JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).


The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

Australian Environment Conference Oct 20 2012


micropace


GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



Bankers spread into “science”

Our CSIRO is supposed to serve the people of Australia to impartially help advise them of the risks and benefits of different actions with the latest science but oopsie, the team who picked the new Chairman clean forgot.  Instead of someone who speaks in sage tones about uncertainties, they pick a former banking Mergers and Acquisitions Chief who’s an avowed advocate and activist, and happy to admit he’s got a predetermined agenda science-wise.

Should the CSIRO ever (accidentally) discover that the climate models were all based on an error cascade and a guess that went wrong, Mr McKeon will jump up and down to see that those results are pursued, funded, promoted issued in press releases and put into education campaigns for kids and journalists, err… right? I mean, he’s our man isn’t he — making sure the Australian citizens he serves are not ripped off by trickster scientists who “can’t account for the lack of warming” and who “hide declines”.

What were they thinking?

Macquarie boss gets CSIRO top job

The Federal Government has appointed a corporate banker as the CSIRO’s new chairman.

Simon McKeon is executive chairman of Macquarie Bank’s Melbourne office, specialising in mergers and acquisitions.

Despite admitting he has “no scientific pedigree”, Mr McKeon says he wants to see the issue of climate change elevated to the top of the political and public agenda.

“We may not have all the answers to what is occurring, we may not have certainly all the solutions to how to fix it,” he said.

“But the point is, why wouldn’t one take out very strong insurance to at least do what we can to future-proof our well-being? I think it’s a no-brainer.”

We the people who fund this institution are in no mood for watching it shamelessly, overtly turn into an arm of propaganda for government policies. Mr McKeon hasn’t even started the job and he’s using reasoning that would get him sacked as an investment banker, let alone a scientist: “it’s the insurance no-brainer” . This is a mindless black and white conversational sword used to hack to death any semblance of polite discussion about the real world shades of grey. Insurance? Sure. Sane people do a cost-benefit analysis on insurance. Should I spend $10,000 now on insurance against sea levels rising 20 or 30cm in 90 years, or should I buy health insurance, fix the car and go on a holiday to Tonga? Lemme think.

In the end, everything is risky, nothing is safe. We can’t insure against the universe. We have to pick our battles.

Let’s try the McKeon-think line-of-reasoning with other risks to appreciate just how useless a lens it is.

It’s a dead set fact that an asteroid could wipe out a continent. McKeon-think says: “…the point is, why wouldn’t one take out very strong insurance to at least do what we can to future-proof our well-being? I think it’s a no-brainer.” Sure, let’s spend $5000 a family (why not $50,000! How much do you love your children?) on a satellite tracking system and on developing anti-asteroid nukes on 24 hour alert… you’re not an asteroid-denier are you?

Whatever values people place on different risks, the wise don’t base their decisions solely on unaudited information from an unaudited organization (the AGW theory from the IPCC). So which “impartial” institution can we turn too now?

The creep of Big Government

The inherent rewards in the system mean that some elements of our society grow at the expense of others.

In an ideal world, those trained in science — with an understanding of logic reason and the natural world — would be the ones spreading out into politics, banking and business. But because money feeds on itself, and bureaucracy seeks to grow more bureaucracy, instead, the financial world and the ranks of government inevitably expand into the scientific world. Et voila.

When Banking is “successful” it creams more money into the financial industry, giving it even more power. When bureaucracy is “successful” it creates bigger government with more employees, more funding, and more influence. When science is successful, we all learn something about the world around us. The feedback loop is not quite the same.

Today the world of science shrank just a little bit more.

To really appreciate just how one-eyed McKeon might be, read The Age Feb 2008. Has he changed his mind since? It appears not.


Thanks to Linda M, Neville,  Speedy, Baa Humbug and Raymond.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 10.0/10 (1 vote cast)
Bankers spread into "science", 10.0 out of 10 based on 1 rating

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/2bzhkgb

108 comments to Bankers spread into “science”

  • #
    Frank Brown

    This all sounds like a nightmare version of a Commie plot to take over a democracy.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Adolf Balik

    As a former insurance company analyst I am prone to approach problems as insurance calculations. Insurance is based on statistical models. Where is the statistic of CO2 apocalypses against which we should protect?

    Nevertheless, we don’t have to be so demanding. We could measure the risk of the model failure. If we test statistical fitness of the last 10 years temperatures with AR forecast we will find insurance against the hot future much more risky then the future in itself.

    If we measure CO2 as an explanation value of temperature time series by co-integration test we cannot tell it is recognizable from fluctuations (noise in signal).

    Carbonari tell us warming of the 20th century end is a new and dangerous trend. Nevertheless, if we take a time series and put it into an ARIMA model, it finds great measure of auto-correlation – the recent series are similar to the old series – nothing new. The soft decompose it into a trend, seasons and a fluctuation residue. Most of the recent warming was a seasonal warming and the trend warming was the only small and not much greater then previous trend. Model telling anything about a new trend is apparently nonsense. There is an amateur mistake of trend season mismatch. Use it as a base for insurance calculation should be, thus, a fraud if it happened in a financial company.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Adolf Balik

    Frank Brown 1:

    The system in which the society is run by merged committees of big corporations with bureaucratic government agencies is called a corporativism. The most known form of it was the fascism in Europe or BAASism in Arabic countries. Achievement of the corporativistic merge probably needs an expert on merges.

    If it happens then the WW2 victory was useless.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pattoh

    Jo

    Having moved to New South Wales in 1995 from Queensland just in time to see Bob Carr take the ALP to power in state government, I watched a government for many years run by a man who likes being able to turn on the light but hated that “filthy thermal power” industry.

    I vaguely think he always had a driver because he did not like driving (probably for philosophical reasons).

    It is a pity we live in a country which has so much open space to stretch out the infrastructure, out where we seem to generate so much of its foreign income.

    All that time he was at the helm you have to wonder if & how much personal attitudes influenced policy & how if at all this affected requirement projections & planning in the power supply network.

    His reign saw the introduction of Public Private Partnerships for infrastructure development.

    Macquarie Bank emerged as a player in the financing & owning during the sell off of public assets.

    The Commonwealth sell off of Telstra was a multiple coup. As a political philosophy they got a big wad of cash, they still got to tie it up in controlling legislation & they could blame an outside entity for any perceived failings.

    I get the impression that the policy push from the Carr state government to sell the power generation was an attempt to emulate this:- sell off an aging asset, get a wad of cash to spend (& look politically attractive), let someone else be the bad guy charging a power price necessary to renew infrastructure & all the while tie them up in emissions restrictions.

    Pity for Mr. Carr that the union political power base of the party would never accept it. As we all know, he retired & it started the “musical chairs” we have witnessed in NSW politics ever since.

    I understand he now has some association with Macquarie Bank. Would it not be ironic if the sale of the power assets in NSW were ultimately to go ahead & Macquarie was a major player in it.

    Particularly in light of paltry token input from alternative power sources & the political hurdle of selling nuclear power


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whaakaro

    Well, I always understood that Australia invented the term, “cronyism”. Seems like the principle is still alive and well.

    I wonder how much Mr McKeon will be paid as Chairman of the CSIRO? And will that salary be higher than the one he commanded as Executive Chairman of Macquarie Bank’s Melbourne office, especially when you take into account all of those bonuses, commissions, et cetera?

    The Australian Federal Government must pay their senior civil servants extremely well to attract somebody of Mr McKeon’s pedigree from the commercial sector, wouldn’t you say?

    Or is this appointment a reaction to the news that Carbon is now trading at around $1.88, and looks to go lower as the wheels fall off of the AGW scam?

    Perhaps this appointment is a knee-jerk reaction from the politicians who have shifted all of the money in their “blind” trust funds into carbon investments?

    No, surely not?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whaakaro

    Frank Brown: #1

    This all sounds like a nightmare version of a Commie plot to take over a democracy.

    The Communists do not plot. They lurch. They lurch from crisis to crisis, and from each bad idea to the next worse idea.

    Mind you, the outcome is much the same, I just didn’t want anybody to think it was rational, ’cause it ain’t.


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
    Rereke Whaakaro

    An excellent (and somewhat tongue in cheek) article at World Climate Report, especially if you like … spinach?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    janama

    OT _ I came across a new alarmist website http://www.beyondzeroemissions.org

    They apparently are currently creating a report detailing how Australia can produce 100% of it’s power via renewable sources :) Can’t wait for that report.

    They have a page of podcasts and I recommend the Karoly interview if you feel like a laugh. Actually it’s sad really.

    http://www.beyondzeroemissions.org/media/radio


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Ross

    This is interesting — is it the Govt. pushing it or the banks leaning on the Govt. to get one their boys in there to push the agenda so they get a new “play thing” as derivatives come under more scrutiny and possible regulation.
    Note , in NZ our ETS comes in on July 1. The PR spin on it is more to do with -” we must do something otherwise our trading partners will be upset and not buy our goods”. As a small country exporting is our life blood. Nothing to do with emmissions as such but I found out to my horror recently we will have an “all gases” and “all sector” scheme , unlike the EU that only targets industrial and manufacturing sectors. Exempt in the EU are transport , households, small business, agriculture, construction and waste sectors. They only consider C02 and not other gases. Methane from agriculture is one of the main issues for NZ.
    So if the ETS rears its ugly head again in Australia –check the detail.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Tel

    I get the impression that the policy push from the Carr state government to sell the power generation was an attempt to emulate this:- sell off an aging asset, get a wad of cash to spend (& look politically attractive), let someone else be the bad guy charging a power price necessary to renew infrastructure & all the while tie them up in emissions restrictions.

