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

Is the Western Climate Establishment Corrupt? Part 10: Gore Orwell

 

The public might not understand the science, but they do understand cheating

Dr. David Evans
19 October 2010

[A series of articles reviewing the western climate establishment and the media. The first and second discussed air temperatures, the third was on ocean temperatures, and fourth discussed past temperatures, the fifth compared the alleged cause (human CO2 emissions) with the alleged effect (temperatures), the sixth canvassed the infamous attempt to “fix” that disconnect, the hockey stick, and the seventh pointed out that the Chinese, Russian, and Indian climate establishments (which are financially independent of the western climate establishment) disagree with the western climate establishment about the cause of recent global warming and the eighth showed how government institutional and funding pressures created the consensus among western climate scientists. The ninth showed the evidence that the amplifying feedbacks, responsible for two-thirds of the model warming projections, are not present in reality—and that the lame response of the establishment was to miscolour a graph to mislead us into thinking those feedbacks were observed when they were not.]

Click to download a pdf file containing the whole series

Why is the Official Language so Orwellian?

It used to be called “global warming”, then when warming paused it became “climate change”. And as of September 2010, it appears they are switching to “global climate disruption”.

Orwell, 1984

Illustration: The government and media have stepped into an Orwellian twilight zone with global warming. Source.

It keeps getting less specific and less falsifiable. If the world hasn’t warmed by several degrees by the end of the century then man-made “global warming” was dead wrong, ok. But “climate change”? The climate changes all the time, like the weather, just give it a decade or two (see Figure 20).

And now “climate disruption”? So they are going to blame our carbon emissions for large storms, droughts, and floods? In biblical times they blamed the Gods, to whom only certain members of the establishment had a hotline—hmmm, better do what the establishment guys tell us to do or there’ll be a climatic disruption headed our way! How times change.

Evidence of warming is conflated with evidence for man-made warming. Any sign of warming (and it has been warming now for over 300 years, see Figure 17) is taken by the governments and media as evidence of global warming, and while the audience is shocked at the implications (or just numb from the repetition or sheer boredom), they simply assert that it is due to carbon emissions. Repetition, over and over…

They say that people who don’t believe in the theory of man-made global warming (and there are a lot of us nowadays) “don’t believe in climate change”. Taken literally, that is a stupendously stupid thing to say—everyone I know believes climate changes. It happens all the time: just in the last two thousand years we have had a medieval warm period and a little ice age, and 20,000 years ago New York was under thousands of feet of ice because there was an ice age going on. But of course the climate establishment and their believer-supporters are just using it as a propaganda term to isolate and mock those who disagree with them. George Orwell would have admired their flair for propaganda.

They say that someone skeptical of the theory of man-made global warming is a “denier”. That’s hate speech. It deliberately equates critics of their global warming theory with anti-Semitic apologists for the holocaust in WWII. Spin, spin, spin, and intimidation.

“The debate is over.” Could someone please show me when and where there was ever a debate? The establishment would only say this to avoid debate. We’ll get a debate with the climate establishment only when the bulk of the population see through them and are demanding that politicians … (gasp) … cut their funding. Then, suddenly, they will want to debate.

They frame the debate as whether one believes that CO2 causes any warming or not. That misrepresents and demonizes opponents of their theory as ignorant fools. The issue in dispute is quite different, namely how much warming will our CO2 emissions cause? If only 0.5 – 1.0°C of extra warming by 2100, as most skeptics suspect, then it is not a problem worth doing much about; if it will cause 2.5 – 8.0°C of extra warming as the climate establishment say, then we have a serious problem.

Every molecule of CO2 we emit causes some warming—something serious skeptics have always agreed with, and a straightforward  question of radiative physics. The media willingly go along with mis-framing the issue like this, refusing to correct even the most blatant propaganda from the establishment. Which of course strengthens the climate of intimidation, silencing many who doubt the establishment’s theory. After all, who wants to have their doubts publicly misrepresented so they appear a fool?

If the case for man-made global warming is so strong, why the Orwellian language?

Gore’s Convenient Lie

Al Gore’s movie An Inconvenient Truth convinced large portions of the population that CO2 levels and temperature are highly correlated and therefore raising CO2 levels will raise temperatures.

Al Gore and the ice core graphFigure 29: Atmospheric CO2 levels and global temperature move in lockstep on a timescale of thousands of years, as illustrated by Al Gore in his move An Inconvenient Truth. The trouble is, Al deliberately left out a crucial point about timing, thereby lying by omission.

Not so fast Al. Obviously on a time scale of thousands of years CO2 levels and temperature are closely linked, so one is causing the other. (On shorter time scales of tens of years they are not well correlated, nor on longer time scales of millions of years.)

What Gore omitted to say was that the changes in temperature occur 800 years on average before the corresponding changes in CO2 levels.

[The explanation is obvious to any chemist. The oceans contain dissolved CO2, so as the oceans warm/cool they release/pull-in CO2. So if the planet warms for some reason, air temperatures go up first (because it takes much less heat to warm the atmosphere than the oceans), then after a few hundred years the oceans have warmed enough to release significant amounts of CO2, thereby raising the CO2 level in the atmosphere.

Some claim that the CO2 released by the oceans then amplifies the initial warming. Theoretically it does, but the effect is so small we can find no evidence for it in the ice core records. Some claim to have found such evidence, but they have mistaken aliasing artifacts in the data for evidence of amplification (process their data using different sampling and their “evidence” disappears, which wouldn’t be the case if the evidence was real).]

So it was the temperature causing the CO2 levels, not the other way around. Gee Al, forgot to mention that little detail?  The 800 year lag of CO2 had been firmly established by 2003 to everyone’s satisfaction, and Gore’s movie was made in 2005. So Gore was lying, by omission.

Mr Gore has become very wealthy by owning and running companies involved in curbing our carbon emissions, his net worth zooming from under $2 million after the 2000 presidential election to approaching $1,000 million in 2009.

Why didn’t the climate establishment or the media publicly correct Gore’s lie?

Doesn’t this show that the climate establishment and media are playing politics rather than disinterestedly searching for and publishing the truth?

Take a bow George Orwell, for correctly foreseeing aspects of the future.

————————————————-

Summary | PART I | PART 2 | PART 3 | PART 4 | PART 5 | PART 6 | PART 7 | PART 8 | PART 9 | PART 10 | PART 11

Full PDF versions for printing and emailing are available from the summary page.

Image Orwell 1984: Source.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 6.4/10 (5 votes cast)
Is the Western Climate Establishment Corrupt? Part 10: Gore Orwell, 6.4 out of 10 based on 5 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/25c975n

113 comments to Is the Western Climate Establishment Corrupt? Part 10: Gore Orwell

  • #

    I independently worked out before Climategate that ‘global warming’ is an unscientific movement, not because I understand CO2 absorption or principal component analysis, but because of the language used by the establishment – ‘denier’, ‘consensus’, ‘settled’. And because they said their opponents should be imprisoned. I’m no Hal Lewis, but this raised my suspicions. Climategate confirmed them.

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    Orwell foresaw in 1948 what he perceived the Stalinist state would be in 1984, Orwell didn’t foresee the use of one single, carefully manipulated lie being used to bring the 1984 statehood about

    Who would have thought of it?

    If Stalin himself was told how the Stalinist state would be brought about, I am sure that he would have been in uproarious laughter in disbelief!

    00

  • #

    They are many and various those people for whom the ‘CO2 Opportunity’ was like Christmas come early, many times over. To name but a few: Maurice Strong, Michael Mann, Phil Jones, Albert Gore, Rajendra Kumar Pachauri, Martin Parry, and Gavin Schmidt. Not just more funding and fame for some, but wealth and influence beyond their wildest dreams for others. Organisations which also knew a gift horse when they saw one include UNEP, Greenpeace, WWF, Friends of the Earth, socialist parties all over the place, the UK Met Office, various US agencies like NOAA, and of course the EU Commission.

    00

  • #

    Another thing that alerted me was the gradual abandonment of testable hypotheses. From ‘warming’ to ‘change’ to ‘disruption’. The alarmists said that if Britain got warmer, it would confirm their hypothesis. If it got colder, ditto. You don’t need to be Karl Popper to see the logical error.

    A bit more controversially – the author of piece objects to the word ‘denier’ being misused for climate change skeptics. Isn’t it possible that it has been misused elsewhere? I’ll shut up now.

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whaakaro

    They say that people who don’t believe in the theory of man-made global warming (and there are a lot of us nowadays) “don’t believe in climate change”. Taken literally, that is a stupendously stupid thing to say— …

    I beg to differ, it is actually an extremely clever thing to say.

    Claiming that sceptics “do not believe in climate change”, when it obviously does change, often in unpredictable ways, implies that the opinion of sceptics on any topic will be unreliable. It is a subtle logical fallacy.

