planet. The best models, incorporating dozens of physical processes say the temperature is going up at least 2C, likely more if we don't cut emissions significantly and soon. The rate of sea level rise is increasing and is likely to be 4-5 feet total by 2100, and still rising at maybe 6 feet/century. That's a hell of a lot faster than 1mm/y.

So Gore shows maps of what the coastlines could look like in 400-500 years ... and morphs the map in a few seconds ... so what? The whole problem of climate change is that "fast" by any historical/geologic timescale is still very slow by human observation. You can't sit by the seashore and watch sea level rise. But that sort of sea level rise in the modern, heavily populated world will be catastrophic, so showing it in a dramatic manner is pretty much the only way to shake people out of complacency.

You can believe a fantasy, or you can believe science, and work towards the best possible future under the circumstances.

But GFW, how can you put so much faith in the computer models?
"they are supercomputers, run by superscientists. They must be right"
What about clouds?
What about the whole cloud/cosmic ray thingy?
http://www.dsri.dk/~hsv/9700001.pdf
It's certainly not new.
What about clouds in general?
http://joannenova.com.au/2009/12/clouds-dominate-everything/
(sigh)
I'm wasting electrons by posting these links, aren't I?
You won't even click on them will you?

Dappled Water, you posted the same link on the "we're just recovering" page. I have commented there.

But GFW, how can you put so much faith in the computer models?
"they are supercomputers, run by superscientists. They must be right"
What about clouds?
What about the whole cloud/cosmic ray thingy?

The physics of CO2 forcing, and the primary feedback (water vapor), are well understood (NASA recently announced that AIRS satellite observations show that water vapor feedbacks correspond closely to model feedbacks).

Meanwhile, the cloud/cosmic ray "thingy" is mere speculation.

I'll place my bets on laboratory and satellite observations on "thingy" speculation.

Sorry.

Why do *you* reject observation in favor of "thingy" speculation? Politics?

Dhogaza, First of all, I'd like to thank you for not being abusive.
The short answer to your question is yes! It's because of politics that I don't trust the information that comes from the IPCC.
Did you read the links I posted?
What do you think of the science in those links?
(I ask for a response sans abuse)
I was using the word "thingy" as a bit of a joke. Damn this typing! Sometimes you can't portray the tone of voice properly.
I still maintain though, that the models are only as good as the data put into them. That data, as far as I know, doesn't include all the forcings and feedbacks that exist in the earth's overall climate system.
Please correct me if I'm wrong.
(again, I ask for a response sans abuse)
I implore you to click on the links I have previously posted.

I still maintain though, that the models are only as good as the data put into them. That data, as far as I know, doesn't include all the forcings and feedbacks that exist in the earth's overall climate system.
Please correct me if I'm wrong.

They include all known forcing and feedbacks, so yes, you're wrong.

The science doesn't care about your politics or about the supposed politics of the IPCC. If you think the IPCC is politically biased keep in mind it's composed of the same countries that rejected action at Copenhagen. Any so-called bias would be in the direction of making it easier for said countries to sit on their ass rather than do anything.

The only countries that rejected action at COP15 from my reading were China and India. (This report also mentions Brazil and South Africa)

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/12/23/2779003.htm

As far as I can tell, all of the other industrialised countries, and especially all of the non-industrialised countries were voting in favour of a legally binding target.
Is this how you read it?
I simply do not agree that richer nations giving money to poorer nations will have any long-term effect on the wealth of those nations or on the climate of the earth.

As for the models, what do you think of this quote and link?
"The climate models rely on best guesses, assumptions and estimates. The models are incredibly accurate on dozens of points that donât really matter, but they stab in the dark at the one or two points that do."
http://joannenova.com.au/2009/12/clouds-dominate-everything/

From the New York Times:
[âFor the first time in history,â Mr. Obama said, âall major economies have come together to accept their responsibility to take action to confront the threat of climate change.â
The accord provides a system for monitoring and reporting progress toward those national pollution-reduction goals, a compromise on an issue over which China bargained hard. It calls for hundreds of billions of dollars to flow from wealthy nations to those countries most vulnerable to a changing climate. And it sets a goal of limiting the global temperature rise to 2 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels by 2050, implying deep cuts in climate-altering emissions over the next four decades.]

Although China may not be very eager to make binding agreements, they were full and active participants and fully accepted the premise that human greenhouse gases are the driving force behind global warming.

Now, one may have their doubts about the fairness of the scientific community of their own nation, one may suspect that they could go off lemming like in one direction, one can raise questions on academic political pressures, i.e., many of the American scientists work in the academic community, which has an obvious liberal bias, so could global warming be simply another face of political correctness? However, the same cannot be said for the international scientific community. Russia and China are scarcely tree-hugging nations, led by former hippys! These entirely hardnosed countries all accept that human greenhouse gas emissions must be radically cut in order to avert a catastrophe. They are also countries that respect science, unlike the situation in the USA where every half-educated nitwit thinks they are able to singlehandedly "debunk" the work of tens of thousands of educated people done over nearly a century, if they don't like the conclusions reached.

In fully democratic nations, leaders take a big political risk when they try to actually do something appropriate about human greenhouse gas emissions, because politics are very short term, voters care about their immediate issues, and democracies are quite poorly equipped to rise to the challenges of problems on a longer time scale. I did not expect anything better out of Copenhagen, Iâm even surprised that so much got done.

In my opinion, it will be another 10 to 15 years before humans begin to make the truly meaningful reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, if fact only when climate related crises become a fact of daily life will American voters support significant action. Obama was very brave in my opinion; I hope he will be rewarded, but..., well we will see. Heâs got my vote in any case.

Michael:

Before I go *any* further, I need to get clarifying or qualifying answers from you on a number of questions:

1. Do you believe that the Petition Project is evidence that there is scientific uncertainty that global warming is caused by human behavior, or proof that it is *not* caused by human behavior?

2. Do you reject the IPCC as a "source" on the ground that it is "political"? That it has been shown to be wrong on some specific thing and therefore has lost your trust? Both?

3.Are you actually claiming to have achieved "scientific knowledge" that human emissions are not causing global warming--and that among your sources for this knowledge is the lack of "weirdness" in the weather of your immediate environment?

I ask these because a number of your statements have, in my view, contradicted each other. Clarification here would greatly help.

Skip

Ian wrote:

[Russia and China] are also countries that respect science, unlike the situation in the USA where every half-educated nitwit thinks they are able to singlehandedly "debunk" the work of tens of thousands of educated people done over nearly a century, if they don't like the conclusions reached.

Be fair. The evidence from this forum suggests the Aussies have their share.

(Meant as a good-natured joke, Michael.)

Skip

Can somebody tell me where I can get the full GISS temperature dataset? All I see at the website is data one station at a time.

Oh, gosh, Murf not only insists on data being handed to him on a platter, but he wants to be able to *define* the platter.

Wow. I've never seen a SPAMmer copy such a large block of text before! Coby, comment #267 is a copy/paste of #90, with a SPAM URL attached to the name.

Hey did you notice the record low tempertures across the northern hemisphere. My prediction is that once this cooling data is included, Michael Manns hockey stick will resemble his d@ck without viagra,

Its posts like the above that wreak havoc with my belief in homo sapiens as an advanced species.

#268 - So you're saying he doesn't need viagra?. Of course, not every one is like you.

Notice for Skeptical Scientists and other Critical Thinkers.

Since the start of the scientific method blackout at CRU in 1986 there have been other cutbacks. Due to the shortage of trained pro-AGW realclimate.com rebuttalists, we have introduced a self-serve rebuttal system.

To use this new self-serve system simply go to the rebuttal site indicated below and cut and paste the rebuttal that most closely matches the topic of your informed statement into the next available comment window.

For a more immediate rebuttal paste it into the same window as your informed comment.

For a more scientific realclimate.com rebuttal you may choose to add the phrase 'Oh Yea!' at the begging and the phrase 'So There!!!!!!' at the end.

scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2008/07/how_to_talk_to_a_sceptic.php

Realclimate/CRU thanks you for you support during these trying times.

Thanks but I'm leery of doing that, Andrew.

Anyone with experience with this particular blog might find such a strategy dubiously "Crakaresque".

Skip

For a satirical look at the climategate programming (hiding the decline):

Anthropogenic Global Warming Virus Alert

www.thespoof.com/news/spoof.cfm?headline=s5i64103

Has anyone else noticed that both crakar and andrew use numerals at the end of their names? Coincidence? Or is it an important data correlation which reveals a trend?

I am back from holidays so hello to all, hope you all had a good xmas and new year.

I just wanted to clarify and respond to a personnal attack (did i miss anymore while i have been away?) by Mandas re: post 274.

Many years ago i needed a username for an email account so i decided to use "crakar" the "cra" is the first 3 letters of my name and the "kar" is the first 3 letters of my wife's name thus "crakar", unfortunately at the time "crakar" was not available neither was crakar1,2 or 3 but "crakar24" was.

The significance of the "24" is that i was born on the 24th, so when i started posting here i thought i would go with the "crakar" username. Unfortunately due to poor typing skills (hunt and peck method) combined with a genetic disposition to having fat fingers i originally typed in "crakar14" which i continued using until my self imposed exile. Upon my return i decided to revert back to the "crakar24" alphanumeric.

In regards to the conection between myself and Andrew30, there is none that i know of, i hope this clears a few things up for you Mandas.

ÐнÑеÑезно, но ÑÑо ÑÑо знаÑиÑ?

ÐбÑÑниÑе мне.

ÐÑо какой-Ñо Ñеклама или пÑоÑÑо ÑÑÑка?

ÐобÑем мне не нÑжни визиÑки.

пока ÑдаÑи вам

Ooops, my comment 276 was a reply to a previous 276, since removed. Without the first 276 my own reply makes no sense, so you may as well remove it too (and this one!)

Yup, just another scam to make their billions. By they I mean the world banks. Taxing people for 'exhaling' while big corporations can buy carbon credits and pollute all they want seems to me like a big ol' money grab. The science has been doctored, that much is proven and more evidence of that continues to come out. Not to mention the bigwigs pushing this agenda have private interests and stand to make an unbelievable amount of money..Al Gore for one. Stand up against the global warming swindle, reply to sites like this with your opinions, if your brain still works after decades of drinking flouridated water..lol.

H1N1 vaccine anyone? It's free and they say it's good for you!

J.

I'd also like to mention to Coby, you failed to add the response to the arguement of 'qui bono' or 'who stands to gain' in your list of comebacks...If you want to debate me on this, you have my email. Let me assure you and everyone if you research this you'll find that certain people will benefit a helluva lot more than others. I could post a bunch of links but I think anyone who wants to get their heads outta the sand should look it up for themselves, then tell your neighbors.

Peace,
J.

A little off topic but how in the hell did Nat the Rat win surviver samoa? are all the votes in America rigged?

That show is still on?

Well, Crak, I'll say this. I hope we're both alive in 30 years and maybe we can both be contestants on Global Warming Survivor--assuming there's enough people left on earth to vote one or both of us off.

Probably one of the most compelling global warming deniers I have ever seen and heard:

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/weather/02/02/groundhog.day/index.html?iref=…

skip

Why oh why did you post that link!! Now I have "I Got You Babe" stuck in my head!!!

This story ought to harden the resolve of any beleiver.

http://icecap.us/index.php

In short the NZ temps have been rising at a dramtic rate for the past 100 odd years but curiously the raw data has shown little if any rise. So after a FOI request to NIWA to find out what adjustments have been done NIWA now states they have NO RECORD of any adjustments.

No records? Where they lost or stolen, misplaced or do they simply not exist. Now lets not forget that the NZ Gov. have made many policy changes to stave off AGW based on these adjustments, adjustments that cannot be found.

So does this classify as a "mistake" just like the IPCC or is it gross incompetence? I will let you long term hardened beleivers be the judge.

crakar, why do you not ever check out your fairy tales before posting them on a science site (oooh I forgot you are a denier not a sceptic)?

Here are two links which show that what you posted is absolute nonsense (of course I knew that whenever I saw that you were linking to something from icecap).

http://hot-topic.co.nz/nz-temps-warming-real-record-robust-sceptics-wro…

http://www.niwa.co.nz/news-and-publications/news/all/nz-temperature-ris…

Dr Jim Salinger has identified from the NIWA climate archive a set of 11 stations with long records where there have been no significant site changes. When the annual temperatures from all of these sites are averaged to form a temperature series for New Zealand, the best-fit linear trend is a warming of 1°C from 1931 to 2008. We will be placing more information about this on the web later this week.

Once again Ian you either deliberately of unintentional avoid the issue at hand. I said quite clearly that following a FOI request NIWA have said that they do not have records as to why (ie justification) they made the adjustments.

http://business.scoop.co.nz/2010/02/01/niwa-unable-to-justify-official-…

So run along now Ian, there's a good boy and next time remember to keep quiet whilst the adults are talking.

crakar you are a nasty POS. You apologize or I will ask Coby to ban you for deliberately insulting me.

You know nothing about climate science but you insult all scientists and all you can do is tell lies.

You are a stinking piece of pond scum.

You must have a beard because I doubt if you can look at your self in the mirror, being the POS that you are.

crakar

Ummmm - no!

This so-called newspaper article that you linked to has to be up there with some of the most disengenuous crap ever. Just note this quote:

"...In December, NZCSC issued a formal request for the schedule of adjustments under the Official Information Act 1982, specifically seeking copies of âthe original worksheets and/or computer records used for the calculationsâ. On 29 January, NIWA responded that they no longer held any internal records, and merely referred to the scientific literature..."

So, just because the NIWA did not jump to the demands of the flat-earth society, the conclusion they draw is:

âThe only inference that can be drawn from this is that NIWA has casually altered its temperature series from time to time, without ever taking the trouble to maintain a continuous record. The result is that the official temperature record has been adjusted on unknown dates for unknown reasons, so that its probative value is little above that of guesswork. In such a case, the only appropriate action would be reversion to the raw data record, perhaps accompanied by a statement of any known issues,â said Terry Dunleavy, secretary of NZCSC...."

Oh really?? No other possible explanation??? The fact that:

"...For more than two years, New Zealand Climate Science Coalition members have known of the need to adjust the âseven stationâ data. They have had access to the raw data, the adjusted data (anomalies), information needed to identify the adjustments made by Dr Salinger, and information needed to develop their own adjustments...."

apparently is not good enough for the denialists. I happen to think a more likely explanation of the story is that the NIWA just got sick of being contacted by morons asking idiotic questions that they had previously answered, and told them to F-off!

So on the subject of little children - how are you crakar?

To Ian,

Hello pot this is kettle.

Ah yes that explains it, they had already got the info they wanted and either did not know it or were just bored and thought lets go and annoy that bloke from NIWA, so NIWA just repeatedly ignored them.

Of course we must include members of the NZ parliament (Hide) in this little conspiracy of yours because he to asked where is the info (obviously a denier pond sucking scumbag).

So in the end the info they requested does not exist according to NIWA. Do they mean it does not exist now but did some time in the past? It had to exist at some time in the past otherwise NZCSC would not have already had it right?

So if it did exist in the past why would you get rid of it now? Without it could you replicate the adjustments made, no of course not. It seems strange to me that you would get rid of this info dont you think Mandas?

crakar, you haven't a clue. Everything you add to this blog just shows how arrogant, selfish and ignorant of climate science you are.

Why do you hate science and scientists so much?

I only hate people like you who are dishonest and tell lies all the time. What is your excuse?

Hey Ian:

I know its tough at times but I would ask you to consider seeing Crakar in a more philosophical light. He's kind of our climate Lebowski ("Things are not f____d man!"). Yeah I don't think a lot of intellectual rigor underpins his attacks on AGW but he always has the jump on The Latest Dumb Argument in a manner I doubt I could match. He's almost like an unwitting double agent, and in fact Mandas has at times implied as much.

To quote from the movie: "I'm glad he's at there . . . the Dude . . . takin' her easy for all us sinners."

crakar

You are one of the greatest jokes ever to walk the face of the earth. You never do your reseach, you make unsubstantiated claims, and all you do is cut and paste information from the flat earth society websites. In post #290, you made this absolutely ludicrous comment:

"...Of course we must include members of the NZ parliament (Hide) in this little conspiracy of yours because he to asked where is the info (obviously a denier pond sucking scumbag)...."

If you had spent 2 minutes researching Mr Hide, you would have found out that he is the leader of the ACT NZ Party, who have adopted this position on climate change:

"...The Act Party's current position on climate change is that there is no warming trend in New Zealand. The ACT Party went into the 2008 general election with a policy that in part stated "New Zealand is not warming" and that their policy goal was to ensure "That no New Zealand government will ever impose needless and unjustified taxation or regulation on its citizens in a misguided attempt to reduce global warming or become a world leader in carbon neutrality". In September 2008, ACT Party Leader Rodney Hide stated "that the entire climate change - global warming hypothesis is a hoax, that the data and the hypothesis do not hold together, that Al Gore is a phoney and a fraud on this issue, and that the emissions trading scheme is a worldwide scam and swindle".

So yeah, I am going to say that he is, as you so eloquently put it. "a denier pond sucking scumbag."

What is the next tit-bit of stupidity from the planet crakar?

Crakar:
As someone living in NZ, I can advise you that NZCSC is not the most reliable or credible organisation to pin your skeptical hat upon. Rodney Hide is an outright denialist, who freely admits he thinks AGW is an actual scam. He has to be endured because as the coalition partner he holds the balance of power. Mr. Hides often emits more heat than light, though he is a fairly likable chap in his own right.
NIWA, and Dr. Jim Salinger in particular, have enormous credibility here in NZ, and internationally. I think you should reflect further on what Ian posted in #285 being:
"Dr Jim Salinger has identified from the NIWA climate archive a set of 11 stations with long records where there have been *no significant site changes* (my emphasis). When the annual temperatures from all of these sites are averaged to form a temperature series for New Zealand, the best-fit linear trend is a warming of 1°C from 1931 to 2008. We will be placing more information about this on the web later this week."
I'm not saying that NIWA not having the actual adjustment records is acceptable, and it does dent their pride somewhat, but I would be amazed if there is anything nefarious in their dealings.

