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



How the media distort the news: Lesson 1 — Lies by omission

The Sydney Morning Herald carefully removed the scientific arguments from an article today. Are they afraid their readers are not smart enough to reach the “right” conclusions if exposed to the wrong information? Hey, but its only national policy and billions of dollars at stake.

Today Maurice Newman warned that we are not prepared for climate change (he’s talking about the cold kind). The Australian published his thoughts citing Archibald, Usoskin, Svensmark, Brekke, Lockwood and Curry. Their readers are apparently clever enough to handle discussions of cosmic rays and large hadron colliders.

In Sydney Morning Herald, Latika Bourke and Lisa Cox write an article about Newman’s views, but carefully omit all of the scientific arguments, as well as the potential problems with one sided science funding and the names and credentials of the scientists he talks about. The pair do, however, find space to repeat the litany of the IPCC’s estimate of 95% “probability” (it’s hard to believe Sydney Morning Herald readers have not heard this before).  They don’t mention that the IPCC estimate is a speculative and unscientific number which gets paradoxically higher as the IPCC’s predictions are proven wrong. Nor did they interview Newman and ask him his opinion of this.

Rather than talking about possibilities that scientists are discussing, it was more important to remind SMH readers that Prime Minister Abbott once said climate change was “absolute crap”. How that helps the nation decide on national climate policy is not made clear, though the implication is: skeptics only have dumb arguments. No doubt SMH readers will understand which opinion they are supposed to hold, and “lucky” for them, journalists Bourke and Cox are experts on atmospheric physics, particle collisions, and climate modeling. If only they’d explained the flaws in Maurice Newman’s arguments instead of concealing them, the whole nation would have been better off.

One day, the poor SMH readers, like ABC viewers, might be shocked when they discover how they were fed propaganda lines by dutiful journalists who, no doubt, thought they were doing a good job. Still, one great thing about the SMH is that the citizens of Australia don’t have to pay for it if they don’t want to.

The Australian‘s readers already know the IPCC position. The editors there, dare to give us the other side as well:

We’re ill-prepared if the iceman cometh

WHAT if David Archibald’s book The Twilight of Abundance: Why Life in the 21st Century Will Be Nasty, Brutish, and Short turns out to be right? What if the past 50 years of peace, cheap energy, abundant food, global economic growth and population explosion have been due to a temporary climate phenomenon?

What if the warmth the world has enjoyed for the past 50 years is the result of solar activity, not man-made CO2?

In a letter to the editor of Astronomy & Astrophysics, IG Usoskin et al produced the “first fully ­adjustment-free physical reconstruction of solar activity”. They found that during the past 3000 years the modern grand maxima, which occurred between 1959 and 2009, was a rare event both in magnitude and duration. This research adds to growing evidence that climate change is determined by the sun, not humans.

Newman talks about the one-sided funding in the US that largely “preordains” scientific conclusions and the cycle of governments funding scientists, who help fund governments, who fund more sympathetic scientists…

This mindset sought to bury the results of Danish physicist Henrik Svensmark’s experiments using the Large Hadron Collider, the world’s most powerful particle accelerator. For the first time in controlled conditions, Svensmark’s hypothesis that the sun alters the climate by influencing cosmic ray influx and cloud formation was validated. The head of CERN, which runs the laboratory, obviously afraid of how this heretical conclusion would be received within the global warming establishment, urged caution be used in interpreting the results “in this highly political area of climate change debate”. And the media obliged.

But Svensmark is not alone. For example, Russian scientists at the Pulkovo Observatory are convinced the world is in for a cooling period that will last for 200-250 years. Respected Norwegian solar physicist Pal Brekke warns temperatures may actually fall for the next 50 years. Leading British climate scientist Mike Lockwood, of Reading University, found 24 occasions in the past 10,000 years when the sun was declining as it is now, but could find none where the decline was as fast. He says a return of the Dalton Minimum (1790-1830), which included “the year without summer”, is “more likely than not”. In their book The Neglected Sun , Sebastian Luning and Fritz Varen­holt think that temperatures could be two-tenths of a degree Celsius cooler by 2030 because of a predicted anaemic sun. They say it would mean “warming getting postponed far into the future”.

If the world does indeed move into a cooling period, its citizens are ill-prepared.

The media IS the problem. With better media, we’d have better politicians, better bureaucrats, and better policy.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 8.9/10 (125 votes cast)
How the media distort the news: Lesson 1 -- Lies by omission, 8.9 out of 10 based on 125 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/lsepsvn

272 comments to How the media distort the news: Lesson 1 — Lies by omission

  • #
    bobl

    Prof Carter has been making this point for years, that we should prepare for weather, and not climate. That means we are prepared for whatever comes be it warming or cooling.


    Report this

    530

  • #
    Paul in Sweden

    “The pair do, however, find space to repeat the litany of the IPCC’s estimate of 95% “probability” (it’s hard to believe Sydney Morning Herald readers have not heard this before). They don’t mention that the IPCC estimate is a speculative and unscientific number which gets paradoxically higher as the IPCC’s predictions are proven wrong.”

    Having missed the broadside of the barn for decades the IPCC made the broadside broader and upped their ‘faith/belief’ in being able to hit the new broader side to 95%. I’m not convinced as even when those clowns use loaded dice they don’t seem to ever get anything right.


    Report this

    500

    • #
      D. J. Hawkins

      No doubt if they stretched the range yet again to 0 – 10C per doubling of CO2 they could safely proclaim 100% probability without fear of contradiction.


      Report this

      100

      • #
        Vince Whirlwind

        I think you’d still find some people denying it, just out of habit.


        Report this

        117

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          Indeed. Some people will believe almost anything, a bit like an electric monk.

          Others, will be skeptical about everything, on the basis than there is always more to know, and therefore you cannot know how much it is, that you don’t know.

          And there is a very small subset of people who believe that what they know is the total truth, and that those who do not share this revelation, and thus speak against it, are “deniers”.

          Quite an exclusive club, you belong to there, Vince.


          Report this

          230

          • #
            Rod Stuart

            Cohenite successfully identified the viper’s den from which Vince Windbag and Craig Tomthumb originate.
            It is a hideous little pit called “Deltoid”.
            A quick perusal of Deltoid reveals the desire of these undesirables.
            Their idea is that there should be some sort of law prohibiting the thinking of thoughts with which they do not agree or understand.
            They appear to be ruled over by an abominable race called “The Finkelsteins”.


            Report this

            110

        • #
          Angry

          “Vince Whirlwind”,

          The wind is obviously able to blow through one of your ears and come out the other side with nothing to stop it in between !

          See a doctor !!


          Report this

          110

        • #
          Winston

          So Lord Flatus,

          Tell me, if the world does cool precipitously, or even moderately, in the next couple of decades, and nations are ill-prepared to meet the difficulties this might cause in provision of food and fuel for the huddled masses leading to massive social upheaval and potentially death for hundreds of thousands of people if not more, just what penalty do you think should be imposed on those who gave this erroneous advice, laced with confirmation bias and deceptive manipulation of data, and then tried to cover it up rather than admit they were wrong, even persisting after they knew their hypothesis was fatally flawed?


          Report this

          170

          • #
            Lawrie Ayres

            After the GFC a goodly number of economists and fund managers said they had foreseen the collapse. Search of their writings however failed to reveal their wisdom and one can only conclude they were looking in a review mirror. The same will occur when this penny drops. All those scientists who valiantly defended their pathetic hypothesis and fraudulent computer projections will suddenly reveal their well hidden scepticism. Politicians will blame the scientists who gave advice carefully skirting the fact that government only supported one side and in fact derided the counter argument and those who supported it. Don’t forget theses are leftists and leftists are never wrong, never have to apologise and always worked for what seemed right. At the very least their PhD’s should be rescinded and their tenure cancelled.


            Report this

            80

            • #
              Ted O'Brien.

              Steve Keen of UWS gained world fame for his prediction of the GFC. So what happened?

              They closed his department at the UWS!

              Who closed it?

              Not the UWS. It was the school leavers, who had no interest in being taught by a world famous scholar, but believed that (Syd) after their letters would gain them a bigger pay packet. The UWS had to close it because they didn’t get enough enrolments.

              As for the thought of cancelling PhDs. Better to require that their theses be published. Modern technology makes this easy.


              Report this

              10

          • #
            the Griss

            “Lord Flatus”

            More like “Lord Flatulent”….. full of stinking hot air.. !!!


            Report this

            00

  • #
    Wayne Job

    The historic records of sleeping sun and cold periods is history that can not be denied. The sun is just doing its thing again, for any scientist worth their salt to say the sun is not the cause of warm and cold periods, would be tantamount to fibbing for money or prestige.


    Report this

    471

    • #
      James Bradley

      Wayne,

      I’d say that was a bingo.

      Taxpayer funded grants and academic prestige.

      I’m pretty sure they all know it’s a furphy, they were all just hoping to ride it out a little longer hoping the cooling wouldn’t kick in until after they’d nudged governments into acheiving RET’s and then when the cooling started they could all claim to be the saviours of the world.

      First you get the money, then you get the power, and then you get the object of your particular persuasion.


      Report this

      161

    • #
      Vince Whirlwind

      So the significance of the Earth warming during a period of solar dampening would be…um…what, exactly?


      Report this

      136

    • #
      Kenneth Richard

      The historic records of sleeping sun and cold periods is history that can not be denied. The sun is just doing its thing again, for any scientist worth their salt to say the sun is not the cause of warm and cold periods, would be tantamount to fibbing for money or prestige.

      Below are some peer-reviewed papers warning of a coming global cooling…predicated on observations of long-term solar cycles (which are heavily correlated with temperature variations). For the sake of humanity, I personally hope all of them are dead wrong.

      For the record, the Russian Academy of Sciences (55,000 members) is on board with predictions of global cooling too.

      http://notrickszone.com/2013/04/11/russian-academy-of-sciences-experts-warn-of-imminent-cold-period-global-warming-is-a-marketing-trick/

      —————————————-
      http://link.springer.com/article/10.3103%2FS088459131202002X
      The Earth as a planet will have a negative balance in the energy budget in the future as well, because the Sun is entering the decline phase of the bicentennial luminosity changes. This will lead to a drop in temperature in approximately 2014. The increase in albedo and decrease in greenhouse gas concentration in the atmosphere will result in the additional decrease in absorbed portion of the solar energy and reduced greenhouse effect. The additional drop in temperature exceeding the effect of decreased solar constant can occur as a result of successive feedback effects. A deep bicentennial minimum in solar constant is to be anticipated in 2042 ± 11 and the 19th Little Ice Age (for the last 7500 years) may occur in 2055 ± 11.
      ————————————
      http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364682612000417
      No significant trend is found between the length of a cycle and the average temperature in the same cycle, but a significant negative trend is found between the length of a cycle and the temperature in the next cycle. This provides a tool to predict an average temperature decrease of at least -1.0 C from solar cycle 23 to solar cycle 24 for the stations and areas analyzed. We find for the Norwegian local stations investigated that 25–56% of the temperature increase the last 150 years may be attributed to the Sun. For 3 North Atlantic stations we get 63–72% solar contribution. This points to the Atlantic currents as reinforcing a solar signal.

      Key points:

      ► A longer solar cycle predicts lower temperatures during the next cycle.
      ► A 1 °C or more temperature drop is predicted 2009–2020 for certain locations.
      ► Solar activity may have contributed 40% or more to the last century temperature increase.
      A lag of 11 years gives maximum correlation between solar cycle length and temperature.
      ————————————–
      http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2013JA019478/abstract
      The recent extended minimum of solar and geomagnetic variability (XSM) mirrors the XSMs in the 19th and 20th centuries: 1810–1830 and 1900–1910. Such extended minima also were evident in aurorae reported from 450 AD to 1450 AD. This paper argues that these minima are consistent with minima of the Centennial Gleissberg Cycles (CGC), a 90–100 year variation observed on the Sun, in the solar wind, at the Earth and throughout the Heliosphere.
      —————————————
      http://www.pattern-recogn-phys.net/1/117/2013/prp-1-117-2013.html
      Using many features of Ian Wilson’s Tidal Torque theory, a mathematical model of the sunspot cycle has been created that reproduces changing sunspot cycle lengths and has an 85% correlation with the sunspot numbers from 1749 to 2013. The model makes a reasonable representation of the sunspot cycle for the past 1000 yr, placing all the solar minimums in their right time periods. The forecast is for a solar minimum and quiet Sun for the next 30 to 100 yr.
      —————————————
      http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0273117713007473
      If it endures in the 21st century the Sun shall enter a Dalton-like grand minimum. It was a period of global cooling.
      —————————————
      http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11434-010-4177-1
      (1) solar activity is weakening to its very low level, which is comparable with the level in the early 20th century; (2) the current grand solar maximum has already lasted for eight 11-year solar cycles and might end in the coming one/two 11-year cycles; (3) a grand solar minimum might prevail in the next 100–200 years; and (4) the number of sunspots in the coming solar maximum (M)-year, around 2013, is an important indicator that needs to be closely monitored.


      Report this

      21

  • #
    DeltaCharlie

    You might expect that it would occur to Latika Bourke and Lisa Cox that…”Wait a minute – what if our readers are smart enough to see through our little charade?”. “What if they notice what we are doing here?”

    But no. The all-to-common blissful arrogance overcomes any self-awareness that they are parroting misinformation and omitting actual information to the masses.
    Hopefully it is not intentional, as that would be dishonest. Oh dear..

    No wonder the SMH is rapidly going down the toilet. Funny that half a dozen or so SMH top bosses just awarded themselves some $2.4 million in bonuses for performance and achievement (in what?), while demanding that their journalist staff accept no pay increase. Oh dear..


    Report this

    220

  • #
    King Geo

    What will be will be and that certainly won’t be “Global Warming”, at least for most of this century. The Grand Minimum is imminent and it is time for the “high latitude Northern Hemisphere nations” to be prepared to adapt to a changing climate and that will be “Global Cooling”, not “Global Flat-lining” like we have experienced in the past 16 years, and certainly not “Global Warming”.


    Report this

    151

    • #
      the Griss

      And with many energy supply systems in disarray due to the moronic non-alternative non-energy agenda,…

      a lot of those countries could be in a lot of strife if it the temperature drop is even quite slow.

      I suspect that with the COOLING we will start to see the first waves of genuine climate refugees.. sort of like Queensland gets a lot of. ;-)

      Basically most people prefer WARM to COLD, (unless they are avid skiers, but they only visit the cold for a few days before returning to WARMER places)

      If atmospheric CO2 really does have any warming effect (yeah, right, lol) we are going to wish we had a whole heap more of it !!!


      Report this

      171

  • #
    Vince Whirlwind

    So why did the Australian

    distort

    the message by providing such a carefully cherry-picked selection of not-very-eminent scientists to support Newman’s idiotic view?

    Why not canvass some real scientists, and a broad range of them? Could it be because virtually all genuine scientists would point out that Newman’s ideas are absurd?


    Report this

    270

    • #
      the Griss

      They have chosen probably the most eminent climate scientist in Australia and the world, as listed on the first line. (learn to read, dopey-drawers)

      What more could they do. ! Are you going to suggest Flannery or someone like that, just to add to your lack of credibility ! ;-)


      Report this

      532

      • #
        Vince Whirlwind

        Um, surely you aren’t referring to David Archibald, the joker who predicted 2.2 degrees of sudden cooling for 2009, based on his modelling?

        We all know how Archibald’s nutty ideas panned out – being “an eminent climatologist” is certainly one thing we can count him out of.

        [Vince to put an end to your scurrilous claims that David Archibald "predicted 2.2 degrees of sudden cooling for 2009" I have reprinted the abstract from his paper below. The full paper can be read here: http://www.davidarchibald.info/papers/Archibald2009E&E.pdf

        ABSTRACT
        Archibald (2006) predicted that climate during the forthcoming Solar Cycles 24
        and 25 would be significantly cold. As at late 2008, the progression of the current
        23/24 solar minimum indicates that a severe cool period is now inevitable, similar
        to that of the Dalton Minimum. A decline in average annual temperature of 2.2° C
        is here predicted for the mid-latitude regions over Solar Cycle 24. The result will
        be an equator-ward shift in continental climatic conditions in the mid-latitudes of
        the order of 300 km, with consequent severe effects on world agricultural
        productivity.

        Vince, Solar cycle 24 has not ended and may continue beyond 2019. So save your critique for Archibald's prediction for the mid latitudes until you can actually test it! Please refrain from baseless accusations and ad homs. - Mod]


        Report this

        255

        • #
          the Griss

          “A decline in average annual temperature of 2.2°C is here predicted for the mid-latitude regions over Solar Cycle 24.”

          That 2.2°C is over the whole of cycle 24.. We aren’t there yet !!!

          [SNIP]

          The sun has gone quiet…solar cycle 24 continues to rank as one of the weakest cycles more than a century


          Report this

          461

          • #
            Rereke Whakaaro

            Hey, Griss,

            Play fair. You are not allowed to confuse Vince with the facts. We don’t want him over-heating. That could prove messy.


