JoNova

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


Handbooks

The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

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



Archives

The Green exodus from the Big Scare

Video available on the CFACT site.

Another Green soul declares enough is enough. It’s a question of conscience.

Physicist Dr. Denis Rancourt is a former professor and environmental science researcher at the University of Ottawa (as green as they come), and has officially bailed out of the man-made global warming movement. He runs a radio show, and speaks with many activists and NGO’s around the world. He claims that the “activists in the developing world, who need to directly defend their own neighborhoods, they understand that this global warming thing is an invention.

Climate Depot has released a video of Dr. Rancourt: Man-made global warming is nothing more than a “corrupt social phenomenon.”It is as much psychological and social phenomenon as anything else” .

“I argue that by far the most destructive force on the planet is power-driven financiers and profit-driven corporations and their cartels backed by military might; and that the global warming myth is a red herring that contributes to hiding this truth. In my opinion, activists who, using any justification, feed the global warming myth have effectively been co-opted, or at best neutralized,” Rancourt said.

“Global warming is strictly an imaginary problem of the First World middleclass,” he stated.

Rancourt is scathing of universities (and rightly so):

“They are all virtually all service intellectuals. They will not truly critique, in a way that could threaten the power interests that keep them in their jobs. The tenure track is just a process to make docile and obedient intellectuals that will then train other intellectuals,” Rancourt said.

“You have this army of university scientists and they have to pretend like they are doing important research without ever criticizing the powerful interests in a real way. So what do they look for, they look for elusive sanitized things like acid rain, global warming,” he added. This entire process “helps to neutralize any kind of dissent,” according to Rancourt.

“When you do find something bad, you quickly learn and are told you better toe the line on this — your career depends on it,” Rancourt said.

Rancourts article is here Some Big Lies of Science – June 2010

Climate Depot has choice excerpts and a list of other greens who have jumped ship.

In August 2009, the science of global warming was so tenuous that even activists at green festivals were expressing doubts over man-made climate fears. “One college professor, confided to me in private conversation that, ‘I’m not sure climate change is real,’” according to a report from the New York Green Festival.

The left-wing blog Huffington Post surprised many by featuring an article on January 3, 2009, by Harold Ambler, demanding an apology from Gore for promoting unfounded global warming fears.

UK atmospheric scientist Richard Courtney, a left-of-political center socialist, is another dissenter of man-made climate fears. Courtney, a UN IPCC expert reviewer and a UK-based climate and atmospheric science consultant, is a self-described socialist who also happens to reject man-made climate fears. Courtney declared in 2008 that there is “no correlation between the anthropogenic emissions of GHG (greenhouse gases) and global temperature.”

Alexander Cockburn, a maverick journalist who leans left on most topics, lambasted the alleged global-warming consensus on the political Web site CounterPunch.org, arguing that there’s no evidence yet that humans are causing the rise in global temperature. After publicly speaking to reject man-made warming fears, Cockburn wrote on February 22, 2008 “I have been treated as if I have committed intellectual blasphemy.”

Former Greenpeace member and Finnish scientist Dr. Jarl R. Ahlbeck, a lecturer of environmental technology and a chemical engineer at Abo Akademi University in Finland who has authored 200 scientific publications..

Life-long liberal Democrat Dr. Martin Hertzberg, a retired Navy meteorologist with a PhD in physical chemistry, also declared his dissent of warming fears in 2008….

Botanist Dr. David Bellamy, a famed UK environmental campaigner, former lecturer at Durham University, and host of a popular UK TV series on wildlife, converted from believer to a skeptic about global warming.

h/t David, Marc, and Darren

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 5.5/10 (2 votes cast)
The Green exodus from the Big Scare, 5.5 out of 10 based on 2 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/2fvvg5r

119 comments to The Green exodus from the Big Scare

  • #
    Colin Henderson

    WOW! what a great post, wake up call for the co-opted greens/warmists, and nail in the AGW coffin.

    00

  • #
    Henry chance

    Even some of alGore’s most ardent groupies are now speaking out against him.

    00

  • #
    pattoh

    Being a cynical pessimist, it is hard to be unpleasantly surprised when it comes to the progress of the human race.

    If this country, along with the rest of the developed & developing world, involves itself in an international system of Cap & Trade in carbon emissions, I can see the units of trade will, by default, become an international unit of monetary exchange.

    If this does eventuate, the UN, or some offspring, would have to be instrumental in setting exchange rates. The control of these rates would be a fundamental control of development, standard of living & growth in the various countries. (Gaia Vassals?)

    I don’t think many of the AGW Cultists would be happy with the prospect of having an un – seen, un-elected bureaucrat in another country making sovereign decisions about their future, health, wealth & welfare.

    Would it not be ironic if the Trojan Horse which is AGW in the hands of an institution set up to stabilize & advance the globe was in fact the very seed of future conflict

    00

  • #
    Athelstan

    Glad he has seen sense but this is not a Damascene conversion, he has known the AGW scam is just that for many years, why now?
    It should be said it is hard to admit that you are wrong, it is more than that, it is peoples livings and livelihoods, reputations and friendships but the whole edifice of AGW was built on very shaky (or even non-existent) foundations.
    All true scientists can/could see straight away, the AGW ‘idea’ was a event looking for an excuse, a perfect vehicle for dodgy politicians, world organizations with no credibility and climatologists desperate to justify their existences.

    You can fool some of the people some of the time but not all the people, all of the time, a very basic flaw and one typical of arrogant men.

    Bring back empirical science, bring back experimentation open to scrutiny and publish results and methods and statistical analyses, better yet drop the statistics all together.

    00

  • #
    MadJak

    Great Stuff Jo,

    Of course, I’m sure we won’t hear about this sort of thing through our mainstream media.

    Just as a sidenote everyone, there has been some major material broken overseas on sunday night on a site called http://www.wikileaks.org.

    Unfortunately, for all of us who live in australia, http://www.wikileaks.org appears to have been blacklisted by Comrade Conroy in our government, so you will find that it will be slow and will sometimes be inaccessible. There have been reports of the government threatening fines of $11,000 per day for any site that links to parts of wikileaks.org. They want us to get all of our information through the sanitised lamestream media – remember how they tried to squash climategate?

    Oh, and what was the major material that has broken overseas on wikileaks.org? Just over 90,000 top secret documents on the afghanistan war….

    00

  • #

    Reg. #5

    It is also slow in Sweden.
    I don’t think it is due to censorship, probably lust a server a domestic line with horrible upstream.

    00

  • #
    Amr

    A pithy summation of the problem you face .
    Amr Marzouk

    00

  • #
    Sean2829

    I’ve always thought that the fascade of the pitting of conservatives vs. the ecological conservationist was always a convenient way for the real puppet masters behind the cap and trade (or ETS) schemes to hide. The life blood of this movement was the money from all the financiers with a “market solution” that would allow them to take commissions on the air we breathe and governments desire to collect a fee on the same. The MTBE fiasco in the US, which drove up gasoline prices, did almost nothing to clean the air but poluted the ground water, should have warned everyone that when corporate interest and environmentallist shake hands and announce a new cooperative spirit, it means they’ve agreed upon a split of the proceeds when they take a little bit of money from everyone.

    00

  • #
    Ross

    I wonder if Gillard,s selected 150 would be shown a video like this ?

    00

  • #
    janama

    I must say it’s a shame it’s so heavily edited. Could have been a couple of minutes longer and better expressed.

    00

  • #
    Patrick

    Dr. Rancourt never had any credibility to begin with. He lost his teaching position at the University of Ottawa in December 2008 in a storm of controversy. Although ostensibly a physics professor, he taught a course called Science in Society, which was open to all students, and whose subject matter was social and environmental activism. Among his former students are an activist currently charged with the firebombing of a bank in Ottawa prior to the recent G20 summit in Toronto, and twin 10-year old boys who petitioned to be allowed to complete their course after Dr. Rancourt was suspended. Famously, all students who completed the course once received an “A+” grade.

    00

  • #
    Stephen Garland

    If David Bellamy converted, it is some time ago!

    00

  • #
    janama

    Patrick – It’s a battle he’s been waging for some time.

    http://rancourt.academicfreedom.ca/

    00

  • #
    Richard S Courtney

    Patrick:

    Your points at #11 are interesting. I do not know if they are true or not, but it is surprising that such scandal obtained no publicity prior to the ‘Green’ prof. telling the truth about AGW.

    Hence, I have severe doubts concerning your allegations.
    Can you provide evidence for them, please?

    Richard

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whaakaro

    MadJak: #5

    … what was the major material that has broken overseas on wikileaks.org? Just over 90,000 top secret documents on the afghanistan war …

    Most of the stuff is routine and over classified.

    The thing that has really got people jumping is the publication of the fact that Pakastan, through its intelligence services, has been providing state sponsorship for terrorism (remember the axis of evil?).

    Furthermore, the evidence shows that an American citizen was intimately involved in planning for the 2008 terrorist attack in Mumbai, where some Americans, and I think Australians, were killed.

    His involvement has been an open secret for ages in the blogosphere, it just needed this mass release of documents to force it into the mainstream media – sound familiar?

    If you want to know more, have a look at this blog post.

    00

  • #
    pat

    if only….

    27 July: SMH: Ari Sharp: Fresh scrutiny for ABC charter
    The Communications Minister, Stephen Conroy, has said he is prepared to consider a review of the ABC’s charter if the government is re-elected, amid accusations the broadcaster has drifted beyond its core purpose…
    The 24-hour news channel also won the endorsement of the opposition communications spokesman, Tony Smith, who applauded the broadcaster for its ability to fund the network – reportedly about $20 million – entirely through savings in other parts of the organisation.
    But he said he would have little sympathy if the broadcaster went to Canberra to seek extra funding for the channel…
    Refusing to speculate on funding changes before the next deal, Senator Conroy said, ”I can’t imagine that we’re going to reduce funding.”…
    The advocacy group Friends of the ABC is yet to be convinced of the Coalition’s commitment.
    ”There’s nothing to indicate that the Coalition’s hostile attitude to the ABC has changed since it was last in government, and that worries me,” Glenys Stradijot, the group’s campaign manager, said.
    She said there was no need to revisit the charter, which had ”served the public well”.
    http://www.smh.com.au/federal-election/fresh-scrutiny-for-abc-charter-20100726-10smy.html

    the TV programming on abc1, abc2, abc3 abc24 news – not to mention all the radio stations and online opeds and the like – is not serving the taxpayer well at all, glenys.

    00

  • #
    Lawrie

    Pattoh,

    It seems the folk at Climate Spectator meet your criteria to a “tee”. With possibly one exception every writer speaks of the marvellous opportunities under a carbon tax regime. They support expensive and ineffective wind generation and even support Brumby’s green transformation of Victoria. Of the latter; it seems much of his policy depends on help from Canberra and even his own side are less than enthusiastic.

    Do you suppose that Julia’s delay tactic is symptomatic of a loss of faith in AGW. Penny Wong dutifully bangs the drum but apart from Don Henry, who’s listening?

    00

  • #
    janama

    Richard @14 – it’s all in the link I posted @13

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Didn’t he come out in like 2007? hardly breaking news.

