The Australian geologist Prof. Ian Plimer, author of 'Heaven and Earth' - the splendid new book debunking the whole warming cult - puts it
rather well in a recent interview. He says that the current models 'have nothing to do with science or empiricism, but are about torturing the data until it finally confesses'.
Prof. Plimer also has an interesting answer to the warmists who keep tediously banging on about the majority of scientists who support this nonsense. He says: 'If you'd asked any scientist or doctor 30 years ago where stomach ulcers came from, they would all have given the same answer: obviously, it comes from the acid brought on by too much stress - all of them apart from two scientists who were pilloried for their crazy, whacko theory that it was caused by bacteria. In 2005, they won the Nobel Prize.'
Incidentally, Coby and Pough, as I know how anxious you will be to read 'Heaven and Earth' and as I fear it may not have been published yet in Canada, I believe it is available from amazon. (Actually, come to think of it, it is probably the sort of thing that will be banned in Canada. Won't it infringe warmists' human rights, somehow? I wouldn't want to
encourage you into illegality)
snowman -
You really are hilarious. I (apparently generously) still had a modicum of respect for your reasoning ability, and just thought you
were being excessively clouded by your ideology; until I read this post, that is, where you credulously reference Plimer's book. You
really have a lot of nerve calling yourself a skeptic.
I obviously don't expect snowman to even read these references, he's clearly too caught up in his denialist delusions.
Given how eagerly they accept whatever information purportedly supports their positions (regardless of its accuracy), perhaps we should stop referring to them as denialists or pseudo-skeptics, and start referring to them as the overly-credulous?
But Adam, what leads you to think that reviews by people who are Plimer's implacable foes, people who are politically and culturally on the opposite side of the galaxy, can be relied upon? That you should invoke Monbiot (or Moonbat, as he is known in the UK) as a dispassionate arbiter is... well, words fail me.
A book of 500 pages of detailed argument will inevitably attract its critics, and doubtless there will be some conclusions that can be shown to be incorrect. What counts, of course, is its overall thrust. This is intended as a work for the general reader, not a technical paper in a specialist journal. It must be seen and appreciated in that light.
Moreover, in finding details to quibble with, the reviewers, and the warmists generally, miss the point. This argument has long since ceased to have anything to do with science. It is a cultural, political battle that will be won or lost in the pages of the popular press and on television.
This is why heretics attract such invective. The warmists know, deep down, that they are losing this war - little by little, drip by drip. With each book such as Plimer's that is published, with each mildly questioning newspaper article that appears (and, of course, as each cold year is followed by yet a colder year) the warmists' case is damaged more.
It will take time, and the there will be many setbacks along the way, but in end rationality will triumph over hysteria and unreason. As the old saying goes, truth will out.
Quoting Snowman: This is why heretics attract such invective. The warmists know, deep down, that they are losing this war - little by little, drip by drip. With each book such as Plimer's that is published, with each mildly questioning newspaper article that appears (and, of course, as each cold year is followed by yet a colder year) the warmists' case is damaged more.
And at the same time, the Arctic ice thins and shrinks, the La Nina swings to El Nino Modoki(huh?), the oceans warm, acidify and rise, the pine beetle spreads, the droughts & heatwaves intensify, the floods rise, the tundra bubbles, the glaciers retreat, the rich scrabble for the remaining food supplies and the politicians fiddle while forests fall and 100,000 coal fired power plants & billions of cars relentlessly belch CO2.
The stomach ulcer story is not really applicable as an example, that was a tiny corner of controversial medical research, our present problem is spread across all the earth and atmosphere sciences, supported by scientists in multiple disciplines. Time will tell who is right and who will get the future Nobel Prizes.
A book of 500 pages of detailed argument will inevitably attract its critics, and doubtless there will be some conclusions that can be shown to be incorrect. What counts, of course, is its overall thrust. This is intended as a work for the general reader, not a technical paper in a specialist journal. It must be seen and appreciated in that light.
Shorter snowman: Don't nitpick the errors! He has the right idea, even if his supporting evidence is factually inaccurate!
I give you an F for skeptical thinking.
But Adam, you can't have been reading my posts. The accuracy or otherwise of Plimer's book is not the issue (although I am sure it is broadly correct).
The point is that this is no longer a scientific battle, but a cultural and political one. Books such as Plimer's are another stage on the way to the eventual victory of the rationalists over the warmists.
He says that the current models 'have nothing to do with science or empiricism, but are about torturing the data until it finally confesses'.
And it's a flat-out lie. The fact that you don't *know* it is a flat-out lie means you have no idea as to how GCMs actually work.
Which is not surprising.
Plimer's depending on the ignorance of ideologues like you to fall for his lies.
There's a cure for ignorance, snowman. Are you up to the task?
snowman -
The point is that this is no longer a scientific battle, but a cultural and political one.
At least you finally admit that the science is settled, and the only thing denialists have now is to try to mislead or confuse people into political inaction.
Snowman -
Talking about the political battle, here's a headline I came across at a "denialist" site.
"Hansen unhinged on G-8 failure". Apparently he is quite enraged about the failure of the G8 to commit to immediate suicide and called the Waxman-Markey bill "a monstrous absurdity", which you will agree it is.
You will perhaps also agree that, (invoking the Parsimony Principle), the headline "Hansen unhinged on G-8 failure" is extravagant, when "Hansen unhinged" would have been sufficient.
I also think that after Adam's repeated assaults, we had better throw in the towel and admit to Anthropogenic Global Warming.
Hansen did promise Obama that he (Obama) would see record global temperatures during his first term and he looks like he is keeping to his promise, along with his partner Jones at Hadley. Just see the GISS and Hadley temperatures soar even as the satellite temperatures plummet. Both Hansen and Jones are undeniably anthropods.
Adam - I generously choose to interpret your post No.8 as a cheekily amusing, deliberate distortion of my point, and not to an inability to understand what I said.
Richard -
I am greatly encouraged by the G8's reluctance to destroy western society over a fantasy. It does, amazingly, appear as if we are seeing outbreaks of sanity.
There is still much to be done. However, as Winston Churchill said of another small matter: 'This is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it may, perhaps, be the end of the beginning.'
Shorter Snowman: I declare climate science to be junk, therefore, have this pile of manure as a balance.
Ho, ho, MarkusR: how droll.
What counts, of course, is its overall thrust. This is intended as a work for the general reader, not a technical paper in a specialist journal. It must be seen and appreciated in that light.
It is almost as Ian Plimer has reached the greatness of Leni Riefenstahl's Triumph of Will.
Taunting Snowman merely reinforces his view of ideological extremists participating in the debate. If you're serious about the science, confine yourself strictly to that with him or ignore him. He just wants to talk about the politics of it all, from the little I've read.
Coby,
I must admit you do have a way with words, this statement made me laugh my arse off.
"Some comments came up about Ian Plimer`s recent fiction novel "Heaven and Earth"."
When was the last time you watched Al's hit movie? Which reminds me Al's travelling roadshow touched down in Melbourne this weekend. Where he continued with the same old "inconvinient truth" and was last seen handing out free sample bottles of snake oil.
Yawn. People can throw mud at each other until the cows come home; it makes no difference whatsoever to the scientific picture.
Plimer's central arguments have been comprehensively debunked. His book presents no coherent argument that refutes current climate science in any way.
I defy anyone to read Ian Enting's detailed response to "Heaven and Earth" and still believe that Plimer's book offers any argument of substance that challenges current climate science.
If anyone does believe that, please provide details with appropriate supporting references.
I have just finished reading Prof. Plimer's book.
I found it to be rather poorly edited, but the science made sense to me.
In the various warm and cold peroids of history life on earth has flourished and suffered accordingly.
I am in Australia, and something we learned in primary school is that the interior of the continent was not always the desert that it is now. There are fossils of sea shells there, and pelicans (for example) STILL go there to breed now.
The Iron/Bronze ages were warm times. The Dark Ages period is an example of a cold time.
Look, when I first saw Al Gore's movie, I was shocked and scared. I wanted to find out more about it, and I have found that when one reads all of the available information without a political ideology in mind, the very idea of anthropogenic climate change is quite preposterous.
Regarding Al Gore, I'd like, if I may, to quote directly from Prof. Plimer's book, page 486: "Gore lives in a 20-room shack near Nashville (Tennessee) that consumes only 221,000 kW hours of electricity a year, 20 times the US average. He defends this by stating that he has purchased renewable energy credits to offset his own use; And who did he buy these credits from? You guessed it, his own company, Gerneration Investment Management. (with footnote reference to article in World News Daily)
For a man who made his money from petroleum, he is now making the odd shekel frightening people witless about global warming while he positions himself to make serious money from emmissions trading."
I believe the entire GW movement is PURELY a political movement that has nothing whatsoever to do with science.
I strongly believe that the REAL argument should be about POLLUTION. No-one wants to live in a polluted environment. We should be doing everything we can to use energy from all sources efficiently without the pollution of previous generations.
I have been following some of the threads on this blog, and I thank you for it Coby. I found you because The Australian Greens party sent me a link to the "how to talk to a skeptic" page.
I will be sure to keep reading!
Cheers,
Michael
G'day Michael,
Re these comments: "when one reads all of the available information without a political ideology in mind, the very idea of anthropogenic climate change is quite preposterous" and "the entire GW movement is PURELY a political movement that has nothing whatsoever to do with science".
Did "all of the available information" include the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report? If it did, exactly what aspect of the science do you find preposterous, and why?
Observations about the size of Al Gore's house don't really qualify as scientific rebuttals.
The size of ones house does not constitute evidence of the AGW theory, you are exactly right Matt. Having said that strip away the "likely', "very unlikely" gibberish (purely designed to cover ones arse) and the predictions by climate models what do you have left?
It is titled "Understanding and Attributing
Climate Change" Have a read and then tell me what the evidence is and remember models and projections of faith do not qualify as evidence.
Actually why dont you respond in the open thread, as we have begun to go off topic after only 19 posts.
Hey Matt,
I clicked on your link to Ian Enting's Detailed Response.
It's quite long, but I thought I'd compare his notes with Prof. Plimer's book (which I have right in front of me).
I must say that in my reading so far, quite simply, I disagree with Ian Enting's statements.
As I said in my previous post, I did find that this book is rather poorly edited, with a number of missing words and often repeats of the same points over and over. It gives me the impression that it was a bit of a "rushed job".
In Ian Enting's Point By Point Section, I have only so far read the first three and compared them to the text of the book, but I disagree with his analysis.
Point 1: The text he points to on page 86 is a kind of "introduction" of ideas. The "102 Studies" are referred to throughout the entire book.The book does frequently mention the Medieval Warm Period and the temperatures thereof, but Enting states that "some of the cited references do not even address the Medieval period" Does that mean that some of the referenced citations DO?
The last one is "and the repeated claim that the climate sensitivity is 0.5degC." Umm, yes, and....? Point being?
Point 2. I cannot recall any mention of Absolute Zero. (those words are not in the Index)
If any reference was made to "below absolute zero" I would have noticed it, as that is indeed beyond current scientific understanding.
Point 2, ii: He has misquoted from page 366. The subject of that section is the heat trapped in the atmosphere by CO2 in the Infra-red wavelength. He also explains later in the book that the amount of heat trapped by CO2 is not increased by the the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. It reaches a kind of "saturation point" with reference to the trapping of Infra-red heat.
(by the way he also mentions that CO2 is used on purpose to increase plant growth in commercial greenhouses. (page 447)If CO2 were in higher concentrations in the atmosphere, it would be good for plant life and thereby, good for life on earth.)
Point 3. I have so far only looked at a couple of his references to the citations of figures 1, 3, 5, etc, but from what I can see so far, there is a relevent citation on the same page.
That's all I've had time for so far.
I'm glad I have read Prof. Plimer's book. The vigor at which it is torn apart, I think shows more about the sensitivity of the "tearer" than the "tearee"!
I will continue to find out the facts!
Cheers,
Michael
Hey Matt,
Thanks for the link to the IPCC report. All throughout Prof. Plimer's book, he talks about how the reports released by the IPCC are "doctored" by a select few "scientists" and cannot be relied upon as being based on any type of fact.
The contents of ALL such reports (repeat ALL) that don't agree with the IPCC's political ideology of carbon induced GW are simply left out or distorted to read the way they want them to.
Hey Matt, Are you in Australia? Have you read the book?
I look forward to further discussions, but this computer is at my work and I must now depart.
Goodnight everybody!
Just quickly though; You only commented on my quote referring to the size of Al Gore's house.
What is your opinion of the rest of the quote?
What is your opinion of the rest of the quote?
In general your posts show you to be scientifically illiterate. Trying to use the size of Gore's house as an argument against science was just one good example.
Dhogaza, I do wish you would stop rampaging about the place calling everybody a scientific illiterate. It is getting very tedious. At the very least, could you not think up some new insults?
Michael -
All throughout Prof. Plimer's book, he talks about how the reports released by the IPCC are "doctored" by a select few "scientists" and cannot be relied upon as being based on any type of fact. The contents of ALL such reports (repeat ALL) that don't agree with the IPCC's political ideology of carbon induced GW are simply left out or distorted to read the way they want them to.
Before you go ahead and accuse the IPCC of fraud, you're going to need a little more than just the say-so of Plimer's error-filled book. I realize its easier to just posit a conspiracy, and then claim license to disregard the findings, then to do any actual work and find any, you know, 'evidence' for your claims. But, that's what makes you a denialist rather than a skeptic.
Dhogaza, I do wish you would stop rampaging about the place calling everybody a scientific illiterate. It is getting very tedious. At the very least, could you not think up some new insults?
Given the prideful arrogance with which certain people (hmm, who could I have in mind?) parade their scientific illiteracy in public, I'm amazed that you consider it to be an insult ...