            Report this

            151

          • #
            Craig Thomas

            Yes, it is weak. And how are temperatures going, since this cycle started in January 2008?
            http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/from:2008/plot/wti/from:2008/trend

            Up? Wow! So Archibald was wrong then. Who’d have guessed?


            Report this

            17

            • #
              the Griss

              The real temperatures have FLATTENED OUT,

              RSS shows cooling, as UHA would is it had responded the same to the 1998 Elnino. (Roy was changing satellites through that period)

              But again.. you have to use the much fudged GISS and HadCrut, because you HAVE to rely on that fudging to hide the cooling, Yes, Giss and HadCrut use this corrupted data.!

              Reality is different


              Report this

              51

            • #
              the Griss

              Your [snipped] short term cherry picked starting point shows you up as a total brain absent twit.

              Do you have a monkey working for you ? Perhaps you should try starting at 2010, !!

              The ElNin0 1998 ElNino culminated at about the beginning of 2001. and since then, the REAL unadjusted data shows a DOWNWARD TREND. !

              And because there was less energy entering the system, the 2010 El nino didn’t even cause the same sort of step up that the previous 3 El Ninos did (they were during a period of strong solar maximum). The current possibly forming Elnino is really struggling, because it has very little solar input to drive it. Even it it does happen, it will give only a transient spike, then an even stronger cooling trend.

              The poor alarmistas this this possible El Nino will save them from even further embarrassment, but they are ignorant to what will follow.

              I hope that wasn’t to much for your feeble mind to comprehend.

              [I know you are being provoked Griss but try not to feed the troll. - Mod]


              Report this

              41

              • #
                the Griss

                Please excuse my typos, been programming and data processing all day. sore eyes.


                Report this

                10

              • #
                Vince Whirlwind

                [snipped]

                The topic under discussion was “Solar cycle 24″.

                David Archibald’s[snipped] prediction was that there would be global cooling to the tune of 2.2 degrees over this cycle.

                What does the graph say?


                Report this

                03

              • #
                the Griss

                “What does the graph say?”

                The graph says we are only just at the very low peak of cycle 24, and it is already starting to cooling. Probably another 5-8 years until we reach the end of cycle 24.

                I really hope David Archibald is wrong with his prediction, because a lot of northern countries are going to be in deep [self-snip] if he is anywhere near correct.


                Report this

                00

            • #
              Debbie

              Craig.
              You are hand waving over a 0.1 degree of AVERAGED global data that by necessity has a ‘cherry picked’ start date.
              The temp changed more than that here in the last 30 secs because it’s cloudy here today. In fact much , much more than that.
              It has not caused an apocalypse . . .despite the incredibly shorttime frame of 30 secs.
              :-)
              BTW if you change the start dates you will get different results up & down. . .all of them by not much.


              Report this

              61

              • #
                Vince Whirlwind

                The start date was determined by David Archibald, whose [snip] prediction of 2.2 degrees of cooling we are currently discussing.

                [snipped]

                [Vince, I am going backwards from most recent to oldest comment. If I had seen these earlier comments your later comments would have been moderated. You are welcome to debate at this site, but use of ad homs (name calling, insults) will not be tolerated further. And we do expect people who want to comment as profusely as you have tonight, to actually make a point or two with evidence, facts and reason.

                As indicated previously, Archibald's prediction of 2.2 degrees cooling was for the mid latitudes over the entire solar cycle 24. Nothing to do with 2009. Why don't you wait until Cycle 24 is over before you critiques his prediction?

                However if you want to talk about whacky predictions for solar cycle 24 which you can confidently say was wrong, check out what NASA was predicting here: http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2006/21dec_cycle24/

                Dec. 21, 2006: Evidence is mounting: the next solar cycle is going to be a big one.
                Solar cycle 24, due to peak in 2010 or 2011 "looks like its going to be one of the most intense cycles since record-keeping began almost 400 years ago," says solar physicist David Hathaway of the Marshall Space Flight Center."

                What we already know is that Solar Cycle 24 is likely to be the most inactive since the Maunder Minimum rather than the most intense for 400 years! - Mod]


                Report this

                03

              • #
                Vince Whirlwind

                Well, “Mod”, one of the first things you may want to brush up on is the meaning of the logical fallacy called an “ad Hominem” argument.

                An “ad hominem” would be, “John McLean’s prediction that this year will be the coldest since 1955 is wrong because John McLean is an imbecile”.
                There is nothing “ad hominem” about drawing a conclusion about somebody’s intellectual status from the results of a real-world test, for example, “John McLean’s an imbecile because his predictions were so stunningly wrong”.

                David Archibald is not a scientist, he conducts no science, and he is not a respected figure in any branch of science.
                His prediciton for Solar cycle 24 included:
                – massive cooling of 2.2 degrees.
                http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/from:2008/plot/wti/from:2008/trend
                Hasn’t happened.
                – flat atmospheric CO2 levels.
                This certainly hasn’t happened.

                My conclusion is that Archibald is incompetent. This is not an ad hominem argument, it is a conclusion well-supported by the facts.


                Report this

                04

              • #
                the Griss

                “My conclusion is that Archibald is incompetent”

                My conclusion is that you are a moronic idiot.

                This is NOT an ad hom, it is a conclusion supported by every one of your posts.


                Report this

                30

              • #
                the Griss

                “David Archibald is not a scientist, he conducts no science, and he is not a respected figure in any branch of science”

                Three LIES in one sentence..

                That’s a lot even for you. !!

                But its all you have.. LIES and MIS-INFORMATION !!


                Report this

                20

            • #
              Carbon500

              Well Vince, where exactly does this graph you link to in any way suggest that we are seeing the onset or progression of dangerous man-made global warming?
              All that is seen are fraction of a degree temperature oscillations.
              Never in the history of science has so much been made of such trivial changes as those espoused by the catastrophists.
              How much money has been wasted on this stupidity that could have been better spent elsewhere?


              Report this

              10

    • #
      Debbie

      Vince Whirlwind?

      ” Why not canvass some real scientists”

      I am wondering what your definition of a ‘real scientists’ could possibly be?
      I suspect that your definition may have precious little to do with a person’s actual qualifications and perhaps more to do with what or whom a scientist works with or for?
      Because a simple little search discovers that David Archibald is indeed a qualified and published scientist:
      http://www.iwp.edu/faculty/page/David-Archibald
      I also note below at comment number 9 that you make much of perceived failed projections/predictions?
      SERIOUSLY??????
      Using your style of logic (ahem :-) )…. every scientist everywhere can be accused of being wrong!
      (Including those you must define as ‘real scientists’?)
      You do appear to be not all that interested in “SCIENCE” per se Vince Whirlwind. . .as you are obviously more than ready to attack a qualified scientist and imply that others are more ‘real’???????
      Unless you can explain why some scientists get to be more ‘real’ than others. . .your comments look far more politically/ideologically based than they are scientifically based.


      Report this

      81

    • #
      the Griss

      “Why not canvass some real scientists,”

      I’m here, and I’m waiting for you to ask something worthwhile answering.


      Report this

      61

    • #
      Stylo

      Isn’t it more about the merits of the arguments rather than which team the scientists is on? Is science really all about the team you’re on and not about the facts?


      Report this

      50

      • #
        Debbie

        Of course it should be Stylo.
        I don’t think Vince would agree however. . .he seems to argue that some scientists are somehow ‘real scientists’ while David Archibald who is a qualified scientist is somehow not a ‘real scientist’.
        :-)


        Report this

        30

        • #
          Vince Whirlwind

          David Archibald’s looney-tune predictions are wrong. Continuously wrong. Obviously he isn’t a very good scientist and just as obviously it would be unwise to rely on his nonsense when it’s always wrong.

          [Ad hom with no evidence of substantiation - lift your game Vince. - Mod]


          Report this

          06

  • #
    Vince Whirlwind

    Misprepresenting Mike Lockwood’s expert view is another low in The Australian’s conduct. Lockwood clearly says that human influence vastly outweighs any solar influence AND the Sun is clearly not responsible for recent warming: humans are.


    Report this

    364

    • #
      James Bradley

      Hey Vince,

      Some say cherry, some say pick.

      I’m sure you’re much more familiar with that system than your righteous indignation presents.


      Report this

      172

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      Ooh, so when some person, who is paid either directly, or indirectly, from the public purse, says something, in a pontifical way, and denies any counter argument, then it must be true? Well, who would have thought?

      And humans are to blame, you say? Well, fancy that. This person even managed to stay on-script. I am surprised. Yet another erudite Australian. Almost at double figures.


      Report this

      132

    • #
      sophocles

      Here’s an experiment for you Vince: turn the sun off and see what happens to the climate.


      Report this

      101

      • #

        Turn off what of the Sun? The irradiance? That “may” have little to do with the internal energy, including, surface temperature, of Earth. Solar irradiance is part of the scam by Vince. Cycles, Fibonacci, Fractal universe, more likely! The current century may reveal. If earthlings first learn to carefully measure, and only after that learn the physical. We may have time to painfully learn what to measure, measure, measure, then finallypossible understanding. The Climastrologists have only ther own fantasy, no science, no understanding.


        Report this

        00

    • #
      Debbie

      Really Vince?

      http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8615789.stm
      He doesn’t appear to have said that clearly at all.
      I agree with Sophocles on this one. . .and I think if you actually read Lockwood’s work with your blinkers off. . .he would too.
      “turn off the sun and see what happens to the climate”.
      Of course Lockwood would not be silly enough to claim what you say here:
      “Lockwood clearly says that human influence

      vastly outweighs

      any solar influence AND the Sun is clearly not responsible for recent warming: humans are.” (my bold)
      Because if he did. . .he would be “utterly wrong” !


      Report this

      30

      • #
        Vince Whirlwind

        a. He’s not wrong.
        b. That is indeed what he (and every national science academy in the world) says
        c. The Australian can’t find any science to support its looney-tune position, so it has to lie about Lockwood’s work and its conclusions.

        [Vince it would be nice to see you present some evidence or reason to substantiate your position, otherwise it's just trolling! - Mod]


        Report this

        04

    • #
      James Bradley

      Vince,

      Once you’ve completed Sophocles’ experiment I have an analogy for you.

      It’s not mine I ‘replicated’ it off of Craig Thomas in the Salby posts – it’s really copied right, but if you say copied as in “I copied Michael Manns experiment and got the same results” all it means is that you used his, smoooooooooothed out data instead of obtainig, uncontaminated empirical data, see, but if you say ‘replicated’ then you can plagiarise the sh#t out of anything to support your false hypothesis/es.

      From Craig Thomas:

      “Let me analogise thusly:

      You have a bucket with a hole in it under your leaking water tank. The bucket has 280ml of water in it. Initially, the drips coming from the water tank exactly equal the drips leaving via the hole in the bucket, so the bucket stays at a constant 280ml.
      Then, you grab a teaspoon of water, every day, and tip it into the bucket. After a month, you notice that the bucket now has 400ml of water in it.”

      Craig Thomas interprets thusly:

      “According to your (faulty) logic, only 5ml of that 120ml is due to the teaspoon. Of course, this logic is wrong: the 5ml added every day is in excess of the outgoing flow from the hole in the bucket, and therefore water now accumulates.”

      See Craig Thomas is a bucket half empty kinda guy.

      I just see a natural system that needs replenishing following the Little Ice Age.


      Report this

      51

    • #
      Kenneth Richard

      Lockwood clearly says that human influence vastly outweighs any solar influence AND the Sun is clearly not responsible for recent warming: humans are.

      According to the IPCC (AR4), the entirety of anthropogenic radiative forcing was 1.6 W/m2 between the years 1750 and 2005.

      https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter2.pdf
      “The combined anthropogenic RF is estimated to be +1.6. [–1.0, +0.8]2 W m–2″

      ——————————–

      In contrast, TSI increased between 2 and 4 W/m2 just between 1900 and 1950 alone…
      ———————————–
      http://lasp.colorado.edu/images/science/solar_infl/Surface-Temp-w-paleo.jpg

      http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1102/1102.4763v1.pdf
      We obtained a large historical solar forcing between the Maunder minimum and the present, as well as a significant increase in solar irradiance in the first half of the twentieth-century. Our TSI reconstructions give a value of ∼1 W/m2 per decade for the period 1900–1950.
      —————————-
      Between solar cycles 21-23 (1980 – 2002), TSI increased at a rate of +0.05% per decade

      http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20030320/sun4m.jpg

      Not only that, but global brightening/decreased albedo increased the solar radiation reaching the Earth’s surface between 2-7 W/m2 just in the 1980s and 1990s.

      —————————–
      http://www.sciencemag.org/content/308/5723/850.abstract
      We observed an overall increase in S [solar radiation reaching the Earth's surface] from 1983 to 2001 at a rate of 0.16 watts per square meter (0.10%) per year
      —————————–
      ftp://bbso.njit.edu/pub/staff/pgoode/website/publications/Palle_etal_2005a_GRL.pdf
      Traditionally the Earth’s reflectance has been assumed to be roughly constant, but large decadal variability, not reproduced by current climate models, has been reported lately from a variety of sources. There is a consistent picture among all data sets by which the Earth’s albedo has decreased over the 1985-2000 interval. The amplitude of this decrease ranges from 2-3 W/m2 to 6-7 W/m2 but any value inside these ranges is highly climatologically significant and implies major changes in the Earth’s radiation budget.
      ——————————
      http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00482.1?journalCode=clim
      Surface incident solar radiation G determines our climate and environment, and has been widely observed with a single pyranometer since the late 1950s. Data from this summation method suggest that surface incident solar radition increased at a rate of 6.6 W m−2decade−1 (3.6% decade−1) from 1992 to 2002 (brightening) at selected sites.
      ——————————–
      http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/13/8505/2013/acp-13-8505-2013.html
      “[T]here has been a global net decrease [of 3.6%] in 340 nm cloud plus aerosol reflectivity [which has led to] an increase of 2.7 W m−2 of solar energy reaching the Earth’s surface and an increase of 1.4% or 2.3 W m−2 absorbed by the surface.” [between 1979 and 2011]
      ——————————–

      So explain how it is that the human influence “vastly outweighs” the Sun’s influence in climate change.


      Report this

      50

  • #
    Kevin Lohse

    Yet more confirmation that the Global CAGW cabal is getting ever-more desperate. Blogs like Jo’s keep the light of truth shining in the Darkness of deceit, lies, pseudo-science and political chicanery that has come to be associated with the Green agenda.


    Report this

    491

    • #
      Yonniestone

      I agree that blogs like Jo’s are making good headway into the public’s psyche, just look at the amount of skeptical comments after MSM stories on anything ‘climate’, a large increase compared to 5 years ago.

      Hell I’ve even seen climate change jokes/slurs thrown around in comments in totally unrelated articles, CAGW jokes will have become the new joke genre alongside Chuck Norris and Your mamma ones.


      Report this

      161

  • #
    Vince Whirlwind

    The Australian should have studied Archibald’s form:
    http://www.davidarchibald.info/papers/Archibald2009E&E.pdf

    SUMMARY AND PROJECTIONS
    Based on our understanding of the interaction of solar and terrestrial processes, the
    following projections are made for a number of climate-related physical processes:
    1. Month of Solar Cycle 23/24 minimum: July, 2009
    2. Year of Solar Cycle 24 maximum: 2016
    3. Amplitude of Solar Cycle 24: 45
    4. Temperature Decline Solar Cycle 24: 2.2° C
    5. Oulu Neutron Count Monthly Peak: 6,900
    6. Month of Oulu Neutron Count Peak: July, 2010
    7. Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Level: Relatively flat 2010 – 2030

    Archibald was utterly wrong. Beyond a joke how pathetic he is to recycle this old crap.

    [Vince you are announcing Archibald is wrong before we are even certain Solar cycle 24 has peaked, and years before solar cycle 24 has ended. So how can you know the 2.2 degree decline (for mid latitudes) is wrong? I think you need to read the entire paper. - Mod]


    Report this

    246

    • #
      the Griss

      1. Month of Solar Cycle 23/24 minimum: July, 2009
      pretty darn close

      2. Year of Solar Cycle 24 maximum: 2016
      looks like it could be quite a bit sooner, with an early drip down to the solar minimum.

      3. Amplitude of Solar Cycle 24: 45
      a slight underestimation, looks like it might peak around 70.

      4. Temperature Decline Solar Cycle 24: 2.2° C
      we aren’t there yet….

      5. Oulu Neutron Count Monthly Peak: 6,900
      that was an absolute maximum projection.. now look at here.. it reached about 6800 in 2010.. pretty darn good projection. !!!!

      6. Month of Oulu Neutron Count Peak: July, 2010
      see above

      7. Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Level: Relatively flat 2010 – 2030
      can’t comment yet, can we.

      SO.. it seems that it is YOU who is UTTERLY WRONG about Archibald being wring.

      You are a fraud, Vince. Take your crap elsewhere. !!!


      Report this

      561

    • #

      But you have no problem with the IPCC being “utterly wrong”. Again and again.


      Report this

      330

      • #

        The IPCC were utterly wrong.