    He is quite bitter it seems: http://activistteacher.blogspot.com/

    “University professors are cowardly deceiving scum. There are no good professors.

    They work under a cover of serving community and the public good yet they serve and replicate a system of extreme violence and repression; a system of layered exploitation that uses every method from war and genocide to economic slavery to psychological social engineering in order to maintain and increase its hierarchical domination.”

    00

  • #
    Patrick

    Re: #13, #14 and the four “Dislikes”:

    Make no mistake, any AGW drone that sees the light is a step in the right direction. I just don’t believe that associating our cause with Denis Rancourt will help us.

    As for proof of my allegations, try the Ottawa Citizen newspaper. Go to http://www.ottawacitizen.com and search for articles on Denis Rancourt. The whole mess was big news in Ottawa in 2008. Here’s some examples:

    And much as I hate to cite Wikipedia, here is his bio there:

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Slowly but surely…

    It seems the AGW house is now becoming divided against itself. It couldn’t happen to a more deserving bunch!

    What remains to be seen is how soon the politicians will start to abandon ship.

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    MadJak,

    wikileaks isn’t working from California either.

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Patrick in #20… then Monckton is your A-list poster boy, then it is tough to suggest Rancourt is a liability;)

    00

  • #
    MattB

    then = when sorry

    00

  • #
    pat

    it’s only money-wasting..

    27 July: Australian: Hedley Thomas: Software glitch undermines green houses
    The errors, which are known to the CSIRO and the Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, make it likely that builders, designers and those looking to build a house are making wrong decisions, a leading scientist in energy efficiency told The Australian.
    The software tool designed by the CSIRO produces consistently false results and distorts the energy ratings of homes. This pattern over several years must be costing the building industry and home owners dearly, according to Terry Williamson, who discovered the errors and alerted the CSIRO this month.
    Associate Professor Williamson said the waste would be “a debacle to rival the Green Loan scheme”, another botched energy-efficiency initiative, if the impact of the errors were shown to be as significant as he suspected.
    The news came as Julia Gillard announced tax breaks for business to improve the energy efficiency of their commercial buildings…
    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/software-glitch-undermines-green-houses/story-fn59niix-1225897215498

    00

  • #
    Gabe

    SUBJECT:Radical roots seep through at the heart of Greens

    http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/radical-roots-seep-through-at-the-heart-of-greens-20100726-10sj0.html

    Senator Bob Brown gave some good advice to voters last week. Asked about the preference deal negotiated between the Greens and Labor, the Greens leader declared he agreed “with those people who last time ignored the preference directions from all the parties and put their preferences where they wanted to”. Brown said this is what he did.

    The Greens leader is much admired among journalists. With the obvious exception of Leigh Sales on Lateline, few reporters drew attention to the disingenuousness involved here. The Greens negotiated a deal to direct preferences to Labor in the Senate, and in most of the marginal House of Representatives seats, in return for ALP preferences in both the Senate and the House. This will almost certainly ensure that the Greens will exercise the balance of power in the Senate after July 1 next year.

    Yet Brown is dismissive of the very agreement likely to ensure a forthcoming key role for him in Australian politics. That aside, Brown has established a useful precedent. It is widely accepted the Greens have a chance in this election of winning seats in the House. The most likely prospects are the inner-city seats of Melbourne (where Cath Bowtell has Labor preselection after Lindsay Tanner’s resignation), Sydney and Grayndler. The latter two seats are being defended by Labor ministers Tanya Plibersek and Anthony Albanese respectively.
    Advertisement: Story continues below

    The Liberal Party has no hope of winning seats in inner-city Melbourne or Sydney. Nor do the Greens have the support to win an absolute majority. The Greens can only win if they receive Liberal preferences – which is likely to be the case.

    It is here that Brown’s advice has value. It would make sense for Liberal voters to place the likes of Bowtell, Plibersek and Albanese ahead of the Greens, irrespective of what the Liberal Party machine directs. The Liberal Party is closer to the left of the ALP than to the middle-class radicals who control the inner-city Greens.

    Labor remains favourite to win the election despite the narrowing of its lead in some opinion polls. In any event, a surprise Coalition victory would not be dependent on the Greens winning inner-city electorates from Labor. Moreover, in the event of a hung parliament, the Greens are more likely to support Labor and Julia Gillard than the Coalition and Tony Abbott.

    The only way for the Liberals and Nationals to stop Greens’ victories in the Senate is to maximise the Coalition vote. As the Australian Workers Union national secretary and Labor Party faction leader, Paul Howes, has pointed out, the contemporary Greens are conflicted. There are Greens such as Brown and senator Christine Milne, who are primarily environmental activists. And there are Greens such as NSW Senate candidate Lee Rhiannon who are inner-city left-wing political activists.

    Howes declared in The Sunday Telegraph that the Greens “party is being infiltrated by many whose commitment to the environment is questionable, and who are more focused on turning the Greens into a left-wing, socialist-style party”. Earlier, on the The Contrarians program on Sky News, Howes referred to Rhiannon as coming from a family who were “lifelong members of the pro-Stalinist Socialist Party”. He went on to warn about the ex-communists and socialists “trying to take over the inner-city branches of the Greens”.

    Nationals senator Fiona Nash has the third spot on the Coalition’s Senate ticket in NSW. Assuming Labor wins three Senate quotas and the Coalition two, the sixth vacancy will likely be contested between Nash and Rhiannon. Here the occasionally soft Coalition types can learn from the tough-minded Howes.

    So far, Nash has said little, if anything, about Rhiannon. Sure Rhiannon’s resume contains scant material about her radical past. However, the details are set out in Mark Aarons’s The Family File, the author’s account of his family’s long-time membership of the Communist Party of Australia.

    Rhiannon is not responsible for the fact she is the daughter of long-time CPA operatives Bill and Freda Brown (no relation to Bob Brown). But she is responsible for continuing the family’s tradition as a young adult. In his book, Mark Aarons, the son of Laurie and Carol Aarons, says the Aarons and Brown families tolerated the excesses of communist totalitarianism up until the brutal invasion of Czechoslovakia by the Soviet Union in 1968. Then the communist movement split. The Aarons family stood up to Moscow but the Brown family adopted the position of continuing Stalinists and formed the Socialist Party of Australia.

    Mark Aarons fell out with Rhiannon in the 1970s when, he claims, she refused to condemn the invasion of Czechoslovakia or the shooting of workers by the Polish communist dictatorship. He writes: “I could not conceive of someone of my age and experience supporting Moscow’s policies.”

    Already there is evident tension between the Greens leadership in Canberra and Rhiannon. This is likely to increase if she wins a Senate vacancy. Howes understands the anti-business, anti-jobs agenda of the radical Greens is contrary to Labor’s stance. You have to wonder how long it will take the Coalition to wake up to the fact that the best way to defend Nash is to expose Rhiannon’s middle-class radicalism.

    Gerard Henderson is executive director of The Sydney Institute.

    00

  • #

    [...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by johnnyA99, inferiae4542. inferiae4542 said: The Green exodus from the Big Scare « JoNova: http://is.gd/dL50A [...]

    00

  • #
    Gabe

    HERE ARE SOME INTERESTING STORIES ABOUT MEDIA BIAS AND THE AUSTRALIAN FEDERAL ELECTION.

    Don’t forget the the communist Labor Party’s motto is “WHATEVER IT TAKES”….

    New media, but same ABC bias:-

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

    Media Bias and the Federal Election:-

    http://www.quadrant.org.au/magazine/issue/2010/7-8/media-bias-and-the-federal-election

    ABC News Watch:-

    http://abcnewswatch.blogspot.com/

    00

  • #
    cohenite

    Gabe@ 21; your analysis is succinct and germane; Rhiannan is a class warrior and enemy of liberal democracy; her banner has been well hidden with the Greens; however, in effect, her impact on the economic and social structure will differ little from Brown’s and the so-called green Greens; there will be much more government control and loss of individual rights particularly property rights; the Coalition has been pretty dumb about this and in respect of the elephant in the room, proposed AGW measures, the coalition is a mixed bag with people like Hunt and Turnbull pushing the AGW lie. The only party which has a declared opposition to AGW is The Climate Sceptics and they will be targeting the Greens with advertising during this election; make no mistake, the ALP may be hopeless and the Coalition dumb but the Greens are the real opposition in this country.

    00

  • #
    Mark

    I can’t for the life of me work out why the Libs are not going full tilt against the Greens exposing their ghastly agenda. Do they think they might alienate the “doctor’s wives” or the brainless teeny-boppers for second preference?

    This comes down to whom one hates the least. Whatever I think about the Labor Party (not much) they’re not as bad as the Greens.

    00

  • #
    Reed Coray

    If, as some people contend, (a) to achieve their one-world socialist utopia supporters of Communism flocked to the environmental movement when the Soviet Union collapsed, (b) AGW was the vehicle they chose to ride to victory, and (c) leaders of the movement like Dr. Rancourt are now abandoning ship because it has no chance of winning, the AGW movement is in serious trouble. AGW never had science on its side, and now it is losing the support of powerful and influential people. The leaders of one-world socialist movements are not known for treating former allies who are now their opponents with kid gloves. As far as I’m concerned, it can’t happen fast enough.

    00

  • #
    Joe Lalonde

    This will NOT make one spit of difference to the next IPCC report.

    00

  • #
    Gabe

    For some light hearted political fun checkout this!!!

    http://www.slapapollie.com/

    It is interesting to see how many more slaps that the Communist Aethiest Gillard has received over Mr Abbott……….

    My best slap to gillard was 620 metres!

    00

  • #
    Gabe

    The Government’s ‘alternative energy’ policies will be a disaster for the economy………

    http://www.brookesnews.com/102607solar.html

    The Liberal Party’s proposed $3.2 billion solar fraud is just another demonstration of its leaders cowardice and wanton disregard for future living standards. Regardless of what Greg Hunt asserts there is no “real choice” between the Labour Government’s destructive energy policy and the Liberal Party’s green pandering. They are both based on outrageous distortions and outright lies.

    Few people realise that it is physically impossible for solar energy to meet the needs of a modern economy, or any economy above a medieval level of existence. This is because solar — including wind power — face insurmountable natural limitations. Even if this were not the case they would still be facing massive diseconomies of scale.

    A short time ago the New York Times published an orgiastic article on the marvels of the Florida Power & Light company’s 75MW solar complex occupying 500 acres. Literally standing next to this twenty-first scientific miracle on 15 acres is the same company’s natural gas plant that generates a massive 3.8 gigawatts whenever needed.

    Now let us put these figures into perspective. The solar plant requires 33.3 times the area of the gas plant to produce a miserable 0.0197 of its output. (Remember: a gigawatt is 1000,000,000 watts, so 3.8 gigawatts equal 3,800.0000,000 watts.) Therefore, to produce 3.8 gigawatts would have to cover 25,333.3 acres or 39.6 square miles as against 15 square acres. To top it off, this super leap into the future can only produce electricity one-third of the time. Clearly, the insurmountable natural obstacle is energy density.

