JoNova

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


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



Death Threats? Respect the science? Start with some evidence.

The truth about “death threats”Exhibit A: Evidence of Death Threats against climate scientists

The death threats scare that was widely publicized in June 2011 turned out to be opportunistic hyperbole based on a five year old letter, one unverified remark at an event a year ago, and recycled old boorish emails. Yet the shameless propaganda machine continues to repeat the baseless claim without admitting that it was a transparent attempt to score sympathy points.

Why can they get away with it? Because media outlets like The Canberra Times won’t apologize for printing such vacuous unsubstantiated claims, and they won’t correct the record. And Catalyst (which soaked in the one-sided hyperbole with Science Under Seige last night) won’t do enough “investigation” to get the story straight.

The facts on the “death-threats”:

Evidence of Death Threat Hyperbole

  1. The only “death-threat letter” the ANU could name in June 2011 was five years old. (It was posted in 2006 or 2007.) Even that was not serious enough to officially report to the Australian Federal Police.  (Issuing a death threat is a criminal act punishable with a 10 year sentence in the ACT.)
  2. The other threat the ANU could “confirm” was a year old off-hand remark by an unknown person at a university function.
  3. Other reports of threats were vague, without details, and are not being investigated by the Australian Federal Police.
  4. When they had “quotes” they turned out to be just rude emails with lots of “f” words. Regrettable, unnecessary, but not death threats. (See: To a climate scientist, *swearing* equals a Death Threat (no wonder these guys can’t predict the weather.) The weak emails  include things like: Just do your science or you will end up collateral damage in the war, GET IT,”  and “If we see you continue, we will get extremely organised and precise against you,” reads another.
  5. The “worst” rude emails they could find were shamelessly recycled from a year before. That says a lot about how frequently these type of emails are sent.
  6. The security cards issued to climate scientists turned out to be a standard issue upgrade. Brice Bosnich reports that every member of the ANU Chemistry department got a new card.
  7. Most threats of violence come from those pushing the global warming campaign towards skeptics. They don’t do it anonymously in emails, they announce it in a press release.

The evidence confirms that those claiming “death-threats” are serial exaggerators, without evidence, seeking false sympathy to distract from their disintegrating scientific case.

“Respect the Science?”

After all this, Anna Maria Arabia — who heads up a scientific body FASTS (the Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies)  launched a “Respect the science” program. She strangely tried to set the tone by calling independent scientists insulting names, “deniers”, and repeating the vague, out-of-date and false claim that there were many death threats. Stooping to conspiracy theories without any evidence, she asserted that it was part of a “coordinated campaign”.

She too claimed to have received a death threat. Apparently one Dr Stan Lippman from Seattle (probably fed up with the name-callers who ask for “respect”) admitted he sent her an email saying “When the Grand Jury is done with you, I’ll enjoy watched them string you up.” It was a foolish and nasty message to send, but not a death threat. (Stan, don’t do it, you are not helping, and you ought to apologize.) There was no intent that he was personally going to harm her, and the AFP had again not received a referral at the time. To put this in perspective, politicians and media personalities apparently get these kind of bad form sprays all the time. It’s hardly “hysteria”.

What does “respect” mean anymore?

No, Anna-Marie Arabia, you should not have to put up with getting rude emails, but when you insult people in your professional role (some of the scientists you call “deniers” have Nobel Physics Prizes) you’re a part of the problem. “Respect” starts with good manners.

“Respecting the science” starts with evidence

You’ll earn our respect when you talk about evidence, stop issuing wildly hyped propagandist claims, and apologize for the denigrating name-calling. You’ll earn our respect when you speak out against videos that pretend to blow up skeptical children, or columnists who think skeptics should be tattooed, or gassed, or tried for war-crimes. If government funded scientists want respect they need to release their data and methods  voluntarily without FOI’s. They need to denounce scientists who “hide declines”, can’t explain their adjustments, who threaten editors* of scientific journals, who wage a war on science by breaking well known rules of logic and reason, misrepresent local warming at badly-sited thermometers as “global warming”, and loudly proclaim “it’s worse than we thought” when the planet is only warming a fraction as much as they predicted.

Skeptics want to talk about the evidence. Those who want keep on profiting by alarming the world, resort to insults, threats, and attempts at defamation instead.

—————————————–

The bottom line:

Death threats are never OK and must be investigated, and the proponents prosecuted.

Baseless hype must be exposed with the facts, answered and mocked relentlessly until the standards of public discourse, and journalistic “research” are lifted.

*See March 23 2003

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 5.5/10 (2 votes cast)
Death Threats? Respect the science? Start with some evidence., 5.5 out of 10 based on 2 ratings

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

161 comments to Death Threats? Respect the science? Start with some evidence.

  • #

    Death threats is not what is occurring in the Horn of Africa! People are dying there in the tens of thousands…
    IPCC was predicting a substantial increase in rainfall there, till the end of the century.
    International agencies started planning for famine elsewhere.

    Now people are dying. Hundreds of thousands may die in the next 4 months…

    Check out all about this: http://ecotretas.blogspot.com/2011/09/horngate.html

    Ecotretas


    Report this

    00

  • #

    See the hatchet job Catalyst also did on Monckton. They claimed that he suggested people should vote on whether global warming was a problem, but he actually said we should get to vote on the carbon tax, you know, because it is based on a lie. They also accussed him of inciting a “call to arms”, yet he really called for the scientists involved in climategate to be prosecuted.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    y0ink

    The hypocrisy in this article is insane!

    Regardless,

    Im not sure the term ‘denier’ was referring to ‘independent scientists’, i think that was directed at the crackpots like Monckton, what Monckton knows about science could be written on the head of a match in spray paint.

    You should really look at some of these points you have made, and ask yourself if you (and other proponents of the ‘CO2 is not to blame’ mantra) are not, if not more so, guilty of the same crimes. [1]

    To suggest that a scientist must police the messages from lobby groups in order to gain respect is insulting to them AND their profession.[2] I would like to think that scientists earn respect on the quality of their scientific contribution. For the record, I have heard a lot of commentators protesting that the use of the word ‘carbon’ in reference to CO2 is a deliberate ploy that invokes a misleading image of ‘black soot’ in the minds of the public. Now i have had a quick look at your skeptics handbook, from page 2;

    NOTE: “Carbon” “Carbon Dioxide”, and “CO2″ are all used interchangeably here for the sake of simplicity, as with public use (but not in scientific practice).

    Should i not respect you or your work until you start speaking out against all those commentators? [3]

    I would also add that creating links in an article that direct to other pages within your own site as references is pretentious intellectual-incest.

    [1] I told a skeptic he was rude, and boorish. What part of “you should apologize” don’t you understand?
    [2] Lobby groups? Say what?
    [3] That was 2008. Lately the people who point out that “C is not CO2″ are winning me over. Perhaps I was wrong then? So? Is that… er, your killer point? Got bad news for you…
    [4] Go find me better links. (I take it you complain “yoink” about this practice on sites like skepticalscience and realclimate all the time? LOL-o-anonymous-hypocrite).

    –JN


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MaryFJohnston

    The “Club” is hard at work here in Australia giving out Eureka prizes, funding PHds in Climate change Ethics and Climate Science Communication.

    It is seriously entrenched and I despair that the general pubic will ever have the full facts.

    They are the proverbial mushrooms; kept in the dark and fed on BS.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whakaaro

    Ecotretas: #1

    IPCC was predicting a substantial increase in rainfall there, till the end of the century.

    Yes, but what they predicted before is now totally forgotten – Ban Ki Moon is now pointing to the drought and saying it is caused by climate change as predicted.

    You would think his minders would have better memories than that, even if he is going senile.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    DougS

    Jo:

    “Respecting the science” starts with evidence

    This is such a truism, but I’m not holding my breath waiting for Anna-Marie Arabia to actually produce some.

    It was ever thus with the whole of the AGW alarmist cult!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whakaaro

    Jo,

    we will get extremely organised and precise against you

    This is an interesting phrase. If you substitute the word “serious” for “organised” you have a threat that was commonly used by the Russian mafia.

    Now, I don’t for a moment suggest that the Russian mafia are interested in making scientist offers they can’t refuse. But it does appear that somebody has been reading a few too many trash spy novels.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    handjive

    Was an avid watcher of Catalyst but gave up a couple of years ago when they dropped all pretence of open, questioning science and began the UN-IPCC/CSIRO ‘demonising of carbon dioxide for tax’ propaganda program.
    Not sure if they are on the ABC’s axed shows list, like the (sustainably focused) New Inventors.
    If not, they they deserve to be.
    More the worse for science.

    As for Anna Maria Arabia, she is a active organiser & ACT Executive in the Australian Fabian Socialist Society.
    Check the home page to find more members.
    Through the stained glass darkly has some examples of Fabian principles.

    Built to commemorate the founding of the Fabian Socialist Society, the Fabian Window is a beautiful, if sinister thing currently hanging in London.

    (O/T) Here is a Stunning New Timelapse: Tempest Milky Way

    This is a wonderful video, augmented with great music.
    It’s been a summer of storms across the US, and timelapse photographer Randy Halverson has taken advantage of it!

    And, with a possible nod to the CERN Cloud experiment and Milky Way Tempest timelapse:

    August 18, 2011: For the first time, a spacecraft far from Earth has turned and watched a solar storm engulf our planet.

    The movie, released today during a NASA press conference, has galvanized solar physicists, who say it could lead to important advances in space weather forecasting.

    “It shows a CME swelling into an enormous wall of plasma and then washing over the tiny blue speck of Earth where we live.”

    Years ago Catalyst would have enthusiastically covered the CERN Cloud experiment or the solar storm footage. Now:

    Question: What could a climate scientist bring to the debate among physicists over the interaction of cosmic rays with the Earth’s atmosphere?

    Answer: the coffee.

    Physicists have long maintained that the question of climate change was properly within the realm of physics rather than that of those glorified weathermen who call themselves “climatologists.”
    Last week we got confirmation of that. It came in the form of a study by physicists in Switzerland.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Joe Lalonde

    Jo,

    Just to question a scientist is a threat.
    I bring up many areas of science with facts and evidence.
    For this, I get ignored as there is no room for error.

    To protect theories to the exclusion of all else is job protection and NOT the integrity of science.
    This then generate more students to be paying to be “educated idiots” with NO options of looking at all sides of questioning science.
    Traditional teaching generating a like minded group passing on bad knowledge….hmmmm.
    Is that not what the “peer-reviewed” system created for the like minded, ops, consensus.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Blimey

    You’ll earn our respect when you talk about evidence

    You’ll earn respect when you stop cherry picking small pieces of data and instead look at the whole picture. I doubt that day will come.

    [I can see you can name a lot of examples.... JN]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    mobilly1

    Thanks Jo
    I will Copy and paste the article to Email
    If that is okay ?
    And send it to Everyone I can .

    [Please do :-) -- JN]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    lmwd

    Courtesy of Dr. Art Raiche (worked for CSIRO for 35 years, the last 15 with the rank of Chief Research Scientist).

    “Okay. “Respect the science”, “Respect the science”, “Respect the science”. That’s the mantra we hear again and again and again from the ABC, from the CSIRO, amongst many of the other Australian global warming cult members.

    But what we must demand of them is that they respect the science themselves because they love to use the name of science but they do not respect the methods of science. In real science, belief has got to stem from data, not distorting data to fit beliefs. Ethical scientists do not hide their data in methods from other scientists who might disagree with them, nor do they attempt to cover up the uncertainties in their data”.

    http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2011/09/the-fall-of-csiro


    Report this

    00

  • #
    mc

    Man-made Climate Change hypothesis…smashed, once and for all
    Posted on September 7, 2011 by Tom Harley
    No, not the Nature Journal of Science. It can’t be. Al Gore will be heartbroken and stop eating. Phil Jones will cry. Michael Mann will have to sack his solicitor. Trenberth will be screaming “resign”. The late Steven Schneider will even be turning over in his grave. And Gavin Schmidt will be smashing up his models…”Nature Journal of Science was ours.” Dessler will be devastated.
    And in Australia, Julia Gillard will be snookered. Bob Brown will be ashamed. Tim Flannery will still be waiting for the seas to rise from his home at sea level.

    After 20 years of academic supremacy and hundreds of billions of dollars of costs; the Anthropogenic Global Warming theory seems headed for the dust bin of history. Perhaps the admirable action of the Nature Journal of Science to place scientific integrity above partisan politics will be a valuable lesson for the scientific community in the future.

    complete article @ http://pindanpost.com/2011/09/07/man-made-climate-change-hypothesis-smashed-once-and-for-all/


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Wayne, s. Job

    It would seem that the real world is too scary for these these alarmist scientists. My take is a little different, those with a fabian take never tell the truth but tell the opposite. Today we praise big brother for the increase in the chocolate ration.

    War is peace, change everything they say to the opposite, re write it and the truth is revealed.

    New speak is post normal science and progressive government, meaning anti science and regressive government.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Numberwang

    Re: ecotretas, #1 and Rereke Whakaaro, #5:

    The drought in the Horn of Africa is a weather phenomenon, though a cyclic tendency to drought is a climate phenomenon. However, the human tragedy of famine is a sociopolitical problem caused by war, civil unrest, ineffective distribution systems and local political indifference. I was in Addis Ababa a few weeks ago when the African Union held a summit to discuss the famine, and only four heads of state bothered to show up. Nothing significant was decided.

