Open Thread 35

The news that 84% of economists believe global warming threatens the economist needs to get more news:

http://akwag.blogspot.com/2009/11/dont-believe-global-warming-scientist…

Skeptics believe global warming is made up by scientists because they trust only the Market, not science. But now the sages of free markets--economists--have turned against skeptics too.

"Skeptics believe global warming is made up by scientists because they trust only the Market, not science."

Alas, here in the socialistic north, there is plenty of evidence to disprove this assertion. Lots of denialists all across the political spectrum. I think maybe there is an overweight of populist-conservatives and euroskeptics, though.

Harold, I'd be interested to hear about actual denialists from the left as well as right. The question of "why more right-of-centre denial" had puzzled me - until I realised I was being unscientific! A possible solution: scientific knowledge is evenly spread across the political spectrum, it's just that it shows up more on the right -

http://www.coveredinbees.org/node/267

p.s. I'm just trying to get my head around what the hell is going on with all this "skepticism" - any thoughts gratefully received:

http://www.coveredinbees.org/node/266

Is it me or are things getting considerably noisier as Copenhagen approaches?

Sorry, me again: I've been trying to get up to speed on the "hockey wars" - but see McIntyre picking away again as soon as Briffa tries to settle the matter. Is there *any* chance of me - as a just-about-statistically literate social scientist - getting to the meat of the problem? Should I even be trying? And, should McIntyre take responsibility for some of the incredible claims made about his work e.g. "McIntyre proves AGW is a MASSIVE lie!" I'm sure if the media had misinterpreted my work so badly, I'd be mortified and want to set the record straight...

Absolutely last post I promise! In case anyone missed it - UK drugs advice chief gets the sack; scientific community in uproar; some people's opinion of science starts oozing out:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1224858/Yes-scientists-good-B…

Scientists: arrogant gods of certainty! "The only difference between Hitler and previous governments was that he believed, with babyish credulity, in science as the only truth. He allowed scientists freedoms which a civilised government would have checked."

Oh my God... and, yes, look! "Those who dare question scientists are demonised for their irrationality. Global warming may or may not be a certainty, but anyone who queries it has his sanity questioned."

This caricature of science as absolute, totalitarian certainty: it's very common in climate denial, isn't it?

> @#3: "Harold, I'd be interested to hear about actual denialists from the left as well as right."

Martin Durkin, producer of "The Great Global Warming Swindle" is (or was) affiliated with the Revolutionary Communist Party.

Dan, whether or not Durkin was affiliated, the offshoots of the RCP (LM, spiked) were and are as libertarian as they come. They can hardly be described as of the left.

Dan Olner,

If you even bother to look at the Daily Mail website I would say you have severe comprehension problems from the start!

Previously the biggest climate stoppers in the West were the US, Canada and Australia. Now the US and Australia have changed governments.

Has that made the US or Oz noticably greener?

Is Canada noticably the same?

If so, can Canada change without tossing the Conservatives out?

The RCP is communist the way neocons were "really" on the side of the "goals" of the left. It's a reductio ad absurdum of books like Irving Kristol's "Two Cheers for Capitalism."

I would say the main breakdown isn't between "left and right" but between cosmopolitan and anti-intellectual. In America especially, where democratic values elevate the voice of the average citizen, there's a suspicion of anyone claiming to know the Truth - a valuation of the common man's wisdom over expertise (which is commonly seen as arrogance). On the Right especially, this manifests as antipathy toward "liberal do-gooders who think they know what's best for me."

This resentment toward such advice is so strong that right-wingers purposely do things that are bad for themselves just to exercise their freedom to be irresponsible: witness this Fox News article in praise of the 1200 calorie Double Down sandwich (a KFC product that replaces the sandwich buns with two fried chicken fillets).

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,543983,00.html

Dan Olner,

Thanks for that link - what an extraordinary article. I love how he takes a case of a scientific adviser being sacked for going against the Government lines and uses that to argue that scientists are arrogant. It seems his problem is with facts, not scientists. It's amazing how some people get all post-modern when it suits them.

#6 Martin Durkin... affiliated with the Revolutionary Communist Party.

I think both ends of the political spectrum find Global warming a challenge for quite different reasons. The Right find it difficult because it demonstrates that capitalism does have limits that will probably have to be enforced by government.

The Left (certainly if Durkin is any guide) find it a problem because the Left despises the middle-class. As far as it is concerned, environmentalism is the middle-class standing in the way of the economically oppressed proletariat by not allowing it to have cheap electricity. (What was that quote? Trotsky? "Socialism is Communism plus Electrification").

I will never forget an interview with Martin Durkin on ABC Counterpoint. Apart from the skin-crawling obsequiousness of the hosts, I found myself staggered by Durkin's hatred of the middle-class. According to him, the Environmental movement was born of the middle-classes no longer having servants. Really strange stuff.

Marion,

"If so, can Canada change without tossing the Conservatives out?"

Canada, whether liberal or conservative will follow the US lead. I don't see how we can do anything else.

Historically, Canada has been a laggard in dealing with global warming irregardless of the party in power.

Fundamentally the reason is the country is pretty much split because of the differences in local economies across the country.

Also, light population density, cold climate, and vast expanses contribute to the difficulty.

#12 "It's amazing how some people get all post-modern when it suits them. "

This is something that I've thought too. It seems to me that Denialism is very much a post-modern phenomenon. The post-modernists tell us that there is no objective reality, or at least, that it can never be understood fully. Consequently, any interpretation of observations has merit. We create our own reality. The Denialists certainly seem to be doing that. How else can Andrew Bolt look at a graph of sea level or temperature that is obviously heading upwards and claim that it's going down? I'll believe a lot of Andrew Bolt, but I don't think he's stupid. No. He is a product of his time - a post modernist who believes that reality is whatever he says it is.

Denialist on the left:

Alexander Cockburn (Counterpunch);
el gordo (claims to be from the left);
Dave Andrews (claims that he reads the Guardian and claims that relfects on his politics).

I've thought about the post-modern attitude of the Right (in the part of the world heavily influenced by the US, at least) to climate science, and I think it's actually quite simple.

The hippies (and others, of course) pointed out there were natural limits on growth capitalism, and that ultimately we all depend for our survival on a healthy environment. The Right has a visceral hatred of the hippies, because we destroyed western civilisation (or something - who knows? - these are not rational people) with our free-and-easy attitudes. Because they perceive the environment as being largely a Left / hippie issue, they stick their fingers in their ears, whack a doily on their heads, and shout, "La, la, la, I can't hear you."

HTL,

Traditional Socialists definitely have a problem with the middle-class (maybe because they disrupt their simple workers versus bosses view of the world?). I'm having flashbacks to my student days when the socialists would complain about greenies as bourgeois, middle-class radicals.

The other problem socialists have is that they have exactly the same faith in industrial progress as the most hardline free-market capitalists. I'm trying to remember my Marx here - I think capitalism is supposed to be a step along the path to the workers' paradise, so this probably makes sense.

Of course, as others have pointed out, science and technology are very good at solving problems, but they don't do so by blind faith and denying the problem exists.

What would you say to someone who is trying to claim that the energy released from the oceans during an El Nino simply escapes into space?

My first though was that it is trapped by GHG's but that is what happens to radiant heat.

I tried googling it but just kept on getting a bunch of crap from WUWT and Rank Exploits (obviously where the person I debating picked it up).

Confused about how the denialist mind works? Want to become a member of the denialati but don't know how? Think you may already be a denialist but are too afraid to ask?

Worry no longer. Just follow this simple guide provided as a free public service by First Dog on the Moon.

8^))

(Note: not safe for use near computers, as repeated beverage/monitor conjunction events may ensue)

Connor,

It does eventually escape into space, but not so simply. El Niño spreads its heat around the globe, carrying with it with a lot of moisture some places and blocking moisture from others, disrupting weather patterns all over. The thing to remember is that the only way heat can escape into space is as radiant energy and GHGs slow down the rate at which it can escape, regardless of the changing weather.

Re: Connor 19, 21

El Nino and La Nina don't drive global warming, they represent a (sort of) periodic variation in sea surface temperature. Their net effect on surface temperature is neutral. El Nino pumps heat into the atmosphere which temporarily raises the global surface temperature and changes weather patterns. La Nina more or less reverses this process.

There's a fairly technical description here.

And a simpler one here.

Great work from the Center for Public Integrity

Key Findings November 04, 2009

Starting in July 2009, the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists fielded an eight-country team of reporters to uncover the special interests attempting to influence negotiations on a global climate change treaty. Relying on more than 200 interviews, lobbying and campaign contribution records in a half-dozen countries, and on-the-ground reporting from Beijing to Brussels, our team pieced together the story of a far-reaching, multinational backlash by fossil fuel industries and other heavy carbon emitters aimed at slowing progress on control of greenhouse gas emissions. Employing thousands of lobbyists, millions in political contributions, and widespread fear tactics, entrenched interests worldwide are thwarting the steps that scientists say are needed to stave off a looming environmental calamity, the investigation found.

The project fielded reporters in eight of the major economies deemed essential to a successful treaty: Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, India, Japan, and the United States, as well as the European Union. Among our findings:

⢠Both developed and developing countries are under heavy pressure by fossil fuel industries and other carbon-intensive businesses to slow progress on negotiations and weaken government commitments. The clash cannot simply be framed as one between richer and poorer nations.

⢠Chinaâs moves to hasten development of renewable energy, Brazilâs pledges to curb Amazon deforestation, and other steps to address climate change in the developing world have prompted a strong pushback from domestic in-country interests determined to maintain the status quo.

⢠Instead of a broad frontal assault on the climate science that marked the pre-Kyoto battles, lobbyists seeking to dilute the Copenhagen treaty have changed strategy, acknowledging there is a problem while focusing on slowing or easing national commitments.

⢠The intensity of the lobbying can be seen most clearly in developed countries, where official registers reveal that thousands of industry representatives have attempted to influence climate legislation. In the United States, there are now about 2,810 climate lobbyists â five lobbyists for every member of Congress â a 400 percent jump from six years earlier. And in Australia, Canada, and the European Union, hundreds more lobbyists are at work attempting to block or water down strict limits on carbon emissions.

⢠Powerful corporations are fielding multinational efforts to influence the debate, such as Peabody Coal, the worldâs largest coal company, in Australia and the United States; and oil giant Exxon Mobil in Canada, the European Union, and the United States. Although largely operating at a national level, opponents of a strong climate change treaty are employing similar fear tactics worldwide, including threats of massive blackouts and job losses.

⢠The voices of scores of business advocates for stronger climate change policy, including alternative energy companies and would-be players in the carbon market, can barely be heard above the clamor of the older, well-capitalized, and deeply entrenched industries that have been lobbying on climate change for more than 20 years.

⢠As a result of the forces arrayed against stricter emissions limits, no developed nation has made a firm pledge for the kind of emissions cut scientists say will be needed within the next decade to stave off catastrophic climate change.

http://www.publicintegrity.org/investigations/global_climate_change_lob…

Next time you hear or read someone mouthing about "global cooling" or how "CO2 is not a pollutant", perhaps a Blot or a Blair, think on the filth merchant sources they are channelling.

Fran

Support for control of the weather is fadeing fast. Copenhagen was a done deal but then is got a bit shaky.Now it's supporters have had to backpedal. Even the un has been forced to say maybe next time. They had to do this so their supporters don't get to depressed.
The southern hemisphere has had three cool winters but the Northern Hemishpere is about to go into it's third. What caused so many supporters of AGW to abandon ship is the simple fact that the last two winters have been wicked in many populated areas. The U.S.A. won't be ready to pass it's cap and trade for some time and at the rate that Obama is losing support he won't be able to get it through the Senate dispite getting it through the senate committee(republicans boycotted it).
Canada won't sign on, we are not that gullible.

Kent.

Nice spray.

Now, would you care to repeat your claims with reference to the primary data, and to the statistical analysis thereof, that support what you say?

Please, show us to exactly what AGW-busting cooling you are referring.

Kent, I'm struggling to find anything accurate in your latests post, I'm sure that something you say may be true, but most is not.

E.g. lets start with you opening sentance. Please provide evidence to support your assertion that "Copenhagen was a done deal".

Most of everything else you claim can be taken appart in a point by point fact check. But first, please back your first claim. (I don't think you can).

PS. were do you source this rubbish from?

For our international readers, who might not keep up with news from Australia's public broadcaster, came several interesting pieces this week.

The first was [the allegation](http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2009/s2730523.htm) that the CSIRO is censoring (horreur de choc) its scientists on matters pertaining to climate change... It seems that Dr Clive Spash, an ecological economist with the organisation, thinks that:

...carbon trading, like the emissions trading scheme being promoted by the Federal Government, appears to be ineffective in reducing greenhouse gas emissions... [M]ore direct measures, like a carbon tax or new infrastructure, would be simpler and more effective.

According to the reporter:

Earlier this year Dr Spash submitted the article for publication in a UK journal, "New Political Economy" but in July, the CSIRO wrote to the editors, telling them the paper was being withdrawn, because it had not been approved through internal CSIRO processes.

Although it is hardly on the scale of a Hansen-style censorship, I am surprised that more of the Denialati haven't whooped and screeched about the conspiracy to hide the impending damage to the economy, for no gain. On a more prosaic note, I personally would like to see more debate of the merits of cap and trade style programs versus direct carbon taxes, but it seems to be a discussion that dare not speak its name...

The second piece was [an interview with Al Gore](http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2008/s2733567.htm). Once again I am surprised that the Denialati haven't decended upon Gore's words in order to prove that It's All Just a Big Conspiracy, but then, they're probably waiting for the transcript to be posted so that they aren't forced to listen to the interview itself.

