JoNova

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


Handbooks

The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

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



Archives

The Worst Cookbook Interview Ever?

Robin Williams is supposedly one of Australia’s top science communicators. He, and the ABC, continue to support ad hominems, name-calling, and are running scared of a real scientific debate. Williams will not allow skeptics to explain their views on his show, except in comments on stories, and then apparently, even that was too much, and a raging thread (for the Science Show) mysteriously disappeared for days when it got too hot. BobFJ has been dedicated in tracking it, and keeping the pressure on the anti-science pronouncements of Williams et al. Here we have all the fun of the so called “Science” Show meeting the author of  Un-Skeptical-Science, with half-truths and irrelevancies broadcast across the continent thanks to the taxpayers of Australia. — JoNova

———————————–

Guest Post by  Bob Fernley-Jones (aka Bob_FJ)

In addition to regular readers of Jo Nova, those familiar with John Cook’s misleadingly titled website “Skeptical Science” may be shocked by what follows.  Some will also likely recall Jo’s article; Robyn Williams shreds the tenets of science.  It largely covered the awful Robyn Williams interview of Bob Ward of 2/Oct/2010, and resulted in strong ridicule of the ABC going viral around the world.   Well, lo and behold, Robyn Williams, presenter of “The Science Show”, remains in true form, and continues to defy the ABC’s Editorial Policies on impartiality etc.

The audio and transcript is available here, and at close on 19/May it had an unusually high 77 comments in rapid time, including many complaints.  In comparison, the other five uncontroversial stories on that same show only attracted 8 comments in total, and that infamous Bob Ward interview totaled 38 comments.  However, early on 20/May, all comments and the facility to make comments disappeared, just as things were hotting up.  Then, four days later, it all came back, without any explanation or apology, but the momentum of so many inconvenient comments seems to have stalled.

INTRODUCTION TO THE SHOW:

Robyn Williams says:

John Cooks name-calling bookAuthors John Cook and Haydn Washington analyse the approaches of those who deny climate science. Despite multiple lines of evidence pointing to the same conclusion, deniers continue to deny. Cherry picking is one tactic. Another is the use of fake experts or scientists who are not climate scientists. The authors explore why, as the science firms, the public view, at least in Australia, is going the other way.

 

KEEPING IT SHORT;  EIGHT EXTRACTS FROM THE TRANSCRIPT:


1) Climategate:

Robyn Williams: …when we are talking about the East Anglia email scandal, there were three, possibly four enquiries, and each one found in favour of the scientists in terms of the scientific evidence. But that seems not to have stopped denying at all. John Cook: Yes, there has actually been eight independent investigations into it, and they have all found the same results. So it’s almost like climate science where we have multiple lines of evidence finding the same conclusion. But conspiracy theories are very popular amongst any group that wants to deny a scientific consensus.

Robyn Williams was probably referring to the three British “independent” committees and the Penn State University so-called enquiry.  I somehow feel that John Cook’s claim of eight such is an exaggeration. The so-called three or four have been very widely criticised for not asking the right questions, poor representation, (for instance, see this), and much more, too long to detail here.  [And do enquiries that don't investigate the science, count? -- JN] Mr Williams again expresses his clearly biased view by saying: “But that seems not to have stopped denying at all”.[No, we independent thinkers are not impressed by argument from authority, or with enquiries run by chairmen of windfarms investigating climate scientists, see this. -- JN]

2) Silly analogies of heart surgery and tobacco, both mentioned above, are certainly popular in slagging the sceptics, but the following is a real gem for me:

Haydn Washington: Yes, as far as we know maybe chimpanzees deny things too because they carry around dead babies…

He claims to be an environmental scientist so should know that chimps are biologically close to humans, including emotional stuff.  Even dogs are observed to dream, and suffer badly from separation anxiety etc. Chimps clearly have not learnt societal “closure” mechanisms like us, such as burial ceremonies, so do they deny grief?  I think it is far more likely that the mother does not know how to handle what’s happened, but can surely recognise, not deny, that something ain’t right.  (but then I’m only a mechanical engineer).

[Comparing skeptics to chimps is just another way to dehumanize skeptical scientists, eh? -- JN]


3) On the subject of how many sceptical scientists are there:

John Cook: I could probably count them on both my hands I guess, maybe a half dozen or so scientists that actually published papers that are sceptical that global warming will be bad in the future…

However, there is a listing entitled “900+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of “Man-Made” Global Warming (AGW) Alarm at Popular Technology.net, that is rather difficult to count on two hands. [Perhaps Cook has a lot of fingers? -- JN ]  Some of the journals employed are not popular with alarmists though, including GRL for example. (The Climategate Emails revealed plans to change the editors of GRL, for committing the sin of publishing some sceptical papers alongside with mainstream.).


4) Then there are feedbacks affecting “climate sensitivity”:

John Cook: No, I think the general sticking point among sceptic qualified scientists is they tend to hang their hat on this proposition that negative feedback will cancel out the warming that we cause, it’s like a get out of jail free card. But the main argument against that is when we look back through Earth’s history, that has never happened before, there has always been positive feedbacks of amplified warming.

Uh?

[For more on feedbacks see this, this, this or these...]


5) And, some wisdoms on proof of the effects of CO2:

John Cook: …one is that we measure the actual effect from CO2 so satellites and planes observe the heat coming from the Earth and escaping out to space, so they can compare what we simulate or what we expect with what is actually happening. So observations show that CO2 is causing warming…

Well, radiative energy fluxes are variously determined in recent times, (aka EMR or electromagnetic radiation, which BTW is not HEAT), but such spatially and temporally very complex data cannot possibly explain if increasing CO2 has caused it.


6) Then, concerning the petition of 31,000 sceptical scientists, that was encouraged by Frederick Seitz, past president of theNational Academy of Sciences (83 page pdf):

John Cook: The actual statement that they signed their name to is generally that human activity can’t cause climate disruption and in fact CO2 is a good thing, something to that effect. But when you look at all the names on the lists, about 99.9% of them are not climate scientists. So it’s this raising of fake experts, and that tactic has been used way back to the ’70s where the tobacco industry…

That’s not quite right, for instance, the petition was compiled before that new term for CAGW was invented.  Also, the following breakdown of the scientists includes the disciplines which are foundation to various fields of “climate science”.

  • Atmospheric, environmental, and Earth sciences:  3,804
  • Computer and mathematical sciences:  935
  • Physics and aerospace sciences:  5,812
  • Chemistry:  4,821
  • Biology and agriculture:  2,965

That is a substantial majority sub total of 18,337, but to continue, concerning the grand total:

Robyn Williams: Who are these scientists nonetheless? Are they scientists? John Cook: Most of them probably are scientists. There are a few funny names there, I think Posh Spice might have been on there or somebody. But what they are, are mechanical engineers, medical doctors, and the point is when you have a technical and complicated subject like climate change, you want to get the opinions of climate experts. So, for example, if you were going to get a heart operation, you wouldn’t want a mechanical engineer cutting into you, you would want somebody who was an expert on that.

Well actually, the petition lists only a minority of “inferior” engineers, other scientists, and medical doctors within the 31,000:

  • Medicine:  3,046
  • Engineering and general science:  10,103

Furthermore, applied scientists such as engineers are arguably amongst the best at applying rational thought to scientific data, partly because they cannot in their careers be cavalier with any assumptions, as some elitist “climate scientists” seem prone to be.  They are skilled at handling data, and researching the literature etc, no matter what the parameters, and are less likely to have a preconceived view on the outcomes. (I would further argue that peer review should not be via pal review, but from broader disciplines.)

[Cook is partly commenting on the first version of this petition, the second version removed names like Posh Spice, and removed duplicates, and ... ended up larger than the first. See here for more info. It was done by volunteers, and done twice. --JN ]


7) On the wisdom of Sir Paul Nurse’ BBC TV documentary. (not a climate scientist BTW) :

Robyn Williams:and also went to a fascinating place where they are actually showing climate models in action. You know, you’ve got a screen above and a screen below, one is the model showing weather patterns lines, streaming out according to the model, and the other one is the actual weather being shown from a satellite, and they are exactly the same. It’s quite remarkable. The models I think have been portrayed as being unsophisticated, bodgy, and computer crunching, in fantasyland, but in fact they are unbelievably exact, aren’t they.

But, the IPCC as recently as 2007, based on various models and scenarios, have forecasted global warming of ~0.2C degrees/decade for the near term, which is greater than anything in the records over the past 150 years.  Unfortunately, there has actually been a slight cooling over the past decade or so, or, if you prefer, a plateau.  BTW, science journalist, Robyn Williams, has claimed great knowledge by reading some 25 journals/week. This is a typical example of a Dorothy Dixer from him, and he defies the ABC Editorial Policies on impartiality etc


8) On the unprecedented recent warming:

Haydn Washington: …our civilisation evolved in 8,000 years of stable climate, so we have never had to adapt to a rapidly changing climate.

Obviously he is a non- believer in the MWP, and the collapse of some civilizations that has been strongly attributed to climate change.  The most recent big one I believe was the Khmer-Angkor great city civilization drought some 500 years ago, that has been attributed to monsoonal changes whilst coming out of the LIA.

[There's more information on the Medieval Warm Period in these posts, and on the Roman Warm Period here, and on the Holocene here -- JN]

WRAP UP:

If you listen to the 17 minute audio, or read the transcript, (link repeated), there is more head-shaking stuff, but I’ve kept it brief.

An interesting aspect is that this makes the sixth book of exclusively alarmist genre that Robyn Williams has reviewed since declining to review Bob Carter’s highly acclaimed new book, at the time of the Bob Ward attack. (more info here).

The authors say that they are doing a special parliamentary edition signed by two important Oz politicians, (John Hewson, Bob Carr), and seven climate scientists, to be sent to every federal member.  The book also has a foreword by Naomi Oreskes.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 5.5/10 (2 votes cast)
The Worst Cookbook Interview Ever?, 5.5 out of 10 based on 2 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/3bds5o2

302 comments to The Worst Cookbook Interview Ever?

  • #
    Popeye

    Jo,

    Great insight into the “in-biased” ABC!

    What preplexes me is how these (and others) can be allowed to continue to flaunt the ABCs Charter (particularly in respect to balance).

    http://www.abc.net.au/corp/pubs/ABCcharter.htm

    Can something not be done to ENFORCE their obligation to the charter?

    Keep up exposing their MANY flaws – there are only a few willing to continue the fight.

    Cheers,

    00

  • #
    pattoh

    Perhaps Chris Uhlman should interview his colleague Robyn Williams.

    00

  • #
    Huub Bakker

    I was just over there posting some comments but between my second and third posts I got a message saying that posts are closed. And what does THAT mean I wonder?

    00

  • #
    Paul S

    I too heard this appalling rubbishas it went to air. They sounded like a group of schoolboys trying to come up with reasons the other kids didn’t like them, ie; “they must be stupid’. Thank you for your critique of it. That it could pass muster as a “scientific” discussion amazes me.

    00

  • #

    Great critique. I salute you for having a strong enough stomach to deal with the foul-smelling effluent passing for science journalism that the ABC (and Williams in particular) defecates continually onto the airwaves at the taxpayers’ expense. (Excuse the language, but if the cap fits…)

    Cheers,

    Simon
    Australian Climate Madness

    00

  • #
    John Brookes

    Popeye, you think the ABC are flaunting their charter, particularly in respect of balance. I suspect you mean flouting.

    Anyway, there are limits to balance. Do you want the flat earthers and the Einstein cranks to appear on The Science Show because they feel their views are neglected?

    But if you want balance, its very difficult to put the skeptics viewpoint, because they really don’t have one. They are a disparate rabble, united only be a common foe. Is it cosmic rays, underestimated solar variability, vast numbers of sub-sea volcanoes, poorly measured temperatures, corrupt scientists, global political conspiracies, urban heat islands, poor statistics, the second law of thermodynamics, failing to take heat transfer via convection into account, an impossibly complex system, a play by big money to rip us off with emissions trading?

    Or could it be that it is getting warmer, and its because we are altering the composition of the atmosphere? Could it be that we should be a little concerned about that?

    No, that couldn’t be true, because that has implications we don’t like. So take a dud argument or two, take mutually exclusive ones if you like, it doesn’t matter. The important thing is to chip away at the edifice of AGW – or rather, to chip away at the ordinary person’s confidence in AGW. The beauty of this is that you don’t have to be trained to do it. You are only trying to convince ordinary people who know no more than you, so anything that sounds half reasonable will do. Indeed, if you offer them something easier to understand than the AGW crowd, they will like you, because you made them feel smarter.

    Its hard to believe, but when I first became aware of global warming (early 90′s, if I remember correctly), I immediately thought that it couldn’t be true. “Typical bloody humans”, I thought, “always overstating their own importance. As if we could make any difference.”

    If it would only keep cooling off, I could return to this comfortable opinion…..

    00

  • #
    UK Sceptic

    You politely call it bias. I call it for what it is; barefaced lying.

    00

  • #
    Grumpy old fart

    No, that couldn’t be true, because that has implications we don’t like.

    What implications? So far no-one’s demonstrated any adverse effects…they’ve theorised plenty, but as Jo pointed out in a previous posting, even if it does get warmer that’s better for us, we’re happier in warmer climates and much more able to survive.

    The only implications we’re objecting to is the government taking our money and using it to tell us how bad global warming will be.

    00

  • #
    Blimey

    “… there is a listing entitled “900+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of “Man-Made” Global Warming (AGW) Alarm” at Popular Technology.net”

    Found this interesting http://whrl.pl/RcCc6

    to make the 800 list a paper can qualify as follows:

    1. It must disagree, even if only slightly, in part with some aspect of CAGW as defined by anyone, even a newspaper, rather than disagreeing with the IPCC or mainstream scientific opinion (eg Knorr).
    2. The paper may confirm fundamental properties of AGW (Scafetta & natural GHG feedbacks).
    3. The papers can hold completely opposing views with each other and that’s ok (Gerlich, says no greenhouse effect, Scafetta says there is).
    4. The paper can be seriously flawed (Idso).
    5. The paper doesn’t have to be from a climate scientist, pollitical views are ok.
    6. “Poptech”, the guy who maintains the list, doesn’t have to agree with the findings of the paper, in this way they can avoid the conflict of point 3 and dispute point 2).

    00

  • #
    pat

    i disowned auntie – where i had one of my first jobs after leaving school – as soon as i read the Climategate emails, and listened/watched as ABC (and the rest of the MSM for that matter) spun the facts.
    however, as much as i intend fighting all attempts to creat a carbon dioxide financial bubble, here’s another bubble that is in the works apparently. so many implications.

    17 May: New York Observer: Foster Kamer: Hedge Farm! The Doomsday Food Price Scenario Turning Hedgies into Survivalists
    A friend of mine is actually the largest owner of agricultural land in Uruguay,” said the hedge fund manager. “He’s a year older than I am. We’re somewhere [around] the 15th-largest farmers in America right now.”
    “We,” as in, his hedge fund…
    The pattern began to emerge sometime in 2008. “The Hedge Fund Manager Who Bought a Farm,” read the headline on one February 2008 Times of London piece detailing a British hedge fund manager’s attempt to play off the rising prices of grains in order to usurp local farmland. A Financial Times piece two months later began: “Hedge funds and investment banks are swapping their Gucci for gumboots.” It detailed BlackRock’s then-relatively new $420 million Agriculture Fund, which had already swept up 2,800 acres of land..
    Three years later, the purchase of farmland both in America and abroad by outside investors has increased-so much so that in February, Thomas Hoenig, the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, warned against the violent possibilities of a farmland bubble, telling the Senate Agriculture Committee that “distortions in financial markets” will catch the U.S. by surprise again. He would know, because he’s seeing it in his backyard…
    These investors assert inflation should be calculated the way it was before the Boskin Commission’s 1996 reworking of the CPI formula-in which case, it would be much, much higher.
    “The CPI supposedly today is something like 1.5 percent,” says the hedge fund manager. “We think the actual rate of inflation is something closer to 6 or 7 percent on an annual basis. It’s also not about what it’s been over the last 10 years; it’s about what it’s going to be over the next 10 years.”
    http://www.observer.com/hedge-funds-running-farms-05172011

    00

  • #

    Huub Bakker: Thanks for the note.

    I just checked, and the ABC has indeed closed comments on that thread but not on older “Climate Science” threads which have next to no comments.

    Either they are running short of 1′s and 0′s or they really are afraid of debate…

    I suggest submitting comments to other threads, like these.

    PS Blimey: So how many of the 900 papers do you knock out with that list? Remember, we don’t need 900, we only need 1. You’ve got a lot of work to do.

    00

  • #
    jl

    I also thought the Science Show was about science until I sent a complaint to the ABC regarding the Bob Ward interview. The response I received stated that the ABC consider the Science show to be ‘entertainment’. Therefore any actual facts presented may or may not be correct. This puts Robyn Williams up with the greats of climate science, such as Spike Milligan. I now take my science from the Goon Show. Just as factual, but the laughs are better.

    00

  • #
    Billy Bob Hall

    Good work Bob_FJ. Robyn Williams is a joke. Time for him to no ‘move on’. :-)

    Keep up the good work.

    00

  • #
    Blimey

    I’m not really sure Joanne Nova. If it only takes one report to proove AGW wrong, please save us all this time and cite the scientific report.

    Climate science, like any other, is based upon evidence, with current AGW theories gaining support through multiple lines of evidence.

    So far you fail to cite that magic bullet and instead rehash the old “skeptical” science claims in your handbook. Why not publish if you think your science is better than that of the experts?

    And one more thing, I notice your new handbook no longer says that temps haven’t risen since 2001.

    http://woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:2001/plot/uah/from:2001/trend

    Funny how “skeptics” have to keep cherry picking a new year on which to say “there’s been no warming since XXXX”. It used to be 1995, then 1998, then 2001 .. what year do you favour now?

    00

  • #
    manalive

    GetUp — got hate and monkey jokes, but missed the science…
    Haydn Washington: Yes, as far as we know maybe chimpanzees deny things too because they carry around dead babies…

    Do I detect a recurring theme emerging here (rhetorical).

    00

  • #
    David

    Mr. Blimmey
    You quote

    Climate science, like any other, is based upon evidence, with current AGW theories

    I’m not sure what you mean – it’s a theory you’re saying? Then as a result it’s not proven!
    If a theory is based on eveidence – then you must have a conclusion ie fact maybe even
    THE LAW OF CO2 INDUCED CLIMATE CHANGE

    Get Up, Get Out and Come Back when it becomes a LAW.

    00

  • #
    cohenite

    I see Brookes and this Blimey troll are off and running with the usual gibberish. Maybe they can invite over their mate mulga mumblebrain, who must be one of the most aggressive, puerile and fatuous pro-AGW commentators. ‘He’ tends not to stray from the abc schoolyard however, so I guess some kudos to Brookes and Blimey; but they’re still both condescending nitwits; and in Blimey’s case his link doesn’t work.

    00

  • #
    Bob_FJ

    Huub Bakker: Reur: May 27th, 2011 at 3:56 pm

    I was just over there posting some comments but between my second and third posts I got a message saying that posts are closed. And what does THAT mean I wonder?

    Gosh, that’s amazing! Why on Earth would they do that?
    The latest comment on site a short while ago was by Gederts Skerstens : 26 May 2011 8:47:05pm
    My screen copy of my latest comment, responding to Lucy at 26 May 2011 7:55:02pm was at 27 May 1:12:30 pm. Erh it seems to have evaporated although it did not break any of the house rules as far as I understand them.

    I would be very interested if you could give more detail of your experience, because I intend to make a complaint to the ABC under the new Editorial Policies of 11/April.
    The interruption and then closure of comments seems to overstretch any credibility, that could be excused away by Audience and Consumer Affairs, (A&CA) at the ABC.

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whakaaro

    … applied scientists such as engineers are arguably amongst the best at applying rational thought …

    Absolutely, and that is why few of them agree with to the proposition of CAGW. Hence the attempt by John Cook to disparage them.

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whakaaro

    David: #15

    it’s a theory you’re saying? Then as a result it’s not proven!

    It is not even a theory. It is a proposition, or at best, a hypothesis.

    They cannot even definitively demonstrate evidence of cause and effect, where the effect directly follows the cause, without exception, and without any other plausible explanation.

    Neither can they demonstrate the mechanism, in the physical world, whereby the cause results in the effect.

    Instead, they are forced to rely on computer models, based on the equations of fluid dynamics, that do not take significant energy sources and sinks into account. Neither do they allow for any form of temporal analysis.

    To these guys, playing computer games is indistinguishable to the real world – the computer games have become their real world – they are living in a fantasy land.

    And when challenged, all they can do is argue through the use of logical fallacies. They are pathetic.

    Blimey, would you care to offer any real evidence in rebuttal?

