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

Prof Vincent Courtillot speaks with clarity

I’m traveling at the moment, in Darwin tonight. I can’t really comment on the hot-bed of climate action that Australia is right now, but instead this is something from afar that caught my eye a few days ago.

Video’s bore me usually, but I enjoyed watching Courtillot — he’s possibly the clearest, fastest, crispest speaker I’ve ever heard, and it’s all the more amazing because he speaks with an accent. Don’t misunderstand — there are no jokes, no satire, and no punch lines here, just an honest summary of the state of the current scientific play, especially with his synopsis of the cosmic ray theory. (He is a colleague of Nir Shaviv).

Usually I find speakers are too slow, but Courtillot packs the words in, without overstatement or monotony. He’s is a smart man who knows his topic well and it’s unusually obvious.

Start at about 6 mins if you want too — though I find all his points interesting. Solar factors most interesting at 15mins-18mins, and again at 21 – 23mins.

I like the speed. I rarely watch video’s this long.

Jo

PS: I’m not able to answer emails or comments this week. Thanks to the moderators…

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 5.5/10 (2 votes cast)
Prof Vincent Courtillot speaks with clarity, 5.5 out of 10 based on 2 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/4fjut3o

118 comments to Prof Vincent Courtillot speaks with clarity

  • #

    So too sum up, the IPCC models exclude many valid hypotheses. There are always uncertainties in science and these uncertainties are important in any field and should be defined. There is too much importances attributed to computer models where observation should be the key consideration. Consensus isn’t science it’s anti-science. Money would be better spent on research and the future holds the better chance for mitigation of any potential adverse effects rather than trying to proove a failed hypothesis.

    Someone should tell the good Professor that if he comes to Australia and says such things he will be declared an extremist by our government & burnt at the stake as a heretic by jackboot Combet & Mother Superior Bob.

    00

  • #

    Well worth watching. He comes across to me as a professor of the old school, that is one of enormous integrity, dignity, and erudition. As far as I know, there is no one quite like that on the ‘side’ of the CO2-alarmists. I wonder if they have been genuinely so convinced by their computer, or other, models that they have been disturbed by fear to the point of losing a sensible, temperate perspective. The loss of which could explain the otherwise grossly irresponsible alarmism which is so unbecoming in them.

    00

  • #
    Patrick Kelly

    A pleasure to watch. And such a change to see a man so on top of his subject speaking so confidently and fluently. No dissembling from Courtillot. No ums and ahs. It runs over 30 mins but easy to watch.

    00

  • #
    Ben Palmer

    Excellent, absolutely convincing. Thanks Jo!

    00

  • #
    Thumbnail

    I like his late statement: there are other certain problems in the world that could be solved by experts, and that there is no need to use anxiety and fear to push public policy.

    00

  • #

    Hmmmm…Reality determines what he thinks rather than what his significant others think. He is able to communicate clear ideas clearly. Apparently, he and his colleagues were educated in science and rhetoric before the “new age” of post-normal science.

    It is interesting that the old geezer scientists can do with pencil, paper, and hand held calculators what the new-age technogeeks cannot do with ten super computers and super 3D CGI: come to a valid testable and tested conclusion. Its normal science vs post-normal science.

    If your goal is to live increasingly better, there is no contest. It’s geezer science that wins every time. The best the new-age post-normal science will achieve is the status of a stone age hunting and gathering tribe. Even then, they will have to have some old geezer show them what is good to eat and what is not.

    00

  • #
    PK

    Lionel. I hope you are not pushing an “old geezer” agenda.

    00

  • #
    Bob Malloy

    Just started to watch, at the minute twenty three point he has just introduced the graph from one temperature station. The pattern from the late 20′s to the mid 40′s shows a striking similarity to the 80′s/90′s. It’s definitely not a Hanson graph.

    00

  • #
    lmwd

    PaulM @ 1

    Possibly not burnt at the stake (carbon emitting and all that). No, more likely a stoning for using his scientific understanding in an unapproved manner.

    00

  • #
  • #

    Imwd @ 7

    Stoning is problematic, all that effort causing an increase in personal CO2 emissions. What to do, such a dilema :) .

    00

  • #
    Sirius

    This is a real scientific discours from the critical side. In other terms, that is science in progress. Thank you for this video.

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Excellent one hour seminar compressed into half hour by Prof Vincent Courtillot and his speedy delivery! Thanks for the video.

    I imagine that MattB and John Brookes will remain silent in this thread.

    00

  • #
    macha

    agreed!. I pointed this out a few topics ago @2.

    http://joannenova.com.au/2011/03/mainstream-australia-is-speaking-greens-flop-flannery-labor/

    seems a few agreed with his views then too.
    Nice to see it highlighted more ‘front and center’.
    The next trick is to get these sorts of alternative science views into the public and political domain to support the likes of D.Evans and B. Carter.

    00

  • #
    Speedy

    Why can’t the IPCC be so direct and logical?

    Cheers,

    Speedy

    00

  • #
    Keith H

    Thanks for another great link Jo, worthy of wide distribution. Without rancour or abusive name-calling as used by many supporters of the UNIPCC, Dr.Courtillot absolutely nails the weakness in the nonsensical claim of AGW believers that “the science is settled”, a science based on the projections of various scenarios from manifestly inadequate computer modelling.

    To leave out so many factors affecting climate and then claim up to 90% certainty for their model projections absolutely beggars belief. When AGW proponents then put that case forward as a justification for imposing a tax with the object of dismantling the world’s current energy structures and means of generating power by subsidising enormously expensive and at present unworkable technology of supposedly “clean” energy sources, the whole situation becomes absurd.

    How can any sensible person swallow the AGW hypothesis?!

    00

  • #
    GBees

    He highlights importantly that the IPCC models do not have all of the possible variables included and therefore they cannot claim 90% certainty of CO2 being the culprit. I also found that his studies reflect in many ways what Nicola Scafetta has to say in the paper “Empirical Evidence for a Celestial Origin of the Climate Oscillations and its Origins”.

    Scafetta – “we have found empirical evidences that the climate oscillations within the secular scale are very likely driven by astronomical cycles, too. Cycles with periods of 10–11, 12, 15, 20–22, 30 and 60 years are present in all major surface temperature records since 1850, and can be easily linked to the orbits of Jupiter and Saturn. The 11 and 22-year cycles are the well- known Schwabe and Hale solar cycles.”

    It was also quite revealing his insinuation regarding younger scientists will not get funding/job if they work on science which does not conform with the AGW theory. This is a travesty …

    He however, restores my faith in some scientists …..

    00

  • #
    Rick Bradford

    The AGW movement has turned into that old movie ‘The Big Green Thing That Devoured Pittsburgh’ (“After Doctor Grendo accidentally created a horrible creature, the safety of our world was put in danger…”)

    00

  • #

    Yes I liked the style of Professor Courtillot. It is a no-nonsense, straightforward presentation with no snide remarks and jokes at someone elses’ expense. Together with the Professor Nir Shaviv, I have placed both these videos at the bottom of Video Wall #10, at the Fraudulent Climate Website.

    Please click the name Axel to go there.

    See also the presentation by Paul Laviolette on that same webpage.