    I’ve said this a few times already but base-load power generation in NSW does not make much money, typical wholesale price is around 3c per kwh. The money is made by the man-in-the-middle i.e. the distribution network. They never intend to sell off the distribution network.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pattoh

    Well of course if you wanted to “spin” a painful costly change with questionable benefits to a captive market, you would not start with a used car salesman or real estate promoter or even a politician (if he did not have the fortitude to defend his “rock solid convictions”) you would go straight to class & experience, get a banker!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Raymond

    Subject: COMMUNIST THINKING AND PLANNING AT THE CSIRO

    All Australians must be made aware of the COMMUNIST THINKING & PLANNING at the CSIRO with respect to the GLOBAL WARMING FRAUD which thery are COMPLICIT in perpertrating on the Australian public.

    Have a read of the current survey they have published on their website.

    A survey on Housing and Sea Level Rise:-
    http://www.cse.csiro.au/forms/form-survey-sea-level.aspx

    If you are not OUTRAGED by the time you have finished reading you should be!

    It is quite obvious that they are attempting to determine how much public resistence that would be encountered if Coastal Landholders Properties are either COMPULSORILY RESUMED OR A SUBSTANTIAL TAX PLACED UPON THEM!!

    ONLY A COMMUNIST GOVERNMENT WOULD EVEN CONTEMPLATE SUCH HEINOUS IDEAS!

    The email addresses of the CSIRO “scientists” helping to perpetuate the GLOBAL WARMING FRAUD are:-

    Nick.Abel@csiro.au
    Anthony.Ryan@csiro.au

    Send them some emails and tell them what you think of their COMMUNISTIC THINKING & PROPOSALS!

    Why not send some some REAL SCIENTIFIC FACTS which demonstrate that this GLOBAL WARMING FRAUD has been debunked……

    Sea levels ARE NOT RISING despite all the LIES, ALARM AND SPIN DOCTORING BY THE FOLLOWERS OF THE CHURCH OF AL GORE!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    John Coochey

    According to a newsitem last night he has been involved in sail speed recorda attempts in joint ventures with CSIRO. What is public money doing involved with such games?


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
    val majkus

    Yes, the CSIRO is being ‘dumbed down’ by this appointment
    on another topic – physics – there is a lay explanation of the physics underlying the fictitious dogma of climate alarmism. KE Research, a German public policy consultancy firm, prepared the report based on interviews and editing assistance from noted German theoretical physicists Ralf D. Tscheuschner & Gerhard Gerlich, authors of the peer-reviewed paper Falsification of the Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects within the Frame of Physics, and numerous other climatologists, physicists, and scientists at
    http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/06/rescue-from-climate-saviors.html

    Conclusions of the report include:

    The terms “greenhouse effect” and “greenhouse gas” are misnomers and obstruct understanding of the real world.
    Earth has a natural “cooling system”. If the planet warms, it will automatically raise its cooling power.
    An increase of earth temperatures is only achievable if the heating power is stepped up: first to “load” matter with more energy (i.e. to raise temperatures) and then to compensate for the increasing cooling, which results from the increase of IR radiation into space.
    CO2 and other IR-active gases cannot supply any additional heating power to the earth. Therefore, they cannot be a cause of “global warming”. This fact alone disproves the greenhouse doctrine.

    The “natural greenhouse effect” (increase of earth temperatures by 33°C) is a myth.
    IR-active gases do not act “like a blanket” but rather “like a sunshade”. They keep a part of the solar energy away from the earth’s surface.
    IR-active gases cool the earth: 70% of the entire cooling power originates from these molecules. Without these gases in the air, the surface and the air immediately above the ground would heat up more.
    The notion that a concentration increase of IR-active gases would impede earth’s cooling is impossible given the true mechanisms explained above.
    As a consequence the very foundation of the “Green Tower of Climate Dogma” crumbles. Computer models alleging to forecast warming based on “greenhouse effects” are worthless, and any speculation about the “impact of climate change” accordingly dispensable.
    Since the greenhouse hypothesis has been disproven by the laws of physics, it is only a matter of time until the truth becomes public opinion.

    Does anyone have any comments on the contents of that report?


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
    Raymond

    “janama”, I have just sent THESE TRAITORS at “http://www.beyondzeroemissions.org” a number of “information” emails telling them some FACTS OF LIFE!!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Raymond

    The once illustrious CSIRO is now highly politicized.

    It has certainly fallen far!

    Have a read of some of these recent articles regarding their “activities”…….

    CSIRO bid to gag emissions trading scheme policy attack:-

    http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,26291548-2702,00.html

    CSIRO ‘in denial’ over policy debate:-

    http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/national/csiro-in-denial-over-policy-debate/story-e6frfku9-1225829195671

    CSIRO shames itself:-

    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/column_csiro_shames_itself/

    The CSIRO calls this proof?:-

    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/the_csiro_calls_this_proof/

    ABC News Watch: Sensationalist headline for CSIRO study on ocean salinity:-

    http://abcnewswatch.blogspot.com/2010/04/sensationalist-headline-for-csiro-study.html

    CSIRO suddenly feels a chill wind:-

    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/csiro_suddenly_feels_a_chill_wind/

    etc, etc, etc….


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
    Speedy

    Raymond @ 13

    I filled in that CSIRO sea level questionaire as well. Final comment was that I’d worry about sea level rise when Al Gore stopped buying beachside manions.

    Cheers,

    Speedy


    Report this

    00

  • #
    john of sunbury

    Surely this is a joke. A corporate banker has been appointed chairman of our peak scientific body with a pre-determined agenda to promote a global warming agenda which no doubt includes a carbon tax trading scheme which surprise surprise will be an astonishing earner for his bank. You couldn’t make this stuff up.

    I find it extraordinarily depressing that the Australian public are treated with such contempt by their own government.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brendon

    Jo says …

    trickster scientists who “can’t account for the lack of warming” and who “hide declines”.

    Oh come on now. You can do better than to quote old sayings that have been discussed ad-nauseum and shown to be innocuous.

    “account for the lack of warming” refers to our iniability to track the heat through the oceans – a relection upon the small samples we have in a vast ocean. The Argo floats, whilst better than previous system, still mean we have one float per 411,783 cubic kilometres of water.

    “hide the decline” refers to why tree ring data from the 60′s onwards differed from that of modern thermometers. The modern thermometers showed increases in temps whilst some tree-ring data did not.

    —-

    [ "Oh come on now. You can do better than to quote old sayings that have been discussed ad-nauseum and shown to be innocuous." Oh yes har har har Brendan. Classic tactic of those who want to dupe people is to make blustery baseless statements as if what they want to be true, actually "is". We've discussed those emails at length along with the weak excuses. Your best line of reasoning here? Are you kidding me? That we need "insurance" because we can't find the warming in the oceans? - JN]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    G/Machine

    This sends a very strong message to all CSIRO employees -
    If you have any doubt, weak or strong about CAGW, stay
    very silent. Your new Boss, the Banker, knows best


    Report this

    00

  • #
    bunny

    Janama @ 9 and Raymond @18,

    The ABC Unleashed is running a story today about the zero emissions. You might like to make some comments there. I’ve left my thoughts on the issue, though I will probably be censored again.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Baa Humbug

    Brendon: #22
    June 22nd, 2010 at 11:28 am

    “account for the lack of warming” refers to our iniability to track the heat through the oceans – a relection upon the small samples we have in a vast ocean. The Argo floats, whilst better than previous system, still mean we have one float per 411,783 cubic kilometres of water.

    “hide the decline” refers to why tree ring data from the 60’s onwards differed from that of modern thermometers. The modern thermometers showed increases in temps whilst some tree-ring data did not.

    Do you mean the imaginary heat that the models say should be there but isn’t? Maybe it’s more like bad theory and bad models. And are we tracking land surface T’s with stations in 1200 sqKm grids?
    Not enough argo buoys but plenty of surface thermometres? You want it both ways Brendon.

    If the tree records differed from the thermometres, wouldn’t it be reasonable to ask are the thermometres wrong, or the tree records wrong? They can’t both be right. If the tree records are wrong, why would we accept tree records prior to 1960 going all the way back 1000 years showing the famous FLAT temperatures until mans industrialization came along?

    Divergance or not, why was the tree record from 1960 onwards discarded? Why wasn’t it shown just like the pre-1960 record was. What were they HIDING?

    Did you ask yourself those questions Brendon?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Speedy

    Brendon @ 22

    “Hide the decline.” Well, no-one can accuse them of openly saying “Well, the tree proxies really sucked as thermometers” did they? The “trick” was to sneak the physically measured temperature record into the proxy data so it looked like the tree ring proxy data was reliable.

    To suggest that temperature is the only factor governing tree growth is as dumb as suggesting that the only factor governing global temperature is the atmospheric CO2 content.

    Cheers,

    Speedy


    Report this

    00

  • #
    janama

    thanks Bunny @ 24 – I was in for my chop immediately. :)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    blame the wind! u can’t make this up, tho somehow i feel mckeon might have made up the student anecdote!