        Their 1990 prediction was so wrong that reality turned out to be lower than their lowest estimate, and they had given a broad range.

        http://joannenova.com.au/2012/05/the-ipcc-1990-far-predictions-were-wrong/
        See also
        http://joannenova.com.au/tag/far-ipcc-first-assessment-rep/


        Report this

        441

        • #
          Vince Whirlwind

          “We’re not there yet”.

          However, *some* models ahve been utterly voided by recent observations:
          John McLean’s, which was ludicrous and based on the same solar [Snipped]
          And let’s just compare Lindzen’s model with Hansen’s:
          https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRx_5Uw5B7eDleib2zoc8lGT0NGj8U0lKFdsHlsAbxa7qNBWWYJ

          As you can see, genuine scientists are doing their best. [Snipped]

          [If you insist on using the term Denier, you will have to define what you mean by that. Also vince, if you want to link a graph you should identify its source. It would be helpful for people to respond - Mod]


          Report this

          125

          • #
            sophocles

            Deniers are clearly incompetent.

            … which is probably why NASA pushed Hansen into retirement.


            Report this

            120

          • #
            Kenneth Richard

            As you can see, genuine scientists are doing their best. Deniers are clearly incompetent.

            Back in 1990, the IPCC predicted that temperatures would rise between +0.2 and +0.5 C per decade, with a central estimate of +0.3 C per decade (“best estimate”).

            What happened? It warmed by +0.14 C per decade, with much of that warming step occurring due to the incredibly strong 1997/’98 El Nino. That means the IPCC’s predictions were off by more than 100%.

            In their latest report, the IPCC had to admit that 111 of 114 climate models (based on their warming projections predicated on CO2 increases) were wrong, having overestimated the warming by more than a factor of two. That’s a 97% model failure rate.

            “For the period 1998–2012, 111 of the 114 climate-model simulations show a surface-warming trend larger than the observations (Box SYR.1, Figure 1a).”

            “During the 15-year period beginning in 1998, the ensemble of HadCRUT4 GMST trends lies below almost all model-simulated trends (Box 9.2 Figure 1a)”

            “However, an analysis of the full suite of CMIP5 historical simulations…reveals that 111 out of 114 realisations show a GMST trend over 1998–2012 that is higher than the entire HadCRUT4 trend ensemble (Box 9.2 Figure 1a).”

            When models are demonstrated to have a 97% failure rate, do you think that it might be appropriate to reconsider the soundness of the hypothesis that anthropogenic CO2 is the primary determinant of climate change, and the Sun, ocean cycles, and albedo factors like clouds have little to do with it?
            ———————————————
            http://www.academia.edu/4210419/Can_climate_models_explain_the_recent_stagnation_in_global_warming
            In recent years, the increase in near-surface global annual mean temperatures has emerged as considerably smaller than many had expected…[W]e find that the continued warming stagnation over fifteen years, from 1998 -2012, is no longer consistent with model projections even at the 2% confidence level.
            ———————————————-
            http://www.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs/Climate%20change/Climate%20model%20results/over%20estimate.pdf
            Global mean surface temperature over the past 20 years (1993–2012) rose at a rate of 0.14 ± 0.06 °C per decade (95% confidence interval) This rate of warming is significantly slower than that simulated by the climate models participating in Phase 5 of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP5). [W]e find an average simulated rise in global mean surface temperature of 0.30 ± 0.02 °C per decade (using 95% confidence intervals on the model average). The observed rate of warming given above [0.14 C] is less than half of this simulated rate, and only a few simulations [3 out of 117, or 3%] provide warming trends within the range of observational uncertainty.


            Report this

            70

            • #

              > Back in 1990, the IPCC predicted that temperatures would rise between +0.2 and +0.5 C per decade, with a central estimate of +0.3 C per decade (“best estimate”). What happened?

              A fuller and more direct quote is more enlightening (http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/far/wg_I/ipcc_far_wg_I_spm.pdf):

              Under the IPCC Business-as-Usual (Scenario A) emissions
              of greenhouse gases, the average rate of increase of global
              mean temperature during the next century is estimated to be
              about 0 3°C per decade (with an uncertainty range of 0 2°C
              to 0 5°C) This will result in a likely increase in global
              mean temperature of about 1°C above the present value
              (about 2°C above that in the pre-industrial period) by 2025
              and 3°C above today’s (about 4°C above pre-industrial)
              before the end of the next century

              So notice that the first date they mention is 2025; not 2014.


              Report this

              38

              • #
                Kenneth Richard

                So notice that the first date they mention is 2025; not 2014.

                A decade lasts 10 years. So a per-decade temperature prediction of +0.3 C would necessarily imply that the 1990 FAR predictions could be assessed for accuracy on 10-year time scales. Not only that, but the “hiatus” in warming (as the IPCC calls it) was determined to have occurred on a 15-year time scale (1998-2012). So the IPCC is not opposed to analyzing temperature trends on shorter, or 10- to 15-year time scales.

                Do you predict that the temperatures will rise by 0.5 C between 2014 and 2025? That’s the only way that the FAR prediction will fall within range.


                Report this

                31

              • #

                William Connolley states the 1990 IPCC uncertainty range

                (with an uncertainty range of 0 2°C to 0 5°C)

                This is directly testable with the Skeptical Science trends calculator for the period 1990 to 2013.
                For GISTEMP 0.159 ±0.085 °C/decade (2σ)
                For NOAA 0.142 ±0.080 °C/decade (2σ)
                For HASCRUT4 0.145 ±0.081 °C/decade (2σ)
                For UAH 0.171 ±0.133 °C/decade (2σ)
                The UNIPCC models in 1990 were running too hot. Roy Spencer did a more sophisticated analysis here.
                It is even worse for AGW theory. Post 1998 human emissions accelerated in line with global growth, to an unprecedented level. But the rates of global warming slowed dramatically or even stopped. This despite probable manipulation of the data sets to bring them into line.
                By the way, William Connolley, don’t forget. :)


                Report this

                30

              • #
                the Griss

                And lets not forget that the SkS trend calc is nearly wide enough to cover basically ANY guess they might have made !!


                Report this

                20

            • #
              The Backslider

              That’s a 97% model failure rate.

              Dang! It’s a consensus!!


              Report this

              10

    • #
      the Griss

      The other thing you probably didn’t read and comprehend, (because you are basically dumb and stupid)..

      is that this is the projections of a combined group of some of the most eminent solar physicist in the world.

      You on the other hand, are a nothing, a nobody with zero scientific credibility or understanding.


      Report this

      251

      • #
        Vince Whirlwind

        David Archibald is the most eminent solar physicist at Clown School.
        In the real world, he is a non-scientist and a fringe-nutter who publishes silly books full of failed predictions.

        [Vince this is an ad hom. Archibald cited peer reviewed research from world renown scientists. If you have an issue with the research he cited, then address that. Archibald is a respected visiting Fellow at the Institute of World Politics, a geologist, and successful multi disciplinary researcher and inventor. Future ad homs will be moderated per site policy. - Mod]


        Report this

        04

    • #
      the Griss

      The very weak solar cycle IS REAL.

      The COOLING will be REAL (so real that not even GISS and Hadcrut will be able to fudge it)

      So let’s all just hope that the mythical CO2 warming is also real. …. No proof of it so far, none , nada…. zip !

      Vince, I really, really WANT you to be right about CO2 warming, because of the massive beneficial effects that it would have for the whole world.

      But unfortunately, it ain’t going to happen.. :-(


      Report this

      301

    • #
      James Bradley

      Vince,

      You’re a cherry picker.

      More used to gleaning a couple of choice propaganda lines from SkS every other Thursday morning before ducking off and espousing your newfound wisdom to impress the rest of the tax payer funded donor crowd.

      You’re the one with the “End is Nye” on the front of his tee shirt with “the Bil will Not be Silent” on the back.

      Hint for cred: Bill is actually spelt with two ‘L’s.


      Report this

      151

    • #
      sophocles

      Tell us when Cycle 24 finished. Then we can check the temperature decline/increase over the cycle.


      Report this

      10

  • #

    “The media IS the problem. With better media, we’d have better politicians, better bureaucrats, and better policy.”

    The media is not a cause. It is nothing more than a reflection of generally held ideas. To get better media, better politicians, better bureaucrats, and better policies we need better ideas.

    Once reason, reality, and logic ruled ideas. But no more. Reality is no longer real. It becomes anything for anyone and can change at the whim of the majority. Everyone knows that it is impossible to know anything for certain, that logic is inferior to feelings, that changing a name changes the thing, and that if you don’t discuss or think about something it won’t happen. Each believes that, while they can’t know anything, there are special others who can. They are called “the authorities”. The consequence of these ideas is our current media, politicians, bureaucrats, and policies. It is as inevitable as the derivation of a geometric proof.

    Oh there are a few rare people who go against the crowd but everyone knows they are nothing but selfish and independent individuals who are only interested in themselves. They have the audacity to be confident in their own ability to see, think, learn, understand, choose, and act correctly. Yes, they make mistakes but they learn from them and work not to make them again. They do this in spite of how it makes the noble selfless others feel. What those others say is willfully ignored. Worse, they believe reality is real and acting accordingly is both important and necessary for staying alive. If this were common sense, would we have our current media, politicians, bureaucrats, and policies? I think not.

    How do we change the people? Change the ideas they hold as true. We will then have better people because they will have better ideas. Unless and until that happens we will continue with business as usual.


    Report this

    100

    • #
      NielsZoo

      I’d have to disagree. The media is a large part of the problem. “…reason, reality, and logic…” cannot rule ideas if people have no fact to reason with and reality is presented like Alice’s Wonderland. Setting aside their obvious leftist bias, simply omitting factual data or the logical arguments of the “other side” swings the pendulum far into their liberal wheelhouse. Here in the US Barak the First’s approval numbers are tanking as is confidence in any sort of government solution to any problem. This is in spite of the news media actively burying the misdeeds of our massively incompetent, vindictive and out-of-control politicians and the leftist federal bureaucracy. Can you image what the people would be doing if they were just given the plain facts?

      Media drives ignorance. Sites like this drive knowledge… on both sides of the issues. We are all going to be in a world of hurt if our good friends at the UN get control of the Internet. Our avenues for truth will be gone and the media will once again control access to “the truth” and the distopic world oligarchy will continue to grow… at which point we will be rooting for the glaciers to come back and shove the UN into the East River.


      Report this

      170

      • #

        “…reason, reality, and logic…” cannot rule ideas if people have no fact to reason with and reality is presented like Alice’s Wonderland.

        That in itself reflects a very bad idea. Relying on others to provide one with “the facts” is a primary and often fatal mistake. Especially if you don’t bother to make an independent check on the validity of the facts. If the facts are not important and don’t matter, you don’t need to care one way or the other. If they are important and you want to stay alive, you had better care. Check, double check, and keep on checking.

        Yes, it is hard to do, very demanding,and must constantly be done. Most don’t want to go to the trouble. It is so much easier to rely on the authority of others, go to sleep, watch television, and not rely on your own mind. THAT is why civilization is sinking rapidly. It is not because of the media. It is because the majority do not want to take the responsibility for their own knowledge nor their own existence. They go along to get along. They are running full speed into the abyss.

        To Serve Mankind was a cookbook!


        Report this

        60

    • #
      Rick Bradford

      Journalists are part of the great cabal of People Who Do Nothing, and so journalism is a profession which attracts the Green/Left like flies to s**t.

      As one wag noted, you can tell that media people Do Nothing, since you could remove their bodies and they could still function, which is why they are known as ‘talking heads’.

      And if you Do Nothing, there’s no downside to being wrong. The same applies to academia, whose complete uselessness has even entered the language as “It’s all academic.”

      Suffused with their sense of (unearned) moral superiority and with their egos threatened by the People Who Actually Do Things (build, create, dig, grow, develop etc) the media are free to loose their mix of incompetence, indolence and petty rage on any subject that enables them to denigrate anyone not of their own sorry ilk.


      Report this

      180

      • #
        ianl8888

        Yes, the large majority of leftie journos are parasites

        But to truly understand them, you need to grasp the fact that they don’t mind this


        Report this

        10

  • #
    cedarhill

    Wow! Again. The current pattern of the Earth is 90% glaciation and only 10% warmth. Even the gurus of Wikipedia have articles on these cycles. The only real issues for “climate change” should be when and how the next glaciation begin and what should humans do if they find Long Island, NY, under a mile or so of ice.

    Archibald is simply saying the solar engine will at least revert to it’s mean along with the normal climate of a very cool Earth. SUV’s just ain’t gonna stop the ice from returning. If one’s life was measured in centuries, everyone would bet on Archibald being correct.

    There are numorous technical issues to implement thorium but it will be money well spent. Even Africa could use these power stations. The gents at Los Alamos have produced papers showing how extremely pure (as in “clean”) hydorcarbons can be produced for less than the price of today’s oil.

    But it seems the Greens will make certain the species will disappear and prove Darwin correct. Humans may well be an evolutionary dead end.


    Report this

    90

  • #
    • #
      the Griss

      They sacked Flannery already.. and Gillard, and Rudd .

      And hotwhopper.. seriously.. far-left moronics.. right down your alley !!!


      Report this

      361

    • #
      ROM

      Quoting Hotwhopper really takes a certain William Connolley way down deep into the furtherest stink hole of the Climate gutter although I think the William Connolley is probably quite familiar with that part of the climate gutter as he spends a fair bit of time there on his own blog in any case,

      I’ve been doing a bit of thinking about a few things.

      It seems that Mark Steyn is going after Mann in a fairly big way legally.
      But the latest development is that large sections of the media are now coming into the picture with a amicus brief that supports Steyn’s case against Mann.
      [ Climate Audit ]

      If Steyn cleans Mann out legally and financially there is going to be a lot of looking over the shoulders from one heck of a lot of other climate catastrophist pushers who have had a merry old time slandering and denigrating a whole bunch of very prominent skeptic scientists and other prominent skeptics over the last decade or more.

      I figure that sometime in the future if Steyn knocks over Mann in court, some smart lawyer somewhere is going to be looking around for some more alarmist’s hides to add to his collection in his trophy room.
      And what better than a mangy flea bitten Stoat hide?
      Stoats of course like to make themselves very obvious by leaping around and making a big show when they think they can lure some prey within reach by their antics.

      So there is one very obvious Stoat that has made a great show of himself, no doubt, his considerable gratification, to achieve a high level of notoriety of the worst type for altering and corrupting data, information and worst of all the bio’s of some of the most prominent skeptics to reflect his own personal ideologies and hatreds against any who disagreed with his own warped ideologies.
      And then he kept altering those bio’s back even after they were corrected and that more than just once.

      There is more than one very p****ed off skeptic scientist out there who has made their disgust obvious in posts on various blogs and who would no doubt like to have the oppurtunity to take out their revenge for the deliberate slandering of their name that regularly occurred.
      All that those p****ed off skeptics need is a change in the political and legal attitudes, a hardening of attitudes, a far more skeptical attitude towards the claims of the climate catastrophists. And that is a change that already appears to be well under way.

      Plus a couple of smart lawyers and it is game on

      And if any of those or other researchers, skeptic and otherwise discover that they have suffered discrimination anywhere for any reason due to what the information in Wiki that certain William Connolley had deliberately altered and corrupted in the Wiki articles then I figure that the smart lawyer might just have another mangy flea bitten Stoat hide to add to the other trophy hides in his trophy room.
      And more than one skeptic researcher might have quite a extra load of dollars in his pocket courtesy of one Stoat called William Connolley.

      All he will need is a change in the political and legal climate towards a deep skeptism of the claims of climate catastrophy science and one smart lawyer looking for another hide or two to add to his collection in his trophy room.


      Report this

      371

      • #

        > Steyn is going after Mann

        No. Steyn is running away: he’s filing to have Mann’s suit dismissed. So much for all his big talk of “discovery” and wanting his day in court. If Mann was doing this, you’d be calling him a coward. Steyn is a coward, but because he’s on your side you won’t call him out.

        > Steyn cleans Mann out legally and financially

        Steyn is filing to dismiss. Didn’t you even try reading the Amicus Curiae thing you’re referencing?

        > made their disgust obvious in posts on various blogs

        Sounds exciting. Got any refs, or are you just vapouring?
        > who have had a merry old time slandering and denigrating

        You’ve got this all hopelessly backwards. The amicus curiae brief, that you’re referencing but haven’t read, would make it *harder* to sue (in the US) for libel. Not easier.


        Report this

        543

        • #

          No, Steyn is running away…

          Actually, as Watt’s points out it is Man that is running away.

          http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/08/12/steyns-scorching-new-legal-brief-on-the-michael-mann-defamation-case/

          Also, Mann is fight ing tooth and nail to avoid divulging his data. God forbid that someone should try and see if his fraud results can be replicated, right Billy?

          Various entities have filed a brief to fight the abuse of the legal system to stymie free speech and censor anyone who challenges the warmanistas’ party line. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/08/14/multiple-news-outlets-back-dc-think-tanks-against-global-warming-scientist/

          If Mann is such a man then why is he afraid to debate skeptics? This champion of the failed CAGW hypothesis won’t even do an interview if he has to share the stage with a skeptic. What is he afraid of?