    00

  • #
    DavidA

    This quote is from the Amazon product description,

    Climate change can be solved – but only when we cease to deny that it exists. This book shows how we can break through denial, accept reality, and thus solve the climate crisis.

    So it’s really quite simple,

    1. Accept AGW.
    2. ?
    3. Crisis solved!

    On JC’s site someone asked him, or the moderator, why the book wasn’t released as a free PDF bypassing the need to chop trees down and employ a carbon emitting production process. Of course that agitator was quickly silenced.

    00

  • #

    For Naomi Oreskes, and her conspiracy theory of Frederick Seitz and Big Tobacco organising paid doubters, see “Big Tobacco and global warming”.

    00

  • #
    Winston

    John Cook’s “Skeptical Science” website is set up in such a way that skeptic arguments are marginalized and to reduce the ability for skeptics to debate. Firstly, by the classic divide and conquer tactic of dealing with each climate variable SEPERATELY (It’s the sun….) rather than allowing anyone to discuss the multiple climate forcings acting asynchronously and in concert because discussing multiple variables becomes immediately off topic. Secondly, the frat boy bullying mentality of many of the pro AGW posters on the blog effectively eliminates debate or even polite enquiry, in stark contrast to Jo’s site where antipathy is generally kept to a reasonably low level in spite of the passions involved. Clearly, Robin Williams has found a kindred spirit not only in religious conviction but also in skilled debate side stepping. When will alarmists realize that it is the overstating of their case and unwillingness to debate openly without a “stacked deck” that has eroded belief in their theories.

    00

  • #

    As for the late Robyn Williams, I agree with A.P. Herbert that often a healthy dose of ridicule is the meetest response to such idiocy.

    00

  • #
    DavidA

    Winston I would add SS is full of strawmen and misrepresented arguments. The list is the list they want others to think represents skeptic arguments. Some are valid and others are really left field and rarely raised. They address “hide the decline” et al but don’t actually state that we the skeptics think (know) it was done to hide the failure of the underlying technique, instead run with “some people think the scientists were hiding a fall in temperatures, but actually…..” blah blah blah. Sometimes the counter presented is just tit for tat and doesn’t even contradict the skeptic argument presented. Unfortunately the herd rarely even delve into the detail, including the discussion, which on that site surely is the devil.

    Here’s another of John Cook
    http://lh5.ggpht.com/_gmR8fkmAnjw/S6mEPUJG0xI/AAAAAAAAAw4/mGNeSNCJQ1Q/JohnCookSkep190.jpg

    Pull that out of your sleeve if a SS warmist ever has a go at Monkton over his peeper problem. I’d be hedging my bets in a beauty contest between those two.

    00

  • #

    Rereke Whakaaro, 19,
    I was with my younger son at the hospital, today, because he’s had surgery on both legs, and the doctor sent us to radiology for yet another x-ray of my son’s knee because the specialist was not satisfied with the previous scan. A radiologist said that this doctor was renowned for being picky. I said, “Well, that’s what we want in a doctor, isn’t it? No sloppy post-modernism here!”
    Half an hour later the doctor sent us back down to radiology. They’d provided an x-ray of the wrong knee.

    00

  • #
    TrueNews

    @John Brookes: #6

    “… you think the ABC are flaunting their charter, particularly in respect of balance. I suspect you mean flouting.”

    It is the flaunting of their flouting of the charter that is offensive.
    .

    JB – “Anyway, there are limits to balance. Do you want the flat earthers and the Einstein cranks to appear on The Science Show …?”

    It might help to balance up the hysterical veiws of the Will Steffan ilk if they did appear on the Science Show.
    .

    JB – “…its very difficult to put the skeptics viewpoint, because they really don’t have one. They are a disparate rabble, united only be a common foe.”

    Is it not a ‘Common Foe’ that has historically united whole countries.
    .

    JB – “Is it … corrupt scientists, global political conspiracies, poor statistics,… a play by big money to rip us off with emissions trading?…”

    Is this a multiple choice question ?

    Can I add Greg Combets FALSE ACCOUNTING to the UNFCCC for Kyoto (period 1990 to 2007)to the list?
    (The tax office would throw me in jail if I falsified figures retrospectively like he did)
    .

    JB – “Or could it be that it is getting warmer… Its hard to believe, but when I first became aware of global warming (early 90′s, if I remember correctly),…”

    Do you remember the ‘Global Cooling’ period in the 1970′s, you know, the period where the governments of Australia. Britain and the USA (depts of Agriculture and Defence) all got together to discuss how they would feed their respective populations during the forthcoming ‘Ice Age’.
    I only asked you about the 1970′s because your picture would suggest that you are old enough to have been paying attention during that period.

    You Mention ‘Global Warming in the 1990′s, which must mean that the ‘Hole in the Ozone’ scare campaign would have been the 1980′s then.
    (I always get those two mixed up)
    .

    JB – “If it would only keep cooling off…”
    It is cooling off John, but don’t worry, it is quite a natural occurrence in Winter.

    00

  • #
    Neville

    Don’t forget this is the same Robin Williams who informed Andrew Bolt that it was possible that SL could rise by 100 metres by 2100.

    Problem is SL’s are rising by 30cm per century at best and this latest study suggests it could be decelerating.

    http://www.jcronline.org/doi/abs/10.2112/JCOASTRES-D-10-00157.1

    00

  • #
    manalive

    John Brookes (6):

    Anyway, there are limits to balance. Do you want the flat earthers and the Einstein cranks to appear on The Science Show because they feel their views are neglected?

    It’s a tired rationalization.
    Like most climate catastrophists, he exaggerates the degree of certainty of his own religion, ‘IPCC science’, at which even that august body wisely balk — 90% confidence that over 50% of the warming since mid-twentieth century is due to human CO2 emissions is hardly a statement of unchallengeable scientific fact.

    00

  • #
    Paul S

    Blimey @14; Do you mean cherrypicking as in removing the MWP from one IPCC report to the next, or cherrypicking as in substituting data to hide an embarrassing temperature decline, or cherrypicking as in only using a window of a couple of post-war decades as your baseline against which to measure current trends, or cherrypicking as in finding you only ever need to adjust temperature records up and never down, or cherrypicking as in……..

    00

  • #
    Mike W

    Blimey:
    May 27th, 2011 at 6:19 pm
    I’m not really sure Joanne Nova. If it only takes one report to proove AGW wrong, please save us all this time and cite the scientific report.

    No Blimey..thats how science works..
    Postmodernism/CAGW..does not work that way.
    Here..I will give you an example to prove what you ask for will not be accepted by postmodernists/CAGW supporters.
    DISCUSSION OF: A STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF MULTIPLE TEMPERATURE PROXIES: ARE RECONSTRUCTIONS OF SURFACE TEMPERATURES OVER THE LAST 1000 YEARS RELIABLE?
    Did the did the edifice crumble after that “report”..of course not…:)
    But you wanted a mere report that went to the heart of the CAGW and I used a published peer reviewed paper..
    Welcome to the climate sceptics position brother. :)
    Or for overkill..some one of the 900 papers listed above which you amazingly missed..yes i am sure not all of the papers pass muster..but..judging by the pal review papers that get through now days from the CAGW crowd..it all sort of evens up. :)
    Many CAGW supporters have no problems with the ABC presenting little to no information to the general public thats contrary to the established position and the best they can do is use straw man games..see below..throw in some ad hominem side swipe analogies..see below…complain that the sceptics don’t have a unified argument..see below (lets forget the CAGW ideas come from a multitude of science fields ).

    John Brookes:
    May 27th, 2011 at 4:42 pm
    But if you want balance, its very difficult to put the skeptics viewpoint, because they really don’t have one. They are a disparate rabble, united only be a common foe. Is it cosmic rays, underestimated solar variability, vast numbers of sub-sea volcanoes, poorly measured temperatures, corrupt scientists, global political conspiracies, urban heat islands, poor statistics, the second law of thermodynamics, failing to take heat transfer via convection into account, an impossibly complex system, a play by big money to rip us off with emissions trading?

    Some more great examples are CAGW belief systems are below.

    John Brookes:
    May 27th, 2011 at 4:42 pm
    Or could it be that it is getting warmer, and its because we are altering the composition of the atmosphere? Could it be that we should be a little concerned about that?
    No, that couldn’t be true, because that has implications we don’t like.

    The interesting thing about what John is saying…paradoxically is that its answered by his own rhetorical question.

    You are only trying to convince ordinary people who know no more than you, so anything that sounds half reasonable will do.

    Exactly John..thats why many of us here.. .you know..the great unwashed.are appalled that so few people now days (partly due the to ABC)are unaware of all the problems the CAGW belief system has..how many people even know the world is coming out of a mini ice age a couple of hundred years ago..and we are living in an interglacial period now..probably very few..

    Indeed, if you offer them something easier to understand than the AGW crowd, they will like you, because you made them feel smarter.

    Hilarious stuff… but so wrong..its not even wrong.. :)
    How is reading highly complex and diverse fields of science and the examination of papers..easier than reading a newspaper and being told WE DUNNIT pay tax fix the world.
    And believing that.
    Look at Blimey above missing 900? scientific papers..and asking for one..which would, by implication alter his beliefs..
    I gave him one..to prove my point..I predict he will do one of 2 things.
    Vanish from the thread or…not accept any the 900 papers..
    He has no choice..:)
    Its the mindless simplicity of the CAGW beliefs that are amazing..how many CAGW believers were up in arms when Flannery stated that if the whole world (NOT JUST OZ) stopped producing CO2 it might not have any effect on the climate for several hundred years.. CAGW believers said nothing..
    And India/China/Russia etc and The US are never going to constrain their CO2 outputs..thats a fact..
    Thats the beauty of CAGW…the shear simplicity of it is brilliant in all its Orwellian connotations..
    Australians are being told to pay taxes on a gas to effect the weather..and the taxes will not in actual fact(see Russia/China examples above) effect the weather.
    Pay a tax to change the weather even though it wont change the weather…
    Thats simplicity…and the people bought it..
    Thats scary as hell. :)

    If it would only keep cooling off, I could return to this comfortable opinion

    WRONG…the CAGW gang have already said that if it cools..it will surely heat up after the cooling….ya got to have an escape clause..:)

    00

  • #
    David

    Mr. SBlimey,

    I was looking at your previous comments and theory is BIG in the agenda!

    “The real problem here is that the Coalition are not free to speak about a science theory.”
    What utter crap!! The problem remains that they can’t back up ANY climate denialist theory with evidence!!

    You are barking up the wrong tree Mr. Blimey
    Theory definition is – It is derived from theoria, θεωρία, meaning “a looking at, viewing, beholding”, and refers to contemplation or speculation

    But you Mr. Blimey are holding it up as the Golden Chalice – Get Up and Get Going with the Goose Golden Egg you are chasing!

    00

  • #
    TrueNews

    @Mike W: #30
    Excellent post Mike W.

    I think it says it all.

    You are spot on, with China, Russia and the USA (jointly responsible for over half of the Worlds total emissions) catagorically refusing to any extension of Kyoto then what is the point in Australia taxing it’s citizens and industry.

    The UN are in panic mode, their proposed $100 Billion Green Fund is all but screwed.

    Should be interesting in Durban.
    (Keep Combet away from any pen’s though – that idiot would sign anything – just like he did in Cancun)

    00

  • #
    Winston

    One of the main clues to the lack of scientific rigor in CAGW theory is the complete lack of a definable set of parameters to disprove their theory. They do not clearly quantify what measurements or observable data would effectively disprove their theory, ie. Just how much the global temperature ( if such a figure is even quantifiable ) needs to drop and for how long in the absence of any change in the rate of CO2 rise would constitute sufficient evidence to discount or even cast doubt on their theory’s validity. That way, the goal posts can constantly change at a whim and they are accountable to no one. Very convenient, certainly allows “certainty” for stakeholders where no such certainty actually exists.

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whakaaro

    Mike w: #30

    …the CAGW gang have already said that if it cools..it will surely heat up after the cooling…

    That wasn’t said by the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming gang.

    It was said by the Confusingly Arguing for Climate Fluctuation gang (CACF), a splinter group funded by the ABC using public funds that are recycled to supporters of the gang by way of appearance fees. It is a form of “grey” (as in grey literature) money laundering to avoid these people having to appear in public where they might frighten small children and worry elderly ladies.

    Caveat: It is Friday evening where I am, and this is a particularly good malt whisky.

    00

  • #
    Joe Lalonde

    Jo,

    There are many news worthy items you may that you may not hear that are currently abnormal patterns of development.
    In the US there have been record massive tornadoes ripping across the central US with the cold and warm air masses meeting.
    In Canada, Newfoundland has has 39 straight days of rain.
    Both Canada and the US have had massive floods and we still are receiving a great deal of rain in many areas.

    There is less and less talk of AGW as the cause as the persistent cold just makes fools of whoever is trying to push this garbage science based strictly on temperature measurements.

    00

  • #
    David

    Reeke O/T

    Do you realise drinking Malt is bad for the environment – CO2 production durning the fermentation period – see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol_fermentation

    Try RUM – it isn’t as toxic to the environment – my Goodness – it isn’t possible???

    “Ian Flannery’s guide to Non Toxic Drinking” has just been published by the ABC!

    00

  • #
    Bob_FJ

    David @37 and Rereke Whakaaro @ 35

    Groan, I quite like a glass or two of Cabernet Merlot and other variants of red vino. Am I damaging the planet?

    00

  • #
    Blimey

    Mike W – writing everything in BOLD gives an impression that you are almost a complete nutcase. Perhaps you could use all capitals too?

    As for the paper you cite, even if I accepted 100% everything about it then some of Manns work would be discredited. So what? That’s not the only reconstruction of the past, nor is that reconstruction even that significant or necessary in order to establish the theory of AGW.

    00

  • #
    David

    Bob FJ

    Nearly the worst of the worst – Cabernet Merlot, but beer is worse by 15% of CO2 emmissions.
    You are damaging the planet by doing this – but it seems to dissapate with volume!!! Maybe that’s why Queensland is having so much rain?
    New Global Theory of Alcohol Induced Global Warming AIGW

    Good Night! Blimmey – I forgot – what did you used to drink?

    00

  • #

    Blimey, Found this interesting http://whrl.pl/RcCc6

    You found a deleted forum post interesting?

    to make the 800 list a paper can qualify as follows:

    1. It must disagree, even if only slightly, in part with some aspect of CAGW as defined by anyone, even a newspaper, rather than disagreeing with the IPCC or mainstream scientific opinion (eg Knorr).

    For a paper to be on the list it must support a skeptic argument against AGW or AGW Alarm defined as, “concern relating to a negative environmental or socio-economic effect of AGW, usually exaggerated as catastrophic.”

    It is a strawman that the skeptic argument has to be related to the IPCC of what you subjectively have declared a “mainstream scientific opinion”.

    Various parts of the IPCC report are not alarmist and many alarmist positions are made by members of the media or popular alarmist websites. (eg. Climate Progress)

    2. The paper may confirm fundamental properties of AGW (Scafetta & natural GHG feedbacks).

    Thus supporting skeptic arguments against AGW Alarm. Skeptics do not have a hard time understanding this.

    3. The papers can hold completely opposing views with each other and that’s ok (Gerlich, says no greenhouse effect, Scafetta says there is).

    Of course as this is a resource of ALL the various skeptic theories. Collectivists have a hard time grasping the existence of independent thought and more than one scientific theory being presented at one time. God forbid someone was presented with independent theories and made up their own mind – the horror!

    4. The paper can be seriously flawed (Idso).

    All published criticisms have been rebutted by the authors of the original paper or a correction published. These rebuttals and corrections follow the original paper. Any other criticisms against these papers has never been submitted for peer-review and thus not taken seriously.

    5. The paper doesn’t have to be from a climate scientist, pollitical views are ok.

    This is another strawman argument. Just like the WGII and WGIII sections of the IPCC report, social scientists and policy analysts are included in the list. Their papers appear in the appropriate socio-economic sections separate from the science sections on the list. The papers are still peer-reviewed and the list has never claimed that only natural science papers appear on the list, only that they are all peer-reviewed.

    6. “Poptech”, the guy who maintains the list, doesn’t have to agree with the findings of the paper, in this way they can avoid the conflict of point 3 and dispute point 2).

    The list is not my thesis of a theory on climate change. The purpose is explicitly stated,

    Purpose: To provide a resource for peer-reviewed papers that support skepticism of AGW or AGW Alarm and to prove that these papers exist contrary to widely held beliefs,

    You realize that there are something like two or three thousand studies all of which concur which have been peer reviewed, and not one of the studies dissenting has been peer reviewed?

    - John Kerry, U.S. Senator and Failed 2004 U.S. Presidential Candidate

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Bob_FJ,
    Thanks for the article.

    Wine is pretty much carbon neutral unless you ship it in from far away places. Beer and all things distilled however are shamefully decadent because of the fuel used for brewing and distillation.

    All the more reason to hate those who want to reform human life by promoting the warmist lie.

    Cheers Rereke, it’ll be happy hour here in about 8 hrs.

    00

  • #
    Bob_FJ

    David @ 40
    Well as long as your HYPOTHESIS is only AIGW and not CAIGW

    00

  • #
    Blimey

    Rereke Whakaaro – “It is not even a theory. It is a proposition, or at best, a hypothesis.”

    The “theory” of CO2 being a greenhouse gas was established.

    http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm#S2

    Even this is difficult for some here to grasp.

    00

  • #
  • #
    Blimey

    Paul S “Do you mean cherrypicking as in removing the MWP from one IPCC report to the next”

    The MWP was reduced because more evidence became available toshow it wasn’t global in extent nor as warm as it is today.

    But so, go ahead and declare that the MWP was warmer – that also suggests climate sensitivity is also higher than we thought.

    “or cherrypicking as in substituting data to hide an embarrassing temperature decline”

    Hmmm .. include one set of tree ring proxy data showing a decline or use real known modern thermometer/satellite data. I know what the climate denialists would prefer to use.

    “or cherrypicking as in only using a window of a couple of post-war decades as your baseline against which to measure current trends”

    Use a longer timeframe if you wish.

    http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1900/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1900/trend

    “or cherrypicking as in finding you only ever need to adjust temperature records up and never down”

    Never down? How ironic. A bias of your own.

    00

  • #
    Bob_FJ

    David @ 16
    That CO2 is a greenhouse gas that promotes warming is a strong theory that is supported by small-vessel laboratory experiments. However, those small-scale experiments cannot simulate what really happens in a real very tall column of the atmosphere with various diminishing parameters occurring with increasing altitude. Furthermore, that is without considering the loosely termed “convective” factors which are thought to be the greater cooling effect from the surface. (per the IPCC and Kevin Trenberth’s analysis). Nevertheless, most scientists, (including sceptics) agree that there is a nominal theoretical radiative warming effect from CO2. However, it can only be catastrophic if there is a strong net positive feedback, and even the elitist alarmist Andrew Dessler has admitted this. Whether there is a strong positive feedback is pure hypothesis at this time, and there are various studies that indicate that the net feedbacks may well be negative, not positive.

    00

  • #
    Blimey

    “You found a deleted forum post interesting?”

    I found this interesting http://www.topix.com/forum/news/global-warming/T0PIMNGR53TFMJ6E1#c3

    Seems you haven’t really taken much care with your list.

    “AGW Alarm defined as, “concern relating to a negative environmental or socio-economic effect of AGW, usually exaggerated as catastrophic.””

    So you randomly define “mainstream scientific opinion” as you see fit. Your list is worthless with this kind of criteria – oh except to confuse the witless followers that don’t know better.

    “Thus supporting skeptic arguments against AGW Alarm. Skeptics do not have a hard time understanding this.”

    Actually you’ll find plenty of “skeptics” here flatly refusing to accept the concept of positive feedbacks. This forum is almost full of them.

    “Of course as this is a resource of ALL the various skeptic theories.”

    So your accept that your list of papers contains concepts that are complete against one another. By contrast the IPCC report contains a vast amount of papers with evidence all supporting the same theory.

    Weird how you guys like to support ALL of these papers even though they contradict each other!!

    “All published criticisms have been rebutted by the authors of the original paper or a correction published.”

    Really. Can you direct to where Idso’s method for calculating climate sensitivty is now accepted by, in your words, “mainstream scientific opinion”?

    “This is another strawman argument.”

    Not really. The point is that many of the papers are against action on CO2 reduction, not actually about the science of AGW.

    “The purpose is explicitly stated”

    Yes I see. And so is the lack of consultation with the authors. Your website states “Disclaimer: The inclusion of a paper in this list does not imply a specific personal position to any of the authors.”

    That seems a pretty sneaky way to get ANY paper one there because it meets one of your shakey criteria even if the main gist of the paper supported AGW.

    Pretty dumb list if you ask me.

    But since you are so well acquainted with it, perhaps you could fulfill Nova’s suggestion, that it only takes one paper to destroy the theory of AGW.

    Which paper would that be now?

