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

25 years of unscientific “action” against carbon. Don’t wait for the science…

In 1988, way back before the data was in, the CSIRO was already push-pumping the public awareness campaign against carbon dioxide. There was never a debate about the science. Nobody checked the things that matter first, they just stepped straight into pointless action. (Why?) Twenty five years later, nothing has changed. There is still no one paid to make sure the science is right, too make sure Australians are not being taken advantage of. When will conservative governments recognise that they can’t leave this vital area to unpaid volunteers without staff, funding, access to scientific libraries and full government data?

BOM and CSIRO research that suggests billion-dollar policies must be checked and replicated independently by a group with no interest but finding holes in it. In a law court, there is a defense whose job is to poke holes in the prosecutor’s case, but in science and public policy it’s like being back in the Middle Ages with only the prosecution’s accusations getting a hearing. Only with a proper science defense will the Australian taxpayers and the environment be served.

The Australian, Graham Lloyd

“…the CSIRO and the Commission for the Future were at the forefront of international research and public awareness campaigns on reducing CO2 emissions by 20 per cent to 2005, as decided at the Toronto conference in 1988.

And as early as 1989 the Australian government was already paying to set up vested interest groups to push for carbon reduction.

“Following his landmark Our Country, Our Future statement on July 20, 1989, prime minister Bob Hawke wrote to ministers requesting a working group be set up to evaluate options to reduce emissions.

He said it was clear “we cannot afford to wait until we are certain of all aspects of global climate change before action is taken …”

What working group would ever produce a report saying that reducing emissions was a waste of money? These would become the paid lobbyists to propagandize the issue.

 

 

 

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.2/10 (111 votes cast)
25 years of unscientific "action" against carbon. Don't wait for the science..., 9.2 out of 10 based on 111 ratings

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

226 comments to 25 years of unscientific “action” against carbon. Don’t wait for the science…

  • #
    JD

    O/t just watched sky news and the crap spewing from Wil Stephen was unbelievable.

    151

    • #
      TdeF

      Amazing. The man who two years ago announced Victoria had twice as much sunshine as needed to generate its current power needs, presumably if you covered the entire state in solar panels and made the place devoid of life. As a PhD in chemistry, he could tell you the oceans were alkali, a huge buffer which utterly prevented acidification. He could even tell you that 98% of all free CO2 was already in the oceans. He could tell you about the air/sea gaseous equilibrium and Henry’s Law which determined the actual CO2 content in the thin air. He could tell you about the decreasing solubility in water with increasing temperature, so increased CO2. He could even calculate the 50% rise. He could tell you the world had not warmed in 18 years despite increasing CO2. He doesn’t. Why?

      530

      • #
        TdeF

        To be fair, they do say that 2014 was the hottest year on record in Australia, “since records began in 2010″, which leaves out the killer Federation drought entirely. Sensationalism is the stuff of news, so this is forgiveable. They also say it was a record “1.2 degrees warmer than average”. So there we have it, more bushfires because of the 1.2 degree change in an average. This could be because nights were very slightly warmer too, on average, but how terrifying! We have come from a time when we could not read the temperature to better than a degree to a new world where 1.2 degrees is enough to destroy the joint.

        300

        • #
          Peter C

          To be fair, they do say that 2014 was the hottest year on record in Australia, “since records began in 2010″

          To be honest, I don’t know what they mean by “Hottest year on record anymore”. It could be since 2010. Was that the year in which the BOM started its Australian Average Temperature?

          171

          • #
            the Griss

            And quite frankly, I wouldn’t take much notice of any of BOM’s “hottest ever” pronouncements.

            Pretty sure that the more reliable RSS and UAH data will say otherwise.

            Will look at it when I get to my home computer.

            221

            • #
              TdeF

              Like ocean acidification, this record temperature is a deliberately deceitful statement. You could say honestly that temperatures had gone up slightly in the late 20th century but not in this century, not in nearly 20 years.

              Now what sort of drama is that? How could a member of the Climate Council hold his head high? So instead of saying temperatures have been near constant for many years, you say that last year was a (very slight) record high (by a tiny fraction of a degree) in (an average) temperature and it is going to get much worse and bushfires are going to ravage the country because of 0.1C . Now you have death and terror. Send money.

              221

              • #
                Rereke Whakaaro

                The temperature anomalies I have seen recently, are presented to two decimal places (which means that they are actually calculated in thousandths of a degree). Think about that.

                It would be a very rare laboratory that had equipment, and processes, capable of measuring temperature with that sort of precision.

                151

              • #
                Manfred

                The temperature anomalies I have seen recently, are presented to two decimal places (which means that they are actually calculated in thousandths of a degree). Think about that.

                Perhaps you mean hundredths of a degree RW?

                60

              • #
                Rereke Whakaaro

                Well, no, I didn’t. I am an applied scientist by training, so I always manually calculate to one decimal place higher than I need, so that I can round off the answer, rather than just truncate it.

                Of course, if you are using a calculator or a computer, that is set to output at two significant digits, then the arithmetic unit is doing it for you. It may be invisible, but it is still being done.

                40

            • #
              TedM

              Don’t forget the radiosonde data

              50

            • #
              the Griss

              RE 2014 being a “hottest heffer” in 2014.

              UAH has not posted December yet,

              but it needs an anomaly of 3.96°C for December to draw even with 2013. and that just didn’t happen !!

              For world “hottest heffer” in UAH anomaly needs to be 2.06°C, but the largest anomaly in the whole record for any month is 0.66°C

              So that ain’t going to happen either.

              The ONLY place that has any chance of finding any “hottest heffers” for 2014 is the much mutilated Giss or HadCrut faeces farces.

              171

              • #
                the Griss

                “but it needs an anomaly of 3.96°C for December to draw even with 2013. and that just didn’t happen !!”

                Sorry. meant to mention that this relates to Australia.

                50

            • #
              BruceC

              BoM released a statement today stating that 2014 was Australia’s 3rd hottest year.

              http://www.weatherzone.com.au/news/2014-was-australias-third-warmest-year-bom/218177

              RSS have released December’s figures ranking 2014 the 6th warmest globally.

              80

            • #
          • #
            Un

            2014 Officially Hottest Year on Record

            http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/2014-officially-hottest-year-on-record/
            So what happened to the pause and when will David’s mysterious “notch thingy” start to take effect and cool the planet down again. Sorry for sounding skeptical but thankfully I am among like minds here.

            230

            • #
              el gordo

              The pause should end before 2019, but probably sooner.

              From the Great Climate Shift of 1976 it took a decade before ocean temperatures began to rise, but with the shift around 2000 ocean temperatures flattened along with atmospheric temps. So we can expect air temperatures to dip first.

              http://www.climate4you.com/images/HadSST3%20GlobalMonthlyTempSince1979%20With37monthRunningAverage.gif

              80

            • #
              Lord Jim

              So what happened to the pause and when will David’s mysterious “notch thingy” start to take effect and cool the planet down again. Sorry for sounding skeptical but thankfully I am among like minds here.

              So, apparently you are blissfully unaware of something called a ‘plateau’.

              160

              • #
                Un

                So, apparently you are blissfully unaware of something called a ‘plateau’.

                You mean the kind of plateau where it keeps getting hotter and hotter, is that a called a “deniers plateau” where 10/11 of the hottest years recorded have been since 2000
                http://blogs.nicholas.duke.edu/thegreengrok/files/2012/07/temperaturerankings.jpg

                235

              • #
                Robert

                Oh look, the new troll couldn’t even make it through 2 comments without resorting to the “d” word.

                262

              • #
                the Griss

                Doh UN, when you are on the top of a slippery slide, you are always taller.

                OMG, they are really sending the dregs lately, aren’t they !

                Below the bottom of the barrel ! :-)

                “gronk” would be a more appropriate name for the site you are linking !

                Is that you, Dean?

                The “Environmental Defence Fund” still scamming from the US taxpayer or did you give up through lack of … anything !!!

                172

              • #
                the Griss

                No, Un-intelligent one.

                We mean the CONTINUING plateau of ZERO warming for something like 18 years, despite the large increase in beneficial atmospheric CO2 levels.

                251

              • #
                Radical Rodent

                Un, I am not sure you know what a plateau is. As the plateau of which you seem so dismissive has been acknowledged by the most respected institutes in this argument (UKMO, IPCC, NASA, NOAA, to name but a few), why do you deny its existence? No-one is disputing that temperatures have risen since the end of the Little Ice Age, and most of us are grateful for that. Unfortunately, that rise has stopped – or “plateaued” – for the last 18 years, or so. Being a plateau, it tends to be higher than what was before, hence, many of the years this century have been the “hottest on record”, much like your height. Throughout your early years, each year, you were the tallest you had ever been recorded, up until about 17 or 18, when your height “plateaued”, and you stopped growing (vertically, at least).

                The thing about a plateau is that it might be the peak of the measurement or it might be a pause; which it is, we will not find out for a while, I suspect. My fear is that, if it does start to fall, it will plummet – as it has done in the past. Personally, I hope it continues to rise at the rate it has been doing for the past century or so.

                210

              • #
                the Griss

                An interesting post by Steven on the topic of warming in Australia….

                “There has been no net warming for 35 years,”

                !!!

                151

              • #
                Lord Jim

                You mean the kind of plateau where it keeps getting hotter and hotter, is that a called a “deniers plateau” where 10/11 of the hottest years recorded have been since 2000

                In other words, no, you don’t know what a plateau is.

                This might give you a hint:

                “This month has seen three egregious examples of poor scientific practice… Second example: last week, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), a supposedly scientific body, issued a press release stating that this is likely to be the warmest year in a century or more, based on surface temperatures. Yet this predicted record would be only 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… the year is not over, so why the announcement now? Oh yes, there’s a political climate summit in Lima this week. The scientists of WMO allowed themselves to be used politically.“

                http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/policy-based-evidence-making.aspx

                130

              • #
                the Griss

                “Unfortunately, that rise has stopped “

                Yep :-(

                and at a temperature somewhat below the MWP and RWP.

                I was hoping for the same global prosperity that those two warm periods brought..

                …seems we might be going to miss out !! :-(

                211

              • #
                the Griss

                “10/11 of the hottest years recorded have been since 2000″

                All within 0.2°C of each other.

                Flat..ie. a plateau !!

                Do

                you

                under-

                stand

                ?

                Even Gavin at GISS can’t manufacture more than a very slight trend !!!

                ..and you can see how much 2014′s GISS fakery deviates from the satellite records.

                191

              • #
                the Griss

                And did you know.

                In UAH,

                1998 (large El Nino) was warmest

                2010 (small El Nino effect) was second.

                …. and every year since 2010 has been cooler than 2010..

                2014 will be cooler than 2010, despite having a small El Nino effect.

                Even 2014′s small El Nino hasn’t caused any extra warming.

                Quite unusual, and maybe a portent of cooling to come, soon.

                170

              • #
                Un

                Hi Griss, I live on the ground and swim in the ocean and am therefore interested more in surface temperature. The UAH temperatures would be important to vulture and pigeon.

                05

              • #
                Un

                Even Gavin at GISS can’t manufacture more than a very slight trend !!!

                ..and you can see how much 2014′s GISS fakery deviates from the satellite records.

                Hi Griss,if however I pick my own starting point your own graphs clearly show significant warming over the last 15 years
                http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1999/plot/rss/from:1999/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1999/trend/plot/rss/from:1999/trend/plot/uah/from:1999/plot/uah/from:1999/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1999/plot/gistemp/from:1999/trend

                05

              • #
                the Griss

                I love it when the brain-dead do that.

                It illustrates their total lack of understanding of climate events..

                But do keep going.

                You are making a total ass of yourself. :-)

                20

              • #
                Un

                Sad when argument fails and abuse is all thats left

                03

              • #
                the Griss

                You do know that the surface record as produced by GISS, BOM, Hadcrut etc is soooo rife with “adjustments” and manipulations, by people who NEED to show warming to keep their jobs, that it makes them basically worthless.

                No, I doubt you know that.

                You don’t seem to know much at all, do you. ! Poor serf.

                Can’t even find a paper to support the most basic assumption of the AGW farce.

                And then dismiss a paper that you can’t even read, from one of the world’s foremost astro- and atmospheric physicists.

                Very sad that your mind is so closed by brain-washing and totally unable to think for itself.

                40

              • #
                the Griss

                “Sad when argument fails and abuse is all thats left”

                But you haven’t put forward any argument.

                NOTHING at all to support your unwarranted belief.