Ian F: I agree with Skip that you should view Crakar as a very good resource for posting the latest view of the contrarian. I for one like Crakar's posts because of the debate that they promote. I also think you guys resorting to insults (POS, etc) is unnecessary. Skip and Mandas are particularly good at letting the facts speak for themselves, though insults sometimes fly here also, which again I think is unnecessary. Crakar is good at coming back with useful Devil's Advocate-type arguments.

I say the above as someone who is skeptical in the true scientific sense of the word. Keep the facts coming; that's what we all need more of.

Regards,

SBN
You are in trouble from skip now. Because we are Australian, he occasionally drops sheep-fucking jokes to crakar (I have been spared so far), but now that he knows you are from NZ............

Mandas,
Oh no! My secret shame . . . exposed . . .

By the by, as mostly a 'lurker', I appreciate the prolific nature of your postings on this site. I learn a lot from them. Again, if it wasn't for that naughty contrarian Crakar, you probably wouldn't have to be so thorough and I wouldn't be so consistently well informed on the latest arguments from both sides. Keep up the good work.

Regards,

Good on ya SBN this story still had a few more miles to run now i have to come up with something else and i am not prepared.

By the way Mandas i think you will find the tradition of sheep shagging has its roots (pardon the pun) in NZ.

Hey SBN:

Baaaaaaaaa.

#298
Flossie?!?

Just to close out my input on this, I don't think it is good enough that "NIWA . . . no longer holds the records that would support its in-house manipulation of official temperature readings". Again, I don't think there is anything suspicious in what's gone on here, but these organisations have to understand the level of scrutiny they are under now, and will be under forever more, as the political stakes get ever higher, and the more the debate rages. They must improve their management of key data. I imagine someone in NIWA got their bottom smacked for this stuff-up. And rightly so. But for NZCSC to allege this mistake is tantamount to invalidating the overall temperature record is stretching things somewhat.

Regards,

skip et al

I think for too long we have been adopting the wrong strategy here. The normal modu operandi is for members of the flat earth society like crakar to come along and cut and paste the latest nonsensical dogma, that we then spend time and effort discreditting. In other words, we are being completely responsive and are allowing them to set the agenda. They think they win if we either are unable to discredit their latest version of denialist spin, or if we just get sick of answering and ignore them.

I think the time has come to take the attack to them. Instead of just responding, I think we should start actively highlighting the disengenuous crap and outright lies being perpetuated by these people, and demand that people like crakar start to justify why they support demonstrable liars.

In this vain, here is a newspaper article which shows just how low the denialists are, and to what levels they will stoop to try and confuse the issue. To paraphrase the "skeptical", this article proves the denialists are all liars, and shows just how strong the climate change case is.

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/leakegate.php

In this vain

In this vein, though truly, I think it's in vain :)

(I'm not *really* being a spelling nazi here, just want to state my opinion!)

Mandas,
I think thatâs all well and good, but since peripheras and obfuscation are often found in âdenialistâ communications, you might be setting yourself up here. All you might get back is something along the lines of: âOf course I would never condone supporting someone who is found out to be lying, but the details in that case are unclear as yet, and thatâs not such an important talking point anyway, so Iâm not going to discuss it further. Now, the IPCC and that railroad engineer have been found recently to have told multiple porkies, and donât get me started on CRU. So are you going to stop supporting these people because of the lies they have told? Or do you excuse lying when itâs done on your own side?â etc, etc.

Iâm not saying donât try it, but in a blog format not all contributors will have good intentions, or be willing to see othersâ points of view, irrespective of fact or logic.

Personally, I think the way Crakar (and others) raise points that you then rebuff is proving fruitful to the true facts emerging. And donât forget, *occasionally* a nugget of contrarian credibility emerges, such as legitimate discussion on sensitivity to feedback, economic impact of emissions reduction, etc.

The current format where you feel you are fire-fighting denialist propaganda may be frustrating and time consuming, but I canât see them letting you keep the high moral ground for long, unless you guys are to maintain a vigil on this site 24/7.

Regards,

dhogoza / SBN

Apart from the 'vain' vs 'vein' (of course you aren't being a pedant - and I won't claim it was a fraudian slip!!), you are absolutely correct. I was just being a bit provocative and acting like crakar in an attempt to show how disengenuous the whole denialist strategy is. And to be frank, I think I would end up punching my computer screen if I spent all day trawling (and trolling) through denialist websites and newspaper articles to read their latest delusional crap.

And I must admit crakar et al has been good for me. It's forced me to do a bit of additional reading that I would not otherwise have done, and it has raised some questions in my mind as well as answered many others. I know a lot more about the subject than I did previously - and that has helped me in my work as well.

Speaking of work, today will be my last posting for a week or so. I am off to do some real work with real animals, not the political type that I have to deal with on most days in the office. I hope you don't miss me too much.

I am off to do some real work with real animals,

Baaaaaa?

You knew it was just matter of time, Mandas.

Close - not sheep but goats! It must have been from my time living in Alabama (I spend a year there doing a Masters). But that's another story.

Goats?

But that's another story.

In Alabama? I'm sure it is . . .

Oh, well . . . for a second I was worried.

PS:

BBBLLEEEAAAATTTTTT !!!!!

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_sound_does_the_goat_make

All this talk of sheep reminds me of a joke that i might share later, anyway to Mandas i think that the problem here is that there are certain subjects that are considered taboo (one of which i thought was banging sheep, apparently not) anyway for example someone mentioned pre and post industrial warming rates a little while ago and i responded to what they said as an invitation to explore the suject more and of course by extention anyone else. Alas no one could be bothered.

Second, i have continually asked for empirical evidence of WV +ve feed back, not from a computer model i got two responses one of which was from you (credit to you) but both were simple model outputs and the subject was dropped rather hurriedly.

Third, i just posted an article about the sun and of course i got the usual "that guys and idiot" defence.

So out of i suppose frustration at the lack of willingness by some to debate the issues that i see as important i found it easy to go after soft targets like the romance novelist. I will admit my tactics were intended to get a response and maybe that was not a nice thing to do but you must understand the responses i get from posts are not much better. If it will make anyone feel better i will apologies for my tactics but as i said i just give as good as i get.

So Mandas if you want you can embark on the course you have suggested i will go along just for a laugh, however i suggest we all try and get back to some sense of normality and i invite anyone to suggest a topic that they wish to discuss eg correlation between CO2 and temps since 1900 etc.

All of this reminds me of the farmer giving the local bank manager a guided tour of his property, when they were walking in the top paddock (field) they came across a sheep that had its head stuck in the fence. The farmer not one to let an oppurtnity go by dropped his strides and went to work.

When he was finished he turned to the banker and said "now its your turn" the banker replied rather sheepishly "normally i would jump at such an offer but i dont like the feeling of fencing wire rubbing on the back of my neck".

I would also like to apologise for that joke.

I have just finished a long and boring brief, however the presenter started with a quote from a Thomas Henry Huxley. So i googled him and found a list of his quotes, so here are some and remember this is just for fun so dont anyone (Ian) get too upset.

"I am too much of a sceptic to deny the possibility of anything... but I don't see my way to your conclusion."

"If a little knowledge is dangerous, where is the man who has so much as to be out of danger?"

"The improver of natural knowledge absolutely refuses to acknowledge authority, as such. For him, scepticism is the highest of duties; blind faith the one unpardonable sin."

"The man of science has learned to believe in justification, not by faith, but by verification."

This is the one from the brief as the topic was verification

"Not far from the invention of fire... we must rank the invention of doubt."

Here is the link

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Thomas_Henry_Huxley

Apparently mental illness was a family trait, and yes Dhogaza he has been added to the list :-)))

When will this end, and once again the romance novelists fingerprints are all over it.

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comme…

Thank you skip, Ian, dhogaza, crakar24, Vernon, adam, and anyone else who as been engaged in active dialogue in this comments section for months and months. Too often I end up reading comments to articles that contain 99% hit and run posts with no debate. What a little gem this page is. I rarely get involved because it takes time and won't help me with my thesis, but I think I would like to. Is there somewhere on the internet that links scientists directly to skeptics for genuine open dialogue? It seems that most of the people fighting the public battle in real time (i.e.- in comment sections) are not climate scientists. Perhaps in years to come climate scientists will spend more time focusing on the PR side of climate change, but I doubt it. Many thanks to those of you who are patient and willing (again, on both sides) to continuously talk to those with different views.

I know this post was totally off topic, but from now on I'll try to actually respond to those with semi-valid counter AGW arguments.

cheers!

-Andrew
M.S. student - Atmospheric Sciences (ask me about my research!)

"Is there somewhere on the internet that links scientists directly to skeptics for genuine open dialogue?" - Andrew

Try Real Climate. A website run by working Climatologists. Of late it has been afflicted with an infestation of denier dodo's.

Hi Andrew (tell us about your research).

The premier site by climatologists is RealClimate, but you probably already know that. Of my other regular haunts, I'm not 100% sure which are by actual publishing climatologists vs other scientists and science-educated people with an interest in the subject. John Cook (www.SkepticalScience.com), Tamino (tamino.wordpress.com and Eli Rabett (rabett.blogspot.com) all have very good discussions of the science.

However, genuine open dialogue is a little tricky. Honest debate amongst people truly qualified to interpret the science happens, but almost none of those people are what you'd really call skeptics. More often the skeptics are lay-people, some of whom come to sites like RealClimate and SkepticalScience to learn, and some of whom are convinced they have nothing to learn. The former can be quite confused, but often wind up getting the main ideas. The latter just tend to repeat long-debunked talking points, or pop in to say "Hah, there's a mistake on page 972 of the IPCC WG2 - soon your entire edifice will crumble!" It's rather tiresome. The real working climatologists tend to have less patience for that sort of thing than the science-educated non-climatologists like me. I guess they've just been dealing with that stuff for far longer.

Greetings from San Francisco, Andrew. I, an AGW believer, drove the battleship Missouri out here for the weekend (see my post on Action on Global Warming is Suicide for the whole sordid tale.)

Ok, tell us about your research . . .

@Andrew:
A bit low on update frequency, but Chris Colose's "Climate change" could also be of interest to you:
http://chriscolose.wordpress.com/

Looks like I'll be heading over to Real Climate. Thanks for the suggestion.

"The latter just tend to repeat long-debunked talking points . . . It's rather tiresome. The real working climatologists tend to have less patience for that sort of thing than the science-educated non-climatologists like me."

There is truth in this and I think it's unfortunate. It's quite altruistic of those outside the field to frequently dig up scientific journals, post links, and write 1000 word explanations on behalf of climate scientists. It's a good thing too, because if it weren't for said altruists, the debunker media might convince enough people to negatively impact our fear dependent careers and eco-socialist agendas ;-). Lately I've been feeling some obligation [inspiration?] to contribute my modest knowledge of the atmosphere to the public debate. I'm not a real working climatologist yet, which is probably why I still have some fight in me.

Skip, I started to post on the 'Action is suicide' thread, but realized I don't know anything about economics. I'll stick to the scientific debate (IPCC WG1 ftw! - ha ha). I don't really have anything to contribute in the way of 'solutions.' I'm interested in working groups 2 and 3, but I've barely brushed the surface.

Sorry for the tangent. I just noticed there hadn't been any posts for like a week so it seemed like a good time to interject.

Just to contribute a bit:

Crakar, you seem to be suspicious of the water vapor feedback. Model output really isn't necessary since we can understand this effect without computers. Have you ever noticed how moist nights are a bit warmer than dry nights (compare desert nights to places with more moisture)? This is because the water vapor is trapping the long wave radiation before it can escape to space- as greenhouse gasses do. The feedback part comes in with the pre-condition that the Earth is warming. As the temperature of the Earth increases, the saturation vapor pressure of air increases exponentially. An increase in saturation vapor pressure means that the air can hold more water vapor. This is sort of mandated by the Clausius-Clapeyron equation (not a controversial equation). To me this seems straight forward, is there something I have not accounted for? Whether or not this makes more clouds and causes a negative cloud feedback is not a discussion on water vapor, it's a discussion of how well climate models parameterize convection (CP schemes).

If you want to cast doubt on that, then you may also be wanting to cast doubt on our quantification of the second indirect effect of aerosols, which may very well be negative. I would suggest you don't go down this road though, since probabilities/uncertainty of magnitudes is not on your side.

-Andrew

Hello Andrew,

In answer to your question, yes i am suspicious of the WV feedback. To be precise is the feed back +ve or -ve and what magnitude is the feed back?

You claim that we do not need a model to answer these questions the simple analogy of desert and tropical night time temps seems to have convinced you or do you have empirical evidence that proves your point?

If you do then please share it with us as it would be a first.

Cheers

Crakar. I don't really have time to dig up data for you, especially since this aspect is not really that controversial. To say that water vapor could be a negative feedback you would have to argue that either 1) water vapor is not a greenhouse gas, or 2) that saturation vapor pressure does not increase with increasing temperature. No offense, but either argument would be ludicrous.

As for the magnitude, it's rather simple to calculate how much H2O vapor will increase as a function of temperature. From D. Hartmann's "Global Physical Climatology" equation 9.9 (I won't get into the derivation here, but it's basically just from the CC relationship):

dq'/q' = des/es = (L/RvT) * dT/T

Plugging in numbers gives about a 20% increase in water vapor for a 1% increase in temperature (~3 K). [Notice the direct and NOT inverse relationship ;-) ]

From here, we can go on to calculate the sensitivity of the radiation equilibrium due solely to water vapor. I'm not going to do this, but it can be done without going anywhere near a computer. What we find is that including water vapor makes the climate system more sensitive (which also means a longer response time to reach equilibrium!).

If I were a skeptic, I would not focus on whether or not WV feedback is positive or negative, or even the magnitude of the feedback. I would cast doubt on the indirect effects caused by the increase of water vapor that have to be resolved by different CP schemes in different models (i.e.- cloud feedbacks). The reason a lot of skeptics don't do this is because CP schemes are really hard to understand (which is why they're hard to model!). Even still, the probability/uncertainty that our handling of these processes is so incorrect that we should just throw out the results is against you. Incidentally, my research is meant to help improve moisture flux calculations through inclusion of diabatic (small scale) processes in models.

Yes, the response to water vapor increase on other processes is something we need models to help us understand. And yes, we sure could use a bit more confidence in what our models tell us. Luckily, that is a major goal of AR5. This means that this argument will likely be diminished in coming years, so if I were you I wouldn't waste a lot of time trying to argue the basic formulas presently. If you still have questions about water vapor feedback I'll be happy to try to help, but I really think you could make more promising objections.

thanks for your response!

-Andrew

Just as a disclaimer, I'm not trying to confuse you with that equation. You don't need to understand every variable, just notice that it's not inverse.

-Andrew

Crakar, the mention of cold desert nights is not an "analogy". It's an example of the actual effect of water vapor on outbound longwave radiation. There's a reason infrared astronomers often use the South Pole base. It's because the air there is drier than anywhere else on earth (except even more inaccessible spots in East Antarctica).

The absorbtion spectrum of H2O can be measured in a lab. Humidity can be measured in the field, and those two put together can make a prediction of nighttime cooling rate (and/or infrared telescope image quality). Those predictions are verified in the field (and form one important basis of the forecast overnight low your local weatherman delivers each day).

In answer to your question, yes i am suspicious of the WV feedback. To be precise is the feed back +ve or -ve and what magnitude is the feed back?

Detailed observations by the AIRS sensor on the AQUA satellite match well with model predictions of the water vapor feedback.

GFW,

After having lived in both Alice Springs and Darwin i think i understand the concept quite well but thankyou for your explanation.

Andrew post 317,

"I would cast doubt on the indirect effects caused by the increase of water vapor that have to be resolved by different CP schemes in different models (i.e.- cloud feedbacks)."

I agree what are the effects of clouds etc, that is the whole point. If you consider that CO2 has increased by 40% whilst the temps have not risen as per IPCC predictions then what has caused this? Is it a negative feed back at work or simply weather. I would put it to you that they are the same thing but others here will disagree.

So you get the water vapor feedback? I just want to make sure learned something and that you're not just changing the subject. ;-)

My first guess about why the temps haven't risen (I assume you mean in very recent years) as much as the ipcc predicted would probably have something to do with the 11 year solar cycle. Are you familiar with this?

I'll get back to you with other reasons, but that's probably a decent start. Would you please be be more specific about time frame though?

thanks!

There are many time frames but alas which ever you pick is considered cherry picking. In the above post i was refering to the last ten or so years however.

Yes Andrew i am familiar with the solar cycle, i am also familiar with the statement "TSI changes are very very small therefore TSI changes have little effect in climate".

Now i do not agree with this very limited blinkered view of the sun and its effects on climate but others swear by it. Do you have something more to add in this regard?

There is an article in the current edition of "American Thinker" where someone attempts to disprove AGW on the basis of science - which is as it should be! It makes interesting reading.

The article (here: http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/the_agw_smoking_gun.html )
provides a bit of background about the 'greenhouse theory', all of which is relatively straight forward, and the author - Gary Thompson - decides a basis on which to proceed is to essentially examine the energy budget of the Earth. His thesis - and it is a good one - is that if increased CO2 is absorbing more energy, and hence heating up the system - then there should be an observed decrease in the energy loss from the system. This would show up as decreased Long Wave Emissions (OLR) escaping into space.

This is fundamentally sound science, and a good thesis. If the author's hypothesis is true, and there is no net increase in the amount of retained energy, then the Earth could not be heating up. Conversely, if there is an increase in retained energy (as evidenced by reduced emitted energy), then the Earth must necessarily heat up.