    Solar energy is so dilute that it requires masses of land, labour and capital to produce a tiny fraction of the electricity that coal-fuelled or nuclear plants could produce with the same resources. Obviously it is the diluteness of the energy source that makes solar uneconomic. (The same people who scream against ‘urban sprawl’ swallowing up land see nothing wrong with blighting the landscape solar plants and wind farms.)

    As disastrous as those figures are, it gets worse. It is easy to assume that to determine how much a solar plant capable of generating 3.8 gigawatts would cost we merely need to multiply 50.7 by $476 million (3,800 divided by 75 equals 50.7). This would be a grave mistake because it implicitly assumes constant returns to scale. For this to be the case there would have to exist an unlimited amount of idle land, labour and capital that can be freely drawn on.

    As this is not — and never can be — the case then these projects would face increasing costs of production as they tried to expand output. In plain English, electricity prices would continue to rise and the standard of living fall. (Then again, President Obama did say that under his so-called energy program “electricity prices would skyrocket”. Our politicians are not so honest.)

    Fortunately, the vast quantities of materials solar plants would consume has been accurately calculated. Kathryn A. Lawrence, a scientist with the National Solar Energy Research Institute in Golden, Colorado, calculated that a solar plant with a 1000 MW output capacity would consume 35,000 tons of aluminium; 2 million tons of concrete (which is 500 times the amount of concrete a 1000 MW nuclear power plant would use!), 7,500 tons of copper, 600,000 tons of steel, 75,000 tons of glass, 1,500 tons of chromium and titanium a very expensive 5 tons of silver, and so on. Clearly, the resources that would be used up in building solar energy plants are immense. Yet these are conservative figures!

    The Governor of Oregon’s Energy Task Force (1975)* estimated that the actual amount of resources would be three times the amount calculated by Lawrence. This means energy costs amount to 75 million BTU per ton of aluminium, 56 million BTU per ton of steel, 18 MBTU/ton of glass, and 12 MBTU/ton of concrete. All of this for a solar plant which produces 1,000 MW of electricity. A conventional plant would only use about 1000th of this for the same output. So for the same power output, a solar plant needs about 1,056 times more structural metal (by weight) than a nuclear plant or a fossil burning plant.

    The energy needed just to produce the aluminium, concrete and glass comes to about 30 trillion BTUs for a solar thermal 1,000 MW plant (a lot more if the 1,000 MW is decentralized). That energy produces wastes in addition to the wastes produced by the production of the materials. Obviously a part of the energy needed to produce a solar plant will be electrical. As that will be coal (no nuclear in Australia) it will involve the production of thousands of tonnes of solid waste plus tens of thousands of tonnes of gaseous wastes. All of which will be deposited in the environment. Obviously, the opportunity costs of these plants would be colossal and totally unjustified.

    These figures put to rest the idea that solar is a benign and efficient alternative to coal-fired power plants. Solar would be a blot on the landscape, an environmental menace and a criminal waste of land, labour and capital and a savage attack on the standard of living.

    *That this report was produced 35 years ago is irrelevant. What is relevant is that it is based on the fact that solar energy is dilute and that this is why it can never compete with centralised power stations, irrespective of how technically efficient solar collectors become. So why are Australia’s think tanks and so-called conservative columnists silent on these facts?

    00

  • #
    Patrick

    I have friends who are active members of the Greens, old school environmentalists, and they despise Lee Rihannon.

    00

  • #
    MattB

    That’s fine. I’ve got long term lib mates who despise Abbott, and long term labor buddies who loathe Gillard. Why would the greens be any different.

    00

  • #
    Speedy

    It isn’t a lie when the Greens say it.

    Over the weekend we had the Green’s Christine Milne telling us what a wonderful opportunity they had on offer – namely a chance to cut energy consumption “hard and fast” while taking up all sorts of the wonderful “renewable” energy options on offer. Early uptake of these technologies, we are told, would bring prosperity and jobs to the nation. And what was the basis of this promise? A computer model.

    A model is like a ventriloquist’s doll – it can say anything you want it to. Just give it the inputs you want, and the rest is nothing more than convoluted mathematics. It may look fancy, but at the end of the day it will be only as correct as the assumptions that are fed into it.

    What Ms Milne neglected to mention is that this experiment is being trialled at the moment in the Real World – in California and Spain. These “early uptakers” are now enjoying so much financial prosperity that they are all but bankrupt.

    And where did we hear Christine’s words of wisdom so clearly and so unfettered by critical thought? On the ABC, of course.

    Cheers,

    Speedy

    00

  • #
    cbp

    Scraping the bottom of the barrel now aren’t we? This was ‘news’ back in ’07. Rancourts did the rounds with both Inhofe and Morano last year.
    Your headline is wrong, and so is Morano’s.

    I particularly like this bit, by the way:

    UK atmospheric scientist Richard Courtney, a left-of-political center socialist, is another dissenter of man-made climate fears. Courtney, a UN IPCC expert reviewer and a UK-based climate and atmospheric science consultant

    Bwhahaha

    Left != green != socialist != Liberal Democrat != climate change scientist != journalist != amateur hack

    I know most of you will ignore what I wrote in this post, so here’s some words for you to crow about: Al Gore. Consensus. Mann. Wikipedia.

    Cheers

    00

  • #
    Gabe

    To “cbp”,

    How old are you with comments like “Bwhahaha”????

    This that the best retort that you can muster?

    You are truely an ignorant juvenile ignoramus!

    Now, isn’t it time for you mummy to tuck you into bed…….

    00

  • #
    sdcougar

    I hope somebody [or, better, about a 1000 somebodies] sends this video and quotes to the Prime Minister.
    ]

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Sorry is Richard Courtney above our very own Richard S. Courtney??? UNIPCC Expert reviewer… seriously we’ve all been over this many many times before:

    http://rabett.blogspot.com/2008/02/on-astounding-diplphil-courtney.html

    00

  • #
    janama

    Just sending it to Malcolm Turnbull would be a start. It was 5 greenies v Tom Switzer last night on Q&A

    00

  • #
    Phillip Bratby

    Prof Philip Stott is predicting that global warming will now suffer a lingering death.

    See http://thegwpf.org/opinion-pros-a-cons/1305-global-warming-the-death-of-a-grand-narrative.html

    00

  • #
    Gabe

    THE WATERMELONS ARE EVIL AND DANGEROUS TO ALL AUSTRALIANS!!

    Get to know the Greens:-

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=awfgsURs990

    GREENS preferences are used at the State level to hold abusive state governments in power, who continue to perpetrate some of the most egregious human rights abuses against farmers.

    Federal GREENS can only do more damage than State Greens.

    A vote for Greens is a vote for domestic human rights abuses – to some of our most isolated and vulnerable citizens.
    A vote for the Greens is a vote for increased rural suicide, families destroyed and another community affected.
    A vote for the Greens is a vote for corruption, and of the abusive and unlimited power of the State.
    And lastly, a vote for the Greens is a vote for destruction of native biodiversity.

    00

  • #
    J.Hansford

    Watch him though. People like him know the wind is changing, thus they are laying the ground work to scapegoat capitalism, corporations, conservative politics, etc.

    That said however, it is refreshing to hear considered opinion from an area that once only yielded radicalism. I’d say the winds of change herald a storm of controversy….. ‘eh? ;-)

    00

  • #
    John Brookes

    J. Hansford @45:

    Watch him though. People like him know the wind is changing, thus they are laying the ground work to scapegoat capitalism, corporations, conservative politics, etc.

    The wind is changing? The wind always changes, its called natural variation. Its got nothing to do with us ;-)

    00

  • #
    Gabe

    I have emailed this story, and many many others to all NSW labor politicians, all federal senators and talk back commentators on at least 4 radio stations.

    Also to many WATERMELON organizations that I have managed to find the contact email addresses of, just to annoy them!

    I suggest that other bloggers start an email war against these GREEN COMMUNISTS, just as I have!!

    00

  • #
    Nadine Senior

    Colin Henderson said:

    “WOW! what a great post, wake up call for the co-opted greens/warmists, and nail in the AGW coffin.”

    Colin, every skeptic is a nail in AGWs coffin. Unfortuantely AGW is an undead zombie that escaped its coffin ages ago and is now wandering about going “Uuuurrrr!”

    00

  • #
    Nadine Senior

    [snip... another rude ad hom. No more from Nadi--JN]

    00

  • #
    Adolf Balik

    Nadine Senior 48:

    Maybe the governor Schwarzeneger should shoot a new horror movie about an indestructible monster. After Predator and Terminator there is a time for Warmiator. But he has not to do it. Now, it is a real life story.

    00

  • #
    K. Clark

    How is it that al gore’s book of lies and misinformation can be recommended reading for fourth graders?

    http://www.wvec.com/news/local/Parent-concerned-that-Al-Gores-book-on-summer-reading-list-for-Norfolk-fourth-graders-99257174.html

    When the Arabs make videos encouraging their kids to become martyrs, there is outrage everywhere. And yet this bullshit science is used to brainwash our kids, here, in the land of the free. Parents should be calling their school principals to make sure this junk science never reaches our kids.

    00

  • #
    allen mcmahon

    Matt, referencing Eli!! next you be telling us Deltoid is a science site. Are you going to persist with snide comments or can we expect your rebuttal of Richard’s work as promised some months back?

    00

  • #
    allen mcmahon

    You guys have a nice day in your big fat delusions of being remotely scientific.

    If you had a friend that could read and one that could write combined you could represent the intelligentsia.

    00

  • #
    Wayne, s. Job

    It is almost unknown for those left of centre to have original thought, a change of the mind in a person of the left is a scientific break through.

    That so many are doing it, must have a cause. The recent bombardment of the earth with cosmic rays due to the sun being on holidays, may have some beneficial effects.

    Our solar system due soon to cross the galactic plane, may help rid us of the parasites infesting our society. Like a good sheep dip every twenty five thousand years. One has to hope.

    00

  • #
    Quentin Wallace

    Haha – funny little list of “greens who have jumped ship” -

    Dr. Denis Rancourt -

    “a former professor and environmental science researcher at the University of Ottawa (as green as they come), and has officially bailed out of the man-made global warming movement.”

    A nice rhetorical flourish you have there Ms Nova. Yeah, because if a real dyed in the wool greeny has now officially renounced the religion of AGW, in a interview with well known hack and smear artist Marc Morano, then damn – all this climate business must be a total pile of crap ! What did I just say ?

    As far as I can tell Dr. Rancourt is actually a rather bitter man, with bizarre quasi anarchist opinions. He was suspended and finally dismissed from his post at the University of Ottawa, for a series of politically motivated confrontations. There is no science in the video. Just slightly resentful ramblings from an ex prof.

    Harold Ambler – A English graduate, journalist and noted rowing expert; with a side hobby in contradicting climate experts.

    Richard Courtney – Who? I came across this guy the other day on here. Thought he was just another self-satisfied hobby expert. Well now he is a “UK atmospheric scientist”. Damn I’d better look him up. Erm no – can’t find “Richard Courtney – Atmospheric Scientist”. What exactly are his qualifications ? Where does he do his scientific research ? Oh, hold on he’s also a “IPCC expert reviewer” ! Let’s try again. Oh, anyone can be a “expert reviewer” ! All you have to is request a copy of the report and then – hey presto – your a “expert reviewer”. I think I might apply. I could stick it on my CV.