    25 Feb 2008: Age: Marc Moncrief: Bank chief’s green passion helps businesses get wind of switch-off
    CHANGE is in the wind, and it’s the wind that gave Macquarie Bank’s Melbourne executive chairman, Simon McKeon, his personal climate change experience — as a yachtsman…
    In 2004, they lost the title to the French, and have tried to regain it ever since.
    “In the last few years, that wind has … evaporated,” Mr McKeon says.
    This observation helped convince him to begin minimising carbon emissions. A meter at his home tells his family their real-time power usage. And his conviction has led him to become a business community ambassador for Earth Hour, advocating to businesses the value of switching off their lights for one hour at 8pm on March 29…
    “I was talking to a bunch of schoolkids a while ago,” he says. “One of them said, ‘Mr McKeon, who is going to be the richest person in the world in the next 10 years?’
    “I said, ‘I don’t know his name, or her name, but I have a feeling that I know how they will have made their money … We actually need to, in fairly short order, convert the world from one energy-producing system to another. The people who are responsible, who actually make that happen, I think will end up being the wealthiest people in the world.’ The class seemed to accept that answer.”
    http://www.theage.com.au/news/environment/bank-chiefs-green-passion-helps-businesses-get-wind-of-switchoff/2008/02/24/1203788146632.html


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Speedy

    Pat @ 28

    As usual, when the adults ask awkward questions, talk to the kids…

    One wonders whether Macquarie Bank has any “green” interests – besides their over-riding desire to save the planet, of course?

    Cheers,

    Speedy

    PS Bunny – thanks for the tip on ABC Unreal – Unleashed.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brendon

    Baa Humbug says

    Do you mean the imaginary heat that the models say should be there but isn’t? Maybe it’s more like bad theory and bad models.

    No I am talking about our ability to track heat through the oceans.

    And are we tracking land surface T’s with stations in 1200 sqKm grids?

    And we can verify that land-based solution is adequate for the 2d solution. We know that satellite data also confirms that, for climate purposes, we can track long term changes in surface temps well.

    The ocean is another matter. It is 3 dimensional and so it is very difficult to get a good picture of the global ocean temp.

    There is NO Argo data for depths below 2000 meters.

    There is NO Argo data for underneath the ice caps where studies show that melting is occuring.

    http://www-hrx.ucsd.edu/www-argo/statusbig.gif

    The Argo team themselves say that the data is not yet sufficient for climate change analysis.

    http://www.argo.ucsd.edu/global_change_analysis.html

    If the tree records differed from the thermometres, wouldn’t it be reasonable to ask are the thermometres wrong, or the tree records wrong?

    Sure would. And given that there were other tree-ring data that agreed with the modern thrmometers, and that the land based thermometers also agreed with satellite data, bore hole data, sedimentary data, then I think they were safe to assume that some of the tree-ring data was wayward.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brendon

    Speedy writes

    To suggest that temperature is the only factor governing tree growth is as dumb as suggesting that the only factor governing global temperature is the atmospheric CO2 content.

    Luckily no one suggests this stupid idea then isn’t it!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    nice conclusion drawn from a stephen schneider-associated “study”:

    Union of Concerned Scientists: New Study Reaffirms Scientific Consensus on Climate Change
    http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/study-scientific-consensus-climate-change-411.html

    21 June: Vancouver Sun: Mike De Souza: Study questions credentials of climate-change skeptics
    The hundreds of academics who sign warnings for politicians to delay action on slashing greenhouse gas emissions do not have the same expertise as those who say human activity is causing global warming, says a new study to be released Tuesday in the Proceedings of the U.S. National Academy of Scientists…
    The paper was authored by William Anderegg, a graduate student at Stanford University’s biology department, along with Jacob Harold, Stephen Schneider and Prall, in order to compare the discrepancy between mainstream media coverage of controversies or debates about global warming with the actual research in scientific journals…
    The 1,372 academics were selected from scientific assessment reports as well as the prominent multisignatory public statements in support or against the mainstream theory. That list was then reduced to 908 researchers who had published at least 20 peer-reviewed papers on climate change science.
    But the study found that the academics supporting the evidence that humans are causing global warming were more likely to be climate change scientists doing extensive research while the skeptics had produced less evidence to back up their claims. For example, more than 90 per cent of the climate scientists who supported the evidence had each published more than 20 peer-reviewed papers while about 80 per cent of the skeptics had published less than that amount…
    http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Study+questions+credentials+climate+change+skeptics/3183069/story.html

    Science Mag: Eli Kintisch : Scientists ‘Convinced’ of Climate Consensus More Prominent Than Opponents, Says Paper
    http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2010/06/scientists-convinced-of-climate.html

    “more prominent” is my favourite bit!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Speedy

    Brendon

    Absolutely! That would be almost as silly as ignoring the correlation between the sun’s magnetic output (sunspot proxies) and climate trends over the last 400 years.

    Unfortunately, although the IPCC pays lip service to other factors, it reverts to controlling man-made CO2 emissions. Which are “very likely” to be causing significant and potentially catastophic global warming climate change.

    And it is probably worth reminding the alarmists out there that the burden of proof for the AGW hypothesis remains with those who propose it.

    Cheers,

    Speedy


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Speedy

    Brendon writes:

    then I think they were safe to assume that some of the tree-ring data was wayward.

    You are quite correct. Please have a look at this link:

    http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/mwpp.php

    If there is any error in the tree ring proxies, it is very likely to be in the period 1000 years ago, not the 1960′s. Even Phil Jones recognises that the MWP as an historical event – the tree ring data doesn’t.

    Cheers,

    Speedy


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brendon

    Speedy writes

    That would be almost as silly as ignoring the correlation between the sun’s magnetic output (sunspot proxies) and climate trends over the last 400 years.

    Sure. No one dismisses the fact that the sun’s activity is largely responsible. CO2 has been acting as a feedback and you can also strongly see a correlation between CO2 and temps in ice core data.

    But what’s the sun been doing lately? Cooling for the past 30 plus years, yet temps continue to go upwards.

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm

    Unfortunately, although the IPCC pays lip service to other factors, it reverts to controlling man-made CO2 emissions. Which are “very likely” to be causing significant and potentially catastophic climate change.

    The IPCC’s “very likely” means at least a 90% likelihood.

    Are you proposing we act on the 10% chance that we’re not causing the warming?

    That seems rather silly given the consequences of inaction vs that of action.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brendon

    Speedy writes

    You are quite correct. Please have a look at this link:

    http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/mwpp.php

    CO2Science doesn’t actually reconstruct anything. They categorise a study based on whether it shows any warming, somewhere around the MWP.

    They also move the MWP around to pick out the higher parts of the temps for each graph.

    You can do the same thing but looking for colder spots in the data and conclude the exact opposite of what they come up with.

    MWP is around AD 950–1250 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period

    But look at a few of the graphs at CO2Science and how they label the MWP.

    http://pages.science-skeptical.de/MWP/Sicre-2008.html
    http://pages.science-skeptical.de/MWP/Paulsen-2003.html
    http://pages.science-skeptical.de/MWP/Zhang-2003.html

    CO2Science’s MWP gets moved around to find the best warming bit.

    If there is any error in the tree ring proxies, it is very likely to be in the period 1000 years ago, not the 1960’s.

    When you get two set of tree-ring data in the 60′s disagreeing with each other, one of them has to be wrong.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Speedy

    Brendon

    It’s you saying 10%, not me. I look at the paleoclimate and see periods where we had enormous CO2 levels in the atmosphere – and plants just grew. The AGW case is strongly based on an increase in CO2 over the last 150 – 200 years following the end of the little ice age. There is no evidence to suggest the CO2 caused the temperature rise – as Jo points out, there was also an increase in the price of US postal stamps – does that mean stamp prices drive global temperatures?

    Me, I’m saying the chance of CO2 driving the climate is much much less than 1%, or, as Bulldust calls it, “bugger all”. However,there is an “excellent” chance that screwing the world energy supplies will kill off the world economy – “excellent” being a term used by Bulldust to express a probability of 100% or higher.

    Would you pay a billion dollars to insure yourself against damage to the left hand pinky sustained by a meteorite on a Tuesday morning in August? Neither would I.

    Cheers,

    Speedy


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Brendon at 31:

    The ocean is another matter. It is 3 dimensional and so it is very difficult to get a good picture of the global ocean temp.

    Oh yes the atmosphere is not 3 dimensional….

    ID ten T


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brendon

    JN writes

    Your best line of reasoning here? Are you kidding me? That we need “insurance” because we can’t find the warming in the oceans?

    There have been many periods of fluctuations in the OHC graph.

    http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/

    Now these are either because the ocean really does change temp very rapidly, or because our ability to monitor it is limited. We can rule out the ocean changing rapidly because the energy required to do so, both up and down, isn’t feasilible. That means the up/down variation seen in the graph is because we don’t get an exact reading each time. Short term variations are not a reliable indicator of what the climate is doing.

    Secondly, there are multiple lines of evidence for global warming.
    - Surface temps are going up, both land and ocean.
    - Glaciers are thinning.
    - Ice caps are melting.
    - CO2 levels are higher now than for at least the last 800,000 years.
    - The isotopic signature of the atmospheric carbon point to an increase of man-made origin.
    - CO2 has a known radiative effect because of its ability to absorb longwave radiation.
    - Multiple studies of climate sensitivity show the planet’s response to a radiative force.