    All the food aid from the rest of the world will not alter this, nor will any misguided action against “AGW” by the West.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    gnome

    Blimey @10-
    Small pieces of data (like Gore’s or Flannery’s or Garnaut’s or Banmoon’ s or whoever’s per capita emissions) don’t concern anyone. It is big picture lies like denying the medieval warm period, or trying to say the oceans are rising when they aren’t or the warming is happening but it only isn’t because of the chinese aerosol pollution but it really is and anyway it will never rain again and hurricanes and cyclones are because of global warming and it’s climate change or climate disruption not global warming, that make such a nonsense of the CAGW orthodoxy.

    The day you stop lying I will start listening. That day will almmost certainly never come.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    The hysteria about the death threats was used to divert attention from the very real threats made by warmists (gassing, tattooing, 10-10, etc.). Having been caught with their proverbial pants down, they sought to cling to the old and tired ‘everyone does it’ meme. As you noted, there never was any death threats from skeptics, nor will there be. Skeptics are not trying to protect a fairy tale. So there is nothing to fear. Warmists are trying to protect their religion, and like all Jihads, they are using violent means and words to accomplish their protection.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    J.H.

    The fact that catalyst didn’t show the content of the “death threats” and the fact that the police are not investigating any of them…. Shows that Catalyst and Scientists like Ove Hoegh-Guldberg are misrepresenting and exaggerating the content of the emails that were sent.

    People of such low integrity inevitably have it reflected adversely upon their careers. For as the real science gets past these gatekeepers, and begins to uncover knowledge and come up against other exciting questions…. People like this will be left behind, shunned and forgotten…. and they only have themselves to blame.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bernd Felsche

    No respect for science shown Prof. Jürgen Haase in Leipzig.

    From the NoTricksZone blog:

    The fundamental human right of scientific freedom gets trampled on in Germany. European Institute for Climate and Energy (EIKE) Vice President Michael Limburg was denied making a climate science-critical speech at the University of Leipzig.

    Under the supervision of Prof. Werner Kirstein, Limburg had written a dissertation that examined the quality of historical global temperature and sea level data in detail. His conclusions were damning. Using accepted rules for science and measurement, Limburg’s results showed that the datasets did not allow sea level and temperature change over the last 120-150 years to be determined anywhere near the alleged accuracies of millimetres or tenths of a degree Celsius respectively as claimed by the IPCC. The range of uncertainty, in both global mean temperature and sea level, is considerably greater than the total respective changes given by the IPCC. Every factor in attributing the possible causes of the changes was, at best, scientifically questionable.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    May we find a sane way to work together to restore integrity to science and political structures worldwide.

    We face the real possibility of a totalitarian one-world government, that uses deception to control people, instead of constitutional government where the people control the government.

    How can we undo forty years (1971-2011) of deception* in government science without further damage to society? That is our dilemma.

    *Deep Historical Roots of the Climategate Scandal (2011)
    http://dl.dropbox.com/u/10640850/20110722_Climategate_Roots.pdf

    Thanks to the kindness of Fate, long suppressed experimental observations are today melting forty years (1971-2011) of false science dogma (models) faster than Greenland ice melts under the bright glare of Al Gore’s TV camera!

    See the following stories and comments posted there:

    1. Global Warming Scam:

    http://judithcurry.com/2011/09/08/extreme-measures/

    http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-09-coal-natural-gas-global-climate.html

    http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-09-chief-urgent-action-climate.html

    2. Stable Sun Scam:

    http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-09-sun-spacecraft-characteristics-solar-flares.html

    http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-09-sunspot-bristling-flares-x18-m67.html

    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/09/08/solar_flares_sdo/

    3. Remote Synthesis Scam

    http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-09-cosmic-forging-gold.html

    4. Black Holes, Big Bang and Dark Energy

    http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-09-team-elusive-black-hole-radio.html

    With kind regards,
    Oliver K. Manuel
    Former NASA Principal
    Investigator for Apollo


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
  • #
    Bulldust

    Poor, poor Richard Glover… yes the same chap who wants to forcibly tattoo and drown you sceptics, or deniers as he would be wont to say… he just can’t understand why we are all being so frightfully mean to Joooooolya:

    http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/how-would-you-solve-a-problem-like-julias-20110908-1jyae.html

    When opinion polls keep reaching new record lows, is this like a climate scientist facing inconvenient data? It doesn’t fit Glover’s Fabian Utopian model of the Universe, so therefore the polls must be wrong.

    Wake up Richard! The fault is in your model, the poll data is shouting at you!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Madjak

    The timing of this makes this a purely political move on behalf of all the activists involved.

    The fact that they’re beating this dead horse yet again just while comrade gillard is going to ram this tax down our throats means to me that this is purely a political move with activist intentions.

    Heres a thought, if you want to be left alone to do your science, put your activist streak aside and do the science.

    Anyone involved in this latest push is being political to try and help this bs tax down our throats.

    I get it though, a few nasty emails and the government gets involved, but calling us holocaust deniers, threatening to blow up our kids, greenwashing our kids in school, calling for us to be gassed or put on trial for crimes against humanity, well thats not even worth reporting, is it!

    I say we up the ante and report the threats to police – maybe hate crime legislation? I think we all know why the activists don’t, but seriously the 10:10 video must be classed as a hate crime?

    If it isn’t reported to police, it really doesn’t count.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bob Malloy

    mc:
    September 9th, 2011 at 10:26 pm

    Man-made Climate Change hypothesis…smashed, once and for all
    Posted on September 7, 2011 by Tom Harley
    No, not the Nature Journal of Science. It can’t be. Al Gore will be heartbroken and stop eating. Phil Jones will cry. Michael Mann will have to sack his solicitor. Trenberth will be screaming “resign”. The late Steven Schneider will even be turning over in his grave. And Gavin Schmidt will be smashing up his models…”Nature Journal of Science was ours.” Dessler will be devastated.

    I hope your right mc. however writing on the same subject Anne Jolis of the Wall St Journal ends her article with this.

    Last month’s findings don’t herald the end of a debate, but the resumption of one. That is, if the politicians purporting to legislate based on science will allow it.

    And this is the problem, will any of the team or our politions take their heads out of the sand or some other dark place to open any meaningful debate or discussion. Freeing the west from a self imposed spin into oblivion.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Ross

    Ecotretas @1 , Rereke Whakaaro @5 , Numberwang @15

    These droughts in Africa were predicted back in 2008 and the scientist making them predicts suggests there more to come.

    http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=767&Itemid=1

    http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=785&Itemid=1


    Report this

    00

  • #
    amcoz

    yoink, WTF are you blathering about? A ‘lie’ is a lie, is a lie, however, which way the guv(wo)min and their dollar-coated snout trough-ed supporters may say otherwise.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bob Malloy

    Damn, didn’t proof read again. politicians not politions.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bruce of Newcastle

    Blimey at #10

    “You’ll earn respect when you stop cherry picking small pieces of data and instead look at the whole picture.”

    Mate, I tried to get you discuss the science in all its respects last time you dropped by. You refused. I’m happy to take up the discussion of any scientific points you may wish to raise. The public readers of Jo’s blog might be extremely interested to see exactly what evidence you have for your beliefs.

    The problem is the progressive-CAGW model for global warming does not fit the data – all of the data. The solar magnetic hypothesis with low CO2 climate sensitivity does fit the data. Indeed the big double dip la Nina is very consistent with that hypothesis, whereas a lead proponent of CAGW, Dr Hansen, predicted a monster el Nino for this northern summer. Not looking likely is it?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    mc

    Bob Malloy @ 25

    Last month’s findings don’t herald the end of a debate, but the resumption of one. That is, if the politicians purporting to legislate based on science will allow it.

    Totally agree.
    After reading the nature journal article I find that the claim that man made climate change is smashed once and for all is pure hyperbole. Should have read the article first. That’ll teach me!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    Here’s an interesting TED talk (some of them are brilliant) talking about conflict of interest in the field of science:

    http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_ariely_beware_conflicts_of_interest.html

    This chap succinctintly identifies the way scientists are often influenced by conflicts in their work or inclined to influence their data.

    Of course, then there’s advocates like the Australia Institute who know full well what they do and the price they charge for it. Advocacy =/= science.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bob Malloy

    Doing the rounds today I found this on Quadrant online, it’s loosely on topic, familiar to us all but worth the read.

    Neglected truths of climate change

    by Walter Starck

    September 9, 2011

    When contentious issues become long standing and widely discussed their public debate tends to become fixated on particular understandings of certain issues.

    Ancillary matters that should be of obvious importance often seem to be strangely ignored. The public debate over climate change is rife with such neglected considerations. Here is a selection of a few of the more obvious ones.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Ross

    Bulldust –totally agree with your comment about the TED talks. They are fantastic and I would encourage anyone to search the very wide range of topics to find ones of interest and watch the videos.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    [...] facts on the “death-threats”: More » read it all… Advertisement LD_AddCustomAttr("AdOpt", "1"); LD_AddCustomAttr("Origin", [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    KeithH

    Jo.

    On respecting the science, it seems to me the principal support relied on by the AGW lobby derives from the IPCC AR4 TS Fig.26 Graph in their Fourth Report. I feel this is the aspect we should be hammering in questioning the so-called “settled science”. It is incredible that such a money and time-devouring monster has been created out of such demonstrably flimsy “scientific” evidence which left out or discounted so many relevant factors, and is at best only wild conjecture!

    You dealt with it very well in your Jan.2010 article “How to Create a Crisis Graph” which is well worth a re-visit, particularly for newer posters. The comments alone are well worth a read, particularly those of Rereke Whakaaro and Richard Courtney. Follow some of the links as well.

    ICECAP has details of a new paper by a leading warmist Ben Santer et al., in which he states :-
    “Our results show that temperature records of at least 17 years in length are required for identifying human effects on global-mean tropospheric temperature.”

    The graph for the last 17 years showing CO2 levels and global temperature (not provided by Santer) is very interesting. Links will also take you to Dr.Pielke Snr’s site for an associated article.

    http://www.icecap.us/


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bob Malloy

    O/T but additional evidence against the results of climate models.

    The 76 trillion dollar computer game
    A paper published today in the Journal of Geophysical Research in essence reveals climate models are not capable of reproducing the observed climate of the past century, much less the future. According to the paper, “few models reproduce the strong observed warming trend from 1918 to 1940,” there are “large differences” in the forcings and feedbacks used in various models and that some of these are “unrealistic.” In other words, the key inputs and assumptions of the models are not known with reasonable certainty – ergo GIGO. The paper also finds that predicting the range of “future climate change by weighting these models based on their 20th century [performance] is not possible.” Translation: climate models are little more than very expensive computer fantasy games that cannot predict the future nor even replicate the past.

    My Bold.

    http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2011/09/76-trillion-dollar-computer-game.html


    Report this

    00

  • #

    I watched to the deplorable portion of Catalyst and I’m sorry to say that it is now on my “will not watch list” as the other things that they have done have been very good for science. This is the shame behind this whole mess there isn’t any clear outright debate as was reported by Dr Ian Chubb..There is only the Hockey Schtick arguement and the pal reviewed science behind it. How can these guys honestly call them selves scientists.

    It was great acting and the indignant tone of the music had me crying a tear for them getting all those death threats. What a joke!!!

    The people at ABC ought to have a good, deep look at themelves they are the ones stirring up this fight and using every dirty tactic in the book.. Time to get the gloves off and start fighting fire with fire.

    A completely despicable act by a government owned entity.

    Say YES to an election now !!


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
    Bush bunny

    I watched ‘catalyst’ too, and was really angry about what was a one sided argument. And ‘boo-hoo’ poor scientists who support a lie.
    In academic circles, one has to substantiate one’s research, and there is a lot of egotism attached. Academic credibility if proven false, can seriously effect one’s career.

    PS, mc @ 13 – I didn’t know Stephen was dead?


    Report this

    00

  • #

    There’s massive documentation of the death threats, obviously: http://theidiottracker.blogspot.com/2011/08/threats-against-climate-scientists.html

    The real question, for me, is why Jo is drawing further attention to the threats by stirring up the issue with such a weak non-defense. Her case:

    * Death threats? That was, like, five years ago. Or maybe a year ago. You’re not still holding a grudge about that, are you?

    * That threat was just “an off-hand remark.” [snip, lol, you think we will allow you to toss your baseless hate-mail Breivik slur???]

    * “[Y]ou will end up collateral damage in the war” can mean so many things.

    This pathetic showing by Jo makes me wonder if there’s some sort of false flag operation going on to discredit climate “skeptics” . . .

    REPLY: What a transparent bluff. You’ve got no evidence, eh? Anonymous allegations. No investigation by police. Comments by anonymous people that have been removed from WUWT? Real death threats need to be pursued. You can apologize for the slur (and incomprehensible reasoning) that an unsubstantiated alleged off-hand remark, means skeptics are similar too, or in any way support Brevik and his abhorrent murders. No more posts until you do. Kindy kids reason better than this. Any site called “idiottracker” is not interested in reasoned debate, or polite discussion. JN


    Report this

    00

  • #

    To bring a glimpse of reality back to world leaders and the citizens they have frightened,

    Look at the space weather perspective of Earth and other planets orbiting close to the Sun:

    http://spaceweather.com/images2011/09sep11/mercurydirected.gif?PHPSESSID=009jcjs21508iq5cqvbjonqde0http://spaceweath…bjonqde0

    The planets, represented by colored (dots), are outward from the Sun:

    -1- Mercury (gold)
    -2- Venus (green)
    -3- Earth (yellow)
    -4- and Mars (red)

    Moving through the constantly changing web of space weather!