    Alexander Cockburn – “a maverick journalist”. You said it. Just a journo with an opinion.

    Dr. Jarl R. Ahlbeck – OK a scientist. A chemical engineer though. Not a climate scientist.

    Dr. Martin Hertzberg – A retired explosives expert with an opinion.

    Dr. David Bellamy – A loveable TV personality and “celebrity” botanist who made some silly comments on AGW a few years back.

    So, all in all, a veritable bunch of climate scientists that I wouldn’t hesitate to rely upon if an expert opinion was needed.

    00

  • #

    [...] like even the most politically extremist envrionutters are recanting on warmology. The Green exodus from the Big Scare « JoNova First this guys left wing loon credentials: "Physicist Dr. Denis Rancourt is a former [...]

    00

  • #
    janama

    Quentin Wallace: well done Quentin.

    A perfect rendition with pike of a warmist ad hom attack.

    00

  • #
    Quentin Wallace

    Thanks janama. My pleasure.

    I will admit that the above list by Ms Nova was presented without any supporting credentials (dodgy or otherwise) – so as not to seem like a mere appeal to authority. So maybe my ad hom attack was unwarranted.

    00

  • #
    cohenite

    Quentin; even wiki has a list of sceptical scientists under useful headings:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

    The list is in no way complete or exhaustive:

    http://www.businessandmedia.org/specialreports/2007/globalwarming/SkepticalScientists.asp

    What have you got in the way of company men?

    00

  • #
    Quentin Wallace

    Wikipedia List -

    Most seem to be specialists in other areas to climate science. They also seem to hold a wide variety of opinions. The editors of the page seem to have cobbled the list together to make it as long as possible (trying not to include any crackpots, so as to seem reasonable). And they still only have around 40 entries.

    Skeptical Scientists List -

    Wow 400 ! This is just laughable. A thoroughly ridiculous list compiled by one Marc Morano, of assorted weirdos, non-scientists, amateurs and tv personalities. If you boiled it down to the real scientists, then excluded the ones that Morano cherry picked quotes from so he could include them in his list – maybe you’d be left with a dozen or so genuine skeptical scientists.

    00

  • #
    Martin

    I’ve just listen to this guy and he seems to me to be truly a thorn in the side of the establishment. If the media’s demonize him, its almost a seal of approval- well better check for yourself anyway.

    He wrote this article in 2007 :
    http://activistteacher.blogspot.com/2007/02/global-warming-truth-or-dare.html
    His arguments are solid and sound.

    This his the first time i post on this excellent blog and I’m from Québec, Canada

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Well well it seems that this subject is touchy to the warmists.

    I say GOOD!

    00

  • #
    Erik

    Some articles from Dr. Denis Rancourt hand, I don’t agree with all he writes but I can’t help but respect the man, I respect anyone that is willing stand up against the mainstream opinion and take the consequence

    BTW, this is my first posting here, thank you all for the free word and for fighting against this madness

    A good read and time well spend IMHO
    Feb. 2007 – Global Warming: Truth or Dare?
    http://activistteacher.blogspot.com/2007/02/global-warming-truth-or-dare.html

    May 2007 – The Corporate Climate Coup
    http://activistteacher.blogspot.com/2007/05/dgr-in-my-article-entitled-global.html

    June 2010 – Some Big Lies of Science
    http://activistteacher.blogspot.com/2010/06/some-big-lies-of-science.html

    00

  • #
    average joe

    Quentin Wallace:
    July 27th, 2010 at 11:39 pm

    Experts from other areas within Science is exactly what is needed. “Climatology” is not a Scientific area in itself, imo. Its a mix of other areas.
    They have tried to make it very mystic.Hiding data, manipulating, you name it. With a lot of success, mind you. But the game is up, hopefully.

    00

  • #

    In the following link there is finally incontrovertible proof that the atmosphere is heated from the top down.

    “The Diurnal Atmospheric Bulge, giant 1200º bulge of rapidly heated and expanding gases circling the Globe 24/7.”

    00

  • #

    I’d like to see the entire interview uncut. I hate these excerpts and sound bytes. Let’s see the whole 9 yards!

    00

  • #
    Gabe

    Yet another of the communistic Gillard led labor government’s GREEN FRAUDS!!!

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

    DON’T LET JOOLYA FOOLYA IN 2010!!

    00

  • #
    cohenite

    Quentin@60; you miss the point, I was looking for some quantity, that is consensus supporting, numbers of pro-AGW ‘climate scientists’ from you, since you appear to a believer in AGW. You know, I give a list which you ad hom, as per typical AGW methodology, then you give a list which I give a thoughtful critique on; the usual double standards applying to the AGW debate where believers do and argue anything and sceptics must conform to logic and rationality.

    00

  • #
    Albert

    Speedy @ 37
    I agree with you, Christine Milne seems deluded when she believes funding green research will deliver results and we will find nirvana.
    What about the billions that have gone into cancer research?
    Research including green research does not guarantee positive results.

    00

  • #
    pyeatte

    Great post by an honest scientist. The real crime is the pressure put on scientists by the political powers who are pushing an agenda. This is like a poison, and the price is high, for science loses credibility with the public. Politics and science mix about as well as drinking and driving.

    00

  • #
    Douglas DC

    Hi folks from the Green Tomato capitol of NE Oregon,USA. This is a big deal I think the facade of AGW has not only cracked it is starting to fall like a cheap stucco job…
    No wonder Gore and Tipper divorced- she cut her losses…
    “Half of anything anyone tells you is a lie,it’s up to you to figure out which half.”-Unk.

    00

  • #
    Baa Humbug

    W R Pratt: #65
    July 28th, 2010 at 4:50 am

    Thnx for the link Pratty, it’s a fascinating read. keep up the good work.

    00

  • #
    Wayne, s. Job

    Nemesis, The only cowards that I have encountered in a rather long life are those from the left who tend to gather in groups for mutual assurance. They tend to run to run to water when confronted with reality and truth, then blather for their belief system is damaged. The censorship on this site that I have seen is done by consensus, that is some thing that must be dear to your heart. Consensus science works for you obviously. One brave person with the truth can destroy consensus. One real experiment can destroy a theory. Thousands of real scientists and many proofs disprove totally AGW , your brain washing is total welcome to the brave new world.

    00

  • #

    Censorship here stops the trash from anonymous dysfunctional brains who think that a information (or a lie) about someone’s character proves something about our planetary climate. I’d like to help those people, but I can’t offer therapy…

    00

  • #
    Quentin Wallace

    @average joe: July 28th, 2010 at 4:42 am

    I agree that experts from other disciplines within science are relevant contributors. I did use the term “climate scientist” once in my first post on this thread, this should have read “scientist”. Apologies. In my previous post I did just used the term “scientist”.

    @cohenite: July 28th, 2010 at 8:49 am

    OK if we must. Let’s play the numbers game -

    Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change – Doran et al 2009

    http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf

    A survey of 10,257 “Earth scientists” of which 3146 responded (a typical response rate).
    These are all practicing scientists and researchers with wide but relevant specialities. More than 90% of whom have Ph.D’s. There is a more nuanced table of results depending on area of expertise, but overall 82% agreed with the significance of ACC. Narrowed down to actual climate specialists the figure was 97%.

    Expert credibility in climate change – Anderegg et al 2010

    http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.full.pdf+html

    An analysis of 1,372 actively published scientists more specifically in the area of climate research. This list was reduced to 908 researchers who had all authored and published in peer reviewed scientific journals a minimum of 20 papers each. After further analysis of their publication and citation data it was shown that 97-98% of researchers support the theory of anthropogenic climate change.

    Of course nothing in this life is 100% certain (apart from death and taxes of course) and these 97% of scientists may be wrong. Ad hom away.

    00

  • #
    allen mcmahon

    You cowards censor anything that doesn’t agree with your delusions.

    and its not cowardly to post rubbish like this anomalously?

    00

  • #
    Quentin Wallace

    Whoops I did refer to climate science specialists in post 60. Apologies again.

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Quentin, at risk of setting up an argument from authority, explain why a significant number of skeptics are engineers? You know, the scientists that actually make things work?

    I’m just curious

    By the way we have debated the worth of that survey (Anderegg et al 2010). Lets just say; I’m impressed! That changes everything, very persuading argument.

    “Experts” reporting on only “published” experts. Circular ego boosting isn’t it?

    00

  • #
    Quentin Wallace

    @ Mark D.: July 28th, 2010 at 10:23 pm

    Hi, I don’t know about your assertion that a “significant number of skeptics are engineers”, so I can’t really comment on that one. Also, although a engineer can be a scientist or vica versa; I wouldn’t say that, in general, engineers are scientists.

    I only responded to the lists posted by cohenite. As he asked me to. It wasn’t an argument as such. Of course you are welcome to see only “Circular ego boosting” if you wish.

    00

  • #
    Mike Jowsey

    Quentin Wallace:
    July 27th, 2010 at 9:55 pm
    Haha – funny little list of “greens who have jumped ship” -

    Yes, well I haven’t heard of any skeptics jumping on the AGW ship. It is far too leaky.

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Really?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientist

    Excerpt:

    Scientists versus engineers

    Engineers and scientists are often confused in the minds of the general public, with the former being closer to applied science. While scientists explore nature in order to discover general principles, engineers apply established principles drawn from science in order to create new inventions and improve upon the old ones.[11][12] In short, scientists study things whereas engineers design things. However, there are plenty of instances where significant accomplishments are made in both fields by the same individual. When a scientist has also an engineering education, the same individual would explore principles in nature to solve problems and to design new technology. Scientists often perform some engineering tasks in designing experimental equipment and building prototypes, and some engineers do first-rate scientific research. Biomedical, mechanical, electrical, chemical, and aerospace engineers are often at the forefront of scientific investigation of new phenomena and materials. Peter Debye received a degree in electrical engineering and a doctorate in physics before eventually winning a Nobel Prize in chemistry. Similarly, Paul Dirac, one of the founders of quantum mechanics, began his academic career as an electrical engineer before proceeding to mathematics and later theoretical physics. Claude Shannon, a theoretical engineer, founded modern information theory.

    Also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engineering

    Excerpt:

    Engineers apply the sciences of physics and mathematics to find suitable solutions to problems or to make improvements to the status quo. More than ever, engineers are now required to have knowledge of relevant sciences for their design projects, as a result, they keep on learning new material throughout their career.

    Excerpt: Engineering is considered a branch of applied mathematics and science.

    In short, I believe it wise to choose Authorities carefully. So how many of the “1,372 actively published scientists” were engineers?

    00

  • #
    MattB

    I’m an engineer.

    00

  • #
    Quentin Wallace

    Alright alright, let’s go on forever.

    I believe I just said that “a engineer can be a scientist or vica versa” !

    My Grandad and two of my Uncles was/are engineers and I’m pretty sure that all 3 of them would not describe themselves as scientists. Although I am sure there are many who would. That was all I said. I don’t know why you felt the need to quote a big chunk of Wikipedia, that just confirms what I said in greater detail.