                So yes.. your argument has failed, because it does not exist.

                30

              • #
                Un

                You do know that the surface record as produced by GISS, BOM, Hadcrut etc is soooo rife with “adjustments” and manipulations, by people who NEED to show warming to keep their jobs, that it makes them basically worthless.

                So you are now retreating to conspiracy theories and fraud allegations but you are happy to cite a Communists journal for support. I fear that you are a little mixed up.

                world’s foremost astro- and atmospheric physicists

                Apart from you, who else believes that?

                04

              • #
                Un

                But you haven’t put forward any argument.

                NOTHING at all to support your unwarranted belief.

                All the data you could want
                http://www.noaa.gov/

                05

              • #
                the Griss

                “All the data you could want”

                No data on that page..

                STILL NOTHING.

                30

              • #
                the Griss

                You really should try putting something coherent together.

                I don’t see that happening any time soon, that’s for sure.

                20

              • #
                Un

                Here you are Griss, I pushed the link button to one of them for you, you were obviously struggling
                http://data.nodc.noaa.gov/woa/PUBLICATIONS/grlheat12.pdf

                05

              • #
                Lord Jim

                Un
                January 7, 2015 at 1:52 pm
                Hi Griss, I live on the ground and swim in the ocean and am therefore interested more in surface temperature. The UAH temperatures would be important to vulture and pigeon.

                Except according to the CAGW hypothesis the troposphere is supposed to warm faster than the surface, which it is not doing.

                40

              • #
                Un

                Very interesting

                Except according to the CAGW hypothesis the troposphere is supposed to warm faster than the surface

                Can you cite a source for this hypothesis for me please

                05

              • #
                the Griss

                Gees, Un..

                A link to a paper showing some ocean warming. So what.

                You obviously don’t even know what the main “assumption” of the AGW farce is.

                Amazingly dumb !!!

                20

              • #
                Un

                You must be very clever to have read it in 20 min.
                Im not quite as clever so can you please tell me
                What are the

                main “assumption” of the AGW farce is

                05

              • #
                Lord Jim

                Un January 7, 2015 at 4:17 pm
                ‘Except according to the CAGW hypothesis the troposphere is supposed to warm faster than the surface’
                Can you cite a source for this hypothesis for me please

                (Sure, I will cite someone whose views are orthogonal to ‘climate scepticism’, just to make it clear): Santer et al, Amplification of Surface Temperature Trends and Variability in the Tropical Atmosphere, Science 2 September 2005: Vol. 309 no. 5740 pp. 1551-1556

                And see discussion on tropospheric and surface temperatures, here.

                50

              • #
                Un

                Lord Jim, I am still curious about this

                CAGW hypothesis the troposphere is supposed to warm faster

                that you are obviously very familiar with, can you please cite a source for this theory for me.

                04

              • #
                Un

                thank you Jim, We posted at the same time, no disrespect intended

                11

              • #
              • #
                the Griss

                You are obviously very new at this, and seem to think that everyone is a pig-ignorant as you are.

                20

              • #
                Un

                Hi Jim, it appears that

                CAGW hypothesis the troposphere is supposed to warm faster

                is based purly on models and has not been observed in actual data. I have no faith in models and therefore no faith in this hypothesis.
                All I know is that the Earth is heating up, that was my original entry into this discussion. The data says it is. Physics principles are unequivocal that H2O and CO2 are greenhouse gases.

                06

              • #
                Un

                I wouldnt say that Griss, there seem to be lots of switched on bloggers here, so far only you give the impression of being

                as pig-ignorant as (me)

                03

              • #
                the Griss

                YAWN.. yet another post from Un, devoid of substance. !!

                10

              • #
                Un

                we do seem to have a lot in common

                02

              • #
                Radical Rodent

                All I know is that the Earth is heating up…

                Is it? Where is you empirical evidence of this? All the evidence for the past 18 years suggest that that is not the case, evidence that is supported by the UKMO, NASA, NOAA, the UEA CRU, and many, many others. You are the exception to the case, Un. Some have even postulated that the world is soon to start cooling.

                20

            • #
              BruceC

              2014 Officially Hottest Year on Record‘….by a staggering, the oceans are boiling, we’re all gunna die…….0.1°F. Can someone convert that to Celsius? Also, what is the error margin in today’s thermometers?

              211

              • #
                TdeF

                Yes, 0.05C. 5/9ths. Then this is an average. It does not mean every day was hotter at all. It may simply mean that some days were not quite as cold as others, on average.

                100

            • #
              the Griss

              And of course, If you go to this page.

              There is NO DATA for December !!

              101

              • #
                the Griss

                AND the Japanese are using the massively corrupted GHCN (Global Historical Climatology Network) information provided by NCDC.

                NCDC are one of the ringleaders of global warming data manipulation.

                They were the first to squash the 1940′s peak in the US on Tom Wriggly’s suggestion.

                Their data is worse than worthless.

                141

            • #
              the Griss

              Scientific America.. lol !!!

              close to coming in behind to Rolling Stone mag as a climate information rag !

              131

              • #
                BruceC

                I just had a look at the JMA link that was supplied in the Scientific America article Griss;

                http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/temp/ann_wld.html

                Two things stand out:
                1). SA are wailing ‘2014 Officially Hottest Year on Record‘. How can it be ‘official’ when JMA state that this is ‘preliminary’?
                and:
                2). The page was last updated on 22/12/2014….a week before the year ended!

                For the record:- 2014 (+0.27°C), 1998 (+0.22°C) above the 1981-2010 average. Or a whopping 0.05°C difference.

                100

              • #
                the Griss

                Poor Un,

                Pity you don’t have the ability to read, yet alone comprehend any of that paper. You have to ad hom your way around even making the effort.

                So sad that your brain-washing has left your mind so empty.

                00

            • #
              Un

              So when can we expect the temperature decline to start?

              014

              • #
                Roy Hogue

                So when can we expect the temperature decline to start?

                It started when you appeared and the atmosphere around here suddenly got a bit frosty. Brrrrr! Another one out in the cold with no clue.

                Please! At least point to something with some verifiable numbers, places, times of year and so on where records were set.

                By the way, you’re talking to physicists, engineers and other highly qualified people on JoNova. What, pray tell, are your qualifications?

                140

              • #
                PhilJourdan

                Hmmm…. a DQ Frosty? All cream and no substance?

                40

              • #
                Richo

                Hi eUNuch

                Skeptics don’t make predictions because the science isn’t settled.

                20

              • #
                ROM

                Un @ 1.1.1.1.6

                So when can we expect the temperature decline to start?
                -_____________________

                Already being researched by the Russia’s Habibullo Abdussamatov who predicted the probability of the pause/ plateau in global temperatures quite a few years back.

                The following is for your edification Un although I think it might be a wasted effort when used on closed, fixated and limited minds which is the image you are projecting.
                Although I am quite surprised you don’t seem to have even attempted to research your question before asking it here which tells me quite a lot about your intellectual curiosity or complete and total lack of.
                They have made it very easy to use search engines such as Google, Bing, Yandex and etc you know.
                _________________

                Habibullo Abdussamatov ; New paper predicts another Little Ice Age within the next 30 years

                [quoted ]
                A new paper by solar physicist Habibullo Abdussamatov predicts the current lull in solar activity will continue and lead to a new Little Ice Age within the next 30 years.
                &
                The start of Grand Maunder-type Minimum of the TSI of the quasibicentennial cycle is anticipated in solar cycle 27±1 about the year 2043±11 and the beginning of the phase of deep cooling of the 19th Little Ice Age in the past 7,500 years in the year 2060±11 Figure 1, 2). Now we witness the transitional period from warming to deep cooling characterized by unstable climate changes when the global temperature will oscillate (approximately until 2014) around the maximum achieved in 1998-005.

                [ Habibullo Abdussamatov is the supervisor of the Astrometria project of the Russian section of the International Space Station and the head of Space research laboratory at the Saint Petersburg-based Pulkovo Observatory[2][3] of the Russian Academy of Sciences. ]
                ________
                There are now a number of papers based on the solar cycle characteristics all suggesting that by about 2017 we will start to see what could be a quite precipitous decline in global temperatures.

                So you have maybe a couple of years at the most to rethink your stance and commitment to the CAGW ideology and faith and perhaps to read up on the directions that climate science right across the board is now starting to track down.

                And it ain’t global warming or much to do with CO2 anymore

                90

              • #
                Un

                What, pray tell, are your qualifications?

                I’m a skeptic, I don’t believe anything in blogs unless I can read the peer reviewed source for it.

                17

              • #
                the Griss

                “I’m a skeptic”

                No, you are brain-washed climate serf.

                What did you say your qualifications were.. can’t see your answer ?

                You say you don’t believe unless you can find a peer-reviewed source..

                ok.. please link to a paper that proves (not using modelled assumptions) that CO2 causes warming in an open atmosphere.

                31

              • #
                Un

                Hi Griss, you seem both intelligence and slightly abusive at the same time and yet don’t appear to have any qualifications listed yourself.

                06

              • #
                the Griss

                So.. no link to that paper from you, either.

                … just believe, little serf.

                30

              • #
                Un

                Maybe you can educate this little serf with some credible sources to support your assertions

                05

              • #
                the Griss

                Just for you.. Do at least try to read it.

                From the abstract..
                “Many authors have proposed a greenhouse effect due to anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions. The present analysis shows that such an effect is impossible.

                So now you have real peer reviewed SCIENCE in front of you..

                … will you change your mind and realise that the CO2 warming farce is just that, a farce.?

                I very much doubt that your brain-washing will allow it. !

                41

              • #
                Un

                Hi Griss,unfortunately this publisher has a credibility vacuum, a Communist Chinese propaganda rag. I don’t trust communists, especially these.

                Further controversy was generated by a mass resignation of the editorial board of one of the company’s journals, Advances in Anthropology, in 2014. According to the former editor-in-chief, Fatimah Jackson, it was motivated by failures to include the editorial board in the journal’s review process, and by “consistent and flagrant unethical breaches by the editorial staff in China”, for whom publishing the journal “was only about making money.” According to Beall, this was the first mass-resignation from an open-access journal.

                http://scholarlyoa.com/2014/10/02/an-editorial-board-mass-resignation-from-an-open-access-journal/

                05

              • #
                the Griss

                So, totally unable to read the paper.

                That was to be expected.

                You have just proven that you are a brain-washed climate serf.

                Its there for everybody to see.

                Real peer-reviewed science means NOTHING to you.

                21

              • #
                Un

                I have read the paper and dismissed it as rubbish along with the journal its in.

                04

              • #
                the Griss

                And its nice to know you link to the librarian that runs that little blog web site.

                Peer reviewed, no doubt !! roflmao !!!

                30

              • #
                ROM

                I get quite a chuckle whenever I see that well worn and severely overplayed hoary old chestnut from the alarmists

                “I’m a skeptic, I don’t believe anything in blogs unless I can read the peer reviewed source for it”

                .Which they rush to use every time they get caught out on some supposed climate alarmist science claim they are making with such certitude but which promptly falls over as soon as some light is thrown on it.

                I reckon I have lost count of the number of times I have seen that or a similar cop out from alarmists. Its probably is one of the instructions that Al Gore gives to his disciples to use that phrase when they get into a situation where they have boxed themselves in scientifically.

                The Griss is quite correct

                There are NO peer reviewed papers that can substantiate both the claimed impact of CO2 on the open global climate nor the amount of that impact.

                There are no doubt lots of papers on the way in which increasing levels of CO2 under closed, confined Laboratory conditions do act to increase the heat content of the enclosed gas when the right spectrum frequency radiation is shone onto the enclosed vessel.

                In the real world of Nature outside of a laboratory containment vessel there are a vast array of other atmospheric gases, radiation frequencies and types, heat sources, clouds, sunlight, night and day, water vapour, trees and grasses, wind, water, immense amounts of it, hurricanes and cyclones, volcanoes, solar winds and every other item that goes to make up this world we live in, all of which mix, emit, absorb, heat. cool, breakdown and create CO2.

                The very simple test of this complete lack of any peer reviewed papers than can be pointed to as definitively confirming that CO2 affects the climate to the extent claimed by the alarmists and which has provided data calibrating CO2′s impact on the climate is the complete lack and absence of and the continuing disagreement on that critical to the CO2 hypothesis, a firm accepted and accurate climate sensitivity figure. The amount of temperature increase in the global context for a doubling of pre- industrial CO2.