    00

  • #
    mullumhillbilly

    Somewhat O/T, but Courtillot’s clarity and well-reasoned analysis re-emphasises the policy idiocy of striving for “emission impossible”. UK has tied itself into a carbon-fibre strait-jacket, and Australia under Ms Gillard is hurrying to knit its own barbed-wire equivalent. In the UK, the 2008 Climate Change Act made Britain the first country in the world to set legally binding ‘carbon budgets’, aiming to cut UK emissions by 34 percent by 2020 and by at least 80 percent by 2050. It’s been pointed out that, “taking account of growth in the economy, this means that 40 years from now each unit of GDP must produce only 5 percent of the CO2 it does currently”. http://thegwpf.org/opinion-pros-a-cons/2711-lord-turnbull-the-really-inconvenient-truth.html.

    Here in Oz, Chairman Bob and our PM want us to pay $150,000,000,000 to reduce global atmospheric CO2 by, at most 0.5ppm by 2030. (that’s a real number BTW, count them zeroes folks). Bring on the election !!

    00

  • #
    cohenite

    This is the best I’ve heard; this guys deals with it all; the IPCC and AGW are not a work in progress, and this guy is too much of scientist and a gentleman to say this, but a rotting corpse.

    This should be mandatory viewing for all MPs, even the stupidest could understand it, only the most disingenuous could reject it.

    00

  • #
    RoyFOMR

    Superb video. Thanks Jo.

    00

  • #
    Macha

    Looks like CCWA are claiming a ‘victory” based on ‘numbers’ at the recent Perth rally.

    http://ccwa.org.au/blogs/power-positive-trumps-climate-naysayers

    Does this mean “consensus” and “popularity” = scientific proof?

    00

  • #
    Damian Allen

    POLL – Are you worried your power bill will go up with a carbon tax?

    http://www.couriermail.com.au/

    The obvious answer is “YES”, along with absolutely EVERYTHING ELSE……….

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    Thanks Jo … I shall forward this link to interested folks at work.

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    BTW Slightly off topic, notice that the Gillard Government may have another enemy in the major electricity generators:

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/ross-garnauts-carbon-pricing-plan-naive-say-energy-producers/story-fn59niix-1226031035687

    I love the one quote:

    As the opposition seized on Ross Garnaut’s latest report as evidence that Labor’s carbon policy would lead to brownouts and insufficient electricity production, the sector slammed it as “naive”, “commercially unsophisticated” and “undergraduate”.

    Undergraduate … that’s got to hurt :)

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Not had time to watch so no no comments from me… other than to point out the following:

    If you read this Real Climate link, down to the subheading “and now for the really ugly part” it shows some graphs that Courtillot has used to show a strong correlation between TSI and Temp…

    I encourage you guys to read this section as it details Courtillot’s use of a truncated TSI, and a manipulated T, to get a better fit. One can only hazard a guess at the reaction on sites like this were say The Team shown to have done similar. Oh that’s right no need to speculate as it is exactly what has happened with Hide The Decline and the newly “discovered” truncation of the start of the Briffa tempoerature reconstruction that is doing the usual rounds at present.

    00

  • #
  • #
    Mark D.

    Yes Mattb they are all ratbags unless they come from your personal list of authorities……..And I don’t have time to read your shit either…..

    00

  • #
    Damian Allen

    OT but very very interesting……

    Subject: Desalination Plants and the Carbon DIOXIDE (plant food) tax

    I have a useful graphic with the mnemonics on DESERTEC+NBN+Desalination Plants Here http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash2/hs322.ash2/60236_435343331686_728436686_5361243_5369545_n.jpg

    A thing about DESERTEC; it is meant to work in tandem with the Water Desalination Plants to control the agricultural economies by controlling water rights as the water has associated economic benefits to primary production. Guess where the energy for the plant comes from? Figure why the Greens are opposed to the building of Dams and environment law, a water dollarization and commodification?
    YES CARTEL PRICE-MAKING….

    Yes, DESERTEC could be the biggest Water and Energy Cartels funded by the Carbon Price.
    Google Desalination Plant and DESERTEC; there is one planned for Port Augusta in SA http://www.sciencealert.com.au/opinions/20091203-18907.html
    http://www.solardesalination.com.au/
    More on DESERTEC and the planned new economics of the desalination plants http://www.cebit.com.au/assets/pdf/fpydc-stewart-taggart-desertec-australia.pdf

    The riddle as to the Water Scarcity Report provided all those years back by the CSIRO has been answered….IT IS BIG, IT IS REALLY BIG AND IS GONNA COST SHORT OF A TRILLION DOLLARS….

    DESERTEC AND AUSTRALIA: foresting the desert with Solar Panels, there is a plan for Australia’s own National Smart Grid.
    See the paper by the Dept of Climate Change.
    http://www.desertec-australia.org/

    http://www.climatechange.gov.au/government/submissions/cprs-green-paper/~/media/submissions/greenpaper/0128-desertec-geni.ashx

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Mark D – I only posted that I’d not had time to watch as I’d meen mentioned above as probably being quiet in this thread. It is a 30 minute video – last night I put the kids to bed and my wife was then catching up on Gray’s Anatomy episodes on the Laptop so I was left twiddling my thumbs trying to remember what I did with my evenings before I discovered climate change blogs.

    00

  • #
    cohenite

    MattB links to RC. The RC critique of Courtillot is rubbish. RC starts with this:

    “The anticipated increase in temperature was predicted long before it was detectable in the atmosphere, indeed long before it was known that atmospheric CO2 really was increasing; it was first predicted by Arrhenius in 1896 using extremely simple radiation balance ideas,”

    As soon as I see this hoary reference to poor old Arrhenius wheeled out I know that gibberish is going to follow. Arrhenius made many mistakes:

    1 Arrhenius believed that glass enclosures trapped infrared radiation, thus raising the temperature inside. We now know that the absence of convection is the mechanism of greenhouse heating.

    2 Arrhenius also believed that CO2 had the same property as glass. But glass and CO2 ABSORB and EMIT infrared, they do not repel it.

    3 Arrhenius used measurements of radiation limited to 9.7u and was not measuring the heating effect of CO2 which absorbs primarily at 14.77u; he was in fact measuring water vapour’s heating effect.

    4 Arrhenius used as the source for his thermal radiation a source that was at 100C; the radiative spectrum from this source includes the 4.2u wavelength of CO2 that is not part of the Earth’s radiative spectrum, outside the lip of a few volcanoes.

    Still Arrhenius was a good scientist and measured the log decline of the heating effect of incremental increases of CO2, something RC disavow.

    RC then go on to pronounce:

    “Let’s set the stage by noting that, as a significant competitor to anthropogenic greenhouse forcing of recent climate change, the direct radiative forcing by solar irradiance variations is dead on arrival.”

    This is junk because it ignores cosmic rays and the inability of the IPCC models to correctly estimate the effect of clouds; both clouds and CR are intrinsically connected with solar variation. But their point that TSI variation is so trifling to effect climate is also a nonsense and contradicted by a paper from one of their own, Drew Shindell:

    http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/shindell_06/

    Shindell of course argues that the fractional changes in solar output only have a regional effect but that regional effect is profound causing the LIA; also, ironically, it is Courtillot’s position that the IPCC and AGW is wrong due to regional differences in climate change.

    Once again the boffins at RC are revealed to be frauds and rascals whose left hand does not know what its right hand is doing.

    00

  • #
    MattB

    That’s all very well Cohers, but you know and I know it has nothing to do with what I posted, which is a specific reference to some graphs. I do hope other blog readers here don’t read your 32 and think it has anything to do with my post.