    I have much respect and admiration for engineers.

    Anyway in short, I have absolutely no idea how many of the scientists were engineers.
    Do a survey of engineers with an active and detailed knowledge of climate science if you want.

    00

  • #
    BobC

    Re: Engineering and Science:

    Engineering is considered a branch of applied mathematics and science.

    How to explain, then, that significant engineering feats predate relevant progress in math and science? (Pyramids; Roman aqueducts and roads; not much contemporary science was relevant to the construction of the Medieval Cathedrals, etc.)

    Here’s Burt Rutan’s distinction:

    Engineering Approach — where data are critical and there are consequences for being wrong.
    Scientist Approach — where a theory is the product and it can be right or wrong without serious repercussions.

    (Burt Rutan, whose company – Scaled Composites – is constructing the first private passenger spaceship, thinks CAGW is a crock and backs it up with data. SEE HERE)

    Another way to put it:
    Successful scientists must convince their peers that they are right.
    Successful engineers must be right.

    In science, since theory is the primary product and new theories are built upon older ones, there is tremendous resistance to re-analyzing older theories as that might threaten many scientists’ work. This tends to reinforce Thomas Kuhn’s “old die-hard” theory of paradigm shift, where scientists resist new work that undermines their own.

    In engineering, however, stuff either works or it doesn’t. You can’t fool Mother Nature. Hence the engineering sciences are much more self-correcting and engineers are much more concerned with whether their ideas are backed up by data.

    When engineers look at climate science, they see lots of theories and models that don’t correspond with the real world, as evidenced by a complete lack of predictive skill. (Lack of predictive skill might even characterize completely correct models, if the system is chaotic – an issue not even addressed by current climate scientists.) Making recommendations and prescriptions for society without predictive ability is akin to driving blindfolded.

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Quentin @ 83

    that just confirms what I said in greater detail

    NO It doesn’t.

    @79

    I wouldn’t say that, in general, engineers are scientists.

    Wiki EXCERPT (in bold):

    Engineering is considered a branch of applied mathematics and science.

    One of these things things is not like the other. Can you guess which one?

    Hey you come here and speak all you want but I’m a drudge for pointing out your comments may be in error?

    It would be nice if you provide some of your own thinking. Instead I get a tap dance and evasion; “do your own study”. Thanks. I already have.

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    BobC, thanks for stealing my thunder I planned to link to Burt later in this exercise :)

    We are in vigorous agreement Re @ 84 too. Please take no offense that I put engineers in the same class as scientists. I can understand how that would be offensive to an engineer! :)

    00

  • #
    Quentin Wallace

    Mark D.: July 29th, 2010 at 3:15 am

    Oh for crying out loud. I agreed with you – “a engineer can be a scientist or vica versa”. If you want to be pedantic (even though I qualified my statement later on) and it makes you happy, I withdraw the line – “I wouldn’t say that, in general engineers were scientists”. It doesn’t really alter anything else I said.

    I also honestly said I didn’t know the answer to your other question. If you have done a relevant study perhaps you could share it with us.

    BobC: July 29th, 2010 at 1:16 am

    OK. Some of what you say makes sense to me. But then you just blithely state that – “When engineers look at climate science, they see lots of theories and models that don’t correspond with the real world”.

    All engineers ? A majority of engineers ? 42 engineers ?

    OK let’s see what the one engineer you do mention has to say for himself.

    I downloaded the Burt Rutan PDF. I am far from being an expert (as you probably guessed) but a initial scan of the document seems to reveal a sub Christopher Monckton style of presentation. Full of the usual misinformation and unattributed graphs some of which I assume Rutan has cobbled together himself.

    I don’t know. Where to start ? Just pick one at random. Page 33 – This page and the 2 graphs are just audience manipulating nonsense. Anyone can cherry pick short term trends, bodge them around a bit, and present them to a credulous audience.

    I’ll leave someone else, with plenty of time to waste, to pick it all apart. I can’t be bothered.

    This document is just a propaganda pamphlet.

    Is that the best you can do ?5.0%20%28x

    00

  • #
    BobC

    Quentin Wallace:(@87)
    [Re: Rutan's presentation]


    Page 33 – This page and the 2 graphs are just audience manipulating nonsense. Anyone can cherry pick short term trends, bodge them around a bit, and present them to a credulous audience.

    The point of this page is clearly that James Hansen’s claim (in testimony to Congress) of being able to predict the future trends of climate was bogus. He did pretty much just what you said above.

    If some of what I said made sense, maybe this will also:

    GCMs (Global Circulation Models) simulate weather on short time scales. They are used to simulate climate by running them for extended virtual times (10s to 100s of years). The problem with this is that the weather has been known to be a chaotic system since Lorenz tried modeling it in the 1960s. It was Lorenz’s observations that got the whole field of chaos theory started.

    So, while you may be simulating a climate by an extended GCM run, you won’t be simulating the climate, except by a fabulously unlikely chance. (And you wouldn’t know it, anyway.) The “Climate Science Community” ignores this problem. Really, the only way you can show predictability is by demonstrated predictive skill — something that has, to date, completely eluded climate models.

    This assumes the models are correct. Unfortunately, there is a lot we still don’t know about weather, including a lot of the feedbacks. As many of these as the modelers can think of are put in as parameterizations, which bias the model in the direction the modelers think the effect goes. There are enough of these parameters that the model can be made to do pretty much anything you want.

    However, this still isn’t enough — too many models of future climate (in parallel universes, I guess) just noodle along in a drunkard’s walk kind of way. To get really dramatic results, the modeler’s routinely (link) assume that CO2 is growing at 1%/year. It’s easy to look at the data (link) and see that CO2 has been growing at ~0.4%/year for the last 50 years.

    Mathematical Aside:
    CO2 concentration in 1958.21 = 315.71 ppm
    CO2 concentration in 2009.21 = 388.78 ppm (click on “raw data” in above link)
    This data follows closely an exponential curve with a yearly increase of r = 0.41% and a doubling time of 170 years. (doubling time, tau = (2009-1958)*log(2)/log(388.78/315.71); 1+r = 2^(1/tau) for a rough estimate from the endpoints — a least squares fit to the whole curve gives essentially the same result.)

    To put this in perspective, 0.4%/year growth doubles every 170 years — 1%/year growth doubles every 70 years. Currently, the Earth is on the slow track — how many times have you heard that in the media? How many times have you heard that “CO2 is growing faster than expected”? (What, they expected it to grow less than 0.4%/year? After 50 years, why would you expect anything different? What brain-dead excuse for a scientist came up with that?)

    Do you find this convincing? If somebody had this quality of analysis on an experimental aircraft, would you say “Great!” and climb in?

    Rutan wouldn’t; I wouldn’t; You wouldn’t, unless you were a fool.

    But you expect me to say; “Sure! Let’s make major changes in the global economy (and suppress freedom, to boot)! Why not? What could go wrong?”

    It’s up to those who promote CAGW to make their case. They haven’t even come close, scientifically — that’s why they resort to fraud, bullying and politics.

    00

  • #
  • #

    @ Quentin Wallace

    You wrote at 175

    I agree that experts from other disciplines within science are relevant contributors. I did use the term “climate scientist” once in my first post on this thread, this should have read “scientist”. Apologies. In my previous post I did just used the term “scientist”

    Here is a list of the Reviewers of the IPCC WGIII Fourth Assessment Report http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg3/ar4-wg3-annex4.pdf

    The only guy missing from the list was the smartest guy in the building, the janitor. If you look up the bios on the names listed many of them are not scientists at all. You do not need to be a scientists to speak the truth, just ask the IPCC!

    Science is not done by consensus. Someone comes up with a hypothesis and it is tested to see if it can be falsified. If it is falsified the hypothesis is discredited and discarded. The CAGW hypothesis has been falsified. The geological record shows no instance of catastrophic global warming caused by CO2 creating a positive feedback loop with water vapor. There is no empirical evidence to support the claim. If CAGW was possible it would have already occurred and we wouldn’t be here to debate the subject.

    Please forgive the unsolicited advice but you may want to start practicing the virtue of humility. There are some serious intellectual heavyweights who often post here and unless you are really on your game you may want to think twice before hitting the submit comment button.

    00

  • #
    Bob Malloy

    Quentin Wallace: @ 75
    July 28th, 2010 at 8:17 pm

    An analysis of 1,372 actively published scientists more specifically in the area of climate research. This list was reduced to 908 researchers who had all authored and published in peer reviewed scientific journals a minimum of 20 papers each. After further analysis of their publication and citation data it was shown that 97-98% of researchers support the theory of anthropogenic climate change.

    While I am in no position to dispute the above, I will let Einstein speak on the difference between belief and fact.

    No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.

    I also particularly like this one, Just a personal opinion but I think it best describes the failure of post modern science.

    A man should look for what is, and not for what he thinks should be.

    00

  • #
    Quentin Wallace

    BobC: July 29th, 2010 at 7:29 am

    Hi,

    From what I can tell, looking at his graphs, Rutan is deliberately trying to deceive (well I can’t think of any other explanation).

    If you actually look at the Hanson paper from 1988 -

    http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1988/1988_Hansen_etal.pdf

    He computed three different scenarios. Scenario B on his graph correlates very well with what actually happens. Ruttan conveniently omits scenarios B an C and only shows scenario A, which Hanson clearly states is a worst case scenario, that is dependent on various assumptions, such as “the absence of large volcanic eruptions in the next few years”.

    So why are you saying Hanson’s testimony was “bogus” ? It was remarkably accurate.

    Nobody is saying the models are perfect. But they are all we have. I also think the correlation of climate model predictions to what actually happens is closer than you imply.

    I understand your maths with regard to CO2 concentrations and it does at face value seem a little strange. I have no knowledge of this and can’t really comment. I’ll have to try and read up on that one.

    Also on the precautionary principle –

    If someone produced a low quality report on the safety of an aircraft I probably wouldn’t fly in it. I would live to fly another day.

    If someone produces a report that is as high quality as current knowledge allows (I know you will probably disagree about that) showing that there is a very high chance of serious climate change in the near future, as a result of CO2 emissions; I would be seriously tempted to do something about it. If they are wrong I will live to fly another day.

    I am far more unsure about what, if any, governmental/economic policy should flow from this. Or whether attempted prevention or adaptation is a better course of action. Or a combination of both.

    Eddy Aruda: July 29th, 2010 at 3:00 pm

    Yes that is a list of reviewers. Some of them are not scientists. So what ?

    “You do not need to be a scientists to speak the truth” – Yes I agree.

    “Science is not done by consensus. Someone comes up with a hypothesis and it is tested to see if it can be falsified” – Yes I also agree. But there will always be dissenters to a particular theory (just look at the theory of evolution). I would guess that the vast majority of the general public have a very basic understanding of climate science (myself included), So in terms of deciding what is currently accepted as the best understanding, an overwhelming majority consensus of opinion amongst “experts” would seem to be a good bet. Of course they may be wrong.

    “you may want to start practicing the virtue of humility” – Like you ?