Michael - Did you think you would get a fair appraisal and honest opinion of Plimer's book on a site called "How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic"?
Scepticism, the backbone of science, is frowned upon here. Instead here you will get religious certainty. They are absolutely right and they have thought of everything.
From the talk here I gather they are mostly Canadians. Canadians as you maybe aware, even the ones who believe in Humans being able to control the Global thermostat, and who currently believe that we have turned this thermostat on too high, are all huddled together for warmth on a tiny strip of land within 20 km of their southern border.
Global warming goes on, of course, on its natural course, despite the ridiculous religious incantations of the warmists. They are rather like the Chinese astrologers of old who beat drums to make the dragon who had swallowed the Sun, during a total solar eclipse, vomit it out. The dragon of course invariably got frightened and dutifully disgorged the sun, to the accolades of the astrologers.
There was a downside to the power and the glory of the astrologers however. When the astrologers failed to predict the eclipse they got beheaded.
Today these same "we can control our global temperature" astrologers are failing in their doomsday scenario predictions, but they are not being beheaded (as yet, and maybe we are too humane to do so, but at least they should be locked up as they are recommending the sceptics be). The accolades and prizes are still being heaped upon them, while they grow ever more shriller in their "The End Of The World Is Nigh" shrieks to gather and control the faithful.
Canada is a signatory of the Kyoto protocol, which excludes India and China who have increased their emissions by 88% and 77% respectively, since then. Even if humans were able to control the Global thermostat, Canada would benefit enormously by a warmer climate. Yet they are planning to spend $2 billion on sequestering 0.7% of their CO2, which represents 0.5% of the world's annual INCREASE of CO2! The same CO2 that horticulturists pump into their hothouses to make their plants grow better, in a hotter environment with more CO2!
Stupidity knows no bounds. The Kyoto trading scheme and greenie economic measures would quickly bankrupt our economies as they transfer wealth and resources from growing efficient industries to costly and inefficient ones. Spain for example, which was held up as a poster child by Obama, on how to switch to alternative energy, has been quietly dropped from his rhetoric as it has gone bankrupt as a direct result of its ideological policies. Economies do not work on ideologies as we learned from the example of the Soviet Union. (Or should have).
You will get only pseudo science here. To bolster their claims the warmists are cooking their data and indulging in deception and fraud, which was indeed the basis of the warmist movement. I started gathering my own data to check their facts almost a year ago and I found to my amazement that the GISS data, (global temperature data), being run by the activist Hansen, is going on changing even as I gather it! Jones of Hadley is no better. Fortunately for the last 29 years we also have the Satellite data to keep a check on the Anthropogenic Global warming being caused by the activists.
Richard said: "Stupidity knows no bounds." How right you are, you are one of the most stupid and arrogant posters on this blog. Your stupidity is not just confined to climate science, you should spend a little bit of time learning some geography too.
Dunning Kruger seems to be reaching pandemic proportions. However, a little bit of education (which you seem to have missed for some reason) will help.
It frankly amazes me, Richard, that you have the patience to continue to contribute to this forum.
Time after time, you post lucid, informed and insightful comments, only to be abused by imbeciles.
It must be utterly galling, and yet you soldier on.
snowman/Richard, the fact that you agree completely with the rubbish, misinformation and lies that Richard/snowman posts shows that you are as stupid and dishonest as he is. Of course that is hardly surprising if you are attached at the hip.
Dishonest deniers like you are the most selfish and arrogant people I have come across. You blithely post lies and rubbish to try and convince others that you can go on with your extravagant and polluting lifestyles while putting the well being of future generations at risk.
Such behaviour in a civilized world is deplorable, have you no decency at all?
Erm...Dhogaza, and Matt? - Even if I WERE Scientifically Illiterate, you have only called me a name in a vain attempt at insult. You still haven't (and I suspect won't) tell us your opinion on the rest of what I wrote. The part about Al Gore was a DIRECT quote for Prof. Plimer's book. (I hope that was clear)
I'd be very appreciative of a point-by-point analysis of my posts, with references. You are obviously a Literate Scientist (to be justified in name calling) so where is YOUR science?
Adam - So far, I believe I have cast doubt (at least that was my intention) on the accuracy of Ian Enting's appraisal of Prof. Plimer's supposedly "error filled" book. Where is your reference coming from that the IPCC is NOT committing fraud?
I say again, in MY OPINION the ENTIRE AGW movement has nothing at all to do with science, facts or history. It is purely a POLITICAL movement that promotes a feeling of guilt for living in a modern, capitalist society. Capitalism is not a perfect system, but it's the best one we've found so far. As Winston Churchill said: "The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries."
Ian - Sorry to be nitpicking, but I believe you, like Dhogaza are only "calling names". Can you come up with a reasoned argument of WHY Richard and snowman are "stupid and dishonest" ?
It's no good just being abusive. I'm sure you can do better than that!
I believe that we so called "deniers" are open to proper discussion. If there is good science attached without political ideology, we will listen.
I came to this blog because I ALWAYS want both sides of every story.
They are dishonest because they distort data, cherry pick data, truncate series of data and just tell lies about science papers.
You are as stupid as they are if you think that Plimer's book is not full of lies and misinformation.
You are not serious when you say that you are telling us that you are not "Scientifically Illiterate." That would make you a liar just like the other two. Anyone who thinks that that book is scientifically correct is scientifically illiterate.
Ian Forrester just a question - Have you read the book?
No, but I have read reviews on it written by honest scientists who are infinitely more intelligent and honest than you or snowman or Michael.
Scientists are mostly very honest so what they say is much more informed and accurate than what dishonest lyin' deniers spout.
I see and which reviews are these? Since you feel so strongly about this book, no doubt because of the information you have gathered about its lies, you could answer Michael's questions?
Can you come up with a reasoned argument of WHY Richard and snowman are "stupid and dishonest" ?
Can you read? Can you think? Can you cross the street without a boy scout holding your hand for you?
I say again, in MY OPINION the ENTIRE AGW movement has nothing at all to do with science, facts or history.
E-mail me for my prices on Genuine Guaranteed Superior Tinfoil Hats (TM). They're pricy but good!
Michael dont mind dhogaza. He has a foul mouth as has Ian Forrester. Neither of them are particularly brilliant and that believe you me is the understatement of the century.
dhogaza's expertise lies in doling out insults but he is very predictable. I know exactly what he is going to say, in fact I predicted it once and he said it a couple of posts later. He cant help himself. He would be very trainable in a circus, though I doubt he would draw the crowds of the other animals.
Ian Forrester thinks I am the same person as snowman, though Snowman I believe is from London and I am a proud Kiwi. Snowman is very polite whereas I sometimes dont tend to be, but its not worth trading insults with fools. I will grant however that despite Ian Forrester's extreme stupidity he has correctly deduced that were we to meet in the Canadian wilderness I would leave my carbon footprint firmly on his backside.
What a joke, more threats of physical violence from Richard.
Why are stupid people so nasty?
How about we all tone down the gratuitous personal insults guys? Threats of a physical nature are definitely over the line.
Michael -
The part about Al Gore was a DIRECT quote for Prof. Plimer's book. (I hope that was clear)
Yes, and this is just one reason that Plimer's book is a total load of nonsense and not to be taken seriously. If you're interested in the science, toss the trash and check out the peer-reviewed science (note: this has nothing to do with Al Gore, which might be a big shock to denialists)
I say again, in MY OPINION the ENTIRE AGW movement has nothing at all to do with science, facts or history. It is purely a POLITICAL movement that promotes a feeling of guilt for living in a modern, capitalist society.
Opinions are like rear-ends, everyone has one and they all stink. When you come across some facts, do please get back to us. (Hint: check out the IPCC 4th assessment report, it's chock load of facts).
I came to this blog because I ALWAYS want both sides of every story.
Way to stay open minded, Michael. If only your comments were legitimate requests for information instead of recycled denialist talking points, and pointless attacks on Al Gore.
Hello Adam,
Can you please read chapter 9 titled "Understanding and Attributing Climate Change" and point out the loads of facts for me, thanks in advance.
It was a joke but I apologise. It is pointless trading insults, I should have let it go
Thanks for your kind words of support Richard. (I suspect these words will sound "stupid" to some readers.
Ian, I'm sorry to have to point it out to you, but you don't make a good impression when you have to admit you haven't read "the book" yet judge it based on reviews written by "honest scientists". If Ian Plimer is being dishonest, WHY is he being dishonest? If the so-called "honest scientists" are being honest, then WHY are they being honest? How can you know so surely that the "honest scientists" are honest and the "dishonest scientists" are dishonest??
Dhogaza - I am STILL waiting from a reasoned argument from you!
Adam - If your comment on "rear ends" is valid does it also hold that your own opinion stinks too? You have not come up with a reasoned argument either.
The reason I quoted that extract form the book was that in my OPINION, (poo, stinky!) if one is a Professor of Geology, writing a "controversial" book like this, then I'm positive that in today's litigious society, one would be pretty certain about the words one is writing! (I had thought that was obvious.)
Does that make sense?
Richard - Even though you should not have insulted Ian, it WAS pretty funny. Can I use that? (haha)
I am really enjoying the thrust and parry of good political debate.
I really do eagerly await reasoned arguments from any "believers".
Can anyone suggest any other blogs or sites? (no matter which side they're on)
Thanks again Coby for this blog. I realise I'm new here, but are you usually so quiet?
Working on the assumption that no one could be quite as impenetrably dense and disagreeable as Ian Forrester pretends to be, I assume that his aim is simply to post inflammatory and self-evidently preposterous comments in the hope of provoking a reaction.
Accordingly, I suggest we henceforth ignore him and confine our responses to people who are interested in a reasonable discussion.
Incidentally, Dhogaza, although not quite in Ian's class when it comes to imbecility, runs him a close second. I propose that we ignore him, too.
I'd like to second those emotions Snowman.
I honestly cannot understand the vigour of their objections, when they are not backed up by ANY reasonable rebuttals. Their behaviour is best described, in my stinky opinion, as Bully Boy!
I'd like to state again, for clarity, that I believe the debate should be about pollution, and not AGW.
I found this "Illconsidered" blog (great title Coby) because after I finished reading "the book", I expressed my opinion (in a nice way) to The Australian Greens party, Senator Christine Milne's office. The replys to each of my politely worded emails were invariably short one or two liners accompanied with a url link. I want reasoned debate! I was hoping to find it here and have not! If AGW is indeed the emergency it's portrayed to be, where is the science? Perhaps my vision is clouded (pun intended) but all I can see is political spin! (which fascinates me by the way) Again, I look forward to reasoned replies.
I say again, in MY OPINION the ENTIRE AGW movement has nothing at all to do with science, facts or history. It is purely a POLITICAL movement
Sorry, but anyone who claims that the hard work of thousands of climate scientists around the world "has nothing to do with science" and is "purely a political movement" deserves tinfoil-hat answers.
OK, since Coby has apparently ceded this site to a handful of extremely repetitive and dense denialists, no reason for me to stick around and try to beat sense into them.
Coby - this overrunning of your site, IMO, pretty much undermines your excellent "how to talk to a climate skeptic" work.
Michael, I am a scientist and have been involved in research (I have a Ph.D) in many fields of science (chemistry, biochemistry, micro-biology, environmental science) for over 40 years.
Thus I have the background knowledge to know that the science involved in climatology is based on solid research and science basics. I don't form my opinions by reading junk websites but have spent many long hours actually studying what is being reported in both the peer reviewed scientific literature and in good quality text books (ones that get good ratings from people in the field, not trashed like Plimer's book).
Thus I get very annoyed when people who show that they have no knowledge of the science (because if they did they wouldn't be repeating the nonsense that they post) post junk and dishonest comments on various blogs, especially ones which are trying to inform lay people about the actual science involved in climatology. These same people refuse to accept the science when they are told where they can go and read up on it and repeat over and over again the nonsense that they find on the denier websites. These sites may look as if they deal in science but they are full of techniques which are considered scientific malfeasance by honest practicing scientists.
These dishonest tactics include cherry picking, misinterpretation of data, truncating of data and just plain lying.
Most of these websites are anti-science and anti-scientist and make slanderous comments about some of the most prominent people in the field of climate science. If you show that you support such behaviour then you deserve all the insults and negative comments that people direct at you.
Grow up and become educated.
And as for your call for reasoned debate I have two comments. First of all, you cannot have a debate with someone who is irrational (most deniers fit this description). Secondly, science is not debated in the blogsphere or public meetings. Real science is done in the laboratory or field and reported (if suitable and correct) in the peer reviewed scientific literature. If other scientists do not agree with the findings they carry out similar experiments to see if they get the same or a different result. That is how real science works it is not a word game practiced by political debaters who will say anything to support their case since the opposition does not have the time to mount a proper rebuttal.
So if you think that climate science is wrong, spend some money, hire some scientists and show us all where we went wrong. I guarantee that you will not come up with anything because real scientists have been trying to do it for years and have come up empty.
Hi Michael,
I am not always this quiet : )
In the present, I am overwhelmed with Real Life. Plus crakar's fallacious assertions have been answered repeatedly and he never changes his course (the pure denialist approach), snowman provides only vacuous meta commentary (the Concerned Philosopher approach) and Richard is too long winded and will not focus enough for me to productively dialogue with him (the Gattling Gun approach). There is a very low value to time ratio in responding to any of those tactics.
You said "in MY OPINION the ENTIRE AGW movement has nothing at all to do with science, facts or history. It is purely a POLITICAL movement that promotes a feeling of guilt for living in a modern, capitalist society."
This comment has almost no connection with the reality of scientific research or the history of atmospheric chemistry. The conclusions we have arrived at are the result of thousands of individual papers about technical minutiea that no one, least of all the original researchers, could have predicted would lead to the policy discussions we have today.
