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? How many excuses does it take?

Announcing the full version of the Climate Corruption series. There are two copies with different formatting, one here and one on the Science and Public Policy Site. (Click on an image below for the respective PDF version).

Foreword
By Joanne Nova, October 2010

How many excuses does it take?

(Size: US Letter -- with SPPI's usual professional formatting)

The Western Climate Establishment has allowed egregious mistakes, major errors, and obvious biases to accumulate — each factor on its own might be hard to pin down, but the pattern is undeniable.

The Western Climate Establishment is cheating:

  1. Official thermometers are overwhelmingly in warm localities such as near air conditioner exhaust vents, buildings, concrete, tarmac, or asphalt.
  2. Officials hide the Argo data, which shows the world’s oceans are cooling.
  3. They ignore hundreds of thousands of weather balloon results that show the climate models overestimate future warming by at least 300%.
  4. Climate scientists frequently point to the last 130 years of global warming, but don’t mention the full story: the planet started warming before 1700, over a century before humans started pumping out meaningful amounts of CO2.
  5. Leading authors publish a crucial graph with a deceptive colour scheme that imitates the results they wish they’d got. Why did a leading peer-reviewed climate journal publish such a naked and childish attempt at cheating?
  6. The Russian, Chinese and Indian climate establishments, which are financially independent of the western climate establishment, are all skeptical. As are many scientists from other branches of science, and many retired climate scientists (who no longer have anything to lose by speaking their minds).

Only a fool would ignore the message in the pattern

Is the Western Climate Establishment Corrupt

(Size: A4 -- This version will be updated)

Once one or two major news outlets start printing these photos of official thermometers near artificial heating sources, and point out the deception, the rush will be on for our elected representatives to abandon the Global Warming Crusade. No one wants to be seen to be taken in by half-truths and shameless deception. Who wants to look gullible because they didn’t ask the obvious burning questions?

Those who support conclusions based on corrupt behaviour will be seen as negligent for not having considered the serious evidence here.

Dr Evans is a scientist who was on the climate gravy train, and was horrified by what he saw. He first blew the whistle in a polite way in 2008. Too many of the world’s politicians have not yet woken up, so here he collects the worst examples of climate shenanigans and explains them powerfully in terms that any politician can understand.

These photos speak for themselves. The corruption of climate science has become so blatant, so obvious, that even non-scientists can no longer throw their hands in the air and say “I didn’t know”. You don’t need a PhD to know it is cheating to place thermometers near artificial heat sources and call it “global warming”.

————————————————-

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



VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 7.8/10 (4 votes cast)
Is the Western Climate Establishment Corrupt? How many excuses does it take?, 7.8 out of 10 based on 4 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/2blmq94

100 comments to Is the Western Climate Establishment Corrupt? How many excuses does it take?

  • #

    The bigger the lie, the easier the deception. The catastrophic anthropogenic global warming scam is the most gargantuan fraud ever perpetrated upon the human race. It always gets down to the money. Avarice engendered this fraud and the taxpayers instinct for financial self preservation will eventually bring it down. It is sites such as this one that have made the taxpayer cognizant of the eminent threat.

    10

  • #
    Lionell Griffith

    As usual, the demented “progressives” attempt to create an alternate reality when the one that actually exists does not satisfy them. If their data does not satisfy their wishes, they cook the books, distort the measurements, and make things up until it does. If the words they use don’t have the desired effect, they change the words. Then, when their multi-level fraud is discovered, they claim they were simply misunderstood and quoted out of context. Finally, as a last resort, they use the old “prgressive” scam that its not the evidence that counts, it’s the seriousness of the charge and that we should play it “safe” even if we have no proof of their claimed disaster.

    It is way past time for the whole AGW alarmist crowd to be charged with fraud, extortion, blackmail, and theft by deception. Then given the publicity of doing a perp walk in orange suits and shackles. Finally, after all their assets have been liquidated as partial recompense for their theft, they should spend the rest of their lives breaking big rocks into little rocks. They should be forced to live off what others are willing to pay for the sand they produce. If they can’t or won’t produce, let them starve as they had planned for the bulk of mankind! A rabid beast deserves more humane treatment than they.

    00

  • #
    janama

    Thank you David for all your work.

    00

  • #

    Is there a significant correlation between the corrupt climate establishment and our friends on the political left? If so, why?

    00

  • #
    janama

    Ken Mueller:
    November 8th, 2010 at 5:04 am

    Ken – surely the idea is to keep politics out of the science debate.

    00

  • #
    Orange

    Greens don’t need costings when the vibe is so good……

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

    WHAT PLANET DO THESE LUNATICS COME FROM!!!!!

    00

  • #
    David, UK

    janama:
    November 8th, 2010 at 5:12 am

    …surely the idea is to keep politics out of the science debate.

    If the politicians would only stay out of science, and the scientists out of politics, we might have a chance of that attaining that ideal.

    00

  • #
    FijiDave

    It seems the birds know all about UHI. This from http://www.stuff.co.nz/science/3220059/Where-all-the-birds-flock-by-night

    Nothing silly about them sparrows, they seem to more than Phil Jones. Is he less than a bird-brain? :)

    00

  • #
    FijiDave

    Oh, man, I should have previewed..

    This is the pertinent bit:

    During the day big concrete city buildings warm up in the sun and radiate the heat out at night. Half a degree can be a matter of life and death to a bird in winter.

    00

  • #
    Mark

    All the universities and other institutions of advanced “learning” should be treated with a generous portion of Picoprep. This, followed by a deep probe for the intellectual polyps which have been lurking there for far too long.

    Sorry if that upset the more squeamish over their breakfast!

    00

  • #
    Joe Lalonde

    The science itself will have to divide into good honest science that is looking for answers and bad science looking to exploit anything.

    00

  • #
    Mark

    Steve McIntyre has done follow-up articles on the notorious 1990 Jones UHI paper.

    http://climateaudit.org/

    Reminders, if we needed them, about how these characters “do science”!

    00

  • #
    David Burgess

    I was thinking about the idea of UHI in the 1970′s while I was calculating a heat balance. Simple enough. Measure the energy in, measure the energy out, and account for it all. Are there any engineers out there who can calculate the total mass of concrete, tar, terracota roofs, etc (and presumably surface area of said materials)? The thermal properties of the materials are well known.
    Where are the engineers?

    00

  • #
    pattoh

    Janama/Ken Mueller/Orange

    You can’t seperate the politics from the science. Keep referring to the black & white stated aims in AGENDA 21. It is circular!

    The impetus for this flows from there along with the world government Fabian/LSE ideals.

    You get the impression that in an ideal world you can have your cake & eat it too, but in the real world, if they had their way there would be bugger all flour to make the cake from.

    Here in Australia, our Prime Minister (earlier portrayed as a modern Elizabeth 1, complete with frilly collar & hard hat) is doing a pretty good Marie Antionette impression – let them eat cake

    Perhaps a latter day Robespierre is in the offing.

    00

  • #
    Malcolm Miller

    I don’t believe at all that climate alarmism, as preactised by the MSM and politicians, has anything at all to do with left or right wing politics. Karl Marx certainly never mentioned the subject. In Australia there are politicians from all parties except the Greens who seem to believe in either alarmism or fakery. At present the calamitists have the numbers, and the MSM never mentions the arguments against their claims. Their owners are probably making money from ‘warmist’ investments. There is no excuse for the ABC. We can only assume that for years a culture of compliance was not only encouraged but mandated.

    00

  • #
    pat

    yet another attempt to make it a partisan issue, which is essential if the “climate establishment” is to succeed; never do these articles point to rightwing govts in the UK, France, Germany, e.g., who are fully committed to the CAGW agenda.