    “Hey, there’s a bear!”

    00

  • #
    MattB

    “Still Arrhenius was a good scientist and measured the log decline of the heating effect of incremental increases of CO2, something RC disavow.”

    Do they????????????

    00

  • #
    davidc

    I think he is right to point out that average temperatures don’t have a lot of meaning but for those who believe that (classified) global average temperatures indicate something real should be surprised that Europe averages and US averages are so different.

    I suggest that those in doubt look at local temperatures from various places. Since the warming is meant to be global, and caused by the global variable CO2 levels, it should be evident that most of these should show warming similar to the global average. Yes, there will in a few cases be local effects which lead to cooling, but these should be exceptional (and if you’re serious you should be able to suggest what those local effects might be). And you should be careful to understand whether these are raw data or adjusted; and if adjusted, how and why.

    If your experience when you do that is the same as mine:

    A few go up just a little.
    Most don’t do much at all.
    A few go down just a little.

    then there is no catastrophic global event underway.

    00

  • #
    Damian Allen

    “Real Climate” website……
    REAL RUBBISH for the mentally challenged!!

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    MattB do you agree that Arrhenius made many errors? You did toss a “well and good” comment implying agreement with Cohenite after all.

    00

  • #
  • #
    Bulldust

    MattB @ 34:
    Let’s just say RC doesn’t go to great pains to draw attention to that fact. If that were widely understood by the public there would be almost zero support for any carbon (sic) taxation regime. Somehow the IPCC models manage to tweak a logarhythmic drop off into an exponentially heating global climate. It’s a miracle of computer modelling!

    As for the video, I enjoyed the first parts more than the rest. I don’t care what this chap’s pet theories are, but I do think he accurately portrays the uncertainties in the IPCC claims. For anyone to think that climate science is well understood, let alone 90% certain (Trademark, IPCC), is quite simply being naive … either inadvertently or deliberately so.

    00

  • #
    cohenite

    MattB, Courtlliot and his colleagues responded to the comment by Bard and Delaygue which is the basis of the RC critique:

    http://sciences.blogs.liberation.fr/home/files/CourtillotEPSL08final.pdf

    Why don’t you read it? Did RC subsequently refer to it? Does it answer the issues raised by RC as proxies for Bard and Delaygue? Is Courtillot a gracious and civilised person and are the RC grubs perambulating egos with the empathy and emotional age of teenage boys?

    00

  • #
    Macha

    Sorry – no hyperlink at this time. some cut/paste

    Australia’s Mining Monthly March, 2011 Page: 26
    ” Carbon calamity: THE Australian government’s proposed response to the challenge
    of climate change has become clearer with the announcement of the architecture for a scheme to price carbon. Based on a carbon price of $26 per tonne, Australian companies
    will be hit with an annual carbon tax bill in excess of $11 billion. This
    includes $451 million for Rio Tinto, $430 million (Alcoa), $360 millionplus
    (BHP), $317 million (Bluescope), $219 million (Woodside) and $120 million (Anglo American).

    We need to be alert to exaggerated claims about the efforts underway in both developed and developing nations. China’s Copenhagen “offer” would cause its emissions to rise by 496% by 2020 (on 1990 levels). Meanwhile, India’s offer will allow its emissions to grow by 350% by 2020 (on 1990 levels). Australia’s carbon pricing scheme should not be based on the CPRS, which offered only 25-30% free allocation of permits. Under the European carbon scheme, 164 industry sectors (more than 80% of industrial firms) will be eligible for up to 100% free permits from 2013 until 2020. Exempt sectors include all minerals and minerals production sectors as well as scores of sectors in which the EU competes directly with Australia. Even non-trade exposed industrial firms in the EU will receive 80% of permits free in 2013, and will not be required to buy all
    their permits until 2027.

    In the US, there is no prospect that cap and trade legislation will pass
    before 2013 at the earliest. In the wake of the fourth defeat of cap and
    trade legislation in seven years, the Chicago Climate Exchange closed
    its doors in late 2010. Sub-national trading schemes in North America
    are either encountering difficulties or proposing near universal issue of
    free permits (or both).”

    Creating a tax only to rebate it at a ‘no cost to consumers’ all for the guise that CO2 emissions will theoretically cause us possible ‘living pain’ at some point in the future?.

    PULLEEEAZE! give me a break. How about dealing with the realities of here and now. Technology will come when its needed and we will all happily pay the price -just as we already do now and will do into the future. eg price of a car today versus horse/cart 150yrs ago? Price of a roof over my head compared to 50yrs ago. Access to good food and water, etc. The CAGW issue has nothing to do with CO2. Its all about controlling the energy sources – and we are so lucky to have such cheap ones like gas and coal.

    I bet any African or Ethiopian would love some in their back-yard. In fact, its a historical record that one of the reasons England progressed and developed some much quicker than China (which has more coal)is because of accessibility – China’s coal was inland and could not be sent down the river due to un-trafficalble rapids, hence was carted by foot and became too expensive compared to Englands coal right beneath their feet. I bet those poms preferred their coal than the cold and from what I can read – still do!!

    00

  • #
    John Brookes

    So, Bulldust, I guess the IPCC should head up any of their publications with:

    Yes, we know its only 0.038%
    Yes, we know climate has changed in the past
    Yes, we know its logarithmic
    Yes, we know that there are orbital variations
    Yes, we know that the heat comes from the sun
    Yes, we know that the solar irradiance changes
    Yes, we know that weather is not climate (at least not in the short term)
    Yes, we know that your local climate is not the same as global climate
    Yes, we know the upper atmosphere is cold

    etc, etc, etc.

    But would that stop people coming up with all sorts of rubbish?

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Re what I said at 13 who exactly is “we” ?

    00

  • #
    Stephan

    This is an unbelievable true story. I asked a certain person at the blackboard to remove a certain graph which showed global cooling that is UHA satellite temps from 2002 to present because it did not help his/her warmist cause. The idiot fell for it a remove the graph and replaced it with 30 year data which is even worse for the warmist cause hahahah The poor fellow think it shows warming. However there is another twist see below as judge for yourselves….

    this was my answer:
    OT but I am very confused. This graph posted on the Blackboard purports to show global warming. What amazes me is that from 1980 to 1998 there seems to be significant cooling. I thought according to Hansen it was way above anomaly?
    http://processtrends.com/images/RClimate_UAH_Ch5_latest.png
    There is warming from 1998 to 2007 but then it cools again please help LOL

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    Yes John Brookes … is that a glimmer of understanding creeping in there? The IPCC’s main fault is that it is a political organisation talking about science. The summaries are contorted and twisted to deliver policy directions rather than accurate portrayals of the state of the science. At this early stage our understanding of the climate systems is miniscule compared to the uncertainties. It is therefore pure folly to base massive redistributional policies based upon said state of ignorance.

    The only rubbish I see, apart from the outright loons which exist on both sides of this debate, is the contorted political speak in IPCC summary documents which bears no resemblance to scientific communication. Here are classic examples from AR4 in the Summary for Policymakers:

    Globally, the area affected by drought has likely[2] increased since the 1970s.

    It is very likely that over the past 50 years:

    There is high confidence that some hydrological systems have also been affected…

    (emahasis added to illustrate)

    This is not the language of scientists … “high confidence” that “some”? Cherry picking much?