I mean, ewww, Al Gorrrre...! Ne salissez pas mes oreilles!

[Hmmm... I did that sarcasm thing again, did I not? I really must go flail myself in penance...]

Augh. Kent implies he's a Canuck too. I just don't believe it. If a Canadian was going to spout nonsense it would be high quality nonsense (unless his name was Gunter and he wrote for the National Post) that would take an hour or so of searching and multiple science-based websites to debunk, not Kent's tripe that can be disproved in 30 seconds by a single visit to the NOAA website (Global Analysis Report--pick your time frames). I'm betting he's been listening to Limbaugh...or if he's really a Canuck, Gunter.

Second thought...just a troll.

Re #24

Coldest winter in the southern hemisphere? Certainly not in Australia.

http://news.brisbanetimes.com.au/breaking-news-national/australia-enjoy…

Augh. Kent implies he's a Canuck too.

Yeah, we got our share of dunces. Kent's one of my favourites. He's usually hilariously wrong. Speaking of which, whatever happened to Harold Pierce, Jr? (Was that his name?) He was another Canuck denialist who was laughable.

Keep in mind we also have Tim "you're not allowed to point out when I lie" Ball and Tom "it's not astroturf!" Harris up here in Canada.

Bernard, I'd be interested in you opinion of the potential damage from a terribly flawed ETS. Could you envisage an ETS that passed on higher cost to consumers while protecting the worst polluters, thereby damaging public support for deepening mitigation? (Where proteting big coal entails higher costs to public for each tonne of CO2 mitigation.)

This is something that concerns me. I believe that surpresssing the ETS vs direct tax debate is potentially more damaging that many imagine.

I suspect Bernard that Spash's comments weren't all that well received by the filth merchant lobby because he's sympathetic to steady state economy models and his criticism of an ETS was driven by what he regarded as missing the main point -- that the ETS couldn't work based on 2% growth.

Censoring anti-growthists might be OK if you're a filth merchant lobbyist.

Good one Fran (#23). If you think this is some kind of a credible survey, then good for you.

Please tell me, who exactly has been offered so much as a single cent, a razoo, dinar or pesewa for promoting the 'evil causes' of 'big fossil'.
If you really are not aware, hear it from me, most 'organized skeptics' are unpaid volunteers. Fortunately they are still recognized as such within the wider community.

They don't get any money from any Government that's for sure. And they don't get any from WWF or greenpeace or any other parasitic organization either, unlike some.

In America especially, where democratic values elevate the voice of the average citizen, there's a suspicion of anyone claiming to know the Truth

Unless it's a president who claims his favorite philosopher is Jesus, in which case all critical faculties must be suspended immediately.

The post-modernists tell us that there is no objective reality, or at least, that it can never be understood fully. Consequently, any interpretation of observations has merit.

I'd add the caveat that "classic" postmodernist thinkers tend to have a greater commitment to self-reflexivity than the average climate denialists, and wouldn't necessarily exempt themselves from skepticism and critique. It's more a matter of acting like the hard-right, anti-intellectual caricature of postmodernists. "Incredulity towards all metanarratives but mine" is the basic idea, IMO.

Janet Akerman mentioned me in dispatches, being of the far left but also in denial. I admit to being in that invidious position, but then so is Martin Ferguson.

Janet Ackerman, I don't think so.

Cockburn is a lot like Hitchens - in the self-serving Alex Cockburn Party.

Durkin is a far-rightist across the board, doing their typical front-groupism. That Dave Andrews and el gordo are simply lying about their political position is absolutely obvious. It's the commonest tactic they have - Bill O'Reilly is an independent looking out for you.

None of them count except Cockburn, and him only tangentially. In addition to his many, many attacks on almost everyone on the Left, his little dance of glee over Bush winning in 2000 - which he followed up after 9/11 with an op-ed saying thank God Bush is president, because if Al Gore was, we'd all be in more danger - should at least give people pause.

Most people do regard Cockburn as being on the Left, but not Durkin. No one but the proven liar and market cultist Durkin himself would say that, in fact.

Oh, and as a lifelong conservative, close personal friend of William Buckley and Russel Kirk, and the godson of Friedrich von Hayek and the first person to win the Von Mises Free Enterprise Essay contest, as well as being the recipient of letters of recommendation from Pat Robertson and Pat Buchanan and the late Rev. Falwell, Janet, I have to add that it's pretty much our unanimous position that babies should be force fed corn paste like a goose, slaughter-broiled using electric fencing, and served as tot-fil-a at fast food chains. Yep, that's our position. And we've all turned against the troops. I personally phone the Iraqi insurgents every day and give them troop positions I got from Geraldo and Glenn Beck. So there you go. Self-reporting - your most reliable guide, just like self-selecting surveys.

Marion

I am of the left and in denial about climate change. You are simply wrong.

And not to beat a dead horse, but please add journalism to science and economics in the Jeopardy category "Things the Denialism Industry Talks Mostly Nonsense About."

As someone who did boring actual journalism for years, Tom Fuller's addition:

I don't normally call sources--that's the journalism biz, I'm afraid.

Is even more psycho than Keith Kloor's:

Newspaper and magazine reporters donât have a pre-determined story in mind while theyâre interviewing sources. This is not how we operate.

Which, by the way, is an inherently bad statement. It's not germane to point out many instances of people who do newspaper or magazine reporting, see eye to eye with Kloor, and yet have an obvious pre-determined story in mind while they are interviewing sources. That's what they're supposed to do. The only snag in that is that if the story doesn't pan out, they can't pad it out or falsify it. If Dubner, for instance, has a pre-determined story in mind while he's interviewing sources, he's more of a professional journalist than Kloor. It's fairly definitional.

One exception is when you're doing a celebrity interview where just "hanging" and asking frivolous pointless questions is the story. Otherwise, if someone is interviewing you and has no story in mind, they're wasting your time and the time and money of the paper or magazine they write for.

But back to the Fuller money quote - not calling sources is not "the journalism biz."

Not calling sources is usually the last step before the "standing in the unemployment line" biz.

Connor:

I have heard/seen arguments like that about super-hurricanes pushing "energy" (by which I am not sure what is meant - heated air, water vapor?) and CO2 out "into space."

In general, what happens when you ask them what wavelengths the energy tends to be?

Journalists with ABC news are confusing science with philosophy. When they come on air should they explain the limits of their knowledge? Most unlikely to happen.

They have a pre-determined story in mind and its clearly unbalanced in favor of AGW. The news room is biased, yet they are reporting what they believe is the truth. From my perspective they are misguided and have completely lost the plot.

el gordo would like to see some balance between science and the lies that appear in the Murdoch press perhaps.

Perhaps a lie to balance every fact?

From an idiot's perspective the ABC are misguided and have completely lost the plot.

They must be doing their job right then.

Cockburn's foray into climate delusionism consists, AFAIK, of one silly article in Counterpunch about a year back. This was immediately disavowed by his collaborator Jeffrey St Clair, and since then Counterpunch has published several articles based on the reality of AGW. Although Cockburn has not yet published a retraction, he's hardly in the same league as Blot, Blair, Albrechtsen and the rest.

In a week of interesting commentary, Kevin Rudd took the 'fight' (such as it is in the pantomime of Australian politics) to the sceptics in a [speech](http://www.lowyinstitute.org/Publication.asp?pid=1167) presented at the Lowy Institute for International Policy.

It will be interesting to watch for the kickings-back from the Denialati.

Meanwhile, as of today, the current [Artic sea ice extent](http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/) is about to cross the trajectory for the same time of year in 2007.

I wonder how this will be spun?

I am of the left and in denial about climate change. You are simply wrong.

Nonetheless, let us point out that denial is a normal human reaction to unwanted facts or situations where one cannot cope at that time.

Yes, some in denial are dim-bulbs. Some in denial cannot have their ideology or self-identity ruined by reality. Others in denial simply can't cope with reality. There is a small spectrum of reasons why the 11-13% of the population can't handle reality. Let us keep that in mind. Denial over man-made climate change is not the sole provenance of the right. The preponderance of the 11-13% of the population is made up of wingers, but not all.

Best,

D

Regardless of the pseudoscientific nonsense posted by denialists, underneath it all is a type of religious commitment, with the same MO as the creationists (including the post-modernism). Denialists deny the science of global warming in the same way that creationists deny evolution. I have found that pointing out the similarities between the denialists and the creationists gets the denialists into a frenzy. Many of Bolt's followers are closet creationists, and someone recently said that Bolt himself was a closet Catholic. That would explain a lot.

My writing that Copenhagen was a done deal was the result of reading British newspapers, Australian news papers, Canadian and U.S. papers. Also watching Canadian, U.S. T.V. Not to mention listening to ABC in Australia, BBC in the UK etc etc on late night radio on CBC. I hardly ever heard a dissenting word regarding global warming, Copênhagen.I never believed it was a done deal, just that the media made it seem a done deal.
I would agree that the media believe in AGW but that is not what the people believe. Even the un has been forced to back off saying... next year.
As a Canadian, yes I am, I have wondered why our lack of compliance with KYOTO has not brought down the the CO2 police. The un will never try to sue us because we and they understand that the binding contract was based on fraud and once it gets into the courts, the jig is up.

>The news that 84% of economists believe global warming threatens the economist needs to get more news

We just need geologists to turncoat now.

Kent, it may suit you to read up on Kyoto and its status. It's an agreement, for which there is little enforcement. All that can be done is to suspend a country from making transfers under an emission programme. Not much of an enforcement possibility.

Moreover, few of the news sources that you cite have even remotely stated that "Copenhagen" was a done deal. To claim as such is either dishonest, or indicates a major inability to understand the written English language. Considering your (ab)use of the English language, as a supposedly native speaker, I'm hoping it is the latter.

Considering how many on this sight don't understand written english and how many are more about attempts to insult me. I include you as well. Insulting people is the first sign of weak arguments.
I heard many times that Canada would be sued for lack of compliance. Just to show you how desperate the AGW is google moms against climate change. They had an ad that had kids attacking riot police with a voice over text saying that because the adults aren't doing anything the kids will have to. Youth movement anyone? What kind of climate are they after? Winter, summer, since climate changes all the time how do they plan on controling the weather.

Denial over man-made climate change is not the sole provenance of the right.

Dano above ...

province [metaphoric home] was probably what you wanted here. "Provenance" refers to a chain of cutody establishing authenticity of an artefact/entity.

I'm not sure "province" was best here however. Better might have been "Denial is not peculiar to the right ..."

Where did you read any article saying Copenhagen was a done deal, kent? Pretty much anything I've ever read pointed out how difficult it was going to be to reach any sort of agreement, given the inability of the US Congress to pass legislation, and the various disagreements between developed countries and developing countries, including China and India.

Perhaps you mean to say that the articles you read did not mention sceptics like you?

If so, that's a far cry from saying that Copenhagen was a done deal.

kent @ 50

'Considering how many on this sight don't understand written english'

u ment 'site' and 'English'?

ScaredAmoeba you got me, but u instead of you comes up to the same....My excuse would be either my bout of seasonal flu or H1N1. Your excuse would be?

Heads up people ... I suspect "Kent" is a well known usenet identity called "Kent Detherage" see his usenet profile at:

Kdth

He is simply a longstanding delusionist who pretends to scientific insight/quals.

Barlow: I think a sentence like "Winter, summer, since climate changes all the time how do they plan on controling the weather." tells us all we need to know about what we are dealing with here.

I'm just curious to see any article at all from the BBC or mainstream newspapers that made it sound like Copenhagen was a done deal. The negotiations haven't gotten very far, so we don't even know what the deal is going to look like.

Janet #16,

Well I happen to have been a Guardian reader since the mid 1960's. There is much in it today that I take issue with but I am still in broad agreement with its social and political approach.

So there is no 'claim' involved. What's your newspaper reading record like?

Kent, glad to see you have backed away from your claim that Copenhagen was a done deal.

Lets move on to your next unspecific comment; in your second sentance you say that "Now it's supporters have had to backpedal". Please provide supporting evidence for the claim that supporters of the Copenhagen convention have back peddled (from a deal that was never a done deal). Specifically, who are the supporters you refer to, and from what have they back peddled from?

Fan, don't know who Kent Detherage is, but great first name. A very simple question, how do they plan on controlling the weather? That is what they are talking about, even though they don't know it.
The debate is not over, even the supporters of AGW are starting to believe this. The are pulling out all the stops and it is getting them no where. Obama used all his powers to push the Cap and Trade through Congress and got a 9 vote margin. He and Pelosi (notice how her eyes have shrunken back inside her head? A shrinking brain will do that.) They say they will pass it in the Senate in about 6 months. Mid- term U.S. elections will have a major effect/affect on the balance of congressional/Senate voting patterns. If the Demoncrates can't get a 66% majority in the senate then any treaty signed by Obama can be overturned.
Copenhagen has been in the works for years and they have little to show for it. What they do have is poison to the people of the U.S.. Lord Moncton has given the U.S. a heads up and they are very very upset.
As I have written, most of the West's state funded media are 95% behind AGW. I hear it all the time on late night radio. It is so over the top. If we don't cut back on CO2 we are all going to die.....The end is nigh.

As this is an open thread ... a completyely new topic ...

What hypotheses do contributors here propose for the persistence with which Gordon Brown asserts his commitment to keeping British troops in Afghanistan?

I've been wondering about this one for quite some time but I confess to being short on pluasible explanations for this attitude.

Were GB to propose a rapid withdrawal, I suspect his prospects of winning the next election/avoiding crushing defeat would improve very markedly. Certainly his poliotical position could not be worsened.

