JoNova

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


Handbooks

The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

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



Archives

Hot New Book: Steyn, Delingpole, Bolt, Carter, Plimer, Lindzen, Lawson, Watts, Nova

Too many big names too list, and all in one book, edited by Alan Moran and published by the IPA. I’m am just tickled, delighted to be one of the authors.

The proper headline should include Ross McKitrick, Willie Soon, Pat Michaels, Garth Paltridge, Kesten Green, Stewart Franks, Christopher Essex, Jennifer Marohasy and John Abbott. Not to forget the great writers Rupert Darwall, and Donna LaFramboise.

– Jo

An excerpt:

Shh, don’t mention the water

To state the bleeding obvious, Earth is a Water Planet. Water dominates everything and it’s infernally complicated. Water holds 90% of all the energy on the surface,[1]  and both NASA[2] and the IPCC[3] admit water is the most important greenhouse gas there is, they just don’t seem inclined to produce posters telling us this is a humidity crisis, or that water is pollution.

I get right into the Dada-science, foggy-text, Klingon plots and zombies. I went right over the word limit… :- )

There are briefings in February as well, see below for details!

From John Roskam at the IPA

Climate Change: The Facts 2014, a new book from the Institute of Public Affairs is now available. It couldn’t come at a more important time. You can buy your copy here.

The carbon tax might be gone and the planet might not have warmed since 1998 (as even the IPCC acknowledged last month in its Fifth Assessment Report) but the climate change debate is far from over. Tony Abbott is still going to give $200 million to the United Nations’ ‘Green Climate Fund’. This is after he called the Fund the ‘Bob Brown bank on an international scale’. The federal government says it “accepts the climate change science” – but the government never says exactly what the ‘science’ is that it accepts. The science is clear. There’s been no warming since 1998.

Supporters who donated $25 or more to finance the publication of this book have already been sent a complimentary copy, as have all the IPA’s Premier members.

I’m delighted that the generous support of IPA members also allowed us to send a copy to every federal member of parliament and leading journalists and commentators, to ensure that they receive at least one source of reliable information about climate change.

Yet we will keep on hearing that this year or last year or next year will be the world’s ‘hottest on record’. For example, earlier this month the World Meteorological Organization put out a press release with the heading ’2014 on course to be one of the hottest, possibly hottest, on record’. However, as British scientist Matt Ridley (who delivered the 2013 CD Kemp Lecture for the IPA) has said:

this predicted record would only be one-hundredth of a degree above 2010 and two-hundredths of a degree above 2005 – with an error range of one-tenth of a degree. True scientists would have said: this year is unlikely to be significantly warmer than 2010 or 2005 and left it at that.

At the climate change talks in Paris next year there’s going to be a push from green groups for the world to have ‘zero net emissions’ by 2050. As Robert Bryce from the Manhattan Institute said when he spoke to the IPA earlier this year: out of the world’s population of 7 billion people, 1.2 billion people don’t have electricity. For every one person that has gained access to electricity in the last twenty years from wind and solar power, 13 people have gained electricity thanks to coal. Kevin Rudd of course talked about climate change as ‘the greatest moral challenge of our generation’ – and of course he was wrong. I believe we do have a moral challenge – it is to help bring electricity to those 1.2 billion people who don’t have what Australians take completely for granted. If ever the world adopts a ‘zero net emissions’ policy it is almost guaranteed that those who don’t have electricity still won’t have electricity by 2050.

That’s why Climate Change: The Facts 2014 is so important. And why your financial support for the IPA’s work is so important. We must keep on arguing for the science and for the evidence.

I’m also pleased to let you know that next year the IPA will be holding Climate Change Briefing Sessions for IPA members and supporters around the country. It will be an opportunity for you to hear from experts and ask them questions about the latest on climate change science. The briefings will be presented by two outstanding scientists – IPA Emeritus Fellow Professor Bob Carter, and Professor Stewart Franks from the University of Tasmania. Both Professor Carter and Professor Franks are contributors to Climate Change: The Facts 2014.

The first three briefings will be in Perth, Sydney, and Brisbane in February and I’ll let you know about dates for other locations early in the new year.

The details for the briefings are:

Perth
Monday, 16th February
5.00pm for 5.30pm
Hyatt Regency Perth
99 Adelaide Terrace, Perth

Sydney
Wednesday, 18th February
5.00pm for 5.30pm
Radisson Blu Hotel
27 O’Connell Street, Sydney

Brisbane
Thursday, 19th February
5.00pm for 5.30pm
Hilton Brisbane
190 Elizabeth Street, Brisbane

These events are free, but you do need to register your attendance. To book your place visit http://rsvp.ipa.org.au or email Sarah Wilson on swilson@ipa.org.au or call Sarah here at the IPA office on 03 9600 4744.

Thank you for your support. In 2015 the IPA will keep arguing the science of climate change just as we have been every year for the last two decades.

Kind regards

John

P.S. To purchase your copy of Climate Change: The Facts 2014, click here.

John Roskam
Executive Director

 

REFERENCES


[1] Pielke Sr., R.A., (2003): Heat storage within the Earth system. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 84, 331-335.

[2] http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/WaterVapor/water_vapor3.php

[3] IPCC, Assessment Report 4, 2007, Working Group 1, The Physical Science Basis, Chapter 8. [PDF] Page 632 online

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 8.9/10 (110 votes cast)
Hot New Book: Steyn, Delingpole, Bolt, Carter, Plimer, Lindzen, Lawson, Watts, Nova, 8.9 out of 10 based on 110 ratings

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

300 comments to Hot New Book: Steyn, Delingpole, Bolt, Carter, Plimer, Lindzen, Lawson, Watts, Nova

  • #
    PeterPetrum

    Reading Ian Plimer’s chapter now. Excited to read that there is only one molecule of man made CO2 in 85,000 molecules of air and there are 32 molecules of naturally occurring CO2 in the same air space, yet, as Ian puts it, we are asked to believe that that one molecule has major effects on the climate and the 32 don’t! I LOVE it; boy, am I going to use that at the warmists’ Christmas party (family) that I have to attend!

    16517

    • #
      PeterPetrum

      Gee, wonder who “thum downed” me?

      557

      • #
        • #
          PeterPetrum

          Good one! She’s long gone, could have been my son-in-law though, I am NOT allowed to discus AGW in his hearing!

          216

          • #
            Leigh

            Hope I didnt offend.
            I thought of the negative responses at the family get togethers I get.
            My mother quietly says not today please when ever I’m about to climb on the box.
            My adult daughter and son have put the “muzzle” on me discussing it as well at family get togethers.

            142

            • #
              Ken Stewart

              It’s good manners not to discuss religion or politics amongst friends and family- and AGW is both (politics and religion that is). Nearly everyone I know thinks it’s BS anyway.

              252

            • #
              PeterPetrum

              No offence, Leigh, I thought it was very funny, and although the target was incorrect, the sentiment was spot on! Looks like your family is as closed-minded on this as my daughter’s husband and her in-laws. Oh well, I might just take Ken’s advice to heart and muzzle myself on Christmas Day. Hope it’s not too hot, or someone is bound to mention GW! And if I am on my third glass of good cheer (which is likely) I might just forget myself! Oh dear, i am stressed already!

              162

              • #
                richrsd

                I am thinking of hosting Christmas dinner for skeptics, think of the fun we would have.

                21

              • #
                richrsd

                I am thinking of hosting Christmas dinner for skeptics, think of the fun we would have.

                21

              • #
                Lawrie Ayres

                I just go full steam ahead anyway no matter who is listening. The truth will out. I have encouraged my kids and in laws to look at all the facts and am happy to report they have come to the correct conclusions. Some of my educated cousins not so much but the practical ones all realise that AGW is BS.

                40

      • #
        Allen Ford

        The Phantom Thumber!

        62

    • #
      Richard

      Right, and CO2 is increasing at about 2ppmv/year. That’s an increase of 1 molecule in every 500,000 other molecules spread evenly throughout the atmosphere. I wonder how that 1 molecule has enough energy to significantly, let alone measurably, increase the overall mean temperature of the 500,000 molecules that surround it. The standard warmist reply is that small things can have big effects, you know like poison. That might be true, but it has nothing to do with the physics of heat-transfer. Anyone tried to measurably heat up 500,000 grains of a rice with a single heated grain? Unless the laws of physics have been suspended or that single grain is heated up to hundreds of degrees then I do not see how it could measurably increase the mean temperature of 500,000 grains surrounding it. But that’s just me.

      613

      • #
        James Bradley

        Richard,

        I believe I can answer that in an analogy I got from Phil Sheehan:

        Paraphrased – ‘You see there is a water tank that drips water into a bucket and the bucket has a hole that allows the same amount of water as dripped from the tank to escape from the hole. Now if humans add even one more drop of water to that dripping from the tank then the bucket will eventually over flow’.

        I figure that well before the bucket overflows we would all succumb to lack of oxygen.

        I mean you can drown in only a couple of inches of water if some unrepresentative and oppressive, totalitarian is holding your face in the bucket till you hand over your PIN while they are trying to convert you to their belief system.

        Oh and totally OT – UN denouces waterboarding as torture when used to prevent terrorism.

        174

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          You didn’t account for evaporation – or spillage caused by people struggling to get their heads out of the bucket – sloppy fisiks – no wonder we attract the trolls. [Sarc?] -Fly

          241

          • #
            James Bradley

            Rereke,

            And Phil Sheehan’s analogy which is used by many, many warmists doesn’t illustrate properly the greater catastrophe that awaits once the tank runs dry…

            131

            • #
              Rereke Whakaaro

              Indeed.

              At least I was trained in the techniques used to find water in a desert, not that I have ever been a position where I needed to try.

              71

              • #
                MacSual

                New Zealand has deserts?

                32

              • #
                Sweet tooth Lank

                Add “s” and you get pavlova

                31

              • #
                AndrewGriff

                I don’t know about deserts,but parts of NZ are relatively dry e.g. Canterbury Plains where farm paddocks have modified drainage to retain the surprisingly light rainfall runoff in what is not really a lush agricultural situation.

                21

              • #
                sophocles

                New Zealand has deserts?

                Only one.

                The Ruapehu Desert.

                It’s between the Desert Road (what else? Part of the No 1 Highway.) and Mt. Ruapehu in the North Island. Has wind blown sand, Holden wrecks, little water, and … and … umm … some of the other delights of a desert. No camels, though. It’s a bit bigger than a postage stamp.

                41

              • #
                tooth fairy

                Rereke – Re Ruapehu Desert – I am sure you will agree that you can have many a good fiddle behind an old dune!

                00

              • #
                Rereke Whakaaro

                No comment!

                00

        • #
          Safetyguy66

          I think the climate conforms to analogies about as well as it conforms to models.

          212

        • #
          James Bradley

          Rereke,

          Attracting trolls, I prefer to call it chumming, I’m currently experimenting with different combinations of word sequences, and it’s amazing how many can be extrapolated from a simple 26 letter alphabet.

          112

        • #
          James Bradley

          Hi Fafetyguy,

          Analogies… models… all have the same purpose – to confuse and bewilder and all have the same result – failure, therefore proving that CO2 is not a factor.

          112

        • #
          Aaron

          It’s the perfect analogy, and shows the ignorance of it. As the bucket fills a little faster from the additional drops, the water pressure on the hole increases and the leak rate increases. Level will only go so high before equilibrium again. Shows you how stupid these alarmists are. Wearing 10 coats won’t keep you significantly warmer than 9. There is a point of diminishing return on warming by CO2 and we are probably beyond it. Water vapor and CO2 already absorb most of the long wave IR at the surface. Adding a little more CO2 doesn’t do squat. That doesn’t even take into account the increased convective cooling created by slightly warmer CO2 and water vapor rising and cooling the planet.

          72

          • #
            Ron Cook

            Aaron

            “There is a point of diminishing return on warming by CO2 and we are probably beyond it”

            I read some where that beyond 50 ppm any increase in CO2 has little if any effect. There’s probably a reference to it somewhere in the archives.

            R-COO- K+

            42

        • #
          the Griss

          Phil’s analogy shows his lack of grasp of physics.

          As you add more, the depth increases, therefore the head increases, therefore the flow out through the hole increases.

          And bear in mind that in terms of CO2, the bucket was basically empty at the beginning.

          122

          • #
            James Bradley

            And the head in the tank reduces and the flow reduces and as per 1.2.1.1.1 what happens when the tank runs dry?

            61

            • #
              the Griss

              Thankfully nature keeps taking the CO2 and pumping it back in…

              … in what is called “the Carbon Cycle”.