    On the other hand, the term Climate Disruption is much more specific – the word introduces the concept of an event – it adds “time”, and therefore the concepts of “before” and “after” to the discussion.

    This allows sceptics to question the science behind each and every discrete “disruption event”, and ask for evidence of the sequence of anthropogenic events, and the anthropogenic trigger that caused that particular disruption event.

    The term climate change was delightfully vague (from their point of view) – it was a Humpty Dumpty word.

    They have been too clever in trying to make it sound more dramatic.

    00

  • #
    Athlete

    Redundant troll arguments linking to propaganda websites like SurrealClimate.orgy or SkepticalScientologist.con coming in 3, 2, 1….

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whaakaro

    Rod McLaughlin: #5

    Hello Rod.

    … the author of piece objects to the word ‘denier’ being misused for climate change skeptics. Isn’t it possible that it has been misused elsewhere?

    For sure, the word has been misused in loads of places.

    But it is part of the culture of this site that “denier” is never used in a pejorative way. [Fixed] ED

    The connection to the holocaust is still with us, so to use it in any debate tends to be a severe distraction.

    Of course, that is precisely why the Anthropogenic Global [word of the day] crowd keep on using it.

    p.s. I like your site – interesting stuff

    00

  • #
    Dave N

    Al Gorewell openly admitted it’s ok to lie in order to get a point across. Says it all, really.

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whaakaro

    My #7

    The sentence: “But it is part of the culture of this site that “denier” is never used in a prerogative way.”

    Should have been: “But it is part of the culture of this site that “denier” is never used in a pejorative way.”

    [Note to self: Never let the spelling checker write your comments for you ... ] :-)

    00

  • #

    Don’t be too hard on them. They believe in magical words that make things happen. Their problem is that they simply have not found the right words to make what they want to happen, to happen. It’s rather like the Alchemist’s Philosopher’s Stone that was supposed to turn base substances into pure gold. The right Philosopher’s stone was never found even though a lot of people worked long and hard looking for it.

    There is only one problem with that frame of reference, it doesn’t work in this universe. Perhaps they need only find a universe where it does work. I hope they find it soon, go there, and leave this one alone. Politics aside, I am quite happy with the way this one works. I can get along quite well without them.

    00

  • #
    Huh?

    As the Arctic ice melts, large areas of highly reflective ice are replaced by darker water that absorbs more heat. This water, now slightly warmer than before the melt, evaporates more quickly and increases the moisture content of the arctic air mass. This moisture-laden air is at a different temperature and density than before the melt so it flows differently, causing some areas further south to get colder, wetter weather. I think “climate disruption” is a reasonable description. See http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard/atmosphere.html

    00

  • #
    Robin Guenier

    Is the use of “denier” necessarily pejorative? As Richard Lindzen said in his address to the 2009 Heartland conference, it is more appropriate than “skeptic” when – as with CAGW – the hypothesis in question is implausible.

    00

  • #
    Robin Guenier

    There’s a perfect example of the Establishment mis-framing the issue in this open letter recently published by Anthony Giddens and Martin Rees. Two perfect examples: (1) having said (correctly) that “No-one can say with certainty that events such as the flooding in Pakistan, the unprecedented weather episodes in some parts of the US , the heat-wave and drought in Russia, or the floods and landslides in Northern China, were influenced by climate change“, they happily continue with the non sequitur that they “constitute a stark warning“; (2) having observed (correctly) that “carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration in the atmosphere … has risen by 30% since the start of the industrial era” and that there is “a clear pattern of warming over the past half-century“, they leap to the conclusion that this means we are heading for “catastrophic weather events“.

    It’s remarkable that two such eminent academics (Giddens is former Director of the LSE and a Fellow of King’s College, Cambridge and Rees is Master of Trinity College, Cambridge and President of the Royal Society) can be so totally divorced from the tenets of basic logical thinking. What’s more remarkable is that the MSM lets them get away with it. Sad really.

    00

  • #
    manalive

    @11,

    As the Arctic ice melts, large areas of highly reflective ice are replaced by darker water that absorbs more heat. This water, now slightly warmer than before the melt, evaporates….

    Huh?

    Now explain, if you can, how that process is any different post 1950 to what it was c. 1750 – 1950.

    00

  • #
    davidc

    Rod, Me too. Any doubts I had about whether CAGW was fraud or a difference of opinion on a difficult matter began to evaporate when I heard Tim Flannery insist there was no time for debate. If the issue was so clear why not simply state the evidence? That this wasn’t happening was the first sign to me that there was no serious evidence.

    00

  • #

    “Climate disruption” is a perfect fit for the times. A climate can’t be defined, nor can disruption. Because we live in the age of spin-media (and the elite arm of spin-media, the academic modellers), lots of factoids and graphs will keep the warmists in business. A few casualties, a different shingle outside the shop…but business will go on thriving.

    On another site yesterday, I raised the reports of the reliable Watkin Tench on the horrific Sydney summer of 1790-1791. I’ve witnessed two east coast heatwaves which involved north-westerly winds occurring in summer peaks: in the early eighties and around 2000. These were not just heatwaves. We’re talking here about a freakish combination of parching inland winds typical of late winter and early spring, and extreme summer heat. Scary stuff.

    But what Tench described (with conscientiously observed temperature readings) was far more severe. The mass deaths of wildlife are something I have never observed in these thankfully rare conditions.

    My point? Well, if you’re wondering how it’s possible to overlook such compelling evidence of past climatic extremes…

    Tench’s most prominent modern editor is Tim Flannery. Really.

    00

  • #
    pat

    when “manmade global warming” became “climate change”, the game was up. when the new term was picked up unanimously and instaneously by the “climate scientists”, “journos” and “politicians”, the extent of the scam was clear.

    equally orwellian is “carbon certainty”:

    26 Oct: SMH: Tom Arup: Business heads step up lobbying for carbon certainty
    Besides direct lobbying, the panel of chief executives will also give advice to the Investor Group on Climate Change, which is a member of the new climate-change business round table advising the government on carbon pricing..
    The Investor Group’s chief executive, Nathan Fabian, said yesterday the super firms may have differing views on methods to implement a carbon price, but all agreed certainty around a price was necessary.
    Mark Lazberger, the chief executive of Colonial, said “the current uncertainty surrounding carbon pricing hinders investment decision-making across both emissions intensive and low-emissions assets.
    ”To allow sensible long-term investment decisions, the framework for pricing emissions must be resolved,” he said…
    The Herald understands a number of company directors have begun direct discussions with their counterparts on ways to push for certainty on carbon pricing.
    The co-ordinated campaign is in part an effort to change the Coalition stance of opposing a carbon price, to ensure that any price negotiated in this term of Parliament is not dissolved if the Coalition wins power…
    Mr Fabian said yesterday the group of super fund heads would lobby all politicians, and what business feared the most was for a scheme to be set up only to be dissolved later.
    http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/business-heads-step-up-lobbying-for-carbon-certainty-20101025-170uw.html

    never imagine Murdoch is in the sceptics’ corner, but at least this headline is clear it’s about carbon “price” certainty:

    25 Oct: Australian: Joe Kelly: Superannuation and fund manager CEOs push for carbon price certainty
    Mr Fabian said investment certainty could not be restored until a way to price carbon had been arrived at.
    “Investors will keep putting off investment decisions until the rules are clear. And they really need a framework that is long term,” he said…
    Mark Lazberger, chief executive of Colonial First State Global Asset Management has said that “current uncertainty surrounding carbon pricing hinders investment decision-making across both emissions-intensive and low-emissions assets.
    “To allow sensible long-term investment decisions, the framework for pricing emissions must be resolved.”
    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/climate/superannuation-and-fund-manager-ceos-push-for-carbon-price-certainty/story-e6frg6xf-1225943370994

    Giles calls it “carbon pricing”. for those who want to warn off their super fund, or move their super into “cash”, here’s the list to date:

    25 Oct: BusinessSpectator: Giles Parkinson: CLIMATE SPECTATOR: Money shifts to carbon pricing
    The list of CEOS includes Mark Lazberger, the head of the country’s largest funds manager, Colonial First State Global Asset Management, Stephen Dunne, the head of AMP Capital Investors (the second biggest), and Ian Silk, the head of Australian Super, the largest industry superannuation fund.
    It also includes the heads of fund managers BT Investment Management, and BlackRock, and super funds Cbus, Hesta Super Fund, UniSuper, and Catholic Super. They represent the nine largest members of the Investor Group on Climate Change, which accounts for more than $550 billion under management…
    The nine CEOs had a briefing last week with Ross Garnaut, who outlined the economic case, and the possible investment impacts, of emission reduction trajectories…
    http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/CLIMATE-SPECTATOR-pd20101025-AJQYU?opendocument&src=rss

    Linda knows it’s a tax:

