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

Mark the moment! The first renegade science conference

Apart from conferences organized by the Heartland Foundation I don’t recall a skeptic dominated professional conference or science association convention. Skeptics have spoken at many conferences before, but this time the skeptical speakers vastly outnumbered the fans of the IPCC, ten to one. This was an event where — by the sounds of it — it would have been uncool to be an unskeptical scientist (as indeed it ought to be). No prizes for guessing which branch of science could no longer be held down by political correctness.

It’s a sign of the times, the phase shift is coming.

Tom Harris gives a great summary in the Financial Post:

Climate Isn’t Up for Debate

Anyone not already familiar with the stance of geologists towards the global warming scare would have been shocked by the conference at the University of Ottawa at the end of May. In contrast to most environmental science meetings, climate skepticism was widespread among the thousand geoscientists from Canada, the United States and other countries who took part in GAC-MAC 2011 (the Joint Annual Meeting of the Geological Association of Canada, the Mineralogical Association of Canada, the Society of Economic Geologists and the Society for Geology Applied to Mineral Deposits).

Speakers included Bob Carter and Ian Plimer as well as Henrik Svensmark, along with many others who talked about water vapor, the role of the sun, satellite radiation measurements and many other approaches. One speaker spoke along lines that the IPCC would have been happy about, but none of the other IPCC supporters accepted the invitations.

Where were all the other scientist supporters of climate alarmism? Did they not know that climate was a major focus of this, the largest geologic conference in the country?

They knew. According to Miall, even though some were directly invited, they either refused to participate or ignored the invitation. “The people on the ­IPCC side generally will not debate,” explained Miall. “Anything that’s brought up that they disagree with, they say has been dealt with and is no longer considered important, or is a minor effect. This is often quite wrong.”

In the Q&A following the public lecture at last June’s Canadian Meteorological and Ocean Society (CMOS)/Canadian Geophysical Union Congress in Ottawa, the prospect of a public debate between the two sides was put to keynote speaker Warwick Vincent of Laval University. Vincent was supportive, as was a CMOS past president communicated with later. Yet, when I approached CMOS executives and directors about taking the steps necessary to arrange such a public event, the responses were negative to the point of abuse and nothing transpired.

This was perhaps not surprising. Proposals for a proper climate science debate have been opposed by CMOS leaders for a long time. As early as 1990, the chairman of the CMOS congress scientific committee, Tad Murty (then a senior research scientist with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans’ Institute of Ocean Sciences) tried to arrange a global-warming debate. But it never happened. Murty cites a “lack of enthusiasm” from other committee members as the reason.

Geoscientists need to speak up

Miall maintains that the views of geoscientists are crucial for a proper understanding of climate.

“This should have been accepted practice all along, not because geoscientists are necessarily right, but because this should be the normal process of science,” said Miall. “The idea that any science is ‘finished’ violates all the norms of the science process, which should, by definition, be permanently open to new data and new ideas. The history of science is full of examples of so-called ‘normal science’ that is shown to be wrong on the basis of a single critical piece of data or a new idea. That’s all we were trying to do at the GAC meeting — keep our minds open.”

Uncomfortable though it may be for geoscientists, society needs them to speak out forcefully now. Otherwise, the climate alarm, its science failing but the movement still heavily funded, will stagger on, leading society into wasting billions of dollars more and destroying millions of jobs worldwide.

Financial Post
Tom Harris is the executive director of the International Climate Science Coalition.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 3.0/10 (2 votes cast)
Mark the moment! The first renegade science conference, 3.0 out of 10 based on 2 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/4xhps8c

64 comments to Mark the moment! The first renegade science conference

  • #
    FijiDave

    What’s the go with this, Jo?

    Climate change is real: an open letter from the scientific community

    The letter is refered to in an article here

    Gillard’s ratings slump after carbon tax

    But Gillard won support from a group of leading scientists, medical researchers and environmental campaigners, who penned an open letter to Australian newspapers arguing that a carbon tax was essential to combat climate change.