                And this complete lack of a firm climate sensitivity figure is after some 27 years of very expensive research in trying to establish this critical to the CO2 hypothesis figure.

                Without that firm established climate sensitivity figure and given the amount of massive research effort over some 27 years in trying to establish that figure, the CO2 / climate warming hypothesis is just that. nothing more than a wild eyed claim that nobody can or has actually proven

                There are god knows how many climate models, the last count I saw was 103 climate models of which every single one is programmed on the basis that CO2 increases are responsible for the recent past very short duration warming from 1978 to around 1995, a period now the same length of the 17 or more years as the still ongoing “Pause” in global temperature rise.

                So thats what the climate models churn out. Vast amounts of quite spurious data from a computer program that is reliant on a CO2 created increase in global temperatures

                Those models are admitted by the IPCC to be “running too hot” in those words with the present global temperatures just starting to fall out of the bottom of the error bands of those climate model’s predictions.

                So the entire global warming faith and ideology are founded entirely on a period of about 17 years where the increase in CO22 seemed to be in lockstep with the rising global temperatures.

                Now Un says he will only believe a peer reviewed source so I guess I will have to point him at some peer reviewed sources which given his attitude he will find some reason to denigrate and so disbelieve.

                In short having seen all this particular dodgy / dodging alarmist strategy quite a lot of times past I don’t believe him at all when he says’

                I don’t believe anything in blogs unless I can read the peer reviewed source for it.

                So for Un, here is the source of the list of peer reviewed climate related papers, all 1350 of them

                1350+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarmism

                80

              • #
                the Griss

                “I have read the paper”

                BS !!!!!!!

                You don’t have the ability to read that paper.

                Deceive yourself, but you aren’t fooling anyone here.

                41

              • #
                Robert

                So we have yet another one that doesn’t understand that peer review does not constitute validation.

                Sorry state we’re in these days, people who don’t know the difference between a hypothesis and a theory, who don’t know the difference between review and validation.

                I could care less if it has been peer reviewed, has it been validated? If the answer is no then it doesn’t matter how many reviewers it had or what journal it is in.

                51

              • #
                Un

                Ah, the old “Popular Technology.net “, sounds so convincing until one actually looks at the list of papers and finds that most are written by economists, lawyers, interior decorators and phone booth sanitizers. Ive been through this list years ago and couldn’t find a single paper on it that survives even the most rudimentary scrutiny.

                08

              • #
                Un

                So we have yet another one that doesn’t understand that peer review does not constitute validation.

                Im sure that Griss genuinely thinks the paper is good, after all he is the one that listed it

                04

              • #
                the Griss

                “The Griss is quite correct”

                Thanks, Yes.. he is :-)

                Poor Un,

                He KNOWS that he cannot provide any support for his rabid cult belief.

                He will duck and weave, and slime through holes that don’t exist.

                But will produce NOTHING !!

                60

              • #
                ROM

                Well I did post this above;

                I will have to point him at some peer reviewed sources which given his attitude he will find some reason to denigrate and so disbelieve.

                ______________

                This folks is just a brief short list gleaned in a couple of minutes from Popular Technology .net that are the scientists that Un in his extraordinary grasp and expert knowledge of all things climate classes their papers as written by;
                to quote;

                most are written by economists, lawyers, interior decorators and phone booth sanitizers.

                Sherwood Idso
                Nir Shaviv
                Willie Soon
                Ross McKitrick
                Nicola Scafetta
                John Christy
                Roy Spencer
                Syun-Ichi Akasofu
                Alan Carlin
                Francois Gervais
                Richard Tol
                Richard Lindzen
                Garth Paltridge
                Patrick Michaels
                Frederik Seltz

                and etc.
                Plus many more very high profile climate scientists whose peer reviewed papers can be sourced from Popular Technology.net.

                I wonder how many points Un will get from Al Gore’s program for this contribution.

                60

              • #
                the Griss

                “couldn’t find a single paper on it that survives even the most rudimentary scrutiny.’

                You mean that doesn’t pass your brain-washed belief system.. so you automatically reject them. !

                Comments like this from you truly mark your total and abject ignorance.

                Certainly you would have absolutely no grounding to make any actual scientific decision. Most of the paper would be so far above your mental capability that you would be lucky to comprehend even half the words.

                … and yes, we know you can’t find a single paper. !!

                41

              • #
                Lord Jim

                Robert
                January 7, 2015 at 3:12 pm “people who don’t know the difference between a hypothesis and a theory,”

                I see your point, however, it is a technical distinction; in the ordinary vernacular ‘theory’ and ‘hypothesis’ are used interchangeably (of course in the context of a technical discipline the technical meaning should be adopted).

                20

              • #
                Robert

                Im sure that Griss genuinely thinks the paper is good, after all he is the one that listed it

                I was referring to you. I take you have a reading disorder as well?

                21

              • #
                Carbon500

                Un: In another post, you present a link to the Met Office, who refer to the Central England Temperature record (CET) in support of the claim that we’ve had the ‘hottest year ever’.
                I’m wary of the significance accorded to fraction of a degree temperature changes – it’s worth pointing out that the average for 2012 was 9.70C, but temperatures over 9C are as you can see nothing new in the record – go back to the late 1600s and there they are.
                The average for 1686 was 10.13C, so it could have been claimed at that time that this was ‘the hottest year yet’ – but with no anthropogenic CO2 to blame!
                There’s also the point to be made that average temperatures lose information about what actually goes on weather-wise.
                If for example you have a look at the CET years 1659, 1754, 1902, 1956, and 2010, all have an average temperature for the year of 8.83 degrees C.
                Robin Stirling in ‘The Weather of Britain’ (published 1997) tells us on p148 that after a mild January in 1956, ‘ the first day of February saw a severe blast of air of Siberian origin sweep across Britain, giving day maxima well below freezing in many parts of the south, as low as -6C at Ipswich. Even in the Scillies there were two days of continuous frost and gales’ and also ‘February 1956 will be remembered by arable farmers for the severe damage to winter wheat, since, except along the east coast, there was very little snow to protect the ground from hard frost.’
                In 1963, the annual average was slightly lower at 8.47C, yet Stirling comments that ‘in 1963, there was probably the coldest January since 1814 over England’ and ‘the Thames was frozen over above Kingston power station, although not at Tower Bridge because of the warmth from industrial cooling water which pours into the river.’
                The ‘take home’ message for me from all this is that minor temperature differences don’t define climate, and that we should beware of record temperatures!

                40

              • #
                Roy Hogue

                I’m a skeptic, I don’t believe anything in blogs unless I can read the peer reviewed source for it.

                Un,

                Being a skeptic is easy. All it take is the will to question what others tell you until you’re sure they’re right or you’re sure they’re wrong. Beside which, you aren’t a skeptic at all. What you really are is another pusher of man made climate change (nee global warming). And so far you have provided neither argument nor evidence in support of your cause which makes you a waste of our time.

                As for peer reviewed, don’t you know that peer review means absolutely nothing about the quality of the work being reviewed? We look at the actual data, the arguments made based on that data and check to see if the whole thing stands up. And so far it doesn’t.

                And one last thing — we make no claims about anything. Your side does that. We make no demands that society adopt measures to mitigate the claims of danger you make. Your side that does that too. We have nothing we need to prove. It’s entirely incumbent on those making a claim (such as yours that the Earth is being warmed by CO2) to support those claims with credible empirical evidence.

                You fail miserably in all respects. Do us all a favor and go home to your mother until you can meet minimum standards for debate.

                51

            • #
              Manfred

              You mean the kind of plateau where it keeps getting hotter and hotter, is that a called a “deniers plateau”

              Un, no, it’s more correctly named the Tablelands of the Adjustment Bureau.
              The statistical science suggests otherwise: HAC-Robust Measurement of the Duration of a Trendless Subsample in a Global Climate Time Series
              McKitrick RR, Open Journal of Statistics, 2014, 4, 527-535

              “Application of the method shows that there is now a trendless interval
              of 19 years duration at the end of the HadCRUT4 surface temperature series, and of 16 – 26 years in the lower troposphere. Use of a simple AR1 trend model suggests a shorter hiatus of 14 – 20 years but is likely unreliable.”

              PS. Are you catholic by any chance?

              142

              • #
                ROM

                The names below and the role they play in the global warming scene should be well known even to the alarmists

                Again for Un’s edification if that is at all possible to implement

                This is a list of the quotes on ; You mean the kind of plateau where it keeps getting hotter and hotter, is that a called a “deniers plateau”

                TUESDAY, JULY 29, 2014

                Quotable Warming Hiatus Quotes
                _______________

                Dr. Phil Jones – CRU emails – 5th July, 2005
                “The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. OK it has but it is only 7 years of data and it isn’t statistically significant….”
                ____________________

                Dr. Phil Jones – CRU emails – 7th May, 2009
                ‘Bottom line: the ‘no upward trend’ has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried.’
                __________________
                Dr. Judith L. Lean – Geophysical Research Letters – 15 Aug 2009
                “…This lack of overall warming is analogous to the period from 2002 to 2008 when decreasing solar irradiance also countered much of the anthropogenic warming…”
                __________________
                Dr. Kevin Trenberth – CRU emails – 12 Oct. 2009
                “Well, I have my own article on where the heck is global warming…..The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.”
                __________________
                Dr. Mojib Latif – Spiegel – 19th November 2009
                “At present, however, the warming is taking a break,”…….”There can be no argument about that,”
                __________________
                Dr. Jochem Marotzke – Spiegel – 19th November 2009
                “It cannot be denied that this is one of the hottest issues in the scientific community,”….”We don’t really know why this stagnation is taking place at this point.”
                __________________
                Dr. Phil Jones – BBC – 13th February 2010
                “I’m a scientist trying to measure temperature. If I registered that the climate has been cooling I’d say so. But it hasn’t untilrecently – and then barely at all. The trend is a warming trend.”
                __________________
                Dr. Phil Jones – BBC – 13th February 2010
                [Q] B – “Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming”
                [A] “Yes, but only just”.
                __________________
                Prof. Shaowu Wang et al – Advances in Climate Change Research –2010
                “…The decade of 1999-2008 is still the warmest of the last 30 years, though the global temperature increment is near zero;…”
                __________________
                Dr. B. G. Hunt – Climate Dynamics – February 2011
                “Controversy continues to prevail concerning the reality of anthropogenically-induced climatic warming. One of the principal issues is the cause of the hiatus in the current global warming trend.”
                __________________
                Dr. Robert K. Kaufmann – PNAS – 2nd June 2011
                “…..it has been unclear why global surface temperatures did not rise between 1998 and 2008…..”
                __________________
                Dr. Gerald A. Meehl – Nature Climate Change – 18th September2011
                “There have been decades, such as 2000–2009, when the observed globally averaged surface-temperature time series shows little increase or even a slightly negative trend1 (a hiatus period)….”
                __________________
                Met Office Blog – Dave Britton (10:48:21) – 14 October 2012
                “We agree with Mr Rose that there has been only a very small amount of warming in the 21st Century. As stated in our response, this is 0.05 degrees Celsius since 1997 equivalent to 0.03 degrees Celsius per decade.”
                Source: metofficenews.wordpress.com/2012/10/14/met-office-in-the-media-14-october-2012
                __________________
                Dr. James Hansen – NASA GISS – 15 January 2013
                “The 5-year mean global temperature has been flat for a decade, which we interpret as a combination of natural variability and a slowdown in the growth rate of the net climate forcing.”
                __________________
                Dr Doug Smith – Met Office – 18 January 2013
                “The exact causes of the temperature standstill are not yet understood,” says climate researcher Doug Smith from the Met Office.
                [Translated by Philipp Mueller from Spiegel Online]
                __________________
                Dr. Virginie Guemas – Nature Climate Change – 7 April 2013
                “…Despite a sustained production of anthropogenic greenhouse gases, the Earth’s mean near-surface temperature paused its rise during the 2000–2010 period…”
                __________________
                Dr. Judith Curry – House of Representatives Subcommittee on Environment – 25 April 2013
                ” If the climate shifts hypothesis is correct, then the current flat trend in global surface temperatures may continue for another decade or two,…”
                __________________
                Dr. Hans von Storch – Spiegel – 20 June 2013
                “…the increase over the last 15 years was just 0.06 degrees Celsius (0.11 degrees Fahrenheit) — a value very close to zero….If things continue as they have been, in five years, at the latest, we will need to acknowledge that something is fundamentally wrong with our climate models….”
                __________________
                Professor Masahiro Watanabe – Geophysical Research Letters – 28 June 2013
                “The weakening of k commonly found in GCMs seems to be an inevitable response of the climate system to global warming, suggesting the recovery from hiatus in coming decades.”
                __________________
                Met Office – July 2013
                “The recent pause in global warming, part 3: What are the implications for projections of future warming?
                ………..
                Executive summary
                The recent pause in global surface temperature rise does not materially alter the risks of substantial warming of the Earth by the end of this century.”

