Ian Plimer lies about source of his figure 3

Remember how Ian Plimer claimed that he could not recall where his dodgy figure 3? Well now he has resorting to lying about the source. In a talkback radio debate (about 4 minutes from the end) with Steven Sherwood, Plimer claimed that the graph came from page 21 of Klimafakten, a book published by the German government in 2001. That's a straight-up lie.

The graph came from Durkin's Great Global Warming Swindle. I've overlaid the graphs below so that you can see that they are identical. Just put your mouse on the graph to change it to the Swindle one. Notice that he copied the labels on the graph and the comparison to the right.

i-e1aa2fd7c048a807e77dc6592a293231-plimerfig3.png

And no it's not possible that Klimafakten copied the graph from the Swindle, since it was published before the Swindle. Nor is it possible that both got it from the same source, since Swindle copied it from the Oregon Petition, but got the horizontal axis wrong, an error that Plimer faithfully reproduced.

And the Swindle graph was only ever included
in the initial broadcast in the UK -- it wasn't in the version shown
in Australia or released on DVD. So Plimer didn't get it directly from the
movie. He must have got it from one of the websites that posted
screenshots of the graph. But all of those pages were criticising
Durkin for posting an incorrect graph of temperatures. Plimer knew
that the graph was wrong and decided to include it in his book anyway.

And just to remove any doubt here, in a debate with Barry Brook before Plimer's book was published, he showed the Swindle graph and Brook told him that it was wrong, and that even Durkin had retracted it.

The best match I can find to Plimer's claimed source is this book. It was published in 2000, not 2001 and it wasn't published by the German government but rather edited by someone who works for the German government, but by Plimer citing standards, that's a perfect match.

If anyone can lay their hands on a copy and check page 21 for me, I'd much appreciate it. Plimer fans should have an especially strong incentive to do this, because if I'm wrong I'll end up with egg all over my face. But I'm not.

Update: bluegrue tracked down a copy of Klimafakten:

I have located a copy of Klimafakten by Ulrich Berner. All data of the figures are sourced in the appendix. On page 21 you find two figures. Fig 2.9 depicts Friis-Christensen and Lassen (1991), temperature and solar cycle length. Fig 2.10 is Svensmark and Friis-Christensen (1997), cosmic ray flux and global cloud cover. In chapter 11 there are several figures using smoothed GISTEMP data around page 210. All of the figures are faithful reproductions of the original data, none of them has a fudged time axis like the figures of Durkin and Plimer. Berner's Klimafakten is definitely not the source of Plimer's figure 3.

Thanks to Jo Abbess, I have a copy of Berner's figure 2.9:

i-c5cf573bc234fe48162ad99243fa3d71-klimafaktenfig2.9.jpg

That's obviously different from Plimer's figure 3.

More like this

I agree with Barry Brook that Ian Plimer's approach to climate science in Heaven Earth is unscientific. He starts with his conclusion that there is no "evidential basis" that humans have caused recent warming and that the theory that humans can create global warming is contrary to validated…
After Ian Plimer reneged on his agreement to answer Monbiot's questions, the folks at the Spectator have reacted just like Plimer does to criticism -- with name calling and nothing to address the criticism. Spectator columnist Rod Liddle Moonbat ... You pompous, monomaniacal, jackass. ... reminds…
John Quiggin details how the ABC made lemonade from the lemon that is the Great Global Warming Swindle. You can see the video of Tony Jones' questioning of Martin Durkin here, or read the transcript here. Durkin was unable to offer any defence of his misrepresentation of the science. David Jones…
The Australian has continued its war on science by printing an extract from Ian Plimer's new book, How to Get Expelled from School. The extract is largely plagiarised from this press release on a recent paper in Science by Funder et al finding large fluctuations in Arctic sea ice over the last 10,…

Hi Tim,

I don't get Plimer fig comming up with mouse. Instead I get a little box with a cross and a label "Ian Plimer's figure fiugre 3"

By Mark Byrne (not verified) on 14 May 2009 #permalink

Ok, I fixed it.

By Tim Lambert (not verified) on 14 May 2009 #permalink

What process would someone need to go through to copy this line into another formated chart? Would he ask them to do it by eye? In Photoshop? Where is the data?

Did he think no one would mind if he used a bogus data?

Maybe he's just trying to expose all the delusionist who will grab any claim to butress their argument?

By Mark Byrne (not verified) on 14 May 2009 #permalink

Tim - when you change between the 2 really quickly the last tiny part of the graph on the left hand side goes up slightly more on Pilmers graph than the Swindle I am sure. Perhaps now he can claim it was not from the Swindle :-)

I need to get out more ........

Has anyone got a link to the chart from the Oregan petition? What was their source?

By Mark Byrne (not verified) on 14 May 2009 #permalink

Klimafakten, by Ulrich Berner (who had published no previous original research in the field) was promoted by the German Assocation for Brown Coal (Verband der Braunkohleindustrie). It relied on a study by Friis-Christensen and Larsen which had already been superseded. Larsen's erroneous 1991 graph was published in Der Spiegel in 2001. It doesn't look like the Swindle graph, but who knows?

http://www.francvert.org/ressources/images/2_3/rahmstrof_figure2.jpg

In later books (such as Klimaentwicklung), Berner switched to denying the existence of warming, also denying that solar activity had increased.

Edner, I reckon that is just the line thickening, and optical illusion. the same thing happens when flicking and looking at the first edge (star point).

By Mark Byrne (not verified) on 14 May 2009 #permalink

Even his bogus chart doesn't support his cliam that it was warmer in the 1940s. What is going on in his head? I didn't think it could be this bad. The world is amazing.

By mark Byrne (not verified) on 14 May 2009 #permalink

maybe it came from this source - similar curve

The same way that apples and oranges are similar?

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 14 May 2009 #permalink

"maybe it came from this source - similar curve"

See, the fuzzyier you make it the closer it is. Now close your eyes and they leave exactly the same impression on the back of your retina.

Do you really want to associate yourself with this data?

What process would someone need to go through to copy this line into another formated chart?

It would probably be done using a vectorizer, without direct handling of any data.

The superimposed graphs don't match, and your reply doesn't refer to anything I said.

Here is the chart that Steve McIntyre says was the used before the data was butchered by Durkinâs axis stretch

Here is how McIntyre defends a dirty strawman by posting Durkinâs out of date but slightly adjusted chart to critique a complaint about the original wrong and unadjusted chart.

By Mark Byrne (not verified) on 14 May 2009 #permalink

Tim, thank you for your efforts in exposing this shameful fraudulence.
I have my own theories as to why Plimer thinks he can get away with this, and it's all based on pure profit. I'm sure he sees the climate debate in Australia as a simple way to provide a saleable commodity to a tiny but vociferous mob of people desperate to lay hands on something -anything- that will support their rigid beliefs. And he's willing to throw scientific honesty out of the window to do it. Why else would you?
What a fraud.

By Trevor Williams (not verified) on 14 May 2009 #permalink

It seems a bit suspicious that he wouldn't say where the graph came from (couldn't remember) and it just turns out it is practically an exact screen shot replica of the one in a UK TV programme cobbled together by some graphic artists!

It is terribly amateurish.

That the way Janama, just squeez it a bit more , stretch it and mold it in a few places, you can make it fit.

By Mark Byrne (not verified) on 15 May 2009 #permalink

Janama, is demonstrating all the qualities of a disciple of the Durking/Plimer school of fudging. Notice how Janama has raised the Hadley data 1940-1980 temperature anomaly midpoint about 2 degrees higher. Hence 1998 looks a full degree warmer than 1880.

Science is so quick and easy when you can just make stuff up.
Oh Janama when you show NASA should use the NASA data.

By Mark Byrne (not verified) on 15 May 2009 #permalink

As Durkin originally claimed to have used NASA data, I have overlayed the Plimer plot and GISTEMP data using Excel. The GISTEMP data are centered 11-year mean values of the annual global, northern and southern hemisphere met station data, respectively. The data is plotted as interpolating line. If you go for shorter smoothing periods the plot gets noisier than Plimer's, longer and you lose features like the minihump centered at 1911. The x-axis of the overlay goes from 1885 to 1988, i.e. the first data point is the 1880-1890 average and the last the 1983 to 1993 average.

The higher frequency wiggles match very well, the low frequency changes fit a lot worse. Land ocean index fits even worse, as the 1940-1970 temperature decline is less than in the met station data. No idea, where the difference to Plimer comes from.

The cyan lines depict, where 1940 and 1975 are according to Plimers x-axis. They match neither the arrows nor the shaded area.

P.S.: The graphic is free for grabbing. I can send the spreadsheet to Tim, if desired.

@Mark Byrne:
Many of your links in #20 and #24 are empty. Could you please repost them?

Janama, is demonstrating all the qualities of a disciple of the Durking/Plimer school of fudging. Notice how Janama has raised the Hadley data 1940-1980 temperature anomaly midpoint about 2 degrees higher. Hence 1998 looks a full degree warmer than 1880.

Science is so quick and easy when you can just make stuff up.
Oh Janama when you show NASA should use the NASA data.

Links in order are:

http://users.tpg.com.au/johnsay1/Stuff/woodtree_3.jpg

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1900/to:2000

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.gif

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.gif

By Mark Byrne (not verified) on 15 May 2009 #permalink

I have to defend Dr. Plimer here. While it was quoted in a now-remaindered edition of Klimatfakten (a small footnote in the 2nd paperback edition), the graph was originally published in Euskara Klimazientzia, a prestigious Basque climate science journal. The author was Tibetan, but the abstract had been translated into Basque, which is how I was able to recognize it.

Hope this helps.

By Marion Delgado (not verified) on 15 May 2009 #permalink

11, 18 janama,

I'm sorry but I have to be blunt: it escapes me how any honest, rational, averagely intelligent person could present those links. Who do you imagine would be persuaded? Do you have any idea how to read a graph? Do you imagine that others here have no idea either?

By TrueSceptic (not verified) on 15 May 2009 #permalink

I can remember when I first saw this graph (Durkin's original) in TGGWS. Until then I was only vaguely aware of AGW Denial, and only as an extreme wingnut obsession, but at that point the scale of the shameless dishonesty became both obvious and worrying.

It is beyond belief that *anyone* would use any version of the Durkin graph, and any GW "sceptic" who defends it, as McIntyre did in the thread Mark Byrne references, exposes their absence of real scepticism.

(FWIW I think CA is far and away the best of a very bad bunch of "sceptic" blogs. McIntyre realises that the real nutters do him more harm than good.)

By TrueSceptic (not verified) on 15 May 2009 #permalink

30 John Mashey,

Surely you don't mean the Marohasy Bog? The septic tank in which we find things most of us can only have nightmares about? ;-)

By TrueSceptic (not verified) on 15 May 2009 #permalink

TrueSceptic - first I posted a link to woodfortrees - Mark Byrne then posted the same link a few posts later.

AW asked - "What process would someone need to go through to copy this line into another formated chart?"

I showed him the process and how easy it was by posting the woodfortrees line into the original chart - what's your problem?

@32 TrueSkeptic

The very same....
I sort of generalized from your "It is beyond belief that *anyone*..." into "takes this book seriously", but since it wasn't beyond my belief, I thought it would check, with the expected results.

By John Mashey (not verified) on 15 May 2009 #permalink
By Mark Byrne (not verified) on 15 May 2009 #permalink

Janama,

AW was answering my question (@4). I was in amazement at the process Plimer would go through to reproduce this dodgy curve.

You could try again, your first reproduction was a bit fuzzy, not close enough, and needed to be slide up two degrees on the vertical access to make it look less worse (giving up any credibility to try and crowbar the data to fit).

Have another shot, perhaps try the vectorization algorithms that AW suggests.

By Mark Byrne (not verified) on 15 May 2009 #permalink

Bluegrue,

Tim's moderation settings appear to be stopping me posting the list of links at the moment, perhaps Tim can pass it threw when he checks.

By Mark Byrne (not verified) on 15 May 2009 #permalink

Tim, rather than call Plimer a liar over the sourcing of the graph, please advise: what is you point? Is the conclusion that Plimer reaches regarding the graph correct, or not. If not, what does the graph really look like, and why is Plimer's conclusion therefore wrong.

To be honest, accusing Plimer of lying sounds hysterical and very unprofessional. Even worse, considering it looks likely that Durkin and Plimer appear to have used the same source, Klimafakten (originally from Euskara Klimazientzia), exactly as Plimer says, ie he wasn't lying but simply mistaken about the year of publication (2000 rather than 2001).

41 Greig,

I suggest you read http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/04/23/ian-plimer-heaven-and-earth/

You can see where the graph came from, why it is fraudulent, why it was always unacceptable for anyone to use it, and why it is an utter disgrace that anyone would use it now.

Are you claiming that it doesn't matter how dishonest the "evidence" is as long as the "right" conclusion is reached, namely one that endorses the denialism you apparently support.

As for "accusing Plimer of lying sounds hysterical and very unprofessional", what do you imagine that denialists like him are doing when they claim that scientists are dishonest, corrupt, incompetent, and engaged in a conspiracy never seen before in the history of science?

By TrueSceptic (not verified) on 16 May 2009 #permalink

Greig, Durkin source has been exposed. It was not from Klimafakten. Durkin manufactured his using an out of data chart and then doctored the axis. Plimer has used Durkin's erroneous graph that even Durkin had been forced to retract.

By all mean please through your energy into defending this. And explain why Plimer needs to depend on a made-up chart.

Tim has shown Plimer's chart to exactly match Durkin's. Now it should be easy to prove Plimer is not lying- just produce his source. Should be easy if Plimer is not lying.

By Mark Byrne (not verified) on 16 May 2009 #permalink

Durkin manufactured his using an out of data [sic] chart and then doctored the axis.

Mark Byrne, your slip has to be one of the most delicious I've seen in a long time.

I don't think that anything describes Plimer's duplicity better than this!

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 16 May 2009 #permalink

Greig,
see just as one of many examples my post #25 above, look at the image. The graph takes temperature data from 1880 to 1988 and passes them off as data from 1880 to 2003.

Here's what the graph looks like if you take all the available data:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1875/to:2010/mean:132

Fraud, pure and simple. What is worse: Durkin used the same fraudulent plot, was called on it and Plimer knows about this incident, see the original post:

And just to remove any doubt here, in a debate with Barry Brook before Plimer's book was published, he showed the Swindle graph and Brook told him that it was wrong, and that even Durkin had retracted it.

TrueSceptic. I can assure you I do not support âdenialismâ. And the fact that you leap to that conclusion only shows the inaccuracy of your nom de plume.

On P25 of H+E, Plimer uses the figure 3 graph to make the following point:

Fig 3: Thermometer temperature measurements in the 20th Century showing both cooling and warming. The cooling was during and after WW2 industrialization emitted increasingly large amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. The 20th Century like any other time period was one of both warming and cooling.

Now, Plimer could have used the Hadcrut or WoodforTrees.org graph, and arrived at exactly the same conclusion. Perhaps someone (preferably Tim Lambert) can explain why Plimerâs statement is incorrect, and provide an alternative graph to support that view.

I stand by what I said. The claim that Ian Plimer is a liar sounds hysterical and unprofessional. This is compounded by the fact that the source of the graph is irrelevant to Plimerâs case, and makes it appear you are clutching at straws to demonise Plimer, rather than debate the conclusions that he is drawing. Are we debating climate change, or are we playing the man? I maintain, this blog is dedicated to the latter.

Greig - are you serious?

The truncated and stretched graph does damage in several ways. Plimer (TGGWS) refers to cooling during the postwar industrial boom - the graphical data in his version of the graph supports that, cooling starts about 1945. But the real data shows that cooling starts about 1940 - 5 years of the cooling period are before the end of the war. He labels it correctly as 1940 in the graph, but the data and the label don't match. Same at the ned of the graph - he moves the change back to warming to 1980, graphically even though it is labeled 1975. Just the label and axes mismatch tell you there is a serious problem with that graph.

But more importantly, by truncating the data at 1988, but stretching it so it look like it goes to 2003, he eliminates abut 0.2C of warming, simply erases it from the graph. This not only substantially understates 20th century warming, it also makes the 1940 - 1975 cooling look like it was a greater amplitude relative to the overall warming of the last 100 years.

Plimer was not only making the point that it cooled during those 35 years- he was making he point that the cooling was substantial, in relation to the warming we see. The fraudulent graph is intended to support that point - but the real data is much less support for it.

And he knew - he had to know. He was told. That is fraud.

Pointing out that the argument is fraudulent, and that the book if filled with this kind of error, is not playing the man. It is playing the argument. Plimer just happens to go down in flames along with the argument, because it becomes glaringly apparent when looking at the argument that Plimer was being grossly dishonest - and no scientist anywhere is going to overlook academic dishonesty of this kind.

Bernard J,

:)

I should have done that intentionally!

By Mark Byrne (not verified) on 16 May 2009 #permalink

If you think that chart is important, you have been confirmed into the Church of Global Warming. Now throw the dead Roo parts provided over your left shoulder.

May your grandchildren live in fear.

Bless you.

Now quietly exit the room.

Lee,

None of what you have said contradicts Plimer's statement: "Thermometer temperature measurements in the 20th Century showing both cooling and warming. The cooling was during and after WW2 industrialization emitted increasingly large amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. The 20th Century like any other time period was one of both warming and cooling."

Plimer did NOT make the point that the "cooling was substantial". That is a fabrication on your part.

There is no evidence presented that supports the unquantified claim that the book is "filled with this kind of error", and therefore your view that it is playing the argument, rather than the man, is unsupported by the facts. Insisting that Plimer is a liar is not addressing the topic it is questioning the author's integrity. It is argument ad hominem, pure and simple.

Lee, you have not demonstrated that Plimer is being dishonest. Nor has Lambert. You are being hysterical, unprofessional and (dare I say) unscientific by making such unsupported claims.

There is no evidence presented that supports the unquantified claim that the book is "filled with this kind of error"

You could try reading the last few posts, just for starters. I seem to recall seeing some evidence there.

from 47:
"And just to remove any doubt here, in a debate with Barry Brook before Plimer's book was published, he showed the Swindle graph and Brook told him that it was wrong, and that even Durkin had retracted it."

You guys are defending this crap? How... scientific of you.

Greig:

So,if I don't point out every error that has been demonstrated in my very own post, then those errors dont exist?

Laughable

The 20th Century like any other time period was one of both warming and cooling. Now, Plimer could have used the Hadcrut or WoodforTrees.org graph, and arrived at exactly the same conclusion. Perhaps someone (preferably Tim Lambert) can explain why Plimerâs statement is incorrect, and provide an alternative graph to support that view.

the graph was provided to you already:

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1875/to:2010/mean:132

nobody would look at that graph and say: "there was warming AND cooling".

its just not supported by the facts. it is an artificial effect, that he left out the last 20 years of pretty dramatic data.

printing wrong numbers on the axis of a graph, after being told, is not a minor error!!!

So Greig, would you say that on your reading of H+E, your impression was that "The 20th Century, like any other time period, was one of both warming and cooling." implied that the cooling was A) comparable to the warming, B), more significant than the warming, or C), less significant than the warming?

Shorter Greig and janama:

The source of the graph is not important! Anyone who points out that the graph is bogus is a hysterical warmist extremist! After all, there's a very remote possibility that the bogus graph -- which even Durkin had to retract -- came from a Tibetan article written in an obscurely prestigious Basque science journal Euskara Klimazientzia (or is it Euskal Klimazientzia?), and the only reason there's absolutely no trace of this journal anywhere is because it's being suppressed by the Vast Worldwide Warmist Conspiracy.

[i] the graph was provided to you already:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1875/to:2010/mean:132
nobody would look at that graph and say: "there was warming AND cooling".
[/i]

I would. There is a period form 1900-19210, and a period from 1940 to 1970 that show a clear cooling trend.

[i]
So Greig, would you say that on your reading of H+E, your impression was that "The 20th Century, like any other time period, was one of both warming and cooling." implied that the cooling was A) comparable to the warming, B), more significant than the warming, or C), less significant than the warming?
[/i]

Plimer has made no such implication, one way or the other. And it is irrelevant to the point that Plimer is making, which is that CO2 levels do not correlate strongly with global temperature. ie on the basis of this alone the hypothesis is falsified. Observed global warming during the last 100 years cannot be explained by the increase of GHGs alone.

Greig,

here is an overlay of Plimer's figure 3 and proper 1880 to 2003 GISTEMP data (11-year centered mean), using the same temperature scaling as indicated in figure 3:

http://i43.tinypic.com/ibw4k3.jpg

In a scientific book plots are not just put in as decoration, but as reliable sources of information. If there is a chart like figure 3, you must be able to take a ruler and read off the actual data up to reading accuracy. In Plimer's figure 3 the x-axis goes from 1880 to 2003, hence ostensibly showing data of that period. I have shown above in #25, that the data presented is actually from 1885 to 1988. This in itself, is already an embarrassing lie on Plimer's part. It gets worse, when you quantify the impact, let's put numbers to it. Any reader who relies on this book will conclude from figure 3:

1) Warming from 1880 level to 2000 levels is 0.7°C, actual GISTEMP value is 0.8°C. Notice also the lower anomaly values in the period prior to 1900. That part alone is responsible for 0.1°C of Plimer's 0.7°C.

2) The cooling between 1940 and 1975 was 0.16°C, actual GISTEMP value is 0.13°C

3) The amplitude of the cooling between 1940 and 1975 amounted to 23% of the overall warming, actually in GISTEMP it is 16%

4) Warming from 1880 to 1940 is 75% of the 1880 to 2003 warming, actually it is 42%.

5) Temperature increase is currently (2000-2003) leveling off.

The visual impact of fraudulently inflating the relative cooling amplitude by 50% is dramatic. Furthermore, the extent warming up to 1940 relative to the overall warming is greatly excagerated (notice the two comparison bars to the right of the graph), it is boosted by 75%.

>The 20th Century like any other time period was one of both warming and cooling.

>Now, Plimer could have used the Hadcrut or WoodforTrees.org graph, and arrived at exactly the same conclusion.

As Lee told you already, no he could not have made his point using the true data, as you mischaracterize his argument. Plimer argues, that the current warming is unsubstantial, and this argument can barely be supported even when using his own skewed plot. When looking at the actual data however, his argument falls flat on its face.

This is compounded by the fact that the source of the graph is irrelevant to Plimerâs case

I deliberately used the word "fraudulently" further up. When you prepare a plot you can either copy an existing plot or make it yourself. If you do it yourself and claim any shred of competency in the field, there is no way how - and I mean NO way - you can accidentally pass off 1885-1988 data as 1880 to 2003 data. How come then, that two deniers use the exact same fraudulent plot, Plimer knowing full well that the plot has been exposed to be fraudulent? Do you really consider this to be irrelevant?

The source of figure 3 is not an argument against Plimer's book, its content is, and it is just one of numerous misrepresentations of data in the book. The source does however illustrate the complete and utter disregard of Plimer for an honest presentation.

Observed global warming during the last 100 years cannot be explained by the increase of GHGs alone.

Who says this Craig?

So Greig, would you say that on your reading of H+E, your impression was that "The 20th Century, like any other time period, was one of both warming and cooling." implied that the cooling was A) comparable to the warming, B), more significant than the warming, or C), less significant than the warming?

Observed global warming during the last 100 years cannot be explained by the increase of GHGs alone.

Which mainstream climate scientist has actually made this claim? Is that your state of knowledge after reading Plimer's book? Climate scientists consider CO2 only? In fact the models routinely consider changes in total solar insolation, changes in CO2, changes in aerosols (the culprit for the 1940-1970 cooling) and more. These forcings are discussed at length in the IPCC reports and in the scientific literature. Any competent book on climate change will tell you, that CO2 is not the only forcing that needs to be considered. If you get this basic issue wrong because of relying on Plimer's book, you have just offered another condemnation of that book.

Sorry for the layout in #61, wordpress does not seem to handle paragraphs within blockquotes properly. The first blockquote citing Greig should include the part

Now, Plimer could have used the Hadcrut or WoodforTrees.org graph, and arrived at exactly the same conclusion.

I'd be obliged, if this formating error could be fixed.

Shorter Grieg: Its OK to used doctored charts, says nothing about ones credibility or ones point.

Grieg, this example shows in a graphic way how Plimer cares not to source material from credible sources, rather he flings mud where ever found, and those who want to believe him swallow it.

Now ask your self, why did Plimer not use up-to-date credible record of temperature? Like this one http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.gif

What point could he be trying to make with the doctored chart that he couldnât make with the real data?
Could it have anything to do with the 1940s cooling being too small for his liking? Look at the real data and Plimerâs chart again. Tell us why Plimer needed the fake one, when the real data is so accessible?

Neither is this a one off, its just a visual example of many blatant false hoods, distortions and down right mis-representations. See these links below for examples of many more. But being a graphic example it is harder to run away from, and easy to demonstrate to lay people.

http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/04/23/ian-plimer-heaven-and-earth/

http://bravenewclimate.com/2008/09/01/spot-the-recycled-denial-iii-â-pr…

http://bravenewclimate.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/plimer1a3.pdf

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/04/the\_science\_is\_missing\_from\_ia.php#c1636606

By Mark Byrne (not verified) on 16 May 2009 #permalink

Shorter Janama:

Any thing that proves my folly is evidence of religious dogma.

Janama, you do realise that the chart you now say is not important is the one you've been trying to defend?

By mark Byrne (not verified) on 16 May 2009 #permalink

[bluegrue] "In fact the models routinely consider changes in total solar insolation, changes in CO2, changes in aerosols (the culprit for the 1940-1970 cooling) and more. These forcings are discussed at length in the IPCC reports and in the scientific literature. Any competent book on climate change will tell you, that CO2 is not the only forcing that needs to be considered. "

Exactly. If you read Plimers statement with regard to figure 3, this is all he is saying, no more, no less. He is simply drawing attention to the fact that there are many factors at work.

[Greig] "Observed global warming during the last 100 years cannot be explained by the increase of GHGs alone."
[DavidK] "Who says this Craig?"

David, the IPCC says this, and all credible scientists, including Plimer.

[Mark Byrne ]"Now ask your self, why did Plimer not use up-to-date credible record of temperature? Like this one http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.gif "

If Plimer had used that data, his conclusion would still be the same, and would still be completely correct and in line with current knowledge of climate change. That is why this blog, and Tim Lambert's scurrilous attack, about the source of his graph is totally irrelevant to a debate on AGW, and represents solely an ad hominem attack on Plimer's integrity.

If Plimer had used that data, his conclusion would still be the same, and would still be completely correct and in line with current knowledge of climate change. That is why this blog, and Tim Lambert's scurrilous attack, about the source of his graph is totally irrelevant to a debate on AGW, and represents solely an ad hominem attack on Plimer's integrity.

the claim that the fake graph and the real data would lead to the same conclusion is simply false.

the graphs look completely different. in the real data, the "cooling" are minor bumps in the road.
the real data didn t show what Plimer wanted to show. that is why he used a faked graph. fact.

David, the IPCC says this, and all credible scientists, including Plimer.

Exactly, that is what the AGW 'deniers' don't seem to understand.

Natural variability masks the impact of AGW.

Unfortunately, Plimer distorts and misrepresents what the science is saying, in a book.

If he had something serious to say about the "falsification"f AGW, he would say it in a paper submitted to a reputable journal. He hasn't.

[Mark Byrne ]"Now ask your self, why did Plimer not use up-to-date credible record of temperature? Like this one http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.gif "

Greig:

If Plimer had used that data, his conclusion would still be the same

But reaching the SAME conclusion is not a reason FOR using the "data" that he used instead of genuine data. It's the same as saying "why do you do something? Answer: Because it makes no difference". "No difference" is not a cause or a reason. The normal logic is "why DON'T you do something? Answer: Because it makes no difference."

By Chris O'Neill (not verified) on 17 May 2009 #permalink

Shorter Greig:

Plimer used the fake data instead of the real data, because he Knew⢠-- even without actually using the real data -- that the conclusions obtained with the real data would be the same.

Grieg: "If Plimer had used that data [genuine data], his conclusion would still be the same [as the fake data], and would still be completely correct and in line with current knowledge of climate change. That is why this blog, and Tim Lambert's scurrilous attack, about the source of his graph is totally irrelevant to a debate on AGW, and represents solely an ad hominem attack on Plimer's integrity."

Grieg, your proposition doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Plimer used Durkin's chart to show the scale of warming and cooling. In Plimer's fake data the warming and cooling look only a little different. The the real data warming far out weighs cooling. The fake equivalence between warming and cooling couldn't be made with the real data.

This attack on Plimer's use of fake data is the exact opposite of ad hominem, go check your dictionary. Just like every one of dozen upon dozens of documented falsehoods discussed in the links I made before, these attack the arguments and errors he made. Plimer does enough damage to his own credibility.

For an example of an ad hominid attack seem Jamana's post @51. I.e. the resort of those who have run-out of logic.

By Mark Byrne (not verified) on 17 May 2009 #permalink

Damn! This is so dissapointing. I remember back when I was in Uni I did an assignment on Plimer and was most impressed with the man's big brass ones for being willing to financially ruin himself going after the bogus claims of the 'Ark'eologists. To see him sell his credibility up the river like this is just awful.

DavidK,

You say that according to the IPCC: "Natural variability masks the impact of AGW."

Then why the heck would you worry about AGW if natural variability is the real culprit of all your doomsday concerns?

By Peter Smith (not verified) on 17 May 2009 #permalink

> Peter Smith: You say that according to the IPCC: "Natural variability masks the impact of AGW."

> Then why the heck would you worry about AGW if natural variability is the real culprit of all your doomsday concerns?

Wow.

Ya gotta hand it to deniers: invincible miscomprehension is a mighty tool.

as are you for posting such a response.

By Peter Smith (not verified) on 17 May 2009 #permalink

> as are you for posting such a response.

Tee-hee!

As am I what?

English to Peter Smith:

"Masks" means that something is hidden.

Only tiny babies believe that if you hide something, it no longer exists.

Peter Smith:

Technically, the world's average temperature is a *noisy time series*, whose year-to-year noise masks the trend in any short period. Many people seem to think that if CO2 increases monotonically, then temperature must as well. That simply isn't true as ocean oscillations like ENSO cause large enough jiggles that one needs 20-30 years to see a statistically significant trend.

This has been covered often, such as at Dot Earth.

or you can see a version with Excel spreadsheet animations at Capital Climate.

By John Mashey (not verified) on 17 May 2009 #permalink

DanL: as you are what? A mighty tool. (that is a gentle ribbing)
A little more critical thinking would be helpful.
Dave, if something is able to so easily "mask" something else then it is obviously by far the mightier force (and more relevant factor to consider). AGW is not a force to contend with the earth's climate cycle.
John, agreed the earth's
average temperature series is a noisy time series. Afterall, we are only .2 degrees celcius warmer today than we were in 1980 but .4 degrees celcius COOLER than we were in 1998.
And it was warmer in the Medieval Warm Period (without large volumes of human produced CO2.)

By Peter Smith (not verified) on 17 May 2009 #permalink

Shorter Peter Smith:

If there is noise in a signal with a upward trend, then the trend obviously doesn't exist. The signal is so noisy, in fact, that individual samples of the signal are extremely meaningful.

Therefore, there's nothing wrong with Plimer using a fake graph.

Afterall, we are only .2 degrees celcius warmer today than we were in 1980 but .4 degrees celcius COOLER than we were in 1998.

and it was 10°C warmer here 6 hours ago.

and it was 6°C warmer at the same time 5 years ago.

even if your claim was true, it wouldn t matter at all.

but a look at the data shows taht you are wrong

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1980/mean:12

Peter Smith:

> Dave, if something is able to so easily "mask" something else then it is obviously by far the mightier force (and more relevant factor to consider). AGW is not a force to contend with the earth's climate cycle.

I suggest you look at eg. this graph of the daily temperatures in Alberta over a four week and a twelve month period.

http://www.climate.weatheroffice.ec.gc.ca/climateData/charts/DailyTempe…

http://www.climate.weatheroffice.ec.gc.ca/climateData/charts/DailyTempe…

See how, despite the noise, the underlying trend becomes clear over time?

By your logic, the daily noise which so easily masks the trend over short timescales is clearly the most important factor to consider, and thus we should ignore the earth's axis of rotation when attempting to predict whether June will be warmer than December in the Northern Hemisphere.

> Peter Smith: DanL: as you are what? A mighty tool. (that is a gentle ribbing) A little more critical thinking would be helpful.

Ain't it the truth?

You concluded that natural variability is the same thing as increasing CO2 forcing. That is deliberate miscomprehension or sheer laziness. Either way, you weren't thinking.

[Mark Byrne] "Grieg, your proposition doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Plimer used Durkin's chart to show the scale of warming and cooling. In Plimer's fake data the warming and cooling look only a little different. The the real data warming far out weighs cooling. The fake equivalence between warming and cooling couldn't be made with the real data."

Plimer does NOT draw any conclusion on the scale of warming and cooling, and the "fake equivalence between warming and cooling" is a strawman that you have fabricated.

[Mark Byrne] "This attack on Plimer's use of fake data is the exact opposite of ad hominem, go check your dictionary."

I am not sure which dictionary you use, but in mine, calling someone a liar is ad hominem.

[Mark Byrne] "Just like every one of dozen upon dozens of documented falsehoods discussed in the links I made before, these attack the arguments and errors he made. Plimer does enough damage to his own credibility."

Ian Enting has found a handful of factual errors, which to me is not unsurprising for a work with 1000s of references and footnotes. But most of Enting's claimed "errors" are a matter of semantics and interpretation, and I could easily argue their relevance to the conclusions that Plimer draws.

To refer to them as "falsehoods" implies that Plimer is deliberately lying.

Mark, you and Lambert, and others here do yourselves a great disservice by making these emotive claims about Plimer. You sound hysterical. I wonder, did you devote as much time and emotion on attacking the "falsehoods" in Al Gore's silly film?

OK - let's revisit clouds and Hansen's projections.

Here is a pdf of Dr John Christy's testimony to the US House and Means Committee in February this year.

http://waysandmeans.house.gov/media/pdf/111/ctest.pdf

here is a recent interview with Dr Christy printed in Fortune.

http://money.cnn.com/2009/05/14/magazines/fortune/globalwarming.fortune…

Here's what Dr Christy has to say about clouds and computer models.

"Current climate model projections assume that climate is very sensitive to CO2. Weâve
found however, that during warming episodes, clouds step up their cooling effect. When
model output is tested this way, not one model mimics this cooling effect â in fact the
modelsâ clouds lead to further warming, not cooling as seen in nature. We hypothesize
that poor cloud properties cause models to overstate warming rates. Weâve also found
that current popular surface temperature datasets indicate more warming than is actually
happening in the atmosphere because they are contaminated by surface development"

and here's a copy of the chart Dr Christy presented to the committee regarding Dr Hansen's predictions.

http://users.tpg.com.au/johnsay1/Stuff/Christy_testimony.jpg

Here's what Dr Christy said in the interview regarding Dr Hansen and his predictions.

"During your House Ways and Means testimony, you showed a chart juxtaposing predictions made by NASA's Jim Hansen in 1988 for future temperature increases against the actual recorded temperature increases over the past 20 years. Not only were the actual increases much lower, but they were lower than what Hansen expected if there were drastic cuts in CO2 emissions - which of course there haven't been. [Hansen is a noted scientist who was featured prominently in Al Gore's global warming documentary, "An Inconvenient Truth."] Hansen was at that hearing. Did he say anything to you afterwards?

We really don't communicate. We serve on a committee for NASA together, but it only deals with specific satellite issues. At the Ways and Means hearing, he was sitting two people down from me, but he did not want to engage any of the evidence I presented. And that seems to be the preferred tactic of many in the alarmist camp. Rather than bring up these issues, they simply ignore them.

(Contacted by Fortune, Hansen acknowledges that his 1988 projections were based on a model that "slightly" overstated the warming created by a doubling in CO2 levels. His new model posits a rise of 3 degrees Celsius in global temperatures by 2100, vs. 4.2 degrees in the old one. Says Hansen, "The projections that the public has been hearing about are based on a climate sensitivity that is consistent with the global warming rate of the past few decades." Christy's response: "Hansen at least admits his 1988 forecasts were wrong, but doesn't say they were way wrong, not 'slightly,' as he states." Christy also claims that even Hansen's revised models grossly overestimated the amount of warming that has actually occurred.)"

Greig,
> _I am not sure which dictionary you use, but in mine, calling someone a liar is ad hominem._

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ad%20hominem
_1 : appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect_
_2 : marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made_

Plimer being a liar (his use of the fake figure 3 being just _one_ example) is a _conclusion_ we arrive at, _after_ having looked at the evidence, _not_ a preconception. That is _not_ an ad hominem.

A little Gedankenexperiment: Suppose you want to invest in stock. At the beginning of his sales talk, your banker shows you a chart of the Dow Jones index[1] and advises you: _"Of course, there will always be ups and downs"_ . You happen to know the actual data and notice, that the time axis is labeled Jan 2007 to May 2009, whereas the data shown is the Jan 2006 to Dec 2006 only. Would you trust any further information given by the banker to you? Would you warn others?

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:DJIA_2000s_graph_(log).svg

Greig: "I am not sure which dictionary you use, but in mine, calling someone a liar is ad hominem."

argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man").

That MIGHT be an appropriate call if people were calling Plimer a liar. they haven't. The only place the word "liar" appears in this entire thread is in your comments (and mine, now).

People aren't calling Plimer a liar. They are saying he lied. That's a claim with significant evidence, and is not ad hominem, but rather an argument against Plimer's data, presentation, and implications of his presentation.

bluegrue: you ruined my argument! :)

Tim: could you please turn of the underscore italics? they ruin URLs

Janama: do you think models haven't improved at all in the last 20 years?

naught101, sorry about breaking your argument. :)

However, I will still never argue "X is a liar, therefore his/her argument Y is wrong", which would indeed be an ad hominem.

nauhgt101: 91 - do you think models haven't improved at all in the last 20 years?

I don't doubt they have and I'm sure Dr Christy would be aware of that.

Did Christy really say this crap (@87)?

""Current climate model projections assume that climate is very sensitive to CO2."

No,they don't assume - they take sensitivity as determined from model runs. Not assumed, but determined, from models and from other physical measurements - you do know that there are many non-model-based determinations of sensitivity, don't you janama? Christy does, despite his words here.

"Weâve found however, that during warming episodes, clouds step up their cooling effect."
No, Christy, you havent "found" that. Lindzens Iris hypothesis is just that - a hypothesis, and it is a pretty badly mauled hypothesis at this moment. For Christy to say they have "found" this, that they know it, is simply not true. And Christy knows that.