    So no, I am not kidding you. I don’t abandon all of this evidence just because the last few years have shown no further increase in OHC from the 3,200 Argo floats trying to each cover more than 400,000 cubic kilometres each whilst ignoring under ice and all depths below 2,000 meters.

    To the best of our monitoring ability, the ocean has been experiencing long term warming for decades.

    Scientists recognise the need for a better understanding http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/06/100617141006.htm

    The Argo team (http://www.argo.ucsd.edu/global_change_analysis.html) say

    The global Argo dataset is not yet long enough to observe global change signals.

    JN writes

    We’ve discussed those emails at length along with the weak excuses.

    Yes, I recall you compare 3 Hansen graphs and suggests that he “adjusts” them over time.

    I also recall how someone (search for Citizen_A @ http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2868937.htm#m328700 ) pointed out that two of the graphs did actually look the same, just scaled differently and the third graph was showing different data.

    You compared a graph of land-ocean temps against one of land-only temps. It’s little wonder they were different.

    Back then you didn’t address this flaw in your argument. Can you acknowledge this mistake now? I bet Plimer wouldn’t. ;)

    After all, it was you who wrote

    Note how the bully boys always dodge the question…


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brendon

    Mark D. writes

    Oh yes the atmosphere is not 3 dimensional….

    Baa Humbug was talking about the “land surface T’s”. A surface is 2 dimensional. ;)

    And yes, land-based stations are also inadequate for measuring the atmospheric temp.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brendon

    Speedy writes

    It’s you saying 10%, not me. I look at the paleoclimate and see periods where we had enormous CO2 levels in the atmosphere – and plants just grew.

    I’m betting they were different plants. Were the animals also different? How about the coastal regions, look a little different?

    What about periods when the ocean was more acidic. Did they also support the abundant aquatic life?

    There is no evidence to suggest the CO2 caused the temperature rise.

    Wrong. There are dozens of papers that examine the absorbtion property of CO2.

    Me, I’m saying the chance of CO2 driving the climate is much much less than 1%, or, as Bulldust calls it, “bugger all”.

    And you have research to back up this belief? Or is this just your opinion?

    However,there is an “excellent” chance that screwing the world energy supplies will kill off the world economy

    The world usually finds a way to screw the economy even without a good reason.

    But compare that to screwing the world for thousands of years.

    Bulldust to express a probability of 100% or higher.

    100% or higher probability hey? Thanks for showing off your mathematical skills. ;)

    Would you pay a billion dollars to insure yourself against damage to the left hand pinky sustained by a meteorite on a Tuesday morning in August? Neither would I.

    No. I don’t see any proposed solution that asks for such a thing.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Raymond

    Looks like the GLOBAL WARMING TROLL “Mattb” has been replaced by this “Brendon”.

    What a pathetic effort quoting the thoroughly discredited web site http://www.skepticalscience.com!!!!!

    I wouldn’t be surprised if this “Brendon” wasn’t actually penny WRONG…..


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brendon

    @Raymond, your ad-hom attack speaks volumes about the quality of argument you employ.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Speedy

    Brendon @ too many

    1. There used to be NO oxygen in the atmosphere – that was before the plants existed. Refer Stomatolites. Yes, they still exist. The atmospheric oxygen existed as CO2, which means it could have been as high as 20%. (Or 50 times higher than now.) No runaway greenhouse. And no acid ocean. Sorry.

    2. Evidence for “Bugger all” chance of being wrong. Yes. We exist. If the world has been on the cusp of disaster for the last 4.5 billion (4,500,000,000) years, then the diabolical doom predicted / projected by James Hansen, Al Gore, IPCC etc would have happened already. There’s already 50 times more tonnage of CO2 in the oceans than there is in the atmosphere and a chunk of it was released during earlier ocean warmings. We’ve already been “doomed” and it didn’t happen. Warm, in fact, is good. Cold, like IPCC models, is bad. Refer question 1.

    3. You have no understanding what “screwed” really means. It is the collapse of civilisation. Try living without modern transport, industry, law and order, sanitation, medicine. It can be done, but you’re dead by the age of 40 and the infant mortality is bad. The lifestyle between the cradle and the grave isn’t flash either.

    4. Maths. Sorry, I made a joke. Silly me.

    5. Do you look at the premium or risk-return ratio before you sign for insurance? If not, can you leave your email address with Jo? I know some friends who would love to talk to you. Thanks.

    6. There’s lots for you to learn, so please stick around and read and learn – but please engage the brain before you place your posts.

    7. Now. What value do you think an investment banker is going to bring to a so-called scientific organisation like the CSIRO? Unless it is to implement a political agenda?

    Excuse me, I have a job to get back to.

    Cheers,

    Speedy.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brendon

    1. There used to be NO oxygen in the atmosphere – that was before the plants existed. Refer Stomatolites. Yes, they still exist.

    Stromatolites I think you are referring to. You’re suggesting that these are the plants that can thrive in a high CO2 environment.

    Great, but are they thriving in today’s environment. No – they’re limited to a small section of the world. Can you feed the world population on these? No.

    2. Evidence for “Bugger all” chance of being wrong. Yes. We exist. If the world has been on the cusp of disaster for the last 4.5 billion (4,500,000,000) years

    Were conditions sutiable for humans in all of these periods? Did any mammals thrive prior to 65 million years ago when temps last soared? Nope.

    3. You have no understanding what “screwed” really means. It is the collapse of civilisation.

    Why would we be collapsing to that point? A little alarmist isn’t it?

    Try living without modern transport, industry, law and order, sanitation, medicine. It can be done, but you’re dead by the age of 40 and the infant mortality is bad. The lifestyle between the cradle and the grave isn’t flash either.

    Why are you giving up modern transport. There are other ways to generate electricity besides coal.

    4. Maths. Sorry, I made a joke. Silly me.

    Can we be sure?

    5. Do you look at the premium or risk-return ratio before you sign for insurance?

    Sure. I also would think you’d have done some research on the topic too right. Do you have a comprehensive analysis of what it is going to cost … or do you just “say” that there’s no way possible because you don’t want to be held responsible for the dirty energy you currently enjoy?

    There’s lots for you to learn, so please stick around and read and learn – but please engage the brain before you place your posts.

    Look up. There’s plenty you have yet to address. ;)

    What value do you think an investment banker is going to bring to a so-called scientific organisation like the CSIRO? Unless it is to implement a political agenda?

    As a chairman? I would think that Simon McKeon might be well suited to the role and his desire to have climate science the number one issue is reassuring.


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
  • #
  • #
  • #
    Baa Humbug

    Brendon: #41
    June 22nd, 2010 at 3:54 pm

    Baa Humbug was talking about the “land surface T’s”. A surface is 2 dimensional. ;)

    Brendon now you’re playing word games. Just because the term is “surface T’s” doesn’t mean it’s measuring T’s underneath the soles of your shoes. The whole world is trying to determine the temperature of the atmosphere.
    James Hansen himself put it best when he said (and I paraphrase) to get accurate surface T’s, we’d need at each station location, a stack of thermometres placed one metre above the other for a hundred metres or more.”
    You need to extracate yourself from the 2d 3d arguement, it’s fallacious.

    Regards ocean T’s, would you mind explaining to me how heat, or energy, gets into the oceans and how that relates to the radiative properties of CO2? In other words, this warmth we’re looking for, how did it get into the oceans?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Speedy

    Brendon

    I think you’re just being obtuse.

    1. Stromatolites – yes. Survived on earth when the O2 content was nil and CO2 was lots. Not available @ Woolworths. Enabled atmospheric change to permit animal (O2 breathing life forms.) But the climate wasn’t in a runaway condition, despite the elevated CO2. Why should it happen if we went to 500 ppm??

    2. Apart from the fact that you hadn’t evolved 65 millions ago, what would have stopped you surviving in that period? The megafauna were doing quite well, including the first mammals.

    3. Screwed. Go to Spain. Give it a few years when people can’t afford to bail them out. Refer Spanish unemployment and decision to remove subsidies on “green” energy.

    4. A joke. Yes. Allow me to check…

    5. Insurance premiums. Refer Spain. They’ve just cancelled their policy.

    6. Perhaps Simon McKeon’s first job might be to get the CSIRO to review the IPCC reports and find out how much actual science they use and how much of it is cherrypicking and computer models. Remember the burden of proof is on him – until then I will not freely part with my hard earned Pacific Peso’s.

    Cheers,

    Mike


    Report this

    00

  • #
    ppo74

    I work there (not in the climate division…).
    …believe me they have no idea and are HORRIBLE $$$ managers… not surprised to see that Mr McKeon is an expert in mergers…


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    It is extremely sad to see this … we are just “Little America” in so many ways. In the US big business has long ago infiltrated government and regulatory authorities… now we are seeing the evidence of the same in Australia. In truth we have an excellent leading indicator of where our institutions will be in 10-20 years… simply look at the USA today.

    BTW I notice some of you have been using my name in vain ;)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MikeO

    I don’t understand how a banker could be appointed. Why wasn’t some with more scientific credentials appointed like an economist? They know everything look at the remarkably successful efforts with the financial sector. Perhaps an astrologer would have a better chance.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    John

    Whenever I see the word “banker”, whether it be “merchant” as in the case of Malcolm Turnbull, or “corporate” as in the case of McKeon, my mind jumps to Cockney rhyming slang.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard S Courtney

    Brendan:

    It seems that your several posts above display the typical characteristics of a troll; i.e.