So what gives?

kent:

ScaredAmoeba you got me, but u instead of you comes up to the same....My excuse would be either my bout of seasonal flu or H1N1. Your excuse would be?

Nice to have a laugh over breakfast.

Kent, I think SA was having a little joke at your expense with his 'u' and 'ment'. I thought you were a poe, but apparantly not.

kent:

Insulting people is the first sign of weak arguments.

Saying xyz is the first sign of a weak argument is a weak argument.

Nothing in kent's rant really worth responding to, beyond a bit of the politics.

Progress towards Copenhagen was impossible while Bush was in power; and even with him gone it's still tough. The Senate has other things on its plate, and even when it gets around to it, it'll be tough to pass - it's going to be complicated, and every industry is going to try to water it down it their favor. But if the US Senate doesn't act, then the rest of the world won't see much sense in reaching an agreement, because they know the Senate holds the cards in the US. Catch-22. It's hard to see how China and India will get folded in; then poor at-risk countries want to be paid off; everybody wants transfer of technology; Brasil wants to get paid for not cutting down forests.. It's a big mess, but for reasons entirely related to the sceptics. It's each country looking out for its interests; the very opposite of Moncton's delusional reading of the situation.

Anybody who's talking about trying to change the weather really has a frail grasp of reality.

Quite a few scientists and statisticians have had a go at trend identification, and hypothesis testing (the null hypothesis being that there is no trend), with global temperature data.

While their individual selection of statistical tests varies from scientific article to scientific article, the results come out as saying there is a trend, it is upward, and the likelihood of the trend being a fluke is less than 5%. (ie the data doesn't have a trend, but the recorded data mimics a trend).

Now the difficulties with statistics for these time series results in people trying many different statisticle measures, yet these scientists get very similar results.

So far the only cases in which I've seen a statistician or scientist reject the existence of a trend by using statistical process, is in a book on using R for time-series analysis. He does add the caveat that without some understanding of the theory behind climate, it is hard to make claims about the data. This is the usual situation in science: making observations of data with a hypothesis being entertained, and seeing to what degree it stacks up.

Fran: for the simple reason that he intends to keep the troops there, I'd say. As would Mr. Cameron, I presume. Let Labour lose the election; they need a spell in Opposition.

Fran:

What hypotheses do contributors here propose for the persistence with which Gordon Brown asserts his commitment to keeping British troops in Afghanistan?

I have no idea.

One thing that no-one seems to consider, however, is that perhaps he can recall what Afghanistan was like under the Taliban - eg women being publicly horsewhipped for showing their faces in public and all the other crap that comes with a religio-fascist regime - and genuinely wants to do something to prevent it happening again.

Alternatively, he may just be like John Howard and imagines he's the reincarnation of Winston Churchill, or thinks backing down would make him look weak, who knows?

Poor Kent,

Instead of backing up his wild unsubstantiated claims, he instead just piles on more bull. Kent, that don't work here, that technique just keep reminding readers its author has no credibility.

Leave it for your shock jocks preaching to the ill informed Chior, or the profit complex backing their team in the corporate media.

Here, we'll just keep calling you on it if you keep serving up bunk. For example Monckton [is a fraud](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/global_warming/monckton/), anyone who takes a heads up from him, needs to double check the fine print.

Fran@55, I don't think this kent has yet invited anyone to go [suck a greenie weenie and get rich off your greenie weenie futures](http://groups.google.com/group/sci.geo.meteorology/browse_thread/thread…)

Let Labour lose the election; they need a spell in Opposition.

I'm certain you are right carrot, but I'm equally certain a spell in government for the Tories would be dreadful all round.

UAH Global temp for October is out and it is .284 degrees. Down from .422 for last month.

Janet from another planet the word is not don't it is doesn't. As for profit motive, that would be the multi-billion dollar AGW industry, it is the realist side that is underfunded. The media supports yourside, not mine. You wrote.... for example Monckton is a fraud. The proper way to phrase that would be for example,(coma) Monckton is a fraud artist, or a con-artist. What you wrote is libelous, Monckton could take you to court but given what I have seen of him, he would just laugh at you. As for the suggestion of me ranting. Carrot eater you have no idea how good I can rant. At an early age I found I had the ability to push peoples buttons so well that they would begin to shatter. What you call a rant, I call being gentle with the weak and simple minded.

Speaking of frauds,did everyone see big Al on ABC lateline the other night.Can you believe he still says that the Arctic has lost 40%.What a conman!

Kent, you must be proud of yourself.

Poor Kent,

Scientist are not self selected profit psychopaths, Scientists are disproportionately self selected for their curiosity and truth seeking.

You need to read a few more prospectives to find disproportionate concentrations of the [profit seeking psychopaths](http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/bbing/stories/s1158704.htm). You also need to do some simple maths to compare the profit motive in the fossil fuel industry versus climate science.

When you do that maths youth find that Exxon is making $50 billion profit each year, then add in all the other fossil corporations and their lobbyist. Then you can come back an apologise for getting it soooo wrong.

Oh, and Kent, care to argue [these facts](http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/bbing/stories/s1158704.htm) exposing the deceit pushed by Monckton?

Kent, you do not rant good, nor do you rant well. Yes, folks, Kent appears to be one of the few rightwing Canadians who read the National Post religiously and repeatedly post their ill-informed praises for the denialist bilge written by Lorne Gunter and others there.

But be kind to the poor slobs; their main source of information almost went over the bankruptcy cliff recently, and is now being supported only by the other papers in the Canwest chain, and threatening to take all of them down with it.

Correction, that would be: Kent, care to argue [these facts](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/05/monckton_caught_making_things.p…) exposing the deceit pushed by Monckton.

Frank, haven't seen the interview nor do I know the context, but the facts of Arctic Sea Ice extent is that after a low in 2007 of 40% below average, we're still hovering at well below the average (around 25% lower, and thinner than in 2007).

http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20091103_Figure2.png

*Maybe* he shouldn't use a 40% figure that's a couple of years off (I've no idea of the conventions of reporting on current sea ice levels, i.e. whether several-yearly means are used), but the broad facts of the sea ice decline make him guilty of hyperbole rather than fraud. Come back when the ice returns to its long-term extent and we'll talk about recovery.

Bud,the Arctic recovered 10% in 2008 and 15% more in 2009.It is now at statistically normal levels.Given that our data only goes back to 1979,no really valid inferences can be made either way.There is no evidence of a problem with the Arctic icecap.

Denial of AGW, like most other denialism involving the ecology, IS largely peculiar to the economic Right. And there's a huge correlation between being in the religious Right and being a denialist.

Martin Durkin is a right-wing market fundamentalist, period. He's simply one of thousands of people whose sociopathic capitalist ideology also includes zero guilt or shame about lying.

It's in light of that that I refuse to aceept people's self-reported evaluations as evidence that there's substantial AGW denial on the left. There simply is not.

Our corporate media often calls itself the liberal media. That's a self-serving lie intended to sow confusion.

Where's most of the climate denialism coming from, again? From the business is always right crowd, and the market is always right ideology.

It's a bit like saying both atheists and fundamentalists are evolution deniers - maybe a handful of atheists, but that is still an incorrect statement.

Monckton is a fraud. Also a confidence trickster. Furthermore, he routinely purloins credentials that are not his and uses the logos, insignias and brands of organizations he's not authorized to use. He puffs his resume more than any other public figure I know of, and invents absurd awards for himself that suggest he's a paranoid schizophrenic.

Also, the things Monckton would sue over probably include things someone did in the dream the Discount Mountebank of Benchwarmer had last nite.

Please pass the word on, Kent.

I need spoilers, gang. I missed a couple episodes. Is "Kent" genuinely unaware of where the Janet part of Janet Ackerman comes from? And if so, isn't that already proven to be delicious irony in the literature?

Gaz suggested:

One thing that no-one seems to consider, however, is that perhaps he can recall what Afghanistan was like under the Taliban - eg women being publicly horsewhipped for showing their faces in public and all the other crap that comes with a religio-fascist regime - and genuinely wants to do something to prevent it happening again.

A number of objections to this rationale come to mind:

1. He hasn't mentioned it lately and most recently linked the occupation to the safety of British streets
2. The regime he is propping up makes no measurable attempt to interfere with the action of fundamentalists and is currently trying to get its "Taliban brothers" to join his regime.
3. It's not possible to restrain abuse of women with the kind of occupation that NATO could in practice mount and sustain -- on their reckoning, you'd need about 650,000 troops for that population -- probably for 10 years and possibly for 100 years -- and that would cost about 5% of world GDP for at least the first ten -- wanting and having are only connected if there is a credible vehicle to get from the former to the latter.
4. There are better alternatives based around creating an Afghan diaspora if that were your goal

George Monbiot thinks most of the denialists are 60 and 70 years olds, presumably of different political persuasions.

@frank: "the Arctic recovered 10% in 2008 and 15% more in 2009.It is now at statistically normal levels"

I think I just showed you that's false. Two years increase in extent following a major outlier does not constitute a recovery, any more than slightly lower temperatures since 2005 constitute 'cooling'.

Like I said, come back when the ice returns to statistically normal levels.

Carrot; I eliminated ego and pride decades ago when I studied eastern religions. Phycopaths are not into profit Janet they are into killing people in a hands on manner.As for profit, without it you have no jobs and you end up in a communist system.
You wrote, "Scientists are disproportionately self selected for their curiosity and truth seeking." Wow you really know little about the process of science do you. First off, you need to get grants and to do that you need to be good as sucking up politicaly. Being green will get you grants but being a realist will probably get you in trouble with the granting agency. Al Gore is spending $100,000,000.00 in advertising trying to convince people he is right. He goes from being worth 2 million to being worth closer to a billion

Marion (82): if you're after a hint, will this do? :)

kent (86): "I eliminated ego and pride decades ago when I studied eastern religions."

Really? So which "eastern religions" did you study that encourages its acolytes to spout egotistical, self-aggrandising claims such as "At an early age I found I had the ability to push peoples buttons so well that they would begin to shatter. What you call a rant, I call being gentle with the weak and simple minded"? Which "eastern religions" did you study that did not emphasise the interconnectedness of all actions and all things? Which "eastern religions" did you study that encouraged folly or importunity?

Poor Kent,

Pychopaths don't only kill people, they have a range of 'qualities' that find them disproportionately in high number [among executives](http://www.cpa2biz.com/Content/media/PRODUCER_CONTENT/Newsletters/Artic…) (you know, of those dictatorial hierarchies were you can rise by kissing up and kicking down).

So I've stopped counting how many time you're wrong Kent, lets say many times.

And your pretence at knowing 'about science' is not convincing. For starters, any political games in science are more than matched in business and politics. So we return to the case that scientists are disproportionately motivated by truth seeking and curiosity and those who base their career on disproportionate profit seeking will find themselves associating with characters that are 3 times more likely to exhibit psychopathic behaviour.

>Psychopaths represent about one percent of the general population, but comprise about [3.5 percent of high-potential corporate employees](http://www.cpa2biz.com/Content/media/PRODUCER_CONTENT/Newsletters/Artic…).

By the way Kent your grossly wrong on your assessment of political economy also. I work for an Not For Profit. And I ain't joined the communist party yet. But you seem attached to your fear campaign (its either hand everything over to the profit motive or its Communism) What a joke! I guess that's the same rational for why you need AGW to be wrong as well?

Keep it comming Kent. Your giving a good exhibition.

:)

Another basic question - how does solar radiation penetrate the atmosphere on the way in, and then less is able to penetrate the atmosphere on the way out?

I'm guessing the answer has something to do with the difference in wavelength between solar IR radiation. Is that somewhere near the mark?

Impressive recall Steve!

I wouldn't have remember which month let alone under which post!

;)

Lord Moncton [sic] has given the U.S. a heads up...

I propose a variation on [Godwin's Law](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_Law), to be known as WotWot's Variation, with a corollary:

If a person cites Monckton as an authority on any aspect of climate science, the probability of that person being able to both competently and honestly debate climate science is 0.

Corollary:

Any further debate with the person invoking the citation is futile.

In science the best laws have universal applicability, and this new law is no exception. Obviously the above formulation is a particular application of the general law. There are an embarrassing riches of name/subject combinations that could be substituted for our dear Lord and climate science, and the law will still hold firm and true. For example, Jenny McCarthy and MMR vaccine.

I am sure the dear reader will have no trouble expanding on the particular applications of this general law.

[Frank]( http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/open_thread_35.php#comment-2054…).

Bud,the Arctic recovered 10% in 2008 and 15% more in 2009.It is now at statistically normal levels.Given that our data only goes back to 1979,no really valid inferences can be made either way.There is no evidence of a problem with the Arctic icecap.

Erm, "now at statistically normal levels"? Just how are you conducting your 'statistics'? If you refer to [The National Snow and Ice Data Center](http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/) and take note of today's Arctic sea ice extent, you will see that it has now crossed the trajectory for the same time in 2007.

You wouldn't be comparing the current value with the historical mean, would you? Please explain your 'statistics'.

As to the evidence for a "problem with the ice cap", with due respect I would suggest that you consider the available data a little more carefully...

And you might like to retract [your libel](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/open_thread_35.php#comment-2054…):

Speaking of frauds,did everyone see big Al on ABC lateline the other night.Can you believe he still says that the Arctic has lost 40%.What a conman!

If you were actually paying a modicum of attention, you would have understood that Gore was referring to the mass/volume of Arctic sea ice, and not to its area... Comprehension doesn't seem to be a strong point for you, does it?

So Gore was probably very close to the money with the 40% figure, and you owe him an apology.