              This Carbon Cycle sustains ALL life on Earth,…

              and CO2 is an integral and highly essential part of it.

              142

          • #
            Frank

            Griss,
            Its an analogy illustrating rates of flow , like religious fanatic would ,you’ve taken it too literally.

            310

            • #
              Robert

              And like a scientific illiterate you don’t understand how poor an analogy it is given the system being discussed. Nothing unusual there.

              If we go back through the site and read your comments I’m quite certain we can make a far better case for your being the religious fanatic.

              95

              • #
                James Bradley

                Dear Robert,

                I agree it is the poorest and worst analogy ever perpetrated on a gullible society.

                An anaolgy bereft of logic and reason, absolutely!

                It is also the analogy most oft used by pro-CO2 global warming catastrophists to explain the impossible – how a minute trace of CO2, possibly attributable to human achievement, is accumulated in the atmosphere to cause catastrophic global warming.

                Silly ay, Robert?

                Utter rubbish in fact, but there you go, the adherents to the CO2 generated global warming scam use it all the time.

                How about you give Phil Sheehan a call and let him know his entire alchemy on life, carbon based life forms and why carbon based lifeforms don’t require carbon is pure shite.

                I bet you don’t, cause you’d get blackballed from the Pulling the Wool Over the Eyes of the Gullible Society.

                Well, good luck with the rest of your life, hope you’ve got a trade to fall back on.

                Sincerely Yours, etc etc

                James Bradley

                72

              • #
                James Bradley

                *Griss, just got your back here buddy.

                *Robert, my response should have been addressed to Frank.

                *Frank, apologies to Robert.

                There, I think that did it.

                Please note that none of this will make the slightest bit of sense if my actual comment does not pass moderation, in which case, would all of the above named contributors please ignore this message…

                ohh except for you, Frank, you just owe everyone an apology.
                [If has now passed moderation, with a few edits to avoid words that the filters don't like. Less scatology would be useful] -Fly

                51

              • #
                the Griss

                “*Griss, just got your back here buddy.”

                Thanks, not that its needed when playing with this intellectual lightweight. :-)

                73

            • #
              the Griss

              Poor Frank (aka hollowman), can’t keep up, can you. ! :-)

              Phil was the one who needed to come up with the silly analogy..

              Its all the AGW cult has, silly analogies, and ‘frordulant’ data sets.. (spelling to get past auto censor)

              As you have constantly shown, they certainly cannot provide even the most basic scientific support for the CO2 warming farce.

              STILL waiting !!!

              73

            • #
              the Griss

              “Its an analogy illustrating rates of flow”

              Yes Frank. And it shows scientific illiteracy.

              63

        • #
          Frankly Skeptical

          A static ” hole” in the bucket is flawed. The hole can vary enormously because uptake under natural conditions. It’s not what us scientists call
          at ‘Steady State” but behaves in a Transient State or manner over time.

          61

        • #
          Ted O'Brien.

          One more drop? ‘Tain’t so!

          If humans add just one more drop to the bucket, the water level in the bucket will rise, increasing the pressure on the leak, which will increase the speed of the leak.

          Much more data needed to sort this one out. Observations! Calculations! United Nations! Oh. it’s all too hard.

          31

          • #
            Ted O'Brien.

            It has just sunk in. The individual who told that story may have believed it.

            So the question should be: Who taught you that garbage?

            31

        • #
          shortie of greenbank

          Just curious if increased pressure would increase flow rate to compensate as the bucket fills up? Also, if so, does this make it worse than we thought? ;)

          00

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        The standard warmist reply is that small things can have big effects, you know like poison.

        Yeah … ? Of course … ? I mean, it works in homeopathy, so why not the climate as well.

        203

        • #
          Manfred

          ….or homeopathy?

          Homeopathic doses of CO2 administered to the atmosphere (say 2ppmv pa) should solve the problem?

          Is the IPCC aware of the power of homeopathy?

          132

        • #
          Manfred

          RW, didn’t read the end of your reply re. homeopathy before posting my own. Ah well, it looks like plagiarism, it smells like plagiarism, but it’s just a duck. Happy Christmas.

          101

          • #
            Graeme No.3

            A Peking plagiarism duck?

            Phil Sheehan omitted the effect of pressure, a rising water level will affect the rate of exit. The bucket might still overflow but it will take much longer. Given a very tall bucket (a low conc. of CO2) the water level might stabilise and the bucket never overflow.

            A Merry Christmas to Sheehan of the Overflow.

            130

          • #
            Rereke Whakaaro

            Don’t worry Manfred. I have always dreamt of being plagiarised. It is better than being sniggered at.

            100

            • #
              Manfred

              Damn. I got a single thumb down on both posts. I won’t sleep tonight. Was it ‘Happy Christmas’ or ‘Homeopathy’ or ‘IPCC not understanding homeopathy’? Was it my wanton distortion of the saying ‘If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it is a duck? Or was it simply that Tourette Thumb again?

              32

    • #

      Seriously Plimer argues by incredulity?

      323

      • #
        Peter C

        Seriously Plimer argues by incredulity?

        Possibly! I don’t think that he can actually believe that people could peddle such BS in the face of obvious observations.

        Anyway he gives good reasons for his opinions.

        71

      • #
        Andrew McRae

         
        Et tu, Brute?

        20

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          I don’t think Gee Aye has a classical education, so he probably won’t get that.

          20

        • #

          RW, Shakespeare is not classical, although Julius Caesar about who he writes might be classified thus and of course Latin is considered part of a “classical education”. In any case it is an exprression that is well known outside of latin studies.

          And yes I made a joke about incredulity being a poor method of argument by using incredulity. How funny I am.

          00

    • #
      Un

      Excited to read that there is only one molecule of man made CO2 in 85,000 molecules of air and there are 32 molecules of naturally occurring CO2 in the same air space,

      Imagine how much more exciting it would be if he was competent enough to do the calculations correctly and it were actually true

      27

  • #
    the Griss

    “Green Climate Fund”

    One should remember that the very best way of greatly slowing deforestation in developing countries would be for countries like the US and Australia to remove biofuel mandates and/or subsidies.

    And get rid of that crappy E10 stuff while they are at it !!

    561

    • #
      Tim

      And not just trees. It would also help those who are actually starving because of subsidised farming for fuel vs farming for food. Same land, same farmers, same corn, but profits rule and Bio fuel subsidies take food from the hungry and give it to the SUV’s.

      341

      • #
        NielsZoo

        Those subsidies also take hard earned cash from taxpayers and loans from China to route through “green” business and into the hand of the eco loons, the Democrat party (here in the States) and their Progressive masters. Remember to follow the money and it will always lead back to the power hungry who drive the sad Socialist kabuki that is the “green” movement.

        221

    • #
      Tom O

      Do you know why they call it a green climate fund? Because, for the moment at least, the world reserve currency is the American Greenback, and they are using the “climate” to collect as many of those “greenbacks” as possible to “fund” their depopulation and sterilization programs to protect and control the climate, although quite frankly, the climate is going to keep on doing whatever damn thing it wants to do in spite of them! Population, on the other hand, may have a problem.

      101

    • #
      Wayne Job

      Taking delivery of my christmas present tomorrow a new Harley, it will destroy itself on E10 it needs 98 octane so I know what you mean.

      50

      • #
        the Griss

        Yes Wayne, whatever you do, DO NOT pollute the tank with E10 !

        I know from experience, it really stuffs up the workings !

        40

  • #
    Carbon500

    This book HAS to be sold at bookshops worldwide as well as the internet. I prefer to shop locally, as I’m sure many do. At my branch of Waterstones (a major bookshop in the UK), there isn’t one single book stating views contrary to those of the alarmists. Books by Carter, Plimer,Singer and more once graced their shelves, but not now. I look forward to reading this new publication.

    321

    • #
      Mikky

      I was very pleasantly surprised to find Plimer’s excellent book (“heaven and earth”) in my local library in the UK. They also have Mann’s hockey stick book, but nobody borrows it.

      391

  • #

    About ter start reading the new book!
    Re ‘Earth is the water planet,’say Jo,
    I wrote a poem:

    Across the great continents, drifting
    shadows brush the plains with
    fugitive mists. Distant
    mountains, ridges of lapis lazuli,
    rim the sky that lifts
    across latitudes from sombre
    indigo to brilliant azurite.

    Earth is the water planet,

    all its great continents shifting
    in a world awash with seas,
    crested waves rifting its shores.
    Noah’s flood is with us yet,
    its opal waters inundate the land
    with mirrored pools.
    lakes that love the sky.

    Water planet,

    viewed from space like a snap shot
    from the gods. a shimmering orb
    netted in a cloud haze.

    A serf.

    271

  • #
    reformed warmist of logan

    Good Evening Jo,
    I can’t wait to get a copy in the next few days.
    This is going to be a great contribution to the debate in the coming 12 months (“pre-Paris”)!!
    Also, I look forward to including some of this what I’m sure will be 110% proof material in e-mails I’ll be forwarding to our fearless leaders in the next couple of months.
    To para-phrase Matt Damon!! … “Let’s see how they like them apples??!!”
    Keep up the absolutely fantastic work.
    Kind regards, reformed warmist of logan!

    221

  • #
    mc

    Fantastic! Can’t wait to read it.

    141

  • #
    Bobl

    Jo, this also needs to be sent to every school in Australia, we need to fight back against the indoctrination of the children!

    331

    • #
      PeterS

      I was going to say the exact same thing – this book MUST be sent to every school and also to every University.

      90

      • #
        Len

        That is very true. CSIRO have been giving out books at school wind ups this year as science prizes. You would wonder on the dodgy information contained in them.

        50

  • #
    david smith

    Perhaps Dana Nuttyjelly can do a hatchet-job review of the book without actually reading it (just like the [Snip] 1 star review he posted on Amazon about, “The Hockey Stick Illusion”)

    191

    • #
      david smith

      Got snipped for using the word “fr@*dulent”.
      Fair enough.
      I should have used the words “utterly dishonest because Nuttyjelly is a liar” instead.

      231

  • #
    pesadia

    Peter Petrum

    When I thumbed up your comment, it went from 11 to 13
    and the thumbdown went from i to 2. !!!!!!!!!!!

    82

    • #
      NielsZoo

      It appears that the site updates thumbs on input, not real time so between the time you loaded the page and the time you clicked the green thumb others had clicked them which didn’t show until the update. I use Firefox and that’s how it works for me.

      [ you are correct NielsZoo ] ED

      111

    • #
      Safetyguy66

      They are homogenised adjustment thumbs.

      211

    • #
      PeterPetrum

      Well it’s 109 to 10 now – very strange! Looks like the whole family are clicking the down button. Might not go to the Christmas lunch after all!

      91

  • #
    Richard

    I’ll buy a copy for one of my warmist friends (after reading it myself, of course).

    131

    • #
      Leigh

      You might have to read it to them.
      Understanding and familiarization with hard evidence of their misrepresentations of simple facts.
      Is really not one of their strong points.
      Reading it to them with pictures helps.

      131

      • #
        Allen Ford

        Reading it to them with pictures helps

        .

        Is there a comic book version is preparation? Seems like there could be great market opportunity there!

        40

      • #
        Carbon500

        Al Gore understands the importance of pretty pictures. There are plenty of them in his book!

        30

  • #
    el gordo

    Earth is a water planet and we are close to finding out where it all came from.

    http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2014/14dec_cometwater/

    60

    • #
      Wayne Job

      I prefer the ancient Sumerian explanation of our planets water certainly none on comets. Back to the drawing board for our erstwhile cosmologists.

      10

  • #
    sillyfilly

    Given the list of contributing authors, expect nothing more than another fine example of scientific crock(plus being a absolute waste of the hard earned). But I’m sure the bloggers here will reprise me of the relevant scientific data and evidence supporting the assumptions therein……..? Can’t wait……

    382

    • #
      Glen Michel

      Yeah yeah… Why can’t you say something topical (.relevant)

      231

    • #
      Mark Hladik

      Please feel free to list all of that “… scientific crock …” to be found herein.

      I am requesting our college library to order a copy. Our staff has acquired a veritable reference library of anti-IPCC literature, on the basis of my recommendations (and they keep telling me to notify them when more shows up!).

      Regards,

      Mark H.

      591

      • #

        Mark, that is a great idea. One that could help the book reach new eyes. Not only that but if librarians get a few requests they will notice that book too. It all helps.