    00

  • #
    Bob_FJ

    Mark D @42

    Wine is pretty much carbon neutral unless you ship it in from far away places.

    Thanks Mark, ‘tis just past midnight here in Melbourne, and my head will shortly hit the pillow in utmost serenity following your advice.

    00

  • #
    JPeden

    “Climate Change Denial…Heads in the Sand”

    Oops, right off the bat the authors’ own denial that there has ever been any climate change before the advent of human fossil fuel use – or unless CO2 has caused it, and then that it has always entailed a net disaster – makes them the anti-scientific Ostrichs!

    In other words, if they don’t mean to imply that the term “climate change” = “CO2=C[A]GW”, what do they instead mean by the term “climate change”?

    But if they don’t want to clear up this problem, why would anyone want to read a book about the authors’ own pet psychoderangements or their unscientific propagandistic reveries?

    00

  • #
    John Brookes

    Gee JPeden, “the authors’ own denial that there has ever been any climate change before the advent of human fossil fuel use”. Wow, I must talk to John Cook and see if he thinks that the climate never changed before. Actually, no, I won’t, because only a compete nincompoop would hold such beliefs. Some sort of moron who hasn’t heard of ice ages, or a world without ice, or snowball earth.

    It must be fun to pretend that people believe things they don’t. So I’m going to try it. I think I’ll assert that you, JPeden, believe that CO2 is always beneficial, no matter what the concentration. Maybe you don’t believe it, but I just said that you do…..

    00

  • #
    Huub Bakker

    Looking at the dates on comments it appears that the last comment allowed in was on the 26th from a warmist (Lucy). Neither of my two posts made it through moderation. I don’t know how many other people tried to comment between the 26th and my two comments. Maybe it was my two comments that induced them to close comments on the post? If that is the case then they really don’t want opposing views.

    00

  • #

    Brookes, Peden has a point – but it’s not really about what exactly goes on in Cooks head – he’s poking fun at the Orwellian use of the now cliched-to-oblivion-term “climate change”.

    “if they don’t mean to imply that the term “climate change” = “CO2=C[A]GW”, what do they instead mean by the term “climate change”?”

    What do they mean indeed? Do you think we “deny” that the climate changes — Cook has titled the book “climate Change Denial”? Peden is mocking Cook because we all know that the climate changes. His title literally applies to about 3 people on the planet.

    Blimey: here’s a friendly warning — you can discuss the term denier, but if you want to keep posting here, don’t refer to us as “Deniers / denialists / etc” because sooner or later I’ll ask you to define what we deny – and to name and explain that scientific paper. So far, after 54,000 comments, and countless trolls, no one has managed to answer that question and justify their name-calling.

    Huub, so go post a comment on one of the other ABC threads, something neutral about those threads, and then later try again on those threads and ask if they’ve run out of binary code for Cooks thread.

    The ABC is scared….

    00

  • #
    David, UK

    If one reads these transcripts with some emotional detachment, it’s fascinating to observe the extreme denial from the very people who accuse sceptics of being “denialists” (classic projection). They come out with one bullsh!t statement after another, as if to try and convince themselves as much as anyone else. Comparing sceptics to chimpanzees, referencing those blatantly corrupt non-enquiries and describing the continually tweaked climate models as being “unbelievably exact!” It really is quite incredible and desperate.

    00

  • #
    grayman

    Hello all, John cook, blimey and john brookes; with over 900 peer-reviewed papers to choose from and you guys saying that they are not “climate scientist”, well Hansen is a Astrophicist, Mann is a geologist, and so on. Well what is your point of that kind of argument? There is NO such degree or Masters or PHD; for that science it is a combenation of regimes that make it up so that argument is out the window. Blimey read any one of the 900 papers and you will have the paper that refutes the whole thing.

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    Why has no one pointed out the obvious misleading comments regards the “climate” models in regard to the Nurse reference? He was looking at weather models. We all know weather models are reasonably accurate up to a few days out, but they all fall apart after a handful of days. Perth’s weather patterns are relatively simple in that respect. I would be right most of the time if I said tomorrow’s weather will be roughly the same as that today’s.

    “…and also went to a fascinating place where they are actually showing climate models in action. You know, you’ve got a screen above and a screen below, one is the model showing weather patterns lines, streaming out according to the model, and the other one is the actual weather being shown from a satellite, and they are exactly the same.”

    Quite obviously Williams does NOT know the difference between climate and weather.

    PS> I can’t believe I listened to the entire piece, it made my skin crawl with revulsion at the smarmy claptrap being spewed by all three of them. The ABC has completely lost all sense of balance on this issue. Hardly surprising that this piece has attracted unSkepticalScience trolls.

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    PPS> As Grayman points out, there is no such thing (until recently) as a “Climate Scientist.” Those degrees weren’t even invented until the whole CAGW gravy train hit high speed. Virtually everyone published and qouted in the climate science field comes from another field. The argument that none of the 900 (or whatever) papers was by a “climate scientist” and likewise the signatories on the NIPCC petition aren’t “climate scientists” is deceptive garbage.

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whakaaro

    Blimey: #44

    The “theory” of CO2 being a greenhouse gas was established.
    http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm#S2
    Even this is difficult for some here to grasp.

    Not hard at all. And please, do not project your shortcomings onto others.

    Yes, I was aware of the paper you reference, it is oft cited. But this paper refers to the theory that CO2 has a warming affect in the atmosphere. This is a theory that few, if any, on this site will seriously dispute.

    This thread is around the general subject matter of Anthropogenic Catastrophic Global Climate Fluctuation, or whatever today’s name is deemed to be. But it is not about the greenhouse affect.

    Mind you, you do get a starter for ten, for attempting to respond to my criticism, well done.

    But you only read as far as my opening remark, so would you now like to respond to my challenge regarding the subject matter of my comment?

    Would you care to offer any real (i.e. empirical) evidence in rebuttal to the charges made in my post #20?

    00

  • #

    Blimey, 48:

    So your accept that your list of papers contains concepts that are complete against one another. By contrast the IPCC report contains a vast amount of papers with evidence all supporting the same theory.

    So? Imagine, if you will, that someone organises a collection of essays from famous scientologists arguing that Scientology is the only worthwhile belief system for the universe; it includes contributions from rich, famous movie-stars, industrialists, singers and bankers; it persuades many credulous people not least because much of the media (whether from incompetence,ignorance, corruption or just star-worship) promotes the book as the only valid volume on the subject. Now imagine that someone else organises a countering book of essays, from a motley group of Christians of various denominations, Buddhists, Atheists and new-age cranks, which provides a mix of arguments demolishing the silly premises and ridiculous conclusions of Scientology. Finally, imagine that some dupes and morons refuse to accept that the anti-scientology book has any validity because some of the writers are religious, some of the arguments are contradictory to others in the same book, and that whilst the first book has unity the countering book has diversity.
    Would the scientologists answer criticism only with reason and good humour? Would scientology-supporting pseudo-scientists draw the parallel?
    By the way, the awarmists of CAGW are the scientologists.

    00

  • #
    bob

    Both Hansen and Mann are climate scientists. It isn’t about the PhD it’s about the field of research and publishing.

    The counterargument is that many on these “lists” are simply electrical engineers or mathematicians wading into areas they haven’t researched adequately and writing gibberish and managing to publish it into some little known journal which has inadequate understanding of climate to give it a proper review.

    00

  • #
    gnome

    I didn’t listen to the Williams audio- I think I have heard it all before. Such clever men- only the hardiest of straw men left standing!

    Give up the grog folx- the only way they make alcohol is by yeast fermentation and it all gives off that dreadful poison which should remain nameless. Brighten up the planet by growing a little hemp or a few poppies.

    Blimey- just saying it don’t make it so. Mann says the MWP was only north European, but there is lots of contrary evidence- Mann simply can’t be believed. I look forward to the release of his emails. And if you think localism of phenomena is significant why do you, in the Southern Hemisphere, support the hypothesis that the world is warming?

    00

  • #
    rjm385

    The point to this is the massively biased reporting which is going on.

    If robyn Williams and the ABC want to do the best thing for the Australia and their reputations they will allow healthy debate, such as it is with joanne’s site.

    I do like to hear from the other side of the fence and I try as hard as I can not to attack them Ad Hominem. John Brookes, MattB and the other have their point of view and they are welcome to it. What I oppose is my belief that we (the skeptics) are being censored by an agency which accepts out tax dollar to promulgate a view held by the the ABC establishement. It is after all, the taxpayers who foot the bill, don’t we desrve t hear both sides o the argumanent?

    I find this deplorable and offensive, every Australian should speak up about it not just the skeptics.

    00

  • #

    Blimey, I found this interesting http://www.topix.com/forum/news/global-warming/T0PIMNGR53TFMJ6E1#c3

    Still desperately using Google to find something?

    Seems you haven’t really taken much care with your list.

    How so? The list is fully cited and source and routinely updated.

    “AGW Alarm defined as, “concern relating to a negative environmental or socio-economic effect of AGW, usually exaggerated as catastrophic.””

    So you randomly define “mainstream scientific opinion” as you see fit. Your list is worthless with this kind of criteria – oh except to confuse the witless followers that don’t know better.

    Why are you a perpetual strawman argument? My list makes no mention of “mainstream scientific opinion” – whatever that is. So how can I “redefine” something I don’t even attempt to define? The list is incredibly valuable as it is widely used to support skeptic arguments against AGW Alarm with actual peer-reviewed papers.

    “Thus supporting skeptic arguments against AGW Alarm. Skeptics do not have a hard time understanding this.”

    Actually you’ll find plenty of “skeptics” here flatly refusing to accept the concept of positive feedbacks. This forum is almost full of them.

    Of course skeptics will not accept something that has no basis in empirical reality but only shows up in computer models. Peer-reviewed papers supporting skeptic arguments against positive feedbacks are found in the list, now you can understand it’s value.

    “Of course as this is a resource of ALL the various skeptic theories.”

    So your accept that your list of papers contains concepts that are complete against one another. By contrast the IPCC report contains a vast amount of papers with evidence all supporting the same theory.

    Weird how you guys like to support ALL of these papers even though they contradict each other!!

    I accept that there exists independent, mutually exclusive theories on certain aspects of climate change. None of the papers contradict each other because they do not even refer to each other in this manner. A few are mutually exclusive, this is not hard to understand. The purpose of the list is not as a unified theory but as a resource. The list is not a report. If you want a report I suggest your read,

    Climate Change Reconsidered (868 pgs) (NIPCC Report)

    “All published criticisms have been rebutted by the authors of the original paper or a correction published.”

    Really. Can you direct to where Idso’s method for calculating climate sensitivty is now accepted by, in your words, “mainstream scientific opinion”?

    Idso’s paper has citations, try reading it. Can you show me the peer-reviewed published criticism of his paper? If not I am not interested in discussing each paper here.

    “This is another strawman argument.”

    Not really. The point is that many of the papers are against action on CO2 reduction, not actually about the science of AGW.

    Yes it is a strawman argument as no claim was ever made that all the papers are natural science papers only that they are all peer-reviewed. Some of the papers, roughly 20% are socio-economic and policy papers just like the WGII and WGIII sections of the IPCC report. You reference the report but refuse to acknowledge the existence and importance of these papers to the debate.

    “The purpose is explicitly stated”

    Yes I see. And so is the lack of consultation with the authors. Your website states “Disclaimer: The inclusion of a paper in this list does not imply a specific personal position to any of the authors.”

    That seems a pretty sneaky way to get ANY paper one there because it meets one of your shakey criteria even if the main gist of the paper supported AGW.

    There is nothing sneaky about it. Alarmists have a problem with it because they cannot separate the facts from someone’s opinion. The list has nothing to do with the personal position of any of the authors. As the disclaimer explicitly states,

    Disclaimer: The inclusion of a paper in this list does not imply a specific personal position to any of the authors. The reason for this is a small minority of authors on the list would not wish to be labeled skeptical (e.g. Harold Brooks, Roger Pielke Jr.) yet their paper(s) or results from their paper(s) support skeptic’s arguments against AGW alarm.

    Just because an author has an alternate personal position does not mean his papers cannot be used to support skeptic arguments. Examples,

    Nine Fallacies of Floods
    (Climatic Change, Volume 42, Number 2, June 1999)
    - Roger A. Pielke Jr.

    “Fallacy 2: Damaging flooding in recent years is unprecedented because of global warming” – Roger Pielke Jr.

    Hurricanes and Global Warming
    (Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Volume 86, Issue 11, November 2005)
    - Roger A. Pielke Jr., Christopher W. Landsea, M. Mayfield, J. Laver, R. Pasch

    “The paper concludes that with no trend identified in various metrics of hurricane damage over the twentieth century, it is exceedingly unlikely that scientists will identify large changes in historical storm behavior that have significant societal implications” – Roger Pielke Jr.

    Normalized Hurricane Damage in the United States: 1900–2005
    (Natural Hazards Review, Volume 9, Issue 1, pp. 29-42, February 2008)
    - Roger A. Pielke Jr., Joel Gratz, Christopher W. Landsea, Douglas Collins, Mark A. Saunders, Rade Musulin

    “Across both normalization methods, there is no remaining trend of increasing absolute damage in the data set, which follows the lack of trends in landfall frequency or intensity observed over the twentieth century.” – Roger Pielke Jr.

    - Are there trends in hurricane destruction?
    (Nature, Volume 438, Number 7071, pp. E11, December 2005)
    - Roger A. Pielke Jr.

    “My analysis of a long-term data set of hurricane losses in the United States shows no upward trend” – Roger Pielke Jr.

    Pretty dumb list if you ask me.

    I am well aware alarmists have a problem with peer-reviewed papers existing that support skeptic arguments but you will just have to deal with it.

    00

  • #

    Poptech says, “Just because an author has an alternat[iv]e personal position does not mean his papers cannot be used to support skeptic arguments.” Indeed; for example, nearly everything that the very silly Tim Flannery or the late Robyn Williams have said on the subject tends to increase scepticism.

    00

  • #
    GBees

    “But what they are, are mechanical engineers, medical doctors, and the point is when you have a technical and complicated subject like climate change, you want to get the opinions of climate experts.”

    This is where the alarmists reinforce their ignorance of the scientific method, and the ability of people to read, interpret and assess climate science mathematics for themselves. You see the mathematics used in climate science is no different to that used in other disciplines like epidemiology, econometrics,environmental science, engineering etc…. that’s why people like McIntyre and McKitrick picked up the problems with the Mann et al trick. Climate science boils down to mathematical models which must be proven by empirical scientific evidence. So when faulty mathematical approaches are used in climate papers resulting in manipulated/favored conclusions people of all disciplines with the appropriate training are able to detect such fraud and that is why there are now so many educated people who have concluded that AGW is one big scam.

    00

  • #
    Blimey

    Joanne Nova – “Remember, we don’t need 900, we only need 1″

    So you got that one yet? I asked Poptech and he ignored the question too.

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whakaaro

    O/T, but I just thought I would share this:

    Due to the proposed Carbon Tax, and the resulting rise in the cost of electricity, gasoline and oil, and the downstream impact on the transportation costs of food, and other commodities, the Light at the End of the Tunnel has been turned off until further notice.

    00

  • #
    Dave N

    If Cook thinks there are so few skeptical scientists, why is the skeptical science movement so large to be a problem for him and other alarmists? If it wasn’t such a problem, they wouldn’t be going on about it ad nauseum.

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whakaaro

    Blimey: #66

    Joanne Nova – “Remember, we don’t need 900, we only need 1″
    So you got that one yet? I asked Poptech and he ignored the question too.

    And I asked you if you could offer any real (i.e. empirical) evidence in rebuttal to the charges made in my post #20.

    And you chose to ignore that question.

    As I said before, when challenged, all you can do is argue through the use of logical fallacies. You are pathetic.

    00

  • #
    Blimey

    Rereke Whakaaro – as said plenty of times before, the IPCC report already contains plenty of evidence. You can pretend it doesn’t exist and instead follow a non-climate scientist like Nova and her 20 page pamphlet which contains little substance.

    If I were making decisions that affect the well-being of this planet, I wouldn’t be taking her advice over that of the climate experts.

    00

  • #
    Blimey

    “And you chose to ignore that question.” .. er no I didn’t, I have only so much time to waste on these forums and as you see, I did answer your question.

    00

  • #
    Bob_FJ (Bob Fernley-Jones)

    Huub Bakker @ 52
    Did you see my 18?
    Further to it, I had a bunch of Email exchanges with Robyn Williams over the disappearance of comments at a total of 77, and the latest advice from him is that they were accidentally removed whilst the webmaster was in NZ and incommunicado. When he returned last Tuesday, he instructed the inexperienced person whom made the mistake to reinstate them. It would be great if you could Email me copies of your attempted comments so that I can continue enquiries. Of course it must be another mistake because it would be wrong to close comments whilst there is a queue in moderation. My comment in moderation did not break the house rules but would not have been convenient for them.

    Joanne, could you please pass my Email address to Huub

    00

  • #
    Blimey

    Dave N: “If Cook thinks there are so few skeptical scientists, why is the skeptical science movement so large to be a problem for him and other alarmists?”

    Firstly you need to differentiate between scientists and climate scientists, also between those that publish peer reviewed material and those that don’t.

    When you consider that, then take a count of how many people posting here fall into the category of skeptical climate scientist. I bet it’s close to zero.

    Being part of a movement doesn’t mean you need to know anything about the subject as countless twits prove in this forum.

    00

  • #
    Blimey

    Poptech – “Still desperately using Google to find something?”

    Weird argument. I’m betting you use google too. Like yourself, it’s a useful tool.

    “Just because an author has an alternate personal position does not mean his papers cannot be used to support skeptic strawman arguments.”

    FIFY

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Slimey, er ALL your time is wasted here! Bye Bye

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    Blimey… you are all over the place with your troll scatter gun. When you see something you write completely blown out of the water you have already moved onto five other red herrings in the meantime… all noise and no substance mate.

    00

  • #

    Blimey, Weird argument. I’m betting you use google too. Like yourself, it’s a useful tool.

    I don’t need to use it to desperately find something, I have my facts in order.

    Firstly you need to differentiate between scientists and climate scientists

    Please provide the objective criteria for determining who is a climate scientist.

    We are all waiting to know.

    00

  • #
    BLouis79

    Is Robyn Williams a warmist? Or is the ABC biased because it is government funded and the government wants a carbon tax?

    The tone of the interview was clearly friendly as opposed to inquiring. Does Robyn have some sort of stake in the book or author or skeptical science website????

    00

  • #

    “Just because an author has an alternate personal position does not mean his papers cannot be used to support skeptic strawman arguments.”

    Strawman arguments are your specialty. Your “attacks” on the list are the same tired nonsense, either lies, misinformation or strawman arguments. You are not even original and just dredge up long debunked nonsense you desperately Google. Every criticism of the list has been refuted ad nauseum. This is why there are extensive notes following the list with extensive rebuttals. It gets old but you have nothing else.

    00

  • #
  • #
    Damian Allen

    “Blimey”,
    Please quote a reference to even one, just one, Peer Reviewed Scientific Paper, which PROVES, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that human beings and carbon Dioxide (Plant Food), are/is causing global warming.

    PS Computer Models do not constitute either Proof or Evidence.

    Have you claimed your $10,000 prize from “The Punch” by providing them with all your Evidence and Proof ??????

    REWARD: Take the climate change challenge – #10,000…

    http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/10k-for-the-first-person-to-prove-weve-caused-climate-change/

    00

  • #
    Damian Allen

    “bob” (60),
    Here is your IDOL James Hansen.
    What a Dangerous Nutjob !

    Time for Meds? NASA scientist James Hansen endorses book which calls for ‘ridding the world of Industrial Civilization’ – Hansen declares author ‘has it right…the system is the problem’:-

    http://www.climatedepot.com/a/4993/Time-for-Meds-NASA-scientist-James-Hansen-endorses-book-which-calls-for-ridding-the-world-of-Industrial-Civilization-ndash-Hansen-declares-author-has-it-rightthe-system-is-the-problem?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ClimateDepot+%28Climate+Depot%29

    00

  • #
    Damian Allen

    “Blimey”, are you Bob Brown’s BOYFRIEND ?????

    00

  • #
    Winston

    Blimey @ 45… Thanks for the helpful link to a most disingenuous and misleading graph showing all the “effective” forcings of CO2 etc in W / m2 over the last 130 years, all predicated upon alarmist scientist GISS data which is based entirely on modelling and therefore assumptions, fudge factors and tweaking results. Then, to make matters worse, the various forcings all individually have a significant solar component since that’s where the sole energy input comes from. This allows them to isolate the sun as an unimportant factor ( “solar irradiance” ) on it’s own as a minor player in the climate. To the uncritical first glance it makes it appear that if TSI dropped by 20%, we’d be sitting on the beach in a balmy 22 degrees sipping pina coladas because the sun is such an insignificant contributor to the climate! Like I said, “divide and conquer” in both the set up of the site and in the argument to diminish the sun in favor of CO2. Your posting proved my point more eloquently than I ever could have.