    1.
    You make statements of trivia as though the trivia were informative data.
    (e.g. you point to several indications that the planet has warmed over the last century, but ignore the fact that this says nothing about the cause(s) of that warming).

    2.
    You ignore pertinent data.
    (e.g. you say “there are multiple lines of evidence for global warming” then state facts about the past, and ignore that there has been no statistically significant global warming for the last 15 years and there has been global cooling since the global temperature peak in the El Nino year of 1998).

    3.
    You cite ignorance as evidence.
    (e.g. you claim – without evidence – that the ARGO data does not show sufficient spatial resolution to discern the warming you ‘think’ exists but the ARGO data indicates does not).

    4.
    You proclaim nonsense as possible fact.
    (e.g. You assert that the warming you ‘think’ exists must be in ocean waters below 2 km depth, but that is a physical impossibility because that water is in the thermohaline circulation that takes ~800 years from sinking until its return to ocean surface so there is almost none of it that has sunk in the last 15 years).

    5.
    You ‘change your tune’ as it suit you.
    (e.g. You agree that factors other than CO2 affect global temperature so say these can ‘hide’ global warming but global warming from increased atmospheric CO2 must cause discernible global warming. However, interchanging those assertions is nonsense because either the CO2 effect overwhelms the other effects, or those other effects overwhelm the CO2 effect, and both cannot be true depending on what you want to assert).

    I could continue with this list. But the above is sufficient evidence to prove you are a troll, so go away.

    Richard


    Report this

    00

  • #

    One of the “vampire squids wrapped around the face of humanity” in charge of the CSIRO? I know the orginator was talking about Goldman Sachs but Mac Bank is in the same mold.

    Does the CSIRO have any credibility left? My small experience with them a few years ago led me to believe it was a sheltered workshop.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    DougS

    “But the point is, why wouldn’t one take out very strong insurance to at least do what we can to future-proof our well-being? I think it’s a no-brainer.”

    There is a no-brainer close by….it’s McKeon!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Speedy

    Jo

    I’m sorry – “The Creep of Big Government” is no way to talk about our Prime Minister!

    Cheers,

    Speedy


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
    Brendon

    Baa Humbug writes

    Brendon now you’re playing word games. Just because the term is “surface T’s” doesn’t mean it’s measuring T’s underneath the soles of your shoes. The whole world is trying to determine the temperature of the atmosphere.
    James Hansen himself put it best when he said (and I paraphrase) to get accurate surface T’s, we’d need at each station location, a stack of thermometres placed one metre above the other for a hundred metres or more.”
    You need to extracate yourself from the 2d 3d arguement, it’s fallacious.

    If you wish to measure the temps in the atmosphere, there are better ways to do it than land-stations.

    http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/

    ;)

    Regards ocean T’s, would you mind explaining to me how heat, or energy, gets into the oceans and how that relates to the radiative properties of CO2? In other words, this warmth we’re looking for, how did it get into the oceans?

    Yes sorry but I do mind, I don’t have the time it takes to personally explain this to you.

    There is plenty of material available, I would start here.

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/09/why-greenhouse-gases-heat-the-ocean/


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brendon

    Penny writes

    Ski-fields enjoy best opening of the season in years – GOODBYE TO GLOBAL WARMING!!!

    That is a local weather event which is not the same as climate change.

    Also, Perisher has 4cm of snow http://www.perisher.com.au/winter/snowreport/index.php

    Are you sure about that claim of best opening in years? I’m sure I wouldn’t have to go back too many years in order to find a better opening.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard S Courtney

    Friends:

    Please do not feed the troll.

    This thread is about the involvement of bankers in the promotion of the AGW myth. And the subject of this thread is important because it pertains to the subject of the growing $billions being wasted on ‘carbon trading’; i.e. a scam that has the purpose of extracting monies from ordinary people and transferring those monies to financial corporations.

    The troll – like all trolls – is posting diversions from the subject of the thread by posting contentious nonsense likely to provoke responses in rejection. And this troll is having much success with his diversions.

    So, please ignore the postings of the troll.

    Richard


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Richard makes a good point. I won’t feed the troll.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brendon

    Richard S Courtney writes

    It seems that your several posts above display the typical characteristics of a troll

    Well I have posted here before, but not often.

    You make statements of trivia as though the trivia were informative data.
    (e.g. you point to several indications that the planet has warmed over the last century, but ignore the fact that this says nothing about the cause(s) of that warming).

    Sure I understand that. How’s this then. CO2 helps warm the atmosphere.

    To support the argument, here’s numberous studies showing how CO2 absorbs longwave radiation.

    http://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2009/09/25/papers-on-laboratory-measurements-of-co2-absorption-properties/

    Here’s some more studies showing how that effect occurs in the atmosphere.

    http://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2009/10/08/papers-on-carbon-dioxide-absorption-properties-in-atmosphere/

    2. You ignore pertinent data.
    (e.g. you say “there are multiple lines of evidence for global warming” then state facts about the past, and ignore that there has been no statistically significant global warming for the last 15 years and there has been global cooling since the global temperature peak in the El Nino year of 1998).

    Right, but does that mean you’ve also committed the same error because you “ignore pertinent data”. Instead of looking at the whole ~150 years of man emitting CO2, you focus on just the last 15, and particularly from a time when the El Nino was at its strongest:

    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif
    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.E.lrg.gif

    Global cooling since?

    Currently this website is down, but perhaps take a look at the graph when it’s back up … the trendline goes up.

    http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1995/to:2011/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1995/to:2011/trend

    Thanks to a very warm 2010, the trend is upwards. Even if you plot it from 1998. ;)

    But really there have been much longer “flat” periods. From 1940 to 1980 there was not much warming at all.

    Surface temps are just a 2d vision of the 3d heat moving through our planet. The natural ebbs and flows of the likes of El Nino make sure the graph jumps up and down alot.

    What’s important is the long term trend.

    3. You cite ignorance as evidence.
    (e.g. you claim – without evidence – that the ARGO data does not show sufficient spatial resolution to discern the warming you ‘think’ exists but the ARGO data indicates does not).

    Take a look back at the original argument. Jo Nova said “… because we can’t find the warming in the oceans”.

    But I am NOT trying to conclude that warming is there because Argo is too insufficient spacially. I am saying the the travesty remark is concerning our inability to track the heat.

    4. You proclaim nonsense as possible fact.
    (e.g. You assert that the warming you ‘think’ exists must be in ocean waters below 2 km depth, but that is a physical impossibility because that water is in the thermohaline circulation that takes ~800 years from sinking until its return to ocean surface so there is almost none of it that has sunk in the last 15 years).

    That’s why it’s good to be skeptical and keep working over the old ideas. ;)

    From http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/06/100618102646.htm

    “The old model is no longer valid for the ocean’s overturning, not because it’s a gross simplification, but because it ignores crucial elements such as eddies and the wind field. The concept of a conveyor belt for the overturning was developed decades ago, before oceanographers had measured the eddy field of the ocean and before they understood how energy from the wind impacts the overturning,” says Susan Lozier, professor of physical oceanography and chair of the Division of Earth and Ocean Sciences at Duke University’s Nicholas School of the Environment.

    5. You ‘change your tune’ as it suit you.
    (e.g. You agree that factors other than CO2 affect global temperature so say these can ‘hide’ global warming but global warming from increased atmospheric CO2 must cause discernible global warming. However, interchanging those assertions is nonsense because either the CO2 effect overwhelms the other effects, or those other effects overwhelm the CO2 effect, and both cannot be true depending on what you want to assert).

    I could continue with this list. But the above is sufficient evidence to prove you are a troll, so go away.

    Well I’ll be here tomorrow, Nova permitting, so perhaps we can continue the discussion in a friendly manner.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard S Courtney

    Brendon:

    At #66 you say to me:

    Well I’ll be here tomorrow, Nova permitting, so perhaps we can continue the discussion in a friendly manner.

    No!
    That completely ignores my posts at #57 and especially at #64 that concluded by saying:

    The troll – like all trolls – is posting diversions from the subject of the thread by posting contentious nonsense likely to provoke responses in rejection. And this troll is having much success with his diversions.

    So, please ignore the postings of the troll.

    I may be daft but I am not plain stupid.
    So, I will discuss the topic of this thread on this thread, but I will not be party to assisting you in your trolling.

    I am very willing to discuss climate science wherever that is appropriate (as e.g. my several postings on this blog demonstrate).

    Richard


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Speedy

    Richard

    Makes you long for MattB’s charm and personality, I guess!

    I had a couple of exchanges with him but at the end concluded he just wanted to contradict mindlessly on whatever terms – and I’ve got people who pay me to do other things than this. He just needs a bit of time. Many people start off getting sucked into the arguments he’s using; perhaps, when the lights go off (due to unfavourable winds near the bird shredders) he will begin to understand?

    Cheers,

    Speedy


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Speedy

    Richard

    So, pray tell, what is the compelling reason to put a bloke who has no idea of science (and is an AGW fanatic) in charge of the CSIRO? Does he have a well placed relative in the government or does he just want to apply the Lehman Brothers models in a climate perspective?

    Cheers,

    Speedy


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brendon

    Richard S Courtney says

    That completely ignores my posts at #57 and especially at #64

    I have not simply posted my own off-topic views as a troll might.

    My original arguments (post 23) were about Nova’s use of the terms “can’t account for the lack of warming” and “hide declines”. To which you, nor anyone else here has offered much in the way of a rebuttal. Since then I have been responding to others replies.