        421

      • #
        Robert

        Sort of like asking a snake to fly isn’t it? Filly has repeatedly demonstrated she doesn’t understand science, it’s “good” science or “bad” science per her statement it is such not based on any actual facts or understanding but simply because she said so. Actually explaining it to her won’t clarify the matter any or teach her anything.

        Science per filly: does it support what I believe and have been told to believe, then it is science, if it does not then it isn’t. It’s been very black and white for her since day one. She is scientifically color blind.

        131

    • #
      Richard

      I’m sure you’d rather read Hansen’s “Storms of My Grandchildren” right? That book is pure science. Is that more your thing?

      80

    • #
      Sweet Old Bob

      Yes , SiFi , we know it’s against your religion.
      So put on more sackcloth and ashes and wail some more…..

      141

    • #
      James Bradley

      Wow SF,

      Glad to see you back.

      How did your first shift go?

      161

    • #
      the Griss

      ” relevant scientific data and evidence “

      Well yes, it will be good for you to actually learn something !

      Although, even with facts and information in front of you, I doubt you will learn one little thing…

      because you don’t want to.

      202

      • #
        sillyfilly

        You offer nothing but specious and insipid nonsense! Must be too much a brain strain to understand the basics of atmospheric physics?

        217

        • #
          the Griss

          Poor dear, your meaningless and irrelevant braying truly is becoming worse than pathetic.

          Not even the knackery would take you now… too much contamination of glue products.

          You seem destined to roam aimlessly in your empty top paddock for eternity.

          52

        • #
          Glen Michel

          ….and now dillyfilly your view of atmospheric physics.You can start with the exosphere;rarified type of environment

          21

        • #
          PhilJourdan

          When you can demonstrate even a rudimentary understanding of the subject, someone may take you seriously. But all you have demonstrated so far is how a troll operates – ad hominems, invectives and pejoratives, but no facts or understanding.

          30

    • #
      Safetyguy66

      Why don’t you “peer review” it then, if your so certain its all the same kind of garbage your used to on the AGW side.

      132

    • #
      Roger

      @sillyfilly.

      I was brought up to understand that politeness costs nothing whilst rudeness generally tends to suggest a lack of intellect and knowledge. Life has reinforced that message time after time.

      In the real world there are none so stupid as those who won’t open their minds, ask questions and actually listen to and try to understand the answers. That holds true throughout life regardless of any particular topic, subject or area.

      Blind beliefs, which the warmist view indisputably encapsulates, are typically the characteristic of a religious or political fervour which insists that facts must not be allowed get in its way – and when they do it simply changes the facts to suit the belief.

      Don’t lose sight of the simple fact that the idea that CO2 might cause warming has never been able to be proved – it is simply an unproven hypothesis. In the real world the empirical evidence, after 18 years of no warming is that CO2 does not have any particular or noticeable effect on global temperatures

      Hence why so much time, effort, obfuscation and deceit lie behind the artifical changes made to reduce earlier recorded temperatures to make current temperatures appear higher in comparison – it had to be done to promote and then sustain the belief.

      Post Modern Science is a greater curse and threat to society than Hitler or Stalin ever were.

      I wish you well and hope you will one day find some level of enlightenment and a way to open your mind to truth.

      481

    • #
      Frank

      SF
      I notice that the eminent scientist Christopher Monckton did not contribute , what an omission. I can’t wait for all the glowing peer reviews.

      230

      • #
        Robert

        Actually we don’t do peer reviews like your sort does, where everyone gets together for a circle jerk to pass it. But we realize given your understanding of “peer review” why you would expect that, since it is how your “scientists” do it.

        211

        • #
          Frank

          Robert,
          So there are 2 kinds of science in the world, that’s very confusing. We’ll need a third group of reviewers to vet the first two.

          120

          • #
            Rereke Whakaaro

            No Frank, you miss the point. There is only one science in the world, but unfortunately there are two kinds of scientists, with two different hypotheses, fighting over how the science could best be interpreted.

            One group – the traditionalists – rely on empirical observations. This group have a hypothesis that the climate is varying in ways that are not at all unusual, based on past evidence, and the earth’s atmospheric feed-back mechanisms are working as they have always done. They point to the empirical evidence that increasing temperature will cause outgassing of CO2 from the oceans.

            The other group – the post-modernists – rely on computer models that take past events and extrapolate them into the future. This group have a hypothesis that returning sequestered carbon to the atmosphere, in the form of CO2 will override the earth’s feed-back mechanisms and cause a run-away increase in global temperatures. They point to the theoretical evidence of the computer models to support that hypothesis.

            So it comes down to whether you give more credence to empirical physics, or to theoretical computer modelling.

            Having worked for many years as a modeller, writing functions to replicate how electrons moved through semiconductors, I will put my hat in the ring with the empirical guys. A model is only as good as the programmer, and remember that most scientific programmers are actually failed physicists.

            421

            • #
              Manfred

              If I might add, the ‘other group’ – the post-modernists – employ the ‘precautionary principle’, which furnishes them with the moral ability to implement as they wish in the absence of any compelling empiricism. The fantasy threat of a trivial increase in the miniscule fraction of atmospheric CO2 is intoxicating. The addiction to unfettered taxation, unending regulation and intellectual incarceration, all to ‘save the planet’ is the perfect MO the UN were seeking.

              91

            • #
              Roger

              Rereke,

              If I may add to your comments on the incredibly dangerous practices described as Post Modern Science.

              It is not simply about using models – it is a ‘Philosophy’, sadly and shamefully developed in the UK where it is rife in both academia and in science.

              The key belief is that it is wholly acceptable for a scientist to fudge or alter results to obtain an outcome they want, to lie about what they have discovered and to screen out contradictory data in the pursuit of achieving a Political Aim which is dear to the scientist or to their paymaster.

              That is why Post Modern Science is in fact Anti-Science and I believe it is time we started describing it as such. If it is not exposed for what it is and rooted out it will lead to the death of true science.

              101

              • #
                Rereke Whakaaro

                If it is not exposed for what it is and rooted out it will lead to the death of true science.

                I disagree. All that modern society holds dear: mobile phones, tablet computers, steaming video on demand, microwave ovens, … is all due to electrical engineering, which in turn relies on physics, and an understanding of physical systems.

                No matter how much the failed physicists tweak their computer games, they are only playing with perception, and in the long run, perception is always trumped by the reality of true science.

                That is what is happening right now, and what we are seeing is a rear-guard action by the scammers and the script-kiddies, as reality does its own thing, irrespective of what they say. They put all of their money on an even bet on the roulette table, that the then warming period would continue. They lost that bet, because it did not.

                The world is no longer warming, and has been at the top of the cycle for about eighteen years, now. The probability is that it will now start to go down the slope of the cycle, and who can tell how far into an ice age that will take us.

                It may be unconnected, but foreign purchases of land leases in the northern Pacific Islands are increasing quite dramatically. That would be a good place to live, if the global climate happened to get a bit colder.

                71

            • #
              Frank

              RW,
              Either you have no sense of humour , cant read ,or both.
              You just repeated Robert’s folly

              03

              • #
                Robert

                Frank, first you need to learn how to read then you need to learn how to comprehend what you read.

                So you can try and infer your twisted reasoning of what people have said in their comments here all you want, it won’t fly because unlike you we have reading comprehension skills.

                Now, where is that list of “every scientific organization in the world” that you were yammering on about? Hurry up, you’ve wasted enough of our time.

                Nowhere did I say or imply there are two kinds of science. I was talking about peer review, that your reading and cognitive skills are so poor that you twist in into what you have is your folly not mine.

                21

        • #
          sillyfilly

          You don’t do peer review because the science you postulate is an such a abjuration of the physical reality, replete with disinformation, misinformation and statistical fabrication, that it will never ever contribute to scientific understanding!

          320

          • #
            Graeme No.3

            Are you really a filly? The first part is right.

            Comes of living inside all the time with the blinds drawn. You don’t want to be confused by reality.

            72

          • #
            Richard

            We do peer-review just fine SF. Perhaps you should take a more critical look at the IPCC’s reports? If I remember correctly a citizen audit found 2,500 “grey-references”, which includes such things as magazine articles, newspaper snippets and NGO-pronouncements. Not exactly the ‘Gold Standard’ of peer-review science, is it now?

            132

          • #
            the Griss

            Poor little donkey.. sad to see someone so angry and irrational because they find themselves having to admit to being so NAIVE and GULLIBLE to have fallen for the AGW fantasy.

            Just let it go, SF, and join us as part of the swelling ranks of the rational thinkers.

            62

          • #
            Annie

            An accidental screen-knock thumb up SF …I meant a thumb down.

            30

      • #
        Roger

        @ Frank

        An unquestioning mind is like the center of a desert, little or nothing flourishes and little or nothing changes. It stagnates and is easily and frequently led into false beliefs which it then holds fast to through fear of change and fear of having to find it was wrong. That mind is the con-man’s dream.

        However a questioning mind, often described as sceptical for the simple reason that it questions rather than swallows spoon fed pap, grows and expands and is better able to discern truth from lies.

        That mind is feared and reviled by the con-man as it sees through his lies.

        I would like to address the comment I left for sillyfilly to you as well – in the sincere hope that you will one day find enlightenment and a way to open your mind.

        163

        • #
          Frank

          Roger,
          Your philosophy is touching , however, as with Robert, you can’t have 2 kinds of science.
          ‘Post Modern science’ means nothing. Bad science stays just that, it can be shown to be so.
          Linking the science you dont like to Hitler etc would not be the view of an ‘ enlightened’ mind , you must look deeper grasshopper.

          222

          • #
            the Griss

            “Bad science stays just that, it can be shown to be so.”

            Yes, the CAGW meme has been shown to be VERY bad science.

            So bad, in fact, that they can only now support it using political agendas that do everything they can to hide the reality of that lack of any real science behind it.

            You have constantly shown that you CANNOT produce one paper to back up the basic tenet of the whole scam.

            192

          • #
            Rereke Whakaaro

            I call Godwin on Frank. Rodger did not make any reference to Hitler, and neither did anybody else on this thread as far as I can see.

            Frank loses this debate by default. He has no supportable argument.

            121

          • #
            Robert

            Linking the science you dont like to Hitler etc would not be the view of an ‘ enlightened’ mind

            Since that is exactly what you and your do to skeptics it is nice that you finally admit that you do not have an enlightened mind.

            If you’re just going to walk into them like that you really should stay silent.

            92

            • #
              Frank

              Robert,
              After unravelling your sentence I realise you have Alzheimer’s, YOU made the connection to Hitler AND Stalin at 18.2.

              12

              • #
                Robert

                3 days later and that’s all you can come up with? Frank, every time you comment you display your ignorance. It is now becoming apparent that you have a reading disorder as well.

                11

          • #
            Carbon500

            Yawn. Still no discussion or figures from Frank……..

            72

            • #
              the Griss

              Yep, you would think by now he would have found SOMETHING to back up his ideology.

              Surely it can’t be that hard for him !!

              52

        • #
          Roger

          @ Frank

          Thank you for such an illuminating reply.

          Conflating ‘Post Modern Science’ in the way you do shows you either do not understand it or, as I suspect, do understand it only too well and want to try and disguise what it is.

          PMS is the ‘philosophy’ which lies behind the bulk of ‘climate science’. Although having said that I have grave reservations about describing it as a philosophy because I do not believe that a belief that holds it to be acceptable to lie and to deceive to further a political aim can ever be dignified by describing it as a philosophy, or as science come to that

          It is only a few years since the climate scientists at CRU (UEA) who were at the heart of the climategate scandal described themselves on their personal CRU / UEA web pages as adherents of PMS. (Check the Way Back Machine if you prefer to disbelieve that).

          But perhaps the key fact which you try and skate over and confuse is that good science relies upon questioning, challenging and above all verifying what is claimed to be science fact. In other words being sceptical.

          The absence of that leads to bad science. How telling it is that climate ‘scientists’ try to turn the greatest virtue of a true scientist – scepticism – into an insult.

          Hiding methodologies and hiding data as tends to be the rule amongst warmist climate scientists, so that other scientists cannot test, check or challenge that ‘science’ is the exemplar of Bad Science. If it were good and reproducible science there would be no need to hide anything.

          The simple fact is that Good Science requires deep scepticism and careful challenge and testing before it can be held up and acknowledged as Good Science.

          The alternative as widely practiced by warmist climate scientists is simply Bad science – albeit a product of the deep rooted PMS ‘philosophy’. They have ceased to be scientists in the true sense and have become Scientivists having swapped truth for political activism as their PMS creed encourages.

