Open Thread 27

Found this quote at:
http://fabiusmaximus.wordpress.com/2009/05/22/climate-change/

"But if there is one scientist who knows more about sea levels than anyone else in the world it is the Swedish geologist and physicist Nils-Axel Mörner, formerly chairman of the INQUA International Commission on Sea Level Change. And the uncompromising verdict of Dr Mörner, who for 35 years has been using every known scientific method to study sea levels all over the globe, is that all this talk about the sea rising is nothing but a colossal scare story."

Perhaps you could comment on the claim and, perhaps, on Dr Mörner's research in general.

As Mörner's background is brought up to establish his authority, you will want to have a look here:
http://www.edf.org/documents/3868_morner_exposed.pdf

The link once more, markdown kills links that contain underscores:
[Letter of the Presdident of INQUA to the President of the Russian Academy of Science in 2004](http://www.edf.org/documents/3868_morner_exposed.pdf), regarding Mörner's continued reference to his position at INQUA.

Jennifr Marohasy had an article on Mörner, where inside the comments section Paul Biggs listed peer-reviewed literature refuting Mörner's work regarding Maledive sea level.
http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/002611.html

I see that Ahmadinejad is demanding a debate with Obama. Just like Milloy and Monckton demand to debate Gore. Denialists deny alike.

Skeptico has an interesting description of an interaction with Joanne Nova. See especially "This is Funny".

The Skeptics Handbook now offers French and German translations, with Swedish and Norwegian on the way.
A bit of rummaging identifies helpers.

The Skeptics Handbook now offers French and German translations, with Swedish and Norwegian on the way. A bit of rummaging identifies helpers.

Idiots' delight auf Deutsch

> Mörner's continued reference to his position at INQUA.

Mörner -snicker-

One of the goofier crackpots in the deniers' crew of dodgy "experts."

In addition to lying to a scientific conference about his association with INQUA, he claims evil IPCC researchers destroyed a tree that proved his claim to debunk rising sea levels.

Plimer has an article in today's Oz:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25552775-5013479,00…

This comment is absolute gold:

heehee of Canberra 10:15am today:
Here is Ian Plimer again; the chk-chk-boom academic on climate change.

Re Dave @#8, Ye gods, has this man no conscience at all?
Quote: "In a wonderful gesture of public spiritedness, seven academics who include three lead authors of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and a former director of the World Climate Research Program wrote to Australian power generating companies on April 29 instructing them to cease and desist creating electricity from coal..."The warming of the atmosphere, driven by human-induced emissions of greenhouse gases, is already causing unacceptable damage and suffering around the world."

No evidence is provided for this statement and no signatory to this letter has published anything to support this claim."

As Graham Redfearn (http://tinyurl.com/mzrl6m) points out, these seven authors that Plimer claims have published nothing to support their claims include " Professor David Karoly, Professor Barry Brook. Sir Hubert Wilkins Chair of Climate Change, University of Adelaide Dr Karl Braganza, Professor Matthew England, Professor Ann Henderson-Sellers, Professor Lesley Hughes and Professor Barrie Pittock.

A quick check around reveals Professor Karoly has had about 100 papers and chapters published through the peer review system on climate change and its consequences and impacts. Professor Ann Henderson-Sellers about 500. Professor England - more than 130. Professor Barry Brook - more than 100."

Anyone with both sides of their brain still connected ought to be able to sniff out that there's Shurely Shome Mishtake from Pimer's first para: three IPCC "lead authors" yet not one has produced a single solitary word that substantiates their position?

The man's mad.

Oh look!

On the [Ian Plimer and the health effects of mercury poisoning from land mines](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/04/ian_plimer_and_the_health_effe…) we see trollshit:

[Posted by: Hugh Denton May 29, 2009 4:16AM](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/04/ian_plimer_and_the_health_effe…)

followed by:

[Posted by: Ian Dunross May 29, 2009 4:24AM](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/04/ian_plimer_and_the_health_effe…),

and on the [An astronomer reviews Ian Plimer's book](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/05/an_astronomer_reviews_ian_plim…) thread we have:

[Posted by: Hugh Denton May 29, 2009 1:19AM](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/05/an_astronomer_reviews_ian_plim…)

followed by:

[Posted by: Ian Dunross May 29, 2009 1:45AM](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/05/an_astronomer_reviews_ian_plim…)

Great strategic thinking.

Some trolls just aren't very smart, are they? It must be embarrassing to have them on one's 'side'...

Boris:

> I see that Ahmadinejad is demanding a debate with Obama.