          Is he worried that he will be exposed as someone who is unethical and willing to manipulate, alter and edit data to conform to his sense of confirmation bias? You know the answer to that, don’t you, Billy?


          Report this

          261

          • #
            the Griss

            “someone who is unethical and willing to manipulate, alter and edit data to conform to his sense of confirmation bias”

            At least the WC is upfront about this aspect of himself.

            In fact, he PRIDES himself on it. !


            Report this

            90

        • #
          sophocles

          Aw shux, WC. You missed some of the action: Steyn is counter-suing Mannikins so he (Mannikins) can’t run away. Stay tuned, m’boy, stay tuned, or you’ll keep missing the boat.


          Report this

          21

        • #
          sophocles

          WC, you failed to read the amicus curiae properly. I point out to you that Steyn filed it in the Mann vs National Review case. It is this case which he [Steyn] claims should be dismissed. It has nothing to do with the Mann vs Steyn and Steyn vs Mann cases. These are separate.

          Go back and read it carefully. We won’t mind if you have to move your lips.


          Report this

          50

      • #
        Tim

        “Mark Steyn is going after Mann…”

        If Steyn should win the case against Mann it would set a precedent in law that Mann’s financial backers just cannot allow to occur. Cases like this regularly end up with the (smaller) plaintiff being drained of funds by endless delay tactics lasting years, resulting in:“sign this confidentiality agreement, take this generous out of court settlement and please go away.”

        Sad, but true.


        Report this

        140

        • #
          the Griss

          It would certainly be interesting to see who is backing Mann.

          Gore, Strong, renewable funds, and other similar green/socialist agenda money, almost certainly.


          Report this

          81

      • #
        Rod Stuart

        Ambulance chasers in the legal fraternity don’t p*ss around with the little ankle biter [snip] like WC.
        If such were to be the case, they would follow the money. The first place the money trail leads is one Albert Arnold Gore. If a Slater and Gordon were to take that one down, then the world would be awash with litigation.


        Report this

        01

    • #
      James Bradley

      For heaven’s sake William,

      Will you go and feed your cat, it’s scratching at the door of your neighbour’s apartment.


      Report this

      140

    • #

      The cooling stuff is silly. There’s no science there to remove.

      Oh yeah, if any one knows about ‘removing” something from an article it would be you, wouldn’t it?


      Report this

      171

    • #
      handjive

      Dr Connelley.

      Thanks for providing the hotwhopper link/evidence for lesson #1- Lies by omission

      > NOAA- Global Analysis – April 2012
      Global Highlights-
      http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2012/4

      OMITTED April 27, 2012
      It’s official: Australia no longer in drought
      http://www.theage.com.au/environment/weather/its-official-australia-no-longer-in-drought-20120427-1xpsp.html

      > NOAA- Global Analysis – May 2013
      Global Highlights –
      http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2013/5

      OMITTED May 6, 2013
      The drought has broken in New Zealand, marking an end to the driest period in 30 years.
      http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-05-06/nz-drought-over/4671688

      Drought inducing carbon(sic) = 400ppm
      http://climate.nasa.gov/400ppmquotes/

      OMITTED: The Antipodes Drought Free- contradicting ALL 97% consensus climate science predictions!

      Bonus Question for Jonova’s resident UN-IPCC 97% consensus scientist:

      Can Dr. Connelley explain what will cause the next drought in Oz as 400ppm carbon(sic) ends droughts?


      Report this

      81

    • #
      bit chilly

      that is rich, pot calling the kettle black.


      Report this

      10

  • #
    ROM

    Back on subject;

    Interestingly it is the Sydney Morning Herald who had quite an article on Maurice Newman on July 5th.

    Maurice Newman, the million-dollar smiler

    If you believe the SMH journalists in that article and that is probably a non sequitur, then Maurice Newman seems to have the long demonstrated knack of always being in the right place at the right time.

    There are many, many straws now blowing in the wind pointing to a very significant and growing change in the attitudes towards the climate catastrophe cult.
    Maurice Newman’s open skeptiscm and even a greater shock to the public no doubt, his mentioning of the possibilities of a severe down turn in global temperatures and the climatic consequences of that, all reinforce the fact that a big change of attitude towards the global catastrophe cult, a hardening of the skeptiscm right across the board, both political. and business and public, is starting to take hold and is now making big inroads into the climate catastrophe cultist beliefs even right down to and amongst the public at large.

    Even the fact that the likes of The Australian printed Newman’s mentioning of the possibilities of a significant downturn in global temperatures due to the downturn in solar activity possibly within the near future is quite a milestone for the media.
    Although The Australian to give it credit, has been demonstrating a steady ramping up of it’s editorial skeptiscm over the last half year or so and it shows.


    Report this

    171

  • #
    Robert O

    Svensmark’s theory is a very neat and relates well to solar activity. We all should know the climate is controlled by solar input and its distribution, the water cycle and its various latent heats and cloud formation is a pretty basic part of it, not some gas which is vital to life anyhow and only 0.04% of the atmosphere.


    Report this

    90

  • #

    Some of those who now predict catastrophic human induced global
    warming were among those in the 1970′s, like Stephen Schneider,
    who predicted catastrophic global cooling. Deja vu all over
    again you might say. Key message … ‘naughty humans.’


    Report this

    201

    • #
      • #
        diogenese2

        Was this one of yours Bill?


        Report this

        210

        • #

          He is a keen editor of the article, including the most recent edit of 6th August.


          Report this

          180

          • #
            The Backslider

            Pitiful that they still allow him there….


            Report this

            100

            • #
              scaper...

              I’m perplexed why he’s allowed to post here.

              FRAUD!


              Report this

              41

              • #

                I believe it is important to seek to understand alternative points. Providing counter-arguments enable others to compare and contrast. As WC has nothing substantive to contribute, this can only be of benefit.


                Report this

                80

              • #
                NielsZoo

                Consider that in almost every boxing gym is a small teardrop shaped device called a “speed bag.” It is about the size of the human head but is filled with pressurized air and chained fast to the central point of a plate or ring that limits its swing to a hemisphere. When struck by a boxer it clatters madly and bounces back and forth in quick truncated arcs as its chain prevents it from ever following a natural trajectory. When struck again it does the same noisy rattling dance back and forth slapping alternate sides of the plate and rattling its chain… but its chain holds fast.

                The chain prevents it from ever hitting back. A real boxer reads the opponent, follows the forces and reacts by moving, adapting and learning how the natural forces at play effect himself and his opponent. Alas, the poor speed bag is chained to it’s central tenant and unless it breaks free can never know or understand the breadth of the physical forces at play in the full boxing ring. It is, however, a fun tool for a boxer to sharpen his accuracy with as it just bounces around in its own little hemisphere making annoying noises but never making a mark on the boxer.


                Report this

                00

            • #
              PhilJourdan

              They will never have any chance of credibility until they get rid of him. It matters not what he is doing now. You do not hire a pedophile as an elementary school teacher.


              Report this

              11

      • #
        The Backslider

        Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!

        You really crack me up Billy!


        Report this

        91

      • #

        Actually, Billy, you are wrong. See http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/02/the-1970s-global-cooling-alarmism.html

        Too bad you aren’t an “editor” on Popular technology’s website, eh Billy?


        Report this

        151

        • #
          the Griss

          Steven Goddard has hundreds of clips quoting the cooling alarmism.

          They can’t hide it, but the malignant ego of the WC still thinks he can.

          The WC, its time to realise that your stint as a lying, truth-distorting propagandist IS OVER.

          People everywhere know that anything you have been anywhere near has basically zero credibility.

          You even managed to destroy the credibility of Wikipedia, making it barely even worthwhile for Trivial Pursuit.

          You are the butt of jokes the world over. !!

          AND YOU KNOW IT !!!!


          Report this

          132

        • #
          The Backslider

          You even managed to destroy the credibility of Wikipedia, making it barely even worthwhile for Trivial Pursuit.

          So true. Scores of educational institutions have banned it’s use.


          Report this

          111

      • #
        Glen Michel

        The steady, monotonous drip of water into the sink….. Drip…..drip


        Report this

        40

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        No William, it is you who is wrong. Beth Cooper’s evidence is at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nprY2jSI0Ds

        A young Stephen Schneider appears at 6 minutes and 4 seconds, and again at 7 minutes and 12 seconds.

        But this excerpt is only part 3 of 3. The first two segments are just as alarmist, in their fear of cooling.


        Report this

        110

        • #

          Check out the flares.

          He says in the first segment that he isn’t sure we should do “these things” (by implication, I think, “these things” are geoengineering). He syas we (didn’t then) have much ability to predict, and that was correct, then.

          He says in the second segment that he’s worried that, because people are locked into countries, changes in climate / rainfall could make local changes that would be difficult.

          In neither segment does he predict cooling, or warming. He makes no predictions at all. You need to actually listen to these things, not just reference them.


          Report this

          53

          • #
            the Griss

            “Check out the flares.”

            What? Are we now to be subjected to pics of you when you were in your 30′s ?


            Report this

            10

          • #
            Rereke Whakaaro

            Nice cherrypick there William. I will give you points for trying.

            But you deliberately (?) ignored my reference to the previous two segments, making three in total, that were ALL on the subject of “The Coming Ice Age”. That was the entire context. So you are deliberately taking Stephen Schneider quotes out of context.

            And so the question remains. If the motley crew were hyperventilating over a “Coming Ice Age”, in the 1970′s, and were demonstrably wrong then, how can we give credence to their current hyperventilating over Global Warming?

            Or perhaps they are going to go back to the “Ice Age” scenario, and you just haven’t received the memo yet?


            Report this

            50

            • #
              the Griss

              “Or perhaps they are going to go back to the “Ice Age” scenario,’

              They are going to have to.. or look very, very silly !!

              Darn, a real Catch 22 situation for them either way, isn’t it :-)

              Poor things.. no wonder they are depressed and feeling lonely. :-)


              Report this

              11

    • #
      Kenneth Richard

      The cooling stuff is silly. There’s no science there to remove.

      Do you think it’s silly, William, that your side’s scientists have recently determined that anthropogenic CO2 emissions cause global warming and global “cold snaps”…at the same time?

      http://www.nature.com/srep/2014/140730/srep05884/full/srep05884.html
      “While global tem¬per¬a¬ture is indeed increasing, so too is the vari¬ability in tem¬per¬a¬ture extremes. For instance, while each year’s average hottest and coldest tem¬per¬a¬tures will likely rise, those aver¬ages will also tend to fall within a wider range of poten¬tial high and low tem¬perate extremes than are cur¬rently being observed. This means that even as overall tem¬per¬a¬tures rise, we may still con¬tinue to expe¬ri¬ence extreme cold snaps…
      ————————————
      In the 1970s, the National Academy of Sciences was predicting an imminent global cooling trend too.
      ————————————-
      https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!msg/sci.environment/V9owG7DREPY/U6rYpJuAzUYJ
      In January 1975 the National Academy of Sciences issued a report entitled Understanding Climatic Change: A Program for Action. There is, it said “a finite possibility that a serious worldwide cooling could befall the earth within the next hundred years.”

      From such a staid group the statement was surprisingly strong, but the panel of experts authorizing it had good reasons for what they said: (1) global climate was already cooling; Northern Hemispheric temperatures had been in steady decline since the 1940′s; (2) the period of warm climate the Earth enjoyed between 1880 and 1940 was highly abnormal; when considered in the context of world history, we have seen the warmest century of the last millennium, which was part of the warmest 10,000-year period of the last million years, and this odd warmth cannot be expected to last; (3) climate changes in the past have followed well-defined cycles, and if these cycles continue we can anticipate colder climate to return soon.

      Two of the cycles run at intervals of 20,000 years and 2,500 years during interglacials (periods of ice retreat). The shorter cycle apparently reached its coolest point during the recent “Little Ice Age” from 1430 until 1850, and is now moving toward increased warmth. But the longer cycle brings severe cooling every 10,000 years, and it last did this 10,000 years ago. Thus, said the NAS report, “the question naturally arises as to whether we are indeed on the brink of a [10,000-year] period of colder climate.”

      The NAS provided a series of charts showing cycles in climate and global ice volume. The regularity of cycles lasting 100,000 years, 20,000 years, and 2,500 years is evident:”
      ————————————————

      Climate: Long-rage Investigation, Mapping and Prediction project (CLIMAP) lived up to their project’s name with a “prediction” of sorts: in the absence of possible anthropogenic warming, “the long-term trend over the next several thousand years is toward extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation” (Hays et al. 1976).

      ————————————————
      http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=dEgLAAAAIBAJ&sjid=WlIDAAAAIBAJ&pg=2957,5904697
      “The 46 scientists who gathered at Brown University for a symposium on the ‘End of the Present Interglacial’ agreed that there is the presence of an ominous world-wide cooling of temperatures in the last two decades. They also expressed fear that man, through air pollution, may be hastening the natural process.”
      ————————————-
      https://www.sciencenews.org/sites/default/files/8983
      [T]he weather in the first part of this century has been the warmest and best for world agriculture in over a millenium, and, partly as a result, the world’s population has more than doubled. Since 1940, however, the temperature of the Northern Hemisphere has been steadily falling: Having risen about 1.1 degrees C. between 1885 and 1940, according to one estimation, the temperature has already fallen back some 0.6 degrees, and shows no signs of reversal. Specific areas, of course, may experience changes markedly different from the average. During the warming period, temperatures in parts of Norway rose five times more than the hemisphere average, and since the cooling trend began again, Iceland’s temperature has dropped nearly 2.0 degrees, threatening continued existence of some crops.
      ——————————————–
      http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/chicagotribune/doc/169335148.html?FMT=ABS&FMTS=&type=historic&date=&author=&pub=&edition=&startpage=&desc=
      In the last decade, the Arctic ice and snow cap has expanded 12 per cent, and for the first time in this century, ships making for Iceland ports have been impeded by drifting ice.
      ——————————————–
      Dr. J. T. Andress: “the Arctic has been getting cooler since the 1940s” and “year-round snow banks cover Baffin Island that were free of snow in the summer when the island was first explored.”

      ————————————–

      http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/ny-times-1975-05-21.pdf
      “Scientists Ask Why World’s Climate Is Changing; Major Cooling May Be Ahead”
      —————————————
      Peer-reviewed papers on global cooling from the 1970s…

      Bryson, R.A. and W.M. Wendland, 1970: Climatic Effects of Atmospheric Pollution, in Global Effects of Environmental Pollution In Singer, S.F., ed., 1970: Global Effects of Environmental Pollution.

      Bryson, R.A., 1974: A perspective on climatic change. Science, 184, 753-760.

      Bryson, R. A., and G. J. Dittberner, 1976: A non-equilibrium model of hemispheric mean surface temperature. J. Atmos. Sci., 33, 2094-2106.

      Bryson, R. A., and G. J. Dittberner, 1977: Reply. J. Atmos. Sci., 34, 1821-1824

      Charlson, R.J., H. Harrison, G. Witt, 1972: Aerosol concentrations: Effects on planetary 8 temperatures. (Exchange of Letters) Science, 175, 95-96.

      Gribbin, J., 1975: Cause and effects of global cooling. Nature, 254, p 14.

      Chýlek, P., and J. A. Coakley, Jr., 1974: Aerosols and Climate. Science, 183, 75-77.

      Kukla, G.J. and H.J. Kukla, 1974: Increased surface albedo in the Northern Hemisphere. Science, 183, 709-714.

      Mitchell, J.M., Jr., 1971: The effects of atmospheric aerosols on climate with special reference to temperature near the Earth’s surface. J. Applied Meteorol., 10, 703-714.

      Mitchell, J.M., Jr., 1972: The natural breakdown of the present interglacial and its possible intervention by human activities. Quarternary Res., 2, 436-445.

      Mitchell, J.M, Jr., 1976: An Overview of Climatic Variability and Its Causal Mechanisms. Quaternary Research, 6, 481-494.

      Rasool, S.I., and S.H. Schneider, 1971: Atmospheric carbon dioxide and aerosols: Effects of large increases on global climate. Science, 173, 138-141.

      Schneider S. & Rasool S., “Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols – Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate”, Science, vol.173, 9 July 1971, p.138-141
      We report here on the first results of a calculation in which separate estimates were made of the effects on global temperature of large increases in the amount of CO2 and dust in the atmosphere. It is found that even an increase by a factor of 8 in the amount of CO2, which is highly unlikely in the next several thousand years, will produce an increase in the surface temperature of less than 2 deg. K.

      Rasool, S.I. and S.H. Schneider, 1972: Aerosol concentrations: Effect on planetary temperatures, (Exchange of Letters) Science, 175, p. 96.

