A Few Things Ill Considered

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.

Posted by: Mike Haubrich, FCD | August 5, 2008 6:39 PM

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.

Posted by: Joe Garcia | August 12, 2008 4:19 PM

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...)

Posted by: chris | August 13, 2008 1:18 PM

hi guys,

yes i did look at all the articles in the sections, but: there is a forcing by around 1-2w/m� 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.

Posted by: chris | August 14, 2008 1:04 AM

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]

Posted by: rob | August 19, 2008 5:48 AM

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?

Posted by: Dianne | September 8, 2008 11:01 AM

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

Posted by: Ben Tehan | September 11, 2008 8:19 PM

Great stuff. Thank you so much for collecting and organizing it.

I'd like to see your comments about this stuff which seems to be gaining traction lately. (short version: credited scientist expects cooling - blames solar activity):

http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2006/08/25/Russian_scientist_predicts_global_cooling/UPI-75561156555554/

Posted by: Matt Whiting | September 20, 2008 5:59 PM

Here's the mindset one needs to have:

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

Posted by: DailyElitist | November 24, 2008 6:20 PM

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

Posted by: Global Warming Causes | December 23, 2008 5:45 AM

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&btnG=Search+Images , 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

Posted by: Federick | January 7, 2009 1:02 PM

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.

Posted by: Don | March 7, 2009 11:54 AM

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

Posted by: Hazlitt | March 7, 2009 8:44 PM

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

Posted by: Betula | April 11, 2009 9:15 AM

How do you make heads and tails with this article:

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/Global-Warming/Antarctic-ice-growing-not-shrinking-/articleshow/4418558.cms

Just curious...

Posted by: Bill | April 18, 2009 1:18 PM

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.

Posted by: Bill | April 18, 2009 8:53 PM

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.

Posted by: Chris | April 18, 2009 9:29 PM

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.

Posted by: Bill | April 19, 2009 9:51 AM

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/News/Global.Warming.Provokes.Reaction.In.Catholic.Church-3333765.shtml

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.

Posted by: Adam | April 20, 2009 11:03 AM

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

Posted by: Betula | April 21, 2009 7:17 AM

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?

Posted by: catman2 | April 21, 2009 6:15 PM

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.

Posted by: Betula | April 22, 2009 5:27 AM

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-antarctic-warming-story/
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 earth’s 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

Posted by: neologizer | May 3, 2009 12:52 PM

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

Posted by: Richard | May 9, 2009 8:56 PM

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.

Posted by: Richard | May 10, 2009 10:47 PM

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.||

Posted by: Paul in MI | June 8, 2009 4:04 AM

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."

Posted by: Alexis Scholtz | June 23, 2009 8:26 AM

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.

Posted by: cedley1969 | June 25, 2009 1:01 PM

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

Posted by: Thomas T. S.Watson | July 8, 2009 5:59 AM

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

Posted by: Thomas T. S. Watson | July 8, 2009 6:15 PM

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?

Posted by: Adam | July 9, 2009 9:39 AM

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. Don’t 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.

Posted by: Ian | July 18, 2009 3:30 AM

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 “global warming community” 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 you’d make those changes, wouldn’t 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, that’s 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 I’m in favor of hedging our bets.

The intelligent discussion now is about what to do to lower our emissions significantly. That’s 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, that’s 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 world’s 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.

Posted by: Ian | July 18, 2009 9:23 AM

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.

Posted by: dhogaza | July 18, 2009 9:58 AM

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.

Posted by: Ian Forrester | July 18, 2009 2:40 PM

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 can’t 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

Posted by: Vernon | July 18, 2009 3:37 PM

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.

Posted by: dhogaza | July 18, 2009 4:16 PM

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-with-professor-anastasios-tsonis-on-has-the-climate-recently-shifted

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.

Posted by: Vernon | July 18, 2009 6:05 PM

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.

Posted by: dhogaza | July 18, 2009 6:14 PM

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.

Posted by: Adam | July 19, 2009 7:32 AM

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.

Posted by: Vernon | July 19, 2009 12:17 PM

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?

Posted by: dhogaza | July 19, 2009 1:00 PM

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, what’s 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. Let’s 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

Posted by: Ian | July 20, 2009 10:13 PM

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.

Posted by: Brian D | July 23, 2009 1:13 PM

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.

Posted by: Greg S | August 1, 2009 7:26 AM

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.

Posted by: Mark Maultby | September 21, 2009 3:01 AM

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

Posted by: ugg boots | October 12, 2009 12:22 AM

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 ?

Posted by: Gus Leudar | October 29, 2009 1:34 AM

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!

Posted by: Erwin | October 29, 2009 9:55 AM

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]

Posted by: Gus | November 2, 2009 11:14 PM

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.