Luckily, there have been a number of studies which have examined exactly this phenomenon, in 1970, 1997, and 2006. So Thompson had a look at the studies and the graphical representation of the OLR emissions, and concluded that THERE HAD BEEN NO CHANGE, and hence there could not possible be an increase in temperature as there had been no change in the energy budget. Great stuff! AGW is dead.

Unfortunately, Thompson took the same tack which is an unfortunate habit of so many in the denialist community. He didn't actually read the studies. It appears he simply eye-balled the graphs and decided they were identical. If he had actually taken time to read the papers, he would have discovered something completely different. Far from disproving AGW, the studies showed conclusively that the Earth is now retaining more OLR than it was in 1970. In other words, it is indisputable that the Earth's ecosystem must be warming due to an increase in energy retention.

One of the studies even concluded:

"...Here we analyse the difference between the spectra of the outgoing longwave radiation of the Earth as measured by orbiting spacecraft in 1970 and 1997. We find differences in the spectra that point to long-term changes in atmospheric CH4, CO2 and O3 as well as CFC-11 and CFC-12. Our results provide direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect that is consistent with concerns over radiative forcing of climate..."
(from: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n6826/abs/410355a0.html )

So, apart from providing a pretty conclusive nail in the coffin for the denialist community, this should provide an object lesson for us all. Do your research!

So to conclude the previous post, some denialists here continually demand that we produce the evidence for AGW, and they always ask for one paper etc. Although people like skip respond by asking what evidence the denialist would find compelling, we never get a straight answer.

So all you denialists out there. What more evidence could you possibly want than this? There has been an increase in the amount of energy retained within the global system over the past 36 years. This means - unequivocably - that the system MUST be heating up. Or do you want to deny this as well? (study links below)

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n6826/abs/410355a0.html

http://www.eumetsat.int/Home/Main/Publications/Conference_and_Workshop_…

SBN
You are in trouble from skip now. Because we are Australian, he occasionally drops sheep-fucking jokes to crakar (I have been spared so far), but now that he knows you are from NZ............

Miskolczi's new Green house law.
This was posted as an argument against Green house warming.
Specifically, Tyndall's work
+ the isotopic fingerprints of C12/C13 and the heating differential between the stratosphere and troposphere..
I don't understand the maths or do I particularly want to.

The logic seem flawed to me he seems to be making too many assumptions on open ended variables. I would like to know in comparatively simple terms what is his logic and how valid is this this law (?)

Rod

"....I don't understand the maths or do I particularly want to....The logic seem flawed to me..."

So, you don't understand it; you don't want to understand it; but you think it's wrong. Huh?????

Mandas, you appear to have misread Rod Murray's comment. He's not referring to the Greenhouse Effect, but to a nonsensical version by Miskolczi, whereby increasing greenhouse gases somehow cause concentrations of water vapor to decrease in the atmosphere.

BPL is a frequent contributor to the comments section at Real Climate. He has an item on Miskolczi. Not exactly light on math though:

http://bartonpaullevenson.com/Miskolczi.html

Rod, it's the continuing problem deniosaurs like Miskolczi & Dick Lindzen have when they suggest a low climate sensitivity, they basically preclude ice age and hothouse periods in the Earth's past. Without even considering all the other errors and flaws in their work, that to me is a major obstacle.

DW

Thanks for clarifying that. My apologies to Rod for my misunderstanding.

Could not find the right spot to put this so here will do.

It is interesting reading.

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/c_expos…

crakar

So, let me get this straight. I provide you with a link to a 2006 paper showing ice loss in the Antarctic - it wasn't just an abstract, you need to open the whole paper and read it - and you counter with AN OPINION PIECE from a denialist website which contains links to studies from 1999-2002.

Shall we ask the whole world - which should we place the most reliability on?

As far as your post #332 goes, are you truly serious? In the scheme of stupid, moronic, neo-con, political crap, this is up there with the worst of them. The whole paper is simply laughable, and exposes the authors as jokes who are simply oppopsed to science. This is a MINORITY report written by the Republican members of the committee, which contains such well known luminaries as James Inhofe; denialist, creationist, homophobe, supporter of torture and all round dickhead. The report contains such brilliant lines as this one:

"...we believe the emails and accompanying documents seriously compromise the IPCC-backed âconsensusâ and its central conclusion that anthropogenic emissions are inexorably leading to environmental catastrophes..."

In other words, they are saying that a few emails call into question thousand and thousands of science papers and millions and millions of datasets and years and years of painstaking research.

Quite frankly, this sort of attitude is disgusting, and anyone who takes in seriously is a fucking moron.

So please crakar, start taking this discussion seriously and stop posting crap.

Settle petal,

Firstly i posted it so people could read it and no more.

Secondly i think your response is way over the top.

crakar

Rather than being over the top, I toned my comments down considerably from what I wanted to say.
Those people are liars - pure and simple. The fact that they, and people like Stephen Fielding, are in positions of power and influence, is scary.

"positions of power and influence..."

RH - Roger Harrabin BBC environmental correspondent. Long time sympathetic to the AGW hypothesis.

PJ - Professor Phil Jones: co-inventor of the modern climate change hypothesis, principal archivist of global temperature records, co-author of the IPCCâs AR4, Nobel laureate, and former CRU director, is the most authoritative source imaginable.

An Interview.

RH - Do you agree that according to the global temperature record used by the IPCC, the rates of global warming from 1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-1998 were identical?

PJ - As for the two periods 1910-40 and 1975-1998 the warming rates are not statistically significantly different (see numbers below).

I have also included the trend over the period 1975 to 2009, which has a very similar trend to the period 1975-1998.

So, in answer to the question, the warming rates for all 4 periods are similar and not statistically significantly different from each other.

RH - Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

PJ - Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level.

RH - If you agree that there were similar periods of warming since 1850 to the current period, and that the MWP is under debate, what factors convince you that recent warming has been largely man-made?

PJ - The fact that we can't explain the warming from the 1950s by solar and volcanic forcing.

RH - When scientists say "the debate on climate change is over", what exactly do they mean - and what don't they mean?

PJ = It would be supposition on my behalf to know whether all scientists who say the debate is over are saying that for the same reason. I don't believe the vast majority of climate scientists think this. This is not my view. There is still much that needs to be undertaken to reduce uncertainties, not just for the future, but for the instrumental (and especially the palaeoclimatic) past as well.

Professor Jones received written notice of the questions. His responses were pre-vetted by his lawyers and by the University of East Anglia media office.

Unlike his emails - "The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. OK it has but it is only 7 years of data and it isnât statistically significant."

"PS Iâm getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station temperature data. Donât any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act !"

"If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think Iâll delete the file rather than send to anyone."

Nothing quite like having such confidence in your well paid work and its findings that you are willing to share it with everyone.

There is more.

Scary enough for you?

Henry

Scary in what way?

Henry,

Sorry about my last post - I have figured out what was scary in your post #336. It was the way that denialists like yourself quote-mine, take statements out of context, ommit information that doesn't agree with your prejudices, fail to understand basic scientific or mathematical principles, and flat out lie about important issues.

If you wish to discuss the Phil Jones interview, how about you use his ENTIRE response to the question, rather than just the quote-mined segment which you think supports your view. Let's just take a couple shall we:

Question: "Do you agree that according to the global temperature record used by the IPCC, the rates of global warming from 1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-1998 were identical?"

You said the answer was this:

"As for the two periods 1910-40 and 1975-1998 the warming rates are not statistically significantly different (see numbers below). I have also included the trend over the period 1975 to 2009, which has a very similar trend to the period 1975-1998. So, in answer to the question, the warming rates for all 4 periods are similar and not statistically significantly different from each other."

What Jones REALLY said was this:

"An initial point to make is that in the responses to these questions I've assumed that when you talk about the global temperature record, you mean the record that combines the estimates from land regions with those from the marine regions of the world. CRU produces the land component, with the Met Office Hadley Centre producing the marine component. Temperature data for the period 1860-1880 are more uncertain, because of sparser coverage, than for later periods in the 20th Century. The 1860-1880 period is also only 21 years in length. As for the two periods 1910-40 and 1975-1998 the warming rates are not statistically significantly different (see numbers below). I have also included the trend over the period 1975 to 2009, which has a very similar trend to the period 1975-1998. So, in answer to the question, the warming rates for all 4 periods are similar and not statistically significantly different from each other. Here are the trends and significances for each period:
Period Length Trend
(Degrees C per decade) Significance
1860-1880 21 0.163 Yes
1910-1940 31 0.15 Yes
1975-1998 24 0.166 Yes
1975-2009 35 0.161 Yes

Question. "Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming?"

Your quote-mined answer: "Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level."

But you left out this bit:

"The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods."

(I have to ask you here - do you understand what significance means?)

You could also have added in a couple of other questions and answers like this:

Question: "Would it be reasonable looking at the same scientific evidence to take the view that recent warming is not predominantly manmade?"

Answer: "No"

Question: "Do you agree that natural influences could have contributed significantly to the global warming observed from 1975-1998, and, if so, please could you specify each natural influence and express its radiative forcing over the period in Watts per square metre?"

Answer: "This area is slightly outside my area of expertise. When considering changes over this period we need to consider all possible factors (so human and natural influences as well as natural internal variability of the climate system). Natural influences (from volcanoes and the Sun) over this period could have contributed to the change over this period. Volcanic influences from the two large eruptions (El Chichon in 1982 and Pinatubo in 1991) would exert a negative influence. Solar influence was about flat over this period. Combining only these two natural influences, therefore, we might have expected some cooling over this period."

Question: "How confident are you that warming has taken place and that humans are mainly responsible?"

Answer: "I'm 100% confident that the climate has warmed. As to the second question, I would go along with IPCC Chapter 9 - there's evidence that most of the warming since the 1950s is due to human activity."

So, just in case I have done you a partial disservice by suggesting you quote-mined, when all you really are is a lazy denialist who cuts and pastes his opinions from www.imamoronicdenialist.com, here is a link to the transcript to the whole inteview. Go away and read it.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8511670.stm

Thanks, Mandas.

I owe you one.

This oft-tortured and mis-cited PJ interview is becoming a real peeve for me.

I have to ask if you know what "Yes" means.

It was refreshing to have him answer direct questions - even if he did qualify his answers with the usual weaselling. Nice work if you can get it.

I provided this page a service. The interview was not represented at all here.

I love you guys.

You, on the other and, will really love the way the world stays a little bit warmer than the anomaly for the next 3 or 4 years.

Enjoy your unfalsifiable hypotheses, insults, gloating, ad-homs and superiority complexes while you can. It gets cold later and we and, more importantly, the Chinese will still be putting out CO2 as we deliver hospital care to your elderly, what passes nowadays for education to your children and the plastic containers of fossil-based- fertilizer assisted, microwaved junk you must be feeding yourselves at your church of choice.

I may return around then (2015) to laugh about the times we had and the anecdotes we shared as we discussed the utter lack of science in climatology.

Re: #340
Wow. I can't wait for Mandas's response to this outpouring of crap . . . Better take cover, Henry; I'm predicting you are going to get both barrels of an intellectually rigorous verbal assault that will knock you right into 2015!
Stage is all yours M.

"I may return around then (2015) to laugh about the times we had and the anecdotes we shared as we discussed the utter lack of science in climatology." - H. Galt.

Before Mandas rips you a new ringpiece Henry, how about you acquaint yourself with the science and start your education here:

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/

I have spent 4 years studying this steaming pile and one thing I have learned is not to let your enemy define your position.

The effort expended by true believers is commensurate with the lack of evidence supporting the fantasy. Only equalled by the studious ignoring of anything causing dissonance and the vilification of anyone holding differing views.

e.g.

http://esto.nasa.gov/conferences/estc-2002/Papers/B4P2%28Mlynczak%29.pdf

viz. Fig 1

The authors-
âThis figure clearly illustrates that far-infrared emission by water vapor is responsible for cooling the atmosphere from the surface to around 200 mb. The bulk of the free troposphere cools radiatively in the far-IR portion of the spectrum.â

Me (in no danger of losing my funding)-
Per Fig 1, it seems there is little radiative cooling between wavenumbers (^-cm) 600 to 700. There is no cooling (by radiation) in the troposphere that can be attributed to anything other than water vapour because water vapour is the only thing that radiates in the troposphere.

I would also point my gnarly finger the strongest cooling seen at ~300 mB in Fig 1. Water vapour rises. If it avoids condensation or nucleation it reaches ~700mB, @0C, and continues, as supercooled water vapour, to ~300mB, @-40C. At which point, due to crystal homogeneous nucleation, it undergoes spontaneous crystallization and releases the latent energy of fusion and the latent enrgy of condensation. Both at the same time. This event, taken with the shift of the peak of the Planck function, is why the cooling signal is so strong there.

Trace gases absorb IR, they just donât radiate any of it in the troposphere. deltaT has risen a tad in the last century but CO2 had nothing to do with it. Having no answer for a particular question is no excuse for laying the blame on an unrelated variable.

Having read *Atlas Shrugged*, I could not help but ask the (paraphrased) refrain:

*Who is Henry Galt?", and found this Randian blog via google:

http://blog.mises.org/6985/who-is-henry-galt/

Jesus, HG, please get over yourself. You're not going to stop the motor that runs the world, and if the lights of New York ever do go out it will be because we never bothered to invest in renewable alternatives and the coal runs out. Brother.

âThis is [Henry] Galt speaking. I'm the man who's taken away your [website] and thus destroyed your world [view]â.

HG:

You seemed quite pleased with yourself when chastising us for

. . . the studious ignoring of anything causing dissonance and the vilification of anyone holding differing views.

You then linked to an article describing a NASA *research project* designed to gather data to explore the role of water vaporâs cooling effects in the troposphere. Its not even a research article! And nowhere do Mlynczak et al question the fundamental hypothesis of global warming, and in fact point out that they are researching the phenomenon of interest precisely because

Water vapor is also a principal factor [sic] the Earth's
greenhouse effect . . . Spectral measurements, with
complete spectral coverage of the infrared to 100 ïm,
will enable a comprehensive assessment of the
Earth's greenhouse effect including forcings and
feedbacks.

But you already know better, donât you, HG?

Trace gases absorb IR, they just donât radiate any of it in the troposphere.

I cannot believe you mean this statement in the sense that I understand it, as it implies a rank violation of a fundamental principle of physics. If the absorbed IR energy is not emitted from excited trophospheric trace gas particles in all directions, then where, for the love of God, does it go?

Youâre drawing an insensible *conclusion* about *trace gases* from a description of a *research project* to explore the cooling effects of *water vapor*.

I'm trying to think how you could have concentrated more errors into one post without making a point of it.

Henry Galt, bafflegab won't work here - as Skip has demonstrated.

If you're prepared to learn, here's that link again: http://www.aip.org/history/climate/

Report back when you have something sensible to say.

Henry said:
"I have spent 4 years studying this steaming pile and one thing I have learned is not to let your enemy define your position."

Shocking that that never made it into the Summary for Policy Makers, isn't it? But I'm so glad that despite that, you can cut so quickly to the core of the scientific issues!

skip/DW

Sorry guys. I missed HG's earlier nonsense and your vote of confidence in my ability to respond. I took the weekend off to go fishing and diving.

But it would appear in any case that the inimitable HG has driven off into the distance, never to be seen again. We can only hope.

No Mand.

He's sure to strike like a panther any day now--like Howard Roark in his closing speech in *The Fountainhead*.

A follow up to post 333,

Mandas please have a read of this and let me know what you think.

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/climate…

I am up to page 43, interesting stuff.

crakar

Only just got your post and I have had a VERY quick and dirty glance at it. I promise I will read and provide a more considered opinion.

But from my initial reading it appears to be VERY biased, and is the work of a a few very disreputable and discredited people. Nonetheless, I will look at the content rather than who wrote it, and give you my thoughts later.

Cheers

You might remember this link came up on the Hockeystick open thread back in January. It was the fixation of one âMBâ âone of the most obnoxious, intellectually dishonest persons ever to post on this forum. I repeatedly asked him to identify the âthree emailsâ from Costellaâs commentary that constituted the worst of the worstâthe most damning.

He consistently refused, trying to dodge the issue by saying *I* should provide my own alternative commentary to all the emails after reading all of them. Among the low-lights of the exchange:

Why don't you provide an alternative commentary to all of the emails highlighted by Costella.--MB

To which I responded,

I have an alternative for you, MB: Go over all of Coby's linked topic points and give me an alternative explanation for all them.

See the point?

Playing dumb, MB responded

Sorry mate, I really don't see your point.

Have you read the Costella link?

Itâs a classic denier tactic: The Sisyphean Goose Chase: âSomewhere in this 60k-word document is proof that everything I say is correct. Unless you disprove all of it, Iâm right.â

If you read through Costelloâs first five pages you immediately see the work of a delusional conspiracy theorist seeing âproofâ of corruption in emails that simply describe the normal relationship scientists have with their data and their research.

Crakar, I fear it is impossible for you to see past this because of your deeply held narrative construction of the world, and I think I am in a fairly peaceful place where I can simply accept that about you and use your contribution to this forum constructively, but I will pose the same question to you that I posed to MB back in January:

What are the three *most* damning emails identified by Costella?

"I have to ask if you know what "Yes" means."

So you're approaching this in absolutes. So....if I ask you "have you stopped beating your wife yet?" what is your answer going to be, given that you don't allow for qualifying answers? The questions asked of Phil Jones were essentially the climate science version of the "beating your wife" question - they could not be honestly answered without a fuller explanation other than just "yes" or "no", but it's only the "yes" or "no" the denialists are picking up and running with, leaving the rest of his explanation by the wayside.

So what's your answer to my question?

I agree with you very much. But may I suggest you use a spell checker? Skeptic, with a k, not Sceptic. I don't want the points you're making to be seen as less valid because of a silly typo. Thank you!

Skip,

You asked "What are the three *most* damning emails identified by Costella?"

I suspect you have not read the PDF in its entirety, to simply select 3 emails would not do it the justice it deserves.

The attempts at manipulation of the peer review process span over many emails and one must read them in entirety before any judgments can be made.