    00

  • #
    Popeye

    True News @ 27

    Many thanks for the response to JB – would have said exactly the same things but have been working BIG nights (and catching up on this blog during my short off times hence the flaunting/flouting stuff up in my half awake stupor – also many thanks to JB @ 6 for picking me up on that).

    Now JB – just one comment:

    ANYBODY irrespective of their beliefs (whether they support AGW or are skeptical of man’s contribution) that suggests that a CO2 tax will fix anything IS either a flat earther or JUST PLAIN STUPID!!!!

    PROVE that statement to be INCORRECT (this includes Blimey/Matt B and all the rest of the “chosen ones” who come here preaching their BS to all and sundry).

    Cheers,

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whakaaro

    Blimey: #70

    … as said plenty of times before, the IPCC report already contains plenty of evidence.

    Oh, really. I have been through the entire report, and nowhere is there any empirical (i.e. based on reproducible experimentation or observation) evidence. Plenty of graphs, and pretty pictures, and plenty of output from garbage-in/garbage-out models, but no real evidence, and anecdotal evidence about disappearing glaciers (which weren’t). But no experiments. No verifiable observations.

    All I ask is for one peer reviewed paper that demonstrates the positive forcing from CO2 and water vapor, and does so through experimental means that are reproducible by any competent scientist. We do not accept computer models as being reproducible because the code is never released (how convenient).

    How hard can it be? Even Svensmark was able to experimentally demonstrate the effects of increased cosmic radiation on the formation of clouds.

    Unless, of course it has been tried, and been shown to be wrong? How embarrassing would that be?

    And unfortunately, that is the conclusion you are leading us to, with all of your non-sources and snide remarks.

    00

  • #
    Paul S

    Blimey @44; You assert the greenhouse theory has been established. It has been accepted as an a priori assumption and evidence to support it has been “cherrypicked” from the data, or research has been undertaken with the express purpose of propping it up. Real science operates on the principle of falsification. Your research is designed not to establish a hypothesis, but to test the null hypothesis. If that cannot be established, the hypothesis provisionally stands. This has not been done for greenhouse theory. I notice in the link you provided that the “runaway greenhouse” of Venus is cited as the prime example. Nise idea, but I doubt you’ll find a single physicist who’ll agree with you. Venus does not recieve enough sunlight to sustain it’s surface temperature, which only is at the level it is because Venus’ atmosphere is 90x more dense than Earth’s – the ideal gas law, you see. At atmospheric pressure’s the same as Earth’s at the surface, Venus temperature is just what it would be on Earth – allowing for albedo and incident sunlight. I also note in your link that only Arrhenius’ first paper is mentioned – not his retraction and correction of 1906. It seems the IPCC is basing their assumptions on his first paper, not the second, which isn’t half as exciting.

    00

  • #
    Louis Hissink

    Paul S

    Arrhenius also misquoted Fourier on the greenhouse effect as well, according to Tim Casey

    “I have reproduced the full text of a number of articles that seem to be chronically misquoted or misunderstood. This is possibly because access is difficult, and so my objective is that by improving access, perhaps the many people who misquote these papers will endeavour to read what is written before citing it. Fourier, putatively the father of the “Greenhouse Effect” says something quite different in the text of his work (Fourier, 1824; Fourier, 1827; Burgess, 1837). Tyndall (1861), who first proposes the radiation trap on which the “Greenhouse Effect” is based, not only misquotes Fourier but bases his own heat transfer theory on the assumption of luminiferous aether – an idea Fourier impled might change substantially. Moreover, Tyndall confused opacity and absorption, in spite of the significant visible reflection presented by chlorine gas – which he examined. This is perhaps because he neglected to consider gaseous reflection of wavelengths outside the visible spectrum. Tyndall is celebrated as the scientist who proved the “Greenhouse Effect” when in actual fact, his work on the infrared absorption of gases failed to address absorption as opposed to opacity. Moreover, his speculations on climate were hypothetical and rooted in his own aethereal heat transfer mechanism, which was refuted in 1887. Moving on from the “Greenhouse Effect” to natural sources of carbon dioxide, Gerlach (1991) is spectacularly misrepresented as a tally of measured volcanic carbon dioxide emissions. In fact, Gerlach (1991) is a guess based on a grand total of seven subaerial volcano emission measurements, three hydrothermal vent site emission measurements, and corroboration with even more tenuous estimates available at the time.”

    http://geologist-1011.mobi/

    00

  • #
    Louis Hissink

    Winston

    The definable criterion of the CAGW hypothesis is the verification of the climate sensitivity equation – that doubling CO2 will cause a general global temperature rise of 2-5 Kelvin. This has been falsified, so the CAGW hypothesis fails.

    00

  • #
    Tom

    This is worth reading: the latest device being used by what I must describe as academic totalitarians who are assembling a revolting sociological construct that explains that there is something wrong with anyone who does not accept the authority of the IPCC and its highly political and hotly disputed scientific hypothesis, upon which a fundamental change in human civilisation is being proposed. Yes, when Tim Flannery and his colleagues in the 21st century’s Fourth Reich establish the Gaia Dynasty, you will be sent to a denialism re-education camp to recant your dissidence.

    00

  • #
    Damian Allen

    Seems that “Blimey” is awol today.
    Maybe too many BONGS last night…….

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whakaaro

    Damian Allen: #91

    Seems that “Blimey” is awol today.
    Maybe too many BONGS last night…….

    You could well be right. He did seem to be on a different planet – perhaps it was Venus?

    Or perhaps he is swatting up on the scientific method …. but I wouldn’t bet on it.

    00

  • #
    Gbees

    I think Prof. Timothy Ball does an excellent job of explaining the AGW fraud in this interview with Alan Jones. ‘one more time for the dummies’!
    http://www.2gb.com/index2.php?option=com_newsmanager&task=view&id=9005

    00

  • #

    [...] ABC Nonscience Show… with 100metres Williams Posted on May 28, 2011 by Tom Harley The Worst Cookbook Interview Ever? [...]

    00

  • #
    Bob_FJ

    Tom at 90,
    I wish you wouldn’t scare me like that! That picture in the Jo Chandler article with all that immense white fluffy pollution belching out of those water cooling towers shocked me and gave me bad symptoms perhaps like in myocardial infarction.
    The only way to stop it is to return to simple things like using candles or oil lamps instead of those fancy electric light bulbs, oh and turn off the TV. PROTEST!

    00

  • #
    Paul S

    Re Jo Chandler article; firstly, it’s interesting that they allowed no comments to what is obviously an opinion piece. It must be comforting to be able to consign those who disagree and won’t just go along with the “consensus” view to the category of the self-deluded. It certainly obviates the need to answer any criticism of your self-evidently correct position. I wonder if she has read The Gulag Archipeligo? There is an uncanny resonance between the thinking the Soviets about their dissidents and the increasing attempts by the sociological arm of the AGW to classify opposition away. According to the former; one was an enemy of the state, driven by inherent undesirable social and cultural characteristics. According to the latter; one is an enemy of the planet, driven by inherent undesirable social and cultural characteristics.

    00

  • #
    rjm385

    Gbees @93

    I love it, I think Prof. Timothy Ball is a great example of the how to conduct one self in the light of hardship and hypocrisy. I wish there were a few more Aussies like him. An inspirition!

    Thanks for the link

    00

  • #
    Bob_FJ

    Gbees@ 93:
    I have in general a strong dislike for Alan Jones, a “shock jock” at Sydney radio 2GB, whom IMO can be overly obnoxious at times.
    However, I listened to the audio that you cited:
    http://www.2gb.com/index2.php?option=com_newsmanager&task=view&id=9005
    and was impressed by his scientific rationale, well maybe not 101%, but mostly.
    May I plead that you refer it to ABC TV’s “Media Watch”? I’ve had much intercourse with them over their attacks on commercial radio bias on climate change, whilst encouraging them to also consider the ABC opposite bias. The exec producer (Email below) has sincerely thanked me for advice and declared intention to review the matter, but I don’t see much happening, and a fresh voice may be beneficial.
    Media Watch general Email: mediawatch@your.abc.net.au
    Exec producer: buckfield.lin@abc.net.au
    Presenter Jonathan Holmes: holmes.jonathan@abc.net.au

    00

  • #
    NikFromNYC

    I haven’t read the above comments yet. But John Cook’s book just helped inspired me to make a new info-graphic that in punkish fashion skewers warmists, so I want to chime in immediately. These quotes from his book made my BS detector fall off the shelf.

    “A sustainable society will require fairness (equity) and justice locally and globally.” – John Cook (“Climate Change Denial”, 2011).

    “Preventing the collapse of human civilization requires nothing less than a wholesale transformation of dominant consumer culture.” – John Cook (“Climate Change Denial”, 2011).

    “Just because there a professor of something denying climate change does not mean it is not true, it is just that the professor is in denial. This is why one must make use of the preponderance of evidence in science, the collective view.” – John Cook (“Climate Change Denial”, 2011).

    Authority Poster

    00

  • #
    Stacey

    Climate change can be solved.
    A puzzle can be solved.
    Climate change is not a puzzle.
    Anyone who believes the hypothesis that man made CO2 emissions will cause dangerous global warming is barking at the wrong tree? Visit Climate Audit if you don’t agree.

    00

  • #

    … like climate science where we have multiple lines of evidence finding the same conclusion. But conspiracy theories are very popular amongst any group that wants to deny a scientific consensus.

    FTFY

    … like Christianity where we have multiple churches preaching Jesus was born again. But agnosticism is very popular amongst any group that wants to refute the gospel of the Bible.

    Climate Change science is a religion until the paper is published which explains:

    a) what climate change(sic) is and
    b) how it can be falsified

    I’ve been waiting years for that paper. Still waiting…

    00

  • #
    TrueNews

    @John Brookes:

    Gee JPeden, “the authors’ own denial that there has ever been any climate change before the advent of human fossil fuel use”. Wow, I must talk to John Cook and see if he thinks that the climate never changed before. Actually, no, I won’t, because only a compete nincompoop would hold such beliefs. Some sort of moron who hasn’t heard of ice ages, or a world without ice, or snowball earth.

    00

  • #
    TrueNews

    IGNORE POST #102
    it is an error

    00

  • #
    Mike W

    Mike W – writing everything in BOLD gives an impression that you are almost a complete nutcase.

    Thanks Blimey..
    I didnt realise you were such an ace debater…you really nailed me with that amazing point..ya got me tiger. :)

    Perhaps you could use all capitals too?

    Would it help you understand what just happened to you in my response.?
    Do you understand that joke. ?? :)

    As for the paper you cite, even if I accepted 100% everything about it

    No mate..that wont wash here..unless someone else wrote your post…this game you are trying to play, really badly I might add, makes you look like a complete nutcase.
    Here is what you wrote.

    If it only takes one report to proove AGW wrong, please save us all this time and cite the scientific report.

    Now either you are aware that ONE (sorry for capitalisation but you are playing games) “report” could never do this..and you were just being mendacious..
    or
    You are actually not that bright and thought ONE report cited here would prove it for you..I pointed out 900? in this thread above you.
    Should they have been capitalised for you to actually read and miss..and not make a goose of yourself in this thread…or were you being mendacious as well there.?

    As for the paper you cite, even if I accepted 100% everything about it then some of Manns work would be discredited.

    Unless you are a statistician Blimey..it is meaningless to tell us if you accept it or not..
    Should I capitalise that bit for you. ?

    So what?

    Thats a meaningless rhetorical flourish I gather for dramatic effect..

    That’s not the only reconstruction of the past

    I never said it was my friend..but thanks for bringing this point up for me to segue into..Wahl and Amman`s paper..that was what you meant wasn’t it..??
    I know you have no idea about these subjects we are talking about so I don’t think you are playing games here..this time..
    Most of the proxy records are either using the same data sets/the same/similar software/inputs/ the same/similar codes the same similar “smoothing/adjustments” and being an obscure subset of science..the same small cliche of pals are working with and reviewing each others papers..this has all being pointed out hundreds of times on the net..
    Not capitalised so ya must have missed them all..

    That’s not the only reconstruction of the past, nor is that reconstruction even that significant or necessary in order to establish the theory of AGW.

    Your right..but not in the way you possibly meant :)
    Its not the only lousy and mucked up reconstruction giving dodgy results..thanks..!
    That reconstruction you seem to be obsessing (Hansen)with was the poster child of the European/American green movements/The Al Gore Crusade and film/The IPCC journal and one thousands of web sites/newspaper articles etc when it came out..
    Now..your telling us its not significant..thats exactly what we are saying..it has NO (capitalised for humour) significance..we agree..and this is gold “

    in order to establish the theory of AGW


    So now “your” trying to establish a theory..yet the reconstructions of past temperatures stink big time.
    If we cannot predict what the temperature ranges in the past were and the variations they went through/rapidity etc in any great detail..how in the hell can anyone say anything scientific about temperatures in the last 180 years after we have left an ice age..
    Look mate..I am not trying to be cruel to you here..it comes naturally.. :)
    But it would really help if you did just a tiny bit of reading first as well as bone up on logic..
    Why keep making a complete goose of yourself here other than for the amusement of others..?
    Peace
    And everyone repeat after me…
    Pay a tax to change the weather even though it wont change the weather…
    Pay a tax to change the weather even though it wont change the weather…
    Pay a tax to change the weather even though it wont change the weather…

    00

  • #
    TrueNews

    John Brookes:
    “…Some sort of moron who hasn’t heard of ice ages…”

    If the cap fits John then wear it.

    I seem to recall you had no idea that our own goverment was in discussions with the UK and USA about the pending ‘Ice Age’ in the 1970′s.

    00

  • #
    Blimey

    Joanne Nova – “Remember, we don’t need 900, we only need 1″

    So you got that one yet? I asked Poptech and he ignored the question too.

    00

  • #
    Blimey

    Damian Allen @ 81 and everywhere else you spam this message.

    If there was a new method of energy production discovered, that industry should prove that it is safe to use.

    So why is the coal industry exempt from that requirement?

    Why is it you cannot prove that CO2 is harmless?

    Still waiting for that one paper! That’s all it takes.

    00

  • #
    pattoh

    Hey Mike W

    How about:-

    Don’t pat tax to change the government!

    Don’t pat tax to change the government!

    Don’t pat tax to change the government!

    00

  • #
    pattoh

    Oops!

    Found my goggles now.

    That should be – Don’t pay tax to change the government!

    00

  • #
    TrueNews

    @Blimey: #106
    “Remember, we don’t need 900, we only need 1″

    I have forwarded copies of all 900 to your school teacher, Miss Milne.
    I am sure she can help you chose one Blimey.

    Remember Blimey
    Some people strive to be HOT
    Some people want to be COOL
    But the people that are only WARMist’s are doomed to a life of median mediocrity.

    00

  • #
    Blimey

    Mike W “how in the hell can anyone say anything scientific about temperatures in the last 180 years after we have left an ice age”

    Because we now monitor and understand the planet like never before.

    00

  • #
    Bernie Kelly

    Medicine: 3046

    Clinical Medicine, esp. advanced specialty training, is very much evidence based, and is geared to assessing and evaluating often conflicting information. In particular, medical trials go to great length to eliminate bias, hence the double blind clinical trial. Having served on an ethics committee, the research methods that the climate “scientists” use break just about all the rules. There is no documentation as to how bias is eliminated, and if these methods were employed in a medical research setting, the papers would never get close to being published.

    When the IPCC claims they are 95 percent certain that GW is anthropogenic,they are claiming their work has a predictive value of 95%, but nowhere is the statistical justification for this figure, which means it is just a guess.

    00

  • #

    Blimey,

    I am still waiting for you to provide the following,

    Please provide the objective criteria for determining who is a climate scientist.

    You seemed to be so sure of the difference between a scientist and climate scientist why not tell us then how we determine the difference.

    …still waiting.

    00

  • #
    David

    SBlimey

    Because we now monitor and understand the planet like never before.

    So you are one of the monitors? An Ian Flannery employee? Maybe IPCC?

    You need this new tax for your own gain!

    00

  • #
    Mark

    Yeah, right Blimey. Thirty years out of the last 4 billion. Just goes to show the hubris of idiots like you to think that you know everything. It really means you know three-fifths of five-eigths of sweet FA.

    By the way, are you on the dole Blimey? Just wondering.

    00

  • #

    Blimey 107:

    Still waiting for that one paper! That’s all it takes.

    All right, I’ll bite. Let’s start at some more obvious ones and work through your pier reviewed refutations. From the Popular Technology list we’ll debate this one first:

    The CO2 greenhouse effect on Mars, Earth, and Venus
    (Science of the Total Environment, Volume 77, Issue 2-3, pp. 291-294, December 1988)
    - Sherwood B. Idso

    The summary of the paper is basically, the increase in temperature of a planetary atmosphere is constant in relation to its percentage of C02. The paper is touched on reasonably well in InTech Global Warming C02 vs Sun(page 38-40). And yes, real world measurements were used, not models.

    Let’s see what pier reviewed rebuttals of this paper you can dig up. Have fun! :)

    00

  • #
    Bob_FJ

    Re @ 94, ABC Nonscience Show… with 100metres Williams | pindanpost:

    One thing that is not made clear in the Science Show transcript that you cite is that the interview of Andrew Bolt was blind to the earlier separate interview of Severinghaus, and it was all misleading. Check out this for more detail and context:

    00

  • #
    cohenite

    Blimey, the persistent troll keeps asking for one paper: analyse these you nuisance;

    1. Expert credibility in climate change. William R. L. Anderegg ,James W. Prall Jacob Harold and Stephen H. Schneider http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107
    2. CO2 Forcing Induces Semi-direct Effects with Consequences for Climate Feedback Interpretations. Timothy Andrews and Piers M. Foster. https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/~wsoon/ChristopherMonckton08-d/AndrewsForster08.pdf
    3. Evidence for Large Decadal Variability in the Tropical Mean Radiative Energy Budget: Bruce A Wielicki, Takmeng Wong, Richard P Allan, Anthony Slingo, Heffery T Kiehl, Brian J Soden, C T Gordon, Alvin J Miller, Shi-Keng Yang, David A Randall, Franklin Robertson, Joel Susskind, Herbert Jacobowitz. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/295/5556/841 As discussed by Richard Lindzen at: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/30/lindzen-on-negative-climate-feedback/
    4. On the determination of climate feedbacks from ERBE data. Richard S Lindzen and Yong-Sang Choi: http://www.drroyspencer.com/Lindzen-and-Choi-GRL-2009.pdf
    5. On the observational determination of climate sensitivity and its implications. Richard S Lindzen and Yong-Sang Choi: http://www.legnostorto.com/allegati/Lindzen_Choi_ERBE_JGR_v4.pdf
    6. Cloud and radiation budget changes associated with tropical intraseasonal oscillations. Roy W. Spencer, William D. Braswell, John R. Christy, and Justin Hnilo. http://www.drroyspencer.com/Spencer_07GRL.pdf
    7. Potential Biases in Feedback Diagnosis from Observational Data: A Simple Model Demonstration: Roy W. Spencer and William D. Braswell: http://www.drroyspencer.com/Spencer-and-Braswell-08.pdf
    8. On the diagnosis of radiative feedback in the presence of unknown radiative forcing: Roy W. Spencer and William D. Braswell: http://noconsensus.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/spencer-braswell-jgr-20101.pdf
    9. A new assessment of global mean sea level from altimeters highlights a reduction of global trend from 2005 to 2008: M. Ablain, A. Cazenave, G. Valladeau and S. Guinehut: http://www.ocean-sci-discuss.net/6/31/2009/osd-6-31-2009.pdf
    10. Sea level budget over 2003-2008: A reevaluation from GRACE space gravimetry, satellite altimetry and ARGO: A. Cazenave, K. Dominh, S. Guinehut, E. Berthier, W. Llovel, G. Ramillien, M. Ablain, G. Larnicol: http://sciences.blogs.liberation.fr/home/files/Cazenave_et_al_GPC_2008.pdf
    11. Recent energy balance of Earth: R. S. Knox and D. H. Douglass: http://www.pas.rochester.edu/~douglass/papers/KD_InPress_final.pdf
    12. Greenhouse effect in semi-transparent planetary atmospheres. Ferenc M. Miskolczi: http://www.met.hu/doc/idojaras/vol111001_01.pdf
    13. The Stable Stationary Value of the Earth’s Global Average Atmospheric Planck-Weighted Greenhouse-Gas Optical Thickness. Ferenc Miskolczi: http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/E&E_21_4_2010_08-miskolczi.pdf
    14. The greenhouse effect and the spectral decomposition of the clear-sky terrestrial radiation. Ferenc M. Miskolczi and Martin G. Mlynczak: http://www.met.hu/idojaras/IDOJARAS_vol108_No4_01.pdf
    15. States of maximum entropy production in a one-dimensional vertical model with convective adjustment: Toni Pujol and Joaquim Fort: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1034/j.1600-0870.2002.01382.x/abstract
    16. Trends in middle- and upper –level tropospheric humidity from NCEP reanalysis data: Garth Paltridge, Albert Arking and Michael Pook: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1034/j.1600-0870.2002.01382.x/abstract
    17. A Statistical Analysis of Multiple Temperature Proxies: Are Reconstructions of Surface Temperatures Over the Last 1000 Years Reliable? Blakely B. McShane, Abraham J. Wyner http://www.imstat.org/aoas/next_issue.html
    18. Panel and Multivariate methods for Tests of Trend Equivalence in Climate Data Series. Ross McKitrick, Stephen McIntyre, Chad Herman: http://rossmckitrick.weebly.com/uploads/4/8/0/8/4808045/mmh_asl2010.pdf
    19. A Comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions. David H. Douglass, John R. Christy, Benjamin D. Pearson, S. Fred Singer: http://www.scribd.com/doc/904914/A-comparison-of-tropical-temperature-trends-with-model-predictions?page=6
    20. Assessment of the reliability of climate predictions based on comparisons with historical time series. D. Koutsoyiannis, N. Mamassis, A. Christofides, A. Efstratiadis, S.M. Papalexiou: http://itia.ntua.gr/getfile/850/3/documents/2008EGU_ClimatePredictionPrSm_.pdf
    21. A comparison of local and aggregated climate model outputs with observed data. G.G. Anagnostopoulos, D. Koutsoyiannis, A. Christofides, A. Efstratiadis,N. Mamassis: http://pdfserve.informaworld.com/798817__928051726.pdf
    22. Michael Beenstock and Yaniv Reingenertz. Polynomial Cointegration Tests of the Anthropogenic Theory of Global Warming; http://economics.huji.ac.il/facultye/beenstock/Nature_Paper091209.pdf

    00

  • #
    Blimey

    Poptech – Please pay attention. I said “Firstly

    you

    need to differentiate between scientists and climate scientists.”