    And then there is the site where 31,000 scientists state that CAGW is garbage. Certainly confusing for us blokes wot got no formal eddimification in things scientific.

    I thought “Alice in Wonderland” was supposed to be fiction…

    00

  • #
    Sean

    The problem with these conferences is that people with similar views are talking to each other. We really need the folks who disagree to have a debate on the technical nitty-gritty details. We are in a very unique time in history. We have scientists who model the climate that are quite certain that elevated levels of CO2 will lead to warming of 2-6 C over the next century. On the other hand we have records that indicate cooling of the planet is associated with prolonged periods of low solar activity. So now we have the atmosphere primed for warming with excessive persistent green house gases and we have old Sol’s cycle taking a break. (We also have a lot of ocean cycles in play as well, The PDO is in the cool phase for a couple of decades while the AMO seems near its peak.) The next 10 to 15 years have to potential to allow climate science to get a much better handle on the predominance of anthroprogenic vs. natural drivers of the planets cycles. It will be very interesting times.

    00

  • #
    Bob Malloy

    Humblest Apologies, all, for going off topic so early in the thread, but who booked Lord Monckton into a Leagues Club on the east coast in opposition to the third state of origin match between NSW & Queensland.

    I hope it doesn’t hurt your attendance Jo.

    For all you people that follow inferior forms of football, the State of Origin is a three game series played between NSW and Queensland every year for bragging rites as to which state is the superior Rugby League State.

    00

  • #
    Thumbnail

    @Sean – I could not have said it better myself. Carbon Dioxide is only one of many inputs to the climate.

    00

  • #
    Binny

    Sean:@2

    That is what science used to be like and hopefully will like once again.
    The problem is that the activist driven CAGW’s made the debate so toxic
    that normal scientific behaviour was pushed aside.

    00

  • #
    janama

    Sorry to be OT but in a way it’s not.

    There’s an wonderful article in the Australian this morning by Rowan Dean, the advertising executive who is a panellist on the Gruen Transfer. He has a go at the Richard Glover, Mike Carlton type journalists who attack the denialists.

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/commentary/here-comes-the-evil-denier-monster/story-e6frgd0x-1226075916732

    00

  • #
    Ken Stewart

    Bob Malloy:

    Especially when it will the series decider!

    Queenslander!

    Ken

    00

  • #
    Bob Malloy

    Ken Stewart:
    June 16th, 2011 at 7:56 am

    Ken,

    I’ll be at West Leagues, Newcastle with Monckton, Jo and David.

    P.S. It’s about time us Blues had a turn to carry the trophie

    00

  • #
    Speedy

    Jo

    Where will the papers from this conference be found? More for the ammo box…

    Cheers,

    Speedy.

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    janama:

    You beat me to it … that article is hilarious. One of my favourites is the following quote:

    And is it honestly the case that the likes of Lord Turnbull, the former head of the civil service in Britain who has demanded that his government stop terrifying the public about climate change, have their “heads in the sand and their bums defiantly aquiver as they fart their toxic message to the world”?

    00

  • #

    In about 100 years’ time we may be able to say with some certainty that there was significant warming between 1980 and the early part of the 21st century. Until then all we have are guesses and prejudice, because there is not enough data for statistical results. Meanwuile policicians fumble about in confusion hoping that they will be perceived as doing something useful and popular, while ordinary people just get on with their lives and worry about cold winters.

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    It is also worth reading the following take down of Garnaut and the “carbon price”:

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/commentary/truth-is-that-garnaut-is-partisan/story-e6frgd0x-1226075912763

    00

  • #
    theRealUniverse

    We know this..from observation..