    7 Nov: Chicago Tribune: Neela Banerjee: Climate scientists plan campaign against global-warming skeptics
    The American Geophysical Union plans to announce Monday that 700 researchers have agreed to speak out on the issue…
    The still-evolving efforts reveal a shift among climate scientists, many of whom have traditionally stayed out of politics and avoided the news media. Many now say they are willing to go toe-to-toe with their critics…
    Some are prepared to go before what they consider potentially hostile audiences on conservative talk-radio and television shows.
    John Abraham of St. Thomas University in Minnesota, who last May wrote a widely disseminated response to climate-change skeptics, is pulling together a “Climate Rapid Response Team,” which so far has more than three dozen leading scientists to defend the consensus on global warming in the scientific community. Some are also pulling together a handbook on the human causes of climate change, which they plan to start sending to U.S. high schools as early as this fall…
    “This group feels strongly that science and politics can’t be divorced and that we need to take bold measures to not only communicate science but also to aggressively engage the denialists and politicians who attack climate science and its scientists,” said Scott Mandia, professor of physical sciences at Suffolk County Community College in New York.
    “We are taking the fight to them because we are … tired of taking the hits. The notion that truth will prevail is not working. The truth has been out there for the past two decades, and nothing has changed.”…
    Climate-change skeptics argued that the sniping in some e-mails showed that scientists suppressed research by skeptics and manipulated data. Five independent panels subsequently cleared the researchers involved and validated the science…
    The American Geological Union plan has attracted a large number of scientists in a short time because they were eager to address what they see as climate misinformation, said Jeffrey Taylor, research fellow at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Colorado and manager of the project.
    Still, the scope of the group’s work is limited, reflecting the ongoing reluctance among many scientists to venture into politics.
    In the week that Abraham and others have been marshaling the rapid-response team, 39 scientists agreed to participate, including Richard Feely, senior scientist with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; Kevin Trenberth, head of the climate analysis section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research; and Michael Oppenheimer professor of geosciences and international affairs at Princeton University….
    http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/la-na-climate-scientists-20101108,0,3784003.story

    00

  • #
    TWinkler

    Hide the Argo data?

    It’s available online for download.

    [Sure. So go right ahead and draw us a graph for global ocean temperatures up to Sept 2010 -- Just try to use that data you found. Get back to us when you know what you are talking about. -- JN]

    00

  • #
    Ken Stewart

    Thanks pat, yes we know we’re up against it. But after a while enough people will see the lies for what they are. I’m not that interested in politics but I know cheating when I see it.
    You need to check some of your claims e.g. the “independent” folks who checked Climategate without asking for input from the complainants. Included in the group of scientists at the heart of the emails was one Kevin Trenberth.
    Another cut and paste reply from a cut and paste alarmist.

    00

  • #
    Orange

    I realize that this is off topic, but I think it is important to know…..

    SUBJECT: Rowntree (candies, chocolates etc..) FUNDING MUSLIM TERRORISM……

    NO MORE ROWNTREE PRODUCTS FOR US!!

    THIS IS VERY BAD FORM BY YOUR COMPANY!!!!

    VERY VERY DISGUSTING!!!

    TRAITORS TO DEMOCRACY!!

    The radical cleric accused of inspiring the cargo bomb plot has been backed by a prominent British campaign group which has financial support from leading charities.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/8114913/Top-charities-give-200000-to-group-which-supported-al-Qaeda-cleric.html

    Cageprisoners, a self-styled human rights organisation, has a long association with Anwar al-Awlaki, who was last week accused of being one of the figures behind the terrorist plot to blow up cargo planes which saw a powerful device defused at East Midlands Airport.

    The Islamic preacher, based in Yemen, was invited to address two Cageprisoners’ fundraising dinners via video link, one last year and one in 2008.

    The group has now told its backers that it no longer supports the cleric and that it “disagreed” with him over “the killing of civilians”.

    But an examination of the Cageprisoners website last week suggested that its support for the cleric was as strong as ever.

    Cageprisoners was set up to lobby on behalf of terror suspects held at Guantanamo Bay and those monitored under control orders in the UK.

    The Sunday Telegraph can reveal that it is being funded by the Joseph Rowntree Trust, a Quaker-run fund set up by the chocolate-maker and philanthropist a century ago, and The Roddick Foundation, a charity set up by the family of Anita Roddick, the Body Shop founder, after her death three years ago.

    The Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust is giving Cageprisoners £170,000 in donations over three years – with the latest payment due this month – and The Roddick Foundation another £25,000.

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

    00

  • #
    Orange

    Oh look this “TWinkler” has been given some Internet Time by the nice doctors!

    Now now “TWinkler” place nice or the people with the white coats will “escort” you back to your room!

    00

  • #
    george

    And then there are the real-world pragmatic realities of the situation. Gillard has vowed to continue unilaterally down the carbon tax road notwithstanding recent events in America (as usual no mention of China or India recalcitrance of course) and Queensland is intending to supposedly reduce its carbon emissions by a third…but, as this recent post on The Drum quite rightly asks, a third of exactly what? (Nice to see something like this on the ABC every now and then, I must say!) Never mind the coal exports, move along now, y`all…

    Only a few responses so far, but including a predictable one about exported coal not to be considered a part of Queensland`s or Australia`s footprint – confused, I am, there I was thinking it is a global problem…

    http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/40820.html

    “The best lies are those based on half-truths”

    00

  • #
    Orange

    Eco-Leftist “Holiday” Earth Day Signed By United Nations; Falls Right On Vladimir Lenin’s Birthday……

    http://againstcommies009.blogspot.com/2008/04/blast-from-past-file-eco-leftist.html

    00

  • #
  • #
    pat

    ken -
    what’s most amusing in the article is it starts out with 700 “scientists” but ends with only 39 signed up! rather like the 2,500 IPCC “climate scientists” that was reduced to “dozens”.

    00

  • #
    TWinkler

    What’s up Orange?

    Don’t you like the fact that I pointed out that the Argo data is available online, not hidden at all. And it’s available for FREE!!

    00

  • #
    Orange

    “TWinkler”, isn’t it time those nice men took YOU back to your “special room” for some quiet time…….

    00

  • #
    TWinkler

    [snip]…….. here any moment now.

    00

  • #
    Orange

    “TWinkler”, haven’t the nice men given YOU your Lithium shot yet….

    SHAME ON THEM!

    00

  • #
  • #
    Neville

    Well then Winkler provide us with a link to the very latest up to date Argo data please.

    00

  • #

    TWinkler:
    November 8th, 2010 at 9:32 am

    Hide the Argo data? It’s available online for download.

    And at 23

    Don’t you like the fact that I pointed out that the Argo data is available online, not hidden at all.

    Jo wrote:

    Officials hide the Argo data, which shows the world’s oceans are cooling.

    Jo was probably referring to the fact that team CAGW doesn’t like anything that contradicts their dogma. Of course, if you wanted clarification you could have asked but that isn’t what trolls do!

    From the CAGW party organ, Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argo_(oceanography)

    It is not yet possible to use Argo data to detect global change signals.

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/cooling-oceans.htm

    There are, however, disputes about the accuracy of Argo buoys and expendable measuring devices dropped into the sea, and the reporting of temperatures down to only 700 metre…

    TWinkler:
    November 8th, 2010 at 12:20 pm

    Personal attacks seem to be very common around here, especially when you can’t refute the argument.
    Eddy should be along here any moment now.

    Personal attacks? Oh, you mean like the ones you make?