          If I want Politicians with a political agenda to practice bad science then I will vote for them – what I don’t want are low grade ‘scientists’ with a political agenda distorting science to achieve their personal political aims.

          271

          • #
            Winston

            Well said Roger,

            I would add to that that “good science” welcomes dissent, encourages opponents to dissect the logic of hypotheses and theories, allows others to find fault with the methodology if such fault exists, and allows those same opponents free and equal time in open debate to cast doubt on the merits of the case put forward.

            FAILURE TO DO ALL OF THAT IS, OF ITSELF, PATHOGNOMONIC OF “BAD SCIENCE”. QED.

            161

          • #
            Frank

            Roger,
            Thanks for outing yourself as another conspiracy theorist, this place is a sanctuary for them.

            14

            • #
              Robert

              Amazing, you are the only one here with a fixation on conspiracies, and now you’re hiding in an old thread responding to comments that are 2 or 3 days old in hopes that you won’t get your nose rubbed in it yet again. You need to up your game Frank, you’ve past boring, swept beyond irrelevant, and are heading for non-existent.

              21

              • #
                Frank

                Rob,
                The fixations exist here, what else do you call constant denial of the evidence, constant claims of global socialist agendas, attacks on science , the scientific method and the peer review process ?

                02

              • #
                the Griss

                “what else do you call constant denial of the real evidence, attacks on real science, the mutilation of the scientific method, and the corruption of the peer review process ?”

                The climate change agenda, of course.

                You can prove me wrong by providing some evidence…

                (something that has been sadly lacking from every one of your posts.)

                …anything else you have is just hollow, meaningless, empty blathering.

                So, give us something Frank….

                Try starting with just one paper that proves that CO2 causes warming in an open atmosphere.

                With all your friends in all the science societies, surely you can find one….. maybe… phone a friend !!!

                I have already posted links to papers that show, using real science, that CO2 does not cause any warming.

                You have produced nothing.

                Your AGW belief is based on an empty, hollow fantasy.

                11

              • #
                Robert

                what else do you call constant denial of the evidence, constant claims of global socialist agendas, attacks on science , the scientific method and the peer review process

                1 – you have never once provided any evidence, you aren’t even bright enough to link to it much less discuss it. As to the climate “scientists” who are basing everything on models, models are not evidence. Until you can understand that you have nothing more to say.
                2 – apparently you missed out on the whole soviet union thing, must have been before your time, I suppose in your fantasy world all those hardliners just threw up their hands in defeat and became capitalists?
                3 & 4 – the only one attacking science is you with your pathetic interpretations of it and your gross lack of understanding of the scientific method
                5 – peer review does not make something science but you would have to understand science to begin with to grok that

                Keep it up Frank, you just make yourself look like a bigger fool with every comment.

                31

        • #
          sillyfilly

          Re:
          An unquestioning mind is like the center of a desert, little or nothing flourishes and little or nothing changes. It stagnates and is easily and frequently led into false beliefs which it then holds fast to through fear of change and fear of having to find it was wrong. That mind is the con-man’s dream.
          Yet you accept all the this rubbish science without question and lacking scepticism. Poor deluded soul!

          120

          • #
            Robert

            Wrong again. It is you that accepts the edicts of the climate “scientists” without question or skepticism.

            Quit trying to portray your faults onto us. We know you are deluded, every comment you make proves that.

            You have proven time and time again that you don’t even know what science is, much less whether it is good or bad. Your only criteria is whether it supports your beliefs.

            You are a classic example of a person who is ignorant agreeing with the trendy view without question in order to convince yourself that you’re smart too.

            Well you’re not. You’re are someone who needs someone or something to hate in order to feel better about yourself. The only reason any of us here even bother with you is for the entertainment value of seeing what stupid thing you’re going to say next.

            112

          • #
            Roger

            @sillyfilly

            A very helpful and illuminating reply from you, thank you for that.

            I think you will find the second line of the first paragraph of my original reply to you is pertinent to your comment..

            Over many years I have repeatedly found that the intellectually challenged struggle in debate to do other than repeat what has previously been spoon fed to them. It is not a criticism of them as individuals , or indeed you, just a simple matter of fact.

            I do genuinely hope that you will find a way to open your mind and escape from the religio-political dogma that seems to have entrapped you. Be questioning – be challenging and above all don’t accept politicised dogma or politicised ‘science’ at face value without challenge.

            72

          • #
            the Griss

            “Yet you accept all the this rubbish science without question”

            Yes, you do seem to accept all the rubbish, unproven, ‘climate change’ non-science without question.

            Its called brain-washing….

            …trouble is, that they used a pressure hose on you.. so all the brain got washed away.

            41

          • #
            James Bradley

            SF,

            So, first day on the job not so great, huh?

            Don’t worry it’ll get better.

            21

      • #
        the Griss

        Frank, I can’t believe that you are still in Ernest.

        I’ve noticed that YOU have never contributed anything to anything.

        Your contribution so far is ZERO !!

        An empty nothingness.

        Still waiting for that paper ! nothing, nada, zip. !

        122

        • #
          Frank

          Grizzle,

          We really have to swap icons.
          I have asked questions that dont get answered :

          1. Why dont you just publish your ‘evidence’ in the proper way ?
          2. Why have’nt you shown all the world’s climate scientists to be wrong ?. There’s only one kind of science.

          All I get is empty nothingness.

          225

          • #
            the Griss

            Another empty post, well done hollowman.

            You obviously have NOTHING to offer.

            You STILL cannot even support the basic idea of CO2 causing warming in an open atmosphere.

            NOT ONE of your so-called climate scientists can produce such proof either.

            If they can.. please show that proof to us. !!

            Otherwise…..

            there is NOTHING to disprove on our behalf.

            162

            • #
              Frank

              Grizzle,
              Your childish dare for me to produce one paper shows your immunity to reason. Since the world’s scientific community cant convince you , then I cant.
              You still dont maturely address my 2 questions, your the ones claiming a worldwide scam, socialist conspiracy ,etc , get out of the sheltered workshop, stop dissing the peer review process (because it rejects your submissions) and publish . Even Monckton tries to do that.

              120

          • #
            the Griss

            “There’s only one kind of science.”

            Then there is “climate” non-science.

            A totally difference field, where unproven hypotheses are all that holds up the whole “warming” farce/agenda.

            81

            • #
              Frank

              Grizzle,
              Thanks for not answering my questions and continuing with your conspiracy excuse.

              217

              • #
                the Griss

                Thanks for not being able to answer ANY questions or provide ANY evidence.

                Your continued lack of any substance whatsoever is shows your hollow emptymess.

                You have NOTHING to offer…… and you keep proving it. :-)

                102

              • #
                the Griss

                ummm.. its you who has conspiracy on the mind.

                Are you actually part of it ?

                Which particular climate trough do swill from ?

                71

              • #
                the Griss

                I’ll repeat that….. “unproven hypotheses”

                And you continue NOT to prove them!

                Come on.. here is your chance to produce something…

                …… ANYTHING !!!

                51

              • #
                RogueElement451

                True science is never speculative; it employs hypotheses as suggesting points for inquiry, but it never adopts the hypotheses as though they were demonstrated propositions.

                Cleveland Abbe

                Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/c/clevelanda323779.html#SvH5X7ll3Rzdcu4b.99

                This guy died in 1916 guess he is spinning in his grave now !

                51

              • #
                the Griss

                “Come on.. here is your chance to produce something…

                …… ANYTHING !!!”

                And yet again, Frank produces …
                .
                .
                .
                .
                .
                Absolutely……..
                .
                .
                .
                .
                NOTHING !

                52

          • #
            handjive

            “2. Why have’nt you shown all the world’s climate scientists to be wrong ?.” (sic)

            How can anyone prove something “wrong”, when you can not show what is “right’?

            What a stupid ‘point’, Frank.

            132

            • #
              the Griss

              ““2. Why have’nt you shown all the world’s climate scientists to be wrong ?.””

              A really stupid question, based in lack of basic intelligence and gullibility.

              Its only the small proportion that believe in CAGW that are wrong.

              I can provide a list with 30,000+ scientists that KNOW the CAGW hypothesis is wrong.

              Do you have a list of AGW cult believers?

              82

              • #
                sillyfilly

                re:
                I can provide a list with 30,000+ scientists that KNOW the CAGW hypothesis is wrong.

                A study known as the Oregon Petition, which invented the term CAGW, was based on a scientifically inept study, had the USNAS disassociating itself from the study and featuring Mickey Mouse as a signatory. You merely illustrate, comprehensively, how irrelevant you are to any scientific discussion on climate!

                (Edward Teller and Freeman Dyson signed the Petition,among other famous men of the 20th Century) CTS

                216

              • #
                the Griss

                Another pathetic, irrelevant, [SNIP namecalling] rant.

                52

              • #
                the Griss

                yawn..
                [SNIP Griss points out how little SF has to offer]

                62

              • #
                Lord Jim

                sillyfilly
                December 17, 2014 at 5:30 pm

                re:
                I can provide a list with 30,000+ scientists that KNOW the CAGW hypothesis is wrong.

                A study known as the Oregon Petition, which invented the term CAGW,

                Another alarmist meme.

                Oregon Petition was 1998.

                That global warming could be ‘catastrophic’ has been its defining principle since its inception.

                e.g.

                “NOW OR NEVER – Informit
                search.informit.com.au/fullText;dn=336207054405992;res=IELHSS
                by T Flannery – ‎2008 – ‎Cited by 35 – ‎Related articles
                Feb 14, 1990 – atmosphere as to threaten a global climate catastrophe, the signs of what may come ….. degrees, but a 5.8-degree warming would be truly catastrophic, herald-.”

                “Volcano’s Eruption in Philippines May Counteract Global …
                Jun 30, 1991 – A global warming trend that began in the 1980′s and has continued into 1991 … A warming in the high end of that range would bring catastrophic disruptions in …”

                “SCIENCE / MEDICINE : Since Proof Is Elusive, Science …
                articles.latimes.com/1990-05-21/local/me-117_1_modern-science
                May 21, 1990 – It may well be, as many scientists have noted, that the evidence that will prove global warming is as catastrophic as some have warned will come too late. By the …”

                “Geoengineering Patents – Alteredge
                alteredge.myfreeforum.org › … › Climate Change
                Mar 26, 1991 – Stratospheric Welsbach seeding for reduction of global warming ….. into manipulating the climate on a global scale to avoid catastrophic climate change.”

                61

              • #
                the Griss

                [SNIP]

                Facts are against you YET AGAIN !

                51

            • #
              Frank

              Handjob and Grizzle,
              Thanks for not being able to read , keep up the conspiracy defence, its all you have.

              217

            • #
              the Griss

              You have provided NOTHING to read. Empty nothingness.

              You ask us to prove something wrong…

              …yet you continually refuse to give us ANYTHING of substance to actually prove wrong.

              …Just empty rhetoric and unproven nothingness.

              CO2 forced climate change is a MYTH, a failed hypothesis, an imaginary farce.

              You cannot prove that it is anything else, and you KNOW that.

              Do you also want us to prove other myths such as the Easter Bunny, Santa Clause are wrong as well.?

              92

              • #
                the Griss

                As usual, the warmista trolls help to highlight the appalling lack of science behind the CO2 climate change myth.

                Imagine what a fence-sitter would think of Frank’s ABJECT FAILURE to produce, even after 20 odd years, even one single paper that proves CO2 causes warming in an open atmosphere.

                No wonder the climate change fantasy is dying a NATURAL death. !

                Not even its apostles can support it.!

                102

          • #
            Rereke Whakaaro

            1. Why dont you just publish your ‘evidence’ in the proper way ?

            Because is is a logical fallacy to demand proof of a negative, and it is devious of you to ask us to do so.

            You are the one making the assertions about the dangers of climate change, so the onus is on you to provide empirical evidence to support your assertions.

            Without such evidence, you are shouting so much hot air.

            Thank you for delightening* us, with your visit. (There, I have had to make up a word to describe Frank’s contribution.)

            * delightening: adj to reduce the level of accessible knowledge in any conversation; the antonym of enlightening.

            131

            • #
              Lord Jim

              Frankie is a true believer who don’t need no evidence.

              He has the eminence of ‘all the world’s science societies’ or some such.

              It doesn’t matter that there has been no warming for 18 years and 2 months, despite a substantial increase in co2 over the period, ‘the man’ told him catastrophic is caused by increasing co2, and anyone who questions ‘the man’ is engaging in downright conspiracy.