                Source: metoffice.gov.uk/media/pdf/3/r/Paper3_Implications_for_projections.pdf
                __________________
                Professor Rowan Sutton – Independent – 22 July 2013
                “Some people call it a slow-down, some call it a hiatus, some people call it a pause. The global average surface temperature has not increased substantially over the last 10 to 15 years,”
                __________________
                Dr. Kevin Trenberth – NPR – 23 August 2013
                “They probably can’t go on much for much longer than maybe 20 years, and what happens at the end of these hiatus periods, is suddenly there’s a big jump [in temperature] up to a whole new level and you never go back to that previous level again,”
                __________________
                Dr. Yu Kosaka et. al. – Nature – 28 August 2013
                “Recent global-warming hiatus tied to equatorial Pacific surface cooling
                Despite the continued increase in atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations, the annual-mean global temperature has not risen in the twenty-first century…”
                __________________
                Professor Anastasios Tsonis – Daily Telegraph – 8 September 2013
                “We are already in a cooling trend, which I think will continue for the next 15 years at least. There is no doubt the warming of the 1980s and 1990s has stopped.”
                __________________
                Dr. Kevin E. Trenberth – Nature News Feature – 15 January 2014
                “The 1997 to ’98 El Niño event was a trigger for the changes in the Pacific, and I think that’s very probably the beginning of the hiatus,” says Kevin Trenberth, a climate scientist…
                __________________
                Dr. Gabriel Vecchi – Nature News Feature – 15 January 2014
                “A few years ago you saw the hiatus, but it could be dismissed because it was well within the noise,” says Gabriel Vecchi, a climate scientist…“Now it’s something to explain.”…..
                __________________
                Professor Matthew England – ABC Science – 10 February 2014
                “Even though there is this hiatus in this surface average temperature, we’re still getting record heat waves, we’re still getting harsh bush fires…..it shows we shouldn’t take any comfort from this plateau in global average temperatures.”

                __________________

                181

              • #
                Rereke Whakaaro

                In clinical denial, the lot of them. And they call us deniers! Talk about projection …

                80

              • #
                Un

                Quotable Warming Hiatus Quotes

                ..and yet it still keeps getting hotter, the three hottest years have all been since 2005. Maybe you can find a quote from the Pope to counter that reality.

                2014 Was Officially the Hottest Year on Record

                http://time.com/3656646/2014-hottest-year/
                http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/releases/archive/2014/2014-global-temperature

                08

              • #
                the Griss

                Combined religions that make claims contrary to facts.

                The pope has just proven his gullibility !!

                Good to see that you continue to but brain-washed irrational belief before reality.

                21

              • #
                Lord Jim

                Un
                January 7, 2015 at 1:37 pm

                Quotable Warming Hiatus Quotes

                ..and yet it still keeps getting hotter, the three hottest years have all been since 2005. Maybe you can find a quote from the Pope to counter that reality.

                Well, you may believe that, but having rejected the CAGW hypothesis of tropospheric warming – do you suppose Santer et al defend it just for fun? – you have no way of accounting for warming as an incidence of CAGW.

                As for rejecting evidence from computer models, there is not a shred of empirical evidence that co2 leads to catastrophic warming (warming from co2 is logarithmic):

                Here are two statements that are completely agreed on by the IPCC. It is crucial to be aware of their implications.

                1. A doubling of CO2, by itself, contributes only about 1C to greenhouse warming. All models project more warming, because, within models, there are positive feedbacks from water vapor and clouds, and these feedbacks are considered by the IPCC to be uncertain.

                2. If one assumes all warming over the past century is due to anthropogenic greenhouse forcing, then the derived sensitivity of the climate to a doubling of CO2 is less than 1C. The higher sensitivity of existing models is made consistent with observed warming by invoking unknown additional negative forcings from aerosols and solar variability as arbitrary adjustments.

                See here.

                30

              • #
                the Griss

                Another interesting fact is that this decade is currently running COOLER than last decade.

                But again, Un will not let facts get in the way of his irrational, unsubstantiated brain-washed belief of his closed, empty mind.

                31

              • #
                the Griss

                I suspect that 2015 will end up being about the same as 2014 as we are currently in a slight El Nino situation and still not past the peak of SC24.

                By the beginning of 2016 (but maybe earlier), the La Nina that normally follows an El Nino should kick in, and the drop off in SC24 to a very weak SC25 will cause a cooling trend to start, which could last for a few decades.

                I am of course referring to RSS and UAH temperatures. Who knows how long Gavin and Phil can keep pushing Giss and Hadcrut to unrealistic warming to support their religion.! Gavin seems to have dropped any pretence of scientific integrity he may once have had, and is now in full-on activist mode.

                41

            • #
              crakar24

              UN,

              Did you seek inspiration for your username from the movie Idiocracy?

              60

              • #
                Robert

                Yep and by adding another zero in the ledger every month my bank account keeps getting bigger too. But being able to spend that “adjusted” income is another matter.

                Tell me when that “record” officially started as I guarantee we can find a date prior to that for which there is data showing it was hotter then. A few dates in the 1930′s come to mind right off.

                40

            • #
              Radical Rodent

              You are right, Un. We should at longer time periods than what is being selected to prove people’s points. Let’s extend it to 30 years: well, yes, there is an upwards trend! Now, double that, to 60 years: still upwards, but not quite so steep. Let’s go back a hundred years: yep, still upwards. 200 years? STILL upwards! How about a thousand years… oh, slightly downwards. Never mind, let’s double that – two thousand years. Oops, even steeper downwards. 10,000? Still downwards…

              I can’t speak for anyone other than myself, but I do not like the thought of temperatures sliding down to those of the Little Ice Age; I prefer it warmer. With less temperature differential, weather will become less severe – as the comparative dearth of TRSs over the past ten years or so does indicate. So, yes, I do hope that the temperatures do start to rise again; there is so much to be gained from it.

              30

          • #
            Safetyguy66

            They are referring to the old Cliff Richard and the shadows album “The Hottest Year” and they have a copy of it on vinyl.

            60

          • #
            TdeF

            Sorry. Brain freeze. 1910 of course. Technically the BOM was formed after Federation in 1907 (not 2007) so records before then were state responsibilities. However you would think in the 100 years since, someone would have put it all together.

            40

        • #
          Yonniestone

          Well this sky news gem is claiming Australia had third hottest year 2014 since records began in 1910, with the claim at the end “Globally, preliminary estimates by the World Meteorological Organization has 2014 on track to be one of the hottest, if not the hottest, on record.”

          Really, how does the recent record breaking northern hemisphere winters factor into that prediction?, Goddard reported on this back in October 2014 so for 2014 to be the hottest the summer would’ve been extraordinarily ‘record breaking’ but it wasn’t, so once again we have that pesky missing heat.

          just a question as a non-scientist, is missing heat to Climate scientists what car keys are to normal people?

          331

          • #
            TdeF

            It would be great to be a fly on the wall of the self appointed Climate Council, made up from the disbanded Climate Commission and listen to the debate on how to sensationalize the fact that the average temperature had not changed at all, or so little as to be absolutely negligible.

            The positive spin on the lack of Global Warming is that it hasn’t gone down (yet), so records of not going down are being broken! Cue dramatic music and pictures of Rome burning while Nero/Abbott fiddles. That should do it. Now get the ABC to push this as news from the Climate Council.

            171

            • #
              Yonniestone

              The selling of ‘climate change. ‘TM’ appears to have gone the way of TV infomercials, question is how many times can you reinvent the blender to a new target audience without them skipping channels?, sadly the big difference is the infomercial doesn’t have your money yet or the ability to simply debit your bank account without your consent unlike ‘climate change. TM’ which is sold to us whether we want it or not, what a gyp!

              Forget my last question above, unlike missing heat car keys are actual tangible objects, replace car keys with ‘next weeks lotto numbers’.

              141

            • #
              Tim

              “…once again we have that pesky missing heat.”

              It sure is elusive.

              The Oscar-winning director and undersea explorer James Cameron said his record-setting expedition to the bottom of the Mariana Trench, 6.8 miles beneath the surface of the western Pacific. He described a flat, desolate landscape, 50 times larger than the Grand Canyon, “devoid of sunlight, devoid of any heat, any warmth…”

              http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2012/0327/What-James-Cameron-saw-6.8-miles-deep-in-Mariana-Trench-video

              110

          • #
            scaper...

            I would welcome a warming world…if it was indeed the truth.

            140

          • #
            Safetyguy66

            “just a question as a non-scientist, is missing heat to Climate scientists what car keys are to normal people?”

            No because your car keys must have once actually existed, you have seen them and they are still in existence but not in the place you thought they were.

            Its more like losing your lottery winnings when you never actually bought a ticket.

            191

            • #
              sophocles

              they are still in existence but not in the place you thought they were.

              … or hiding in full view. Mine have almost perfected that art. If it wasn’t for my spare set …
              :-)

              60

          • #
            Robert

            If we are averaging temperatures to create a “global” temperature then by adding a bunch of record breaking cold temperatures means that somewhere on this planet we have to have had some extreme heat to counter them and bring the average up. Be nice if they could provide the records for where that extreme heat occurred. We know where the extreme cold has been taking place.

            Consider that in the northern hemisphere in 2014 we had cooler weather well into spring, a very cold January 2014 to beginning of spring, and some extreme cold events in late fall 2014 up through year end then where did the heat to counter that data which was roughly 1/3 or so of the year come from? No record of it locally, nowhere in the state outside of urban areas had a temperature over 90F this past year, and the only urban areas that did crack 90 barely got past it for only 1 or 2 days of the 365.

            Now if the year prior had more hotter days how can the year that followed be hotter? The alarmist logic and data fiddling that makes that happen, not to mention the fact that they actually believe it, is pretty bizarre.

            20

        • #
          James Bradley

          Tdef,

          Sorry, it’s much worse, ABC banner on the news this arvo – BOM states 2014 was Australia’s third warmest year on record.

          We are not trying folks, we need to get it back to the hottest…

          171

          • #
            TdeF

            Yes, there is only so much you can do with blatant omission and absurd homogenization to keep the temperature up. Everyone should be grateful it has not gone down further!

            121

          • #
            me@home

            James, is this the same BOM that pretends to forecast temperatures for the year 2100 in one or two decimal places and supplies daily and weekly forecasts to the TV news services? A couple of days ago at about 6.05 pm one channel told us that Melbourne could expect a temperature of 30c at midnight that evening. By 6.30 that had changed to 23c without any explanation.

            50

      • #
        Richard

        He could even calculate the 50% rise.

        Regarding the rise, here is a pertinent quote from Jaworowski taken from his paper ‘Ice Core Data Show No CO2 Increase’:

        “The IPCC estimated that the temperature of the surface waters increased between 1910 and 1988 by about 0.6°C. A similar increase was observed in the surface air temperature in this period. Increasing the average temperature of the surface of the oceanic waters (15°C) by 0.6°C, would decrease the solubility of CO2 in these waters (0.1970 g CO2 per 100 g) by about 2 percent. The CO2 flux from the ocean to the atmosphere should be increased by the same factor; that is, by about 1.9 GtC/year. This is similar to the observed average increase of atmospheric CO2 in the years 1958 to 1968, of 0.73ppmv/year, which corresponds to 1.6 GtC/year. The measured annual atmospheric CO2 increases were higher in the next two decades (2.5 GtC/year and 3.4 GtC/year), which indicates that changes in CO2 solubility in oceanic water were responsible only for a part of observed CO2 increases”.

        To that could be added volcanic activity, increased decay from biomass, increased methanobacterial activity, changes in oceanic eutrophication, temperature changes in rivers, and even underwater vents. The possible drivers of atmospheric CO2 are innumerable and climate scientists have hardly begun to explore the tip of this vast iceberg as yet. Of course human CO2 should be added to the above causes. We must have increased the CO2 by some amount. But the IPCC have claimed that humans are responsible for the entire 120ppmv increase CO2 since 1850, despite the fact we know ocean temperatures have increased. How can humans be responsible for the whole increase if the oceans contain 50 times the concentration of CO2 as the atmosphere and the solubility of CO2 decreases with temperature? Does Henry’s law suddenly not apply to the oceans? Surely some of the increase, as Jaworowski points out above, must be from ocean outgassing from the temperature increase in accordance with basic physical law. And when you do the calculation, as Jaworowski explains above, it turns out that this ocean outgassing of CO2 is potentially very significant.