    Accountants, lawyers and auditors are now going to focus on curing cancer. What a Laugh!
    I hesitate to use the D word, but why is it you ignore all of them and instead think some other nut, that only seems capable of publishing on blogger sites, is right?
    Where is George “I am the next Einstein” anyway?
    Perhaps we need to call them “Richards” instead of using the D word.
    Are you being a “Richard”?
    His paper’s probably crap
    800? Well there goes George’s theory that the peer-review system wont allow his “genius” to be published.
    That you think this is an argument against AGW demonstrates how poor your climate change knowledge is.
    Your 800 paper list is a fabrication designed to fool the unwary.
    The list is like a circus tent full of clowns whacking each other with balloon animals. Fun to giggle at but no one takes it seriously.
    Clowns are so entertaining.
    LIAR. Ha, just wanted to try it once. I see what you mean, I feel better about myself already without even having to argue the point – ahhh who am I kidding, I’m simply not that good at self-d@#%$!.
    Idso = [snip]
    Richard S Courtney demonstrated so well why an old mind can fumble over simple math.
    Are you about to squirt water from your lapel flower? Honk honk!!
    I get snipped if I use the d word. Heck I got snipped for using the “clown” word. Giddy up ED.
    You’re being pedantic
    “Flip-flop” – go the big shoes of the clowns.

    At “Whats the Harm in Acting Anyway” you got your intellectual ass kicked, TWinkler, right off the planet by Poptech. I suggest that anyone who wants a good laugh at TWinkler’s expense read the exchange. I am sure they will enjoy it, I know I sure did!

    00

  • #

    @Malcolm Miller 14

    I completely agree with you. But, it seems that the right side of politics would like to make a political statement about the causes and abuses of the CAGW scare to further their own political ends. Which is to say, there are many on the political right who deliberately polerise the discussion for the purpose of prolonging the CAGW scare. What are otherwise rational liberals, are being pushed away from good sense in the climatology debate by taunts and threats. Red under the bed!

    When a warmist starts talking about the morality of my carbon emissions, you know he’s not from the right of politics. No. This is about fascism, not communism.

    00

  • #

    Oops, I should have said “you know he’s not from the left of politics” :)

    00

  • #

    TWinkler:
    November 8th, 2010 at 12:20 pm

    Personal attacks seem to be very common around here, especially when you can’t refute the argument.

    In fairness to TWinkler I will now list ALL of the intelligent arguments he has made:

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    george @ 21:

    I just posted at that pointless blog on the ABC’s Drum about Queensland coal. Pearse is a political animal of the Green variety with no scientific understanding whatsoever, let alone any economic nouse. His rantings amused me, as I stated in my post.

    Where does he think the steel in his chair came from, or the steel holding up the building he is sitting in, or the steel in his car he drove to work on (or in the rails of the public transport system he used, or in the bus), and the steel in the house he left to come to work… etc. I could go on.

    Yes that steel most likely came from Asia and it was probably made from iron created in blast furnaces using Queensland coal… funny how that works eh?

    more Green stupidity from the party that defies all logic and eschews critical thinking.

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    PS> Always to look at the background of the author on the Drum and unleashed. Here is Pearse:

    http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/guy-pearse-31698.html

    I assume he claims the following as a badge of honour LOL:

    “While studying in the US in the mid 1990s, he also worked on the advance staff of then Vice President, Al Gore.”

    00

  • #
    Ken Stewart

    pat:

    I may have misjudged you. I didn’t realize your comment included a large newspaper quote- I thought they were your personal sentiments. My apologies.

    Ken

    00

  • #
    TWinkler

    Eddy, you’ll find that quote is more directly on the Argo team’s website rather than on wiki.

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

    Funny how Jo thinks it is “hidden” when it’s plainly available for download.

    As for ocean cooling, Argo = 1 float per million cubic kilometers, drifting with the current measuring the same section over and over again, not measuring below 2,000m (avg depth is 3,700) and not able to measure under sea ice. Missing quite a bit of data aren’t you!

    Arctic sea ice melting at more rapid rates …
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B2Vy1g_BK08 .. how does it do that when the oceans aren’t warming, and neither is the air temps .. according to you.

    More evidence of warming in Arctic waters … http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/10/101027170928.htm .. although I guess you think the Narwhal’s are in on the conspiracy too!

    re: the personal attacks, [snip].

    00

  • #
    TWinkler

    Yeah I just checked again. Argo data is still available online and free to anyone that wants it.

    00

  • #

    TWinkler:
    November 8th, 2010 at 1:36 pm

    Funny how Jo thinks it is “hidden” when it’s plainly available for download.

    Straw man! Jo wrote, “Officials hide the Argo data, which shows the world’s oceans are cooling.” Still straining gnat manure out of pepper?

    Arctic sea ice melting at more rapid rates …
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B2Vy1g_BK08 .. how does it do that when the oceans aren’t warming, and neither is the air temps .. according to you.

    Straw man. Wow! youtube, how impressive! Show me the empirical data that proves that the arctic is warming and not just your usual cut and paste you fool!

    And you couldn’t even be a creative clown.

    So far, the only clown on this site is you! Or, should I say, site idiot!

    re: the personal attacks,

    Straw man as I never denied making personal attacks. What I said simply exposed you for the hypocritical troll that you are! You posted:

    TWinkler:
    November 8th, 2010 at 12:20 pm

    Personal attacks seem to be very common around here

    .

    00

  • #
    Jaymez

    An excellent publication which will hopefully help explain to concerned citizens how climate change is being used as an excuse to push ideological agendas.

    00

  • #

    TWinkler:
    November 8th, 2010 at 1:39 pm

    Yeah I just checked again. Argo data is still available online and free to anyone that wants it.

    Once a fool, always a fool!

    Hide

    to conceal from knowledge or exposure; keep secret: to hide one’s feelings.

    As my post at 31 I gave you a couple of examples of how the “officials” (i.e. CAGW cult members) “hide” the Argo data.

    Here, let me help you TWinkler! Here is a new word for you.

    Nuance

    a subtle difference or distinction in expression, meaning, response, etc.

    synonyms: subtlety, nicety, hint, refinement.

    00

  • #
    TWinkler

    Hey Eddy. The Argo data is available. It’s not “hidden”.

    Whilst you’re downloading it perhaps you could spend some time learning how to use the blockquote feature. ;)

    And perhaps you might notice where the youtube video gets its data. Give you a hint: same place as this pic http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/n_plot_hires.png

    Of course the data there is “hidden” too.

    http://nsidc.org/data/

    00

  • #
    TWinkler

    As my post at 31 I gave you a couple of examples of how the “officials” (i.e. CAGW cult members) “hide” the Argo data.

    And at post 38 I pointed out to you how you could avoid the wiki altogether and get the same quote from the Argo team, you know, the people that build the floats. ;)

    [snip]

    00

  • #
    Orange

    “TWinkler” is a typical warmist [snip]

    00

  • #
    Bingi

    It’s great to see all the sceptic arguements in the one place.

    The problem for you sceptics is that all of these arguements are paper thin and they have all been thoroughly and comprehensively rebutted.

    Anyone can spend a day on the internet and find the rebuttals themselves.

    Governments will continue to rely on highly qualified scientists who work for government run institutions such as NOAA, NASA, CSIRO, BOM, and the numerous reports and peer reviewed papers from public research universities, science academy’s and finally the reports from the IPCC.

    Another problem for you sceptics is that all the enquiries into scientists involved in the stolen emails (fizzlegate) have come to naught. No amount of bleating about whitewashes can change that fact.

    Your elected representatives will not make decisions based on weak, easily rebutted blog articles. Go ahead and email them if it makes you feel good.

    Half-truths and shameless deception just won’t cut it though.

    00

  • #

    Twinkler the arctic sea ice is not in danger of melting and the CAGW prophecy about the opening of the Northwest Passage is a bust!

    See http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/31/arctic-sea-ice-about-to-hit-normal-what-will-the-news-say/

    The “melting” ice is caused by ocean currents and changes in the wind patterns, not global warming!