    Earth may enter a Little Ice Age within a decade

    Solar cycle 25 may not happen at all

    14 Jun 11 – “What may be the science story of the century is breaking this evening, as heavyweight US solar physicists announce that the Sun appears to be headed into a lengthy spell of low activity, which could mean that the Earth – far from facing a global warming problem – is actually headed into a mini Ice Age,” begins an article today in the UK Register.
    “Early records of sunspots indicate that the Sun went through a period of inactivity in the late 17th century. Very few sunspots were seen on the Sun from about 1645 to 1715…. This period of solar inactivity also corresponds to a climatic period called the “Little Ice Age” when rivers that are normally ice-free froze and snow fields remained year-round at lower altitudes. There is evidence that the Sun has had similar periods of inactivity in the more distant past.”

    Maunder minimum..17th C the Thames froze over..well know historical FACT

    It IS cooling NOW !!! Tell stupid Gillard this..its like saying the blue sky is blue!

    So pay TAX to stop the planet heating..Join the LOON BIN GIllard, Flannery etc. and the rest of your cronyist wakkos!

    00

  • #
    Brendan

    Sean. Agreed, that is what exactly is needed.

    Unfortunately though, the worm started to turn when people like McIntryre started asking questions of HadCRUT. Initially those requests were treated in the spirit of the scientific method. Things changed when McIntrye started finding holes in the Hockey stick and the result was that Jones and ‘the Team’, closed up shop. Not only did the worm turn, but it went deep underground!

    They have set the tone ever since. Debating only when it suits them, dismissing anyone who disagrees, acting to restrict peer review, breaching FOI, creating their own PR websites where publicly paid staff spend time defending them, and the list goes on.

    Despite the fact that its the sceptics who are ‘blamed’ for this state of affairs, things are not likely to change. HadCRUT is still playing games with FOI requests, they have a cheersquad media who will brook no dissent, and the cause has become the perfect moral high ground for the cultural elite.

    00

  • #

    Janam!@6

    My comments on the Grimy Green Monsters of the Media can be found HERE

    00

  • #
    pat

    MSM still reporting it as a done deal…

    16 June: Courier Mail: Steven Scott: Carbon payment cuts to cost jobs: unions and MPs warn Julia Gillard
    Mr Howes, whose union is meeting in Longreach today, said he wanted 100 per cent compensation for steel but would accept a slightly lower level if jobs were protected.
    Ms Gillard yesterday told a meeting of foreign business leaders that the carbon tax was “substantially closer to completion” and was likely to pass the hung Parliament.
    “Yes, we operate in the circumstance of a minority government,” she told the closed-door meeting.
    “But we remain committed to driving an ambitious policy agenda.”…
    http://www.couriermail.com.au/business/carbon-payments-cuts-to-cost-jobs/story-e6freqmx-1226075977983

    00

  • #
    A C

    Speaking of “Mark the moment” I am wondering how many days it will take the “science” journalists to discover the American Astronomical Society’s latest press release re global cooling. My guess is that they are ignoring it since it doesnt fit into the “catastrophic global warming – scare the pants off them” paradigm; without realising that there is a perfectly good “catastrophic global cooling – scare the pants off them” paradigm waiting to be uncovered.
    I am always surprised that the global warming catastrophists dont latch on to every sign of cooling as a sign of good news. They really are a bunch of escatalogical doom mongers.

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whakaaro

    FijiDave: #1

    What’s the go with this, Jo?

    This reference takes you to a “blog” site called “The Conversation”. This appears to be a spin-off from Fairfax Media, in that most of the staff are from the Age and/or Sydney Morning Herald.

    The Editor in Chief (who is ex_Age) is one Andrew Jaspen, who is also the Asia-Pacific Director of Innovation Media International, a top-end PR and “Media Management” (i.e. propaganda) company.

    Megan Clement, who is the editor of The Conversation, is not very good at the propaganda thingy. Her biases are showing.

    Pretty impressive list of trough-feeders though. It will be interesting to monitor and track the related themes as they work through the list.