    25 Oct: Radio Australia: Linda Mottram: Australian business heads push for carbon tax
    Speakers: Nathan Fabian, chief executive, Investor Group on Climate Change; Dr Frank Jotzo, director, Centre for Climate Economics and Policy, Australian National University
    MOTTRAM: Nathan Fabian says the CEOs can see the low carbon economy coming and they want clear rules now to make the transition. And that’s regardless of whether there’s a binding global agreement on reducing carbon emissions.
    FABIAN: A binding agreement would have made it easier but it’s pretty obvious to Australian investors that the rest of the world is moving…
    JOTZO: If you look at decarbonisation of the economy, what we’re seeing is that China is aspiring to essentially the same thing as Australia, the United States, the EU, and Japan are aspiring to…
    MOTTRAM: So while Australian business is crying out for certainty in Australian climate change policy, Frank Jotzo’s paper brings further pressure to bear for Canberra to reach for its more ambitious targets on emissions reduction, regardless of the poor prosects for a binding international climate deal.
    http://www.radioaustralia.net.au/asiapac/stories/201010/s3047930.htm

    “debate” Mr. Jotzo? LOL:

    26 Oct: Science Alert: ANU: Oz needs less carbon emission
    Dr Jotzo said that the experience with the Rudd government’s CPRS drove home the need for more and better-informed debate about the issues confronting the nation on climate change.
    “Starting with a fixed price on carbon emissions in Australia offers a good balance between providing certainty for industry and achieving environmental outcomes,” said Dr Jotzo…
    Dr Jotzo’s research will be presented at the ANU-launch of the Centre for Climate Economics and Policy as part of the University’s Asia Climate Change Policy Forum taking place this Wednesday. The Centre will be launched by the Secretary for the Department of Climate Change, Dr Martin Parkinson.
    http://www.sciencealert.com.au/news/20102610-21494.html

    00

  • #
    pattoh

    As it goes ” ..a rose by any other name .. smell so sweet”, well fraud by any other semantic trickery still stinks!

    Unfortunately most of the “players” in this sorry tale are cloaked in a cloud of plausably deniable de-odourant.

    00

  • #
    Richard S Courtney

    Huh?

    At #11 you say:

    As the Arctic ice melts, large areas of highly reflective ice are replaced by darker water that absorbs more heat.

    True, but the effect is trivial.

    The great bulk of the solar radiation heats the tropics and very little heats the polar regions which is why polar regions are cold. Indeed, each polar region gets no solar heating for half the year (the winter half).

    The polar regions emit (n.b emit, not absorb) net radiation because
    (a) they receive very little solar radiation
    and
    (b) the oceans transport heat from the tropics polewards.

    Furthermore, the ice cover of the South polar region contiues to increase, and the period of decrease to North polar ice has ended and that regions ice seems tobe increasing year-on-year recently.

    So, loss of polar ice is not a significant problem and there is probably a growing amount of polar ice at present.

    Richard

    00

  • #

    Is the Western Climate Establishment Corrupt? Part 10: Gore Orwell ……

    Here at World Spinner we are debating the same thing……

    00

  • #
    mandarine

    “Robin Guenier” (12), I think that “Climate Realist” is a more appropriate term….

    00

  • #
  • #
    Treeman

    It used to be called “global warming”, then when warming paused it became “climate change”. And as of September 2010, it appears they are switching to “global climate disruption”.

    Jo, for mine this is just part of Harold Ambler’s Climb Down but Ambler is way too kind. The alarmist camp have dug themselves into a hole from which climbing out is more of a challenge than they ever anticipated!

    Every day we reach a greater understanding of the science around CO2 and its supposed connection with temperature. Gorewellians are increasingly alienated. Caught in an Avin Topfler like future shock they have nowhere left to go and bloody good riddance!

    00

  • #
  • #
    mandarine

    Gore Buys Beach Villa…

    http://www.rejecttheherd.net/forum/pub/conspiracy-theories/gore-buys-beach-villa

    What a HYPOCRITE!

    What about all those rising oceans!

    00

  • #
    mandarine

    One minister, at least, defies the Greens!!

    Emerson, I’m told, is privately a sceptic of catastrophic man-made warming, but I suspect he’s even more firmly a believer in the idea that Labor is doomed if it’s seen to be killing jobs at the bidding of its Greens masters.

    MORE:-

    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/one_minister_at_least_defies_the_greens/desc/#commentsmore

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    Meanwhile the bankrupt Repbulic, oops I mean State, of Calirofnia is looking forward to having massively overpriced, but clean, renewable energy coming their way:

    http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/business/a/-/world/8197703/worlds-biggest-solar-plant-approved/

    I wonder how much in government subsidies was required to get that project off the ground. I would also like to see an environmental impact assessment of the project… I imagine the footrpints of the plants will be massive.

    00

  • #
    Joe Lalonde

    Unless Gore is a total idiot, he knows the garbage he is pushing is incorrect. But that money is sooooooooo goooood and some people are sooooooo gullable!

    CO2 is a dangerous gas to our species but science is sooooo stupid in linking it to garbage science of temperatures when it is doing something far more dangerous.

    00

  • #
    Joe Lalonde

    Substancially colder temperatures for the next 1,000 years is not out of the question when precipitaion vastly increases.

    00

  • #
    MadJak

    [NB: I know sarcasm is the lowest form of humour, but it sure beats the 10:10ers]

    s/
    Awww, What!????

    So you’re saying that Al Gore – the person who got beaten in an election against George W Bush lied? Surely not! A Politician Lying? Nah, can’t be. I thought he was a scientist and everything! I mean they gave him a Noble peace prize didn’t they? The science was settled amongst at least a few people wasn’t it???

    /s

    Interesting to note foreign correspondent the other night about the Australian Antarctic scientific effort to Prove the ice was melting, and how the Chinese were all bad because they’re setting up in Antarctica (it was just missing the darth vader entry tune whenever the Chinese were shown) and then you guessed it, the next big lie for funding……darth vader entry tune please….. Ocean acidification! I’m sorry but is that ocean acidification or Ocean de-alkalinisation?

    Gee to think the oceans might be heading ever so slightly towards a neutral PH level is shocking when you mention the word acidification, doesn’t it? It sounds like the drowning polie bears will be stuck in battery acid now too! Sheesh!

    I’ve said it before, when science gets into bed with politics, science will lose.

    This whole thing has moved from a scientific debate through to a political spinning exercise and now finally into the Catastrafarian belief system.

    I know, it’s a made up word, but it does have a ring to it I reckon.

    00

  • #
    John Brookes

    Not so fast Al. Obviously on a time scale of thousands of years CO2 levels and temperature are closely linked, so one is causing the other. (On shorter time scales of tens of years they are not well correlated, nor on longer time scales of millions of years.)

    What Gore omitted to say was that the changes in temperature occur 800 years on average before the corresponding changes in CO2 levels.

    So it was the temperature causing the CO2 levels, not the other way around. Gee Al, forgot to mention that little detail? The 800 year lag of CO2 had been firmly established by 2003 to everyone’s satisfaction, and Gore’s movie was made in 2005. So Gore was lying, by omission.

    Why do skeptics/denialist/realists keep trotting this out as though it is of any importance? It is well understood (by the corrupt establishment) that over long time periods CO2 is a product of warming. You won’t find a paid up member of the illuminati climate scientist who will dispute that. It is also well understood that if you pump a lot of CO2 into the atmosphere, it becomes a forcing and causes warming – and you’ll find plenty of skeptics (but rather fewer denialists) who will happily agree with this.

    I think David Evans has run out of ideas and should give it a rest now.

    00

  • #
    MadJak

    John,

    Just a quick thing here, but could you please refrain from the denialist/denier label?


    This link to an online dictionary
    clearly shows the implication for this non word (left hand side).

    You infer any sort of name you like to me, but that one I and others find as being particularly pernicious (as I am sure you probably would if the tables were turned).

    Surely you can come up with something a bit more descriptive/humourous/imaginative?

    00

  • #
    mandarine

    Avatar a Mass Mind Manipulation Project?

    http://www.infowars.com/avatar-a-mass-mind-manipulation-project/

    Vatican Slams ‘Avatar’: Promotes Nature Worship Over Religion

    http://www.infowars.com/vatican-slams-avatar-promotes-nature-worship-over-religion/

    00

  • #

    [...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Cary D Conover, Truth News Australia. Truth News Australia said: It used to be “global warming”, then it became “climate change”. Now they are switching to “global climate disruption” http://is.gd/gj1Bx [...]

    00

  • #
    co2isplantfood

    I’d be careful cause you know they will be watching all of us. The web is historical and every thing you write is recorded forever. I think they’ve tagged the CO2 so we can be tracked – they talk about tracking what countries are producing it so they have the technology.