        80

        • #
          The Backslider

          Thank you Richard, this is exactly what I was looking for the other day, some numbers on ocean outgassing.

          40

      • #

        TdeF, There are 3 possibilities concerning Will Steffen a) he is technically ignorant and naive political operator b) he is a technically clever lying political operator or c) he is technically ignorant but a clever political operator. I go for the last one for two reasons 1/ he is mentioned in the early (time frame) climategate correspondence with Phil Jones as trying to arrange meetings (it seems he was not too successful and headed to the ANU to stir up politics here in a small fish bowl) and 2/ I sent him an article, by an well respected European Dr Ingineur, which by his reply he did not understand.
        I would like to see more people point out that no so-called climate scientist such as Steffen has any understanding of the engineering sciences of thermodynamics and heat & mass transfer. Dr Gavin Schmidt admitted (on another blog) he knew (knows) nothing about the Schmidt number. Going by Steffen’s lack of understanding of evaporation & condensation it is likely he has never heard of the Stefan-Maxwell equations (James Clerk Maxwell is one of the mathematical engineering geniuses -he developed dimensional analysis amongst many other engineering tools see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Clerk_Maxwell)

        50

  • #
    MacSual

    Don’t hold your breath waiting,the same questions could be asked why the Coalition govt hasn’t forced the ABC to follow its charter,they are politicians and it would suit their purpose to keep the status quo re-CAGW for future tax rises,policy changes,bogeyman to scare the electorate,smoojing up to banks UN etc,as for the ABC,a govt run media empire that is biased is perfect for a future govt to use,it shows that it is open to corruption and govt influence whereas an unbiased ABC would be a very difficult kettle of fish for any govt to reign in.

    181

    • #
      Glen Michel

      Yeah, well I get all thei weather/climate knowledge from the ABCs Graeme Creed;the go.-to man on all things meteorological!!You know if it’s from our ABC it must be true!

      00

  • #
  • #
    Michael Whittemore

    “What working group would ever produce a report saying that reducing emissions was a waste of money? These would become the paid lobbyists to propagandize the issue.” Good luck trying to explain your lack of morals.

    259

    • #
      Winston

      Michael,

      I have more morals in my little finger than you are ever likely to possess.

      As for Jo- she is, even if alarmists are eventually vindicated, merely in the unenviable position of having to hold people making very big claims (with very large ramifications if they are in error) to some sort account, so that wild speculation and dodgy data is not mistaken for fact.

      OTOH, Alarmists to a man are completely immoral- no lie is too big to tell, no data is beyond altering for personal gain in whatever crusade they feel vindicated to pursue, no abuse is beneath them, no one’s job security is beyond threat, no PhD is beyond withholding if inconvenient questions are asked. Such bullies and cowards hiding within the cloak of consensus, and swimming in a foetid pond of moral equivalence.

      That you stand there bald faced making such baseless assertions against Jo makes you, sir, beneath contempt.

      562

    • #
      the Griss

      Hey, MW, Is your real name “Peter Gleick” ?

      He is the leader of morality and ethics in the AGW brigade. !

      261

    • #
      Olaf Koenders

      Michael, I think Jo has proven vastly more over the years than you have over your single snarky comment. If you’d like to battle the high moral ground with her, I suggest you fully understand the actual scientific position by reading all her previous posts, before submitting an apology.

      The only thing your worthless comment proved was your hit-and-run tactic endorsed by Skeptical Science because you have no morals, let alone any facts in the debate. Grow up please.

      301

    • #
      Bryl

      I suggest you purchase yourself a copy of Alex Epstein’s book ‘The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels’. Read that then try telling us you are on the side of morality.

      250

      • #
        Olaf Koenders

        Agreed Bryl. When the green-left can’t win on facts, they get personal. Notably Michael made no factual statement period.

        220

    • #
      llew Jones

      Poor Michael he no doubt has bought the warmist’s propaganda lie about CO2.

      For the obviously deluded Michael CO2 is a vital to all organic life gas. It should be apparent to the most gullible by now that the extra thirty five to forty parts per million of this vital to life gas added to the Earth’s atmosphere over the last 18 years has had no significant effect on the Earth’s global temperature in that period.

      It is becoming obvious to all but the most credulous warmist that not only is the modeling junk but the underlying “settled science” is very much in need of a radical rethink if not scuttling.

      But there is more. The warmist scientists have only half the story as apparently they haven’t noticed that that extra CO2 in the atmosphere is a very likely reason that various food crops in traditional growing locations keep breaking volume records.

      One can remain dumb, like Michael, and imagine CO2 is a pollutant because it is supposed to overheat the planet or they can shake off their ignorance of other aspects of science, like photosynthesis, and begin to see the positive influence the extra atmospheric CO2 is apparently having on the Earth’s plant abundance.

      222

    • #
      bobl

      This is opposed to those that would send us back to the cold climate of 1850, would want CO2 to be reduced by 1/4 back to 300PPM resulting in a 30% reduction in agricultural yields, who are OK with grannies and babies freezing to death because they can’t afford to run heating systems they own, who want to burn food (Sugar, Corn) as ethanol for fuel instead of feeding the poor, who think that building windmills and solar panels in South Australia is a better way to manage cyclone deaths than building cyclone shelters in the tropics. Those who also believe its OK to spend trillions on a 0.000024 degree reduction in temperature while Heart Disease, Cancer, Malaria, Ebola and even Polio still ravage the planet, who think its OK to spend billions on climate while black babies are dying in Africa from hunger and simple water borne diseases, who want to restrict the poorest countries from having the same safe clean coal power that we use to raise our countries from abject poverty toward a way of life even YOU take for granted.

      Yup, Climate alarmists are soooooo moral!

      Good luck with your moral superiority there Michael.

      231

      • #
        Winston

        You want to know what’s funny bobl,

        When Michael reads your list, he will mull over it momentarily, albeit reluctantly and unconsciously concede in the back of his mind that such considerations are not unreasonable concerns, and then go right on believing that he and his fellow travellers have the moral high ground, that he is so much more moral than we immoral naysayers who point out these pesky dilemmas to him.

        The mere fact that he cannot show us how an ETS or a carbon tax can control the weather, that he cannot show any data to show that extreme weather events are any more common now than at any time in the past, that he can’t really show how wind and solar can possibly supply more than a tiny fragment of base load power in any practical way without compromising the function of society at great pain to the populace for little emissions benefit if any, to name but a few, is irrelevant to him.

        It is the idea, or perhaps just the ideology that is all, and to hell with the rest of humanity. Let ‘em eat cake!

        130

        • #
          Radical Rodent

          …When Michael reads your list…

          I suspect that is more hope than reality. I get the suspicion that most trolls of this nature just pop in, post their comment, and run.

          100

    • #
      Safetyguy66

      In case you missed it Michael we are talking about ethics not fungus.

      80

      • #
        the Griss

        “ethics not fungus”

        I suspect that Michael knows very little about either….

        Thus is the Gleike tutorage !!

        71

    • #
      Gary in Erko

      “Good luck trying to explain your lack of morals.”
      This is the cause of polarisation over climate & environmental issues. It’s technical not moral issues. Calling it a moral issue has turned a few problems into unresolvable disputes about “good” and “evil”. The environmental lobby and its puppy-dog followers have dug the hole we’ve fallen into.

      90

    • #
      TdeF

      Oh the morality! Is that really the moral high ground? H2O, water is as much a byproduct of combustion as CO2 but there is no talk of water as pollution? As a tiny invisible gas, CO2 does not form clouds and block the sun, wreak havoc, drown and destroy but carbon dioxide is still ‘pollution’ even if you are, apart from water, 83% carbon yourself. That is why you burn so brightly. The CO2 cycle is life itself and all life on earth comes from CO2. It is not dust to dust but carbon to carbon dioxide and perhaps methane. If man was made in God’s image, perhaps God is made from carbon too? Who would curse God’s work as pollution?

      131

    • #
      Tim

      “What working group would ever produce a report saying that reducing emissions was a waste of money?

      Exactly what ‘emissions’ are you referring to, Michael?
      Cow farts? Smog? Carbon monoxide?, hydrocarbons? nitric oxide? uvSmoke? Or maybe politicians’ hot air?

      60

    • #
      Ceetee

      Morals Michael!??. Oh the irony. I just hope that once you’ve been chewed up and spat out here you may just come away having learnt something. Leave morals out of it because you people failed that even before you attempted the science.

      21

  • #
    el gordo

    It would be beneficial if Graham Lloyd could write a story on global warming where CO2 was negligible. For example the late 1870s, when a strong El Nino and a very positive NAO conspired with an active sun.

    ‘Around the year 1878, a dramatic shift in the climate occurred coincident with and perhaps triggered by an impulsive spike in temperature. As a result, the climate moved from a cooling phase of about -.7 °C/century to a warming phase of about +.5°C/century, which has remained constant to the present. We see that this period of time was coincident with a large spike in solar activity.’

    J S Patterson

    120

  • #
    Safetyguy66

    “There is still no one paid to make sure the science is right, too make sure Australians are being taken advantage of”

    On the contrary there is an army of worthless bureaucrats and bleeding hearts making sure Australians are being taken advantage of.

    **Could be missing a “not” ?

    120

  • #
    Bevan

    We now have 56 years of CO2 data from the Mauna Loa Observatory and 36 years of satellite lower tropospheric temperature data but I have yet to see an analysis of this data which shows that the changes in CO2 concentration are causing the changes in temperature. Most likely because there is no such causal relationship and it would be an embarrassment to our bureaucrats to reveal this basic fact.

    A simple plot of temperature and CO2 concentration against time at a monthly or finer scale will reveal an obvious annual cyclic variation in both variables. Linear regression applied to incremental changes in both temperature and CO2 concentration does not produce a significant correlation but cross-correlation reveals that the CO2 concentration lags the temperature by a few months. This is the well known annual life cycle which produces a major part of our food supply.

    Temperature rises in Spring and on into Summer causing life forms to flourish with an accompanying take up of CO2, i.e. concentration decreases. Then in Autumn and Winter the temperature falls causing the demise of the life forms and a corresponding release of CO2 leading to an increase in concentration. This is the complete reverse of the proposition by the IPCC that increased CO2 concentration causes temperature to rise. Here the annual rise and fall of the temperature causes a fall and then a rise in the CO2 concentration.

    Take away the season variations and one is left with a simple slope for CO2 which slope gradually increases with time. The current rate of increase of CO2 concentration is roughly FOUR times the rate when measurement began yet the temperature has remained stable for the past 18 years. This fact does not get a mention by either CSIRO or BOM..

    Linear regression applied to the average annual temperature vs the annual increment in CO2 concentration gives a correlation coefficient of 0.73 with negligible probability that the coefficient is zero. Clearly temperature drives the CO2 concentration. If there is any so-called “greenhouse effect” it is too small to register in the current data.

    162

  • #
    gai

    In 1988, way back before the data was in, the CSIRO was already push-pumping the public awareness campaign against carbon dioxide….

    …the CSIRO and the Commission for the Future were at the forefront of international research and public awareness campaigns on reducing CO2 emissions by 20 per cent to 2005, as decided at the Toronto conference in 1988…

    …..

    HMMMmmm and in 1988 in the USA?

    We have a key player

    Wirth served as a U.S. Senator from Colorado until 1993, when he left the Senate to serve under President Clinton in the State Department. He is now president of the United Nations Foundation.

    Ted Turner owner of CNN, founded the United Nations Foundation. He is the guy who said:
    “A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.”

    Back to Tim Wirth who gave this interview to PBS (The US ABC)

    WIRTH: I think a number of things happened in the late 1980s. First of all, there were the [NASA scientist Jim] Hansen hearings [in 1988]. … We had introduced a major piece of legislation. Amazingly enough, it was an 18-part climate change bill; it had population in it, conservation, and it had nuclear in it. It had everything that we could think of that was related to climate change. … And so we had this set of hearings, and Jim Hansen was the star witness….