Hi Coby. We were all getting a little worried. Such a relief to have you back.
Now, I don't mind in the least if you find my comments vacuous. But 'meta', Coby? What a strange choice of word, and - I am sorry but I have to be frank - a rather pretentious one.
Be that as it may, I really can't allow your remarks about Richard to go unchallenged. Surely it is plain to the meanest intellect (I refer to yours, my dear Ian and Dhogaza) that Richard's scientific knowledge and analytical powers are in a completely different league from everyone else in this forum.
And so, Coby, I hope you will reconsider your lofty dismissal, and deal with some of his specific points. Maybe you would like to start with his deconstruction of the hockey stick. I, and others, thought it was pretty devastating. You may disagree. But his observations merit a considered answer.
Ian Forrester since you CLAIM to have spent so many years âinvolvedâ in research and you CLAIM to know so much, perhaps you could give a reasoned reply instead of flashing your certificates and hurling abuse? In all your life have you not learned how to be polite? Is it because of cognitive decline that you have lost the power of reasoned argument, in place of which you can now only hurl abuse and flash your credentials?
I am sorry despite the flashing of your credentials and repeatedly saying how honest you are, I cannot have any respect for you. I still think youâre an idiot and now I am convinced youre a liar. Iâll pitch my knowledge of maths and science against yours any day.
Did you really think I thought that the whole of Canada was huddled together for warmth on their southern border? I know that about 3/4 of the population lives within 150 km of the border, something perhaps that you donât know despite living in that country. Besides being ignorant, you sadly lack a sense of humour and thatâs perhaps why youre so nasty.
You are incapable of reasoned argument. I said âCanada is a signatory of the Kyoto protocol, which excludes India and China who have increased their emissions by 88% and 77% respectively, since then. Even if humans were able to control the Global thermostat, Canada would benefit enormously by a warmer climate. Yet they are planning to spend $2 billion on sequestering 0.7% of their CO2, which represents 0.5% of the world's annual INCREASE of CO2! The same CO2 that horticulturists pump into their hothouses to make their plants grow better, in a hotter environment with more CO2!â
To this you could only reply âyou are one of the most stupid and arrogant posters on this blog. Your stupidity is not just confined to climate science, you should spend a little bit of time learning some geography too.â
How does climate science have anything to do with what I said? Can you think of better ways to spend that money? Do you think spending $2 billion dollars on doing that makes much sense? And if so why? Can you give reasons instead of hurling abuse?
You said you had read reviews of Plimerâs book âwritten by honest scientistsâ. I think you are lying. You have read nothing except comments on blogs. You are just angry at the man and are venting your rage, just like a senile prehistoric dinosaur with a pea sized brain might. Donât you dare call me dishonest you lying idiot.
Michael is right. You so called âclimate scientistsâ are drunk with your political power. Just because you are a âclimate scientistâ you think you can now pontificate on all branches of science and mathematics, about which you know precious little, and on economics, morality, politics and world governance. Do you think you have a monopoly on all virtue and intelligence, you lying delusional hypocrite?
You say âSecondly, science is not debated in the blogsphere or public meetings.â What do you do in blogsphereâs then? Hurl abuses at other people? I donât think you have the intellectual capacity for debate.
You claim to be a scientist with over 40 years research. What have you researched on may I know? When I did a google search on âIan Forrester Publicationsâ and âIan Forrester Climate Publicationsâ all it came up with was a whole lot of blogs where you go to and offer your pompous, bombastic opinions and abuse. It came up sadly blank on publications. If you have any they donât seem to be of Earth shaking consequence.
â.. if you think that climate science is wrong..â I do NOT think that climate science is wrong. I just think that you, despite proclaiming yourself to be a âclimate scientistâ, are a blithering idiot. I think I have a better understanding of Climate science, at least so far as global warming is concerned, than you.
I have said what I had to say and from now on I am going to ignore you as you are abusive, a liar and incapable of reason.
Coby, I give you a choice, either ban Richard, snowman and Michael (or at least rein them in) or I will no longer post on this blog.
It is unfortunate that the knowledgeable and intelligent people who post on the science blogs are abandoning them because of the viscous personal attacks by ignorant, rude and dishonest posters who are either only playing games or are in the pay of the very people who are causing AGW and don't want to act in a responsible manner.
I will join dhogaza in not sticking around if the asylum is going to be taken over by the lunatics. I think this blog is a good, science based site but it is being polluted with these dishonest deniers. I have better things to do if things do not change.
Michael -
If your comment on "rear ends" is valid does it also hold that your own opinion stinks too?
Absolutely it applies to my own opinions as well. There's no reason you should take the word of an anonymous internet commenter who's background you are unfamiliar with and therefore unable to know whether to take seriously, which is why I try to minimize the amount of opinion I post (this particular comment not-withstanding). That being said, that's why I try to post links to information justifying my claims (whether peer-reviewed research, or more typically, blogs either written by climate scientists themselves or by people who collect/collate the arguments like Coby or others like him). You shouldn't take me all that seriously, but you should take the scientists themselves seriously.
Besides, I'm not active in climatology, (and I'm assuming you aren't either but I don't want to say for sure), so it makes sense for me to take climatologists opinions seriously. You probably should to.
Occasionally I'll post some simple math that probably deserves at least an open, honest assessment, but that should be easy enough to verify if I made an error or not (I'll leave the more complicated stuff to the professionals).
You have not come up with a reasoned argument either.
I will respond with a reasoned argument when you post some valid question instead of hysterical nonsense (e.g. Al Gore uses too much energy! The IPCC reports are written by a double secret society! The AGW movement is entirely political! etc). I will respond appropriately to such bollocks, which is open disdain, contempt and likely a bit of mockery.
The reason I quoted that extract form the book was that in my OPINION, (poo, stinky!) if one is a Professor of Geology, writing a "controversial" book like this, then I'm positive that in today's litigious society, one would be pretty certain about the words one is writing! (I had thought that was obvious.)
It's not a crime to be wrong. I don't necessarily think Iam Plimer is being intentionally dishonest, but his science certainly isn't any good (I also don't discount that it's possible he's being intentionally dishonest). He can be as certain as he wants, and still be incorrect. Humans (even professors of geology) are capable of error.
Does that make sense?
No. It seems like a smokescreen to avoid having to check up on the source yourself (using the links helpfully provided by myself and Matt). You'd think if someone is going completely against the consensus on something, you'd make extra sure to check out his claims for accuracy, rather than just blindly accept it because it fits your pre-conceptions.
My fallacious assertions supported by observational data have been answered by personnal opinions, which is why i have not changed course.
You could have added something like "regardless of his denialism he does not use his internet anonymity to write rude, sarcastic, childish, abusive posts every chance he gets" or words to that effect.
To Ian Forrester, if Coby was to ban the people you name then you should be banned aswell as you are no better than them.
To dhogaza,
Where are these "thousands of scientists" you speak of, AR4 Chapter 9 was the key chapter because it attributed a change in climate to human activity however consider the following;
1, Just 62 individuals or government appointed reviewers commented on this chapter
2, A large number of reviewers had a vested interest in the content.
a, 7 reviewers were "contributing editors" to the chapter
b, 3 were overall editors of wotking group 1
c, 26 were authors or co-authors of papers cited in the final draft
d, Only 25 reviewers could be considered as independant
3, Just 4 reviewers, including one government appointed team or individual, explicitly endorsed the entire chapter in its draft form, NOT THOUSANDS OF SCIENTISTS BUT FOUR!
The IPCC claim AR4 as having been reviewed by hundreds or even thousands of expert and independant scientists. This is incorrect, in reality the report represents the view of a small and self selected science coteries that formed the lead authoring teams.
Crakar, you have been unfailingly courteous despite all manner of provocation and abuse. I have a lot to learn from you.
You are right ofcourse about your above post.
Here are some excerpts from a New Zealand scientist and reviewer of the IPCC, Vincent Gray:
"The determination to suppress any scientific contributions which tended to challenge the âClimate Changeâ mantra was made clear in the first IPCC Report (1990) in their introduction to a list of reviewers, as follows:
âThe persons named below all contributed in the peer review of the IPCC Working Group I Report. While every effort was made by the lead authors to incorporate their comments, in some cases these formed a minority opinion which could not be reconciled with the larger consensus.
Therefore there may be persons below who still have points of disagreement with areas of the Reportâ
After that you would hardly be surprising that most scientists who disagree with the Reportâs conclusions have been reluctant to waste their time and effort to say so.
I have been an âExpert Reviewerâ right from the start. I believe that I submitted more comments than any other individual. Of course, most of them were ârejectedâ.
The whole exercise is an openly political one, as it is carefully controlled by Government representatives from the Convention signatories. Lead authors for the Reports are chosen by the Governments and a âSummary for Policymakersâ approved line-by-line by the Government representatives has to be at the beginning of all reports. The authors of this summary are âdrafting authorsâ who are carrying out decisions made by the governments."
Crakar -
This is incorrect, in reality the report represents the view of a small and self selected science coteries that formed the lead authoring teams.
You're really choosing the wrong thing to embarrass yourself on. There's little doubt as to where the peer-reviewed research leads. I see you still are delusional enough to think that the IPCC just pulled the 4th assessment out of its ass, but ZOMG it's actually based on the work of real climate science!
See this paper from 2004, concluding that, out of 928 papers published in the previous 10 years, 75% explicitly or implicitly agreed with the consensus position on global warming and 25% didn't say one way or the other. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686?maxtoshow=&HIT…
"The 928 papers were divided into six categories... Of all the papers, 75% ... either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% ... taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position."
Check out the difference between the two categories on this wikipedia page, Statements by concurrent organizations vs. Statements by dissenting organizations. (Here's a hint, the first category is very long, and the second consists of this statement: ..."no remaining scientific body of national or international standing is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate change." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
Of course, you already know this, and you're just engaging in your typical denialist, dishonest garbage. Denying the scientific consensus is like denying any other basic fact about the world; it's only done by the dishonest or the insane. The consensus might be wrong, but it nonetheless exists.
I however do not deny the scientific consensus that says that there is Anthropogenic Global Warming.
I merely say that there is no evidence of dangerous global warming, which is what all the fuss is about. After all if the Earth is warming slightly and we still have a long way to go before we reach the Medieval Warm period which was a good period for the Earth, and an even longer way to go before we reach the Holocene Optimum, which was an even better period for the Earth, then there is no cause for alarm. (But I do not believe we will reach there, the Earth will cool long before that despite our anthropogenic CO2).
No cause for us to spend billions of dollars in a futile attempt to sequester miniscule amounts of CO2, or to deprive the developing world and ourselves of electricity, the essential input for development and quality of life.
You say IPCC is correct because thousands of scientists say so. I say it is wrong because the evidence says so.
Adam, i am talking about the number of people that reviewed the report before it went to print, you are talking about the number of people that may or may not agree with the IPCC report after it was published.
"Of course, you already know this, and you're just engaging in your typical alarmist, dishonest garbage."
This statement is just gold "The consensus might be wrong, but it nonetheless exists."
Mr Ian Forrester! - Did you really call for the people with opposing opinions to yourself to be banned??
Does a Ph.D do that?
A Ph.D who is obviously a free thinking liberal??
Oh My God! I am really quite shocked!
I'm a bit stuck for time now although I'd love to respond to all of you, you, you, Believers! But it's time for me to leave work now. (Curse you Earthly Rotation!)
It also occurs to me, though of course I may be wrong, that a subject based purely on science would need a list of instructions on "how to talk to a skeptic".
I'd like to find the blog that gives me instuctions on "how to talk to an Electromagnetism Skeptic", or "how to talk to a Gravity Skeptic".
How about a "Micro-Electronics Skeptic"?
Were these three topics (just examples) agreed upon by consensus within the scientific community?
Or could it have been that (at the time) there were people who DID disagree, but were then convinced by having reasoned discussion and then being shown the scientific measurements, results etc?
Hopefully, I'll be able to continue this post tomorrow.
Goodnight, or Good Morning all.
Michael
Crakar -
Adam, i am talking about the number of people that reviewed the report before it went to print, you are talking about the number of people that may or may not agree with the IPCC report after it was published.
Your original statement was:
This is incorrect, in reality the report represents the view of a small and self selected science coteries that formed the lead authoring teams.
I know it was authored by a relatively small group, but the report nonetheless REPRESENTS THE VIEWS of a great many scientists. Your attempts to move the goalposts are noted, but that's a typical denialist for you.
This statement is just gold "The consensus might be wrong, but it nonetheless exists."
It's unlikely to be wrong, but nonetheless, that statement seems pretty honest to me. What do you object to about it?
I have been an âExpert Reviewerâ right from the start. I believe that I submitted more comments than any other individual. Of course, most of them were ârejectedâ.
Richard quotes Vincent Gray. I wonder if he
1. knows the criteria that must be met to be considered an "expert reviewer" of the IPCC reports.
2. has ever read Vincent Gray's comments that have been rejected.
Did you really call for the people with opposing opinions to yourself to be banned??
When trying to discuss science, it is not fruitful to have the conversation cluttered with people who claim that the science under discussion does not exist.
Michael, it is not people who have differing opinions to me who should be moderated, it is people like you (and the few other deniers who are polluting this site with their lies and misinformation) who knowingly post dishonest comments, or comments which have been repeated over and over again by deniers which have been shown to be false.
That it is what a denier is. If you have good reason to have a differing opinion or interpretation then you can bring it up. That includes references to actual papers by competent scientists in the peer reviewed scientific literature.
However, if it is something you have cut and pasted from a denier site and it has been shown to be worthless then you are just wasting everyone's time. Of course that is what you deniers want, inaction so that your big brothers in polluting industries can continue to make money from putting the welfare of future generations at risk. The tactics you use are well known and have been used before by other dishonest industries such as the tobacco industry, the asbestos industry, chemical producers and many others.