    “There are some serious intellectual heavyweights who often post here” – What ? Should I shut up ? Should I be scared ? What are you trying to say ?

    Bob Malloy: July 29th, 2010 at 6:01 pm

    I only posted the analysis/report because cohenite asked me to respond with similar lists to the ones he had posted. I am aware that nothing is ever 100% certain. I did say that they may be wrong.

    00

  • #
    Wayne, s. Job

    The amount of warmists blogging on here and pretending their pet scientists are cosher, after all that has befallen them and their cause, speaks heaps for their analytical skills.

    They deny the worth and abilities of engineers who by far have the most accumulated knowledge of heat transfer, feed backs and manipulation of. If the science is breaking the rules and the assumptions are against the basic laws of thermodynamics, it is the engineers who would first see the glaringly obvious.

    Thus they say piffle in multitudes against blatantly wrong theories with disasterously wrong models.
    Consensus is a herding instinct for the propping up of fragile theories and egos.
    One could say that a camel was the consensus of a committee to design a horse, and we know how that turned out.

    00

  • #
    MattB

    What are you on about Wayne? The IPCC chair is an engineer.

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    MattB, I’m happy to hear you are an engineer. (I can hope then that you’ll wake up sooner)
    Since you are questioning Wayne and since you added you are an engineer perhaps you don’t agree with my observation @ 76:

    ….explain why a significant number of skeptics are engineers? You know, the scientists that actually make things work?

    I’m sure you aren’t confusing that to mean that I think ALL engineers are skeptics right?

    00

  • #
    MattB

    No no I was just commenting for interest’s sake. I do not believe, however, that skeptical engineers out-number non-skeptical ones. And it would be a long long stretch to think of a reason that engineers would be in any way better at determining the science than a scientist. Other than just something made up on the spot to try and sound like there is a basis to the claim.

    00

  • #
    BobC

    Hi Quentin;

    Quentin Wallace: (@92)
    July 29th, 2010 at 8:27 pm

    BobC: July 29th, 2010 at 7:29 am

    Hi,

    From what I can tell, looking at his graphs, Rutan is deliberately trying to deceive (well I can’t think of any other explanation).

    If you actually look at the Hanson paper from 1988 -

    http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1988/1988_Hansen_etal.pdf

    He computed three different scenarios. Scenario B on his graph correlates very well with what actually happens. Ruttan conveniently omits scenarios B an C and only shows scenario A, which Hanson clearly states is a worst case scenario, that is dependent on various assumptions, such as “the absence of large volcanic eruptions in the next few years”.

    So why are you saying Hanson’s testimony was “bogus” ? It was remarkably accurate.

    Hansen’s scenario A assumes “…continued exponential trace gas [CO2] growth”.

    Scenario B assumed that the CO2 growth rate has been contained by Human effort to merely linear growth after 2000.

    Scenario C assumes “Rapid curtailment of trace gas emissions such that the net climate forcing ceases to increase after 2000.” (i.e., Atmospheric CO2 concentrations have ceased to rise.)

    “Continued exponential growth” is precisely what has happened to CO2 in the intervening 20 years (as you can easily verify from the data link in my last post), so that the projection of scenario A is the one that should be compared to the measurements. This is what Rutan does, and he shows that the projection is widely wrong.

    BTY: Both Hansen’s “Scenario A” and “Scenario C” are plotted on Rutan’s graph. They are labeled “Business as usual” Prediction, and CO2 Drastic Cuts Prediction.

    Both Hansen’s “worst-case” (Scenario A) and “best-case” (Scenario C) projections are significantly higher than actual temperature records. This is not what I call “remarkably accurate”.

    Hansen’s claim to be able to predict climate was (and is) bogus.

    00

  • #
    BobC

    Also, Quentin,

    There is a big difference between a model that is “not perfect” (pretty much every model ever made), and a model that is intrinsically incapable of long-range prediction. GCMs fall into the latter category (both categories, actually), since they are both “not perfect” and they are modeling a system (weather) known to be chaotic and hence unpredictable except over very short times.

    In my view, the precautionary principle would say “Don’t take drastic, expensive, dangerous, and possibly irreversible steps based on the predictions of a model with no demonstrated predictive skill”.

    The valid use of these models is to help us understand the mechanics of weather. If they were capable of accurate predictions at long time scales, NCAR could publish an almanac of next year’s (or next decade’s) weather.

    That these models are “the only ones we have” is completely irrelevant.

    00

  • #
    BobC

    (Quentin’s)
    If someone produces a report that is as high quality as current knowledge allows (I know you will probably disagree about that) showing that there is a very high chance of serious climate change in the near future, as a result of CO2 emissions; I would be seriously tempted to do something about it. If they are wrong I will live to fly another day.

    There’s another thing to consider here, Quentin: If we were to shut down the global economy to the extent demanded by Hansen — you would probably live “to fly another day” — but 100′s of millions of the world’s less fortunate would likely not. Rich countries like ours can afford to shoot themselves in the foot occasionally without fatal consequences for ourselves, but it’s a different situation in the 1/3 of the world living hand-to-mouth.

    Extreme environmentalists (like Maurice Strong,former Senior Advisor to UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, “…who welcomes the collapse of industrial civilization, and has described the prospect of billions of environmental deaths as a ‘glimmer of hope.’” link refs in linked text) may actually look forward to such widespread deaths, but I feel that the industrial world needs to be very careful, given the “tiger by the tail” situation between the economy and the Human population.

    00

  • #
    Quentin Wallace

    BobC: Hello again,

    “Hansen’s scenario A assumes “…continued exponential trace gas [CO2] growth” and “the projection of scenario A is the one that should be compared to the measurements” – This conveniently ignores other forcings included in the model (such as CFC’s and a volcanic event, as I mentioned before). So in effect you are cherry picking A and rejecting B to suit your required result. “Scenario B assumed that the CO2 growth rate has been contained by Human effort to merely linear growth after 2000″ this may be true, but over the short term and adjusting for other forcing differences the divergence of A from B is not so great. Hansen explicitly chose scenario B (the middle ground of an imperfect model) as being the most likely outcome.

    Sorry I apologise for missing that scenarios A,B and C are all on Rutan’s graph. Although he has mangled all the information so much I think it momentarily confused me.

    “Both Hansen’s “worst-case” (Scenario A) and “best-case” (Scenario C) projections are significantly higher than actual temperature records.” – What ? Do you mean from reading Rutan’s graph ? The graphs where he has crassly shifted everything around. Drawn a bizarre short term curve that in no way reflects the long term temperature trend. Massively exaggerates the difference between predicted and observed temperature trends.

    In reality the average global temperature trend matches very well with scenario B.

    http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2006/2006_Hansen_etal_1.pdf fig. 2.
    http://www.realclimate.org/images/Hansen88_forc.jpg

    Surely the GCM’s are for modelling TRENDS in CLIMATE not for predicting specific weather events.

    I did say I was unsure about any policies that might flow from an acceptance of AGW. This is a political question now, with many different options available to us. I agree we need to be very careful.

    Hanson may have his political opinions but I don’t think many want to “shut down the global economy”. This is a emotive phrase you seem to be using for political effect. There will be differing opinions on this one, whether you be of a right, left or centre persuasion.

    I am not saying I agree with Maurice Strong, but quoting his words out of context (I think the words are taken from a fictional future he created, written in the melodramatic language of a space opera) second hand from an opinion piece, and then inferring that he “may actually look forward to such widespread deaths” is verging on the offensive.

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Quentin @ 100, What is your mission?

    These words are not the words of an inquisitive mind. They are the words of someone with an agenda:

    …he has mangled all the information so much…

    …he has crassly shifted everything around…

    …Drawn a bizarre short term curve…

    Massively exaggerates the difference…

    then you chastise BobC:

    This is a emotive phrase you seem to be using for political effect.

    So what is your emotive motive for political effect?

    If you think you are good at propaganda; YOU ARE NOT!
    If you think you are good at being coy; YOU ARE NOT!

    SO WHAT DO YOU THINK YOU ARE GOOD AT?

    00

  • #
    Wayne, s. Job

    MattB,
    The railway engineer Choo Choo Pachari is no doubt grounded fully in the mystic nature of the state of the art 1950′s Indian rail system. 1840 to 1940 magic steam dragons.

    They did make many wonderful
    copies of some very reliable loco’s. Many still ply their trade. Thus the name Choo Choo, he tends to come over as a shady character, not what one would call honest, or above reproach. He is an opportunist and not an engineers boot lace.

    00

  • #
    Quentin Wallace

    Mark D.: July 30th, 2010 at 1:47 pm

    Have you looked at Rutan’s graphs and compared them with reality ?

    I use the words mangled, crassly, bizarre and massively, to describe ACTUAL acts performed on data.

    “If we were to shut down the global economy to the extent demanded by Hansen — you would probably live “to fly another day” — but 100’s of millions of the world’s less fortunate would likely not. Rich countries like ours can afford to shoot themselves in the foot occasionally without fatal consequences for ourselves, but it’s a different situation in the 1/3 of the world living hand-to-mouth.” -

    Is a speculative, emotive and loaded political statement.

    00

  • #
    MattB

    James Hansen, for a start, is a proponent of nuclear power particularly 4th generation nuclear IFRs… he is one of the only guys in the debate who actually has a plan for delivering improved conditions to those currently in poverty, who lets face it have been failed by the current system.

    00

  • #
    Tel

    … those currently in poverty, who lets face it have been failed by the current system.

    This is an example of reasoning based on conditional probability. It is tautological to point out that those who are badly off under our current system are not well served by that system, but it proves nothing because in every system ever attempted by humans, some end up better off than others. The real question is whether one system provides a benefit overall as compared with another system — which is highly difficult to define given that population numbers can be different depending on which system we choose. How do you fairly consider the outcome for people who do not exist?

    It is just like talking to old soldiers and discovering they all have amazing tales of luck and good fortune to tell you. How could so many lucky people be all in the same room at the same time? Almost defies probability, except that it doesn’t.

    00

  • #
    BobC

    Quentin @(100):

    “Both Hansen’s “worst-case” (Scenario A) and “best-case” (Scenario C) projections are significantly higher than actual temperature records.” – What ? Do you mean from reading Rutan’s graph ? The graphs where he has crassly shifted everything around. Drawn a bizarre short term curve that in no way reflects the long term temperature trend.

    OK, so ignore Rutan’s trend lines and look at the actual data:

    Actual measured temperature in 2009; ~0.4 deg C anomaly (left scale)
    Hanson’s predicted temperature in 2009; ~0.85 (Sc C) & ~1.0 (Sc A)

    So, Hanson overpredicted by about 0.45 => 0.6 deg C in only 20 years. Still not what I would call “remarkable accuracy”.

    Massively exaggerates the difference between predicted and observed temperature trends.

    Actually, the difference between Rutan’s trend lines is less than the difference between the actual data lines and Hanson’s predictions; hence Rutan’s trends understate the difference between Hanson’s predictions and reality. Do you have much experience reading graphs? (Or perhaps you think we don’t?)

    The graphs where he has crassly shifted everything around. Drawn a bizarre short term curve that in no way reflects the long term temperature trend.