      ————————————–
      Scientists (including those from NASA, and the Director of the Climate Research Unit) warning of global cooling as gleaned from the following 1970s-era articles…

      http://www.populartechnology.net/2013_02_01_archive.html

      Dr. Arnold Reitze

      Dr. Earl W. Barrett (NOAA)

      William Cobb, NOAA meteorologist

      Dr. S. I. Rasool of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and Columbia University

      Dr. Tadashi Yano, Japanese meteorologist

      Professor Hubert Lamb, Director of Climate Research at the University of East Anglia

      Francis Stehli, Professor of Geology at Case Western Reserve University

      Dr. Paul W. Hodge, Professor of Astronomy at the University of Washington

      Dr. George Kukla, Lamont-Dougherty Geological Observatory, Columbia University

      Dr. F. Kenneth Hare, Climatologist, University of Toronto

      Dr. Reid Bryson, Director of the Institute for Environmental Studies, University of Wisconsin

      James C. Fletcher, Administrator of NASA

      Dr. Hurd C. Willett, Meterologist, MIT

      Dr. Stephen Schnieder, Deputy Head, Climate Project, National Center for Atmospheric Research

      Dr. Madeleine Briskin, Geologist, University of Cincinnati

      Dr. Cesare Emiliani, University of Miami

      Dr. J. T. Andress, University of Colorado

      Professor Vojen Lozek, Czecholsvak Academy of Science

      Dr. C. B. Shultz, University of Nebraska

      Dr. Walter Broecker, Lamont Geological Observatory, Columbia University

      Dr. Lenoa M. Libby, Geologist, UCLA

      http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=Ne5XAAAAIBAJ&sjid=BZMDAAAAIBAJ&pg=5168,86158

      “Dr. Lenoa M. Libby and Dr. Louis Pandolfi of Los Angeles forecast continued bitterly cold winters all over the globe past the mid-1980s.”

      Dr. Maynard Miller, Dean, University of Idaho College of Mines and Earth Resources


      Report this

      30

      • #

        > National Academy of Sciences was predicting an imminent global cooling trend too

        No, it didn’t. You’ve never read the report; relying on a sci.env post by a chap named Scott Nudds who you know nothing about shows a rather casual approach to referencing (but lower down that thread you can see your hero John Daly doing some Rasooling; some things never change).

        A more accurate summary of the report is “There was even a report by the National Research Council of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences reaching its usual ambiguous conclusions”. Do remember to check out who said that before dismissing them :-) .

        http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/nas-1975.html for details.


        Report this

        24

        • #
          the Griss

          LOL.. and YET ANOTHER puerile attempt to get people to read your [SNIP]

          [SNIP]


          Report this

          21

          • #
            Rereke Whakaaro

            William will state something here, and then justify it with something he cooked up earlier.

            Perhaps he has been watching too many mid-morning cooking infomercial programmes on television?


            Report this

            40

          • #
            Vince Whirlwind

            Notice the double-standards – Griss posts nothing of substance, constantly laced with insults and profanities.

            Does he get moderated?
            No sirree – he’s part of the groupthink, they need his rubbish.


            Report this

            02

            • #
              the Griss

              Your every post is an insult to intelligence… that is all you have.

              You have produced nothing of substance, just propaganda crap.

              You are wasting YOUR time. We recognise you immediately as a third rate troll.

              We are NOT INTERESTED in YOUR CONTINUAL RUBBISH.


              Report this

              10

            • #

              Vince, Griss often posts informative content. Sometimes his anger needs moderating. Thanks, #15.2.1.1 was worth a snip. But your repetitive effort to misrepresent Archibalds predictions, take the thread off topic, and use meaningless scientific terms is worse than crass profanities (which we do try to snip). You are now moderated before posting. You can provide evidence we “deny” or apologize for baseless namecalling.

              Griss, tone down the anger – especially the personalized denigration. Please do self-censor and don’t “YELL”. – Jo


              Report this

              10

            • #
              PhilJourdan

              He gets moderated all the time. Why do feel the need to lie?


              Report this

              10

  • #
    Michael Collard

    Another argument for adaptation instead of mitigation: it work for both warming and cooling (and anything else that might come along).


    Report this

    40

  • #
    PhilJourdan

    The media still is relevant, but not by much. And it is dying. That is why alarmists are alarmed by the internet. People can get news unfiltered by their agenda.

    Those who rely on the old MSM will continue to be uninformed, and easy pickings for those who learn how to find relevant and accurate information.


    Report this

    90

    • #
      ianl8888


      People can get news unfiltered by their agenda

      Recently at a small dinner gathering, an SBS journo started to blurb about Chinese mining disasters along the lines of ” … and they don’t care anyway”. Standard crap …

      Quite gently, I listed the actual efforts the Chinese provincial authorities are making to improve safety (these efforts are very strong and effective and have been in increasing train now for over 20 years) – these efforts are much stronger than those in Aus

      The SBS journo adopted the “I am offended and I don’t debate geologists in public” persona. Perhaps to my own surprise, I refrained from laughing out loud, but there is no hope of her ever publishing the truth


      Report this

      50

  • #
    sillyfilly

    Maurice Newman: did he lie by omission?

    “For the first time in controlled conditions, Svensmark’s hypothesis that the sun alters the climate by influencing cosmic ray influx and cloud formation was validated”:

    Here are some quotes from Jasper Kirkby Head of the CLOUD Experiment – CERN, and others that invalidate MN’s references to CERN, Usoskin and Lockwood.

    “those particles are far too small to serve as seeds for clouds. “At the moment, it actually says nothing about a possible cosmic-ray effect on clouds and climate, but it’s a very important first step,” he says. [Nature, 8/24/11]

    The research doesn’t call into question the basic science of greenhouse gas warming, Kirkby emphasized, but rather refines one facet of the research.”It’s part of the jigsaw puzzle, and you could say it adds to the understanding of the big picture,” he said. “But it in no way disproves the other pieces.” [Live Science, 8/24/11]

    “Our work leaves open the possibility that cosmic rays could influence the climate. However, at this stage, there is absolutely no way we can say that they do,” said Kirkby. (Guardian)

    And, “changes in the number of cosmic rays hitting the atmosphere due to changes in solar activity cannot explain global warming, as average cosmic ray intensities have been increasing since 1985 even as the world has warmed – the opposite of what should happen if cosmic rays produce climate-cooling clouds”. [New Scientist, 8/24/11]

    Like David Archibald, Vahrenholt exaggerates the solar influence on global temperature.

    “In the second half of the 20th century, the sun was more active than it had been in more than 2,000 years. This “large solar maximum,” as astronomers call it, has contributed at least as much to global warming as the greenhouse gas CO2.”

    But what do the quoted scientists say:

    “…during these last 30 years the solar total irradiance, solar UV irradiance and cosmic ray flux has not shown any significant secular trend, so that at least this most recent warming episode must have another source.” Usoskin

    “There is considerable evidence for solar influence on the Earth’s pre-industrial climate
    and the Sun may well have been a factor in post-industrial climate change in the first half
    of the last century. Here we show that over the past 20 years, all the trends in the Sun
    that could have had an influence on the Earth’s climate have been in the opposite
    direction to that required to explain the observed rise in global mean temperatures.” (Lockwood)

    I suppose Maurice got some things correct?


    Report this

    430

    • #

      Sillyfilly – your o-so-carefully-picked kirkby quotes show that he thinks his results did support Svensmark — you’ve merely found lines where Kirkby stops larger speculation about things the experiment had nothing to do with.

      And Svensmark replied to Lockwood
      – The persistent role of the Sun in climate Forcing. Svensmark, H. and Friis-Christensen, E.
      Danish National Space Center, Scientific Report 3/2007 [PDF]
      ==> High energy cosmic rays caused a detectable change in tropospheric temperatures over the last four solar cycles.

      The quote from Usoskin is the usual caveat people have to put in to appease the religion. That comes from Usoskin 2005 — and Usoskin specifically says in the abstract “The last 30 years are not considered.” Hence there are no results in that paper that support the statement.


      Report this

      352

      • #
        sillyfilly

        The quote from Usoskin is the usual caveat people have to put in to appease the religion

        If that is the paltry level of your defence of Maurice then so be it. Did he lie by omission, you still fail to address, so the answer must be YES!

        And a few more excerpts on cosmic rays

        Evidence is presented from which the contributions of either cosmic rays or solar activity to this warming is deduced. The contribution is shown to be less than 10% of the warming seen in the twentieth century. Sloan 2013
        “No correlation is found between cosmic ray changes and the whole cloud cover. Influence of cosmic rays on the cloud cover in the troposphere is at the level of 1%. Cosmic rays have negligible effect on the global temperature and on climate.” Erlykin 2011

        Thanks for the reply!


        Report this

        47

        • #
          sillyfilly

          Sorry for replying to myself but I found this interesting today:

          Lockwood on Newman’s claim that there was “growing evidence that climate change is determined by the sun, not humans”.

          [This claim] is, frankly, scientifically ludicrous. There are a few papers that use inadequate statistical techniques to claim a link between global temperatures and solar activity. Proper significance testing against an appropriate noise model invariably shows that the probability that these sun-global climate connections are purely coincidental is extremely high and that they have been selected whilst a very large number of counter examples have been ignored. This is bad science: it’s equivalent to finding on albino rabbit and declaring all rabbits are albino.

          There have been many studies, including ones that I have been involved in, that show the solar influence on global mean surface temperatures is extremely small. I personally think there is evidence for some interesting effects in winter (and only in winter, and there are compelling scientific reasons why only in winter) in locations that are strongly influenced by the northern hemisphere jet stream.

          However these effects are re-distributions of temperature and so, for example, if Europe suffers a cold winter, Greenland has a warmer one. Hence these are regional and season climate changes and quite distinct from global climate changes.


          Report this

          47

          • #
            Winston

            “papers that use inadequate statistical techniques”

            If we excluded all of those, climate science would be a single sheet of blank paper. Pot meet kettle.


            Report this

            62

            • #
              sillyfilly

              Nice rejoinder, but what about Maurices total climate incompetency?

              One wonders what advice he will offer the PM on this issue from AUSMIN:

              “Recognising the challenges climate change poses to security, Australia and the United States intend to continue to work through the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change process to negotiate a new, ambitious climate agreement applicable to all countries by 2015 to take effect in 2020.”


              Report this

              46

              • #
                Winston

                Maurice’s understanding of climate is actually fairly good (and when it comes to incompetence, Flannery and Steffen to name but two have his measure I’m sure), in that he draws attention to the existence of alternate viewpoints regarding the principal factors which influence our climate, and that there are many dissenting voices who doubt CO2 has much influence at all.

                He also highlights that that solar influences are underestimated by so called mainstream science, and that dialogue is not possible because the alarmist wagons are all in a circle, and anyone who dares raise a question about its validity risks vilification, ridicule, loss of tenure, damage to reputation and a one way ticket to the unemployment line.

                Not surprisingly under the influence of such bullying by your brethren in the climate cult, no one feels free to express any contrary opinion without couching it in the most ambiguous terms, or soft pedalling any statements to avoid shock and awe tactics from the alarmist faithful.

                I don’t know about Maurice, but clearly my advice to Tony Abbott would be to tell the UN precisely which orifice they could stick their “UN Framework Convention on Climate Change”, since as an organisation the UN have proven to be as inept and as corrupt a bunch of useless bureaucratic parasites as has ever walked the face of the earth, leaving a trail of destruction and misery wherever their meddling hands have touched.

                Unelected, undemocratic, unintelligent, and often even vicious scoundrels whose only interest is the further aggrandisement of their own positions, sitting around on their well fed asses pontificating while deciding the futures of decent people for whose welfare they care not one jot. Kevin Rudd should fit right in.


                Report this

                72

              • #
                sillyfilly

                Can’t reply directly to you Winston but the impact of the sun on the current climate is miniscule. Your bluster and dogmatic rhetoric clearly indicates that you obviously either have no understanding of science or are unable to offer a reasonable scientific argument!


                Report this

                25

              • #
                the Griss

                “but the impact of the sun on the current climate is miniscule.”

                B**LS*T !! or more appropriately HORSE S**T !!!


                Report this

                42

              • #
                sillyfilly

                To the Griss:

                would you like to comment on this data
                Not much recent correlation between TSI and Temp nor Sunspots and Temp and as Usoskin stated “Note that the most recent warming, since about 1975, has not been considered in the above correlations. During these last 30 years the solar total irradiance, solar UV irradiance and cosmic ray flux has not shown any significant secular trend, so that at least this most recent warming episode must have another source”

                Don’t forget horse____ has its uses!


                Report this

                24

              • #
                the Griss

                Seriously !!!
                Do you really think that TSI is the only variable of the Sun’s energy.

                Go back to PRE-SCHOOL, donkey brain !!

                UV frequency fluctuates with the solar period, as does the magnetic field.

                The “constant sun” is a myth, perpetuated to cover the LIE of CO2 sensitivity.

                Horses–t does have its purpose for sure..
                It can be used to help CO2 produce more food.

                The period from 1950 was a series of very strong solar peaks, which gave a small amount of warming. The rest of the warming is a FICTION derived from data manipulation by Hansen et al..

                Those peaks are now history, buy yourself a horserug !!!

                It is NOT REAL. Its is a FAKE.


                Report this

                52

              • #
                sillyfilly

                To the Griss,

                I appreciate your candour, but what is your problem? Did you give the same serve to David Evans when he indicated his sources for the NOTCH:
                “The “composite TSI” is that used by David to drive the model, averaging Lean 2000 (to the end of 2008), PMOD, and ACRIM (from the start of 1992).”

                I used PMOD and SIDC sunspots, so I suggest you’ve gone from the Horse’s Head to the Horses a–e!


                Report this

                22

              • #
                the Griss

                Your ignorance astounds me. The Lean data shows the series of solar maxima during the latter half of last century, as does every other solar data set.

                That is what drove the small amount of warming up until about 2000.

                Look at it now.. the sun is going to sleep.

                Have you even bothered to look at magnetic fluctuations, at changes in UV frequency.

                You really didn’t comprehend David’s work very well did you. Silly little filly. !!


                Report this

                31

              • #
                Rereke Whakaaro

                SillyFilly just doesn’t have any clue about what David Evans did. Any yet he/she/it has the gall to point the bone. This is priceless.

                David Evans did a Fourier Analysis on the measured and recorded composite, and complex, waveform variations in the Sun’s output. From that analysis, he identified several previously unknown frequencies, some of which produce the characteristics of a Notch Filter (in electrical engineering terms). This is interesting to those of us who are Electrical Engineers, or Applied Scientists working in that area of Physics. At no time did David state what variance(s) might manifest at those frequencies.

                But he has demonstrated that there are factors at play, that none – and I repeat, none – of the climate models consider. And since the sun is the only thing that stops us being somewhere close to absolute zero, one has to question why the climate models treat the sun’s output as a single variable, or even as a constant.


                Report this

                91

              • #
                sillyfilly

                To the Griss and Rereke.

                I sure all the commentators here will be aware of Fourier analysis? At least, every man and his dog should be aware of the 11 year cycle variation in solar output. That’s why I agree with David on the use of the 11 year average(but then that makes the assumption that all solar cycles are of the same length). I also agree with David on the trend in solar output. The point is we are using similar data to illustrate the point.

                I sure every electrical engineer would agree:
                the square root of minus 1 = i?

                The problem I have with my initial readings of the NOTCH model is David’s graphs showing a 25 year temperature average. I can see his application to solar cycles but I have yet to see a similar argument for the temperature averaging. Similarly the graphical representation scale for TSI is proportionately small in proportion to the absolute value, whereas the scale for temperature in proportionally large, that leads to a analysis by visual perception, that is why I normalised the data I provided to scale the axes proportionally.

                Any fool can see that there is a lack of correlation in the data during the last 40 or so years. David’s graphs show this implicitly.

                Now all we have to do is answer that great Julius Sumner Miller question “WHY IS IT SO?” So we patiently await David’s hypothesis and the resultant hypothesis testing!


                Report this

                11

              • #
                the Griss

                You [snip]

                The problem you have is that you don’t have the VAGUEST what is going on. !!

                Go back and start revising your junior high maths, and work your way gradually upwards.

                Your childish attempt are very amusing :-)


                Report this

                00

              • #
                Vince Whirlwind

                …and more substance-free insults from Griss pollute the discussion.


                Report this

                02

              • #
                the Griss

                No Vince, I’m trying to GET RID of the pollution.

                But you are still here, producing NOTHING except crap out-dated propaganda.


                Report this

                10

              • #
                sophocles

                If the sun has such a tiny effect on our environment, I await with interest your explanation of the global
                - diurnal (day/night) temperature differentials
                - seasonal or summer/winter temperature differentials


                Report this

                10

    • #
      handjive

      Hullo sillyfilly.
      Good to see your still around.