    Do you ever stop and think, TWinkler? The ice has been much thinner in the past when CO2 levels were lower and Temps were warmer. The satellites have only been recording ice thickness since the 1970′s. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/30/new-peer-reviewed-paper-says-there-appear-to-have-been-periods-of-ice-free-summers-in-the-central-arctic-ocean/ Also, http://www.springerlink.com/content/8j71453650116753/?p=fcd6adbe04ff4cc29b7131b5184282eb&pi=0

    .

    00

  • #
    TWinkler

    The “melting” ice is caused by ocean currents and changes in the wind patterns, not global warming!

    Sure, the ocean currents are warmer. Simple enough to understand. This at a time when you say the oceans are getting colder.

    Do you ever stop and think, TWinkler? The ice has been much thinner in the past when CO2 levels were lower and Temps were warmer.

    Sure, (maybe they say) about 10-11,000 years ago. Since then the climate has been cooling, oh except for the recent decades when the Arctic is close to being back to ice free again.

    What’s your point?

    00

  • #
    Speedy

    Bingi @ 46

    The problem for you sceptics is that all of these arguements are paper thin and they have all been thoroughly and comprehensively rebutted.

    OK, lets play a game. Let me know if you disagree with any of the statements.

    YOU say: “Manmade CO2 emissions are causing unprecedented and catastrophic climate change. We must take urgent action to reduce CO2 emissions.”

    SKEPTICS say: “But the paleoclimate and even more recent climate history (~12k years ago) demonstrates that global climate and CO2 level are not linked. CO2 level has been up to 7000 ppm – and we had ice ages in those times! Why is this?”

    YOU say: “The paleoclimate ice age data is the result of solar dimming, which caused the Ice Ages of that time. If it hadn’t been for that extra CO2 it would have got REALLY cold. Go read it up on Skeptical Science.”

    SKEPTICS say: “Then how come the earth wasn’t a giant snowball for the first 4 billion years of it’s history – after all, the sun was getting and more more intense over that entire period Surely this would say that the earth’s energy input was even lower then? And CO2 levels weren’t as high as 7000 ppm for all of that 4 billion years. Besides, if you read up on Boltzman’s Law and do your maths, the difference from a 5% solar dimming is only about 4 Celsius – nowhere near enough to cover 4 doublings of the CO2 concentration – if you believe the IPCC numbers?”

    YOU say: ?

    Over to you.

    Cheers,

    Speedy

    00

  • #
    Bingi

    Eddy’s article is more than 6 months old. Notice how he always posts that article with the image of the ice nearing the normal line.

    The latest up to date image tells a whole different story…

    http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_stddev_timeseries.png

    And take a look at the sea ice trend!

    http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/n_plot_hires.png

    Going down, down, down…

    00

  • #

    TWinkler:
    November 8th, 2010 at 2:14 pm

    As for ocean cooling, Argo = 1 float per million cubic kilometers, drifting with the current measuring the same section over and over again, not measuring below 2,000m (avg depth is 3,700) and not able to measure under sea ice. Missing quite a bit of data aren’t you!

    Another straw man!
    Here is a quote from your link http://www.argo.ucsd.edu/global_change_analysis.html

    Analyses of decadal changes presently focus on comparison of Argo to sparse and sometimes inaccurate historical data. Argo’s greatest contributions to observing the global oceans are still in the future, but

    its global span is clearly transforming the capability to observe climate-related changes

    .

    The Argo data is relatively new but is far superior to what has been available in the past. I f we follow your “logic” then we would have to ignore all of the data used by the AGW crowd because the ocean temps it relies on are inferior to Argo data. While on the subject of sparse data and the Arctic, how can we trust anything that we are told about the temp measurements cited by the AGW crowd when their data is sparse! See http://joannenova.com.au/2010/07/did-giss-discover-30-more-land-in-the-northern-hemisphere/

    00

  • #
    Bingi

    @Speedy

    It’s good to see you are interested in our geological past. Me too.

    Did you read the report put out by the Geological Society?

    ———–

    Climate change: evidence from the geological record

    The Geological Society has prepared a position statement on climate change, focusing specifically on the geological evidence. A drafting group was convened, with the aim of producing a clear and concise summation, accessible to a general audience, of the scientific certainties and uncertainties; as well as including references to further sources of information.

    Download a pdf of the statement

    I urge to to read it Speedy. I did and I found it very interesting. I learnt a lot.

    00

  • #
    TWinkler

    Speedy, ahh that old trap. You think we must somehow explain everything in the past otherwise AGW can’t be valid.

    Whilst it would be great to be able to know what caused past climates perfectly, the fact is we simply don’t have the data to do that.

    Today’s climate can be examined and monitored to an immense level of detail compared to 4 billion years ago.

    Your desire to explain the early Earth is not neccessary in order to make sense of today’s AGW theory.

    00

  • #
    TWinkler

    Eddy, you missed this part on that page.

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

    Pretty clear Steady Eddy.

    00

  • #

    TWinkler:
    November 8th, 2010 at 2:50 pm

    Sure, the ocean currents are warmer. Simple enough to understand. This at a time when you say the oceans are getting colder.

    Another straw man. What I wrote was, The “melting” ice is caused by ocean currents and changes in the wind patterns, not global warming!”

    Twinkler blathered:

    Since then the climate has been cooling, oh except for the recent decades when the Arctic is close to being back to ice free again.

    There is a peer reviewed paper which says that temps in the Arctic have been cooling over the last 1,500 years. http://www.springerlink.com/content/8j71453650116753/fulltext.pdf

    The Arctic has been ice free or close to it in the past when temperatures were warmer and CO2 levels were lower. If CO2 is the primary forcing, why were temps higher and CO2 levels were lower? You have yet to provide empirical proof that rising CO2 levels have caused ocean temps to rise. The ice melting in the Arctic is part of a cyclical pattern that has been going on for thousands of years. Do you not know that the temperatures for this interglacial hit their high over 5,000 years ago? Yet, CO2 levels were lower!

    00

  • #
    george

    Bulldust

    Yep, just seen your post! As far as Guy Pearse is concerned I know what you`re saying, but I did note that it seemed to be an anti-coal rather than anti-AGW piece, as well as noting his substantive position in the post footnote. The latter was enough for me, without needing to search further.

    The reason for my post at #21 was that at least what he wrote puts current green energy tokenism into perspective. One might say he (inadvertently?) kicked an “own goal” there?

    00

  • #
    TWinkler

    What I wrote was, The “melting” ice is caused by ocean currents and changes in the wind patterns, not global warming!”

    And how do you make that work over a 30 year period.

    The video showed the ice flow very well.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B2Vy1g_BK08

    There is a peer reviewed paper …

    HAHAHAHA. Suddenly a fan of tree-ring data are you?

    And funny how the paper which covers “Northern Sweden” can suddenly represent the whole Arctic region.

    00

  • #

    TWinkler:
    November 8th, 2010 at 3:05 pm

    Eddy, you missed this part on that page.
    The global Argo dataset is not yet long enough to observe global change signals

    No, I did not miss it. How does that make what I wrote untrue? The Argo data is superior. Your claimed that

    As for ocean cooling, Argo = 1 float per million cubic kilometers, drifting with the current measuring the same section over and over again, not measuring below 2,000m (avg depth is 3,700) and not able to measure under sea ice. Missing quite a bit of data aren’t you!

    To which I responded

    I f we follow your “logic” then we would have to ignore all of the data used by the AGW crowd because the ocean temps it relies on are inferior to Argo data.

    You obfuscated intentionally! And being the typical troll you avoid answering the questions put to you!

    Once again,

    While on the subject of sparse data and the Arctic, how can we trust anything that we are told about the temp measurements cited by the AGW crowd when their data is sparse?