    00

  • #
    Blimey

    Waffle – you might like to note that the temperature rise so far has already exceeded Idso’s expectation without even a doubling of CO2.

    But the main problem you have is that Idso seems to be somewhat of an idiot. How do you suggest that he catered for the Earths fast feedbacks in his equations when observing Mars?

    00

  • #
    MichaelL

    This might be a little OT but every time today I have visited Climate Audit (Steve McIntyre) the following Google Ad has popped up

    Ads by Google
    Climate Change Facts
    Superb guide to rebut the myths peddled by global warming deniers.
    http://www.NewInt.com.au/

    I followed the link and found an Adelaide based organisation called New International which publishes a magazine and propaganda “rebutting the myths peddled by global warming deniers”.

    I wonder if the clowns referenced in this article get their “info” from NewInt?
    More importantly, who finances NewInt?

    Michael

    00

  • #
    JPeden

    Brookes says:

    Gee JPeden, “the authors’ own denial that there has ever been any climate change before the advent of human fossil fuel use”. Wow, I must talk to John Cook and see if he thinks that the climate never changed before. Actually, no, I won’t, because only a compete nincompoop would hold such beliefs. Some sort of moron who hasn’t heard of ice ages, or a world without ice, or snowball earth.

    Exactly, Brookes! The point is that the “CO2=CAGW” = “climate change” Climate Science Propaganda Operation has played a “word game” which has redefined “climate change” from its usual definition to the point that now they are the ones denying that there has been any climate change prior to, or unless involving, CO2=CAGW!

    They’ve managed to produce what Wittgenstein called a “mental cramp” situation for themselves, where suddenly a point is reached in one’s thinking or argument which makes no sense…because of a mistake or series of linguistic moves involving word usage alone which does not comport with reality or the otherwise usually pretty well understood meanings of the words involved.

    It’s not my problem, it’s their problem. The only way to clear it up is for them to go back over how they got there to see where or how the problem occurred.

    But since the intent of a “word game” in a Propaganda Operation is exactly to confuse word use in order to get a desired effect – in this case to claim that skeptics are “climate change” deniers, when in fact all the skeptics are denying is that it has been scientifically proven in any way that CO2=CAGW has indeed produced or has been manifested as what we usually mean by climate change – it is obvious that the Climate Science Propaganda Operation will not want to clarify their own intentionally manufactured problem.

    But this means that CO2=CAGW Climate Science itself is now left to be stewed in its own juices, since it is now the one denying that climate change has occurred previously. It’s their definition of “climate change”, so it’s their problem.

    00

  • #

    But the main problem you have is that Idso seems to be somewhat of an idiot. How do you suggest that he catered for the Earths fast feedbacks in his equations when observing Mars?

    Peer reviewed literature only. Warmist rules, not mine. ;)

    00

  • #
    Blimey

    Waffle – “Peer reviewed literature only. Warmist rules, not mine.”

    No one bothers with Idso, his method of dividing a temperature change by an energy flux is not the same as calculating climate sensitivity even though they result in the same units °C/(W/m2).

    Climate scientists in the 1980′s realised this hence why you will not see Idso’s paper cited by anyone except himself (see your own link for that evidence).

    Good science is usually cited and extended upon over time. Crap science, like Idso’s is left by the wayside – I suspect there’s no rebuttal (as happens with many papers) because no one wanted to waste their time on something so obviously wrong.

    00

  • #
    Bob_FJ

    Mark @ 115;

    Are you suggesting that Oz taxpayers via Centerlink are funding the magnificent broadcasts of great wisdom from the wizard “Blimey”? Wow, I’m in awe; is our splendid government fully appreciative of the vaue of this great investment in truth?

    00

  • #

    Sorry Blimey. Peer review, according to the warmists, is the gold standard of science. Unless you can cite papers you lose the argument. After 23 years and 79 billion dollars I’m pretty sure Idso would have been rebutted if it could be, along with Kininmonth, Lindzen, Spencer and Stefan-Boltzmann. You need to learn the rules of your own game. Look, I’ll spell it out for you.

    P-E-E-R R-E-V-I-E-W L-I-T-E-R-A-T-U-R-E

    Come back to me when you’ve done your homework instead of throwing around baseless allegations and insults. If you’ve got a correct analysis on Idso, where’s your peer reviewed rebuttal? It’s a free kick for a wannabe scientist. Just a quick reminder of what you’ve said on this thread alone.

    So far you fail to cite that magic bullet and instead rehash the old “skeptical” science claims in your handbook. Why not publish if you think your science is better than that of the experts?

    Firstly you need to differentiate between scientists and climate scientists, also between those that publish peer reviewed material and those that don’t.

    Joanne Nova – “Remember, we don’t need 900, we only need 1″

    So you got that one yet? I asked Poptech and he ignored the question too.

    00

  • #
    Blimey

    Waffle – I take it back, Idso was rebutted as his theory was found to violate the first law of thermodynamics.

    http://www.springerlink.com/content/p774t26218367vl5/

    00

  • #
    Blimey

    Joanne Nova – “Remember, we don’t need 900, we only need 1″

    So you got that one yet? I asked Poptech and he ignored the question too.

    Anyone else want to try?

    00

  • #
    John Brookes

    You know, this science thing bugs me. Take electricity & magnetism, which is explained to an exceedingly good degree of accuracy by Maxwell’s equations. That’s a theory. Want to work out the magnetic field near a current carrying wire, or calculate the path of a charged particle in a magnetic field, or build a transformer? Use EM theory. If you apply EM theory to a situation and your theoretical results don’t match what you see, you can be pretty sure you’ve stuffed up. Because the theory has stood the test of time, and gradually been extended to cover quantum effects etc.

    AGW is not a theory. AGW is simply the careful and systematic application of well known theories to the earth’s atmosphere. It is necessarily approximate and incomplete. The scientists predicting that increased CO2 levels will cause disastrous levels of warming are not guaranteed to be right. The IPCC freely admits that they are only 90% sure that they are right.

    Calling AGW a scientific theory implies that we are as certain about it as we are about EM or thermodynamics, or special relativity. It also implies that a single counter example is sufficient to disprove AGW. Just as a single example where a signal was sent faster than the speed of light would require a re-think of special relativity.

    So calling AGW a scientific theory, and then demanding the level of proof appropriate to a scientific theory is a classic straw man tactic. AGW is applied science, and the current understanding of it is likely to be substantially correct (although you don’t think so, of course).

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Slimey, I bet it just galls you to see the skeptic movement beating the pants off your political candidates worldwide. Why in the USA we’ve stuffed cap and trade, carbon trading schemes and donations are down across the Green pantheon. All because of idiots like YOU! Failures at real life.

    I bet that is just about enough for you to do something really rash. What can I do to nudge you over the proverbial edge? It still smells like cesspool every time you talk.

    00

  • #

    I’m looking at this paper and reading: A commentary on the recent CO2-climate controversy © 1984. Is it just late or are you not doing your research?

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    John Brookes @ 128:

    AGW is not a theory. AGW is simply the careful and systematic application of well known theories to the earth’s atmosphere. It is necessarily approximate and incomplete. The scientists predicting that increased CO2 levels will cause disastrous levels of warming are not guaranteed to be right. The IPCC freely admits that they are only 90% sure that they are right.

    Now there’s a paragraph with so much BS mixed in that it makes me dizzy! You must have studied propaganda writing somewhere in communist country.

    “AGW is not a theory.” News to so many “AGW is simply the careful and systematic application of well known theories to the earth’s atmosphere.” Johnnyboy, in one swipe you eliminate all the debate! I could easily rewrite it thusly: AGW is simply the corrupt, reckless, systematic application of pseudoscience, by bending well known theories to fit a political agenda and hiding that in a minimally understood complex system.

    “It is necessarily approximate and incomplete.” YES the signature of a liar! to permit weasels to evade the truth and politicians ample scary speculation and dire outcomes.

    “The scientists predicting that increased CO2 levels will cause disastrous levels of warming are not guaranteed to be right. The IPCC freely admits that they are only 90% sure that they are right.” Now here is where you turn really diabolical and devious….The IPCC says they have high confidence in the notion of warming. I do not find that they have high confidence in DISASTERS! You have done that…..

    00

  • #

    AGW is not a theory. AGW is simply the careful and systematic application of well known theories to the earth’s atmosphere. It is necessarily approximate and incomplete. The scientists predicting that increased CO2 levels will cause disastrous levels of warming are not guaranteed to be right. The IPCC freely admits that they are only 90% sure that they are right.

    So, my question to you JB, is why are us ‘deniers’ shouted down and abused for raising valid criticisms of the science of catastrophe? Why are we told “the science is settled” when you and I both know it’s not? How does Hanson state that we should be locked up for crimes against humanity and the entire scientific mainstream say nothing? Not one peep.

    Then you have to ask yourself, if the science is uncertain, wouldn’t the scientist release their data to other scientists to help bring about better understanding? It seems like they would rather promote their prestige and power rather than save the planet/humanity from catastrophe. Which, for my money, means they know something the mainstream doesn’t. IE; it’s bunk.

    Anyway, let’s forget about those dreary things and launch another book tour. Then, we can stop off at some exotic resort on the way home…

    00

  • #

    Blimey: Deny this.

    McKitrick, McIntyre, and Herman 2010:
    The models are wrong (but only by 400%)

    00

  • #
    John Brookes

    Waffle, “Why are deniers shouted down and abused when they raise valid objections of AGW?”

    Probably because they are not interested in the truth, and sometimes know full well that their arguments are BS, but go ahead and say them anyway. Because they object to AGW on idealogical grounds, and will stoop to any level to cast doubt on it.

    00

  • #

    I’m not talking about the nutty conspiracy theorists or creationists, I’m talking about genuine scientific debate which gets heaped into the denialist heap. Not sure you are aware of this yet but, I should point out to you that their are 900+ uncontested papers which conflict with the theory of the global warming zombie apocalypse. As much as you, or anyone else in philosophical or theological conflict with this want to claim otherwise, there are sceptics who are genuinely seeking scientific in/validation of the hypothesis. Dehumanising or belittling them will not change the validity of their enquiries or the resolve in which they are undertaken. Some people are not sheep. Some people do stand up for the truth. Some people can admit they are/were wrong and move on.

    00

  • #

    John Brookes says:

    Probably because they are not interested in the truth, and sometimes know full well that their arguments are BS, but go ahead and say them anyway. Because they object to AGW on idealogical grounds, and will stoop to any level to cast doubt on it.

    Let’s not play around with generalities, JB; let’s be scientifically specific. Where is your evidence that I am not interested in the truth? I’m not right-wing; I’m not religious; and I receive a pension so, if I can believe the Government, I’m not going to suffer (much more than I already do from rising prices) from a carbon-dioxide tax, since I shall be generously or fully compensated. Which of my arguments are BS? Just what are my ideological grounds for rejecting CAGW?
    Put me right, so that I too may become a believer.

    00

  • #

    Blimey,

    I am well aware of what you said. Your implication is you know the difference. So please enlighten us,

    Please provide the objective criteria for determining who is a climate scientist.

    00

  • #
    TrueNews

    @ John Brookes:
    …“Why are deniers shouted down and abused when they raise valid objections of AGW?”…Probably because they are not interested in the truth,

    It is only intellectual pygmies like you, (that don’t read any posts), that would make such a stupid statement.

    YOU are not intelectually able to answer my previous posts to you.

    You have just totally destroyed any credibility you had on this site.

    Why do you persist?

    Are you a masochist?

    00

  • #

    Blimey, Idso was rebutted as his theory was found to violate the first law of thermodynamics.

    http://www.springerlink.com/content/p774t26218367vl5/

    I am aware of this and this gives me an excuse to add Dr. Idso’s rebuttal to the list,

    Cess & Potter (1984) – “A commentary on the recent CO2-climate controversy

    - A clarification of my position on the CO2/climate connection (PDF)
    (Climatic Change, Volume 10, Number 1, pp. 81-86, February 1987)
    - Sherwood B. Idso

    Thanks for bringing it up!

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whakaaro

    Blimey:

    You disappoint me. Way back at my comment #70, I said:

    All I ask is for one peer reviewed paper that demonstrates the positive forcing from CO2 and water vapor, and does so through experimental means that are reproducible by any competent scientist.

    And you have ignored me. Surely it is not so hard to quote me one peer reviewed paper that describes such an experiment?

    Remember, I only asked for one, and with all of the billions being invested around the world, in an attempt to mitigate climate change, there must surely be dozens, if not hundreds, to choose from.

    A simple one will do.

    00

  • #
    TrueNews

    @Blimey:

    “Joanne Nova – “Remember, we don’t need 900, we only need 1″
    So you got that one yet? I asked Poptech and he ignored the question too.
    Anyone else want to try?”

    Already did Blimey, and you ignored it, you spineless apology for a Greenie.

    Go back to school sonny (or cher)

    BTW
    Why don’t you tell everyone that you, and your ilk, are going to, RIP us OFF for $3.5 Billion Dollars a year, to send to the UN Greenie fund.

    00

  • #

    Blimey, Joanne Nova – “Remember, we don’t need 900, we only need 1″

    So you got that one yet? I asked Poptech and he ignored the question too.

    The foundation of the the AGW Alarm hypothesis has been shot full of so many holes you should of only needed one but since that obviously did not work as alarmists just shift to the new scare of the week, I’ve compiled overwhelming evidence supporting skeptic arguments against as many as realistically possible.

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    John Brookes the incredulous:

    Show me one shred of evidence that justifies the IPCC attaching a 90% liklihood to their estimates. Just one… I can guarantee you that they have none that is accepted in any branch of statistics known to man. Those “statistics” are simply made up. That is not science, it is propoganda. Your comments have no validity. Put up a justification or simply stop spewing utter garbage.

    You may think “Whoohoo, I got under Bulldust’s skin!” You could not be further from the truth. I am simply highlighting that your comments are not based on science, statistics or anything approaching rational thought. Stop spewing effluent and I will stop bagging you … can’t be fairer than that.

    As for Blimey, we should all stop feeding the obvious troll. He is in here to rattle the cages. He has nothing whatsoever of substance and will not back a single statement he makes. As with previous fire-and-move-on trolls I am sure the name tag will only last one or two threads. It is a standard method of trollish engagement. Best to simply ignore them. They have the attention spans of ADHD teenagers on red cordial.

    00

  • #
    Damian Allen

    “MichaelL” (121),
    Try these browsers instead…..

    https://www.google.com/

    https://startpage.com

    00

  • #
    Damian Allen

    If there was a tax on BS this Moronic Pillock “Blimey” would be completely broke !!

    00

  • #

    Blimey, “But the main problem you have is that Idso seems to be somewhat of an idiot.”

    He is far more intelligent and credentialed than you,

    Sherwood B. Idso, B.S. Physics Cum Laude, University of Minnesota (1964); M.S. Soil Science, University of Minnesota (1966); Ph.D. Soil Science, University of Minnesota (1967); Research Assistant in Physics, University of Minnesota (1962); National Defense Education Act Fellowship (1964-1967); Research Soil Scientist, U.S. Water Conservation Laboratory, Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture (1967-1974); Editorial Board Member, Agricultural and Forest Meteorology Journal (1972-1993); Secretary, American Meteorological Society, Central Arizona Chapter (1973-1974); Vice-Chair, American Meteorological Society, Central Arizona Chapter (1974-1975); Research Physicist, U.S. Water Conservation Laboratory, Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture (1974-2001); Chair, American Meteorological Society, Central Arizona Chapter (1975-1976); Arthur S. Flemming Award (1977); Secretary, Sigma Xi – The Research Society, Arizona State University Chapter (1979-1980); President, Sigma Xi – The Research Society, Arizona State University Chapter (1980-1982); Member, Task Force on “Alternative Crops”, Council for Agricultural Science and Technology (1983); Adjunct Professor of Geography and Plant Biology, Arizona State University (1984-2007); Editorial Board Member, Environmental and Experimental Botany Journal (1993-Present); Member, Botanical Society of America; Member, American Geophysical Union; Member, American Society of Agronomy; ISI Highly Cited Researcher; President, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change (2001-Present)

    00

  • #
    val majkus

    o/t but
    online poll
    Voting so far. 6.59 am.
    The Greens have offered the Government a deal on emissions trading – minimum unconditional emissions cut of 25% below 1990 levels by 2020, with a commitment to move to 40%.

    Do you support that:

    http://sarah-hanson-young.greensmps.org.au/polls/do-you-support-greens-plan-emissions-trading

    PS Anyone with half a brain would vote “NO”……

    00

  • #
    cohenite

    To blimey who keeps parroting the demand for one paper DISPROVING AGW, I gave him a LIST of 22 at 118.

    One of that list, a crucial one, is also given by Jo at 134

    00

  • #
    incoherent rambler

    In a robust discussion of any subject, the loudest, but not necessarily correct voices are the ones that are often heard. This is why politicians of all persusasions and journalists tend to talk over the top of whomever they speak.
    Blogs are a form of discussion and we have those that do not listen, who yell, interrupt and bully other participants. In a physical discussion one would simply ignore (or maybe eject) those who display such boorish behaviour.
    Treat bullying behaviour on blogs in the same manner as you would in a face to face discussion. Give them the option of changing their behaviour or they will be removed from the discussion group.

    00

  • #
    pattoh

    Caton & Blanchette are joining the fray.

    It is a sad indictment of our society when the government has to mix a bit of “Dancing with the Stars” with their propaganda campaign.

    Kinda like a shiny patina over the bog up & one coat wonder paint job . You never drive it on rough roads : the bog will fall out & take the shiny paint while all the crap, mud & rust falls out from under the fenders.

    This government will never test their campaign to tax us into the third world with open & full scientific debate, too many of their players would suddenly discover their accumulated “sickies”.

    00

  • #
    Paul S

    I don’t think Blimey and his/her like are capable of reasoned argument. He only appears able to appeal to authority, and doesn’t seem to have made a serious effort to understand what he is talking about. Schoolyard taunts and sniping from the sideline are about as good as he gets. It’s quite sad to see someone so apparently incapable of independent thought.

    00

  • #
    MadJak

    Great, so now we’re going to get blasted with TV ads by a bunch of actors who probably can’t even count, backed by self interest lobby groups in their misanthropic war against carbon based life forms

    Any network screening these ads against carbon based life forms will find their channel off the favourites list for a month.

    Oh well, the net is far more interesting and informative anyway.

    00

  • #
    Louis Hissink

    Seems the Greens poll is 73% for the no vote.

    00

  • #
    Louis Hissink

    Madjak,

    I’ll be unimpressed if the ad gets air time during the Bolt Report.