    As something purporting to represent the state of the science those summaries are complete jokes. They are chock full of weasel words. I work in government so I recognise that crap when I see it.

    00

  • #
    The Loaded Dog

    John Brookes: @42

    So, Bulldust, I guess the IPCC should head up any of their publications with:

    Yes, we know its only 0.038%….etc etc

    Hmmmm, so you’re proposing they tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth Johnboy?

    No hiding declines, half truths, data massaging, smoothing or redefinition of the peer review process?

    Sounds like what Gillard would tell us is the “right thing to do” eh?

    Yes, can you imagine it?

    They’d be swamped with government funding if they followed your proposal surely?

    00

  • #
    Bruce of Newcastle

    scaper #38

    Interesting article, except it’s from March 2010.

    00

  • #
    Matt b

    Bulldust in #26
    “Undergraduate … that’s got to hurt”

    Note they don’t say who said that?

    Comments from Jim Kouts – tertiary quals in journalism and politics.

    From Michael Fraser BComm

    From George Maltabarow BE BEcoms

    At least they all appear qualified to call something “undergraduate” lol.

    00

  • #
    scaper...

    Egg on face! slinks away…

    00

  • #
    incoherent rambler

    Jenny Macklin has responded to me regarding AGW and she says “The scientific evidence and imperative for rapid and vigorous action to reduce emissions is overwhelming.”

    My initial thought is that is only overwhelming to the those without high school science on their CV.

    Anyway she says that input is accepted at:

    MPCCC@climatechange.gov.au

    or

    The Multi-Party Climate Change Committee Secretariat
    GPO Box 854
    Canberra ACT 2601
    Australia

    Time to get those emailers working folks!!

    BTW, Secretariat has a very politburo style to it.

    00

  • #

    IR

    It’s quite obvious why the ALP supports it, all the Union Indrustry Based Super Funds are heavily invested in the renewabls sector. When they fail their members are going to have no super & will have to rely on the OAP.

    On a different note, I wonder which precious didn’t like my summation of the video, pity they didn’t have the spine to point out where I was wrong.

    00

  • #
    Damian Allen

    Holland slashes carbon targets, shuns wind for nuclear………

    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/02/10/holland_energy_switch/

    00

  • #
  • #
    Keith H

    Slightly O/T but can you believe this? (Acknowledgement to Art Horn and ICECAP – http://www.icecap.us/

    During the EPA hearings in America, Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX) questioned Gina McCarthy, EPA chief of air programs and greenhouse gas regulations (which declared CO2 a toxic pollutant). He asked:

    “Do you know what the level of CO2 right now is generally speaking in the atmosphere?”

    Her answer?

    “Well actually I don’t have that figure.”

    (Take long pregnant pause here.)

    You don’t have what? Please tell me this is a joke! The chief of the EPA’s air programs and greenhouse gas regulations doesn’t know how much carbon dioxide is in the air? This is beyond anything I thought was possible. This is a person leading the United States of America?

    ‘Nuff said!!!

    00

  • #

    John Brookes:#42
    March 31st, 2011 at 2:48 pm

    So, Bulldust, I guess the IPCC should head up any of their publications with:

    You’ve left these incomplete John me mate, let me take a stab at it.

    Yes, we know its only 0.038%
    [But we have very little idea how it's distributed around the globe because we know eff-all about the carbon cycle]
    Yes, we know climate has changed in the past
    [But we have effall idea what caused those. Because mans influence was zero to minimal in the past, we assume it was natural cycles about which we know effall]
    Yes, we know its logarithmic
    [What we don't know is how the other atmospheric phenomena affect the radiative properties of GHGs. For all we know, just like a gnat on an elephants dick, CO2 may be a gnat in the atmospheric scheme of things]
    Yes, we know that there are orbital variations
    [However to date, no one has accurately listed and quantified the climatic effects of orbital variations. We don't encourage such research in case some smart alec Eastern European PhD inadvertantly exposes our scam]
    Yes, we know that the heat comes from the sun
    [What we don't know are the affects of the multitude of wave lengths arriving from the sun. Again, for fear of exposure (pun gettit)we list the sun as a low scientific knowledge hoping that nobody digs too deep into it. Anyway, NASA is on our side, Jimmy is making sure of that]
    Yes, we know that the solar irradiance changes
    [And we also know that planets and moons lacking atmospheres experience significant variations in surface temperature, but we don't live there so that's irrelevant. See response above re: NASA]
    Yes, we know that weather is not climate (at least not in the short term)
    [But we love to scare people by pointing to various weather events and saying "see, that's what you'll get unless you agree to be taxed." People are easily scared, especially the greenie types bless their souls]
    Yes, we know that your local climate is not the same as global climate
    [We also know that there is no point trying to scare you about a weather event half way around the world. That's why we've come up with various scary scenarios specific to each location. See chapter on effects of a warming world. p.s. we also love travelling to various exotic locations to scare the begeesus out of the ignorant locals. Maldives was a team favourite]
    Yes, we know the upper atmosphere is cold
    [Finding the Hot Spot has been about as difficult as us nerdy science types trying to find the G Spot. We have UEA office sweeps organized to see which of the spots (Hot or G) Phil Jones will find first. Consensus so far...neither]

    Hows that John?

    00

  • #
    Keith H

    Bob Malloy @ 8

    A little O/T again, but I had a post some time ago wondering why all the former Union Officials who are now Federal MP’s seem to be now leading the charge to destroy the jobs of Australian workers, particularly those associated with the Coal industry. I thought Union controlled Super funds must be heavily invested in renewables and I think it was you who expressed interest and said you were not aware of it but would enquire at Unions with whom you’d been involved. (Apology in advance if my memory has failed me)!

    Have a look at the link to Andrew Bolt’s March 18 2009 article provided by Damian Allen @ 52 above which seems to well and truly provide the answer, going a long way to explain the decisions of former Victorian and the current Federal Labor Governments and exposing the very unhealthy conflicts of interest.

    00

  • #
    Bob Malloy

    Keith H:
    March 31st, 2011 at 6:44 pm
    Bob Malloy @ 8

    I thought Union controlled Super funds must be heavily invested in renewables and I think it was you who expressed interest and said you were not aware of it but would enquire at Unions with whom you’d been involved.

    Nothing wrong with your memory Keith, have been a little lazy and yet to investigate what linls my super have with renewables.
    Did give Bolt’s article a look. Five years ago, before the serfs (me) became resless and better informed, green energy seemed a sure winner after all the only thing we new about “climate change”, “global Warming” we got from the lame stream media and really had no reason to question.

    00

  • #

    Bob Malloy @ 56

    after all the only thing we new about “climate change”, “global Warming” we got from the lame stream media and really had no reason to question.

    In a way I suppose I was luckier than most, the first time I heard about Global Warming was in the early nineties at a seminar on object oriented programming and CASE tools. There were guys there who had worked for the Hadley Centre talking about how they had designed the presentation modules for the first of Hadleys Climate Models and reported that the boffins were impressed with the visual effectiveness of the modules but were worried about the cost that they would incurr now that they had to get the reports rewritten by a PR firm to have the same impact.

    From then on I questioned everything coming out of the Met, UEA and the IPCC and from then on I have railed against the use of computer models as proof of concept rather than as analytical tools as they are intended to be.

    00

  • #
    Mark

    The denizens from the Ministry of Truth must have been asleep to let this through.

    http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/US_NoWarming.htm

    00

  • #
    Siliggy

    On the same YouTube channel as the above vid are many more good ones (some not in english).