It can also be said the attempts to restrict access to the very data their scientific research is based on also spans over many emails.

It would be ludicrous to expect to be directed to only three emails as you have requested.

Hi jacqueline,

Actually, "sceptic" is an accepted spelling, being the Canadian spelling (aka British spelling). Thanks for you concern! : )

..and.... bingo!

Right on cue Crakar proves perfectly the point Skip was making. He takes the EXACT route taken by the distiguished MB before him and totally avoids (Plimer Vs Monbiot-style) the actual question asked of him. And doesn't even realise he's just made Skip's point that much clearer. It's priceless.

Crakar, you've sure got your hyperbolator on high. How on earth can it be considered "ludicrous to expect to be directed" to a few emails of prize relevance, to a point YOU, nonetheless, are trying to make! Could it be because you actually haven't read them either and are just up to you old cut'n'paste antics? Hmmmmmm....

Crakar

As promised, I said I would review your post (#350). And despite skip mentioning that it had been posted before and discussed, and despite being absent for a while with work, I have still gone ahead and objectively reviewed the paper at the link you provided.

Note that I say I reviewed it objectively. It would be very easy for me to look at who wrote it, and decide that the author had a clear agenda and is writing for an organization which â not to put too fine a point on it â has serious political and evangelical prejudices. However, I have put all of that to one side and concentrated solely on the content of the paper.

To that end, I have reviewed it as if I were reviewing a paper that had been provided to me as part of a university assessment, or as part of my normal work activities. In doing so, I have asked several key questions. Firstly, what is the authorâs thesis? Is it plausible and sustainable? Is the language and discussion used objective and rational, or has the author shown his bias by prejudging the outcome? Does the evidence and data quoted actually support the thesis? Has the author considered alternative hypotheses, in order to either show that the alternatives are not viable, and that his own thesis is the more likely explanation? Is the conclusion supported by the argument?

On this basis, letâs have a look at the paper.

Firstly, the thesis is very poorly defined. In the absence of any specific guidance, I have assumed that this quote on page 4/5 is the thesis:

ââ¦It is right for scientists to worry about whether that massive and almost instantaneous âkickâ to the planet may throw the equilibrium of the biota into complete chaos. It is a valid question, of ultimate global importanceâone that most people would have thought would have demanded the most careful, exacting, and rigorous scientific analyses that mankind could muster.
Climategate has shattered that myth. It gives us a peephole into the work of the scientists investigating possibly the most important issue ever to face mankind. Instead of seeing large collaborations of meticulous, careful, critical scientists, we instead see a small team of incompetent cowboys, abusing almost every aspect of the framework of science to build a fortress around their âold boysâ clubâ, to prevent real scientists from seeing the shambles of their âresearchâ....â

In other words, the authorâs thesis is that the science of climate change is fundamentally flawed, because a few emails by âa small team of incompetent cowboysâ has demonstrated that the whole thing is a conspiracy, and that real scientists have been prevented from discovering the truth because of an âold boys clubâ which has prevented the truth from coming out. In essence, a few emails have proven that the work of thousands of scientists, and thousands of peer reviewed papers which had nothing to do with the âincompetent cowboysâ at CRU, must be discarded.

Whilst this thesis is simply too implausible for words, I continued with my analysis.

The author then showed his bias towards the âprotagonistsâ in the saga, especially Michael Mann and Phil Jones, with this quote:
âCAST OF COLORFUL CHARACTERS
⢠MIKE MANN: lead conspirator in the United States.
⢠PHIL JONES: lead conspirator in the United Kingdom.
⢠TOM WIGLEY: older conspirator who becomes increasingly worried about the unfolding scandal.
⢠KEITH BRIFFA: older conspirator whose blunders lead the others to all but abandon him.
⢠BEN SANTER: dangerously arrogant and naive young conspirator in the United States.
⢠OTHER CONSPIRATORS: of varying degrees of complicity and integrity.
⢠SKEPTICS: and other unrelated parties.â

What is especially interesting about this is that the âguiltâ of Mann et al has been assumed, even before any evidence is presented. This is even more problematical, given that the author used the analogy up front of comparing the scientific method with that of the judicial process. The last time I checked, one of the fundamental tenets of our system of justice is innocent before proven guilty. Itâs a pity the author didnât elect to follow his own advice.

The author then provides a series of quotes from a number of emails. Without being too specific, I would have thought that the use of emails as evidence would require two things. Firstly, the context in which the emails were sent. Secondly, the entire email, and not just a small quote from the email which the author believes proves his point. Intellectual rigour and honesty requires that the entire email be used â which is definitely not the case here.

However, one particular quoted piece of correspondence stood out for me above all others, from page 11/12 of the paper:

âYour approach of trying to gain scientific credibility for your personal views by asking people to endorse your letter is reprehensible. No scientist who wishes to maintain respect in the community should ever endorse any statement unless they have examined the issue fully themselves. You are asking people to prostitute themselves by doing just this! I fear that some will endorse your letter, in the mistaken belief that you are making a balanced and knowledgeable assessment of the scienceâwhen, in fact, you are presenting a flawed view that neither accords with the IPCC nor with the bulk of the scientific and economic literature on the subject.â

The authorâs comments on this is: âI couldnât express it any better myself.â

This is an especially hypocritical statement, coming from the same people who fraudulently presented a petition to 30,000 scientists opposing climate change, with a covering letter and paper that was so badly written and full of scientific dishonesty that a high school student could drive the proverbial truck through it.

In each and every case, the author offers his explanation for what the email means, without any consideration for alternative possibilities. In essence, the author is putting his words and his spin on proceedings. Someone else could see an entirely different explanation, and it is essential that the author makes some attempt to show why the alternatives are wrong. He has not done so, which suggests that he can only see things from his point of view, and is blind to all other possibilities. This is a major weakness of the paper.

Finally, there is no conclusion to speak of in the paper. It simply tails off after the last piece of evidence, with this statement:

â Free to push environmental interests without ongoing critique? Thank you, Climategate whistle-blower, for saving us from such a fate.â

This is a fairly disingenuous, throwaway line, which has no meaning at all.

So in summary, this is a badly written, biased, hypocritical piece of work that fails a completely objective test of its veracity. If it came from a first year science student, I would give a grade of fail and tell him to rewrite it.

I have done nothing magical or mysterious in my analysis; I have simply used the same tools and questions that anyone should use when examining an essay which is espousing a particular point of view. The great shame is that gullible people will simply accept the work without question, because it appears to agree with their predetermined world view, and they wonât apply even the simplest of credibility tests. Anyone with any intelligence and/or science training should conduct a similar analysis on papers like this. How about you start doing it crakar?

Oh, Crakar.

As I've said before: I have made my peace with your role on this forum. However, I just *have* to ask, when you do *exactly* the things that people predict you'll do, and *exactly* the same tactics that have been identified as your predecessors have done . . . I mean, don't you ever turn off the PC and say, "Hmm. Just maybe these folks have my number?"

I suspect you have not read the PDF in its entirety,

I first need a reason to.

to simply select 3 emails would not do it the justice it deserves.

Complete cop out: "My document is so devastating to your case that I can't even cite any of it."

The attempts at manipulation of the peer review process span over many emails and one must read . . . in entirety before any judgments can be made.

And guess what: There exists, encoded in the text of the first English translation of *War and Peace*, using a numerological algorithm that I refuse to identify . . .

The Great Skip Proof.

The Great Skip Proof proves Skip right on All Things.

Can you disprove the existence of The Great Skip Proof?

Ha! You know you can't! You have never read *War and Peace* in its entirety *or* attempted to find the mystical mathematical key!

It would be ludicrous to expect to be directed to only three emails as you have requested.

As it is ludicrous for you, mortal, to attempt to speak above your station with any blasphemous request for a subset of The Great Skip Proof. You must find and read The Great Skip Proof in its entirety to fully appreciate its gravitas.

Crakar, I doubt you even grasp the analogy, but you need to take a stand on something. You can't just say, "In this source lies my proof that you're wrong. But you have to read the *whole* thing to see how right I am. I will give you no clues."

Costella's essay is 150 pages, Crakar. Thats a small dissertation in length. And yet you insist that we all need to read every page, flying blind, with nothing but your intuitive belief that it proves something valuable to guide us. I'm passing.

Matthew,

Thanks for the nondescript, meaningless post. Skip already has enough lap dogs dancing around his feet we dont need anymore.

Mandas,

You begin you analysis quite well and i applaud your efforts in attempting to do so.

Unfortunately you quickly fall back onto your preconcieved ideas and lambast the author for his previous work. This is NOT looking at what he has written objectively even though you clearly stated this as your intention.

Mandas did you read Wigleys email or did you simply focus on the authors following quote? The email is a scathing criticism of the actions of his co workers in their attempts to force their personal views of science onto others. You can see this by reading the previous emails (which shows Skips "show me 3 emails" approach to be inadequate)

Your prejudice here shines through for all to see, you ignore the blatant scientific abuse being talked about and Wigleys response and focus soley on a breif statement by the author.

He is another interesting email that you failed to mention, it can be read on page 124 i will reproduce it here. To get a full understanding of the mind set of Ben Santer you need to go all the way back to page 113. Read what he has to say and the efforts he goes to to to keep his data from public scrutiny. In the end he was forced to make his data public, the following is an email from Geoff Smith:

January 30, 2009: email 1233326033
Geoff Smith writes to Ben Santer:
Dear Dr. Santer,
Iâm pleased to see that the requested data is now available on line. Thank you for your efforts to make these materials available.
My âdog in this fightâ is good science and replicability. I note the following references:
The American Physical Society on line statement reads (in part):
âThe success and credibility of science are anchored in the willingness of scientists to:
1. Expose their ideas and results to independent testing and replication by others. This requires the open exchange of data, procedures and materials.
2. Abandon or modify previously accepted conclusions when confronted with more complete or reliable experimental or observational evidence.â
Also I note the National Academy of Sciences booklet âOn Being a Scientist: Responsible Conduct in Researchâ (2nd edition) states âAfter publication, scientists expect that data and other research materials will be shared with qualified colleagues upon request. Indeed, a number of federal agencies, journals, and professional societies have established policies requiring the sharing of research materials. Sometimes these materials are too voluminous, unwieldy, or costly to share freely and quickly. But in those fields in which sharing is possible, a scientist who is unwilling to share research materials with qualified colleagues runs the risk of not being trusted or respected. In a profession where so much depends on interpersonal interactions, the professional isolation that can follow a loss of trust can damage a scientistâs work.â I know that the 3rd edition is expected soon, but I cannot imagine this position will be weakened. Indeed, with electronic storage of data increasing dramatically, I expect that most of the exceptions are likely to be dropped.
I understand that science is considered by some to be a âblood sportâ and that there are serious rivalries and disputes. Nevertheless, the principles above are vital to the continuation of good science, wherever the results may lead.
Again, I thank you for making the data available, and I wish you success in your future research.
Kind regards,
Geoff Smith

The authors following quote "I couldnât express it better myself."

These emails show a complete and utter disregard for the scientific process as shown by Goeff Smith above (or is he an idiot aswell?) they also show a concerted effort to manipulate the peer review process. You avoid the obvious by calling the author an idiot and ignoring the content, Skip gets away with it by calling for THREE emails, this way he hopes to debate the relevance of 3 emails in isolation in a vain attempt to discredit them.

Skip,

There is an old saying "you can lead a horticulture but you cant make her think".

I cannot force you to read something that you are afraid of reading i can only present it to you. I can fully understand why you are afraid to read it as it may well shatter that fragile religious dogma that you cling to.

As usual more abusive rubbish from Crakar. Must be a living he!! in your house if that is the way you always treat people.

Some of his utter rubbish (actually rubbish and material which he does not understand from Geoff Smith):

1. Expose their ideas and results to independent testing and replication by others. This requires the open exchange of data, procedures and materials.

Why is it rubbish. The actual quote from the APS is quite right. However, deniers such as crakar and Geoff Smith twist that to mean that results should be shared with anyone. The "others" referred to are "other scientists" not dishonest creatures such as McIntyre and Watts. The original quote also implies an "open exchange of data, procedures and materials". When have the coven of deniers ever willingly exchanged anything but lies, distortions and slander?

Crakar, grow up, people are getting fed up with your childish behaviour and lack of decency and honesty.

Further to my post above (#363) here is a quote from Professor Myles Allen, a leading climate scientist at Oxford University:

free exchange of data with fellow scientists was a fundamental requirement of academic research. But he added: "There was an assumption within the climate science community that we could use our professional judgment to distinguish between professional scientists and activists or members of the public."

"The big implication in all this for science is that the [FOI Act] is taking away our liberty to use our own judgment to decide who we spend time responding to. And that has a cost," he said.

These quotes are in response to the UK parliamentary Science and Technology committee report entitled "The Disclosure of Climate Data from the Climatic Research Centre at the University of East Anglia".

More info can be found here:

http://bigcitylib.blogspot.com/2010/03/uk-climategate-parliamentary-inq…

http://preview.tinyurl.com/ye5q6xj

Nice to see that I am on the same page as leading climate scientists :-)

I liked this comment from Professor Myles Allen, a leading climate scientist at Oxford University on the report:

free exchange of data with fellow scientists was a fundamental requirement of academic research. But he added: "There was an assumption within the climate science community that we could use our professional judgment to distinguish between professional scientists and activists or members of the public."

"The big implication in all this for science is that the [FOI Act] is taking away our liberty to use our own judgment to decide who we spend time responding to. And that has a cost," he said.

The FOI acts should be amended so that only people having a valid reason and expert knowledge should be able to send in requests for unpublished data. That would stop all the frivolous requests from cranks, deniers and people who are only interested in shredding valuable research information.

http://preview.tinyurl.com/ye5q6xj

Ian,

So now not only are M&M idiots but so is Smith, how far does you conspiracy theory run Ian? How many people have conspired to thwart the AGW march?

You are no different than Mann, he actively orchestrated a black balling campaign against an institution for publishing a study that did not totally agree with his work AND HE HAD NOT EVEN READ THE STUDY AT THE TIME.

So no Ian, G. Smith is not talking rubbish, infact it is quite simple. If you produce a study which claims X then you must make available the data which your claims are based on otherwise your claims are unsubstantiated.

Regardless of what you think Ian this is how it is supposed to work. Or are you saying that someone can produce a study which claims X and that is the end of it? The hypohesis that this scientist projects through his study of X cannot and never will be challenged because no one but he has access to the data.

You live in a fantasy world, you are one of many poeple both here and elsewhere that claim to be scientists but seem to lack the basic understanding of what science is all about.

On a personnal note Ian i have continually resisted the urge to call you for what you are but still you persist with demeaning and derogatory comments and now you make claims to what it is like living with me. Enough is enough Ian, my opinion of you is that you are as dumb as bat shit, the only posts you make a full of demeaning comments so i suggest you simply shut up and dont respond to me anymore.

I get a more fullfilling conversation from my 12 year old daughter than i could ever possibly get from you.

But this is an improvement, Crakar! And you have my appreciation for this.

*Now* you are listing *specific* emails that we can discuss.

Bravo!

I asked for three but two is a great start.

But first a question:

Of the two you've listed, would you please again summarize what you think they prove? This is crucial as a preface to any further exchange.

crakar you should seek professional medical help.

You are a dishonest arrogant person who knows nothing about science or scientists but continually slander and defame them.

You should be put in a straight jacket so you cannot access a computer. You spread filth and rubbish with every post.

[snipped - too personal, let's leave family out of it]

Ian:

You have my respect and at times I genuinely profit from your posts but that is just out of line.

Please intervene, Coby and talk to our erstwhile ally here.

Ian: Whatever your frustrations *nothing* justifies what you just posted. Nothing.

Thanks, Coby.

Ian, lets keep this merely uncivil, not heinous.

i did not get to see what Ian wrote, judging by the response i can hazard a guess it was rather vulgar.

Ian i suggest you not bother to ever respond to my posts again and of course i will ignore yours.

crakar said:

i did not get to see what Ian wrote, judging by the response i can hazard a guess it was rather vulgar.

No it was not vulgar but did mention your daughter which should be off topic for you as well as me.

Get a life and start with some honesty in your posts.

Skip, since you are not a scientist you do not get the personal insults that crakar keeps posting on science and scientists. We scientists have had enough of the slanderous rubbish put out by the likes of crakar and his cabal of heinous slime balls. We now call things as we see them and if some people are offended it is nothing like the offense that scientists feel when they and their work have been attacked for so long. These people like crakar are not just not against climate science but all of science because it is going against their political, religious and business agenda. No, not all deniers fall into all of three categories but a lot are in all three.

Adding to Ian's earlier post.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/03/31/climate.change/index.html?hp…

The conspiracy is obviously growing.

crakar (and all you deniers out there)

I will await the entirely predicatable cries of 'Cover up', and 'Conspiracy', and 'Lies' etc, but with regard to the hacked email saga, the UK Parliamentary Report into the Disclosure of emails has been released, and is available here:

http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/phil%20jones%…

Here are two of the three conclusions, which are relevant to this discussion:

Conclusion 1 The focus on Professor Jones and CRU has been largely misplaced. On the accusations relating to Professor Jonesâs refusal to share raw data and computer codes, we consider that his actions were in line with common practice in the climate science community. We have suggested that the community consider becoming more transparent by publishing raw data and detailed methodologies. On accusations relating to Freedom of Information, we consider that much of the responsibility should lie with UEA, not CRU.

Conclusion 2 In addition, insofar as we have been able to consider accusations of dishonestyâfor example, Professor Jonesâs alleged attempt to âhide the declineââwe consider that there is no case to answer. Within our limited inquiry and the evidence we took, the scientific reputation of Professor Jones and CRU remains intact. We have found no reason in this unfortunate episode to challenge the scientific consensus as expressed by Professor Beddington, that âglobal warming is happening [and] that it is induced by human activityâ.184 It was not our purpose to examine, nor did we seek evidence on, the science produced by CRU. It will be for the Scientific Appraisal Panel to look in detail into all the evidence to determine whether or not the consensus view remains valid.