    00

  • #
    David

    Labour denies Carbon Tax Ad Blitz on 12th May 2011

    see http://www.smh.com.au/business/federal-budget/labor-denies-carbon-tax-ad-blitz-20110511-1ej13.html
    This is where Mr. Greg Combet states

    The Climate Change Minister, Greg Combet, said yesterday the money for 2011-12 would be used for activities such as website development and the printing of information brochures.

    Today – Caton & Blanchette are joining the fray.

    More lies again?
    How much is the Government spending on CO2 is pollution campaign?

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    Caton and Blanchette were funded by NGOs:

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/business-wants-low-carbon-starting-price/story-fn59niix-1226064883425

    Nine organisations – including Greenpeace, World Wildlife Fund and the Climate Institute – are behind the ads, which will start screening during shows like MasterChef tonight.

    It is a sad indictment on society if people are moved on this issue by someone as ignorant on the subject as Cate. Sadly there are many ignorant people out there.

    00

  • #
    Popeye

    John Brookes @ MANY

    You STILL haven’t answered my question to you at 85

    Why not?

    Cheers,

    00

  • #
    Damian Allen

    “secret mediterranean” (149),
    The Onus of Proof lies with The Gaia Cultists (like blimey, matt b, john brookes etc etc)to progress the global warming HYPOTHESIS to fact.

    That is the scientific method.

    That is how real science works…….

    There is absolutely no requirement for anyone to disprove it.

    To date no Proof or Evidence has been presented which shows, beyond doubt, that human beings and carbon dioxide (plant food) is responsible for global warming.

    00

  • #
    Damian Allen

    I believe that gillard is funding this global warming Propaganda Campaign to the sum of $14 million dollars !

    Cate Blanchett to save Gillard’s tax….

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

    This makes me so ANGRY !!!

    grrrrr!!

    00

  • #
    pattoh

    Louis

    Perhaps Bolt can interview SHY & ask her about the poll on her website.

    http://sarah-hanson-young.greensmps.org.au/polls/do-you-support-greens-plan-emissions-trading

    I suspect the greens will rally their troops to peg back the % before they let it close though.

    00

  • #
    David

    Thanks Bulldust

    I will never donate to Greenpeace, World Wildlife Fund and the Climate Institute (I never have or will to the Climate Institute) after this ad – Do you know who else is backing this advertisement with Caton and Blanchette.

    And Mr. Connors says the CO2 Tax will cost us only One Sausage Sandwich per week!
    http://www.news.com.au/money/carbon-price-plan-will-cost-families-a-sasuage-sandwich-says-climate-institute/story-e6frfmci-1226043193869

    00

  • #
    cohenite

    In the list of papers disproving AGW @118 this is a better link to the McShane and Wyner seminal paper critiquing the Hockeystick [no 17 in the list]:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/13/mcshane-wyner-hockey-stick-smackdown-redux/#more-29354

    00

  • #
    cohenite

    pattoh, that poll at Hansenyoung’s site will disappear altogether at that rate.

    00

  • #
    Blimey

    Joanne Nova – “McKitrick, McIntyre, and Herman 2010: The models are wrong (but only by 400%)”

    So you think this one paper is the magic bullet that kills AGW?

    I just want to confirm this before I even bother to look at it.

    Also can you please sow us how Idso doesn’t break the first law of thermodynamics? As posted above there was a rebuttal long ago about his methods.

    00

  • #

    Blimey, try reading Idso’s response I posted above, actually try reading all the responses to your comments here as you just ignore them and ignorantly post away making the same demands that have already been met.

    Speaking of demands, I am still waiting on you,

    Please provide the objective criteria for determining who is a climate scientist.

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    Blimey .. who are you kidding? You aren’t going to look at anything. How about you go away until you have something useful or thoughtful to say. So far every single coment has been hot air.

    Meanwhile it is funny watching Combet trying to explain the carbon (sic) pollution (sic) magic pudding tax. Apparently it generates more money than it raises in tax… it is hilarious. The man wouldn’t understand Economics 101 – Basic Microeconomics.

    00

  • #
    Damian Allen

    “Blimey”,
    Please quote a reference to even one, just one, Peer Reviewed Scientific Paper, which PROVES, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that human beings and carbon Dioxide (Plant Food), are/is causing global warming.

    PS Computer Models do not constitute either Proof or Evidence.

    WE ARE ALL STILL WAITING…….

    00

  • #
    cohenite

    Blimey says: “So you think this one paper is the magic bullet that kills AGW?

    I just want to confirm this before I even bother to look at it.”

    What an arrogant twerp you are; you wouldn’t know the first law of thermodynamics if you sat on it.

    00

  • #
    Blimey

    Poptech, I already answered your other question, but keep repeating it like a mindless twit.

    As for Idso, he wrote “Neither do I concern myself with the conservation of energy or the first law of thermo-dynamics, because I know that whatever happens cannot in any way be in conflict with those underlying verities of nature.”

    Wow .. some argument that is, no explanation of how the rebuttal was wrong, just “trust me, everythings ok”.

    00

  • #
    Blimey

    Damian Allen: – “Please quote a reference to even one, just one, Peer Reviewed Scientific Paper, which PROVES, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that human beings and carbon Dioxide (Plant Food), are/is causing global warming”

    Still struggling with the difference between a mathematical proof and scientific evidence I see.

    00

  • #
    Blimey

    cohenite – “What an arrogant [snip]

    00

  • #

    Blimey, Poptech, I already answered your other question, but keep repeating it like a mindless twit.

    No you haven’t big boy,

    Please provide the objective criteria for determining who is a climate scientist.

    Don’t be so afraid to admit defeat.

    As for Idso, he wrote “Neither do I concern myself with the conservation of energy or the first law of thermo-dynamics, because I know that whatever happens cannot in any way be in conflict with those underlying verities of nature.”

    His reply is six pages long, here is a more relevant extract,

    http://www.phys.uu.nl/~nvdelden/Idso.pdf

    But all of these arguments are irrelevant to the issue at hand, for I have never claimed that I was performing an energy balance in this regard or that I was explicitly accounting for all “stocks and flows of energy in the climate system”. Indeed, it has always been my position that we may not presently even be able to correctly identify what all of these stocks and flows are. Consequently, I feel that this complaint should more properly be addressed to the climate modelers, who are trying to explain how everything in the Earth-ocean-atmosphere system works and then tie it all together in an’intricate mathematical package.

    By comparison, what I have done is to try to identify different perturbations to the Earth’s climate system and then try to discern how the surface air temperature of the Earth responds to those perturbations. In this way, I do not even attempt to conceptualize and mathematically represent all of the many intervening processes which link the initial perturbation with the ultimate response; I try only to observe the end result. Neither do I concern myself with the conservation of energy or the first law of thermodynamics, because I know that whatever happens cannot in any way be in conflict with those underlying verities of nature.

    00

  • #
    Damian Allen

    “Blimey”,
    Go back to Primary School and Learn about the Scientific Method.

    The more BS you post here the Dumber you portray yourself, unless you derive some perverse satisfaction from being ridiculed.

    Disciplined Thinking: The Scientific Method…
    http://www.humanistsofutah.org/1998/genoct98.html

    Global warming theory does not stand up to the scientific method because there is no EMPIRICAL evidence.

    The climate models of the past, when compared to the actual do not match yet supposedly we know all the variables. Hindsight is always 20/20 unless all the variables are unaccounted for.

    If the models don’t match what has already happened how the hell can they be trusted as accurate indicators of future climate?

    They cannot.

    Hell they don’t even teach the scientific method in school anymore. Why do you think that is? Because it proves dumb ideas like climate change wrong or unprovable.

    Do you think I figured this out because someone told me what to think?

    Another interesting issue is temperatures. Rarely are the yearly temperatures published. They are always put out there are as means or deviations from the mean. This way they can manipulate the findings to sound worse then they are.

    The mean they use by the way are the years 1961-1990, not the entire 200+ years of recordkeeping. This is actually bad math. A mean must be based on the entire data set.

    (Do you think I read this somewhere? No I had to figure it out on my own.)

    So why do so many people believe the hype? Because all of us didn’t think math and science were important and look at how easily we are now fooled because we are ignorant as a society when it comes to these two subjects.

    (Funny how science and math are both playing a role in our current problems isn’t it?)

    They use math techniques incorrectly and they avoid the scientific method when it comes to scientific theories.

    The worst part is people like you buy into it without questioning it. That’s being a sheep.

    There are billions of dollars on the line here and it’s being controlled by politicians. Any time that happens you need to question EVERYTHING that is said.

    00

  • #
    pattoh

    This ad money might have been better spent getting Cate to give a few pollies some acting & elocution lessons. (quickly before the next election!)

    00

  • #
    Blimey

    “cohenite – “What an arrogant [snip]”

    LOL. I see the one-eyed moderator is at work.

    00

  • #
    Blimey

    Poptech – “His reply is six pages long, here is a more relevant extract,”

    And yet in all of that he doesn’t address the rebuttal.

    00

  • #

    I hope you all voted in the Greens poll. I did.

    Pity there doesn’t seem to be anywhere on that site I can tell Sarah Hansen-Dumb what an evil looking creature she is.

    Thanks for Idso quote Poptech. His approach is totally pragmatic and based on observational evidence. You don’t need to know anything about the actual underlying mechanisms as he correctly points out. Blimey doesn’t seem to understand this. Speaking of which, can we get rid of him please?

    00

  • #

    Blimey, And yet in all of that he doesn’t address the rebuttal.

    Then who is this “Cess and Potter” he repeatedly refers to?

    00

  • #
    Blimey

    Mike Borgelt – I guess you don’t like being wrong hence the compulsion to be rid of me. Sad way to “win” an argument.

    Anyway, back to your poor science, here’s a quote from Idso, the guy who did the experiments that Nova and so many other “skeptics” praise with great awe.

    Cess and Potter (1984) additionally suggest that most of the natural experiments which I have used to quantify the Earth’s surface air temperature response function employ “non-equilibrium observations and as such are inappropriate for the determination of an equilibrium response”. I have previously acquiesced to this criticism (Idso, 1984c, d) to the extent that I agreed that all of my non-equilibrium natural experiments did not directly yield a proper value for the equilibrium surface air temperature response function of Earth’s atmosphere, as I had previously claimed

    Why is it “skeptical” blog-science website keep pointing to Idso as an example of low climate sensitivity when the Idso himself accepts the experiments were flawed.

    00

  • #
    Blimey

    Poptech – “Then who is this “Cess and Potter” he repeatedly refers to?”

    Why not use that google tool and find out?

    In the meantime, I think we need to expand on the criteria for your list.

    1. It must disagree, even if only slightly, in part with some aspect of CAGW as defined by anyone, even a newspaper, rather than disagreeing with the IPCC or mainstream scientific opinion (eg Knorr).
    2. The paper may confirm fundamental properties of AGW (Scafetta & natural GHG feedbacks).
    3. The papers can hold completely opposing views with each other and that’s ok (Gerlich, says no greenhouse effect, Scafetta says there is).
    4. The paper can be seriously flawed (Idso). http://www.springerlink.com/content/p774t26218367vl5/
    5. The paper doesn’t have to be from a climate scientist, pollitical views are ok.
    6. “Poptech”, the guy who maintains the list, doesn’t have to agree with the findings of the paper, in this way they can avoid the conflict of point 3 and dispute point 2).
    7. The author of the paper may have subsequently admitted the science was flawed, but Poptech will continue to list the paper.

    00

  • #

    Just out of interest to see how many people disagree with the carbon tax, yet care about the environment – I’ve put up a “Say NO to the Carbon Tax Australia” FaceBook page. If you don’t want the carbon tax – please like the page. Nothing on it as of yet, but the point is to demonstrate the degree of ongoing dissatisfaction with the way the whole debate is going and that a carbon tax is not a solution to anything really.

    00

  • #
    cohenite

    You are a nasty bit of business blimey, and not as stupid as you appear at first blush; the quote from Idso which you employ to deceptively conclude that Idso has conceded the ground to his critics is a classic piece of selective evidence and completely misrepresents what Idso was about, which is to empirically measure the climate sensitivity, as shown by a surface temperature response function, based on empirical observations which are anathema to the modellers and people like you.

    Idso clearly states he is not concerned with an equilibrium sensitivity because this is predicated on an energy balance, something he thinks is impossible to measure given the complexity and unknown and unmeasurable factors involved.

    00

  • #
    Mike Jowsey

    @ Blimey:
    May 27th, 2011 at 6:19 pm

    Your link is itself cherry-picking. Here is another data set from the same link source – this time “unadjusted“, and guess what?

    http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2001/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2001/trend

    Downhill trend since 2001.

    00

  • #
    memoryvault

    Blimey @ so many times it’s boring

    Blimey, one wonders how long people like you will go on and on flogging a dead horse.

    Here is your hypothesis: – “increasing global atmospheric CO2 causes increasing global atmospheric temperatures”.

    Here is observable fact: “Since the late 1800’s global atmospheric CO2 has increased steadily. Meanwhile global atmospheric temperature has gone up . . .

    And down . . . .

    And up . . . . . .

    And down . . . . “

    And so on. Hence, your hypothesis is disproven by observable fact. QED. End of story. The wheels have fallen off. Substitute whatever metaphor you like. You’re STILL trying to raise on a busted flush.

    Please don’t bore me and the others with stupid “possibilities” like “natural variance is swamping the effects of CAGW”. If the observable facts are ultimately to be explained by “natural variance” then we have no need of your broken and discredited CO2 hypothesis in the first place to explain variations in global temperatures.

    00

  • #

    Blimey, are you so desperate that you are now just regurgitating you long debunked posts?

    7. The author of the paper may have subsequently admitted the science was flawed, but Poptech will continue to list the paper.

    It helps if you provide the full context of what he said,

    Beyond this point, however, Cess and Potter (1984) additionally suggest that most of Climatic Change the natural experiments which I have used to quantify the Earth’s surface air temperature response function employ “non-equilibrium observations and as such are inappropriate for the determination of an equilibrium response”. I have previously acquiesced to this criticism (Idso, 1984c, d) to the extent that I agreed that all of my non-equilibrium natural experiments did not directly yield a proper value for the equilibrium surface air temperature response function of Earth’s atmosphere, as I had previously claimed (Idso, 1982b, c); but I have subsequently gone on to show how they can be used in concert with still other non-equilibrium natural experiments to ultimately evaluate that most elusive parameter.

    He simply conceded one point which did not change his overall argument and corrected for this in later papers. Corrections to papers happen all the time and are nothing out of the ordinary. They are very different from a retraction and thus no reason to remove them from the list.

    00

  • #

    This is getting sad now if all Blimey can do is ignore all comments directed to him and just repeat what he said previously.

    00

  • #
  • #
    Damian Allen

    “Blimey”,
    I pray that you do not have children as your mental state suggests that you would be predisposed to committing a similiar act to this !

    Baby shot over global warming fears:-

    http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,20797,26793969-952,00.html?from=public_rss

    00

  • #
    Damian Allen

    “Blimey”,”John brooks”,”matt b”,”Ian” etc all USEFUL IDIOTS as the infamous Communist Starlin referred to these types of individuals.

    Vacuous and devoid of any ability to reason and think logically for themselves.

    Clearly all are products of the dumbed down Leftist biased “education” system.

    Wake up you MORONS and try and think for yourselves instead of being LEMMINGS following the religion of the Gaia God.

    Obviously some Homo Sapians such as yourselves have not progressed past the Cave Man Animist beliefs……..

    Stupidity Personified…….

    Please elucidate on who precisely you think that you are “saving the planet for”. Certainly not for your fellow human beings! Maybe the Aliens???

    PSYCHOLOGY OF LEFTISM………..

    http://jonjayray.tripod.com/psychlef.html

    LEFT WING GENE DISCOVERED! – Scientists Find ‘Liberal Gene’……..

    http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/weird/Scientists-May-Have-IDd-Liberal-Gene-105917218.html

    00

  • #
    Damian Allen

    CATE Blanchett – A lesson in sacrifice for the planet from the woman in the luxury Audi….

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

    Nothing but ANOTHER Gaia Hypocrite !

    If she was genuine she would walk eveywhere.
    No Cars, plane travel etc etc..

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whakaaro

    Blimey,

    At my comment #86, and again at my comment #141, I asked you to refer me to one peer reviewed paper that demonstrates the positive forcing from CO2 and water vapor, and does so through experimental means that are reproducible by any competent scientist.

    You have failed to answer this simple question, even though you have made snide comments to other guests on this site.

    You are obviously ignoring the question, the reasons for which could be: 1. You are a blowhard, idiot, wannabe, waiting impatiently for puberty, although I don’t believe that for a moment; 2. You are reluctant to say that you don’t know, and even more reluctant to confess that neither Google nor Wikipedia give you a usable reference, which is more probable; or 3. Such a paper does not in fact exist for you to quote.

    Which is it, do you suppose?

    Actually, when you look at it, the second and third possibilities are really the same, and given that we have excluded the first option as being a bit harsh, we are left with the inevitable conclusion that there is no paper citing a definitive experiment that demonstrates positive forcing.

    This is serious, because the IPPC reports are based on computer modeling.

    But computer models need two things to be valid: they need to be based on formulae derived from empirical research – an experiment or experiments conducted under controlled conditions; and they need to be seeded with historic data with a known accuracy. The second is not hard (although there are some debates about siting of some measuring devices), but if you do not have the actual baseline of experimentally confirmed formulae, you have no basis for the models. They become forgeries.

    Thus, all of the papers you have cited in this thread are likewise forgeries, for they are based on a premise that is in no way demonstrable under controlled conditions.

    Now, if you do know of a peer reviewed paper that demonstrates the positive forcing from CO2 and water vapor, and does so through experimental means that are reproducible by any competent scientist. Please let us know.

    Otherwise, we have, on this very thread, debunked the whole edifice.

    Well, not quite, because we always have the first option for why you are ignoring the question to fall back on.

    00

  • #
    Damian Allen

    ““Blimey””,
    For your Edification…………..

    One of our regular Warmist Contributers “Matt b” actually stated the following admission in post (199) of this discussion:-

    http://joannenova.com.au/2011/03/thousands-of-angry-ordinary-australians-turn-up-and-alarmist-smears-begin/comment-page-5/#comment-244212

    …………
    The words of MattB;-

    “Therefore we can only logically conclude that there is No Proof, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that mankind is responsible for global warming”

    THAT’S WHAT I SAID!!!
    THAT’S THE ANSWER!
    ……………….

    That response was in relation to my challenge at post (121) of the same discussion

    My Words (and challenge):-
    Simple question for you characters “MattB”, “John Brookes” etc..

    Please post at least one Peer Reviewed Scientific Paper which PROVES, Beyond A Shadow Of A Doubt, that mankind is responsible for global warming.

    I await your responses with baited breath…….
    …………

    Well there you have it!

    The warmists admit that there is No Proof and thus No Justification for a carbon DIOXIDE (Plant Food) Tax!!

    I rest my case.

    00

  • #
    Damian Allen

    Climate Modelling Nonsense – CARBON DIOXIDE VAPOUR TRICK……

    http://www.quadrant.org.au/magazine/issue/2009/10/climate-modelling-nonsense

    00

  • #
    Bob_FJ

    If I can distract some of you here for a moment from an apparent addiction to feeding the troll supremo, let my quote something said by that elitist alarmist Andrew Dessler on the Grist blog a few years ago.

    The small number of credible skeptics out there (e.g., Spencer, Lindzen) have spent much of the last decade searching for a negative feedback in our climate system. If a sufficiently big one is found, then it would suggest that warming over the next century may well be small.

    Well Roy Spencer is not the only one to find empirical evidence of negative feedbacks, but there is a long way to go. Visit his website here, and do a site search for ‘feedback’

    Another aspect is that according to travesty Trenberth, the greatest cooling effect from the surface is evapo-transpiration, so this would seem to be a major negative feedback. Unfortunately in my fairly recent Email exchanges with Roy Spencer, whilst he admits that this is indeed important, that currently the emphasis of all researchers, including himself, is on radiative effects. It seems to be a matter of scientific competition to only solve the radiative issues, which may be lesser than the collectively described “convective” processes.

    00

  • #

    Blimey @44. I read the beginning of that article. I got as far as the Carbon 14 bit where the author seems to have mixed up carbon 14 with carbon 13. Clearly confused. Didn’t seem worthwhile reading on.

    E.M. Smith on his blog (The Chiefio)about 2 years ago did a complete demolition of the C12/C13 ratio argument. I suggest you look it up.

    I’d like to be rid of you because you aren’t adding any value to this place and persistent trolls can ruin a blog. Now please piss off.

    00

  • #
    thRealUniverse

    John Cook is just another patsy to the New World Order and its CRIMINAL global warming, caused by humans, scare-scam to introduce draconian taxes to destroy world economies and third world countries to make them slaves of the industrial complex. This is now provable thats why idiots like Cook cant see it. We all know why there’s a scam in the first place. Never mind that PHYSICS proves them wrong they just put out more diatribe about so-called ‘deniers’ and other name calling drivel. Cook get a life and crawl back to your new world order bosses in the CFR, Bildaberg group etc!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    00

  • #
    thRealUniverse

    Oh theres more yes the planet is getting C O L D E R..YES!!!!!!!!!! As Feynman once said “if you don’t like it …TOUGH!”