"When model output is tested this way, not one model mimics this cooling effect â in fact the modelsâ clouds lead to further warming, not cooling as seen in nature."
But it isn't seen in nature - it is an untested prediction from a hypothesis that is at odds in some fundamental ways with what d=we do know from nature. Christy knows that.

"We hypothesize that poor cloud properties cause models to overstate warming rates."
Yes, but you have next to no evidence for that hypothesis, just another hypothesis that is itself badly flawed. And Christy knows that.

"Weâve also found that current popular surface temperature datasets indicate more warming than is actually happening in the atmosphere because they are contaminated by surface development"
Found? How? What is the evidence for that?

This is not an ad hom - I'm not saying Christy is dishonest, so therefore pay no attention to what he says.
I'm saying that everything Christy says in this paragraph is untrue, in ways that Christy knows to be untrue, and that therefore he is not to be trusted.

Just like we're pointing out about Plimer.

I'm saying that everything Christy says in this paragraph is untrue, in ways that Christy knows to be untrue, and that therefore he is not to be trusted.

coming from who?? some poster on a blog called Lee.

Dr Spencer appears to agree with him:

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/04/clouds-cool-the-climate-system%e2%8…

"One of the basic tenets of the IPCC view on global warming is that cloud feedbacks are positive. That is, clouds react to a warming influence by further amplifying the warming.

This makes all the difference in the world for forecasts of global warming because the existence of negative cloud feedbacks could limit manmade global warming to less than 0.5 deg. C by late in this century, while positive feedbacks could result in ten times that amount of warming: 5 deg. C."

Greig:

"Plimer does NOT draw any conclusion on the scale of warming and cooling, and the "fake equivalence between warming and cooling" is a strawman that you have fabricated.

Plimer drew his readers attention to warming and cooling and use the fake data to show the scale of what he was talking about. It is Plimerâs stawman build of fake data.

Grieg:

"I am not sure which dictionary you use, but in mine, calling someone a liar is ad hominem."

See Bluegrue @88.

Grieg:

Ian Enting has found a handful of factual errors, which to me is not unsurprising for a work with 1000s of references and footnotes. But most of Enting's claimed "errors" are a matter of semantics and interpretation, and I could easily argue their relevance to the conclusions that Plimer draws.

Grieg given your defence of Plimerâs use of this fake data, it would be interesting to hear which of Plimerâs errors, misrepresentations and distortions you would not defend, minimize or justify? What would Plimer need to do for you to consider it a lie?

And why restrict yourself to Entings (excellent start) critique? What about Barry Brookâs or Lambertâs critique. They each raise lists. If you search you will find similar assessments from those competent in the fields that Plimer addresses.

Grieg:

Mark, you and Lambert, and others here do yourselves a great disservice by making these emotive claims about Plimer.

Grieg you have constructed your view of this critique being âemotiveâ by hiding from the fact the criticism is about bad practice, bad data, and hence erroneous debate.

By Mark Byrne (not verified) on 17 May 2009 #permalink

Lee: I observe:

a) If someone doesn't know much, they can believe anything.

b) If they have actually published science, but not climate science, they may well believe silly things, but they ought to know how science works. This is an instance of "gone emeritus"

c) If they have actually done research in climate science, BUT:

a) If their peer-reviewed publications drop off in favor of websites, or if they don't have much impact, or if they get refuted fairly quickly

b) And especially if their websites and/or OpEds say things that just wouldn't make it past peer review, and are different from what they write for peer review

Then it's a big red flag...

Dr Roy Spencer is worth perusing, for example.

By John Mashey (not verified) on 17 May 2009 #permalink

Reply to Greig,
Assuming that you are the same Greig who posted a comment on my letter in the Australian, my reply was that I agreed that version 1.2 did not represent a complete demolition of Plimer. However the australian will not accept my posts.
What I would add now is that internal consistency is essential for any scientific theory, even more so than being able to account for all observations (because removing the need for consistency makes it possible to account for any possible observation). Thus, to the extent that Plimer is trying to propose an alternative to the theory of climate change caused by changes in radiative forcing, his own consistency becomes a core issue.
Responses to some of the other queries on the australian letters blog (e.g why didn't I attack Gore) are included in later versions of my document.

By Ian Enting (not verified) on 17 May 2009 #permalink

Look, Greig. that graphic was not included in Plimer's book because he needed to fill up the page. It was there because it SAYS SOMETHING. It communicates. It conveys a message.

That fraudulent graph is there because it says something, communicates, conveys a message THAT IS NOT TRUE. It misleads, because much of the important warming has been removed, causing the vertical and horizontal scales to be altered in way that exaggerates the cooling and minimizes the warming. It does this regardless of what Plimer says about it - because like all graphics it is itself a form of communication. And it isn't a minor point - the warming record is at the center of the discussion.

In fact, that graphic is a well presented, potent, persuasive piece of communication, all by itself. Look at all that cooling. Look at how little warming there was after WW2. That graphic, all by itself, makes a powerful case that there is something wrong with the claims of anthropogenic warming. The problem for Plimer's factual case is, IT ISN'T FREAKING TRUE!!! And the problem for Plimer's reputation and standing is, he knew it wasn't true - it had been pointed out to him before publication that the graph was wrong and had been withdrawn.

oh, BTW, this:

"coming from who?? some poster on a blog called Lee."

is an ad hom. Slightly veiled, but at heart it says "This guy is just some blog idiot - pay him no attention" as you go blithely on ignoring nearly everything I actually argued.

good job.

lee - you didn't argue anything - you just said "For Christy to say they have "found" this, that they know it, is simply not true. And Christy knows that." and made statements like "and that therefore he is not to be trusted."

Both Christy and Spencer argue the feedback mechanisms in Models are incorrect and create higher predictions of temperature change, and as I pointed out before even Hansen admits they over estimate - like the difference between 5C and .5C - that's a major difference and you can't just dismiss it by saying they are lying.

If your life depended on the difference between .5C and 5C wouldn't it be reasonable to get to the truth of the matter?

Janama, before you argue that clouds (= water vapour) create negative feedback, I suggest you read [this summary](http://climateprogress.org/2008/10/26/study-water-vapor-feedback-is-str…)of recent research in the journal Geophysical Research Letters.
Incidentally, both Grieg and janama are running a "the specific graph doesn't matter, it's the sum total of evidence that matters" argument. This is of course the same reason that Christy's disputing of Hansen's particular set of projections from 20 years ago doesn't matter (if it was correct, which it isn't). But they seem to think that greenhouse science stands or falls on one graph. Hit on the head by a Hockey Stick syndrome?

James - from your link

"The existence of a strong and positive water-vapor feedback means that projected business-as-usual greenhouse-gas emissions over the next century are virtually guaranteed to produce warming of several degrees Celsius. The only way that will not happen is if a strong, negative, and currently unknown feedback is discovered somewhere in our climate system."

But the southern hemisphere and the tropics have remained the same temp for the past 30 years - only the NH shows temperature rise.

http://users.tpg.com.au/johnsay1/Stuff/hemitemps.jpg

and the last 8 years have remained static or have dropped globally

http://users.tpg.com.au/johnsay1/Stuff/RSS.jpg

doesn't add up- does it, all thoses additional forcings aren't working!

pajama:

But the southern hemisphere

average over the bottom 5000 metres of troposphere

and the tropics have remained the same temp for the past 30 years - only the NH shows temperature rise

Fine if you live somewhere up in the troposphere. Pretty irrelevant, like pajama, if you live on the surface.

and the last 8 years have remained static or have dropped globally

Thanks for the weather report. How long will it take you to learn that measurement of climate, and hence measurement of climate change, takes at least 30 years of data.

By Chris O'Neill (not verified) on 17 May 2009 #permalink

As a viking raider, I am not uncomfortable with evading a few icebergs. I am however very concerned that the statement below may be true and would like some informed commentary:

Glacial ice cores have the unique capability of yielding measurements of ancient atmospheric chemistry from air samples that are captured as bubbles within the ice. It transpires that inferred changes in past temperature and atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration in such cores occur in close parallelism. In detail, however, the changes
in temperature precede their parallel changes in carbon dioxide by between ~800 and 2000 years (Mudelsee 2001). Thus carbon dioxide cannot be the primary forcing agent
for temperature change at the glacial-interglacial scale.

Chris O'Neill - the troposhphere contains 75% of the atmmosphere's mass according to Wiki - I think it's relevant. The graphs I presented were 30 years long which you now confirm is a measurement of Climate - not weather, thank you.

Mark Byrne - the land to ocean ratio of the NH is around 1:1.5 whereas the SH is 1:4 - you would still expect a rise in temp in the SH at the appropriate ratio yet there isn't any evidence of this, in fact one of the largest land masses, Antarctica, has one small area the western penninsular showing extensive warming yet the majority remaining static or cooling and the sea ice increasing.

Hagar,

The correlation between temp and CO2 in the Vostok ice cores does show about an [800 year lag](http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/co2-in-ice-cores/) for CO2 in most cases.

We didn't initiate the other six cycles of dramatic warming in the past 600 k-years. In these cases however, CO2 rises amplified the warming initiated by Milankovitch cycles.

CO2 rises have been found to initiate global warming, such as occurred in [Paleocene Eocene Thermal Maximum](http://books.google.com/books?id=8-m8nXB8GB4C&pg=RA1-PA442&lpg=RA1-PA44…) about 55 million years ago.

By Mark Byrne (not verified) on 17 May 2009 #permalink

Hagar: "Thus carbon dioxide cannot be the primary forcing agent for temperature change at the glacial-interglacial scale."

In the recent (geologially speaking) past the ice ages and warmer interglacial warmer periods have been instigated by changes in the Earth's orbit and axis, which affects the amount of sunlight hitting various parts of the Earth.

This in turn affects how much heat is retained in the sea and the atmosphere. This seems to be pretty well accepted by scientists working in the field.

This heating then causes greenhouse gases, mainly the gases dissolved in the the sea, to be liberated in the same way CO2 bubbles out of beer when it's warmed up.

These gases in turn trap more heat in the atmosphere and the oceans. The additional heating liberates even more greenhouses gases, which cause even more heating, and so on.

This process takes a long, long time, because it takes a long time for the oceans to heat up so much that the heat they're giving off balances the heat coming in from the hotter atmosphere, at which point the oceans stop heating up.

That's why the ice cores show CO2 concentrations rising long after the initial change in temperature.

The additional amounts of CO2 have a declining effect, so there's no "runaway" heating.

What's happening at the moment is that greenhouse gases released by humans, rather than changes in sunlight, are starting the process.

So the intial heating can come from either the sun or from humans releasing greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, or from some other source of greenhouses gases like, in the long-distant past, the weathering of rocks or massive super volcanoes.

The process will continue in much the same way, with further liberation of greenhouse gases as the oceans warm, no matter what started it off.

In other words, just because sunlight caused previous global warming, doesn't mean nothing else can cause it.

This is all very well known and there are many places you can find this explanation.

All I can say is that if someone (eg Adjunct Professor Bob Carter, who Google tells me is the source for your quote) has presented this argument to you as a proof that humans are not causing global warming, they are assuming you are either ignorant, stupid or gullible.

Anyway, it's really a sleight of hand, because the global warming we humans are causing is not happening at the "glacial-interglacial" scale, but much faster than that.

So, technically it's true, but it's also a red herring in the context of an argument about human-caused global warming over a relatively short time frame.

Janama:

you would still expect a rise in temp in the SH at the appropriate ratio yet there isn't any evidence of this...

Who would expect that Janama? Where is consideration for ocean currets? where is your accounting for variance of latitude and solar incidence?

...one of the largest land masses, Antarctica, has one small area the western penninsular showing extensive warming yet the majority remaining static or cooling and the sea ice increasing.

Since systematic measures began (1957) through 2006, temperatures across Antarctica [rose an average]( http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v457/n7228/abs/nature07669.html) of 0.2 degrees Fahrenheit per decade.

By Mark Byrne (not verified) on 17 May 2009 #permalink

Hagar.

I can only assume that as a Viking raider the technologies available to you are so outdated that you have no way to understand that your argument has long ago been refuted, and repeatedly so, and that once you emerge from your mead fugue you will understand this and remove the over-tight helm from your head.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 17 May 2009 #permalink

Hagar:

Thus carbon dioxide cannot be the primary forcing agent for temperature change at the glacial-interglacial scale.

No-one argues that CO2 produced more than a minority of the temperature change between glacial and interglacial conditions, i.e. the CO2 change probably produced about 2 deg C of warming associated with this change while the overall temperature rise was more than double this. Our problem is that we're well on the way to increasing CO2 far more than the increase at the end of the last ice age.

By Chris O'Neill (not verified) on 17 May 2009 #permalink
Fine if you live somewhere up in the troposphere. Pretty irrelevant, like pajama, if you live on the surface.

pajama:

the troposhphere contains 75% of the atmmosphere's mass according to Wiki - I think it's relevant.

You have an amazing gift for argument by red herring. The consequences of global warming are mainly caused at the surface: melting ice-caps, ecological disruption, evaporation, and climate alteration depends to a large extent on the amount of surface warming.

and the last 8 years have remained static or have dropped globally
Thanks for the weather report. How long will it take you to learn that measurement of climate, and hence measurement of climate change, takes at least 30 years of data.

The graphs I presented were 30 years long which you now confirm is a measurement of Climate - not weather, thank you.

Whatever happened to your 8 years claim? Obviously you're no longer defending your claim that what happened in the last 8 years has something to do with climate forcing. Thanks for the goal post shift. By the way, in case you've forgotten already, those graphs are not as relevant as the surface record.

By Chris O'Neill (not verified) on 17 May 2009 #permalink

I just thought I'd note that the Australian has linked another vapid opinion article praising Plimer's book: by Janet Albrechtsen this time. Sometimes Janet writes some clever things, but science obviously isn't her strong point. It's a pretty textbook example of "AGW is bad for right-wing politics; I am right-wing; therefore I do not believe in AGW; therefore AGW is not real."

By Nils Ross (not verified) on 17 May 2009 #permalink

RE #63

"...changes in aerosols (the culprit for the 1940-1970 cooling)..."

This is incorect. See "Cyclic Climate Changes and Fish Productivity" by L.B. Kykashtorin and A.A. Lyubushin.

http://alexeylyubushin.narod.ru/Climate-Changes-and-Fish-Productivity.p…?

(Note: Replace "-" with "_" for link to work. If this doesn't work, use Google search on title or the authors)

They show by analyses of a vast amount of climate and fish data that there is a world climate cycle of about 60 years. The 1940-1970 period was a cool phase of the cycle.

This cycle peaked in the warm phase in about 2000 and is now heading into a cool phase that will last for another 30 years.

By Harold Pierce Jr (not verified) on 18 May 2009 #permalink

[Ian Enting] âinternal consistency is essential for any scientific theoryâ

Ian, I completely agree. And so does Plimer. That is precisely the issue he is illustrating throughout his book, that there significant inconsistency on AGW theory, and so it is falsified.

As I said in The Australian Letters section, I agree with most (but not all) of your critique. Certainly Plimer has been somewhat sloppy and inconsistent. Plimer appears to have taken a âscattergunâ approach, presenting a lot of information, some of which he does not support properly. But he also, in my opinion, accurately hits the mark many times, something that you do not acknowledge. He is correct and accurate often enough to convince me that the science of climate change is far from settled.

I note also that you appear to believe that Plimer is presenting a theory. He is not. He is dismantling a theory by showing its inconsistencies. There is a big difference. It means that Plimer does not need to be completely consistent in order to convey his conclusion.

Finally, I do not believe, as Tim Lambert does, that Plimer is being dishonest. Claims that he has lied are inappropriate and unprofessional. I find it remarkable that Timâs UNSW colleagues have not forced him to withdraw.

48 Greig,

This thread is about Plimer's use of a graph so obviously fraudulent that even its originator replaced it with another (less obviously fake but equally dishonest) graph immediately after the first broadcast of his pack of lies (TGGWS). Any use of this graph is inexcusable and can only be described as denialist.

You are here supporting Plimer's use of this graph.

You are supporting denialism.

As for scepticism, AGW "sceptics" are the least sceptical people you will find. They believe any garbage, no matter how blatantly dishonest or contradictory, that supports their belief, in the face of a huge body of peer-reviewed science, that it's not warming, and even if it is it's nothing to do with us and anyway what's wrong with it being a few degrees warmer?

It goes without saying, but I'll say it anyway, that these credulous, arrogant, ignoramuses are nearly always right-wing nuts who, to support their extreme delusions, have to imagine some great left/green conspiracy has taken over mainstream science. I sometimes wonder if they have no idea how transparent they are.

By TrueSceptic (not verified) on 18 May 2009 #permalink

AAAAAAGGGHHHH!!!

Flying Monkeys!

Oh, and 'Lee' (if that's your real name) you typed "ned" instead od "end"!

Haw, haw, hawwww, AGW PWWNEDDDD! YeeeeHaaaa!

Or, at least, that appears to be the state of the debate at this stage. Perhaps after another decade or so of debate we could hold a discussion about whether any action should be taken.

Murdoch Rocks!!

Greig, you said
"...that there significant inconsistency on AGW theory, and so it is falsified. "

Like what? Where is it inconsistent?

Nathan, having you been paying attention?

That spiffy graph of Plimers is as clear a demonstration of the "inconsistency" that one could ask for - temps are going up and down, therefore they can't just be going up.

If you weren't so busy worshipping at the alter of Al Gore, you would see this.

Michael: that would only be an "inconsistency" if mainstream climatologists would have said that temperatures will only increase and never, ever, ever decrease.

Good thing that's not what they are saying. If you weren't so busy obsessing over Al Gore, you'd see this.

That spiffy graph of Plimers [sic] is as clear a demonstration of the "inconsistency" that one could ask for - temps are going up and down, therefore they can't just be going up.

If you weren't so busy worshipping at the alter of Al Gore, you would see this.

Michael, if your point is that temperatures should be rising monotonically in lockstep with CO2 increase, perhaps you could explain why temperatures don't monotonically increase from post-midwinter to post-midsummer, and monotonically decrease from post-midsummer to post-midwinter.

Can you do that for us, please?

It amuses me that Denialists are vociferous in speaking about all of the non-CO2 forcings of global temperature when trying to refute that CO2 has a warming effect. Then, when it comes to denigrating the correlation of atmospheric CO2 concentration with temperature, they immediately forget the existence of these other factors, and the inherent variability within them.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 18 May 2009 #permalink

May be I go to the wrong places, but I do not see people here worshiping Al Gore or even cite him. On the contrary, the people arguing, that AGW is happening, are usually the ones who can back up their arguments citing the peer reviewed literature. Funny that.

Bernard J. you're simply reinforcing Plimers point, as Greig has pointed out.

Temps are going up and down all the time. Like yesterday for instance...and last year. Plimer showed this on that highly instructive graph. He was just highlighting the inconsistency of the theory of AGw....and we all now agree that internal consistency is important. Geig made a very valid point on this - Plimer is not proposing a theory so he doesn't need to be consistent. Likewise, he is not a climate scientist so he doesn't need to get the graph completely right to the nth degree. It just helps illustrate the point.

What is important is the conclusions that Plimer draws, not how he gets there.

What is important is the conclusions that Plimer draws, not how he gets there.

Please tell me this guy is a Poe...

Temps are going up and down all the time. Like yesterday for instance...and last year. Plimer showed this on that highly instructive graph. He was just highlighting the inconsistency of the theory of AGw....and we all now agree that internal consistency is important. Geig made a very valid point on this - Plimer is not proposing a theory so he doesn't need to be consistent. Likewise, he is to the nth degree. It just helps illustrate the point. What is important is the conclusions that Plimer draws, not how he gets there.

i really hope that this was a joke.

the graph is NOT highly instructive. it is simply wrong.

the false graph seems to show, that temperature goes up and down a little. the real graph shows that temperature went UP nearly always. he gets a wrong conclusion from a wrong graph!

in general, you don t "highlight the inconsistency" in another persons work, by using false data.

his book has the title: "Heaven and Earth - Global Warming: The Missing Science". he better had a theory with such a title!

getting a graph right, after having been told that it is wrong, doesn t require to be a climate scientist. 8actually you don t need to be a climate scientist for any work on graphs)

why didn t he admit, that the graph was bogus and just an "illustration" of some points he wanted to make?

his book has the title: "Heaven and Earth - Global Warming: The Missing Science". he better had a theory with such a title!

Sod, I think the title is emminently appropriate: the science is absolutely missing from Plimer's book.

Granted, "Heaven and Earth - Global Warming: Missing The Science" would have made it clearer for the Denialists to understand where he is coming from.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 18 May 2009 #permalink

132 denidiot, doh!

By TrueSceptic (not verified) on 18 May 2009 #permalink

> Michael: Plimer is not proposing a theory so he doesn't need to be consistent. Likewise, he is not a climate scientist so he doesn't need to get the graph completely right to the nth degree. It just helps illustrate the point.

**-boggle!-**

Another illustration of why it's a waste of time to argue with most deniers. They're sunk so deep in cluelessness they're out of reach.

[Sod] "the real graph shows that temperature went UP nearly always"

What do you mean by "nearly"? The real data (eg Hadcru3 and WoodForTrees.org graphs) show that temperature and CO2 do not correlate strongly, in particular note the periods 1900-1910, 1940-1970 and 1998-2009. Although it is clear there is some correlation (as so POSSIBLY SOME CAUSATION) which Plimer acknowledges throughout his book. Plimers point is to illustrate the inconsistency, and so give pause for thought.

[BP Levinson] "Look again. I get r = 0.86 for 1880-2007:
http://www.geocities.com/bpl1960/Correlation.html"

There is SOME correlation, nobody denies that, but it is clearly not strong, and it does not imply causation.

[Nathan] Greig, you said "...that there significant inconsistency on AGW theory, and so it is falsified. " Like what? Where is it inconsistent?

You should read Plimers book, where he illustrates that with numerous examples that are well referenced, ie the support data has not made it onto Enting's or Brooks's critiques.

This thread has focussed on one graph, and led some people to believe that Plimer book is all wrong. You are throwing the baby out with the bath water. You need to read the book. To quote Plimer, your mind is like a parachute, it doesn't work unless it is open.

What do you mean by "nearly"? The real data (eg Hadcru3 and WoodForTrees.org graphs) show that temperature and CO2 do not correlate strongly, in particular note the periods 1900-1910, 1940-1970 and 1998-2009. Although it is clear there is some correlation (as so POSSIBLY SOME CAUSATION) which Plimer acknowledges throughout his book. Plimers point is to illustrate the inconsistency, and so give pause for thought.

we definitely are NOT looking at the same graph. here is the real one:

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1875/to:2010/mean:132

and i am curious: what was CO2 like in 1900-1910?

why would you look at 1998 to 2009?

did you ever here of other forcings, having an effect on climate?

There is SOME correlation, nobody denies that, but it is clearly not strong, and it does not imply causation.

r=0.86 is pretty strong. the causation is known because of physical properties of CO2.

This thread has focussed on one graph, and led some people to believe that Plimer book is all wrong. You are throwing the baby out with the bath water. You need to read the book. To quote Plimer, your mind is like a parachute, it doesn't work unless it is open.

you must have missed the other threads, dealing with different errors.

and talking about parachutes, Plimer and those who defend him mostly sound like they jumped once to often without one, and landed head first...

Oh real good one SOD. You truly are good for a laugh aren't you. How did you get so hysterically funny? Watch one too many episodes of Keith Oberman perhaps?

You are today's Worst Person in the Woooorld!!!!

By Sally Johnson (not verified) on 18 May 2009 #permalink

Greig #135
> The real data (eg Hadcru3 and WoodForTrees.org graphs) show that temperature and CO2 do not correlate strongly,

This is expected, as it is well known, that not only CO2, but TSI, aerosols and others play a role, too. Let's take an artificial example. You have a function
f{x} = a x + b sin{x} + c {-1 if x between 30 and 60; 0 else}
defined in an interval x=0..100, where a=0.01, b=1, c=0.3. You will get poor correlation of f(x) with each of the three terms, however combining them you get a perfect match. You could still apply your's and Plimer's style of argument to "show" that for any single term there are "inconsistencies" and that the correlation to f{x} is obviously bad.

Or look at it this way: You have a jar with 100 dollars. Each morning you take an arbitrary amount up to 20 dollars out of the jar and put it back in the evening. At noon each day you also take 10 cent out of the jar, that you never replace. Obviously, as the 10 cent are negligible compared to the daily fluctuations, they don't matter and the jar will never empty. Right?

That's the kind of pseudo arguments (a.k.a. fallacies), that Plimer and other denialists offer.

P.S.: I'm still waiting for an answer regarding my banker example in #88. Would you trust him?

BLUEGRUE SAYS: "This is expected, as it is well known, that not only CO2, but TSI, aerosols and others play a role, too."

How convenient! You cannot judge AGW arguments just on CO2 you have to factor in everything we Alarmists 'think' is bad.

This is another attempt to create global climate models are unable to produce an output that is verifiable. In other words the output can neither be proved nor disproved. What grounds do those who use these models have to refute observations made by others to the effect that there is no believable evidence of the postulated dramatic adverse changes produced by the models?

By Sally Johnson (not verified) on 18 May 2009 #permalink

> How convenient! You cannot judge AGW arguments just on CO2 you have to factor in everything we Alarmists 'think' is bad.

Nature is complex. Welcome to reality.

Greig:

> Observed global warming during the last 100 years cannot be explained by the increase of GHGs alone.

Sally:

> How convenient! You cannot judge AGW arguments just on CO2 you have to factor in everything we Alarmists 'think' is bad.

Perhaps if we locked these two in a room their two contradictory (and yet both denialist) viewpoints would cancel out, perhaps even reaching some sort of (ahem) consensus?

135 Greig,

This thread is about this (fraudulent) graph. I know that denialists are delusional but surely even you can understand that?

It is about the use of a graph so obviously fraudulent *that even its originator* replaced it with another.

It would help if you just admitted this, so we can move on.

By TrueSceptic (not verified) on 18 May 2009 #permalink

140 Sally,

Honestly, it seems that you've just been fed this stuff by some anti-science wingnut.

Please, find out stuff for yourself. It's not that hard, assuming you've got some basic maths and thirst for knowledge.

By TrueSceptic (not verified) on 18 May 2009 #permalink

Greig

"This thread has focussed on one graph, and led some people to believe that Plimer book is all wrong. You are throwing the baby out with the bath water. You need to read the book. To quote Plimer, your mind is like a parachute, it doesn't work unless it is open."

Sure this thread has focussed on the grpah, but there have been a number of threads about his book on this site. And on other sites.

I don't need to read the book, I have read plenty on AGW.
Now, where is the inconsistency in AGW. You claimed there was inconsistency, where is it?

Grieg writes:

âYou should read Plimers book, where he illustrates that with numerous examples that are well referenced, ie the support data has not made it onto Enting's or Brooks's critiques.â

Iâm sure Plimer does say many things that are not contradicted by science. One of his tactics Iâve noticed is to state non-controversial points like- climate has changed many times in the past- and then act as though this is at odds with climate science.

[Re your assertion of being "well referenced", Plimer's misrepresentation of references used has been exposed on other linked posts].

Grieg writes:

This thread has focussed on one graph, and led some people to believe that Plimer book is all wrong.

Grieg, this thread has focused on one point, and how well supporters of Plimer have danced to first try and deny, then downplay, minimize and justify this most obvious and graphic distortion. There is a lesson in this, though I'm sure some would find it uncomfortable to face-up and learn from this.

Some of Plimerâs other misrepresentations, errors and distortions are being exposed elsewhere, as several of us have already shown you.

If you believe Plimer has a convincing credible case, youâve failed to present evidence of that here.

By Mark Byrne (not verified) on 18 May 2009 #permalink

"Please tell me this guy is a Poe..." - Deen

OK,OK. I just have to test it iut now and then and see if Poe's Law can be overturned. The answer is still no.

But I did learn something - it's wondefully liberating, this denialist stuff. You can say anything. It's the science equivelant of suddenly finding that gravity has been waived just for you, and you can fly. You're not constrained by the chains of logic, reason or objective reality - Plimers graph is wrong, but hey, it doesn't matter that he's using the graph as the evidence for natural variability in climate, because his conclusion is correct. Makes perfect sense when all that matters is the utility of interpretation - it's true if it's useful for it to be true.

A parody of post-modernism.

[Here Janet Albrechtsen](http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/janetalbrechtsen/index.php/theau…) demonstrates the Plimer trick that I described @146:

Plimerâs work confronts that mindset. It introduces inquiry where previously there was only professed certainty. He says that we do not know everything. He challenges the notion that we can explain climate change according to one variable (CO2) or an even smaller part of that variable (human induced CO2). To hand the field of enquiry to atmospheric scientists who focus solely on CO2 emissions means âabandoning all we know about planet Earth, the Sun, and the cosmosâ, he says.

Forget even the detail that we've exposed Plimer on here, what is his core take away message for the punters? He constructs his case by setting up a straw man.

The central point that people leave with is the erroneous belief that the climate science says we can explain climate change according to one variable (CO2). He simiply bluffs people into beliving that the science doesn't quantify and factor in the known climate forcing factors that have been found to drive past climate changes.

If Plimer has a genuine argument why wouldnât he make that the central take home issue for punters?

By Mark Byrne (not verified) on 18 May 2009 #permalink

Grieg writes:
> This thread has focussed on one graph, and led some people to believe that Plimer book is all wrong.

Let's have a look at Plimer's first few pages, [**Correction** *these are from a book by Marcel Leroux, not Plimer*] available as a preview on amazon. I'll denote the parts I'm talking about as page.paragraph.sentence

1.1 The first thing we learn is, that the greenhouse effect is just a "fad" as many others, like (my selection) acid rain or the ozone hole, all of which are implied to be no problem any longer. Plimer fails to mention, that we invested huge amounts of money to reduce SO2 and NOx emissions. Even if rarely covered by the media, the damages to the forests are still with us. The same goes for the ozone layer. CFCs were identified as the culprits and replaced. The ozone hole seems to be contained, but is still very much alive and kicking due to the long half life of CFCs in the upper atmosphere.

1.2 If you put 100 people into a 200m² room, you are installing roughly 10kilowatts of heating power, CO2 has nothing to do with the room heating up. The toxidity of CO2 is not a consideration in the current debate, as we will not reach that level. Reconstructions set the highest level of atmospheric CO2 since the Cambrium at 2,000 ppm.

2.1 _"So we do not have to resort to complicated models, to tell us that an increase in CO2 brings about, theoretically, an increase in temperature."_ In conjunction with 1.2, this implies an utterly wrong mechanism of heating; the heating in 1.2 has __nothing__ to do with CO2, other than it being a waste product of the human body. Plimer also implies, that all that those scientists, who contributed to the IPCC reports, are doing with regard to CO2 is "It must be true" bar room chatter.

2.2.1 "Warm is better than cold" trope: Couldn't Canada do with a few more degrees, ey mate? How about changes in precipitation? Plimer contends, that temperature is the only thing that people worry about, whereas the temperature rise is just an indicator of much more involved changes.
2.2.3 _The average person is lulled into mindless acceptance._ How stupid of me to be a physicist and having read up on the subject. Yeah, I'm just mindless, Plimer says so and hence it must be true.
2.2.4 Comparing seasons to climate?

2.2 Overall: Warm is better than cold. Neglect the accompanying changes in precipitation. Neglect the stress put on the biosphere and crops by rapid changes in climate.

3.1 "Pollution and Climate" is the heading for a rant against vilifying professional skeptics.
3.2 Complaining that people who warn about AGW do not all carry the Pure Altruist party card. As if this mattered for the science. Smart move. This way you can accuse any scientist working in the field as just ensuring his job.
3.3 Projections are set to 2100 to make them infalsifiable in our lifetime; the lack of reporting on cooling is due to careful triage - Hello, conspiracy, nice to meet you.
3.4 Sensationalism is the main driver of AGW stories, not something truely worrisome.

Not a _single_ paragraph without misdirection in the first two subchapters. Not one. I find paragraph the 100 people in a room especially objectionable, as it plays on laymen's lack of understanding of AGW and physics in general. Sorry, I give up on the book at this point.

And another quote from Janet Albrechtsen:
As Plimer writes towards the end of his book, âThere is no use for an honest scientist who says âI donât know.â Yet uncertainty is the crux of science whereas certainty underpins religious beliefs. The politicians and the public prefer to hear scientists give confident black-and-white answers and make confident predictions.â

Strangely, it is the IPCC that is attaching probabilities to its pronouncements, whereas Plimer is 100% certain that human-induced CO2 emissions have no effect on climate.

Plimer displays all the characteristics that he criticizes others for.

By Dirk Hartog (not verified) on 18 May 2009 #permalink

___YIKES___

__MAJOR__ mistake on my part. The pages I was taking apart are NOT - repeat NOT - by Plimer. I mixed him up with

[_Global Warming - Myth or Reality?: The Erring Ways of Climatology_ by Marcel Leroux ](http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/reader/354023909X/ref=sib_rdr_prev2_ex1/275-…)

I am sorry for the mix-up.

@Tim:
Could you please prefix an appropriate note on my original post #149?

Bluegrue: "Sorry, I give up on the book at this point."

Me too.

I've been lent a copy to read and it really is hard to find an entire paragraph that isn't let down by a blatant misrepresentation, an unsubstantiated claim or one sort or another, a giant non sequitur, a claim - explicit or implicit - that's just plain wrong, or a footnoted reference that either doesn't back up the point being made or simply contradicts it.

(And don't get me started on the graphs!)

It's virtually unreadable unless you abandon all your critical faculties and ignore the implied insult that Plimer thinks you, the reader, are so gullible and stupid that you'll accept what he has to say despite the obvious dodging and weaving around the facts.

Bluegrue #151:

> MAJOR mistake on my part.

Eh, does it matter? Who cares! Don't worry, be happy. Truth is just a social construct anyways... So you reviewed the wrong book... but it COULD have been the right book, and in a philosophical sense, that's what really matters. On the emotional level, all the time you KNEW you were reviewing Plimer. So... wrong book, big deal. All that matters is that the conclusion is correct.

Lighten up!

By Gavin's Pussycat (not verified) on 18 May 2009 #permalink

Funny how this rationalization, that seems to work so well for Greig and others, does not work for me. I still feel stupid for making a pretty stupid mistake, just as I felt the urge to correct it.

[Bluegrue] "Sorry, I give up on the book at this point. "

Bluegrue, you have admitted that you have only read 3 pages of Plimers book. [Later we discover that as of now, you haven't read any of Plimers book]. And yet, you wax lyrical here as if you know everything about Plimer and his arguments. Post#149 is not a critique. You have not mentioned anything about science, nor identified any factual errors, in the way that for instance Ian Enting does. Your post is merely an illustration of how a Leroux's book challenges your ideological prejudice.

Here is one example:

[Bluegrue] "Overall: Warm is better than cold. Neglect the accompanying changes in precipitation. Neglect the stress put on the biosphere and crops by rapid changes in climate."

In H+E, Plimer provides several references that support that humans have previously thrived in a warm climate, and suffered in cold. Plimer also provides fully referenced evidence to suggest that the current rate of warming is not unprecedented. His contention is that the current warming may not be necessarily bad.

Your assertion that changes in precipitation and the rate of warming will result in a net negative impact on humans is not only unsupported by you (ie it is an assumption on your part), it is also not supported by the IPCC.

I could go on, but now I could not be bothered with anyone who calls someone else a "denialist" on the basis that they hold a differing view, especially when they have made no attempt at all to read and understand that person's argument. What astounds me is that you so arrogantly believe that you hold the moral high ground.

The same goes for TrueSceptic, Sod and others. Your parachutes are not functioning.

Greig, you're not Tim Curtin in disguise are you by any chance. You are starting to sound a lot like him!

By GWB's nemesis (not verified) on 19 May 2009 #permalink

[Here is a link](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWJeqgG3Tl8&feature=channel_page) to an excellent youtube series by a fellow named greenman3610. This clip is on the very same strawman that is the main message from Plimer. Once you have watched this clip, click on greenman3610 to see the rest of his series.

Greig, don't bother, greenman3610 cares about facts, acuracy and faithfully represents his sources and the climate science without gross distortion. I.e. he is not open minded by Plimer's and your definition.

By mark byrne (not verified) on 19 May 2009 #permalink

Greig:

His contention is that the current warming may not be necessarily bad.

Depends on where you live and what you do for a living. It's rather selfish to forget about the ones who are negatively affected just because you'd like it to be a little warmer.

You also might want to check out this link:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/05/why_should_america_…

Greig, you are defending a guy who you agree is saying:
1. Climate change is not happening
2. If it is happening, it's not a big problem.
3. If it is a problem, it's not my problem.
That's denialism. Pure and simple.

Also, here's a simple simple test to see how open your mind is: is there any conceivable evidence that will convince you that there is a rising trend in the average global temperature, that the rise of CO2 levels is mainly responsible, and that human activities are the most likely cause of the CO2 increase? If so, what would it look like? Please provide a concrete example.

Dean,No one says that the temperature has not been rising.The proof that CO2 is responsible would be,
1]CO2 LEADING temperature in the vostock icecore data.
2]CO2 giving a consistent warming profile in the 20th/21st centuries.
3]A greenhouse hotspot in the troposphere which would verify the IPCC models.

The YouTube video is itself a strawman.

Contrary to the implication of the clip from the Swindle in the intro, sceptics do not argue that the Caillon et al study shows that GHGs play no role in global warming. Certainly Plimer doesn't, as he states many times throughout his book.

The Caillon et al study that shows temperature preceeds CO2, is important because it illustrates that whilst GHGs may enhance warming, they do not dominate the process. If GHGs dominated the process, then there would be a runaway feedback effect. There isn't. There are clearly negative feedback mechanisms. Therefore increased CO2 does not necessarily mean a correlating magnitude in increase in temperature. The sceptic argues that whilst the GHG effect obviously exists (basic atmospheric physics), until all factors (eg negative feedbacks) are quantified, then AGW cannot be fully quantified. The argument that MOST of the warming in the 20th century is due to human activity is not yet supported until all factors are considered.

Let's compare this to Al Gore's howler in An Inconvenient Truth where he implies that the Vostock ice core data demonstrates that CO2 correlates with temperature, therefore CO2 CAUSES temperature variations, and then assumes that significantly increased CO2 will necessarily result in significantly increased temperature. Caillon et al study shows that this is an ASSUMPTION based on a misinterpretation of the data, it is not a fact. This did not stop AGW advocates from repeating this distortion of the truth, for their own means. So who is being dishonest?