Of course, you will say the findings are flawed, because you know much more than the parliamentary inquiry, who sat through weeks of testimony and pages and pages of evidence, including the complete list of emails themselves. Your views are much more valid, because you read about it on a denialist website.

Can we move on now?

Ian,

Apart from being as dumb as bat shit you also claim to be a scientist can you please share with us what field of science you specialise in.

I suspect you specilise in foot in mouth desease.

Well i'll be a monkeys uncle. Can anyone explain this? well except for Mandas because he has got the shits up with me and Watts.

What about you Dr Forrester?

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/31/arctic-sea-ice-about-to-hit-norma…

crakar

Instead of just ignoring my previous post and making your own post re a link from imafuckingmoron.com, how about YOU comment on the parliamentary findings on the email 'scandal'.

Crakar:

Another of my famous yes-or-no queries:

Did you read your own link to WUWT in its entirety?

It was actually remarkably honest in its reporting of the findings and the commenting scientists' take on the data--the trick is to read the whole article to understand the implications--or lack thereof--of the March ice extent.

Crakar--its just the whole here's-an-exception-to-the-predicted-long-term-trend cherry pick.

But again I ask: Did you read your own link completely?

And look, I stepped in on your behalf when Ian made a jerk comment so try to stay civil.

crakar said:

Can anyone explain this?

crakar, if you did any actual reading of real science the answer would be obvious. It is thus patently obvious that you haven't read any real science in your life, merely cutting and pasting denier rubbish (as an aside, do you actually find these rubbishy bits to cut and paste or are you on a mailing list that tells you what to cut and past and where to send it?).

Half the answer is actually in wattsuphisbutt's post, winds are moving the ice around. The other half, which you could easily find for yourself in real science articles is that the volume of ice has fallen dramatically, much faster than extent. Thus most of the ice is very thin first year ice which is much more readily broken up and spread around by the wind thus making the apparent extent much larger.

Bigger that Climategate?

Wow.

This is huge.

If Hanson really is admitting that he doctored data at Goddard, I might have to switch my position on global warming. Here's the link:

Wouldn't it be hilarious if Crakar had it right all along?

http://cantinygamboa.com/Alumnos/Latifa%20y%20Ramona/april-fool.jpg

I used to think that arctic sea ice extent (decline) was a very important factor because (I thought) it was a precursor to significant Greenland mass loss.

Now, it turns out that Greenland mass loss is measured, and is growing (roughly quadratically in time). 10 years ago it was basically zero, now it's 300 Gigatons/year.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/An-overview-of-Greenland-ice-trends.html

Losing the sea ice would be bad for many arctic species, but it's mass loss from Greenland (and Antarctica) that will eventually swamp our coastal cities.

from Ian,
"The FOI acts should be amended so that only people having a valid reason and expert knowledge should be able to send in requests for unpublished data. That would stop all the frivolous requests from cranks, deniers and people who are only interested in shredding valuable research information."
-----------------------------------------
Sure, who needs dissent from stopping their steam roller?
Ah, Ian, if we only lived in a perfect world, controlled by the anointed few, things would be so much simpler.
Like, say, China, where the nuclear and coal fired power plants and melamine run free!
Yes, yes, I can hardly wait for a better time . . .

If only we lived in a world where dishonest, greedy, arrogant and stupid people like you deniers didn't exist it would be a wonderful place to live.

What is your motivation to destroy such an idyllic place.
You deniers are truly despicable.

"If only we lived in a world where dishonest, greedy, arrogant and stupid people like you deniers . . ."

Where does one start with this?
I am at a loss . . .

PaulinMi said:

Where does one start with this?

Here is how deniers can overcome their DKS symptoms, and their lack of intellectual ability regarding AGW.

Get a scientific education, go to the local library and read some elementary texts on science, chemistry, physics, atmospheric science etc. It is not too hard is it? This will give a you enough of a background to realize that what the majority of the denier leaders are espousing is junk science.

I always find it comical to find that deniers have the "magic" ability to only select junk science reports and somehow manage to stay well away from honest scientific discussion.

There is not much that can be done this late in life with their dishonesty, greed and arrogance but they can at least become better informed.

Why don't you take the lead and show that it is not too hard to eventually understand the science behind AGW? It is not really that hard, if one is being honest.

It should be pointed out that such a self-education project is a significant undertaking. It may be less effort (because it's focused) than a 4 year degree, but it isn't a couple of weekends either. (And doing it solo is difficult compared to a student environment where you can ask questions of the Prof, T.A.s or fellow students.

Hey, idea for a new TV show: "The Biggest Learner" in which eight scientifically illiterate average Americans are subject to an intensive set of classes punctuated by weekly pop-quizzes... The fact that such a show is impossible while Biggest Loser is successful, explains a lot.

Paul wants to portray Ian as some sort of anti-democratic elitist. But here's the thing, a democracy dependent on science that is beyond the understanding of the vast majority depends on an academic/social contract. The few (elite if you will) who really understand a scientific topic agree to do their best to tell the truth about it, and everyone else agrees to give the experts' statements considerable deference. Also the press agrees to draw a distinction between real scientists and people who might just have a bias, due to say, being employed by the tobacco institute.

This contract has now been broken, and not by the scientists. It has been broken by capitalists purchasing news media and establishing essentially fake research institutes designed to push ideologically determined ideas.

GFW, Ian,

All good points.
But,
A- we (I) are, in the US, a constitutional republic, which presents certain challenges to taking control by mob rule.

B- as with the military, the insiders do the the work, but the civilians control the action, which is precisely why the insiders need to tell the truth about it, to maintain credibility

C- the press reports, not take sides, the truth will expose the charlatans, or allow the civilians to choose a course of action, this may or may not align with a path preferred by the insiders

I think Ian and DFW may presuppose, that, they may report the science behind the issue and have the say on what is to be done about it.
But, in fact the decision about what to do is a political process. For that you need the general population on your side (to be able to make the changes in a manner consistent with a republic). And as I have said before, that will take a different demeanor.

Thank you for that great collection!

BUT WHAT IF the climate skeptic is using epistemological approaches like SOCIAL CONSTRUCTIVISM?

Please find some answers in my article about:

Contradictory Approaches? â On Realism and Constructivism in the Social Sciences Research on Risk, Technology and the Environment, in: Futures â The Journal of Policy, Planning and Futures Studies, Vol. 41, No. 2, March 2009, pp. 156-170

Please have a look on my webpage in order to get the free preprint version of that paper!

Abstract:
This article discusses approaches to researching the risk-problems of industrial societies. It examines why the risk-constructivism neglects questions of the material production of risks in favor of questions of their communicative construction, while the risk-realism does it the other way round. Subsequently the possibilities of a synthesis of both approaches are being considered. The societal functions of risk-constructions are accordingly not limited to their efficacy in the sphere of social communication processes. They lie as well in the field of regulation of the metabolism of societies and their ecological environment. The validity of risk-constructions is consequently not only bound to their cultural weightiness, whether one believes in them or not, but to their capacity to manage realities, measured by their ability to bring expectations in accordance with events. Risk-constructions are not only transformed in the milieu of discourses, but also in the context of social practices which give the opportunity to acquire experiences and to perform learning processes in order to optimize risk-constructions as regulative instruments.

Wishing you a Bright Spring And Happy Easter!

Andreas Metzner-Szigeth

PD Dr. Andreas Metzner-Szigeth
University of Münster, Institute of Sociology
E-mail: metzner@uni-muenster.de
Web: http://egora.uni-muenster.de/ifs/metzner.shtml

Maybe the consequences of what I was saying weren't obvious. Scientists are telling the truth. A significant proportion of the people with real power (capitalists) are deliberately lying because they're more concerned with near term profits than long term survivability. The press is either too ignorant or too subverted to point out the difference - the "demeanor" of the scientists is effectively irrelevant.

The way I put it was that these capitalists have broken one of the (many) implicit contracts of a modern capitalist democracy (using the term democracy in the broad sense than includes most constitutional arrangements of representational governance). If this state of affairs continues for much longer, the modern capitalist democracy will fail.

An optimist would hope that there would be a smooth transition to a system that was still democratic and retained the many positive features of capitalism, but where the political power of the capitalists is greatly reduced, replaced by a governmental/academic technocracy.

A pessimist would point out that smooth transitions are not what happened in the societies described in Jared Diamond's "Collapse". Those societies were relatively primitive and eventually completely fell apart, but the intermediate stages are illuminating. The scarcity brought about by significant climate change increased tribalism and violence. The modern analogue would probably be increased nationalism, racism and autocracy. I do not wish to see this, but luckily for me, if I do witness this, it will likely be as an elderly childless man.

Hey crakar,

How about you comment on the findings of the parliamentary inquiry into 'climategate'. Now that the results have gone against you, will you act like an adult and admit you were wrong, or are you going to act like a spoiled little brat, stomp your foot, put your fingers in your ears, and yell that they are picking on you.

Come on. . . don't gloat.

I do think the parliamentary committee made a good point about full disclosure. Its the Caesar's wife principle: If the process is conducted in a manner that is above reproach then it heads off these sorts of conspiracy-fishing expeditions in the first place.

Here is a ROGER PIELKE, JR. comment,

Defenders of CRU will no doubt paint the report -- particularly the ambiguity of the rather trivial issues involving language, such as "trick" and "hide the decline" -- as a complete vindication of their arguments and those who have been critical will also focus on these phrases and call the report incomplete or a whitewash. These issues have always been a sideshow. The matters of greater importance are not about the behavior or language used by certain individuals, but rather what the released emails say about the culture and norms of institutions of climate science. On this subject the report offers a nuanced message. On the one hand, it largely explains the discussions and associated actions revealed in the emails as fairly normal for the profession. At the same time, the report offers of a fairly harsh rebuke of the profession for allowing such behaviors to become the norm.

Defenders of CRU will no doubt paint the report . . . those who have been critical will also focus on these phrases and call the report incomplete or a whitewash.

And one side will be totally right and the other totally wrong.

If anyone ever wanted to see the perfect way to deal with climate denialists, then they should look no further than the US EPA.

Late last year, the EPA made two distinct findings that the current and projected concentrations of 6 key GHGs in the atmosphere "threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations." In doing so, this provided the EPA with legislative authority to regulate the release into the atmosphere of those gases.

In response, the EPA received over 300,000 public submissions - many of which were favourable, but of course, many were not. As a result, the EPA has published a point-by-point refutation of the denialist submissions. It can be found here:

http://epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment.html#comments

Some of the denialist comments make interesting reading, and include all the standard nonsense we see here, such as hacked emails undermining the whole science of climate change etc etc. Probably the scariest public comments come not from individuals, but from a number of US State Legislatures (no prizes if you can guess which ones may be the culprits). I would urge everyone to have a read of some of the documents. Although there is a lot there, it makes excellent reading.

thanks mandas

"ENVIRONMENTAL RAPES & H.R. ABUSES LEAD TO CLAIMATE CHANGE CONTROL"

I, Raveendran Narayanan, Indian Citizen residing in USA since November 1997, am doing R. & D.
in Water & Environmental Protection since 1992. While I was working in UNITED ARAB
EMIRATES, I had submitted many R.& D. papers to IDA (International Desalination Association)
World Congresses on Water and published it.
During 1997, Kuwait Scientific Research Institution also published my paper in R.O. Pre-treatment
Seminar. INDACON- 2008, published another paper.

A scientific paper "Connections of Mushrooming of Seawater Desalination Systems in the

Middle East and Environmental Disasters Around the World". by Raveendran Narayanan , USA ,

was supposed to publish in Dubrovnik-2009 Conference in September, at Croatia . But unavailability of a

return travel document from US Home Land Security, prohibited the publication and presentation.

The Climate Change Control paper will be publishing soon. The paper will solve the following:

1. Sea ice melt & Ice Shelves collapses .
2. Automatically temperature will come down.
3. There by NO Sea rise, so low lying cities like Manhattan & Countries like Maldives will

Escape flooding.
4. Oceans pH will GO UP means more shell formation for sea animals & more CO2 can be absorbed

by Sea Water.

5. IPCC's estimate for correcting the Global Climate is US$61Trillions, with my

Technology US$ONE Trillion is sufficient to correct the climate.

6. When Climate Change Control Barrier (CCCB) is in position Ice Shelves will not collapse and

more Methane will

not escape to the atmosphere.
7. Governments have to do some URGENT remedial works according to my paper

before the next Hurricane season.

8. Projections showed that there will be only ONE ( 1 ) Hurricane this season in Atlantic

and that was correct.

How it happened ?

Dredging to make land near Abu Dhabi Airport & Abu Dhabi City , U.A.E., â 1979.

Developing Sir Biniyas Island by dredging- 1983.

Dredging to make land in Al-Marryiz, Ras-Al-Khaimah, U.A.E.,-1992.

Artificial island development like Palm Islands & Jumairah Islands , Dubai , U.A.E.,- 2002.

Drilling & dredging to develop floating Apartments near Sadiyet Island , Abu Dhabi- 2005.

Artificial Islands- The World (300 Islands ) near Deira Dubai- 2005.

Dredging, drilling, excavation and dynamiting Sea floor had shifted Magnesium Chloride, Sulfur, Hydro

carbons and Middle East States sea water desalination units are dumping millions of tons of it and other

Petrol chemicals 24/7 days since 1978. Arabian Gulf âs geographical position will only drain it fully every

four years.

According to my research study and data collection of Ocean water analysis since 1980 , Magnesium Chloride

(de-icier) is melting Ice Shelves and Sea Ice even during the months of November, March & April.This

year the calamities like Typhoons and flooding were mostly in South East Ocean . So Magnesium Chloride

stayed there and starts to de-ice Sea Ice and ice Shelves.

New Zealand faces flotilla of icebergs: A flotilla of hundreds of icebergs that split off Antarctic Ice Shelves

is drifting toward New Zealand and could pose a risk to ships in the South Pacific Ocean . The nearest one,

measuring about 30 yard tall, was 160 miles Southeast of New Zealand âs Stewart Island , Australian Glaciologist

NEAL YOUNG said. He could not say how many icebergs in total were roaming in the Pacific, but he counted

130 in one satellite image alone and 100 in another.

Narayanan Raveendranâs Climate Change Control Barrier (CCCB) as designed in the picture will protect the

environment as follows:

Informed about this by FOUR pages FAX to US President Hon. OBAMA before Four Months back.

CCCB can be constructed at onshore locations with heavy pre-cast concrete interlocking slabs and transported to

Southern Ocean. Immediate attention required in Wededell Sea , Graham Land, Alexander Island & Ross Sea .

Other emergency attention required are install Magnesium Chloride recovery units in the Strait of Hermosa, Strait

of Gibraltar and closed eddies of the Green Land as Magnesium Chloride is also de-icing Arctic Sea Ice and Ice

Shelves. When more ice is in both poles temperature will come down and the Third pole (Himalayas) and Bolivia

will have abundance of ice and Glaciers and thereby more fresh water for the inhabitants of the Earth.

Wow coby. I noticed you removed the duplicate of this post by R.... D.... from a different thread. Lucky you left this one here, otherwise we would never have received the benefit of his extreme wisdom.

"5. IPCC's estimate for correcting the Global Climate is US$61Trillions, with my Technology US$ONE Trillion is sufficient to correct the climate."

Didn't Monty Burns have a trillion-dollar bill but Fidel Castro took it off him? Typical, bloody communists.
If only (if only!) we had this trillion dollar bill we could give it to Raveendran and his magnificent magnesium-chloride-super-sucker-upper-device would save the world!

Coby, Mandas, Skip, Dappledwater, and all: why have you been talking about this CO2 lark for so long and getting me all worried? It's MgCl2 that's the problem don't you know!

I for one can't wait until this paper is published. I think it'll be an amazing read. Raveendran, do keep us informed. Also, can you let me know if Obama ever responds to your fax? I sent him one a while back asking for therapeutic exercises for my sore knee, but I've not heard from him as yet.

Anyway, must dash. I think an iceberg just crashed into New Zealand and I'm off outside to have a look.

Regards,

if this is the future of the no CO2 movement, we're in serious doo doo

http://www.earthday.net/widgets/rally.html?ref=bookmarks

Any one want to offer what trips
"held for moderation"

usually never see that from here,
thanks

comments get held for approval if they have three or more links in them, even my own! Preferable to purposely mangling urls is breaking up your comment onto parts.

Whitelisting is available in my administrative tools but seems to have no effect :-/

Coby, thank-you.
Apparently even if they don't show "blue" in preview.

Ok, so I have no issue with the statements here.

However there are a few things that are not mentioned.

Firstly, error bars. Any one using science on a graph needs to show error and uncertainty and state it. There is a point where uncertainty becomes too large. If I read the hockey stick graph correctly it looks like the gray is error bars (I may be wrong), if they are the error is really too high to say much about the middle ages being warmer or not. In fact, we can't say much beyond the last hundred years in this case.

Secondly, how global temperature is defined has changed over the last hundred years as the locations used to define this temperature have not been the same over the last hundred and fifty years. Has this been taken in to account?

Thirdly, we are only really looking at the last hundred and fifty years for CO2/Temperature correlation. In the history of climate this is really too short to use it as a smoking gun.

That said there is a possibility that the CO2 is contributing. The question is, how much? Is just CO2 enough to cause what we see? Do we know if it is enough?

At the very least these are questions I find myself asking every time I read anything about man made global warming and I never see it answered (I may be looking in the wrong places).

1. Even with the error bars we still have a MWP that's less warm than today (and remember that the original hockeystick was the NH only)
2. Yes, this is taken into account. Not in the most ideal way, but at best we have slightly 'warmer' anomalies pre 1940 or so. Which, notably, only makes the case for AGW stronger...
3. Actually, we have a MUUUUUUCH longer record. See:
http://www.agu.org/meetings/fm09/lectures/lecture_videos/A23A.shtml
Takes an hour of your time, but it's well worth it.