    I like this one: “Prof. Dr. Nir Shaviv http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L1n2oq-XIxI

    and this one: “Prof. Dr. Jan Veizer” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=86dd5AWh8ME

    00

  • #
    debbie

    Those computer models have been completely hijacked by politics and the 3 Bs, Bureaucrats, Bankers and Brokers.
    They are supposed to be analytical tools and their human masters are supposed to update them everytime new raw data becomes available.
    They are definitely being used as proof of concept tools.That is not what they’re for and it’s a disgrace that they are being used that way.
    Excellent video.
    I’m shocked that the raw data is only accessible to 3 places. All the rest of the ‘climate scientists’ are supposed to take the models at face value and they have no way of questioning the input data.
    Anyone who works with statistical models will gladly tell you that if you put garbage in, you will get garbage out.
    They will also tell you that results can be radically changed if you add an extra year or an extra variable.
    Computer models can’t question the inputs, neither can they question the outputs. All they can do is crunch increasingly complex formulas.
    It is up to us to question the inputs and the outputs.

    00

  • #
    BobC

    Lionell Griffith:
    March 31st, 2011 at 5:05 am

    It is interesting that the old geezer scientists can do with pencil, paper, and hand held calculators what the new-age technogeeks cannot do with ten super computers and super 3D CGI: come to a valid testable and tested conclusion. Its normal science vs post-normal science.

    Probably could do it with just paper and a slide rule (or log tables).

    The difference is, you have to think about what you are doing — else you will waste your lifetime. By comparison, it’s possible to waste a lifetime’s worth of calculating on a computer in a few milliseconds.

    It is easy to fall into the trap of regarding a complex computer program as successful if you can get it to run all the way through — logic errors are far more difficult to identify. Programming is such tedious work that most scientists don’t even use the available tools. When I worked for NIST, I was often asked to upgrade or modify older programs. The first thing I always did was to crank up every error-detecting flag on the compiler to the max — never once did I get a program to compile first time (even ones considered as standards).

    Once a very large program is running, the temptation to consider its output as gospel is often overwhelming. The alternative — verifying the output — could consume a significant fraction of your career.

    This is why I don’t like “fly-by-wire” airliners (AirBus, for example). You simply substitute crashes due to “Pilot error” for crashes due to computer bugs (or the computer failing to recognize a situation the programmers didn’t anticipate, like the crash off of Brazil a few years ago).

    Of course, any airliner today can be completely flown by the computer flight system — a flight could theoretically be done with no pilots on board at all. The difference is whether you let the computer or the pilot make the crucial decisions.

    Consider the following scenario: An airliner is headed for the ground (perhaps caught in a micro-burst on approach) — the pilot pushes the throttles to the stop;

    In an Airbus: The computer instructs the engines to produce 100% of “rated thrust” — any more would severely compromise the engine lifetimes. (Then — Smack! — the plane hits the ground.)

    In a Boeing 727 (an older plane, but one I have some knowledge of): If the pilot pushes on the throttles with more than 70 lbs of force, the throttles break through the “full power” stop to the “emergency power” stop. The engines produce ~140% of rated thrust. When the plane lands (and that had better not be long delayed), the engines are scrapped — they can’t even be rebuilt. Boeing’s philosophy is, if the pilot is pushing that hard, you had better give them all the thrust possible — to hell with engine lifetimes.

    There currently is no substitute for Human judgement.

    00

  • #
    David

    I reckon the BBC (that’s the Biased Broadcasting Corporation) should be FORCED to show this video at a peak time, without the usual fluff added about ‘this is a view which differs from the concensus view’, or some such…
    No chance, though – there’s too much thought-through logic in it, and its too far off-message…

    00

  • #
    Speedy

    Debbie

    You say…

    Computer models can’t question the inputs, neither can they question the outputs. All they can do is crunch increasingly complex formulas.
    It is up to us to question the inputs and the outputs.

    True, but there is only one flaw in your logic – and that is to assume that the people running the models are actually looking for the truth! If they were, they would be researching the causes and impact of cloud albedo (cover) variability and solar influence as Prof Vincent discusses in his video. Instead, they regurgitate the same old party line about it all being due to CO2 – in the face of decreasing evidence for both the warming as an ongoing process and the role that CO2 has played in the past.

    But, as the Prof says, climate alarmists seem to be the ones who get the cushy jobs. Which, I suppose, makes them more like climate politicians than climate scientists…

    Cheers,

    Speedy.

    00

  • #
    Jaymez

    The Multi-Party Climate Change Committee is still under the impression that they will actually have some input into the Government’s Climate Change agenda even though Gillard announced the Carbon (sic) Tax and subsequent Emission Trading Scheme after the Committee was established but before it had made any recommendations. Shows what a farce the process is. For the record here is the response I received to my submission. Note they refer to ‘proposed policy’ not ‘Carbon tax’ even though the latter was announced.

    Thank you for sending an email to the Multi-Party Climate Change Committee
    DCCEE – MPCCC MPCCC@climatechange.gov.au

    Thank you for taking the time to send an email regarding a proposed carbon price. We have received a large number of emails (negative, positive and requesting further information). Although we are unable to respond to all emails, please be assured that every message is read and considered.

    Many emails have asked for more information on the proposed policy. Further details on the Government’s proposed approach will be available following decisions by the Multi-Party Climate Change Committee. You can sign up to receive information updates by following this link.

    We thank you for your views.

    MPCCC Secretariat

    00

  • #

    Here is an excellent summary of why the Carbon Dioxide tax is a bad idea by Tony Shepherd in The Australian National Affairs section.

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/commentary/eight-myths-of-a-carbon-tax/story-e6frgd0x-1226031613147

    I encourage people to send in comments, positive or negative.

    00

  • #
    bill

    Read the RC blog. It was so long winded and made me think of the quote “methinks the lady doth protest too much”.

    Also got the following paper in the comments.

    http://www.platteland-in-perspectief.nl/afbeeldingen/pdf/09_Rorsch.pdf

    It seems a fair summary of the CC debate to date with a warning of how incorrect science can be maintained over long periods.

    00

  • #
    Bob Malloy

    PM tells NSW

    Labor to avoid blame game

    “I would say to him that as he leads the task of rebuilding Labor his most trusted advisers must be the people of NSW themselves.

    “It is with the decent, hard-working people of this state that he must consult.

    “It is their voice he must listen to.

    “And I believe we can hear their voice loud and clear saying they are sick of the scandals, intolerant of the factionalism, disheartened by the failures to perform.”

    Pot, Kettle anybody?