The video provided an excellent overview of how Milankovitch cycles work. But it left out two pieces of key information. It didn't mention:

1. the positive and negative feedback mechanism provided by water vapour, which overwhelms CO2 and methane greenhouse warming, and provides both buffering and a negative feedback effect.

2. the effect of ocean circulation and its fundamental relevance to the cycle of ice ages. This is a howler, because by ignoring this, the video leaps to the absurd conclusion that glaciation in the N hemisphere impacts globally by changing GHG concentrations, which is actually wrong. Ocean circulation provides that mechanism, and changes in ocean circulation can and do have a significant impact on global atmospheric temperatures.

The impact of ocean circulation and mixing, changes in atmospheric pressure (such as the ENSO and PDO), evaporative cooling and clouds are all factors that are yet to be fully quantified, and incorporated into scientific theory. Therefore, it is is premature to be assuming the results of computer models run decades into the future are correct, since they are based on incomplete data. We do not have sufficient information for making correct policy.

To paraphrase the video, I am astounded the depth of dishonesty of the paid professional climate advocate community, in the way they argue that the science is settled. It is not.

Greig writes:

[BP Levinson] "Look again. I get r = 0.86 for 1880-2007: http://www.geocities.com/bpl1960/Correlation.html"

There is SOME correlation, nobody denies that, but it is clearly not strong, and it does not imply causation.

Do you understand what a "strong" correlation is? Pearson's product-moment correlation coefficient only goes from -1 to +1. A value of r = 0.86 is extremely strong. It means 76% of the variance is accounted for. That means that for 1880 to 2007, we can account for three quarters of the changes in temperature from carbon dioxide alone. Every other factor -- sunlight, albedo, aerosols, other greenhouse gases, atmosphere-ocean heat exchanges -- only accounted for one quarter.

Please take an introductory course in statistics. Or just buy a used textbook on Amazon and work the problems. Brase and Brase's "Understandable Statistics" is a good one. Or go to Barnes and Noble and buy the "Statistics--Demystified" book from the science and math section. And be sure to work the problems.

[Deen] "Greig, you are defending a guy who you agree is saying: 1. Climate change is not happening 2. If it is happening, it's not a big problem. 3. If it is a problem, it's not my problem. That's denialism. Pure and simple."

Plimer does not say any of those things in his book, which you have clearly not bothered to read.

Greig writes:

The Caillon et al study that shows temperature preceeds CO2, is important because it illustrates that whilst GHGs may enhance warming, they do not dominate the process.

Under what circumstances? What dominates the process depends on which process is happening and under what circumstances.

Let me be specific. In a natural deglaciation, temperature rises first, due to changes in the distribution of sunlight over the Earth's surface, which is in turn due to Milankovic cycles in the Earth's orbit. Warmer water holds less CO2, so CO2 bubbles out of the ocean. The CO2 in turn raises temperature further.

That is NOT what is happening now. The oceans are presently a net SINK for carbon dioxide, giving off 90 gigatons of carbon a year but taking in 92. We know the source of the new CO2--fossil fuels. That was shown by its radioisotope signature back in the '50s.

If GHGs dominated the process, then there would be a runaway feedback effect.

Nonsense. It's a converging series, not a diverging one.

The sceptic argues that whilst the GHG effect obviously exists (basic atmospheric physics), until all factors (eg negative feedbacks) are quantified, then AGW cannot be fully quantified. The argument that MOST of the warming in the 20th century is due to human activity is not yet supported until all factors are considered.

What factors haven't been considered? Modern climate models account for greenhouse gases, sunlight, aerosols, albedo, cloud cover, and atmosphere-ocean heat exchanges. What are they missing, specifically?

the positive and negative feedback mechanism provided by water vapour, which overwhelms CO2 and methane greenhouse warming, and provides both buffering and a negative feedback effect.

NONSENSE! Rising temperatures put MORE water vapor into the atmosphere--google "Clausius-Clapeyron law" to find out why. And water vapor is a powerful greenhouse gas. Water vapor feedback makes CO2-induced temperature increases worse.

the effect of ocean circulation and its fundamental relevance to the cycle of ice ages.

What relevance would that be? I can't think of one. Ice age cycles affect ocean circulation, but there is very little effect the other way around.

This is a howler, because by ignoring this, the video leaps to the absurd conclusion that glaciation in the N hemisphere impacts globally by changing GHG concentrations, which is actually wrong. Ocean circulation provides that mechanism, and changes in ocean circulation can and do have a significant impact on global atmospheric temperatures.

Where are you getting this stuff? Changes in ocean circulation can affect regional temperatures, but unless the composition of the atmosphere or the albedo of the ocean changes, or perhaps the amount of aerosols it gives off, changes, it's not going to affect the mean global annual surface temperature.

The impact of ocean circulation and mixing, changes in atmospheric pressure (such as the ENSO and PDO), evaporative cooling and clouds are all factors that are yet to be fully quantified, and incorporated into scientific theory. Therefore, it is is premature to be assuming the results of computer models run decades into the future are correct, since they are based on incomplete data. We do not have sufficient information for making correct policy.

You're partly right on clouds. The thrust of your statement is wrong, however, because you're assuming that if we don't know everything, we know nothing. No. Wrong. We know enough to know what the problem is and how to fix it.

To paraphrase the video, I am astounded the depth of dishonesty of the paid professional climate advocate community, in the way they argue that the science is settled. It is not.

I am astounded at how often deniers attribute dishonesty when they just can't understand what the climate scientists are talking about. I am even more astounded at their militant unwillingness to educate themselves about the subject. If I wanted to argue about a scientific point, I'd study the science--and that means reading textbooks and peer-reviewed articles about it, or even taking a course in it--not getting stuff off tendentious web sites or popular books addressed to laymen.

Get off your lazy butt and actually learn some climatology. I can recommend good sources IF you want to get started.

@Greig #162:

The Caillon et al study that shows temperature preceeds CO2, is important because it illustrates that whilst GHGs may enhance warming, they do not dominate the process.

Can we start from the basics? What is your alternative explanation for the fact that Earth's surface temperature is 30K higher than it's black body temperature? You need an alternative explanation - because your argument above depends on GHGs being insignificant in explaining that discrepancy.

By Robin Levett (not verified) on 19 May 2009 #permalink

Plimer does not say any of those things in his book, which you have clearly not bothered to read.

Greig, that was based on how you, a supporter of the book, have been characterizing it:

  1. "The 20th Century like any other time period was one of both warming and cooling." = "it's not happening"
  2. "In H+E, Plimer provides several references that support that humans have previously thrived in a warm climate, and suffered in cold." = "It's not a big problem"
  3. "His contention is that the current warming may not be necessarily bad." = "It's not my problem".

Based on the arguments of people who are defending this book, and the reviews it's getting from the scientific community, I think I have more interesting books I could spend my time on instead.

"Dean,No one says that the temperature has not been rising.The proof that CO2 is responsible would be, 1]CO2 LEADING temperature in the vostock icecore data. 2]CO2 giving a consistent warming profile in the 20th/21st centuries. 3]A greenhouse hotspot in the troposphere which would verify the IPCC models."

That is absolutely priceless:

1. "Chicken cannot lay eggs as the have been observed to hatch from them" (I said at the time that I was stealing that)

2. El nino (and may other things) doesn't exist.

3. Let me just ignore the unique signature of CO_2 warming as predicted by the models(cooling in the stratosphere) and instead pretend that the models predict a troposphere hot spot instead.

The just goes to prove the old saw: "When all you have is a shit spreader, everything looks like it could us some fertilizer

149, 151, 153 Blue,

I know how you must feel.

I wonder, though, how long it would've taken for any of our "sceptics" to have noticed your mistake if you hadn't owned up? ;-)

By TrueSceptic (not verified) on 19 May 2009 #permalink

Greig:

The Caillon et al study that shows temperature preceeds CO2, is important because it illustrates that whilst GHGs may enhance warming, they do not dominate the process.

No-one who understands the science argues that CO2 dominates the warming at the end of ice-ages. The CO2 rise at those times probably causes about 2 deg C of warming which was only a minority of the warming at the end of ice-ages. Our problem is that we're on course to increase CO2 by far more than at the end of the ice ages.

The impact of ocean circulation and mixing, changes in atmospheric pressure (such as the ENSO and PDO), evaporative cooling and clouds are all factors that are yet to be fully quantified, and incorporated into scientific theory. Therefore, it is is premature to be assuming the results of computer models run decades into the future are correct, since they are based on incomplete data. We do not have sufficient information for making correct policy.

Assuming Greig's assertion of uncertainty (which also ignores other sources of information about climate sensitivity) means we do not know if increasing atmospheric CO2 is correct policy and thus is a risky policy.

By Chris O'Neill (not verified) on 19 May 2009 #permalink

156 Greig,

You are entitled to your own opinions but not to your own facts.

This is *nothing* to do with "differing views". It is to with dishonesty and misrepresentation. It is your failure to sceptically look at the arguments that makes you a denialist, regardless of anything we say.

You have *still* not admitted to the dishonesty of the graph that is the subject of this thread. Why is that? Are you *denying* that it is fraudulent, excusing it as a lapse, or what?

By TrueSceptic (not verified) on 19 May 2009 #permalink

> Later we discover that as of now, you haven't read any of Plimers book

Later ___I___ _told you right away_, that I have made a stupid mistake. Not much for you to discover, is there?

Have I read Plimer's book? No. However, I _have_ watched his talk
"Human-induced Climate Change: A Load of Hot Air"
held at the Sydney Mining Club on Nov 6th, 2008 on youtube {Parts [1](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5VDDNgl-UPk), [2](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VRwTbMj6Hx8), [3](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4s1lkdNOPVA), [4](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qWiv5QAZAJM), [5](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PIpo2Jhi3I0)}
I presume the talk carries the main points of his book; feel free to correct me, if I am wrong.

__"Climate is cyclical"__
All of his examples employ cyclical forcing, like Milankovitch cycles or solar activity, which are not damped out by the inertia of the climate system. Being cyclical is in these examples a characteristic of the forcing, not the climate system itself.

__"Climate models predict hot spot in the troposphere"__
Plimer compares model results for equilibrium after doubling of CO2 with current radiosonde data. He neglects to mention, that only about 50% of the CO2 forcing used in the model run is realized so far and that we are still in the transient state, the radiosonde data being for the period 1979-1999. Plimer fails to mention papers showing large biases in radiosonde data like [_Biases in Stratospheric and Tropospheric Temperature Trends Derived from Historical_, WJ Randel and F Wu, J. Climate, 2094 {Oct 2005} ](http://acd.ucar.edu/~randel/JCli_2006.pdf) To quote:
> The net effect of the jumps is a systematic tendency for spurious cooling in the radiosonde data at each of the identified stations. This tendency for artificial cooling in the radiosonde data is likely associated with changes (improvements) in radiosonde instrumentation over the last several decades; for many stations the observed jumps are coincident with changes in the radiation correction applied to the data. While the LKS data have undergone adjustments to minimize such changes (which reduces the tropical stratospheric trends compared to unadjusted data; Lanzante et al. 2003b), the detailed comparisons here show that problems persist at many stations.

The paper is not only highly relevant, but rather hard to miss, as it is explicitly cited in the report where Plimer's graph originated: [S&A Product 1.1 by the CCSP 2006, page 116](http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap1-1/finalreport/default.htm)
> Another noticeable difference is that the HadAT2 data show a relative lack of warming in the tropical troposphere, where all four models simulate maximum warming. This particular aspect of the observed temperature-change pattern is very sensitive to data adjustments (Sherwood et al., 2005; Randel and Wu, 2006). Tropospheric warming in the observations is most obvious in the NH extra-tropics, where our confidence in the reliability of radiosonde records is greatest.

Plimer also fails to mention, that we have tropospheric warming and stratospheric cooling, something hard to explain with e.g. solar forcing, which would warm _both_.

__Solar cycle length__
Plimer argues that global temperature and solar cycle length are strongly correlated using [E. Friis-Christensen and K. Lassen, Science, 1991](http://chemistry.oregonstate.edu/~drapelan/danetemp.gif). After 1980 the correlation [breaks up dramatically](http://www.geos.ed.ac.uk/homes/chris). He further implies, that solar forcing is ignored, which is simply untrue, read any IPCC report.

Of course he was still passing off the 1885 to 1988 temperature data as 1880 to 2000 in his "120 years of thermometer measurements" plot. Funny, how he got the time scale right for the same data in his solar cycle plot. Did I mention, that the plots follow right after another?

__Doubling CO2 at 385ppm has no effect__
[Part 3, time mark 7:00](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4s1lkdNOPVA), you've got to see this to believe it. Plimer argues, going by his words in conjunction with his graph, that 20ppm of CO2 are responsible for 1.5°C of the CO2 warming effect, a rise from 280 to 420ppm will have an effect of less than 0.1°C! He further says, "only the first 200ppm or so have an effect [...] [at 395ppm] double it, it does nothing" and "we have seen in past geological environments CO2 contents of __5%__, we didn't have a tipping point, we didn't have a runaway greenhouse." 5% is 50,000ppm nothing we have come even close to for the last 500 million years, it must have been way before the Cambrian explosion or even the advent of multicellular life on Earth. Before I forget, for comparison the IPCC reports a likely value for equilibrium climate sensitivity to be in the range of 2 to 4.5°C for doubling of CO2 from pre-industrial level.

Greig,
feel free to point out if I have missed one of Plimer's most "compelling" arguments. Oh, and I am still waiting for a reaction regarding the banker in #88 or my take on the correlation fallacy in #139.

#169 TrueSceptic

Thank you for the sympathy. :)

TimWells said:"Dean,No one says that the temperature has not been rising.The proof that CO2 is responsible would be, 1]CO2 LEADING temperature in the vostock icecore data."

That would be like saying that dry and windy conditions are not responsible for wildefires because they started with a cigarette.

"2]CO2 giving a consistent warming profile in the 20th/21st centuries."

It does.

"3]A greenhouse hotspot in the troposphere which would verify the IPCC models."

Actually, there is a midlevel tropospheric hotspot in the tropics, as predicted by models:

"Warming maximum in the tropical upper troposphere deduced from thermal winds, by Robert J. Allen & Steven C. Sherwood
Nature Geoscience 1, 399 - 403 (2008)

Abstract

Climate models and theoretical expectations have predicted that the upper troposphere should be warming faster than the surface. Surprisingly, direct temperature observations from radiosonde and satellite data have often not shown this expected trend. However, non-climatic biases have been found in such measurements. Here we apply the thermal-wind equation to wind measurements from radiosonde data, which seem to be more stable than the temperature data. We derive estimates of temperature trends for the upper troposphere to the lower stratosphere since 1970. Over the period of observations, we find a maximum warming trend of 0.65plusminus0.47 K per decade near the 200 hPa pressure level, below the tropical tropopause. Warming patterns are consistent with model predictions except for small discrepancies close to the tropopause. Our findings are inconsistent with the trends derived from radiosonde temperature datasets and from NCEP reanalyses of temperature and wind fields. The agreement with models increases confidence in current model-based predictions of future climate change."

Of course Tim Wells understands none of this, given that his point 3] shows ignorance that this denier talking point:

1] is about the tropics
2] is about midlevel troposphere heating faster than the surface
3] happens for ANY cause of warming, because of the increased humidity

By t_p_hamilton (not verified) on 19 May 2009 #permalink

re the CO2 lag tripe.

I heat my home in part with a modern high-tech wood stove, allowing me to use retired almond orchards (cycling in biological time) for fuel, instead of natural gas (cycling in geological time).

Heat output from the stove is controlled by controlling the air flow. There is a feedback involved.

I open the damper a little, air flow increases a little, the fuel burns hotter, driving more exhaust up the stovepipe, therefore puling a stronger draft, therefore increasing air flow even more, therefore increasing the combustion of the fuel. A positive feedback with a gain less than one, increasing until it converges to a new higher airflow equilibrium, with higher heat output.

Note that higher air flow precedes hotter flame, andthen a feedback mechanism leads to still higher airflow.

There is of course another process involved. Over time, the fuel is consumed and heat output gradually declines. I throw another log on, airflow declines at first as the cold log decreases combustion - but gradually the log catches fire and gets hotter, airflow increases, and the fire burns hotter.. etc.

In one case increased combustion lags air flow, and air flow is is causal for increased combustion. In the other case, increased combustion leads air flow. IN both cases, increased air flow and a feedback between combustion and air flow are necessary for any significant increase in heat output.

--

You "CO2 leads temperatures" denialists are engaged in an argument that would deny that my stove can put more heat out when I add fuel to it.

bluegrue #155:

> ...does not work for me.

Separates the men from the boys, doesn't it.

By Gavin's Pussycat (not verified) on 19 May 2009 #permalink

[Greig] the effect of ocean circulation and its fundamental relevance to the cycle of ice ages.

[BPL] What relevance would that be? I can't think of one. Ice age cycles affect ocean circulation, but there is very little effect the other way around.

BP Levinson, I am gobsmacked, are you seriously saying you donât understand this? Ocean circulation is directly linked to previous abrupt climate change observation in the paleoclimate record. For one example, it is generally considered that the closing of the Isthmus of Panama about 3 million years ago may have ushered in the present period of strong glaciation over North America by ending the exchange of water between the tropical Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. ie change in ocean circulation is the root cause of ice ages.

[BPL] Changes in ocean circulation can affect regional temperatures, but unless the composition of the atmosphere or the albedo of the ocean changes, or perhaps the amount of aerosols it gives off, changes, it's not going to affect the mean global annual surface temperature.

Complete rubbish. Ocean circulation and mixing can and does affect mean global temperatures. Levinson, go back to school. The fact that you donât even know this, and that it is not fully incorporated in IPCC modeling, demonstrates my point exactly.

What is more, there is a strong correlation (94% confidence) between global temperature anomaly and observed cyclical ocean air pressure variations (as demonstrated by NASA's Roy Spencer), and it is not even considered in the mainstream apparently because it doesn't implicate CO2.

The theory is incomplete.

[BPL] The thrust of your statement is wrong, however, because you're assuming that if we don't know everything, we know nothing. No. Wrong. We know enough to know what the problem is and how to fix it.

Wrong. We know so little, that we assume there is something to fix, and have fooled ourselves into thinking we can fix it.

[BPL] If I wanted to argue about a scientific point, I'd study the science--and that means reading textbooks and peer-reviewed articles about it, or even taking a course in it--not getting stuff off tendentious web sites or popular books addressed to laymen. Get off your lazy butt and actually learn some climatology. I can recommend good sources IF you want to get started.

[laughing] So arrogant, and yet so ignorant. Clearly a feedback loop.

[bluegrue] "Plimer also fails to mention, that we have tropospheric warming and stratospheric cooling, something hard to explain with e.g. solar forcing, which would warm both."

Strawman. Plimer does not argue that solar forcing is the sole cause of currently observed climate change.

Perhaps you should consider how changes in ocean circulation and air pressure might cause the observed heating of the troposphere, and cooling of the stratosphere. See http://www.drroyspencer.com/

[Chris O'Neill] "Assuming Greig's assertion of uncertainty (which also ignores other sources of information about climate sensitivity) means we do not know if increasing atmospheric CO2 is correct policy and thus is a risky policy."

Trying to reduce CO2 emissions is an inherently risky policy because it increases the cost of energy, which undermines the global economy, and impacts the fundamental basis for human standard of living. Some people think this is irrelevant, but they are usually rich, spoiled individuals who are unaware that 5 billion humans currently live in poverty.

To make the decision to reduce CO2 emissions we must have solid demonstrable proof of the benefits of reducing those emissions. This proof of benefit has not yet been sufficiently quantified, because the science is incomplete.

For one example, it is generally considered that the closing of the Isthmus of Panama about 3 million years ago may have ushered in the present period of strong glaciation over North America by ending the exchange of water between the tropical Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. ie change in ocean circulation is the root cause of ice ages.

a pretty singular event, isn t it?

Greig, too much of your claims are based on Spencer blog posts. why not try to quote a scientific journal and a couple of different authors for a change?

Trying to reduce CO2 emissions is an inherently risky policy because it increases the cost of energy, which undermines the global economy, and impacts the fundamental basis for human standard of living. Some people think this is irrelevant, but they are usually rich, spoiled individuals who are unaware that 5 billion humans currently live in poverty.

i am really happy, that we are currently ruled by poor, unspoiled individuals, who have understood that your energy dependence on arab oil is not a risky policy. thanks!

Greig:

> Strawman. Plimer does not argue that solar forcing is the sole cause of currently observed climate change.

You totally miss the point. Plimer claimed there was no tropospheric hotspot. Not only is this untrue, but the "hotspot" he mentions is just an indicator of *any* warming from *any* source, eg. the solar forcing that was offered as an example (note the eg!). Not only that, but models predict stratospheric cooling if the forcing is CO2, something else that has actually been measured.

Greig wrote
> Strawman. Plimer does not argue that solar forcing is the sole cause of currently observed climate change.

Wrong call. Name me a forcing other than GHGs that leads to simultaneous tropospheric warming and stratospheric cooling. Also a nice attempt to ignore everything else I brought up. I take this as a sign, that I have covered Plimer's main points.

> Perhaps you should consider how changes in ocean circulation and air pressure might cause the observed heating of the troposphere, and cooling of the stratosphere. See http://www.drroyspencer.com/

I have [first hand experience](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/05/ian_enting_is_checking_plimers…) of the "quality" that you may encounter on Spencer's site. Given this experience and further considering, that you yourself could not be bothered to supply a direct link to the post in question, I'll pass up on your proposed wild goose chase on his site and wait for him to publish this idea in a reputable science journal.

It would be nice to debate with a skeptic sometime. Pity all those denialists keep shoving them out of the way.

Grieg @162

Contrary to the implication of the clip from the Swindle in the intro, sceptics do not argue that the Caillon et al study shows that GHGs play no role in global warming. Certainly Plimer doesn't, as he states many times throughout his book.

Durkin shows the 800 year lag of CO2 in Termination III from the Vostok ice cores, then cuts to the quote from the psudo-skeptic saying, âSo the fundamental assumption, the most fundamental assumption of the whole theory of climate change being due to humans is fundamentally wrong.â

Thereby giving the impression that the fundamental assumption of climate science is that if there ever is a case that CO2 doesnât lead temperature, then it is disproved.

I'll be back to address the remaining points later.

By Mark Byrne (not verified) on 19 May 2009 #permalink

"âSo the fundamental assumption, the most fundamental assumption of the whole theory of climate change being due to humans is fundamentally wrong.â

This is not the same as saying:

"GHGs play no role in global warming".

However I agree that there is a misleading implication here. I definitely do not agree with the implication presented in the Swindle, in the same way I do not agree with Al Gore's implication in An Inconenient Truth that the Vostock ice core data implies a causal relationship between CO2 and temperature in paleoclimate observations.

Greig,

Well, how about it (171).

*You have still not admitted to the dishonesty of the graph that is the subject of this thread. Why is that? Are you denying that it is fraudulent, excusing it as a lapse, or what?*

You are here defending Plimer's use of this graph. Kindly do so and stop attempting to change the subject (standard denialist MO).

If I were Tim Lambert, I'd do what (ironically) Watts or McIntyre would do and block all this off-topic misdirection.

Funny, eh?

By TrueSceptic (not verified) on 19 May 2009 #permalink

TrueSceptic, I don't normally respond to people who call me a denialist, as such behaviour characterises you as somewhat disinterested in fair debate. However, I will relent. Let me reiterate my position as previously expressed to Tim Lambert:

Rather than call Plimer a liar over the sourcing of the graph, please advise: what is you point? Is the conclusion that Plimer reaches regarding the graph correct, or not. If not, what does the graph really look like, and why is Plimer's conclusion therefore wrong. Accusing Plimer of lying sounds hysterical and very unprofessional. Even worse, considering it looks likely that Durkin and Plimer appear to have used the same source, Klimafakten (originally from Euskara Klimazientzia), exactly as Plimer says, ie he wasn't lying but simply mistaken about the year of publication (2000 rather than 2001).

Now TrueSceptic, unless you have a copy of Klimafakten and can categorically state that Plimer did not source it from there, then you are (as is Tim Lambert) just guessing about Plimer supposed dishonesty.

Now take your unsubstantiated allegations elsewhere.

Actually, rather than "accusing Plimer of lying sounds hysterical and very unprofessional", I'd say Plimer's use of a graph that was not just phony, but that was world famous for being phony, makes him look "hysterical and very unprofessional".

As does the following graph in the book, which purports to deny the relationship between CO2 and global surface temperature. The graph covers a period of - wait for it - 6 1/2 years!

And the graph before it was discussed in the earlier thread "The science is missing from Ian Plimer's 'Heaven and Earth'" on April 23. It purported to show models were wrong on the basis of absurdly short term deviations from the averaged model projections.

In short, the problem with the graph in question in this thread is not so much that it is embarrassing for Plimer - who claims to have overturned decades of scientific endeavour on its head and therefore you'd think should have known better - or that it is being used to support a silly argument..

No, the problem is that it's so typical of the rest of the book. You get the same sort of thing on just about every page.

Greig said: "Even worse, considering it looks likely that Durkin and Plimer appear to have used the same source, Klimafakten (originally from Euskara Klimazientzia)..."

Greig, your reference to "Euskara Klimazientzia" is frankly hilarious - reread Marion Delgado's post (#28) from which you have gained this source (reproduced below). Did you not realise that he is spoofing you?

"I have to defend Dr. Plimer here. While it was quoted in a now-remaindered edition of Klimatfakten (a small footnote in the 2nd paperback edition), the graph was originally published in Euskara Klimazientzia, a prestigious Basque climate science journal. The author was Tibetan, abstract had been translated into Basque, which is how I was able to recognize it."

Did you really think that there is a Basque climate science journal to which a Tibetan author had submitted an abstract? Really? Did you not even check the name with a quick google search?

I think this explains your inability to get your head around the reasons why Plimer's use of a fabricated graph is such a big issue.

By GWB's nemesis (not verified) on 19 May 2009 #permalink

"Really? Did you not even check the name with a quick google search"

Yes, and I found this: https://zientziaberri.wikispaces.com/Atmosfera-klima+

I cannot verify whether Plimer was honest in stating that the figure comes from Klimafakten. Can you? If not, you do not have the right to make assumptions.

But all this nonsense completely misses the point. Plimer does not draw any conclusion form the graph other than to state the OBVIOUS, that there has been warming and cooling during the 20th century. So why does it matter where he got the graph?

This thread is like a witch hunt rather than a discussion about science.

Greig,

I'll delurk for a moment to suggest you might be missing something.

You said:

"...considering it looks likely that Durkin and Plimer appear to have used the same source, Klimafakten... "

From Tim's original post:

"Nor is it possible that both got it from the same source, since Swindle copied it from the Oregon Petition, but got the horizontal axis wrong, an error that Plimer faithfully reproduced."

Durkin got it from the Oregon Petition, Plimer got it from Durkin, either directly or indirectly.

You said:

"So why does it matter where he got the graph?"

From the original post:

"Brook told him that it was wrong, and that even Durkin had retracted it."

It's not just about the source of the graph. The graph is known to be dodgy. It has incorrect data in it.

Surely you're not arguing that it doesn't matter if your data is correct, so long as you draw the right conclusions from it?

Greig

You still miss the point. You said "originally from Euskara Klimazientzia". It is not - you fell for it hook, line and sinker without even bothering to do the most basic of checks. Prove me wrong.

By GWB's nemesis (not verified) on 19 May 2009 #permalink

[ChrisK] Durkin got it from the Oregon Petition, Plimer got it from Durkin, either directly or indirectly.

Says who? I would suggest some form of proof should be provided, rather than expect me to simply accept this. I am disinclned to agree (on his word alone) with someone who would create a web page dedicated to calling a respected scientist a liar, and without proper proof.

[ChrisK] Surely you're not arguing that it doesn't matter if your data is correct, so long as you draw the right conclusions from it?

Not quite. My point is that the fig 3 graph could be replaced with any of the graphs that have been deemed correct on this thread, and Plimer's conclusion would still be correct. Therefore the source of and accuracy of the graph is irrelevant to Plimer's argument.

Now if Plimer had drawn a conclusion about the start and end date of periods of cooling, or that the cooling was large compared to the warming, then I would be baying for blood along with the rest of you. But he didn't make any such claim.

Shorter Greig:

The fact that Plimer's graph is virtually identical -- down to the botched horizontal alignment -- to Durkin's graph is not proof that Plimer got the graph from Durkin.

However, I found a wiki that calls itself Atmosfera-klima and Zientziaberri. Thus by the SAME STANDARDS OF PROOF!!! I have shown that a journal titled Euskara Klimazientzia does actually exist.

Greig, I'll say it again:
That graphic ITSELF is statement from Plimer. The graphic ISELF says something about the periods and amount s of warming, and what it says is WRONG.

Plimer DID draw conclusions about the start and end dates of the cooling, and about the relative amounts of the warming and cooling. He did so IN THAT FUCKING GRAPH ITSELF!!!!! That is what graphs do - they convey information. The information in that graph is wrong.

Plimer knew it was wrong - he knew it was fraudulent - before the book was published, because he had been told so before the book was published.

greig, here's a free tip for you. When you find yourself forced to defend willful use of incorrect information, you're likely not on the side that has the information on its side.

Greig:

Plimer does not draw any conclusion form the graph other than to state the OBVIOUS, that there has been warming and cooling during the 20th century.

What's OBVIOUS depends on how the graph is doctored. In a genuine graph the obvious is that there has been far more warming than cooling and that there has been much more warming since 1970 than before.

So why does it matter where he got the graph?

It wouldn't matter if it wasn't doctored. Since it has been doctored, the source has some bearing on whether he was dishonest or just recklessly incompetent.

By Chris O'Neill (not verified) on 19 May 2009 #permalink

Greig makes some useful points. We don't have proof of where the graph came from (although given how Tim's credibility would be affected if Klimafakten was indeed the source of the graph, and that no one has yet found a copy of it despite the incentive to do so, one suspects that perhaps Tim is right). And if Plimer's argument was independent of the graph, then perhaps one could excuse including it.

However, on the other side, Plimer's book is primarily about global warming and CO2, so you would hope that he would at least have reliable graphs of temperature and CO2 as a function of time. Even if Fig 3 is from Klimafakten, it doesn't excuse the fact that it is wrong. Why go to some obscure, almost unobtainable, out-of-date publication from a random individual in Germany when it is easy to find reliable up-to-date data from NASA, Hadley, etc?

And the graph of CO2 versus time in figure 52 is equally bogus. It is from a bizarre paper in Energy & Environment that no scientist in the field would give the time of day to.

In both cases these graphs are used by Plimer to further his erroneous arguments. The first graph is used to show that temperatures go up and down, and the IPCC doesn't have a clue why [wrong]. The second graph is used to show that CO2 goes up and down in a few years by more than it has done since before the industrial age [also wrong].

So, Plimer uses erroneous graphs to reach erroneous conclusions. At some point Greig needs to take a step back and look at what this is telling him.

By Dirk Hartog (not verified) on 19 May 2009 #permalink

That from false premises one can draw any conclusions one likes is something of which Greig is well aware intuitively if not formally. Probably he'd need some schooling in logic or maths or science to understand it explicitly. But he defends a trained scientist who does it wilfully, knowingly, with intent to deceive (Plimer) then goes on and on, and on again, about hysteria and "professionalism" - it's laughable!

Grieg @ 187

â¦considering it looks likely that Durkin and Plimer appear to have used the same source, Klimafakten (originally from Euskara Klimazientzia), exactly as Plimer says

Greig, we know where Durkin got his chart, he manufactured it from an out of data chart from the Orgean petition. But he fudged the axis so 1980 data was fudged to read as 2000 data. If he'd used Klimafakten, Donât you think Durkin would have cited it in his defence when charged with breaching Ofcom protocol. He didnât and he was forced to amend his chart. But Plimer seem much more attached to that curve.

Is the conclusion that Plimer reaches regarding the graph correct, or not. If not, what does the graph really look like, and why is Plimer's conclusion therefore wrong.

Grieg weâve been over this as well, yet you seem very attached to discredited arguments. Plimer drew readers to the idea of cooling and warming and then used to fake data to show a fake scale of warming and cooling. Its value is propaganda value. Just like Plimer's take away line to the punters is misleading propaganda â climate science is ignoring the forcing factors other than CO2. And - Climate science is ignoring that climate has changed in the past.

Why isn't his 'take-away' point for punters something real? Why have'y you conveyed anyone of his supposed credible arguments?

By Mark Byrne (not verified) on 19 May 2009 #permalink

Grieg @ 162

The Caillon et al study that shows temperature preceeds CO2, is important because it illustrates that whilst GHGs may enhance warming, they do not dominate the process. If GHGs dominated the process, then there would be a runaway feedback effect. There isn't. There are clearly negative feedback mechanisms. Therefore increased CO2 does not necessarily mean a correlating magnitude in increase in temperature.

The Callion paper show nothing of the sort Grieg. Let me use Caillonâs own words:
Caillon:

â¦The sequence of events is still in full agreement with the idea that CO2 plays, through its greenhouse effect, a key role in amplifying the initial orbital forcingâ¦
⦠the situation at Termination III differs from the recent anthropogenic CO2 increaseâ¦we should distinguish between internal influences (such as deglacial CO2 increase) and external influences (such as the anthropogenic CO2 increase) on the climate system.
⦠the recent CO2 increase has clearly been imposed first, as result of anthropogenic activities, [this different from deglaciation where] it naturally takes, at Termination III, some time for CO2 to outgas from the ocean once it starts to react to climate change that is first felt in the atmosphere. The sequence of events during this Termination is fully consistent with CO2 participating in the latter ~4200 years of warming. The radiative forcing due to CO2 may serve an amplifier of initial orbital forcing, which is then further amplified by fast atmospheric feedbacksâ¦that are also at work for the present day and future climate.

In short, Caillon shows us that the current anthropogenic warming is quite different to deglaciation warming. Fossil fuel combustion has tipped the balance of natural carbon cycles and driven CO2 levels to a level approx 40% higher than anything the world has seen for the entire Vostok record (600ky). We have found CO2 to be the dominant factor of current warming.

We now face a series of major amplifying feedbacks with no know regulating feedbacks on the horizon. The Eocene Thermal Maximun indicates it may take approx 100,000 years for natural systems to sequester the amount of CO2 we are set to liberate by 2100.

Grieg you are stepping way out side reality with your spin.

By Mark Byrne (not verified) on 20 May 2009 #permalink

Greig writes:

[ChrisK] Durkin got it from the Oregon Petition, Plimer got it from Durkin, either directly or indirectly.

Says who? I would suggest some form of proof should be provided, rather than expect me to simply accept this. I am disinclned to agree (on his word alone) with someone who would create a web page dedicated to calling a respected scientist a liar, and without proper proof.

â

Says Durkin in [The Independent](http://environment.independentminds.livejournal.com/106709.html): âThe was a fluff thereâ

âHowever, further inquiries revealed that the C4 graph was based on a diagram in another paper produced as part of a "petition project" by the same group of climate sceptics. This diagram was itself based on long out-of-date information on terrestrial temperatures compiled by Nasa scientists.

However, crucially, the axis along the bottom of the graph has been distorted in the C4 version of the graph, which made it look like the information was up-to-date when in fact the data ended in the early 1980s.

Mr Durkin admitted that his graphics team had extended the time axis along the bottom of the graph to the year 2000. "There was a fluff there," he said.â

By Mark Byrne (not verified) on 20 May 2009 #permalink

Greig, temporarily high on himself, writes:

BP Levinson, I am gobsmacked, are you seriously saying you donât understand this?

No, I'm saying YOU don't understand it.

Ocean circulation is directly linked to previous abrupt climate change observation in the paleoclimate record. For one example, it is generally considered that the closing of the Isthmus of Panama about 3 million years ago may have ushered in the present period of strong glaciation over North America by ending the exchange of water between the tropical Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. ie change in ocean circulation is the root cause of ice ages.

That would come as a surprise to Milutin Milankovic, and pretty much every climatologist and planetary astronomer in the world.

[BPL] Changes in ocean circulation can affect regional temperatures, but unless the composition of the atmosphere or the albedo of the ocean changes, or perhaps the amount of aerosols it gives off, changes, it's not going to affect the mean global annual surface temperature.

Complete rubbish. Ocean circulation and mixing can and does affect mean global temperatures. Levinson, go back to school. The fact that you donât even know this, and that it is not fully incorporated in IPCC modeling, demonstrates my point exactly.

The fact that I "don't know" a fact you made up? Your attention to detail is demonstrated by the fact that you can't even spell my name right. As for going back to school, I have a degree in physics and have been writing atmosphere models for twelve years. Have you?

What is more, there is a strong correlation (94% confidence) between global temperature anomaly and observed cyclical ocean air pressure variations (as demonstrated by NASA's Roy Spencer),

You mean hot air expands? WOW! WHAT A DISCOVERY!!!

As usual, Spencer has cause and effect reversed. BTW, was this latest revelation published in a peer-reviewed science journal, or on Spencer's blog? Let me guess.

[BPL] If I wanted to argue about a scientific point, I'd study the science--and that means reading textbooks and peer-reviewed articles about it, or even taking a course in it--not getting stuff off tendentious web sites or popular books addressed to laymen. Get off your lazy butt and actually learn some climatology. I can recommend good sources IF you want to get started.

[laughing] So arrogant, and yet so ignorant. Clearly a feedback loop.

In other words, you have no intention of actually trying to learn climatology, but intend to continue spouting off about a topic you're unfamiliar with.

Greig,

>[ChrisK] Durkin got it from the Oregon Petition, Plimer got it from Durkin, either directly or indirectly.
>
>[Greig] Says who? I would suggest some form of proof should be provided...

We know Durkin got his graph from the Oregon Petition, because he acknowledges this (after initially trying to pass it off as NASA). Plimer's is identical to Durkin's, including errors introduced by Durkin. Now, what is the chance he got it from another source and introduced those exact same errors?

> [Greig] Therefore the source of and accuracy of the graph is irrelevant to Plimer's argument.

See Dirk Hartog's excellent post above.

Is it really that unreasonable to ask for accurate data from a scientist? After all, shouldn't he know how to consult more reliable sources?

[BPL] "That would come as a surprise to Milutin Milankovic, and pretty much every climatologist and planetary astronomer in the world.
"

I doubt it. Whilst Milankovitch cycles are obviously the primary forcing mechanism of cyclical change, ocean circulation is also strongly implicated in global climate change events. Also, it should be noted that it is the land mass / ocean configuration which determines the establishing of glaciation in the N Hemisphere, which is fundamental to the current pattern of ice ages. Hence my comment about oceans being "the root cause of ice ages".