DJTF,

You should start with the IPCC report: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/contents.html

WRT global temperatures, there is an important distinction you are missing. What, in general, is being presented is not the actual temperature, but the temperature anamoly. This is a simpler problem because many issues such as you raise about changing sets of stations are not important.

Check this graphic to see the relative contributions of CO2 versus the many other factors that influence the climate.

I am not sure what category this belongs in, well i do but Coby does not have one titled "AGW theories which predict the fall of man that belong in the rubbish bin".

As most here will not be bothered to open the link i will hit the high points for you.

Firstly lets go through what we already know happens, the sun shines on the plant, the plant "breathes" in the CO2 uses the carbon as energy (carbon sink) and releases the oxygen. Of course this means the plant also transpires moisture (water vapour as part of the hydrologic cycle).

This of course must be a bad thing because as we all know WV is the most powerful GHG, so one would think an increase in CO2 would be good as the more CO2 there is the higher the moisture retention capacity of plants/trees etc.

But no! according to a new study using a brand new computer model this increase in moisture retention capacity will increase GW by up to 25%, suddenly the moisture or water vapour released by the plants acts to COOL the air.

The latest AGW gibberish can be seen below and what AGW gibberish is complete without those most famous words "Its worse than scientists previously thought"

http://www.livescience.com/environment/Even-Plants-Can-Contribute-to-Gl…

Here is the study for all to read

http://www.stanford.edu/~longcao/Cao_et_al(2010_PNAS).pdf

So apparently what happens is the plants give off less water vapour therefore less low cloud forms which of course reduces the albedo and thus the planet warms.

Allow me to take this to its logical conclusion, as the CO2 increases we get less low cloud so it gets hotter, however the plants now need a lot less water as they can retain even more water. Therefore the plants spread out across the worlds deserts sucking even more water vapour out of the air and the planet gets hotter.

This process continues until there is very little water vapour in the air and as a result the planet cools significantly (Due to WV being the most powerful GHG)and the oceans cool thereby reducing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, this process continues until the plants which by now have overrun the place begin choking to death due to a lack of CO2 and thus releasing their grip on all the WV.

The WV gets released back into the atmosphere and forms massive low clouds which cool the planet even more and the sun will not be seen for weeks or months even and the planet cools even more and the plants choke even more.

And that little gullible children is where ice ages come from.

Of course thats just a theory no more stupid than the one from Long Bok Chow. Its a shame Chows computer model did not include the rapid expansion of vegetation predicted to occur from increasing CO2 levels, which i find quite strange, you would have thought he would have included this in his study as it would have to be a relevant factor in his results.

Anyway as i said just another bullshit AGW story.

Are Americans really this stupid?

http://www.climatechangefraud.com/politics-propaganda/6944-epa-climate-…

The EPA is concerned about CO2 poisoning the water table as part of the sequestration process. Skip stop drinking that can of coke you are being poisoned he he ha ha.

Mind you the EPA dont seem to be to concerned about this drinking water

http://www.physorg.com/news192527592.html

I am glad the EPA has its priorities in order.... poisoned by CO2 what a joke.

In light of recent debates here is a comparison of Arctic sea from 1995 to 2010.

It would appear as though sea ice levels are higher now than then, lets chalk that up to natural variability and say there has been no trend (decline) in 15 years. Can anyone explain this?

http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=05&fd=16&fy=1995&s…

I had an 'interesting' debate - for want of a better word -with Anthony Watts (yes - that Anthony Watts). You may recall I posted some information regarding a study into the affects of CO2 on certain reef fish in the thread on ocean acidification. Watts also commented on the story, and did so in the most snide fashion. This is what he had to say:

"....From the âCO2 is the most deadly omnipotent force in the Universe departmentâ, comes this tragic story of poor Nemo the clownfish, so disoriented by CO2 that he canât choose the right path to swim. Rebuttal(s) follow in subsequent posts, but first here is the story on the research from James Cook University. Original press release here, ABC news story below. Look for a Disney/Pixar sequel soon, sure to frighten the children. â Anthony..."

It was apparent that neither he, not anyone else making comment, had actually read the paper (remind you of anyone), and I just had to take him to task over it. So I made this comment in the thread:

".....Wow â did any of you people actually read the paper before commenting?
So â scientists do a study, publish the results, and the best you can come up with is to call them fruit loops and space cadets or to quote from the bible without ever having laid eyes on what they have written.
Hereâs a hint people â before opening your mouth or putting fingers to keyboard, go away and read the thing that you are about to comment on. That way you might be able to claim a modicum of credibility (it also helps to have a science education as well â and no, graduating high school does not count)...."

I was fortunate!! The great Anthony Watts actually replied personally to me. Here is what he had to say:

"...REPLY: Your sort of comment also suffers from foot in mouth disease. Look here and tell me where the full paper is? http://www.pnas.org/site/misc/highlights.shtml#fish
Thatâs the preview at PNAS. The full paper isnât there, its behind a paywall The press release doesnât have a link to the full paper either, http://www-public.jcu.edu.au/news/JCUPRD1_058449
They journal system leaves the public out in the cold, unless the public is willing to pay twice for the publicly funded work.
-A...."

So he admitted that he had never read the paper, yet he was only too willing to form an opinion on the issue and make derogatory comments on both the scientists and the study. Further, his defence against my criticism that he hadn't read the paper was that 'I' had foot and mouth disease, which is hilarous, given that it was he who was forming an opinion from a position of admitted ignorance (I HAVE read the paper).

So why am I posting this? We all have been unfortunate enough to be subject to the nonsensical rantings of people who think that people like Anthony Watts are credible sources of information, and there are legions of people out there who form their opinions based on the 'expert credibility' of Watts and his ilk. But it only takes a minor issue like this to demonstrate how totally lacking in credibility these people are (but we all knew that anyway - I just wanted to prove it using his own words)

It was apparent that neither he, not anyone else making comment, had actually read the paper (remind you of anyone).

Hehe. You're cruel, Mandas.

As Stig O'Tracy used to say about Dinsdale Piranha:

He was a cruel man.... but fair!

I wouldn't try too hard Mandas, I've had arguments with him where I've tried to base it on logic and in the end, as soon as he was made to look bad by one of his many idiotic spoutings, he just doctored my responses so their context looked wrong or neglected to post them altogether. He's a first rate ignoramous in the true sense of the word.

Thank you very much for your information

porno izle
porno video
sikiÅ
liseli izle
cümle çevirme
porno izle
porno video
sikiÅ
liseli izle
porno izle
porno video
sikiÅ
liseli izle

Mandas i do not intend to defend Watts in any way shape or form but i would like you to please explain the difference what you have said here:

".....Wow â did any of you people actually read the paper before commenting?
So â scientists do a study, publish the results, and the best you can come up with is to call them fruit loops and space cadets or to quote from the bible without ever having laid eyes on what they have written.
Hereâs a hint people â before opening your mouth or putting fingers to keyboard, go away and read the thing that you are about to comment on. That way you might be able to claim a modicum of credibility (it also helps to have a science education as well â and no, graduating high school does not count)...."

and when you ignored everything Spencer has said based on his views on creationism?

TIA

Firstly, Spencer's views on climate change are that it is occurring (do you agree with this crakar??), but that it is natural (do you agree with this crakar??).

On the first, I agree with him. On the second, he has been soundly debunked many times. So his views on creationism (actually he is a proponent of ID, not creationism) are irrelevant to the debate on climate change - he is just plain wrong on the issue.

Finally, here are a few gems from Roy Spencer:

"....From a practical point of view, the intelligent design paradigm is just as useful to biology, and I believe, more satisfying from an intellectual point of view...."

"....the fossil record, our only source of the history of life on Earth, is almost (if not totally) devoid of transitional forms of life that would connect the supposed evolution of amphibians to reptiles, reptiles to birds, etc...."

"....A population of bacteria that become resistant to antibiotics does not illustrate evolution â they are still bacteria...."

"....A naturalistic origin of the universe violates either the First or Second Laws of thermodynamics â or both..."

"....I was convinced of the intelligent design arguments based upon the science alone..."

Anyone who makes statemens such as these shows such a fundamental misunderstanding of science that he should be made to return his PhD, and deserves to be ignored.

So its OK for you and people like you to cast aspersions on Spencer because of his views on ID (religious type views) but not for other people to do the same?

This sounds a little hypocritical of you Mandas as i seem to recall posting a link from Spencer and all you and people like you could do was talk about his views on ID, from this i can only surmise that the science was solid so you and people like you had to resort to name calling/ad hom attacks etc.

Yet here we are listening to you rant and rave about other people doing the same thing.

By the way i have not looked here for a few days and cannot for the life of me remember where we were discussing Amazongate but here is the latest salvo in this exchange.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/7883372…

"....So its OK for you and people like you to cast aspersions on Spencer because of his views on ID (religious type views) but not for other people to do the same?..."

No - I don't mind who casts aspersions on Spencer because of his views on ID, anyone can do it.

"...i can only surmise that the science was solid ..."

Nope - sorry. Spencer's views on climate change have been debunked many times by people who know what they are talking about. The 'science' is not 'solid', exactly as I have stated above.

"...here is the latest salvo in this exchange...."

I think your salvo just went off in your face.

Mandas,

You should have ended your post with "like a bad trick cigar". You see for comedy to be funny you need a punch line. Keep up the good work.

Actually, the secret timing to good comedy is..

I thought the key to comedy WAS timing but go on.

I thought I would post this here, just to demonstrate what we are up against - the mind of the denialist. This is from:
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/540724/201007161906/Th…

"...A federal agency is reporting that the world has just had its warmest June on record and the agency's climate chief is blaming man for the increasing heat. And he would know ... wouldn't he?

No, he wouldn't. He's just guessing, the same way that all the global warming alarmists are speculating.

We confess that they have some numbers to lean on. According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, "The combined global land and ocean average surface temperature for June 2010 was the warmest on record at 61.1 degrees, which is 1.22 degrees above the 20th century average of 59.9 degrees."

Meanwhile, "The global June land surface temperature was 1.93 degrees above the 20th century average of 55.9 degrees â the warmest on record."

Jay Lawrimore, head of climate analysis at NOAA's National Climatic Data Center, is confident the rising temperatures are "part of an overall trend." Global temperatures, he says, "have been rising for the last 100-plus years. Much of the increase is due to increases in greenhouse gases."

But neither Lawrimore nor anyone else can say with 100% certainty that man's greenhouse gas emissions are causing the world to warm. It's simply not possible to make that statement. There are too many strong variables outside of human impact that affect climate.

Yet the political left and the many scientists who are a part of it assume â or claim â that this time, unlike every other warming trend that has scorched Earth, man is the cause.

It's worth asking why they would take this position.

It's also worth questioning why some researchers look at charts that show increases in carbon dioxide emissions and growing temperatures and immediately claim that one is causing the other when a correlation in data does not prove cause, as any statistician knows...."

So - the head of NOAA says the world is warming (and has figures to prove it), says this is part of a trend (and has figures to prove it) and says it is largely being caused by human GHG emissions (and has figures to prove it). And the response - 'what we he know?'

And the conclusion:

"...Yet politics gets in the way of sound science. Though they were exonerated by probes that whitewashed their lack of honesty and openness in their research, it's clear the climate scientists whose e-mails were made public last fall were engaged in an effort to perpetuate the man-made global warming myth. The politics of the climate change issue is the only plausible explanation for their behavior...."

I can only shake my head in dismay.

OK i will bite just for Mandas.

Below is a NASA study which debunks claims about Amazonian drought

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/03/100311175039.htm

Please dont tell me NASA are on the same list as Monkton and Co.

And yet on the very same page we have a story which predicts if we stop using coal then there will be less sulphate aerosols which is holding AGW at bay. When these aerosols are gone AGW will cause the Amazon to wither and die.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/080507133259.htm

Then of course we also have the scary stories about the Arctic is melting as seen in recent threads here, did you notice there is no new thread stating the Arctic sea ice decrease has flatlined recently and is losing ice at the lowest rate in the sat record?

Did you also notice that world sea ice currently has a + anomaly? Yet we are continually pounded by the prophets of doom that ignore these facts.

I like you Mandas simply shake my head in dismay.

crakar

How many fucking time do I have to tell you not to rely on newspaper articles for your information?? It seems - once again - that you have failed to follow this really very simple and important advice.

But to your post:

".....Below is a NASA study which debunks claims about Amazonian drought...."

One good thing about this article is that they supply the link to the study at the bottom of the page. It is here:

Samanta et al. Amazon forests did not green-up during the 2005 drought. Geophysical Research Letters, 2010; 37 (5): L05401 DOI: 10.1029/2009GL042154

So, far from debunking claims about drought in the Amazon, the study is ABOUT DROUGHT IN THE AMAZON, and confirms there was a drought in the Amazon in 2005. Let me say that again so you get it....THE STUDY CONFIRMS THERE WAS A DROUGHT IN THE AMAZON IN 2005. Indeed, if you even went as far as to READ the study (the abstract - even the title - would have done), you would have understood this.

Did you get that crakar?? THE 2005 DROUGHT!!!!

Can that be any plainer to you????

And, just for a little bit of additional information, this is from the abstract:

"....The sensitivity of Amazon rainforests to dry-season droughts is still poorly understood, with reports of enhanced tree mortality and forest fires on one hand, and excessive forest greening on the other. Here, we report that the previous results of large-scale greening of the Amazon, obtained from an earlier version of satellite-derived vegetation greenness data - Collection 4 (C4) Enhanced Vegetation Index (EVI), are irreproducible, with both this earlier version as well as the improved, current version (C5), owing to inclusion of atmosphere-corrupted data in those results. We find no evidence of large-scale greening of intact Amazon forests during the 2005 drought - approximately 11%â12% of these drought-stricken forests display greening, while, 28%â29% show browning or no-change, and for the rest, the data are not of sufficient quality to characterize any changes....."

If you read the study in full, you will find such gems as this:

"....About 11â12% of the forests show greening, while 28â29% of the forests show no-changes or browning, and for nearly 60% of the drought impacted area, there are no valid EVI data to make a determination of changes..."

"....is there evidence of higher than normal amounts of sunlight during the 2005 drought, which may have somehow caused the forests to green-up, as speculated by SDHR07? Our analysis indicates that surface shortwave radiation declined over 35% of the Amazon forests during the dry season of 2005 and PAR declined over an even larger region (47.5%). Similarly, reductions in diffuse PAR were observed over 78.5% of Amazon forests. These reductions are contrary to the expectation of enhanced surface sunlight levels during the drought of 2005. Thus, we conclude that the speculation of light driven greening of Amazon forests during the drought of 2005 by SDHR07 is without basis...."

In other words, the study investigated claims about the Amazon rainforest 'greening up' during drought, because of enhanced solar radiation. The study could find no evidence of this, and the previous satellite findings were based on corrupted data. For this study, even though they did not have valid data to make an assessment in 60% of the drought affected areas, there was more browning than greening in the observed areas.

You LAC crakar, are a moron.

LAC crakar,

Not sure why you didn't provide your usual wattsupwiththat or jonova link for your claim about the Arctic, so I have no idea where you got your information from. So, just to check your information, I went to the NSIDC website. Here's what I found:

"....Average June ice extent was the lowest in the satellite data record, from 1979 to 2010. Arctic air temperatures were higher than normal, and Arctic sea ice continued to decline at a fast pace. June saw the return of the Arctic dipole anomaly, an atmospheric pressure pattern that contributed to the record sea ice loss in 2007..."

"....Average ice extent for June 2010 was190,000 square kilometers (73,000 square miles) less than the previous record low for June, observed in 2006; 620,000 square kilometers (240,000 square miles) below that observed in 2007; and 1.29 million square kilometers (498,000 square miles) below the average extent for the month. The linear rate of monthly decline for June over the 1979 to 2010 period is now 3.5% per decade. This yearâs daily June rate of decline was the fastest in the satellite record; the previous record for the fastest rate of June decline was set in 1999. This rapid decline was in part driven by ice loss in Hudson Bay...."

Daily time series here:
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_stddev_timeser…

So ummmmmm - What's up with that LAC crakar?

here -

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.wi…

LAC? For those not informed an LAC is a leading Aircraftsman in the Royal Australian Air Force. The lowest rank possible. Obviously this is a piss poor attempt by Mandas to smear me in some way, unfortunately for him i am not a LAC nor am i a member of the RAAF one wonders where he gets his info from?

So i guess its now my turn to make an assumption about him, i assume Mandas to be a very sad individual, i suspect as a child he was one of the nerds that everyone ignored. I say this because he seems to have a need for an argument and when as a lonely child what better way to get attention from the cool kids but to be an annoying little prick who likes to argue.

This tendancy to crave attention has carried through to adulthood (i am sure we have all experience a little prick like Mandas at work). Now dont take my word for it, he openly admits he took the family to the beach but instead of spending time with them he chose to debate religion with a complete stranger.

So there you have it Mandas is a very sad individual that only feels genuinely happen when he is embroiled in an argument.

Take the NASA study a study that in no way shape or form supports the exaggerated bullshit from the IPCC and yet Mandas ignores this and continues to crap on about the lower than average rain fall in the Amazon basin in 2005.

Sorry i should stipulate the drought in the DRY SEASON, the DRY SEASON is called the DRY SEASON because it is DRY......

11 to 12% shows greening

28 to 29% shows no changes or browning

And 60%.....we dont know so it could be over 70% shows greening for all we know. But that is alright Mandas you make shit up because you have an argument to win.

You are a very sad individual Mandas in fact i feel sorry for you i really do.

crakar: So now you've finished the projection how about you now tackle the substance of mandas' post(s)?

One quick tip dry =!= drought. (In fact in rainforest dry doesn't even equal dry in the sense that you're using).

Actually crakar, AC (or Aircraftsman) is a lower rank than LAC, so once again you are wrong.