    00

  • #
    Orange

    US SENATOR Barbara Boxer (GLOBAL WARMING FANATIC) : Greatest national security threat is carbon dioxide……….

    http://www.youtube.com/comment_servlet?all_comments=1&v=KJJB7zFsFFE

    WTF!!!

    00

  • #
    Orange

    “I have thought for some time that the worst thing about the AGW scam is that urgent environmental issues like heavy metal pollution, rainforest destruction, overfishing, soot in the atmosphere (and too many to list, add power generation here if you like) are pushed off the political agenda.
    The AGW scam has given the worst abusers of our environment a “news free” run.
    A cynic would argue that this is exactly what AGW was designed to do.
    The greens and the left have fallen for the sucker punch. They have spent all their time and effort fighting for a cause which will be ultimately exposed as a scam. In the meantime, environmental abuse that impacts us all is ignored.
    When AGW is finally accepted by the left wing media as the joke that it is, the greens will also be discredited in the eyes of many.”

    00

  • #

    TWinkler:
    November 8th, 2010 at 3:22 pm

    And how do you make that work over a 30 year period.

    Non Sequitur! How do I make what work?

    Suddenly a fan of tree-ring data are you?

    Irrelevant question and a disingenuous segue. You lose the argument by default unless you can either argue why the paper is in error or cite a rebuttal to it!

    And funny how the paper which covers “Northern Sweden” can suddenly represent the whole Arctic region.

    Another staw man as I never wrote that. If you are saying that it can represent the whole Arctic region then you agree with me and you contradict yourself. Yep, you are painting yourself into a corner, again!

    00

  • #
    TWinkler

    No, I did not miss it.

    Yes you did miss it. It was the most important and most relevant line on that web page with regard to whether or not it can be used for global warming analysis. It reiterated what you so hated on the wiki page, except that it is directly from the Argo team.

    But I’ll humour your attempt to change the subject once more shall I as we drift further from the original “the data is hidden”?

    I f we follow your “logic” then we would have to ignore all of the data used by the AGW crowd because the ocean temps it relies on are inferior to Argo data.

    Any data that is subject to short term fluctuations should not be relied upon for short term observations.

    While on the subject of sparse data and the Arctic, how can we trust anything that we are told about the temp measurements cited by the AGW crowd when their data is sparse?

    That’s the appeal for AGW, it doesn’t just rely on one thing.

    - We’ve seen increasing surface temps as measured by land-based stations and satellites.
    - The temps of the oceans have also been rising.
    - Ocean sea level rising in response to thermal expansion and land-ice melt.
    - Animals and plants are now responding to warmer climates.
    - Glaciers melting at accelerating rates.
    - Arctic sea ice dreasing over the past few decades and at an accelerating rate.

    Sure, any one of these may contain bad data, the chance that they all do is far less.

    That’s what makes the AGW argument compelling.

    00

  • #
    TWinkler

    Another staw man as I never wrote that.

    Here’s what you said Eddy.

    There is a peer reviewed paper which says that temps in the Arctic have been cooling over the last 1,500 years.

    00

  • #
    Ken Stewart

    Bingi and TWinkler:
    Yep I agree there is a 30 year downward trend in Arctic sea ice extent.
    Do you agree that there is a 30 year upward trend in Antarctic sea ice extent? See
    One’s an ocean, one’s a continent.
    Ken

    00

  • #
    Ken Stewart

    I’ll get those tags right one day.
    Ken

    00

  • #
    Speedy

    Twinkler @ 53

    Speedy, ahh that old trap. You think we must somehow explain everything in the past otherwise AGW can’t be valid.

    You can’t explain the past, but expect us to believe your “projections” of the future? I don’t think so.

    You and (apparently) Bingi agree that CO2 variations don’t explain the paleoclimate. (see Me@49). Your theory has been falsified. Time to get another.

    Cheers,

    Speedy

    00

  • #
    TWinkler

    Do you agree that there is a 30 year upward trend in Antarctic sea ice extent? See One’s an ocean, one’s a continent.

    Yes I agree the Antarctic sea ice extent has been increasing.

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/08/100816154958.htm

    00

  • #
    TWinkler

    You and (apparently) Bingi agree that CO2 variations don’t explain the paleoclimate. (see Me@49). Your theory has been falsified. Time to get another.

    I guess you either didn’t read or didn’t understand either of our posts.

    00

  • #
    Drewfus

    Why do people fear global warming?

    My answer is that the idea of a warmer future contradicts our preconceived notions of what the future will be like.

    The future is abstract, clean, sparse, ordered, egalitarian, peaceful, sophisticated, very high-tech, and last but not least, cool.

    Ask yourself what colour or colours the future is and then have a look at these Google images.

    00

  • #
    wendy

    “Drewfus”, if these green communists get their way then the colour of our future will be RED!

    00

  • #

    Bingi:
    November 8th, 2010 at 3:00 pm

    @Speedy
    It’s good to see you are interested in our geological past. Me too.
    Did you read the report put out by the Geological Society?

    Another appeal to authority. Here is a link that contains a graph showing temps and CO2 levels over the past 600,000 years. Care to show me where there is any relationship bewtwwen CO2 and temps/ http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html

    TWinkler:
    November 8th, 2010 at 3:39 pm

    Another straw man as I never wrote that.

    Here’s what you said Eddy.
    There is a peer reviewed paper which says that temps in the Arctic have been cooling over the last 1,500 years.

    You idiot! You stated that I wrote

    And funny how the paper which covers “Northern Sweden” can suddenly represent the whole Arctic region.

    I did not write that! That is why it is a straw man. Can you show me where I wrote that? What I wrote was, “There is a peer reviewed paper which says that temps in the Arctic have been cooling over the last 1,500 years.”

    Now, either refute the paper or cite a rebuttal!

    Yes you did miss it.

    How do you know? Are you a mind reader.

    Now answer the question!

    While on the subject of sparse data and the Arctic, how can we trust anything that we are told about the temp measurements cited by the AGW crowd when their data is sparse?

    That’s the appeal for AGW, it doesn’t just rely on one thing.
    - We’ve seen increasing surface temps as measured by land-based stations and satellites.
    - The temps of the oceans have also been rising.
    - Ocean sea level rising in response to thermal expansion and land-ice melt.
    - Animals and plants are now responding to warmer climates.
    - Glaciers melting at accelerating rates.
    - Arctic sea ice dreasing over the past few decades and at an accelerating rate.

    One more time, if the data for ocean temperatures for Argo is sparse (As for ocean cooling, Argo = 1 float per million cubic kilometers, drifting with the current measuring the same section over and over again, not measuring below 2,000m (avg depth is 3,700) and not able to measure under sea ice. Missing quite a bit of data aren’t you! ) and yet it is superior to what has been used before, ho can we trust the ocean temp data that the AGW team uses? So much for your claim that ocean temps are rising!

    As far as the rest of your “evidence” let’s have a look at it shall we?

    We’ve seen increasing surface temps as measured by land-based stations and satellites.

    A fact which you have not disputed is, as I have written at 55, “Do you not know that the temperatures for this interglacial hit their high over 5,000 years ago? Yet, CO2 levels were lower!” If CO2 levels were the dominant forcing temps either CO2 levels would have been higher during the holocene maximum or temps would have been lower. If you cannot show my reasoning is wrong then your CAGW hypothesis is falsified!

    -

    The temps of the oceans have also been rising.

    Ocean temps lag air temps by 800 years. If you are referring to SST so what? Can you cite empirical; evidence to show that the SST is warmer now than it was during the holocene maximum?

    - Animals and plants are now responding to warmer climates.

    Yes, they respond to rising and falling temps, so what? We came out of the LIA in 1850 and the world has warmed .7 degrees, thank God!

    Glaciers melting at accelerating rates.