Oh, and can you learn that there are traditionally spaces included after punctuation marks?

NIce spin Bernard,but not quite on target.The only thing that matters is the ice minimum.The AMSR data gives the best picture.As for crossing over into 2007,that is ludicrous.The refreeze is never of the same trajectory,what matters is the minimum.The "historical mean" you speak of is only 'historical' since 1979,and if you can make a solid conclusion out of that,then lets hear it.Same thing goes for the "problem" with the arctic icecap,if you can demonstrate that there is a problem,please go ahead.So Gore was referring to mass/volume was he?For this year do you mean?Surely not!So which peer-reviewed paper was he using as his source for this mass/volume thing?If Gore is not a fraud,then why did the British High court find that there NINE major errors in his movie,and that as such,a qualifying statement was ordered to be read before his sci-fi-comedy-horror film was shown in schools?

Some good questions Bernard,let hear it.

Bernard, let me decode:

Your proving false my claim of ice being back to statistical normality = "spin".

Since the Arctic ice cap has shrunk 40% and I was wrong to accuse Gore of fraud, then I will switch to attack his movie instead.

Nine minor errors were discerned in Gore's moive by a British judge, these errors were so minor that the judge found in Gores favour and awarded that Gore movie is proper to be shown in British schools with notes explaining the context of the nine issues challenged.

However this does not help my case so I will invent new language to try and misrepresent the judges ruling. Thus I label the errors "Nine major errors".

That is how strong my argument is.

Shorter frank:

I say you're wrong! Wrong! Wrong! Wrong! Therefore, my statistics is right!

Well, maybe Gore was referring mass/volume and not area. But no! That can't be true! Because Al Gore is Fat!

Well done FD.Now would you like to take a step into reality and give us the source for your 40% number?I mean given that it was your only attempt at factuality in your idiotic comment.

The funny thing is that on 13 July Big Al said "It[the icecap]is almost half gone.."[] .No wonder he failed 'divinity school'when he cant tell the difference between 40% and 50%.

Shorter frank:

1. I call you an idiot! Therefore my statistics are correct!
2. There a MAAAAAAAAAJORRRRRRRR difference between "40%" and "almost half"! Therefore, Al Gore is Fat!

Isn't it interesting how one person can stick to the science[facts]and the other one turns into a raving lunatic.Psycho-analysis welcome.
PS Bernard,where art thou?

Hey frank decoder,are you sure that the court found in favour of Big Al?I cant see how they did given that the plaintiff was awarded costs.

Shorter frank:

I call you an idiot! Therefore, you're a raving lunatic! Al Gore is Fat!

>The average sea ice extent for the month of September [2007] was 1.65 million square miles (4.28 million square kilometers), the lowest September on record, shattering the previous record for the month by 23 percent, which was set in 2005. At the end of the melt season, September 2007 sea ice was 39 percent below the long-term average from 1979 to 2000.

>If ship and aircraft records from before the satellite era are taken into account, sea ice may have fallen by as much as 50 percent from the 1950s.

http://www.colorado.edu/news/releases/2007/378.html

So frank once again gets it wrong trying to attck Al Gore. Arctic sea down 39% in 2007 from the 1979-2000 mean, and ice may have fallen as much as 50% since the 1950.

Thanks frank decoder,that is all very interesting.Would you mind running the numbers for the year in question?That is 2009!The only reason I ask is because Big Al made said the 40% number just 3 days ago.
"may have fallen as much as 50% since the 1950"
Two points 1]I would love to see the data on that cherry-picked date.[Hint;what if we used 1930's or 40's numbers?]
2]"ice may have fallen" Big Al said,"we HAVE lost almost 50%" A bit of a difference.

>Hey frank decoder,are you sure that the court found in favour of Big Al?I cant see how they did given that the plaintiff was awarded costs.

Simple really frank, read the Judges findings:

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2007/2288.html

The Claimant wanted to ban Gore's film, the Judge found against this claim, and was happy with the Guidance notes submitted by the Defendent (Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families).

Happy to help frank.

Frank D,yes no order was made as per point 46 in the judgement,but the nine errors were also the findings of the judgement.The plaintiff could not prove 'partisan political views'.No order means that neither side won.

Frank,

Chuckle, chuckle.

'No order' means the schools are not banned from showing Gores film. I.e. sorry Mr Monckton's lackey you can't prevent schools showing the "broadly accurate' film to children.

Nice try frank, I'm here to decode your BS.

;)

Again well done frank d.Indeed the film was not banned from schools,but I am pretty sure that the 'no order' means that
no clear decision was made for either side.I would venture to guess that was because of the clear errors that were found.
However,back to the science.Would you mind addressing the point I made in 104 about 2009?By the way,your real first name is not Tim is it?

>"ice may have fallen [50%]" Big Al said,"we HAVE lost almost 50%" A bit of a difference.

Lets recap:

frank charges Gore with fraud based on Gore saying that Arctic sea ice has reduced by 40%, and adding that "we have lost almost half".

Frank was shown that Gore's figures were consistent with with data from the National Snow and Ice Data Center which show that minimum extents had reduced 39% in 2007 (compared to 1979-2000 average), and that "If ship and aircraft records from before the satellite era are taken into account, sea ice may have fallen by as much as 50 percent from the 1950s."

In response to this, frank accused the scientist of cherry picking (with no proof) and tries to avoid an embarrassing back down from his fraud claims by saying that there is a big difference between "almost half" and as much as 50%.

frank, stop digging yourself deeper mate! Sometimes it just easier to say sorry Mr Gore, I was wrong to call you a fraud.

Still frank, if you want to keep digging your own hole of misrepresentations, I'm happy to decode for you.

>but I am pretty sure that the 'no order' means that no clear decision was made for either side.

Well frank, just go with your gut then eh! 'Trust your prejudice', seem to be your MO.

FrankD, firstly do you mind if I just call you Tim?Is that OK?
Why is it that you wont deal with 2009?If just 3 days ago Al Gore says that the Arctic has lost 40%,is he being scientifically accurate as of 04/11/2009.Yes or No? If yes,then you win.

Another thing you should remember Tim is that you should not meld different data sets together to draw a conclusion.It is not good scientific method.Ship/aircraft data would by it's nature be tentative at best and cannot really be compared to the satellite data.I am sure that you would agree with that.

That's right, you keep on digging Frank. It's fun watching Frank Decoder in action.

frank,

2007 sea ice extents is sufficient dismiss your claim of fraud against Gore.

Gore is on even firmer ground we we consider the loss of sea ice volume. 2009 is also continuing a trend in loss of ice older than [one season](http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20090406_Figure5.png) which [is thinner](http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2009-107), hence the continuing loss of [sea ice volume](http://test.cp.techprogress.org/2009/07/23/nsidc-record-low-arctic-sea-…).

'
If my theory is correct, you boys have been pwned! by a parody character, created for a new type of performance art. Surely you don't think the frank character is a real person now, do you?

My compliments - I say - my compliments to the creator of this high-lar-e-iss character.

Best,

D

frank,

you don't have to 'meld' data sets to make calibrated comparisons.

Hilarious assumption btw, (Tim), you have got tickets on yourself. chuckle, chuckle.

Ok Tim,you dont want to live in 2009,that is alright.Would you agree that the ice that recovered in 2008 is now in 2009 to be deemed 'multi-year ice'?

Frank: Read this.

After RTFWP-ing, perhaps you might appreciate that there is more to the Arctic than your unattributed figures in #79.
Chase up Arctic sea ice volume, and you should be able to see that sea ice volume seems to have declined significantly too.

While on ice, land ice that has remained intact for thousands of year and has accumulated yearly is now showing signs of significant melting. The melting in some places has removed the radiation markers of the 50's and 60's - when land and open air nuclear explosions were undertaken by both the USSR and USA - and the point here is that the loss of the radiation marker in the ice implies that 40-50 years of the top ice has been melted away sometime since the last land nuclear tests were conducted.

Up until quite recently field scientists have been able to use the radiation markers to synchronise the exact year for a band in the ice cores. Even if a few of top bands (most recent years) are missing due to melting, the presence of the radiation markers allows the scientist to find a start year for any analysis of the historical climate information contained in the ice core.

Lonnie Thomson's most recent field trip to the Andes, to pick up ice cores, ran into this trouble. No radiation markers in areas where they once existed implies large scale melting without replacement. Since the ice cores, from Lonnie's field work, extend back thousands of years, it is reasonably evidents that this large scale melting is a breakout from any prior trends. Regime change, if you like.

We should be concerned, and we should be researching carefully, Frank. Then we'll know how to vote in our respective countries, if we wish to do something about it. It's difficult to isolate the scientific debates within the scientific community, and it's misleading to read scientific articles with a preconceived notion concerning the "expected result". Scientists use some common English words to mean something analogous to the English meaning. They also tend to identify gaps and deficiencies in their scientific analysis, and their conclusion usually summarises both the result's meaning, and any weaknesses in the method used to arrive at the result. Other scientists will then attempt to fill in the gaps, and to replicate the experiment.

Don.

Good post Don.Too bad Tim cant deal with realities in the same way.He is a classic "denialist".The whole point was to show that scientific accuracy is important and you confirm that in para 5.Tim keeps giving data which is 1 or 2 years out of date,and then draws questionable conclusions from it.If there is data which he does not like[eg2009],then he simply refuses to acknowledge it.That is denial plain and simple.

Frank wonders:

Bernard,where art thou?

as if I have suddenly gone into hiding.

Give it up, matey - it's Saturday night in my corner of the world, and I have had better things to do than some ignoramus's homework.

Nevertheless, as it is patently obvious that you are unable to use a search engine, I spent 30 seconds doing your homework for you. I note that Frank Decoder beat me to it though, but no matter - in case you couldn't bear to read his link...

...Gore is referring to the work of Kwok et al at [NASA](http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2009/jul/HQ_09-155_Thin_Sea_Ice.html). According to the release at this link:

Using ICESat measurements, scientists found that overall Arctic sea ice thinned about 7 inches a year, for a total of 2.2 feet over four winters. The total area covered by the thicker, older "multi-year" ice that has survived one or more summers shrank by 42 percent.

As to the reason that Gore doesn't include this year's data, it might have something to do with the fact that "this year" isn't finished yet, with the data analysed. He's simply relying on the latest releases from the experts.

Oh, and there's no point in attempting to confabulate FD with Tim Lambert. If Tim wanted to engage you, he'd do it without using a sockpuppet.

And "oh" #2: I note that you still haven't learned that there are traditionally spaces included after punctuation marks. I rather think that this might preclude someone being sufficiently clever that your character is actually a poe - unless, of course, the poor sentence structure is a bit of camouflage...

Whatever the explanation, you're too silly to spend more time on.

[Dang, I think that another coin just jingled into my [bad-manners jar](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/tom_fuller_and_senator_inhofe.p…). If only I could muster sufficient caring to change my ways...]

Considering how many on this sight don't understand written english and how many are more about attempts to insult me.

Are you even aware that's a subordinate clause and needs more work to be a full sentence? Are you aware that this is a site and not a sight? Perhaps, before you criticize others' reading skills, you should brush up on some writing skills.

Insulting people is the first sign of weak arguments.

No, it's not. It's a sign that they think you deserve the insults. You, however, ignore all the strong arguments presented you and focus entirely upon the insults. The first sign of weak arguments is evasion.

Be careful Bernard, or you'll make Tom Fuller *and* Roger Jr. cry.

frank:

> Considering how many on this sight don't understand written english and how many are more about attempts to insult me.

Within a single sentence, global warming 'skeptic' frank hurls insults while complaining about insults.

There has to be a name for this sort of (anti-)pattern.

>There has to be a name for this sort of (anti-)pattern.

It's called 'playing the victim'. A histrionic form of passive aggressive manipulation, projection and denial. Also called the 'poor me' syndrome.

kent @ 35

My excuse would be either my bout of seasonal flu or H1N1. Your excuse would be?

My excuse is that it was a weak attempt at humour.

Check out this blog I wrote:
http://circleh.wordpress.com/2009/11/07/accusing-al-gore-of-hypocrisy/

Are people who claim to be environmentalists hypocrites if they eat meat, live in large houses, or run a corporation? Why should we "prove" our commitment by living in caves, being vegan, or living off the land? Oh, then we would be called wackos anyway!

Hey Bernard,good to hear from you again.So big Al was talking about multi-year ice was he?That is where his magical 'almost half of it' comes in.However I am sure you will agree that it still not scientifically accurate as of 04/11/09.Maybe the recovery in 09 is a little 'inconvenient' for him.Multi-year ice is also not the whole story and he knows it.Seasonal ice makes up 'almost' 60% of the total extent,so his '40% of the icecap has disappeared' line is still a politicians 'lah'.These findings are also still a very limited data set,ie 4-5 years of data.They are therefore even less reliable as an indication of any historical significance.

frank, not big enough to apologise to Gore? I think you'll find that I dealt with realities in a manner consistent with [Don](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/open_thread_35.php#comment-2055…), that is chase up the ice volume. Latest volume measure are at [record lows](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/open_thread_35.php#comment-2055…).

Nice switch to name calling though, I can help you decode that too, you are calling me denialist because you are embarrassed, and lack evidence to support you erroneous claims.

However you exhibit denialism by accusing scientists of "cherry pick[ing]" without any evidence. You also exhibit denialsim by ignoring the evidence of a continuing record lows for sea ice volume.

Bud #78,

You talk of Arctic ice deviating from the "long term average". Yet we have only had relatively reliable measures of Arctic ice extent for the last 30 years. You have no way of knowing what the 'long term' extent of Arctic ice. Can you, for example tell me the extent of Arctic ice during the MWP?