    Nova’s own defence, that she’d been over the emails before, was ironic given that her own efforts to analyse the graphs were flawed (see post 40).

    Nova’s argument that “The truth is that the decline he “hid” was a decline in tree-ring-temperatures that matches what the surface temperature records used to say was real.” is I based upon her understanding that the graphs were “adjusted”, when in fact the graphs were showing different data.

    Secondly, if there are two sets of tree data, and they disagree with each other, then it’s more than likely the one that disagrees with all other forms of temp measurement is the problem data. Yet Nova selects this one as the source of truth.

    So, I will discuss the topic of this thread on this thread, but I will not be party to assisting you in your trolling.

    I am very willing to discuss climate science wherever that is appropriate (as e.g. my several postings on this blog demonstrate).

    I know dismissing my arguments as that of a troll is convenient, but since I was discussing the very words Nova used, I can hardly be called a troll.

    That I am well educated on climate science and the numerous tactics “skeptics” use may trouble you. Seeing you, and others resort to such tactics rather than argue the issue is I guess a predictable result.

    So take another look at my original post 23 and see if that doesn’t relate directly to the words Jo Nova used.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard S Courtney

    Brendan:

    You continue your trolling at #70 when you write to me:

    That I am well educated on climate science and the numerous tactics “skeptics” use may trouble you. Seeing you, and others resort to such tactics rather than argue the issue is I guess a predictable result.

    It is clear from your above postings that you are not “well educated on climate science”. Indeed, you seem remarkably ignorant of the subject; e.g. at #66 you write:

    How’s this then. CO2 helps warm the atmosphere.

    To support the argument, here’s numberous studies showing how CO2 absorbs longwave radiation.

    which demonstrates that you are ignorant of the difference between “helps warm the atmosphere” and “increaed concetration will – of necessity – warm the atmosphere further” (it won’t).

    I do not “resort … to tactics” but consider evience and reasoned argument. As I pointed out at #57 and #64, there is clear evidence that you are using the tandard tactics of any troll.

    Your claim that you are attempting to “argue the issue” is a blatant lie. The issue is the involvement of bankers in climate science. None of your postings addresses “the issue”. Not one of them even mentions it.

    And you attempt to justify your behaviour by focussing on one trivial point to the exclusion of the issue under discussion. This is a standard troll tactic, and in your case it consists of your using as an excuse for your behaviour the side issue of, you say,

    Nova’s argument that “The truth is that the decline he “hid” was a decline in tree-ring-temperatures that matches what the surface temperature records used to say was real.” is I based upon her understanding that the graphs were “adjusted”, when in fact the graphs were showing different data.

    Although this is a side-issue, it is worth noting that Ms Nova is completely correct in what she says on this and you are plain wrong.

    Go away, you troll.

    Richard


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Richard S Courtney

    Speedy:

    I am responding to both your comments to me at #68 and #69.

    You say:

    I had a couple of exchanges with him but at the end concluded he just wanted to contradict mindlessly on whatever terms – and I’ve got people who pay me to do other things than this.

    Yes. That is the practice of every troll. And it pertains to your other point to me; viz.

    So, pray tell, what is the compelling reason to put a bloke who has no idea of science (and is an AGW fanatic) in charge of the CSIRO?

    I do not know, but I would like to. I know nothing about banking and the reasons for appointing bankers to any position. It seems bizarre to appoint a banker as head of CSIRO but there may be a good reason – or a bad reason – for it. Somebody may know the answer to your question and post it here so you and I would know the answer. But such a posting is unlikely while the discussion is distracted by the irrelevant (and ignorant) comments of the troll.

    Richard


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Brendan, you are putting a lot of links in each comment – which is why the spam filter is picking you up and slowing down your posts ok? Try to stick to 5 or less OK?

    And as for your claim about the Hansen graphs and the Citizen A comment. Thanks for pointing me too it, it’s not like I bothered to read all the comments among the repetitive bluster at the ABC site.

    Citizen_A :
    Look at the references: 1981 and 1987 papers agree when you look at the scale change owing to a difference zero point. The “2007″ data from the Goddard Inst. looks like the land-ocean temperature index which is not just the land based observatory record, so it’s comparing proverbial apples and oranges. The land-only data at the Goddard Inst. shows the same relationship is preserved, but muted with a larger scale change again. Look for yourself at http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/

    But the anonymous A is just taking a stab “looks like”. The different zero points is neither here nor there. It’s the trend that matters. The reported differences in degrees C in the graphs were read off the original graphs from the original scales. It would have been better to do the first graph with the same scale as the rest. Though the cooling trend from 1945-1975 still flattens out repeatedly between 1981 – 2010. I will redo them in detail as soon as I get the chance. I’ve been thinking it would be nice to do that graph with better resolution, and updated.

    The “ocean-land” point sounds all very impressive except that GISS reports the 2007 graph as “Global Surface”. It might be adapted from the land-ocean graph, but that’s not clear on the GISS site – and you might want to email NASA to ask them to label it properly. In any case, what matters is that the latest GISS global surface station graph posted in 2010 looks even flatter in the 1945-1975 period.

    It appears that there is a trend to flatten the whole of the last century into one long continuous upcurve (which would not coincidentally fit the models). Maybe Hansen can explain all of the revisions going back to 1981, but it sure needs a lot of explanation to explain why the 1940 era keeps getting cooler, as does the far distant past circa 1880. Normally these retrospective adjustments ought to be random. This is not what we see.

    And if I get time I will move some of these comments to other threads, as they are very off-topic. Apologies…


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Brendan,

    BTW The hide-the-decline debate has nothing to do with the graphs of Hansens. And please use the Index, we’re 240 posts ahead of you, and many of the inane points have been addressed before ad nauseum. Please comment more carefully.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Slightly OT but parallel to Big Government control, we have this bit of good news: NEW ORLEANS (AP) A federal judge in New Orleans has blocked a six-month moratorium on new deepwater drilling projects that was imposed in response to the massive Gulf oil spill.

    http://www2.wsav.com/news/2010/jun/22/judge-block-gulf-offshore-drilling-moratorium-ar-430350/

    This needless shutdown of the oil exploration in deep water by Obama, was an economic disaster for the already challenged gulf states. (challenged by the loss of commercial fishing and tourism).


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Lyndsay

    I sincerely hope that this TROLL “brendan” is NOT using electricity from an evil coal fire polluting electricity company to power his computer to anable him to write the drivel that seems to be spewing from his fingers!!

    Otherwise he could only be described as a HYPOCRITE!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Lyndsay

    I sincerely hope that this TROLL “brendan” is NOT using electricity from an evil coal fire polluting electricity company to power his computer to enable him to write the drivel that seems to be spewing from his fingers!!

    Otherwise he could only be described as a HYPOCRITE!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    janama

    Anthony is on Andrew Bolt’s radio show in a few minutes

    windows media link – http://www.mtr1377.com.au/listenlive/MTR1377_live.asx

    website http://www.mtr1377.com.au/


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Tel

    … based upon her understanding that the graphs were “adjusted”, when in fact the graphs were showing different data.

    Ha! ha! that’s brilliant.

    Al Capone should have hired this guy as a lawyer… those tax returns were not adjusted, they were just showing different data.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Tel

    The troll – like all trolls – is posting diversions from the subject of the thread by posting contentious nonsense likely to provoke responses in rejection. And this troll is having much success with his diversions.

    So, please ignore the postings of the troll.

    Oh come on Richard, what’s life without humour? How do you expect me to get through the day with having a laugh?

    We don’t have to be too serious about this AGW thing anymore, we have cold winters and expensive electricity arguing our case — nothing I say could be more convincing.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brendon

    Richard S Courtney

    To support the argument, here’s numberous studies showing how CO2 absorbs longwave radiation.
    which demonstrates that you are ignorant of the difference between “helps warm the atmosphere” and “increaed concetration will – of necessity – warm the atmosphere further” (it won’t).

    Yes, but I anticipated that very reasoning and hence why I also include the studies that look at CO2 in the atmosphere.

    We can move right along to climate sensitivty and how current studies give a high high value. Same site, use the index.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Grant

    Ross @ 10 (Hope you’re still reading mate!)

    In the last few days I have heard some AGW believers and ETS supporters bemoaning the fact that “polluters” aren’t flocking to NZ to sink money into forestry to earn valuable carbon credits.

    I thought quietly to myself – didn’t I see a report recently that lauded NZ as being one of the least corrupt countries in which to do business? I wondered further whether those who are likely to invest in “carbon forestry” would prefer to do so in a country where the rigour of accounting for accumulation of carbon was not so well defined. Maybe somewhere where you could count each C molecule more than once?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    val majkus

    I’ve posted a link to this paper before on another of Jo’s topics but remembered it again when it was mentioned in Climate Change Fraud news today (quoting) As demonstrated in Rescue from the Climate Saviors, increasing levels of CO2 and other IR-active gases in the atmosphere increase the natural cooling system of the earth. IR-active gases do not supply additional heating power to the earth and are not a cause of “global warming”. IR-active gases do not act “like a blanket” but rather “like a sunshade”. They keep a part of the solar energy away from the earth’s surface and act to cool the earth: 70% of the entire cooling power originates from these molecules. An increase in concentration only serves to increase the cooling efficiency, and now there is additional empirical evidence. A new paper shows that increased CO2 concentrations have increased the cooling efficiency of the upper atmosphere, and in combination with the 2008 solar minimum, resulted in the lowest upper atmospheric density recorded in 43 years.”
    the link to the paper is http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/06/rescue-from-climate-saviors.html


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brendon

    Joanne Nova writes

    But the anonymous A is just taking a stab “looks like”. … I’ve been thinking it would be nice to do that graph with better resolution, and updated.