The rest of your post is just gibberish. The reason that there are no "Electromagnetism Skeptics", "Gravity Skeptics" or "Micro-Electronics Skeptics" is because there are no industries making huge quantities of money by ignoring and distorting the science in these areas.
dhogaza - "Richard quotes Vincent Gray. I wonder if he ..." - Unimportant.
You say IPCC is correct because thousands of scientists say so. I say it is wrong because the evidence says so.
IPCC - Temperature will rise by 3C if CO2 doubled from 280 ppm to 560 ppm.
Undisputed science more of this rise will take place in the first half of the rise and less in the second half.
CO2 rises from 280 to 390ppm in 110 years, Temp rises by just 0.6C - 0.055C/decade, well within the natural range of the past.
Still 2.4C to go and only 80 years to reach 560 ppm. Temperature should now rise by 0.3C/decade, a 550% increase.
CO2 rises by 5% in the last 11 years the temperature (as measured by the Satellites) comes down slightly
Evidence does not match AGW hypothesis so far.
Is the land temperature evidence of Hansen and Jones being cooked? Well you be the judge:
A large number of station records dont have actual data of temperature but "ESTIMATES" for the annual average.
The data keeps changing. For example between August 05 to Sept 07 there were 4,784 "updates" affecting 24,323 months. On the average 20% of the historical record was modified 16 times in the last 2 1/2 years.
In April 2008 Hansen of GISS updated the March record to show a large anomaly of 0.67 degC. This caused a corresponding drop in annual average temperature for the years 1946 and 1903 which made 1946 colder than 1960 and 1972, and 1903 dropped into a tie with 1885, 1910 and 1912.
The earliest temperatures appear to have been adjusted downward, leading to an overall upward trend.
He has done it again now. 2007 anomaly raised 1998 lowered. 2007 now hotter than 1998.
June 2009 is very hot according to GISS Hansen - anomaly 0.63C, Satellites on the other hand - RSS 0.075, UAH 0.001, show it to be pretty cool.
Why all these changes and discrepancies? Is the evidence being tampered with?
Well who knows. There is no openness - no explanation either how these temperatures are being arrived at or how and why they are being adjusted. No independent person can check them. Science should be open not secretive.
Snowman silence from you. Have you left? Wouldnt blame you if you have. Whats the weather like in London? I heard they issued a grade 3 warning for a heatwave. Is it hot there? What with snow in June in Northern Brittian and children dying of the cold in Peru, must be global warming, human induced of course. Wouldnt want you getting heatstroke. Its bloody cold here though.
Snow in Peru, New Zealand, Brazil thats just weather, but a heatwave in London - thats climate as you must be knowing.
Hi Richard. Still here. It's mild but wet in London, as it has been for several days. In fact, according to the BBC weather forecast this morning, the whole of July is 'likely to be a bit of a washout'.
Speaking of the BBC, I wonder if the row about their departing broadcaster Peter Sissons has reached the antipodes. Sissons recently retired after a long career in television journalism. His parting shot was a severe criticism of the Corporation for its increasingly agenda-driven news coverage. He singled out global warming, and claimed that it is now the BBC's official policy not to permit any views that did not fit in with the approved orthodoxy.
Those of us who have to endure the BBC's relentless propaganda on this matter were not surprised, but it was interesting to have it confirmed by someone on the inside.
By the way, Richard, it occurs to me that this disgraceful censorship at the BBC would find enthusiastic support from some of the denizens here. I note that Ian Forrester is demanding that we be silenced. How exquisitely ironic, and typical of the warmists' agenda.
Until fairly recently, I looked upon the warmists with a sort of genial tolerance. But increasingly I believe that they are a profound danger to the West and our way of life. These are people whose fantasies have beguiled spineless governments and politicians of all stripes, who have themselves have become too enfeebled and crippled by first world guilt to stand up for the West and for rationality.
How they must be laughing in China as they contemplate the antics of these useful idiots (to use Lenin's phrase). My only hope is that a succession of increasingly cold winters might eventually jolt the political classes into some semblance of sanity before they complete the task of destroying our economy - a task upon which they are now energetically engaged.
Hmmm, I AM starting to feel like attempting to find reasoned debate on this blog is pointless.
Ian, I have never once knowingly posted anything that is dishonest or incorrect.
You suggest that myself and othere Deniers have been repeating ad nauseum comments that have been shown to be false. Erm, WHERE have they been shown to be false?
Where are your reasoned arguments as a Ph.D?
How is Prof. Plimer not a competent scientist whose work is peer reviewed?
I said in my first post on this blog, that Prof. Plimer's science made sense to me.
At the risk of typing gibberish, and again proving my scientific illiteracy, can I get some opinions/facts/reviews on what he says about the methods of measurement of global temperature?
He goes into some detail about the positioning of meteorological weather stations in all countries, and how one year the weather station was positioned in a grassy field, and the next year it was positioned on top of a concrete building in a city.
How can "believers" trust so blindly the weather and temperature records of the last 150 years when there has been NO worldwide standard for the measurement of temperature? For example, some of the thermometers used over that time have been mercury, some have been alcohol, there have been inconsistencies in the altitudes, and times and dates of the measurements, there have been combinations of, and conversions between Celsius and Fahrenheit and there has been missing data that has been averaged.
Even if all this does show an upward trend, how can it possibly be scientifically accurate?
Nowadays, we have satelites to measure global temperature which are not influenced by local conditions, positioning, staff shortages or forgetfulness.
By my reading, the satelite temperature data, although relatively short term, shows a cooling trend.
May I please have a reasoned, scientific reply to this point without being accused of stupidity or being called a name?
I welcome opposing comments but not abuse.
By my reading, the satelite temperature data, although relatively short term, shows a cooling trend.
May I please have a reasoned, scientific reply to this point without being accused of stupidity or being called a name?
Is that your reply? OK?
Do you have anything else dhogaza?
Can you comment on my and Richards comments about the temperature records?
If you cannot find out for yourself then you are either very lazy or want to confuse people. The internet is a great tool to educate oneself if you are willing to be educated. Unfortunately, in your case I think that is not the case.
Why waste your time and ours by being so unable to find things out for yourself?
Most educated people do a lot of reading before they start discussing things which they are not sure about and cutting and pasting (or paraphrasing) comments which they do not know are correct or not. Deniers cut and paste and don't care as long as it looks like they are tearing the science of AGW apart. It is very easy for a scientist to see whether you really know anything about what you are talking about or not.
Here are two good sources for correct information on climate change; the IPCC reports and Spencer Weart's site.
Here are three reviews of Plimer's book:
By David Karoly, School of Earth Sciences University of Melbourne Victoria - http://tinyurl.com/mp4yl9
By Malcolm Walker, Director, Australian Centre for Astrobiology University of New South Wales Sydney http://tinyurl.com/klqyjz
The satellite data only shows a cooling if you believe Spencer and Christy's work. Most climate scientists do not think that they are being honest or accurate.
The RSS data uses the same raw data but different algorithms and is a closer match to surface temperatures. And anyone who makes great pronouncements on only a few months of data is just being silly.
Is that your reply? OK?
It's blue.
Computer Science A segment of text or a graphical item that serves as a cross-reference between parts of a hypertext document or between files or hypertext documents. Also called hotlink, hyperlink.
Oh, sorry, I was obviously too stupid to see that the two letter reply was actually a hyperlink.
It appears to be a link to a record of temperature measurements beginning in the 70s and finishing about now.
I can see that the groups of four numbers on the x axis are years. I am assuming that the numbers on the y axis are "factors of temperature change" (?)
I can also see that there is a green line to indicate a "trend". The Trend is most definitely an upward one.
I owe you an apology dhogaza.
This graph from WoodForTrees.org changes my opinion completely.
You have successfully argued your case and now I am a staunch believer!
Richard, Snowman, Craker14, we have been royally out gunned!
I say retreat is our only option. You guys must repent immediately, or there will be dangerous climate change and WE 4 will be to blame.
Coby, Adam, Matt, I apologise to you as well. I have been wrongly poisoning your happy blog. If it's alright though, I'd still like to "lurk" and perhaps post here and there to learn other good ways to convince those dirty Deniers out there. (I'm sure there are others, the bastards!)
Even though I can no longer stand to look at it, here is a link (is it a blue one?) to a video interview of the Denier himself.
Feel free to fire up excel and plot the data. I'd post the graph I made myself, but it looks similar enough to the one I linked to already that I needn't bother.
You can cherry pick individual periods to show cooling, but the long-term trend of the satellite data shows warming. Since what we care about is the long-term trend, and not the short-term periods where we can show relative cooling, it's ludicrous to make the claim "satellite temperature data shows a cooling trend."
It appears to be a link to a record of temperature measurements beginning in the 70s and finishing about now.
I can see that the groups of four numbers on the x axis are years. I am assuming that the numbers on the y axis are "factors of temperature change" (?)
I can also see that there is a green line to indicate a "trend". The Trend is most definitely an upward one.
I've been trying to honor your request to not call you stupid, but your insulting tone coupled with the stupidity you're displaying makes it difficult.
1. y axis - anomaly from base period in K (or degrees C if you prefer)
2. Since you've been making claims about the satellite data, I just assumed you'd know that "RSS" is the satellite temperature reconstruction accepted as being most accurate by many in the climate science community. Apparently not.
You have my sincere apology for having overestimated your knowledge level.
As Adam points out, the UAH satellite temperature reconstruction also shows a rising trend. However the UAH team has a history of errors, many of them pointed out by the RSS team. So I believe them to be more reliable.
I owe you an apology dhogaza.
Being a denialist means never having to say you're sorry.
OK?
You have successfully argued your case and now I am a staunch believer!
Oh, and regarding your sarcastic tone, all I've done is to prove that your statement that the satellite record shows cooling to be false.
The reason for my one-word "OK" hyperlink response was to make clear that I was simply addressing that point.
Michael - Remember you are a "newbie" and a "rookie" in this game. So any mistake you make will be pounced upon by Adam and Dhogaza, who will then feel extremely smug and satisfied with themselves, though it no way has any bearing on the real issue as to whether there is any evidence of DANGEROUS anthropogenic warming. Thats the important thing.
Remember though there is absolutely no evidence of anthropogenic warming in the temperature records, this does not prove that the CO2 we are pumping into our atmosphere is not causing any warming. It well might be and I personally believe that it is causing the temperatures to be slightly warmer than they would be if that extra CO2 were not there.
What the IPCC says and these believers believe is however that the warming caused by this CO2 causes even more warming through water vapour through what is called a "positive feedback". And that the Earth would go on warming, destabilising the climate system, causing all kinds of strife like half the world drowning.
A POSITVE FEEDBACK is like the brake and accelerator of you car. If you go too fast you use the brake and if too slow the accelerator. A NEGATIVE FEEDACK would be like if the brake and accelerator were interchanged WITHOUT INFORMING YOU. Now if you wanted to slow down you would press on the accelerator and go even faster. This is basically what the IPCC says the Earth does.
But the Earth does not behave like that? From our history emphatically NO! It is highly homeostatic. It tends to come back to its state of equilibrium. If this is the true reality, and historically this was so and todays evidence points to the same, then CO2 will have a minimal effect on Global warming. Not only that when the Earth naturally cools CO2 will be powerless to stop it as it has happened in the past.
The only satellite trend I truly believe is the UAH one. The RSS satellite data is pretty close to it too.
It is true that the UAH data shows a warming trend over the 29 years it has been in existence, but this warming trend is far less than the warming trend of Hansens GISS, which is highly suspect because of the reasons I have outlined above.
The warming shows nothing remarkable. It is also true that the warming trend taken over over the last 11 years is flat or slightly downwards and again it is true that this may not be significant as it is too short a time period. But then so are the last 3 decades over which IPCC and the warmers make all that fuss about.
Richard, slight correction to post #68
The IPCC baseline year is 1750, in 1750 the CO2 levels were 275ppm which means the IPCC quoted figure of a doubling of CO2 would equal 550ppm.
Snowman,
Yes I did pop over to that and have a look. To Coby's credit he did seem uncomfortable at banning us and I was amazed Adam actually spoke out against the ban. But he will give into the faithful.
I have been surprised that I wasnt banned when I ran that one of the Hockey Stick, seeing the link with Real Climate.
Thank you for that. That means that Global warming will have even more catching up to do, to be in line with IPCC predictions.
oops that was Craker! lol thanks for that Craker
Michael - Remember you are a "newbie" and a "rookie" in this game. So any mistake you make will be pounced upon by Adam and Dhogaza, who will then feel extremely smug and satisfied with themselve
Coby, this is another example of the kind of post that should be deleted.
Michael fucked up regarding the satellite record.
I pointed that out.
Richard turns that into a personal attack. The sin isn't Michael's posting nonsense, it's my posting a correction.
My correction, of course, is correct.
Personal attacks over having posted a correct correction should be deleted.
Make them speak of science.
A POSITVE FEEDBACK is like the brake and accelerator of you car. If you go too fast you use the brake and if too slow the accelerator. A NEGATIVE FEEDACK would be like if the brake and accelerator were interchanged WITHOUT INFORMING YOU. Now if you wanted to slow down you would press on the accelerator and go even faster. This is basically what the IPCC says the Earth does.
And Christ on a crutch, does this kind of uninformed idiocy have any place on a science blog?
Really, Coby, you need to ask yourself: "is my blog about science, or dick-waving politicsl"
Remember though there is absolutely no evidence of anthropogenic warming in the temperature records
Statements like this have no place on a science blog. It is equivalent to saying "there is absolutely no evidence of evolution in the fossil record".