    With kind regards,
    Oliver K. Manuel
    Former NASA Principal
    Investigator for Apollo


    Report this

    00

  • #
    janama

    @Bob Malloy – 32

    excellent link Bob and a great article

    http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2011/09/neglected-truths-of-climate-change

    should be compulsory reading for all staff of the ABC.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bob Malloy

    Bush bunny:
    September 10th, 2011 at 1:28 pm
    PS, mc @ 13 – I didn’t know Stephen was dead?

    Stephen suffered a heart attack while in the air.

    Stephen Schneider, a Stanford biology professor who for decades has been a central figure in the debate on global climate change, died of an apparent heart attack Monday (July 19) while flying from a scientific meeting in Stockholm, Sweden, to London. He was 65.

    http://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/show_story.php?id=17609


    Report this

    00

  • #
    wes george

    Good News is Unwelcome

    A seemingly incongruous characteristic of climate change alarmism and environmentalism generally, is that although their proponents profess to be deeply concerned about threats to the natural world they show no interest in any evidence that a threat may not be as bad as they fear. Strangely, such a possibility not only fails to arouse any hopeful interest, its mere suggestion provokes angry rejection. It is obvious their deepest commitment is not actually to nature but to the threat which affords them purpose, importance, funding, recognition and a delicious sense of righteousness.

    In the matter of climate change this aggressive defence of the threat is especially apparent. Any suggestion that the danger may be less than predicted or that some natural cause could be responsible for even a part of the claimed warming is like poking a hornet nest. When the evidence for such a valuable threat resides in less than 1°C of warming, every small fraction of it must be defended at any cost. A seemingly incongruous characteristic of climate change alarmism and environmentalism generally, is that although their proponents profess to be deeply concerned about threats to the natural world they show no interest in any evidence that a threat may not be as bad as they fear. Strangely, such a possibility not only fails to arouse any hopeful interest, its mere suggestion provokes angry rejection. It is obvious their deepest commitment is not actually to nature but to the threat which affords them purpose, importance, funding, recognition and a delicious sense of righteousness.

    In the matter of climate change this aggressive defence of the threat is especially apparent. Any suggestion that the danger may be less than predicted or that some natural cause could be responsible for even a part of the claimed warming is like poking a hornet nest. When the evidence for such a valuable threat resides in less than 1°C of warming, every small fraction of it must be defended at any cost.

    –Walter Stark, Quadrant

    The Greens are the angry irrational haters in denial of reality, not us.

    The Greens hate free speech. They hate private property. They hate open debate and inquiry and they hate you most of all for daring to question their moral authority to hate and demonise. How dare we defend our right to be heard!

    Exactly the same pathological concoction of hate combined with blinding hypocrisy is going on America:

    Earlier this morning 500 or so members of the AFL-CIO stormed a port in Washington, vandalized the facility, reportedly cut the brake lines of train cars, and held six guards hostage. Shockingly, no one was arrested. Earlier that week a judge issued a restraining order against this same group after they clashed with police while brandishing bats and issuing death threats. Nineteen people were arrested for misdemeanors.

    While all of this was going on, the group’s head, Richard Trumka, was invited as a guest of the President to tonight’s jobs address.

    Rebel Pundit reminds us of when Illinois’ Jan Schakowsky called tea party-supporting congressmen “radical hostage takers.” I wonder if the congresswoman would like to amend her statement now?
    If you thought that all of this would score major news coverage, you’d be wrong. Only a handful of outlets have written about it. As of this writing, I’ve not seen any television coverage and I have not seen a single mention of it on a Soros-funded blog.

    Trumka sat with the First Lady — along with GE President Jeff Immelt (while the President gave an address that ironically touched on crony capitalism and big business) as though nothing had happened. I speculated initially as to whether or not the President would continue to force such displays in our faces; the answer is yes, because they want us to grow accustomed to this behavior. They want us to think normal of it when Americans are targeted by, as Hoffa so aptly put it, “Obama’s army.” News barely batted an eye at the violence perpetrated by unions upon Wisconsinites; the majors ignored it when a non-union business owner was shot, his property vandalized for his business being non-union…

    http://bigjournalism.com/dloesch/2011/09/08/the-gladney-ization-of-america-trumka-sits-with-first-lady-after-afl-cio-took-hostages/

    What we are witnessing is not just the implosion of two failed governments (Gillard’s and Obama’s) but also the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of an entire culture of entitlement and false authority that encompasses much of the Western world.

    There are hundreds of signs of the times–The burning of London and car-bbq Paris, the coming collapse of the EU welfare state (Greece is about to default again), Lee Rhiannon’s modern day pogrom against Jews in Australia, Bob Brown’s call for one world government, the ABC’s incessant violation of their charter, the corrupt link between unions and Gillard’s gov., the corruption of our institutions of research and higher education, the fact that 1 in 4 Australians depends on the other 3 to fund their existence etc, etc…it’s all part of an unsustainably degenerate culture totally disconnected from reality that will increasing require brute force and oppression to prop it up.

    So it’s only natural that this corrupt culture wishes to smear its detractors as criminal outcasts in order to justify its pathological fantasies of tattooing and gassing us while blowing up our children.

    Andrew Bolt said the other day that some times he doesn’t fear as much what the Left will do while in power as much as he fears what they will do to STAY in power. Too right. Every extra day we are ruled by the Greens and Gillard government is another threat to our civil liberties.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Rob Moore

    Know thy enemy and-
    Cop this folks! Global Corporations, Investors and Governments to Generate Green Business During COP 17

    July 20th, 2011 – London, Washington, Brussels, Johannesburg – On December 3rd and 4th, a global coalition of leading businesses, financiers and governments representing in excess of 8,000 companies, 1,300 sub-national governments, and $71tr in assets under management, will assemble in Durban, South Africa, to pioneer, develop and finance profitable green business opportunities during the annual UNFCCC COP 17.

    “Business and finance are key in delivering tangible results in Durban.” UNFCCC Executive Secretary Christiana Figueres said, “I am happy that the World Climate Summit is bringing the private sector in parallel to the COP to implement solutions for climate change mitigation and adaptation at scale. This will showcase the possibilities of working together with the public sector locally, nationally and globally.”

    The second annual World Climate Summit (WCS) will provide a platform for business-focused climate change solutions. WCS will ensure boardroom support for projects necessary to drive the green economy forward, while also mitigate climate change and promote climate adaptation. The two-day summit supports an active community of global leaders and dealmakers as they develop new business models, broker public-private partnerships, scale projects, transfer technologies, and establish replicable financing mechanisms.

    Backed by CNN International and TIME magazine, the climate arena’s leading businesses and institutional partners, as well as the most relevant decision-makers and leaders, the World Climate Summit enjoys support from Siemens, PwC, Nedbank, Alstom, Philips Lighting, HP, Brasil Foods, the European Investment Bank, Zero Emissions Platform, Avon, and expects more companies to join soon.

    UN partners include: the UN Global Compact, UNEP FI, UN PRI, and the UN Foundation. Institutional partners: the International Finance Corporation, The Prince of Wales’s Corporate Leaders Group on Climate Change, Regions for Climate Action (R20), ICLEI-Local Governments for Sustainability, the Global Green Growth Forum, the Carbon War Room, and the Carbon Disclosure Project. Supporting Partners include: the European Climate Foundation, IGCC, IIGCC, INCR/Ceres, International Union of Railways and the Business Council on Sustainable Energy, with additional leading climate bodies set to come on board in the near future.

    WCS will launch new global initiatives and funds with the help from high-level speakers, including: former Governor of California and Founding Chair of R20, Arnold Schwarzenegger (TBC); the CEO of Virgin Group, Sir Richard Branson (TBC); and the President of South Africa, Jacob Zuma (TBC).

    The Summit’s core goal, green business generation, will be achieved through a variety of strategic matchmaking sessions (ranging from one on one meetings to exclusive roundtables), key note plenaries addressing the major global green business issues, interactive and structured workshops, and orchestrated networking and exhibiting. The program will address the broad issues of: finance and scale; public-private partnerships; tech transfer; renewable energy; legislation and policy; cities and regions; transportation; carbon pricing; climate adaptation; NAMAs; energy efficiency; and business leadership globally, Africa and South Africa.

    In addition, WCS will host the Carbon War Room’s Second Annual Gigaton Awards. Dubbed the ‘Oscars of the low-carbon industry’ the Gigaton Awards bring prestige and recognition to companies whose leadership in emissions reduction and sustainable practices generate positive change and profits. A number of leading energy and climate media titles, such as the Clean Energy Pipeline, Green Futures and Revolve are also supporting the Summit.

    QUOTES

    “As world leaders seek to come closer to a global agreement on climate change, the private sector and the world’s capital markets cannot afford to sit and wait for its outcome. The World Climate Summit is about discussing sensible private sector solutions: win-win approaches which are deployable and make perfect commercial sense regardless of developments in the policy arena. UNEP Finance Initiative, the UN Global Compact and the Principles for Responsible Investment bring the combined expertise of the United Nations and its member institutions from the private sector to this relevant debate.”

    Paul Clements-Hunt, Head of Unit, UNEP FI

    “Alstom has engaged in extensive dialog and consultation with governments and industry leaders, focussing on how business can work together with governments to bring forward the investment and technology development required to meet the climate change challenge within the COP process.”

    Philippe Joubert, Vice CEO, Alstom

    “Closer engagement between the private sector and political officials is vital to understanding the needs of each and delivering the investment in clean energy needed for a sustainable climate. The World Climate Summit attracts an impressive array of corporate leaders to this critical dialogue.”

    Reid Detchon, Vice President for Energy and Climate, United Nations Foundation

    “BRF believes the 2nd World Climate Summit to be one of the most important forums for mobilizing world leaders in the search for solutions and the adoption of positions on the theme.”

    Wilson Mello, Vice President of Corporate Affairs, BRF BrasilFoods

    For more information about the World Climate Summit, including potential sponsorship and partnership opportunities, please visit http://www.wclimate.com or contact:

    LONDON – Michael Mathres – michael@wclimate.com.

    BRUSSELS +32 475 96 47 72 Patrick van Leeuwen patrick@wclimate.com

    WASHINGTON +1 202 492 9520 Aimee Christensen aimee@wclimate.com

    Cop this folks!
    Global Corporations, Investors and Governments to Generate Green Business During COP 17

    July 20th, 2011 – London, Washington, Brussels, Johannesburg – On December 3rd and 4th, a global coalition of leading businesses, financiers and governments representing in excess of 8,000 companies, 1,300 sub-national governments, and $71tr in assets under management, will assemble in Durban, South Africa, to pioneer, develop and finance profitable green business opportunities during the annual UNFCCC COP 17.

    “Business and finance are key in delivering tangible results in Durban.” UNFCCC Executive Secretary Christiana Figueres said, “I am happy that the World Climate Summit is bringing the private sector in parallel to the COP to implement solutions for climate change mitigation and adaptation at scale. This will showcase the possibilities of working together with the public sector locally, nationally and globally.”

    The second annual World Climate Summit (WCS) will provide a platform for business-focused climate change solutions. WCS will ensure boardroom support for projects necessary to drive the green economy forward, while also mitigate climate change and promote climate adaptation. The two-day summit supports an active community of global leaders and dealmakers as they develop new business models, broker public-private partnerships, scale projects, transfer technologies, and establish replicable financing mechanisms.

    Backed by CNN International and TIME magazine, the climate arena’s leading businesses and institutional partners, as well as the most relevant decision-makers and leaders, the World Climate Summit enjoys support from Siemens, PwC, Nedbank, Alstom, Philips Lighting, HP, Brasil Foods, the European Investment Bank, Zero Emissions Platform, Avon, and expects more companies to join soon.

    UN partners include: the UN Global Compact, UNEP FI, UN PRI, and the UN Foundation. Institutional partners: the International Finance Corporation, The Prince of Wales’s Corporate Leaders Group on Climate Change, Regions for Climate Action (R20), ICLEI-Local Governments for Sustainability, the Global Green Growth Forum, the Carbon War Room, and the Carbon Disclosure Project. Supporting Partners include: the European Climate Foundation, IGCC, IIGCC, INCR/Ceres, International Union of Railways and the Business Council on Sustainable Energy, with additional leading climate bodies set to come on board in the near future.

    WCS will launch new global initiatives and funds with the help from high-level speakers, including: former Governor of California and Founding Chair of R20, Arnold Schwarzenegger (TBC); the CEO of Virgin Group, Sir Richard Branson (TBC); and the President of South Africa, Jacob Zuma (TBC).

    The Summit’s core goal, green business generation, will be achieved through a variety of strategic matchmaking sessions (ranging from one on one meetings to exclusive roundtables), key note plenaries addressing the major global green business issues, interactive and structured workshops, and orchestrated networking and exhibiting. The program will address the broad issues of: finance and scale; public-private partnerships; tech transfer; renewable energy; legislation and policy; cities and regions; transportation; carbon pricing; climate adaptation; NAMAs; energy efficiency; and business leadership globally, Africa and South Africa.

    In addition, WCS will host the Carbon War Room’s Second Annual Gigaton Awards. Dubbed the ‘Oscars of the low-carbon industry’ the Gigaton Awards bring prestige and recognition to companies whose leadership in emissions reduction and sustainable practices generate positive change and profits. A number of leading energy and climate media titles, such as the Clean Energy Pipeline, Green Futures and Revolve are also supporting the Summit.