    Believe it or not, we called the Weather Bureau and found out what historically was the hottest day of the summer. Well, it was June 6 or June 9 or whatever it was, so we scheduled the hearing that day, and bingo: It was the hottest day on record in Washington, or close to it. It was stiflingly hot that summer. [At] the same time you had this drought all across the country, so the linkage between the Hansen hearing and the drought became very intense….

    What we did it was went in the night before and opened all the windows, I will admit, right? So that the air conditioning wasn�t working inside the room and so when the, when the hearing occurred there was not only bliss, which is television cameras in double figures, but it was really hot.

    So Hansen’s giving this testimony, you’ve got these television cameras back there heating up the room, and the air conditioning in the room didn’t appear to work. So it was sort of a perfect collection of events that happened that day, with the wonderful Jim Hansen, who was wiping his brow at the witness table and giving this remarkable testimony. …
    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/hotpolitics/interviews/wirth.html

    130

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      … PBS (The US ABC)
      Correction: PBS (The US ABC, but without the strong stench of bias).

      50

      • #
        Mark D.

        You’ve apparently never watched Moyers and company. Definitely not odorless.

        PBS is plenty stinky with bias. I still watch it mind you, I have to keep my blood pressure up.

        90

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        I can remember a couple of good PBS documentaries, including the one that said we were moving into a new Ice Age. That one may just have been years ahead of its time.

        50

        • #
          sophocles

          Patience, Rereke, the next glaciation in the current Ice Age will come. We don’t know just when … :-)

          50

    • #
      Ted O'Brien.

      I didn’t notice in 1988, but what I did notice was that in December 1986 the Hawke government changed the management of the CSIRO, putting their “social scientist” mates in charge of the real scientists.

      10

      • #
        Ted O'Brien.

        The “Cows Australia’s biggest source of greenhouse gases” headline lie, citing the CSIRO, may have turned up in 1988. It might have been a bit later, but not much.

        Note that the purpose of this headline was to convince the wider electorate that the farmers are villains in society, plunderers of “the environment”.

        This to corrupt democracy to break down the small business capitalist system under which Australian agriculture operated. During the 1970s the ACTU, with Hawke as leader, busted small and a lot of medium sized business out of the manufacturing sector. Agriculture was then the last sector of the Australian economy still dominated by small business capitalism.

        00

  • #
    ROM

    gai # 8

    Ted Turner quote;

    A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.

    My usual reaction to that is;

    OK! Show us by example. You lead the way by setting a personal example on reducing the population.
    I’m sure you will be applauded for your self sacrifice in support of your beliefs

    140

    • #
      Safetyguy66

      Its the only way it can work ROM. If you are not prepared to start at home, then you have no place commenting on population. Well said!!

      80

    • #
      Winston

      Quote by Ted Turner, billionaire, founder of CNN and major UN donor, and large CO2 producer: 
“There are too many people, that’s why we have global warming. We have global warming because too many people are using too much stuff.”

      Quote by James Lovelock, known as founder of ‘Gaia’ concept:
 “The big threat to the planet is people: there are too many, doing too well economically and burning too much oil.”

      Quote by Al Gore, former U.S. vice president:
“Third world nations are producing too many children too fast…it is time to ignore the controversy over family planning and cut out-of-control population growth…”

      Quote by David Foreman, co-founder of Earth First!:
 “We advocate biodiversity for biodiversity’s sake. It may take our extinction to set things straight.”

      Quote by Eric Pianka, professor at University of Texas: “Good terrorists would be taking [Ebola Roaston and Ebola Zaire] so that they had microbes they could let loose on the Earth that would kill 90 percent of people.”

      Quote by Maurice King, well known UK professor: “Global Sustainability requires the deliberate quest of poverty, reduced resource consumption and set levels of mortality control.”

      Quote by Jacques Cousteau, celebrity French scientist:
 “In order to stabilize world population, we must eliminate 350,000 per day.”

      Charmers one and all. A common theme emerges in these and various similar quotations from the alarmist acolytes, namely that there are too many people struggling for existence on our planet, that “resources” are finite and fragile and it is somehow offensive to utilise them rather than leave them untouched by human hand in their “pristine natural state”, and that this means that passive neglect, or even active culling of “undesirables” or less worthy beings than themselves is somehow justified, or at least justifiable.

      Of course, as ROM suggests, not one of these social, business, academic or political leaders spruiking this Malthusian doctrine opts themselves to ease their burden of humanity upon the planet, nor I’m sure do they volunteer their family or loved ones for the ultimate sacrifice to Gaia. Rather, they intend for those nameless and faceless creatures in far-flung lands, or those in perceived lower socio-economic classes than themselves, who must therefore ultimately sacrifice their aspirations, their livelihoods and their lives on the altar of Nature for the sake of the “greater good”.

      Meanwhile, many of these very same people display a lifestyle unfettered by such concerns, with “carbon footprints” of often gargantuan proportions, as befits people of such nobility and importance as themselves, no doubt. As Miranda, in William Shakespeare’s ‘The Tempest’ prophetically opined-

      “O brave new world
      That has such people in’t!”.

      171

      • #
        john karajas

        These charmers are potential precursors to monsters similar to Joseph Stalin and Pol Pot.

        80

        • #
          TdeF

          And Mao Tse Tung. Collectively at least 100 million people. Odd that they are all communists, like our Green politicians.

          90

        • #
          gai

          DEMOCIDE – DEATH BY GOVERNMENT By R.J. Rummel

          128,168,000 VICTIMS: THE DEKA-MEGAMURDERERS

          4. 61,911,000 Murdered: The Soviet Gulag State
          5. 35,236,000 Murdered: The Communist Chinese Ant Hill
          6. 20,946,000 Murdered: The Nazi Genocide State
          7. 10,214,000 Murdered: The Depraved Nationalist Regime

          19,178,000 VICTIMS: THE LESSER MEGA-MURDERERS
          8. 5,964,000 Murdered: Japan’s Savage Military
          9. 2,035,000 Murdered: The Khmer Rouge Hell State
          10. 1,883,000 Murdered: Turkey’s Genocidal Purges
          11. 1,670,000 Murdered: The Vietnamese War State
          12. 1,585,000 Murdered: Poland’s Ethnic Cleansing
          13. 1,503,000 Murdered: The Pakistani Cutthroat State
          14. 1,072,000 Murdered: Tito’s Slaughterhouse

          4,145,000 VICTIMS: SUSPECTED MEGAMURDERERS
          15. 1,663,000 Murdered? Orwellian North Korea
          16. 1,417,000 Murdered? Barbarous Mexico
          17. 1,066,000 Murdered? Feudal Russia

          IMPORTANT NOTE: Among all the democide estimates appearing in this book, some have been revised upward. I have changed that for Mao’s famine, 1958-1962, from zero to 38,000,000. And thus I have had to change the overall democide for the PRC (1928-1987) from 38,702,000 to 76,702,000…..

          Thus, the new world total: old total 1900-1999 = 174,000,000. New World total = 174,000,000 + 38,000,000 (new for China) + 50,000,000 (new for Colonies) = 262,000,000.

          Just to give perspective on this incredible murder by government, if all these bodies were laid head to toe, with the average height being 5′, then they would circle the earth ten times. Also, this democide murdered 6 times more people than died in combat in all the foreign and internal wars of the century….

          After eight-years and almost daily reading and recording of men, women, and children by the tens of millions being tortured or beaten to death, hung, shot, and buried alive, burned or starved to death, stabbed or chopped into pieces, and murdered in all the other ways creative and imaginative human beings can devise, I have never been so happy to conclude a project. I have not found it easy to read time and time again about the horrors innocent people have been forced to suffer. What has kept me at this was the belief, as preliminary research seemed to suggest, that there was a positive solution to all this killing and a clear course of political action and policy to end it. And the results verify this. The problem is Power. The solution is democracy. The course of action is to foster freedom.

          This needs repeating:

          The problem is Power. The solution is democracy. The course of action is to foster freedom.

          A Major thank you to Dr. Rummel and all the rest like Jo and David who strive to rid us of the chains of tyranny that are planned.

          For any who have not read Dr Evans excellent article Climate — The Politics

          Dr Evans calls them the regulating class.

          Angelo M. Codevilla calls them America’s Ruling Class

          ……
          ……

          It doesn’t matter what name you call the Elite, what matters is that they have plans for us that are good for them and detrimental to the rest of us.

          They learned their lessons during the French and American Revolutions so now they are trying to get their would be serfs to ‘buy-in’ to serfdom and they have found control of the media and control of academia are very effective tools for brainwashing the young and the gullible.

          First we had ‘feminism’ focusing on women’s role in the workforce and not the joys of the home. Now we have infants placed in daycare and the government has the additional wealth generated that it can suck up to buy votes with handouts. (Google feminism Rockefeller)

          The next step was to gain control of early childhood training.
          In the USA they staged child abuse scares at daycares, such as the Fells Acres Day-care Ritual-abuse case and the “Little Rascals” ritual abuse case in Edenton, NC to push through regulating daycares. Later analysis showed the memories of abuse were accidentally implanted by sincere Edenton therapists. The charges were dropped. The people convicted in Massachusetts were not so lucky and DA Scott Harshbarger tried to ride his fame from the case to the governor’s seat while his victims continued to rot in jail. link

          Once the government gained control of daycares it allows the brainwashing to start at a very young age. In Scotland they have gone a step further. Every Child in Scotland to Be Supervised by State-Appointed Busybody

          For those students who show themselves to be ‘less than compliant’ there is always brain altering drugs.

          …although not published, data indicating that from the early to mid-1990s the rate of ADHD treatment (i.e., school-administered Ritalin) among white boys in Baltimore County elementary schools was over 15%…. Among elementary students, 17% of all students and 33% of white boys had been diagnosed with ADHD and the vast majority had been medicated for this condition at some time during the 1997-98 school year.

          Up to 33% of white boys in the USA, some as young as 7, are being placed on drugs that alter their minds and parents who resist find themselves up on charges of child abuse.

          That is really really scary when you look at the whole.

          160

          • #
            KinkyKeith

            Great post

            KK

            60

          • #
            Rereke Whakaaro

            Yes, it is sobering reading.

            Helen Clarke, formally New Zealand’s Labour prime Minister, and now responsible for administering aid via the UN, used to patronisingly refer (and probably still does) to the less privileged 90% of the overall population as “the little people”, and she was not referring to leprechauns.

            As soon as politicians make any distinction between “them” and “us”, and thereby lower the humanity of the “them”, they have taken the first step down a road to genocide. Each of the examples you mention, started with that simple distinction, and that first innocuous step.

            The really frightening thing, is that the process has now become institutionally globalised through, and because of, the UN.

            130

          • #
            TdeF

            The Mao Tse Tung numbers are indeed moving upwards, depending on whose estimate you read. The US, Japan, Russia all have estimates which vary from 50 million to 80 million. The difference alone dwarfs all other mass murders and it was not during a time of international or civil war.

            60

          • #
            Manfred

            Thank you Gai. Your post depicts the extravagances of the Ministry-Of-We-Know-Best in full force. There seems little to indicate that such depravity will not occur again, or isn’t occurring presently.

            It’s interesting to reflect on ‘control’ and the insidious mechanisms employed by governance to implement their particular views. The demise of a critical MSM characterised on a continuum from deliberate progressive support to low intellectual wattage has made it easier for those that wish to impose, to do so.

            Take at look at the euphemistically described “six principles” of “responsible investing” promoted by UNEP with the support of the European Commission:

            Principle 1: We will incorporate ESG issues into investment analysis and decision-making processes.
            Principle 2: We will be active owners and incorporate ESG issues into our ownership policies and practices.
            Principle 3: We will seek appropriate disclosure on ESG issues by the entities in which we invest.
            Principle 4: We will promote acceptance and implementation of the Principles within the investment industry.
            Principle 5: We will work together to enhance our effectiveness in implementing the Principles.
            Principle 6: We will each report on our activities and progress towards implementing the Principles.

            Hardly principles, merely directives. It seems entirely unclear what “responsible investment” actually is though…wait…with a little digging one identifies the following:

            Thematic investment involves selecting assets on the basis of investment themes such as climate change or demographic change.

            So we’re back to the UN raison d’etre, climate and population.

            I think we already know where the proposed “solutions” lie don’t we?

            30

  • #
    el gordo

    ‘In 1988, way back before the data was in, the CSIRO was already push-pumping the public awareness campaign against carbon dioxide.’

    The McKinsey company looked into the financials of the CSIRO in 1986 and reckoned pure science was alright, but ‘public advocacy’ was needed. That is, activism in what ever the political correct cause is at the time.