    00

  • #
    Lawrie

    Bulldust @12,
    Thanks for the heads up. This statement caught my eye

    “The EU’s ETS, in its first six years of operation, raised a little more than $2.5 billion. At a carbon price of $25 a tonne, the Australian tax would raise more than $11bn in its first year”.

    The EU has some 300 million people or 15 times ours and in six years raised a quarter of what Julia wants from us. Has Greg got his facts wrong? Or has he found a serious flaw in Garnauts calculations? Or is Gillard greedy for funds?

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whakaaro

    theRealUniverse: #13

    So pay TAX to stop the planet heating..Join the LOON BIN GIllard, Flannery etc. and the rest of your cronyist wakkos!

    It is imperative that we have a Carbon Pollution Tax immediately, before the earth starts to demonstrably cool. It is the only way that the Labour Party can possibly claim the credit for demonstrably stopping Global Warming.

    Seriously, anybody who has been following WUWT for the past few years will know what is going on vis a vis the sun, and that includes Flannery and the Flunnys. A lot of the bluster is about trying to grab as much money as possible before the scam starts to unravel.

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whakaaro

    A C: #17

    With global warming, we would all get to sweat more.

    With global cooling, a lot of people will die.

    Guess which alternative sells the most newspapers.

    People don’t mind being afraid of something, as long as it is not too scary, and it goes away when the light comes on.

    00

  • #

    Bob Malloy, thanks for your concern about clashes in timing. I asked an organiser of the tour and he replied:

    The final state of Origin NRL game is on Wednesday July 6
    So the only venue that will “Compete” against the game is the Newcastle gig.
    The July 7 & 8 events have no major conflict so all good.

    Rgds

    Andy

    00

  • #
    John Brookes

    Sean@2 – I accidentally gave you a thumbs down – sorry!

    If solar activity remains low for some time, it would provide a useful break from rising temperatures. Lets hope it is so.

    00

  • #
    janama

    John Brookes – the lst 10 years have already been a break from rising temperatures. Will you ever learn?

    00

  • #
    Tim

    theRealUniverse…

    How about: they know about the coming mini ice age and that’s the reason for the indecent haste in rushing through the fake taxes globally without popular consultation or scientific debate.

    The last Bilderberg conference apparently had cooling as a topic on their agenda.

    00

  • #
    PaddikJ

    My son took a summer geology course several years ago to satisfy a science requirement (and i kept the textbooks!). I asked him if the subject of climate change ever came up. He said it had, and that his prof just snorted and said “Those climate change people should be required to take a few geology courses & get a sense of the planet’s history.” He was similarly contemptuous of Dendrothermography.

    I don’t know of (or have read) a single professional geologist who has bought into the global warming scare.

    00

  • #
    Maurice J

    When all the WATERMELON WARMERS admit their LIE
    We will raise a MONUMENT into the SKY
    A MONUMENT of SOLID CARBON
    To commemorate their BOGUS BARGAIN.

    00

  • #

    Rereke,

    Yesterday there was a totally dishonest article by Karl Braganza of the BoM. They went to quite some trouble to stress that he and his employer weren’t profiting from the AGW viewpoint. As if!

    Anyway I had a go at his article in comments.

    00

  • #

    Sorry that should be at “The Conversation”. I’m heartily sick of these people.

    00

  • #

    John Brookes: And these “rising temperatures” are causing what problems exactly? Longer growing seasons? Warmer winters? Warmer overnight temperatures? That is if any of this is really happening. The less people know about real world instrumentation measurements the more they seem to have faith in them.
    If they aren’t happening it would be a good idea if we made it so but I don’t think we quite have that power yet and with the present state of knowledge any intervention is likely to have unintended consequences.
    The goddam polar bears can look after themselves. What has everyone got against seals anyway? I’d prefer to deal with polar bears with a .50cal Barrett.

    00

  • #

    Hi All,

    It is all well and good for sceptics and those who agree to Climate Change to hold their viewpoints –

    How many were formed under a mushroom environment?