    QUOTES

    “As world leaders seek to come closer to a global agreement on climate change, the private sector and the world’s capital markets cannot afford to sit and wait for its outcome. The World Climate Summit is about discussing sensible private sector solutions: win-win approaches which are deployable and make perfect commercial sense regardless of developments in the policy arena. UNEP Finance Initiative, the UN Global Compact and the Principles for Responsible Investment bring the combined expertise of the United Nations and its member institutions from the private sector to this relevant debate.”
    Paul Clements-Hunt, Head of Unit, UNEP FI

    “Alstom has engaged in extensive dialog and consultation with governments and industry leaders, focussing on how business can work together with governments to bring forward the investment and technology development required to meet the climate change challenge within the COP process.”
    Philippe Joubert, Vice CEO, Alstom

    “Closer engagement between the private sector and political officials is vital to understanding the needs of each and delivering the investment in clean energy needed for a sustainable climate. The World Climate Summit attracts an impressive array of corporate leaders to this critical dialogue.”
    Reid Detchon, Vice President for Energy and Climate, United Nations Foundation

    “BRF believes the 2nd World Climate Summit to be one of the most important forums for mobilizing world leaders in the search for solutions and the adoption of positions on the theme.”
    Wilson Mello, Vice President of Corporate Affairs, BRF BrasilFoods

    For more information about the World Climate Summit, including potential sponsorship and partnership opportunities, please visit http://www.wclimate.com or contact:

    LONDON – Michael Mathres – michael@wclimate.com.
    BRUSSELS +32 475 96 47 72 Patrick van Leeuwen patrick@wclimate.com
    WASHINGTON +1 202 492 9520 Aimee Christensen aimee@wclimate.com
    Cancel


    Report this

    00

  • #
    John Brookes

    You deniers better watch yourselves. I know where your kids go to school.
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .

    As always, its not a threat is it, and you guys wouldn’t mind getting this sort of crap just for doing your job, would you?

    Also, extremely tacky, whether from the “skeptics” or the AGW crowd, is the threat of legal action – either against the denialati or the scientists.

    I think Jo tells the odd porky, like when she pretends that CO2 lagging temperature is some sort of big deal, when she knows that it isn’t. But I don’t want Jo threatened with legal action over this.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Rob Moore

    sorry about the double up-mods can you edit for m please?


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Yes, it really brings out one’s smug, world-weary knowingness when Jo pretends that CO2 lagging temperature is some sort of big deal. But one is so cool and down with everything that one can cope with her odd porky. No need for legal action.

    What, you didn’t know the lag is no big deal? Where have you people been?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Madjak

    Jb and whoever,

    Re: CO2 lagging temperature

    What a p-ss poor attempt at deflection. What on earth has that got to do with alleged death threats?

    It’s quite simple really, if someone, anyone breaks the law by giving someone a death threat, it should be reported to the police -not a self serving government. They’ll just bury it in a fairwork australia investigation until the statute of limitations kicks in.

    Don’t p-ss down my back and tell me it’s raining.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    memoryvault

    mosomo @ 48

    Your problem, Mo, is that you don’t understand the relevant science as well as JB. You are attempting to explain things using mere “standard” science, while JB, like climate scientists, is privy to the arcane mysteries of “secret” science.

    In this case, “standard” science dictates that if something (eg rise in CO2) comes AFTER something else (eg rise in temp), then the something cannot be the CAUSE of the something else.

    However, in “secret” science, especially as related to the “secret” properties of CO2, this is not the case. In “secret” science there is no incongruity in a subsequent rise in CO2 “causing” a previous rise in temperature.

    This is known as the “radiative timing” effect of CO2. It is a mathematical derivative of “radiative forcing”, where one molecule of CO2 can heat a continent 10degC under the correct fudge factor energy conditions.

    In layman’s terms, when radiative forcing is subjected to sufficient fudge factor energy, CO2 molecules become independent pretty of much anything known to “standard” science, and can show up just about anywhere, or even anywhen, and be responsible for virtually anywhich.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    wes george

    I have been asked to talk about what I consider the most important challenge facing mankind, and I have a fundamental answer. The greatest challenge facing mankind is the challenge of distinguishing reality from fantasy, truth from propaganda. Perceiving the truth has always been a challenge to mankind, but in the information age (or as I think of it, the disinformation age) it takes on a special urgency and importance.

    –intro to speech by Dr. Michael Crichton to the Commonwealth Club, San Francisco, 2003.

    http://www.forces.org/articles/files/crichton.htm

    * * *

    Dr. Crichton prescient lecture is the closest thing to a historic manifesto for Climate Scepticism.

    A must read for anyone involved in the climate debate.

    I offer this reading to Johnny, who is the very definition of delusional Green fanaticism, (I don’t offer that assessment of Johnnie’s mental state as an aspersion, but as a pro bono diagnosis) so that he may understand better that the only way forward for humankind is to reform our institutions so that they are guided as much as possible by rational inquiry into the nature of reality whatever the resulting empirical observations might reveal.

    Please, Johnny, read the whole thing and may God help us avoid a repetition of the fanatically delusional-driven catastrophes of the 20th century in this new century. We would be well warned that foul weather didn’t starve or murder ~300 million people last century, human ideological fantasies did that unassisted by AGW.

    As a student in the 1980′s I believed that all the insanity of the first half of the 20th century could never repeat itself in my life time, that history was cleansed of the kind of fanatical delusions that led to the murder and enslavement of whole generations. Yet, today the same kind of mad men and women rise to political power, zombie-like, to walk and talk freely, if mindlessly, among us as if the lessons of modern history had never been learned…

    The truth is, Johnny, I am far more afraid of human delusion, madness and malice than of drought or flood.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    lmwd

    Thanks Bulldust @ 31

    Really enjoyed that. Contemplating where I can slip that in to one of my courses to educate our managers/leaders.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    catamon

    I watched that episode of Catalyst.

    Was certainly interesting seeing Monkton if full rouse em up flight. His comments as shown:

    “To the bogus scientists who have used the bogus science that invented this bogus scare, I say, we are coming after you, we are going to prosecute you, and we are going to lock you up.”

    So, he seems to be taking a very strong position that scientists who’s research has shown that AGW is in fact happening, and that it is a problem are “bogus” and deserve locking up.

    I’ll await the first prosecutions he is going to pursue with interest. Wonder if he will show the strength of his convictions and go for it, or is he just talking out his arse trying get a rise out of the crowd?? Would be a good way to test the whole AGW thing in a public arena?

    Hmmm.. Lets see Monkton / Jones vs CSIRO. Would be fascinating.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    lmwd

    janama @ 42

    I just read Starck’s piece in Quadrant. This article now sits alongside my other favourite article published in Quadrant by Lindzen.

    http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2009/07/resisting-climate-hysteria

    “The notion of a static, unchanging climate is foreign to the history of the earth or any other planet with a fluid envelope. The fact that the developed world went into hysterics over changes in global mean temperature anomaly of a few tenths of a degree will astound future generations. Such hysteria simply represents the scientific illiteracy of much of the public, the susceptibility of the public to the substitution of repetition for truth, and the exploitation of these weaknesses by politicians, environmental promoters, and, after 20 years of media drum beating, many others as well. Climate is always changing.”


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Wayne, s. Job

    When people pontificate from a rarified atmospheric position and seem to have no experience of the real world. Then scream mayhem and death threats when people disagree with their pontifications, are acting as a protected species.

    Scientists who have been following proper scientific process have been pilloried by these pontificators yet they scream blue murder when some one dares question their science.

    I am beginning to think that are of a different species , that NASA has been warning us about, their thought processes are surely alien. They tend to not have original thoughts but are abuzz with a hive mentality, thus spout the same mantra.

    If these people could just step outside the square that encompasses their thoughts they would see a different world.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Blimey

    Joanne Nova edits my post and says:

    [I can see you can name a lot of examples.... JN]

    You could start with the temperature record and how the past 30 years show the planet is warming whilst known causes of climate change cannot explain this without factoring in the known radiative force of increasing greenhouse gases.

    Then you can move on to other sources of evidence … https://itsnotnova.wordpress.com/2011/07/14/wheres-that-warming/

    Or perhaps a quote form your handbook, then compared against reality.

    Your handbook says: “Satellites circling the planet twice a day show that the world has not warmed since 2001.”

    Whoops!! BIG MISTAKE. The temperature as recorded by satellites (captured by the skeptic, Roy Spencer, who you recently defended)

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

    You can also get the same data from Roy’s site http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_current.gif and although he doesn’t cherry pick 2001 as a start date like you do, he does add some strange curve instead of a linear trend as shown in this graph … http://woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/trend/plot/uah

    The scientific world is full of evidence you don’t want to pay attention to but I’m sure you’re not in denial of the evidence – or are you?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bulldust

    O/T I know… but I am seeing commercials on TV now for Joooolya to be a guest on Junior Masterchef (a show I wouldn’t be watching, but the ads were during other shows I do). Who the heck is advising her that this is appropriate? What’s next? A guest appearance on Packed to the Rafters or Home and Away?

    Rather than wasting half a day (or whatever) on attending populist crapola like that, how about she concentrate on doing her job?

    I am really starting to wonder if she can put a foot right on anything… anything at all…


    Report this

    00

  • #
    John Brookes

    the challenge of distinguishing reality from fantasy, truth from propaganda

    from Michael Crichton – a well known writer of – fiction.

    memoryvault:

    In this case, “standard” science dictates that if something (eg rise in CO2) comes AFTER something else (eg rise in temp), then the something cannot be the CAUSE of the something else.

    Just because you don’t understand something doesn’t mean its not true. But why don’t you try a bit harder?


    Report this

    00

  • #

    known causes of climate change cannot explain this without factoring in the known radiative force of increasing greenhouse gases.

    Two conclusions possible.

    1) Known radiative force of increasing greenhouse gases is the cause of this climate change.

    2) Since known causes of climate change cannot explain it, the causes are unknown.

    Since Big Lever causes and solutions absolutely stink of self-loathing and collectivism, skeptics will naturally trend to conclusion number two. We may be wrong, but that stink is hard to mistake.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Dave

    Blimmey

    Is this your source of evidence – the author of this site has pro-AGW published papers to his name!

    Then you can move on to other sources of evidence … https://itsnotnova.wordpress.com/2011/07/14/wheres-that-warming/

    This site (see below statements)is a source of EVIDENCE????? You’re joking surely?

    I do not get paid by the government nor do I work for any green-related industry.
    It’s time to take a stand against crap “web-blogger” science which appear in abundance on sites like http://joannenova.com.au.
    Having been the target of much abuse at Nova’s forum I will not be putting any of my personal details forward.

    It is JB’s favourite night time read!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    KeithH

    Catamon @ 53.

    (Legal action) “Would be a good way to test the whole AGW thing in a public arena?”

    I agree and believe it will come in some form, but be careful what you wish for.

    Some idea of the huge tangled legal minefield spawned by what I believe to be arguably the biggest scientific fraud in history, can be gained by a Google search on ‘Legal action against the US EPA’ which brings up 4,260,000 results.

    They are being sued from every direction for a variety of reasons by both sides of the debate including Greenpeace.

    One random example is this:

    2010 – Southeastern Legal Foundation, representing 15 members of Congress and 16 corporations and professional associations, files multiple legal actions against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) challenging the flawed and fraudulent science and legal procedures under the Clean Air Act used by the EPA as it enacts draconian rules and regulations governing greenhouse gas emissions – so-called “global warming” energy policy pursued by the Obama Administration.

    I can see the Legal Profession at least, being a boom Industry for many years into the future!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Tristan

    G’day Keith

    That link you mentioned earlier contained something unusual.

    If global temperatures were to resume warming despite a reduction in solar activity and/or a negative PDO then the alarmist position might be vindicated. The alarmist camp is predicting such a resumption of warming. The Hadley Centre suggested 2010 but others have more recently suggested 2015. If there is no resumption of warming by 2015 then AGW is dead as a theory. It would not count in favour of AGW if any resumed warming were accompanied by increased solar activity or a positive PDO because that would put the solar driver back in control.

    Very few people who adopt the anti-AGW position are willing to state what it’d take for them to reconsider their position, but that guy did, kudos to him.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    memoryvault

    John Brookes @ 58

    Just because you don’t understand something doesn’t mean its not true. But why don’t you try a bit harder?

    Oh but John I DO understand.

    Just as I understand the tooth fairy, and
    Santa Klaus, and
    wishing on falling stars, and
    wishes made when the birthday cake is cut, and
    a million other fantasy things.

    It’s my job to understand these childish things cos I’m a grandad.

    For different reasons I understand the fantasy wishes of different people – such as yourself – about why you wish the world to be a different place . . .

    But it isn’t.

    Unfortunately here in the “real” world the very ordinary laws of physics and chemistry – and even time – continue to apply.

    .

    By the way, have you noticed it’s getting colder?


    Report this

    00

  • #

    John Brookes:
    September 10th, 2011 at 5:19 pm
    You deniers better watch yourselves. I know where your kids go to school.

    It is called an implied threat and it is indeed a threat. It can get you a jail term and a restraining order if considered serious.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Blimey

    gnome says:

    … or trying to say the oceans are rising when they aren’t …

    http://www.climate4you.com/SeaTemperatures.htm#Global sea level

    Err … what planet are you living on? Or are you cherry picking the last couple of years? If so … http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/08/110824132957.htm


    Report this

    00

  • #
    memoryvault

    Tristan @ 62

    Very few people who adopt the anti-AGW position are willing to state what it’d take for them to reconsider their position, but that guy did, kudos to him.

    It doesn’t seem to matter where I pop into these threads I always find you trying to rewrite historical and demonstrable fact, Tristan.