There appears to be a growth in Arctic ice over the past 30 years, it all depends on the baseline.
http://denialdepot.blogspot.com/2009/09/arctic-sea-ice-staggering-growt…

DA@78: "Can you, for example tell me the extent of Arctic ice during the MWP?"

Nope. Nor, really, do I have to, if you think about it. There is a very good reason to be concerned about the current decline of the ice extent given that it coincides with a time when the world is warming and is almost certainly hotter than at any point in recent history, including any 'MWP'.

I struggle to see how anyone not purely interested in sowing doubt could fail to be concerned with the bare facts of the situation.

Yet we have only had relatively reliable measures of Arctic ice extent for the last 30 years. You have no way of knowing what the 'long term' extent of Arctic ice.

Amazing how these sort of people complain that 30 years is not long enough and then have the hide to claim that 11 years of global temperature measurements that ignore the Arctic are somehow significant. Blatant hypocrites.

Sorry Tim,but your study only confirms what I have said.I proved you wrong on ice extent,so now you have changed the goal posts to multi-year ice but we can deal with that.The MY ice did contract and then recovered in 2008 with seasonal ice.It recovered again in 2009 which makes the 2008 recovery ice now MY ice.So Big Al is being deceptive because he has not included the[now] MY ice of 2008.Further he knows that the seasonal ice has recovered even more in 2009,so ice volume must have increased this year also.All he has to do is look at the AMSR data and it shows the picture.The kwok et al study is correct for the period it covers but it makes no conclusions regarding the past or the future,unlike Big Al who makes statements beyond what the science says.

While we do not have satellite observations of Arctic Ocean ice for more than 30 years, we do have observations of ice in the Arctic regions including the northern Baltic, Hudson's Bay and areas around the west coast of North America and the east coast of Asia. If anything, that ice, which should correlate well with Arctic Ocean ice, has been declining even more sharply.

Shipping and whaling logs plus temperature proxies since [1870](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Seaice-1870-part-2009.png), including Russian ice buoys from the 1930s.

Reliable records from [1953](http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/SeaIce/page2.php) including thickness measurements by [Nuclear Submarines](http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard/seaice.html) since [1958](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Nautilus_%28SSN-571%29#Operation_Sunsh…)

It's probably not possible to discover the true sea ice extent during the MWP, but I did find this gem while looking.

...'at the beginning of the 13th century, Donard Lake witnessed one of the largest climatic transitions in over a millennium, as average summer temperatures rose rapidly by nearly 2C from 1195-1220.' Spectacular stuff and not a smoke stack in sight.

http://www.co2science.org/subject/m/summaries/mwparctic.php

Spectacular stuff and not a smoke stack in sight.

And proving precisely ... what?

Steve Chamberlain:

Thanks, but I knew that part, which is why I commented on Kent's "Janet from another planet" - because that's such an own-goal. I just wondered how clueless Kent was, and apparently the answer is still 100%.

And the eastern religion in question is undoubtedly Juche.

Zoot

The exciting thing is the jump in temperature by 2 C in a quarter century, because by 1250 large icebergs were drifting south. Natural variability is what we are looking at.

Was the large amount of sea ice caused by continued warming or was it a sign that cooling had begun?

Straight off the press from Eurekalert re 'ice':-

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2009-11/nocs-pco110609.php

"At no time during the last 14 thousand years was there a period of climate warming and loss of ice as large and regionally synchronous as that we are now witnessing in the Antarctic Peninsula," says team member Dr Steve Bohaty of the National Oceanography Centre, Southampton (NOCS), home of the University of Southampton's School of Ocean and Earth Science (SOES)."

&

The Antarctic Peninsula area has warmed 3ð °C in the past five decades, with increased rainfall and a widespread retreat of glaciers. "Atmospheric warming trends linked to global climate change are an obvious culprit for the observed regional climate changes," say the researchers.

el gordo:

The exciting thing is the jump in temperature by 2 C in a quarter century

Whoopee doo. Alice Springs' temperature increased by more than 3.5 C from 1976 to 1980. I can barely contain my excitement.

CON: That was the beginning of a warm PDO, so you would expect more El Nino to boost temperatures.

Clippo: It's cherry-picking just looking at the Peninsular, further inland we can see in the Vostok core there is no reason to be alarmed.

http://s852.photobucket.com/albums/ab89/etregembo/?action=view&current=…

Whoopee doo. Alice Springs' temperature increased by more than 3.5 C from 1976 to 1980. I can barely contain my excitement.

el gordo:

That was the beginning of a warm PDO, so you would expect more El Nino to boost temperatures.

Pity there wasn't any El Nino in 1979 or 1980.

It's cherry-picking just looking at the Peninsular,

Ha, imagine el gordo caring about cherry-picking. Pity he didn't think of that when he cited Donard Lake.

I just checked WTFWT and the orgasms in the thread regarding voting for the best science blog are astonishing.

The denidiots who believe climatefraudit and WFTWT are science... Amazing.

CON: Saw a radiosonde graph of the period and there was clearly a climate shift in 1976-77, temperatures went up by 0.4 C worldwide.

Marion (137): "Thanks, but I knew that part, which is why I commented on Kent's "Janet from another planet" - because that's such an own-goal"

I know you knew that. The idea was kent would follow the link then, his curiosity having got the better of him, he would scroll down a few posts only to reveal more clues... Janet's nom-de-plume shifted around for a bit before settling, including a brief flirtation with Piers Blair and Tim something-or-other ;-)

el gordo:

clearly a climate shift in 1976-77, temperatures went up by 0.4 C worldwide

Sure if you say so. I'll leave you to your cherry-picking. It's obviously one of your favorite pastimes.

Inferno has put up a post which suggests the 'urban heat island effect' is undervalued.

Supposedly, the GISTEMP 'algorithm statistically detects and removes such significant biases from the record.' I doubt that.

http://denialdepot.blogspot.com/

Commendable subtlety then, Steve.

At least Kent could start citing a reputable source like denialdepot.com, you'd think.

Old el gordo again is posting articles from blog sites that have not gone through te process of peer-review. On what basis does he claim that GISTEMP has not adjusted its monthly records for the urban heat-island effect? None, but on some crappy web site whose contributors liken themselves to being modern day Galileo's, as well as on his own intuition, which as we all here know ain't worth beans. Fact: there is no relationship whatsoever between Galileo and those in the denialist camp who are twisting and mangling science to promote a pre-determined world view. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. This exlains why the denialists rarely publish their findings in rigidly peer-reviewed journals where their "data" would be open to full scrutiny. Instead, they are relegated to blog sites, where those too lazy to read the primary data stumble onto them.

El Gordo, you and your "arguments" are a waste of time.

I find to the standard of blog-science at Denial Depot to be astounding.

It's good to see el gordo recognising this.

Last week [I noted](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/open_thread_35.php#comment-2052…) that the Australian prime minister Kevin Rudd parked climate change deniers squarely in the crosshairs during a speech at the Lowy Institute.

Tonight it is apparent that Rudd was either serendipitous in his choice of subject matter for his speech, or prescient, or had foreknowledge of [today's episode of Four Corners](http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/2009/s2735044.htm) on the ABC. It seems that the Australian federal coalition, the Liberal [sic] and National , parties are peopled primarily by AGW sceptics.

There are starring roles from a number of the more extreme wingnuts from both conservative parties, plus some footage of our 'friend' Bob Carter at work rallying the troops. What I found interesting was the decidely rural demographic of the denialists shown, and how they are convinced that there is an urban conspiracy against them. Of course Barnaby Joyce's hysteria-whipping probably plays a part, but there is a distinct whiff of Dunning-Kruger about how these otherwise salt-of-the-earth folk believe that they 'know' the science is wrong.

Oh, and watch for the bit where Bob Carter refers to himself as a climate scientist...

Really!

Much of the reasoning of the 'sceptical' conservative members of parliament seems to be founded in political and economic arguments. Reference to, and understanding of, science are both conspicuously absent - let alone any comprehension of how the physics of AGW ties in with biology and with ecology.

Ah, the parties of Internalities and Externalities...

There's also quite a train-wreck fascination about the manner in which the AGW acceptors and the deniers are shooting themselves in the political feet. Watch also for the priceless moment where Julian McGuaran publicly castigates his coalition colleagues for publicly speaking about disunity in the party. "And to speak about it publically is nothing short of dumb. It's a folly". More irony than a bucketful of nails.

Two things stood out for me in the interviews with various MsP. The first is the profound non-acquaintance of the denialists with any hint of scientific understanding - witness Liberal senior Tony Abbott refer to Ian Plimer, and how his book Heaven and Earth is, in Abbott's view, good science. Listening to Abbott and the others it becomes apparent that public opinion is what drives their acceptance of 'scepticism', although in Barnaby Joyce's case it is more that Joyce is driving his constituents' views...

The second thing that struck me was that a previously welded-on sceptic, Ian McFarlane, now not only concedes that his acceptance of AGW is increasing, but that he doesn't believe that 'clean coal' will eventuate. Ya could have knocked me over with a feather on that last one. After all, the guy was the conservative's federal resources minister for seven years!

Anyway, have a look at the material on the web page. It makes for some interesting material in the run-up to Copenhagen.

Jeff.

Have a closer look at Denial Depot...

If Fatso was referring to it in earnestness, then he has less of a clue than a rock on triple-dose valium. If he was exercising irony, then his consistency of argument has been shot to tatters.

Either way, Fatso's link isn't saying what he says that it says...

There was actually a time when I thought Denial Depot was a parody! Can you imagine that?? But then I took a closer look at the graphs on the [page El Gordo cited](http://denialdepot.blogspot.com/2009/11/correcting-gistemp.html), and I noticed that the labels on the x-axis of the graphs: "Time (forward flow)." That's when I realized I was looking at genuine, SERIOUS science. No parody site would invoke that level of detail. No one but a true scientist would be conscientious enough to explicitly note the assumptions that laymen take for granted, such as the idea that time will flow forward.

I think I'm going to have to go back and re-read everything on that site, now that I know it's for real.

Bernard J

We are watching the Liberal Party of Australia self-immolate.
It's funny and disappointing. Funny, becuase they are tards and deserve to burn. Disappointing because they are suppposed to be high-quality Australians...

Nathan.

I would not have imagined it 10 years ago, but I was thinking the same thing as I watched tonight. The ghost of (Australian) Democrats past is certainly hovering over the conservatives collective shoulders, with the Nationals at the front of the line.

More and more I suspect that AGW will be to the Coalition as the GST was to the Democrats. One, two, five or ten elections hence, and they will not be able to justify to their constituents and to future generations why they put their heads so deep into the sand in the face of overwhelming evidence and of scientific urging.

It seems that the political ecosystem is also vulnerable to AGW, and that political species are at risk of extinction. I wonder if there will be a museum for political dinosaurs?

Not that any thoughts of such should perturb the conservatives, as many of them even today do not believe in evolution or in natural selection...

"Dan, whether or not Durkin was affiliated, the offshoots of the RCP (LM, spiked) were and are as libertarian as they come."

The RCP and its offshoots like Spiked are the result of the RCP being a very bizarre organization, orientated around a sociologist called Frank Furedi, who wrote some derivative guff about social attitudes to risk in the early 1980s and decided the problem the left had was with risk-aversion in the population. You see, if you can convince people to take more risk on food additives, then of course they're more likely to take the risk of Trotskyist vanguard instigating revolution or some other such guff.

Their positions started out as a way of differentiating themselves from the 57 other varieties of Trotskyist groups. Also, in the UK in the 1980s deciding environmentalists were really the enemies of the left and progress was convenient, as environmentalists were easier targets than the then ascendent Thatcherism.

Further, taking contrarian, controversial positions (like arguing there were no war crimes in Bosnia) helped RCP alumni score jobs in the UK media. So eventually the Revolutionary Communist Party became a career networking association.

El Gordo: Are your true initials JF, BTW? If so, I remember you under the name "El Gato Gordo" on Usenet.

WattSoup "research" update:

I managed to sneak a question through moderation, by assuming an over the top sycophantic tone and assuming the result of the inquiry, and actually got Anthony to give a timeline for his surface stations 'paper.'

-----
warmascam (20:04:47) :

So, when is Anthony going to release his analysis of the surface stations project, and refute that NASA thing from last spring? Iâm so looking forward to seeing him blow the lid off the scam.

REPLY: One of the co-authors has a delay, so weâll probably not finish up until end of year. â Anthony

'It is a huge gamble just to oppose this outright and not try to negotiate a better deal for rural people.' Ian Macfarlane

Welcome to my post-modern agrarian revolution, comrades.

We are watching the Liberal Party of Australia self-immolate.

The ABC (Australia) Four Corners program yesterday was interesting - I especially enjoyed Senatior Minchin explaining that the reason he didn't accept anthropogenic global warming was that some proponents of the idea were overstating their case and frightening his children. Good one, Nick. Nothing like reverse-engineering the facts.

And Tony Abbott, citing *respected scientists* Plimer and Carter and acting as though if he could only win the war of words then the facts would go way.

Oh, and Bob Carter (who quoted three annual temperature readings from *Australia* and claimed they show no *global* warming) asking his audience how many were under 50 years old and no-one putting their hands up.

Now I'm over 50, and I am dismayed that so many in my age cohort have their heads so firmly in the sand.

Perhaps there is something in the hypothesis being discussed [here](http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2009/11/02/death-denial/) by George Monbiot.

OTOH, whatever you can say about Ian Macfarlane, at least he has brains enough to acknowledge the reality of global warming.