    Would you prefer that Rutan draw a trend line (ignoring the actual data) that shows Hanson’s predictions to be “remarkably accurate”? We already have lots of scientists on the government dole that are doing that — Rutan’s point is that, in his business, he has to pay attention to data, not “optimistic trend lines” drawn to achieve predetermined conclusions.

    (“The spacecraft isn’t currently stable on re-entry, but it’s trending that way, so it should be good to go!”)

    00

  • #
    BobC

    I am not saying I agree with Maurice Strong, but quoting his words out of context (I think the words are taken from a fictional future he created, written in the melodramatic language of a space opera) second hand from an opinion piece, and then inferring that he “may actually look forward to such widespread deaths” is verging on the offensive.

    He has been quoted (while chairing the Rio Conference for the UN, I believe) that it is the environmentalist’s job “to shut down industrial civilization”. He has worked for that goal all his life. He well knows the consequences (as shown by his including it in his “future history” of “World, Inc”).

    He may not actually “look forward to it”, but he is obviously comfortable enough with such carnage to work for it. So it boils down to: Is he an evil man, or just a “useful idiot” who is working for evil ends? Doesn’t make much difference to me.

    MattB: I would agree that Hanson is not in Strong’s league.

    00

  • #
    BobC

    Quentin (quoting me):

    “If we were to shut down the global economy to the extent demanded by Hansen — you would probably live “to fly another day” — but 100’s of millions of the world’s less fortunate would likely not. Rich countries like ours can afford to shoot themselves in the foot occasionally without fatal consequences for ourselves, but it’s a different situation in the 1/3 of the world living hand-to-mouth.” -

    Is a speculative, emotive and loaded political statement.

    Perhaps it is, but there is much more historical evidence for my concerns (past economic disasters and famines) than there is for CAGW — which, if it were possible, would have happened many times in the past.

    Under what definition of logic is it reasonable to take actions — which historical evidence suggests may end badly — to avoid an imagined disaster (CAGW) which historical and paleoclimate evidence provide no support for and, indeed, indicate is probably impossible?

    (And it doesn’t give me a lot of confidence that the people who are assuring me that economic disaster won’t happen due to starving civilization of energy are largely the same ones that blithely assure me that CAGW is inevitable, despite zero evidence.)

    00

  • #
    BobC

    Wayne @ 102:

    Sorry, hit the wrong thumb icon on your post — meant to give it a “thumbs up”.

    00

  • #
    BobC

    BTY: If people want to see for themselves how Quentin is misrepresenting Rutan’s graphs, here is the link (graph is question is on page 33, lower left)

    Anyway, scroll through the entire presentation — Quentin’s characterization of it as “just a propaganda pamphlet” is about as disconnected from reality as it is possible to get.

    Talking about cherry-picking: I’ve pretty much come straight back at your points, Quentin; while you’ve cherry-picked mine and ducked the main ones. Try responding to some of my main points, for once. Or, if you really want to make a splash, try taking on anything in “The Skeptic’s Handbook”.

    Heck, go for the main point: Show us the evidence that CO2 is (or ever has been) responsible for other than a trivial amount of warming.

    If you could really do this, you could convert everyone here. The emotionally laden (and logically anemic) arguments you have been using so far won’t get much traction here.

    00

  • #
    BobC

    MattB:
    July 30th, 2010 at 5:27 pm

    James Hansen, for a start, is a proponent of nuclear power particularly 4th generation nuclear IFRs… he is one of the only guys in the debate who actually has a plan for delivering improved conditions to those currently in poverty, who lets face it have been failed by the current system.

    How very interesting … It appears that J. Hanson’s plan (nuclear power) is the same plan that realists tried to put forward 40 years ago and were shot down by environmentalists. (You were considering the environmentalists’ callousness as “part of the current system” were you not? They are responsible for a lot, including the 30M+ children who have needlessly died of malaria in Africa over the last 40 years, for example.)

    By all means let’s give Hanson credit — for coming around to the solution 40 years late.

    (When environmentalists try to tell me how dangerous nuclear power is, I reply that yes, that is why France is a radioactive wasteland where no one can live.)

    Seriously; It is to Hanson’s credit that he cares what happens to the World’s poor. It remains to be seen if this slip into empathy will estrange him from the environmental movement.

    00

  • #
    Quentin Wallace

    BobC: July 31st, 2010 at 12:58 am

    Hi,

    “OK, so ignore Rutan’s trend lines and look at the actual data:” -

    OK the individual numbers you quote are roughly correct as extracted from Rutan’s graph. BUT temperatures vary a lot year to year so extracting individual years for comparison can be misleading so a 5 or 10 year running mean would seem reasonable. Also you are NOT COMPARING LIKE WITH LIKE. It’s all to do with ZERO POINTS. When I used the words mangled, crassly, shifted and exaggerates in my earlier post to describe Rutan’s graphs – I MEANT IT.

    The problem here is multi fold -

    In the left hand graph Rutan has superimposed satellite temperature measurements directly over Hansen’s model predictions with all lines referring to the same x and y scales.

    All 5 lines have been very crudely traced, but lets ignore that and assume that IN ISOLATION each line has roughly the CORRECT SHAPE i.e. if you looked at the original graphs they were taken from, you would recognise their shapes.

    The satellite temperature measurements line ends in 2009 with a temperature anomaly of +0.4 C (I’ll ignore the strange shape Rutan has given it at the end). That’s 0.4 C above zero.

    Rutan doesn’t appear to specify a ZERO POINT. Looking at his graph the satellite temperature line seems to be heading towards a zero point of around 1960. Now Ruttan has failed to cite his sources here but if you look at global temperature anomaly graphs they will usually be zeroed to around the 1951-1980 mean, or the low to mid 1980′s, it varies.

    In effect Rutan has moved the zero point back around 25 years and made the line shallower.

    So ON HIS GRAPH, 1985 is ~ +0.3 C. 2009 is ~ +0.4 C. This gives a upward trend of +0.1 C over 19 years. THIS IS COMPLETELY WRONG. The actual trend over those 19 years is ~ +0.4 C. An ANOMOLY OF +0.4 C if 1985 were the zero point.

    Now lets look at the model scenario lines -

    An initial cursory glance (comparing Rutan’s lines with Hansons original graph) appears to confirm their validity. Rutan has converged them with the satellite measurements around the mid 1980′s with a temperature anomaly of ~ +0.2C. That figure agrees with Hanson’s graph.

    Then as you say – for 2009 – scenario A reads ~ +1 C, and scenario C reads ~ +0.85 C. Now, Hanson has individual yearly data points. On his graph scenario A reads ~ +1.1 C, scenario B reads ~ +0.85 C, and scenario C reads ~ + 0.65 C. But as I said before there can be a lot of variation year to year. So taking a 5 or 10 year running mean this is going to smooth the lines out.

    Looking at these figures I am guessing that – “OK, so ignore Rutan’s trend lines and look at the actual data:”, means you read the 2009 points from Rutan’s graph ?

    There are a few things wrong here -

    These individual points/figures fail to take into account DIFFERENT ZERO POINTS on the original graphs. You also quote these figures, apparently oblivious to what they are anomalous to.

    You choose an individual years data (2009) that cannot be incorporated into a running average because the data for the years ahead is not yet available.

    Lines B and C on Rutan’s graph seem to be WRONG for 2009 by approx +0.2 C.

    Rutan’s Y axis is stretched out 1.5 times compared with Hansons. This makes the scenario lines steeper. As I said earlier he has also made the satellite lines shallower. Thus exaggerating any divergence.

    Notice how Rutan has OMITTED PRE 1980 data so as not to reveal his DECEPTION.

    A direct comparison between the data (if you can call it that) shown on Rutin’s graph cannot be made. He has TWISTED the observed lines away from the model projection lines, and combined 2 graphs with DIFFERENT ZERO POINTS.

    RUTAN’S GRAPHS ARE COMPLETE RUBBISH.

    Look at Hansen’s original graph in the 1988 paper. Look at the same graph revisited in 2006 – WHERE HE HAS USED THE 1951-1980 MEAN AS A ZERO POINT AND USED THE SAME ZERO POINT FOR OBSERVED DATA.

    (Please note that projected forcings start in 1984 but this is not the same as the 1951-1980 mean)

    NOTICE HOW THE OBSERVED LINES CORRELATE WELL WITH LINES B AND C.

    Also think about the fact that these are yearly data points that need to be given AT LEAST a 5-10 year running mean to make any sense.

    You continue to compare with line A. Completely ignoring what I said about line A – NOT INCLUDING the downward forcing of a volcanic eruption (which happened and is included in lines B and C), INCLUDING EXTRA forcings for CFC’s. Therefore a direct comparison is not possible unless scenario A is redrawn at a lower level. I repeat that Hanson specified scenario B as being the most likely outcome.

    So the rest of what you say regarding Rutan’s graph is meaningless.

    “Do you have much experience reading graphs? (Or perhaps you think we don’t?)” -

    I am beginning to wonder.

    BobC: July 31st, 2010 at 1:15 am -

    What ? Another second hand “quote” from Maurice Strong – “to shut down industrial civilization”. Maybe you could provide a source and the context for that quote ?

    There then follows a half hearted, semi retraction of your previous comment, followed by accusations of “idiot” and “evil” that completely cancel out the half hearted non apology.

    I am flummoxed.

    BobC: July 31st, 2010 at 1:24 am

    This was in response to Mark D.: July 30th, 2010 at 1:47 pm. I did say that there will be different political opinions on this one.

    BobC: July 31st, 2010 at 1:56 am

    What ? Rutan’s graph is rubbish, as I explain in more detail above.

    I can’t be bothered to trawl through any more of his presentation. I’ve just given myself a headache trying to make sense of his clever little deceptions on page 33.

    “talking about cherry-picking: I’ve pretty much come straight back at your points, Quentin; while you’ve cherry-picked mine and ducked the main ones. Try responding to some of my main points, for once.” -

    The main thrust of our argument has been Rutan’s graph. I believe I have responded to all the points you made on that. Just taking 1 example – As I mentioned above you completely failed to respond to my points about forcings in scenario A.

    “The emotionally laden (and logically anemic) arguments you have been using so far won’t get much traction here.” -

    This comment, together with the cherry picking comment above, is a typical displacement argument of “pinning your own tail on someone else’s donkey”.

    00

  • #
    BobC

    OK Quentin;

    Maybe you’ll find this graph a little easier to read. Data is sourced, goes back to 1900, and is all on the same scale (zeroed at 1900). (This took about 5 seconds to find.)

    Conclusion: Same as Rutan — Hansen’s “predictions” are crap. Scare tactics for the uninformed.

    Scenario “C” is reasonably close, but that scenario assumed no growth in CO2 after 2000, which is contra-factual. So, maybe we can conclude that Hansen’s model is “correct” as long as we add the assumption that CO2 has no effect on climate. I might buy that. (Of course, any model can be “corrected” by adding enough post hoc assumptions.)