              The kind of awe Frankie feels for ‘the man’ is a perfect rendition of the Argumentum ad verecundiam as rehearsed by Locke:

              19. Four sorts of arguments. Before we quit this subject, it may be worth our while a little to reflect on four sorts of arguments, that men, in their reasonings with others, do ordinarily make use of to prevail on their assent; or at least to awe them as to silence their opposition.

              I. Argumentum ad verecundiam. The first is, to allege the opinions of men, whose parts, learning, eminency, power, or some other cause has gained a name, and settled their reputation in the common esteem with some kind of authority. When men are established in any kind of dignity, it is thought a breach of modesty for others to derogate any way from it, and question the authority of men who are in possession of it. This is apt to be censured, as carrying with it too much pride, when a man does not readily yield to the determination of approved authors, which is wont to be received with respect and submission by others: and it is looked upon as insolence, for a man to set up and adhere to his own opinion against the current stream of antiquity; or to put it in the balance against that of some learned doctor, or otherwise approved writer. Whoever backs his tenets with such authorities, thinks he ought thereby to carry the cause, and is ready to style it impudence in any one who shall stand out against them. This I think may be called argumentum ad verecundiam…”

              71

            • #

              Rereke,
              Sorry to go off topic, but your comment just reminded me. Did you ever get the email I sent to you via Jo?

              10

            • #
              Frank

              RW,
              It is a logical fallacy to ignore the vast body of evidence and demand yet more

              29

              • #
                the Griss

                What vast body of evidence. ?????

                YOU can’t find EVEN ONE PAPER that proves the most basic hypothesis of the whole climate change charade. !!

                If you can’t even do that, then EVERYTHING that is based on unproven hypothesis is TOTALLY AND UTTER MEANINGLESS.

                72

              • #
                Robert

                You really do need to get an education.

                IF there was a “vast body of evidence” being ignored with a demand for more, whatever that might be is NOT a logical fallacy.

                You should have quit while you were behind because you just keep moving backwards.

                51

              • #
                James Bradley

                You seem to make a meal of it, Frank!

                41

              • #
                Rereke Whakaaro

                It is a logical fallacy to ignore the vast body of evidence and demand yet more

                Actually it is not a logical fallacy to ignore entrenched thinking, and seek for a new explanation. That is what differentiates science from religion.

                Your statement, in an of itself, is also a logical fallacy: The fallacy of Sweeping Generalisation. The standard response to which, is to demand the bibliography, with references to copies of the material, available for public access.

                I could also argue that it is a fallacy of Presumption, in that we both know that the vast majority of material has never been released for public perusal, nor is it likely to be. Too much, uncontrolled, peer review, could prove “unhelpful” to some careers.

                But I think the simplest charge I could lay is to point out that you are employing the fallacy of Circular Reasoning, or Begging the Question. You rely on, “the vast body of evidence”, as being the definitive proof, of the material contained in the same, “vast body of evidence”.

                51

            • #
              the Griss

              Actually RW, I have seen the word “benightedness” used with this meaning.

              But I prefer to use “bog-stupid-uninformed-ignorance” to refer to the unthinking, irrational belief in the CAGW fantasy.

              21

      • #
        Peter C

        Monkton: Not scientist. Mathematician with Arts degree. Not suitable for this publication.

        Not to disparage his contribution to the Climate Change debate, which I think has been massive.

        40

    • #
      Debbie

      I often laugh out loud at Silly Filly’s comments.
      Thanks for the good laugh today SF.
      Frank’s contributions get an extra LOL :-)
      The authors & contributors to this book are well qualified and well respected.
      There are far more qualified & highly experienced scientists, engineers, statisticians etc who work outside the ‘publish or perish’ world of academia.

      91

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        Well, here is something else you can laugh at:

        Over at The Conversation, there is a piece authored by Mark Maslin, Professor of Climatology at University College London, entitled, “Why I’ll talk politics with climate change deniers – but not science”. A nice open mind there, I see.

        So I thought I would respond. So I logged in, using my Facebook account, which was accepted. And then posited the following opinion:

        I disagree that political views are relevant. As a scientist, I am just sceptical, as all scientists should be. I leave belief to those who need religious succour, and leave the degree of support to politicians. I also disagree that the weight of evidence is in any way material, unless you are conducting a survey, or doing an entomological study, of belief systems. It is the quality and predictive ability of the evidence that is important, and Climate Science has fallen well short of that mark. Now, who wants to discuss real science?

        For some reason, they declined to accept my sign-in credentials, post-hoc, and thus did not publish my contribution to the conversation.

        It saddens me to see the low tolerance for critical discussion that now exists at UCL. In my day, it was known as a hotbed of radical debate.

        131

        • #
          Mark Hladik

          Response to “SillyFilly” and “Frank”:

          At the risk of making an incredibly long thread even longer, I’ll throw this out for consideration:

          1) IPCC models use certain parameters, which are set to zero. These particular parameters are then used to model the Earth’s atmosphere. List and discuss the parameters which are set to zero, and explain how representative these zero parameters are (in relation to the actual atmosphere of the Earth we live on).

          2) Multiple times I have asked/challenged/suggested that “believers” run a cross-correlation between Veizer’s paleotemperature record and Berner & Kothavala’s GEOCARB III (unless you can locate their GEOCARB IV). If you supply the particular routine you used, I can run that routine on my PC and verify your results. Both data sets, by the way, are readily available on www (dot) globalwarmingart (dot) com, a site run by Wiki.

          (And, just head off any criticisms, I’ve run the correlation in both time domain and frequency domain, using routines found on the ‘net; unlikely we would end up using the same routine(s))

          3) So, if carbon dioxide is this ‘all powerful greenhouse gas’, why was there an ice age at the Ordovician/Silurian boundary, when CO2 levels were in the 3000 ppmv range? Better yet, the Cryogenian, with atmospheric concentrations of CO2 measured in percents, had at least three major planetary glacial pulses. How is that possible, unless the “warming effect” of CO2 becomes asymptotic at some minor concentration?

          Please be sure to provide a link to the routine you choose to run the cross-correlation, and whether you were time or frequency. I can figure out which window you used through trial-and-error.

          Regards to all,

          Mark H.

          51

        • #

          you are not the only one by passing their requirement for real names by using twitter or facebook

          00

        • #

          btw your comment is present and has been commented upon

          00

  • #

    Yr chapter is excellent, Jo. How well I remember, at the height
    of the climate alarmism soon after the super El Nino, I happened
    to read about the missing hot spot and began to question the all
    pervasive doomsday consensus …

    201

  • #
    patrick healy

    Greetings Joanne,
    My kindle will not allow me to open your link to the book publishers site. Says it is untrustworthy and recommends I not visit it.
    Anyone else have this problem
    Advise please as I would like more details on how to purchase.
    Regards.

    80

  • #
    Leo Morgan

    Jo, good to hear.
    I’m a bit saddened by the choice of including the date 2014. I’d have argued for ‘to date’, so the book doesn’t look outdated in three weeks time.
    As a separate matter, any chance you could add a ‘tips and notes’ section to your site?
    Equally, you’re far more up to date on the subject than I am. Yes I read blogs. Yes I include the blogs of the warmists. Yes I read peer reviewed articles, but mostly after they are mentioned in the news. And I manfully restrain my outraged shouts at how the news media remove every mention of the ‘on the other hands’ that don’t support the alarmist narrative. But I see you are far more up to date than I am. Are there other sources of information I should be looking to regularly?
    Another matter is that the site ‘joannenova.com’ is cyber squatted upon. You may already be aware of this; I have no idea how long its been going on for. I keyed your address into a friend’s browser, rather than my usual ‘favourites’. But I thought you should know.

    111

    • #
      Peter C

      that the site ‘joannenova.com’ is cyber squatted upon.

      What does that mean Leo?

      ————–
      Leo means that someone who doesn’t want the domain is paying to “own” it year after year. It’s a common thing on the net, speculators buy domains in the hope of selling them for more than they paid. – Jo

      00

  • #
    PhilJourdan

    Don’t speak too soon. There have been numerous attempts, even some by legislators, to band Dihydrogen monoxide due to the deaths caused by it (I prefer the term hydrogen hydroxide). http://www.nbcnews.com/id/4534017/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/local-officials-nearly-fall-ho-hoax/#.VJBaRJ5BqVk

    61

  • #
    bn2dave

    Hi folks,

    Have just signed up as someone who is sick and tired of being ridiculed for questioning (not even denying!) climate change by indoctrinated friends and colleagues. I Suspect this could pan out to be one of the biggest politically motivated scandals of our time and I could do with some input to help enlighten my media led peers.

    Anyway – keep up the (scientifically based) good work!

    Cheers,

    David

    332

    • #
      Safetyguy66

      Cant be asking too many questions David, its awkward for the faithful.

      Just remember an accusation of “cherry picking” is your warmist counterpart acknowledging that you have discovered evidence that refutes the theory. Have you ever wondered why you don’t see people cherry picking evidence for gravity? For those pesky occasions when things fall upwards?

      Keep on not believing mate ;)

      171

    • #
      el gordo

      ‘…sick and tired of being ridiculed for questioning…’

      Its been a long war David and still has a few years to run. You may find that friends and family members will shun you, but that is of little concern in our fight against ignorance and propaganda.

      The physical reality is that global warming stopped 18 years ago and our ship’s ‘aircon’ appears to be operating naturally, which suggests it should get colder within a couple of years.

      172

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        I have no friends, and my family will no longer have anything to do with me.

        But, it has nothing to do with climate, or contributing to this site.

        Correlation does not imply causation.

        I have no friends, and a family who shun me, because I am essentially a grumpy old bugger.

        210

        • #
          the Griss

          “because I am essentially a grumpy old bugger.”

          You, a grumpy old bugger ! .. NEVER.!

          You don’t know what grumpy is !!

          I picture you as a big kiwi guy currently wearing a white beard and red costume. :-)

          130

        • #
          Annie

          Ha ha! I’m in good company here then Rereke as I reckon I was born grumpy old woman! :)

          30

        • #
          Robert

          Cheers! Grumpy old buggers get things done, we don’t have all the social distractions getting in the way. :)

          40

        • #
          Willy

          Depends on the definition of friend, varying with grumpiness of course. If you make people think, laugh and enjoy reading your comments, for years, hard to see how they aren’t friends. At least all the six/sex, sheep and chilly bin gags are long past ;)

          20

    • #
      Greg Cavanagh

      I would say; don’t get tied up in it all, and don’t bother trying to argue the case.

      Just like SillyFilly up thread, those who believe global warming is real, will continue to believe it no matter what. There is no point in you isolating yourself over naturally occurring weather. Other than seeding some clouds, we really can’t do anything about the weather.

      Otherwise; there is lots of history to read through on Jo’s site if you’re up for that. My other favourite site is Bishop Hill. Or check out any links on Jo’s site (right hand panel).

      101

    • #
      Matty

      General references to eg. ‘believing all you are being fed’ is possibly as much as you want to venture with some folk. Appealing to their sense of not wanting to be taken for a fool, while introducing a sense of questioning and sewing that seed of doubt.

      10

  • #
    Duncan McNeil

    Are there plans to have this book available in printed form in the UK?

    80

  • #
    David S

    I pray for the day when this book is included in the school curriculum. To me the insidious indoctrination of our students with the AGW propaganda is one of the imbalances that need to be addressed. The education department would rather force students to learn from an ex US Vice President with zero credentials and a penchant for embellishment and hypocracy rather than an eminent group of experts on climate who have no agenda other than trying to ensure that the truth is heard. In terms of really saving the world and humanity I know who are the good guys.

    231

  • #

    I hope this becomes available through Amazon in the US, especially in Kindle format. I’d love to read it.

    130

  • #
    TdeF

    The really achievable political goal to put an end to this scam is to demand the closure of the failed and fraudulent IPCC. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. You know, utterly wrong, unnecessary and disastrous Nobel Prize group.

    The IPCC has manufactured, coordinated and controlled and still promoted this monster purely to justify its own existence, ably assisted by opportunists, carpetbaggers and the Profits of Doom, including Al Gore and our own Climate Council and all those who handle the money at a billion dollars a day in utter waste. Close the IPCC! Do not feed it. This will also send a strong message to the rest of the bloated UN to do their jobs, justify their existence, make a difference or go home.

    91

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    this predicted record would only be one-hundredth of a degree above 2010 and two-hundredths of a degree above 2005 – with an error range of one-tenth of a degree. True scientists would have said: this year is unlikely to be significantly warmer than 2010 or 2005 and left it at that.