Same with Turnbull, I suspect he's not just looking at the polls but he'd actually rather lose the leadership than to go down in history as an environmental wrecker, if they were the only options..

Probably missed the moment now - been sidetracked to something much more important but ....

I regret that el gordoâs graph, post #146, doesnât reproduce well on my computer â I canât see the axes very clearly â and therefore canât see what timeframe his graph refers to.
However, if one studies the following wiki graph, of the Vostock ice core,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vostok_420ky_4curves_insolation.jpg

you might conclude that it actually agrees with the researchers of the new paper â over the time period they are discussing, namely the last 14,000 years.
Interestingly, this wiki graph also shows a clear correlation of rising greenhouse gas concentration with âiceâ temperatures in this period.

Indeed, many of your other âphotobucketâ graphs, el gordo, whilst suffering from the same axes indistinction as your previous link, still might support the current researcherâs conclusions.

That being said, if he had read the Euekalert summary properly he would have seen that this study was a âsedimentâ study rather than an ice core study and the researchers agreed that :-

An important finding of the study is that the mid-Holocene warming interval does not appear to have occurred synchronously throughout the region, and its timing and duration was most likely influenced at different sites by local oceanographic controls, as well as physical geography.

This doesnât negate the fact that warming DID occur in various parts of the region, or :-

The seriousness of current global warming is underlined by a reconstruction of climate at Maxwell Bay in the South Shetland Islands of the Antarctic Peninsula over approximately the last 14,000 years, which appears to show that the current warming and widespread loss of glacial ice are unprecedented. (my bold).

Sorry, - in my previous post, it was el gordo's post #143 where he posted his 'photobucket' graph. (& yes I know it's probably from an authentic source but I can't see the axes).

Bernard J

Amazing days that's for sure. I can't think of any other issue that has split a political party like the Libs are spi over this. Perhaps the only resolution is divorce, with a Centrist Liberal party and a Conservative (or Neoconservative)Party.

Gaz I was amazed that Tony Abbot was praising Ian Plimer... Whacko World!

An afterthought...

If any Australians missed [last night's Four Corners](http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/2009/s2735044.htm) and don't have the internet bandwidth to download it, the episode will be repeated tonight (Tuesday 10 November) at arond 11.30pm eastern summer time.

As a snapshot study of conservative politics and ideology in the country, it's absolutely fascinating.

The frustrating thing is that it rather cements the certainty that the Opposition will not help pass even a very flawed ETS that Australia can take to the negotiating table at Copenhagen. Irrespective of whether Australia is a significant contributor of CO2emissions or not (and leaving alone our per capita status), the mere fact of our politicians having grabbed the bull by the horns prior to the meeting would have had a significant impact on bringing other countries on board.

The Opposition obviously has no policy of leading by example; just one of leading by populism, or more likely by self-serving ideology...

I guess that the double-dissolution that I was doubtful of is now a much more probable option. In the greater scheme of things though it'll probably mean that the world has lost a number of years with which to act, making the final outcome both harsher for humans (and the biosphere) and that much more expensive.

And the Denialati have the termerity to speak of Ponzi schemes!

The political reality: If Kevin has a Double D election around Easter he may well lose, simply because the global warming debate will be front and centre.

Guys and Gals,

You just must vote for Denial Depot in this best science blog thingy.

it is just the best sciency thingy blog.

It tells us what we really want to know in a sciency sort of bloggy way.

It really does do sciency stuff in a sort of bloggy way that tells us what we want to know.

So vote often!

"Guys and Gals,

You just must vote for Denial Depot in this best science blog thingy.

it is just the best sciency thingy blog.

It tells us what we really want to know in a sciency sort of bloggy way.

It really does do sciency stuff in a sort of bloggy way that tells us what we want to know.

So vote often!"

Gavin over at RC replied to a comment I made stating he hoped for a runoff between you guys and WUWT.

I concur. I'll vote for you on every public computer I can find, as many times as I can. :)

Hey Bud, thanks for the support!

We really do need the votes against WUWT, which is a REVISIONIST denialist site. Denial Depot is the real deal.

Vote often!

El Gordo, the DD would be after July next year... And the Libs would be toast at that election. They are not united and disunity is the biggest killer at elections. We'd end up with a big Labor majority in the Lower house, and a Greens balance of power in the Senate. Which is exactly what the Libs don't want. Oh the irony.

It is a matter of principle, Barnaby and Cory will pick up lower house seats and run as a ticket after Malcolm bails out.

By then a change in the weather will have altered public perceptions, so it will be a 'shoe-in' for the conservatives. With the help of big oil and coal, of course.

El Gordo

I think we'll have to disagree.

anyway, time to pass the popcorn, it'll be fun watching the libs fall apart

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/minchin-faces-liberals-backlash-over-cl…

So now we are seeing the first requests for a debate from the AGW suporters side. Copenhagen has turned from a "signing"" get together,to a chance to talk things over.
We know so much more now than we did 20 years ago. We now know more about the sun's transference of energy to our system.
We are now monitoring the temperature of the oceans both their surfaces and depths. We are measuring the air temp from space. We see cycles we didn't think about or know about just a few years ago.The CO2 theory is up against so many other theories now.So much so,that people are starting to doubt the theory. We are learning the truth about our planet's climate system.

The Politicoes,have picked up on this and are slowing down the process. They don't want to make a hasty decission that might cost them their power.

Kent, I'm glad your back, I find your lack of supporting evidence and baseless opinions really helpful.

Now can you add something about freedom â¢, individual liberty ⢠and the communitst threat?

How very curious...

Both Frank and Kent share a complete lack of ability to support, with any credible evidence whatsoever, anything that they say, and to understand that commas and full-stops (periods) are conventionally followed by a space.

Makes ya wonder - sock-puppetry, or simply a diagnostic suite...?

Bernard - I'm currently working on a dichotomous key (a bit like those you find in reference books on fauna & flora) to help new users identify which species of denialobotomist they may be dealing with. All suggestions gratefully received. The only difficulty I can foresee is getting any newly-erected taxa formally recognised. I've tried the ICBN but their initial response ("Denialists, while often sessile and usually parasitic, are not generally green and therefore cannot be classified under the kingdom Plantae, notwithstanding that they are occasionally 'planted'") is not encouraging.

[Steve](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/open_thread_35.php#comment-2061…).

I guess that the first this one needs to establish a dichotomous key is to document the range of species to be identified. I started to count the various manifestations of Denialati, and rapidly decided that there are more than I have previously appreciated.

One might always start by dividing them by habitat preference - on the AWoS41 thread, it is [apparent](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/the_australians_war_on_science_…) that there are urban and rural clades. Alternatively, one could consider an initial division based upon various psychological traits: a tendency toward religious fundamentalism or to non-altruism for example.

Whatever the process, it is apparent that there are many cryptic species involved. No wonder that it's so difficult to breed the stupid out of the taxon...

...first thing...

el gordo:

By then a change in the weather will have altered public perceptions

I agree, the hottest four days in a row at this time of year in Melbourne is altering public perception.

I'm thinking northern hemisphere winter. Shall we have a cherry-picking fight?

El Gorda (#180), no point in having a cherry-picking fight - we all know that you are a master of this art. Incidentally, your references to Denial Depot are the gift that just keeps giving. Please keep up the good work.

I don't give sources because you would not accept them. I could say for example, that I heard a UN representatve on BBC at 3:23 AM Pacific standard time on Novembver 2nd 2009, state that the hold up of Copenhagen was going to allow the two sides of the AGW debate to talk to each other. This was the first time I had ever heard such a thing said. Can I prove it to anyone? Not likely. If you look around you will see that many others feel the same as I do about Copenhagen.

Kent, your excuse comes dangerously close to "I don't have any sources, so I just make up further excuses to not have to admit I am making things up".

Kent writes:

>*I don't give sources because you would not accept them.*

Secret sources hey Kent?

Hiding your sources and say just 'trust me'?

Normally one would provide ones evidence, provides the source of the evidence and let the readers engage or make up their own minds.

Its not just your latest post either Kent. Its a [pattern of laziness](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/open_thread_35.php#comment-2052…) that looks a lot like empty propaganda.

And I remind you of your last [hit and run](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/open_thread_35.php#comment-2055…). So we see a lack of sources, making hit and runs, there is a developing pattern of spouting BS, and not being able to substantiate it. Why bother Kent, are you content with flinging empty smears and try and confuse people into doubt?

Probably the best way is to just say what you have to say. Then when someone says 'I hope you have a link to back that up?' you can do just that.

Did El Gordo just cite Denial Depot in all seriousness? I laughed so loud I woke up my dog. Every time I see these clowns cite it I break out in giggles.

That being said I think it is a step up from WUWT and I encourage every one to nominate Denial Depot for the best science site.

Secret sources hey Kent?

He has a deal with KFC ;-)

the hottest four days in a row at this time of year in Melbourne

el gordo:

Shall we have a cherry-picking fight?

Go ahead. Make my day. The difference between your cherry-picks and mine is that mine are ALWAYS all-time hot records that go back usually 150 years whereas yours, if they're not extremely rare, usually don't go back to the beginning of the records.

Here's another all-time Melbourne record (in recorded history): Melbourne's just had three days in a row where the minimum is the highest on record for that day: 8th, 9th and 10th November. Blair Trewin has the records.

Trent1492
I first came across Denial Depot when visiting Rabett Run. It's an hilariously funny satire of Morano's Climate Depot.

CON: Very impressive, but surely that's just weather.

Reading a peer reviewed paper I find that the oceans of the world were more salty during the LIA than at present. The authors claim it was due to greater evaporation, but I'm not sure. Any ideas?

el gordo:

surely that's just weather

A large enough set of records determines climate, but you wouldn't understand that.

You're taking the mickey, right?

OMG - Plimer is in the UK! I was vaguely listening to the 'Today' programme at about 8.50 GMT when suddenly an Australian voice said that 'carbon dioxide is plant food...volcanos produce most CO2', etc. The hapless interviewer tried to be polite (John Humphrys would have shredded him, which is probably why he didn't do the interview), and certainly didn't point out any errors, but even he pointed out that he was in a tiny minority.

You can listem to the whole thing here http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/default.stm (its in the last 15 minutes). let the fisking begin...

Of course you have to wonder why he is here at all? There is nothing on Monbiot's site to suggest that any debate is on, so I assume that its something to do with the Spectator...or just the chance for Plimer to soak up the glory from one or two idiots here who believe what he says?

I'm waiting for someone scientific to give him the smacking he deserves - but I'm not holding my breath.

The [sea ice extent](http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_timeseries.png) for mid November 2009 is still tracking new (low) territory.

Notice how quiet the Denialati are about it?

Bernard, The reason little has been mentioned about Arctic sea ice extent is it's lack of meaning. By that I mean as a proxy for CO2 warming.
If you go to cryosphere today site then look at the ice area for the differnet areas. over time you will see that the area goes up and down even in the dead of winter. It is not that the ice is melting, something else is causing the decrease in area. Wind and or current are the likely source of changing area/extent. In some of the Arctic seas the change in area is very large. Once you realize what is generating the sea ice area/extent numbers, the sea ice area/extent begins to lose importance.
The Current sea ice extent means that more open sea water is exposed to Arctic cooling.

kent...

All perfectly true, but watching ice melt is more exciting than watching water freeze.

The latest on the Fraser Institute, Canada's answer to the Competitive Enterprise Institute in the U.S. or the IPA in Australia.

The Fraser Institute, a Vancouver-based think tank, is very concerned about education. So concerned, in fact, that they have taken it upon themselves to develop a new climate science curriculum for use in Canadian schools.

Needless to say, the educational value of the new program is highly doubtful. And it turns out that some of the funding for the project comes from an equally dubious source â a major shareholder of oil and gas company Encana who was also behind a misguided effort to foist the notorious contrarian film âGreat Global Warming Swindleâ on the British Columbia school system.

http://deepclimate.org/2009/11/12/understanding-climate-fraser-institut…

Kent quite correct, that ice extents are affected by things other than temperature. But temperature is rising. And sea level is rising, and both land and sea ice are melting, and the ecosystem is responding to warming.

It is warming Kent. The sea ice extents are just one part of the puzzel.

Kent (and fatso on his coat-tails).

You seem to have missed my irony... Many of your denialist friends like to point to every upswing in the extent as evidence that it is cooling: they never comment when there is a trend that argues against their theories that global warming is a myth.

This is beside the point though that it's been a while since a cooling extreme in the annual cycle has occurred - most, if not all, of the new extremes are in a direction that suuports AGW. Whack that through your statistics-o-meter...

And speaking of matters statistical:

the area goes up and down even in the dead of winter. It is not that the ice is melting, something else is causing the decrease in area.

Precisely!

The old signal versus noise issue, and one which I raise at regular intervals. You will note though that I have been careful not to refer to changes in direction of the slope at the level of noise: I referred to values at the same point in a cycle.

However, now that you have raised the matter, why do Denialists take the superimposition of noise on the AGW signal over a number of years and claim that it is actually a real change in trajectory? As I said, I often ask about the influence of noise on signal, and you lot never seem to answer when it actually paints you into a corner.

Come on Kent (and your corpulent shadow) - throw some actual statistical analysis into your otherwise science-free ideas.

Admittedly, the global warming signal looks strong, but a noisy natural variability will dominate climate change over the next decade.

Noisy natural variability will perturb the temperature record for ever,el gordo,while the AGW signal will direct the trend.

the global warming signal looks strong, but a noisy natural variability will dominate climate change over the next decade.