Posted by: Gus | November 2, 2009 11:35 PM

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

See link > http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/hadley_hacked#63657

The director of Britain’s leading Climate Research Unit, Phil Jones, has told Investigate magazine’s 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."…

TGIF asked Jones about the controversial email discussing “hiding the decline”, and Jones explained what he was trying to say….

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. I’ve 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 “peer review” be used to shout down sceptics.

Posted by: PaulinMI | November 20, 2009 10:07 AM

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

Posted by: skip | November 20, 2009 3:37 PM

You gotta laugh at the desperation of the deniers.

Posted by: Dappledwater | November 20, 2009 9:19 PM

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

Posted by: skip | November 21, 2009 7:38 AM

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.

Posted by: PaulinMI | November 21, 2009 8:01 AM

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.

Posted by: PaulinMI | November 21, 2009 10:07 AM

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.

Posted by: Syrin | November 25, 2009 8:15 AM

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

Posted by: skip | November 25, 2009 10:35 AM

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

Posted by: michael | November 26, 2009 1:46 PM

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.

Posted by: Arlyn | December 3, 2009 4:03 AM

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

Arlyn

Posted by: Arlyn | December 4, 2009 3:32 AM

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...

Posted by: Marco | December 4, 2009 9:03 AM

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 “a 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.

Posted by: Michael Simpson | December 5, 2009 2:29 PM

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.

Posted by: sikiş | December 6, 2009 3:07 AM

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.

'

Posted by: bryce ramussen | December 6, 2009 5:09 PM

"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".

Posted by: Dappledwater | December 6, 2009 10:19 PM

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.

Posted by: Dr Lionel Boxer | December 8, 2009 2:46 AM

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.

Posted by: crakar24 | December 8, 2009 5:34 PM

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.

Posted by: Mindless Ego | December 8, 2009 6:33 PM

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

Posted by: Prof. Bucket | December 8, 2009 10:23 PM

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_Plagued_by_Bias_Cronyism_Study.html

Posted by: Mindless Ego | December 9, 2009 10:13 PM

"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/

Posted by: Dappledwater | December 10, 2009 2:04 AM

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.

Posted by: mandas | December 10, 2009 3:03 PM

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.

Posted by: mandas | December 10, 2009 4:49 PM

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.

Posted by: crakar24 | December 10, 2009 7:24 PM

"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?.

Posted by: Dappledwater | December 11, 2009 3:06 AM

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.....

Posted by: Mindless Ego | December 11, 2009 7:38 AM

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-Problems-with-surface-station-climate-records-easy-to-find--even-for-a-sixth-grader

Posted by: Mindless Ego | December 11, 2009 8:23 AM

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.

Posted by: Jason | December 11, 2009 8:35 AM

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.

Posted by: Mindless Ego | December 11, 2009 11:35 AM

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*

Posted by: Mindless Ego | December 11, 2009 2:57 PM

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.

Posted by: Ian Forrester | December 11, 2009 4:22 PM

"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.

Posted by: Mindless Ego | December 11, 2009 5:21 PM

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.

Posted by: Ian Forrester | December 11, 2009 6:11 PM

"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.

Posted by: Dappledwater | December 11, 2009 8:27 PM

#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.

Posted by: Dappledwater | December 11, 2009 8:40 PM

See 178.

And

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/11/would-you-like-your-temperature-data-homogenized-or-pasteurized/#more-14026

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

Posted by: Mindless Egod | December 12, 2009 1:42 AM

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

Posted by: Dappledwater | December 12, 2009 9:42 AM

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-about-malaria.thtml

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

Posted by: crakar24 | December 16, 2009 2:48 PM

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 don’t 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.....

Posted by: mandas | December 16, 2009 3:47 PM

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.

Posted by: mandas | December 16, 2009 3:58 PM

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

“It’s unclear to me how this figure was arrived at,” Dr Maslowski said. “I would never try to estimate likelihood at anything as exact as this.”

The response,

Mr Gore’s office later admitted that the 75 per cent figure was one used by Dr Maslowksi as a “ballpark figure” 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.

Posted by: crakar24 | December 16, 2009 5:11 PM

“It’s unclear to me how this figure was arrived at,” Dr Maslowski said. “I would never try to estimate likelihood at anything as exact as this.”

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.

Posted by: dhogaza | December 16, 2009 5:41 PM

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 30–100% increase in mosquito abundance, in other words “biological amplification” 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!)

Posted by: mandas | December 16, 2009 5:49 PM

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.

Posted by: crakar24 | December 16, 2009 6:05 PM

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-rise-clear
Now, go away and try again. But this time do your research.

Posted by: mandas | December 16, 2009 7:23 PM

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

Yes, we have noticed.

Posted by: Dappledwater | December 17, 2009 1:11 AM

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.