I'm pointing this out on the wrong thread, but ... think about it. What do you want your blog to be about?
Discussion of science ... or ...
A repository for a flood of anti-science crap.
Your blog, your choice.
Okay, this thread is done. Let's see if any lessons can be learned from it, I will take away a few for myself.
The Australian geologist Prof. Ian Plimer, author of 'Heaven and Earth' - the splendid new book debunking the whole warming cult - puts it
rather well in a recent interview. He says that the current models 'have nothing to do with science or empiricism, but are about torturing the data until it finally confesses'.
Prof. Plimer also has an interesting answer to the warmists who keep tediously banging on about the majority of scientists who support this nonsense. He says: 'If you'd asked any scientist or doctor 30 years ago where stomach ulcers came from, they would all have given the same answer: obviously, it comes from the acid brought on by too much stress - all of them apart from two scientists who were pilloried for their crazy, whacko theory that it was caused by bacteria. In 2005, they won the Nobel Prize.'
Incidentally, Coby and Pough, as I know how anxious you will be to read 'Heaven and Earth' and as I fear it may not have been published yet in Canada, I believe it is available from amazon. (Actually, come to think of it, it is probably the sort of thing that will be banned in Canada. Won't it infringe warmists' human rights, somehow? I wouldn't want to
encourage you into illegality)
snowman -
You really are hilarious. I (apparently generously) still had a modicum of respect for your reasoning ability, and just thought you
were being excessively clouded by your ideology; until I read this post, that is, where you credulously reference Plimer's book. You
really have a lot of nerve calling yourself a skeptic.
For all the lurkers who are possibly following this, please see here for a demolition of Plimer's screed. http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/04/the_science_is_missing_from_ia…
and a more general review:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/jul/09/george-…
I obviously don't expect snowman to even read these references, he's clearly too caught up in his denialist delusions.
Given how eagerly they accept whatever information purportedly supports their positions (regardless of its accuracy), perhaps we should stop referring to them as denialists or pseudo-skeptics, and start referring to them as the overly-credulous?
But Adam, what leads you to think that reviews by people who are Plimer's implacable foes, people who are politically and culturally on the opposite side of the galaxy, can be relied upon? That you should invoke Monbiot (or Moonbat, as he is known in the UK) as a dispassionate arbiter is... well, words fail me.
A book of 500 pages of detailed argument will inevitably attract its critics, and doubtless there will be some conclusions that can be shown to be incorrect. What counts, of course, is its overall thrust. This is intended as a work for the general reader, not a technical paper in a specialist journal. It must be seen and appreciated in that light.
Moreover, in finding details to quibble with, the reviewers, and the warmists generally, miss the point. This argument has long since ceased to have anything to do with science. It is a cultural, political battle that will be won or lost in the pages of the popular press and on television.
This is why heretics attract such invective. The warmists know, deep down, that they are losing this war - little by little, drip by drip. With each book such as Plimer's that is published, with each mildly questioning newspaper article that appears (and, of course, as each cold year is followed by yet a colder year) the warmists' case is damaged more.
It will take time, and the there will be many setbacks along the way, but in end rationality will triumph over hysteria and unreason. As the old saying goes, truth will out.
Quoting Snowman: This is why heretics attract such invective. The warmists know, deep down, that they are losing this war - little by little, drip by drip. With each book such as Plimer's that is published, with each mildly questioning newspaper article that appears (and, of course, as each cold year is followed by yet a colder year) the warmists' case is damaged more.
And at the same time, the Arctic ice thins and shrinks, the La Nina swings to El Nino Modoki(huh?), the oceans warm, acidify and rise, the pine beetle spreads, the droughts & heatwaves intensify, the floods rise, the tundra bubbles, the glaciers retreat, the rich scrabble for the remaining food supplies and the politicians fiddle while forests fall and 100,000 coal fired power plants & billions of cars relentlessly belch CO2.
The stomach ulcer story is not really applicable as an example, that was a tiny corner of controversial medical research, our present problem is spread across all the earth and atmosphere sciences, supported by scientists in multiple disciplines. Time will tell who is right and who will get the future Nobel Prizes.
A book of 500 pages of detailed argument will inevitably attract its critics, and doubtless there will be some conclusions that can be shown to be incorrect. What counts, of course, is its overall thrust. This is intended as a work for the general reader, not a technical paper in a specialist journal. It must be seen and appreciated in that light.
Shorter snowman: Don't nitpick the errors! He has the right idea, even if his supporting evidence is factually inaccurate!
I give you an F for skeptical thinking.
But Adam, you can't have been reading my posts. The accuracy or otherwise of Plimer's book is not the issue (although I am sure it is broadly correct).
The point is that this is no longer a scientific battle, but a cultural and political one. Books such as Plimer's are another stage on the way to the eventual victory of the rationalists over the warmists.
And it's a flat-out lie. The fact that you don't *know* it is a flat-out lie means you have no idea as to how GCMs actually work.
Which is not surprising.
Plimer's depending on the ignorance of ideologues like you to fall for his lies.
There's a cure for ignorance, snowman. Are you up to the task?
snowman -
The point is that this is no longer a scientific battle, but a cultural and political one.
At least you finally admit that the science is settled, and the only thing denialists have now is to try to mislead or confuse people into political inaction.
Snowman -
Talking about the political battle, here's a headline I came across at a "denialist" site.
"Hansen unhinged on G-8 failure". Apparently he is quite enraged about the failure of the G8 to commit to immediate suicide and called the Waxman-Markey bill "a monstrous absurdity", which you will agree it is.
You will perhaps also agree that, (invoking the Parsimony Principle), the headline "Hansen unhinged on G-8 failure" is extravagant, when "Hansen unhinged" would have been sufficient.
I also think that after Adam's repeated assaults, we had better throw in the towel and admit to Anthropogenic Global Warming.
Hansen did promise Obama that he (Obama) would see record global temperatures during his first term and he looks like he is keeping to his promise, along with his partner Jones at Hadley. Just see the GISS and Hadley temperatures soar even as the satellite temperatures plummet. Both Hansen and Jones are undeniably anthropods.
Adam - I generously choose to interpret your post No.8 as a cheekily amusing, deliberate distortion of my point, and not to an inability to understand what I said.
Richard -
I am greatly encouraged by the G8's reluctance to destroy western society over a fantasy. It does, amazingly, appear as if we are seeing outbreaks of sanity.
There is still much to be done. However, as Winston Churchill said of another small matter: 'This is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it may, perhaps, be the end of the beginning.'
Shorter Snowman: I declare climate science to be junk, therefore, have this pile of manure as a balance.
Ho, ho, MarkusR: how droll.
What counts, of course, is its overall thrust. This is intended as a work for the general reader, not a technical paper in a specialist journal. It must be seen and appreciated in that light.
It is almost as Ian Plimer has reached the greatness of Leni Riefenstahl's Triumph of Will.
Taunting Snowman merely reinforces his view of ideological extremists participating in the debate. If you're serious about the science, confine yourself strictly to that with him or ignore him. He just wants to talk about the politics of it all, from the little I've read.
Coby,
I must admit you do have a way with words, this statement made me laugh my arse off.
"Some comments came up about Ian Plimer`s recent fiction novel "Heaven and Earth"."
When was the last time you watched Al's hit movie? Which reminds me Al's travelling roadshow touched down in Melbourne this weekend. Where he continued with the same old "inconvinient truth" and was last seen handing out free sample bottles of snake oil.
Yawn. People can throw mud at each other until the cows come home; it makes no difference whatsoever to the scientific picture.
Plimer's central arguments have been comprehensively debunked. His book presents no coherent argument that refutes current climate science in any way.
I defy anyone to read Ian Enting's detailed response to "Heaven and Earth" and still believe that Plimer's book offers any argument of substance that challenges current climate science.
If anyone does believe that, please provide details with appropriate supporting references.
I have just finished reading Prof. Plimer's book.
I found it to be rather poorly edited, but the science made sense to me.
In the various warm and cold peroids of history life on earth has flourished and suffered accordingly.
I am in Australia, and something we learned in primary school is that the interior of the continent was not always the desert that it is now. There are fossils of sea shells there, and pelicans (for example) STILL go there to breed now.
The Iron/Bronze ages were warm times. The Dark Ages period is an example of a cold time.
Look, when I first saw Al Gore's movie, I was shocked and scared. I wanted to find out more about it, and I have found that when one reads all of the available information without a political ideology in mind, the very idea of anthropogenic climate change is quite preposterous.
Regarding Al Gore, I'd like, if I may, to quote directly from Prof. Plimer's book, page 486: "Gore lives in a 20-room shack near Nashville (Tennessee) that consumes only 221,000 kW hours of electricity a year, 20 times the US average. He defends this by stating that he has purchased renewable energy credits to offset his own use; And who did he buy these credits from? You guessed it, his own company, Gerneration Investment Management. (with footnote reference to article in World News Daily)
For a man who made his money from petroleum, he is now making the odd shekel frightening people witless about global warming while he positions himself to make serious money from emmissions trading."
I believe the entire GW movement is PURELY a political movement that has nothing whatsoever to do with science.
I strongly believe that the REAL argument should be about POLLUTION. No-one wants to live in a polluted environment. We should be doing everything we can to use energy from all sources efficiently without the pollution of previous generations.
I have been following some of the threads on this blog, and I thank you for it Coby. I found you because The Australian Greens party sent me a link to the "how to talk to a skeptic" page.
I will be sure to keep reading!
Cheers,
Michael
G'day Michael,
Re these comments: "when one reads all of the available information without a political ideology in mind, the very idea of anthropogenic climate change is quite preposterous" and "the entire GW movement is PURELY a political movement that has nothing whatsoever to do with science".
Did "all of the available information" include the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report? If it did, exactly what aspect of the science do you find preposterous, and why?
Observations about the size of Al Gore's house don't really qualify as scientific rebuttals.
The size of ones house does not constitute evidence of the AGW theory, you are exactly right Matt. Having said that strip away the "likely', "very unlikely" gibberish (purely designed to cover ones arse) and the predictions by climate models what do you have left?
Is there anything that constitutes evidence left?
Here is the link
h.t.t.p://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_Ch09.pdf
It is titled "Understanding and Attributing
Climate Change" Have a read and then tell me what the evidence is and remember models and projections of faith do not qualify as evidence.
Actually why dont you respond in the open thread, as we have begun to go off topic after only 19 posts.
Hey Matt,
I clicked on your link to Ian Enting's Detailed Response.
It's quite long, but I thought I'd compare his notes with Prof. Plimer's book (which I have right in front of me).
I must say that in my reading so far, quite simply, I disagree with Ian Enting's statements.
As I said in my previous post, I did find that this book is rather poorly edited, with a number of missing words and often repeats of the same points over and over. It gives me the impression that it was a bit of a "rushed job".
In Ian Enting's Point By Point Section, I have only so far read the first three and compared them to the text of the book, but I disagree with his analysis.
Point 1: The text he points to on page 86 is a kind of "introduction" of ideas. The "102 Studies" are referred to throughout the entire book.The book does frequently mention the Medieval Warm Period and the temperatures thereof, but Enting states that "some of the cited references do not even address the Medieval period" Does that mean that some of the referenced citations DO?
The last one is "and the repeated claim that the climate sensitivity is 0.5degC." Umm, yes, and....? Point being?
Point 2. I cannot recall any mention of Absolute Zero. (those words are not in the Index)
If any reference was made to "below absolute zero" I would have noticed it, as that is indeed beyond current scientific understanding.
Point 2, ii: He has misquoted from page 366. The subject of that section is the heat trapped in the atmosphere by CO2 in the Infra-red wavelength. He also explains later in the book that the amount of heat trapped by CO2 is not increased by the the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. It reaches a kind of "saturation point" with reference to the trapping of Infra-red heat.
(by the way he also mentions that CO2 is used on purpose to increase plant growth in commercial greenhouses. (page 447)If CO2 were in higher concentrations in the atmosphere, it would be good for plant life and thereby, good for life on earth.)
Point 3. I have so far only looked at a couple of his references to the citations of figures 1, 3, 5, etc, but from what I can see so far, there is a relevent citation on the same page.
That's all I've had time for so far.
I'm glad I have read Prof. Plimer's book. The vigor at which it is torn apart, I think shows more about the sensitivity of the "tearer" than the "tearee"!
I will continue to find out the facts!
Cheers,
Michael
Hey Matt,
Thanks for the link to the IPCC report. All throughout Prof. Plimer's book, he talks about how the reports released by the IPCC are "doctored" by a select few "scientists" and cannot be relied upon as being based on any type of fact.
The contents of ALL such reports (repeat ALL) that don't agree with the IPCC's political ideology of carbon induced GW are simply left out or distorted to read the way they want them to.
Hey Matt, Are you in Australia? Have you read the book?
I look forward to further discussions, but this computer is at my work and I must now depart.
Goodnight everybody!
Just quickly though; You only commented on my quote referring to the size of Al Gore's house.
What is your opinion of the rest of the quote?
In general your posts show you to be scientifically illiterate. Trying to use the size of Gore's house as an argument against science was just one good example.
Dhogaza, I do wish you would stop rampaging about the place calling everybody a scientific illiterate. It is getting very tedious. At the very least, could you not think up some new insults?
Michael -
All throughout Prof. Plimer's book, he talks about how the reports released by the IPCC are "doctored" by a select few "scientists" and cannot be relied upon as being based on any type of fact.
The contents of ALL such reports (repeat ALL) that don't agree with the IPCC's political ideology of carbon induced GW are simply left out or distorted to read the way they want them to.
Before you go ahead and accuse the IPCC of fraud, you're going to need a little more than just the say-so of Plimer's error-filled book. I realize its easier to just posit a conspiracy, and then claim license to disregard the findings, then to do any actual work and find any, you know, 'evidence' for your claims. But, that's what makes you a denialist rather than a skeptic.