    00

  • #
    Speedy

    John Brookes:

    You say:

    It is also well understood that if you pump a lot of CO2 into the atmosphere, it becomes a forcing and causes warming

    And then the warming causes the oceans to release more CO2. Which causes more warming. Which causes the oceans to release more CO2. Can you see where this is going? The existence of life on this planet (which has been going for 4,500,000,000 years – not 150) is a serious challenge to the AGW theory. Why has the climate been so stable if CO2 is supposed to be a signficant driver of climate?

    The question of CO2 causing atmospheric warming is generally accepted. The issue – which you dodged nicely – is how much.

    Cheers,

    Speedy

    00

  • #
    co2isplantfood

    And what would a computer module know about lag? Light travels so fast there should be no lag at all.

    00

  • #
    Bernd Felsche

    Richard S Courtney:

    Sea ice complicates heat transfer because of the inherent negative feedback of heat loss from the water underneath.

    Liquid water is an excellent radiator of heat, but a blanket of ice above it will greatly diminish its ability to lose heat.

    Also, due to the angle of incidence, polar waters are always a nett radiator of heat. The sun is simply too low on the horizon, even in mid-summer, to produce a nett-warming of the waters. (It’s been a while since I checked that, so please feel free to confirm/falsify.)

    The waters simply don’t lose heat as rapidly as they would if not covered by ice.

    Warmer water melt more of the ice from underneath, but the effect is sharply non-linear in terms of water temperature and the volume of ice above it. And that’s before one tries to account for the fact that the (ocean) water is constantly in convection, driven not only by the imemdiate thermal gradient, but on a larger scale; by ocean currents and winds on the surface.

    00

  • #
    Speedy

    John Brookes

    I forgot to ask – do you think Al Gore was being frank and honest in his documentary “An Inconvenient Truth” ? If so, please show Jo the error of her ways. If not, then you need to spend some time listening to the thinking music.

    When do you think Al Gore and the Climate Establishment will issue their correction and apology? It appears that they are now living the lie. As is anyone who knows of it but still allows it…

    Cheers,

    Speedy.

    00

  • #
    G/Machine

    John Brookes #31
    “I think David Evans has run out of ideas and should give it a rest now”
    If you don’t find this site to your taste, why do you keep coming
    back ? Your last paragraph clearly shows who has ‘run out of ideas’
    and for all to see, it’s definately not David Evans or JN

    00

  • #
  • #
    co2isplantfood

    There is no way the ice can give off heat, it’s to cold.

    00

  • #
    Speedy

    Ice is about 270 (celcius) warmer than outer space – so it will radiate heat. Of course, not as much as a climate monitoring station parked next to an airport runway!!!

    00

  • #
    Speedy

    John Brookes

    I forgot to ask – do you think Al Gore was being frank and honest in his documentary “An Inconvenient Truth” ? If so, please show Jo the error of her ways.

    Still waiting John…

    00

  • #
    Bob Malloy

    pattoh:
    October 26th, 2010 at 8:38 am

    Unfortunately most of the “players” in this sorry tale are cloaked in a cloud of plausably deniable de-odourant.

    Pattoh, the cloud of plausible deniability these charlatans wrap themselves in, like the kings new clothes only exist to those that are yet to question the evidence or by choice refuse too look beyond the cloud.

    00

  • #

    John Brookes:
    October 26th, 2010 at 11:51 am

    Why do skeptics/denialist/realists keep trotting this out as though it is of any importance? It is well understood (by the corrupt establishment) that over long time periods CO2 is a product of warming.

    John you never cease to amaze me! Do you understand cause and effect? If temperatures ALWAYS rise before CO2 and temperatures ALWAYS decline WHILE CO2 levels continue to rise then CO2 cannot cause temperatures to rise. Rather, the oceans take 800 years longer to warm or to cool in relationship to land temperatures. As the oceans warm they outgas CO2 and as they cool they absorb CO2. I wish I could it explain it to you in simpler terms but it is impossible for me to do a sock hand puppet show for you right now!

    It is also well understood that if you pump a lot of CO2 into the atmosphere, it becomes a forcing and causes warming…

    Perhaps you can show us in the geological record where this warming led to the runaway greenhouse gas effect? Oh, I am sorry. We wouldn’t be here if that had occurred because we wouldn’t exist!

    00

  • #
    Alan

    Check out this brilliant piece by Judith Curry as a response the the Sci Am “heretic” article
    She is sounding like a true scientist

    http://judithcurry.com/2010/10/25/heresy-and-the-creation-of-monsters/

    00

  • #
    Richard S Courtney

    Bernd Felsche:

    Re your comment at #38, Yes.

    Richard

    00

  • #
    Anne-Kit Littler

    OT but topical nonetheless: Paul Murray in today’s West Australian:

    “Geologists remain one of the intellectual groups in which there is most concern that the science is not settled on climate change.”

    “Recently this column stirred up a hornet’s nest with references to a dispute among members of Britain’s most prestigious scientific body, the Royal Society, over its published guide to climate change. [...] My simple proposition was that the debate should remain open while, as the society finally noted, some areas of the science remained contestable. However, the increasing politicisation of some academic circles ensured even that idea was beaten down.”

    Read the rest here:

    Rock doctors are cool on global warming

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    Eddy Aruda @ 46:

    I think a sock puppet show would go down a treat… where are those crazy guys from Minnesota? They are good at coming up with catchy tunes. It might just be the way to get the message across.

    00

  • #
    Fred Firth

    Global Warming, Climate Change or Global Climate Disruption? Hmmm. Take your pick because this is only the side show. Common Purpose is the new name of the game.

    The unwitting shareholders of Australia’s major corporations are funding the adoption of climate change policy.

    Not to long ago business success depended on the quality, reliability and price of one’s product . Not any more!

    A disturbing trend is emerging. Let us say a major bank advertises for new computer software. You may or may not have the best product to suit their needs, but the other banks who have used your products for 20 years are very happy so you send for a Request for Tender.

    This request for tender is very different from others you have seen. Do these people want to know about software, operating systems etc? Maybe; but first the are interested in how sustainable we are. We have been in business for 30 years, but that isn’t the sustainability they are interested in. They want to know how much carbon is used to make the paper we use to print our invoices.

    The message starts to become very clear Sorry! Unless you meet their raft of green credentials, don’t bother submitting your offer. Need help to audit how green you are? And what about the people who supply you with goods and services? Don’t worry a list of green auditors is provided with the request for tender.

    The Common Purpose army is on the move with KPMG as its vanguard. http://www.kpmginstitutes.com/global-energy-institute/events/greenhouse-gas-reporting.aspx
    http://www.kpmginstitutes.com/global-energy-institute/insights/active/climate-change-accounting-tax-issues-australia.aspx

    Who invented Common Purpose: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2XuiNrwh_Wk

    00

  • #
    Speedy

    Fred @ 51

    The solution is very simple. When asked a stupid question, one should give a stupid answer. So your answer should be long and turgid, full of motherhood statements and bland, unprovable assertion. It should discuss large committees who issue reports and go on “fact finding” missions. These don’t necessarily have to meet or even do anything, they just have to give the appearance of doing something. No finer example than our mate Al Gore…

    Some genuine action is useful, of course, but the sacrifices don’t have to be too painful. For instance, you might stop serving beer on a Friday night after work and go for a low-emissions Grange Hermitage instead…

    Some people tell you that this is being deceptive or fraudulent. Your simple response is that, in the world of global warming, fraud is standard procedure. Refer Jo Nova, November 2010.

    Cheers,

    Speedy

    00

  • #
    John Smith

    @Bulldust
    You must be referring to none other than Minnesotans Against Global Warming.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JmPSUMBrJoI
    Still 60 days till Christmas but oh well.
    I bet Goldman Sucks (Sorry I mean Sachs) still wants carbon trading right?

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whakaaro

    Speedy: #52

    Your suggestion is devious, cynical, unethical, sly, twisted, underhanded, and immoral.

    Well done. That’s the spirit. Fight the blighters at their own game. Give them one up the Khyber.

    But seriously, I would question why KPMG still has large office buildings, with all of their consultants and accountants commuting to and from work every day. Surely it is more environmentally responsible to have people work from home, connecting via the internet?

    00

  • #
    grumpy

    @ davidc #15 agree. Now Tim the flim flam man is trying to flog his new book we have plenty of time and he is very optimistic.

    00

  • #
    janama

    Alan 47 – thanks, great rave/confession by Judith – should be front page on every major newspaper so we can finally get down to the truth and act accordingly.

    00

  • #
    SamG

    You know that Orwell would have advocated an ETS, he was a socialist.

    00

  • #
    Tim

    C’mon Jo, the debate is over and the science is settled. Just let’s get on with some nice world governance to solve all these pesky problems.

    00

  • #
    John Brookes

    Eddy & Speedy:

    Feedbacks don’t have to cause runaway anything. A microphone is controlled feedback. One that is set up wrong can cause runaway feedback, the sort we call feedback when we hear it.