    00

  • #
    Bob Malloy

    John Christy, 60 page assesment of climate science

    House Science, Space and Technology Committee
    Examining the Process concerning Climate Change Assessments
    31 March 2011
    John R. Christy, University of Alabama in Huntsville
    One Page Summary
    1.Climate assessments like the IPCC have to date been written through a process in
    which IPCC-selected authors are given significant authority over the text, including
    judging their own work against work of their critics. This has led to biased information
    in the assessments and thus raises questions about a catastrophic view of climate change
    because the full range of evidence is not represented. Three examples follow.
    1.A. Regarding the Hockey Stick of IPCC 2001 evidence now indicates, in my view, that
    an IPCC Lead Author working with a small cohort of scientists, misrepresented the
    temperature record of the past 1000 years by (a) promoting his own result as the best
    estimate, (b) neglecting studies that contradicted his, and (c) amputating another’s result
    so as to eliminate conflicting data and limit any serious attempt to expose the real
    uncertainties of these data.
    1.B.In the IPCC 2007 report, Dr. Ross McKitrick presented evidence that indicated
    warming processes other than greenhouse gas warming affected the popular surface
    temperature data sets. The IPCC authors were themselves producers of these data sets,
    yet as “final-say” authors they sat in judgment over this controversy, eventually denying
    McKitrick’s evidence with what turned out be (apparently) their own fabricated claim.
    1.C.The EPA Finding misrepresented key evidence on the evaluation of climate models
    against real data. In IPCC-like fashion, the EPA gave authority to its hand-picked author
    team to respond to evidence which contradicted the Finding with assertions that were not
    based on reliable data or methods. The evidence shows the EPA overstated the
    agreement between models and observations when in fact there was disagreement.
    2.Warming in surface temperatures is caused by many factors other that greenhouse
    gases, one reason they are poor proxies to depict greenhouse warming. Bulk atmospheric
    temperatures, a more direct proxy, show much less warming that models predict.
    3.Because this issue has policy implications that may potentially raise the price of energy
    significantly (and thus essentially the price of everything else), the U.S. Congress should
    not rely exclusively on the U.N. assessments because the process by which they were
    written includes biased, false, and/or misleading information about one of the most
    murky of sciences – climate. In my opinion, the Congress needs at least one secondopinion
    produced by well-credentialed climate scientists but overseen by a non-activist
    team which includes those with experience in the scientific method, the legal aspects of
    “discovery,” and who simply know what is important in answering the questions at hand.

    John R. Christy
    The University of Alabama in Huntsville

    00

  • #
    Binny

    Just on the subject of computers and computer models, the implied authority of computers is enormous.
    I had a cousin (a farmer) who used to do his own tax returns. Because he wasn’t a registered accountant and was doing his own returns, he was constantly queried by the tax office on the basis that he might have been trying to pull a fast one. (Fair enough)

    When personal computers and specialist accounting programs became available back in the late 1980s he invested in them, and thereafter handed in his tax returns on computer generated forms.
    He was never queried again…….. It was done by a computer it must be right.

    On the same note in the mid-1990s there was a simple spreadsheet freely available, from our local Department of Primary Industries and the Australian wool Corporation.
    It was a gross margin calculator for wool.

    As I was learning how spreadsheets work at the time, I reverse engineered it has a learning exercise. I quickly came across a basic flaw in the input suggestions. Because it is rare for any farm to grow only wool – most will also have cattle or crops. When calculating expenses allocated to wool growing you invariably have a number of expenses that can be directly related to wool growing i.e. rates.

    The way they attributed these expenses was to take the gross returns from wool and calculate it as a percentage of total returns, then apply that percentage to general overheads. The fundamental flaw here was, the person who designed the model ASSUMED that the wool growing part of your enterprise would have a similar level of profitability to other parts i.e. cattle.

    I knew this was wrong immediately because my gross wool returns had dropped from 50% of total turnover to 25% of total turnover, without changing the number of sheep or cattle that I had.
    Of course the real calculation should have been done on what percentage of your total property carrying capacity was currently taken up by sheep.

    I was quite proud myself for picking this up and immediately contacted the local DPI to set things straight.

    NO CHANCE
    The litany of excuses (and I’ve been trying on and off for 15 years) was unbelievable.

    From the patronising and authoritative….. “Oh think the person who made the model would know what he was doing.”

    To “Oh I wouldn’t have the authority to change anything”

    To “Oh well it’s just a guide anyway.”

    This is just a line of text on the input suggestions.
    What chance do you have of getting someone to check complicated formulas let alone change them?

    00

  • #
    Macha

    @66. I find exception with a point almmost at the end of the article,
    Here is an excellent summary of why the Carbon Dioxide tax is a bad idea by Tony Shepherd in The Australian National Affairs section.

    that “global emissions are a problem”. In the context of the message I assume

    00

  • #
    Macha

    oops – fat fingers.

    the exception I had is “Why is it a given that CO2 an emission problem at all?.

    00

  • #
    Albert

    Professor Courtillot is against frightening people and our Prime Minister last week launched a scare campaign to frighten Australians into submission to a Carbon Tax.
    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/mps-told-to-warn-of-climate-mayhem/story-fn59niix-1226028368404
    We heard the same scare from Tim Flannery many years ago and none of it came to pass.

    The PM is recycling failed prophesies. Their prophesies are absurd.
    The Climate Commission, mostly Professors, are basing their scare science on SINGLE events.
    It’s not about the science, it’s all about political power, nothing else.
    Al Gore and Katrina created such fear that insurance companies made billions from higher charges and people were happy to pay.

    00

  • #
    scaper...

    Macha, I posted in the comment section that Australia emitted the most CO2 per capita with one of many links I have, is a myth.

    Didn’t get published!

    http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/env_co2_emi_percap-environment-co2-emissions-per-capita

    00

  • #
    John Trigge

    Without any hope that it will be looked at, never mind considered, I have sent a link to Prof. Courtillot’s video to every member of Julia(r)’s Climate Change Committee.

    00

  • #
    cohenite

    John Trigge; well done; but send a copy to Turnbull and Hunt as well.

    00

  • #
    debbie

    Speedy @ 64,
    Good point about looking for the truth.
    I guess that makes the whole use of computer models as ‘proof of concept’ tools an even bigger disgrace.
    I understand that it would be extremely difficult to reprogram some of these complex climate models.
    I’m not very sympathetic however.
    Climate computer models are supposed to be analytical tools and are there to try and figure out the cause and effect of weather patterns and climate.
    They will not be able to do that if they are not updated and continually have their inputs checked.
    If they’re not being updated and they’re not having their inputs constantly checked for accuracy (and Coutillard is very scathing about this point) then they’re highly likely to be, in fact probably are, delivering us garbage.
    That is not the computer’s fault and it is also not the fault of the complicated formulas in the program (although they should be constantly checked too).
    That is definitely a human reluctance to check and update the inputs and also a human reluctance to add new variables.
    Too bad if it’s difficult. If people are truly interested in solving the climate puzzle, then it has to be done.
    If they’re not interested in solving the puzzle because they want to use them to prove a preconceived agenda/concept, then it truly is an even bigger disgrace.
    If we want those models to deliver good information about our climate, then we have to give them good information.
    The computers cannot question the inputs.
    Garbage in/Garbage out.

    00

  • #

    How good it is to see the Professor talking about fundamental scientific principles like observation, competitive theories and peer-review. As he says we have enough computer models to last a generation. It’s computer models all the way down.
    His presentation was lucid, interesting and convincing.