    Thanks for the reply .. sorry this is dragging off topic once more, but I’m not sure what other thread I should be using to reply here that will also be seen by you.

    Yes I would agree doing the graphs at the same scale will help. It also be wise to also include an analysis of any change in the way the data is collated as that can explain minor changes to graphs as well.

    And as for your claim about the Hansen graphs and the Citizen A comment. Thanks for pointing me too it, it’s not like I bothered to read all the comments among the repetitive bluster at the ABC site.

    The “ocean-land” point sounds all very impressive except that GISS reports the 2007 graph as “Global Surface”. It might be adapted from the land-ocean graph, but that’s not clear on the GISS site – and you might want to email NASA to ask them to label it properly.

    A quick comparison to the charts here would have clarified it for you.

    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/

    The chart is very clearly labelled as “Global Annual Mean Surface Air Temperature Change” … “Line plot of global mean land-ocean temperature index”.

    In any case, what matters is that the latest GISS global surface station graph posted in 2010 looks even flatter in the 1945-1975 period.

    I can’t see that much difference from other data
    http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1945/to:1975/plot/gistemp/from:1945/to:1975

    But what really matters is the long term trend.

    http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1850/to:2011/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1850/to:2011/trend

    But if you do wish to focus on how graphs of historical data can change over time, then please take into account how the analysis has also changed over time.

    It appears that there is a trend to flatten the whole of the last century into one long continuous upcurve (which would not coincidentally fit the models). Maybe Hansen can explain all of the revisions going back to 1981, but it sure needs a lot of explanation to explain why the 1940 era keeps getting cooler, as does the far distant past circa 1880. Normally these retrospective adjustments ought to be random. This is not what we see.

    Maybe Hansen can explain it. Have you asked him or did you just assume he has ulterior motives?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Lyndsay

    AUSTRALIAN LABOR GOVERNMENT STIMULUS PACKAGE………………..

    It’s a slow day in a dusty little Australian town. The sun is beating down and the streets are deserted.
    Times are tough, everybody is in debt, and everybody lives on credit.

    On this particular day, a rich tourist from down south is driving through town , stops at the local motel and lays a $100 bill on the desk saying he wants to inspect the rooms upstairs in order to pick one to spend the night in.

    He gives him keys to a few rooms and as soon as the man walks upstairs, the owner grabs the $100 bill and runs next door to pay his debt to the butcher.

    The butcher takes the $100 and runs down the street to repay his debt to the pig farmer.

    The pig farmer takes the $100 and heads off to pay his bill at the supplier of feed and fuel.

    The guy at the Farmer’s Co-op takes the $100 and runs to pay his drinks bill at the local pub.

    The publican slips the money along to the local prostitute drinking at the bar, who has also been facing hard times and has had to offer him “services” on credit.

    The hooker rushes to the motel and pays off her room bill to the motel owner with the $100.

    The motel proprietor then places the $100 back on the counter so the rich traveller will not suspect anything.

    At that moment the traveller comes down the stairs, picks up the $100 bill, states that the rooms are not satisfactory, pockets the money, and leaves town.

    No one produced anything. No one earned anything.

    However, the whole town is now out of debt and looking to the future with a lot more optimism.

    And that, ladies and gentlemen, is how the Australian LABOR(communist) Government’s stimulus package works!!!


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
  • #
    G/Machine

    In light of a Macquarie banker now the new head of CSIRO, presumably
    the vacancy will be filled by experienced hairdresser or plumber…


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Ross

    Grant @ *2 –still reading ( Jo’s site keeps me sane !!) Re the carbon farming etc , did you see that the Aussie’s are coming over.

    http://www.businesses.com.au/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=210:co2-group-expands-into-new-zealand-&catid=38:business-news&Itemid=71


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Speedy

    Lyndsay

    the trick is that in this scenario, there are no overseas loans involved. Unfortunately, the real Australia (and US, and Europe) is a different story.

    Cheers,

    Speedy


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Speedy

    Lyndsay @ 86

    Only yesterday, I was accused of being “alarmist” in saying that the collapse of civilisation is the logical extension of the AGW arguments.

    Your link puts it down, not as a possibility, but a policy…

    Cheers,

    Speedy


    Report this

    00

  • #

    @ Brendon

    You seem to like to go off topic so lets cut to the chase. There is no empirical evidence to support the CAGW Theory. If so, please cite it. Oh, and can you please explain why Hansen always, with the exception of his Y2K error, adjusts the temperatures to show the previous years as being cooler and the recent years as being warmer? When he adjusts temps in major cities to account for urban heat island effect, shouldn’t his adjusted temps be lower than the raw data temps?

    Speaking of temps, why were the temps in the Holocene Maximum during the Bronze Age much warmer then today’s temps and yet CO2 levels were lower. The Minoan Warm Period, The Roman Warm Period and The Medieval Warm Period were all as warm or warmer than today yet CO2 levels were lower. Was there other factors effecting climate and if so what were they?

    You mentioned ocean temperature and at another point ice core data but failed to mention that there was a correlation. All the ice core records shows that temperatures rise for hundreds of years before CO2 levels rise and that temperatures decline for several hundred years before CO2 levels decline The oceans take hundreds of years to warm after the continents do and also hundreds of years to cool after the major land masses do. When the oceans warm they outgas CO2 and when they cool they absorb CO2. Thats why increases in CO2 levels lag increases in land temperatures by hundreds of years. That is also why CO2 levels continue increasing for hundreds of years after land surface temperatures decline. Also, no runaway green house effect. The empirical evidence you cited (ice core records) shows that CO2 cannot drive temperatures. Simple cause and effect. The ice core records falsify the CAGW theory.

    By the way, have they found that missing hot spot yet?


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Jo,

    You made the analogy, “Should I spend $10,000 now on insurance against sea levels rising 20 or 30cm in 90 years, or should I buy health insurance, fix the car and go on a holiday to Tonga?”

    The cost to implement cap and trade is prohibitive. Even if we were successful in reducing CO2 levels the effect on the global temperature would be almost indiscernible. This assumes that the CAGW proponents are correct. They are not. Perhaps a better analogy would be: Should I spend $5,000,000 for an insurance policy on my $500,000 house? Managed risk trumps the precautionary principle every time!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brendon

    92Eddy Aruda June 23rd, 2010 at 3:38 pm wrote

    There is no empirical evidence to support the CAGW Theory. If so, please cite it.

    I’ve not heard of CAGW, if you’re referring to AGW then I’ve already posted numerous physical changes happening to the planet which give support.

    Oh, and can you please explain why Hansen always, with the exception of his Y2K error, adjusts the temperatures to show the previous years as being cooler and the recent years as being warmer?

    Assuming you are right, then you’d need to ask him.

    Personally I find it difficult to believe Hansen continually adjusts the temps and that the ice caps /glaciers also decided to melt. He’s not God after all.

    When he adjusts temps in major cities to account for urban heat island effect, shouldn’t his adjusted temps be lower than the raw data temps?

    Sure, if required. But UHI has been shown as a very small influence. If UHI dominanted the trend then why is it when we look at the ocean only, we also see significant warming?

    http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1980/to:2011/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1980/to:2011/trend

    Speaking of temps, why were the temps in the Holocene Maximum during the Bronze Age much warmer then today’s temps and yet CO2 levels were lower. The Minoan Warm Period, The Roman Warm Period and The Medieval Warm Period were all as warm or warmer than today yet CO2 levels were lower.

    Were they really – gee I’d never heard this argument before? So where’s your evidence for this? And if you are going to cite CO2Science, please address the issues I’ve already noted first.

    Was there other factors effecting climate and if so what were they?

    You tell me. You’re the one saying it was warmer and that CO2 was not to blame.

    You mentioned ocean temperature and at another point ice core data but failed to mention that there was a correlation.

    So what’s your point?

    Also, no runaway green house effect. The empirical evidence you cited (ice core records) shows that CO2 cannot drive temperatures. Simple cause and effect. The ice core records falsify the CAGW theory.

    No one ever said CO2 would account for ALL warming. There are multiple source of forcings and multiple feedback effects.

    By the way, have they found that missing hot spot yet?

    You mean this one?

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/How-Jo-Nova-doesnt-get-the-tropospheric-hot-spot.html


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Kate

    “Brendon”, stop being a HYPOCRITE and practice what you preach.

    Cease producing that EVIL carbon dioxide and stop breathing out…………


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
    G/Machine

    Brendon

    Excellent, excellent, keep the posts coming.
    For anyone who can read and research a little, your posts will help
    enormously those ‘sitting on the fence’ on this issue. A true CAGW
    believer into a skeptic in just a couple of your excellent posts.
    This forum whoever is geared to science and debate, but thanks where
    it’s due.
    But Brendon, you must distance youself from possible allegations
    that you’re in the pocket of JN or Big Oil.

    Regards


    Report this

    00

  • #
    janama

    Totally OT :)

    A cowboy named Bud was overseeing his herd in a remote mountainous pasture in NSW when suddenly a brand-new BMW advanced toward him out of a cloud of dust.