    Glaciers, most but not all, have receded since we left the LIA. In fact, they are finding evidence of medieval civilization as the glaciers in the Alps melt. The MWP was warmer and CO2 levels were lower. Once again your hypothesis is falsified!

    Arctic sea ice dreasing over the past few decades and at an accelerating rate.

    End point fallacy. The cycle is natural and the arctic is merely responding to natural variation (i.e. the AMO, PDO, etc.) Viewed over a longer scale, nothing unusual is happening. Aren’t you the same guy saying that the ARGo data didn’t go back far enough?

    Sure, any one of these may contain bad data, the chance that they all do is far less.

    Actually, none of your arguments hold water. Your reasoning is fallacious, an appeal to numbers, argumentum ad numerum. Simply putting up a number of unsubstantiated claims is circular reasoning. You have provided no empirical data that shows that man is causing the globe to warm by contributing 12 molecules of CO2 per million to the atmosphere.

    00

  • #
    wendy

    WATCH THIS FANATICAL GREENIE MAKE A FOOL OF HIMSELF!!

    “If Guam Gets Too Overpopulated It Might Tip Over”
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNZczIgVXjg

    WHAT A MORON!

    00

  • #

    I am going to spend time with my son. When I get up tomorrow I know that our site idiot and troll emeritus, Twinkler, will not have been able to answer my questions or Speedy’s. I am going to continue pounding you again tomorrow. Oh, I am going to see tomorrow if Poptech will once again trounce you at “What’s the harm in acting anyways”. You are pathetic!

    00

  • #
    Speedy

    Bingi @ 52

    An interesting article. I urge you to read it yourself, and when you do, perhaps ask yourself these questions:

    What caused the Little Ice Age 1300 – 1850?
    What caused the Medieval Warming 900 – 1300AD?
    What is different about the warming 1850 – 2000?
    Where is the empirical evidence for AGW?

    You might also like to ponder the fact that the ice core records show temperatures rising BEFORE CO2 levels (due to outgassing of the oceans), so CO2 is a non-event as a climate driver once the levels are at 200 + ppm. If CO2 were a powerful driver of global temperature, such a condition would result in a runaway greenhouse. You may tell James Hansen that the conditions for his runaway greenhouse have been met several times over in the past, and life on earth was not doomed.

    On the whole, the article does get one fundamental right – that climate has changed, and changed dramatically, in the past. It is foolish to expect it to remain static for our benefit.

    Now. Would you like to answer (in your own sweet words) my question at 49?

    Cheers,

    Speedy

    00

  • #
    Speedy

    Twinkler @ above

    If the case for Global Warming is as strong as you claim, then why is it necessary for climate “scientists” to fake the data?

    Indeed, as Jo says above – “How many excuses does it take?”

    Cheers

    Speedy

    00

  • #

    Twinkler claims the data has been found. As was discussed at length in the comments on the thread related to that , the bits and pieces of data are around, but not the final calculated global temperatures.

    Without knowing the adjustments, weightings and methods, we can only guess what total result they would calculate, and if we calculated one, they would just say whatever we did was the wrong method.

    US citizens pay for the data and the result. Why don’t they update their old ARGO graphs? If those graphs showed warming, would they keep the result a secret?

    Pielke asked for it, and was told nicely that he couldn’t have it.

    So go right ahead and draw us a graph for global ocean temperatures up to Sept 2010 — Just try to use that data you found. Get back to us when you know what you are talking about. — JN

    00

  • #
    manalive

    I’m a retired layman trying to counter the current CAGW idiocy because it is now affecting my bank balance and, if the Greens have their way, will slowly impoverish me (or at least put me on the pension) — for absolutely no reason but to make that cosseted minority (federally now and in Victoria soon) feel better.
    I’ll leave the ‘national interest’ to others better qualified.

    On the ocean heat content trend (and I’m genuinely after an authoritative opinion here if possible, not making some debating point):

    How is the ocean heat content relevant to CAGW debate?
    How is the ocean heat content relevant to what extent, if any, the global mean atmospheric temperature trend has been and is now affected by the increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration which may be wholly or partly due to human CO2 emissions?
    Even assuming that 100% of the 0.7°C temperature rise 1950 – 2010 is due to human emissions (q.v. IPCC 2007), that miniscule temperature rise could not have had any effect on the 1,500,000,000,000,000,000,000 litres of water contained in the oceans covering 80% of the surface of the earth to a maximum depth of 11,000 meters.

    ‘To heat it by a mere 1˚C, for example, an astonishing 6,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 joules of energy are required’.

    Surely the ocean heat content is only measure of solar radiation (perhaps some sub-marine vulcanism as well), human influences being feeble by comparison.

    The idea of some lurking reservoir of human-caused heat, hidden deep in the oceans (how did it get there undetected?), waiting to suddenly spring out and cause a catastrophic rise in atmospheric temperature (if that’s what the CAGW hysterics are suggesting), is childish.

    00

  • #
    Richard S Courtney

    Ms Nova:

    At #76 you demonstrate that Twinkler has been posting rubbish then say to him/her:

    Get back to us when you know what you are talking about

    But on several threads of this blog both Twinkler and Bingi have repeatedly demonstrated that they know nothing – and understand less than nothing – of the matters they assert.

    It is clear that their only intention is to disrupt serious discussion by obfuscation, misrepresentation and falsehood.

    Richard

    00

  • #
    Siliggy

    Watch out for this con job. The warmist says:

    ” From the UAH data the mean anomaly for 1998 was +0.5175. At present the mean anomaly for 2010 is +0.541. “

    Look a little closer and you see that 12 months is being compared to 10 months. When you instead compare the last 12 months with the same 12 months from 97/98. The past 12 months average anomaly has been colder.

    00

  • #

    Me @ 73

    When I get up tomorrow I know that our site idiot and troll emeritus, Twinkler, will not have been able to answer my questions or Speedy’s.

    Sure enough, no answers to my questions or Speedy’s. Not to worry, the Trolls will return and act as if nothing happened. When they do, we need to keep pressing for answers to our questions. Let us see if they can handle the heat!

    00

  • #
    Speedy

    Jo / Richard

    Imagine talking to our trolls like this!

    Get back to us when you know what you are talking about

    We’d never see them again!

    Cheers,

    Speedy

    00

  • #

    Richard S Courtney:
    November 8th, 2010 at 8:25 pm

    But on several threads of this blog both Twinkler and Bingi have repeatedly demonstrated that they know nothing – and understand less than nothing – of the matters they assert.

    Yes, Richard, but let us not forget their contribution to science. Twinkler has demonstrated and Bingi has confirmed that it is possible to have a negative IQ! ;)

    00

  • #

    Another one bites the dust!!!

    129John Brookes:
    November 9th, 2010 at 12:33 am
    Oh well, looks like time to find another way to fill in the idle moments.
    Bye all.

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    TWinkler,

    - We’ve seen increasing surface temps as measured by land-based stations and satellites.
    - The temps of the oceans have also been rising.
    - Ocean sea level rising in response to thermal expansion and land-ice melt.
    - Animals and plants are now responding to warmer climates.
    - Glaciers melting at accelerating rates.
    - Arctic sea ice dreasing over the past few decades and at an accelerating rate.

    Nice list! But you still fail to provide an empirical link between any of these things and CO2. It’s all an assumption that CO2 is the culprit.

    Get a grip on what the debate is really all about. Theory, theory, theory but not a bit of actual evidence to support it.

    00

  • #
    bananabender

    The problem for you sceptics is that all of these arguements are paper thin and they have all been thoroughly and comprehensively rebutted.

    I have spent thousands of hours reading scientific papers on ‘climate change’.

    There no danger from human generated CO2.