    00

  • #
    pat

    april fools:

    1 April: SMH: Tom Arup: Carbon tax to cost households $16.60 a week
    Households will face a $16.60 rise in the cost of living under a $30 carbon tax, new Treasury modelling shows.
    That equates to an extra $863.20 a year for petrol, electricity, gas and food…
    http://www.smh.com.au/national/carbon-tax-to-cost-households-1660-a-week-20110401-1cra8.html

    more heartache up my way:

    31 March: Logan West Leader: Logan families face $200 water hike
    LOGAN’S crippling water prices are set to increase yet again with Allconnex Water earmarking more increases that will force local families to hand over an extra $200 a year to pay their bills.
    The water utility released its proposed water rates on Friday, which if implemented, would see the price of 1000 litres of water jump from $2.70 to $3.64 an increase of 34 per cent…
    http://logan-west-leader.whereilive.com.au/news/story/logan-families-face-200-water-hike/

    00

  • #
    val majkus

    here’s an article which should give us a reason for thought
    http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/03/adventures_in_federal_budget_c.html
    by S Fred Singer
    cutting and pasting from the article

    I have served in five different positions under both Republican and Democrat administrations and have had some modest success in cutting authorized spending. But the experience has been difficult and has caused me some personal problems. I am afraid this will be the case for anyone who tries to cut spending — in the face of an entrenched bureaucracy that thrives on ever-increasing budgets.

    Currently, Congress is trying to cut some of the more egregious programs that are based on fears about catastrophic climate change. Witness the Energy Tax Prevention Act that would stop the EPA from mandating job-killing emission limits for carbon dioxide. Or the efforts to eliminate a whole slew of subsidies for uneconomic projects for “renewable” energy.

    Conclusion

    So what’s to be done? The political appointees soon get frustrated when they realize how difficult it is to change course. We need lots of mid-level managers who are not afraid to put their jobs on the line. The bureaucracy is steeped in a culture of automatic annual increases — and new programs. The American public and also the states have become used to government grants, subsidies and services; there are more than 1,000 federal grant-in-aid programs for states, involving education, housing, transportation, etc. Most of these federal services can and should be replaced by locally funded and controlled ones — closer to the voters and taxpayers, and less costly. However, there is need to take slow steps in cutting the federal budget; withdrawal symptoms can be painful, politically damaging, and could kill the whole enterprise. Remember that “pulling pigs out of the trough causes a lot of squealing.”

    AND my comment – is this what’s happening now?

    00

  • #
    J.Hansford

    Excellent viewing…. Definately something our politicians should watch and learn from.

    00

  • #
    Mark

    Chris Smith of 2GB interviewed John Christy today. Christy was at an airport in the US. What a sane man, he reinforced that humanity can do what it likes; the climate will do what it likes.

    There are problems of real pollution to work on says Christy without concerning ourselves about matters that we have little hope of influencing to any measureable extent.

    Podcast:
    http://www.2gb.com/index2.php?option=com_newsmanager&task=view&id=8563

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    Binny I think your experiences with the DPI crowd sounds a bit like this:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7TYAQ0JWBzE

    It is an old skool versus new school thing. Given that my secondary schooling predates the influence of PCs I was always naturally skeptical of any programs or spreadsheets I created in later years. Consequently I always double check and/or cross check my results generated on a PC the first time around.

    Heck PCs weren’t prevalent until I started my Masters … starting to sound like an old fart. In my defence I was an early adopter … I had a TRS-80 (16k RAM!) when I was 16 and did my own BASIC programming.

    00

  • #
    Matt b

    16k is luxury compared to our old ZX81.

    00

  • #
    val majkus

    DON’T miss the latest from Dr David Evans and Prof Bob Carter
    http://www.quadrant.org.au/Scary%20exaggerations.pdf
    how well have those scary forecasts from the IPCC stacked up?
    Not at all is the answer
    Now what happens when you pull pigs from the trough (see my link to S Fred Singer above) or the Govt from a minimal budget surplus which I suspect the carbon tax is being used for

    Oh yes, the Govt calls us ‘extremists’ or in Mungo Macullum’s case ‘the howling mob’ – that’s squealing!

    00

  • #
    Siliggy

    A bit saddened by not being able to get to the protest in Sydney this weekend….Then while driving along I see a sign. Up on a tree outside a house, “NO CARBON TAX”.
    What a great idea! My sign is going up now!

    00

  • #
  • #
    Cookster

    Science based scepticism of CAGW is still unfortunately being ignored by many in the MSM. You see if they aren’t advised by the local (Western) University climate change department or one of the governments paid advocates (eg. Flannery), then such scepticism is unfounded, untrustworthy and now potentially Earth destroying according to Richard Glover of the ABC and SMH (refer link) !

    Apparently us folk freely discussing our scepticism of CAGW on the Internet, apart from being ‘deniers’ are now potentially responsible for destroying the earth.

    Once again no science discussed in this piece but Richard’s faith in the establishment is obviously rock solid! Mr Glover needs to view Professor Courtillot’s Video.

    http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/why-the-internet-will-destroy-the-planet-20110401-1cri1.html

    00

  • #
    Bruce Cunningham

    I agree with most of the comments here (no surprise). I want to point out that at the 5:10 mark in the video, he very passionately points out that in order to find a job in his field, only alarmists need apply these days. A skeptical student would never be able to. Only old or retired people not worried about their future can say what he is about to say!

    G’day mates!

    00

  • #

    I actually attended that conference (last December) and he was one of the first speakers – agreed – one of the best.

    00

  • #
    macha

    @87
    It’s a little annoying to keep reading “believe it or not” in regards to the CAGW theory. I know as Aussie’s we abbreaviate alomst everything, but to see it in an English environment was surprising.

    Science is not (or should) be a religion. Its about fact based on rules, theories, and observations that are tested until they fail. We then learn the boundaries.

    Religion is the realm of faith and belief – with or without evidence.

    It’s a small point I know…but in a way no different to swapping carbon dioxide for carbon, or climate change for global warming, or GHG for pollution, etc.

    00

  • #
    macha

    Those that follow Piers Corbyn, its worth a read.

    http://sc25.com/index.php?id=10

    more from the sun – well in this case, less is more actually.

    enjoy.

    00

  • #
    Mark

    Yet another disgusting story of the “stick with the program OR ELSE” kind.

    http://nofrakkingconsensus.wordpress.com/2011/04/01/politically-incorrect-prof-may-lose-his-job/

    00

  • #
    janama

    Cookster: @ 88

    until now I thought Richard Glover was the only member of the ABC that was showing some balance – this childish outburst has destroyed that view.

    00

  • #
    wes george

    Wow, thanks for the great link, Jo. Dr. Courtillot speaks convincingly.

    So there is an emergent natural solar/cloud model which might well fit the data better than CO2 forcing climate model.

    The test for the IPCC and the CSIRO is whether they will take on the challenge of Dr. Courtillot’s, et al, work or will they prove what we already suspect about their institutional culture and simply ignore all rational critiques of the CAGW theory? Dr. Courtillot suspects that the way climate scientists work today has rendered the CAGW hypothesis less than falsifiable.

    Question for resident philosophers of science, Matt and Johnny. What do you call a theory which is not falsifiable?

    At 22.30, Courtillot makes a good point:

    Cloud tops reflect about 80 watts per square meter back out of the atmosphere (out of an incoming of 342 W/sq meter) and the IPCC claims the climate sensitivity to CO2 forcing is at the very most 3.8 w/sq meter with a doubling.

    Dr. Courtillot shows that cloud cover can vary dramatically. It changed 2 to 3% since 1980. A 10 % change in cloud cover over the last century is not inconceivable and that would be 8 W/sq meter difference. But the IPCC’s calculations don’t include changes in cloud cover—or many other possible forcings—in their numerical models, yet even small changes in cloud reflectivity would be greater than maximum CO2 forcing.

    So how can the IPCC claim they have 90% confidence in the accurate of their climate models that don’t take into account cloud cover? They can’t.