    Hundredths of a degree record with an error of a tenth of a degree — sure, it makes perfect sense. After all, in climate math 1 and 10 are both 1. So what if the error is 10 times larger than what you’re measuring? The math covers it for you. And I bet the proof that 1 = 10 can be rattled off from memory by Lewandowsky and his associates since his psychology explains everything so well.

    But at least the most important questions are now out there somewhere, by how much was it hotter and what is the measurement error? The only one left is, where was it hotter? But let’s not quibble. Two out of three is good enough for government work.

    So the claims for 2014 are pure nonsense. And who knows? This climate madness may even be recognized by someone, somewhere and change their mind… …or not.

    Of course those important questions were asked here on JoNova many times in the past. For example, I asked them of numerous trolls myself. I got really accurate silence for an answer; I got silence with an error of 0°. How much better can you get?

    For a long time I’ve thought that most of the world is a mushroom — very contented with being in the dark and fed BS.

    A true scientist would have never made such predictions. He would have gone to the pub, put down a few with his friends and said nothing at all.

    Pardon my sarcasm and cynicism too but what’s left to say after so many years of pointing out this same critical point? They’ve got nothing and they bray like jackasses about it.

    221

    • #
    • #
      Greg Cavanagh

      Aren’t you saying, 1 is greater than 10.

      50

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        That is the point Roy was trying to make. It only works for very small values of 10.

        70

        • #
          Roy Hogue

          The situation is like this — they sent a yardstick to measure the 5 or 6 thousandths of an inch clearance needed between the rocker arm and the valve stems.

          When I was doing some of the car maintenance myself I knew enough to buy a set of feeler gauges with the appropriate accuracy so that the measurement I made was within tolerance and the valves all closed reliably but were not too noisy.

          Climate scientists apparently think that even specifying tolerances for measurement is beneath them. It’s also apparently beneath them to agree on tolerances for what is and is not significant. 1/10 of a degree I could believe is worth taking note of, at least for record keeping. But 1/100 of a degree? Not worth noting. What industrial process done by anyone is so touchy about temperature as that? I don’t know of one. I don’t even know how you could hope to keep the temperature of something within 1/100°

          40

          • #
            Roy Hogue

            And to top it all off — what fool thinks a model predicted temperature difference of 1/100° is worth anything? They can’t possibly not know their measurement accuracy would never allow detecting it if it happened.

            31

          • #
            Rereke Whakaaro

            You would use 1/100′s of a degree to express the tolerance of something measured at 1/10′s of a degree.

            30

          • #
            Rereke Whakaaro

            Ergo, if they are trying to measure at 1/100 of a degree, they would need to express tolerance in 1/1000′s of a degree.

            30

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        Greg,

        If you want to discuss the intimate details of climate math then I suppose you could be right. But who can tell for sure? They don’t publish the rules in a textbook like the more ordinary real world math rules. So there’s nowhere to go to find out exactly what means what. ;-)

        31

    • #
      Gary in Erko

      “This predicted record would only be one-hundredth of a degree above 2010 and two-hundredths of a degree above 2005 – with an error range of one-tenth of a degree.”
      This choice of language is a bit misguiding, leading a reader to imagine the midpoint of the 0.1° range is more likely than anmywhere else within that range. It should actually state something like this-
      “There is a high confidence that the temperature will be somewhere between 0.09° below and 1.01° above 2010, and 0.08° below and 1.02° above 2005, considering of course that the figures for 2010 and 2005 also are approximations within a similar 0.1° range.”

      91

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        So there’s a high probability that the temperature will be meaninglessly different from 2005 and 2010? ;-)

        Looks like weather as usual to me.

        41

  • #
  • #
    Robber

    Thanks to Jo and all the other contributors.
    Love the “Shh, don’t mention the water.”
    I’m sure if all Greenies stopped showering, sipping spring water from plastic bottles, and consuming their soy lattes, that they could reduce their water emissions and really demonstrate their commitment to saving the planet.
    Meanwhile the rest of us could get on with enjoying life in this beautiful world, breathing out our carbon dioxide to provide more plant food.

    142

  • #
    handjive

    Good work from all.

    Anything that contributes to ending the madness of the Cult of Doomsday Global Warming is much welcomed.

    Thank you.

    120

  • #
    pattoh

    I hope they send a copy to Greg Hunt to read over Christmas.

    120

    • #
      scaper...

      Greg has indeed got his copy and will be reading it over the break. Won’t alter the strategy though, this battle will be won on the middle ground. Not on the extremes.

      I’ve known Greg for over five years, he knows I’m sceptical of global warming but is my conduit to the coalition (shadow and now) ministry.

      Funny how Greg is despised by the hard core warmists and sceptics, but has crafted an acceptable policy (now legislated) to the middle. Funny that.

      I dips my lid to the authors of the book and look forward to the event in Brisbane. Been too long between drinks.

      50

      • #
        el gordo

        ‘Funny how Greg is despised by the hard core warmists and sceptics, but has crafted an acceptable policy (now legislated) to the middle. Funny that.’

        Yeah, but he should be reshuffled and replaced by Jensen.

        ‘…this battle will be won on the middle ground. Not on the extremes.’

        The politics is too slow and we don’t have the luxury of time. With only a couple of years before the next election Hunt has a duty to read the book and tell the electorate that the gig is up.

        30

      • #
        pattoh

        Scaper…

        The revised CFI legislation has MANY problems & a circular argument. (294 v 109 Constitution)

        Given the realities of this:-

        http://www.rba.gov.au/chart-pack/balance-payments.html

        This along with more recent downturns in the global economy, the senate obfuscation of Hockey’s budgetary moves, the time for indulging in politically expedient tree hugging is over.

        If you know anybody in the transport industry, ask them if they are making hay for Xmas.

        Responsible adults do not distract screaming toddlers by giving them lighters to play with.

        10

  • #
    Captain Dave

    I’m ready to buy a couple of copies but no mention is made of postage / shipping cost, which is at least $20 prepaid via sea to Canada, probably more if collect. Anybody know the details?

    40

  • #
    Bulldust

    O/T but interesting I think – researchers have looked at the nature of fat burning and decided much of it leaves the body as exhaled CO2:

    This gave the researchers a final figure of 84 per cent of fat atoms exhaled as carbon dioxide, and the remaining 16 per cent lost through water.
    Link: http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2014/12/17/4149911.htm

    Read another way, the nation isn’t facing an obesity epidemic, we are world leading CO2 sequesterers! I want my EU carbon credits!

    70

  • #
    el gordo

    ‘I’m delighted that the generous support of IPA members also allowed us to send a copy to every federal member of parliament and leading journalists and commentators, to ensure that they receive at least one source of reliable information about climate change.’

    John Roskam

    Good move, at least they can’t say we didn’t warn them, but how to get aunty to take it onboard?

    92

  • #
    Wayne Job

    Thank you IPA and Jo, the reality of your message will go a long way in combating the propaganda that has been fed to an unsuspecting and gullible world.

    51

  • #
    KinkyKeith

    Ian Plimer’s first book, Heaven and Earth, was an extraordinary work covering indepth many areas related to the CAGW claims.

    Although many warmers posted damning comments on aspects of it, there is serious doubt about two things:

    1. whether they actually read it
    and
    2. whether they were adequately trained to understand it.

    I’m sure it was both.

    No doubt the same wonder kids will be at work criticizing this new book which they are unlikely to have read or understood.

    KK

    110

    • #
      Olaf Koenders

      2. whether they were adequately trained to understand it.

      Note that 2-legged fool and poser John kerry stated recently: “You don’t need a Ph.D. to see the world is changing”.

      Other morons in the same camp proudly proclaim that: “All you need to do is look out the window to see Climate Change ©®™..”

      Yet somehow they demand qualifications of skeptics when questions are raised. Hypocritical sickos.

      I look out the window and see weather.

      101

  • #
    el gordo

    ‘Why dont you just publish your ‘evidence’ in the proper way ?

    There is groupthink and a conspiracy of silence, enlightened self interest.

    ‘Why have’nt you shown all the world’s climate scientists to be wrong ?.

    We have, but the media is not listening.

    61

    • #
      the Griss

      “‘Why don’t you just publish your ‘evidence’ in the proper way ?”

      Frank has already shown just how hard it is to find published evidence that supports the fantasy that CO2 causes warming in an open atmosphere.

      What use is the “proper way”, when no-one can find the paper! :-)

      81

      • #
        Another Ian

        The Griss

        Must be hard to write that paper. I’d suspect the pal reviewers would have really greased that one through.

        20

      • #
        Frank

        Oh dear, its the conspiracy excuse again.

        25

        • #
          the Griss

          Why have you got conspiracy on your mind? I never mentioned it.

          Gross scientific incompetence and greed is all that is required.

          Which climate trough do you swill from, Frank?

          52

          • #
            Frank

            You admitted to a socialist conspiracy theory earlier

            23

            • #
              the Griss

              Still nothing to offer, I see.

              Nothing at all to back up your ideology.

              Why are you trying to hide the reality that the aim is world governance.??

              [SNIP insult and personal conjecture]

              32

            • #
              the Griss

              I think the way you totally ignore the evidence is quite funny !

              You cannot continue to DENY such evidence, Frank..

              [SNIP insult]

              32

              • #
                PhilJourdan

                He can deny it. As he demonstrates.

                10

              • #
                Frank

                G

                As you are a self confessed CT , talking science with you is futile.
                I just ask basic questions that you wont answer and which drives you further into your bunker.

                13

              • #
                the Griss

                Frank, You have never talked science..

                So how would you know ?

                I ask for a basic paper.. that you cannot provide.

                Your questions are meaningless because they are based on incorrect suppositions. They are erroneous statements, not questions.

                11

              • #
                the Griss

                It seems that papers published “the proper way” are notoriously hard to find. !!

                As you are proving to great effect.

                Keep searching…. although I bet you haven’t even started looking. ;-)

                11

  • #
    Olaf Koenders

    At the climate change talks in Paris next year there’s going to be a push from green groups for the world to have ‘zero net emissions’ by 2050.

    Let’s push the green groups to lead the way by holding their breath.

    If 4% (exhaled) CO2 were poisonous, CPR would be considered attempted murder. Let them explain that.

    20

  • #
    gbees

    I just received my complimentary copy today ….. did anyone send Julie Bishop, Greg Hunt, Tony Abbott, Malcolm Turnbull a copy?

    51

    • #
      Matty

      As well as one to all the curriculum reviewers for the Department of Education.

      30

    • #
      Peter C

      Yes they all got a FREE copy from us, along with all the other parliamentarians courtesy of the IPA. I hope that they all read it. I am not sure if Penny Wong will understand it.

      61

  • #
    gbees

    Engineers Australia continues to disappoint. 35 years+ a member. I think its time I parted company with it. A waste of subscription fees. Infiltrated by leftist, activist zealots like Terence Jeyaretnam who seems to be over represented in the once distinguished Journal. What a disgrace.

    Climate Change Policy ..

    “Engineers Australia’s Climate Change Policy Purpose Engineers Australia accepts the comprehensive scientific basis regarding climate change, the influence of anthropogenic global warming, and that climate change can have very serious community consequences.”

    “Engineers Australia considers Australia is particularly vulnerable to climate change impacts arising from an average global temperature rise in excess of 2 degrees Celsius, relative to the average pre-industrial temperature.”

    Singing from the IPCC song book …

    101

    • #
      Winston

      Singing from the IPCC song book …

      In castrato?

      70

    • #
      Richo

      The main problem is that their Fellow Members, who are generally CEO’s of major engineering companies, are rent seekers on the renewable energy gravy train.

      71

    • #
      Peter C

      gbees,

      I wrote a letter to the Board of the Australian Medical Association, asking that the editor refrain from expressing his Climate Change views in the journal.

      I have not received any reply (after 3 months), but I have noted that there have been no more references to Climate Change in the journal.

      “12 September 2014
      To the Board of the Federal AMA

      Re: Medical Journal of Australia September 2014 Vol 209, No.5
      “Reaching Wide for Sustainability”

      Dear Members,

      Dr Stephen Leader has used the MJA in the past as a vehicle to project his own views on Climate Change. In the current issue he gives himself wide scope with the title of the magazine.

      He leads off his editorial by introducing and publishing an open letter to the Prime Minister by twelve medical and health scientists (including himself). Some of the authors of the letter have achieved fame and eminence in their own fields of endeavor, but not one of them has credentials in any field related to climatology.