Note the following:

http://www.nytimes.com/1992/02/04/science/ocean-currents-tied-to-timing…

"SCIENTISTS have uncovered strong evidence supporting a theory that sudden and dramatic shifts in big ocean currents play a critical role in the waxing and waning of ice ages."

http://www.co2science.org/articles/V5/N20/EDIT.php

"Recent modeling work by Ganopolski and Rahmstorf (2001, 2002) and Alley and Rahmstorf (2002) suggests that the North Atlantic branch of the global thermohaline circulation possesses two potential modes of operation during glacial times"

http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/thc_fact_sheet.html

"History of the THC: Sediment data document that the THC has undergone major changes in the history of climate (e.g., [21, 22]). Three major circulation modes were indentified: a warm mode similar to the present-day Atlantic, a cold mode with NADW forming south of Iceland in the Irminger Sea, and a switched-off mode ([23]). The latter appears to have occurred after major input of freshwater, either from surging glacial ice sheets (Heinrich events) or in form of meltwater floods (e.g., Younger Dryas event). The most dramatic climate events recorded in Greenland, the Dansgaard-Oeschger (D/O) events, were probably associated with north-south shifts in convection location, i.e. transitions between warm and cold modes of the Atlantic THC. Recent simulations of such shifts show encouraging agreement with paleoclimatic data ([24]). "

Note: Stefan Rahmstorf is a lead author of the IPCC 4th Assessment

Greig:

[Chris O'Neill] "Assuming Greig's assertion of uncertainty (which also ignores other sources of information about climate sensitivity) means we do not know if increasing atmospheric CO2 is correct policy and thus is a risky policy."

Trying to reduce CO2 emissions is an inherently risky policy because it increases the cost of energy, which undermines the global economy, and impacts the fundamental basis for human standard of living.

There is no law of economics that says that choosing a more expensive product will "undermine" the global economy, whatever that means. Economics is about the most efficient way to satisfy our choices, not that any particular choice is "bad". I note that you don't disagree that increasing atmospheric CO2 is a risky policy, so there's no debate about that, but you have ignored the fact that it's not just atmospheric modelling that indicates what climate sensitivity is likely to be. I refer you to James Annan's paper to provide figures and cites for observation-based estimates of climate sensitivity. Observational confirmation of atmospheric modelling means that there isn't just an unquantified risk that increasing CO2 could be dangerous, it means that it's very likely that it's dangerous.

Some people think this is irrelevant, but they are usually rich, spoiled individuals who are unaware that 5 billion humans currently live in poverty.

Those 5 billion humans are probably responsible for less than 50% of GHG emissions so they bear nowhere near the responsibility for the problem that the well-off fraction do. There is no excuse for rich countries not dealing with the problem considering that they are the main cause of the problem.

To make the decision to reduce CO2 emissions we must have solid demonstrable proof of the benefits of reducing those emissions. This proof of benefit has not yet been sufficiently quantified, because the science is incomplete.

I can make self-righteous speeches too, e.g:

To make the decision to continue CO2 emissions we must have solid demonstrable proof of the safety of continuing those emissions.

And I can correct your rhetoric appropriate for your second statement:

This proof of safety has not yet been sufficiently quantified, because is hasn't been done AT ALL. In addition to this, both observations and theoretical understanding largely agree on the extent of danger.

By Chris O'Neill (not verified) on 20 May 2009 #permalink

Mark Byrne @ 200

"We have found CO2 to be the dominant factor of current warming. "

I don't believe that we have found any such thing. The IPCC has said they are 90% sure CO2 is causing >51% of the warming. So I think it is more reasonable to say that CO2 is implicated in observed global warming, along with many other factors.

"We now face a series of major amplifying feedbacks with no know regulating feedbacks on the horizon. "

And this is the point that I am making when I said:

"GHGs may enhance warming, they do not dominate the process. If GHGs dominated the process, then there would be a runaway feedback effect (in the paleoclimate record, as discussed by Caillon et al).

There are clearly negative feedback mechanisms. "

The fact that we do not (yet) know exactly what those negative feedback mechanisms are, whether ocean currents, clouds, evaporative cooling, we know that they eventually dominate the enhance greenhouse effect and prevent runaway warming.

[Chris O'Neill] "Those 5 billion humans are probably responsible for less than 50% of GHG emissions so they bear nowhere near the responsibility for the problem that the well-off fraction do. "

You have missed the point, Chris. This isn't about guilt or blame. It is about how to lift those 5 billion people from poverty ASAP, and thereby resolve overpopulation. Enforcing the use of expensive energy is NOT the way to do it, and besides, those 5 billion people don't give rats arse about you, me or AGW. So it doesn't matter what rich countries do. If we can't find cheap low-emissions technology that competes with fossil fuels on price, CO2 emissions are not going to reduce.

I am an optimist. I think such technology can be found. And I also believe we do not need to panic, we have the time to implement it properly and cost effectively. The key is not to pick winners on the basis of ideology, nor to act as a nation unilaterally or prematurely.

I have located a copy of _Klimafakten_ by Ulrich Berner. All data of the figures are sourced in the appendix. On page 21 you find two figures. Fig 2.9 depicts Friis-Christensen and Lassen (1991), temperature and solar cycle length. Fig 2.10 is Svensmark and Friis-Christensen (1997), cosmic ray flux and global cloud cover. In chapter 11 there are several figures using smoothed GISTEMP data around page 210. All of the figures are ___faithful___ reproductions of the original data, none of them has a fudged time axis like the figures of Durkin and Plimer. Berner's Klimafakten is definitely ___not___ the source of Plimer's figure 3.

Shorter Greig:

Lack of money (poverty) is a bigger problem than loss of arable land! And, the best way to combat global warming is to wait for some magic-pony energy technology that doesn't exist yet. There's nothing else we can do, and even if there is, we shouldn't do it.

Greig:

[Chris O'Neill] "Those 5 billion humans are probably responsible for less than 50% of GHG emissions so they bear nowhere near the responsibility for the problem that the well-off fraction do. "

You have missed the point, Chris. This isn't about guilt or blame. It is about how to lift those 5 billion people from poverty ASAP, and thereby resolve overpopulation. Enforcing the use of expensive energy is NOT the way to do it,

No, you have missed the point, Greig. I'm not saying it is enforcing the use of expensive energy on those 5 billion people. They just don't use that much or they won't use that much while they're still in poverty. And removing poverty is not a necessary or sufficient condition for resolving overpopulation either BTW.

So it doesn't matter what rich countries do.

Amazing. The rich countries generate most of the GHGs and have far higher GHG emissions per capita and Greig believes it doesn't matter what they do. I'm waiting for him to tell us that black is white.

If we can't find cheap low-emissions technology that competes with fossil fuels on price, CO2 emissions are not going to reduce

and the world is stuffed. Sounds like a great plan. And to a large degree for the sake of rich countries not having to pay to reduce GHG emissions attributable to their consumption.

I am an optimist. I think such technology can be found.

Whatever it is, it won't be a bizarre idea like "clean" coal. Nomatter what anyone does, it will ALWAYS be more expensive to perform an additional process, like pumping CO2 into the ground, than not bothering to and just letting it go into the atmosphere.

By Chris O'Neill (not verified) on 20 May 2009 #permalink

Bluegrue at #208 has delivered a palpable hit.

Now watch Greig and his friends move the goal-posts.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 20 May 2009 #permalink

For everyone's interest, here is a transcript of the relevant
section of Plimer's interview on the subject. It begins 24m 17s
in. The MP3 is downloadable from
http://www.2gb.com/index.php?option=com_podcasting&task=view&id=29&Item…

SS is Professor Steven Sherwood

IP is Professor Ian Plimer

CS is Chris Smith, the 2GB presenter

SS: I was looking through Professor Plimer's book yesterday and he
doesn't actually show a graph that just shows temperatures for
the last 200 years properly showing that they've been going up.

CS: Ian?

IP: Figure 3 you obviously didn't get past page 21. Figure 3
comes from the German government 2001 book called Klimafacten and
that diagram derives from page 21 of an internationally published
book put out by the German government in 2001.

SS: Well it doesn't look right to me, it looks like it's hand
drawn and it's not from the right year. It doesn't look like any data
set that I've seen.

IP: Well whether it does look right or not I'm sorry but that is
a valid source and the references are in the book ... I suspect
that you didn't get very far in the book.

CS: I should say for Figure 3 you've got 1975 this is the end of
the post-war economic boom and we've got a colder temperature
that we had at the beginning. That's his Figure 3.

IP: It's from Klimafacten put out by the German government in
Hannover Germany 2001.

Some of the mistakes from Plimer in this section: Figure 3 isn't
on page 21 of his book, it is page 25. Klimafacten was not a
publication of the German government. Klimafacten was not
published in 2001, it was published in 2000. From what we have
heard, there is nothing comparable to Plimer's Figure 3 on page
21, or in fact any page, of Klimafacten. As far as I can see, there
is no reference to Klimafacten in Plimer's book, certainly not close
to his Figure 3.

This error rate, more than one error per sentence, is broadly consistent with the rest of Plimer's book.

By Dirk Hartog (not verified) on 20 May 2009 #permalink

187 Greig,

You have repeatedly demonstrated the most common symptoms of AGW denialism. What else should I call you? You are certainly no sceptic.

It is astounding that you don't know what "my point is". It is
1) that Plimer's graph, even if it does originate where he claims, is a mispresentation of the true picture to a degree that it can only be called propaganda of the most blatantly dishonest kind;
2) the defence of the use of such a graph is something only the most deluded denialist or shameless liar would do;
3) how can any conclusion based on a fake graph be correct?

We know that Plimer's graph, with its axis change, annotation, and range arrows, looks *only* like the first version of Durkin's graph. Not the graph Durkin based his on. Not the amended version Durkin replaced it with after the first broadcast of TGGWS. It is not credible that Plimer's version could be *coincidentally* such an exact replica of the original TGGWS version.

I see that bluegrue has looked at 'Klimafakten' and found no support for Plimer's claim.

As for "what does the graph really look like?", you've been given many sources. Sources that anyone genuinely interested in the truth would not even need to be told about.

By TrueSceptic (not verified) on 20 May 2009 #permalink

> Klimafacten was not a publication of the German government.

You are correct in the sense that the book was not explicitly issued by the government, however it _was_ [published](http://www.bgr.bund.de/cln_092/nn_335066/sid_D9EB362B5D4588C809334242F0…) by a [government agency](http://www.bgr.bund.de/cln_092/nn_337276/sid_D9EB362B5D4588C809334242F0…)
> The Federal Institute for Geosciences and Natural Resources (BGR) is the geoscientific center of excellence within the federal government and part of its scientific and technical infrastructure. BGR is a federal institute accountable to the Federal Ministry of Economics and Technology (BMWi). We provide neutral and independent advice and information about all geoscientific and natural resource issues. With this, we support the federal government in their following objectives:
> * Stimulating economic development
> * Long-term protection and improvement of the quality of life
> * Enhancing technical and scientific expertise

Note that the institute is not affiliated with the [The Federal Ministry of Education and Research](http://www.bmbf.de/en/8493.php)

I can't say, that I'm happy with the sources the author chose in many cases; most of the temperature data is linked to www.co2science.org instead of directly linking to Goddard or Hadley. And of course it trots out the familiar pseudo-skeptical tropes:
* Look at the ups and downs (cutting off the data in 1988)
* Look at the correlation with solar activity (cut off in ~1985)
etc. etc.

Thanks bluegrue. I've updated the post and added Berner's figure 2.9 to it.

By Tim Lambert (not verified) on 20 May 2009 #permalink

My hat is off to bluegrue for doing the research, he beat me to it. It appears that Plimer has got his sourcing wrong, exactly as Lambert has said.

However, on viewing fig 2.9, it seems that all Plimer had to do was use that graph and it would have illustrated his point even better than the graph he actually showed.

So its pretty obvious what has happened. Plimer had intended the Friis-Christensen and Lassen (1991), temperature and solar cycle length graph to be at fig 3. In Durkin's words "There was a fluff there".

216 Greig,

See 211 Bernard J.

By TrueSceptic (not verified) on 20 May 2009 #permalink

However, on viewing fig 2.9, it seems that all Plimer had to do was use that graph and it would have illustrated his point even better than the graph he actually showed.

this is rubbish.

you simply can NOT publish a graph about a well measured subject up to 1980, in the year 2009.

a paper using such bad data would not pass any serious examination.

So its pretty obvious what has happened. Plimer had intended the Friis-Christensen and Lassen (1991), temperature and solar cycle length graph to be at fig 3. In Durkin's words "There was a fluff there".

no. what happened is, he copied a false graph from a bad denialist piece and he didn t correct it, when he was told that it was wrong.

i even haven t seen any evidence that he admits that it is complete rubbish up till NOW.

will you ever get tired of defending this nonsense?

[Chris O'Neill] "I'm not saying it is enforcing the use of expensive energy on those 5 billion people. They just don't use that much or they won't use that much while they're still in poverty. "

Oh good, so as long as everyone is poor, we don't have a problem. Do you not realise that in their desperation to survive, the world's poor are cutting down all the forests? Have you ever been to a developing country, and observed all of the open wood and dung fires? What do you think that is doing to the ennvironment, not to mention health?

[Chris O'Neill] "And removing poverty is not a necessary or sufficient condition for resolving overpopulation either BTW."

Certainly. Perhaps we can impose draconian laws on the world's poor to ensure that they only have one child, and so nobody to look after them in their old age. Perhaps the UN will come on board for that? Great solution Chris. Not.

[Chris O'Neill] "The rich countries generate most of the GHGs and have far higher GHG emissions per capita and Greig believes it doesn't matter what they do."

Guilt trip. We can self flagellate for you Chris, if you like.

The fact is, as the developing world advances, their emissions will overrun anything we do now, unless we can find a way to deploy low cost low-emissions technology.

[Chris O'Neill] "and the world is stuffed."

Unless we can resolve overpopulation, yes. The good news is, the world is heading in the right direction. The rate of population increase is slowing as the Chinese and Indians develop, and this looks likely to continue.

But the army of environmentalist ideologues trying to enforce expensive renewable energy is a road block.

At #151 above bluegrue almost has a fit reporting a self-detected error in something he or she's said.

Think about it honest people: Ian Plimer is a full professor of science at a university who just makes up and publishes stories to suit his predetermined conclusions. He writes a book that has so many errors, half-truths and outright falsehoods that it would earn a "fail" for any school student who submitted it in a politics class (_no_ student would submit such garbage in a science class). Result: Plimer has antiscience defenders all over the tabloid press and the blogosphere who think his behaviour is laudable and that his ends justify his means.

The point is that bluegrue is an _anonymous commenter in the blogosphere_ who's more concerned for his or her reputation and for the truth of what he or she says than the high-profile professor with a book just published in his name.

What a joke!

[Sod] "you simply can NOT publish a graph about a well measured subject up to 1980, in the year 2009."

Of course you can. Especially when presented in combination with Fig 4 (which is not in dispute). As long as the data is correct and it illustrates your point, there would have been no problem if Plimar had published the Christensen and Lassen (1991), temperature and solar cycle length graph.

Even Greig (#221) is by now writing the word "liar" into his rendition of Plimer's name ("Plimar").

Greig (207):
"If we can't find cheap low-emissions technology that competes with fossil fuels on price, CO2 emissions are not going to reduce."

I look forward to your announcement that you are lobbying government to subsidise solar, wind and other low-emissions generation technologies at the same level they are currently subsidising coal, oil and gas extraction...

And:
"The key is not to pick winners on the basis of ideology, nor to act as a nation unilaterally or prematurely."

Even shorter Greig: We shouldn't do anything till They** do.

** What if "They" are saying the same thing about us...?

By Steve Chamberlain (not verified) on 20 May 2009 #permalink

Greig (216):
"So its pretty obvious what has happened."

If it's so obvious, how come all the proof-reads**, rewrites, drafts and revisions failed to pick it up?

** Assuming any were done that is - going on the innumerable errors and misrepresentations listed above I have to wonder.

By Steve Chamberlain (not verified) on 20 May 2009 #permalink

Greig #221: "Especially when presented in combination with Fig 4 (which is not in dispute)."

Bullshit it isn't in dispute. I disputed it at #188.

Figure 4 is a graph, covering just under 6 1/2 years of monthly data, which purports to say something about the relationshsip between global temperatures and atmospheric CO2 concentrations.

The caption says: "Temperature determinations (thermometer and satellite) from the Hadley Centre and the University of Alabama (Huntsville) showing a decrease in temperature in the early 20th century. By contrast, atmospheric CO2 is increasing thereby showing no relationship between global temperature and CO2. This graph shows that the hypothesis that human emissions of CO2 create global warming is invalid."

The graph shows nothing of the sort and I find it hard to believe anyone who isn't a complete and utter bonehead would think it does.

The claim implied by Plimer's use of this graph is that if CO2 was causing rising temperatures, then CO2 and temperature ought to move closely in line from month to month.

And that would only be true if CO2 concentration was the ONLY influence on global surface temperature AND its effect was instantaneous. And no-one has ever claimed that, which means it's an attack on a straw man.

The graph and its caption clearly misrepesents mainstream climate science.

It shows nothing more than that temperature is not well correlated with CO2 over relatively short time frames. Big deal. No-one ever claimed otherwise. This is well known to anyone with even a passing interest in climate science.

This graph, Figure 4, is a perfect example of the sort of disingenuous nonsense that's caused Plimer's book to be heaped with well-deserved derision.

Yes, Greig, Figure 4 is in dispute.

Grieg writes

"We have found CO2 to be the dominant factor of current warming. "
I don't believe that we have found any such thing. The IPCC has said they are 90% sure CO2 is causing >51% of the warming. So I think it is more reasonable to say that CO2 is implicated in observed global warming, along with many other factors.

Grieg, your dancing a pretty jig. You are saying that âThe IPCC has said they are 90% sure CO2 is causing >51% [most] of the warmingâ, but in the next sentence saying that this means that CO2 is not dominating the current warming.

That is absurd.

Then straight back to the Vostok deglaciation, where CO2 did not initiate warming, its release was over millennia, and never exceeded 300ppm. This is Grieg's evidence that CO2 does not currently (nor apparently ever) dominates warming.

I think Iâll stick with [the evidence](http://www.ipcc.ch/graphics/graphics/syr/fig2-4.jpg) rather than Greigâs delusional claims.

By Mark Byrne (not verified) on 20 May 2009 #permalink

Grieg @ 206

There are clearly negative feedback mechanisms.
The fact that we do not (yet) know exactly what those negative feedback mechanisms are, whether ocean currents, clouds, evaporative cooling, we know that they eventually dominate the enhance greenhouse effect and prevent runaway warming.

Oh my. Grieg, does it matter that regulating feedback mechanism may take 100,000 years as the PETM indicates?
Grieg, does it mater that we can identify several tipping points that will have consequences for at least centuries if not millennia.

What time frame are you expecting these unknown regulatory feedbacks to do their job? Or are you suggesting we ignore the best current evidence and hope that some unknown thing will step in and save us in a timeframe that prevents calamity?

By Mark Byrne (not verified) on 20 May 2009 #permalink

Grieg, figure 4 is a cherry pick -- it starts in 2002. Are you really trying to tell us that in a book about global warming it is OK not to show what happened to temperatures between 1980 and 2002?

By Tim Lambert (not verified) on 20 May 2009 #permalink

Greig, why do you keep talking about runaway warming?
Positive feedback does NOT necessarily predict a runaway. If the gain is less than 1, then the feedback will converge, create amplification to a new stable higher level. That does not require negative feedbacks to intervene - it requires that the positive feedback converge rather than diverge.

And, are you seriously - SERIOUSLY ???- defending a graph that shows 6 1/2 years of temperature and CO2 data, and claims based on that 6 1/2 years that it has demonstrated that [CO2] does not affect temperature?
6 1/2 years?

Shorter Greig:

When Plimer said that 'the graph that is in the book came from Klimafakten' he really meant 'the graph that should be in the book came from Klimafakten', so he's being perfectly honest!

Grieg @216

It appears that Plimer has got his sourcing wrong, exactly as Lambert has said.
â¦So its pretty obvious what has happened. Plimer had intended the Friis-Christensen and Lassen (1991), temperature and solar cycle length graph to be at fig 3. In Durkin's words "There was a fluff there".

That is so sweet. Itâs lovely how Grieg is so doting and forgiving. âPlimer had intendedâ to use the Friis-Christensen and Lassen (1991) chart, but he slipped and accidently dropped Durkinâs chart in its stead. (What is the piece of software required to copy a curve exactly again? A Vectorization algorithm?)- just an accident mind you.

Grieg, Did Plimer make a fluff too when he told 2GB listeners during a debate that his source was from page 21 of Klimafakten? [Listen @24:20 minutes:seconds]( http://www.2gb.com/index2.php?option=com_podcasting&task=playaudio&id=2…)

By Mark Byrne (not verified) on 20 May 2009 #permalink

Gaz # 222: that is just _unbelievable_! Plimer is competely beyond the pale, he's a scandal.
Come in, spinner Greig - the professor could use some more of your incomparable help!

Grieg wrote

[Sod] "you simply can NOT publish a graph about a well measured subject up to 1980, in the year 2009."

Of course you can. Especially when presented in combination with Fig 4 (which is not in dispute). As long as the data is correct and it illustrates your point, there would have been no problem if Plimar had published the Christensen and Lassen (1991), temperature and solar cycle length graph.

No. If you are an honest scientist you can't restrict yourself to only showing a graph that is limited to the data that support your conclusion. You have a duty to also show the full extent of the available data, especially if it contradicts your conclusion. That is one essential difference between a scientist and a propagandist.

To make the decision to reduce CO2 emissions we must have solid demonstrable proof of the benefits of reducing those emissions. [# 179]

Assuming that science can prove anything (can you give an example?), I don't think you have ever stated what you would consider to be solid proof of the benefits of reducing CO2 emissions. Perhaps you would care to elaborate?

By Richard Simons (not verified) on 20 May 2009 #permalink

Greig.

I will add my voice to Gaz' at #225: Figure 4 is in dispute, and for the reasons that Gaz succinctly describes.

Face it Greig - Plimer has as good as fabricated a story that has as much to do with real science as von Daniken's work does.

You are not only shifting the goal-posts, you are shifting the whole football field. I'm sorry, but science doesn't work like that. Ideology/politics might, but not science.

I find it curious that Plimer has not taken the initiative and sought to address, on any of the fora that discuss them, the many rebuttals of his book. I, for one, would love to have seen the [Lateline](http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2008/s2554129.htm) interview held around now, and with several climate scientists present to raise the points that have been covered by Tim Lambert, Barry Brook, Ian Enting and others. I suspect that Plimer might have been much less enthusiastic to engage in an analysis of his work had there been as much prior reading of the book, as there has been now.

I note that Barry Brook spends time here in addition to maintaining his own site. Given that Plimer is certainly aware of both blogs, I do wonder why he steadfastly refuses to 'set the record straight'.

Come on Ian - the challenge is there. Justify the many erros in your book.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 20 May 2009 #permalink

When I gave a basic science course to adult education students it included a section on weather and climate. It was a trivial matter for me to go to the appropriate web sites to get the most recent official monthly data for temperature anomalies, CO2 concentrations, sun spots and so on, download the data and prepare graphs I could show to the students (with the data source acknowledged, of course). I see no reason to copy someone else's graph of the same data unless it had dishonest features you wanted to exploit.

By Richard Simons (not verified) on 20 May 2009 #permalink

What the alarmists are trying to do here is attack the credibility of Professor Plimer. Most of you havenât read his excellent book, and likely get your information from blog sites. You have no understanding of what you are talking about.

You donât want debate, and you are attacking Ian Plimerâs right to free speech. You want a Stalinist state and have your green roots in NAZI Germany. You hate black children and will let them die for your ideological cause.

By Janet Akerman (not verified) on 20 May 2009 #permalink

Shorter Janet Akerman:

Plimer claimed to get his bogus graph from Klimafakten when it was clearly Durkin's retracted graph? Who cares! What matters is, it's FREE SPEECH!!! And greens are NAZIS!!!

Too much?

Should I have used my pseudonym Piers Blair?

;)

By Janet Akerman (not verified) on 20 May 2009 #permalink

After reading pLImAR,

I can't help seeing
Klimate fake in Klimafakten

You donât want debate, and you are attacking Ian Plimerâs right to free speech. You want a Stalinist state and have your green roots in NAZI Germany. You hate black children and will let them die for your ideological cause.

Surely a troll or a nutter. No sane person could honestly combine this level of ignorance and spite in one brief comment.

By Richard Simons (not verified) on 20 May 2009 #permalink

Janet Akerman: "You donât want debate, and you are attacking Ian Plimerâs right to free speech."

I may not agree with the disingenuous, misleading, illogical, unsupported claims he makes but I will defend to the death his right to make them.

By the way, I take your claim that his book is "excellent" as evidence that you haven't read it either.

Go Janet at 236 & 238! - that was pretty good :)

Janet Akerman (#238):
"Too much?
Should I have used my pseudonym Piers Blair?"

Come on, stop hiding, we all know your real identity, don't we Piers, or should I say "Tim Albrechtsen" 8^)

By Steve Chamberlain (not verified) on 20 May 2009 #permalink

;)

The next question, is Jamana is really sincere or a Satirist?

By Janet Akerman (not verified) on 20 May 2009 #permalink

bluegrue,

No, I'd prefer to hurl abuse at you and your warmist NAZIs types.

And I don't think Greig wants to show himself here ever again.

By Janet Akerman (not verified) on 20 May 2009 #permalink

@244:
Probably the former, the latter requires at least a nodding acquaintance with humour and a sense of the ridiculous 8^)

bluegrue, Richard Simons, Gaz et al: think... what do the surnames Akerman, Blair and Albrechtsen and the forenames Janet, Piers and Tim have in common?

;-)

By Steve Chamberlain (not verified) on 20 May 2009 #permalink

"bluegrue, Richard Simons, Gaz et al: think.."

Sigh. Another demonstration of the vanishingly fine line between crude satire and earrnest denial.

You guys...

Before we end the fun, I would like to argue that you warmist are trying to kill poor black children.

If it wasnât for our access to abundant cheap fossil fuels we would have food shortages [like this.](http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/natural…)
And if give up are fossil fuels we will get [disease like this.](http://www.who.int/healthinfo/global_burden_disease/GBD_report_2004upda…)
And if we change our current relationship with developing countries we lose benefits such [as these.](http://assets.panda.org/downloads/eirsalsummarydec03.doc)

By Janet Akerman (not verified) on 20 May 2009 #permalink

Sometimes I'm a bit slooooooooooooooooowwwwwwwwwwwwwwww on the uptake. Laughing at myself right now.

Janet, it is totally outrageous that you would accuse us of trying to kill poor black children. That makes us look like racists. How dare you.

The diversion of the world's agricultural lands to the production of carbon-eating trees and gasolene berries will affect all poor children equally.

By Gavin Hansen-F… (not verified) on 20 May 2009 #permalink

WTO, IMF and World Bank prescriptions have been successful raising average global income (through exploitation of fossil fuels). But no, that's not good enough for you. Iâd bet that some of you ignorant Commies would even consider ideas of development economists such as Ha-Joon Chang [might have value ](http://www.fpif.org/papers/03trade/index.html) in promoting so called development in poor nations.

Greig knows the truth, we need to burn all our coal to save the poor. And Gobal warming is a Trogen Horse for Communist domination.

By Janet Akerman (not verified) on 20 May 2009 #permalink

Steve Chamberlain #223

Subsidizing wind and solar power does not make it low cost.

Also, both solar and wind receive far greater subsidies than coal (on the basis of MWh of electricity generated).

"We shouldn't do anything till They** do"

Correct. Multilateral response requires agreement. That's what Copenhagen is about.

[Mark Byrne] "Grieg, does it mater that we can identify several tipping points that will have consequences for at least centuries if not millennia. "

Please indicate in the paleoclimate record where these tipping points have resulted in catastrophic warming. References please.

No proof, no banana.

The science is not settled.

[Tim Lambert] "Grieg, figure 4 is a cherry pick -- it starts in 2002. Are you really trying to tell us that in a book about global warming it is OK not to show what happened to temperatures between 1980 and 2002?"

If you want to mislead someone, you could cherrypick a graph of temperature vs CO2 from 1970 - 1998. And from that graph you might deduce that CO2 correlates very strongly with temperature. But Tim, you would agree, such a cherry pick would not show the whole picture.

Fig 4 (and 48) show that temp and CO2 do not correlate AT ALL for the period 2002-2008. This does not prove that CO2 does not cause warming, but it proves that CO2 is clearly not the SOLE cause of warming. Hence there are OTHER FACTORS THAT IMPACT CLIMATE CHANGE.

So, Plimer shows us that the big picture is that there must be factors other than CO2 that influence climate change. Plimer acknowledges throughout his book that CO2 is probably but one of many factors. That is his thesis. In my opinion a reasonable and accurate position, and he has used the data well to show that this is the case.

Finally, Plimer includes data for SST anomaly vs time for 1960-2005 in figs 38 and 39.

Greig
For goodness sake, how many times does this have to be explained to you? Cherry picking 2002-2008 and plottingtime series of CO2 and temperature together says nothing (and I mean nothing) about climate. This is weather. Showing that CO2 has no relationship with short term weather is not a surprise and says nothing about climate. Why can't you / won't you understand this?

Also, both solar and wind receive far greater subsidies than coal (on the basis of MWh of electricity generated).

such a comparison is bogus.

in totals, coal of course receives [more](http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2094/2202667904_fe8341839b.jpg)

and fossile fuels together receive even much much more, that renewables (which basically always are put into one category..)

if you want to compare them by share, then, why not take a [historic perspective?](http://renewableenergy.typepad.com/a_germans_perspective/images/2008/10…)

subsidies for coal are in decline. those for renewables are still growing.

Greig #253:
Subsidizing wind and solar power does not make it low cost
All I suggest is we subsidise renewables at the same rate fossil fuels are (and have been for many decades). One other reason coal, oil etc appear "low cost" in comparison is because so-called externalities (CO2 emissions, pollution of waterways, water usage, loss of biodiversity, topsoil and arable land, &c ad nauseum) are not accounted for.

Also, both solar and wind receive far greater subsidies than coal (on the basis of MWh of electricity generated)

Source? Citation? Or is this just opinion? OTOH the NSW (Australia) State govt alone has subsidised coal mining at about AU$1bn a year between 1998-2007: see Section 3 at http://miningdirt.org.au/coal/speeches

Section 4 of the above suggests subsidies to renewable energy amount to about 6.7%pa of the amount shovelled into the coffers of the coal industry. Sound like a "level playing field" to you?

"We shouldn't do anything till They** do"
Correct. Multilateral response requires agreement. That's what Copenhagen is about.

And if Copenhagen were run by Greigs, everyone would spend three weeks arguing about who goes first, with the result that no-one did.

By Steve Chamberlain (not verified) on 21 May 2009 #permalink

Frank - bi,

I am disappointed at you. Environmentalism is a plot that started in the Koran, which says "Do not kill women, elders, children, civilians or trees". Clearly the global warming scam is just part of a grand plot to convert the world to Islam...

The statement above clearly links human rights, the trade union movement, the UN, the greens, age equality, sexual equality, the Iraq body count and every nasty left wing philosophy directly to the Prophet.

I am surprised you didn't know this (or are you deliberately hiding the truth...)

By GWB's nemesis (not verified) on 21 May 2009 #permalink

bi, you get it _all_ wrong. Of _course_ Plimer did not lie about the source of [his ___intended___ figure 3](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/05/ian_plimer_lies_about_source_o…), Friis-Christensen/Lassen from _Klimafakten_. And besides, how dare you fault Plimer in the first place for the fact, that Durkin's weasely plot sneaked its way into Plimer's book. It is Durkin's plot, after all, and Durkin should keep better watch over where his embarrassing plot is crawling around. You make it sound as if Plimer were actually _responsible_ for the contents of his book. Dig deeper and you will likely find, that it was some alarmist ninja, who sabotaged Plimer's work and slipped the graph into his book and his talk in an attempt to discredit the skeptics movement.

OK OK, game's up, Janet wins. I have to confess - I am a failed modeller.

Methods: Some time back I spent many years constructing several models.

Observations: All three ships (HMS Daring, HMS Ark Royal and HMS Cardiff at 1:50 scale) sank (I blame substandard glue supplied by Airfix), the Chieftain tank (1:40 scale) failed abysmally to survive the first mortar round fired at it and various 1:25 and 1:50 scale aircraft (irrespective of type, engine configuration or nationality) when launched off the shed roof plummeted to the floor and broke into hundreds of bits.

Discussion: All these individual data points were logged, and fed into the Spurious Causality Errors and Partial Tinkering Inference Cluster (SCEPTIC) statistics package.

Conclusion: Extrapolating from the results (alpha = -0.1, p = 0.0000000001, chai-squared = very hot tea), we can readily conclude that all models (derived from oceanic, terrestrial and atmospheric datasets) are rubbish, since they obviously don't work when placed in real-world scenarios.

Hey ho...

By Steve Chamberlain (not verified) on 21 May 2009 #permalink

[Gaz, regarding fig 4] "It shows nothing more than that temperature is not well correlated with CO2 over relatively short time frames."

I agree.

[Gaz] "Big deal. No-one ever claimed otherwise. This is well known to anyone with even a passing interest in climate science."

Your comment shows your intellectual arrogance. There are many people reading Plimers book who know nothing about global warming, and so do not know that there have been recent periods of both cooling and warming, and that other factors influence climate. Whilst it may be obvious to you Gaz, it is NOT OBVIOUS TO EVERYONE. And Plimer is writing the book for everyone.

Gaz, Tim Lambert and others appear to be arguing that Plimer is obligated to show something that satisfies their personal view. Fig 4 doesn't do that, so it should be verboten. Why does Plimer include this graph, and not the graphs that Lambert and Gaz like? The clue is in the books title. H+E Global Warming: The Missing Science.

Before I had read H+E, I had never seen the fig 4 graph before. I think it adds weight to the view that temperatures have been cooling for the last 10 years. I think that information is important in quantifying our understanding of observed global warming.

The debate continues...

Gaz, Tim Lambert and others appear to be arguing that Plimer is obligated to show something that satisfies their personal view.

NO. Not their personal view. Data. Facts. Reality.

Plimer is quite welcome to have his own interpretation of actual data, as is everyone else. He is not welcome to present incorrect data as correct, especially when he knows the data is incorrect. That is unethical, immoral, and a lie.

If he presented the REAL data, and then said "See? There have been cooling periods in the last 150 years." then he would be entirely correct, and would be telling the truth. It would also be obvious that that truth is more or less irrelevant due to the small magnitude of those cooling periods.

Greig @ 254

Please indicate in the paleoclimate record where these tipping points have resulted in catastrophic warming. References please.

Greig, you could start with [Chapter 6 of IPCC](http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter6.pdf) for a summary. Then move through [Nature](http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v442/n7103/abs/nature05043.html) and [Science]( http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/316/5824/587) and [other journals](http://geology.geoscienceworld.org/cgi/content/abstract/30/12/1067) for [various discussion](http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V61-4JWMT9M-…) on the PETM. The 6 degree global warming is understood be initiated by a CO2 or methane release leading to tipping points of more previously sequestered CO2 and methane. The total slow release (over millennia) of CO2e is estimated to be equivalent to BAU emissions for this century.

Three significant differences between now and then:
Firstly, we have since released a large fraction the fossilised carbon that had been locked up for 150 million years. Secondly we now face greater albedo feedbacks as 55 Mya there was already less ice. Finally, we are set to liberate the same about of CO2 in a century that nature released in between 1 and 10 thousand years.

By Mark Byrne (not verified) on 21 May 2009 #permalink

I'm with Greig,

Plimer is under know obligation to tell the truth to his readers. He should also be able to tell porkies on radio debates. It is a matter of free speech that Plimer should be able to show people that the planet has warmed as much as it's cooled.

And Grieg should be able to back Plimer up on this. So what are you fairies going to do about it hey? We own the press. Who sets the media agenda hey? We report and you can take it for leave it.

Suffer in your jocks losers!

By Janet Akerman (not verified) on 21 May 2009 #permalink

I don't think Greig goes far enough.

Plimer should just use data that stops a 1980, he should use the temperature record but start it at 1940. Showing more than this just plays into the prejudice of warmists.

By Jenet Akerman (not verified) on 21 May 2009 #permalink

Greig:

> I think it adds weight to the view that temperatures have been cooling for the last 10 years.

So... why not use a graph that actually covers the last ten years, namely a plot of 1999-2008?

Give me *one* good reason that an argument for a temperature trend over a period of ten years would not be bolstered by a graph actually covering those ten years unders discussion.

Janet Akerman,

Thanks. Excellent spoof/parody of the extreme ASS sufferer. Exactly how I would do it. :-)

By TrueSceptic (not verified) on 21 May 2009 #permalink

You people can carry on playing with the troll as you like, but don't you think that you're enabling one of the worst exponents of antiscience you've ever seen? It's not funny. This degree of unapologetic, in your face fraudulence is somehow wicked. Something rotten has shaken itself out of the slime and slouches our way.

It's too much for me, at least wash your hands carefully when you're done playing.

271 jemima,

What do you suggest? If we simply ignore them, passers-by might imagine that we can't refute their delusional tripe. If the blog owner blocks them, they will post anyway in forums and blogs that support their nonsense and where few of us would bother going, so they are unlikely to be refuted by anyone. They will also complain rabidly about being censored by "fascist warmers".

I know that Tim blocks some extreme cases such as GMB, but isn't it good that he's so tolerant of denialists posting here?

By TrueSceptic (not verified) on 21 May 2009 #permalink

Greig writes:

The fact that we do not (yet) know exactly what those negative feedback mechanisms are, whether ocean currents, clouds, evaporative cooling, we know that they eventually dominate the enhance greenhouse effect and prevent runaway warming.

There was never any danger of "runaway" warming. You appear to think that positive feedbacks, like the water-vapor feedback on CO2-induced global warming, must run away. Wrong. It's a converging series, not a diverging series.

A diverging series would be

1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5...

Because the more terms you add, the higher the sum gets, without limit. The same is true of

1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1...

But it is NOT true of a series like

1 + 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16...

The sum of that series will never get beyond 2 no matter how many terms you add.

TrueSceptic this one is worse, this one is not delusional or ignorant or uneducated. This one, like Plimer himself, simply doesn't care about the fraudulence and untruthfulness of its statements. That makes it a troll but it's worse than those you've seen before.