    00

  • #
    Damian Allen

    Will an anticipated 1.5% increase in the cost of living due to the price on carbon push your budget over the edge?

    http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/national/the-true-cost-of-julia-gillards-new-carbon-tax/story-e6freuzr-1226032268184

    The obvious answer is YES !!!!!!

    00

  • #
    Damian Allen

    Gillard wants Aussies to pay hundreds of dollars each for a tax on Plant Food (carbon dioxide) for nothing………..

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

    00

  • #
    Louis Hissink

    Damian Allen,

    Taxing us and then compensating others is simply wealth redistribution – or socialism 101 which we have consistently rejected because it has always failed. However mantle this wealth redistribution under an environmental issue, here CO2 and carbon pollution, convince the many that it’s a worthy cause, and one can achieve one’s socialist goals without mentioning the word socialism.

    This is what the whole CO2 scam is about.

    00

  • #
    Another Ian

    Off thread but interesting

    From comments at

    http://blogs.news.com.au/couriermail/andrewbolt/index.php/couriermail/comments/tips_for_saturday_april_2/#commentsmore

    “Curiosity got the best of me when I was thinking how much time I spent blogging on this site. I wrote a script to have a look at how I compared and thankfully I am placed at 103rd spot with 87 posts to my name – the top 15 posters for March are:

    MattR, 565
    the Dean, 545
    janey has moved, 458
    bennoba, 443
    davo of the Red Empire, 417
    The Black Knight, 410
    John, 379
    steve, 376
    Richard, 301
    Big Ted, 275
    AS, 242
    mike rafone, 231
    Leonie, 230
    Pennyoz, 230
    Brian S, 226

    The most verbose poster is Brian S (no surprises there) and the person who elicits the most replies to their initial comments is Big Ted (Bolta should give you a medal for creating hits to his site, son)

    Bolta created 444 posts for March and received 48,216 Comments/Replies. Not bad eh!

    Finally if I beat Potemkin Villager and am first on the tips thread then it will be unusual – PV has posted 1st on this thread 28 of the past 56 days.

    Kiwi (Reply)
    Sat 02 Apr 11 (12:00am)”

    And a few interesting replies including

    curious replied to Kiwi
    Sat 02 Apr 11 (07:33am)
    It is funny how often the Chicken Littlers post. Their hypocrisy and their simplicity is outstanding.

    If they really believed that CO2 was the root of all evil they would of course have their computers turned off.

    But actions speak louder than words

    Mike M. replied to Kiwi
    Sat 02 Apr 11 (09:46am)

    If Bolt systematically silences dissent and censors Lefties as they often claim he does, why do they make up more than a third of the top most prolific posters? LOL.

    Interesting stats Kiwi, thankyou!

    By the way I wonder if there are any left-leaning blogs where more than a third of their most-published commenters are far-right conservatives?

    00

  • #
    debbie

    Louis @ 98,
    That is the only explanation that makes sense to me.
    It also encompasses the philosophy behind the mining tax, the Water Act 2007 and numerous other ‘environmentally justified’ political manouvres.
    I can’t grasp why anybody would think it is a good idea to kick around the industries who supply food on our tables, affordable power to our homes, steel for the roof over our heads, a healthy GDP for our country, a whack of employment and many other measurable benefits and necessities.
    I am not arguing that the people who run these industries are saints. That would be just as silly as what’s happening at the moment.
    I honestly can’t see how whalloping them with a massive financial bat and seriously interfering with their ability to compete on the global market will do anything at all to save the environment or reduce global CO2 emissions.
    If we continue to export coal and then have to import to make up for the damage we’ve done to our own supply industries, that will actually increase our ‘carbon footprint’ won’t it?
    What I can see it doing very successfully is creating a whole new layer of federal bureaucratic departments that will happily use most of the raised revenue justifying their existence and the small remainder on redistributing the wealth. (Note that will be a small remainder).
    I fervently wish I wasn’t so cynical but your point truly is the only one that makes sense to me.

    00

  • #
    Damian Allen

    “green” mask……..

    http://inhabitat.com/green-screen-a-living-carbon-capturing-face-mask-that-filters-bacteria/

    I think there should be mandatory wearing of it for all the idiots who believe this CRAP that Plant Food (carbon DIOXIDE) is hurting us !!!!!!!!!!!

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    I have seen him before on video and I hope to emulate his clarity in my own public speaking. I have a lot to learn from everyone.

    I would disagree a bit about the utility of modeling to date, however – for modeling does provide an upper bound (and not the least upper bound) of things like “climate sensitivity.”

    We have been through enough modeling I think, over the past thirty yeas, to say that (the flux corresponding to) the temperature change arising doubling of CO2 cannot be as large as 3 to 5 deg.C with near certainty.

    Of course, other other things have to be taken into account when applying this that may or may not have been part of the “modelling.” Nevertheless an effect of the magnitude of 3-5 deg. cannot be present

    00

  • #
    Damian Allen

    “The Greens” – the Wankers Choice…

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

    00

  • #
  • #
    Damian Allen

    California Mountain Glaciers increasing in size!!!

    http://www.iceagenow.com/Glaciers_growing_on_Mt_Shasta.htm

    00

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    The thing that gets me about “glaciers” is that people have the impression that they are as immutable as the White Cliffs of Dover or something – changes in their appearance esp. recession is some sort of “proof” of global warming

    what a joke

    00

  • #
  • #
    pete50

    Excellent! This is real science; something the IPCC could never do, even it started now.

    00

  • #
    MikeO

    We must be very thankful for those scientists that speak out, here a developing story in Calfornia that shows why they might not. Let us hope they have gone too far and it causes all diesel vehicles to stop surely it would be chaos!

    00

  • #
    kevin moore

    There is photosynthesis and there is respiration.

    In which half of the plant cycle is the atmospheric CO2 reading taken?

    00

  • #
    Richard Hill

    Prof C. makes specific points about handling of solar in the models. The interesting one is the handling of solar UV. Has anyone asked the CSIRO directly if their GCM ignores solar UV?

    00

  • #
    paul

    the science is breathtaking.
    brought tears to my eyes.
    the link between day length and cloudiness via conservation of angular momentum is brilliant

    00

  • #
    Peter OBrien

    Finally got around to watching this video. Bloody brilliant!!!

    00

  • #

    [...] over the web within a couple of days or is it part of an organised program? What do you think? Prof Vincent Courtillot speaks with clarity « JoNova Impact of Climate Change: Vincent Courtillot: the Sun Controls Climate Impact of Climate Change: [...]

    00

  • #
  • #
    BLouis79

    Great presentation. Also really liked Bob Carters talk at the same conference http://youtu.be/epJybIc8cGM

    There were several speakers who only spoke german – youtube needs subtitles. Any German speakers out there??

    00

  • #
    BLouis79

    BTW,Nir Shaviv also gave a talk on the Sun at that conference (the only other talk I found in English) http://youtu.be/L1n2oq-XIxI

    I preferred Nir Shaviv’s paper on cosmic rays in the references of http://www.sciencebits.com/OnClimateSensitivity

    00

  • #
    BLouis79

    For those interested in the mathematics of climate models, Willis Eschenbach did a black box analysis based on the input data and got a correlation of 0.995:
    T(n+1) = T(n)+λ ∆F(n+1) / τ + ΔT(n) exp( -1 / τ )

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/05/14/life-is-like-a-black-box-of-chocolates/

    00