    Unless sceptics read the other sides material and research – and vice versa – each will market their position and never the twain shall meet -

    This does not work for anybody – scientist present the data – all with vester interests – scientists, politicians and business’s alike –

    I want to read reasons why people hold their positions – not about the decisions based on having having read someone elses opinion – but the science put before me whereby it can be understood in both negative and positive terms –

    Logic – is all on the side of the sceptics – the research is devided – the Governments want a new tax to play around with – what the hell is a voter supposed to think … from the Moral challenge of the 21st Centry – to a flop-flop after Copenhagan – and then a Prime Ministeral overthrow – to a ‘No Carbon Tax’ running policy for an election – only for to a Carbon Tax to be hammered to the electorate on the back of a Greens agenda so the Government can stay in power in a minority Government –

    Nothing smells like a long and lingering bad smell – and this Carbon Tax has a bad smell …

    00

  • #
    Graeme Bird

    We would have to assume that we face a series of “little ice ages” and recoveries with each little ice age having a more than 50% chance of being colder than the last one.

    People might think that with such grim weather on the way the global warming racket is finished, since the evidence won’t be there to back the racketeers up. This is a serious misunderstanding. The evidence was never there to back them up. Yet they keep coming back at us like the living dead. The dead don’t die. And people who never come up with evidence aren’t subject to falsification.

    Now these lunatics want to expand on the murder of camels. Whereas being foreign and being flatulent were once mere social handicaps, these nutters want to murder the amazing camel, and her children, on grounds of these now unforgivable sins.

    The camel is such an amazing animal. Her milk in raw form, is thought by some, to have wonderful healing properties, She makes this milk out of scrub and weeds. She is the natural heir of our deserts. The only contender.

    The camel and her milk would be the best source of protein we could aspire to if war, or other disasters, made us scramble inland. She would be for us; transport, milk, animal company, and warmth in the cold desert nights.

    That these clowns want to get up in helicopters and gun down this astonishing work of nature, because of these climate lies, is beyond belief. We must re-look at this methane story. There is just no apriori case behind it. We cannot tolerate such mindless slaughter in our society. Based as it is largely on racial grounds.

    The camel does not belong here they would say. The camel is a foreigner. But all of us came from somewhere else. And the camel has been here longer than most of us. Longer than me for example.

    One of the most offensive features of these clowns is that they have no real affinity for nature. Despite their protestations to the contrary. Lets forget about the whale for awhile and stop hassling our good good friends the Japanese. Lets save the camel.

    We don’t even have good homesteading laws for small pieces of desert land. We don’t even have such laws that would allow us to go and claim some camels as our own. As our friends.

    00

  • #
    Graeme Bird

    “Logic – is all on the side of the sceptics – the research is devided”

    The research is divided. The evidence is not.

    00

  • #
    cohenite

    Jo@22; I had forgotten about origin 3; the LM show begins at 7pm and origin at 8PM; damn! The series is tied at one all and the 3rd game is the decider.

    I’m sure we can have score updates; the complex where the talks are at is a rugby league one.

    00

  • #
    John Brookes

    janama, 10 years is not long enough, you really need more like 30 to differentiate between random variations and underlying trends.

    You too Mike – time will tell.

    00

  • #
    manalive

    Sean (2):

    The next 10 to 15 years have to potential to allow climate science to get a much better handle on the predominance of anthroprogenic vs. natural drivers of the planets cycles. It will be very interesting times

    One would hope so given incredible sums spent on the task so far but it won’t be done with IPCC patronage :
    IPCC First Assessment Report 1990:
    We calculate with confidence that …CO2 has been responsible for over half the enhanced greenhouse effect.
    IPCC Second Assessment Report 1995:
    The balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate.

    IPCC Third Assessment Report 2001:
    There is new and stronger evidence [?] that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.
    IPCC Fourth Assessment Report 2007:
    Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.