It calls itself Greig, but it's also misspelt Plimer's name as "Plimar". Suppose it's purposely misspelling "Grieg", a name most famous for the Peer Gynt Suite (composed on the play by Ibsen). Peer Gynt is about a lot of things but one of them is trolls. A bit from Wikipedia:

"Out there, where sky shines, humans say: 'To thyself be true.' In here, trolls say: 'Be true to yourself-ish.'" Egoism is a typical troll-trait in this play. From then on, Peer has this as his motto, claiming as time passes to be himself, whatever that is.

and

Peer looks for a priest to confess his sins, and a character named the Lean One (who is probably the Devil), turns up. He believes Peer cannot be accounted a real sinner who can be sent to hell. He has not done anything serious. Peer despairs in the end, understanding that his life is forfeit. He understands he is nothing.

You may not find very plausible or interesting my connection of troll Greig with a few ugly trolls of Norwegian literary and musical history, that's OK. But I agree with John Quiggin's comment today. I won't give this troll any more of the attention it craves, and without which it's nothing. I thought it was funny for as long as I thought that it knew no better but now I see things differently. There are wicked things at work in the world today and this troll reeks of them as badly as does Plimer himself.

Greig posts:

But the army of environmentalist ideologues trying to enforce expensive renewable energy is a road block.

Wind power is cheaper than coal or nuclear NOW. And the "cost" of coal and oil doesn't factor in the damage they do to the environment, nor the threat they pose to collapse human agriculture through global warming.

Greig posts:

[Sod] "you simply can NOT publish a graph about a well measured subject up to 1980, in the year 2009."
Of course you can. Especially when presented in combination with Fig 4 (which is not in dispute). As long as the data is correct and it illustrates your point, there would have been no problem if Plimar had published the Christensen and Lassen (1991), temperature and solar cycle length graph.

I think what Sod meant is that you can't do so honestly if later data exists--especially when, as in this case, the later data shows the "relationship" diverges significantly after the cut-off date. It makes using such a cherry-picked graph a form of lying. In any statistical test, you have to use ALL the points--not just the ones that seem to support your view.

Janet Akerman, apparently on drugs, posts:

What the alarmists are trying to do here is attack the credibility of Professor Plimer. Most of you havenât read his excellent book, and likely get your information from blog sites. You have no understanding of what you are talking about.

What part of "what the guy says is demonstrably wrong" do you not understand?

You donât want debate, and you are attacking Ian Plimerâs right to free speech.

Nope. Never. Plimer has the absolute right to say whatever he wants, absent special cases such as libel or crying fire in a crowded theater. But we have just as much right to reply to his nonsense. YOU are trying to attack OUR right to free speech by saying Plimer should be beyond criticism.

You want a Stalinist state and have your green roots in NAZI Germany.

As someone with relatives who died in the Holocaust, and other relatives who died in the GULAG, your assertion is not only grossly wrong but offensive and stupid.

You hate black children and will let them die for your ideological cause.

Seriously, were you high when you wrote this?

274 jemima,

I understand what you are saying but I'm still not sure of the best way to deal with them, as I said in 272.

I can normally recognise outright liars (we have a few in the JREF forums), but it seems to me that cases like 'Greig' might still be highly delusional rather than simply dishonest.

By TrueSceptic (not verified) on 21 May 2009 #permalink

No such thing as free speech on this blog - only what Lambert and his cronies wish to see represented. See my other posts to note censorship.

By Sally Johnson (not verified) on 21 May 2009 #permalink

Janet Akerman writes:

Before we end the fun, I would like to argue that you warmist are trying to kill poor black children.

And I would like to see you receiving medication and counseling.

If it wasnât for our access to abundant cheap fossil fuels we would have food shortages like this.

Attention: Global warming will cause increased drought in continental interiors, therefore likely leading to less agricultural production. That plus changes in rainfall and the loss of fresh water to a billion people in Asia as glaciers receded, could cause the complete collapse of human agriculture within 50 years.

Is that what you want? Do you want to kill black children?

And if give up are fossil fuels we will get disease like this.

You know, we could get our energy from other sources than fossil fuels. Where did you get the idea that fossil fuels were in and of themselves indispensable?

And, BTW, if you're right, we're all screwed, because sooner or later those fuels are going to run out. We hit peak oil a while back, if you remember.

And if we change our current relationship with developing countries we lose benefits such as these.

Change it in any way?

Greig, exhibiting a deep, irrational anger towards the late Ray Bolger, writes:

Fig 4 (and 48) show that temp and CO2 do not correlate AT ALL for the period 2002-2008. This does not prove that CO2 does not cause warming, but it proves that CO2 is clearly not the SOLE cause of warming. Hence there are OTHER FACTORS THAT IMPACT CLIMATE CHANGE.

NO SHIT, SHERLOCK!!! Nobody ever said differently, least of all climate scientists. What we are saying is that carbon dioxide is the major cause of the recent global warming.

http://www.geocities.com/bpl1960/Correlation.html

As we all know, substitute CO2 for the price of US postage stamps and you get the same correlation.

No proven science here.

By Sally Johnson (not verified) on 21 May 2009 #permalink

{Barton Paul Levenson}
> Seriously, were you high when you wrote this?

Janet fooled a few of us, including myself; see #238 - #248 and #270. I am sorry, for the losses that your family has suffered.

Greig writes:

I think it adds weight to the view that temperatures have been cooling for the last 10 years.

Greig, here are the global land-sea temperature anomalies, from the Hadley Centre CRU, for the last 10 years:

AnomYear
0.2961999
0.2702000
0.4092001
0.4642002
0.4732003
0.4472004
0.4822005
0.4222006
0.4052007
0.3232008

A simple linear regression gives a coefficient of 0.007763636 to the year term. Not statistically significant. But it's up, not down. There is no cooling over the last ten years. You're just wrong, and Figure 4 does nothing to prove the point in contention.

I didn't realize until I read some of her later posts that "Janet Akerman" was having us on. I'm a bit thick when it comes to parody sometimes. Apologies.

But it shows, I think, how easily such parodies can be mistaken for the real thing. Check out JoAnne Nova's Australian "JoNova" blog to see a bunch of people who talk like "Janet Akerman" but appear to be dead serious.

#278 TrueSkeptic
> I can normally recognise outright liars (we have a few in the JREF forums), but it seems to me that cases like 'Greig' might still be highly delusional rather than simply dishonest.

I would have agreed with you at the beginning. By now Greig has posited, that Klimafakten's figure 2.9 was Plimer's intended figure 3 to avoid calling Plimer a liar. That kind of twisted rationalization puts him squat into the troll camp. On the off-chance, that my assessment is wrong, I can only hope that Greig takes this as a wake-up call.

285 BPL,

That's the problem with ASS-wholes: the real thing is so absurd that it is almost beyond parody.

By TrueSceptic (not verified) on 21 May 2009 #permalink

286 bluegrue,

Could still be highly delusional. I've seen similar behaviour at ClimateFraudit, WattsUpWithMyBrain, and the Marohasy Bog, where the inmates have no need to troll because they are "at home". I'm not saying that you are not as, or more, likely to be right, though.

Oh, and thanks for your many excellent posts here. :-)

By TrueSceptic (not verified) on 21 May 2009 #permalink

Looking at the anomolies:

0.473 (2003) **>** 0.447 (2004) < 0.482 (2005) **>** 0.422 (2006) **>** 0.405 (2007) **>** 0.323 (2008)

Appears to be a lot of global cooling according to the recorded data. **Sound the ALARM!!!**

By Sally Johnson (not verified) on 21 May 2009 #permalink

Greig:

[Chris O'Neill] "I'm not saying it is enforcing the use of expensive energy on those 5 billion people. They just don't use that much or they won't use that much while they're still in poverty. "

Oh good, so as long as everyone is poor, we don't have a problem. Do you not realise that in their desperation to survive, the world's poor are cutting down all the forests? Have you ever been to a developing country, and observed all of the open wood and dung fires? What do you think that is doing to the ennvironment, not to mention health?

You're missing the point, as per usual. I didn't say they had to stay poor.

[Chris O'Neill] "And removing poverty is not a necessary or sufficient condition for resolving overpopulation either BTW."

Certainly. Perhaps we can impose draconian laws on the world's poor to ensure that they only have one child, and so nobody to look after them in their old age. Perhaps the UN will come on board for that? Great solution Chris. Not.

I didn't say that was necessary either. And of course you ignore the fact that it's not sufficient.

[Chris O'Neill] "The rich countries generate most of the GHGs and have far higher GHG emissions per capita and Greig believes it doesn't matter what they do."
Guilt trip. We can self flagellate for you Chris, if you like.

For God's sake, reducing emissions is not self flagellation.

The fact is, as the developing world advances, their emissions will overrun anything we do now, unless we can find a way to deploy low cost low-emissions technology.

A "two wrongs make a right" argument. This doesn't stop rich countries from reducing their emissions which will make a substantial difference if they are brought down to a reasonable per-capita level.

[Chris O'Neill] "and the world is stuffed."
Unless we can resolve overpopulation, yes.

And unless your mythical magic technology arrives, yes.

BTW, if these are issues you want to debate, why do you feel it necessary to defend someone telling lies that are intended to deceive the public?

By Chris O'Neill (not verified) on 21 May 2009 #permalink

Sally Johnson:
> Appears to be a lot of global cooling according to the recorded data. __Sound the ALARM!!!__

Lot's of noise there. 7-year trends are too short to tell you something about climate, they are weather. This has been covered [over](http://atmoz.org/blog/2008/05/19/7-year-trends-falsify-what/) and [over](http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/01/uncertainty-noise…) and [over again](http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/05/18/decadal-trends/).

Mark Byrne @ 266,

Thanks for the references to the PETM. And thanks for at least one post that does not talk down to me, it makes debate more pleasant.

As you know, CO2 alone cannot explain the PETM warming event, and current theory relies on the massive release of methane from the melting of sub Arctic clathrates. This requires special circumstances of ocean circulation and warming, a CO2 trigger alone cannot and does not explain the process, and there is no evidence that the special circumstances for rapid clathrate release exist now.

Also, the warming occurred over a long period (10,000 years), and there is no evidence that methane emissions from clathrates can occur more rapidly.

Therefore the PETM does not necessarily mean that we face immediate and rapid ("dangerous") global warming, eg over the next century. And considering the impact on humans of the return of then next ice age, then perhaps a period of warming over the next 10,000 years could be a blessing.

Perhaps this last paragraph will shock the Gaians here. However, considering the fact that the Chinese and Indians are showing no interest in reducing their emissions, I am very keen to discuss what might occur if we were to reach 550ppm CO2 or more, which in my opinion will certainly happen.

[Dave] "So... why not use a graph that actually covers the last ten years, namely a plot of 1999-2008? Give me one good reason that an argument for a temperature trend over a period of ten years would not be bolstered by a graph actually covering those ten years unders discussion."

I have seen plots that include the period 1998 - 2008, and in my opinion they strengthen the view that there is cooling over the last 10 years. However, you also have to explain the massive El Nino in 1998, which is a weather event, and that complicates the matter somewhat. I can only assume that Plimer did not want to show 1998, because it would confuse the issue of weather and climate. And Plimer's book focusses on periods of thousands and millions of years.

Throughout this thread, there is general agreement that a 10 year trend is weather (and proves nothing, so should be dismissed) yet a 30 year trend (eg from 1970 to 2000) is climate, and is very important. That is cherrypicking. All data is important in attaining an understanding of climate change.

[Barton Paul Levenson] "Wind power is cheaper than coal or nuclear NOW."

Incorrect. Nuclear is much cheaper, including waste management and decommissioning. And it is more scalable because it is not intermittent. Ask Barry Brooks.

[Barton Paul Levenson] "And the "cost" of coal and oil doesn't factor in the damage they do to the environment, nor the threat they pose to collapse human agriculture through global warming."

Wow, collapse of agriculture? And they call me a troll?

> Throughout this thread, there is general agreement that a 10 year trend is weather (and proves nothing, so should be dismissed) yet a 30 year trend (eg from 1970 to 2000) is climate, and is very important. That is cherrypicking. All data is important in attaining an understanding of climate change.

I'm sorry, Greig, but it is comments like this one that _cause_ others to talk down on you, as they show your lack of experience and understanding (nothing, that can not be overcome). Please read the material that I have linked to in #292. In short, the temperature record is very noisy as a consequence of the inherent variability of the atmosphere-ocean system. If you take a part of the temperature time series you will always be able to calculate a linear fit to the data. However, you then need to test whether this line fit is significant, i.e. meaningful or not. Observation shows you, that only longer periods of observation of the order of 30 years give you meaningful trends. You'll find the details in the links supplied, and presented in a better way than I have just done. It is not prejudice or "cherrypicking" but experience which leads us to disregard 10 year "trends" as weather in favor of longer term climate trend.

One final post before I go to work, not on the subject of climate science.

It appears that about half of this blog is dedicated to parody and outrage that a person (me) has wandered into a blog full of AGW true believers, ie a group who are utterly convinced that anyone who is in the least bit sceptical of the conclusion that CO2 is certainly going to destroy the planet, is "antiscience" or "delusional" or a "troll".

For the record, I am quite convinced that the basic science of climate change demonstrates that CO2 is implicated in observed global warming, but that more work needs to be done to determine what is going to happen as CO2 rises to 550 ppm and beyond. The science is not settled. I am not convinced that it will result in catastrophe, and that is the extent of my scepticism.

Most of you also seem completely convinced that Plimer deliberately lied about the Fig 3 graph. Clearly he was MISTAKEN. But that does not mean he LIED. There is a difference, and I would suggest that my position is one of assuming the best of an eminent scientist and author, rather than leaping to conclusions about that person's intentions.

To illustrate this, let me ask. How many of you have engaged in the open ridicule and vilification of Al Gore for his "mistake" about the Vostock ice core samples in An Inconvenient Truth. How many declared Gore to be a liar. Hands up! Spot the hypocrite.

You all, including Tim Lambert, should be ashamed of the way you conduct yourselves in this public forum. It is hypocritical, disrespectful, indulgent and rude. I am quite glad I don't know any of you personally.

Greig:

> I have seen plots that include the period 1998 - 2008, and in my opinion they strengthen the view that there is cooling over the last 10 years.

Except that a) such graphs don't show cooling unless you draw them incorrectly and b) that's an 11-year trend. I'm interested to know why you a) brought up the whole notion of a 10 year trend and then b) switched to 11 years instead.

> I can only assume that Plimer did not want to show 1998, because it would confuse the issue of weather and climate.

1998 is not in the 10 years under discussion Greig, I said so in my original question. You've yet to give me any reason for omitting an actual 10-year plot in a discussion of 10 years of data - but your over-indulgent Plimer fawning is once again noted.

> Throughout this thread, there is general agreement that a 10 year trend is weather (and proves nothing, so should be dismissed) yet a 30 year trend (eg from 1970 to 2000) is climate, and is very important. That is cherrypicking. All data is important in attaining an understanding of climate change.

I *cannot* believe that you've blatantly cherry-picked two specific timescales that you think show what you want (6-year and 11-year) and then have the sheer nerve to accuse climate scientists of cherry picking by using the *mathematically more robust* standard of 30 years. How are you not too ashamed to type things like that?

> Most of you also seem completely convinced that Plimer deliberately lied about the Fig 3 graph. Clearly he was MISTAKEN. But that does not mean he LIED.

He used a graph in his book that he had previously referenced in a debate, that was sourced from Durkin, that he knew was incorrect - and when questioned, he indicated that it came from a different source, which, in fact, it did not. That's lying.

> There is a difference, and I would suggest that my position is one of assuming the best of an eminent scientist and author, rather than leaping to conclusions about that person's intentions.

And yet you ignore the opinion of many many more eminent scientists whose work has been rubbished and misrepresented by Plimer.

> To illustrate this, let me ask. How many of you have engaged in the open ridicule and vilification of Al Gore for his "mistake" about the Vostock ice core samples in An Inconvenient Truth. How many declared Gore to be a liar. Hands up! Spot the hypocrite.

Al Gore's simplification of interglacials and the Vostok data was definitely a topic of discussion - see eg. this summary on Realclimate (although it does come down on the side of he was making a valid, if simplified, point) : http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/05/al-gores-movie/ . It's a different situation though - he's using a correct graph, from a correct source, and making a point that is correct, but that glosses over some details. While the fact that there is a lag is important, in that it means that the interglacial is not triggered by a rise in CO2, it does not harm the understanding that the subsequent rise in CO2 causes further warming. He presents a simplified message that that - to my mind - warrants quite a lot more explanation, but it is quite a long way from being "wrong" or "a lie".

> You all, including Tim Lambert, should be ashamed of the way you conduct yourselves in this public forum. It is hypocritical, disrespectful, indulgent and rude. I am quite glad I don't know any of you personally.

The feeling is entirely mutual.

> Most of you also seem completely convinced that Plimer deliberately lied about the Fig 3 graph. Clearly he was MISTAKEN. But that does not mean he LIED.

Plimer is a scientist. He is to be held to higher standards when it comes to data presentation. The temperature graphs of GISTEMP and HadCrut are fundamental data in the field of current climate and thus need to be well known to any scientist writing about climate. It's like expecting a car driver to know and understand street signs. To a trained scientist like Plimer (or myself for that matter, I'm a solid state physicist) figure 3 is so different from the original data, that it looks odd, even without direct comparison to the actual data (note Sherwood's reaction to that figure), and that would compel any scientist to verify the plot. The plot is doctored in a way that can not happen by accident. These plots are nowadays created on your PC using dedicated programs. It takes a ___determined___ effort to change the labels of the time scale to read 1880 to 2000 instead of 1885 to 1988. Figure 3 in itself is a LIE. Its inclusion in a paper for a peer-reviewed journal would be reason enough to reject/retract that paper. It would seriously damage the authors reputation and could even cost him his job, as creating this misleading forgery and passing it off as true data constitutes serious scientific misconduct. What is even worse, Plimer accuses another innocent scientist (Berner) to be the source of this plot.

I can also tell - by taking a closer look at the temperatures in the early 10s to 30s - that the data used to create the graph is from the 1990s and not a current copy from [NASA](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/). It is at the minimum a curious decision on part of a scientist, to not use the most up to date data available, but that's a minor point. If you choose to do so, you owe your reader a reasoning, why you are disregarding more up to date data, as the GISTEMP graphs differ not just by the inclusion of more recent years, but in the early years, too, due to correction of errors and use of additional data.

> To illustrate this, let me ask. How many of you have engaged in the open ridicule and vilification of Al Gore for his "mistake" about the Vostock ice core samples in An Inconvenient Truth.

Are you talking the graph mix-up or the 800 year lag? The graph mix-up should not have happened, but is something very different from Plimer's figure 3. In Gore's case the incorrect data was so similar to the correct data, that you need to be either extremely familiar with the data or make a direct comparison. Omitting the 800 year lag (thermal inertia of the ocean, CO2 amplification of the initial orbital forcing) is a defensible didactic decision. It would have cost Gore another 10 minutes to treat this lag properly and it does not change the facts, that CO2 is a GHG and that its current levels are dramatically higher than at any period of time covered by the ice core.

Finally, IIRC you admitted, Greig, that Plimer's book is the first time that you read up on climate and the book is more or less your entire source of knowledge. I find it very offensive, that given your shallow pool of knowledge in this field, you insult the majority of the people here as _"true believers"_, in the sense that they are no longer capable of critical thought.

Greig @293

As you know, CO2 alone cannot explain the PETM warming event, and current theory relies on the massive release of methane from the melting of sub Arctic clathrates. This requires special circumstances of ocean circulation and warming, a CO2 trigger alone cannot and does not explain the process, and there is no evidence that the special circumstances for rapid clathrate release exist now.

Greig, perhaps you were tired when you wrote this? The PETM is an example of warming initiated by CO2 (or CO2e). It is also provides example of previous amplifying feedbacks and slow nature of previous regulatory feedbacks.

Also, the warming occurred over a long period (10,000 years), and there is no evidence that methane emissions from clathrates can occur more rapidly.

The warming occurred over 10,000 years, which was coincided with CO2 release over 10,000 years. We are set to release the same about of carbon in just 100 years. That is the same addition of CO2, but 100 times faster.

Therefore the PETM does not necessarily mean that we face immediate and rapid ("dangerous") global warming, eg over the next century. And considering the impact on humans of the return of then next ice age, then perhaps a period of warming over the next 10,000 years could be a blessing.

Greig, it depends on the learning you take from the PETM. Iâd suggest that you consider all relevant factors, what is the same, and what is different between our current CO2 release and warming, and that of the PETM. Considering all factors, it would be folly to say that because warming took 10,000 years as mean we have 10,000 years. You'd also be wise to consider the impacts we are starting to witness already.

By Mark Byrne (not verified) on 21 May 2009 #permalink

Greig #255: "Plimer acknowledges throughout his book that CO2 is probably but one of many factors. That is his thesis."

Ah baloney, Greig, it's the thesis of every scientist who's ever said or written anything about climate science.

If you think it distingusishes Plimer from anyone else then you really need to educate yourself.

I mean, seriously, even just read the summary section of the IPCC report on the scientific basis for global warming and you'll be at least aware of how Plimer misrepresents what they are saying. Or even just browse chapter 9 (Understanding and attributing climate change).

Here they are:

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter9.pdf

Greig #264: You say: "Your comment ('This is well known to anyone with even a passing interest in climate science.') shows your intellectual arrogance."

It is not "intellectual arrogance" to point this out. I just happen to think it would be useful to people with no knowledge of the field to know they're being hoodwinked.

I mean if you have read what the IPCC actually says, then listen to how Plimer represetns what they say, you will not be able to avoid being be struck by the gaps between the two.

He is not writing it for "everyone", as you say, he is writing it for "people who know virtually nothing about the field".

Presumably that's why he felt comfortable in using such misleading graphics to support his claims.

By the way, do you realiae how lame it sounds when you claim a graph covering 6 1/2 years tells you something meaningful about what's happened over a 10-year period?

Have a look at some of the graphs on this page, for example.

http://www.woodfortrees.org/notes#wti

Now pick a few 6 1/2 year periods at random. What do they tell you about the longer trend? Nothing? Exactly.

Now, I don't know whether you're a troll deliberately trying to muddy the waters, or if you're genuinely don't know how uninformed you are.

Either way, all I can say is that if you or anyone else is convinced by Plimer's book, you should put it down, go and educate youself about the science, familiarise yourself with the data sources, then go back and read Plimer again.

Don't believe anyone here - see if it stands up to your own scrutiny.

Gaz: "Don't believe anyone here - see if it stands up to your own scrutiny."

Of course, you realize his "own scrutiny" is adjusted to produce the desired result, right?

Al Gore is a dirty liar.

Gore showed the kiddies a map of Africa and South America and told them he though they would fit together.
Then he showed the kiddies the chart of temperature and CO2 and said they look the same.

That is a lie! They are not the same. Sure they might look the same. Sure he can hide behind the fact that he didn't say they were the same. But he implied they were the same. HE SAID THEY LOOK THE SAME. Or that they fit well, or something. What ever, it was a Howler!

Its dishonest to show raw data and imply it looks the same.
It is better to show them selected parts of the data. Preferably select portions of data that don't play into the prejudice of warmists.

Sometimes it is necessary to relabel the axis from 1980 to 2000, but only if it faithful demonstrates a point that is known to be accurate.

To suggest this is lying smacks of hysteria. And are you suggesting that Plimer intentionally lied on radio 2GB about his source? Get real. Plimer intended to use a chart by Friis-Christensen and Lassen, so he told the public it was from Klimafakten (a chart by Berner). How was he supposed to know that heâd actually source his chart from Durkin?

And besides, you fairies make no difference anyway. The book is going gang busters, and who needs to check their sources when most of us can tell the truth from our gut?

If Plimer is in anyway inaccurate this reflects more on the bias of science than anything else. The truth in Plimerâs work will be demonstrated as soon as we privatize science.

By janet Akerman (not verified) on 21 May 2009 #permalink

janet Akerman: "And besides, you fairies make no difference anyway. The book is going gang busters, and who needs to check their sources when most of us can tell the truth from our gut?"

Gut feeling:

Gastrointerologists have determined that the human gut contains no rational thoughts.

What the human gut IS full of is generally well known.

[bluegrue] " Finally, IIRC you admitted, Greig, that Plimer's book is the first time that you read up on climate and the book is more or less your entire source of knowledge. "

I have been studying the issue of climate change for 20 years (although I am not a professional in the field) and I am tertiary qualified in a scientific field. I have read dozens of books on the subject, of various slants.

[Mark Byrne] "The warming occurred over 10,000 years, which was coincided with CO2 release over 10,000 years. We are set to release the same about of carbon in just 100 years. That is the same addition of CO2, but 100 times faster."

Mark, as you well know, CO2 does not alone explain the PETM observation. CO2 is regarded as a trigger only. It requires the release of clathrates, and several other factors regarding ocean mixing and circulation. And it was the clathrates (methane) that took 10,000 year to release, and only through a somewhat remarkable venting process.

You are ASSUMING that simply because we are releasing CO2 faster, means that the whole PETM-like warming will occur faster. That is a huge and unwarranted assumption on your part which is not proven by the evidence. And I note, this is the same error that Gore makes in his presentation of the Vostock graph.

It is tiresome being lectured to by someone who can make such a basic scientific error.

[Gaz] "I mean if you have read what the IPCC actually says, then listen to how Plimer represetns what they say, you will not be able to avoid being be struck by the gaps between the two."

I am also struck by the gaps between the IPCC peer-reviewed submission papers, and what appears in the Assessment reports and Summary for Policymakers. And I note Plimer spends some time on pointing out the differences (ie the "missing science" he refers to in the title.) as well as the reasons why the gaps exist.

[naught101] Greig: What would it take to convince you that global warming is happening?

From # 297: For the record, I am quite convinced that the basic science of climate change demonstrates that CO2 is implicated in observed global warming, but that more work needs to be done to determine what is going to happen as CO2 rises to 550 ppm and beyond. The science is not settled. I am not convinced that it will result in catastrophe, and that is the extent of my scepticism.

Finally, I am quite aware that a 10 year period is not as good as a 30 year period in exposing a trend, so please do not try to explain that again (methinks the lady doth protest too much). I am just saying it is interesting data and agree with Plimer that it demonstrates the OBVIOUS and uncontested case that there are factors other than CO2 at work. Nothing more. OK?

It seems to be that this thread has more than the usual amount of noise. While "Janet Akerman", "Sally Johnson", "Jamana", etc, may be engaged in parody, their humor falls rather flat. They should head over to http://denialdepot.blogspot.com/ where they can have endless fun.

Killfiles aren't the answer.

Here is a proposal: how about using a different text color for posts from identified trolls? I'm thinking various shades of gray, all the way to white. Sensible moderators could be given a button to click, and all posts (or, optionally, just the clicked post) from the troll would be grayed out.

By Dirk Hartog (not verified) on 21 May 2009 #permalink

re: #308 Dick Hartog

1) Killfiles are *part* of the answer, because they help each reader make their own decisions beyond those of the moderator. They just don't work anywhere near as well as they did in the good old USENET days, 20+ years ago.

2) I've suggested elsewhere that a good feature would be that each thread could have "shadow thread", to which any given post could be sent, with crosslinks. Then a reader could read the main thread and ignore the rest if they like. This is akin to TIm's use of a "Tim Curtin" prison thread on occasion.

I think it is very likely that many posts are intended to:

a) Confuse the unwary, but failing that

b) Fill up the thread with so much junk, that the Signal-noise ratio gets so low that nobody can stand to read it, thus burying useful commentary. Sometimes, just writing nonsense and insulting people is sufficient to get *other* people to fill a thread.

Some people are subtle at this, some not so subtle.

A really *good* discussion is one in which:

a) One starts with a confusing situation, with multiple viewpoints.

b) Serious, civil arguments are made, and either the viewpoints converge somewhere and people learn new information OR

perhaps there is still disagreement, but the positions are sharpened, and at least people agree on what they agree on, agree on what the disagree on, and agree on what is still unclear.

c) The best of all is when someone presents a view that changes my mind on a topic, especially if it's one I actually had a serious opinion on.

Unfortunately, some people are complexifiers, or confusion-amplifiers, either naturally or on purpose. They are way more time-wasting than people with strong opinions, but who at least seek clarity and closure. They tend to take meetings into side-tracks, love bureaucracy, and generally dissipate energy. Programmers of this sort generate over-complex solutions and unmaintainable code.

All this applies to blog threads as well.

By John Mashey (not verified) on 21 May 2009 #permalink

bluegrue, Richard Simons, Gaz et al: think... what do the surnames Akerman, Blair and Albrechtsen and the forenames Janet, Piers and Tim have in common?

I have to admit, I have no idea what they have in common. I'm afraid you'll have to explain.

By Richard Simons (not verified) on 21 May 2009 #permalink

Greig @ 307

Mark, as you well know, CO2 does not alone explain the PETM observation. CO2 is regarded as a trigger only. It requires the release of clathrates, and several other factors regarding ocean mixing and circulation. And it was the clathrates (methane) that took 10,000 year to release, and only through a somewhat remarkable venting process.

Grieg , the clathrates are methane clathrates. The methane is part of the CO2e , about which the Enhance greenhouse effect is concerned. It was the CO2e that took 10,000 years to release.

You are ASSUMING that simply because we are releasing CO2 faster, means that the whole PETM-like warming will occur faster. That is a huge and unwarranted assumption on your part which is not proven by the evidence. And I note, this is the same error that Gore makes in his presentation of the Vostock graph.

Iâm afraid youâve failed to show the logical flaw. Youâve simply asserted a baseless opinion. Here is the logic you need to address: faster release of CO2e leads to faster rise in CO2e concentrations. In turn, leading to faster warming.

It is tiresome being lectured to by someone who can make such a basic scientific error.

This, well, I just wanted to emphasis that you said it.

By Mark Byrne (not verified) on 21 May 2009 #permalink

"I am just saying it is interesting data and agree with Plimer that it demonstrates the OBVIOUS and uncontested case that there are factors other than CO2 at work."

Yes and no. It does demonstrate that there a many factors that influence noise levels. It demonstrates nothing about the factors influencing climate trends, because the 8/11 year downward trend does not have any associated changes in forcings to explain it. Ergo, it's just noise. (unless it's the trough in TSI, in which case the shit is about to hit the fan).

Hi Richard,

Cut and past the names into google, you'll probabily find the connection quickly. They are all Murdoch opinion writers.
(Austrlian)

By Mark Byrne (not verified) on 21 May 2009 #permalink

Greig @307

I am just saying it is interesting data and agree with Plimer that it demonstrates the OBVIOUS and uncontested case that there are factors other than CO2 at work. Nothing more. OK?

Is Grieg the fastest post shifter in the west?

I've been running a wee thread of discussion with Grieg for a while here. I've found he jumps from one claim to the next, changing positions all over the place. Just check back through your threads and notice how when you privide Grieg with information to correct one of his claims, he acts as though the issue was something else.

Now Greig seems to have come to the claim, that he is only saying CO2 is not the factor at work. That is Plimeresque, acting as though anyone says CO2 is the only factor.

By Mark Byrne (not verified) on 21 May 2009 #permalink

[Posted by: nauhgt101] "the 8/11 year downward trend ..."

Ahem, did you say TREND?

"...does not have any associated changes in forcings to explain it. Ergo, it's just noise. "

Or it could be that we are seeing a combination of a negative feedback from water vapour/clouds and/or ocean circulation/mixing phenomenon, which are not noise, but actually critical impacts on climate change that overwhelm CO2 forcing.

Although, of course we will have to wait 20 years before we should be bothered asking questions, and keep our minds firmly shut, because 10 years is not enough observation to represent a trend. :(

[Posted by: nauhgt101] "the 8/11 year downward trend ..."

Ahem, did you say TREND?

"...does not have any associated changes in forcings to explain it. Ergo, it's just noise. "

Or it could be that we are seeing a combination of a negative feedback from water vapour/clouds and/or ocean circulation/mixing phenomenon, which are not noise, but actually critical impacts on climate change that overwhelm CO2 forcing.

Although, of course we will have to wait 20 years before we should be bothered asking questions, and keep our minds firmly shut, because 10 years is not enough observation to represent a trend. :(

Bluegrue,
If you need a second opinion about Greigâs statement, I can vouch for him

I have been studying the issue of climate change for 20 years (although I am not a professional in the field) and I am tertiary qualified in a scientific field. I have read dozens of books on the subject, of various slants.

Like Grieg, I have been studying the issue of climate change for 20 years. I heard about it in 1988 and have heard more and more since.

I am also tertiary qualified in a scientific field, though as you might guess I never worked as a scientific field.

I have read dozens of books on the subject. At least it feels like dozens. Or to be truthful, Iâve felt a dozen books (read all their titles). I was waiting for the right one to come along. Now I have it!

By Janet Akerman (not verified) on 21 May 2009 #permalink

Greig: TREND. Yes. the 8/11 year TREND. Which happens to be statistically insignificant.

"Negative feedback": Greig, a negative feedback doesn't happen by itself. A feedback is always a response to some other factor. And if that factor contines to get stronger, a negative feedback will usually get stronger too.

Think about it like this: a pendulum is dropped from a small height, as it swings, a friction force, acting as a negative feedback, will slow it down. If you start putting a force on the pendulum to speed it up, it will swing higher, and move faster. The friction force (negative feedback) will also increase, but not enough to compensate, until you stop the force on the pendulum. For any given external force, there will be a set equilibrium where the force matches the friction, and the oscillations will not get longer or shorter.

Negative climate feedbacks can not "overwhelm CO2 forcing" - they can only help define the new equilibrium. That's why clouds an ocean circulation are not considered forcings.

Shorter Greig:

A strong upward trend in temperatures in the last 30 years doesn't prove global warming.

However, a statistically insignificant upward trend in temperatures in the last 10 years does prove global cooling.

If you dispute this, then you're being closed-minded.

Richard,
I fell for Janet Akerman hook, line and sinker, as I lacked the necessary cultural background. Here are the people the names were taken from: [Janet Albrechtsen](http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/janetalbrechtsen/), [Tim Blair](http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/timblair/) and [Piers Akerman](http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/piersakerman/). They are conservative Australian journalists with vocal denialist stance. I've had to google these names myself to understand it. Dear Aussies, please play nice with us Non-Aussies.

I have to agree with John Mashey, the flood of satire entries seriously degrades the usefulness of this blog. As much fun as it may be to the writers, the signal to noise ratio has gone pretty low. Could you please tone it down a bit. TIA.

[Greig]
>>[bluegrue] " Finally, IIRC you admitted, Greig, that Plimer's book is the first time that you read up on climate and the book is more or less your entire source of knowledge. "

>I have been studying the issue of climate change for 20 years (although I am not a professional in the field) and I am tertiary qualified in a scientific field. I have read dozens of books on the subject, of various slants.

OK, I seem to have misremembered and because of my misconception, I had cut you some slack so far - undeservedly so, as it seems.

Please answer me these:
1. What is your range for climate sensitivity on doubling of CO2. You have so far danced around providing hard numbers in your arguments, using qualitative statements only (like e.g. with regard to the ups and downs in fig. 3.). Mine is the IPCC's: likely range 2°C to 4.5°C, best value 3°C. What's yours?
2. Do you agree, that figure 3 in itself, as printed in Plimer's book, is doctored and that the deliberate inclusion of such a plot would constitute scientific misconduct? And don't give me your bizarre rationalization, that Plimer actually wanted to use Friis-Christensen/Lassen as figure 3.

[Steve Chamberlain | May 21, 2009 6:33 AM]

According to http://www.atse.org.au/index.php?sectionid=555

Wind power has a current capacity of 950 MW, which at a capacity factor of .4, means it produced less than 1% of the electricity in Australia. Solar power, less than 0.1%. Lets say solar+ wind = 1% of the total MWh produced. Coal accounts for about 90% of the MWh produced. So if solar and wind get 6.7% of the subsidies pa that coal get, then on a /MWh basis, they are getting about 6 times the subsidies that coal gets.

Solar and wind get 6 TIMES the subsidies offered to coal.

Myth Busted.

Re #309 John Mashey

Killfiles may work for the 0.1% of people who have set them up.

I'm concerned about Joe Sixpack who comes to read this blog, and finds some threads full of noise. If trolls were in a light shade of gray, Joe could skip past them in the certain knowledge that he wouldn't be missing anything.

All it takes is one button on each post, and a login system for moderators (or perhaps we can just rely on Tim's good judgment). Click the button, and Sally Johnson's deranged nonsense will almost disappear into the background. A 6-point font would help too.

By Dirk Hartog (not verified) on 21 May 2009 #permalink

[#319: bi -- IJI | May 22, 2009 3:49 AM]

"A strong upward trend in temperatures in the last 30 years doesn't prove global warming.
However, a statistically insignificant upward trend in temperatures in the last 10 years does prove global cooling. If you dispute this, then you're being closed-minded."

Classic strawman.

I have never suggested, nor do I believe, that there is not a statistically significant upward trend in global temperatures for the 20th century. What is more, evidence suggests that CO2 is implicated.

However the "trend" from 1940 to 1976 and from 2000 to present holds information too. Ignore it at your peril.

Shorter Greig:

I don't deny that there was a strong warming trend in the last 30 years caused by CO2. However, the strong cooling trend from 1940--1970 suggests we should ask questions and ignore any answers given. (Aerosols? Nyah nyah nyah!) Ergo, we should do nothing about global warming.

[Posted by: bluegrue | May 22, 2009 4:09 AM]

"1. What is your range for climate sensitivity on doubling of CO2. You have so far danced around providing hard numbers in your arguments, using qualitative statements only (like e.g. with regard to the ups and downs in fig. 3.). Mine is the IPCC's: likely range 2°C to 4.5°C, best value 3°C. What's yours? "

Good question, I am a sucker for quantification.

I completely agree that the current IPCC documentation lead to the above figures. And I agree with them, assuming the current models are restricted to excluding advanced cloud theory, evaporative cooling effects, ocean circulation and mixing, and cyclical trans oceanic air pressure variation.

I believe that if you include the above factors they introduce negative feedbacks that will reduce the impact of CO2 dramatically, and so I believe a figure of 1 degC per doubling is more realistic.

I also believe that a warming of 1-2 deg per century will have almost no net negative impact on the environment (previous IPCC asseessment have reached this conclusion), and that as Plimer suggests such warming is well within the range of natural variation.

The science is not settled, we have a really, really long way to go before we have the answers quantified sufficiently to set good policy.