This wins.

Steve \Chamberlain,

Please read carefully all the papers that your quoted coterie have published and then reliably report back whether they have actually supported the particular claim about "unacceptable damage and suffering around the world"

11 Dave Andrews,

No, *you* provide the evidence for Plimer's claim. He is unlikely to do so himself. Note that he claimed a negative. ;-)

Dave Andrews,

Here's a start;

http://www.adelaide.edu.au/directory/barry.brook#Publications

Seen by yours truly:

AnnouncingThe Great Connections:Mastering the Intellectual Tools that Transforma College Education into Lifetime Success

Turns out to be a wingnut indoctrination, um, I mean freedomation event.

By the way, Deltoid even gets a mention in the Monckton page of Dash Riprock III (aka Mark Gillar), who appeared often in an earlier thread.

If Mark is still around:
a) have you read Dessler's book yet?
b) Have you read the Texas and Water presentations?
c) have you signed up for the June 8-10 climate conference at TAMU?

Any of you guys heard of this yet? Apparently it's just been released on June 1:

http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=10434

Chill, A Reassessment of Global Warming Theory: Does Climate Change Mean the World is Cooling, and If So What Should We Do About It?

Although the world's climate has undergone many cyclical changes, the phrase 'climate change' has taken on a sinister meaning, implying catastrophe for humanity, ecology and the environment. We are told that we are responsible for this threat, and that we should act immediately to prevent it. But the apparent scientific consensus over the causes and effects of climate change is not what it appears. Chill is a critical survey of the subject by a committed environmentalist and scientist. Based on extensive research, it reveals a disturbing collusion of interests responsible for creating a distorted understanding of changes in global climate. Scientific institutions, basing their work on critically flawed computer simulations and models, have gained influence and funding. In return they have allowed themselves to be directed by the needs of politicians and lobbyists for simple answers, slogans and targets. The resulting policy - a 60 percent reduction of greenhouse-gas emissions by 2050 - would have a huge, almost unimaginable, impact upon landscape, community and biodiversity. On the basis of his studies of satellite data, cloud cover, ocean and solar cycles, Peter Taylor concludes that the main driver of recent global warming has been an unprecedented combination of natural events. His investigations indicate that the current threat facing humanity is a period of cooling, as the cycle turns, comparable in severity to the Little Ice Age of 1400-1700 AD. The risks of such cooling are potentially greater than global warming and on a more immediate time scale, with the possibility of failing harvests leaving hundreds of millions vulnerable to famine. Drawing on his experience of energy policy and sustainability, Taylor suggests practical steps that should be taken now. He urges a shift away from mistaken policies that attempt to avert inevitable natural changes, to an adaptation to a climate that may turn significantly cooler.

Gee, this Peter Taylor sounds like a legend in his own mind. It's a conspiracy, it's all based on computer models (presumably like those computer models Arrhenius used in 1896), it's all natural, mitigation will hurt everybody, the world is actually cooling. But isn't he forgetting the black helicopters and UN concentration camps?

http://www.theage.com.au/national/climate-change-sceptics-impressive-fi…

Apparently Family First Senator Steven fielding finds climate skeptics "impressive".

This matters because his vote may be critical to getting the emissions trading legislation through the Senate.

Australian readers (and Dr. Tim) might want to address polite, reasoned letters or e-mails to Senator Fielding to try to present him with the actual facts.

Further to Ian's post at #18, Fielding also appeared on [Lateline](http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2008/s2588715.htm) to spruik his scepticism.

The full transcript should be up in a few days, but the fact that a federal politician does not have the discernment to understand the weaknesses of the 'arguments' that he espouses is indeed a sad indictment on the quality of some of our political intellect, and of those who vote for them...

Former Sceptic@19

Peter Taylor (author of Chill)

[Says](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UUUYcfsaSnw) that there has been cooling in recent months equivalent to the warming of the last 50 years.

I had an email interaction with him a year ago, from memory his counter theory involved complex lag from solar cycles, where the heat is hidden in the oceans and driving cloud effects. He also draws attention to cosmic rays. Quite speculative stuff.

One thing that struck me at the time was that he thought the IPCC AR4 were only 66% confident that Anthropogenic CO2 had caused most of the recent warming(actually >90).
The main objection I remember was I though he very poor described the current theory of AGW- thereby his critique of it was off target.

Self-plug:

Monckton warns patriotic Americans Jacques Chirac is going to confiscate their guns. Or something.

lolwut? The Climate 'Science' Coalition of America is recruiting...