Given the prideful arrogance with which certain people (hmm, who could I have in mind?) parade their scientific illiteracy in public, I'm amazed that you consider it to be an insult ...
Michael - Did you think you would get a fair appraisal and honest opinion of Plimer's book on a site called "How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic"?
Scepticism, the backbone of science, is frowned upon here. Instead here you will get religious certainty. They are absolutely right and they have thought of everything.
From the talk here I gather they are mostly Canadians. Canadians as you maybe aware, even the ones who believe in Humans being able to control the Global thermostat, and who currently believe that we have turned this thermostat on too high, are all huddled together for warmth on a tiny strip of land within 20 km of their southern border.
Global warming goes on, of course, on its natural course, despite the ridiculous religious incantations of the warmists. They are rather like the Chinese astrologers of old who beat drums to make the dragon who had swallowed the Sun, during a total solar eclipse, vomit it out. The dragon of course invariably got frightened and dutifully disgorged the sun, to the accolades of the astrologers.
There was a downside to the power and the glory of the astrologers however. When the astrologers failed to predict the eclipse they got beheaded.
Today these same "we can control our global temperature" astrologers are failing in their doomsday scenario predictions, but they are not being beheaded (as yet, and maybe we are too humane to do so, but at least they should be locked up as they are recommending the sceptics be). The accolades and prizes are still being heaped upon them, while they grow ever more shriller in their "The End Of The World Is Nigh" shrieks to gather and control the faithful.
Canada is a signatory of the Kyoto protocol, which excludes India and China who have increased their emissions by 88% and 77% respectively, since then. Even if humans were able to control the Global thermostat, Canada would benefit enormously by a warmer climate. Yet they are planning to spend $2 billion on sequestering 0.7% of their CO2, which represents 0.5% of the world's annual INCREASE of CO2! The same CO2 that horticulturists pump into their hothouses to make their plants grow better, in a hotter environment with more CO2!
Stupidity knows no bounds. The Kyoto trading scheme and greenie economic measures would quickly bankrupt our economies as they transfer wealth and resources from growing efficient industries to costly and inefficient ones. Spain for example, which was held up as a poster child by Obama, on how to switch to alternative energy, has been quietly dropped from his rhetoric as it has gone bankrupt as a direct result of its ideological policies. Economies do not work on ideologies as we learned from the example of the Soviet Union. (Or should have).
You will get only pseudo science here. To bolster their claims the warmists are cooking their data and indulging in deception and fraud, which was indeed the basis of the warmist movement. I started gathering my own data to check their facts almost a year ago and I found to my amazement that the GISS data, (global temperature data), being run by the activist Hansen, is going on changing even as I gather it! Jones of Hadley is no better. Fortunately for the last 29 years we also have the Satellite data to keep a check on the Anthropogenic Global warming being caused by the activists.
Just go to the page http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/03/satellites-show-cooling.p…
and read from post 22 onwards where I have detailed how the "hockey stick" was fabricated and the evidence of the Medieval Warm Period and the little Ice age was obliterated.
Richard said: "Stupidity knows no bounds." How right you are, you are one of the most stupid and arrogant posters on this blog. Your stupidity is not just confined to climate science, you should spend a little bit of time learning some geography too.
Dunning Kruger seems to be reaching pandemic proportions. However, a little bit of education (which you seem to have missed for some reason) will help.
It frankly amazes me, Richard, that you have the patience to continue to contribute to this forum.
Time after time, you post lucid, informed and insightful comments, only to be abused by imbeciles.
It must be utterly galling, and yet you soldier on.
snowman/Richard, the fact that you agree completely with the rubbish, misinformation and lies that Richard/snowman posts shows that you are as stupid and dishonest as he is. Of course that is hardly surprising if you are attached at the hip.
Dishonest deniers like you are the most selfish and arrogant people I have come across. You blithely post lies and rubbish to try and convince others that you can go on with your extravagant and polluting lifestyles while putting the well being of future generations at risk.
Such behaviour in a civilized world is deplorable, have you no decency at all?
Erm...Dhogaza, and Matt? - Even if I WERE Scientifically Illiterate, you have only called me a name in a vain attempt at insult. You still haven't (and I suspect won't) tell us your opinion on the rest of what I wrote. The part about Al Gore was a DIRECT quote for Prof. Plimer's book. (I hope that was clear)
I'd be very appreciative of a point-by-point analysis of my posts, with references. You are obviously a Literate Scientist (to be justified in name calling) so where is YOUR science?
Adam - So far, I believe I have cast doubt (at least that was my intention) on the accuracy of Ian Enting's appraisal of Prof. Plimer's supposedly "error filled" book. Where is your reference coming from that the IPCC is NOT committing fraud?
I say again, in MY OPINION the ENTIRE AGW movement has nothing at all to do with science, facts or history. It is purely a POLITICAL movement that promotes a feeling of guilt for living in a modern, capitalist society. Capitalism is not a perfect system, but it's the best one we've found so far. As Winston Churchill said: "The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries."
Ian - Sorry to be nitpicking, but I believe you, like Dhogaza are only "calling names". Can you come up with a reasoned argument of WHY Richard and snowman are "stupid and dishonest" ?
It's no good just being abusive. I'm sure you can do better than that!
I believe that we so called "deniers" are open to proper discussion. If there is good science attached without political ideology, we will listen.
I came to this blog because I ALWAYS want both sides of every story.
They are dishonest because they distort data, cherry pick data, truncate series of data and just tell lies about science papers.
You are as stupid as they are if you think that Plimer's book is not full of lies and misinformation.
You are not serious when you say that you are telling us that you are not "Scientifically Illiterate." That would make you a liar just like the other two. Anyone who thinks that that book is scientifically correct is scientifically illiterate.
Ian Forrester just a question - Have you read the book?
No, but I have read reviews on it written by honest scientists who are infinitely more intelligent and honest than you or snowman or Michael.
Scientists are mostly very honest so what they say is much more informed and accurate than what dishonest lyin' deniers spout.
I see and which reviews are these? Since you feel so strongly about this book, no doubt because of the information you have gathered about its lies, you could answer Michael's questions?
Can you read? Can you think? Can you cross the street without a boy scout holding your hand for you?
E-mail me for my prices on Genuine Guaranteed Superior Tinfoil Hats (TM). They're pricy but good!
Michael dont mind dhogaza. He has a foul mouth as has Ian Forrester. Neither of them are particularly brilliant and that believe you me is the understatement of the century.
dhogaza's expertise lies in doling out insults but he is very predictable. I know exactly what he is going to say, in fact I predicted it once and he said it a couple of posts later. He cant help himself. He would be very trainable in a circus, though I doubt he would draw the crowds of the other animals.
Ian Forrester thinks I am the same person as snowman, though Snowman I believe is from London and I am a proud Kiwi. Snowman is very polite whereas I sometimes dont tend to be, but its not worth trading insults with fools. I will grant however that despite Ian Forrester's extreme stupidity he has correctly deduced that were we to meet in the Canadian wilderness I would leave my carbon footprint firmly on his backside.
What a joke, more threats of physical violence from Richard.
Why are stupid people so nasty?
How about we all tone down the gratuitous personal insults guys? Threats of a physical nature are definitely over the line.
Michael -
The part about Al Gore was a DIRECT quote for Prof. Plimer's book. (I hope that was clear)
Yes, and this is just one reason that Plimer's book is a total load of nonsense and not to be taken seriously. If you're interested in the science, toss the trash and check out the peer-reviewed science (note: this has nothing to do with Al Gore, which might be a big shock to denialists)
I say again, in MY OPINION the ENTIRE AGW movement has nothing at all to do with science, facts or history. It is purely a POLITICAL movement that promotes a feeling of guilt for living in a modern, capitalist society.
Opinions are like rear-ends, everyone has one and they all stink. When you come across some facts, do please get back to us. (Hint: check out the IPCC 4th assessment report, it's chock load of facts).
I came to this blog because I ALWAYS want both sides of every story.
Way to stay open minded, Michael. If only your comments were legitimate requests for information instead of recycled denialist talking points, and pointless attacks on Al Gore.
Hello Adam,
Can you please read chapter 9 titled "Understanding and Attributing Climate Change" and point out the loads of facts for me, thanks in advance.
h.t.t.p://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_Ch09.pdf
Crakar
It was a joke but I apologise. It is pointless trading insults, I should have let it go
Thanks for your kind words of support Richard. (I suspect these words will sound "stupid" to some readers.
Ian, I'm sorry to have to point it out to you, but you don't make a good impression when you have to admit you haven't read "the book" yet judge it based on reviews written by "honest scientists". If Ian Plimer is being dishonest, WHY is he being dishonest? If the so-called "honest scientists" are being honest, then WHY are they being honest? How can you know so surely that the "honest scientists" are honest and the "dishonest scientists" are dishonest??
Dhogaza - I am STILL waiting from a reasoned argument from you!
Adam - If your comment on "rear ends" is valid does it also hold that your own opinion stinks too? You have not come up with a reasoned argument either.
The reason I quoted that extract form the book was that in my OPINION, (poo, stinky!) if one is a Professor of Geology, writing a "controversial" book like this, then I'm positive that in today's litigious society, one would be pretty certain about the words one is writing! (I had thought that was obvious.)
Does that make sense?
Richard - Even though you should not have insulted Ian, it WAS pretty funny. Can I use that? (haha)
I am really enjoying the thrust and parry of good political debate.
I really do eagerly await reasoned arguments from any "believers".
Can anyone suggest any other blogs or sites? (no matter which side they're on)
Thanks again Coby for this blog. I realise I'm new here, but are you usually so quiet?
Working on the assumption that no one could be quite as impenetrably dense and disagreeable as Ian Forrester pretends to be, I assume that his aim is simply to post inflammatory and self-evidently preposterous comments in the hope of provoking a reaction.
Accordingly, I suggest we henceforth ignore him and confine our responses to people who are interested in a reasonable discussion.
Incidentally, Dhogaza, although not quite in Ian's class when it comes to imbecility, runs him a close second. I propose that we ignore him, too.
I'd like to second those emotions Snowman.
I honestly cannot understand the vigour of their objections, when they are not backed up by ANY reasonable rebuttals. Their behaviour is best described, in my stinky opinion, as Bully Boy!
I'd like to state again, for clarity, that I believe the debate should be about pollution, and not AGW.
I found this "Illconsidered" blog (great title Coby) because after I finished reading "the book", I expressed my opinion (in a nice way) to The Australian Greens party, Senator Christine Milne's office. The replys to each of my politely worded emails were invariably short one or two liners accompanied with a url link. I want reasoned debate! I was hoping to find it here and have not! If AGW is indeed the emergency it's portrayed to be, where is the science? Perhaps my vision is clouded (pun intended) but all I can see is political spin! (which fascinates me by the way) Again, I look forward to reasoned replies.
Sorry, but anyone who claims that the hard work of thousands of climate scientists around the world "has nothing to do with science" and is "purely a political movement" deserves tinfoil-hat answers.
OK, since Coby has apparently ceded this site to a handful of extremely repetitive and dense denialists, no reason for me to stick around and try to beat sense into them.
Coby - this overrunning of your site, IMO, pretty much undermines your excellent "how to talk to a climate skeptic" work.
Michael, I am a scientist and have been involved in research (I have a Ph.D) in many fields of science (chemistry, biochemistry, micro-biology, environmental science) for over 40 years.
Thus I have the background knowledge to know that the science involved in climatology is based on solid research and science basics. I don't form my opinions by reading junk websites but have spent many long hours actually studying what is being reported in both the peer reviewed scientific literature and in good quality text books (ones that get good ratings from people in the field, not trashed like Plimer's book).
Thus I get very annoyed when people who show that they have no knowledge of the science (because if they did they wouldn't be repeating the nonsense that they post) post junk and dishonest comments on various blogs, especially ones which are trying to inform lay people about the actual science involved in climatology. These same people refuse to accept the science when they are told where they can go and read up on it and repeat over and over again the nonsense that they find on the denier websites. These sites may look as if they deal in science but they are full of techniques which are considered scientific malfeasance by honest practicing scientists.
These dishonest tactics include cherry picking, misinterpretation of data, truncating of data and just plain lying.
Most of these websites are anti-science and anti-scientist and make slanderous comments about some of the most prominent people in the field of climate science. If you show that you support such behaviour then you deserve all the insults and negative comments that people direct at you.
Grow up and become educated.
And as for your call for reasoned debate I have two comments. First of all, you cannot have a debate with someone who is irrational (most deniers fit this description). Secondly, science is not debated in the blogsphere or public meetings. Real science is done in the laboratory or field and reported (if suitable and correct) in the peer reviewed scientific literature. If other scientists do not agree with the findings they carry out similar experiments to see if they get the same or a different result. That is how real science works it is not a word game practiced by political debaters who will say anything to support their case since the opposition does not have the time to mount a proper rebuttal.
So if you think that climate science is wrong, spend some money, hire some scientists and show us all where we went wrong. I guarantee that you will not come up with anything because real scientists have been trying to do it for years and have come up empty.
Hi Michael,
I am not always this quiet : )
In the present, I am overwhelmed with Real Life. Plus crakar's fallacious assertions have been answered repeatedly and he never changes his course (the pure denialist approach), snowman provides only vacuous meta commentary (the Concerned Philosopher approach) and Richard is too long winded and will not focus enough for me to productively dialogue with him (the Gattling Gun approach). There is a very low value to time ratio in responding to any of those tactics.
You said "in MY OPINION the ENTIRE AGW movement has nothing at all to do with science, facts or history. It is purely a POLITICAL movement that promotes a feeling of guilt for living in a modern, capitalist society."