    Anyway Eddy, I’m pretty sure there were times in the past when greenhouse gases drove warming. The PETM event seems to fit this (although you will say otherwise). A temperature rise of 5 degrees over a period of less than 5000 years (apparently no better time resolution is available, so it could have been less, but we can’t say).

    00

  • #
    Mervyn Sullivan

    All I can say, at this point, is that we should all take a break and have a bit of fun in the following way.

    I ask all of you to get your copy of Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth”. Watch it. Pay very close attention to all its powerful images. Pay very close attention to what Al Gore says.

    I ask you all to then watch Martin Durkin’s “The Great Global Warming Swindle”. You can watch it at

    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5576670191369613647#

    At the time, “An Inconvenient Truth” was hailed to be scientifically factual, despite blatant many gross misrepresentations of the facts and a number of significant errors. Heck, but it won an Oscar. And Gore even won a Nobel Prize.

    “The Great Global Warming Swindle”, on the other hand, was immediately attacked as pure propaganda… an abomination.

    So I ask you… now after watching both films, which of the two films, today, comes over as pure propaganda?

    00

  • #
    Robin Guenier

    Further to my earlier post (13), here’s an example of a Greenpeace activist using precisely the same false logic as the President of the Royal Society. Commenting on a drought affecting an Amazon tributary in Brazil, Rafael Cruz, having said (correctly) that “while the rise and fall of the Amazon’s rivers was a normal process” and that “it was too early to directly link the droughts to global warming“, nonetheless concluded that “such events were an alert about what could happen if action was not taken” and “show the impact climate change could have on the 20 million people who live in the Amazon region.” Hmm – excusable perhaps from a Greenpeace activist, but disgraceful from the President of the once mighty and respected Royal Society.

    (Perhaps Mr Cruz had forgotten Brazil’s “worst rains in 50 years” a few months ago – but he’d probably claim these were both examples of “climate disruption”.)

    00

  • #
    dave ward

    The good old BBC are still happy with “Climate Change”. The latest thing at risk is the UK Rail Network!!!

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-11601014

    2 interesting quotes:

    Ms Loveridge told BBC News: “Climate change in the near future is ‘locked in’ – it’s too late to change that.

    “Proactive planning for climate change adaption offers much better value for the taxpayer than bearing the huge costs when things go wrong.”

    00

  • #
    Speedy

    John Brooks @ 59

    Nice try but I don’t think Eddy is going to buy it. All you’ve done is explained is that negative feedbacks are the norm in our experience. Eddy will only agree with you, and tell you that 4500 million years of climate history would indicate that the earth’s climate system is yet another example of a stable system involving negative feedbacks.

    You have failed to explain why anthropogenic CO2 emissions should cause a positive feedback – a runaway greenhouse. You have failed to explain how we can hope to control climate by modifying our CO2 emissions, or why we should do so. Saddest of all, I think you have failed to accept a logic that you yourself can see all too clearly.

    Regards,

    Speedy

    00

  • #
    Speedy

    John Brooks @ 59 & 31 (again)

    What do you really think about the science in Al Gore’s “Inconvenient Truth” ? If Jo has been harsh to the good man, please don’t suffer in silence – tell us. But if she’s half-way right, who – in conscience – would support him?

    Cheers,

    Speedy

    00

  • #
    Speedy

    Rereke

    Very much tongue in cheek! But how else would people measure and verify the green “virtues” that Fred F is describing? You can’t measure something you don’t produce and the carbon industry, despite its infancy, seems very adept at criminal fraud. The closest form of quantification would be donations and indulgences to “worthy” institutions.

    Cheers,

    Speedy

    00

  • #
    jnicklin

    Forget Climate Disruption, its a flash in the pan. The next catch phrase will be Biodiversity. Biodiversity will raise the alarm about the 50% loss of species by 2100 or sooner, maybe 2050. They won’t tell you that most of the species lost will be bugs, bacteria and slime molds, if there is any appreciable or noticable loss of species at all. They also won’t tell you that species come and go, like climate, species change, its how we got here and how we will exit. They will hold up “settled-science” to prove that there is a concensus, 50% species loss by 2050. No one will be able to show you the research however. When you tell them that we don’t even know how many species there are on the planet, they will call you names like flat earther and denier.

    Same dance, different tune. Climate change/disruption is dead, long live biodiversity.

    00

  • #
    Mervyn Sullivan

    Just when you think it couldn’t get fractionally worse for the alarmists, P Gosselin’s ‘Climate Science News And Free Commentary From Germany’ presents a most interesting piece that will make alarmists even a little more embarrassed. Read and enjoy it:

    http://notrickszone.com/2010/10/25/rahmstorfschellnhuber-confirm-no-anthropogenic-climate-change/

    One can’t help but think that the “Church of Man-Made Global Warming” is slowly but surely being torn down brick by brick… ashes to ashes; dust to dust!

    00

  • #
    John Brookes

    Oh Speedy. There is one big negative feedback built into our climate – it is the T^4 Stefan Boltzmann radation temperature dependancy.

    There are positive feedbacks too. So how can a positive feedback not be the runaway you are so wedded to? It goes like this. Lets cause the initial forcing 1. If the feedback is less than 1, say 0.5, then tot total after feedbacks is 1 + 0.5 + 0.5^2 + 0.5^3 +…. Which adds up to 2. See feedback with no runaway. If the feedback is greater than the initial forcing, then you would get a runaway effect – except for that pesky T^4 which would stop it down the track.

    When you look at the ice age cycle, it looks to me like a system oscillating a fair bit, not a thoroughly stable system with negative feedbacks.

    00

  • #
    Anders

    “Every molecule of CO2 we emit causes some warming—something serious skeptics have always agreed with, and a straightforward question of radiative physics.”

    Yet the entire post was about the absence of any CO2 temperature signal at all over huge periods of time. Once upon a time science was about explaining observed phenomena. The talk about every “serious” skeptic agrees that CO2 causes some warming but we will never be able to detect it doesn’t fall into the realm of science.

    “Every serious person agrees that Santa Claus exists, it is just that nobody has ever seen him or knows where he lives”

    Every serious skeptic agrees that the emperor has underwear, but every true scientist has already realized that he is naked.

    00

  • #
    Bernd Felsche

    “Off-topic” but relevant to Joanne who gets an honourable mention in the Skeptics Survey Analysis on the Klimazwiebel blog. (Fear not linguaphobes; the article’s in English.)

    Q.9 Who are the big names in the skeptic world?
    Clear winners: Stephen McIntyre and Richard Lindzen. Anthony Watts and others follow with a certain distance.
    In 71 responses, an additional name was mentioned – with Henrik Svensmark and Joanne Nova most frequent.

    I of course couldn’t have taken part in the survey, not being a sceptic/skeptic any more. I’ve moved way beyond that: I’m an infidel and heretic. ;-)

    00

  • #

    John Brookes:
    October 26th, 2010 at 10:23 pm

    Feedbacks don’t have to cause runaway anything. A microphone is controlled feedback. One that is set up wrong can cause runaway feedback, the sort we call feedback when we hear it.

    Actually, there is no empirical proof that there is a positive feedback in the climate system. If there is, please cite it! A microphone can only cause a feedback as long as there is energy supplied to the unit. Where is the energy coming from for this positive feedback in the climate system?

    Anyway Eddy, I’m pretty sure there were times in the past when greenhouse gases drove warming. The PETM event seems to fit this (although you will say otherwise). A temperature rise of 5 degrees over a period of less than 5000 years (apparently no better time resolution is available, so it could have been less, but we can’t say).

    Congratulations, John! You have used more weasel words in less space than I can ever remember seeing! If you take a look at any temperature/CO2 graph for the last 600,000,000 years you will notice something missing: any evidence whatsoever of CO2 causing temperatures to rise! There were times when CO2 levels were high and the world was warm and there were times when CO2 levels were high and we were in an ice age. Perhaps you can show me where in the ice core records where a temperature increase were preceded by a rise in CO2 levels? Just ask for Mr. Blue, that will be me holding my breath waiting! ;)

    @ Speedy 63

    Thanks mate, great post! I believed the key word in your response to John Brooks was “failed.” He did fail, and miserably so!

    00

  • #

    John Brookes:
    October 26th, 2010 at 11:56 pm

    When you look at the ice age cycle, it looks to me like a system oscillating a fair bit, not a thoroughly stable system with negative feedbacks.

    When you look at the ice core record and stomate data for the last 11,000 years, it looks to me like CO2 levels have risen and fallen dramatically over very short periods of time, not an unstable system with positive feedbacks. Other than other forces being involved, how do you explain or account for it, John ?

    Consider the following, John and get back to Mr. Blue ASAP, please!

    http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/stomata.html
    “New studies of plant stomata add important information about natural CO2 variations in Earth’s atmosphere. Such studies show that natural variations in CO2 are more dramatic than we have been led to believe, and that CO2 levels which regularly rise past 300 ppm may be the norm– not the exception– during the last 11,000 years. Natural CO2 levels up to 340 ppm are suggested during this time, challenging claims that 300 ppm represents a CO2 threshold which is both “unprecedented” and un-natural in our recent climate history.”