    00

  • #
    Blimey

    cohenite – “Idso clearly states he is not concerned with an equilibrium sensitivity”

    I agree – in that regard he completely succeeds in not getting an equilibrium climate sensitivity figure.

    A source of many a “skeptics” confusion it appears.

    Perhaps some of you guys like might to learn what climate sensitivity is before you start defending Idso’s methods.

    This might help – http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/11/cuckoo-science/ – but I doubt it.

    00

  • #
    David

    Robin Williams is on the payroll!

    Cate is on the payroll (back to 2008) even reported in China Daily online

    http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/entertainment/2008-02/26/content_6484715.htm

    Kevin paid them and now Julia (and Ian & Ross etc etc) does – who’s next?

    Australia has to make a decision on this CO2 Tax now – or the whole of Hollywood will be here!
    The anger against this rediculous advertising is going to backfire on the Government (and the Greens) – yet the ABC with Mr Williams will also have to be held accountable!

    As you said Bulldust

    They have the attention spans of ADHD teenagers on red cordial

    but yet – they too, have to be held accountable at the finalisation of this fraud along with the others!!!!

    00

  • #
    Llew Jones

    Haven’t been able to google this up again but a few years ago when I used to post on The Nation (US blog)a few of the American lefty true believers were always quoting Skeptical Science.

    On looking it up I read that Cook’s inspiration for it came from a heated kitchen table argument with some relatives who were sceptics (a mother-in-law would explain a lot).

    I noted then that he had an undergraduate degree from a Qld University which was either in astrology or astrophysics. I’m familiar with one in astronomy so I’m not too sure what sort of junior degree he holds. On examining his site at that time I discovered that it was a clearing house for IPCC alarmist propaganda. Of course Cook then was no more a climate scientist than my cleaning lady but perhaps he is one now? Or perhaps it doesn’t matter to true believers as long as one is a true believer?

    00

  • #
    Blimey

    Poptech – “He simply conceded one point which did not change his overall argument and corrected for this in later papers.”

    If that were so then you should list those latter papers, not his earlier ones.

    But sadly for you “clingialists”, Idso still failed to properly understand what it takes to calculate climate sensitivity, as discussed once again by his peers (yes, this is a response to Idso’s reply)

    http://www.springerlink.com/content/h41u42t104411870/

    To quote Waffle “Peer reviewed literature only. Warmist rules, not mine.”

    00

  • #
    Blimey

    Mike Jowsey – “Your link is itself cherry-picking. Here is another data set from the same link source – this time “unadjusted“, and guess what?”

    LOL – I used UAH because that data is supplied by a known skeptic, Roy Spencer.

    But to illustrate your “cherry picking” point, not only do YOU have to be selecting a particular dataset, you also have to make sure you don’t choose a year prior to 2001.

    2000 onwards Hadcrut unadjusted shows warming
    1999 onwards Hadcrut unadjusted shows warming
    1998 onwards Hadcrut unadjusted shows warming
    1997 onwards Hadcrut unadjusted shows warming
    and so on.

    What do ALL datasets show for 2001 onwards? WARMING!! WARMING!! WARMING!!

    http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2000/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2000/plot/uah/from:2000/plot/uah/from:2000/trend/plot/gistemp/from:2000/trend/plot/gistemp/from:2000/plot/rss/from:2000/plot/rss/from:2000/trend

    00

  • #
    Blimey

    Correction 2000 onwards

    00

  • #
    memoryvault

    Blimey

    Wot? – No pithy clever answer Blimey?

    CAGW theory claims increasing CO2 = increasing temperatures.
    Observable fact = no correlation between temperature and Co2 as per my post #185.

    I appreciate mere “observable fact” is a problem for you Climate Catastrophe Cultists, but I’d like to hear your take on it anyway.

    Assuming you’ve got the cojones.

    00

  • #
    Blimey

    Sorry memoryvault – I missed your post and sadly neglected another opportunity to give some well needed education.

    Your problem is expecting a direct correlation on such a timeframe in the first place.

    There are many causes of temperature fluctuation so why do you expect any given cause to show a direct correlation?

    00

  • #
    Damian Allen

    “Blimey”,
    You have repeatedly been challenged to please quote a reference to even one, just one, Peer Reviewed Scientific Paper, which PROVES, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that human beings and carbon Dioxide (Plant Food), are/is causing global warming.

    PS Computer Models do not constitute either Proof or Evidence.

    In every single instance you have refused to do so.

    You have been judged and found to be nothing more than a Vacuous TROLL who clearly:-
    1 Enjoys being ridiculed
    2 Is obviously EMPLOYED and is receiving renumeration to post Propaganda and Lies in the vain hope of convincing some Gullible people of the legitimacy of the global waming FRAUD.

    In any case we can all see that you are suffering from some mental psychosis as a result of your Gaia Brainwashing.

    Nobody here is buying your BS.

    Now run along and play……..

    00

  • #
    Blimey

    Damian Allen – “You have repeatedly been challenged”

    See post 171

    00

  • #
    memoryvault

    Blimey @ 206

    “Your problem is expecting a direct correlation on such a timeframe in the first place.”

    Actually Blimey, I didn’t set the timeframe – YOUR lot did. Temperature is increasing because CO2 is increasing due to humans using fossil fuels, and the effect dates from the late 1800′s. That’s the claim YOU lot make. The timeframe is out of my hands. YOU people set the timeframe.

    “There are many causes of temperature fluctuation so why do you expect any given cause to show a direct correlation?”

    Bombed again Blimey. A pathetic resort to “natural variation is masking CAGW”. Again it’s YOUR lot that claim a direct correlation between rising CO2 and rising temperatures. So since YOUR lot keep telling us it is so, why should we not expect YOUR lot to actually be able to demonstrate it?

    The fact that it doesn’t exist proves conclusively that your entire “theory” is an exercise in intellectual masturbation, and exposes you as a chief masturbator.

    00

  • #

    Blimey, “If that were so then you should list those latter papers, not his earlier ones.”

    Why would I remove a paper because of a correction to it? No paper will ever be removed because a correction was made to it. I will continue to list all of his papers and you will just have to deal with it,

    http://www.phys.uu.nl/%7Envdelden/Idso.pdf

    00

  • #

    Blimey, still waiting big boy,

    Please provide the objective criteria for determining who is a climate scientist.

    00

  • #
    Blimey

    memoryvault – “Temperature is increasing because CO2 is increasing due to humans using fossil fuels, and the effect dates from the late 1800′s. That’s the claim YOU lot make. The timeframe is out of my hands.”

    Yes the temperature is increasing due to CO2, that is true. The expectation of having a direct correlation is all yours.

    00

  • #
    memoryvault

    Blimey @ 212

    “Yes the temperature is increasing due to CO2, that is true. The expectation of having a direct correlation is all yours.”

    So there is NO DIRECT correlation but there is an INDIRECT correlation? How fascinating. Could you please explain this “indirect correlation” between “rising CO2 and rising atmospheric temperatures”.

    Since to the best of my understanding this is breaking technology never before claimed, I think you owe us a more detailed explanation.

    And by “us” I include Mann, Hansen, Jones, Schmidt, and all the other “heroes” of the AGW Movement, not to mention the IPCC, who have all, at one time or another, in way or another, claimed “a direct correlation between rising CO2 levels and rising atmospheric temperatures”.

    Not to mention all of them going out of their way to claim it could not be an INDIRECT correlation ( that is, subject to “other factors”).

    Would you like me to list peer-reviewed, published papers to that effect?

    Give me a few days and I’m sure I can come up with several hundred.

    All from YOUR lot.

    And all bullsh#t – as your own post proves.

    00

  • #
    memoryvault

    Blimey @ all over the place ad nauseum.

    Blimey, I’m going to bed now. Might I suggest you quit while you’re behind.

    You are simply making an idiot of yourself – something obvious I believe to every poster here – except you.

    “Yes the temperature is increasing due to CO2, that is true. The expectation of having a direct correlation is all yours”.

    Good grief man, if there is no “direct correlation” then there IS no CAGW theory.

    What asylum do they have you locked up in?

    00

  • #
    Blimey

    Poptech – “Why would I remove a paper because of a correction to it? No paper will ever be removed because a correction was made to it.”

    1. Because it’s not the same paper, they are different papers.
    2. Because as I noted before (post 202), and to which you have not replied, the method Idso uses is flawed.

    But no doubt you’ll will kept them on your list because you don’t mind having bullshit science on your list.

    “Please provide the objective criteria for determining who is a climate scientist.”

    Please refer back to the first time I answered this in the thread.

    00

  • #
    Blimey

    memoryvault

    As stated before, you wont get a direct correlation between CO2 and temps on this timescale (that you state in 185) simply because there are so many other natural factors adding noise to the temperature record and because the equilibrium temperature from a level of CO2 will not be fully felt for many decades to come.

    The correlation only becomes clear if you remove the noise of the natural forces leaving only that of CO2.

    Here’s a simplified example of how that can work. http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/01/20/how-fast-is-earth-warming/

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Blimey,Please answer this:

    1. what would the “normal” temperature rise post ice-age be if co2 were a non factor?

    00

  • #
    Richard S Courtney

    Friends:

    Please stop feeding the troll who is posting under the alias of “Blimey”.

    I have not counted all the posts in this thread from him/her/them but I have read them all and none – n.b. not one – provides a valid point. They make unfounded assertions, dodge or ignore demands for justification of those assertions, make demands from others for no apparent purpose, and throw out insults.

    Clearly, the posts from Blimey have the sole purpose of inhibiting rational debate, and they have achieved some success by side-tracking people into responding to his/her/their nonsense. That is a matter for regret.

    So, I commend letting Blimey continue pleasuring him/her/their self by posting nonsense but ignore those posts. The posts from Blimey are each so irrational that unbiased people who read them will recognise they should be ignored.

    Richard

    00

  • #

    Re: #218 written by Richard Courtney.

    Actually he is a perfect USEFUL troll.

    He,by his many shallow or stupid replies.Exposes the worn out and long dispatched warmist arguments he uses.In contrast to the commonly rational replies he gets.The ones where every question has asked have been convincingly answered.His counter replies to them indicate that he has nothing to work with.But baloney based on play station science.He is an obvious lover of climate modeling science.

    His replies are so bad,that surely a fence sitter on the GW topic,would have to wonder.Is that the best Blimey can bring up?

    That is why I am thrilled at his stumbling presence here.He was quickly destroyed by POPTECH’S replies and does not even realize it.He continues to ignore a relevant question and bluster in replies.Such as his latest crap:

    Poptech – “Why would I remove a paper because of a correction to it? No paper will ever be removed because a correction was made to it.”

    1. Because it’s not the same paper, they are different papers.
    2. Because as I noted before (post 202), and to which you have not replied, the method Idso uses is flawed.

    But no doubt you’ll will kept them on your list because you don’t mind having bullshit science on your list.

    “Please provide the objective criteria for determining who is a climate scientist.”

    Please refer back to the first time I answered this in the thread.

    Now I await Poptech’s latest reply.

    00

  • #

    Robyn Williams says:

    Authors John Cook and Haydn Washington analyse the approaches of those who deny climate science. Despite multiple lines of evidence pointing to the same conclusion, deniers continue to deny. Cherry picking is one tactic. Another is the use of fake experts or scientists who are not climate scientists. The authors explore why, as the science firms, the public view, at least in Australia, is going the other way.

    A man who is allegedly a journalist.Has a history of providing a one sided presentation of a climate topic.

    He is a hack journalist and a propagandist.His very words in the above demonstrates that reality.He is a man who is against discussing it from several points of view.

    He is scum.

    00

  • #

    The very words of the books title Climate Change Denial is a perfect example of the dishonest attempts to implant an idea of something skeptics does not explicate at all!

    Climate Skeptics does not deny climate change!

    I myself have to correct AGW believers in various places on the internet.Telling them that the very phrase CLIMATE CHANGE used by warmists is indicative of muddled thinking.Since the climate is ALWAYS in a state of change.There is no good reason to keep stating it over and over.It is a built in reality.

    There have been some statements made by the usual ignorant warmist.Who actually believe that before this “man made” warming came a long.Climate was NOT changing.There was no climate change up to a few decades ago.

    Really I have been told this stupidity several times now.I am not B.Sing you on this.Some of them really believe it.

    It is pathetic.

    00

  • #
    Mark

    Gaw blimey, Blimey, cites Tamino! I shudder to think what the encore will be. Oh, wait… that was the encore… wasn’t it?

    Richard S. Courtney is right, it’s high time to ignore the “Blimey” committee.

    00

  • #
    Blimey

    Mark D. – “1. what would the “normal” temperature rise post ice-age be if co2 were a non factor?”

    Less than it is right now.

    00

  • #
    Mark

    Re the Blimey committee’s correction at 204. Change the year to 2001 and the trend is down for all data sets. The “Blimeys” don’t want you to do that.

    Obviously, the further back one goes towards the ’70s there will appear to be a warming trend. Nobody here disputes that. Heard yesterday that we’ve just had the coldest May for forty odd years.

    00

  • #
    Blimey

    Mark – “Change the year to 2001 and the trend is down for all data sets.”

    Maybe in the upside down world of this forum, it is.

    But the real world shows something different.

    http://woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:2001/plot/uah/from:2001/trend

    As I posted back in 14.

    00

  • #
    Blimey

    Mark – “Nobody here disputes that. Heard yesterday that we’ve just had the coldest May for forty odd years.”

    Interesting considering May has not yet finished.

    00

  • #
    Mark

    Blimey should make its mind up what it wants to portray, “global mean” or “upper troposphere”.

    Apples, oranges…?

    00

  • #

    Blimey,

    1. Because it’s not the same paper, they are different papers.
    2. Because as I noted before (post 202), and to which you have not replied, the method Idso uses is flawed.

    But no doubt you’ll will kept them on your list because you don’t mind having bullshit science on your list.

    I am well aware they are different papers and Idso has stated that just because he concedes a point on two of these earlier papers they can still be used, “in concert with still other non-equilibrium natural experiments to ultimately evaluate that most elusive parameter [a proper value for the equilibrium surface air temperature response function of Earth's atmosphere].

    This is all explained in his reply,

    http://www.phys.uu.nl/~nvdelden/Idso.pdf

    What I don’t mind is having papers listed that have had a correction to them made.

    I gave you enough time but apparently you don’t even know what you are talking about as the irony here is the two papers he refers to are not even on the list,

    1. “A Surface Air Temperature Response Function for Earth’s Atmosphere”

    - I am now going to add it thanks to Blimey! Good job man.

    2. “An Empirical Evaluation of Earth’s Surface Air Temperature Response to an Increase in Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Concentration”

    - Is a conference paper and thus not peer-reviewed.

    Please refer back to the first time I answered this in the thread.

    You have not answered the question,

    Please provide the objective criteria for determining who is a climate scientist.

    00

  • #
    Blimey

    Mark – “Change the year to 2001 and the trend is down for all data sets.”

    Mark – “Blimey should make its mind up what it wants to portray, “global mean” or “upper troposphere”.”

    Mark should make up his mind before contradicting himself.

    00

  • #
    Blimey

    Poptech – “This is all explained in his reply.”

    No, the link I listed was a rebuttal to that reply.

    http://www.springerlink.com/content/h41u42t104411870/

    In this paper we examine and clarify several arguments that have been put forth by Dr. S. B. Idso in an article appearing within this issue of Climatic Change.

    00

  • #
    Mark

    Folks it should be clear by now that the troll will attempt bluster when all else fails – which it always does.

    00

  • #
    Blimey

    And Folks, when logic fails, start calling the person a Troll. It works every time!

    00

  • #

    Blimey, “No, the link I listed was a rebuttal to that reply.”

    That does not change his original points which have been clarified in his reply.

    00

  • #
    Blimey

    Poptech – “That does not change his original points which have been clarified in his reply.”

    Nor did he correct his method, hence why no climate scientists use his method to determine climate sensitivity.

    00

  • #

    Blimey, “Nor did he correct his method, hence why no climate scientists use his method to determine climate sensitivity.”

    Yes he did correct it, he explained it in this paper,

    CO2-induced global warming: a skeptic’s view of potential climate change (PDF)
    (Climate Research, Volume 10, Number 1, pp. 69–82, April 1998)
    - Sherwood B. Idso

    And other scientists have used it. It is just not widely used.

    00

  • #

    I’d prefer that we encourage Blimey to debate. I’m not happy that people here feel they need to throw insults at him. Just because he is condescending and rude doesn’t mean we should not debate him. My advice, learn some manners and grow a thicker skin. When I have some more time I’ll pick up with Blimey where I left off.

    00

  • #
  • #

    I touched a nerve, Blimey is now going around spamming his 7 points of lies, misinformation and strawman arguments,

    http://seeker401.wordpress.com/2010/10/21/800-peer-reviewed-papers-supporting-skepticism-of-man-made-global-warming-agw/

    Poor Blimey, there is nothing he can do about the list but post lies, misinformation and strawman arguments about it.

    This is the behavior you can expect from someone desperate like Blimey.

    00

  • #
    Blimey

    Poptech – “Yes he did correct it, he explained it in this paper,”

    So list the page and paragraph or be a liar.

    Repeating a mistake is not the same as correcting it.

    Idso repeats his mistake.

    00

  • #

    Blimey, learn how to read for yourself big boy. How is the spamming going?

    Still waiting….

    Please provide the objective criteria for determining who is a climate scientist.

    Blimey can’t answer simple questions, he just dodges and avoids.

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Blimey says @ 223 (to answer my question): Mark D. – “1. what would the “normal” temperature rise post ice-age be if co2 were a non factor?”

    Less than it is right now.

    Sure. nice non science answer with absolutely no references. Try again; what would the “normal” temperature rise post ice-age be if co2 were a non factor?”

    Since the whole world is waiting for your answer perhaps you could give some actual numbers? Or is it that you cannot?

    00

  • #
    Blimey

    [vacuous replies deleted]ED

    00

  • #
    Blimey

    [vacuous replies deleted]ED

    00

  • #
    Blimey

    [vacuous replies deleted]ED

    00

  • #
    Blimey

    Poptech – “Blimey can’t answer simple questions, he just dodges and avoids.”

    I’ve answered it too well it seems.

    Isn’t it funny that “skeptics” claims their voice in science is restricted by the peer review process, yet here you are deleting my posts.

    Laughable lot you are!

    [NO SIR! I eliminated vacuous posts. I trust you know the difference. Now if you want to have freedom to post then post something that is NOT vacuous.]ED

    00

  • #

    Blimey,

    You never answered the question. You avoided and dodged it by stating that I should define it because you used the word “you”. How can I do this if you don’t give me the criteria? You implied you knew the difference when you replied to the following question,

    “If Cook thinks there are so few skeptical scientists, why is the skeptical science movement so large to be a problem for him and other alarmists?”

    …with,

    “Firstly you need to differentiate between scientists and climate scientists” – Blimey.

    So Blimey, answer the question,

    Please provide the objective criteria for determining who is a climate scientist.

    Anticipating the dodge,

    Do you know the criteria?

    00

  • #

    Blimey is hysterically spamming his 7 lies hard now. I will not know of the full damage until tomorrow.

    Here is a full rebuttal linked up off the notes in the list,

    Rebuttal to 7 Spammed Lies

    00

  • #
    Blimey

    Poptech – since the moderator of this forum will choose what posts to remove based upon his own biased view of the term “vacuous” I am forced to voice my opinion elsewhere.

    Good luck keeping up!

    [sorry mate I should have put this up: Vacuous: "Having or showing a lack of thought or intelligence; mindless" also "empty" the latter is mostly what was applied above. Notice This post is left intact.]ED

    [Yesbut the record shall show that Blimey was not banned and is free to answer.]ED

    00

  • #

    Blimey, how is the spamming going of your 7 lies? You know I will track down every single one of your posts to correct your lies so why bother?

    http://climategate.tv/2011/05/29/900-peer-reviewed-papers-supporting-skepticism-of-man-made-global-warming-agw-alarm/

    00

  • #
    Blimey

    Poptech – “You know I will track down every single one of your posts to correct your lies so why bother?”

    I hope that you do, it will show others what an [snip] you are defending papers in this manner.

    00

  • #

    Blimey none of your 7 lies are true so it is a very easy rebuttal.

    00

  • #
    Blimey

    So list the page and paragraph or be a liar.

    00

  • #

    You got the paper big boy go read it.

    Still waiting,

    Please provide the objective criteria for determining who is a climate scientist.

    00

  • #
    Blimey

    “You got the paper big boy go read it.”

    I did – you’re a liar.