This comment has almost no connection with the reality of scientific research or the history of atmospheric chemistry. The conclusions we have arrived at are the result of thousands of individual papers about technical minutiea that no one, least of all the original researchers, could have predicted would lead to the policy discussions we have today.
Recommended reading: A History of Global Warming.
Thanks for you participation!
Hi Coby. We were all getting a little worried. Such a relief to have you back.
Now, I don't mind in the least if you find my comments vacuous. But 'meta', Coby? What a strange choice of word, and - I am sorry but I have to be frank - a rather pretentious one.
Be that as it may, I really can't allow your remarks about Richard to go unchallenged. Surely it is plain to the meanest intellect (I refer to yours, my dear Ian and Dhogaza) that Richard's scientific knowledge and analytical powers are in a completely different league from everyone else in this forum.
And so, Coby, I hope you will reconsider your lofty dismissal, and deal with some of his specific points. Maybe you would like to start with his deconstruction of the hockey stick. I, and others, thought it was pretty devastating. You may disagree. But his observations merit a considered answer.
Ian Forrester since you CLAIM to have spent so many years âinvolvedâ in research and you CLAIM to know so much, perhaps you could give a reasoned reply instead of flashing your certificates and hurling abuse? In all your life have you not learned how to be polite? Is it because of cognitive decline that you have lost the power of reasoned argument, in place of which you can now only hurl abuse and flash your credentials?
I am sorry despite the flashing of your credentials and repeatedly saying how honest you are, I cannot have any respect for you. I still think youâre an idiot and now I am convinced youre a liar. Iâll pitch my knowledge of maths and science against yours any day.
Did you really think I thought that the whole of Canada was huddled together for warmth on their southern border? I know that about 3/4 of the population lives within 150 km of the border, something perhaps that you donât know despite living in that country. Besides being ignorant, you sadly lack a sense of humour and thatâs perhaps why youre so nasty.
You are incapable of reasoned argument. I said âCanada is a signatory of the Kyoto protocol, which excludes India and China who have increased their emissions by 88% and 77% respectively, since then. Even if humans were able to control the Global thermostat, Canada would benefit enormously by a warmer climate. Yet they are planning to spend $2 billion on sequestering 0.7% of their CO2, which represents 0.5% of the world's annual INCREASE of CO2! The same CO2 that horticulturists pump into their hothouses to make their plants grow better, in a hotter environment with more CO2!â
To this you could only reply âyou are one of the most stupid and arrogant posters on this blog. Your stupidity is not just confined to climate science, you should spend a little bit of time learning some geography too.â
How does climate science have anything to do with what I said? Can you think of better ways to spend that money? Do you think spending $2 billion dollars on doing that makes much sense? And if so why? Can you give reasons instead of hurling abuse?
You said you had read reviews of Plimerâs book âwritten by honest scientistsâ. I think you are lying. You have read nothing except comments on blogs. You are just angry at the man and are venting your rage, just like a senile prehistoric dinosaur with a pea sized brain might. Donât you dare call me dishonest you lying idiot.
Michael is right. You so called âclimate scientistsâ are drunk with your political power. Just because you are a âclimate scientistâ you think you can now pontificate on all branches of science and mathematics, about which you know precious little, and on economics, morality, politics and world governance. Do you think you have a monopoly on all virtue and intelligence, you lying delusional hypocrite?
You say âSecondly, science is not debated in the blogsphere or public meetings.â What do you do in blogsphereâs then? Hurl abuses at other people? I donât think you have the intellectual capacity for debate.
You claim to be a scientist with over 40 years research. What have you researched on may I know? When I did a google search on âIan Forrester Publicationsâ and âIan Forrester Climate Publicationsâ all it came up with was a whole lot of blogs where you go to and offer your pompous, bombastic opinions and abuse. It came up sadly blank on publications. If you have any they donât seem to be of Earth shaking consequence.
â.. if you think that climate science is wrong..â I do NOT think that climate science is wrong. I just think that you, despite proclaiming yourself to be a âclimate scientistâ, are a blithering idiot. I think I have a better understanding of Climate science, at least so far as global warming is concerned, than you.
I have said what I had to say and from now on I am going to ignore you as you are abusive, a liar and incapable of reason.
Coby, I give you a choice, either ban Richard, snowman and Michael (or at least rein them in) or I will no longer post on this blog.
It is unfortunate that the knowledgeable and intelligent people who post on the science blogs are abandoning them because of the viscous personal attacks by ignorant, rude and dishonest posters who are either only playing games or are in the pay of the very people who are causing AGW and don't want to act in a responsible manner.
I will join dhogaza in not sticking around if the asylum is going to be taken over by the lunatics. I think this blog is a good, science based site but it is being polluted with these dishonest deniers. I have better things to do if things do not change.
Michael -
If your comment on "rear ends" is valid does it also hold that your own opinion stinks too?
Absolutely it applies to my own opinions as well. There's no reason you should take the word of an anonymous internet commenter who's background you are unfamiliar with and therefore unable to know whether to take seriously, which is why I try to minimize the amount of opinion I post (this particular comment not-withstanding). That being said, that's why I try to post links to information justifying my claims (whether peer-reviewed research, or more typically, blogs either written by climate scientists themselves or by people who collect/collate the arguments like Coby or others like him). You shouldn't take me all that seriously, but you should take the scientists themselves seriously.
Besides, I'm not active in climatology, (and I'm assuming you aren't either but I don't want to say for sure), so it makes sense for me to take climatologists opinions seriously. You probably should to.
Occasionally I'll post some simple math that probably deserves at least an open, honest assessment, but that should be easy enough to verify if I made an error or not (I'll leave the more complicated stuff to the professionals).
You have not come up with a reasoned argument either.
I will respond with a reasoned argument when you post some valid question instead of hysterical nonsense (e.g. Al Gore uses too much energy! The IPCC reports are written by a double secret society! The AGW movement is entirely political! etc). I will respond appropriately to such bollocks, which is open disdain, contempt and likely a bit of mockery.
The reason I quoted that extract form the book was that in my OPINION, (poo, stinky!) if one is a Professor of Geology, writing a "controversial" book like this, then I'm positive that in today's litigious society, one would be pretty certain about the words one is writing! (I had thought that was obvious.)
It's not a crime to be wrong. I don't necessarily think Iam Plimer is being intentionally dishonest, but his science certainly isn't any good (I also don't discount that it's possible he's being intentionally dishonest). He can be as certain as he wants, and still be incorrect. Humans (even professors of geology) are capable of error.
Does that make sense?
No. It seems like a smokescreen to avoid having to check up on the source yourself (using the links helpfully provided by myself and Matt). You'd think if someone is going completely against the consensus on something, you'd make extra sure to check out his claims for accuracy, rather than just blindly accept it because it fits your pre-conceptions.
My fallacious assertions supported by observational data have been answered by personnal opinions, which is why i have not changed course.
You could have added something like "regardless of his denialism he does not use his internet anonymity to write rude, sarcastic, childish, abusive posts every chance he gets" or words to that effect.
To Ian Forrester, if Coby was to ban the people you name then you should be banned aswell as you are no better than them.
To dhogaza,
Where are these "thousands of scientists" you speak of, AR4 Chapter 9 was the key chapter because it attributed a change in climate to human activity however consider the following;
1, Just 62 individuals or government appointed reviewers commented on this chapter
2, A large number of reviewers had a vested interest in the content.
a, 7 reviewers were "contributing editors" to the chapter
b, 3 were overall editors of wotking group 1
c, 26 were authors or co-authors of papers cited in the final draft
d, Only 25 reviewers could be considered as independant
3, Just 4 reviewers, including one government appointed team or individual, explicitly endorsed the entire chapter in its draft form, NOT THOUSANDS OF SCIENTISTS BUT FOUR!
The IPCC claim AR4 as having been reviewed by hundreds or even thousands of expert and independant scientists. This is incorrect, in reality the report represents the view of a small and self selected science coteries that formed the lead authoring teams.
Crakar, you have been unfailingly courteous despite all manner of provocation and abuse. I have a lot to learn from you.
You are right ofcourse about your above post.
Here are some excerpts from a New Zealand scientist and reviewer of the IPCC, Vincent Gray:
"The determination to suppress any scientific contributions which tended to challenge the âClimate Changeâ mantra was made clear in the first IPCC Report (1990) in their introduction to a list of reviewers, as follows:
âThe persons named below all contributed in the peer review of the IPCC Working Group I Report. While every effort was made by the lead authors to incorporate their comments, in some cases these formed a minority opinion which could not be reconciled with the larger consensus.
Therefore there may be persons below who still have points of disagreement with areas of the Reportâ
After that you would hardly be surprising that most scientists who disagree with the Reportâs conclusions have been reluctant to waste their time and effort to say so.
I have been an âExpert Reviewerâ right from the start. I believe that I submitted more comments than any other individual. Of course, most of them were ârejectedâ.
The whole exercise is an openly political one, as it is carefully controlled by Government representatives from the Convention signatories. Lead authors for the Reports are chosen by the Governments and a âSummary for Policymakersâ approved line-by-line by the Government representatives has to be at the beginning of all reports. The authors of this summary are âdrafting authorsâ who are carrying out decisions made by the governments."
Crakar -
This is incorrect, in reality the report represents the view of a small and self selected science coteries that formed the lead authoring teams.
You're really choosing the wrong thing to embarrass yourself on. There's little doubt as to where the peer-reviewed research leads. I see you still are delusional enough to think that the IPCC just pulled the 4th assessment out of its ass, but ZOMG it's actually based on the work of real climate science!
See this paper from 2004, concluding that, out of 928 papers published in the previous 10 years, 75% explicitly or implicitly agreed with the consensus position on global warming and 25% didn't say one way or the other.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686?maxtoshow=&HIT…
"The 928 papers were divided into six categories... Of all the papers, 75% ... either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% ... taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position."
Check out the difference between the two categories on this wikipedia page, Statements by concurrent organizations vs. Statements by dissenting organizations. (Here's a hint, the first category is very long, and the second consists of this statement: ..."no remaining scientific body of national or international standing is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate change."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
Finally, check out this recent survey, concluding that 97% of active climatologists agree with the consensus position
http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf
Of course, you already know this, and you're just engaging in your typical denialist, dishonest garbage. Denying the scientific consensus is like denying any other basic fact about the world; it's only done by the dishonest or the insane. The consensus might be wrong, but it nonetheless exists.
I however do not deny the scientific consensus that says that there is Anthropogenic Global Warming.
I merely say that there is no evidence of dangerous global warming, which is what all the fuss is about. After all if the Earth is warming slightly and we still have a long way to go before we reach the Medieval Warm period which was a good period for the Earth, and an even longer way to go before we reach the Holocene Optimum, which was an even better period for the Earth, then there is no cause for alarm. (But I do not believe we will reach there, the Earth will cool long before that despite our anthropogenic CO2).
No cause for us to spend billions of dollars in a futile attempt to sequester miniscule amounts of CO2, or to deprive the developing world and ourselves of electricity, the essential input for development and quality of life.
I have already pointed out in http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2008/10/what_is_the_evidence_that… post #132 that IPCC's predictions of temperature rise have failed.
You say IPCC is correct because thousands of scientists say so. I say it is wrong because the evidence says so.
Adam, i am talking about the number of people that reviewed the report before it went to print, you are talking about the number of people that may or may not agree with the IPCC report after it was published.
"Of course, you already know this, and you're just engaging in your typical alarmist, dishonest garbage."
This statement is just gold "The consensus might be wrong, but it nonetheless exists."
Mr Ian Forrester! - Did you really call for the people with opposing opinions to yourself to be banned??
Does a Ph.D do that?
A Ph.D who is obviously a free thinking liberal??
Oh My God! I am really quite shocked!
I'm a bit stuck for time now although I'd love to respond to all of you, you, you, Believers! But it's time for me to leave work now. (Curse you Earthly Rotation!)
It also occurs to me, though of course I may be wrong, that a subject based purely on science would need a list of instructions on "how to talk to a skeptic".
I'd like to find the blog that gives me instuctions on "how to talk to an Electromagnetism Skeptic", or "how to talk to a Gravity Skeptic".
How about a "Micro-Electronics Skeptic"?
Were these three topics (just examples) agreed upon by consensus within the scientific community?
Or could it have been that (at the time) there were people who DID disagree, but were then convinced by having reasoned discussion and then being shown the scientific measurements, results etc?
Hopefully, I'll be able to continue this post tomorrow.
Goodnight, or Good Morning all.
Michael
Crakar -
Adam, i am talking about the number of people that reviewed the report before it went to print, you are talking about the number of people that may or may not agree with the IPCC report after it was published.
Your original statement was:
This is incorrect, in reality the report represents the view of a small and self selected science coteries that formed the lead authoring teams.
I know it was authored by a relatively small group, but the report nonetheless REPRESENTS THE VIEWS of a great many scientists. Your attempts to move the goalposts are noted, but that's a typical denialist for you.
This statement is just gold "The consensus might be wrong, but it nonetheless exists."
It's unlikely to be wrong, but nonetheless, that statement seems pretty honest to me. What do you object to about it?
Richard quotes Vincent Gray. I wonder if he
1. knows the criteria that must be met to be considered an "expert reviewer" of the IPCC reports.
2. has ever read Vincent Gray's comments that have been rejected.
When trying to discuss science, it is not fruitful to have the conversation cluttered with people who claim that the science under discussion does not exist.
Michael, it is not people who have differing opinions to me who should be moderated, it is people like you (and the few other deniers who are polluting this site with their lies and misinformation) who knowingly post dishonest comments, or comments which have been repeated over and over again by deniers which have been shown to be false.
That it is what a denier is. If you have good reason to have a differing opinion or interpretation then you can bring it up. That includes references to actual papers by competent scientists in the peer reviewed scientific literature.