The global warming signal is (approximately) proportional to the duration of the measurement interval (actually proportional to the change in forcing) while the size of the noise usually doesn't change much regardless of how long the measurement interval is. Thus for small intervals (10 years for example) the signal (about 0.2 deg C in the case of 10 years) is often smaller than the noise (about 0.25 deg C if, for example, it includes 1998) whereas for long enough intervals (20 years for example) the signal (about 0.4 deg C in the case of 20 years) is nearly always stronger than the noise ( still about 0.25 deg C if the interval includes 1998).

So if you only look at a small enough interval (10 years for example) then it's quite likely that the noise will be larger than the signal. But if the interval is large enough (at least 12 years if it includes 1998 and you're ignoring the Arctic) then the signal will be larger than the noise.

A good illustration of signal/noise issue is given by Mojid Latif at ca. 1:56 on the video shown [here](http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2009/11/ccw_-_birth_of_a_climate_…)

CON...

The signal has apparently been larger than the noise, but why was the Arctic ignored?

>why was the Arctic ignored?

Not enough people, not enough weather stations.

Yet another update to the diagram of global warming inactivist 'think-tanks' by yours truly. This time, there's a really interesting finding...

el gordo:

It is a matter of principle, Barnaby and Cory will pick up lower house seats and run as a ticket after Malcolm bails out.

And who, pray tell, will be the Liberals new, science-denying leader? Their previous one (Brendan) went along with science-denial and look what happened to his leadership.

It is a matter of principle, Barnaby and Cory will pick up lower house seats and run as a ticket after Malcolm bails out.

I'm curious about which electorates it is that Fatso imagines Joyce, and especially Bernardi (gack!!), will "pick up". They're senators now, so they only need to skim votes from the rabid minority in their respective states, but going toe-to-toe with opponents in any but the more conservative Lower House electorates would probably see the likes of these two founder.

As far as I can see, the electorates where they might have a chance are already occupied by favoured sitting Members, so I doubt that they'd likely to rumble any incumbents in a preselection stoush.

Unless there's been some back-room manoeuvring that hasn't been publicised in my part of the world, I reckon that it's more likely that they'll try to keep their mitts on their current positions, and in Bernardi's (gack!!) case, hope that there is not a double dissolution election in the wings...

Howard was also a member of the denialati and look what happened to him.

BJ...Good argument. Not too sure what seat Cory might pick up, but I'm convinced Barnaby will get Dawson.

el gordo:

It is a matter of principle, Barnaby and Cory will pick up lower house seats and run as a ticket after Malcolm bails out.

By then a change in the weather will have altered public perceptions, so it will be a 'shoe-in' for the conservatives. With the help of big oil and coal, of course.

So you really meant the conservatives would win the election after the next one. I won't be holding my breath but at least they'll provide a few laughs in the mean time.

Ah, Dawson â I'd forgotten that the Labor Party had snaffled that from the Nationals at the last election.

Of course El Corpulento, I see now that there have been [others prior to yourself](http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollytics/2009/01/14/barnabys-electoral-dart…) who have speculated about Joyce's move to the Lower House. It was an interesting diversion actually â not only do the crowd at Crikey say what I suspected, but they rather more decisively deconstruct Joyce's options than I ever could have, as someone who is basically ignorant of Queensland conservative politics. And it seems that Dawson wouldn't be as wise a move for Joyce as you seem to imagine.

The idea that Joyce would consider jumping the senate fascinates me though. He'd have to work much harder at every election ( which occur no more than every 3-4 years, or less if there's an unscheduled early election) in order to retain his position, rather than sitting on his hands for around six years at a time and only bothering to spruik at every second election. And at any particular election a lower house seat would be harder to retain, in terms of the proportion of votes required, than a proportional seat in the senate, unless he was fortunate enough to be sitting for a seat with welded-on conservatives.

And for what reward? After the next election the Coalition is likely to be emasculated even more than it was last time, so even if he won a Lower House seat he'd be wielding less power than he does now. Unless he is simply more interested in being the leader of the Nationals, which is big-fish-in-a-little-pond stuff indeed.

I rather think that he has left his run too late also. If he were to put his hand up for a House of Representatives seat at this point in the electoral cycle, he'd come off looking like a self-serving political shark rather than as someone who is genuinely concerned for those he represents. If, however, this is his intent, it is transparently apparent where he believes his best chances lie... I'm not sure that there are quite that many red-neck conservatives who'd drink at that particular well of ideological fundamentalism, but then, as Australians have previously shown, all it takes is for a Tampa to come floating over the horizon for all rationality to desert the electorate...

Even with such a putative gift-hourse though, I doubt that the current Coalition has sufficient nouse and coherence to rally against the Government, given its tight rein on the political process at the moment.

No matter how Barnaby twists his Rubix cube, I can't see that he'll ever arrange all the colours to line up on their respective sides... It'll give me something else to sit back and watch however, as the next election draws closer. Could be a good night for beer and pizza.

[An interesting post](http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-gre…) by Skeptical Science, with a bunch of papers that were new to me.

>*"this experimental data should effectively end the argument by skeptics that no experimental evidence exists for the connection between greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and global warming."*

A good article appeared on 'The Oil Drum' about green jobs and wind energy on the weekend:

http://europe.theoildrum.com/node/5950

Interesting stuff given all the scaremongering by the Libs and Nats about the thousands of jobs that are supposedly going to go with the CPRS.

For those international folk with an incurable fascination for the fly-in-honey machinations of politics, the Australian Lower House is currently discussing the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme bill that would either see Australia take an ETS to Copenhagen, or give a trigger for a double dissolution election should Prime Minister Kevin Rudd believe that he needs to sweep the cupboard out now, more than he needs an even more friendly senate at the election after next...

The way the votes are going it seems that the likelihood of the former is decreasing with every passing minute. There have been some wincingly muddle-headed speeches from the Denialists in the Opposition - trainwreck stuff, really.

It's all broadcast live on the internet via [the ABC's NewsRadio](http://www.abc.net.au/newsradio/).

Just to remind everyone to vote for [DenialDepot: Blog Science for Real People](http://denialdepot.blogspot.com/). How Blog Science should be done!

On a previous Open Thread I expressed skepticism about the supposed benefits of breeder reactors (you know, when they aren't exploding, melting, catching fire or doing all three simultaneously).

Here's some new nuclear technology which promises to deliver similar benefits to breeder reactos - except it actually seems to work.

http://www.physorg.com/news177678729.html

At the end of a week where Australian temperatures [did this](http://tinypic.com/m/6f8rwz/3), the Federal Coalition is moving so far to the right that the starboard gunwale is dipping below the water...

...Tonight's Lateline on the ABC featured a report on the current stoush over the Goverment's attempt at introducing an ETS, and how the Liberal [sic] and National parties' members are kicking and screaming in response. This time there was an interview with another Liberal senior, Tony Abbot, and if you want to see a Denialist walk the razor in a desperate attempt to deny his Denialism, this is an amusing interview to watch.

Take note of his fawning admiration of Plimer, and his concurrent dismissal of thousands of the world's experts on climate - his comment about not reading the IPCC reports is jaw-dropping. His breath-taking hypocrisy over "evangelicals", "religious fervour" and the like is impressive indeed, considering his own Fundamentalist Catholicism - especially so in light of his efforts in attempting to impose his own ideologies in various public arenas such as the right to legal abortions and same-sex relationships...

The video of this episode is not yet on the web page, but I am sure that I or someone else will link to it here soon enough.

One of the things that seems to really bother the Denialist politicians is the fact that Australia is intending to go to Copenhagen with an ETS, where the "rest of the world" may not have operational schemes, and which would thus result in the 'Roonation' of Our Economy...

This makes me wonder - is there any particular reason why the impending legislation could not simply predicate any enaction of an Australian ETS bill upon the proviso that there is a minimum global involvement agreed to at Copenhagen? That way Australia can show the world exactly what we are prepared to do to play our part in decarbonising, and simultaneously not place ourselves in a situation where our economy is not "ruined" should there be no cooperation by other countries.

This would surely defuse the 'arguments' of the Denialists in the Opposition, and still show the world that we are serious in shouldering our share of the work required.

Anyone?

South Australia [is cursed](http://tinypic.com/m/6f8rwz/3) by the denialism of Plimer, Minchin, Bernardi, and Rupert's empire.

Abbot could surely find some Bible reference about the sins of the denialist being visited upon their constituents.

(Bernard, I see you can get a tee-shirt or mug with that!)

I note that the October HadCrut3 figures show a just negative trend from January 1998 to October 2009. "Just" meaning that if their October figure had been one-hundredth of a degree warmer then the trend would have been positive instead. Looks like we'll have to wait another month for the trend to go positive. The UAH graph shows that November so far is relatively warm.

Of course, the "cooling since 1998" meme is still getting traction in the Wall Street Journal, not that it would bother them if it were no longer true, considering that they make assertions of fact that are just plain wrong anyway.

BernardJ asked:

is there any particular reason why the impending legislation could not simply predicate any enaction of an Australian ETS bill upon the proviso that there is a minimum global involvement agreed to at Copenhagen?

I respectfully disagree Bernard. One should not pander to the enemies of humanity. It's very simple. Everybody must pull their weight and Australia is already not going anywhere near far enough to meet that standard. Excluding agriculture from the ETS was an appalling concession as is the mass of free permits given to big polluters. The fact of the matter is that Australia, which is per capita one of the world's biggest emitters needs to be at the cutting edge of making an agreement happen rather than looking to others.

Those opposed to action are simply reckless sociopaths and we should give them nothing but brickbats. Were I in charge, I'd withdraw the legislation so that it could be re-written with far more ambitious targets and ubiquitous provisions and the legislation would not be predicated on what others did. We would act and challenge others to match us and if no better arrangement could be entered into, impose spoiling tariffs on goods from places not meeting our standards of CO2 mitigation.

The mere prospect that that might happen would put the frighteners on the backers of the opposition to action.

Global agreements such as required post Kyoto are easy to kill if one as malicious intentions. All you need to do, is what Howard and Bush did, and drag out discions and quibble about parochial interests on every issue to "hold its head underwater long enough'.

What is needed, and why Australia and the US must play a leadership role, alongside the current leaders such an UK, Germany, etc.) We need the most profligate per capita greenhouse emitters (AU and US) to take a cooperative and intially burden carrying load. Only this will create the environment for high populous- low per-capita emission nations (India, China) to make necessary cuts.

Australia and US and other rich profligate per-capita polluters must jump first. We are top of the tree and need to play an open, trustful, cooperative role for a global agreement according to [game theory](http://books.google.com.au/books?hl=en&lr=&id=vS_Zub2gtsQC&oi=fnd&pg=PA…).

If we want to sabotage an agreement, all we need to do is not play an open, trustful, cooperative role.

Excluding agriculture from the ETS was an appalling concession as is the mass of free permits given to big polluters.

I'm even more puzzled why the conservatives want HFC gases (such as used in car air-con) exempted. Who is responsible for this special-pleading? The car industry say it's not coming from them. Every special-pleading case that gets through increases the burden on everything that's left.

guess what the "sceptic" bloggers would do, if some hacker provided them with [stolen e-mails](http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/19/breaking-news-story-hadley-cru-ha…)...

true sceptics immediately publish them online. of course.

Mark said:

We need the most profligate per capita greenhouse emitters (AU and US) to take a cooperative and intially burden carrying load

I certainly endorse that, but IIRC, Kuwait and Saudi (and maybe UAE) are above us and qualify as rich high per capita emitting nations. They were also amongst those who tried to torpedo the IPCC consensus, forcing a rewording to lower the certainty attached to anthropogenesis.

Not that I think they will act more responsibly now ...

>IIRC, Kuwait and Saudi (and maybe UAE) are above us and qualify as rich high per capita emitting nations. They were also amongst those who tried to torpedo the IPCC consensus, forcing a rewording to lower the certainty attached to anthropogenesis.

Yes, they get under the radar too often. What are the polical pressure points for these nations? I don't hear about much leverage from public dissent in those nations, what I do hear about is exploitation of immagrant workers.

Re sod's comment

Since originators of e-mails own their copyright, then by publishing these without the permission of the sender there is technically a breach of copyright.

Since originators of e-mails own their copyright, then by publishing these without the permission of the sender there is technically a breach of copyright.

Oh, it's much worse, breaking into servers is a crime in the UK, I'm sure, and breaking into government servers? Oh my.

But crime committed in the name of right-wing politics is just fine with these people. Ask them what they think of Watergate, someday.

Oh, and to be clear, I'd feel the same way if someone had cracked one of the servers managed by Watts, i.e. WUWT or CA, and published all of the private correspondence between Watts, M&M, etc.

I meant that last post to be a response to tom fuller over on a thread at stoat ...

Yes, dhogaza, I'm aware of the publishing of illegally obtained material aspects. I kept to the copyright issue because IIRC there was a to do about Dim Watt and copyright recently on here and thought it particularly apposite.

What a hubbub.

In the event they're actual emails, copyright is the last thing anybody cares about in that respect; any copyright issue is not worth pursuing. Laws on this side are different, but I'd use the Sarah Palin email hack as a precedent for how things can unfold.

[Fran Barlow](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/open_thread_35.php#comment-2088…).

I am in complete concurrence with your thoughts. I was just wondering if a clause could be added that would take the wind out of the sails of those who use the argument that we can't 'go first'. Without that (spurious) economic argument to block all other discussion, it would be interesting to see exactly what their arguments are against the actual science of warming, and what their impressions might be of Australia's culpability in the issue.