      The point is the understanding, or, lack-there-of, of clouds:

      October 6 2000
      Clouds won’t counter global warming
      “Don’t count on clouds to come and rescue us from global warming, says a NASA researcher, who claims that the minimum amount of warming predicted by scientists should be revised upwards by half a degree Celsius.”
      http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2000/10/06/196029.htm

      5 Feb 2007
      UN climate report: what we don’t know
      http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2007/02/05/1840731.htm

      6 August 2014
      IPCC’s Latest Super-Flop: Scientists Say Aerosol Impact On Clouds “Almost Double That Estimated in Latest IPCC Report”
      http://notrickszone.com/2014/08/06/ipccs-latest-super-flop-scientists-say-aerosol-impact-on-clouds-almost-double-that-estimated-in-latest-ipcc-report/

      ABC, 1999
      Climate models are similar to weather forecasting models. However, rather than predicting tomorrow’s weather, they describe the average weather, or climate, for a particular country or region.
      Like forecasting models, climate models are run on powerful supercomputers.
      In fact, the NEC SX-4 supercomputer is used by the Bureau of Meteorology and CSIRO to run both types of models.

      ‘Bear in mind too, you can’t ever get a perfect model. Anyway, processes in the real world occur on an infinite system. Models advance in finite time steps.’
      ‘With weather, we only see one realisation of an infinite number of possibilities. We don’t know which one of these possibilities the atmosphere will choose.

      Chaos is inherent in the climate system.’
      http://www.abc.net.au/science/slab/forecast/story.htm


      Report this

      52

      • #
        sillyfilly

        Hey handy (yes, it’s been a while) have you got any access to the full Chen paper.

        Just a bit on clouds generally, won’t the estimated aerosol impact on clouds by Chen infer an additional negative radiative forcing in addition to that estimated in AR5?


        Report this

        22

  • #

    Science Vol 173 July 9/1071 pp138-141 Stephen Schneider,
    Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols. Effects of Large
    Increases on Global Cooling.
    http://www.john-daly.com/schneidr.htm


    Report this

    81

    • #

      You’re Rasooling again.

      But its a fail even on your own terms: you said: “Some of those who now predict catastrophic human induced global warming…”

      Schneider is dead. He has been for more than four years. Try to keep up.


      Report this

      327

      • #
        Rolf

        Einstein is also dead, but his papers is still valid. Yours were never anything but garbage.


        Report this

        262

      • #
        the Griss

        Ah .. so you seek to change history once again.. modify and LIE to try to make your worthless case.

        ….and just because he is dead. You truly are a LOW, PUTRID WC!!!!!


        Report this

        202

      • #
        PhilJourdan

        He did not mention one, he mentioned “those”. No wonder wiki is a joke. It has clowns who are ignorant of English editing it.


        Report this

        121

      • #

        You really do need to keep up Billy.

        In the space of two years Schneider went from promoting global cooling to global warming. Ironically, he used the same data to justify his support for both.

        For a good, non Wikipedia (i.e. unedited by some global warming zealot) see http://www.john-daly.com/schneidr.htm

        Have fun, choking that down, Billy!


        Report this

        152

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        Would you care to give us a definition of the word, “rasooling”, and a definitive reference source, William?

        Or have you run out of made-up arguments, and now have to resort to made-up words, in an attempt to impress your betters?


        Report this

        80

        • #

          Rereke Whakaaro> rasooling

          f you’d ever even glanced at the paper Beth is referring to, you’d know.

          To “Rasool” is to ignore the first author of a paper and concentrate on others. Try http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/ for an accurate citation.


          Report this

          23

          • #
            the Griss

            [SNIP. Tone down the hate - Jo]


            Report this

            24

          • #
            Rereke Whakaaro

            Yes, I did look at the page Beth referenced and I noticed the authors names.

            But since the person has not been deified by having their name appear in the Shorter Oxford Dictionary, or in the Webster Dictionary, I was questioning why you were using it as an adverb.

            What is even more interesting is that, even by your own definition, it is irrelevant because the discussion is about Dr Schneider and his beliefs, one of which was the paper to which Beth referred. The order of names on a paper may imply some herd privileges, but it matters not when we are discussing belief systems.

            The facts of the matter, are that Dr Schneider (who I happen to have met) was an astute presenter, with a penchant for changing his beliefs to suit his audience.


            Report this

            20

  • #
    SunTiger

    William Connolley
    August 15, 2014 at 12:16 am · Reply
    > Steyn is going after Mann
    No. Steyn is running away: he’s filing to have Mann’s suit dismissed. So much for all his big talk of “discovery” and wanting his day in court. If Mann was doing this, you’d be calling him a coward. Steyn is a coward, but because he’s on your side you won’t call him out.
    > Steyn cleans Mann out legally and financially
    Steyn is filing to dismiss. Didn’t you even try reading the Amicus Curiae thing you’re referencing?

    Mark Steyn is not a party to this case (the SLAPP case) — thus why he filed Amicus Curiae. His own suit will continue to be ongoing so he can proceed with discovery against Mann.


    Report this

    180

    • #

      There’s only one case. If the SLAPP motion is passed, then there’s no case. By supporting the SLAPP filing, Steyn is running away.


      Report this

      327

      • #
        PhilJourdan

        No, Steyn severed them. There are 3 now. Mann against NR, Mann against Steyn, and Steyn against Mann. Mann is fighting disclosure. Mann is doing the delaying. Steyn is fighting FOR disclosure.

        I am sure wiki agrees with you. But then you are the butcher of wiki.


        Report this

        190

      • #

        Wrong again, as Phil Jourdan has already pointed out.

        Do you enjoy being the plucky comic relief of this site, Billy?


        Report this

        150

      • #

        William Connolley states

        By supporting the SLAPP filing, Steyn is running away.

        You are wrong – for multiple reasons.

        Running away” does not imply upping the ante by calling claims by Mann fraudulent.
        Running away” from a court engagement does not include stating that Mann’s claims would not stand up to ten minutes in court. Steyn would love to have his moment in court where both sides are heard, but Mann keeps prevaricating.
        Running away” does not include getting organisations like the American Civil Liberties Union and the National Press Association to issue a supporting brief against Mann.
        Running away” does not include the District of Columbia, who passed the Anti-Slapp Act, fielding a brief, because they believe Mann is using the legislation for the opposite of its intended purpose.

        Check out for yourselves to see if William Connolley or I are right here. WC will not do so. Like other believers, he sees faith in “climate science” as providing superior insights to experts in every other subject area, including philosophy of science, economics, public policy-making and now the law and freedom of speech. Connolley and Mann provide further evidence to suggest that climate believers are just ordinary people with very dogmatic opinions.


        Report this

        110

  • #

    Apology, edit above *July 9th 1971* Not 1066 and all that. (


    Report this

    40

  • #

    Stephen Schneider is not expunged from the Global Warming debate
    record because he is deceased. His much discussed double ethical
    bind statement is there for all to read.

    http://judithcurry.com/2011/07/21/stephen-schneider-and-the-%E2%80%9Cdouble-ethical-bind%E2%80%9D-of-climate-change-communication/

    As is the 1971 Paper on Global Cooling and also on the record,
    Newsweek April 28, 1975, page 64 ‘The Cooling World.’ Three
    column article plus map and graph … ‘There are ominous
    signs that the earth’s weather patterns have begun to change
    dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic
    decline in food production …’


    Report this

    120

  • #
    Eliza

    The AGW mantra is falling everywhere judging from Polls, comments even on AGW media, mainly the data is not supporting AGW even on AGW scientific sites etc. Further, Mann will lose or withdraw against NPR and Steyn will get his day in court where Mann will be forced to reveal the Fraud. It may be firing and imprisonment.


    Report this

    81

  • #
    Mikky

    Similar biased reporting in The Guardian: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/aug/14/tony-abbott-adviser-warns-of-threat-of-global-cooling

    No mention of any underlying scientific support, just reports of the outrage amongst Green NGOs and “Consensus” climate scientists.

    The reality is that this is politics not science, though I’m genuinely baffled why lefties promote policies that make energy more expensive, of little consequence to the rich but devastating to poor individuals and countries.


    Report this

    81

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    In Sydney Morning Herald, Latika Bourke and Lisa Cox write an article about Newman’s views, but carefully omit all of the scientific arguments, as well as the potential problems with one sided science funding and the names and credentials of the scientists he talks about. The pair do, however, find space to repeat the litany of the IPCC’s estimate of 95% “probability” (it’s hard to believe Sydney Morning Herald readers have not heard this before). They don’t mention that the IPCC estimate is a speculative and unscientific number which gets paradoxically higher as the IPCC’s predictions are proven wrong. Nor did they interview Newman and ask him his opinion of this.

    This is no more than what the pushers have always done. Without presentation of any evidence we were told there could be no further debate, the verdict was in and indisputable. It was this approach that told me I was being lied to, even by professors teaching at the same college where I taught C++ programming. I was livid but I managed to keep it under control.

    On the question about whether the public could understand the scientific case against climate change and such concepts as tentative conclusions, probabilities and the meaning of numbers, I think the answer is mixed. Some will and some won’t. But this does not excuse not putting the case honestly in front of people. Not in the least.


    Report this

    101

    • #
      john robertson

      Presstitutes.
      Given special privileges so that they may speak truth to power, they chose to sell out to gain minuscule amounts of power.
      Lying by omission is step one.
      Next is gloss over the obvious, obsess on the trivial.
      Progressive as rust, the old media is dying out as people seek real information.
      Once we burned witches, as a symptom of our mass hysteria.
      These creatures protecting the kleptocracy, may be auditioning for the role of “Enemy of the People”.

      Whipping up hysteria, to stampede the mob toward a ideologically desired position, is fraught with danger.
      Once the mob forms and starts its rampage, all bets are off.

      Seems to me there is a trend in our history, we create a civil society, we get rich and lazy, the kleptocrats take over, we get robbed to pieces, the makers arm up and massacre the takers(WAR), we establish a civil society.
      Around and around we go.
      Venezuela is our future?


      Report this

      50

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        John,

        That does seem to be the case. But I wish I was not here near the collapse of civil society because, as you said, all bets will be null and void. It will be very hard to survive in no-man’s-land when it hits us.

        The chance of another society with the freedoms the United States has guaranteed under its constitution is nearly zero. In the thousands of years of accurate enough history to tell what was going on, the USA stands out uniquely as the one place where the yoke of heavy handed government was not only not on everyone’s back but government was prohibited from interfering with our individual lives — until now. And until now we have been uniquely situated to be the defender of the freedom of others, our mistakes notwithstanding — all wiped out by Obama with his pen and his phone.


        Report this

        41

        • #
          Roy Hogue

          We’re ill-prepared if the iceman cometh

          It occurs to me that we seem to be ill prepared for whatever happens to us, iceman or otherwise. And I’m talking about mentally, intellectually and plain old memory of the recent past. On the Island of Hawaii, the “big island”, the volcano has been constantly active for so many years I can’t remember hearing of it’s being dormant. People built homes, expensive ones, in the eventual path of the lava. Then stayed until the last moment to get out, hoping against the odds that their homes could somehow be saved.

          What does that tell you about the human race? I can understand not being concerned about a lot of possible dangers. But right now the world is almost literally on fire, a virtual blowtorch pointing directly at America and indirectly at western civilization generally. And what do we do? Americans largely want to ignore it. Never mind what the climate might do, the trouble brewing now will be at our shores as soon as it can and its intent will be murder.


          Report this

          70

  • #
    SunTiger

    William Connolley
    August 15, 2014 at 1:38 am · Reply

    There’s only one case. If the SLAPP motion is passed, then there’s no case. By supporting the SLAPP filing, Steyn is running away.

    You are incorrect. The National Review, Rand Simberg, and CEI want dismissal of the suit. Steyn is no longer working with their lawyers as he wants to go to trial. That is why he had to file Amicus Curiae — if he was a defendant with them, he could not file that. Steyn intends to proceed to full trial so that he can pursue discovery against Mann — which he will legally be able to do once his suit goes to trial.


    Report this

    180

    • #

      I could be. But look at http://www.steynonline.com/documents/6514.pdf, which is Steyn’s A.C. brief. That says that Steyn *did* file a motion to dismiss on anti-SLAPP grounds. How do you explain that, if he wanted to go to court? It also states that he still supports the use of anti-SLAPP. None of that is consistent with wanting to go to court. Its dated August 11th, 2014.


      Report this

      220

      • #
        James Bradley

        The cat, William?


        Report this

        90

      • #
        michael hammer

        Mr Connolley, I asked you this question on a previous thread but you did not answer. Maybe you didn’t see the comment, I would like to ask again because to me the answer is extremely important- please answer me.

        NOAA publish historical data showing OLR has been generally rising from 1970 to 2010 – the principal claimed global warming period. Since the theory of AGW is that rising CO2 reduces OLR (less outgoing energy with same incoming energy leads to warming) could you please explain to me how the NOAA data is reconcilable with the theory of AGW. I am genuinely very interested in your explanation.


        Report this

        150

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          I hope you like the sound of crickets chirping. “All mouth and no substance”, best describes Mr Connolley. Ask him a direct question, and he will run a mile.


          Report this

          92

        • #

          Yes, I missed your question. I’m not familiar with the matters you ask about. Can you provide links to (a) data showing OLR has been generally rising from 1970 to 2010, and (b) the theory of AGW is that rising CO2 reduces OLR?


          Report this

          32

      • #
        BruceC

        Mark Steyn, August 12th;

        “Yesterday was the last day for submission of briefs on the matter to the DC Court of Appeals. (I’m not part of the appeal, as I decided six months ago to take Doctor Fraudpants at his word and give him his day in court, the sooner the better.)

        and;

        “Aside from the interminable delay, I like the lie of the land right now. We will fight on, and we will win.”

        http://www.steynonline.com/6518/real-nobel-laureate-takes-pity-on-fake-nobel

        Does that sound like Steyn is running away ‘Stoat’? Me-thinks you had better stop reading ‘reliable’ (sic) sources such as HotWhopper.


        Report this

        60

      • #
        PhilJourdan

        All of it is consistent. If you go into a war (and this is a war) and tell the other side you will not use tanks, you are already admitting defeat.

        His counter suit is evidence enough that you still are a clueless hack.


        Report this

        21

  • #

    [...] Joanne Nova’ site. The post on Joanne’s site, that William had highlighted, was about how the media distorts the news and contained the classic line If the world does indeed move into a cooling period, its citizens [...]


    Report this

    20

  • #
    Ross

    “With better media, we’d have better politicians, better bureaucrats, and better policy”

    I think you absolutely right Jo. But I would not like people to infer from this that media “lead the pack” in terms of setting the agenda on issues. They should be reporting them in a balanced ,factual way. Columnists and opinion pieces should either be tasked give both sides of the issue or the media gives a separate opinion piece with the opposing view.
    When a newspaper or digital media outlet get those basics right they might stop their business from “rotting”.


    Report this

    40

    • #
      Yonniestone

      Yes and what’s with the MSM’s obsession with clinging to the bloating carcass of the Green movement?

      You would think a professionally presented documentary by Blue beats green http://www.youtube.com/user/bluebeatsgreen would generate enough interest in the MSM outlets for an attempt at reporting the counter argument, or at least to use it for an 11th hour effort to backpedal and save some face.

      But sadly no, these captains of true denial will go down with the good ship ‘Climate’ with the women and children fending for themselves.


      Report this

      40

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      The role of “the fourth estate”, is to hold the Government of the day to account, and to do this in an unbiased way. So says the theory, and that is what I would call “better media”

      It would be nice to have such a thing, wouldn’t it? What we get is propaganda, in support of third party agendas. The real “fourth estate” is having to emerge from the blogosphere.


      Report this

      40

      • #
        ROM

        Rereke Whakaaro @ #27.2

        The real “fourth estate” is having to emerge from the blogosphere.

        Which triggers the thought that like climate, nature, politics and life, change, usually unpredicted and unpredictable change is the only constant in this world of ours that we can always completely rely on.
        All else is temporary and short .
        For many the belief in the permanency of so much of the immediate world around them is completely delusional in that what they see here and now they seem to believe is permanent and fixed for all time, never to be changed in the smallest tittle or dot.

        A self delusion that is merely a mirage without substance and one that is seemingly subscribed to by every fixated climate catastrophe crank in that they seem to believe that nothing can change nor should it be allowed to change as we see implied so strongly in the manner in which the term “Climate Change” is used so constantly now.

        The truth is that what was the completely accepted mainstream and the only acceptable interpretation and consensus of today probably won’t even be worthy of a fish and chips wrapping tomorrow.

        The World changes in ways that can never be predicted as does Nature, climate, politics, people and life.
        It always has.
        It always will.
        We are just along for the ride so we might as well enjoy it and make the most of it before we shuffle of this mortal coil forever.


        Report this

        50

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          I totally agree.

          We communicate with words. Words have definitions, and words are ascribed meanings, and they are not necessarily the same. This is because the “meaning” is often determined by the circumstances in which it is used.

          A lot of propaganda relies on people not knowing the definition of a word, so “encouraging” them to imply what the word means, from the context. Thus, the phrase, “Climate change”, has been nurtured by context into a very frightening scenario, whereas the phrase, “climate variation”, is not. When looked at rationally, they are really very similar, but emotionally they are not.

          And when the propagandist cannot do that, they make up a word (like Mr Connolley’s, “rasooling”), to which they can apply any meaning they wish.