    00

  • #
  • #
    alex

    Zombie still breathes… parents be alert AND alarmed

    http://www.news.com.au/features/environment/climate-film-will-be-an-inconvenient-truth-for-schools/story-e6frflp0-1225943986661#ixzz13Vf27RJB

    CLIMATE change documentary An Inconvenient Truth will be included in the national curriculum as part of a bid to educate students on environmental sustainability across all subjects.

    It would be the first time the film following one-time US vice president Al Gore’s climate change campaign has been included in the NSW school English curriculum.

    00

  • #
    Speedy

    John Brookes @68

    The fact that the earth’s climate has endured so many variations between ice age and the rather benign climate we have now does suggest that the overall system – accounting for the sum of the combined feedbacks – is stable. Boltzman is one negative feedback, the declining absorption of infra-red by CO2 with increasing CO2 concentration is another. The cooling effect of increased water vapour (via cloud formation) surely has a negative effect. Everywhere except in the IPCC climate models…

    I think we agree that the empirical evidence is staring us in our face – we won’t get a runaway greenhouse from additional CO2 ? In which case, could you please ask James Hansen to stop being so – Alarmist?

    And have you had a chance to decide whether Al Gore has misled a lot of people, perhaps including yourself?

    Cheers,

    Speedy.

    00

  • #
    Speedy

    Eddy

    We are of one mind – almost a consensus! JB’s not a bad bloke, just a bit impervious to logic. He just needs time to think this one through and realise he’s trying to use religious faith to explain science. It will be very frustrating for him and he will not thank you for your efforts.

    Patience, patience…

    Cheers,

    Speedy

    00

  • #
    Speedy

    John Brookes @ 68.

    It’s good that you mentioned Boltmann’s T^4 (Temperature to the fourth power). The upshot of this is that if the solar intensity were (say) 95% of its current level – like it was about 350 million years ago – the earth’s temperature would be only about 4 degrees lower. Not enough to cause an ice age, surely – but that’s what happened. And all this while the CO2 levels were about 15 times higher than what they are today! (Let’s call it 4 doublings of the current level.) If CO2 is a major climate lever, then why the ice age?

    John. CO2 is not a serious driver of climate, especially once the levels exceed about 200 ppm. You know, as well as anyone, that there is only so much of the relevant infra-red band available for absorption. The law of diminishing returns applies to CO2 as well and, at 390 ppm, we are well past the steep part of the curve…

    A carbon tax is a wasteful and futile exercise, isn’t it? It will enrich the brokers and bankers, at the expense of the poor.

    Cheers,

    Speedy

    00

  • #
    Fred Firth

    Thanks Alex@73 for bringing this to our attention

    This is chilling and a subversive abuse of our children!

    CLIMATE change documentary An Inconvenient Truth will be included in the national curriculum as part of a bid to educate students on environmental sustainability across all subjects.
    It would be the first time the film following one-time US vice president Al Gore’s climate change campaign has been included in the NSW school English curriculum.

    Education ministers agreed two years ago a “focus on environmental sustainability would be integrated across the curriculum”.
    As a result of the agreement, the national curriculum which is due to be finished in December, will contain lessons on climate change and sustainability across English, maths, science and even history.
    Dame Elisabeth Murdoch, the patron of curriculum developer the Global Green Plan Foundation, and ex Federal Minister for Climate Change Penny Wong launched the initiative in May this year.

    Why not completley wreck our kid’s education and reverse the ban on Creationist theory being taught in public schools? At least the supporters of Creationist Theory know they are promoting religion under the guise of science.

    Cheers Fred

    00

  • #
    Mervyn Sullivan

    We all know that the Vostok ice core data shows that changes in global CO2 levels lag behind global temperature changes by about eight hundred years. Amazingly, other ice core samples tested in different locations reveal similar findings. What that indicates is that increasing atmospheric CO2 is not causing global temperature to rise; instead the natural cyclic increase in global temperature is causing global CO2 to rise.

    So why is the world finding it so difficult accepting these scientific revelations from the ice core samples?

    The data from the ice core samples demonstrates that the IPCC’s mantra is simply wrong. It being wrong, there is no CO2/global warming crisis. Q.E.D.

    00

  • #
    Bingi

    Mervyn Sullivan

    Richard Alley is “the guy” when it comes to ice core work and has done a lot with paleoclimate (over the ice core record especially), abrupt climate change, glaciology, and sea level rise.

    Watch the presentation. As well as being entertaining it will answer your questions.

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

    00

  • #
    Brian H

    Imaginary Extinctions:

    The astonishingly wrong and repercussion-free prediction of imminent doom that first riveted my attention was the claim of the impending mass extinction of the Earth’s species. In 1979, the biologist Norman Myers declared that a fifth of all species on the planet would be gone within two decades. This prediction was based upon . . . absolutely no evidence whatsoever. Myers acknowledged that the documented species extinction rate of animals was 1 per year; he then asserted that scientists had “hazarded a guess” that the actual rate was 100 per year; he then speculated that government inaction was “likely to lead” to several thousand or even tens of thousands a year, which would add up to as much as a million species over two decades. (This was when people thought there were 5 million species; the best guess now is at least 10 million.) It swiftly became conventional wisdom.

    00

  • #
    John Smith

    Check it out, it seems they’re still intent on brainwashing our kids.
    http://www.infowars.com/climate-change-film-an-inconvenient-truth-for-australian-schools/

    00

  • #
    Mark

    There’s a couple of posts from Pat Frank at The Air Vent about the Judith Curry business.

    Sheesh, he really “rubs her nose” in her past behavior. To be honest, I believe he has a point. She couldn’t possibly claim naivety or inexperience when she gave her approval to the IPCC reports that were seriously flawed.

    He sticks to his guns despite being admonished by Steve Mosher and some others. An interesting read, to say the least.

    00

  • #
    Bernd Felsche

    Brian H #81:
    Thanks for the link to the article by Stephen. there are some important words earlier on in the text:

    while the entire presumable goal, purpose, and raison d’être of applied environmental science is to solve environmental problems, any environmental scientist who dares to suggest that problems are being solved is asking for trouble. … we have arrived at a state where even the most wildly irrational pessimism is treated with reverence, while the most cautiously sober optimism is ridiculed.

    00

  • #
    Speedy

    Bernde @ 84

    There’s a “demotivational” poster around that says: “Consultants: If you’re not part of the solution, you can make a sh1tload of money prolonging the problem.”

    The last thing the Alarmists want is a solution. Heck no! They want an ongoing problem – and the grant money it yields.

    Cheers,

    Speedy

    00

  • #
    Speedy

    John Brookes (above)

    I take it, then, that you agree that Jo is right – Al Gore is a shyster and a fraud? Do you think he should give back his Nobel prize and repay his billions? Maybe sell a few seaside mansions and adopt a more “green” lifestyle?

    If not, why so? You’re awfully quiet.

    Cheers,

    Speedy

    00

  • #
    Mervyn Sullivan

    “Global warming”… “climate change”… “global climate disruption”… they can call it what they like, because what is far more worrying for mankind is the temperature trend we can see from the following graph:

    http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=6537

    It sends shivers down my spine!

    00

  • #
    Speedy

    Mervyn

    Time to stock up on the long johns! Unfortuately, cold is the real killer – yet another thing the greens don’t understand.

    Cheers,

    Speedy

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Bulldust @27,

    October 26th, 2010 at 10:48 am

    Meanwhile the bankrupt Repbulic, oops I mean State, of Calirofnia is looking forward to having massively overpriced, but clean, renewable energy coming their way:

    http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/business/a/-/world/8197703/worlds-biggest-solar-plant-approved/

    I wonder how much in government subsidies was required to get that project off the ground. I would also like to see an environmental impact assessment of the project… I imagine the footrpints of the plants will be massive.

    Two things:

    1. We are bankrupt so don’t worry about saying it. Besides, this is a federal project. They’re bankrupt too but don’t tell anyone. I wouldn’t want to spoil their fun.

    2. Nellis Air Force Base in Nevada has a 147 acre (don’t know how that converts for you down under) solar array that tracks the sun no less — all maximum efficiency nonsense and such. Wondrously it can provide up to 25% of the base power needs. They don’t say what the down to capacity is but probably zero at night.

    This foolishness near Blythe will probably have a several times larger footprint and still be sunlight limited.

    A complete waste of time and money.

    00

  • #
    Fred Firth

    Re Mark@83 comment

    Do real scientists read Scientific American? Please tell me they don’t Jo.
    Their statistic gathering methods make the Murdoch News polls look less like drivel by comparison.
    I thought that polls were a means to gain insight, but If the answer is already decided I guess this is how consensus is manufactured.