And nice to see you made lots of assumptions about me - but I really don't care what you say or think about me, it is completely irrelevant to the debate (as are just about all your opinions). The debate, I seem to recall, is about the Amazon rainforest.

And - once again - you have shown just how much of a pathetic individual you really are. It seems that no matter how many people tell you - and no matter how many pieces of information you are shown (including some that you linked to), you still refuse to admit that there was a drought in the Amazon - several in fact.

I think this encapsulates your whole worldview on climate change perfectly. You have adopted a position based on a preconceived prejudice - or more likely because you read it at Wattsupwiththat or Jonova and didn't check the facts - and when you are shown OVERWHELMING and INCONTROVERTIBLE facts that show you are wrong, you refuse to admit it, and resort to abuse in a purile attempt to justify you position in your own mind. And it is only in your mind, because no-one else agrees with you or would offer you even a sliver of support for this idiocy.

Far from being very sad - I am laughing my head off at you.

Firstly to Chris,

Dry means Dry or to put it another way not wet, so when they say "the dry season" that means "the not wet season" so we have one season called "the not wet season" and another called "the wet season" which season would you think they get the majority of their rain?

Also if you get a majority of rain in one season and a minority of rain in another it does not mean there is a drought.

Mandas,

In most musterings you will begin with the rank of AC , then after a period of time you will be *reclassified* to the rank of LAC. Therefore the rank of LAC is in fact the lowest rank, of course you WILL argue that i am incorrect.

Sorry i missed Skips latest contrarian installment. Can someone give me a link as i do enjoy reading them so much.

Cheers

So then crakar. To follow your logic, I guess 1997/98 and 2005 were 'not floods' in the Amazon?

"Dry means Dry or to put it another way not wet"

And yet in the rainforest dry is still wet (there's a pointer to this in the name do you see it? Begins with r and ends with n.

Let me clarify because you two are clearly confused, the statement is made "....The sensitivity of Amazon rainforests to dry-season droughts is still poorly understood...."

Now lets look at what that statement is really saying.

The dry season is called the dry season because it is dry, what this means is that it does not rain much, in fact let me give you an example. In Darwin it rains very little if at all from May to October. This period of time is called the dry season.

Now the Amazon may or may not have more rain than Darwin during the dry season but the amount of rain it would get is still very little when compared to the wet season.

So if the Amazon gets between 1 and 2 meters of rain during the wet season and 5/8ths of 4/5ths of bugger all during the dry season then is it fair to say that there was/is a dry season drought? How can you have a drought when you dont expect to get any rain?

Then on top of all that they state the sensitivity to this is poorly understood, well no wonder it is poorly understood by their logic Darwin is in drought for 6 months of the year.

Now the Amazon may or may not have more rain than Darwin during the dry season but the amount of rain it would get is still very little when compared to the wet season.

So if the Amazon gets between 1 and 2 meters of rain during the wet season and 5/8ths of 4/5ths of bugger all during the dry season then is it fair to say that there was/is a dry season drought? How can you have a drought when you dont expect to get any rain?

If. If. If. These things can be checked you know:

http://www.springerlink.com/content/43h080142116964t/

Amazon Basin:
Wet Season: 1267 mm/season +/- 105mm
Dry Season: 434 mm/season +/- 48 mm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin,_Northern_Territory

Darwin:
Wet Season: ca. 1497 mm/season
Dry Season: ca. 215 mm/season (including April & October, 43 mm/season excluding)

Amazon is not Darwin.

5/8 of 4/5 of bugger all =!= 10cm per month.

Even the bots are turning on crakar.

Its not often a bot thinks for itself is it DW.

Thanks for the info Chris, you do tend to get a bit of rain in the first and last months of the dry and a sprinkle in between hence the 200mm spread over 6 months in Darwin.

This link shows you it in more detail

http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/ncc/cdio/weatherData/av?p_nccObsCode=139&p_di…

Apart from the odd month May, June, July and August get very little rain as i said, May being "officially" the first month of the dry. September you get a bit more rain and the humidity starts to build, October and November you are deep into the build up but still not a lot of rain and then of course December sees the first mosoonal rains.

The study you presented is quite interesting and if i may be so bold as to say it supports my POV. 18 stations some show decreases some show increases in yearly rainfall and if i may also be so bold as to cut and paste some selected quotes as someone else here does ad nuseum.

"The annual and seasonal rainfalls for the
whole Amazon show insignificant negative trends. That is, it
is difficult to affirm that there are significant changes in the rainfall regime in the Brazilian Amazon basin in the past 70
to 80 years."

And this

"If the deforestation of Amazon basin can cause reduction
in rainfall over the region as is predicted by modeling
studies (Correia et al. 2007), this effect is not yet observed."

No doubt Mandas will go over this study with a fine tooth comb tonight frantically searching for a loop hole.

So where does this leave us well as far as i am concerned right back where we started from.

Now back to where it all began, the IPCC made a false claim based on a WWF story which referenced a paper. The IPCC took the statements made in the study fiddled with the words a little bit to make it sound really really scary.

This is of course not the first time they have done this, lets not forget 2035/2350 where they new exactly what they were doing and once the jig was up they said they knew the error was there but chose not to change it as they wanted to influence governments.

So unless you lot wish to waste more time doggedly defending the errors in the IPCC paraphernalia it might be best to move on.

Already moved on crakar.

And unless you provide me with more details than a few words (like maybe, the title and author of the study), then I'm afraid I can't go over it with a fine toothed comb.

I guess that's the diffence when you talk about someone else who provides quotes - I give the source.

From post 434,

http://www.springerlink.com/content/43h080142116964t/

You know the one i responded to in 436 which is the post you responded to in 437. Would you like me to print it out and drop it off to you on my way home from work?

Yes please crakar. You could drop it off for me if you like. But rather than just posting a couple of segments from the abstract, could you give us all a bit more detail about what you discovered from reading the whole paper?

That would demonstrate to us all how much you truly understand about what the paper is trying to say.

So crakar, just to be clear - you are now conceding that (unlike Darwin) low rainfall (i.e. drought) is not the norm in the dry season in the Amazon? Thus it is possible that drought in the Amazon is Not A Good Thing?

Chris,

Let us assume that the Amazon had less than average rainfall during a dry season would this constitute a drought?

The paper shows of the 18 stations with decent data that in one area of the Amazon rainfall has decreased, in another area rainfall has increased and in another rain fall has barely changed.

Are you now saying that AGW is causing a drought in one area, the opposite in another and has no effect in a third? Surely this is not the case.

Mandas,

You are the only person i have ever known (for want of a better word) that can disect, deconstruct, demolish and debunk a paper that is light years away from your area of expertise and you can do this in an afternoon.

So far be it from me to attempt to read anymore into a study than what the abstract clearly states in plain english.

So now back to the IPCC statement, did the IPCC statement about the Amazon truly reflect what was claimed in the WWF story or the paper it referenced?

carakar

"......Mandas, You are the only person i have ever known (for want of a better word) that can disect, deconstruct, demolish and debunk a paper that is light years away from your area of expertise and you can do this in an afternoon...."

Surely not. You are fond of Anthony Watts, Jo Nova and Christopher Monkton are you not?

Crakar

Two other issues from post #441

".....So far be it from me to attempt to read anymore into a study than what the abstract clearly states in plain english...."

So you admit you haven't read the paper then? Enough said.

"...So now back to the IPCC statement, did the IPCC statement about the Amazon truly reflect what was claimed in the WWF story or the paper it referenced?..."

Yes. And no-one else here doubts that except you.

442, I have never spoken to the people you mentioned thus the reason i said you are the only person i know (for want of a better word). Although i am not personally aware of any papers they have debunked at least not to the lengths that you go to.

443 how did you come to the conclusion that i did not read the paper? Just another bullshit assumption on your behalf.

No one else here? Lets take a head count, i make it 3 skeptics and a few (help me out here Coby) thousand believers, once again it all comes back to "i share the same opinion as the majority in the room therefore i am right and you are wrong".

once again it all comes back to "i share the same opinion as the majority in the room therefore i am right and you are wrong"

Um..you're the only one doing a head count...

crakar

"....443 how did you come to the conclusion that i did not read the paper? Just another bullshit assumption on your behalf...."

Not an assumption. You were the one who said that said you were perfectly happy with what was said in the abstract and you didn't need to read more. But please, tell me I am wrong and that you have read the paper.

"...i make it 3 skeptics and a few (help me out here Coby) thousand believers..."

You have to stop abusing the English language. It is not you who are the skeptic and we who are the believers, it is the other way around. I, and I am willing to bet coby, skip, DW, Chris and most of the others who post here are very skeptical people, and we only accept something if we are shown evidence. You know, the sort of evidence you get from reading and analysing science papers.

On the other hand, you have a belief system and no amount of evidence with sway you from it. Your beliefs are reinforced by reading the opinions of others with similar beliefs, who also are not swayed by evidence and who also comment on and criticise scientists and their work without ever having read the papers they are criticising.

So stop calling yourself a skeptic - you aren't. You are a believer - a believer in your own worldview.

I have a question about the paper "What is the Major Culprit for Global Warming: CFCs or CO2?" by Qing-Bin Lu, University of Waterloo, Ontario. (Journal of Cosmology, 2010, 8, 1846-1862.) From the abstract (my emphasis in bold):

...the essential feature of the Earth blackbody radiation is elucidated. Then re-analyses of observed data about global temperature change with variations of halocarbons and CO2, the atmospheric transmittance of the infrared radiation and the 1970-1997 change in outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth are presented. It follows by new theoretical calculations of the greenhouse effect of halocarbons. The results strength [sic] the conclusion that humans were responsible for global warming in late 20th century, but CFCs, rather than CO2, were the major culprit; a long-term global cooling starting around 2002 is expected to continue for next five to seven decades.

The only places I can find mention of this article are in denialist blogs that trumpet its findings, or short non-technical mentions that sadly make no effort to evaluate its legitimacy. In fact, the only thing I can say against it at this point is the fact that it was published in such a ridiculous "peer-reviewed journal." (None of the Editorial Board are climatologists or geologists, but one of them is a science fiction writer.)

It's beyond my ability to evaluate the article itself, so I'd appreciate any comments you might have.

(FYI, there was an earlier mention of this paper in scienceblogs, at http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/05/consensus-or-collusion.php, comments #7 & 8, but Marco couldn't access the paper at the time.)

Saffi, the Rabett has made some comments on the paper:
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2009/12/if-you-got-hammer.html
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2010/01/commander-coincidence.html

But heck, realclimate also had had its say a lot earlier:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/12/ozone-holes-and-c…

Well Australia has its IQ test tomorrow, i say it is an IQ test because both major parties are full of smoke and mirrors but most Australians see this as magic.

Australia is one of a very few pretend democracies in the world in which we do not have the right to vote for if we dont we get a substantial fine.

The latest polling shows the election is on a knife edge which is rather ironic when you think about it as neither party is worthy of gaining office.

For what it is worth i am picking the Liberals to win (with apologies to Mandas) i say this because Labor has a pathetic 35% to Liberal 44% of the primary vote. Labor lost a lot of votes to the Greens when they delayed (delaying is denying) the emissions trading scheme. The Greens have improved out of sight to 14% of the primary vote but they have struck a preference deal with Labor so essentially a vote for the Greens is a vote for Labor and the Greens tend to get a lot less votes come polling day than predicted in the run up.

So the winner will be the one that gets all those floating Green votes, my pick based on voter disatisfaction with Labor will be the Libs. Hopefully in 3 years time we will get some one worth voting for.

crakar

It is always frought with peril to write your predictions down, because if you are wrong then there is no hiding from what you said.

I agree the election is on a knife's edge and couldd go either way. And I agree that the Greens are likely to hold more power than they do now.

But if I was to make a prediction, I would go for the Government to be returned. And not because I particularly want that to happen, or because I have rationally examined all the reports etc. It is simply on the basis of the odds which are being offered by the bookies, which has Labor at odds on and the Libs at slightly above even money.

And the bookies are rarely wrong.

Following the results in the wee hours . . .

(Yes, Crakar/Mandas/Adelady, there are people in the States who give a shit about Aussie politics.)

As of this typing Labour has an edge but with the pundits predicting hung Parliament.

What makes no sense to me as an American is the idea that Liberal-National is benefiting from Gillard's deposing of Rudd because it was rude or something. I mean, we fire our baseball managers every three weeks and no one gives a shit.

Skip,

I try to follow US politics but i am not exactly sure how it works so it is hard to give a comparison.

Actually what i could not follow last time was why would you put Mr Magoo and a ditzy bimbo up against obama?

Anyway let me set the scene, firstly KRudd is a Queenslander and Queenslanders are a little different to the rest of us, secondly we have never sacked a PM before his first term (3 years) so along comes this Victorian and knifes him in the back.

Most Queenlanders take this as a slap in the face and vote against Labor.

As of 1040 pm CAST my abilities to predict political outcomes is looking a little shakey. You need 76 seats to form a majority government and at this stage (depending on what channel you watch) it is about 70 seats each.

Most likely result is eithet major party will form a minority government which in my view is the worst outcome possible.

1115 pm

Liberals take the lead 70 to 72 according to 3 of 4 TV channels this is going right down to the wire folks.

1130pm

Tont Abbott (Liberal leader) has just made a speech, he said very little of course but i just wanted to say for a man who fell out of the ugly tree and hit every branch on the way down he did produce 3 very attractive daughters.

On my tenth beer now so the jokes are not as good as they could be i know, but the typing is still going ok.

crakar

You obviously care more about this than me! I think I watched 5 minutes of the coverage at about 8 o'clock before watching a movie and going to bed.

Anyway, Sunday morning and it looks as though hung parliament, but given the leanings of the so-called independents (Katter for example), Abbott will be the new PM.

Given the balance and the state of the Senate, he won't be able to achieve much. Oh well, looks like I will have to write a thousand briefs on Monday for the incoming Government (sigh!).

Don't be so sure about Katter. He and Tony Windsor (New England) loathe, despise and detest the Nationals, Barnaby Joyce particularly. Of couse, Warren Truss is in his usual cheery fashion managed to publicly insult Katter, last night!!, - demonstrating once again his grasp of the subtleties of politics.

Never forget the impact of the privatisation of Telstra and, now, the broadband network. Rural and remote electorates are very, very keen on the NBN.

You may well be right Adelady - all I can say is it is interesting times. But I wouldn't be surprised if we were back at the polls within a couple of years because of 'obstructionist senate or independents'.

I'm with you Mandas, by the way it was a friends birthday party i would not waste drinking ten beers watching the election.

Ha, we have a dweeb for a Prime Minister, and it looks like you lot might have a fruit loop.

Jeeez a bit quiet in here.

DW (serious question) which one is the fruit loop?

In regards to the fruit loops nothing much has changed they are saying Labor and Liberal will both have 73 seats (you need 76 to form government) 3 independants and 1 green.

The green will side with labor so the race is on to get the three independants on side.

The problem with this situation is that all the little upstarts come out of the wood work so now we have a nutjob (fruit loop) from the WA nationals declaring he wants to be an independant and will vote with whoever as long as they dont have a mining tax and pave the streets of his electorate in gold.

Anyway i stumbled across this

http://www.science.org.au/reports/climatechange2010.pdf

I must say after reading it i was a little disappointed in it. It is very heavy in reliance of model outputs even if there is a 5C error margin (cant wait for that study which shows the massive errors in the models to be verified). In fact they go to great lengths to tell us that they cannot accurately predict anything (chap 7) but sure as shit they know what they are talking about.

Yep, sure is quiet.

But to answer your question about the froot loop (Kellog spelling), I think he means Abbott. Gillard has her faults, but being away with the fundies is not one of them. The latest numbers seem to suggest that Wilkie may win Dennison - which would make four independents, with one certain to support Labor (plus a Green, giving the 'left' 74), and two almost certain to support the Coalition (75), with one in the middle (but Coalition leaning). Interesting times indeed, but I think the most important at this stage is the Senate. From next July, the Greens will hold the balance of power by themselves, which will be make the debate about climate change policy far more important. It would also make Abbott's job almost impossible if he were able to form a Government.

Interesting report from the Academy of Sciences. I am confused by your last paragraph though. ANY prediction about the future necessarily relies on models - there is simply no other way to predict what may happen. And of course, no model is perfect, otherwise we would have perfect precognition.

I think the report is about an accurate and balanced assessment as is possible to give - but of course, many would say I am biased. As you have said there crakar, they do sure as shit know what they are talking about. Now, all we have to do is to get people who don't know what they are talking about to listen (and that is not a dig).

I am cynical about politicians, but if we were to have more like this guy, we would all be a hell of a lot better off!

http://www.abc.net.au/news/video/2010/08/23/2991306.htm

Yes i think if Abbott gets in he will want to push through as much legislation as he can before the greens arrive.

In regards to the Academy of sciences article i think i would have liked it better if they had not said on one hand the models are not precise etc but the models tell us what is going to happen as if it was fact.

I see that as being a little dishonest or misleading, would it be better if they said the models are a useful tool but are no way a true and accurate representation of future out comes, or words to that effect?

crakar

Not sure what your concerns are re what the paper says about the accuracy of models and predictions. Reading through the paper, I noted that the authors were very clear about the imprecise nature of predictions, as per the following quotes:

"....Models simulate reasonably well the broad features of the present climate and the 20th century warming. This, however, does not guarantee accurate predictions into the future; changes could be more rapid or more gradual than projected. Overall, there is good agreement between models and observations at global and continental scales, but simulations are less reliable at the local scale. Some properties of climate are better captured by models than others; for example, temperature is generally more accurately simulated than rainfall...." (p 10)

"....No scientific conclusion can ever be absolutely certain
However, a balanced assessment of the available evidence and prior knowledge allows us to attach levels of confidence to the findings of climate science...." (p 16)

"....The exact amount of warming that will result from any particular trajectory for future greenhouse gas emissions cannot be projected precisely, because it depends on details of processes that reinforce or dampen disturbances to the climate system. Important processes involve clouds, water vapour, ocean circulations and natural influences on greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere........and such projections are highly uncertain. Neither can âtipping pointsâ or rapid climate transitions be projected with
any confidence, although they involve high risks should they occur. Uncertainty about future climate change works in both directions: there is a chance that climate change will be less severe than current best estimates, but there is also a roughly equal chance that it will be worse....." (p 16)

So I am not sure what else they could say or what else you might want them to say. Perhaps you could elaborate on your statements.