Hello Mark Byrne and Paul Levenson - if either of you would like to discuss the science in more detail - please feel free to email me via my website: www.ethos-uk.com - I am very open to feedback on my work - it is three years in the writing, and motivated by m concern for the impact of mitigation policies - Paul: I am not a conspiracist, but have long experience at exposing collusion of interests (including in the UN on waste dumping issues) and you will find examples of my work in the peer-reviewed ocean pollution literature.

I also have extensive experience as an advisor on energy policy issues - and this is a big part of the critique.

Mark - the ocean time-lagged effects and natural cycles can account for about 80% of the warming. The rest may be the GHG mixture - of which 25% would be from land-use changes, meaning that a 50% reduction in industrial/consumer use would deal with about 8% of the driving force of climate change. Doesn't that put a different perspective on things?

And yes - I have little faith in computer simulations of the complex global environment - but then I studied them for 20 years as a scientific and legal analyst (often on behalf of Greenpeace, and various governments too).

Hello Peter Taylor,

To bring us all upto speed, please demonstrate what you mean by:

the ocean time-lagged effects and natural cycles can account for about 80% of the warming. The rest may be the GHG mixture - of which 25% would be from land-use changes, meaning that a 50% reduction in industrial/consumer use would deal with about 8% of the driving force of climate change.

Has anyone given Peter Taylors a critical scientific review yet? I can't find one on the net.I'm of the opinion that he will turn out to be another Ian Plimer.

I think its been overtaken by Roy Spencer's claims.

I wrote to soon. After some digging I found this little nugget of infromation on Peter Taylor. Shiva's Rainbow is a book that Taylor stopped advertising on his site because it shows him to be a woo woo pseudoscientist:

http://www.alastairmcintosh.com/articles/2010-Peter-Taylor-Climate-Revi…

If Peter Taylor is still around could I ask him if he still subscribes to what he wrote in Shiva's Rainbow? Plutonium, you said, is now: "distributed in homeopathic doses by the bomb tests, such that not a bone on the planet is free of it! Poisonous as it may be in the dose around Windscale, as with all homeopathic poisons, may it not also possess healing powers, borne of Plutonic dimension, a preparation for rebirth, an awakener to higher consciousness?" (p. 232)

And he also states:
"In truth, in the scientific realms in which I worked, and gained by now, some standing, I was an imposter. I am not a scientist. Apart from my brief survey of tree-hole communities when I successfully correlated insect larvae diversity with circumference and aspect of the hole to the sun, which, in any case, had been done many times before, I have never `done' science. In my work I have relied certainly upon an understanding of scientific theory and a memory for facts and relationships, and upon an instinct for the hidden and not yet known, but fundamentally I have been a linguist and an actor. My scientific degrees were linguistic exercises in critical review. My performances on television, in public inquiries, on tribunals and commissions, those of an extremely well-briefed lawyer, the ultimate actor. Which is not to say there is no dedication to truth" (pp. 146-7).
So do you consider yourself a climate scientist now or an actor, and how do you presently regard your relationship to the truth?

And could you also answer wether or not you still believe that astral projection and discarnate gurus are a scientifically legitimate means of obtaining credible information?
Do you know that Lord Monckton's "paper" was flawed, as you have mentioned it online?
Can I also ask why your recent book Chill was not subjected to peer review and why you would rather talk to people at conspiracy conventions than to climate scientists?

Well Captain Black, despite your terrible spelling (or typos) you have some interesting points. The problem is that your argument seems to have been cut-and-pasted from someone elses review. Now, Alastair's review doesn't actually examine the science but instead tries to debunk Peter Taylor by looking at other his other interests or beliefs. That smacks a little of American politics. Do you actually understand the science? If so, then why not make a critical review of the science - whatever your conclusion it has to be more productive than drivel that you've written / pasted above.

It might also be worth having a closer look at Alastair's website, with links to the ECOS site and the no-holds-barred discussion there. I imagine that the book was removed from his website to prevent exactly this kind of reaction - where the science is skipped over in order to get to the gossip-mag stuff. The "woo woo pseudoscientist" has his CV listed on his website; A little more research might save you a little embarrassment.

I do realise this is a very late reply but I felt something had to be said.

If Peter Taylor has any actual science - as opposed to groundless assertions - he will publish it in the usual manner.

For the moment, Taylor hasn't done any science, so there is nothing for us to check out. We've checked out the science that is currently in the public domain, and it contradicts the general thrust of Taylor's assertions.