"2. Do you agree, that figure 3 in itself, as printed in Plimer's book, is doctored and that the deliberate inclusion of such a plot would constitute scientific misconduct? And don't give me your bizarre rationalization, that Plimer actually wanted to use Friis-Christensen/Lassen as figure 3. "

I have sent an email to Ian, and I am not going to respond to this until I get his response. Last email from him, he was in Adelaide airport, and curious as to how the science in his book was being questioned in this blog.

Shorter Greig:

The IPCC gives such and such estimates for climate sensitive, but I believe they're wrong. Therefore, the science isn't settled.

As for whether Plimer is guilty of scientific misconduct, I think I'll ask Plimer himself. Perfect logic!

[Posted by: bi -- IJI | May 22, 2009 4:19 AM]
"If solar and wind power are not cheap, then we should pretend that global warming isn't a problem."

When we KNOW global warming is a problem (ie results in a net negative impact relative to natural climate variation), we should reduce emissions.

If we determine that it is good policy to reduce emissions, it MUST be affordable both to western and developing countries.

In that case, perhaps we should consider nuclear, since renewables are MUCH more expensive, and emit more CO2. (References available on request)

[Posted by: bi -- IJI | May 22, 2009 4:42 AM]

"I don't deny that there was a strong warming trend in the last 30 years caused by CO2. However, the strong cooling trend from 1940--1970 suggests we should ask questions and ignore any answers given. (Aerosols? Nyah nyah nyah!) Ergo, we should do nothing about global warming."

There is a cooling trend from 1998-2008, and aerosols are not implicated. (nyah nyah nyah). So perhaps we should take a breath and pursue answers before making (unscientific) assumptions.

[Posted by: bi -- IJI | May 22, 2009 4:47 AM]

"The IPCC gives such and such estimates for climate sensitive, but I believe they're wrong. Therefore, the science isn't settled."

No. You BELIEVE they are right, and therefore the science is settled.

And as a sceptic, I have to say, that is not the way of science, which is to question and propose ideas that better match the observations.

How do you explain the temperature "trend" for the last 10 years. Noise? ROTFL.

How do you explain the temperature "trend" for the last 10 years. Noise? ROTFL.

Greig, you are getting the most basic facts wrong again and again and again.

the trend over the last 10 years is UP.

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/from:1999/plot/wti/from:1999/trend

it is perfectly consistent with theory.

Solar and wind get 6 TIMES the subsidies offered to coal. Myth Busted.

this is a completely flawed approach. in totals, a well established technology (fossile fuels) is getting significantly more subsidies, than the new energy. they do so, even though they cause significant external damage. (the repairs of which should be factored in as subsidies as well)

When we KNOW global warming is a problem (ie results in a net negative impact relative to natural climate variation), we should reduce emissions.

this is great. the same people, who deny that we can sum up temperature from the past, to get a trend of global means, want a perfect account of future effects, before they take action. classic.

Sally Johnson writes:

Looking at the anomolies:

0.473 (2003) > 0.447 (2004) < 0.482 (2005) > 0.422 (2006) > 0.405 (2007) > 0.323 (2008)

Appears to be a lot of global cooling according to the recorded data. Sound the ALARM!!!

Of course it went up in some years and down in other years, Sally. That doesn't mean anything. We're talking about the trend, which is still up. Please take an introductory course in statistics, or just google for the phrase "sample size."

The World Meteorological Organization defines climate as mean regional or global weather conditions over a period of 30 years or more. That's how long it generally takes to pick climate trends out of the weather noise.

Greig posts:

Throughout this thread, there is general agreement that a 10 year trend is weather (and proves nothing, so should be dismissed) yet a 30 year trend (eg from 1970 to 2000) is climate, and is very important. That is cherrypicking.

No, Greig, that is not "cherrypicking" [sic]. That is "having an adequate sample size." Will you PLEASE study a little introductory statistics.

Greig writes:

[Barton Paul Levenson] "Wind power is cheaper than coal or nuclear NOW."

Incorrect. Nuclear is much cheaper, including waste management and decommissioning.

Wind electricity currently costs 9 centers per kilowatt-hour in California. Coal costs 10, nuclear costs 15.

[Barton Paul Levenson] "And the "cost" of coal and oil doesn't factor in the damage they do to the environment, nor the threat they pose to collapse human agriculture through global warming."

Wow, collapse of agriculture? And they call me a troll?

Global warming will mean more drought in continental interiors, and the fresh water supplies to a billion people in Asia and Latin America will dry up. Ask the Australians, who have lost a third of their agricultural production to drought just in the last few years. Yes, global warming may cause the collapse of human agriculture. That's kind of why I want to stop it.

Greig writes:

In that case, perhaps we should consider nuclear, since renewables are MUCH more expensive, and emit more CO2.

Do the laws of physics operate differently in your parallel universe?

Greig wrote:
> I completely agree that the current IPCC documentation lead to the above figures. And I agree with them, assuming the current models are restricted to excluding advanced cloud theory, evaporative cooling effects, ocean circulation and mixing, and cyclical trans oceanic air pressure variation.

> I believe that if you include the above factors they introduce negative feedbacks that will reduce the impact of CO2 dramatically, and so I believe a figure of 1 degC per doubling is more realistic.

This believe is based on what research? Give cites to peer reviewed literature. The climate models do quite well in explaining the temperature record of the 20th and 21st century, there is little room for great new discoveries.

> I have sent an email to Ian, and I am not going to respond to this until I get his response.

I'm looking forward to read his defense of figure 3.

> How do you explain the temperature "trend" for the last 10 years. Noise? ROTFL.

Make your mind up. 10 years, i.e. 1999(!)-2008), which gives you a statistically not significant upwards trend, or your 11 year "need-to-include-1998" cherrypick? All of this has been pointed out to you. Ask yourself, what has become of the great [1987-1996 cooling](http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1880/to:2009/plot/gistemp…)? Never heard of that one? Oh, I just see, I was soooo unfair. You do not get the cooling 1998/1999 to present cooling if you use GISTEMP. Let's try again, using HadCrut (which excludes the polar regions). Relief, there is the [recent cooling again](http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1880/to:2009/plot/had…). Ooops, now we have lost the 1987-1996 cooling; pitty that, we barely knew you.

Richard #310
As bluegrue (#320) says, these are all columnists in the employ of Rupert Murdoch. In itself not a barrier to good journalism, but what is noteworthy is that they all share a similar âpositionâ on climate change, and all wrote pieces lauding Plimerâs recent... err, book.

Fianlly, to Richard, bluegrue (#320) and others, I apologise for:
1)Assuming an (almost) entirely Australian readership here and
2)Contributing to excessive ânoiseâ

I daresay the drugs will kick in soon...

By Steve Chamberlain (not verified) on 22 May 2009 #permalink

Point taken bluegure (and John),

I'll resist for a little longer between the posts

:)

By Janet Akerman (not verified) on 22 May 2009 #permalink

Re: #327 Greig

Last email from him, he was in Adelaide airport, and curious as to how the science in his book was being questioned in this blog.

Perhaps also ask him who paid for his airplane ticket. Adelaide University? The SA Government? Or maybe the Institute of Public Affairs and its donations from mining companies.

Also ask him how he sees his conduct with respect to the University of Adelaide code of conduct http://www.adelaide.edu.au/hr/policies/polbrowse/wkplrelations/code\_of\_conduct.pdf which requires, amongst other things, that commentary from academic staff should "observe the highest ethical and professional standards.".

Finally, ask him whether the financial rewards and media notoriety from publishing his book are worth the complete trashing of his professional reputation.

By Dirk Hartog (not verified) on 22 May 2009 #permalink

320 bluegrue,

It seemed obvious to me that 'Janet Akerman' was a parody, but the name meant nothing. It was only when I googled those names myself that I saw the connection.

(I'm in the UK, not Aus.)

By TrueSceptic (not verified) on 22 May 2009 #permalink

It is tiresome being lectured to by someone who can make such a basic scientific error.

This is exactly what professional climate scientists think about:

  1. denialists/ideologues
  2. lay people with 'gut-feelings'
  3. people with a 'teriary degree in science' who have read a couple of opinions but who have not critically analysed a comprehensive and representative body of literature using the appropriate methodologies
  4. 'emeritus' academics who presume that their expertise instantly transfers to fields outside their experience, and who use such to support/justify their own world views

The thing is, none of the people above actually know (or are willing to acknowledge) that they're in error; it is the beleaguered climate scientists who are inundated with the repeated basic errors of the denialist crowd.

If there is any doubt, consider how fervently the Plimer supporters ignore Plimer's many errors and distortions of science, or dismiss them as 'insignificant', where in any other context (e.g. the perceived errors in Mann's 'hockeystick') such would be rabidly pounced upon time and again.

"Basic scientific errors"? Indeed...

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 22 May 2009 #permalink

Shorter Greig:

I said 'I believe the IPCC's climate sensitivity is wrong'. This proves that the true unthinking believers are Global Warmists. I also believe that there is a cooling trend in the last 10 years. I don't have any calculations, but there's definitely a cooling trend.

Therefore, we should do nothing about global warming, unless it involves nuclear power (and possibly tax cuts, and DDT). Perfect logic!

I fell for Janet Akerman hook, line and sinker, as I lacked the necessary cultural background. Here are the people the names were taken from: Janet Albrechtsen, Tim Blair and Piers Akerman. They are conservative Australian journalists with vocal denialist stance. I've had to google these names myself to understand it. Dear Aussies, please play nice with us Non-Aussies.

Bluegrass (and Steve), thanks for the explanation. After I sent the e-mail I wondered if it was something like that, but it's been at least a couple of years (to the best of my knowledge) since I've seen an Australian and I've never seen The Australian. Still, I find the discussion of what they and others are doing is interesting.

By Richard Simons (not verified) on 22 May 2009 #permalink

Greig:
"However the "trend" from 1940 to 1976 and from 2000 to present holds information too. Ignore it at your peril."

The trend from 1940 to 1976 is 37 years - time enough to determine a robust trend. Those end points can be statistically supported by change point analyses - temperature trends had a statistically significant change at each of those dates. We have a mechanistic explanation. There is more in play than 'noise' or weather.

The period from 2000 until now is not yet 10 years. It is inadequate, given the noise in the record, to determine a statistically significant trend, much less one that is robust. The amount of noise in the system is expected on occasion to give this much deviation from the trend, for this long. And statistical change point analyses applied to the record do NOT find that 2000, or any year within 25 years of it, represents a change in the long term trend.

The only information the "trend" from 2000 (which is not a separate trend by any significant measure) holds, is that it is within what is expected from noise. Duh.

Greig # 330

When we KNOW global warming is a problem (ie results in a net negative impact relative to natural climate variation), we should reduce emissions.

Greig, that is a really interesting idea. How long will it take for us to stop AGW? And when will you âknowâ global warming is a problem?
Also Greig, do you think there is much more warming is calculated to be in the pipeline?
And do you reckon that worsening droughts, longer fire seasons, shrinking artic ice and warming implications for frozen methane might have some people thinking warming might already be a problem?

"I don't deny that there was a strong warming trend in the last 30 years caused by CO2. However, the strong cooling trend from 1940--1970 suggests we should ask questions and ignore any answers given. (Aerosols? Nyah nyah nyah!) Ergo, we should do nothing about global warming."

Ah! That would be the strong cooling trend from 1940 to 1970 in Plimerâs fake graph. So thatâs the reason Plimer wanted the fake data, so you cool say there was a strong cooling trend from 1940 to 1970. Even after so much exposure you still want to depend of the fraudulent data? I suggest you look at the [real data]( http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/04/the_science_is_missing_from_ia…) where the rapid rise in temp then rapid cooling finished before 1950 from whence warming recommenced.

There is a cooling trend from 1998-2008, and aerosols are not implicated. (nyah nyah nyah). So perhaps we should take a breath and pursue answers before making (unscientific) assumptions.

Did someone say unscientific assumptions? Iâll think you will find the literature does attribute aerosols with masking current warming. Its estimated to be masking about [40% of the warming]( http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/03/06/how-much-warming-in-the-pipeline-…).

By Mark Byrne (not verified) on 22 May 2009 #permalink

[Greig]
> However, the strong cooling trend from 1940--1970

I fully agree with Mark Byrne: What [___"strong"___](http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1880/to:2009/mean:12/plot…) cooling? Practically the same in [HadCrut](http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1880/to:2009/mean:12/…). Greig, get a [copy of the actual data](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif) and glue it over that weasly figure 3 in your book. It'll improve its value.

re: #323 Dirk

Peace. These are all complementary; I don't think killfiles are a replacement for moderators and user feedback.

Let me try again:

MODERATORS,READERSHIP, THE READER

1) Moderators need controls.

I think your graying out is worth trying, I think shadow threads are worth trying. I like the latter idea because it minimizes the number of lines on a screen, i.e., as something moved to shadow thread uses 1-2 lines, no matter how long the post was. (I sometimes read blogs on my iPhone, and some formats can be agonizing).

These sorts of things should be tried, as long as they are no more work for a moderator.

2) It's good for readers to have input (and both thumbs-up & thumbs-down), with input summarized. Care must be taken of course.

3) It's nice if readers have controls based on input from the above, i.e., "I trust this moderator, if they greyed one out, or moved it to a shadow, don't bother to show" or "if enough other readers have rated this post badly, don't show it to me".

4) It's nice to have killfiles, once one has decided there is no value, whatsoever, ever again, in seeing someone's posts. I just wish they worked as well as they did in the old USENET days (very difficult, of course).

HUMANS,RELEASE 1.0

We have higher bandwidth, more pixels, better graphics ...but we are still have Release 1.0 brains/visual systems, and strong limits on speeds of reading lexical tokens.

(This is why, in the programming world, I have long advocated writing code at the highest level (least tokens) feasible. See slide from 1977 Small is Beautiful talk, or maybe Hardware, software, wetware from 1996, findable in some college libraries.

Anyway, we humans are limited in our I/O rates, and it is all too easy for signal to be lost in noise, even without people doing it on purpose. We need every bit of help we can get to help us efficiently winnow grain from chaff, since:

Human Release 2.0 is far, far off...

By John Mashey (not verified) on 22 May 2009 #permalink

[Mark Byrne #347 ] *Greig, that is a really interesting idea. How long will it take for us to stop AGW?*

Humans cannot stop global warming or cooling, which occurs naturally. How long until we remove any potential anthopogenic influence on climate change? That answer depends on when there is international agreement to reduce greenhouse emissions. That is not going to happen soon.

[Mark Byrne ] *And when will you âknowâ global warming is a problem?*

Not when. **IF!** We do not know **IF** it is a problem. There needs to be proof that there will be a net negative impact.

This question raises the issue of the precautionary principle. The problem here is not that we take precautions, but that we may be choosing actions that are absurdly damaging (economically and environmentally) relative to the net negative impact we are trying to address. We need more information on the cost of AGW before we can quantify the actions we should take.

There are many very misinformed people who are using the climate change agenda to pick technological winners, like solar and wind power, on the basis of ideology rather than rationale. They also propose unilateral action on emissions control, without understanding the economic imbalance that this will cause.

[Mark Byrne ] *Also Greig, do you think there is much more warming is calculated to be in the pipeline?*

Based on what assumptions? Maybe, maybe not, the science isn't settled.

[Mark Byrne ] *And do you reckon that worsening droughts, longer fire seasons, shrinking artic ice and warming implications for frozen methane might have some people thinking warming might already be a problem?*

Worsening droughts are a problem that occur naturally.

See http://www.csiro.au/files/files/pofg.pdf
*Some as yet unidentified long-distance mechanism links sea-surface temperature changes in the tropical Pacific and Indian Oceans.*
and
*The Indian Ocean Dipole (IOD) is an oceanographic phenomenon affecting climate in the Indian Ocean region.
The IOD involves an aperiodic oscillation of sea-surface temperatures, between "positive" and "negative" phases. A positive phase sees greater-than-average sea-surface temperatures and greater precipitation in the western Indian Ocean region, with a corresponding cooling of waters in the eastern Indian Oceanâwhich tends to cause droughts in adjacent land areas of Indonesia and Australia.*

Bushfires are a natural part of living in Australia. Problems arising from fires result from a failure of managing the process of living with the environment. The idea that reducing CO2 will reduce fire damage is ridiculous.

Melting arctic ice does not impact directly on the biosphere, unless you believe any of that nonsense about polar bears. If arctic ice is melting, it is a phenomenon that may result in a positive feedback on warming (changed albedo). But the process is not yet observed over a long enough timeframe to quantify.

The melting of frozen methane also does not directly impact the biosphere, but like changed albedo may also be a positive feedback, but again we have not been measuring this effect for long enough to determine if it is a significant trend.

So you raise the untested and unquantified feedback mechanisms, but declare the negative feedback mechanisms that I postulate as irrelevant.

And what about all the good things that arise from warming? Longer growing seasons, opening up new agricultural resources, higher crop yields, etc. It is all in the IPCC peer-reviewed documentation.

The science is not settled.

re: 1945-1980ish cooling

1) Recall that Mt. Pinataubo's colling effects were well-predicted by the models of the time.

2) Put together:

GISS temperature, especially Northern Hemispher, where most sulfate aerosols are generated.

and

Historical sulfur dioxide emissions 1850-2000, especially Figure 3, and focus on N. American + Europe (and maybe E Asia) from 1945 to 1975/1980.

By John Mashey (not verified) on 22 May 2009 #permalink

[Greig] *I believe that if you include the above factors they introduce negative feedbacks that will reduce the impact of CO2 dramatically, and so I believe a figure of 1 degC per doubling is more realistic.*

[bluegrue] *This believe is based on what research? Give cites to peer reviewed literature.*

Which part of **the science is not settled** don't you understand?

[bluegrue] *The climate models do quite well in explaining the temperature record of the 20th and 21st century, there is little room for great new discoveries.*

Nonsense on both counts. Why do you think the IPCC places so much variation in the climate predictions?

What is more, NASA's Roy Spencer has theorized [here](http://climatesci.org/2008/04/22/internal-radiative-forcing-and-the-ill…) that temperature trends for the last 100 years can be modelled by using only internal radiative forcing mechanisms eg ocean mixing/circulation and cyclical air pressure variations and to a confidence factor of .96 ! Spencer acknowledges (as do I) that CO2 may still be implicated, but...

*Based upon the evidence, it seems likely that the neglect of sources of internal radiative forcing has resulted in diagnosed feedbacks which give the illusion of a climate system that is more sensitive than it really is. This has then led to the development of climate models which produce too much global warming in response to the external radiative forcing caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions.*

**The science is not settled.**

Greig @ 350

Mark Byrne #347 ] Greig, that is a really interesting idea. How long will it take for us to stop AGW?
Humans cannot stop global warming or cooling, which occurs naturally. How long until we remove any potential anthopogenic influence on climate change? That answer depends on when there is international agreement to reduce greenhouse emissions. That is not going to happen soon.

Greig, now that youâve answered you own straw man question, go back and address the question I asked.

[Mark Byrne ] And when will you âknowâ global warming is a problem?
Not when. IF! We do not know IF it is a problem. There needs to be proof that there will be a net negative impact.
This question raises the issue of the precautionary principle. The problem here is not that we take precautions, but that we may be choosing actions that are absurdly damaging (economically and environmentally) relative to the net negative impact we are trying to address. We need more information on the cost of AGW before we can quantify the actions we should take.
There are many very misinformed people who are using the climate change agenda to pick technological winners, like solar and wind power, on the basis of ideology rather than rationale. They also propose unilateral action on emissions control, without understanding the economic imbalance that this will cause.

Again Greig, now that youâve answered you own straw man question, go back and address the question I asked, replace when with if (if you like).

[Mark Byrne ] Also Greig, do you think there is much more warming is calculated to be in the pipeline?
Based on what assumptions? Maybe, maybe not, the science isn't settled.

Except I link to science and you just say whatever you like.

[Mark Byrne ] And do you reckon that worsening droughts, longer fire seasons, shrinking artic ice and warming implications for frozen methane might have some people thinking warming might already be a problem?
Worsening droughts are a problem that occur naturally.
See http://www.csiro.au/files/files/pofg.pdf Some as yet unidentified long-distance mechanism links sea-surface temperature changes in the tropical Pacific and Indian Oceans. and The Indian Ocean Dipole (IOD) is an oceanographic phenomenon affecting climate in the Indian Ocean region. The IOD involves an aperiodic oscillation of sea-surface temperatures, between "positive" and "negative" phases. A positive phase sees greater-than-average sea-surface temperatures and greater precipitation in the western Indian Ocean region, with a corresponding cooling of waters in the eastern Indian Oceanâwhich tends to cause droughts in adjacent land areas of Indonesia and Australia.

Except worse droughts, worse floods, worse fires, shrinking ice etc are predicted by the enhanced greenhouse effect. Ocean phenomena are also consistent with a rapid forced change in the climate.

Bushfires are a natural part of living in Australia. Problems arising from fires result from a failure of managing the process of living with the environment. The idea that reducing CO2 will reduce fire damage is ridiculous.

Nice dodge Greig, I said longer fire seasons. Longer fire season are caused by longer season with high temperature and less rain. Interesting to see what you see as ridiculous though.

Melting arctic ice does not impact directly on the biosphere⦠If arctic ice is melting, it is a phenomenon that may result in a positive feedback on warming (changed albedo). But the process is not yet observed over a long enough timeframe to quantify.

You really contradicted yourself there.

The melting of frozen methane also does not directly impact the biosphere, but like changed albedo may also be a positive feedback, but again we have not been measuring this effect for long enough to determine if it is a significant trend.

And another contradiction, in the same sentence even. I guess the biosphere must be unconnected to the climate in your thinking.

So you raise the untested and unquantified feedback mechanisms, but declare the negative feedback mechanisms that I postulate as irrelevant.

Yeah, except the mechanism I describe are described as present risk in the literature. Your mechanism are currently just hopes with current estimates being negative feedback will take thousands of years to overcome the Enhanced Greenhouse Effect.

And what about all the good things that arise from warming? Longer growing seasons, opening up new agricultural resources, higher crop yields, etc. It is all in the IPCC peer-reviewed documentation.

Oh Iâve read it, and so I know the gains are only regional and even those peter out by the end of the century. In the mean time no banana for the most vulnerable on the planet.
Grieg I noticed you didnât want to talk about âthe strong cooling trend between 1940 and 1970â Why is that?
By Mark Byrne (not verified) on 22 May 2009 #permalink

Greig writes: *In that case, perhaps we should consider nuclear, since renewables are MUCH more expensive, and emit more CO2.*

In a fit of outrage Barton Paul Levenson writes: *Do the laws of physics operate differently in your parallel universe?*

Barton, your assumption that nuclear power produces more indirect CO2 than solar and wind power is based on assumption and prejudice and not demonstrable fact.

See [here](http://www.world-nuclear.org/education/comparativeco2.html):

Indirect emissions per grams CO2/kWh

Solar PV 100-280

Wind 10-48

Nuclear 9-21

Source IAEA 2000, Vattenfall 1999, Vattenfall's life cycle studies of electricity, also energy data 2000.

**Myth busted!**

[Byrne] *I guess the biosphere must be unconnected to the climate in your thinking.*

By *impact* on the biosphere, I mean demostrable harm to flora and fauna. I thought that was obvious, but perhaps not.

Changing climate, whether natural or anthropogenic, does not necessarily harm flora and fauna. Perhaps this is a novel concept to you?

As for responding to the rest of your post, I don't see the strawman arguments that you see. I have pointed out how much of the observed environmental changes are linked to natural phenomenon.

And I have also shown how your claims of major positive feedback are not yet observed for long periods (yet are in the literature), yet other similar negative feedback phenomenon are ignored (and not in the literature) and that this leads to the conclusion that ... wait for it...

**the science is not settled!!!**

Greig has a mantra:

The science is not settled.

Amongst climatologists, it is just about as settled as anything in science can be.

I am curious as to why you, a person with no qualifications in climatology (just as Plimer is, by the way) believes that you know better than those trained and working professionally in the field.

And here's a challenge for you - prove your point using the science's professional literature, and not the blog sites of ideologues.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 22 May 2009 #permalink

#352
Greig, don't expect anyone to take you serious, if you respond to a request for peer-reviewed literature to substantiate your argument by shouting "___The science is not settled___"

> Nonsense on both counts.

Wrong. You obviously need to read up, here's a starter:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm

Spencer's article is over a year old. That's more than enough time to publish his findings in a peer-reviewed journal, however Spencer decided not to do so. Science is not done on blogs, I'll wait for the paper.

Greig, stop being a fool. You just claimed that potential soruces of negative feedback are ignored. What the hell do you thin are the hottest areas of research in climate modeling right now? Cloud dynamics is right up there.

No, clouds are not fully understood - but they are not complete mystery, either. We have physical constraints on possibilities, form theory and models, and from real world observations. We know enough to limit the possible range of effects, and we know that there is not enough negative cloud feedback available to substantially offset the water vapor / albedo feedbacks.

Be also have estimates of sensitivity from non-model-based studies - relating calculated changes in solar forcing to the temperature changes at glacial-interglacial transitions, for example - and all those studies converge on a value of 3C / 2xCO2. A sensitivity of 1 doesnt allow glacial transitions.

Your belief, not supported with any studies, but only with a shouted 'the science is not settled' is unscientific. Please at least be honest enough to admit you don't care what the science says, you just want to believe what you believe..

Greig #322:
Solar and wind get 6 TIMES the subsidies offered to coal.
Myth Busted.

Well I don't think so, but I'll get back to you on that later.

In the meantime, I can't see how you can justify taking $$ subsidy figures for one Australian state ONLY and apply those to ALL power generation figures across the country. I'm not saying you CANNOT, just that you have not justified your assumption that you can. Secondly, governments have been subsidising the fossil fuels industries a lot longer than renewables, so if we are to build the capacity of wind, solar etc. we need to stump up the readies and stop using the investment costs as an excuse to do SFA. As the ATSE (your link above) states in a submission to the Garnaut review (http://www.atse.org.au/uploads/GarETSCP.pdf)

"In Australia the coal sector is advantaged in relation to other energy sectors in terms of government support. Thus the technology âplaying fieldâ is already tilted.... The absence of coordinated and consistent government assistance to low-carbon energy sources, by comparison with the coal industry, effectively creates an additional hurdle for these energy sources as they try to gain a foothold in the market..."

Finally, irrespective of whether your assertion about relative subsidy levels is right or wrong, it still doesn't account for the true costs of fossil fuel extraction and use. Leaving aside contributions to GHGs, the costs of fossil fuel extraction and use must account for loss of biodiversity, loss of otherwise productive land, pollution (waterways, air, soil), rehabilitation of land once mining becomes economically unviable and so on â as Barton Paul Levenson and others explain above. As Riedy (Inst. Sustainable Futures, UTS 2003 at http://www.isf.uts.edu.au/publications/CR_2003_paper.pdf) discovered, subsidies to the fossil fuel industries in 2001/2 were about AU$9bn, and thatâs just the identifiable portion. Riedy concludes:
âThe public funds currently used to subsidise fossil fuel production and consumption could justifiably be used to subsidise the emerging sustainable energy industry, as establishment of this industry would constitute a public good.â

IMO we cannot afford to continue as we are on the basis that itâs all too hard to change, and it will all cost too much. This myopic, money-is-all outlook is what helped get us where we are now, and will do nothing but create significant costs (economic, social and environmental) for future generations.

By Steve Chamberlain (not verified) on 22 May 2009 #permalink

[Bernard J.] *Amongst climatologists, it is just about as settled as anything in science can be.*

That depends on whether you are talking about the connection between CO2 and climate being real, or if you are talking about predicting climate change catastrophe. The former is generally agreed, the latter definitely not.

There are literally thousands of scientists in relevant fields (climatology, geology, paleoclimatology, etc) who strongly disagree with the IPCC4A, and they ARE qualified to have an opinion. Kinninmonth, Spencer, Lindzen ... just a few names that spring to mind.

Do you read the IPCC literature? Do you not see the caveats, the caution over errors, the variations in predictions? *"as settled as anything in science can be"*? The mind boggles!

[bluegrue] *Spencer's article is over a year old. That's more than enough time to publish his findings in a peer-reviewed journal, however Spencer decided not to do so. Science is not done on blogs, I'll wait for the paper.*

Firstly Spencer's paper has been submitted for peer review. I expect it will be published soon.

Secondly, I find it remarkable how so many people are wedded to the peer review process, and yet hang their hats off predictions of climate catastrophe in the IPCC Assessments that have not passed peer review, but that have essentially been selected by a vote of hands, and the decision of very few individuals.

[Steve Chamberlain] *IMO we cannot afford to continue as we are on the basis that itâs all too hard to change, and it will all cost too much. This myopic, money-is-all outlook is what helped get us where we are now, and will do nothing but create significant costs (economic, social and environmental) for future generations.*

So, forget the cost to consumers, forget the impact on industry, jobs, etc.

Your view is we should select energy technology for ideological reasons.

I rest my case.

[Lee] *Greig, stop being a fool. You just claimed that potential soruces of negative feedback are ignored. What the hell do you thin are the hottest areas of research in climate modeling right now? Cloud dynamics is right up there.*

Of course, I know that. I mean that the fact that these issues are still to be concluded upon, is not making its way through to policy makers.

And I really strongly disagree with your view that even including these issues, that climate sensitivity will remain unchanged, and will settle on 3degC/doubling. What is more, I cannot stress enough the importance of getting this right, because if the sensitivity is more like 1-1.5degC per doubling, then current policy direction is seriously WRONG, and we will be hamstrung with decisions that will cause enormous long-term damage to the environment and economy.

But we'll just have to agree to disagree there, because ... well you know ...

Greig #350:
Bushfires are a natural part of living in Australia. Problems arising from fires result from a failure of managing the process of living with the environment. The idea that reducing CO2 will reduce fire damage is ridiculous.

And your substantiation for this assertion is....?
Read Hennessy et al 2005 (http://www.cmar.csiro.au/e-print/open/hennessykj_2005b.pdf) or summary at: http://www.csiro.au/science/Climate-Change-Fire-Weather.html
The study found that the increase in fire-weather risk [under is generally largest inland. The combined frequencies of days with very high and extreme Forest Fire Danger Index ratings are likely to increase in south-east Australia by:
â¢4â25 per cent by 2020
â¢15â70 per cent by 2050.

So the Bushfire CRC and CSIRO are being âridiculousâ?

Greig #355:
Changing climate, whether natural or anthropogenic, does not necessarily harm flora and fauna.

And #350:
And what about all the good things that arise from warming? Longer growing seasons, opening up new agricultural resources, higher crop yields, etc.

And what about increasing desertification, increased bushfire (Hennessy 2005), increased drought (Hennessy 2004, 2005), erratic rainfall patterns, loss of alpine habitats, lack of opportunities for movement of flora and fauna due to reduced areas of suitable habitat (due to warming climate, land clearing, loss of corridors and links due to climate change and land clearing), sea level rise inundating sensitive coastal ecosystems (fish hatcheries, migratory bird habitats) and inundating low-lying fertile agricultural lands yada yada yada????

How about doing some reading first, or would you rather just blather the first thing that wanders into your head?

Hughes, 2003 (Austral Ecology (2003) 28, 423â443
Quote from abstract:
Future impacts [of climate change] on particular ecosystems include increased forest growth, alterations in competitive regimes between C3 and C4 grasses, increasing encroachment of woody shrubs into arid and semiarid rangelands, continued incursion of mangrove communities into freshwater wetlands, increasing frequency of coral bleaching, and establishment of woody species at increasingly higher elevations in the alpine zone. Modelling of potential impacts on specific Australian taxa using bioclimatic analysis programs such as BIOCLIM consistently predicts contraction and/or fragmentation of speciesâ current ranges. The bioclimates of some species of plants and vertebrates are predicted to disappear entirely with as little as 0.5â1.0C of warming.

Fitzpatrick et al 2008 (Global Change Biology 14; pp1-16): "Climate change, plant migration, and range collapse in a global biodiversity hotspot: the Banksia (Proteaceae) of Western Australiaâ
Quote:
Across all climate_migration scenarios, 66% of species were projected to decline, whereas only 6% were projected to expand or remain stable. Between 5% and 25% of species were projected to suffer range losses of 100% by 2080, depending mainly on climate scenario. Species losses were driven primarily by changes in current precipitation regimes, with the greatest losses of species projected to occur in a transition zone between wet coastal areas and interior arid regions and which is projected to become more arid in the future. Because the ranges of most species tended to collapse in all climate scenarios, we found that climate change impacts to flora of southwestern Western Australia may be large, even under optimistic assumptions regarding migration abilities.

Was this what you had in mind when you say âWhat about all the good things?â

By Steve Chamberlain (not verified) on 22 May 2009 #permalink

Greig:

There are literally thousands of scientists in relevant fields (climatology, geology, paleoclimatology, etc) who strongly disagree with the IPCC4A, and they ARE qualified to have an opinion.

and the best that Greig can come up with out of these "literally thousands" are:

Kinninmonth, Spencer, Lindzen ... just a few names that spring to mind.

Care to name any properly reviewed paper that any of these three have published that contradicts the IPCC's view of global climate sensitivity?

By Chris O'Neill (not verified) on 22 May 2009 #permalink

Greig #361:
Your view is we should select energy technology for ideological reasons
So, forget the cost to future generations, forget the impact on future industry, jobs, food production and society, forget fires, storms, rising sea levels, droughts and biodiversity loss.

Your view is we should sit here and do nothing for no good reason.

Brilliant.

By Steve Chamberlain (not verified) on 22 May 2009 #permalink

Shorter Greig:

T3H SCIENZ IZ NOT S3TTL3D!!!!1111111!!!!!!oneoneone I said 'I believe that the IPCC is wrong'. Now, this'll ordinarily mean that I'm an unthinking believer of stuff, but after a bit of thinking, I mean unthinking, I discovered that "I believe" is the "E = mc²" of Liberal Fascism, which means the real unthinking believers are the Global Warmists.

Also, I 100% enthusiastically embrace nuclear power, and I think subsidizing other kinds of alternative energy is simply Wrong Wrong Wrong. Again, this'l ordinarily make me an unthinking believer... but I found that "I â¥â¥â¥ NUCUL3R POW3R!!!" is really the "F = ma" of Liberal Fascism, which means -- once more -- that the real unthinking believers are the Global Warmists.

[Steve Chamberlain] *So, forget the cost to future generations, forget the impact on future industry, jobs, food production and society, forget fires, storms, rising sea levels, droughts and biodiversity loss.*

Steve, you are leaping to the false conclusion that renewable energy will be a good solution to resolve those issues. I beg to differ.

*Your view is we should sit here and do nothing for no good reason.*

Is that my view? Thanks for advising.

Greig, by the way, do you still think that Plimer's, um, intended graph might have come from a research paper written in Tibetan and published in an obscurely prestigious Basque journal called Euskara Klimazientzia? And not from Martin Durkin?

> Greig: There are literally thousands of scientists in relevant fields (climatology, geology, paleoclimatology, etc) who strongly disagree with the IPCC4A, and they ARE qualified to have an opinion.

What's that nasty, moldy smell? Hmmm...could it be...

[THE OREGON PETITION???](http://www.oism.org/pproject/)

aaaarrrggghhh!!

Greig #365
Steve, you are leaping to the false conclusion that renewable energy will be a good solution to resolve those issues.

And your evidence that an untrammelled reliance on fossil fuels will sort these issues out is... where?

Back to Greig @ #361:
So, forget the cost to consumers, forget the impact on industry, jobs, etc.
Your view is we should select energy technology for ideological reasons.
I rest my case.

Greig, if you want to ârest your caseâ on an inference, be my guest. If it makes your life easier to say that my principles and those of people like me are mere ideology, it is your right to do so. But I'm not the only numpty in the world who gets to see environmental havoc most days of the week and who is convinced there are less damaging ways of living a good life.
"Nowadays people know the price of everything and the value of nothing." (Wilde)

By Steve Chamberlain (not verified) on 22 May 2009 #permalink

Sorry guys, but Greig is right on one point - the science is not settled!!!

But it's only trivially true.

the science is not settled!!!- TM, on a whole lot of things. Like the human body. We still aren't sure how the brain works, we still don't fully understand even something as simple as pain.

Thankfully, the next time you go to hospital you'll be spared the terrifying possibility of being treated by Dr 'the science is not settled!!!' Greig who would refuse you treatment on the grounds that....well, you know.....

*And your evidence that an untrammelled reliance on fossil fuels will sort these issues out is... where?*

Strawman. I never made such a claim.
What I do believe is that it is better for the global environment to bring as many people up to Western living standards as fast as possible, and that low-cost energy is critical in achieving that. I therefore believe gas, hydro, and nuclear are the most important energy technologies for the next century.

*Was this what you had in mind when you say âWhat about all the good things?*

Actually ...

[Climate change may help rainforests](http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article2500…)

[Climate results in fewer deaths from cold](http://news.scotsman.com/climatechange/Climate-change-is-good-for.28144…)

[Climate change is good for birds](http://royalsociety.org/news.asp?year=&id=1688)

[Sea Levels](http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA551_Climate_Change_Sea_Levels_0307.html)

[Moderate increases in temperature and nitrogen from atmospheric pollution actually improve forest productivity.
](http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/10/081021214850.htm)

etc etc etc.

There are literally hundreds of such studies.

*What's that nasty, moldy smell? Hmmm...could it be...
THE OREGON PETITION???
aaaarrrggghhh!!*

Yet another strawman (I have lost count now). Actually I was referring to the [Bali Open Letter](http://ivo.co.za/2007/12/14/bali-100-scientists-appeal-for-reason/) amongst other things.

Does anyone here seriously think that every qualified scientist in the world agrees with IPCC 4th Assessment? Really? Some I know refuse to endorse it purely on the basis that it was written under the process of consensus. It is a seriously flawed document.

Greig writes:

Secondly, I find it remarkable how so many people are wedded to the peer review process, and yet hang their hats off predictions of climate catastrophe in the IPCC Assessments that have not passed peer review, but that have essentially been selected by a vote of hands, and the decision of very few individuals.

The IPCC report is a review OF the peer-reviewed literature. Have you even read it?

Greig said "There are literally thousands of scientists in relevant fields (climatology, geology, paleoclimatology, etc) who strongly disagree with the IPCC4A, and they ARE qualified to have an opinion."

and

"Yet another strawman (I have lost count now). Actually I was referring to the Bali Open Letter amongst other things."