    ‘The need for scientists to prove to their multiple managers that they have indeed had an impact – that they have influenced both government and the people – ensures that an enormous effort is put into public declamation of the worth of their research.’

    Fin Review

    100

  • #
    ROM

    Jo’s headline post has this line of comment.

    Don’t wait for the science…

    A few minute ago I was poking around in the plethora of links on the excellent Retraction Watch site and I came across this interview with Randy Schekman, the cell biologist and science publication editor who shared the 2013 “Nobel prize for Medicine”.

    Randy Schekman doesn’t hold back on his views on science publications and the role they play or don’t play today. .
    As well he has some definite opinions on where science publishing is heading.

    Schekman gives the impression that he is of the opinion that an internal revolution within science might already being getting under way amongst the new young science brigade.

    If Randy Schekman is right, then climate science or what supposedly passes as some sort of science of the climate is becoming a Do-Do headed for a slow extinction as it finds itself locked in to the meme of a modelled future catastrophe to come but which never does. And finds itself inherently incapable of escaping from it’s own self inflicted and badly corrupted past without totally destroying it’s own credibility along with the reputations and credibility of all it’s scientific, political and green backers and promoters.

    If Schekman is right the scientific world has already started moving on from the climate science generation leaving the climate science dross behind to what ever sad fate it is destined to suffer.
    It won’t be pleasant.

    192

    • #

      The whole combined group of ClimAstrologists have clearly and repeatedly demonstrated that they are incompetent with regard to any understanding of the workings of this Earth’s atmosphere. They have but the Playstation-64 version of their own fantasy. Unless “science” can skilfully flush this mess, there is no “science”!

      42

  • #
    Leigh

    I’m arguing with my kids because of these barstards and the false information that was fed to them in school.
    Both adults now that refuse to believe they were conned.
    I don’t just want them out of my hip pocket.
    I want them made accountable for what they’ve done in the name of “science”.
    And the link?
    Maybe a good old fashion book burning might appease these lunatics that promote global warming.
    http://www.bordermail.com.au/story/2798680/taxpayers-fund-abbott-mps-climate-change-denialism/?cs=12

    91

    • #
      scaper...

      Scratching my head why George bought a copy of Taxing Air. Must have been a gift as all MPs received a copy of Bob’s book from the IPA.

      Don’t see how my friend, Bert’s purchases relates to so called “denialism”. Unless Dr Seuss is a subliminal propaganda tool created by big oil to brainwash the young.

      80

      • #
        scaper...

        The Lorax had shades of deep green in my opinion. Bet Bert did not gift that one to the kiddies.

        30

    • #
      Safetyguy66

      Wow $100 that’s almost .00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% of the money wasted by the Green/Labour failed attempt to change the weather using cash.

      100

  • #
    el gordo

    With the BoM and CSIRO joined at the hip, we are getting this from the Guardian.

    ‘Dr Karl Braganza, manager of the BoM’s climate monitoring section, said the warming trend, fuelled by the release of greenhouse gases from human activity, is “very clear.”

    “We’re seeing reoccurring heatwaves, long durations of heat but very little cold weather,” he told Guardian Australia. “We are getting mild conditions throughout the year – last spring was the hottest on record.’

    How can we counter propaganda? Let’s take what they say as true (ignoring the adjustments) and search for natural causes. Clearly if we agree that CO2 is not a driver, then we’ll have to assume other factors are at work.

    With ENSO neutral, my money is on the wayward jet stream as the main driver on this occasion.

    81

  • #
    Mervyn

    The government does not trust annual financial reports from directors of public listed corporations, which is why the law makes it compulsory for such annual financial reports to be audited by independent external auditors.

    But when it comes to climate data put out by public servants – which can have severe economic policy consequences like Gillard’s carbon tax – that’s ok … even though such data is not first independently verified?

    Incredible!

    121

    • #
      gai

      What I find truly incredible is that politicians from several countries decided BEFORE the science was ‘in’ to torpedo the economies of their own countries!

      Look at Senator Tim Wirth, who I quoted above. He went so far as to play nasty dirty tricks on his fellow senators to influence them.

      I found what he had to say about Al Gore quite unbelievable.

      …Well, I think the president depended upon Al Gore to give him the information on this, make recommendations to him, and nobody knew this issue better than Gore did. Gore was the greatest scholar I’ve ever seen on the subject. He was remarkable. I remember once flying over the Amazon with Al Gore — this is 1988 or 1989 — and he had a seminar on that airplane in which he was giving us a detailed description of how air currents and humidity coming off of the rain forest and the climate issues coming in from the Pacific influenced what was going on in the Sahara. Everybody was sitting there with their mouths open in extraordinary wonder at how much this guy knew. …
      http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/hotpolitics/interviews/wirth.html

      And then there is what Al Gore said to Dr Happer.

      “I had the privilege of being fired by Al Gore, since I refused to go along with his alarmism. I did not need the job that badly,” Happer said this week. Happer is a Professor at the Department of Physics at Princeton University and former Director of Energy Research at the Department of Energy from 1990 to 1993, has published over 200 scientific papers, and is a fellow of the American Physical Society, The American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the National Academy of Sciences….

      Happer, who served as the Director of Energy Research at the Department of Energy in 1993, says he was fired by Gore in 1993 for not going along with Gore’s scientific views on ozone and climate issues. “I was told that science was not going to intrude on policy,” Happer explained in 1993.

      “I have spent a long research career studying physics that is closely related to the greenhouse effect, for example, absorption and emission of visible and infrared radiation, and fluid flow,” Happer said this week. “Fears about man-made global warming are unwarranted and are not based on good science. The earth’s climate is changing now, as it always has. There is no evidence that the changes differ in any qualitative way from those of the past,” he added…
      http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=5EF55AA3-802A-23AD-4CE4-89C4F49995D2

      So Senator Wirth rather believe Al Gore and some guy who studied Venus and played with models rather than the Director of Energy Research at the Department of Energy.

      181

      • #
        diogenese2

        Gai, I shared your incredulity in respect of politicians “torpedoing their own economies” but have recently come to realise that a paradigm change in politics has occurred. I have spent 35 years in (lobbying) contact with politicians (in the UK) up to senior ministerial level and learned that they know little or nothing about the matters that are their specific responsibility (let alone anything else!). In the past (my past – the 60′s & 70′s) they were driven by ideology (and – of course – self interest) which provided a reference point, i.e socialism V capitalism.
        In those days the MSM dominated public perceptions of what “the issues” were and political debate was there constrained (and controlled). All that has gone. Despite all these fears of totalitarian control the truth is, they can no longer control anything in the modern world.
        With respect the actions you fear in your post 9.2.1.2, these pale in respect of the more direct methods as documented by R.J.Rummell. Even so the 262m murders, achieved with great exertion, are only 4% of that required by the Malthusian proselytes. They have no chance, though is obvious constraint escapes them.
        Our politicians now seek a “higher authority” to take the responsibility for the outcomes of the policies they enact.
        Hence obsequity to the European Union (in our case), the united nations and the embrace of CAGW as providing the imperative to act, even though the action (certainly in energy policy) is palpably insane.
        Reality is now catching up fast and I’m afraid even Pope Francis throwing his “higher authority” into the pot will not raise the stakes enough to seduce the developing world, especially the Chinese and Indians, into mass suicide.
        All the “warmest year ever” crap is the last hurrah of a lost cause. They may think its the Alamo – but its Custer’s Last stand.

        70

      • #
        TdeF

        Excellent links! The reports of the 650 dissenting scientists are remarkable reading. These are all significant Americans with qualifications which leave our Climate Commissioners looking very silly. There is also a sad logic in Dr. Happer’s comment that he did not need the job that badly. Is that it? Is that the motivation in a nutshell?

        00

  • #
    STJOHNOFGRAFTON

    Once upon a time the practitioners of Science could be relied upon to be honourable and Government organisations like CSIRO could be relied upon to espouse the Scientific Method in reporting the results of research. These days, the scientific establishment has been politicised and politically corrected to the point of moral corruption.

    As Jo’s latest article says: “There is still no one paid to make sure the science is right, too make sure Australians are being taken advantage of. When will conservative governments recognise that they can’t leave this vital area to unpaid volunteers without staff, funding, access to scientific libraries and full government data?”

    Another noble woman, Noretta Koertge, Professor Emeritus in History & Philosophy of Science, Indiana University in her paper entitled: ” Political Correctness in the Science Classroom (Version 1)” has an apt line: “to paraphrase Jefferson, the price of scientific integrity is eternal vigilance”.

    The vigilance of scientific integrity in this country is achieved ‘on the cheap’ by unpaid volunteers with with altruistic scientific ideals. I can’t imagine any political institution wanting to fund this vital scientific oversight service.

    121

  • #
    manalive

    The IPCC fifth report (AR5) summary states that:

    • Warming of the atmosphere and ocean system is unequivocal. Many of the associated impacts such as sea level change (among other metrics) have occurred since 1950 at rates unprecedented in the historical record.
    • There is a clear human influence on the climate
    • It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of observed warming since 1950, with the level of confidence having increased since the fourth report …

    They are partly correct in that human CO2 emissions prior to WW2 were relatively insignificant (although the CO2 concentration had allegedly been rising since ~1880).
    The odd thing is that in 1988 when the climate hysteria got rolling in Australia and James Hansen made his bold predictions to Congress, there had been no statistically significant net warming since before the war (Hansen 1987).
    IMO these events stand out in the history of ‘dangerous human-caused global warming’: Hansen’s address to Congress, Santer’s interference with the wording of AR2, the super El Nino event in 1998 (which Hansen later reduced to maintain the appearance of a smooth upward trend) the prominence given to Mann’s graph in AR3 and Gore’s science fiction horror movie.

    91

  • #
    maurie

    I really wish somebody with actual qualifications would shout long & often, referring to the little issue of spontainious combustion & the dangerous results of just a 1% increase of the oxygen content in the atmpsphere! THe brainwashing of our greens that have people seriously foolishly believing the unneccessary bush fires are inevitable & the subsequent people & animals being cruelly burned to death are just something to be expected if people insist on living in rural areas. I expect the Greens more than likely consider arsonist so useful to their cause that they could be drawing from that enormous gift of money Gillard gave them to pay arsonist’s legal defence. Al Gore’s investment plans never had such unexpected assistance & his conning the fat controller on side is even nicer for him than the pretend liberal investment banker hiding in the liberal party.

    41

  • #
    handjive

    25 years of unscientific action against carbon(sic)

    The Challenge:

    is rapid transition of the economy in order to live within our environmental means,
    while preserving and enhancing our general wellbeing.

    Because in just 100 months’ time, if we are lucky, and based on a quite conservative estimate, we could reach a tipping point for the beginnings of runaway climate change.

    If that happens, the Earth’s climate will shift into another, more volatile state,
    with different ocean circulation, wind and rainfall patterns.

    Faced with circumstances that clearly threaten human civilisation, scientists …

    TheGuardian, Friday 1 August 2008; The final countdown, We have only 100 months to avoid disaster.

    Response:
    Finland introduced the world’s first carbon tax in 1990 (25 years of tax)
    SBSFactbox.com.au: carbon taxes around the world

    Solar (reneweconomy.com.au)
    Windfarms (dailymail.co.uk)
    ~ ~ ~
    Key Performance Indicators (KPI) for success
    - sea-level rise of up to 7 metres.
    - (IPCC) not crossing the critical threshold of the Earth’s average surface temperature rising by 2C above pre-industrial levels.
    - The disintegration of the Greenland ice sheet
    TheGuardian, Friday 1 August 2008; The final countdown, We have only 100 months to avoid disaster.
    . . .
    How many more years of this “experiment” are needed?