    No progress there in 21 years, despite the enormous cost, for the simple reason that the IPCC is averse to attributing an important role to natural climate drivers.
    Their task was to identify climate change due to human activity and I think it’s fair to say they have gone as far as they’re ever likely to — time to call it quits and hand over to the open-minded scientists genuinely motivated by the quest of understanding the climate in all its complexity, there’s no urgency.

    00

  • #
    Ross

    OT but I’ve just heard an aviation writer interviewed on NZ radio about the dust clouds from the Chilean volcano and its affects on flights in Australia and NZ. During the interview he mentioned that the increase in volcanic activity in the last 12+ months is due to AGW. His reasoning was that the increased ice melt in the Artic and Antartica has caused stresses in the earths surface due to the alteration of the weight distribution and therefore more volcanic activity and earthquakes !!!!
    I did not know whether to laugh or cry –but there are obviously alot of people with “half a brain” who have been compltetely sucked in

    00

  • #
    memoryvault

    Ross @ 36

    In the same vein:

    Not long after I published my book in 1990 the then Opposition Spokesman on Climate (Liberal Party) was on the radio talking about we were all going to drown under several metres of sea-level rise due to global warming.

    I phoned his office to find out where all the extra water was going to come from since mere thermal expansion was not going to cut the mustard with his figures. I got put through to his lovely young research assistant, who, armed with her newly-minted Science degree explained the following:

    The “extra” water was going to come from increased evaporation. The young lass patiently explained to me that the increased temperatures would lead to increased evaporation which would mean increased rain which would mean a lot more water running off the land, down rivers and into the ocean, thereby “filling them up more”.

    True story.
    No kidding, this was “official” Liberal Party policy at the time.

    This is one of the reasons why I cringe when people start suggesting that the answer to all this “climate change” nonsense is an election and a change of government.

    00

  • #

    John Brookes: Do you know why 30 years of weather data is taken as the average for the climate at a particular place? It has nothing to do with getting enough time for a good average etc. It is because it has been known for a long time that taking longer than 30 years isn’t good because the climate changes over timescales of 30-40 years and a longer average won’t give you a good idea of what the climate likely is right now. IIRC that was about day 2 of the BoM met course in 1971. I actually rate the BoM training course for meteorologists very highly (back then anyway) about on par with engineering at UWA back then.

    00

  • #
    MattB

    GB: “animal company, and warmth”

    I can’t be the only one who had a juvenile snigger…

    00

  • #
    Graeme Bird

    Yes I think you were. You are trivialising a desperate survival situation.

    00

  • #
    Damian Allen

    Labor helps itself to $12 million of Australian Taxpayers money for a Save Gillard fund !!!!!!!!

    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/labor_helps_itself_to_12_million_for_a_save_gillard_fund/

    00

  • #
    J Knowles

    AC @ 17 asks when science journos will cotton-on to recent events.
    I notice the UK Daily Telegraph had a definite article to-day about the possibility of a new Maunder Minimum phase.

    Also, UK schools are looking at culling “climate science” from the curriculum in favour of the core subjects.
    Good news for a change.

    00

  • #
    RoyFOMR

    I’d love to see a cartoon by Josh or Fenbeagle with a Mad Max exhaust-spewing cavalcade hunting the Camel that Parped! Or should that be a Camelcade?

    00

  • #
    Dave

    Shoot Camels to reduce CO2 etc

    The ABC has forgotten to remove an article at http://www.abc.net.au/rural/news/content/200804/s2217227.htm about utilising the camel in weed control from 2008.

    But the link to Weed control using camels in Australia at http://www.austcamel.com.au/informn.htm which then links to the ABC site ( http://www.abc.net.au/rural/nt/stories/s41161.htm ) states it cannot be found!