    Scientific American, like The Royal Society, appear to be gently trying to backstroke away from their IPCC master whilst still having a two-way bet. This is their latest survey. Judith Curry, who heads the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology, has annoyed the warmist lobby by asking questions. The survey purports to take a view of how much damage she has done to the cause. (In a very Tavistock Institute way)

    The poll is right up there with “do you still beat your wife?”

    So here’s the central question: Is Curry a heroic whistle-blower, speaking the truth when others can’t or won’t? Or has she gone off the scientific deep end, hurling baseless charges at a group of scientists who are doing their best to understand the complexities of Earth’s climate? Let us know what you think.

    Climate of Change?

    1. Should climate scientists discuss scientific uncertainty in mainstream forums?

    • Yes, it would help engage the citizenry.

    • Maybe—but only via serious venues like PBS’s the NewsHour and The New York Times.

    • No, that would play into the hands of the fossil-fuel lobby.

    2. Judith Curry is:

    • a peacemaker.

    • a dupe.

    • both.

    • I’ve never heard of her.

    3. What is causing climate change?

    • What is causing climate change?

    • There is no climate change.

    • solar variation

    • greenhouse gases from human activity

    • natural processes

    4. The IPCC, or Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is:

    • The IPCC, or Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is: something to do with Internet protocols.

    • a corrupt organization, prone to groupthink, with a political agenda.

    • an effective group of government representatives, scientists and other experts.

    5. What should we do about climate change?

    • Use more technology (geoengineering, carbon capture and storage).

    • Use less technology (cars, intensive agriculture).

    • Switch to carbon-free energy sources as much as possible and adapt to changes already underway.

    • Nothing, we are powerless to stop it.

    6. What is “climate sensitivity”?

    • the degree to which global temperature responds to concentrations of greenhouse gases

    • an unknown variable that climate scientists still do not understand

    • the phrase on which the fate of human civilization hangs

    • all of the above

    7. Which policy options do you support?

    • cap and trade (a price on carbon via an overall limit on emissions paired with some form of market for such pollution permits)

    • increased government funding of energy-related technology research and development

    • a carbon tax

    • keeping science out of the political process

    • cap and dividend, in which the proceeds of auctioning pollution permits are rebated to taxpayers

    8. How much would you be willing to pay to forestall the risk of catastrophic climate change?

    • a doubling of gasoline prices

    • nothing

    • a 50 percent increase in electricity bills

    Source: http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=taking-the-temperature-climate-chan-2010-10-25

    Be interesting to see the questions your readers would ask under the same headings.
    Fred Firth

    00

  • #
  • #
    Mark

    From the Pielke Jr. Blog.

    http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2010/10/daniel-greenberg-meets-climate.html

    Keep in mind that Pielke Jr. Is on the “warmer” side of the debate.

    00

  • #
    Tim

    What a brilliant quick-grab phrase to cover all contingencies. ‘Global Climate Disruption’ is obviously a careful product of marketing, advertising and PR minds. And the best minds have obviously been bought for this one. I would also presume that it was market-researched through focus groups worldwide, and that it translates into many languages.

    It is also patently meaningless for people with a brain, but those people are are unfortunately in the minority.

    00

  • #
    Brian H

    Speedy:
    October 27th, 2010 at 10:38 pm

    Chemist’s adage: “If you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the precipitate.” (That’s the condensed version.)

    ;)

    00

  • #
    Speedy

    Brian

    AWFUL!!!!

    I can’t wait to use it at work.

    Cheers,

    Speedy

    00

  • #
    John Brookes

    Sorry to take so long to get back to you Speedy. I think Al Gore is a well intentioned person trying to save the world from dangerous climate change. One or two assertions in “An Inconvenient Truth” are wrong. Martin Durkin, by contrast, is a shyster and a fraud. Many people on the anti-AGW side of the debate are disingenuous to say the least (which basically means that not only are they not telling the truth, they know they are not telling the truth). Now why does a picture of a bug-eyed ponce spring to mind? Noooo, not the lawyers, not the lawyers!

    There are a few on your side of the debate who are genuinely interested in figuring out what is, and will be, happening. I appreciate these people. I appreciate them even more when they correct the misinformation that others on your side propagate.

    There are many, many more who don’t know what is happening, but have chosen a side and are sticking to it, no matter what. They trot out lame arguments and denigrate good people. They are not even useful idiots. Some think that these people shouldn’t be called deniers, but I can’t see why not, since their stock in trade is denial. Temperatures are going up – deny it. CO2 is going up – deny it. The greenhouse effect – deny it. 2+2=4 – better deny it, just to be safe.

    00

  • #
    Speedy

    John Brookes (Discussing Al Gore)

    When someone’s words and their actions are not in alignment, then I am tempted to believe their actions rather than their words. How you can claim Al Gore is “well intentioned” is beyond me – all he has done is raise a scare campaign from which he (via his interest in his green investments) can and has turned a tidy profit. And “one or two assertions” of Al’s might be wrong? John. You do know a lot better than that. Inconvenient Truth was entirely based on lies – and no bigger lie is the one that you have printed at the bottom of your post:

    Temperatures are going up – deny it. CO2 is going up – deny it. The greenhouse effect – deny it. 2+2=4

    The lie is to suggest a physical linkage between temperature and CO2 levels and furthermore that the CO2 caused the temperature increase. Whereas, in fact, any such linkage is that temperature increases drive CO2 increases. Which, as I have pointed out to blogger “Well” lately, would create a runaway greenhouse if CO2 were, in fact, a strong greenhouse gas at 200 + ppm concentrations.

    As a theory, AGW has a number of serious fatal flaws. In a scientific environment it would be discarded. It is only the politics (and ignorance) that keeps it on the table.

    Cheers,

    Speedy

    00

  • #
    Manwichstick

    To all of you in love with this posting, I wish I could call you “skeptics” because you certainly aren’t.

    [The rest of your post has been snipped. Don't use the word "denier" or variations, and be more polite or you won't be able to post here. ] ED

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    John Brookes,

    About Al Gore being well intentioned — please John, try not to blow your brains out in public. Your fellow countrymen don’t want to have to clean up the mess.

    00

  • #
    Brian H

    Here’s a great summary by a prominent, though perhaps understandably anonymous, denier-like-me:

    In the Comments on a SciAm article subtly dissing Judith Curry, “Iconoclast” posts the following:

    14. Iconoclast 05:06 PM 10/23/10

    The proposition that the average temperature of the earth’s surface is warming because of increased emissions of human-produced greenhouse gases cannot be tested by any known scientific procedure

    It is impossible to position temperature sensors randomly over the earth’s surface (including the 71% of ocean, and all the deserts, forests, and icecaps) and maintain it in constant condition long enough to tell if any average is increasing. Even if this were done the difference between the temperature during day and night is so great that no rational average can be derived.

    Measurements at weather stations are quite unsuitable since they are not positioned representatively and they only measure maximum and minimum once a day, from which no average can be derived. They also constantly change in number, location and surroundings. Recent studies show that most of the current stations are unable to measure temperature to better than a degree or two

    The assumptions of climate models are absurd. They assume the earth is flat, that the sun shines with equal intensity day and night, and the earth is in equilibrium, with the energy received equal to that emitted.

    Half of the time there is no sun, where the temperature regime is quite different from the day.

    No part of the earth ever is in energy equilibrium, neither is there any evidence of an overall “balance”.

    It is unsurprising that such models are incapable of predicting any future climate behaviour, even if this could be measured satisfactorily.

    There are no representative measurements of the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide over any land surface, where “greenhouse warming” is supposed to happen.

    After twenty years of study, and as expert reviewer to the IPCC from the very beginning , I can only conclude that the whole affair is a gigantic fraud.

    Every paragraph a gem.

    00

  • #
    Manwichstick

    Dear Editor/Moderator

    Others use “denier” in this comment thread, and it was a topic of discussion as to it use or inappropriate use.

    Are you sure you were not censoring?

    Personally I find the misinformation on this thread offensive and not polite.

    00

  • #
    jnicklin

    Manwichstick:
    November 5th, 2010 at 1:13 am

    Are you sure you were not censoring?

    Personally I find the misinformation on this thread offensive and not polite.

    Manwichstick,

    Jo Nova and moderators here allow far more dissenting opinion than managers of the operators of sites like Real Climate and OpenMind, where dissenting comments just don’t get through the filter at all, so nobody knows there is a voice on the other side of the arguement.

    In regards to your second comment, you do know where you are don’t you? You know the opinions expressed here may be offensive to people with a strong belief in whatever you are calling gloabl warming this week. If you are offended by the content, stop reading and go to another site that satisfies your need for alarmism.

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Manwichstick @101,

    If you want to complain about misinformation then please give an example. Otherwise no one can address your concern. Specifics are always very helpful.