    I can even find a peer-reviewed paper that shows their is no such thing as the ‘greenhouse effect”.

    Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics
    Int.J.Mod.Phys.B23:275-364,2009
    Gerhard Gerlich, Ralf D. Tscheuschner

    “The atmospheric greenhouse effect, an idea that many authors trace back to the traditional works of Fourier (1824), Tyndall (1861), and Arrhenius (1896), and which is still supported in global climatology, essentially describes a fictitious mechanism, in which a planetary atmosphere acts as a heat pump driven by an environment that is radiatively interacting with but radiatively equilibrated to the atmospheric system. According to the second law of thermodynamics such a planetary machine can never exist. Nevertheless, in almost all texts of global climatology and in a widespread secondary literature it is taken for granted that such mechanism is real and stands on a firm scientific foundation. In this paper the popular conjecture is analyzed and the underlying physical principles are clarified. By showing that (a) there are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the fictitious atmospheric greenhouse effects, (b) there are no calculations to determine an average surface temperature of a planet, (c) the frequently mentioned difference of 33 degrees Celsius is a meaningless number calculated wrongly, (d) the formulas of cavity radiation are used inappropriately, (e) the assumption of a radiative balance is unphysical, (f) thermal conductivity and friction must not be set to zero, the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture is falsified.”

    00

  • #
    TWinkler

    Twinkler claims the data has been found. As was discussed at length in the comments on the thread related to that …

    The data was never lost Jo. It’s always been available as I showed in post 21. Thanks everyone for the thumbs up!! LOL.

    …, the bits and pieces of data are around, but not the final calculated global temperatures.

    The calculations are up to the people that wish to do reconstructions.

    For example: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v465/n7296/fig_tab/nature09043_F1.html

    If you want a newer one, I suggest you employ a real scientist for this task Jo.

    [The nature page doesn't even mention ARGO. Thanks for proving our point. Can you admit that there is no global ocean temperature available since mid 2008 from the publicly paid for ARGO network, and that it is inexplicable that Willis would not give Pielke access to the full data and methods? We need to know that you agree we are right on this point, and that you will not keep repeating the same mistaken claim. No more posts from you Twinkler-Brendon until we see a more honest conversation. You are wasting our time repeating misleading claims. --JN]

    00

  • #
    Richard S Courtney

    Twinkler:

    At #88 you wrote:

    Hi Richard, Still waiting for you to explain to us all why Idso thinks climate sensitivity can be calculated by observing the desert and think that this somehow captuers long term ocean feedbacks.

    Of course, please only do this once you’re finished telling everyone else how wrong or rude they are.

    Oh,Twinkler, silly little Twinkler, do you really think anybody is likely to be fooled by your misrepresentations?

    Why claim you are “still waiting” for an explanation that you have not previously requested from me?

    And there is no “long term ocean feedbacks”. It does not exist, so it cannot be “captured”. What made you imagine there is such an impossible thing? Radiative effects occur at the speed of light. That is what ‘radiation’ means.

    So, how do you imagine that climate sensitivity (a radiative effect) can have “long term ocean feedbacks”?
    Let me guess, some warmist blog suggested the nonsense and you swallowed it like the gullible fool you have repeatedly shown your self to be in your posts here.

    Idso’s paper explains each of the 8 different experiments he used to measure climate sensitivity in a variety oif environments. He finds that climate sensitvity is equivalent to 0.4 deg.C rise for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 in each environment.

    The findings of Idso’s experiments are empirical data. They disprove the assertions, models and musings of higher climate sensitivity that are asserted by the alarmists you worship and adore.

    Please note that I do not say you are “rude”. Indeed, I refuted John Brookes’attempt to use the warmisatsa’ ‘rude defence’. I say you have repeatedly demonstrated
    (a) that you are a liar,
    and
    (b) that you lack adequate intelectual ability to operate as a functional adult.

    Richard

    [Richard, TWinkler also known as Twinkler2 AKA Brendon, has been placed in the "Sin Bin". Brendon if you recall caused a bit of trouble as early as March 1, 2010.

    Please watch for new posts with the same modus operandi because there is a good chance he will be a repeat offender]ED

    00

  • #
    Bingi

    Bananabender@85

    That Gerlich & Tscheuschner paper has been thoroughly and comprehensively rebutted.

    COMMENT ON “FALSIFICATION OF THE ATMOSPHERIC CO2 GREENHOUSE EFFECTS WITHIN THE FRAME OF PHYSICS”

    JOSHUA B. HALPERN
    Department of Chemistry, Howard University, Washington, DC, 20059, USA

    CHRISTOPHER M. COLOSE
    Department of Atmospheric, Oceanic, and Space Sciences, University of Wisconsin-Madison Madison, WI 53706-1695, USA

    CHRIS HO-STUART

    JOEL D. SHORE
    Physics Department, Rochester Institute of Technology, Rochester, NY 14623, USA

    ARTHUR P. SMITH

    JÖRG ZIMMERMANN
    Quality Management, Deutscher Wetterdienst, Frankfurter Str. 135, 63067 Offenbach, Germany

    History:

    Received 11 March 2010

    Abstract:

    In this journal, Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner claim to have falsified the existence of an atmospheric greenhouse effect. Here, we show that their methods, logic, and conclusions are in error. Their most significant errors include trying to apply the Clausius statement of the Second Law of Thermodynamics to only one side of a heat transfer process rather than the entire process, and systematically ignoring most non-radiative heat flows applicable to the Earth’s surface and atmosphere. They claim that radiative heat transfer from a colder atmosphere to a warmer surface is forbidden, ignoring the larger transfer in the other direction which makes the complete process allowed. Further, by ignoring heat capacity and non-radiative heat flows, they claim that radiative balance requires that the surface cool by 100 K or more at night, an obvious absurdity induced by an unphysical assumption. This comment concentrates on these two major points, while also taking note of some of Gerlich and Tscheuschner’s other errors and misunderstandings.

    http://www.worldscinet.com/ijmpb/24/2410/S021797921005555X.html

    There’s more…

    Proof of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect

    Arthur P. Smith

    (Submitted on 29 Feb 2008)

    A recently advanced argument against the atmospheric greenhouse effect is refuted. A planet without an infrared absorbing atmosphere is mathematically constrained to have an average temperature less than or equal to the effective radiating temperature. Observed parameters for Earth prove that without infrared absorption by the atmosphere, the average temperature of Earth’s surface would be at least 33 K lower than what is observed.

    PDF

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Eddy @ 83
    I agree and good riddance.

    What about this Bingi? Makes me think of lots of tequila……

    00

  • #
    bananabender

    That Gerlich & Tscheuschner paper has been thoroughly and comprehensively rebutted.

    Sorry but you are completely wrong. In fact Gerlich & Tscheuschner totally discredited the rebuttal.

    Reply To “Comment On ‘Falsification Of The Atmospheric Co2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics’ By Joshua B. Halpern, Christopher M. Colose, Chris Ho-Stuart, Joel D. Shore, Arthur P. Smith, Jörg Zimmermann”, by Gerhard Gerlich And Ralf D. Tscheuschner, in IJMP(B), Vol 24, Iss 10, Apr 20, 2010, pp 1333-1359, doi:10.1142/S0217979210055573

    Abstract

    It is shown that the notorious claim by Halpern et al. recently repeated in their comment that the method, logic, and conclusions of our “Falsification Of The CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics” would be in error has no foundation. Since Halpern et al. communicate our arguments incorrectly, their comment is scientifically vacuous. In particular, it is not true that we are “trying to apply the Clausius statement of the Second Law of Thermodynamics to only one side of a heat transfer process rather than the entire process” and that we are “systematically ignoring most non-radiative heat flows applicable to Earth’s surface and atmosphere”. Rather, our falsification paper discusses the violation of fundamental physical and mathematical principles in 14 examples of common pseudo-derivations of fictitious greenhouse effects that are all based on simplistic pictures of radiative transfer and their obscure relation to thermodynamics, including but not limited to those descriptions (a) that define a “Perpetuum Mobile Of The 2nd Kind”, (b) that rely on incorrectly calculated averages of global temperatures, (c) that refer to incorrectly normalized spectra of electromagnetic radiation. Halpern et al. completely missed an exceptional chance to formulate a scientifically well-founded antithesis. They do not even define a greenhouse effect that they wish to defend. We take the opportunity to clarify some misunderstandings, which are communicated in the current discussion on the non-measurable, i.e., physically non-existing influence of the trace gas CO2 on the climates of the Earth.