    And now Eleanor Hall gets a full page on linking Camel farts to AGW??? http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2011/s3239781.htm

    Mark Dreyfus says it would become a lucrative business for anyone willing to muster the pests to a designated area or prove they humanely killed them on the spot.

    MattyB – laugh out loud – go and collect your money – but check the camel industry first at http://www.austcamel.com.au/informn.htm

    Clutching for Straws Alarmists!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    00

  • #
    John Brookes

    Mike Borgelt:

    Whatever – you still need more than 10 years to see a trend in temperatures. Of course, in your religion, there are no trends, its just cycles within cycles.

    00

  • #
    Harry The Hacker

    John @46 – much though it pains me to admit it – when it comes to time scales you are right. 10 years isn’t enough.

    In another 20 we’ll have a rough idea of what’s really been going on.

    My suspicion though, is that its all a big flash in the pan, and the planet will go on doing whatever it damn well wants, much like it has for millions of years.

    00

  • #
  • #
    TrueNews

    BIG BUCKS on OUR SIDE.

    Future Fund chairman David Murray, who controls $50 Billion in Government superannuation investments, is reported to have said on climate change.

    “[Carbon dioxide] has got nothing to do with pollution… carbon dioxide is not a pollutant…, it is colourless and odourless. It is not a pollutant… It is a tiny proportion of greenhouse gases. There is no correlation between warming and carbon dioxide,”

    The Australian Governments ‘Future Fund’ is intended to fully fund the future superannuation payments of public servants.

    .
    Must be a little embarassing, when the Governments own super fund thinks ‘Climate Change is Crap’, and refuses to invest in renewable energy companies.
    .
    It looks like a case of ‘I’m not putting your money where your ‘lying’ mouth is’ Julia.

    00

  • #
    Llew Jones

    Perhaps some are getting a bit carried away with longer term trends being necessary to identify the magnitude of anthropomorphic contributions to temperature changes. It seems almost axiomatic that the various interacting natural climate drivers should on balance eventually show a temperature trend in either direction for say periodic solar fluctuations.

    However when we come to consider increasing atmospheric concentrations of CO2 and that effect on temperature changes how can one separate that effect from the range of interacting natural drivers. The alarmist position rests on the uncertain and disputable claim that the natural drivers were not powerful enough to have produced the warming trend over the last century or so.

    All the science we really have is the basic relationship between increasing concentrations of CO2 and temperature changes. In Earth’s complex climate system with many natural powerful variables acting CO2 becomes just another one of those many variables.

    In that context, apart from the fact (we are emitting, annually, twice to three times the annual increase in atmospheric CO2 of 2ppm) that we don’t even know how much up there is ours, given there now seems to be no carbon isotope ratio human fingerprint to tell us, how long do the alarmist scientists need to produce compelling evidence for the claimed major role of CO2?

    00

  • #
    Llew Jones

    anthropogenic

    00

  • #
    Paul S

    Re possible cooling due to decreased sunspot activity; just heard the ABC report it (radio national), but adding the caveat that “scientists” (unnamed) say that if C02 has the warming effected it is predicted to have, it will be nine times stronger than any cooling effect. Always good to get your out-clause in early. I imagine any cooling that occurs will now be claimed to have been that much less due to good old C02.

    00

  • #
    Paul Whyte

    Here is a suggestion for all those scientists / organisations that state that the “science is settled”, “the results are in”, “there can be no question”, if that is your position we are only too happy to remove all funding and move it to areas that need further research.
    After all what is the point in investing in a settled science. In fact surely we have a duty to transfer all of the climate research funding to sustainability projects. Wouldn’t we get a better return from improving ethanol production, improved water management… rather than having the “experts” refine their sea level rise forecasts.
    This would also include the Climate Commission….