    The truth is, anybody who doesn’t drink the CAGW Kool-Aid HAS to, by definition, accept the cyclical nature of climate. That is, it gets warmer, then it gets cooler, then it gets warmer, then it gets cooler etc etc ad infinitum. Otherwise we would have boiled away or turned into a frozen snow-ball long before now.

    Only the religious faithful true believers in CAGW believe we have somehow shot off on a tangent, and are now doomed to ever increasing global warming.

    To everyone else, 1975 to 2000 (roughly) represented just another one of natures 25 to 30 year warming cycles, and 2000 to 2025 – 30 will represent just another of natures cooling cycles.

    It therefore becomes very easy for me, and every non-CAGW cultist, to state exactly what it would take for us to reconsider us position:

    When the demonstrated and observed and recorded 25 to 30 year cycle of climate fluctuation is shown by observable measurements to have been broken, we might just consider considering changing our position.

    Until then people like you are just blowing fantasy smoke up our a#se.

    .

    By the way, have you noticed it’s getting colder? – Just about everywhere.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Blimey

    Bruce of Newcastle says:

    Mate, I tried to get you discuss the science in all its respects last time you dropped by. You refused.

    Rubbish. I have engaged on many occasions and I will continue to direct you to peer-reviewed science instead of web-blog science.

    The problem is the progressive-CAGW model for global warming does not fit the data – all of the data.

    Please explain why YOU expect the climate models to fit ALL OF THE DATA, when no climate scientists would expect such an incredible feat.

    Secondly, please present your own models that describe the observed warming without taking into account greenhouse gas forcings.

    Thirdly, don’t direct me to more blog-science crap.

    The solar magnetic hypothesis with low CO2 climate sensitivity does fit the data. Indeed the big double dip la Nina is very consistent with that hypothesis, whereas a lead proponent of CAGW, Dr Hansen, predicted a monster el Nino for this northern summer. Not looking likely is it?

    No one’s been able to acurately predict precis ENSO movements, why again would you expect Hansen to, and what’s the relevance to the AGW debate?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    theRealUniverse

    Im putting this in this space because it fits somewhere..
    Ban-ki MOONBAT was here in all his non glory. He is the WORST UN (World Gov) Sec generalisimo there ever was, maybe my memory is short. He is a climate change LIAR and FANATIC and supports world wars, world govt, and illegal bombing of sovereign countries into the stoneage AGAINST UN resolutions. He should be sacked immediately.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    KeithH

    Tristan @ 62.

    Hi Tristan. Yes, I find that attribute refreshing on either side of the debate. It was precisely the attitude of the proponents of the AGW hypothesis that the “science was settled” and there was an “overwhelming consensus” that prompted me and many others including a vast majority far more scientifically literate than I could ever hope to be, to have a closer look at such claims.

    I’ve just been reading Stephen’s latest updated article “The Unifying Theory of Earth’s Climate” which I’m sure you’ll find very interesting too. It’s Item 3 in the “must read” sidebar at

    http://climaterealist.com/

    Cheers


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Blimey

    memoryvault says:

    The truth is, anybody who doesn’t drink the CAGW Kool-Aid HAS to, by definition, accept the cyclical nature of climate. That is, it gets warmer, then it gets cooler, then it gets warmer, then it gets cooler etc etc ad infinitum. Otherwise we would have boiled away or turned into a frozen snow-ball long before now.

    Not even close.

    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f5/All_palaeotemps.png

    Just because a system has natural cycles doesn’t mean it is impervious to long term changes.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Blimey

    Dave says:

    This site (see below statements)is a source of EVIDENCE????? You’re joking surely?

    No Dave, the sources cited by the website contain the evidence. Do you find that difficult to understand?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    cohenite

    The senate submission by The Climate Sceptics refers to 32 recent papers which conclusively establish that the science of AGW is deeply flawed; see submission 74 here:

    http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/scrutinynewtaxes_ctte/carbontax/submissions.htm


    Report this

    00

  • #
    memoryvault

    Blimey @ 65

    Blimey do you actually READ, or more importantly, COMPREHEND the information in the links you provide? You presumably thought you were responding to this statement by gnome:

    … or trying to say the oceans are rising when they aren’t …

    And to “discredit” him you posted a link to a graph which CLEARLY SHOWS sea levels have been decreasing these last two years. Are you a masochist or something?

    http://www.climate4you.com/SeaTemperatures.htm#Global%20sea%20level

    Then to compound you apparent idiocy, you post a link to an article which OPENLY ADMITS to falling sea level rises, but then tries to blame the result on shifting El Ninos and La Ninas.

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/08/110824132957.htm

    But Blimey, weren’t you the SAME people who were telling us just over a year ago that CAGW effects totally OUTWEIGHED “natural” factors? Wasn’t it YOUR JIM HANSEN who assured everybody – including congressional hearings – that by the year 2000 the effects of CAGW would “overtake and drown” natural factors?

    And yet here you are – trying to offer up “proof” that you are “right”, by “proving” you have been totally wrong in the past.

    .

    By the way, have you noticed it’s getting colder?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    wes george

    LEE RHIANNON’S (POLITICAL) PAST – A DOUBLE DENIAL

    Lee Rhiannon (nee Brown) delivered her first speech, as a Greens senator for New South Wales, on Wednesday 24 August 2011. Soon after, on Sunday 28 August 2011, Senator Rhiannon was interviewed by Peter van Onselen, Paul Kelly and Michael Stutchbury for the Sky News Australian Agenda program. On both occasions, the Greens senator was in denial about her past as a left-wing extremist and supporter of repressive communist regimes. Senator Rhiannon is also in denial about the Stalinist past of her late parents who never renounced their support for the Red Army and the repressive regimes of Eastern Europe.

    In her first speech, Rhiannon claimed success in achieving electoral reform while in the New South Wales Legislative Council and referred to her role in “exposing the influence of corporate donations on politics”. On Australian Agenda she also called for transparency with respect to “electoral funding and lobbyists”. So Senator Rhiannon believes in transparency for others – but not, it seems, for herself. She was anything but frank about her political past during her first speech and was quite evasive during her Australian Agenda interview. Also, despite a promise to the contrary, she has declined to answer questions put to her by The Australian’s Christian Kerr.

    Let’s start with some facts. Lee Brown was born on 31 May 1951 to Wilton John Brown and Freda Yetta Brown (nee Lewis). Lee’s parents were commonly known as Bill Brown and Freda Brown. Lee Brown married Paddy O’Gorman – when the marriage dissolved in 1987 she changed her surname to Rhiannon. Lee Rhiannon joined the Socialist Party of Australia around 1971 and broke off her association with the SPA in 1990 – around the time she turned 39. In 1990 Lee Rhiannon joined the Greens. The SPA broke away from/was expelled by the Communist Party of Australia in 1971. The CPA, which was led by Laurie Aarons, became disillusioned with the communist rulers of the Soviet Union following Moscow’s invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968. The SPA group, which was led by Bill Brown, continued to support the communist rulers in Moscow until the Soviet Union collapsed around 1990.

    Mark Aarons (born 1951) is the son of Laurie Aarons. He traced the history of the Communist Party of Australia in his important book The Family File (Black Inc, 2010). Mark Aarons documents that the CPA received financial support from the Soviet Union and that, after the split in the CPA, Moscow provided money to the SPA.

    —Gerard Henderson, Media Watch Dog Blog

    Read the whole ugly story of Lee Rhiannon, an unrepentant Stalinist who supported the oppression of the Soviet Union until the day it collapse and only then discovered her love for the planet was so great she had to join the Greens.

    The sad fact is that Rhiannon represents the true face of the Greens as a multinational creed based upon the manipulation of environmental myths to advance the statist cause. Rhiannon’s communist past is part and parcel with the collectivist authoritarianism the Greens disguise as “ecological sustainability,” to be peddled like dope to addled inner-city addicts who couldn’t survive a month without coal-fired electricity, petrol-based transportation or plumbing, much less feed themselves.

    So the next time a Greenie tells you they love the planet so much that they are moral justified to hate and persecute the people who mine and farm and work and invest so that our great cities are the best in the world… Oh and how about those denialist threats? Gently remind them that the ideology that forms the unspeakably vile foundation of their righteousness murdered hundreds of millions of people last century and enslaved half the planet for several generations.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    memoryvault

    Blimey @ 70

    Sorry Blimey, but that graph you posted a link to must be incorrect – perhaps even falsified.

    It clearly shows – in fact LABELS a Little Ice Age (LIA).

    And as we all know, neither the LIA nor the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) ever happened. Here is a link to a rather famous (or infamous) graph “PROVING” this to be so.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hockey_stick_chart_ipcc_large.jpg

    Perhaps you would like to show readers where the LIA on your (obviously incorrect) linked graph shows up on the (obviously correct) Mann Hockey Schtick graph?

    Or are you calling Mike Mann a liar and a fraud?

    The problem with spewing endless bullshit is that eventually it catches up with you.

    .

    By the way – have you noticed it’s getting colder?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Blimey

    KeithH says:

    I’ve just been reading Stephen’s latest updated article “The Unifying Theory of Earth’s Climate” which I’m sure you’ll find very interesting too. It’s Item 3 in the “must read” sidebar at

    More blogger science and reading his document shows a lack of any statistical calculation whatsoever! I’m betting his ideas remain on blogger sites only as his “theory” of “it must be something else – no never could it be the well understood readiative properties of a greenhouse gas” concept lacks any fundamental calculation against observation data.

    Take his first web-blogger point …

    They ask us to believe many impossible things:

    a) That despite a historically very active sun there was no solar warming in the latter half of the 20th Century.

    No, they don’t ask you to simply “believe”. They know the magnitude of the change in solar output and they know that temps have continued to climb whilst solar activity cannot explain the change.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Blimey

    memoryvault says:

    Blimey do you actually READ, or more importantly, COMPREHEND the information in the links you provide?

    Yes I do, obviously you do not hence why you missed where I said “Or are you cherry picking the last couple of years?” and went off on this half-cocked rant …

    You presumably thought you were responding to this statement by … And to “discredit” him you posted a link to a graph which CLEARLY SHOWS sea levels have been decreasing these last two years. Are you a masochist or something?

    And then you go on to simply make crap up by saying …

    But Blimey, weren’t you the SAME people who were telling us just over a year ago that CAGW effects totally OUTWEIGHED “natural” factors?

    I’ve never said this and I’ve always recognised that short term fluctuation totally overwhelm long term trends. In my discussions on these forums I have time and time again asked you folk, including Nova, to stop cherry picking short term time periods and start looking at the larger dataset.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Blimey:
    September 10th, 2011 at 10:41 pm
    Secondly, please present your own models that describe the observed warming without taking into account greenhouse gas forcings.

    No, First, disprove the null hypothesis. If you fail to do that, then you are wasting your time.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Dave

    And Blimmey

    Just one question!
    What’s further the Back of Burke or The Black STump?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Blimey

    memoryvault says:

    And as we all know, neither the LIA nor the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) ever happened.

    Why not?

    Here is a link to a rather famous (or infamous) graph “PROVING” this to be so.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hockey_stick_chart_ipcc_large.jpg

    Er, no, if you understood how error bars work then it does not rule either of them out, it just shows the amount of uncertainty in the data the further you go back.

    Perhaps you would like to show readers where the LIA on your (obviously incorrect) linked graph shows up on the (obviously correct) Mann Hockey Schtick graph?
    Or are you calling Mike Mann a liar and a fraud?

    The first graph contains earlier Mann work, the graph you post contains later work with more data and better analysis.

    They give different results, as you’d expect.

    But the “Mann’s a fraud” thing has been done so many times and never stuck despite numerous independent investigations, but I guess you’re desperate to move attention away from your original claim that the climate is only a cycle even though the evidence suggests otherwise.

    The problem with spewing endless bullshit is that eventually it catches up with you.

    And yet this somehow doesn’t stop you from posting.

    By the way – have you noticed it’s getting colder?

    What short time period are you cherry picking for this observation?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    John Brookes

    memoryvault:

    Wasn’t it YOUR JIM HANSEN who assured everybody – including congressional hearings – that by the year 2000 the effects of CAGW would “overtake and drown” natural factors?

    Well, it looks like Hansen was right, doesn’t it? If we take, say, the 100 years from 1850 to 1950, and ask, based on the global temperatures for those years, “What is the probability that we would get a year as warm as 2000?”, the answer is, “bugger all”. That is to say, natural variations are drowned out by the persistent warming trend.

    But I forget, its the recovery from the little ice age, its the sun, its cosmic rays, its a 43.5 year cycle, its anything except CO2 caused by people.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Blimey

    PhilJourdan says:

    No, First, disprove the null hypothesis. If you fail to do that, then you are wasting your time.

    The models are more accurate when accounting for the known radiative force of GHGs.

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/IPCC_model_vs_obs.gif

    You wish to believe it’s not GHG and wish to replace it with something else, go ahead, but do please use science to back up your claim rather than just bullshit remarks.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Blimey:
    September 11th, 2011 at 12:00 am
    PhilJourdan says:

    No, First, disprove the null hypothesis. If you fail to do that, then you are wasting your time.
    The models are more accurate when accounting for the known radiative force of GHGs.

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/IPCC_model_vs_obs.gif

    You wish to believe it’s not GHG and wish to replace it with something else, go ahead, but do please use science to back up your claim rather than just bullshit remarks.

    No, again, you do not understand either science or climate science. And pointing to garbage site does not make your point for you. Again, the first step is to disprove the null hypothesis. You have yet to even start doing that. Your comment is nonsensical because of your ignorance.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Blimey

    @PhilJourdan, no the science is about reducing the uncertainty. We don’t know everything, that’s for sure, but we do know that increasing CO2 will warm the planet. How feedbacks respond is the uncertain part.