Please tell us how many of the signatories of the Bali letter are from the fields of "climatology, geology and palaeoclimatology" (or does "etc" include social science, mechanical engineering and economics?). Does Nigel Lawson (who was Chancellor of the Exchequer in Margaret Thatcher's government of the late 1980's) count in your world, as he is included as a signatory? Even if you somehow manage to count them all, please also let us know where the remaining 1900 (to make "thousands") "scientists in relevant fields (climatology, geology, paleoclimatology, etc)" are listed.

You have stated in relation to the Oregon petition "Yet another strawman", so clearly this is not included in the "etc".

John Mashey:
2) It's good for readers to have input (and both thumbs-up & thumbs-down), with input summarized. Care must be taken of course.

I agree, something like digg/slashdot would be good, where if the average is below a certain threshold, the post is hidden, and can be expanded with javascript. Could also color posts above a certain threshold to mark them as worth reading.

That's always the problem with running your blog on someone else's setup - you can't modify/expand the codebase

Greig:
If arctic ice is melting, it is a phenomenon that may result in a positive feedback on warming (changed albedo). But the process is not yet observed over a long enough timeframe to quantify.

Greig: how long is long enough for you? We have good measurements stretching back decades, and decent ones stretching back a lot further.

Greig
the science is not settled!!!

No, of course it isn't. We also don't know what matter is made of, or what gravity actually is, and we sure as hell know bugger all about economics. But in most of those fields, what we do "know" is a pretty good approximation to reality. That's all science ever is. That's all it ever can and will be.

Climate science is currently a decent approximation to reality. We certainly have no competing hypotheses that are any where near as good. Until we do, it seems best to use what knowledge we have, and that seems to work reasonably well: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Climate%5FChange%5FAttribution.png http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=1187…

Shorter Greig:

The IPCC is wrong. Why? Because I believe the IPCC is wrong. This shows, again, that the true unthinking believers are the Global Warmists.

And, the globe is cooling, and global warming is good for the planet. Last but not least, 100 scientists = thousands of scientists.

My logic is perfect.

Greig #41

Tim, rather than call Plimer a liar over the sourcing of the graph, please advise: what is you point? Is the conclusion that Plimer reaches regarding the graph correct, or not. If not, what does the graph really look like, and why is Plimer's conclusion therefore wrong.

To be honest, accusing Plimer of lying sounds hysterical and very unprofessional. Even worse, considering it looks likely that Durkin and Plimer appear to have used the same source, Klimafakten (originally from Euskara Klimazientzia), exactly as Plimer says, ie he wasn't lying but simply mistaken about the year of publication (2000 rather than 2001).

Greig #187

â¦Accusing Plimer of lying sounds hysterical and very unprofessional. Even worse, considering it looks likely that Durkin and Plimer appear to have used the same source, Klimafakten (originally from Euskara Klimazientzia), exactly as Plimer says, ie he wasn't lying but simply mistaken about the year of publication (2000 rather than 2001).

Greig #48

On P25 of H+E, Plimer uses the figure 3 graph to make the following point:
Fig 3: Thermometer temperature measurements in the 20th Century showing both cooling and warming. The cooling was during and after WW2 industrialization emitted increasingly large amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. The 20th Century like any other time period was one of both warming and cooling.

â¦
I stand by what I said. The claim that Ian Plimer is a liar sounds hysterical and unprofessional. This is compounded by the fact that the source of the graph is irrelevant to Plimerâs case, and makes it appear you are clutching at straws to demonise Plimer, rather than debate the conclusions that he is drawing. Are we debating climate change, or are we playing the man? I maintain, this blog is dedicated to the latter.

Greig #52

None of what you have said contradicts Plimer's statement: "Thermometer temperature measurements in the 20th Century showing both cooling and warming. The cooling was during and after WW2 industrialization emitted increasingly large amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. The 20th Century like any other time period was one of both warming and cooling."

Plimer did NOT make the point that the "cooling was substantial". That is a fabrication on your part.

Greig #325

However the [cooling] "trend" from 1940 to 1976 and from 2000 to present holds information too. Ignore it at your peril.

Greig #86

[Mark Byrne] "Grieg, your proposition doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Plimer used Durkin's chart to show the scale of warming and cooling. In Plimer's fake data the warming and cooling look only a little different. The the real data warming far out weighs cooling. The fake equivalence between warming and cooling couldn't be made with the real data."

Plimer does NOT draw any conclusion on the scale of warming and cooling, and the "fake equivalence between warming and cooling" is a strawman that you have fabricated.

Greig #190

â¦I cannot verify whether Plimer was honest in stating that the figure comes from Klimafakten. Can you? If not, you do not have the right to make assumptions.
But all this nonsense completely misses the point. Plimer does not draw any conclusion form the graph other than to state the OBVIOUS, that there has been warming and cooling during the 20th century. So why does it matter where he got the graph?

Greig #67

If you read Plimers statement with regard to figure 3, this is all he is saying, no more, no less. He is simply drawing attention to the fact that there are many factors at work.

Greig #59

⦠[i] So Greig, would you say that on your reading of H+E, your impression was that "The 20th Century, like any other time period, was one of both warming and cooling." implied that the cooling was A) comparable to the warming, B), more significant than the warming, or C), less significant than the warming? [/i]

Plimer has made no such implication, one way or the other. And it is irrelevant to the point that Plimer is making, which is that CO2 levels do not correlate strongly with global temperature. ie on the basis of this alone the hypothesis is falsified. Observed global warming during the last 100 years cannot be explained by the increase of GHGs alone.

Greig #193

⦠the fig 3 graph could be replaced with any of the graphs that have been deemed correct on this thread, and Plimer's conclusion would still be correct. Therefore the source of and accuracy of the graph is irrelevant to Plimer's argument.
Now if Plimer had drawn a conclusion about the start and end date of periods of cooling, or that the cooling was large compared to the warming, then I would be baying for blood along with the rest of you. But he didn't make any such claim.

Greig #325

However the [cooling] "trend" from 1940 to 1976 and from 2000 to present holds information too. Ignore it at your peril.

Greig #216

My hat is off to bluegrue for doing the research, he beat me to it. It appears that Plimer has got his sourcing wrong, exactly as Lambert has said.

However, on viewing fig 2.9, it seems that all Plimer had to do was use that graph and it would have illustrated his point even better than the graph he actually showed.

So its pretty obvious what has happened. Plimer had intended the Friis-Christensen and Lassen (1991), temperature and solar cycle length graph to be at fig 3. In Durkin's words "There was a fluff there".

Greig #294

[Dave] "So... why not use a graph that actually covers the last ten years, namely a plot of 1999-2008? Give me one good reason that an argument for a temperature trend over a period of ten years would not be bolstered by a graph actually covering those ten years unders discussion."

I have seen plots that include the period 1998 - 2008, and in my opinion they strengthen the view that there is cooling over the last 10 years. However, you also have to explain the massive El Nino in 1998, which is a weather event, and that complicates the matter somewhat. I can only assume that Plimer did not want to show 1998, because it would confuse the issue of weather and climate. And Plimer's book focusses on periods of thousands and millions of years.

Throughout this thread, there is general agreement that a 10 year trend is weather (and proves nothing, so should be dismissed) yet a 30 year trend (eg from 1970 to 2000) is climate, and is very important. That is cherrypicking. All data is important in attaining an understanding of climate change.

Greig, great misrepresentation
>[Climate change is good for birds](http://royalsociety.org/news.asp?year=&id=1688)

The actual title: "Climate change good for the Birds?"
Excerpts from the article
>This long-term study suggests that effects of global warming are complex. "We believe that short distance migrants may benefit from global warming through higher reproduction and shorter migration," explains Dr. Jenni. "In contrast, trans-Saharan migrants may not gain the same benefits. Global warming could thus be a serious threat to some long-distance migrants and one reason for the recent decline of such species in Europe."
>...
>This long-term study suggests that effects of global warming are complex. "We believe that short distance migrants may benefit from global warming through higher reproduction and shorter migration," explains Dr. Jenni. "In contrast, trans-Saharan migrants may not gain the same benefits. Global warming could thus be a serious threat to some long-distance migrants and one reason for the recent decline of such species in Europe."

So actually the scientists find that there is a shift, where short distance migrants may benefit at the cost of long distance migrants. I read this as a possible loss of biodiversity in Europe.

So not only does Greig turn a question into a statement, he also only cherrypicks, that short distant migrants may benefit, glossing over the accompanied disadvantages to long distant migrants.

The "fewer deaths from cold" is of course Lomborg recycled, "sea levels" comes from a think tank and improved forest productivity reads:
> He's found that the trees grow faster at higher temperatures and store more carbon at greater concentrations of nitrogen, a chemical constituent of acid rain, providing there is sufficient moisture.

>"It may well be that increasing temperature and nitrogen deposition are good things, up to a point," Burton said.

Greig, do you actually read what you are linking to, or do you expect nobody to check the stuff, so that you get away with your misrepresentation? For someone claiming tertiary qualification in a scientific field, you are playing very fast and loose with your sources. Ever heard of codes of conduct? Let's have a look at the [American Physical Society's Guidelines for Professional Conduct](http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/02_2.cfm), emphasis added :
> Fabrication of data or ___selective reporting of data with the intent to mislead or deceive is an egregious departure from the expected norms of scientific conduct___, as is the theft of data or research results from others.

Greig #187

it looks likely that Durkin and Plimer appear to have used the same source, Klimafakten (originally from Euskara Klimazientzia)

I can't find Euskara Klimazientzia on google (I'm guessing it means "Basque Climate Science"?). Know where I can find a reference?

>> What's that nasty, moldy smell? Hmmm...could it be... THE OREGON PETITION??? aaaarrrggghhh!!

> Greig: Yet another strawman (I have lost count now). Actually I was referring to the Bali Open Letter amongst other things.

Ah. But you said thousands, didn't you? The Bali letter had an order of magnitude fewer than that, didn't it?

Since the only list of purported "skeptics" that runs to thousands I know of is the OP, I naturally presumed that's what you meant.

Where is your reference documenting "thousands?"

Ray #264

Any investor should know, if there's uncertainty about the product, you hesitate about investing, and you certainly don't put all your eggs in one basket.

Interesting Ray, how would you divide you eggs on the response to climate change? Using your investing analogy, is Plimer the equivalent of [Bernie Madoff?]( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Madoff)

Dan L.

don't waste time hunting down that journal. It was invented in a scathing, hilarious satire by [Marion Delgado #28](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/05/ian_plimer_lies_about_source_o…) on this very page. Greig immediately parroted it, taking it for truth and obviously without doing the simplest background checks, typical pseudo-skeptic fashion. Observa's collection a few posts up shows you just how imaginative and frantic Greig becomes, when it comes to defending Plimer on figure 3.

naught101,

my previous comment was meant for you.

Some Greig translations and propagations:

Short, intense drought causes increased greenness becomes:

Climate change may help rainforests

Warming results in fewer deaths from cold in Scotland and more deaths from heat in somewhat warmer countries becomes:

Climate (change) results in fewer deaths from cold

A paper in 2003 saying climate change is good for some birds and bad for others becomes:

Climate change is good for birds

The IPCC separates sea level rise forecast into non-ice-cap and ice-cap caused becomes:

Sea Levels (won't rise as fast as previous statement)

Moderate increases in temperature in a cold climate and nitrogen from atmospheric pollution actually improve forest productivity becomes:

Moderate increases in temperature and nitrogen from atmospheric pollution actually improve forest productivity.

By Chris O'Neill (not verified) on 23 May 2009 #permalink

383 bluegrue,

Indeed. Marion has a great gift for satire. I've nearly been caught out myself.

By TrueSceptic (not verified) on 23 May 2009 #permalink

297 Greig,

"You all, including Tim Lambert, should be ashamed of the way you conduct yourselves in this public forum. It is hypocritical, disrespectful, indulgent and rude. I am quite glad I don't know any of you personally."

I missed that earlier. Let me say that the feeling is mutual. I wouldn't trust you to give simple directions or the time of day.

By TrueSceptic (not verified) on 23 May 2009 #permalink

I like killfiles heaps, and it's the reason I never look at anything that can use them in anything but Firefox.

The idea that there's a difference between the noncommunicative spamming of the same old crap 100x per post and Viagra spam leaves me cold.

By Marion Delgado (not verified) on 23 May 2009 #permalink

*Thankfully, the next time you go to hospital you'll be spared the terrifying possibility of being treated by Dr 'the science is not settled!!!' Greig who would refuse you treatment on the grounds that....well, you know.....*

Yet ANOTHER strawman. Refuse treatment? At what point have I ever expressed the view that we should do nothing? Why are you attributing arguments to me, that I have never expressed? Are you so threatened by what I am saying? Why else would you choose to engage in such self-deception.

*Please tell us how many of the signatories of the Bali letter are from the fields of "climatology, geology and palaeoclimatology" (or does "etc" include social science, mechanical engineering and economics?).*

Nearly all of the [Signatories](http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=164004) are from relevant fields, and if this is how many scientists can be gathered to put their name to a view, imagine how many more there are. What is more, I would argue that economics and engineering are relevant fields, since these are the expert people who effect policy for addressing climate change. Unlike climatologists, they are expert in fields that can quantify the negative economic and technological ramifications of taking action to reduce CO2 emissions, and can help to make balanced decisions on climate change policy. Global warming policy is not the sole domain of a specific scientific field, it affects EVERYONE. To argue otherwise is intellectually arrogant and elitist.

The [view expressed]( http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=164002) in the Bali Open Letter does not deny that CO2 causes climate change, but rather looks deeper into taking a more balanced and pragmatic approach to a resolution:

*While we understand **the evidence that has led them to view CO2 emissions as harmful**, the IPCC's conclusions are quite inadequate as justification for implementing policies that **will markedly diminish future prosperity**. In particular, it is not established that it is possible to significantly alter global climate through cuts in human greenhouse gas emissions. On top of which, because attempts to cut emissions will slow development, the current UN approach of CO2 reduction **is likely to increase human suffering from future climate change rather than to decrease it**.*

The answer is in influencing technological and social change in a direction that **positively benefits the environment and ALL of humanity**. The ideologically and politically based pursuit of CO2 emissions targets and unaffordable renewable energy technologies are not the answer and do not achieve that end. Do not let the empty rhetoric of politicians (eg Turnbull, Rudd, Wong, Garrett, Brown, Milne etc), who only want your votes, fool you into believing they are engaged in positive action.

Now read back up through the posts in this thread. Observe how much time and effort has been wasted over the sourcing of one figure in a book, and in claiming I am a denialist, and that Plimer is a liar, etc etc. Get a grip people. Stop bowing down to the IPCC lead authors, and think for yourselves. Debate, learn, open your minds, accept others views (they may know something that you do not, shock horror).

Grieg has indeed evolved along the denier/inactivist chain of moving goalposts:

1.) Climate change is not happening.

2.) It's happening, but it's not human caused.

3.) It's human caused, but it will be mostly benign.

4.) Well, maybe it's not so benign, but nothing free markets can't fix. Besides, it's just a bunch of poor brown foreign people dying like flies and none of our concern.

5.) We were wrong, but it's too late now.

Good for him.

By luminous beauty (not verified) on 23 May 2009 #permalink

Greig:

> What is more, I would argue that economics and engineering are relevant fields, since these are the expert people who effect policy for addressing climate change. Unlike climatologists, they are expert in fields that can quantify the negative economic and technological ramifications of taking action to reduce CO2 emissions, and can help to make balanced decisions on climate change policy.

Do you realise you've nullified your own argument?

You're advocating the position that experts in a specific field should be given pretty much supreme weight when they voice an opinion in that area - which means that on the one hand climate scientists must defer to the expertise of economists on economic matters - *but by the very same logic* economists must defer to climate scientists on climate matters.

As such, the IPCC report must be regarded as unassailable and incontrovertible, and economists must use all of that information as a given - with no debate on the science whatsoever - when forming an economic opinion.

And yet you're harping on about a letter that takes a position in direct opposition to the actual science behind the IPCC report, and that is full of garbage like:

" despite computer projections of temperature rises, there has been no net global warming since 1998. "

So which is it - are scientists in their given field experts or not?

> Now read back up through the posts in this thread. Observe how much time and effort has been wasted over the sourcing of one figure in a book,

The figure that - let me remind you - was the point of the blog post. You're the one wasting all the time, changing the subject, throwing out as much irrelevant smokescreen as you can and spreading disinformation. You've yet to provide evidence to contradict the original post.

> and in claiming I am a denialist,

Your actions speak volumes.

> and that Plimer is a liar,

His actions speak volumes.

Greg, OK, by defining almost any discipline (e.g financial economics - Milne; power engineering - Walker) as relevant you have 99 of your 2000 (I am sure that we can agree that Nigel Lawson (Lord Lawson) certainly doesn't count - right?).

Now please list the other 1991, or the source that details them.

Let me guess, that's not settled either?

*don't waste time hunting down that journal. It was invented in a scathing, hilarious satire by Marion Delgado #28 on this very page. Greig immediately parroted it, taking it for truth and obviously without doing the simplest background checks, typical pseudo-skeptic fashion.*

Since I found the [Basque Centre for Climate Change](http://www.bc3research.org/) which provided a link to [this](http://www.bc3research.org/images/stories/new_in_aldaketa_16_13-06-08.p…) I really had no reason not to believe this post. Although now the comment about the author being Tibetan sounds wierd, and if it is a joke, it is in somewhat poor taste. So is the comment about Swahili.

It should be noted that bad parody is when it is not recognised as a joke. I noticed how Janet Akermann fooled a fair few people here too, but that is only a measure of how poor the parody is.

Slightly more condensed:

Greig #48

On P25 of H+E, Plimer uses the figure 3 graph to make the following point:
Fig 3: Thermometer temperature measurements in the 20th Century showing both cooling and warming. The cooling was during and after WW2 industrialization emitted increasingly large amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. The 20th Century like any other time period was one of both warming and cooling.
⦠the source of the graph is irrelevant to Plimerâs case, and makes it appear you are clutching at straws to demonise Plimer, rather than debate the conclusions that he is drawing.

Greig #325

However the [cooling] "trend" from 1940 to 1976 and from 2000 to present holds information too. Ignore it at your peril.

Greig #52

None of what you have said contradicts Plimer's statement: "Thermometer temperature measurements in the 20th Century showing both cooling and warming. The cooling was during and after WW2 industrialization emitted increasingly large amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. The 20th Century like any other time period was one of both warming and cooling."

Plimer did NOT make the point that the "cooling was substantial". That is a fabrication on your part.

Greig #325

However the [cooling] "trend" from 1940 to 1976 and from 2000 to present holds information too. Ignore it at your peril.

Greig #86

[Mark Byrne] "Grieg, your proposition doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Plimer used Durkin's chart to show the scale of warming and cooling. In Plimer's fake data the warming and cooling look only a little different. The the real data warming far out weighs cooling. The fake equivalence between warming and cooling couldn't be made with the real data."

Plimer does NOT draw any conclusion on the scale of warming and cooling, and the "fake equivalence between warming and cooling" is a strawman that you have fabricated.

Greig #325

However the [cooling] "trend" from 1940 to 1976 and from 2000 to present holds information too. Ignore it at your peril.

Greig #190

â¦I cannot verify whether Plimer was honest in stating that the figure comes from Klimafakten. Can you? If not, you do not have the right to make assumptions.
But all this nonsense completely misses the point. Plimer does not draw any conclusion form the graph other than to state the OBVIOUS, that there has been warming and cooling during the 20th century. So why does it matter where he got the graph?

Greig #325

However the [cooling] "trend" from 1940 to 1976 and from 2000 to present holds information too. Ignore it at your peril.

Greig #67

If you read Plimers statement with regard to figure 3, this is all he is saying, no more, no less. He is simply drawing attention to the fact that there are many factors at work.

Greig #59

⦠[i] So Greig, would you say that on your reading of H+E, your impression was that "The 20th Century, like any other time period, was one of both warming and cooling." implied that the cooling was A) comparable to the warming, B), more significant than the warming, or C), less significant than the warming? [/i]

Plimer has made no such implication, one way or the other. And it is irrelevant to the point that Plimer is making, which is that CO2 levels do not correlate strongly with global temperature. ie on the basis of this alone the hypothesis is falsified. Observed global warming during the last 100 years cannot be explained by the increase of GHGs alone.

Greig #325

However the [cooling] "trend" from 1940 to 1976 and from 2000 to present holds information too. Ignore it at your peril.

Greig #193

⦠the fig 3 graph could be replaced with any of the graphs that have been deemed correct on this thread, and Plimer's conclusion would still be correct. Therefore the source of and accuracy of the graph is irrelevant to Plimer's argument.
Now if Plimer had drawn a conclusion about the start and end date of periods of cooling, or that the cooling was large compared to the warming, then I would be baying for blood along with the rest of you. But he didn't make any such claim.

Greig #325

However the [cooling] "trend" from 1940 to 1976 and from 2000 to present holds information too. Ignore it at your peril.

Greig #294

[Dave] "So... why not use a graph that actually covers the last ten years, namely a plot of 1999-2008? Give me one good reason that an argument for a temperature trend over a period of ten years would not be bolstered by a graph actually covering those ten years unders discussion."

I have seen plots that include the period 1998 - 2008, and in my opinion they strengthen the view that there is cooling over the last 10 years. However, you also have to explain the massive El Nino in 1998, which is a weather event, and that complicates the matter somewhat. I can only assume that Plimer did not want to show 1998, because it would confuse the issue of weather and climate. And Plimer's book focusses on periods of thousands and millions of years.

*1.) Climate change is not happening.
2.) It's happening, but it's not human caused.
3.) It's human caused, but it will be mostly benign.
4.) Well, maybe it's not so benign, but nothing free markets can't fix. Besides, it's just a bunch of poor brown foreign people dying like flies and none of our concern.
5.) We were wrong, but it's too late now.*

Wow, 5 comment in a row, **none of which can be attributed to me!** Going for the record, LB?

> Observe how much time and effort has been wasted over the sourcing of one figure in a book, and in claiming I am a denialist, and that Plimer is a liar, etc etc.

Most of the time was wasted on absurd excuses and rationalizations on your part for Plimer's behavior. The source of the figure 3 is the very topic of this post and you have done your best to derail the discussion. So don't complain about all the wasted time.

To get back on topic, what has become of your e-mail exchange with Plimer? Any new revelations where Plimer got figure 3 from?

"Nearly all of the Signatories are from relevant fields, and if this is how many scientists can be gathered to put their name to a view, imagine how many more there are. What is more, I would argue that economics and engineering are relevant fields, since these are the expert people who effect policy for addressing climate change. Unlike climatologists, they are expert in fields that can quantify the negative economic and technological ramifications of taking action to reduce CO2 emissions, and can help to make balanced decisions on climate change policy. Global warming policy is not the sole domain of a specific scientific field, it affects EVERYONE. To argue otherwise is intellectually arrogant and elitist. - 'Greig'

OK, who is it this time? Marion?, Frank??.

You know it's not proper etiquette to use their actual screen name.

This one killed me - "Global warming policy is not the sole domain of a specific scientific field, it affects EVERYONE. To argue otherwise is intellectually arrogant and elitist" - the next IPCC will include TV weather presenters and airconditioning manufacturers.

"The view expressed in the Bali Open Letter does not deny that CO2 causes climate change...." - 'Greig'.

Sure it doesn't,
-"climate change, a natural phenomenon"
-"carbon dioxide (CO2), a non-polluting gas"
-"The average rate of warming of 0.1 to 0. 2 degrees Celsius per decade recorded by satellites during the late 20th century falls within known natural rates of warming and cooling over the last 10,000 years"
-"there has been no net global warming since 1998. That the current temperature plateau follows a late 20th-century period of warming is consistent with the continuation today of natural multi-decadal or millennial climate cycling."
-"new peer-reviewed research has cast even more doubt on the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused global warming"

"The answer is in influencing technological and social change in a direction that positively benefits the environment and ALL of humanity" - 'Greig'.

Yeah, yeah, ......NUCLEAR POWER!!!!

Now stop it. All this parody is amusing, but I want to hear the latest idiocy from the real deal.

"It should be noted that bad parody is when it is not recognised as a joke. I noticed how Janet Akermann fooled a fair few people here too, but that is only a measure of how poor the parody is. - 'Greig'

Or how utterly credulous the original is, making the parody difficult to spot.

{Marion, is this you poe-ing again??}

Post #394
*Do you realise you've nullified your own argument?
You're advocating the position that experts in a specific field should be given pretty much supreme weight when they voice an opinion in that area*

I am making no such claim.

*- which means that on the one hand climate scientists must defer to the expertise of economists on economic matters - but by the very same logic economists must defer to climate scientists on climate matters.*

Nonsense, I am saying that people from various disciplines have a right to make comment on how we address climate change. It is not valid to say that any petition of objection must comprise of only climatologists. That is elitist garbage.

*" despite computer projections of temperature rises, there has been no net global warming since 1998. "*

Since there were a fair few genuine climatologists who were signatories to the letter, I am thinking that they considered this a reasonable comment. So you disagree? What is your expertise, Dave? Or is your position simply to bow down to someone, anyone who presents the view that you hold dearest?

> Since I found the Basque Centre for Climate Change which provided a link to this I really had no reason not to believe this post.

You have still failed to find ___Euskara Klimazientzia___, the most simple [search on google](http://www.google.com/search?q=Euskara+Klimazientzia) would have revealed, that this page is the only hit. Your links contain neither word. Searching for a Basque research center is simply not enough. That you offer your links as proof for the veracity of the EK claim, illustrates the low standard of proof you are willing to apply, if it supports your position. Life is sometimes stranger than fiction, but if a Tibetian writing about climate in Basque did not tip you off that this _might_ be a joke, I know of a bridge in Brooklyn that is up for sale.

*"The view expressed in the Bali Open Letter does not deny that CO2 causes climate change...." - 'Greig'.

Sure it doesn't, -"climate change, a natural phenomenon" -"carbon dioxide (CO2), a non-polluting gas" -"The average rate of warming of 0.1 to 0. 2 degrees Celsius per decade recorded by satellites during the late 20th century falls within known natural rates of warming and cooling over the last 10,000 years" -"there has been no net global warming since 1998. That the current temperature plateau follows a late 20th-century period of warming is consistent with the continuation today of natural multi-decadal or millennial climate cycling." -"new peer-reviewed research has cast even more doubt on the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused global warming"*

None of the above comments deny that CO2 is causing climate change.

Michael, you need lessons in basic comprehension. You would do well to note the finer distinction between climate change and **dangerous** climate change.

*The source of the figure 3 is the very topic of this post*

Yes, and as I said, it is a bloody waste of time. Plimer did not draw any false conclusions from the graph. In the meantime the government is trying to implement a massive new taxation system on the Australian people. **Wake up!**

[bluegrue]*That you offer your links as proof for the veracity of the EK claim, illustrates the low standard of proof you are willing to apply, if it supports your position.*

Oh sure, this from a guy who presented a critique on Leroux, thinking it was Plimer, and has posted more words here in attacking Plimer (and me) than anyone else, although he hasn't even read one page of Plimer's book.

Does that say something about YOUR standards?

None of the above comments deny that CO2 is causing climate change.

They are all falsehoods that deny the seriousness of AGW.

By luminous beauty (not verified) on 23 May 2009 #permalink

Greig #392

Thankfully, the next time you go to hospital you'll be spared the terrifying possibility of being treated by Dr 'the science is not settled!!!' Greig who would refuse you treatment on the grounds that....well, you know.....

Yet ANOTHER strawman. Refuse treatment? At what point have I ever expressed the view that we should do nothing? Why are you attributing arguments to me, that I have never expressed? Are you so threatened by what I am saying? Why else would you choose to engage in such self-deception.

Greig #177

[BPL] The thrust of your statement is wrong, however, because you're assuming that if we don't know everything, we know nothing. No. Wrong. We know enough to know what the problem is and how to fix it.

Wrong. We know so little, that we assume there is something to fix, and have fooled ourselves into thinking we can fix it.

Greig #179

To make the decision to reduce CO2 emissions we must have solid demonstrable proof of the benefits of reducing those emissions. This proof of benefit has not yet been sufficiently quantified, because the science is incomplete.

Greig #207

..we have the time to implement it properly and cost effectively. The key is not to pick winners on the basis of ideology, nor to act as a nation unilaterally or prematurely.

Greig #307

I am quite convinced that the basic science of climate change demonstrates that CO2 is implicated in observed global warming, but that more work needs to be done to determine what is going to happen as CO2 rises to 550 ppm and beyond. The science is not settled. I am not convinced that it will result in catastrophe, and that is the extent of my scepticism.

Greig #327

I completely agree that the current IPCC documentation lead to the above figures. And I agree with them, assuming the current models are restricted to excluding advanced cloud theory, evaporative cooling effects, ocean circulation and mixing, and cyclical trans oceanic air pressure variation.

I believe that if you include the above factors they introduce negative feedbacks that will reduce the impact of CO2 dramatically, and so I believe a figure of 1 degC per doubling is more realistic.

I also believe that a warming of 1-2 deg per century will have almost no net negative impact on the environment (previous IPCC asseessment have reached this conclusion), and that as Plimer suggests such warming is well within the range of natural variation.

The science is not settled, we have a really, really long way to go before we have the answers quantified sufficiently to set good policy.

Greig #330

[Posted by: bi -- IJI | May 22, 2009 4:19 AM] "If solar and wind power are not cheap, then we should pretend that global warming isn't a problem."

When we KNOW global warming is a problem (ie results in a net negative impact relative to natural climate variation), we should reduce emissions.
If we determine that it is good policy to reduce emissions, it MUST be affordable both to western and developing countries.

Greig #350

[Mark Byrne #347 ] Greig, that is a really interesting idea. How long will it take for us to stop AGW?

Humans cannot stop global warming or cooling, which occurs naturally. How long until we remove any potential anthopogenic influence on climate change? That answer depends on when there is international agreement to reduce greenhouse emissions. That is not going to happen soon.

[Mark Byrne ] And when will you âknowâ global warming is a problem?

Not when. IF! We do not know IF it is a problem. There needs to be proof that there will be a net negative impact.
This question raises the issue of the precautionary principle. The problem here is not that we take precautions, but that we may be choosing actions that are absurdly damaging (economically and environmentally) relative to the net negative impact we are trying to address. We need more information on the cost of AGW before we can quantify the actions we should take.

â¦

[Mark Byrne ] Also Greig, do you think there is much more warming is calculated to be in the pipeline?

Based on what assumptions? Maybe, maybe not, the science isn't settled.

[Mark Byrne ] And do you reckon that worsening droughts, longer fire seasons, shrinking artic ice and warming implications for frozen methane might have some people thinking warming might already be a problem?

Worsening droughts are a problem that occur naturally.

Bushfires are a natural part of living in Australia. Problems arising from fires result from a failure of managing the process of living with the environment. The idea that reducing CO2 will reduce fire damage is ridiculous.

Melting arctic ice does not impact directly on the biosphere, unless you believe any of that nonsense about polar bears. If arctic ice is melting, it is a phenomenon that may result in a positive feedback on warming (changed albedo). But the process is not yet observed over a long enough timeframe to quantify.

The melting of frozen methane also does not directly impact the biosphere, but like changed albedo may also be a positive feedback, but again we have not been measuring this effect for long enough to determine if it is a significant trend.

So you raise the untested and unquantified feedback mechanisms, but declare the negative feedback mechanisms that I postulate as irrelevant.

And what about all the good things that arise from warming? Longer growing seasons, opening up new agricultural resources, higher crop yields, etc. It is all in the IPCC peer-reviewed documentation.
The science is not settled.

Greig #352

[Greig] I believe that if you include the above factors they introduce negative feedbacks that will reduce the impact of CO2 dramatically, and so I believe a figure of 1 degC per doubling is more realistic.

[bluegrue] This believe is based on what research? Give cites to peer reviewed literature.

Which part of the science is not settled don't you understand?
â¦
The science is not settled.

Lessee,

The IPCC estimates doubling of CO2 produces global warming of 2 - 4.5C.

'But the science isn't settled', says Greig. Then it might be less, it might be more. You don't know.

Greig. You are an idiot.

By luminous beauty (not verified) on 23 May 2009 #permalink

>presented a critique on Leroux, thinking it was Plimer

An error that I much regret, which I made public myself, which I corrected myself and which I apologized for. Nothing either you or Plimer have done, when caught. Errors happen, it matters how you deal with them.

>although he hasn't even read one page of Plimer's book

I never claimed I had. "All" I have done is
1) watch his talk on the very same issue
2) identify, what exactly is wrong with figure 3
3) obtain a copy of _Klimafakten_ and expose Plimer's explicit claim to the source of figure 3 as wrong.

Greig:
Yes, and as I said, it is a bloody waste of time.

Well, since 55 posts out of 408 are by YOU (13.5%, far more than anyone else), you're the biggest of the wast of time of all.

55 Posted by: Greig
43 Posted by: bluegrue
36 Posted by: Mark Byrne
24 Posted by: TrueSceptic
23 Posted by: bi -- IJI
17 Posted by: Barton Paul Levenson
11 Posted by: Steve Chamberlain
11 Posted by: Lee
11 Posted by: janama
11 Posted by: Chris O'Neill
10 Posted by: sod
09 Posted by: Janet Akerman
09 Posted by: Dave
09 Posted by: Bernard J.
08 Posted by: Dan L.
08 Posted by: naught101
07 Posted by: John Mashey
07 Posted by: Gaz
06 Posted by: Michael
06 Posted by: jemima

"In the meantime the government is trying to implement a massive new taxation system on the Australian people. Wake up!" - 'Greig'.

Now this has to be a joke.

Global climate change or a new tax, which is the bigger problem - Tax,Tax,Tax!!!!

Wake Up, Anthropogenic Global Taxation is coming!.

'Fess up. Who's writing this stuff??

Greig:

It should be noted that bad parody is when it is not recognised as a joke.

Intelligence is the ability to recognize. Greig is saying that to someone who is an idiot and can't get any parody, all parody is bad. I wonder what that makes Greig?

By Chris O'Neill (not verified) on 23 May 2009 #permalink

Greig doesn't recognise things and that is their fault according to Greig. Greig is the measure of all things - just ask it. Well I recognise Greig for what it is - the smelliest troll extant today.

Back before I realised this I wasted my time writing something for it (jemima at #220):

At #151 above bluegrue almost has a fit reporting a self-detected error in something he or she's said.

Think about it honest people: Ian Plimer is a full professor of science at a university who just makes up and publishes stories to suit his predetermined conclusions. He writes a book that has so many errors, half-truths and outright falsehoods that it would earn a "fail" for any school student who submitted it in a politics class (no student would submit such garbage in a science class). Result: Plimer has antiscience defenders all over the tabloid press and the blogosphere who think his behaviour is laudable and that his ends justify his means.

The point is that bluegrue is an anonymous commenter in the blogosphere who's more concerned for his or her reputation and for the truth of what he or she says than the high-profile professor with a book just published in his name.

What a joke!

Posted by: jemima

Naturally, by repeating myself I'm only trying to improve my crummy position on naught101's merit list (#410) by filling this thread with the sound of my own voice. I wouldn't waste my breath correcting Greig on any of its errors (where to begin?)

It's not a listening or caring troll, peoples.

Greig and getting past the inpass:

Greig #207

I am an optimist. I think such technology can be found. And I also believe we do not need to panic, we have the time to implement it properly and cost effectively. The key is not to pick winners on the basis of ideology, nor to act as a nation unilaterally or prematurely.

Greig #373

What I do believe is that it is better for the global environment to bring as many people up to Western living standards as fast as possible, and that low-cost energy is critical in achieving that. I therefore believe gas, hydro, and nuclear are the most important energy technologies for the next century.

Greig #179

Trying to reduce CO2 emissions is an inherently risky policy because it increases the cost of energy, which undermines the global economy, and impacts the fundamental basis for human standard of living. Some people think this is irrelevant, but they are usually rich, spoiled individuals who are unaware that 5 billion humans currently live in poverty.

Greig #219

But the army of environmentalist ideologues trying to enforce expensive renewable energy is a road block.

Greig #361

[Steve Chamberlain] IMO we cannot afford to continue as we are on the basis that itâs all too hard to change, and it will all cost too much. This myopic, money-is-all outlook is what helped get us where we are now, and will do nothing but create significant costs (economic, social and environmental) for future generations.

So, forget the cost to consumers, forget the impact on industry, jobs, etc.
Your view is we should select energy technology for ideological reasons.
I rest my case.

Greig #367

[Steve Chamberlain] So, forget the cost to future generations, forget the impact on future industry, jobs, food production and society, forget fires, storms, rising sea levels, droughts and biodiversity loss.

Steve, you are leaping to the false conclusion that renewable energy will be a good solution to resolve those issues. I beg to differ.

Greig #373

And your evidence that an untrammelled reliance on fossil fuels will sort these issues out is... where?

Strawman. I never made such a claim. What I do believe is that it is better for the global environment to bring as many people up to Western living standards as fast as possible, and that low-cost energy is critical in achieving that. I therefore believe gas, hydro, and nuclear are the most important energy technologies for the next century.

The Goal
For Grieg:The goal should be âto bring as many people up to Western living standards as fast as possibleâ

Belief 1, â that low-cost energy is critical in achieving that [bring poor up]â;

Belief 2, the global economy, is âthe fundamental basis for human standard of livingâ;

Belief 3, The key is not to pick winners on the basis of beliefs/ideology;

Questions for Greig:
1) We have had a strong global economy and abundant cheap energy, yet extreme poverty persists. Should we reconsider our approach?
2) What mechanisms or metrics are appropriate to determine if our current economic structures and distribution of abundant energy is the best way to lift the bottom billion out of extreme poverty?
3) Would you support strong action to reduce CO2 if nuclear power, hydro and gas were widely used?

The last bit in #414 should not all be bold, here again-

The Goal

For Grieg: The goal is âto bring as many people up to Western living standards as fast as possibleâ

Belief 1, â that low-cost energy is critical in achieving that [bring poor up]â;

Belief 2, the global economy, is âthe fundamental basis for human standard of livingâ;

Belief 3, The key is not to pick winners on the basis of beliefs/ideology;

Questions for Greig:
1) We have had a strong global economy and abundant cheap energy, yet extreme poverty persists. Should we reconsider our approach?
2) What mechanisms or metrics are appropriate to determine if our current economic structures and distribution of abundant energy is the best way to life the bottom billon out of extreme poverty?
3) Would Grieg support strong action to reduce CO2 if nuclear power, hydro and gas were widely used?