          Report this

          10

    • #

      As a former member of the fourth estate, who practised the craft in the days when the telephone and a commodore 64 were the ultimate in technology, when press releases arrived by fax and the spike was siz inches of wicked steel on the news editor’s desk, my humble opinion is that the decline of media standards can be traced to the development of Google as a premier information source, the cataclysmic hijacking of the education systems by the regressives and the rise of the cult of personality prompted by reality tv.
      Really, Google and the education shambles are tied together: teachers forgot about instilling discipline, demanding results etc because failing a poor student would “harm their emotional development”. Instead they focused on “letting the child determine their own learning experience”, a convenient phrase which freed them fromm the drudgery of imparting facts. They could put An Inconvenient Truth on the class tv and get on with more important things like reading Green Left Weekly. If a kiddie had a query, ‘Google it’ was the answer to everything.
      Kids who couldn’t spell their own name were given glowing reports – to protect their fragile egos – and passed through the system, with the result that as young adults they believed the world revolved around them, a belief reinforced by a reality tv culture which made ‘stars’ out of nobodies and imbued a new generation with the unshakeable conviction that they were important. Nobody wanted to be anonymous and EVERYBODY deserved to be famous.
      The result of all this was that reporters stopped doing just that – reporting the news and reflecting what was happening in the wider community, and began to see themselves as of the news. The best reporters were always the ones who quietly went about doing there job, out of the limelight: today’s bunch seek the limelight because they think they are more important than the people they report on.
      AGW is also what all the really hi people are believing in right now.
      This post has gone on far too long, so my dissertation on the lack of research, objectivity, balance, attribution etc will have to wait. Or perhaps I could sum it up with the opinion that trawling your fellow travellers’ twitter for story ideas doesn’t qualify.


      Report this

      70

      • #
        Annie

        That’s a brilliant summing up Jase.

        We see the same thing with TV documentaries where the presenter intrudes far too much; it’s all about the presenter, arm waving, smirking and stalking around and not so much what is supposedly being shown; drowned by ‘muzak’ too. The absolute classic was a “Springwatch” or “Autumnwatch” on the BBC a while back. Kate Humble was burbling about a rare bird in a wood and its gorgeous song. The viewers weren’t treated to the bird’s song…just KH smiling away and ++++++ muzak. I gave up on TV docs after that.


        Report this

        20

    • #

      “With better media, we’d have better politicians, better bureaucrats, and better policy”

      Follow the reasoning. Competing politicians should produce better political players, but what if the good men are judged by a selected team of commentariat and the general public see the competing teams through only their eyes?

      When was the last time you watched the politicians perform unedited?

      If there is an editor, they can choose what you see, they can frame it to favour the weak over the strong. They can choose to ignore the good responses of one, while amplifying the “ok” responses of the other. The more edited it is, the more power the commentariat have.

      Does anyone think the Labor Party would be vowing to bring in carbon trading if most Australians had seen photos of thermometers near airconditioners, if most Australians knew that Antarctic sea ice was at record highs, that Nobel Winning physicists and Apollo astronauts were skeptics, that record fires and heatwaves were common in our past, or that major financial houses stood to make billions from it? I could go on…

      Without the Internet, how many of these points would you know?


      Report this

      102

      • #
        Rod Stuart

        When was the last time you watched the politicians perform unedited?

        While a ‘politician’ in the strictest sense, the first snoozer that comes to mind is one despicable little maggot called David Suzuki.

        Never does this joker allow himself to be properly interrogated. He sort of slipped up when he came down under, but the ABC covered his ass.


        Report this

        52

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        A lot of people think that the most powerful person in the world is the US President.

        I disagree. I think the most powerful person in the world is the person who puts the words on the President’s teleprompters.

        Obama’s initial popularity was due to his ability to use two teleprompters, each placed 45o to either side of the podium, so that he appeared to be engaging with his lie audience, and not just staring into the camera.

        As every con-artist knows, if you can fudge integrity, you have got it made.


        Report this

        10

  • #
    handjive

    The Sydney Morning Herald?

    try: The Sydney Morning Hamas

    (via BoltA)


    Report this

    51

    • #
      Unmentionable

      I agree with Bolt on so many topics, and watch his 30 min each Sunday, but his cheer-leading defense of Israeli atrocities is not one of them, his attitude and logic on the topic is totally incomprehensible and an affront to observation. As for his associated strange lunge at ABC24 for broadcasting 2 hours of Al Jezerra TV (at 1 AM and 4 AM, for goodness sake!), after the Knesset labeled them a terrorist media front that should be eliminated, what’s he afraid of? Diversity? Unmolested free-speech? Alternate views? Does he really crave national and international censorship on such matters? Is the cognitive dissonance of bombs hitting UN hospitals and schools raining on the parade and pro-Israeli drumbeat he prefers? Frankly his responses are shockingly one-eyed and a bit other-worldly to me.


      Report this

      186

      • #
        the Griss

        So, you would have no problems with 2 hours of news from Israel as balance, correct. ?

        I wonder how long you would hold your hand if someone kept throwing rocks at your house. !!!


        Report this

        39

        • #
          Unmentionable

          No one’s stopping them putting their views and they hardly have to be invited, they’ve been doing so and covered extensively and in depth for as long as I’ve been alive. the Israelis invest heavily in getting their view aired in Australia as do a few prominent aligned organizations. But I’d not favor anyone stealing others land or oppressing them or denying their rights, or bombing their houses or shutting down the voices and views of the other side of the conflict either (which is not a topic for this place so I won’t argue the toss with someone with well formed view of their own).

          But even if there were baddies operating in or around a hospital or school, that’s not and never will be a valid moral or legal excuse to ruthlessly bomb such a facility that’s full of noncombatant civilians of all ages and sexes.

          Would the RAAF or ADF do that? No way! Not a chance fella! There’s no way the ADF would even consider doing that to a hospital, no matter how many rockets were fired from it, and the commanders and politicians would never approve it. But they would remove the people doing it by force, and make sure the civilians didn’t get wasted in the process. So I find Bolt’s position uncivilized and his attitude immature, irresponsible and more-or-less beyond the pale.

          If Bolt can’t see that it’s a reflection on him. I do think he’s completely lost the plot on this one and is seriously undermining himself and his former reputation for realist skepticism and objectivity. For a guy who values the right and need for all views to be voiced, he doesn’t seem prepared to apply that to all human beings.

          2c ;)


          Report this

          83

          • #
            the Griss

            ” invest heavily in getting their view aired in Australia ”

            Which TV stations gives the Israelis free time on OUR tax money?

            Please tell me. !!!

            “I do think he’s completely lost the plot ”

            I do think YOU have completely lost the plot.

            Bolt is perfectly willing to let people have their views SO LONG AS THE OPPOSING VIEW ALSO GETS THE SAME RIGHT.

            Are you REALLY saying that the Israelis should have to PAY for time, while WE pay for the Al Jazeera feed through our taxes ???????

            When I see the ABC offer EQUAL FREE AIR TIME (at our expense), to an Israeli TV broadcast, then I will believe they are balanced and have some basic objectivity.

            And I noticed you didn’t answer my question…. “I wonder how long you would hold your hand if someone kept throwing rocks at your house?”


            Report this

            215

            • #
              Unmentionable

              Which TV stations gives the Israelis free time on OUR tax money?

              Please tell me. !!!

              Everyone of them, each and every hourly news report which contains Israeli government and social or other views from Israel aired free of charge. Add to that the numerous interviews in various TV current affairs programs.

              Did that seriously not occur to you?

              And I noticed you didn’t answer my question…. “I wonder how long you would hold your hand if someone kept throwing rocks at your house?”

              If you’re baiting to get me to defend the ABC you’re certainly barking up the wrong tree there. I’m not going to be doing that! :D

              First, I overlooked your comment because it read like shallow malformed rhetoric to me (not being rude, it really did and does) rather than an actual question seeking a serious answer. So a tangential retort of equal value for reflective contrast, as maybe from it you’ll twig as to why your question seemed like cheap rhetoric to me and was of course immediately discounted as such:

              The denizens of Sydney don’t get rocketed by Christchurch because Sydney is not stealing the South Island of New Zealand or blockading them and bulldozing their homes and denying them resources. On the contrary, we make a point of respecting each others property rights and boundaries and interact in a mutually civilized agreeable manner a equals in rights, and so far this appears to be working out pretty well.

              I can’t even imagine what’s going wrong elsewhere.

              Griss, you may feel something stirring about this topic which affects your ability to stand back and look dispassionately, I can see that, that’s OK, but let’s chose to keep it real and agree to disagree for we either accept the right for other views to be voiced and don’t seek to exclude them or suppress them, or else we end up with an impoverished monoculture of blind consensus, and that’s not for me mate, and I would have thought it’s not for you either. So can we at least accept that we both have a well-formed personal view that’s based on rational observations, knowledge and considered viewpoints?

              I’m disappointed in Bolt on this topic, but that doesn’t mean I condemn him across the board, but he has slipped substantially down the credibility greasy-pole due to it. Others mileage may vary, that’s up to them, but obviously I’m comfortable with my analysis and you have not, and are in fact very unlikely to offer anything I’ve not already examined and considered at length.

              So I’ll leave it at that, and apologies if it’s brushed you the wrong way mate.


              Report this

              252

              • #
                the Griss

                “because it read like shallow malformed rhetoric to me”

                That’s what I saw your original post as.

                So all is fair and even.

                Now waiting for the 2 hour segment of Israeli news on the ABC to balance the Al Jazeera propaganda.

                I’m not at all disappointed at Bolt for wanting some sort of balance from the network WE ALL PAY FOR.

                You obviously are. And I wonder why ? !


                Report this

                37

              • #
                the Griss

                ps … I STILL wonder how long you would hold your hand if someone kept throwing rocks at your house.

                And that has nothing to do with the ABC,, what a weird connection to make.. or maybe not.


                Report this

                116

              • #
                the Griss

                Israel wants peace and quiet. Hamas doesn’t.

                Israel actually provides many services such as water, housing, food etc to Gaza.

                The homes Israel is said to have bulldozed were those of Israelis forced to move out by the Israeli government

                As long as Hamas keeps firing rockets, Israel has a right to try and defend itself.

                Suicide bomber, rockets, tunnels under the border.. These are NOT the doings of Israel. !!.

                I strongly suggest you read an unbiased history of Gaza….

                ….. you will see that Israel have almost bent over backward to try to get peace.

                They handed a lot of land back to the Palestinians after removing the PLO and Intifada, they didn’t have to, but they did, for the sake of peace.

                But Hamas DO NOT WANT PEACE !!


                Report this

                427

      • #
        the Griss

        Is the ATROCITY of Hamas launching rockets and hiding their weapons in UN hospitals and school NEVER going to cease ?

        Using children and hospitals as a human shield…… disgusting cowards !!!

        There is only one-one-eyed person I can see here…….. and it isn’t Bolt.


        Report this

        723

        • #
          michael hammer

          Griss I agree with you


          Report this

          49

        • #
          DeltaCharlie

          Griss – my thoughts exactly, regarding murderous cowards using women and children as shields.
          1. How many civil facilities would have been provided in Gaza using the money HAMAS has spent on some 50,000 rockets tossed at Israel in the last 8 years? IF they actually cared..
          2. Given that HAMAS’s stated goal is the annihilation of Israel, how does Israel negotiate with them?
          3. The hiding of weapons INSIDE UN schools – when found, the UN returns said weapons to HAMAS…WHAT?? After the slaughters of men in Serbia and the Rwandan massacres, just what is the point of the UN anyway?
          I could go on about the UN, but why bother..


          Report this

          618

          • #
            Glen Michel

            And the USAs massive re supply of armaments in this one-sided conflict.Hamas is an odious organisation for sure, but Israels eye for an eye mentality goes too far.Bolt and the Australian are far too one-eyed o this matter.


            Report this

            112

            • #
              DeltaCharlie

              “Bolt and the Australian are far too one-eyed o this matter.”
              Glen, I would disagree with your last comment above, as evidenced by general fair-mindedness amongst most people I know, including quite a number of muslim friends from various backgrounds, who are unanimously disgusted with the actions of HAMAS, while most give some ground to Israel. As for Bolt or a couple of Australian journalists (cough), I see that as their opinions.

              Footage is available from France24 news and a Swedish news team since their reporters left Gaza, showing HAMAS setting up and firing rockets at Israel from beside the hotel in Gaza housing all the news teams, and next to a UN school full of women and children. Nice people.

              A point to make is that neither HAMAS nor Israel (nor indeed many others) have exclusive rights to the moral high ground in this mess. Right now I would put Israel higher up the moral mountain..
              My opinion of the UN, however is unchanged..

              Regards the US arms re-supply to Israel, it has been reported that the US government also gave another couple of hundred million to HAMAS since this last conflict started. Wanna bet me it will be spent on humanitarian aid and essential needs of the Gaza citizens?….doubt it.


              Report this

              26

              • #
                Vince Whirlwind

                [Snipped - off topic and racist. If you did happen to want to make a point Vince and it is on topic, use facts and logic, not outrageous smears. - Mod]


                Report this

                42

  • #
    Dennis

    Bring back the warming, please.

    Twilight Of Abundance is worth reading.


    Report this

    30

  • #
    pat

    the Australian is carrying this too, referencing Fairfax. headlne misleading as Abbott was not at the meeting. btw did u know Abbott once said CAGW was “crap”??

    all in all, a load of abslute BS:

    14 Aug: SMH: US administration and Tony Abbott have ‘meeting of minds’ on climate change
    by Peter Hartcher and John Garnaut
    The subject was not mentioned at the Ausmin news conference on Tuesday.
    But Daniel Russel, the senior official for the Asia-Pacific region in the US State Department, was involved in the talks and said the two governments had ”a good discussion of non-traditional security threats, among which is climate change”…
    ”The conversation was predicated on the reality of global warming,” he said, dismissing any hint that the Abbott government might be in denial on the subject.
    ”It was not a theological debate. It was an information exchange.”…
    Australia was represented by Foreign Affairs Minister Julie Bishop and Defence Minister David Johnston. They spent a day and a half in consultations with US Secretary of State John Kerry and US Defence Secretary Chuck Hagel.
    The Barack Obama administration has made climate change a priority.
    ***Mr Kerry is especially fervent. In February he said that it was ”the world’s most fearsome” weapon of mass destruction.
    He has described sceptics of the science of man-made climate change as members of the ”Flat Earth Society” and said he and Mr Obama had no time for them.
    Mr Abbott said in 2009 that the science of climate change was ”absolute crap”…
    Labor leader Bill Shorten said in June that Mr Abbott would have nothing to say if Mr Obama raised the topic. ”Tony Abbott will have to sit there and shrug his shoulders and politely try and change the topic to the weather,” he said.
    However, Mr Russel said of the Ausmin talks: ”They exchanged views on the upcoming global conferences regarding climate change and they also touched on the relevance to the force posture agreement in the sense that the Asia-Pacific region is home to lot of wonderful things but, unfortunately, it’s also home to the lion’s share of natural disasters, and a significant component of the rationale and the mission for the rotational [US Marine] presence in Darwin … is to increase the region’s ability to respond to natural disasters.”…
    The head of Australia’s Climate Institute, John Connor, said: ”This government may be waking up to the fact that the heavy hitters in the US and China see climate change as a security issue and an economic issue, not just an environment issue.”…
    http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/us-administration-and-tony-abbott-have-meeting-of-minds-on-climate-change-20140813-103pq8.html

    Fairfax ok with pushing it’s a national security issue. for what what not a “theological” debate, Kerry’s position sure sounds religious. as for Obama making CAGW a “priority”, LOL.


    Report this

    10

    • #
      Unmentionable

      I’m yet to see John Kerry say much of anything that I think is fundamentally valid. Same for much of what China’s leaders say.

      But generally not having quite the same problem with Abbot’s thoughts and statements, but he’s unfortunately rapidly become addicted to hubris grandstanding and swagger while meddling with disregard for those less fortunate in society. He’s a Howardite and Howard did exactly the same thing and is the reason Howard got booted, for a wannabe dope like KeviO7. Howard lost it so bad he couldn’t even hold his own seat in the end, and Abbot is showing all the same signs of going the same way.

      Anyhoo … all hail President Kerry … the world is saved!


      Report this

      00

  • #
    pat

    Fairfax – why not inform your readers about this?