    Actually, since scenario “C” was “exponential CO2 growth and no large volcanic event” and “B” was “linear growth and one large volcanic event”, and the actual facts are “exponential CO2 growth and one large volcanic event”, one would assume that Hansen’s prediction is really somewhere between “B” and “C”. “B” tracked reasonably well up to 2000, but has been diverging rapidly from measurements since and is now ~ +0.3 up, so it looks like a “miss” to me.

    The main thrust of our argument has been Rutan’s graph.

    B.S. I didn’t even mention Rutan’s graph. I mentioned Rutan’s presentation in a parenthetical aside. You’re the one who made a big deal about it (and you still don’t seem to be able to read it: The “strange shape” at the end of the satellite data is called, um… DATA — you know, where the line goes where the data points are. I realize the AGW community doesn’t like the satellite data, but tough — it is what it is. It’s up to the models to explain the data — changing the data to fit the model, which seems to be prevalent among climate scientists isn’t really kosher.)

    The data in Rutan’s graph can be found in about 1000 other places easily (like the link above) — it always says the same thing: Hansen’s model has no predictive skill. Neither does any other climate model, for reasons I went on at length about and you are silent about.

    So, address a main point: Exhibit a climate model that has demonstrated predictive skill at time scales > 5 years that is distinguishable from chance. (Find a model that can explain the LIA and MWP, if you really are into snipe hunts.)

    Tell me why we should take any action whatsoever on the basis of models with no demonstrated predictive skill (especially since the justification for action is what the models “predict” 50-100 years hence)? If this makes sense to you, please enlighten the rest of us that are laboring along with merely normal logic and reason.

    What ? Another second hand “quote” from Maurice Strong – “to shut down industrial civilization”. Maybe you could provide a source and the context for that quote ?

    Again (after about 30 seconds of searching):

    Maurice Strong, Secretary General of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Devel-opment (UNCED) in Rio de Janeiro, in June 1992, set the stage for the political fight: “We may get to the point where the only way of saving the world will be for industrial civilization to collapse.”(R. Kremer, 1998. /painstorm, April, pp. 28-32 )

    In the words of Maurice Strong, Founder of the UN Eco-summits and Undersecretary General of the UN: “Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring [that] about?” —as quoted in The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism (Washington, D. C.: Regnery Publishing, Inc., 2007), p. 6.

    If you don’t like these, find your own — I’m not your research department. If you can’t do your own research, where do your opinions come from?

    In the future, I am taking the view that your inability to verify (or falsify) what I say is not something requiring an answer from me.

    00

  • #
    BobC

    Correction: Where I said (in 113)

    Actually, since scenario “C” was “exponential CO2 growth and no large volcanic event” and “B” was “linear growth and one large volcanic event”, and the actual facts are “exponential CO2 growth and one large volcanic event”, one would assume that Hansen’s prediction is really somewhere between “B” and “C”.

    I meant to say:

    Actually, since scenario “A” was “exponential CO2 growth and no large volcanic event” and “B” was “linear growth and one large volcanic event”, and the actual facts are “exponential CO2 growth and one large volcanic event”, one would assume that Hansen’s prediction is really somewhere between “B” and “A”.

    00

  • #
    Quentin Wallace

    BobC: July 31st, 2010 at 2:56 pm

    Bob,

    “Maybe you’ll find this graph a little easier to read. Data is sourced, goes back to 1900, and is all on the same scale (zeroed at 1900).” -

    OK so you completely ignore my detailed criticism of Rutan’s graph and sidestep the issue by citing a different one. Fair enough -

    Yes these graphs and the accompanying discussion seem more reasonable. I’m not sure why you are saying “is all on the same scale (zeroed at 1900).”. Did you really mean to say that Lucia has attempted to match the baselines or zero points for the temperature anomalies ?

    “Conclusion: Same as Rutan — Hansen’s “predictions” are crap.” -

    Wrong. Lucia’s graphs back up my assertion that Rutan’s graph is a complete fabrication. Just do “the ordinary eyeball test” as Lucia suggests. LUCIA’S 12 MONTH AVERAGE BLEND LINE SHOWS A +0.3 C FOR 1988-2006

    Lucia does not say that Hansen’s predictions are crap.

    He draws his own graphs from the data and presents them as a comparison to Hansen’s. He even qualifies his own graphs, saying – “Currently, Scenario B over predicts the trends that occurred. But, given weather variability, a super-El Nino might get us back on the Scenario B track.”. He also goes on (also in the comment thread and on a linked page) to discuss the problem of baselines and forcings.

    ““B” tracked reasonably well up to 2000, but has been diverging rapidly from measurements since and is now ~ +0.3 up, so it looks like a “miss” to me.” -

    Using Lucia’s “ordinary eyeball test” I’d say it tracks reasonably well up to nearer 2005. Although Lucia uses the word “currently” to describe his observations of over prediction. Both Hansen’s and Lucia’s lines are 12 monthly averages. As I said before a running mean of a minimum of 5-10 years is needed to show a trend. So the accuracy (in terms of the trend) of anything past 2005, or even earlier is not really known. Lucia alludes to this in his point number 2.

    “The main thrust of our argument has been Rutan’s graph.” – “B.S.”

    I didn’t mean this to become a point of contention. Maybe I could have phrased it better. Yes we started off discussing the engineer/scientist overlap. Then you cited Rutan’s presentation as an example of a engineers take on climate change. What was I supposed to do ? Ignore it ? We have then spent the majority of our argument discussing the graph on page 33 (that I happened to choose for discussion). That was all I meant. I don’t understand why that is “B.S.”.

    A 30 second search will bring up any number of out of context quotes. This is the longest version I can find -

    “What if a small group of world leaders were to conclude that the principal risk to the Earth comes from the actions of the rich countries? And if the world is to survive, those rich countries would have to sign an agreement reducing their impact on the environment. Will they do it? The group’s conclusion is ‘no’. The rich countries won’t do it. They won’t change. So, in order to save the planet, the group decides: Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”

    Gibson, Donald. Environmentalism: ideology and power. pg. 95 (on google books)

    Still out of context. But you can see that your 2 separate quotes are from the same original quote. From what I can gather the quote is actually from a interview with a journalist where Strong is musing on the plot for a novel. The above quote representing a hypothetical moral dilema in a possible future.

    So yet another fail on the out of context sound bite front.

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    MattB @104,

    You say of Hansen that he

    …has a plan for delivering improved conditions to those currently in poverty, who lets face it have been failed by the current system.

    If so the leopard must indeed have changed his spots. It is well to his credit as has been pointed out — at least if he sticks to it. My problem, being sharp enough to note that he’s been caught in numerous lies, is that I haven’t any confidence in anything he says. I’m not from Missouri (known as the “show me” state) but I’ll have to see it before I give it any credit.

    As for this

    …who lets face it have been failed by the current system.

    The cold hard fact is that you are in this world on your own. If you act foolishly, whether from ignorance, tradition or even lack of ability to do any better, the consequences always follow. Systems always fail people. Period!

    If money — which is always the proposed solution, take from those who have and give to those who have not — could change anything the world would be a quite different place today. Since World War II the United States has given more money in foreign aid than I know how to count but it changed nothing except to enrich those who could divert it to their own use. It was wasted! We pay to this day, 25% of the UN annual budget only to find the UN wanting to destroy us. So can we finally stop this madness?

    I can’t remember anyone ever giving me a mandate to save the world and I keep wondering why western governments have taken it upon themselves to be the world’s charity ward. It simply can’t work. My God, the UN sends relief workers to Africa and they rape the children they’re supposed to help. Can anyone have any confidence in this? The UN, that great bastion of help for the world is instead, everyone’s enemy.

    Now lest you jump all over me for being the cold cruel Grinch who not only stole Christmas but food out of the mouths of children — I am not! I’m simply an advocate of reality.

    Yes, let’s feed those who now can’t feed themselves, provide the medical care and other things. But you have to put control of those things in the hands of the people because their governments, like mine here, simply will not actually care and neither will the UN. The UN now prefers to spend its resources fighting climate change and ignoring death by starvation and disease in Africa.

    But that’s only half the equation. You must teach them to be — simply put — better competitors in this world. The Chinese recognized this and are eating our lunch. Why can we be so blind as to blame systems for what systems by their very nature always do? China has become a ruthless competitor while we sit back and apologize for our very existence. We don’t need anyone to put a curse on us. We do it ourselves. And we’re trying very hard to put that curse on the rest of the world.

    The workable solution is much harder. You have to stop grandstanding. You have to stop worrying about who gets credit for what. You have to invest yourself; go there not just with your money but physical presence to teach and mentor. It will take a long time to get anywhere. It needs several generations before the improvement is well established and self sustaining. And you’ll without a doubt have to fend off hostile governments while you do it because the power to help themselves has to reside in the people and governments don’t like that! This is a very high hurdle to jump over.

    Matt, it’s of no use to blame systems for failing people. Systems always fail people. While we here in the U.S. have enacted “healthcare reform”, in Canada they’re beginning to realize that their much vaunted system is failing them and are looking at reforms. And there are other good object lessons all around you that show I’m essentially right. You can see them, Matt, but are you willing to believe them?

    00

  • #
    BobC

    Quentin @115:

    “Currently, Scenario B over predicts the trends that occurred. But, given weather variability, a super-El Nino might get us back on the Scenario B track.”

    That’s the “proof” that Hansen’s models are right? That, if the weather cooperates, the contra-factual Scenario B might track future temperatures?

    That is really underwhelming.

    As I remember, the possibilities of super El-Ninos were not included in the scenario assumptions, so the chance occurrence of one (should it happen) cannot be considered as a vindication of Hansen.

    To recap Hansen’s scenarios:
    Scenario A: Exponential CO2 growth and no El Chichon-size volcanic event.
    Scenario B: Linear CO2 growth and one El Chichon-size event.

    Actual Events: Exponential CO2 growth and Pinatubo (plus one very large El Nino).

    This would put the expected (by Hansen’s model) track between A and B, but arguably closer to A due to the partial correction of the 1998 El Nino for Pinatubo (1991).

    If scenario B was tracking (without the help of a chance super El-Nino event), which it is not, it would, at best, be evidence that CO2 plays a smaller role than Hansen assumed in his model.

    The fact that even B is not tracking suggests that CO2 plays a much smaller role than Hansen’s model assigns it.

    There is no logical way that any of this can be considered evidence for the correctness of Hansen’s model.

    00

  • #
    BobC

    Quentin:

    OK so you completely ignore my detailed criticism of Rutan’s graph and sidestep the issue by citing a different one.

    I thought the issue was whether data showed Hansen’s model to be right or wrong – I didn’t realize that this was a personal vendetta against Burt Rutan. I suggest you take it up with him.

    00

  • #

    “…the most destructive force on the planet is power-driven financiers and profit-driven corporations and their cartels backed by military might… activists who… feed the global warming myth have effectively been co-opted, or at best neutralized”.

    It is rare to see a skeptic from the left, and it is an interesting perspective. On skeptic sites, you tend to see left/green/warmist amalgamated, but one could be a hard-line environmentalist and reject the ‘global warming’ scare as a green herring, which tends to lead us away from addressing real environmental issues. Still, we have to ask, what is it about green-left ideology which makes people so easy to fool?

    00