    Many Warmists bloggers have severely embarrassed themselves trying to tried to rebut Gerlich & Tscheuschner. In doing so they have only shown their ignorance of physics.

    There has never been a successful rebuttal of Gerlich & Tscheuschner published in any peer-reviewed journal

    00

  • #

    I can’t wait for Bingi’s next cut and paste. Who knows, maybe a miracle will occur and he will actually articulate a nuanced, lucid and intelligent argument? Then again, I am such an optimist!

    00

  • #

    Mark D.:
    November 9th, 2010 at 2:10 pm
    Eddy @ 83

    I agree and good riddance.
    What about this Bingi? Makes me think of lots of tequila……

    Bingi is nextup on the hit parade, Spatch is on deck and Well is in the hole! ;)

    00

  • #
    Llew Jones

    pat:
    November 8th, 2010 at 9:25 am

    “7 Nov: Chicago Tribune: Neela Banerjee: Climate scientists plan campaign against global-warming skeptics….”

    Here is an interesting response from Roy Spencer. Some excerpts:

    “A new article in the LA Times says that the American Geophysical Union (AGU) is enlisting the help of 700 scientists to fight back against a new congress that is viewed as a bunch of backwoods global warming deniers who are standing in the way of greenhouse gas regulations and laws required to save humanity from itself.

    Scientific truth, after all, must prevail. And these scientists apparently believe they have been endowed with the truth of what has caused recent warming.

    The message just hasn’t gotten across.

    We skeptics are not smart enough to understand the science. We and the citizens of America, and the representatives we have just elected to go to Washington, just need to listen to them and let them tell us how we should be allowed to live.

    OK, so, let me see if I understand this.

    After 20 years, billions of dollars in scientific research and advertising campaigns, cooperation from the public schools, TV specials and concerts by a gaggle of entertainers, end-of-the-world movies, our ‘best’ politicians, heads of state, presidents, the United Nations, and complicity by most of the news media, it has been decided that the American public is not getting the message on global warming!?

    Are they serious!?

    Americans — hell, most of humanity — have already heard the 20 different ways we will all die miserable deaths from our emissions of that life giving — er, I mean poisonous –gas, carbon dioxide, that we are adding to the atmosphere every day.

    So, NOW it no more mister nice guy? Give me a break….

    …Actually, this announcement is a good thing. There has been a persistent refusal on the part of the elitist, group-think, left-leaning class of climate scientists to even debate the global warming issue in public. Maybe they have considered it beneath themselves to debate those of us who are clearly wrong on the global warming issue.

    A complaint many of us skeptics have had for years is that those who constitute the “scientific consensus” (whatever that means) will not engage in public debates on global warming. Al Gore won’t even answer questions from the press.

    This is why you will mostly hear only politicians and U.N. bureaucrats give pronouncements on the science. They are already adept at weaving a good story with carefully selected facts and figures.

    Why has the global warming message been presented mostly by politicians and bureaucrats up until now? Probably because it is too dangerous to put their scientists out there.

    Scientists might admit to something counterproductive — like uncertainty…..

    …..The LA Times articles goes on to explain how there will be “scientists prepared to go before what they consider potentially hostile audiences on conservative talk radio and television shows.”

    Gee, how brave of them.

    Kind of like when I went up against Henry Waxman? Or Barbara Boxer?

    I can sympathize with Republican’s desire to have hearings to investigate how your tax dollars have been spent on this issue. But I will guarantee that if such hearings are held, the news media will make it sound like Galileo is being tried all over again.

    As if climate scientists are objective seekers of the truth. I hate to break it to you, but scientists are human. Well..most of us are, anyway.

    Most have strong personal, quasi-religious views of the role of humans in the natural world, and this inevitably guides how they interpret measurements of the climate system. Especially the young ones who have been indoctrinated on the subject…

    …I look forward to the opportunity to debate a scientist from the other side who actually knows what they are talking about. I’ve gone one-on-one with some speakers who so mangled the consensus explanation of global warming that I had to use up half my speaking time cleaning up the mess they made.

    Those few I have debated in a public forum who know what they are talking about are actually much more reserved in their judgment on the subject than those who the pop culture presents to us.

    But for those newbie’s who want to enter the fray, I have a couple of pieces of advice on preparation.

    First, we skeptics already know your arguments …it would do you well to study up a little on ours.

    And second, those of us who have been at this a long time actually knew Galileo. Galileo was a good friend of ours. And you are no Galileo.

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/

    00

  • #
    David Burgess

    Orange@60:

    I wrote that!

    00

  • #
    bananabender

    “7 Nov: Chicago Tribune: Neela Banerjee: Climate scientists plan campaign against global-warming skeptics….”

    The The “700 scientists” turn out to be a couple of dozen nobodies led a mechanical engineer from a minor university and a teacher from a community college – ie a TAFE.

    THe AGU has stated that the don’t endorse the program.

    00

  • #
    Bernd Felsche

    bananabender 95:

    Mechanical Engineer? Ignorant of heat transfer mechanisms other than radiation? Unable to accept that they could be wrong?

    Well, I must admit running into similar ones over the decades. Most of them found refuge in muddle management or academia. Thankfully out of harm’s way.

    00

  • #

    With friends like these, who needs enemies… a Republican says “The Earth will end only when God declares it’s time to be over” – http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/us-politics/8123790/Congressman-says-God-will-save-us-from-climate-change.html – a politician shows the climate change establishment don’t have a monopoly on irrationality – this moron is more of a gift to the global warming hucksters than Sarah Palin…

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Llew Jones @93,

    …..The LA Times articles goes on to explain how there will be “scientists prepared to go before what they consider potentially hostile audiences on conservative talk radio and television shows.”

    The conservative talk show hosts I know will eat these guys for lunch. They prepare very well in advance for any guest appearance. And to the last they are hostile to global warming. Should be a lot of fun!

    I can sympathize with Republican’s desire to have hearings to investigate how your tax dollars have been spent on this issue. But I will guarantee that if such hearings are held, the news media will make it sound like Galileo is being tried all over again.

    Let them. Mann, Gore, Hansen and others will need to take the fifth (Fifth Amendment protection against self incrimination). That’s a dead giveaway. The hearings will be broadcast on CSPAN almost certainly. And good old Fox News, with the largest audience of any network in the country certainly will not try to spin anything. The truth will get out.

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    I’ve just heard Bjorn Lomborg’s new book, Cool It, advertized on a local LA radio station, complete with a rather blunt broadside aimed right at the AGW camp and their excesses. The momentum is shifting.

    When desperate men tell you how they’re going to beat you after losing so obviously for so long, it’s a good idea to not believe them.

    00

  • #
    Llew Jones

    Roy Hogue @98

    That’s encouraging to hear.

    Roy Spencer is a highly credentialed climate researcher who is at the cutting edge of research in which the catastrophic or runaway GH effect hypothesis is likely to be falsified. His opinions, based on that work, carry a lot more weight than the opinions of academic climatologists who are more likely to be nothing more than consensus fellow travelers.

    00