For Grieg: The goal is âto bring as many people up to Western living standards as fast as possibleâ

Belief 1, â that low-cost energy is critical in achieving that [bring poor up]â;

Belief 2, the global economy, is âthe fundamental basis for human standard of livingâ;

Belief 3, The key is not to pick winners on the basis of beliefs/ideology;

Questions for Greig:
1) We have had a strong global economy and abundant cheap energy, yet extreme poverty persists. Should we reconsider our approach?
2) What mechanisms or metrics are appropriate to determine if our current economic structures and distribution of abundant energy is the best way to life the bottom billon out of extreme poverty?
3) Would Grieg support strong action to reduce CO2 if nuclear power, hydro and gas were widely used?

Greig.

For someone who claims only a 'casual' 20 year interest in global warming, you have been trotting out a sophisticated compilation of the worst of the debunked chestnuts favoured by the denialists.

By this very fact alone I perceive you to be either a credulous reader of ideologically-motivated sites that are untainted by any real science, or to be an ideologically-driven lobbyist associated in some way with a vested-interest group or several.

Your inundation of this thread with comments at such a persistently high rate confirms this for me.

One thing that you are not, is a genuine sceptic.

For a start, I seem to recall that earlier in this thread (I can't be convinced that actually wading through it again, to find the specific reference, is a Good Thing) you made the claim that the IPCC's output is not 'peer-reviewed'. This is a mendacious distortion of the facts, because the IPCC is convened to review and summarise the peer-reviewed (id est expert-reviwed) literature of the global body of climatological output, and thus its starting material is very much peer-scrutinised. The problem with the IPCC's reports, if there is any, is that they are based on consensus, and are therefore conservative in what they say â most scientists who work in the field are convinced that the future impacts are likely to be greater than has been communicated in the Panel's outputs.

Claims to the contrary are not reflective of someone with a scientifically sceptical bent, but rather of someone with a political/ideological motivation.

It should be noted that bad parody is when it is not recognised as a joke. I noticed how Janet Akermann fooled a fair few people here too, but that is only a measure of how poor the parody is.

No, the problem here is that denialists are so recalcitrant in the inaccuracy, inconsistency and the nonsensical presentationof the material that they rely upon, and in the monotonous repetition with which they regurgitate it, that even a parodic caricature of their claims is indistinguishable from the denialists' claims themselves.

The problem isn't bad parody. The problem is however, a combination of bad science, atrocious synthesis of facts and data, dubious ideology, and mangled logic.

Put another way, the corollary to the tenet that there is no bottom to stupid, is that there is no parody of stupid that could be absolutely distinguishable from each and every potholes of stupid that exist somewhere in the universe.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 23 May 2009 #permalink

*Well, since 55 posts out of 408 are by YOU (13.5%, far more than anyone else), you're the biggest of the wast of time of all.*

That is because I am the target of every single post. It seems I have wandered into a nest of true-believers, and its me vs the brethren. ï

*the IPCC is convened to review and summarise the peer-reviewed (id est expert-reviwed) literature of the global body of climatological output, and thus its starting material is very much peer-scrutinised.*

Correct.

*The problem with the IPCC's reports, if there is any, is that they are based on consensus, and are therefore conservative in what they say*

Nonsense, the problem is that the only consensus is that all submitting authors agree that all of the issues have been presented. Then what makes it into the assessments **is determined entirely by the lead author.** The result is not conservative, **it is a completely distorted view of the available peer-reviewed literature.**

*By this very fact alone I perceive you to be either a credulous reader of ideologically-motivated sites that are untainted by any real science, or to be an ideologically-driven lobbyist associated in some way with a vested-interest group or several.*

Greigâs Law: When someone resorts to accusing you of having a vested interest, without any evidence to support that claim, then you have won the debate.

Greig:

Nearly all of the Signatories are from relevant fields

"Relevant" fields just doesn't cut it. How many actively, credibly publishing climatologists are on that list? Pretty close to, if not actually, zero. The science denial crowd like to make issue about argument from authority but then go and use "authorities" that fall short of being the best. Considering how even the best can succumb to political ideology, using anyone but the best as an authority has little credibility.

BTW, the list contains most of the usual suspects: Aitkin, Beck, Boehmer-Christiansen, Carter, Easterbrook, Erren, Essex, David Evans, Hissink, Jon Jenkins, Kininmonth, Lord Lawson, Lindzen, McKitrick, John McLean, Alan Moran, Motl, Plimer, Alex Robson, Singer, Spencer, and Wegman, along with the usual quota of engineers, biologists, geologists, meteorologists,chemists, economists, statisticians, computer scientists, air-force colonels, geneticists, forestry consultants and geographers.

By Chris O'Neill (not verified) on 23 May 2009 #permalink

Greig:

It seems I have wandered into a nest of true-believers

Greigâs Law: When someone resorts to accusing you of being a true-believer, without any evidence to support that claim, then you have won the debate.

By Chris O'Neill (not verified) on 23 May 2009 #permalink

> The result is not conservative, it is a completely distorted view of the available peer-reviewed literature.

... reflected in the [lack of a storm of enraged comments by the relevant scientists in the draft comments](http://pds.lib.harvard.edu/pds/view/7798293?n=1&s=4&imagesize=1200&jp2R…).

> a nest of true-believers

For someone with an open mind you have the denialist ad-hominem lingo down pat.

Greig:

> " Post #394 Do you realise you've nullified your own argument? You're advocating the position that experts in a specific field should be given pretty much supreme weight when they voice an opinion in that area"

> I am making no such claim.

Let me throw your words back at you again, since you don't seem to understand...

> I would argue that economics and engineering are relevant fields, since these are the expert people who effect policy for addressing climate change.

For starters you restrict yourself to policy decisions, and provide no evidence to suggest the signatories are in a position to pass judgement on the science (which they do).

> Unlike climatologists, they are expert in fields that can quantify the negative economic and technological ramifications of taking action to reduce CO2 emissions, and can help to make balanced decisions on climate change policy.

Here's what I was driving at - Economists are experts in their field and are as such best placed to comment on economic factors. But by that logic, surely climate scientists are experts in their field and best placed to comment on climate research? Is not the ideal scenario everyone sticking to their area of specialism, and letting the economists work with the IPCC findings, rather than having economists challenge the actual science behind it (which is what this letter does)?

> Nonsense, I am saying that people from various disciplines have a right to make comment on how we address climate change. It is not valid to say that any petition of objection must comprise of only climatologists. That is elitist garbage.

Except that - as I said very very clearly - the petition is challenging the science as a basis for any policy, rather than accepting the science and challenging policy decisions. Your argument implies that economists have no place doing that, as it is not their area of expertise.

> Since there were a fair few genuine climatologists who were signatories to the letter, I am thinking that they considered this a reasonable comment. So you disagree? What is your expertise, Dave? Or is your position simply to bow down to someone, anyone who presents the view that you hold dearest?

For the sake of hilarity, let's say I am a "grocery replenishment technician" and thus have as much right to challenge the basis of your views as anyone.

Nonsense, the problem is that the only consensus is that all submitting authors agree that all of the issues have been presented. Then what makes it into the assessments is determined entirely by the lead author. The result is not conservative, it is a completely distorted view of the available peer-reviewed literature.

this (as almost everything you write) is of course false. you have ZERO knowledge about the process.

here ism, what happens:

http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/index.htm

Each IPCC Assessment and Special Report has a Summary for Policymakers (SPM) which is widely distributed. The SPM text is subject to line by line discussions and approval at a Plenary Session. The SPM has to be consistent with the factual material contained in the full report. Lead Authors of the report participate in the Session to provide explanations and clarifications and assist to ensure that consistency between the Summary for Policymakers and the full report is achieved.

what part of "line by line approval" do you not understand?

Shorter Greig:

I said 'I believe the IPCC is wrong'. This shows that the true unthinking believers are the Global Warmists.

Look, I've used this argument... not just once... or twice... or thrice... but four times! This shows that my logic is obviously purrrfect!

*what part of "line by line approval" do you not understand?*

It doesn't mean that each line is unanimously approved, it means that each line is presented. The only requirement of the so-called consensus process is that there is uninimous agreement that ALL items are presented. But that does not mean that there is unanimous agreemnt on what goes into the assessment report. The lead author is the sole final arbiter of what passes to the assessment report. The draft report is prepared only by the lead author through the review editor. See [the Principles Governing IPCC Work](http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ipcc-principles/ipcc-principles-appendix-a.pdf).

But despite this the underlying peer-reviewed documentation is the most reliable information that can reasonably be obtained on the issues associated with greenhouse warming and climate change. Unfortunately, much of what has been said and written in support of greenhouse policy agendas based on IPCC reports has involved selective use and misrepresentation of the IPCC findings, or uses only the subset of data in the assessments.

A classis case of misrepresentation may be found in Tim Flannery's The Weather Makers, which totally misreads the IPCC findings to promote the idea of impending climate catastrophe.

*Except that - as I said very very clearly - the petition is challenging the science as a basis for any policy, rather than accepting the science and challenging policy decisions. Your argument implies that economists have no place doing that, as it is not their area of expertise.*

So you are saying that the petition can only challenge the science if it comprises entirely of climatologists? Really?

And yet you know the petition covers many issues of science, policy, economics and technology. Surely then, the petition should comprise a mix of experts which cover all aspects presented in the petition, including climatologists, physicists, economists and engineers. Which, as it turns out, is the case.

So, explain to me again, why does the Bali Open Letter petition need to comprise of ONLY climatologists?

Shorter Greig:

The underlying peer-reviewed papers cited by the IPCC are the most reliable indicator of the state of the art in climate science. However, a petition signed by thousands, I mean hundreds, of people in 'relevant discipline' is even more reliable -- indeed, it's the mostest reliablest indicator of the state of the art in climate science!

This further proves that the real unthinking believers are the Global Warmists. Perfect logic again!

[sod] what part of "line by line approval" do you not understand?

{Greigtroll] It doesn't mean that each line is unanimously approved, it means that each line is presented. The only requirement of the so-called consensus process is that there is uninimous [sic] agreement that ALL items are presented.

It is blatantly obvious to me that you have never participated in a consensus review process.

I have had the (dis?)pleasure to spend a weekend of my life reviewing, by consensus, the state-of-the-art in environmental science for government policy, and it is a torrid process indeed.

In our consensus model each area of science/policy focus was 'workshopped' by expert panels for an hour, and the important aspects were summarised and distilled into government-'actionable' points. The outcomes of each workshop were presented to the conference in general, and a 95% voted agreement was required for acceptance of 'consensus'. Where there was dispute of any point (= line-by-line analysis), there was a timed process to allow debate from both sides. Sometimes the debate resolved to reflect the expert opinions of the submitting workshop professionals, and sometimes there was a stalemate called by time limitations, in which case the best scientific opinon was dropped from government recommendation.

In this conference, about 50% of the best scientific assessment of each of the policy points was dropped, simply because of the stringent 95% requirement for 'consensus' in any one area. By the time that the policy was accepted by government, about 95% of the best scientific assessment was discarded...

Each and every one of my colleagues at that conference was gutted by the final government policy outcome, and this was after a stringent process to hammer home the 'best science'.

Your description of a 'consensus' is not only mis-informed, it is down- and out-right wrong. I stand by my previous description of the conservative assessments comoing from the IPCC, and the fact that you find cause to dispute the cautious nature of such a process is only further confirmation that you either do not know of what it is that you speak, or that you are promoting your own vested interest in complete cavalier disregard of the truth.

Which leads me to:

Greigâs Law: When someone resorts to accusing you of having a vested interest, without any evidence to support that claim, then you have won the debate.

Erm, I gave you my reasons for suspecting your vested interest. Nothing that you have said since has threatened to alter my analysis. And the fact that you countered with a glib, but irrelevant, epithet only furhter reinforces my suspicions.

Bernard J.'s Law: When someone casts red herrings about in an effort to distract from the original point, and does not carefully and systematically counter this original point, it is likely that said original point has a significant degree of truth and/or relevance.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 24 May 2009 #permalink

Greig writes:

Does anyone here seriously think that every qualified scientist in the world agrees with IPCC 4th Assessment? Really? Some I know refuse to endorse it purely on the basis that it was written under the process of consensus.

No one competent in science would have written a sentence like that last one, and certainly no competent scientist would have. Peer review and the scientific consensus are how modern science works, and it has been a fantastically productive system. The only people who rant against the very concept of the scientific consensus are pseudoscientists with an axe to grind.

*Your description of a 'consensus' is not only mis-informed, it is down- and out-right wrong.*

Actually, what I described to you, is exactly what is described in the [Principles Governing IPCC Work Appendix A](http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ipcc-principles/ipcc-principles-appendix-a.pdf). Your own personal experiences with "consensus science" are irrelevant.

And Bernard, to you and other posters, perhaps you think its funny, perhaps you think it is intimidating, but the continuous bullying with pointless abuse and name-calling only denigrates your position.

"Then what makes it into the assessments is determined entirely by the lead author. The result is not conservative, it is a completely distorted view of the available peer-reviewed literature." - Greig

And now Greig defends the peer-reviewed literature.

Damn you Grieg, you almost had me convinced that the peer-reviewed literature was wrong in saying that there is a warming trend not explained by natural causes and that various books and blogs with wrongly cited, unverifiable graphs were right.

My head's spinning.

297 Greig,

"Most of you also seem completely convinced that Plimer deliberately lied about the Fig 3 graph. Clearly he was MISTAKEN. But that does not mean he LIED."

This is too much. He used a graph that had previously been seen only in TGGWS. He can not unknowingly have chosen this. It was chosen for the same reason that Durkin fabricated it: to misrepresent the temperature record. It was so blatant a distortion of the truth that Durkin was forced to replace it *immediately* after the first broadcast of TGGWS (the next broadcast, only a week later, contained another version). Yet Plimer used that first, outrageously dishonest, Durkin graph.

At first Plimer claimed not to remember the source. He then claimed it came from a German publication that no one had heard of. I've been involved in climate blogs and forums since March 2007, when TGGWS was first broadcast, and I've never seen it mentioned by anyone. It might be well-known in Germany for all I know, but not in the English-speaking world.

We then see that Plimer's graph does not appear in 'Klimafakten'. We already knew this was extremely unlikely as otherwise Durkin would have referenced 'Klimafakten'.

All the above would be appallingly sloppy for a clumsy and poorly educated layman, yet Plimer claims his book is about '"The Missing Science" and he is indeed a scientist, albeit in a different field. His use of this graph, and his false claims about its origin, put him at the same level as Durkin or Monckton and he has forfeited any authority he had as a distinguished scientist.

Again, a "mistake" of this nature by someone with any claims to scientific rigour is not acceptable and only the highly deluded or dishonest would claim otherwise.

By TrueSceptic (not verified) on 24 May 2009 #permalink

It doesn't mean that each line is unanimously approved, it means that each line is presented.

please, provide a reference.

their is exactly ZERO ambiguity in the term "line by line approval".

and your link confirms this:

a final line by line approval by a Session of the Working Group.
(page 7)

. The only requirement of the so-called consensus process is that there is uninimous agreement that ALL items are presented. But that does not mean that there is unanimous agreemnt on what goes into the assessment report. The lead author is the sole final arbiter of what passes to the assessment report. The draft report is prepared only by the lead author through the review editor. See the Principles Governing IPCC Work.

no. a "line by line" approval is exactly that: a line by line approval.
if serious opposition wants something out, it is out. (or at least disagreement noted, as outlined in your link).

the draft is OF COURSE prepared by the lead author. you are showing of a complete ignorance of how to write a paper with multiple authors.

But despite this the underlying peer-reviewed documentation is the most reliable information that can reasonably be obtained on the issues associated with greenhouse warming and climate change. Unfortunately, much of what has been said and written in support of greenhouse policy agendas based on IPCC reports has involved selective use and misrepresentation of the IPCC findings, or uses only the subset of data in the assessments.

i am glad, that you would mention this. now look at Plimer s figure 3 again.

we have proof of this tactic being used by denialist scum on this very topic! while you are trying to invent some other cases!!!

*Peer review and the scientific consensus are how modern science works*

Perhaps so, but to the detriment of science. Consensus is a political tool and has nothing to do with science.

*âConsensus is the first refuge of scoundrels.â* the late Michael Crichton.

*"âConsensus,âas many have said, merely represents the absence of definitive science."* Jack Schmitt (PhD. Earth Scientist and one of the moon-walking astronauts)

"The underlying peer-reviewed papers cited by the IPCC are the most reliable indicator of the state of the art in climate science. However, a petition signed by thousands, I mean hundreds, of people in 'relevant discipline' is even more reliable -- indeed, it's the mostest reliablest indicator of the state of the art in climate science!" - bi -- IJI

That's just your elitist arrogance trying to make it sound as though those 2 things are mutually exclusive.

Anyone with an open mind knows they aren't!

>"2. Do you agree, that figure 3 in itself, as printed in Plimer's book, is doctored and that the deliberate inclusion of such a plot would constitute scientific misconduct? And don't give me your bizarre rationalization, that Plimer actually wanted to use Friis-Christensen/Lassen as figure 3. "
> I have sent an email to Ian, and I am not going to respond to this until I get his response.

What's the status on this?

392 Greig,

"Now read back up through the posts in this thread. Observe how much time and effort has been wasted over the sourcing of one figure in a book, and in claiming I am a denialist, and that Plimer is a liar, etc etc. Get a grip people. Stop bowing down to the IPCC lead authors, and think for yourselves. Debate, learn, open your minds, accept others views (they may know something that you do not, shock horror)."

This thread is about one graph. All the time and effort has been wasted because, rather than

1) ignore the thread altogether or

2) post a single message along the lines of "yes, Plimer screwed up there but I still think the book is worth reading",

some ignorant, offensive, arrogant fanatic has typed thousands of words here

1) defending Plimer's user of the graph;

2) abusing any who dare to correct his ignorance;

3) abusing the entire climate science community;

4) attempting countless misdirections;

5) making numerous contradictory claims.

Yes, I've seen your type before and I despise it.

By TrueSceptic (not verified) on 24 May 2009 #permalink

So Greig, in a single day you have said:

"...the problem is that the only consensus is that all submitting authors agree that all of the issues have been presented. Then what makes it into the assessments is determined entirely by the lead author."

and then:

"Consensus is a political tool and has nothing to do with science."

So if you don't like the lead author approach and you don't like the consensus approach, how do you think that IPCC reports should be written?

[Greig]

it is a completely distorted view of the available peer-reviewed literature....

The lead author is the sole final arbiter of what passes to the assessment report. The draft report is prepared only by the lead author through the review editor. See the Principles Governing IPCC Work.

1). There is more than one lead author - one for each chapter. Are you suggesting that they all harbour the same "distorted view" of the available literature? If not, and only some of them do, which chapters?

2). No where in that document that I can see does it even imply that the lead authors have final say in anything. Each chapter goes through three draft review processes, where it is reviewed by many people. Do you seriously think that if the Lead Authors were going against the majority of those people (or even a minority), there wouldn't be a massive shit-fight? Or is it just that "they" (government, illuminati, whoever) hush it up?

So, shorter Greig:

1. If the IPCC reports weren't the result of consensus, then they're wrong, because they don't take into account all viewpoints.
2. If the IPCC reports were the result of consensus, then they're also wrong, because consensus is a political construct.
3. Therefore, the correct way to do science is to scream 'Waaah! I'm being bullied!'
4. Conclusion: Plimer is perfectly honest, and we should do nothing to mitigate climate change.
5. Quod errat demonstrator.

* * *

Michael:

> > The underlying peer-reviewed papers cited by the IPCC are the most reliable indicator of the state of the art in climate science. However, a petition signed by thousands, I mean hundreds, of people in 'relevant discipline' is even more reliable -- indeed, it's the mostest reliablest indicator of the state of the art in climate science!" - bi -- IJI

> That's just your elitist arrogance trying to make it sound as though those 2 things are mutually exclusive.

> Anyone with an open mind knows they aren't!

Aha! Indeed, and even though the 2 things aren't mutually exclusive, they also are mutually exclusive at the same time. These two claims, of course, aren't mutually exclusive. And perhaps they also are mutually exclusive...

This is so confusing! I therefore declare that the science isn't settled. Hooray!

Well, since 55 posts out of 408 are by YOU (13.5%, far more than anyone else), you're the biggest of the wast of time of all.

Greig:

That is because I am the target of every single post.

If you're so worried about wasting time, perhaps you shouldn't make incorrect assertions about where Plimer likely got his graph from and also that there is no significance in presenting correct or incorrect data as long as the "correct" conclusion is reached.

Methinks thou protest too much.

By Chris O'Neill (not verified) on 24 May 2009 #permalink

Grieg.

Let's go to the nub of the question...

Exactly what professional experience do you have with scientific analysis, synthesis and summarisation?

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 24 May 2009 #permalink

For the punters: The Greig posts data for the last week or so:

60 Posted by: Greig
46 Posted by: bluegrue
36 Posted by: Mark Byrne
26 Posted by: TrueSceptic
26 Posted by: bi -- IJI
18 Posted by: Barton Paul Levenson
15 Posted by: Chris O'Neill
12 Posted by: sod
12 Posted by: Bernard J.
11 Posted by: Steve Chamberlain
11 Posted by: Lee
11 Posted by: janama
10 Posted by: Dave
09 Posted by: naught101
09 Posted by: Michael
09 Posted by: Janet Akerman
08 Posted by: Dan L.
07 Posted by: John Mashey
07 Posted by: jemima
07 Posted by: Gaz
06 Posted by: Observa
06 Posted by: Dirk Hartog
05 Posted by: Sally Johnson
05 Posted by: Richard Simons
05 Posted by: Deen
04 Posted by: Marion Delgado
04 Posted by: GWB's nemesis
04 Posted by: Dr Dave
03 Posted by: Tim Lambert Author Profile Page
03 Posted by: Peter Smith
03 Posted by: nauhgt101
03 Posted by: mark Byrne
03 Posted by: luminous beauty
03 Posted by: aw
02 Posted by: Nathan
02 Posted by: Markhc
02 Posted by: Gavin's Pussycat
02 Posted by: DavidK
02 Posted by: ChrisK

Note: if you graph that data... OMG!!! HOCKEYSTICK!!! GREIG POSTS <=> GLOABAL WARMING? Note also the associates severe upward trend in those locals inclined to rebut time wasters (by own admission).

Not also: satellites "issues" caused me to misspell by own handle 3 times in 12 posts, leading to an UNDERSTATED UPWARD TREND. WTF?!

links -dump "http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/05/ian_plimer_lies_about_source_o…" | grep " Posted by" | sed 's/ | .*$/ /' | sort | uniq -dc | sed 's/ \([0-9]\) /0\1 /' | sort -r

396 Greig,

"It should be noted that bad parody is when it is not recognised as a joke."

No. A bad parody is one that is so crude that it is not funny and so clumsy that the target recognises it instantly as a parody.

A perfect parody is one that is recognised and admired by everyone except its target, showing his extreme credulity and poor comprehension.

You lack even the good grace to say, "yes, you got me there". Instead you claim that your inability to recognise it means that it wasn't obvious enough.

I doubt that you could possibly lower any further my opinion of your behaviour here.

By TrueSceptic (not verified) on 24 May 2009 #permalink

"Aha! Indeed, and even though the 2 things aren't mutually exclusive, they also are mutually exclusive at the same time. These two claims, of course, aren't mutually exclusive. And perhaps they also are mutually exclusive...

This is so confusing! I therefore declare that the science isn't settled. Hooray!" - bi --IJI.

It's only confusing if you're an arrogant elitest afflicted by concensusitis.

That they aren't mutually exclusive is shown by the fact that they aren't. They may occur simultaneously, and be opposite, that is a different thing. -3 + 3 = 0, but 3 and -3 still exist simulataneously. Ergo, you are an elitest ideologue concensusarian in need of an open mind. The science is not settled. A wrong graph does not invalidate the conclusions drawn from that graph, as long as the conclusions are correct. Concensus is the right way to reach a conclusion and a scientific concensus is the ignoring of the peer-reviewed literature which is the most reliable information except when the most reliable information is a letter on a blog endorsed by thousands, no hundreds, no some, climate scientists, no, scientists, well, at least some scientists, who are the most reliable people to comment, except when economists and geneticists are the most appropriate scientists, which is always. Except when it's not.

Really, I don't see what's so confusing.

414 Observa,

What is the "inpass". Do you mean "impasse" or something else?

By TrueSceptic (not verified) on 24 May 2009 #permalink

417 Bernard,

I salute your precise description of the situation.

The sheer volume of false, contradictory and insulting verbiage indicates either someone highly delusional and fanatical or someone supporting an interest, even someone paid to do it. The sort of behaviour that propagandists such as Steven Milloy and Marc Morano could be behind.

I must repeat these few paragraphs with emphasis.

"**No, the problem here is that denialists are so recalcitrant in the inaccuracy, inconsistency and the nonsensical presentation of the material that they rely upon, and in the monotonous repetition with which they regurgitate it, that even a parodic caricature of their claims is indistinguishable from the denialists' claims themselves.**

"**The problem isn't bad parody. The problem is however, a combination of bad science, atrocious synthesis of facts and data, dubious ideology, and mangled logic.**

"**Put another way, the corollary to the tenet that there is no bottom to stupid, is that there is no parody of stupid that could be absolutely distinguishable from each and every potholes of stupid that exist somewhere in the universe.**"

By TrueSceptic (not verified) on 24 May 2009 #permalink

430 Greig,

"And Bernard, to you and other posters, perhaps you think its funny, perhaps you think it is intimidating, but the continuous bullying with pointless abuse and name-calling only denigrates your position."

I nominate this for "Most Shameless Hypocrisy 2009".

By TrueSceptic (not verified) on 24 May 2009 #permalink

442 Bernard,

Can't you see that you're bullying him? He's just an innocent open-minded sceptic asking questions. ;-)

By TrueSceptic (not verified) on 24 May 2009 #permalink

Truesceptic at #450.

"Innocent" and "open-minded" weren't quite the first concepts that came to mind, but perhaps I really am just a bully.

I'm still interested in the answer to the question though.

There's a peculiar Rumsfeldianism to Greig... he knows better than climatology's known knowns; he concededs that he doesn't know the known unknowns (even though he knows them better than those who are supposed to know), and he just might know the unknown unknowns but because climatologists think that they know better he knows that they will never know.

[And completely off-topic: speaking of parodies, do any of the Australians here remember the 'Dead Parody Sketch' (a satire of the national economy in the tradition of Monty Python) performed by the Cactus Island commercial radio skit team during the Hawk/Keating era?

I laughed so hard I almost pooped myself. Apparently the same team released the skit again last year, updated for the current government, but I can't imagine that it could possibly capture the delightfully pointed impersonations that were present in the original 80s version.]

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 24 May 2009 #permalink

446 Michael,

You might think that your *-3 + 3 = 0, but 3 and -3 still exist simulataneously* is a parody beyond anything that would ever happen but see [warming of 0.75 + cooling of 0.774 = cooling of 1.524](http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3823150#post3823150). I later [collated this fantasist's posts on the subject](http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3854567#post3854567).

BTW he appears to be Nasif Nahle, whom you'll also find at ClimateFraudit and WattsUpWithMyBrain.

By TrueSceptic (not verified) on 24 May 2009 #permalink

451 Bernard,

I hope that you were ironically misreading my irony. ;-)

By TrueSceptic (not verified) on 24 May 2009 #permalink

Greig:
"That is because I am the target of every single post. "

No, Greig. The idiocy you are spewing is the target of a lot of these posts. I could give a f*** less about you.

--

Greig thinks he is being bullied - it is obvious that he has never been anywhere near a contentious lab meeting at a vigorous productive laboratory. His dismissal of consensus publishing is idiotic at best. I've been lead author on multi-author papers submitted to Science, Cell, Genetics, J Neurophys, JCB, et al (and have published in all but 2 of those journals) - and in every one of those papers it didn't get submitted until every author approved - near the end of the process - every word, every punctuation mark, every citation. And in the early drafts, we didn't proceed until I got feedback and requirements for inclusion of ideas, for every idea and argument in the paper. We left important stuff out of every one of those papers - or delayed the papers pending another experiment - because one author or another didn't feel that data or idea was yet ready for publication in this journal.

Greig betrays at every turn his lack of familiarity with how science works.

Seems he acquired his 'understanding' from Crichton, whom he cites approvingly above. And yes, Greig, THIS is an insult. Finally.

Greig betrays at every turn his lack of familiarity with how science works.

He sure does. Dead give away.

Greig writes:

it is not established that it is possible to significantly alter global climate through cuts in human greenhouse gas emissions. On top of which, because attempts to cut emissions will slow development, the current UN approach of CO2 reduction is likely to increase human suffering from future climate change rather than to decrease it.

Neither of these are judgments engineers are qualified to make. The first belongs to climatologists, the second to economists. That's one reason nobody takes the Oregon Petition seriously.

And since when was any scientific issue in history decided by a petition???

Greig writes:

" despite computer projections of temperature rises, there has been no net global warming since 1998. "

Since there were a fair few genuine climatologists who were signatories to the letter, I am thinking that they considered this a reasonable comment. So you disagree? What is your expertise, Dave? Or is your position simply to bow down to someone, anyone who presents the view that you hold dearest?

Sweet jumped-up Jesus Christ in a sidecar, Greig! Get the fucking data and CALCULATE IT YOURSELF!!!

This isn't something people can REASONABLY disagree on. There's only one way to calculate a trend -- you do a linear regression of the value in question against time. The only expertise you need is an introductory statistics course. Or the ability to use the "data analysis" add-in in Microsoft Excel.

It is not open to debate. Call that elitist if you want. I call it "knowing how to do math."

Greig writes:

"Peer review and the scientific consensus are how modern science works"

Perhaps so, but to the detriment of science. Consensus is a political tool and has nothing to do with science.

You appear to have quoted me without reading the quote, or at least without understanding it.

I said... "are how modern science works."

You said "Perhaps so," which is agreement.

Then you said, "...has nothing to do with science," which is a 180-degree contradiction of your previous statement.

âConsensus is the first refuge of scoundrels.â the late Michael Crichton.

He wasn't a scientist. He was an M.D. turned science fiction writer. And frankly, I think he started going downhill after "The Andromeda Strain."

"âConsensus,âas many have said, merely represents the absence of definitive science." Jack Schmitt (PhD. Earth Scientist and one of the moon-walking astronauts)

A bizarre statement from a guy with a geology degree, to be sure. I'd like to ask him if his own published papers are part of the scientific consensus are not, and if not, why not. BTW, his first name is "Harrison." "Jack" is a nickname.

Anyone who knows what they're talking about is "elitist" and arrogant according to Greig, who's set a better example by not understanding anything he's written about over the course of 60 comments. At least, Greig has _affected_ to misunderstand everything but would you believe him?

I've created a new thread for Grieg and folks who wish to interact with him. No more comments from Grieg or responses to him on this thread please.

By Tim Lambert (not verified) on 24 May 2009 #permalink

I hope that you were ironically misreading my irony. ;-)

Don't worry TS, your irony was immediately detected!

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 24 May 2009 #permalink

Iâm going to be a bit of git and present a brief critique of the Greig interaction thingy. Please critique me as you see fit.

A brief reflection of strategy and process:

It seems as though Greig got under some of our skin. I can share the frustration felt by many poster here who were trying to address the science. I understand the urge to vent with words like F*** etc. But as a tactic, I'd caution against it.

Amid the morass of Greigâs errors, erroneous assumptions and distorted logic were a few good points. Combine these few good points with some use of crude words towards him, resulted in Greig sometimes looking more competent than his arguments.

Greig seemed most caught out when posters presented the literature to show his error, showed that they had themselves read the literature and exposed Greigâs errors, or simply asked him for the science to backup his position. This often had him changing tack. It also showed the limited range of Griegâs sources (Roy Spencer disproportionately).

Trueskeptic, thanks for the correction, I spell poorly. âImpasseâ

I think I have nailed down the likely, ___undoctored___ source of the doctored Durkin/Plimer temperature diagram.

[_Inference of Solar Irradiance Variability from Terrestrial Temperature Changes, 1880--1993: an Astrophysical Application of the Sun-Climate Connection_](http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996ApJ...472..891S)
Soon, W. H.; Posmentier, E. S.; Baliunas, S. L.
Astrophysical Journal v.472, p.891 (1996)

Figure 7 shows GISTEMP data from Hansen & Lebedeff (1987, 1988), updated through 1993 and smoothed using an 11 year running mean, i.e. the last data point covers the period 1983 to 1993. The diagram by Soon/Posmentier/Baliunas is - as expected - a faithful reproduction of the data.

Now, here is [Plimer's figure 3](http://i44.tinypic.com/52jup4.png), a stretched version of [Soon's figure 7c](http://i40.tinypic.com/34zh7c0.png) and an [overlay of both](http://i40.tinypic.com/2mz04g.png). Near perfect match of the curve form, the temperature axis agree with each other, but observe how the time axis of the Plimer/Durkin diagram is doctored.

Tim, feel free to take the images and append a mouse-over comparison to your post, the images are designed for that kind of blinker comparison.

Something that has been bothering me for some time about Plimer's figure 3, and which I've been sitting on because I didn't know whether it was just a 'smoothing' irrelevancy into which I was reading too much, is that there are several points on the curve where the slope of the line does strange things for a time series where year-to-year anomaly values shouldn't differ too much from each other.

At about '1880' on the x axis the slope of the curve is essentially vertical, but not only that it is actually negative. At '1909' it appears vertical, and at '1917' it seems to me to once more be slightly negative off vertical. At '1998' it appears to be vertical again, and the 'peak' is closer to '2000' than to '1998'.

Even the Swindle graph doesn't seem to display any portions of the line that are absolutely vertical in slope, although the 'peak' is once again centred very close to '2000'.

In my work I never fit any curve beyond a linear or logarithmic regression line to dispersed data points, so even with the many tens of thousands of graphs that I have produced over my life I am not overly familiar with the vagaries of smoothing processes. So the first thing I wondered about was whether Durkin's '2000' peak (which is obviously meant to be 1998) can end up where it did even if one accepts that it was just a 'fluff'?

Of greater interest to me though, is whether there is any reasonable data-smoothing method that would give the vertical and the negative slopes on portions of Plimer's line, where one would not expect to see either? And I suspect that vectorisation would have a great resilience to shiftings in x values, so does the coincidence of the peaks at '2000' (rather than at least one graph peaking at 1998) indicate an unlikely 'accident'?

Of course, my suspicion is that these anomalies do reflect the use by Plimer of a vectorisation process. Am I being overly cynical, or does figure 3 give hints of its dissociation from direct graphing of straighforward time/temperature data?

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 25 May 2009 #permalink

If you want to quickly play around a bit, do the following:

1. Download GISTEMP from [NASA for current data](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts.txt) or from [climateaudit for some older vintage versions](http://www.climateaudit.org/data/giss/hansen.collation.dat) (this is the easiest one of all to use). That's for fast access, if you want to go into detail use the archive.org {[1](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.giss.nasa.gov/Data/GISTEMP/GLB…), [2](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.giss.nasa.gov/data/gistemp/GLB…), [3](http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledat…)}

2. Import into the spreadsheet software of your choice as fixed column width (some lines have *** for missing data without a blank separating them from neighbors). The GLB.Ts.txt files have some annoying text lines interspersed that you need to delete (sorting the lines helps). You want to take column J-D (January-December, calender year) or D-N (December to November, following the seasons).

3. Calculate a centered 11-year mean, e.g. 1980-1990 should go to 1995, otherwise you get undesired shifts with regard to the annual data. (Excel trendlines give you _trailing_ averages, introducing the undesired shift)

4. Plot using smooth curves (spline interpolated), not straight lines.

You can see results in my post #21 above [or here](http://i43.tinypic.com/357hd3p.jpg).

Regarding McIntyre's collation, they refer to Hansen publications like Hansen Lebedeff 1987. Soon_smoothed should be Soon et.al. 1996 linked above.

Bernard, I think you have a good point about the negative and vertical slopes and vectorization artifacts, but I'd prefer to see a higher resolution scan before I pass judgement.

Bernard,
you could be on to something regarding vectorization, but I'd love to see a higher resolution scan for that.

There are some useful pointers (how to get the data) for you coming up, the comment is however stuck in the moderation queue right now. In the meantime please have a look at my comment #21

P.S. It will probably show up above this post.

Ooops, #25, not #21

463 bluegrue,

I thought it was well known where Durkin got the basis for his doctored graph. Tamino covered it in [Swindler's List](http://tamino.wordpress.com/2007/04/22/swindlers-list/) and McIntyre covered it in [Risk Management Solutions Ltd and the 37 Professors](http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1519). It came from Robinson, Robinson, Baliunas, and Soon. The only doubt seemed to be whether it was the same in the [Medical Sentinel](http://jpands.org/hacienda/v3n5.html) and the [Oregon Petition](http://www.oism.org/pproject/) (I don't have access to the first and I don't know how much the OISM version has changed).

Would your find have been, in turn, been the basis for the above?

By TrueSceptic (not verified) on 25 May 2009 #permalink

464 Bernard,

When you said '1880', did you mean '1890'?

Please tell me if I'm being stupid but I've always assumed that the Durkin and Plimer graphs were probably hand-drawn and not data-generated. I can't see any -ve slopes in either Durkin version, but these could easily be introduced during a copy of a copy, as when making the Plimer version. I doubt that much care was taken with accuracy in any of these; after all, it's the big picture they are misrepresenting, not the fine detail!

By TrueSceptic (not verified) on 25 May 2009 #permalink

464 Bernard,

I must say that it never occurred to me that Durkin's last peak was supposed to be 1998. I assumed that it was simply where the minor 1985 peak ended up when the graph's x-axis was altered to end in 2000.

By TrueSceptic (not verified) on 25 May 2009 #permalink

When you said '1880', did you mean '1890'?

Oops, yes.

Another late night.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 25 May 2009 #permalink

Truesceptic,

(Re-writing because my earlier comment appears to have disappeared.)

I have the book in front of me. Lent to me, not bought, honest.

The lines showing temperature anomaly and sunspot cycle length in Plimer's graph in Fig. 15 appear to be identical to the corresponding lines on a graph on the page FOLLOWING (sorry - dunno how to do italics) your reference, ie graph (a) on:

http://www.ofcomswindlecomplaint.net/FullComplaint/p54.htm

They show the same values and cover the same time frame.

They are not the same as the lines on the page you referred to showing the graph from the Swindle documentary.

However it is clear that Plimer used a graph showing values that were well known (although possibly not by him) to be wrong at the time he wrote his book, and which referred to a time interval ending more than 20 years earlier.

But does this tell us anything new about Plimer or his book? Sadly, no.

Perhaps Mr Lambert can find a suitable way of illustrating this.