I will give it a go.

From your quotes above they themselves are saying the models are not precise and they list various processes that can have an effect.

If they themselves cannot predict anything with any confidence then how can they make any conclusions from these predictions?

I think we all agree the increase from 280 to 388ppm will create a small warming but what happens next is the question. Currently our models are not adequate to predict this the above quotes stand as testament to this. Maybe one day we will be able to do this but until then we should simply stick with the facts and not allow conjecture to enter into it.

".....Maybe one day we will be able to do this but until then we should simply stick with the facts and not allow conjecture to enter into it...."

Once again, I am somewhat confused (maybe its just that I am fuzzy-headed today). Any prediction about the future will be conjecture - it will never be perfect and the authors of this particular study were pretty clear in that regard.

It appears that you are saying that we cannot predict the future perfectly, therefore we should not even try and we can only be reactive to events that have already occurred (ie facts). I sincerely hope that this is not the case. We have to attempt to predict the future so we can make plans - not just with regard to climate change, but for anything we do.

If I have misunderstood then I apologise, but maybe you could tell me where I am wrong in this respect.

I am saying we cannot predict the future with any confidence.

I also said ".....Maybe one day we will be able to do this but until then we should simply stick with the facts and not allow conjecture to enter into it...."

I do not understand how you could interpret this "therefore we should not even try and we can only be reactive to events that have already occurred (ie facts)" from the statement above.

Maybe you are a little fuzzy today.

But.....but......but.....

The report gives a range of possibilities and they explicitly state there's "a chance that climate change will be less severe than current best estimates, but there is also a roughly equal chance that it will be worse....."

Now that would be just fine and dandy if they were talking about improvement in current circumstances or maybe no change of any kind. But as soon as the prediction itself is for damaging change, of whatever extent, we must deal with the stated chance that the damage will be worse.

We'd deal with it if a building inspector told us that the back of our house is coping OK with the current soil conditions but a wet year (or a dry one) could cause serious subsidence or collapse. Papering over the evidence, the crack in the corner of the laundry room, won't stop the wall falling to bits.

The same principle applies here. Hope for the best, prepare for the worst.

I agree crakar, we should stick with the facts; which are these:

We have to plan for the future - for climate change and for just about everything else we have to deal with in our lives. Predictions of the future are never perfect, so we have to use whatever information we have available to make the best possible predictions that we can so we can take the best informed decisions possible. Would you agree?

With regard to the climate, we know - with a very high level of certainty - that it is going to warm to some degree. We have a range of tools (models) available which make predictions, but as we both agree, they are not perfect.

Some of these models predict relatively small increases, some predict quite large increases, but even the most conservative models predict change. That would still be true even if the M&M paper discussed earlier was factored in - it would just mean the change was less severe than otherwise thought.

So - what do we do? Well, we could carry on exactly as we are right now. This will be great if any warming is very small; however, the consequences range from bad to catastrophic if warming is moderate to large. Or we could try to mitigate climate change by reducing our carbon emissions. This reduces the consequences of moderate to large warming, but if warming was only going to be minor, then we have spent money unnecessarily.

If you were a risk management expert, which option would you pursue? In making your decision, bear in mind all you have said about an inability to predict the future. If you have doubts, don't you think the best option is to try and mitigate the worst case scenario, rather than simply hoping it won't happen?

I happen to agree with Adelady - prepare for the worst and hope for the best, rather than both preparing and hoping for the best.

I can see where this conversation is going.

So as a final thought let me say this, these guys have stated very clearly that they have no confidence in the model predictions and yet we must act on the worst case predictions just in case they are right.

Sounds like the precautionary principle to me, here is a good example of this principle. We know the Earth has experienced ELE's by asteriod strikes in the past and we know that this will happen again. We dont know when nor where the thing will strike but we do know it will. So as a precaution we must build underground bunkers all over the world stocked full of supplies so that humanity can survive.

How many of these bunkers have been built?

No dont worry you dont have to answer that question it was rhetorical.

If anyone is wondering how the Oz changing political landscape will impact on CO2 legislation.

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comme…

Crakar:
If I was planning to meet up with you for a drink at the pub an hours walk from your house and say to you "I'll meet you at the pub about 5ish depending on the traffic" do you:
a) Aim to get to the pub yourself at about 5 o'clock.
b) Assume the traffic will be bad and leave the house about 4:30 & saunter down, maybe stopping at a snack bar on the way.
c) Assume the traffic will be good, leave home early and rush down.
d) Wait until I phone you from the pub before switching off the TV?

The asteroid/bunker analogy fails, Crakar.

We have no compelling reason to build bunkers anyway, and there is no known high likelihood of an *imminent* ELE asteroid striking earth.

Neither of those conditions holds for AGW: We *do* have compelling reasons to reduce our fossil fuel use anyway--and in fact some day its inevitable--and we do know that *some* warming--potentially hazardous in the long run as Adelady and Mandas affirm--is *certain*.

And something else occurred to me about this right after I posted the above, but was away from the PC:

Crakar's asteroid-bunker analogy is further faulty in that it presumes a super-expensive proactive fix to the problem. In reality we have the theoretical technology to put a defense system in space that would, for a few billion bucks, *deflect* any incoming ELE asteroid and obviate the need for bunker capacity for 8 billion people.

Likewise, acting on global warming is similarly tolerable. It means smaller cars, etc., greater efficiency, and a willingness to sacrifice expendable things for the common security.

crakar

And finally - no-one ever said they have 'no confidence' in the model predictions. They said, quite clearly for anyone to read, that while it is not possible to be 100% accurate, the models are the best information we have (there are levels of confidence attached to the predictions - none of which are zero, despite your assertion), and they provide a reasonable basis on which to make plans, which can then be adjusted as circumstances become clearer.

I cannot see how anyone could reasonably disagree with that aproach - but of course I know you will probably show me where you think I am wrong.

Is this database/FAQ/Whatever, being regularly updated? I rely on this to provide links to skeptics. Thank you for doing it.

Thank you for this. Your list "stages of denial" is an excellent summary of the case against climate hysteria. The truth is, you know that climate change is entirely natural, so I wonder why you are so anxious to pretend otherwise. Must be the research funding, I guess.

Roger

Sorry, but this is not parliament. We have discussions on science here. If you are going to make statements that climate change is all natural, and that coby is basing his position on the receipt of research funding, you are going to have to come up with some evidence. Bald statements of political opinions are insufficient.

Research funding. Oh dear. Which bit don't you like?

Forestry, fisheries, agriculture, oceanography, glaciology, meteorology, hydrology, physics, chemistry, biology, ecology, geology, computer science? And all the others and the sub-specialties.

I suppose if the cost of satellites were excluded - because they are multi purpose - it might look different. But then, most of these research areas relate to general as well as climate topics. So then we need to break them down too because of their multiple applications.

Perhaps you just don't like the idea of people working on science outside industry?

Adelady

Roger is like most politicians in the European parliament. His whole existence is based on dipping his snout in the public trough, so he thinks that everyone else is just like him. And being a conservative, he is rabidly anti-science. Just check out his website - I'm surprised he isn't out there smashing computers as the Luddite that he is.

This is all seriously out of date. A lot has happened in the two years since this was first compiled. mandas, you said "we have discussions on science in here".

Guffaw ! Actually after reading the comments, it seems like the main topic is pedantry. Points of little or no significance are teased out until they are completely divorced from any reasoned argument whatsoever.

As the MEP said the main cheerleaders ARE those who do research (probably in an unrelated field), and are looking for funding. And of course the ultimate hubris is the people in this column, thinking that they can affect the climate in any significant fashion, compared with cosmic forces.

Oh, and mandas, that last statement (#480) is actionable in Law. It is a bald libel, unless you have some firm evidence for saying that there is personal corruption. It is one thing to make a broad ranging allegation, but if you make a statement against a named individual, with no evidence, then that is foolish to say the least.

"Oh, and mandas, that last statement (#480) is actionable in Law. It is a bald libel, unless you have some firm evidence for saying that there is personal corruption."

Mr. Green how does mandas' statement differ from this: "The truth is, you know that climate change is entirely natural, so I wonder why you are so anxious to pretend otherwise. Must be the research funding, I guess."?

Come on JMG, actionable? I was a public servant for many years. Do you think I should have sued all the people I dealt with who said I had my "snout in the trough" or that I'd never done a day's "real work" in my life?

This sort of thing is all in a day's work for very public politicians and, unfortunately, for very small-cog-in-big-wheel public servants.

"Snout in the public trough"...

"Roger Helmer MEP had made a written promise to issue a statement about his staff, but has yet to do so. However, the Tory MEP for the East Midlands admitted to us that his wife, Sara administered the £125,000 a year he spent from his staff allowances. For this, she is paid around £15,000 a year."

dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1026376/The-Fatcat-Parliament-How-MEPs-pocket-staggering-630-000-year.html#ixzz0yBXN0j3S

Of course, you shouldn't believe anything printed in the Daily Mail...

James Green @ 481 - and you didn't manage to discuss the science of climate at all. Well done!.

James Green

"....Oh, and mandas, that last statement (#480) is actionable in Law. It is a bald libel, unless you have some firm evidence for saying that there is personal corruption. It is one thing to make a broad ranging allegation, but if you make a statement against a named individual, with no evidence, then that is foolish to say the least....."

I shall await the call from the lawyers. But as Chris pointed out in #482, when someone's first post on this blog is to accuse the blog owner of lying in order to secure public funding - which is called fraud - then I am feel perfectly justified in calling the poster for what he is.

When will the hypocrisy end?

First we have Gore profiting off the very thing he claims will destroy the planet.

Then we have Flannery doing the same with geo thermal

We also have the boss of the IPCC engineering a plan to positon his company TATA into a very good financial state via world treaties.

We also have a nut job independent who campaigns against a coal mine for many years only to sell his property for 4.6 million to them and now supports Labor so he can hand the mine crippling taxes (i assume so he can buy back the farm for a tidy profit)

and now this.....Ross Garnaut you know the famous Australian that produced a report on climate change here in Oz some one who claims to a champion of the environment like some else we know. Well it turns out he owns a number of gold mines in third world countries.

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comme…

I dont expect the hardened believers here to see what is wrong with this but i wonder how many more examples of this type of thing wil it take before they open both eyes and see what is really going on.

So......., what is really going on?

And you call me a FM!!!

First we have Gore profiting off the very thing he claims will destroy the planet.

Yeah, if he really believed what he was saying, he'd put his money where his mouth is! ... Wait. Hold on. I think I got the script for if he didn't invest in what he believes the future will be. Scratch that. Let me try again.

Ahem.

Yeah, he's a capitalist who invests in ecologically friendly ventures! What kind of amoral person does that?

re post #489

That would be yes.

You've missed one, the real properties of Carbon Dioxide. CO2 is a real gas molecule, not an imaginary, hypothetical one (ideal gas). Therefore, it acts according to real gas laws and cannot stay in the atmosphere for thousands of years, not even hundreds. Why? Because carbon dioxide is heavier than air it always moves downwards through air to the ground, it displaces air.

Air is a gas, it is not empty space. It has weight, it has volume, it exerts pressure, it is subject to gravity. Carbon dioxide cannot travel at great speeds through it to 'mix thoroughly in the atmosphere'. Impossible.

The whole of AGW hypothesis is predicated on an imaginary CO2.

Come back to earth.

Even though Myrrh is full of hot air, it seems he has never heard of wind. I think you need to get outdoors more there Myrrh.

Yes, come back down to Myrrh's earth where he lives in a layer of almost pure O2, all the N2 floating far above his head...

Too bad those damn UN scientists can't be bothered to leave their comfy offices long enough to take an air sample or two!

Mandas - So what is wind?

Coby - Don't be silly now, Carbon Dioxide is the food of the Carbon Life Cycle, it's always in a cycle.

You breathe it in, it delivers oxygen to your blood and many other things besides, when you breathe out you put it back into the atmosphere. Plants eat it for food to grow and in doing so give us oxygen. There wouldn't be any oxygen without carbon dioxide. Plants need it, we need it, for life, that's why you're not knee deep in it, we're using it all the time to live and grow. We are Carbon Life Forms in the Carbon Life Cycle.

I'm not sure just how seriously to take Myrrh; maybe someone is just poking fun here, Coby.

Although we've seen this line of reasoning before, I have to admit that I actually had to think about it to categorize the fallacies. The idea that all the CO2 would necessarily sink to ground level is of course a simple factual fallacy (i.e., just plain wrong), but I think the other argument track is a simple non sequitur, technically speaking. To wit:

Premise: Carbon dioxide is a necessary ingredient for life.
Conclusion: Increasing levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide is not harmful to life.

By this logic, more tangible absurdities have superficial merit:

Premise: Water is a necessary ingredient for human life.
Conclusion: Submersion in water is not dangerous to human life.

Or, better still:

Premise: Iron is a necessary ingredient for human life.
Conclusion: Iron weaponry is not dangerous to human life.

I *think* this covers it . . .

I decided not to take him seriously with "You breathe [CO2] in, it delivers oxygen to your blood and many other things besides".

When you are that wrong, it hardly matters if you are sincere or not.

But, Carbon Dioxide is Good for You. Without it you would be dead, so would all plant life.

That is the Carbon Life Cycle, which it appears is no longer taught in schools. Nor is it any longer taught in schools that Carbon Dioxide is heavier than air and displaces air, because 1.5 times heavier, and that gases separate out depending on whether they are heavier or lighter than air. Carbon dioxide can't stay up in air on its own. It is always sinking to the ground where plants and us and other animals use it for our life processes. We are 18% carbon beings (much of the rest is water).

"In 1904 Danish physiologist Christian Bohr described what is now known as the Bohr effect. Simply put, CO2 causes the release of the oxygen from the demoglobin to tissue in the body. If there is not enough CO2 in the blood the oxygen is not released and the cells experience oxygen starvation. In order to have enough CO2 in the blood there must be sufficient amount in the lungs. If there is a shortage of CO2 in the lungs, the bronchioles become inflamed (..)to reduce CO2 loss during exhalation. A concentration of up to 6.5% CO2 in the lungs is healthy; less than 4% is life threatening. Please note that these percentages are significantly higher than the amount of CO2 in our atmosphere."

http://www.iceagenow.com/CO2_essential_to_the_health_and_well_being_of_…

That carbon dioxide is heavier than air and sinks through air to the ground is basic physical physics on gases. Everyone who works with CO2 in industry knows this very well, it is essential to know it. Because those working with large amounts of it know that it is invisible and displaces oxygen, it can suffocate. In large amounts it flows down like a river, from volcanoes and such, look up Cameroon.

It can't stay up in the atmosphere for hundreds and thousands of years, accumulating. Impossible. It is not "well mixed in the atmosphere", you're using ideas from the ideal gas laws which are not pertinent to a real gas such as CO2 in the real world. An ideal gas is imaginary, it's a construct. It has no volume, no weight, does not interact with other molecules, is not subject to gravity, it is not a real gas.

So, what is wind?

myrrh

Are you being deliberately stupid, or does it just come natural to you? Are you really asking me what wind is?

I guess according to your theory, all the CO2 in the atmosphere has accumulated in the lowest points of the surface, given its prediliction to sink. I didn't notice that that when I visited the Dead Sea, or when I travel to a valley floor. Maybe the high I get on top of a mountain is from the lack of CO2 and because I am getting too much oxygen?

Or, I could go for the alternate explanation - you are a moron.

mandas, don't know about the moron part, but myrrh is certainly a wind-up merchant. We had a temporarily entertaining exchange with exactly the same material over at Hot Topic. Pointless.

adelady

Yeah - I just had a look at his link. iceagenow.com indeed! I admit it - I was punked!

By the way, I read some of your comments at skepticascince.com. Pretty cluey!

mandas

SkSc is a beacon of sense in a ghost train world. Cluey? Probably. But being clever is not the issue. I'm absolutely convinced that many sceptic/denier/cynics are pretty clever.

It's a bit unfortunate when you're faced with a topic where being clever is not enough. (Just like having a lovely voice won't get you a leading role at an international opera house. You have to put in the years and the effort to make that grade.)

People who are used to being the cleverest person they know seem to be taken aback or even offended when faced with clear evidence that others are certainly more knowledgeable and probably more brainy than they are. I'm sure that underlies some of the accusations of trickery, or support for others' accusations, from some individuals. They'd rather think scientists were dishonest than face their own ranking in the intellectual world.

some individuals [would] rather think scientists were dishonest than face their own ranking in the intellectual world.

I have found the zen of contentment that comes from acknowledging both the virtues of science and my own dismal rank.

I was very much like your hypothetical quasi-smart sophist in my younger years, Ad: Chess champion, standard test scores in the far end of the bell curve, etc. The cure? Being in academia. I take enough pride in being a mediocrity in a mediocre field; nothing disabuses you of intellectual conceit like being around people who are genuinely brilliant. I was cured long ago.

The problem with so many of our denier friends is they've never been exposed to real scholarship and scientific inquiry, so they have no idea (as was so often the case with me years ago)just how dumb they look when opposing a basic tenet of science with arguments like . . . like the idea that all CO2 sinks to the lower troposphere because of its molecular weight. Groan.

1.Explain how this "AGW carbon dioxide" stays up for hundreds and thousands of years accumulating in the atmosphere, when carbon dioxide is heavier than air.

2.Explain how this "AGW carbon dioxide" becomes 'well-mixed' in the atmosphere, when all measurements show it isn't.