    00

  • #

    Then post it! Come on show me the criteria. Do you even know it?

    00

  • #

    Either post the criteria or admit defeat.

    00

  • #

    What happened to Big Boy Blimey? All dodge and no show.

    00

  • #
    Richard S Courtney

    Friends:

    I have read all the posts since my post at #218.

    Quad Erat Demonstrandum.

    Richard

    00

  • #
    Bob_FJ

    Richard at 258,
    I can’t understand why so many here feed that troll.
    it is so boring!

    00

  • #
    Blimey

    Latin’s no substitute for logic.

    00

  • #

    Blimey at post #232,

    And Folks, when logic fails, start calling the person a Troll. It works every time!

    You have earned it in spades.

    You have not made a single credible counter to the posted article.

    You have been strongly countered by PT.

    00

  • #

    Blimey replies to Mark D at post #223:

    Mark D. – “1. what would the “normal” temperature rise post ice-age be if co2 were a non factor?”

    Less than it is right now.

    Here is a handy chart that should excite you Blimey.It is well known that many AGW believing scientists thinks the CO2 level in the atmosphere was stable for the last few thousands of years until the late 1800′s.

    CHART

    Additional links are found in the post for the background information.

    Can you explain the large temperature swings the last 10,000 years?

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Sunsettommy, you have several good charts there!

    I think Blimey must have lost his troll funding. I think they lose commissions when they get edited by the mods. The troll puppet masters don’t like it when their employees can’t carry a tune.

    He obviously won’t answer our questions, so therefore I am taking advice from Richard.

    IGNORE the troll!

    00

  • #

    Many of the charts I have at my forum.Originally came from CH3 Headlines:

    Below is the primary link to the charts.

    Click On Any Link Below For Separate Chart/Image Pages:

    00

  • #
    Richard S Courtney

    sunsettommy:

    I ask others to forgive my writing this OT message to you.

    Despite attempts to retrieve/change my password, I am failing to get into your blog. Please help.

    And if anybody else is reading this, then I commend your blog to them.

    Richard

    00

  • #

    Hello Richard,

    It is the FORUM that you want to log in.

    Do you remember the period at the end of your user name?

    The password is reset to the obvious word.You can change it when you log in.

    Thank you for your kind words.

    00

  • #
    Blimey

    sunsettommy – “It is well known that many AGW believing scientists thinks the CO2 level in the atmosphere was stable for the last few thousands of years until the late 1800′s.”

    So putting that into perspective.

    http://www.csiro.au/files/images/ptz8.jpg

    ps: Is this the kind of refusal to debate you usually get from Trolls? I am new to this and am not exactly sure how a Troll should behave.

    00

  • #
    Richard S Courtney

    Blimey:

    At #267 you link to a graph that stitches two different data sets together. And you present this graph claiming that it indicates something other than that the two data sets are different.

    Then you ask:

    Is this the kind of refusal to debate you usually get from Trolls?

    I answer:
    Yes, that is exactly what trolls often do:
    i.e. they attempt to deflect debate away from the subject of the thread by deliberately providing false information as an attempt to switch the debate onto the errors in the presented information.

    Richard

    00

  • #
    Richard S Courtney

    Friends:

    Please do not think my post at #268 is a response to the troll which requires further debate.

    My post was merely pointing out to onlookers what the troll had done.

    I will not answer any response from the troll and I suggest that others ignore him/her/them, too.

    Richard

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    the troll says:

    Is this the kind of refusal to debate you usually get from Trolls? I am new to this and am not exactly sure how a Troll should behave.

    well from the graphs posted it looks to me like Co2 LAGS temperature by some 876.374 years (sorry the resolution of the graphs provide prevents me from narrowing the lag). Besides that, assuming that the graphs are correct, it is proof that co2 has NO effect on temperature. Good on you Troll! your behavior is predictable.

    So if the troll had superior scientific methods, he could explain how a lag indicates a driver.

    PS I too am not asking for further debate from the troll. However, I will not stand and permit him to spout off unchallenged.

    00

  • #

    Blimey,avoids answering questions.Makes deflective replies to questions.commonly avoids staying on topic.

    That is what a troll is.

    Example at post # 262.I asked YOU blimey this question:

    Can you explain the large temperature swings the last 10,000 years?

    You reply with a deflection and avoid the question with your two charts in the 100,000 year increments.That does not answer my question.

    But even your CO2 charts shows very small CO2 changes between 180-280 ppm.While there were huge temperature changes evident in your second chart.That is commonly between 10-15 degrees C.

    Your own charts still supports my position.

    LOL

    Not only that.You have terrible reading skills:

    I wrote:

    Here is a handy chart that should excite you Blimey.It is well known that many AGW believing scientists thinks the CO2 level in the atmosphere was stable for the last few thousands of years until the late 1800′s.

    I mentioned the last few thousand years.To make the point that you never disputed.That CO2 levels in the atmosphere barely change at all,for thousands of years.While there were large temperature changes.Those large temperature changes you want to ignore.

    Vividly shown in my charts AND your charts.

    You are a stupid troll.

    You are pathetic.

    00

  • #
    Blimey

    I’m still waiting for 252 to be answered.

    If you can.

    00

  • #
    Blimey

    “To make the point that you never disputed.That CO2 levels in the atmosphere barely change at all,for thousands of years.While there were large temperature changes.Those large temperature changes you want to ignore.”

    I don’t ignore them. This is evidence for a high sensitivity value. Small changes in even natural forcing produces a larger change in temperature.

    You guys are so much fun to hang with!

    00

  • #

    I don’t ignore them. This is evidence for a high sensitivity value. Small changes in even natural forcing produces a larger change in temperature.

    What a stupid statement!

    CO2 is known to LAG temperature changes.Several published science papers commonly states the lag is in the centuries.Meaning that CO2 is NOT a driver of temperature changes.

    During the year CO2 lags temperature changes by around 5 months.

    The Tropics and the Southern Hemisphere temperature changes are near zero since 1979,per the Satellite data.How can that be when you have a “well mixed CO2″ in the atmosphere?

    It is mostly a NORTHERN HEMISPHERE warming that is evident.

    It begs the question.How come the much ballyhooed CO2 warming “effect” is absent over nearly 2/3rds of the Planet?

    LOL

    00

  • #
    Blimey

    sunsettommy: “What a stupid statement!”

    Please show why. Your following comments, whilst they are another set of “skeptical” remarks, do not dispute my remark.

    “CO2 is known to LAG temperature changes.Several published science papers commonly states the lag is in the centuries.Meaning that CO2 is NOT a driver of temperature changes.”

    Sigh. http://www.skepticalscience.com/How-Jo-Nova-doesnt-get-the-CO2-lag.html

    “During the year CO2 lags temperature changes by around 5 months.”

    LOL. Or does it preceed by 7 months? What’s your point anyway? That natural CO2 levels go up and down with temp – like der!!!

    “The Tropics and the Southern Hemisphere temperature changes are near zero since 1979,per the Satellite data.How can that be when you have a “well mixed CO2? in the atmosphere?”

    CO2 is not the only cause of temperature change. Why would you expect both hemispheres to remain the same?

    Please list provide a link to your source of data.

    “It is mostly a NORTHERN HEMISPHERE warming that is evident.”

    I agree. http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vsh/from:1970/trend/plot/hadcrut3vnh/from:1970/trend

    “It begs the question.How come the much ballyhooed CO2 warming “effect” is absent over nearly 2/3rds of the Planet?”

    It isn’t, but why do you expect it to be evenly distributed?

    The north pole is expected to show greater signs of warming because of the ice albedo effect.

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Blimey, do you really think that John Cook did a good job debunking the lag issue in that blog post? BwaaaHHAHAHAHAHAHA it must be another travesty when you have to come up with an absurd analysis to cover the facts.

    I just love it when a warmist is squirming !

    BWahhahahahahahahahh

    HAhAHAHHHAHHAHAHAHAHA (Breath)

    00

  • #
    Blimey

    Mark D – “Blimey, do you really think that John Cook did a good job debunking the lag issue in that blog post?”

    I think John Cook links to REAL climate science in order to show what the lag is about. Unlike your reply.

    Personally I think the best talk on it comes from Richard Alley.

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

    00

  • #
    Richard S Courtney

    Blimey:

    Excuses do not wash. And setting homework is a method to avoid answering a question: it is not an answer to a question.

    If you have an answer to the ‘lag question’ then state it either in your own words or by quotation with appropriate reference. So far you have only avoided the issue.

    The facts of the ‘lag issue’ are.
    1.
    Changes to atmospheric CO2 concentration follow changes to global temperature at all time scales.
    2.
    A cause cannot follow its effect (in the absence of a time machine).
    3.
    Therefore, changes to atmospheric CO2 concentration cannot be the cause of the changes to global temperature.

    This ‘lag’ is a case of coherence in the absence of corelation.

    It seems that you do not understand coherence, corelation and their indications. So, I will try to assist you in your providing an answer to the question by providing brief explanations of them.

    Coherence
    is when a change to one parameter is observed to be related to another parameter: i.e. when one parameter changes then the other also changes. Many things cohere; e.g. leaves always fall off deciduous trees soon after students end their summer school vacation.

    Coherence cannot prove causality but can disprove a suggestion of causality because an effect cannot happen before the effect which causes it. So,
    the observed coherence of changes to atmospheric CO2 concentration and global temperature proves that the CO2 changes cannot be causal of the temperasture changes because the CO2 changes follow the temperature changes
    .

    Corelation
    is when the magnitude of one parameter is mathematically related to the magnitude of another parameter. Many things corelate; e.g. the volume of a mass of mercury corelates to its temperature.

    A causal relationship between two parameters induces the parameters to corelate. Therefore,
    (a)
    corelation indicates the possibility of a causal relationship, and
    (b)
    absence of corelation proves there is not a causal relationship, but
    (c)
    corelation is not proof of causality because the observed corelation may be a coincidence; e.g. atmospheric CO2 and global temperature do not corelate over the period from 1940 to 2011 but they do corelate over the part of that period from 1970 to 1998. [typo repaired] ED

    So, atmospheric CO2 concentration and global temperature are an example of coherence in the absence of corelation.

    Coherence in the absence of corelation is strongly indicative that two parameters do not have a causal relationship but that they are each affected by some other parameter.

    For example, an above example says that leaves always fall off deciduous trees soon after students end their summer school vacation (i.e. there is coherence between the returning students and the falling of leaves), but the number of returning students has no mathematical relationship to the number of falling leaves (i.e. there is an absence of corelation between returning students and the falling leaves). In this example, the time of year is the “other parameter” which induces coherence in the absence of corelation.

    Richard

    00

  • #
    Richard S Courtney

    Ooops!

    In #278 I mistyped:
    “(c)
    corelation is not proof of causality because the observed corelation may be a coincidence; e.g. atmospheric CO2 and global temperature do not corelate over the period from 1940 to 2011 but they do corelate over the part of that period from 1940 to 1998.”

    Of course, I intended to write:
    “(c)
    corelation is not proof of causality because the observed corelation may be a coincidence; e.g. atmospheric CO2 and global temperature do not corelate over the period from 1940 to 2011 but they do corelate over the part of that period from 1970 to 1998.”

    I apologise for this error.

    Richard

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Richard, just focussing on the following:
    “The facts of the ‘lag issue’ are.
    1.
    Changes to atmospheric CO2 concentration follow changes to global temperature at all time scales.
    2.
    A cause cannot follow its effect (in the absence of a time machine).
    3.
    Therefore, changes to atmospheric CO2 concentration cannot be the cause of the changes to global temperature.”

    Point 2 is where you are on very shaky ground. For example, if a fat person started eating 3 kfc burgers a meal and got fatter, well your logic would be to say that since this person was already getting fatter then the KFC has nothing to do with it.

    Translating to the global warming issue, nobody is claiming that the CO2 was causing the warming before the CO2 was rising, but once the CO2 was rising it was a contributory factor in subsequent warming.

    When cooling is observed, it simply means that any one of a range of COOLING forces overwhelmed whatever warming forces were in play. In fact the knowledge that temp falls would preceed CO2e falls is not in the least bit surprising. Neither it is surprising that rises in temp throughout history have been triggered by one of the many known forcings that are not greenhouse gases.

    It does not shake your position anywhere else, but I honestly think that a reasonable person would NOT use your steps 1-2-3 to reach a conclusion “Therefore, changes to atmospheric CO2 concentration cannot be the cause of the changes to global temperature.”

    00

  • #
    Richard S Courtney

    Matt B:

    Thankyou for your reply at #280 in response to my post at #278 with corrigendum at #279.

    Your argument concludes by saying to me:

    It does not shake your position anywhere else, but I honestly think that a reasonable person would NOT use your steps 1-2-3 to reach a conclusion “Therefore, changes to atmospheric CO2 concentration cannot be the cause of the changes to global temperature.”

    Sorry, but no.
    A cause cannot follow its effect because the universe is made that way. The issue is about the coherence and not the corelation. The coherence does indicate that changes to atmospheric CO2 concentration cannot be the cause of the changes to global temperature.

    As to whether the CO2 does or does not affect the temperature then that is an entirely different issue. What can be said is that the lack of corelation proves the temperature is – at very least – more greatly affected by something other than by the CO2.

    Indeed, your comment admits that the lack of corelation proves the temperature is more greatly affected by something other than by the CO2 when it says;

    When cooling is observed, it simply means that any one of a range of COOLING forces overwhelmed whatever warming forces were in play.

    Please note that my explanation of coherence and corelation is not controversial in any way.

    Richard

    PS
    Thankyou for keeping posting here. You and I usually disagree and often clash, but I was starting to think opposition was shrinking to the facile idiocy of the Blimey troll.

    00

  • #
    Bob_FJ

    Richard and Matt et al,
    Are you not wasting your time discussing matters with someone who does not understand that effect cannot precede cause? There are some people that believe that the Grand Canyon was eroded during the Biblical flood only a few thousand years ago, and it is impossible to change their view, despite the overwhelming geological evidence in those vast sedimentary layers. This seems to be an analogy for your favourite troll. Why bother?

    It is also wandering off-topic, which is about a ludicrous book that is allegedly to be distributed to all Oz federal politicians. If anyone wants to do anything about that, might I suggest that you Email some balancing stuff around.
    You want addresses? Try here:
    http://joannenova.com.au/global-warming/australian-elected-representatives-emails/

    00

  • #
    MattB

    Richard we’ll just have to disagree. Clearly there are times when warming occurred that had nothing to do with CO2. But there is nothing in that to suggest that when the CO2 was rising it had nothing to do with the rising temperatures at the same time.

    I’m not saying the cause followed the effect. The ealier “effect” is from something else, not CO2. CO2 did not cause any temp increases before it was rising I think we can agree on that.

    I also don’t think that the fact there are forces that can override CO2 is in debate (although that depends on how high the CO2 gets before the opposing forcing kicks in – what once sent us to ice ages may no longer do so).

    Indeed Richard- given you are a mad lefty socialist scientist you can’t be all bad either!

    00

  • #
    Blimey

    Richard S Courtney, thanks for your try but I think you’re stuck in the mindset that CO2 cannot be a feedback. In any case Richard Alley explained it well enough.

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

    00

  • #
    Richard S Courtney

    Blimey:

    Re your response at #284.

    Try to grow up. When you are plain wrong then admit it or keep quiet.

    Untrue and unjustifiable insults are not a substitute for admitting you are wrong or shutting up.

    Richard

    00

  • #
    Richard S Courtney

    Bob_FJ:

    Thankyou for your suggestion in #282.

    Is it advisable for those – like me – who are not Australians to send unsolicited items to Australian politicians?

    Please be assured that my question is genuine. Cultures differ between countries, ‘the road to hell is paved with good intentions’, and I would not want to take action that could cause more harm than good.

    Richard

    00

  • #
    Bob_FJ

    Richard S Courtney @ 286:

    Yes, well, I guess it may not be appropriate for non residents to contact Oz politicians.

    My feeling is that if Cook and Washington can send a misleading book to federal politicians, then it would be appropriate if balancing critiques from Australians were Emailed to them, the more the better.

    It really was an awful interview, from which I picked eight topics above, but there is plenty more in the transcript, (link above), that can be dismantled.

    I’m a bit disappointed that discussion has broken down to a troll-war where the real issues on this book have been successfully diverted from.

    00

  • #
    Richard S Courtney

    Bob F-J:

    Thankyou for your advice at #287. I will abide by it.

    And you say:

    I’m a bit disappointed that discussion has broken down to a troll-war where the real issues on this book have been successfully diverted from.

    Me too.

    Richard

    00

  • #
    Reed Coray

    113 Poptech:
    May 28th, 2011 at 10:15 pm
    Blimey,

    I am still waiting for you to provide the following,

    Please provide the objective criteria for determining who is a climate scientist.

    You seemed to be so sure of the difference between a scientist and climate scientist why not tell us then how we determine the difference.

    …still waiting.

    Poptech, I’ll try to answer for Blimey. Climate Scientist, definition: “a climate scientist is any sentient being who believes in CAGW.”

    Note: I’m not sure Blimey qualifies as a climate scientist; not because he is or isn’t a scientist, but because it has yet to be shown that he’s a “sentient being.”

    00

  • #
    Bob_FJ

    Reed Coray @ 289,

    Well yes, per the alarmist majority church that is an entertaining comment, but there are a whole bunch of climate scientists that agree that there is no potential catastrophic human cause for global warming, and even that it may continue to cool for a few decades more yet. (just like it apparently did after ~1940 despite an arguable big acceleration of CO2)
    Have you been following the indications of the CERN CLOUD experiment and Svensmark’s stuff and sunspot activity, and whatnot?

    00

  • #
    Mark

    Bob_FJ

    Re your comment 282.
    Everybody knows that the Grand Canyon was created when a Scotsman found out that he had dropped a penny in the area whilst passing through.

    00

  • #
    Bob_FJ

    Mark at 291

    I had not heard that explanation before; about how The Grand Canyon was created by a Scotchman in very short time, but it seems far more credible to me than the fundamentalist Biblical theology. Do you have any good references?
    No, you were joking, right?

    00

  • #
    Mark

    Bob_FJ #292

    Oh… errm…umm… Damn it all Bob, ya have to be so pernicketty? The dog ate my references; no, that can’t be right, he’s been dead for seven years.

    I’ll get back to you later on that, just don’t wait up!

    00

  • #
  • #
    Mark D.

    If you want you can see Paul Bunyan and his Ox Babe in action here: http://www.bemidji.org/paulandbabe.php

    Sorry in advance for the fun :)

    00

  • #
    Mark

    I believe I must retract my hypothesis on the GC origin in deference to your cites, Mark D.

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Mark @ 296

    I believe I must retract my hypothesis on the GC origin in deference to your cites, Mark D.

    Not so fast Mark, I have yet to confirm, but it is possible that Paul Bunyan IS a Scotsman by heritage and therefor your hypothesis may prove to have some merit. I’m also trying to confirm a persistent rumor that Paul’s Ox Babe was depicted in certain paintings of Noah’s Ark. If true, this would neatly tie together several theories.

    The combined hypothesis: The Grand canyon was made by Great Scot Paul Bunyan, when in search of a dropped penny, needed to drain a giant puddle left from the Great Biblical Flood.

    See? Done better than “science” has proven AGW.

    00

  • #

    Mark D @ 297,
    Hmmm, I’m about to go to bed, and I’m wondering if my brain can cope with the turmoil that you have supplanted on me, and whether I might sleep well tonight.
    Nevertheless, I have a strong feeling that a simple anonymous Scotchman may well have been entirely responsible for the excavation of The Grand Canyon.

    00

  • #
    Reed Coray

    Bob_FJ:
    June 3rd, 2011 at 3:37 pm
    Reed Coray @ 289,

    Have you been following the indications of the CERN CLOUD experiment and Svensmark’s stuff and sunspot activity, and whatnot?

    Not really. I am aware of the CERN CLOUD experiment, but not aware of any results.

    00

  • #
    Mark

    Mark D.

    I stand in awe of your perspicacity in these matters. A joint thesis in the offing, perhaps? Couldn’t possibly be worse than the “Hockey Stick Chronicles” could it.

    00

  • #

    Reed Coray at 299,

    Considering the CERN CLOUD experiment is so big, involving 20 institutions from around the world, it’s interesting that we don’t hear much about it, given that it is so very important for understanding feedbacks. (and reducing the G in GIGO models).
    Here are a couple of update articles which are suggesting some early important results.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/05/14/update-on-the-cern-cloud-experiment/

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/05/17/new-study-links-cosmic-rays-to-aerosolscloud-formation-via-solar-magnetic-activity-modulation/

    00

  • #

    [...] stuff, Williams again gleefully refers to the Nurse movie, {See 3) & 4)}, but see also e.g. at Jo Nova’s a more detailed critique.  The science show website transcript, (linked in the title above), was [...]

    00