    What’s apparently not uncertain is that you will avoid debating the science, can’t put forward any replacement hypothesis and will instead simply claim superiority.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Blimey:
    September 11th, 2011 at 12:08 am
    @PhilJourdan, no the science is about reducing the uncertainty. We don’t know everything, that’s for sure, but we do know that increasing CO2 will warm the planet. How feedbacks respond is the uncertain part.

    Again, you cannot “reduce uncertainity” or anything else if you do not know what you are doing. Your first step is to disprove the null hypothesis. Until you understand science and the scientific principals, you will continue to make these gross errors and ask stupid questions.

    No one can debate when they do not even know what they are talking about – like your continued insistance on pulling non-sequiturs out of your nether regions.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Tristan

    memoryvault

    What will you think if 2013 is the warmest year on record and the sea level is above +60mm?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Blimey

    @PhilJourdan, using your definition of the null hypothesis would leave mankind knowing absolutely nothing. Good luck with that concept!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Damian Allen

    Oh Dear !

    It looks like the GETUP Traitors “Blimey” and “John Brookes” are getting paid overtime !!

    WOMBATS !

    (Another pointless comment is posted by Damian) CTS


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Thumbnail

    For JoNova’s readers in Queensland, please help save The Queensland Party – TQP do not support the Carbon Tax. The Queensland Party is offering free membership during the month of September. Click here to download the membership form, fill it in and fax it back to headquarters on 07 3831 8430, or email back to secretary@queenslandparty.org.au, or the email at the bottom of the form.
    Policies include abolishing the payroll tax for businesses below a threshold of $5 Million.
    More here: http://www.queenslandparty.org.au for posts on the fledgling party: 100% State Based Party who will always put Queenslanders first.


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #

    You can apologize for the slur (and incomprehensible reasoning) that an unsubstantiated alleged off-hand remark, means skeptics are similar too, or in any way support Brevik and his abhorrent murders. No more posts until you do.

    [Snip. Robert thinks we are scared? Of a baby-mudslinger...? I was so terrified of your last comment, Robert, I posted almost all the nonsense up. You need to apologize. Convince me you want to discuss topics politely rather than run a baseless smear campaign. --- JN].


    Report this

    00

  • #

    “What is the probability that we would get a year as warm as 2000?”

    Or 1934.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MaryFJohnston

    Hi Blimey @ 82

    I totally agree with your comment : “”The models are more accurate when accounting for the known radiative force of GHGs.”"

    This is because any model is going to give better results when more real time factors are included.

    There are many factors in Global Warming Science and each factor has its own range of error which leads to a need for the use of a Modeling Technique known as the black box.

    This involves isolating many smaller or less relevant effects to a black box, which is effectively a collection of effects whose sum will be an unknown but constant value during experimental measurements but which is always acknowledged as a controlled series of variables.

    The effects under investigation are then varied or data collected from nature is examined and useable results can be obtained for very complex systems with this method.

    There are limits to this technique however and Climate Scientists have developed a new technique to replace the black box. The primary problem with this is that the model and reality can give correlations which are extremely high and this is not useful in Climate Science so additional techniques are required in that field.

    Climate Scientists have made use of a small lidded cardboard box whose dimensions are approx 450mm by 350mm by 400 mm which has the colour of a standard manilla folder, a dull yellow/brown.

    During all Climate Science work all small effects, which would normally go to the black box, are placd in this receptacle which is cleared daily; the contents reduced by vacuum packing and posted to the IPCC head office at the UN Building in New York. Here they are carefully locked in a safe where neither real scientist or the public can get at them.

    The resulting Climate Modeling done for the CAGW proponents can then be used for the true purpose for which it was intended; to deceive the public and give politicians something else to whip us with.

    I hope this clears up some of the Scientific issues surrounding Climate Science, which is not really a science but a politically useful amalgam of law, politics and philosophy.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    What will you think if 2013 is the warmest year on record

    When you get me the numbers for, say, 1113 AD, I’ll have a harder look at it.

    But what will you think if 1934 is the warmest year, albeit over a laughably short period of record?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MaryFJohnston

    Hi Mosomo

    Where I live we had a very serious variation in weather yesterday.

    From early morning the temperature rose from 10 degrees C to 17 deg C.

    This is an appalling change of 7 degrees and I am starting to get worried.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Mary, where I live, according to BOM, eleven months have set record mean maxima within a single nine-year period. That’s right. Every month, except August, has set its record within that period. And the January record made for our hottest ever month!

    By the way, the period was from 1911 to 1919. August had its big max in 1946. Our hottest ever month was January 1914. So non-skeptics may want to use just the first paragraph of this comment.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bruce of Newcastle

    Blimey at #67

    I notice you did not cite any peer reviewed papers in your reply…

    “Secondly, please present your own models that describe the observed warming without taking into account greenhouse gas forcings.”

    I’ve never said that greenhouse gas forcing is not important and I agree that AGW exists. What I have always maintained is that it is not remotely dangerous. That is the conclusion you get to because, as the measured data says, climate sensitivity is low.

    To answer your question here is my model for the CET expressed as an anomaly referencing the baseline period of 1961-1990:

    Ta = A + B + C + D (+ E)

    where:

    A = f(pCO2) = 0.8656*LN(pCO2 in ppmV)-4.8776 [derived from a 2XCO2 of 0.6 C]
    B = f(oceancycles) = 0.135*SIN(((Year-1922)/(65/2))*PI()) [see link]
    C = f(pSCL in years) = -0.4778*pSCL+5.2679 [see link, link]
    D = CET average anomaly – baseline anomaly = -0.1492

    Optionally you can add a factor for the intra solar cycle temperature variation:

    E = (annual av sun spot number – solar cycle av sun spot number)/150

    The factor “E” is normalised so that it adds up to zero over each solar cycle, therefore it doesn’t affect the overall trend.

    This model matches the trend in CET anomaly to 4 decimal places. Nothing else does.

    I will say the trend fits more precisely with a 2XCO2 of 0.7 C, but I lost that file when my hard disk crashed last week. That changes the factors in “A” slightly.

    If you were wondering, I’ve been a modeller for 20 years both statistical and multielement iterative. This is an example of the former.

    “No one’s been able to acurately predict precis ENSO movements, why again would you expect Hansen to, and what’s the relevance to the AGW debate?”

    Dr Hansen did predict a strong el Nino, but in this case seems wrong. Others have predicted an extended la Nina successfully because they use the right independent variables. To answer you question, the relevance is equation “B”.

    Now, would you like to discuss this area, for example the two peer reviewed papers I’ve just linked to, or would you like to discuss another part of the science?


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Mary, further to your terrifying experience with temperature variation yesterday:

    For a single day within each month, at least in my part of NSW, the record maxima are more recent than the overall monthly maxima. Six of the records came within the last twenty years. So look out!

    For catastrophic drought fans, alas, it’s another story. All our record driest months were between 1896 and 1957. (I blame Sputnik for ’57.)

    In case you’re terrified that these figures indicate great floods to come…alas again! Our worst floods came in 1949-1950, and our worst cluster (three) was in the late 19th century. So Al, Cate and Tim can safely add some of our nice river-flats to their waterfront investment portfolios.

    I’m not complacent, however. If climate ever becomes even and stable, I’ll know something has gone wrong with the planet. But we may need a better remedy to the problem than those pioneered by Enron and Lehman Brothers.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    wes george

    Johnny’s and Blimey’s half-hearted bleating that passes as argument has been rationally deconstructed a hundred times on Jo’s blog over the years.

    But allow meself to ask J&B to explain away a few inconvenient facts…. Facts that any fair dinkum Aussie can grasp with only the slightest acquaintance with the debate.

    1. The Medieval Warming Period (MWP) was as warm or warmer than today. It was global. It occurred 1000 years before human-produced CO2…at CO2 levels 120 ppm lower than today. This puts the lie to the claim today’s temperatures are “unprecedented.” Worse, the MWP shows that the earth can and has warmed up quite nicely without any rise in CO2, thank you.

    http://pages.science-skeptical.de/MWP/MedievalWarmPeriod.html

    Why do warmists automatically rule out the obviously NATURAL cause of the MWP as a possible contributing factor in modern 20th century warming? Have Johno and Blimo ever heard of the principle of parsimony? (aka Occam’s Razor) If modern CO2 levels can’t even match the MWP then what evidence (besides prophecy) do we have for a coming climate apocalypse?

    2. Modern Warming began conveniently at the end of the Little Ice Age…duh…and has warmed the planet about 0.7c.

    Few skeptics declare that 100% of modern warming is entirely natural, some part of the natural warming out of the LIA is probably GHG related. How much of the recovery from the unusually cold climate of the LIA was natural and how much of it is human-induced is anyone’s guess. Not settled science.

    What about it Johnny and Blimey? Shall we split it down the middle? AGW warmed the planet 0.35c since the LIA? Fair enough? Or are you in denial that the LIA was a real and anomalous cold climate period that was constrained by natural forcings? Do you really demand that ALL warming since the LIA is human induced??? If so, then you reveal that you are totally irrational eco-nutters… and If not, where is the climate apocalypse in 0.2 or 0.4c of anthropogenic warming per century?

    What’s that? Oh, you say that warming will dramatically accelerate in coming decades? What evidence (besides prophecy) do you have for that claim? Apparently, the weather isn’t cooperating with the IPPC.

    3. The 21st Century is now more than a tenth of the way done with, yet even warmists admit that there has been ZERO measurable warming since 1998! This is fantastic news! :-) …. So why are the warmists so cranky? Maybe they really care more about their rather special brand of socio-economic righteousness than a happy planet?

    According to the IPPC’s more robust models of climate apocalypse the Earth’s temperature should have warmed by more than 0.5c since 1998.

    Now, for the CAGW prophecies of doom to get back on schedule the earth will have to warm by about 0.7c every decade for the rest of the century! That’s as much warming in a single decade as occurred in the whole century before 1998… It’s a big ask. Thus far, the only thing that climate has threatened with doom is the CAGW hypothesis.

    4. Almost all the warming due to CO2 is already in the climate system. Of course, probably less than 1 in 10 Australians would know this little factoid, so well has our state-owned media, the ABC, shamed us into believing that ever extra molecule of ‘carbon pollution’ drowns another polar bear.

    This is truly settled science that even the IPCC admits. It’s called the Logarithmic Effect of CO2 — we could double the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and the added global warming it will produce is utterly insignificant… So the only way that the warmists can retain their faith in a coming apocalypse is by enshrining in dogma an utterly ridiculous level of ecological fragility for life on Earth.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/08/the-logarithmic-effect-of-carbon-dioxide/

    So what do say, warmists?

    Explain how your gospel of peer-reviewed faith maps out these empirical facts so that the End Days of our sinful civilisation remain nigh should we refuse to repent and sacrifice at your altar of authoritarian climate collectivism?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    KeithH

    JB @ 81

    “But I forget, its the recovery from the little ice age, its the sun, its cosmic rays, its a 43.5 year cycle, its anything except CO2 caused by people.”

    You left out a few important factors John, like the important relationship between the Sun as principal source of energy, the oceans as the principal storers of that energy and the complex mechanisms of heat transfer which have maintained a liveable balance for organisms over millions of years, but I think you are finally starting to “get it”.


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
    Mark D.

    Blimey says I’ve been the target of much abuse (at Jo Nova) so much so that he has to make his own site (It’s not Nova).

    then you make a stink about people quoting from web blogs but:

    Slimey @ 82: links to Skeptical Science……

    Game, Set, Match.

    Looser.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Blimey

    Bruce of Newcastle:

    I notice you did not cite any peer reviewed papers in your reply…

    You obviously didn’t pay attention my my previous replies. I am not surprised.

    To answer your question here is my model for the CET expressed as an anomaly referencing the baseline period of 1961-1990:
    Ta = A + B + C + D (+ E)

    LOL. So, as well as thinking GHG have little impact, you also think aerosols have no effect on the climate. How funny! Any physical reason for this?

    Getting a mathematical formula to fit with a small section of temperature data just takes trial and error and can be achieved by creating software that loops around trying different coefficients until the data fits the line pruduce. But unless you have physical reasoning behind the values you arrive at, then it’s pointless.

    Furthermore, these mathematical attempts to explain away AGW always fail when looking further back in time.

    But hey, feel free to post your peer-reviewed research that proves all existing climate science wrong. Something tells me you won’t be able to and instead will resort to more “blog science” or like other frustrated posters here, more personal attacks.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Blimey

    wes george says:

    This is truly settled science that even the IPCC admits. It’s called the Logarithmic Effect of CO2 — we could double the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and the added global warming it will produce is utterly insignificant…

    Erm, that’s why the climate sensitivity is expressed as per doubling of CO2 and is thought, according to the science, to be around 3 degrees.

    Not quite as “utterly insignificant” as you make it out to be.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Blimey

    Mark D. says:

    then you make a stink about people quoting from web blogs but:
    Slimey @ 82: links to Skeptical Science……

    The difference being that Skeptical Science contains links to actual science.

    Bruce of Newcastle makes up his own stuff.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Victorian Coalition government is opposed to free speech

    I’m with Adam Smith on this one. I suppose it’s to be expected from such a bunch of post-conservative Pale Greens.

    Guideline 2.1 states photos or video must not be used for “satire or ridicule” of MPs. If this spreads to the Federal level it will severely restrict commentators’ opportunities to cover Robert Oakeshott. I mean, how do you do that without satire and ridicule?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    cohenite

    I gave Blimey peer reviewed papers @72; he ignored them; he is a troll.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    The difference being that Skeptical Science contains links to actual science.