However, given the staggering candour of the political Denialists over the last week or so, I suppose that this would now be largely a moot point. Still, I can't help but wonder where the Denialists would next take their resistance if their pseudo-economic protestations were scuttled. And as much as I dream of the sort of measures outlined in your post, I think that I would rather bring a flawed ETS to Copenhagen, even with such a proviso clause, than to have the whole bill sunk by some ideologues using the 'economic' excuse.

If this is what it would take to show the world that Australia is ready to cooperate, then as distasteful as it is I'd wear it - I doubt that failure at Copenhagen (which is an eleventh-hour action even if it succeeds) could ever be overcome in time to avoid the sort of ecosystem damage that is basically already set in CO2-intensive concrete.

And in the end I reckon that any Australian ETS would improve the chances that the rest of the world would come on board. Without one, each country is likely to say exactly what the Australian Coalition Denialists are saying now - "you first, not us" - and other (Third World) countries would have a very good reason to say such, in that we are one of the most culpable nations in terms of per capita emissions, and of accompanying benefits.

No matter the actual amount of Australian emissions, we are morally bound to lead by example. I can think of no valid argument to the contrary, and I am mortified at the thought that a few ignorant ideologues with spurious arguments are holding our country, and ultimately the planet, to ransom.

Re the email frenzy at WUWT, looks like pretty ordinary emails to me. What I found strange is that they seem to be very excited about the emails, but not so about all the source data that was "found". Surely they'd be more interested in the source data if they were science-types... Oh wait, I see now.

Yes, we can expect a thorough parsing of the emails for words that looks suspicious. Like 'trick' or 'hide' or 'alter' - which all obviously point to a conspiracy...

BernardJ responded:

I was just wondering if a clause could be added that would take the wind out of the sails of those who use the argument that we can't 'go first'.

One problem with your reasoning here is that the bill already has a clause which allows the cap to be increased to meet the standards set at Copenhagen, and the scheme has been deferred for one further year, so the objection has no validity on their part. Their official position is "wait for Copenhagen" as it was "wait for Garnaut" and "wait for treasury modelling". Your suggestion, if adopted would allow them to suggest the whole thing could be deferred one more time, since, plainly, it would be 100% conditional. they are already using the delays to make just that case.

The other problem is that you would lend credibility to the broader claim that this scheme will "damage our economy". This is entirely specious.

Worst of all you pretend that their objection is made in good faith. It isn't, as you know, but it encourages the hardcore to think you fear them.

The truth of this matter is that all sides of the Liberals fear electoral annihilation, and the longer this rift persists, the worse their electoral prospects become. A loss of 1966 proportions with colours reversed would mean a lot of Liberals (some of them Senators) and some Nationals would be out looking for private sector jobs in a harsh market and with the ability to run senate committees lost their traction would fall to zero.

So Rudd holds all the key cards here. In the end, they need a deal a lot more than does Rudd, who could, if he wanted, go to Copenhagen empty-handed and, playing on the world stage without local legislation to restrain him, offer massive cuts and swingeing application, promising to fight the next election on it sometime well into the summer heat wave. Saturday, December 11 2010 looks a nice date for that.

Would the Liberals have the stomach for 12 months more pain on this? I doubt it. And if Rudd twisted the knife, imposing harsher terms on the schysters backing the Minchin-Tuckey faction than they could have had now, their ignominy and failure on December 12 2010 would be complete.

I'd love to see that.

Further to [my comment yesterday](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/open_thread_35.php#comment-2087…), and to some of the the comments on the [APP thread](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/aap_reports_from_the_future.php), the stories from the Lateline program last night are now on the web site.

There is one covering the unprecedented [weather that Australia is 'enjoying'](http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2008/s2748144.htm), and of course the [Abbott interview](http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2008/s2748161.htm).

Meanwhile, over at Radio National, there's [speculation on Abbott's motives for speaking out against AGW](http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2009/s2748619.htm) now, and there's also a piece about [what the US military thinks about AGW](http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2009/s2748636.htm). There's also a short interview about [the similarities and the differences in Australian/US public perceptions on climate change](http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2009/s2748640.htm).

Who says that my 8 cents per day is wasted at the ABC?

Fran.

The point of my suggestion was to scupper the "wait until Copenhagen" stratagem by removing an obstacle that apparently provides reason for further deferral by the Denialists. If the rest of the world (without at least the US and Canada, which seem to be holding out until "next year") did accept an agreement at Copenhagen, I'm not sure that the Denialist politicians could attempt to defer any longer, and if Copenhagen fails (which is actually the probable outcome), I'd actually like to see this ETS fail also, because it would open the way for a more hard-headed ETS v2.0, as both you and I would prefer.

The deference already built in is a delay, certainly, but it would (if the bill were accepted) operated slightly differently to the "wait until after Copenhagen before we decide on an ETS" stratagem. The biggest difference is that the latter does not provide any signal to the rest of the world that Australia is stepping to the plate, and I suspect that the Denialists are using this hair-split in an attempt to stave off any introduction of a CPRS. The objection of the Denialists doesn't have to be valid; it only has to capture sufficient traction in the electorate that the politicians on both sides will seek to not disenfranchise those who accept the Denialists' line.

I accept that a proviso might lend credibility to the "damage [to] our economy" meme, even though the latter is a furphy, and this is one of the reasons that I sought in my original question.

I don't accept though that I was pretending that their objection "is made in good faith". Quite the contrary, actually, and I imagined that structuring any proviso would clearly elucidate that the objections are grounded in poor faith and in a lack of supportable evidence - hence the need to bring as much to the table at Copenhagen as we can. I think that this point might be more a matter of semantics than of substance.

I broadly agree with the rest of your post though, and most especially that Rudd could go to Copenhagen with a clean slate. My fear with this though would be that Rudd doesn't have the bottle to put a more stringent CPRS on the table than is being debated now.

I guess that in this, as in the fate of the current ETS and of the possibility of a double dissolution, time will tell. I just hope that we manage to negotiate the Denialist roadblocks because Copenhagen (or perhaps a very soon-to-follow summit) is really the last best chance to do something truly substantive for the planet's climate.

Another link to Australia's national broadcaster; this time to [an interview with Paul Ehrlich](http://www.abc.net.au/rn/latenightlive/stories/2009/2747139.htm).

It's stuff such as this that makes me happy to pay my $0.08/day...

Bernard J.

There's a number of problems putting in a clause such as "only starts if an international agreement is reached at Copenhagen" into a Bill/legislation. The first relates to commencement dates, which need to be set to say when legislation comes into effect. So the commencement date could be "28 days after Royal Assent" or similar but it's impossible to have "28 days after an international agreement is reached at Copenhagen". For starters, how would you define the international agreement? Most people signed up? Some people signed up? It's agreed but not ratified? What form would the agreement have to take to trigger the Commencement Date - what if the agreement was "we agree to come back next year and try again"? Would that count? There would be no way to define it in appropriate language, nor would it be acceptable to those drafting the legislation to try.

Such a clause would also, I would think, be impossible to put in because international agreements have no force. They are lovely and it's happy that everyone says yes, but until the countries that agree go back and create domestic legislation that creates laws in their own countries, an international agreement is just a nice, shiny piece of paper. Which is yet another reason that "Copenhagen is being done to set up world government that will over-ride each country's rights" makes people versed in international law roll about laughing (I have always presumed that Janet Albrechtsen didn't do the International Law elective). You can create domestic legislation that refers to international treaties, but the treaties themselves have no effect until ratified or enacted domestically. I don't think you could, therefore, make a domestic law's existence contingent on an international treaty pre-ratification etc.

There is also a doctrine of legal certainty which underpins the legal structure in most countries (certainly Australia). Legal certainty means that legislation is clear on the face of it, people understand when it applies from and can clearly find out if they are or are not acting within the law. To have legislation that says "this will apply to you, if/kinda/maybe when someone/somewhere agrees to it/or a form of it" violates that precept fairly effectively! Business, for example, should be able to plan for the implementation of the ETS - a random, possible start date would just be hell on earth in terms of implementation. And whoever in government had to set up the computer system to run it would just weep quietly before resigning.

I hope that helps (and just to note, I'm not a lawyer and this isn't legal advice, but I've worked with lawyers on international law and domestic legislative implementation for - well, too long!).

Apparently Tom Harris will soon be asking for money for his International Climate 'Science' Coalition.

New EU Head Blatantly Admits the Goal of One World Government

Thanks for the speech nanny,

Pity you misrepresent what he said.

Global agreement about managing environmental costs is not global government.

But if misrepresenting people is what rocks your boat, God bless you and I hope he can heal you too.

I suppose itâs too much to hope that the decision by the coalition to support the deal will be bucked by the Liberals in the senate.

I think the time may have come for a bit of mischief making.

I think maybe posing as capital c-conservatives and writing to pro-CPRS senators may put the final nail in this rotten deal and send the conservative forces into the wilderness at the same time. Best of all, we lefties may be able to engineer this own goal.

Whatâs not to like about that?

Time for a visit to the Andrew Bolt/Piers Akerman blogs â¦

Fran.

With the disintegration of the Opposition today over Turnbull's support for the ETS, I suspect that all bets may be off.

In some ways this might be a Good Thing, because the latest version of the ETS was not only as weak as piss, it was full of shit as well.

However, the alternative seems to be that the remnants of the Liberal[sic]/National parties are hell-bent on spreading, though the general public, the meme that Global-Warming-is-a-Great-Big-Scam-Concocted-by-Fraudulent-Scientists-and-Their-Fawning-Socialist-Friends, and you should Trust-Us-Because-We-Are-Conservative-Politicians (although we wouldn't actually know what science is, even if it turkey-slapped us in the face).

For those non-Australians who might wonder at the previous paragraph, Tony Abbot has resigned from the shadow front bench,taking a large coterie of fellow denialists with him, apparently in order to position himself for a leadership spill within the next few days. There's an interesting summary on tonight's episode of our stalwart [Lateline](http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/), including an interview with the loopier-than-a-bagful-of-pretzels Lavoisier-chum Cory Bernardi [gack!!].

It's deck-chairs on the Titanic stuff, except that the Opposition is saying more raucously than ever that the iceberg doesn't exist...

Anyway, if our prime minister can bring a functional carbon pollution reduction scheme to the table at Copenhagen I'd be surprised, and if he can bring one that actually tells the world that Australia is genuinely serious about pulling its weight in avoiding the worst of the impending warming effects, I'd be gobsmacked.

Bernard, I won't repeat my views on this as they are well known to you, but I think our tactical objective here must be to stop this bill being passed. Unless seven Liberal senators vote for the guillotine, the filibuster will run and run and parliament will lapse.

Even those who would be inclined to vote for the bill would be reluctant to gag their colleagues, especially since they are the more "liberal" ones.

If a vote is prevented, then the rebels win and the fight amongst the reactionaries continues to their detriment.

That buys us both time and space to press for a better scheme.

senator.coonan
senator.fierravanti-wells
senator.Heffernan
senator.payne
senator.boyce
senator.brandis
senator.ian.macdonald
senator.mason
senator.trood
senator.Humphries
senator.birmingham
senator.fisher
senator.barnett
senator.bushby
senator.kroger
senator.ronaldson
senator.ryan
senator.troeth
senator.adams
senator.cash
senator.corman
senator.eggleston
senator.back

The above senators may well move the gag to get the CPRS through or otherwise vote for it. Anyone who would like to stop the CPRS, should use the above user names followed by "@" followed by "aph.gov.au". I suggest we find as many people to contact them to ensure that the bill is defeated.

Enjoy

UAH shows the graph for the whole of November 2009. Looks like the warmest global November on record by quite a way except it doesn't show 1997 which was also quite warm so I'm not sure yet.

Looks like the warmest global November on record

The particular significance of this is that it means it is very likely that HadCrut3 will most likely show a warming trend from 1998 to November 2009, thus helping remove one of the global warming denial memes (i.e. it's been cooling since 1998).

Tim,

Just wondering if you are going to do a post on the Senate's ETS rejection and any thoughts on what is likely to happen from here and/or ramifications of this decision.

Personally, I think this is a big own goal for the Coalition. The agreed ETS framework was about the best deal that big business was going to get, effectively a Claytons ETS to have something to take to Copenhagen. Not much, granted, but something. For big business, the compensation package took away a great deal of the urgency to take action to reduce emissions, however those that did stood to make some serious change out of their efforts. Hopefully enough of an inducement to drive investment in emission reduction, alternative energy and energy efficiency research and development; albeit at a slower pace than if an ETS sans-compensation was put in place.

What happens now?

Toughie. I'd assume nothing will change between now and February and the Coalition seems to have moved much further to the right with talk about bringing back nuclear power into the debate. This is another own goal in my view as the Gen IV reactor designs showing promise are still at the theoretical stage and unlikely to go into commercial production before 2030 - much to late to achieve the emission reductions necessary to limit temperature rise to 2 degrees. Despite the calls of the Business Council of Australia and the Australian Industry Group to bring some certainty to business investment through a market based scheme like the ETS, the likelihood is that it will be voted down again.

If/when that happens, I'd expect Rudd to go to the polls. Abbott might fire up those on the right-far right, but he will hold little appeal to the more moderate Coalition voters. I've been talking to a lot of farmers over the last couple of years and they are very disgruntled with Joyce as well. They are well aware that climate change is real and are doing it very tough. Whether they are disgruntled enough to jump ship is another thing. The likely scenario in an election in 2010 is that the Liberals will really cop it, the Nationals less so. The Greens will gain and it is likely that either the ALP will have the numbers in their own right to push a revised ETS through, or will need the support of the Greens.

It is this latter possibility/prospect that must scare the bejesus out of the conservative side of politics. Which is why their decision to renege on McFarlane's negotiated ETS deal, makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.