    13 Aug: Wall St Journal: Awash in Coal, U.S. Imports Even More
    Power Plants Reap Benefits From Cheap Colombian Shipments as Mines in Appalachia Begin to Close
    ByJohn W. Miller and Cassandra Sweet
    Coal imports to the U.S. are rising sharply even as coal mines close throughout Central Appalachia.
    A big reason: price. It costs $26 a ton to ship coal from Central Appalachia to power plants in Florida compared with $15 a ton to get coal from a mine in Colombia, according to research firm IHS Energy.
    Labor costs are lower in Colombia, and it’s much more cost effective to move coal by ship, which can transport well over 50,000 tons of coal, than by train, usually made up of more than 100 railcars, each carrying only 100 tons of coal. In addition, a global coal glut has helped weaken prices for Colombian coal.
    Coal imports surged 44% to 5.4 million metric tons during the first six months of 2014, compared with a year ago, according to Global Trade Information Services…
    Total U.S. coal consumption is expected to increase 3% to 862 million tons this year, according to the Energy Information Administration. The expected rise reflects frigid weather earlier this year, which boosted demand at all power plants, including those relying on coal…
    Southern Co. which has 63 coal-fired power generating units in four states, bought 25% more imported coal than expected, said Jeff Wallace, Southern’s vice president of fuel. The Atlanta-based utility is burning more coal this year, due to a weather-related increase in electricity demand and higher prices for natural gas, which power some noncoal plants…
    Colombia, which has coal mines near its coastal regions, has long been the U.S.’s largest source of foreign coal. This year, authorities in Colombia said the country’s coal miners would produce about 94 million to 97 million tons, up from a previous estimate of 89 million tons…
    Drummond Co., of Birmingham, Ala., which operates two mines in Colombia, is the biggest exporter of coal to the U.S. The company said it expects its coal production in Colombia to increase 19% this year to 27.2 million tons, and its exports to the U.S. to hold steady at two million tons a year…
    Jacksonville, Fla.-based CSX Corp., one of the country’s biggest rail operators, plans to add 100 locomotives to its fleet of 3,700, and it expects to ship a lot more coal later this year to meet utility demand, a company spokeswoman said.
    Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corp., of Fort Worth, Texas, said it plans to buy 500 locomotives, 5,000 new railcars and hire 5,000 new operations employees to beef up service.
    http://online.wsj.com/articles/awash-in-coal-u-s-imports-even-more-1407974928


    Report this

    30

  • #
    pat

    Fairfax – how about informing your readers about this?

    11 Aug: Forbes: James Conca: Russia Ships Coal to America Despite Sanctions
    The Doric Victory, a huge transport ship the length of two football fields, just sailed 4,000 miles to deliver over 40,000 tons of Russian coal to the Schiller Station coal-fired power plant in New Hampshire.
    What?
    Yes, some American power plants are importing coal from Putin’s fatherland to resupply their stocks that were depleted to dangerously-low levels from last years’ unusually cold winter…
    But how does importing coal from Russia jive with our increasing sanctions against The Bear in the aftermath of their military aggression in Crimea and eastern Ukraine?
    That is not at all clear. Exxon is going ahead with its billion-dollar venture in the Russian Arctic Ocean as if there’s no issue (WSJ)…
    Coal generates about 29% of all energy worldwide and, in less than ten years, is poised to overtake oil (now at 33%) as the largest source of energy (Confronting Coal; EIA)…
    ***The recent polar vortex brought home to millions of Americans the importance of energy reliability in the face of extreme weather (NEI). Coal piles froze, coal supply trains didn’t run, wind died, natural gas pipelines froze, and what got through went as much towards home heating as to power, causing some fossil-fueled power plants to reduce their output or outright close…
    In New England, natural gas electricity generation during the polar vortex faltered so much that regional grid administrator ISO New England had to bring up dirtier coal and oil plants to try to make up the difference…
    Since reliability is the number one issue with power generation, it’s no wonder these generators are looking towards Russia to provide the coal supply our infrastructure can’t. And the coming winter may see an increase in Russian coal imports to the East Coast…
    http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2014/08/11/russia-ships-coal-to-america-despite-sanctions/

    ***pity Conca threw in the CAGW propaganda about the polar vortex/”extreme weather” to explain away another freezing winter in the US. bit of a joke really.


    Report this

    30

  • #
    Owen Morgan

    The “year without summer” was 1816, wasn’t it? That does seem to be a special case, linked to the colossal eruption of Mount Tambora, which was easily the biggest volcanic eruption in recorded history, even if prehistory contained even more destructive volcanic activity. There is no doubt that volcanic activity can have a huge effect on weather conditions over a very wide area, potentially worldwide. Not long (1783-4) before the Dalton Minimum, the Laki eruption in Iceland had a highly destructive impact on Europe, being linked, by some, to the conditions which led to the French Revolution of 1789.

    The French had another revolution in 1830, so, presumably, they felt the need to bookmark both ends of the Dalton Minimum.


    Report this

    30

  • #
    thingadonta

    Newman is trying to provide balance to the obsession to leave the sun out of things within climate science, and is one of those people who is totally disillusioned by the inability of the academic establishment to be anywhere near objective.

    Despite solar activity being relatively high in recent decades, and despite exactly this sort of level of solar activity leading to climate warming in the past, it is dismissed and rarely given a hearing by mainstream climate science. They keep dismissing solar output as ‘not increasing’ over several decades of measurement, but it is the relatively high and sustained level of solar output over these decades, in context with previous decades and centuries, which is fundamental in driving the more recent decades of warming.

    This will come back to haunt them, they have already made up their minds on what is going on without looking at all the evidence objectively. Too many snouts in the trough and simply too many agendas to get to the bottom of things. The 21st century will not forget the way mainstream science was perverted and captured by narrow self interests.


    Report this

    31

  • #
    pat

    13 Aug: Clarion Ledger: AP: KiOR warns of bankruptcy
    Struggling biofuel firm KiOR, which built a refinery in Columbus, says in a financial filing that it will run out of money by September and that bankruptcy could follow…
    The company, which built a refinery in Columbus to turn wood chips into synthetic oil, owes Mississippi $69.4 million. The Mississippi Development Authority has agreed to delay payments until the end of October to give KiOR time to raise new money or sell the company…
    http://www.clarionledger.com/story/money/business/2014/08/13/kior-warns-bankruptcy/14039941/

    13 Aug: Watchdog.org: Steve Wilson: Mississippi taxpayers could be on the hook for $69 million loan to KiOR
    Biofuel manufacturer KiOR’s financial struggles might leave Mississippi holding the title to another failed green energy project…
    The company owes the state $69.275 million on a no-interest loan to build a first-of-its kind plant to convert wood pulp into gasoline, fuel oil and diesel fuel in Columbus…
    If KiOR defaults on its loan, the administration of then-Gov. Haley Barbour would be responsible for more than $95 million in taxpayer money spent on failed green energy ventures…
    It wouldn’t be the first time the state of Mississippi was left holding the bag for a failed green energy venture. The state loaned Twin Creeks Solar $26 million in 2010 to build a solar panel production facility in Senatobia in north Mississippi. The 85,000-square-foot facility opened in 2011, but it closed in 2012 after the company was liquidated.
    According to Mississippi Development Authority spokesman Jeff Rent, the state still owns the former Twin Creeks facility and is still trying to sell it
    http://watchdog.org/164708/mississippi-taxpayers-hook-69-million-loan-kior/


    Report this

    00

  • #
    • #
      James Bradley

      Aw hell, Griss,

      I gotta tell Craig Thomas before he invests all his money in green energy schemes…

      Too late.

      Only joking – he’s too cunning to invest in that crap – he’d rather con other lefty politicians into investing tax payer funded grants and subsidies into schemes that don’t work for the lure of extra votes.

      I never got a reply from him about his own green energy investment portfolio though.

      Probably too busy shafting people out of their retirement funds.


      Report this

      20

      • #
        scaper...

        That’s nasty…but an indelible summation.


        Report this

        10

      • #
        the Griss

        Its been an interesting tactical plan…..

        1. Demonise coal using scare hoaxes about CO2, Enlist the help of the mis-informed green socialist agenda.. play along with them.

        2. Get in early to snap up government subsidies on green investment scams.

        3. Sell just before the ‘renewables’ firm collapses..

        4. Re-invest all that government money, (our tax money), back into fossil fuels.

        Only wish I had seen it earlier and had money to help it along :-(


        Report this

        40

  • #
    Craig Thomas

    Weirdly, the CEO of one of the world’s biggest energy company disagrees with you:

    Last night, Peter Terium, who has been CEO for less than two years, conceded that the company had got it wrong. He admitted that the change in electricity markets, which has seen earnings from conventional generation gutted by the impact of solar and wind energy, was “unstoppable”. It was now time to change strategy, and focus on what the electricity market will look like in the future.

    http://reneweconomy.com.au/2014/germany-decline-of-fossil-fuel-generation-is-irreversible-75224


    Report this

    15

    • #
      James Bradley

      Craig, pleas stop, this is too funny – Graigs reference material – RenewEconomy.com:

      “Since its launch in early 2012, RenewEconomy.com.au has quickly emerged as Australia’s best informed and most read web-site focusing on clean energy news and analysis, as well as climate policy. It is read widely among the industry and policy-makers, and others with a strong interest in the transition to a low carbon economy. It has a strong international readership because it also focuses on global trends…..

      … RenewEconomy is an independent website founded by Giles Parkinson, a journalist of 30 years experience, a former Business Editor and Deputy Editor of the Australian Financial Review, a former columnist for The Bulletin magazine and The Australian, and the founder and former editor of Climate Spectator.

      Wouldn’t be surprised if RenewEconomy kicked off with generous grants from the Labor Governemnt and continues with subsidies through tax payer funded donors.


      Report this

      51

    • #
      James Bradley

      The point is Craig, your reference material is nothing more than a propaganda handbook promoting the green ideology through biased editorials from – a lefty journo – not even bothered to ‘replicate’ a jot of scientific data now.

      Jeez, no cred their mate.

      Try again.


      Report this

      42

    • #
      the Griss

      Hey Craig, BOZO wants his clown outfit back !

      He hope you haven’t stretched his clown hat too much with your ego.


      Report this

      32

    • #
      James Bradley

      It’s all okay Griss,

      It’s only returned because I envoked its name thrice, now since I called it, it actually has no power in the real universe whatsoever, it is completely under our control, now go on and poke it a bit if like, Griss.

      You’ll see it is nothing more than a shallow parody, all its got is empty rhetoric – its quite harmless really.

      If it becomes a bit of a yawn just send it back from whence it came, just say ‘get thee gone Janus, (for that is its real persona – two faced – and the invocation of the name should at least give it the conniptions) and it will return to the darkness and silence of the caverns of the underworld where no one visits or commands and the only sounds are hollow echoes – the locals, or one local really, refer to it as Skepticalscience – bit of a misnomer really that name… should be a law against false advertising.


      Report this

      31

      • #
        the Griss

        “Skepticalscience”

        not sceptical, just brainwashed followers ….

        and bares absolutely NO resemblance to science of any sort.

        Just like CT’s posts.. empty brain-washed mantra.


        Report this

        62

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        The name is a misspelling. A spurious “k” got introduced somehow, during the site registration process. Purely by accident, of course. But you know how damnably difficult it can be, to correct such mistakes.


        Report this

        10

  • #
    pat

    what will it take to restore sanity?

    14 Aug: Reuters: UPDATE 3-Germany’s RWE warns of supply risks as power crisis bite
    Germany’s RWE reported a 40-percent plunge in first-half profits, blaming loss-making power plants and warning that power supplies were under threat unless an ongoing crisis in Europe’s energy sector was fixed.
    German power producers are facing a crisis caused by weak demand for energy in Europe, low wholesale power prices and a surge in intermittent renewable energy sources, which continue to replace gas-fired and coal-fired power plants.
    Earlier this week, RWE, Germany’s largest power producer, said it was considering mothballing 1,000 megawatts (MW) of power plants that are unable to recuperate their costs as they only run a fraction of the time needed to be profitable.
    “This does not bode well for security of supply, to which wind turbines and solar panels cannot make a large contribution,” Chief Executive Peter Terium wrote in a letter to shareholders…
    The energy sector’s imbalance has sparked a debate among European governments and utilities companies about creating so-called capacity mechanisms.
    The idea is to reimburse energy firms for power plants that no longer cover their costs but are needed to secure supply of gas and electricity when intermittent renewable power supplies cannot…
    http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/08/14/rwe-results-idUKL6N0QK0DZ20140814


    Report this

    20

    • #
      ianl8888


      The idea is to reimburse energy firms for power plants that no longer cover their costs but are needed to secure supply of gas and electricity when intermittent renewable power supplies cannot

      Imagine being in an operating theatre undergoing a triple by-pass when the wind drops. Of course, legislation will ensure that hospitals have their own backup diesels, but this simply makes my point

      I’ve commented before that I had really believed that such a situation would simply not arise in a democracy … I was very, very wrong. The UK this coming NH winter will be the point man


      Report this

      30

  • #
    pat

    sounds a bit like global cooling!

    14 Aug: Cleveland Plain Dealer, Ohio: Near-record low temperatures tonight, with sunny and cool conditions Friday: Akron Weather Forecast
    http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2014/08/near-record_low_temperatures_t.html

    14 Aug: MLive Michigan: Better close your windows tonight or grab a blanket; Here’s why
    We better close our windows before we go to bed tonight, or put a blanket on the bed.
    It is going to be a cold night for the middle of August…
    Most spots will cool down well into the 40s. A few spots may get as cold as the upper 30s…
    If you leave your windows open in your bedroom tonight, you may have a dream that you are freezing. Your dream my come true.
    http://www.mlive.com/weather/index.ssf/2014/08/better_close_your_windows_toni.html#incart_2box

    14 Aug: UK Telegraph: UK weather: Wrap up, big chill on the way in Bertha’s wake
    Temperatures are expected to plunge this weekend as the Bertha weather system brings down cold air from Scandinavia in its trail
    Temperatures are expected to plunge across the country with chilly winds pushing the mercury close to freezing…
    The Met Office said the mercury could drop as low as 2C (35.6F) in Scotland by Monday, with English lows of around 8C (46.4F) in Cumbria and the Lake District…
    Leon Brown, forecaster for The Weather Channel, said the cooler outlook is partly due to a shift in position of the jet stream.
    He said the cold flow of air could remain in place for up to a fortnight, dampening hopes for a warm and sunny August Bank Holiday.
    He said: “We are entering a cool phase of weather across the UK, and for that matter also much of northern and central Europe…
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/topics/weather/11034528/UK-weather-Wrap-up-big-chill-on-the-way-in-Berthas-wake.html


    Report this

    21

  • #
    Richard C (NZ)

    >”….experiments using the Large Hadron Collider,” – Maurice Newman

    No. Proton Synchrotron

    http://home.web.cern.ch/about/experiments/cloud


    Report this

    10

    • #
      Richard C (NZ)

      >”Proton Synchrotron” (PS used by CERN CLOUD experiment above has been in operation since 1959, LHC since 2008) From CERN:

      ‘The accelerator complex’

      There’s more to CERN than the Large Hadron Collider. A series of accelerators work together to push particles to nearly the speed of light

      The accelerator complex at CERN is a succession of machines that accelerate particles to increasingly higher energies. Each machine boosts the energy of a beam of particles, before injecting the beam into the next machine in the sequence. In the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) – the last element in this chain – particle beams are accelerated up to the record energy of 4 TeV per beam. Most of the other accelerators in the chain have their own experimental halls [incl PS] where beams are used for experiments at lower energies.

      The proton source is a simple bottle of hydrogen gas. An electric field is used to strip hydrogen atoms of their electrons to yield protons. Linac 2, the first accelerator in the chain, accelerates the protons to the energy of 50 MeV. The beam is then injected into the Proton Synchrotron Booster (PSB), which accelerates the protons to 1.4 GeV, followed by the Proton Synchrotron (PS), which pushes the beam to 25 GeV. Protons are then sent to the Super Proton Synchrotron (SPS) where they are accelerated to 450 GeV.

      The protons are finally transferred to the two beam pipes of the LHC.

      More>>>>>

      http://home.web.cern.ch/about/accelerators


      Report this

      11

    • #
      Richard C (NZ)

      And not “Henrik Svensmark’s experiments” in CERN CLOUD either:

      Publications [hotlinked at link below]

      Role of sulphuric acid, ammonia and galactic cosmic rays in atmospheric aerosol nucleation (Kirkby et al., Nature, 25 August 2011)

      Results from the CERN pilot CLOUD experiment (Duplissy et al., Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 2010)

      http://cloud.web.cern.ch/cloud/People/Publications.html


      Report this

      10

  • #
    Eric

    What about hormesis along with GAIA regulate the earth. Once again, I need to point out that about 1/2 of the energy arising on the surface of the earth comes from radioactive decay (and quite possibly fission reactions) in the core of the earth (which is why it is so hot) Who is to say that quite possibly some of the variation of temperature may be due to variations in the nuclear decay and reactions taking place below the surface. The natural reactor at Gabon is one such example, as are deposits of rare earth elements which are the same atoms as fission products. Co-incidence??

    A Scientist’s Point of View, on CO2….A Must-Read!
    mothersagainstwindturbines.com
    Earth’s Response to Increasing CO2: An Example of Hormesis?August 11th, 2014 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.One of the dubious assumptions undergirding the environmental movement is that the Earth was…


    Report this

    01

  • #

    [...] http://joannenova.com.au/2014/08/how-the-media-distort-the-news-lesson-1-lies-by-omission/ Share this:TwitterFacebookGoogleLike this:Like Loading… August 18, 2014 in Omissions & Lies, THE MEDIA MONOPOLY: Disinformation. [...]


    Report this

    00