    Bwahahahahahaha! that is still a blog right? And you really should use quotation marks around science shouldn’t you?

    Or do they link to and support skeptics like Lindzen and Spencer?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Cohenite:

    I gave Blimey peer reviewed papers @72; he ignored them; he is a troll.

    Of course he is, and not very useful either. If he were more intelligent and capable he’d be useful.

    Too bad.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Adam Smith

    Guideline 2.1 states photos or video must not be used for “satire or ridicule” of MPs. If this spreads to the Federal level it will severely restrict commentators’ opportunities to cover Robert Oakeshott. I mean, how do you do that without satire and ridicule?

    There actually are standing orders in the federal parliament to stop parliamentary footage (e.g. Question Time) being used for the purpose of satire. The current Speaker has chosen to simply not enforce those standing orders because he opposed them when he was a humble back bencher.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark

    Mark D. #108

    Dunno about that. I reckon that if Blimey had a brain he’d be dangerous!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Mark @ 110:

    Naw, he ran away from Jo’s site (started his own) because he was afraid. He couldn’t be dangerous, even with a br.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Mark @ 110:

    Naw, he ran away from Jo’s site (started his own) because he was afraid. He couldn’t be dangerous.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Oops how did that happen? Sorry about the double post….


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MaryFJohnston

    Mark @ 110

    “”Dunno about that. I reckon that if Blimey had a brain he’d be dangerous!”"

    Don’t think there’s any chance we’ll be in danger there.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bruce of Newcastle

    Blimey at #103

    I’m well aware of aerosols, volcanoes and UHIE. They cancel reasonably well. In fact if you do use them the climate sensitivity probably comes in more around the 0.5 C/doubling rather than the 0.7 C level. You asked for my model so I gave you it – feel free to duplicate it or falsify it. I await your analysis.

    “Getting a mathematical formula to fit with a small section of temperature data just takes trial and error and can be achieved by creating software that loops around trying different coefficients until the data fits the line pruduce. But unless you have physical reasoning behind the values you arrive at, then it’s pointless.”

    There is no longer directly measured temperature record in existence than the CET, so I don’t know what else you’d have me do. The IPCC only sticks to the last hundred years. Furthermore its a statistical model not an iterative model – I said that. There is no software, only three independent variables: pSCL, the cyclic ocean driven 65 year temperature swing and pCO2. The physical basis is the same hypothesis as outlined in these papers: link, link, link, link. You might also have read the link I previously gave which said:

    In conclusion we may remark that, even though the physical mechanism(s) for solar-activity induced changes in climate are still unresolved, there is mounting evidence that a speeding up of the solar cycle appears to be accompanied by an increase in the efficiency of the solar dynamo that ultimately leads to an increase in the temperature of the Earth’s lower atmosphere.

    That was in 1996. Those four papers from this year, from 4 different research groups, demonstrate the mechanism.

    You who so like peer reviewed science also have not linked or cited any in you two replies to me this thread. I have not looked at your other half dozen comments because those are not between you and I. You didn’t do so well citing peer reviewed science last time we tangled either. Hypocritical still?

    Mate if you just slag off people like me with no scientific evidence to back your statements then you do not serve your cause – in fact you prove the sceptics’ case. Either debate the science with science not rhetoric or you lose.


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
    wes george

    That’s right Blimey sing us some gospel, brother!…. According to “THE SCIENCE”….???? LOL.

    Oh, you mean like in “The Science is Settled” Amen, Hallelujah Science…Right? The kind where you just mindlessly chant a peer-reviewed koan and light another incense stick. No thinking necessary…

    Because the last time I checked no empirical, observation-based, rational inquiry had established climate sensitivity, but there is evidence to believe that it must be very low.

    Obviously—considering the fact that even a doubling of CO2 can NOT warm the atmosphere directly in any significant amount—in order to maintain the CAGW faith in prophecies of doom, you have to assume that the Earth’s climate is this incredibly fragile system with built-in runaway positive feedback loops that lead to self-destruction every time an extra couple of hundred CO2 molecules per million are added to the atmosphere….doesn’t seem very “sustainable” does it?

    Of course, there is no evidence for high sensitivity to CO2 and plenty of evidence that the Earth’s biosphere is, in fact, an extremely robust and ancient system.

    The biggest bit of evidence that climate sensitivity is low is simply the fact that we exist at all!

    Natural complex systems that have persisted for hundreds of millions of years are dominated by constraining factors which tend to not let the whole system simply slip into total destruction at the first slight nudge or they wouldn’t be hundreds of millions of years old.

    For example, if CO2 levels fell much below 180ppm all photosynthesis on Earth would stop. Life would end for billion-year old Gaia. But we know that green plants have existed continuously on Earth for hundreds of millions of years, so we can safely say somehow the complex system of Earth’s biosphere has regulated levels of CO2 in the atmosphere to never let it fall below 150 ppm or we would not exist.

    There is no positive feedback system which allows CO2 depletion to run away. There are dozens of known, and probably millions of unknown, negative feedback loops that keep the Earth’s biosphere safely within a fairly narrow range of physical parameters, which nothing short of a major asteroid impact is likely to shatter.

    But imagine if the Earth’s biosphere worked as the UN IPCC requires for its CAGW theory not to be total rubbish—

    First rising CO2 levels caused by sinful human greed for food, shelter and electricity causes the Earth to warm somewhat, but then even as the warming effect of CO2 tops out, the increased warmth causes the oceans to evaporate a little, increasing the water vapour content of the atmosphere… this causes the planet to warm a little more, which causes more water to evaporate, which causes the planet to warm more, which causes more water to evaporate….until the whole system spins out of control and results in a climate apocalypse…

    That’s the “tipping point” theory of CAGW in a nutshell…Bloody nonsense.

    Water vapour feedback on temperature must ultimately be negative, NOT positive or every minor natural warming perturbation would set in motion runaway greenhouse effects. Yet, the ice-core studies from Greenland going back millions of years show no evidence of any kind of water-vapour positive feedback on warming.

    Far more recently when temperatures were perhaps as much as 1c warmer than today during the short lived Medieval Warm Period (MWP) water vapour feedback nor or any other kind of climate sensitivity prolonged or compound the warming. In fact, the MWP ended swiftly, suggesting that natural warming instigates negative feedback from the climate system.

    Likewise, since 1998 there has been no appreciable warming of the Earth’s climate even as CO2 levels continue to increase, in defiance of the CAGW theory.

    Maybe after more than a century of rising temperatures coming out of the Little Ice Age, Gaia’s natural negative feedback loops which moderate conditions in the biosphere have already kicked in…I know, I know, that’s a totally heretical line of reasoning.

    The Earth’s climate is sensitive alright, just not in the direction required to justify the Warmist faith in CAGW.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    memoryvault

    Wes George @ 118

    Good post Wes.

    To the best of my knowledge there are NO prolonged positive feedbacks in nature, only negative ones.

    For instance, there are some 8,000 possible processes that could be occurring in the human body at any given time.
    All but two are negative.

    The two exceptions are a heart attack, and an orgasm.

    Try sustaining either for an extended period of time.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    John Brookes

    MV, there may be no prolonged positive feedbacks in nature, only negative ones. But, (to misquote Keynes), in the prolonged term we are all dead.

    There may well be positive feedbacks over a few thousand years – which is a blink of the eye on a geological scale.

    Wes, if CO2 and water vapour are positive feedbacks, that doesn’t have to lead to runaway warming. There is one big negative feedback, the T^4 relationship between radiative emissions and temperature. Without this, your argument would be correct, and there would be a non-stop rise in temperature.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    wes george

    blah, blah, blah, Johnny.

    And furthermore, blah, blah. Other than that your argument would be correct…. Oooo Kay.

    How about naming some climatological positive feedbacks for us?

    If warming causes reinforcing feedback why did the MWP end so swiftly and descend into a cool period instead of ramping up and lasting for millennia?

    If elevated CO2 levels AND warming cause positive water vapour feedback reinforcing and accelerating warming why has the Earth’s climate not warmed since 1998?

    Why have all the climate models based on high climate sensitivity to CO2 failed to predict the last 13 years of no further warming?

    Btw, you’re confused about time scales, mate. We ain’t talking geology but the climatology of an extremely complex nonlinear system, the Earth’s biosphere.

    Oh and just as a side note on scientific method, to make unfounded prophecy for future apocalypse based on imagination… “…there may well be positive feedback…” isn’t exactly rational inquiry into observational evidence, it’s rather more like faith-based evangelicalism….Amen and hallelujah, brother!

    But before we join Brother Blimey is singing the gospel, why don’t you answer the questions I put to you @ comment 99…you know, after you list the positive feedbacks on climate?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bruce of Newcastle

    MV & JB,

    There is one positive feedback – ice albedo, but it is usually strongest in the cooling direction as the current ice caps are pretty small. You wouldn’t have wanted to live on snowball Earth in the Permian though.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    memoryvault

    John Brookes @ 120

    There may well be positive feedbacks over a few thousand years –

    There may also really be a tooth fairy and a Santa Klaus too –

    But I wouldn’t suggest changing my country’s entire economic structure on the possibility.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark

    MV

    All the “warmers” are frantically and desperately clutching at fig leaves to hide their nakedness.

    We are talking about morons who consider Spain’s economy a brilliant success.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Blimey

    cohenite says:

    The senate submission by The Climate Sceptics refers to 32 recent papers which conclusively establish that the science of AGW is deeply flawed; see submission 74 here:
    http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/scrutinynewtaxes_ctte/carbontax/submissions.htm

    32 papers? Compared to the hundreds published each year, you’re relying on a surprising small number and seeing the usual names like Spencer and Lindzen who’s science is repeated shown to be flawed doesn’t really inspire me with confidence.

    Your willingness to overlook all other papers on the topic of climate change and only select the ones that support your position suggests you cherry pick the results you wish to hear and ignore all others. Not a good way to conduct science. A real skeptic would consider ALL science before them, not just a few hand chosen ones.

    Even then, when you delve deeper and look at the papers, it’s clear some of them don’t quite, in your words, show how “AGW is deeply flawed”. Here’s a quote from “Sea level budget over 2003–2008: A reevaluation from GRACE space gravimetry, satellite altimetry and Argo.”

    Using space gravimetry observations from GRACE, we show that recent years sea level rise can be mostly explained by an increase of the mass of the oceans. Estimating GRACE-based ice sheet mass balance and using published estimates for glaciers melting, we further show that ocean mass increase since 2003 results by about half from an enhanced contribution of the polar ice sheets – compared to the previous decade – and half from mountain glaciers melting.

    Must be all that cooling the planet is doing.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Blimey

    Bruce of Newcastle says:

    I’m well aware of aerosols, volcanoes and UHIE. They cancel reasonably well. In fact if you do use them the climate sensitivity probably comes in more around the 0.5 C/doubling rather than the 0.7 C level.

    LOL. Not only do you not account for them, you simply assume they cancel each other out. WHERE’S THE DATA AND SCIENCE TO SUPPORT YOUR VIEW?

    Same place as your peer-reviewed science I expect – a galaxy far far away perhaps.

    You asked for my model so I gave you it – feel free to duplicate it or falsify it. I await your analysis.

    @67 I said “Thirdly, don’t direct me to more blog-science crap.”

    The weakness in your logic was very easily discovered. You methods of simply deciding some things are not important instead of actually using data and analysis is about as crap as science can get.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Gee Aye

    Mark:
    September 11th, 2011 at 8:59 pm
    MV
    All the “warmers” are frantically and desperately clutching at fig leaves to hide their nakedness.
    We are talking about morons who consider Spain’s economy a brilliant success.

    I love the imagery!

    I’m not a warmer but I like how you’ve made me reply!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Kevin Moore

    A Skeptic is one who examines critically.

    When you have examined something critically for long enough one tends towards establishing a viewpoint based on knowledge [science].

    On the ladder to the most knowledgable viewpoint, Blimey it seems thinks it best to stay on the bottom rung and let his favourite preacher do his thinking for him. He’s just a non skeptical and faithful believer in the Church of Climatology.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark

    Kevin Moore.

    Anyone throwing around a climate sensitivity of 3 degrees is on the rung which is still in the cess pit of ignorance.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    cohenite

    Blimey @125; you are still a troll; the Cazenave paper, which you selectively quote from the Abstract, is 2nd on the list of the Senate submission [couldn't you read any further?]; this paper explains that sea level rate of increase is decreasing and that the steric or warming part of that increase is decreasing further; so, whatever is causing the mass increase from ice pack decrease ISN’T AGW because that would increase OHC and the steric component of sea level increase.

    Each of those 32 papers undermines AGW; that would be apparent to any open-minded, reasonable person; you obviously have neither of those qualities.

    In respect of the “hundreds” of papers published on climate each year and considering “all” papers; I do; google my articles here at Jo’s and at Jennifer Marohasy’s site on the worst pro-AGW papers.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MaryFJohnston

    Mark @129

    I just could get the words but you’ve done it so well:

    “Anyone throwing around a climate sensitivity of 3 degrees is on the rung which is still in the cess pit of ignorance.”"

    Brilliant.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MaryFJohnston

    Mark @127

    “”I’m not a warmer but I like how you’ve made me reply!”"

    You gotta understand that Gee is not a scientist but a legally trained philosopher.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MaryFJohnston

    131 should read:

    “”I just couldn’t get the words”"


    Report this

    00

  • #
    memoryvault

    Mark @ 129 and Mary @ 131

    “Anyone throwing around a climate sensitivity of 3 degrees is on the rung which is still in the cess pit of ignorance.”