Posted by: dhogaza | December 17, 2009 5:17 AM

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

Posted by: skip | December 17, 2009 8:14 AM

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.

Posted by: Ian Forrester | December 17, 2009 5:02 PM

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

Posted by: crakar24 | December 17, 2009 5:16 PM

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

Posted by: mandas | December 17, 2009 5:27 PM

"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-climate-is-warming

"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

Posted by: Dappledwater | December 17, 2009 10:30 PM

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.

Posted by: dhogaza | December 18, 2009 7:23 AM

@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.

Posted by: Toby | December 18, 2009 6:39 PM

The Life of David Cale?

Couldn't resist, Dave. Sorry.

Skip

Posted by: skip | December 19, 2009 1:19 PM

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...

Posted by: Marco | December 22, 2009 12:07 AM

"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?.

Posted by: Dappledwater | December 22, 2009 1:26 AM

I’m 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.

Posted by: dhogaza | December 22, 2009 6:21 AM

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?

Posted by: Marco | December 22, 2009 7:49 AM

@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 we’d 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 ‘cloud chamber’ 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

Posted by: Peter de Jong | December 22, 2009 11:07 AM

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??!!??

Posted by: mandas | December 22, 2009 10:26 PM

@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.

Posted by: Marco | December 23, 2009 3:12 AM

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.

Posted by: Marco | December 23, 2009 3:39 AM

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

You better prove the earth’s sinks were overwhelmed (calculations?). Apparently, they were not when we almost completely removed and burned Europe’s old-growth forests. Those first mine steam engines couldn’t 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 don’t we return back to normal:
“For 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.”
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/reprint/the_past_is_the_key_to_the_present.html

And if you don’t want to, how about the saturated greenhouse effect theory:
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/co2_cannnot_cause.html

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

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

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 ‘an established fact’, 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 earth’s 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 ‘good’, 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

Posted by: Peter de Jong | December 23, 2009 10:35 AM

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.

Posted by: dhogaza | December 23, 2009 1:33 PM

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), 11,851–11,863

"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.

Posted by: mandas | December 23, 2009 2:12 PM

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.

Posted by: Ian | December 27, 2009 8:40 AM

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?

Posted by: michael | December 28, 2009 12:50 AM

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-emails/

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.

Posted by: michael | December 28, 2009 2:57 PM

"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?.

Posted by: Dappledwater | December 28, 2009 5:15 PM

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.

Posted by: michael | December 28, 2009 8:50 PM

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.

Posted by: michael | December 29, 2009 4:12 AM

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 don’t 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/

Posted by: michael | December 29, 2009 4:10 PM

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

Posted by: skip | December 30, 2009 1:12 PM

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.

Posted by: Murf | December 30, 2009 7:02 PM

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.

Posted by: pough | December 31, 2009 10:09 AM

Its posts like the above that wreak havoc with my belief in homo sapiens as an advanced species.

Posted by: skip | January 3, 2010 9:28 AM

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.

Posted by: Andrew30 | January 4, 2010 3:03 PM

For a satirical look at the climategate programming (hiding the decline):

Anthropogenic Global Warming Virus Alert

www.thespoof.com/news/spoof.cfm?headline=s5i64103

Posted by: Andrew30 | January 4, 2010 4:23 PM

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.

Posted by: crakar24 | January 10, 2010 4:30 PM

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!)

Posted by: Ian | January 21, 2010 12:51 PM

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.

Posted by: Jay | January 31, 2010 12:58 PM

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.

Posted by: skip | February 2, 2010 8:33 AM

skip

Why oh why did you post that link!! Now I have "I Got You Babe" stuck in my head!!!

Posted by: mandas | February 2, 2010 3:26 PM

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-wrong/

http://www.niwa.co.nz/news-and-publications/news/all/nz-temperature-rise-clear

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.

Posted by: Ian Forrester | February 2, 2010 6:37 PM

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.

Posted by: Ian Forrester | February 2, 2010 9:22 PM

To Ian,

Hello pot this is kettle.

Posted by: crakar24 | February 2, 2010 10:02 PM

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?

Posted by: Ian Forrester | February 3, 2010 7:17 AM

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?

Posted by: mandas | February 3, 2010 2:01 PM

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............

Posted by: mandas | February 3, 2010 2:54 PM

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.

Posted by: crakar24 | February 3, 2010 6:34 PM

#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,

Posted by: SkepticalbyNature | February 4, 2010 12:05 PM

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!)

Posted by: dhogaza | February 4, 2010 2:30 PM

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.

Posted by: mandas | February 4, 2010 3:25 PM

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.

Posted by: mandas | February 4, 2010 4:26 PM

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.

Posted by: crakar24 | February 4, 2010 5:11 PM