However, if it is something you have cut and pasted from a denier site and it has been shown to be worthless then you are just wasting everyone's time. Of course that is what you deniers want, inaction so that your big brothers in polluting industries can continue to make money from putting the welfare of future generations at risk. The tactics you use are well known and have been used before by other dishonest industries such as the tobacco industry, the asbestos industry, chemical producers and many others.
The rest of your post is just gibberish. The reason that there are no "Electromagnetism Skeptics", "Gravity Skeptics" or "Micro-Electronics Skeptics" is because there are no industries making huge quantities of money by ignoring and distorting the science in these areas.
dhogaza - "Richard quotes Vincent Gray. I wonder if he ..." - Unimportant.
You say IPCC is correct because thousands of scientists say so. I say it is wrong because the evidence says so.
IPCC - Temperature will rise by 3C if CO2 doubled from 280 ppm to 560 ppm.
Undisputed science more of this rise will take place in the first half of the rise and less in the second half.
CO2 rises from 280 to 390ppm in 110 years, Temp rises by just 0.6C - 0.055C/decade, well within the natural range of the past.
Still 2.4C to go and only 80 years to reach 560 ppm. Temperature should now rise by 0.3C/decade, a 550% increase.
CO2 rises by 5% in the last 11 years the temperature (as measured by the Satellites) comes down slightly
Evidence does not match AGW hypothesis so far.
Is the land temperature evidence of Hansen and Jones being cooked? Well you be the judge:
A large number of station records dont have actual data of temperature but "ESTIMATES" for the annual average.
The data keeps changing. For example between August 05 to Sept 07 there were 4,784 "updates" affecting 24,323 months. On the average 20% of the historical record was modified 16 times in the last 2 1/2 years.
In April 2008 Hansen of GISS updated the March record to show a large anomaly of 0.67 degC. This caused a corresponding drop in annual average temperature for the years 1946 and 1903 which made 1946 colder than 1960 and 1972, and 1903 dropped into a tie with 1885, 1910 and 1912.
The earliest temperatures appear to have been adjusted downward, leading to an overall upward trend.
He has done it again now. 2007 anomaly raised 1998 lowered. 2007 now hotter than 1998.
June 2009 is very hot according to GISS Hansen - anomaly 0.63C, Satellites on the other hand - RSS 0.075, UAH 0.001, show it to be pretty cool.
Why all these changes and discrepancies? Is the evidence being tampered with?
Well who knows. There is no openness - no explanation either how these temperatures are being arrived at or how and why they are being adjusted. No independent person can check them. Science should be open not secretive.
Snowman silence from you. Have you left? Wouldnt blame you if you have. Whats the weather like in London? I heard they issued a grade 3 warning for a heatwave. Is it hot there? What with snow in June in Northern Brittian and children dying of the cold in Peru, must be global warming, human induced of course. Wouldnt want you getting heatstroke. Its bloody cold here though.
Snow in Peru, New Zealand, Brazil thats just weather, but a heatwave in London - thats climate as you must be knowing.
Hi Richard. Still here. It's mild but wet in London, as it has been for several days. In fact, according to the BBC weather forecast this morning, the whole of July is 'likely to be a bit of a washout'.
Speaking of the BBC, I wonder if the row about their departing broadcaster Peter Sissons has reached the antipodes. Sissons recently retired after a long career in television journalism. His parting shot was a severe criticism of the Corporation for its increasingly agenda-driven news coverage. He singled out global warming, and claimed that it is now the BBC's official policy not to permit any views that did not fit in with the approved orthodoxy.
Those of us who have to endure the BBC's relentless propaganda on this matter were not surprised, but it was interesting to have it confirmed by someone on the inside.
By the way, Richard, it occurs to me that this disgraceful censorship at the BBC would find enthusiastic support from some of the denizens here. I note that Ian Forrester is demanding that we be silenced. How exquisitely ironic, and typical of the warmists' agenda.
Until fairly recently, I looked upon the warmists with a sort of genial tolerance. But increasingly I believe that they are a profound danger to the West and our way of life. These are people whose fantasies have beguiled spineless governments and politicians of all stripes, who have themselves have become too enfeebled and crippled by first world guilt to stand up for the West and for rationality.
How they must be laughing in China as they contemplate the antics of these useful idiots (to use Lenin's phrase). My only hope is that a succession of increasingly cold winters might eventually jolt the political classes into some semblance of sanity before they complete the task of destroying our economy - a task upon which they are now energetically engaged.
Hmmm, I AM starting to feel like attempting to find reasoned debate on this blog is pointless.
Ian, I have never once knowingly posted anything that is dishonest or incorrect.
You suggest that myself and othere Deniers have been repeating ad nauseum comments that have been shown to be false. Erm, WHERE have they been shown to be false?
Where are your reasoned arguments as a Ph.D?
How is Prof. Plimer not a competent scientist whose work is peer reviewed?
I said in my first post on this blog, that Prof. Plimer's science made sense to me.
At the risk of typing gibberish, and again proving my scientific illiteracy, can I get some opinions/facts/reviews on what he says about the methods of measurement of global temperature?
He goes into some detail about the positioning of meteorological weather stations in all countries, and how one year the weather station was positioned in a grassy field, and the next year it was positioned on top of a concrete building in a city.
How can "believers" trust so blindly the weather and temperature records of the last 150 years when there has been NO worldwide standard for the measurement of temperature? For example, some of the thermometers used over that time have been mercury, some have been alcohol, there have been inconsistencies in the altitudes, and times and dates of the measurements, there have been combinations of, and conversions between Celsius and Fahrenheit and there has been missing data that has been averaged.
Even if all this does show an upward trend, how can it possibly be scientifically accurate?
Nowadays, we have satelites to measure global temperature which are not influenced by local conditions, positioning, staff shortages or forgetfulness.
By my reading, the satelite temperature data, although relatively short term, shows a cooling trend.
May I please have a reasoned, scientific reply to this point without being accused of stupidity or being called a name?
I welcome opposing comments but not abuse.
OK
Is that your reply? OK?
Do you have anything else dhogaza?
Can you comment on my and Richards comments about the temperature records?
If you cannot find out for yourself then you are either very lazy or want to confuse people. The internet is a great tool to educate oneself if you are willing to be educated. Unfortunately, in your case I think that is not the case.
Why waste your time and ours by being so unable to find things out for yourself?
Most educated people do a lot of reading before they start discussing things which they are not sure about and cutting and pasting (or paraphrasing) comments which they do not know are correct or not. Deniers cut and paste and don't care as long as it looks like they are tearing the science of AGW apart. It is very easy for a scientist to see whether you really know anything about what you are talking about or not.
Here are two good sources for correct information on climate change; the IPCC reports and Spencer Weart's site.
Here are three reviews of Plimer's book:
By David Karoly, School of Earth Sciences University of Melbourne Victoria - http://tinyurl.com/mp4yl9
By Kurt Lambeck, president of the Australian Academy of Science - http://tinyurl.com/kuvdvv
By Malcolm Walker, Director, Australian Centre for Astrobiology University of New South Wales Sydney
http://tinyurl.com/klqyjz
The satellite data only shows a cooling if you believe Spencer and Christy's work. Most climate scientists do not think that they are being honest or accurate.
The RSS data uses the same raw data but different algorithms and is a closer match to surface temperatures. And anyone who makes great pronouncements on only a few months of data is just being silly.
It's blue.
Computer Science A segment of text or a graphical item that serves as a cross-reference between parts of a hypertext document or between files or hypertext documents. Also called hotlink, hyperlink.
Oh, sorry, I was obviously too stupid to see that the two letter reply was actually a hyperlink.
It appears to be a link to a record of temperature measurements beginning in the 70s and finishing about now.
I can see that the groups of four numbers on the x axis are years. I am assuming that the numbers on the y axis are "factors of temperature change" (?)
I can also see that there is a green line to indicate a "trend". The Trend is most definitely an upward one.
I owe you an apology dhogaza.
This graph from WoodForTrees.org changes my opinion completely.
You have successfully argued your case and now I am a staunch believer!
Richard, Snowman, Craker14, we have been royally out gunned!
I say retreat is our only option. You guys must repent immediately, or there will be dangerous climate change and WE 4 will be to blame.
Coby, Adam, Matt, I apologise to you as well. I have been wrongly poisoning your happy blog. If it's alright though, I'd still like to "lurk" and perhaps post here and there to learn other good ways to convince those dirty Deniers out there. (I'm sure there are others, the bastards!)
Even though I can no longer stand to look at it, here is a link (is it a blue one?) to a video interview of the Denier himself.
http://abnnewswire.net/multimedia/en/60659/AUDIO-Professor-Ian-Plimer
I hope you can stand to sit through it. I certainly can't any more.
Michael -
By my reading, the satelite temperature data, although relatively short term, shows a cooling trend.
You ask for reasoned debate, so here we go.
The satellite data does not show cooling.
See here:
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/7/7e/Satellite_Temperatures.png
The UAH data is here for the lower troposphere, updated to June '09.
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/tltglhmam_5.2
Feel free to fire up excel and plot the data. I'd post the graph I made myself, but it looks similar enough to the one I linked to already that I needn't bother.
You can cherry pick individual periods to show cooling, but the long-term trend of the satellite data shows warming. Since what we care about is the long-term trend, and not the short-term periods where we can show relative cooling, it's ludicrous to make the claim "satellite temperature data shows a cooling trend."
I've been trying to honor your request to not call you stupid, but your insulting tone coupled with the stupidity you're displaying makes it difficult.
1. y axis - anomaly from base period in K (or degrees C if you prefer)
2. Since you've been making claims about the satellite data, I just assumed you'd know that "RSS" is the satellite temperature reconstruction accepted as being most accurate by many in the climate science community. Apparently not.
You have my sincere apology for having overestimated your knowledge level.
As Adam points out, the UAH satellite temperature reconstruction also shows a rising trend. However the UAH team has a history of errors, many of them pointed out by the RSS team. So I believe them to be more reliable.
Being a denialist means never having to say you're sorry.
OK?
Oh, and regarding your sarcastic tone, all I've done is to prove that your statement that the satellite record shows cooling to be false.
The reason for my one-word "OK" hyperlink response was to make clear that I was simply addressing that point.
Michael - Remember you are a "newbie" and a "rookie" in this game. So any mistake you make will be pounced upon by Adam and Dhogaza, who will then feel extremely smug and satisfied with themselves, though it no way has any bearing on the real issue as to whether there is any evidence of DANGEROUS anthropogenic warming. Thats the important thing.
Remember though there is absolutely no evidence of anthropogenic warming in the temperature records, this does not prove that the CO2 we are pumping into our atmosphere is not causing any warming. It well might be and I personally believe that it is causing the temperatures to be slightly warmer than they would be if that extra CO2 were not there.
What the IPCC says and these believers believe is however that the warming caused by this CO2 causes even more warming through water vapour through what is called a "positive feedback". And that the Earth would go on warming, destabilising the climate system, causing all kinds of strife like half the world drowning.
A POSITVE FEEDBACK is like the brake and accelerator of you car. If you go too fast you use the brake and if too slow the accelerator. A NEGATIVE FEEDACK would be like if the brake and accelerator were interchanged WITHOUT INFORMING YOU. Now if you wanted to slow down you would press on the accelerator and go even faster. This is basically what the IPCC says the Earth does.
But the Earth does not behave like that? From our history emphatically NO! It is highly homeostatic. It tends to come back to its state of equilibrium. If this is the true reality, and historically this was so and todays evidence points to the same, then CO2 will have a minimal effect on Global warming. Not only that when the Earth naturally cools CO2 will be powerless to stop it as it has happened in the past.
The only satellite trend I truly believe is the UAH one. The RSS satellite data is pretty close to it too.
It is true that the UAH data shows a warming trend over the 29 years it has been in existence, but this warming trend is far less than the warming trend of Hansens GISS, which is highly suspect because of the reasons I have outlined above.
The warming shows nothing remarkable. It is also true that the warming trend taken over over the last 11 years is flat or slightly downwards and again it is true that this may not be significant as it is too short a time period. But then so are the last 3 decades over which IPCC and the warmers make all that fuss about.
Richard, slight correction to post #68
The IPCC baseline year is 1750, in 1750 the CO2 levels were 275ppm which means the IPCC quoted figure of a doubling of CO2 would equal 550ppm.
Snowman,
Yes I did pop over to that and have a look. To Coby's credit he did seem uncomfortable at banning us and I was amazed Adam actually spoke out against the ban. But he will give into the faithful.
I have been surprised that I wasnt banned when I ran that one of the Hockey Stick, seeing the link with Real Climate.
If we are banned maybe we could meet at http://wattsupwiththat.com/
Dhogaza,
Thank you for that. That means that Global warming will have even more catching up to do, to be in line with IPCC predictions.
oops that was Craker! lol thanks for that Craker
Coby, this is another example of the kind of post that should be deleted.
Michael fucked up regarding the satellite record.
I pointed that out.
Richard turns that into a personal attack. The sin isn't Michael's posting nonsense, it's my posting a correction.
My correction, of course, is correct.
Personal attacks over having posted a correct correction should be deleted.
Make them speak of science.
And Christ on a crutch, does this kind of uninformed idiocy have any place on a science blog?
Really, Coby, you need to ask yourself: "is my blog about science, or dick-waving politicsl"
Statements like this have no place on a science blog. It is equivalent to saying "there is absolutely no evidence of evolution in the fossil record".
I'm pointing this out on the wrong thread, but ... think about it. What do you want your blog to be about?
Discussion of science ... or ...
A repository for a flood of anti-science crap.
Your blog, your choice.
Okay, this thread is done. Let's see if any lessons can be learned from it, I will take away a few for myself.