    00

  • #
    Paul S

    John Brookes@46; Yes, trends are important. The trend showing warming since the end of the last minimum at the beginning of the 19th century is a straight line. The trend began before any apparent increase in C02, and has continued independantly of C02 changes. There has been no acceleration of the trend. Of course, if you take an arbitrary trend period – say from 1960 to 1980 – as your baseline against which to measure anomolies, you can manufacture an acceleration in the trend. Statistical trend analyses are really only meaningful if you include all relevant time series data. The movement against the trend over the last ten years or so is statistically significant, especially as it is against the hypothesis that increasing C02 must drive temperature increase. That it also occured during a period of high solar activity points to the complexity of climate drivers and the pigheadedness of insisting that only one factor is relevant.

    00

  • #
    bananabender

    @John Brookes:
    June 16th, 2011 at 7:48 pm

    Whatever – you still need more than 10 years to see a trend in temperatures. Of course, in your religion, there are no trends, its just cycles within cycles.

    Climate is non-linear and chaotic. By definition there cannot be a genuine trend. Rapid warming can almost instantly change to rapid cooling and vice versa. The geological record shows that temperature changes of up to 10C per century have happened many times in the past.

    00

  • #
    Jenness Warin

    True News @ #49

    What has TELSTRA to say about that?

    00

  • #
    Speedy

    Paul S @ 52

    I nearly spluttered on my nightcap! I was listening out of the corner of my ear and thought you said Radio RATIONAL!

    When in fact you meant the ABC… Radio National… Silly me.

    Cheers,

    Speedy.

    00

  • #
    Graeme Bird

    “However when we come to consider increasing atmospheric concentrations of CO2 and that effect on temperature changes how can one separate that effect from the range of interacting natural drivers.”

    You would have to have a reason to believe that effect in the first place. You would have to have an anomaly that needed explaining with this effect.

    00

  • #
    Llew Jones

    There are physicists who reject the “Greenhouse” effect. It’s science we are talking about. Not revealed religion (we hope) so who knows?

    However if we accept the possibility of the alternative science which holds to the relationship between increasing CO2 concentrations and rising temperature we are forced to accept CO2 as one of the many variables in play. This science, without a positive feedback fiddle, tells us that CO2′s effect on temperature, given no sane nation will willingly de-industrialise, is a diminishing one. Which leads one to conclude that the alarmists don’t really understand the science they claim to embrace.

    00

  • #
    RoyFOMR

    Whether it’s weather or just Climate or, whether it’s weather or not, is but anthropogenic boundary-point pickin’.
    Moma earth cares not a jot!
    Has it happened before? Might it happen again?
    Dunno, haven’t live long ‘enuff to judge the former and, being mortal, won’t be around to find out the latter!
    But, and I suspect that I’m in rapidly growing majority here, one thing is certain.
    Man-given Taxes have zero impact on what Momawill do.

    00

  • #
    RoyFOMR

    Possible response from JB and friend-pack.
    Roy, I deplore your lack of a space-character between Moma and will in your final sentence.

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Graeme @ 41
    He is a juvenile and the proof is that he doesn’t have 30 days of food and water for his family in storage. He would snigger right up until he needed your camel.

    00

  • #
    Louis Hissink

    Makes me wonder what I have been on about all these years……..after all, I am also a geoscientist.

    00

  • #
    G.S. Williams

    I hope that I’m not too far off subject, but , regarding CO2, isn’t it actually incapable of increasing the Earth’s temperature more than a fraction of a degree?
    There is the logarithmic graph showing the first 20 ppmv holding back enough heat to increase the temperature by 6 deg C, but then, at 280 ppmv to 388 ppmv (the last official figure), the differential only holds back enough heat to give .7 deg C. In other words, each CO2 molecule affects the temperature less than the previous one.
    It has been calculated that approximately 937 ppmv is the point at which CO2 stops affecting the temperature, so I would contend that, if the CO2 in the atmosphere could be increased to about 1000 ppmv, although the temperature rise could be aproximately 1.5 to 1.8 deg C, the effect on plant life would be such that food production would possibly increase by, 75 percent; this could only be a good thing.

    00