    Ditto for those who use the terms “climate change” and “ocean acidification”.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MaryFJohnston

    MV @ 134

    Yes “ocean acidification” .

    I’m reminded of the old saying; “It’s a big thing when you look into it”

    In this case “it” is the ocean and trying to tie its chemistry to a trite phrase like “ocean acidification” is just warmer rubbish.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bruce of Newcastle

    Blimey at #126

    WHERE’S THE DATA AND SCIENCE TO SUPPORT YOUR VIEW?

    Here. You could’ve looked at the links the first time I put them up at #116. The point is the dataset includes the effect of aerosols of the natural variety. Sulfate, ammonia, chloride etc – you have heard of these species? Of the human produced variety the effect of soot in England/Nthrn Ireland is thought to be small (unlike China/India). The UHI effect is known to be relatively small in the dataset, and is already partly in the data due to the use of the Armagh temperature series. You might also be aware that UHIE if not accounted for causes the value of 2XCO2 to be overestimated, not the reverse. That is the case for volcanic eruptions which were generally more common in the earlier period of the CET dataset. And for soot too – not many diesel engines in Europe before 1950. So may be I’m wrong in saying their effect is small, but that would then mean CO2 climate sensitivity is smaller than 0.6 C/doubling.

    Your methods of simply deciding some things are not important instead of actually using data and analysis is about as crap as science can get.

    Er, Blimey, haven’t you been listening? The datasets are empirical climate datasets. They contain this variance already. You only have the sort of problem you’re talking about when you build bottom-up models such as the general circulation models the IPCC used to estimate climate sensitivity. The IPCC ignored ocean cycles and solar magnetic effects, which in the 20th C accounted for 5/6ths of the temperature rise, so when they least squares fitted to the temperature data the software applied 6 times the significance to CO2 than it should have. That is simple statistics.

    So, by saying this you’ve just described the IPCC’s approach to modelling. As you say: “crap as science can get.”

    I love it that for all your love of peer reviewed literature you never link or cite any science or blog posts when debating with me. I suspect you know that if you did your case would be forensically and systematically taken apart. Which it would be.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark

    MaryFJohnston #132

    You gotta understand that Gee is not a scientist but a legally trained philosopher.

    Ah! So now I know. Well I certainly wouldn’t trust him with the conveyancing on my dead dog’s kennel.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Gee Aye

    Mr Mary has created a strange fantasy world about me. I can assure you that any conveyancing done by me would be illegal. I have a higher degree that mentions philosophy but I am yet to meet anyone who has done one in philosophy. I’m sure they are about.

    Sorry to hear about your dog.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MaryFJohnston

    Mark

    Sounds like a Jaques Brel song I know:

    “”my dead dog’s kennel.”"

    L’ombre de ton chien

    Gee “Mr Mary”

    Thank you for getting that right.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark

    MFJ #139

    Can’t say I know that one.

    Pity, could have sung it when we buried poor old doggie!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MaryFJohnston

    Mark 140

    Totally O/T

    In English the song is “If you go Away” but is better in original French”

    The line is ” the shadow of your dog” (L’ombre de ton chien).

    The singer is in love, so much that he would be happy just to be the shadow of this woman’s dog, just to be near her.

    He has another song about love called “Next” but it’s not as romantic and a bit crude just to keep a balance.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Blimey

    cohenite says:

    Blimey @125; you are still a troll;

    More personal insults – who would have guess you’d act so childishly.

    the Cazenave paper, which you selectively quote from the Abstract, is 2nd on the list of the Senate submission [couldn't you read any further?]; this paper explains that sea level rate of increase is decreasing and that the steric or warming part of that increase is decreasing further; so, whatever is causing the mass increase from ice pack decrease ISN’T AGW because that would increase OHC and the steric component of sea level increase.
    Each of those 32 papers undermines AGW; that would be apparent to any open-minded, reasonable person; you obviously have neither of those qualities.

    Forgive me for not wanting to waste the rest of my day rebutting each and every one … unless of course you’d like to do the same for every single AGW paper listed in the IPCC report? No? Didn’t think so.

    I acknowledge there is science for both sides fo the argument, although you really need to scrape the barrel for your paltry 32.

    You like cherry picking your science … that’s not good practice.

    I gave Blimey peer reviewed papers @72; he ignored them; he is a troll.

    @56 I gave Joanne the list she asked for, and pointed out that her handbook was incorrect.

    She ignores this, therfore using your logic, Joanne Nova is a troll.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Blimey

    Bruce of Newcastle:

    Here. You could’ve looked at the links the first time I put them up at #116.

    First you say “I’m well aware of aerosols, volcanoes and UHIE. They cancel reasonably well.” and when I asked for the data and science to back this up you direct me to a WUWT article. The article’s source of science is this paper …

    http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2011/2011GL047036.shtml .. the abstract says …

    We have studied sulfuric acid aerosol nucleation in an atmospheric pressure reaction chamber using a 580 MeV electron beam to ionize the volume of the reaction chamber. We find a clear contribution from ion-induced nucleation and consider this to be the first unambiguous observation of the ion-effect on aerosol nucleation using a particle beam under conditions that resemble the Earth’s atmosphere. By comparison with ionization using a gamma source we further show that the nature of the ionizing particles is not important for the ion-induced component of the nucleation. This implies that inexpensive ionization sources – as opposed to expensive accelerator beams – can be used for investigations of ion-induced nucleation.

    How the fluke do you think this study in any way supports your lunatic idea that aerosols, volcanoes and UHIE cancel each other out?

    What a pathetic attempt!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MaryFJohnston

    I think Blimey has truly flipped his wig.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Blimey

    MaryFJohnston says:

    I think Blimey has truly flipped his wig.

    Perhaps I have flipped, this graph appears to show an increase in temperatures, and Joanne Nova thinks it does not.

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

    Which way do you think it runs? Up or Down?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark

    And this one does NOT show an increase in temperatures

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

    Both lower trop plots, huh.


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
    Mark

    It IS the same year, tool; can’t you see even that from the links. I just changed the dataset and didn’t touch the year from your link.

    The only cherrypickers are you, Blimey, and the fraudsters you believe in.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Blimey:
    September 11th, 2011 at 12:16 am
    @PhilJourdan, using your definition of the null hypothesis would leave mankind knowing absolutely nothing. Good luck with that concept!

    I am sorry you think so little of science, but that is not a surprise. I did not create the null hypothesis. It is a scientific concept to be used to see if there is a causality associated with an action. Of course in religion, the null hypothesis is not needed, only faith. So keep to your faith, and tithe to your church. And when you actually want to learn about science, come back.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark

    Hey Phil,

    Trenberth reckons the null hypothesis is still useful. Only in reverse though!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bruce of Newcastle

    Blimey at #143

    “How the fluke do you think this study in any way supports your lunatic idea that aerosols, volcanoes and UHIE cancel each other out?”

    Where is your peer reviewed paper saying they don’t? I am pleased you exerted yourself to post the link to the paper I linked to. However I gave all who read this blog a link to a site providing a summary of the paper which is behind a paywall. When a paper is available I link to that – except Spencer & Braswell 2010 because the neanderthal reviewer refused to let Spencer quote a value for 2XCO2 in the paper (which is of course easily produced by dividing 3.7 Wm^-2 by 6 Wm^-2.K^-1…neanderthal climate scientists obviously cannot do arithmetic.).

    So let us look at volcanoes and UHIE then, since you acknowledge that the CLOUD paper and the related ones do actually cover aerosols as related to solar magnetism and that solar cycle length is a long term proxy for solar magnetism.

    I draw to your attention to slide 13 on page 14 of this presentation by Dr Aldrin. I do not agree with his paper, but he gives the agreed volcanic forcing dataset since 1750. You will see that more volcanic forcing occurred during the early part, particularly between 1800 and 1850. I could probably find the same graph somewhere in AR4, but I have this one to hand – if you can find it in AR4 or a published paper it would be a favour if you could give me a link.

    Now if I were to include this as a term in my statistical model it would increase the slope of the calculated trendline. That means the amount of variance available for CO2 to explain would be less. So if I were to include volcanic eruptions they would lower the calculated value for 2XCO2.

    OK, now regarding UHIE. As I prevously linked there is a study available on UHIE in Armagh, which is the source of the solar cycle length-temperature correlation paper. Now, as with these things UHIE increases with urbanisation and a comparison with rural sites suggests the UHIE in Armagh is about 0.26 C averaged. So if you correct for that it brings down the actual temperature, and therefore lowers the slope of the dataset. So the the gap between the statistical model trend and the actual temperature is less. And again that means that the calculated 2XCO2 is again lower than value if you leave UHI out.

    I contend that UHIE and volcanoes only have a small effect. If they have a large effect the calculated warming caused by CO2 would be less than even Spencer’s 0.6 C/doubling value. Of course Harde 2011 calculates a value of 0.45 C/doubling. Maybe he’s right.

    So. The three issues you raise, one is already in the dataset (aerosols) and the other two if included would LOWER 2XCO2 below the calculated value of 0.7 C/doubling.

    Blimey – you really need to read up the science a bit better and do a couple courses of statistics.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Blimey

    Mark says:

    It IS the same year, tool; can’t you see even that from the links. I just changed the dataset and didn’t touch the year from your link.

    Yes I did notice that Mark. My point of changing the dataset by one year showed how you/Nova rely on cherry picking not only a specific year, but cherry picking a specific dataset too.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Blimey

    PhilJourdan says:

    I am sorry you think so little of science, but that is not a surprise. I did not create the null hypothesis. It is a scientific concept to be used to see if there is a causality associated with an action. Of course in religion, the null hypothesis is not needed, only faith. So keep to your faith, and tithe to your church. And when you actually want to learn about science, come back.

    Science I thing a lot of. Your misinterpretation of the science, not so much.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Blimey

    Bruce of Newcastle says:

    Where is your peer reviewed paper saying they don’t?

    What a stupid remark. Next you’ll be asking me to prove martians don’t cause the climate change.

    It is not for me to disprove your theory, it is up to YOU to provide the evidence, that’s how science works.

    … that the CLOUD paper and the related ones do actually cover aerosols …

    Apparently your ignorance has stooped to a new low. The paper does NOT cover aerosols. If you wish to prove me wrong, please enlighten me as to which page it talks about sulphur emissions.

    I draw to your attention to slide 13 on page 14 of this presentation

    Yey. Another flukin blog science article! A presentation is NOT peer-reviewed science. Wake up will you???

    OK, now regarding UHIE. As I prevously linked there is a study available on UHIE in Armagh

    Now do the math and work out how this impacts on a global scale!! Localised UHIE are acknowledge and accounted for in the IPCC report. You bring nothing new to the debate and yet you have still yet to come even close to quantifying them in any way as to support your original argument.

    Of course Harde 2011 calculates a value of 0.45 C/doubling. Maybe he’s right.

    Given we’ve surpassed this figure without have come to a doubling let alone be at equilibrium, I’d guess he’d be wrong.

    The three issues you raise, one is already in the dataset (aerosols)

    Er, no you just showed you don’t understand what constitutes aerosols.

    and the other two if included would LOWER 2XCO2 below the calculated value of 0.7 C/doubling.

    And yet still you fails to show ANY proof that these factors cancel each other out.

    That’s the problem with blogger science, so much wishful thinking rather than actual facts.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Science I thing a lot of

    English not so much…


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Blimey:
    September 13th, 2011 at 10:39 pm

    Science I thing a lot of. Your misinterpretation of the science, not so much.

    “thing a lot of”? That explains it. How am I misinterpreting the null hypothesis? I gave no opinion, I stated a scientific principal. I did not “thing” a thing. But keep making up your science. I am sure you will be able to prove you are a god one day at this rate. Do not be surprised when everyone else laughs at you and your “thing”.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MaryFJohnston

    PhilJourdan

    I wish you would stop thinging like that.

    Sorry.

    I meant Singing.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    MaryFJohnston

    Either under stress or uneducated; you decide. From 154

    “”And yet still you fails”

    Or maybe he’s French and the verb has to be plural like the westy “yous” in Orstralian?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Bruce of Newcastle

    Well I’m not going to reply to Blimey this time. I do wish these people would actually cite some science instead of pulling out the SS playbook all the time. It’s very tiring & unedifying.

    Anyone reading what I’ve taken the effort to post vs what that guy has continually sprayed will see exactly who is on the side of science and who is the political slimer.

    In criticising Dr Magne Aldrin he’s even sliming warmist climate scientists now!

    As for blogger science I’ve over 50 publications in my field of science (which as it happens deals with aerosols as well as other things – he really is an idiot), and I’m very happy with my record. I wonder how many peer review publications Mr Blimey has.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark

    Blimey #152:

    Ever the artful dodger, hey Blimey.

    No, you are looking for an out just like the other troll bot around here currently. You didn’t anticipate that someone would investigate your link. A simple change to another dataset for the same start year showed the opposite trend to what you hung your hat on.

    Another epic fail for the Blimey troll. What happened to your regular ‘crack’ supplier, did he get busted? You seem to be smoking some really bad s–t lately.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Maurice@TheMount

    Time for Blimey to consider the Law of “it”

    If it is settled it is not science.
    If it is science it is not settled.

    Therefore IPCC Climate Science is NOT science, it is HIWTYL BS.

    HIWTYL….Heads I Win Tails You Lose
    BS……..Bureaucratic Science (Akin to what a bull does)


    Report this

    00