    The driver, a young man in a Brioni suit, Gucci shoes, RayBan sunglasses and YSL tie, leaned out the window and asked the cowboy, “If I tell you exactly how many cows and calves you have in your herd, Will you give me a calf?”

    Bud looks at the man, obviously a yuppie, then looks at his peacefully grazing herd and calmly answers, “Sure, Why not?”

    The yuppie parks his car, whips out his Dell notebook computer, connects it to his Cingular RAZR V3 cell phone, and surfs to a NASA page on the Internet, where he calls up a GPS satellite to get an exact fix on his location which he then feeds to another NASA satellite that scans the area in an ultra-high-resolution photo.

    The young man then opens the digital photo in Adobe Photoshop and exports it to an image processing facility in Hamburg , Germany .

    Within seconds, he receives an email on his Palm Pilot that the image has been processed and the data stored. He then accesses an MS-SQL database through an ODBC connected Excel spreadsheet with email on his Blackberry and, after a few minutes, receives a response.

    Finally, he prints out a full-color, 150-page report on his hi-tech, miniaturized HP LaserJet printer, turns to the cowboy and says, “You have exactly 1,586 cows and calves.”

    “That’s right. Well, I guess you can take one of my calves,” says Bud.

    He watches the young man select one of the animals and looks on with amusement as the young man stuffs it into the trunk of his car.

    Then Bud says to the young man, “Hey, if I can tell you exactly what your business is, will you give me back my calf?”

    The young man thinks about it for a second and then says, “Okay, why not?”

    “You’re a senator in Kevin Rudd’s Labour Government”, says Bud.

    “Wow! That’s correct,” says the yuppie, “but how did you guess that?”

    “No guessing required.” answered the cowboy. “You showed up here even though nobody called you; you want to get paid for an answer I already knew, to a question I never asked. You used millions of dollars worth of equipment trying to show me how much smarter than me you are; and you don’t know a thing about how working people make a living – or about cows, for that matter. This is a herd of sheep. …

    Now give me back my dog.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brendon

    janama: June 23rd, 2010 at 6:20 pm

    Brendon. here’s how Hansen has adjusted the US temperature record.

    Do you have the original sources for Hansen’s graphs?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Ross

    Brendon don’t forget the manipulation by Mann et al(ie. puts the data upside down ) of the Tiljander data.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Brendon:
    June 23rd, 2010 at 5:32 pm

    I’ve not heard of CAGW, if you’re referring to AGW then I’ve already posted numerous physical changes happening to the planet which give support.

    You have yet to cite empirical evidence that man has had anything but a minute, trivial inconsequential influence on temperature. Your answer is non sequitur and a dodge.

    “Assuming you are right, then you’d need to ask him.”

    Another dodge.

    “Sure, if required. But UHI has been shown as a very small influence. If UHI dominanted the trend then why is it when we look at the ocean only, we also see significant warming.”

    Very small influence? Prove it! You obviously never checked the difference between raw data and the adjusted data.

    “You tell me. You’re the one saying it was warmer and that CO2 was not to blame.”

    Another dodge

    “Were they really – gee I’d never heard this argument before? So where’s your evidence for this? And if you are going to cite CO2Science, please address the issues I’ve already noted first.”

    Can’t cite evidence to refute my claim? How lazy! Another dodge.

    “So what’s your point?”

    If you can’t get understand simple logic then I won’t waste my time trying to explain it to you.

    “No one ever said CO2 would account for ALL warming. There are multiple source of forcings and multiple feedback effects.”

    Straw man as I never said that. If CO2 didn’t do it, what did? If you cannot provide empirical evidence to show something other than CO2 as the cause then CO2 cannot be the a significant cause of climate change, can it?

    Skeptical science does not cut it as empirical evidence. Basic greenhouse theory states that the upper troposphere has not warmed faster then the lower troposphere. Another dodge.

    So, about the cause and effect argument, any real response or will you continue to dodge? You never addressed my argument that the ice core records show that CO2 cannot cause temperatures to rise as temps rise before CO2 levels do.

    From http://www.flayme.com/troll/#What

    What Is A Troll?

    The term derives from “trolling”, a style of fishing which involves trailing bait through a likely spot hoping for a bite. The troll posts a message, often in response to an honest question, that is intended to upset, disrupt or simply insult the group.

    Usually, it will fail, as the troll rarely bothers to match the tone or style of the group, and usually its ignorance shows.

    Yep!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    Until someone gets past the physical impossibility, “the stratosphere cools whilst the troposphere warms as a result of the Greenhouse effect,” everything else is irrelevant to me. I don’t care if CO2 absorbs long IR or anything else, whenever I confront someone with this difficulty, I hear “lapse rate,” deferred emission,” and a whole bunch of irrelevant things that does not respond to the issue.

    Sometimes I think no one heard Gerlich and Tscheuschner and Gerhard Kramm – someday maybe, people will pay attention


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Kate

    Subject: Nation says no to Gillard as PM – BYE BYE LABOR!!!!!!

    ninemsn readers have cast doubt on Julia Gillard’s future as prime minister, with almost two-thirds declaring they will not vote for her in the looming election.

    MORE:-

    http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/1075533/nation-says-no-to-gillard-as-pm


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Brendon

    Eddy Aruda: June 24th, 2010 at 10:33 am

    You have yet to cite empirical evidence that man has had anything but a minute, trivial inconsequential influence on temperature. Your answer is non sequitur and a dodge.

    Really? Which do you consider more trivial, having most glaciers in retreat, increasing ocean acidification or having the ice caps melting?

    Another dodge.

    Frankly I don’t know his work. You say he did these things but how I am to know?

    Very small influence? Prove it! You obviously never checked the difference between raw data and the adjusted data.

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/jones_china.gif

    And can you get back to me concerning the point made about why the surface temps of the oceans are also warming.

    Another dodge

    Not really. There’s no reason we need to prove the cause of every single warming event in order to know that CO2 is causing this one.

    Can’t cite evidence to refute my claim? How lazy! Another dodge.

    No I already refuted CO2Science’s work above. If you were to suggest they have evidence, then you would also need to counter my arguments above.

    If you can’t get understand simple logic then I won’t waste my time trying to explain it to you.

    I get the logic of CO2 lagging temp. But so what? How does that mean the CO2 isn’t warming the planet now?

    CO2 levels now are much higher than they were back then and changing at a far more rapid rate.

    Straw man as I never said that. If CO2 didn’t do it, what did? If you cannot provide empirical evidence to show something other than CO2 as the cause then CO2 cannot be the a significant cause of climate change, can it?

    You said “The empirical evidence you cited (ice core records) shows that CO2 cannot drive temperatures.”. I never said that CO2 would drive the temperature during the interglacial periods. The Milankovitch cycles fit best as the primary cause, but they alone cannot account for all warming. If you add in the feedback effect of the slight rise in CO2, then the temps start to make more sense.

    I would suggest you find the time to view this video by Richard Alley as he describes the process better than I can.

    http://www.agu.org/meetings/fm09/lectures/lecture_videos/A23A.shtml

    Skeptical science does not cut it as empirical evidence. Basic greenhouse theory states that the upper troposphere has not warmed faster then the lower troposphere. Another dodge.

    I responded already. http://www.skepticalscience.com/How-Jo-Nova-doesnt-get-the-tropospheric-hot-spot.html

    The website skepticalscience isn’t trying to prove it exists through empirical evidence. The point of the article is that the hot spot should exist no matter what causes the warming. It is not specific to a greenhouse effect or AGW. The models predict it should exist but currently it can’t be seen in longer term observations.

    As the link says … “But if you cannot accept this evidence, to be strictly correct, what you are is a moist adiabatic lapse rate skeptic. ”

    So, about the cause and effect argument, any real response or will you continue to dodge? You never addressed my argument that the ice core records show that CO2 cannot cause temperatures to rise as temps rise before CO2 levels do.

    You never tied that argument back into how it was supposed to disprove AGW. What you stated about the lag I agree with.

    What Is A Troll?

    The term derives from “trolling”, a style of fishing which involves trailing bait through a likely spot hoping for a bite. The troll posts a message, often in response to an honest question, that is intended to upset, disrupt or simply insult the group.

    Usually, it will fail, as the troll rarely bothers to match the tone or style of the group, and usually its ignorance shows.

    Actually if you count the number of personal insults coming from other posters in this forum that are directed at me, then I think you’ll find I’ve been quite polite by comparison.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    allen mcmahon

    Brendon, not polite merely passive aggressive.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    annie

    To the supporter of the global warming FRAUD, the TROLL “Brendon”……

    STOP QUOTING FROM THIS BS “http://www.skepticalscience.com”!

    YOU ARE MERELY DEMONSTRATING WHAT AN IGNORAMUS AND A CRETIN YOU ARE BY DOING SO!

    IT SIMPLY SHOWS THAT YOU ARE ZERO CREDIBILITY!

    CLEARLY YOU ARE ONE OF THE CHURCH OF AL GORE’S “USEFUL IDIOTS”!

    For your edification “brendon”……..

    Global Warming, Fanatics, and Freedom:-

    http://noconsensus.org/freedom.php


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Annie, good link. I don’t think Brendon is open to this kind of reality though. I suppose we shouldn’t give up trying……


    Report this

    00

  • #

Leave a Reply

  

  

  

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>