      The authors commence their letter with “We urge you to include human-induced climate change and its serious health consequences on the agenda for this years G20 meeting…” They then speculate about “rising concern…, serious risks…, adverse health outcomes…” before they conclude, “The Health of present and future generations is at risk from ongoing human-induced climate change”

      Any persons of whatever persuasion can write to the Prime Minister if they want to. What I object to is that Dr Leeder attempts to give these views legitimacy by publishing them in our medical journal. These are not my views and I do not want to be associated with them, nor to give them any credibility.

      Next Dr Leeder publishes what he purports is an interview with Jeffrey D Sachs (economist). Dr Sachs (PhD) is well known for his extreme views on the dangers of Human induced Climate Change. It is not necessary to provide references to that effect because he tells us in his own words. “If the G20 gets its house in order the world can be saved. If not the G20 will wreck the world, pure and simple”.

      Having first introduced Dr Sachs, Dr Leeder presents questions and answers; eg
      Dr Leeder: Can the world still prevent runaway climate disaster?
      Dr Sachs: Yes but we have almost run out of time. … We are on a trajectory for 4-6Cby the end of this century….we could trigger runaway climate change.

      The nature of the questions and answers indicate collusion between Dr Leeder and Dr Sachs about the formulation of the interview. The wording of the questions indicates the mindset of Dr Leeder.

      Neither of the Doctors seems concerned that the assertion of 4-6C warming by the end of this century is completely at odds with the most recent observational evidence.

      I have had enough of this. Dr Leeder is clearly using his position as editor of the Medical Journal of Australia, to broadcast his extreme views about Climate Change. I will not put up with my Medical Association being corrupted by proselytizers of extreme views. For a long time it has not been acceptable for doctors to use their medical position to broadcast religious views. Neither is it acceptable for Dr Leeder to proclaim analogous “climate” views via the editorials of our journal.

      I request the board to replace Dr Leeder as editor of the journal. Failing that I request that they insist that Dr Leeder no longer uses our journal to spread his personal views about Climate Change.

      Yours Sincerely
      Dr Peter Champness

      81

      • #
        gbees

        thanks Peter. The IEA did ask for submissions but I’m not sure what was received but it’s clear any dissenting views would not have made it past the gate keeper. Since many in the AMA are well versed in epidemiology I do not understand how, after reading the science, anyone with such training could conclude that the hypothesis regarding CAGW has any substance. It does not stand up to rigorous analysis, the kind which is common in RCTs.

        11

  • #
    C.J.Richards

    Is it me or does anyone else notice the irony, of having a book titled The Facts and the jacket taken up by the names of 23 , albeit very well credentialed, personalities ?

    Wouldn’t warmists tend to have such a title highlighted by reference rather to , albeit mostly claimed, events ? Such as the familiar talking points of ‘storms’, ‘floods’, ‘wildfires’, ‘vanishing glaciers’, ‘rising seas’, ‘collapsing ice sheets’, ‘acidifying oceans’, ’97% consensus’, ‘pollution’, ‘species extinctions’, ‘peak oil’ , ‘collapsing markets’, ‘global governance’, ‘model predictions’, ‘hokey sticks’, ‘hiding heat’, ‘rising emmissions’, ‘drowning dogs’, ‘think of the children’, ‘divestment’, ‘facilitative mechanisms’ , etc, etc, ad nauseam …

    61

    • #
      gbees

      CJ it’s not just you. the catastrophic pundants seem to have a better grasp of marketing but that’s common in the world. Creative people, that is those who make things up are better at marketing than analytical people, those who have a better grasp of the facts and figures.

      01

      • #
        Carbon500

        gbees: Scientists are creative! There are of course some scientists who are better than others.
        When I was working on my Ph.D., it was my privilege to work with some very gifted people. All were widely read, had an excellent grasp of their own field and a lively interest in the work of others, and the ability to make ‘what if?’ connections based on their knowledge which others simply could not.
        To put it simply, these scientists had a sparkling intellectual ability which not many possess – including, I freely admit, me! They were truly in another league, and were always helpful, friendly, and a pleasure to know.
        Manipulating the media and distributing misleading propaganda isn’t, I suggest, creative!

        00

  • #
    lmwd

    Just waiting for the true-believer donkeys to start hee hawing at this. Dr Vance can look forward to being denounced as a crazy right wing nut or not a real scientist or in the pay of….

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/climate/antarctic-ice-shows-millennium-drought-par-for-the-climate-course/story-e6frg6xf-1227158604169

    THE crippling millennium drought in eastern Australia at the turn of the century was not an ­exceptional event, with droughts lasting longer than five years a normal part of the continent’s ­climate variability.

    Analysis of a 1000-year ice-core sample taken from Antarctica has identified eight mega-droughts of more than five years, including one 39-year drought in the particularly dry century between 1102 and 1212AD.

    At its height the millennium drought was widely claimed to be an exceptional event and evidence of altered weather patterns due to climate change. But the ice-core research has proven it was not an anomaly.

    “Up until now we had no clear way of knowing whether the prolonged drought Australia experienced recently was a historical anomaly,” report author Tessa Vance, from the Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Co-operative Research Centre, said.

    Dr Tessa said the results of the ice-core study, published in journal Geophysical Research Letters, could help improve catchment management strategies in drought-affected areas of NSW and Queensland. The study analysed an ice-core sample taken at the remote site of Law Dome, 100km southeast of Australia’s Casey Station in Antarctica.

    Dr Vance said the study had significantly enhanced understanding of the Interdecadal ­Pacific Oscillation (IPO), which describes a roughly 25-year cycle in the sea surface temperature, wind and other factors in the ­Pacific Ocean.

    Paper co-author Anthony Kiem said the IPO was dictated by surface temperatures over the whole of the Pacific Ocean, unlike the El Nino Southern Oscillation which had a cycle of two to five years and was regulated by equatorial sea surface temperatures. The IPO is in a negative phase after a drought-inducing positive period which lasted from 1975 to 2009.

    Dr Kiem said there was no way of predicting when the IPO would change from negative to positive.

    Dr Vance said the research had provided a much clearer picture of the multi-decade cycles in Australian rainfall patterns, and therefore a more reliable means of predicting future trends.

    Dr Vance said prior to the ice-core technology there was no reliable means of measuring long-term trends in the IPO index before the start of instrumental measurement about a century ago. “We know that rainfall in eastern Australia is extremely variable, but the relatively short instrumental climate records have made it difficult to judge whether long droughts are unusual,” Dr Vance said.

    “We can now look back and see a very clear pattern of rise and fall in Australia’s rainfall going back a thousand years.”

    81

    • #
      el gordo

      Thanks for that Imwd

      ‘…one 39-year drought in the particularly dry century between 1102 and 1212AD.’

      That was at the height of the MWP in Europe.

      51

  • #
    Phillip Bratby

    I shall order on for Christmas.

    20

  • #
    MacSual

    I won’t be buying nor reading it,the same as I don’t read or buy books accepting climate change,I won’t take any scientists words for anything unless it can be proved by the scientific method,I know enough about the weather to keep me satisfied.
    (Peer Review = Lies agreed upon)This is how science operates outside the scientific method.

    Climate is the word used to describe the normal weather conditions for an area for a certain period of time,it is abstract.

    Weather conditions can change but the climate doesn’t except during periods of low sunlight
    brought about by the planet changing its axis or major volcanic activity,but that seems too hard for even the most educated scientists to know.

    Anyone who thinks that taxing carbon dioxide will change the weather-climate is an effing idiot!
    Unfortunately the world is full of them and they vote and get elected into vatious levels of govt.

    31

    • #
      StefanL

      Nice definition of ‘climate’, but you are mistaken about ‘climate change’.
      When we talk about ‘change’, it’s critical to mention the time scale involved.
      Yes, on a scale of a few decades there’s not much climate change, but there’s plenty of change on time scales of centuries and millennia, and for many more reasons than the two you have listed.
      Some of this is discussed in this latest book, but you could read Plimer’s “A short history of planet Earth” to get a longer-term view.

      00

  • #
    pat

    wonderful news. lookg forward to reading it & will implore my library to get it in.

    “peer pressure” has been the MSM’s Lima Buzzword (there are hundreds of examples online); for Cameron, it’s “global pressure”! Fairfax has already picked this up; no doubt ABC will follow:

    17 Dec: Guardian: Ben Quinn: Climate change: global pressure will make Australia do more, says Cameron
    British PM tells committee of MPs Australia does not want to be a ‘back marker’ on the issue and is clearly affected by climate change
    Cameron told a committee of British MPs in London he sensed the Australian government recognised it did not want to be the international “back marker” on the issue.
    “Look, it’s a sovereign country. It has to make its own decisions. There has obviously been a very big debate in Australia about carbon taxes and prices and all the rest of it,” Cameron said as he gave evidence to a House of Commons committee.
    “But my sense is that they recognise they don’t want to be the back marker – nor should they. It’s a great country. It’s clearly affected by climate change and I believe they will do more.”…
    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/dec/17/climate-change-global-pressure-will-make-australia-do-more-says-cameron

    NOW CHECK WHAT ISN’T REPORTED IN BEN QUINN’S PIECE ABOVE, NOR IN LATIKA BOURKE’S SMH PIECE WHICH CAN BE FOUND ONLINE. Fairfax – why not mention the fracking, the nuclear, the ending of renewable subsidies, etc?

    16 Dec: Guardian: Andrew Sparrow: Cameron questioned by MPs about climate change and radicalistion: Politics Live blog
    He said he was opposed to any more onshore windfarms. Confirming that the Tories would scrap subsidies for onshore windfarms after 2015, he said the public were “fed up” with them and that he did not expect any more to be erected without subsidy.
    Cameron: “On onshore windfarms, I think the public are, frankly, fed up with so many windfarms being built that won’t be necessary. Now we’ve reached some 10% of our electricity by onshore wind, we don’t need to have more of these subsidised onshore. So let’s get rid of the subsidy, put them into the planning system and, if they can make their case, they can make their case. I suspect they won’t. And we’ll have a reasonable amount of onshore wind, we will have safer electricity supplies as a result, but enough is enough. I’m very clear about that…”…

    16.51 Cameron says the green groups do not want to hear anything good about shale gas.
    Cameron says the shale gas industry has already committed that every site will have an environmental impact assessment.
    Cameron says some of the green groups are opposed to shale gas because it is gas. They cannot bear the fact that it is a carbon fuel. They oppose it with a religiosity that is just wrong…
    Cameron: “I find some green groups are opposed to shale gas with a religiosity that is wrong. They cannot bear another carbon based source”.
    Cameron says one fracking well uses less water in its lifetime than a golf course uses in a month.
    “Interesting fact,” he says…

    16.41 David Cameron says he expects Australia will want to do more on climate change and will not want to be “the back marker”…
    Andrew Miller, the Labour chair of the science committee, says many of his constituents work for high-energy firms. But the government also wants to cut energy use.
    Q: Do you agree that science is not finished until it is communicated?
    Yes, says Cameron. He says he tells scientists he values the work they do. They are good at busting myths…
    Cameron tells MPs he wants to end myths eg “fracking would be a disaster for the environment” or that GM leads to “fish-flavoured tomatoes”…
    Cameron says he believes in cutting carbon at the lowest cost.
    There have been disagreements in the coalition, but not huge ones.
    The public is fed up with onshore wind farms, he says. He wants to cut their subsidy. Enough is enough, he says…
    Sir Malcolm Bruce, the Lib Dem chair of the international development committee, is asking the questions.
    Q: Why is the £720m for the Green Development Fund coming from the aid budget? That’s not new money, because it’s from the aid budget.
    Cameron says it is money that wasn’t in the Green Development Fund but is now…
    Cameron says the Green Investment Bank should be the “first investor”.

    ***There are plenty of other investors, like pension funds, also keen to invest in energy…

    Joan Walley, the Labour chair of the environmental audit committee, is asking the questions.
    Q: Don’t you accept that new nuclear power stations are being subsidised by the government?
    No, he does not accept that, Cameron says.
    The government wants to cut carbon emissions, but also to have a secure energy supply.
    As part of that, it is right to have the regeneration of the British nuclear industry.
    Without that, and without oil and gas, we would be in real trouble. The sun does not shine enough in this country, he says.
    He says any subsidy is offered through a guaranteed price. But the price guaranteed for nuclear power is higher than the price guaranteed for wind power…
    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2014/dec/16/hague-publishes-english-votes-for-english-laws-evel-politics-live-blog

    21

  • #
    el gordo

    “It’s clearly affected by climate change and I believe they will do more.”

    Highly unlikely, we have already given all we are going to give.

    20

  • #
    pat

    not happy!