    00

  • #
    Manwichstick

    Hello Roy,

    Here is a sample of the falsehoods: let’s take Brain’s H’s copy and paste – #100:

    “14. Iconoclast 05:06 PM 10/23/10″
    “increased emissions of human-produced greenhouse gases cannot be tested by any known scientific procedure”
    Not by any single experiment but it can be tested by multiple experiments over multiple fields. In much the same way smoking can be shown to cause lung cancer.
    Any claims to the contrary – and that person is lying to you.

    “if this were done the difference between the temperature during day and night is so great that no rational average can be derived.”
    Simply false, utter hogwash.

    “they only measure maximum and minimum once a day, from which no average can be derived.”
    False, and narrowly confines the discussion to land temp. stations of a certain variety.

    “Recent studies show that most of the current stations are unable to measure temperature to better than a degree or two”
    Not relevant, even if true.

    “They assume the earth is flat”
    Some do, some don’t.
    “the sun shines with equal intensity day and night”
    Some models do, some don’t. All of these possibilities are tested rigorously.

    “the earth is in equilibrium, with the energy received equal to that emitted.”
    Only after time, this assumption is not made by definition at all point in time.

    “Half of the time there is no sun, where the temperature regime is quite different from the day.”
    The scientists are well aware of this. It is this data that strongly implicates greenhouse gases in this story. This is a point for the AGW side.

    “No part of the earth ever is in energy equilibrium, neither is there any evidence of an overall “balance”.”
    Over time, there most certainly is.

    “such models are incapable of predicting any future climate behaviour”
    This must be an intentional lie – please don’t believe this. Climate is predictable, weather is not.

    “There are no representative measurements of the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide over any land surface”
    Except where land and satellite measurements have been made.

    “as expert reviewer to the IPCC”
    Perhaps you should poll the actual members of the IPCC. Or read the report. Or better yet phone your local university’s atmospheric physics department and speak to any professor or graduate student who answers the phone.

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Manwichstick @104

    November 5th, 2010 at 4:33 am

    Hello Roy,

    Here is a sample of the falsehoods: let’s take Brain’s H’s copy and paste – #100:

    OK, in what way is this wrong? Brian quotes someone whose opinion differs from the IPCC, someone in whom Brian apparently has some confidence. Does that make the opinion wrong? Remember that the IPCC has been caught in numerous falsehoods, outright carelessness (to which they have admitted) and relies on the data from CRU and others, now shown to be highly suspect (putting it politely). And their credibility is shot full of holes. They even have admitted that they do no science — a peculiar admission given that they claim the science is all on their side.

    The worst of it from my point of view is that the IPCC officially claims that the tropical hotspot must be there if CO2 were to be causing the degree of warming they claim. Yet that hotspot has not appeared, not ever. This is a high hurdle to get over.

    The IPCC is the recognized authority on AGW so I don’t hesitate to use them as the basic argument for my position. And if you go back over this site and read you’ll discover the details and documentation of all those points and more.

    But to your immediate complaint — I don’t know if Brian’s source is right or not. So this is the stuff of good debate. Rather than,

    Not by any single experiment but it can be tested by multiple experiments over multiple fields. In much the same way smoking can be shown to cause lung cancer.
    Any claims to the contrary – and that person is lying to you.

    Let’s have the specifics implied in what I just quoted.

    Thanks.

    00

  • #
    jnicklin

    Manwichstick said…
    “Recent studies show that most of the current stations are unable to measure temperature to better than a degree or two”
    Not relevant, even if true.

    We’re talking about tenths and hundredths of a degree and you claim that a measurement accuracy of plus or minus 1 or 2 degrees is not relevant?

    Also, Iconoclast said that he is an expert reviewer to the IPCC from the very beginning and you tell him to call a graduate student or “whoever answers the phone” to get an opinion on the veracity of the IPCC.

    You have some strange ideas. Basically, you are saying that anything that might call into question the “settled science” is basically irrelevant or untrue.

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Manwichstick,

    I offered you the chance to debate your complaint. I asked for enough specific information so there could be something to debate. You gave me a response devoid of useful content. For instance, I do not even know what this means,

    Not by any single experiment but it can be tested by multiple experiments over multiple fields. In much the same way smoking can be shown to cause lung cancer.
    Any claims to the contrary – and that person is lying to you.

    Your entire list of responses to what Brian posted is of similar character. So I’m waiting for something of substance that we can talk about.

    Thank you

    Roy

    00

  • #
    jnicklin

    Roy,

    Manwickstick is probably just a bot, programmed to respond with the usual alarmist arguments, like “whatever you claim is debunked”, “the study you cite is not relevant”, “I have peer reviewed data”, and the like. WattsUpWithThat has a post on a new twitter bot that searches out skeptical statements and responds with a quip from John Cook’s “Skeptical Science”, which everyone recognizes as the ultimate authority on climate matters. aaaaaaarg.

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    jnicklin @108,

    I think you’re at least partly right. But the fastest way to expose them is to offer them a legitimate chance to show who and what they are. This guy ducked for cover the minute I asked for specifics that we could talk about. I’m beginning to believe that a less confrontational approach may work better. We shall see.

    00

  • #
    Manwichstick

    Hello Roy and the others,

    I do not even know what this means,

    I agree, I wasn’t at my most lucid.

    As for jnicklin: I’m not a bot, obviously. I’m actually a bot sent back from the future. In twenty years, when the global warming has become undeniable, people such as yourself are finding ways of defending your “skeptism” back in 2010.

    I can’t reply that often, so I think today I will only respond in a clarifying way about my weird “cancer” reference.

    I was responding to the ridiculous belief that their is no scientific experiment to show AGW. The only way I can see this opinion as having any validity is to argue that there is only one Earth and humans have never done this before so we can’t really say what is going to happen with any confidence.
    This is an indefensible position to hold when literally thousands of experiments and scientific analysis have been done by hard working people all over the world. It took over a hundred years before nature began to sufficient reveal herself that scientists began to be forced to accept the AGW hypothesis – not because they wanted to, but because it was hard to come to any other conclusion – without inventing physics or possible mechanisms that have yet to be discovered.
    So where I see many multitudes of experiments, done over 3 decades, converging on the same picture, on every continent, over distinct scientific disiplines – you all seem to take solace in unsubstantited claims of doubt. Perhaps one of the reasons is because you find some sort of solidarity in this.

    1)The special theory of relativity -> counter-intuitive but real.
    2)Quantum mechanics -> counter-intuitive but real.
    3)AGW -> hard to believe but real.

    I don’t see any anti-science blogs about 1) or 2)… what gets your knickers in a knot about 3)?
    The same science, same methods, that give you 1) and 2), also yeilds 3). The difference is 3) has been much more thoroughly investigated because it is a much more dynamic and choatic system. Another difference is what you bring to the table and how open your mind really is.

    Scientists are the true skeptics. Their skepticism is encouraged at multiple steps in the process. They are the unsung heroes of our society and when you casually undermine education and cast doubt on their efforts – well, it is a real shame.
    I believe you all to be well meaning people, but some of these arguments you folks share around are so devoid of merit it is insulting to the hard working scientists involved and arrogant for the likes of some of you who think you know better.

    There is much yet to be learned, but to pretend the the last IPCC report, and the next one to come, is not a good representation of the our current scientific understanding of climate change, you are being naive and silly.

    If you find yourself thinking that any of your written concerns appearing in this comment thread have not already been given serious consideration and analysis by the scientists working in the field, you are simply WRONG (whether you believe it or not, whether you believe anything I have written is true or not, and whether anything I have said has resonanted with you or not.)

    Science is a great discipline for not allowing ourselves to delude ourselves. It is not easy and it is often not simple but it is the only institution I know of that enables us to see reality, as close as we can, as it actually is.

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Manwichstick @110,

    The difference is 3) has been much more thoroughly investigated because it is a much more dynamic and choatic system. Another difference is what you bring to the table and how open your mind really is.

    So far the investigation into AGW looks quite fraudulent to be honest with you. From James Hansen to Phil Jones at CRU and Michael Mann at Penn State the data has been manipulated to show what they wanted it to show. CRU then conveniently lost their original data. And this is not just a matter of wishful thinking because there’s plenty of confirmation (the leaked emails, the debunking of the hockey stick). Now the NOAA satellite data is shown to be bad because of a bad sensor.

    You claim climate is predictable yet no climate model has ever successfully predicted even the short term. They can’t predict the present given the conditions of the past at any tine and all we think we know about the time in between.

    Who would you call a thorough investigator?

    Thanks

    Roy

    00

  • #
    Brian H

    Roy Hogue:
    November 6th, 2010 at 12:11 pm;

    Yes, lost data after making plans to delete it? I have come to the conclusion that anyone who claims to believe the “lost” story is ipso facto a liar.

    But that’s just me. Not!

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Brian, you’ve got it exactly right.

    00