    16 Dec: Scientific American Blog: David Biello: The Real Outcome of Global Warming Talks in Lima: A Future for Coal
    “There will be coal burning.” Negotiators from around the world produced a four-page climate-change accord (pdf) after some sleep-deprived haggling over the weekend in Lima, Peru, but the agreement could be summed up in those five words…
    At the same time, global greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise, with 2013 marking another record year for pollution, as evidenced by the constant hum of diesel generators in Lima that helped keep the heated negotiations cooler, among other energy needs. The single largest source of climate changing pollution continues to be burning coal, whether in wealthy nations like the U.S. or developing economies like China.
    The shift of a single word—from a “shall” to a “may”—means the world will very likely continue to burn lots of coal…
    That means the U.S. will—at best—cut greenhouse gas emissions by 16 percent below 1990 levels by 2030, or not even half as ambitious as the European target. And China has only pledged to reach a maximum level of pollution “around 2030,” but without any commitment to an estimate of how high that peak might be.
    No wonder all the negotiators in Lima were able to agree to note “the significant gap” between what has been promised and what is needed “consistent with having a likely chance of holding the increase in global average temperature below 2 or 1.5 degrees Celsius.”…
    Coal remains the fastest growing energy source in the world, according to the International Energy Agency, though the rate of that growth has begun to slow…
    Even if strong pledges are made in 2015 there is so far nothing to prevent any of these countries from doing what Canada did under the Kyoto Protocol: failing to keep its promise. The only punishment appears to be shame. Promises are one thing, but one form of verification will be very easy to monitor: how much coal gets burned using the atmosphere as a dump.
    http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2014/12/16/the-real-outcome-of-global-warming-talks-in-lima-a-future-for-coal/

    01

  • #
    pat

    16 Dec: Newsweek: Why the Lima Agreement Is a Failure
    By Zoe Schlanger
    When a draft international climate agreement was finally solidified in Lima, Peru, last week, negotiators shrugged…
    Now a new ***assessment by six European research bodies confirms what experts have already warned about: The international climate agreement drafted in Lima fails to prevent us from passing the previous do-not-pass benchmark of 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) of warming by 2100…
    With the Lima agreement, “we are on track to [be] between 3 to 3.5 degrees [by 2100] so far,” says Massimo Tavoni, deputy director of the climate change unit at Italian research body Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei, one of the institutions involved in the report…
    According to the six separate models analyzed in the new report, keeping warming to a 2-degree maximum is possible only if global carbon dioxide emissions peak between 2020 and 2030—or, barring that, if nations invest significantly more resources into drastically changing the energy consumption patterns of their citizens and in developing new, clean-energy technologies. The agreement drafted in Lima would not even come into effect until 2020 and falls far short of that goal…
    The World Bank warned in a 2012 report that a world where temperatures rose 4 degrees by the end of the century would trigger “a cascade of cataclysmic changes that include extreme heat-waves, declining global food stocks and a sea-level rise affecting hundreds of millions of people.”…
    Tavoni says there are scenarios that still offer hope to keep average temperature within 2 degrees, even if countries reach peak emissions later than they should. The catch is that those scenarios are far more expensive. Countries would have to invest huge sums in clean technology and drastically change the way their citizens use energy. In the long run, probably in the second half of the century, Tavoni says, we will have to invest in technology to remove existing carbon from the atmosphere to keep warming in check…
    http://www.newsweek.com/study-confirms-lima-agreement-puts-us-past-2-degrees-warming-benchmark-292535

    ***the new assessment! LOL.

    15 Dec: Review of Environment Energy & Economics:
    From Lima to Paris 2015: challenges on the road to 2°C
    by Massimo Tavoni, Elmar Kriegler, Keywan Riahi, Detlef P. van Vuuren
    Nature Climate Change releases today one of the most comprehensive assessments of the timing and amount of greenhouse gas emissions for each of the world’s major economies, considering both currently discussed pledges and scenarios that limit future temperature rise to 2°C.
    The study is the result of a three year research project led by FEEM and involving six research institutions with their different modeling tools, as summarised in the 2-minute videos below, and more extensively in a press release and a dedicated Policy Brief also released today…
    Disclaimer: the results reported in this re3 article were produced within the LIMITS project “Low climate IMpact scenarios and the Implications of required Tight emission control Strategies” funded by the European Community’s Seventh Framework Programme FP7/2007-2013 under grant agreement n° 282846 (LIMTS). This article is the sole responsiblity of the LIMITS Project and does not represent the opinion of the European Community nor is the European community responsible for any use that might be made of the data appearing herein.
    LINKS
    http://re3.feem.it/getpage.aspx?id=7098

    02

  • #
    pat

    coal is king. do you ever get the impression the world is ignoring the CAGW anti-coal brigade?

    15 Dec, Paris: IEA Press Release: Global coal demand to reach 9 billion tonnes per year by 2019
    Global demand for coal over the next five years will continue marching higher, breaking the 9-billion-tonne level by 2019, the International Energy Agency (IEA) said in its annual Medium-Term Coal Market Report released today. The report notes that despite China’s efforts to moderate its coal consumption, it will still account for three-fifths of demand growth during the outlook period. Moreover, China will be joined by India, ASEAN countries and other countries in Asia as the main engines of growth in coal consumption, offsetting declines in Europe and the United States…
    IEA Executive Director Maria van der Hoeven: “New plants are being built, in an arc running from South Africa to Southeast Asia, but too many of these are based on decades-old technology,” she said. “Regrettably, they will be burning coal inefficiently for many years to come.”…
    As has been the case for more than a decade, the fate of the global coal market will be determined by China…
    Coal use in OECD member countries is projected to decline in the outlook period, as growth in Turkey, Korea and Japan fails to offset declines in Europe and America…
    LINKS TO EXECUTIVE SUMMARY, FACTSHEET, ETC.
    http://www.iea.org/newsroomandevents/pressreleases/2014/december/global-coal-demand-to-reach-9-billion-tonnes-per-year-by-2019.html

    Eurocoal: Coal Use Worldwide
    World coal production reached 7.2 billion tonnes in 2010…
    Over the last decade, from 2000 to 2010, coal use has grown more strongly than any other primary energy source (+ 28%)…
    Similarly, hard coal contributes to energy supply security at an affordable cost. In addition, coal and lignite mines sit at the centre of a long value chain – creating wealth in other sectors of the domestic economy, from mining equipment suppliers to operators of power plants.
    http://www.euracoal.be/pages/layout1sp.php?idpage=427

    01

  • #
    pat

    so convoluted…read it all!

    16 Dec: CarbonBrief: UK Government holds first capacity market auction
    Companies will today bid for government subsidies to ensure power plants are available at the flick of a switch, as part of the new capacity market. The market is designed to ensure the lights always stay on, even when demand is high and the weather means renewables aren’t generating electricity.
    Under the scheme, power providers are paid to be available when the National Grid needs them…
    The capacity market’s first auction begins this morning. We explain how the market works, and how it fits with the government’s wider energy and climate change policy goals…
    The government created the capacity market to ensure there will be enough power into the 2020s. It should ensure there’s always enough electricity to meet peak demand, even when the weather prevents renewables from generating any power.
    Only non-renewable energy providers can participate in the capacity market as they are designed to provide power around the clock…
    The results from the first auction will be available on January 5th 2015, with provisional results due at some point the next five days…
    Controversially, four old coal fired power stations appear on the list…
    The capacity market money will enable the (coal) plants to stay open for a further 10 to 20 years, Sandbag suggests…
    The government designed the capacity market above all to ensure the lights stay on…
    http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2014/12/government-holds-first-capacity-market-auction/

    01

  • #
    Climate Researcher 

    “Shhhh Don’t mention the water”

    Water vapour (according to a study of temperature records) appears to have a cooling effect of a few degrees, maybe 10 degrees. Carbon dioxide molecules are outnumbered by water vapour molecules by at least 50:1 and, furthermore, water vapour radiates in a far wider range of frequencies than does carbon dioxide. Thus the effect of carbon dioxide is totally dominated by that of water vapour, probably by hundreds to 1. This puts the effect of carbon dioxide at less than 0.1 degree, probably on the cooling side anyway.

    21

  • #
    Ted O'Brien.

    I haven’t read this article yet. I was arrested by the headline: “Gamma ray bursts and biases: Let’s stop fitting data to the model.”

    http://theconversation.cmail1.com/t/r-l-chjudly-thtkuhkldi-v/

    Now to see if it is relevant to AGW science.

    11

    • #
      NielsZoo

      Since it is abundantly clear that gamma ray bursts are directly related to increases in Mann made CO2 the next runs of CMIP will include these peer reviewed best pratice gamma ray burst models as direct consequence modules linked to CO2 concentration. That means the entire planet may be completely sterilized by a gamma ray event unless we institute a carbon tax immediately. (Note: In this case the tin foil hat may help… a bit.)

      21

  • #
  • #
    macha

    I’ve already got my copy of the book on order. :-) .

    12

  • #
    JMO

    I have received the book – looks good. Read Ian Plimer’s chapter.

    He mentioned CO2 concentration was once thousands time higher than present (if not more)i.e. well over 400 000 ppm. However, the highest CO2 concentration was in early geological times and was 7 000 ppm. I hope this is a (big) typo and he meant thousands of ppm higher than present.

    [I'm not sure, but Plimer may be referring to the earliest Earth Atmosphere of 4.5 billion years ago. (I don't have the book yet). This site, for eg, says "10 - 200 times" as much CO2 as today (which would be 80,000). - I imagine the error bars are huge and there are a lot of estimates. This paper says "Earth’s original atmosphere was composed mostly of H2O, CO2, and N2, " - Jo]

    [The oldest estimate and highest estimate of atmospheric CO2 I have seen was at about 4.3 bn years ago and indicated a potential atmospheric CO2 content of 80% or 800,000ppm. You can see the graph here: http://www.fas.org/irp/imint/docs/rst/Sect19/precamb_events.jpg This is from a tutorial authored by Dr. Nicholas M. Short Sr. His bio is here: http://fas.org/irp/imint/docs/rst/Front/collab.html

    Still I'm not certain if this is what Plimer is referring to as the atmosphere would not have been breathable then or 4 bn years ago. It probably only became breathable by humans just over 1 bn years ago (not that we had evolved then), when CO2 levels had fallen under 10,000ppm. The Plimer comment is a bit ambiguous and it could do with expansion. He could mean it literally - that from the geological record the CO2 content was "up to one thousand times higher than at present, there were no tipping points, no carbon dioxide driven climate change, and no runaway global warming." All of that is true - but the earth would not have been habitable by mammals. His point though is about how CO2 impacts the climate. - Mod]

    20

  • #
  • #
    Climate Researcher 

    Jo

    In your Chapter 11 in the book you refer to water vapour warming, whereas clouds shade and cool. You clearly feel that there are unsolved issues as to what causes what, and whether there is missing heat, and so on. These are all concepts you have merely gleaned from the climatology garbage. You need to realise that the whole paradigm is false, because radiative forcing is not what is warming Earth’s surface, nor the surfaces of other planets. Refer to my more detailed comment on the book here. I can help you get to the bottom of what is correct and what is not, because it takes a solid understanding of thermodynamics to do so, and few have such.

    CR

    00

    • #
      Climate Researcher 

      And Jo, whilst temperatures in dry regions “swing more” as you say in the book, that does not automatically imply that the minimums are colder in dry regions. A real-world study came up with the conclusion that dry regions had minimums about 1 degree warmer than moist, and maximums about 3 to 4 degrees warmer. Low clouds in the early evening have themselves “trapped” thermal energy from the Sun and retained it better than even moist air would, so, yes, this can slow the cooling in the early evening, but it may not affect the minimum reached just before dawn. Besides, even in moist regions there may not be clouds at the right levels and in the right locations to do that. Those clouds have far less effect when they are above oceans, for example.

      Water vapour causes the mean temperatures to be cooler. You must come to grips with this fact, because the IPCC claims WV does nearly all of the proverbial (though incorrect) “33 degrees” of warming. Of course they have never published empirical support for this conjecture.

      00

  • #
    Brian H

    Sloppy egocentric habit — unexpanded acronyms. I had to find “Institute for Public Affairs” on the bottom of the cover of the fuzzy photo of the book.

    00

  • #
    Brian H

    The 800-yr lag in ice cores between temperature change and parallel CO2 change flatly disproves all Warmist and Lukewarmist assertions about the latter’s effects. They are negligible — which means they can and should be neglected. All versions of the GHE speculation are, in Feynman’s delicate turn of phrase, WRONG.

    Deal [with it].

    00