    **Note in that Guardian link, NO suggestion of the heat going into the oceans because of a pause in Doomsday Global Warming**
    (http://4hiroshimas.com)

    51

  • #
    pat

    5 Jan: Financial Times: Pilita Clark: Climate change groups split on fossil fuel divestment
    Norway’s huge $845bn oil fund appears to be moving towards a similar position. A panel set up to advise Norway’s finance ministry on whether to sell out of coal and oil companies counselled against such a move in December. It said active ownership of, and engagement with, fossil fuel companies on climate change was preferable.
    A similar argument has been made by the largest public pension fund in the US, the $299.4bn California Public Employees’ Retirement System, which also points out it has a fiduciary duty to meet its financial commitments to members.
    ***Harvard University has also repeatedly rejected student and faculty pressure to sell its fossil fuel holdings, a move its president, Drew Faust, has said would not be “warranted or wise”…
    But Bill McKibben, the US environmental activist and writer who co-founded the 350.org climate campaign group spearheading the divestment push, says engagement strategies only suited some companies…
    Mr McKibben’s campaign was inspired by research from a London-based think-tank, Carbon Tracker…
    But Carbon Tracker itself does not recommend a pure divestment strategy…
    (INSANITY)Among the measures some countries are proposing for a global climate deal due to be agreed next year is a plan that would lead to fossil fuels being phased out as early as 2050…
    The Church of England has about £100m invested in Shell and just over £50m in BP and plans to file shareholder resolutions asking both companies to take greater action to tackle climate change…
    http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/5ca02a4c-8792-11e4-bc7c-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3O1h4jqlh

    Harvard’s position above is amusing enough, but this Zerohedge article is pure comedy:

    5 Jan: Zerohedge: Tyler Durden: Obamacare Architects At Harvard Furious After Learning They Are Not Exempt From Obamacare
    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-01-05/obamacare-architects-harvard-furious-after-learning-they-are-not-exempt-obamacare

    41

  • #
    Ken Stewart

    Just saw on ABC news that 2014 Climate Statement claims Queensland has had “the worst drought in 80 years”. I nearly choked. They must think we are completely stupid. Not according to BOM rainfall data. I’ve been very quiet lately at kenskingdom but luckily I’ve been quietly looking at Queensland rainfall and will post ASAP.

    Ken

    181

  • #
    KinkyKeith

    The demonisation of Carbon Dioxide gas has been one of the greatest examples of human mind entrainment ever seen.

    Well done IPCC, Politicians, tame media and all warmers.

    While there is some truth in the fact that CO2 can absorb certain ground origin frequencies in the IR band and immediately transmit the absorbed energy to other gas molecules nearby there is no basis for the concept that human produced CO2 can cause global warming.

    It is a quantitative IMPOSSIBLITY ; the numbers don’t add up.

    End of story.

    On the other hand CO2 is absolutely essential in keeping us alive; without it we die.

    The following earlier posts set the scene but I must apologise.

    http://joannenova.com.au/2014/11/fact-checking-the-abc-the-big-lie-about-the-worlds-scientists/#comment-1610227

    There is mention of Cheyne-Stokes breathing and I think I was in error in using that term.

    What I saw was not Cheyne-Stokes breathing. Since writing I have looked at many descriptions of this pattern and may have been mislead by the vagueness of the first definition consulted.

    It is my belief that when people decide to go, they involuntarily engage in a breathing pattern that lowers CO2 in the bloodstream.

    http://joannenova.com.au/2014/11/fact-checking-the-abc-the-big-lie-about-the-worlds-scientists/#comment-1610091

    http://joannenova.com.au/2014/11/fact-checking-the-abc-the-big-lie-about-the-worlds-scientists/#comment-1610191

    CO2 keeps us alive.

    KK

    91

  • #
    Radical Rodent

    …too make sure Australians are being taken advantage of.

    I hope that is a typo, Miss Nova, unless you secretly hold a grudge against Australians, of course.

    30

  • #
    pat

    of course, if this really is the future, CO2 emissions would undoubtedly decrease substantially, but what would people be doing to pay their bills?

    10 Nov: ComputerWorld: Matthew Finnegan: Digital technology to eliminate a third of UK jobs
    Deloitte report claims lower paid jobs most threatened by automation in next two decades
    Computers and robots are set to replace more than a third of UK jobs in the next twenty years, a Deloitte report has claimed, causing a ‘major shift’ in the labour market…
    The research, carried out by Deloitte with Carl Benedikt Frey, of the Oxford Martin School, and Michael A Osborne, of the Department of Engineering Science, at the University of Oxford, shows that lower paid workers are the most at risk…
    At most risk are jobs in office and administrative support, sales and services, transport and construction.
    The least impact will be felt in education, engineering and science, legal services, arts and media, and the financial sector…
    http://www.computerworlduk.com/news/careers/3585201/digital-technology-to-eliminate-a-third-of-uk-jobs/

    heard BBC Business Reporter, Peter Day, doing a half-hour business program on the above subject recently. all very cheery. guy said all service industry jobs will be automated in the not-too-distant future. (NOTE: wikipedia says 79.7% of UK workers were in the services sector in 2011??). but it’s not all grim, he said. robots still need people to sweep up & load trucks (driverless ones, no doubt).

    i kid u not. this was part of the conversation, even tho i’m paraphrasing, & i’m furious that i failed to find it on bbc or anywhere online as audio or text.

    41

  • #
  • #
    pat

    throwing a tantrum…

    5 Jan: UK Independent: Tom Bawden: Climate change activists blame Government for ‘colossal failure’ to make global warming a national priority
    The Government has been accused of a “colossal failure” to educate the British public about the risks of global warming, after official data confirmed that 2014 was the hottest year in the UK since records began…
    National weather records began in 1910 – but the extremity of recent trends is confirmed by regional records dating back centuries. The 2014 temperature in Central England was the hottest since records there began in 1659, according to separate figures…
    Despite the unequivocal evidence of a changing climate, research indicates that many Britons are still unaware of the threat posed to the UK by extreme weather…
    “The lack of awareness of the UK public of how climate change is already affecting them represents a colossal failure by the Government and its agencies, including the Environment Agency and the Met Office, to communicate with the public about this issue,” said Bob Ward, policy director at the London School of Economics’ Grantham Institute.
    “In particular, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) has utterly failed to invest enough resources in communication about climate change even though it has lead responsibility for ensuring the UK becomes more resilient to its impacts.
    “Indeed, the Department was, until recently, headed by a Secretary of State who even denied the risks of climate change,” he added, in reference to former minister Owen Paterson, who was known for his climate scepticism…
    http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-activists-blame-government-for-not-making-global-warming-a-national-priority-9959081.html#

    41

    • #
      Mikky

      Yes, 2014 was a noticeably warm year in the UK, but not at all in a scary way, in fact the exact reverse, warmer than average winter and autumn, hardly had any need for heating, just as well since can’t afford to pay for electricity, due to the windmill subsidies and green taxes designed to prevent us from having warmer winters and autumns.

      50

  • #
    pat

    too funny…read it all:

    5 Jan: Environmental Defense Fund: Steve Schwartzman: Climate change denier named Brazil’s Science Minister
    Brazil’s President Dilma Rousseff has repeatedly claimed international leadership for Brazil on climate change in international forums…
    But days before the start of the new year, Rousseff appointed two ministers who cast doubt on Brazil’s leadership and bode ill for the atmosphere …
    Bad choice #1: Katia Abreu, Minister of Agriculture
    The new Minister of Agriculture Katia Abreu was the president of the National Confederation of Agriculture (the national association of large and middle-size landowners and ranchers). As senator, she led the Congress’ powerful anti-environmental, anti-indigenous “bancada ruralista”, or large landowners’, caucus and earned the title among environmentalists of “chainsaw queen.”…
    Bad choice #2: Aldo Rebelo, Minister of Science, Technology and Innovation
    The new Minister of Science, Technology and Innovation Aldo Rebelo is a long-time Communist Party of Brazil congressman and vocal anti-environmental advocate, and the principal author of the divisive and controversial Forest Code revision.
    Rebelo is also on the record rejecting climate science. Note his frankness in a July 2014 letter to his former colleague in the Congress and current policy director for the Brazilian NGO Instituto Socioambiental, Márcio Santilli, in response to Santilli’s critique of his proposed revision to the Forest Code:
    “The positivist scientism that you call natural science and contrast with my devotion to dialectical materialism is not magical enough to convert me to the article of faith that is the theory of global warming, which is incompatible with current knowledge.
    Science is not an oracle. In fact, there is no scientific proof of the projections of global warming, much less that it is occurring because of human action and not because of natural phenomena. It is a construct based on computer simulations”….ETC ETC
    http://blogs.edf.org/climatetalks/2015/01/05/climate-change-denier-named-brazils-science-minister/

    81

  • #
    Ruairi

    All those who condemn CO2,
    As pollutant,just haven’t a clue.
    This gas makes plants thrive,
    And keeps us alive.
    So,what Warmists hold true ,is askew.

    112

  • #
    Frank

    Graham Lloyd is one of the most irrelevant authorities to listen to , he knows sfa on science, shame on you Jo.

    220

    • #
      the Griss

      “he knows sfa on science”

      Yet you want people to listen to you, who knows nothing about anything, on a science blog. ??

      Shame on you, for not being able to support one single thing you have ever ranted on this blog. !!

      111

      • #
        the Griss

        A quick read.. he seems to most of his facts correct.

        I’m sure if you contacted him he would be able to provide references to these facts.

        Something you have NEVER been able to do. !

        71

    • #
      Ted O'Brien.

      There is no factual error in Graham Lloyd’s cited article of 1/1/15. Read it, Frank!

      30

  • #
    Frank

    Oscar,
    Then he should submit it to the real scientific community for review—–which he won’t because he knows it’ll get monstered, that’s why he has to stick to that illustrious scientific journal , The Aus.

    121

    • #
      PhilJourdan

      The one that will not hear or allow any paper that does not parrot their ignorance to be published? You are a funny guy.

      150

    • #
      Lord Jim

      Oscar,
      Then he should submit it to the real scientific community for review—–which he won’t because he knows it’ll get monstered, that’s why he has to stick to that illustrious scientific journal , The Aus.

      Of course Frankie gleefully ignores the fact that climate models have been ‘monstered’ by the empirical evidence – but why would Frankie and his co-religionists let a little fact get in the way of the CAGW fantasy…

      Moreover, I’m sure Frankie will endorse, his ‘real scientists’ “allow[ing] themselves to be used politically.“ After all Frankie’s ‘real scientists’ are pillars of light free (unlike everyone else) from groupthink and bias… they are almost… angelic.

      Now, repeat after me…
      2014 hottest year evah!!!
      2014 hottest year evah!!!
      2014 hottest year evah!!!
      Four legs good, two legs baad!!!
      Four legs good, two legs baad!!!
      Four legs good, two legs baad!!!

      160

      • #
        The Backslider

        2014 hottest year evah!!!

        Don’t be mean Lord Jim, 2014 was only “The third hottest year evah!!!”….. I’m sure that all the warmists are already dreadfully miserable.

        Guess what Frankie baby? Thermageddon just ain’t gonna happen. In ten years time you will be squarking whatever you think we must do to save us all from anthropogenic global cooling (I’m sure that you will all find a way to blame humanity).

        110

    • #
      Cookster

      Frank no informed person is concerned with peer review in the field of climate science because we know peer review in climate science is broken.

      120

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        This is the second time I have mentioned climate science, peer review, and lack of integrity in the same sentence.

        It didn’t make any sense the first time I tried it, either.

        90

    • #
      the Griss

      Climate science peer-review hasn’t helped you much has it.

      You STILL cannot find even one paper to support the basic assumption of the whole global warming farce.

      So much for peer-reviewed climate science. !! its a JOKE !!

      91

      • #
        Manfred

        A well used question of mine: ‘please highlight (arbitrarily) one to five key papers that serve to nail the clincher for AGW / CAGW ?’
        ….never fails to engender a tirade of insult.

        It always amazes me. At the risk of it not being the case, I have observed that any branch of science has its ‘eureka’ paper or short collection of papers to punctuate a new insight or ‘discovery’. I note the climastrology, not really a branch of science, more perhaps a malevolent dust-devil of progressive thinking, has a sustained and notable absence of any such ‘eureka’ articles, despite feverish endeavours to manufacture hockey schticks at every available turn, so much so, it is beyond deplorable, now just plain hilarious……well almost, if it didn’t cost so much that might be better spent on genuine human suffering, need and advancement!

        50

    • #
      Farnk

      Man, my alter ego is such a dcik…

      60

    • #
      Soused

      Frank,

      Don’t listen to anyone here.

      They tried to convince me that you weren’t even a climate scientist’s back-side, but don’t worry, I told them all that you were…

      60

  • #
    Cookster

    I am afraid anyone who thinks the war has been won against climate alarmism is sadly mistaken. It has been increasingly obvious that Australian media reports about “climate change” are on the rise again (example linked below).

    Far too much has been invested in money, power and careers for it to fade away without a big fight. With Paris 2015 around the corner its just like the lead up to Copenhagen all over again – lots of MSM stories about hottest ever temperatures, impending droughts, increasing storm activity etc etc etc.

    Of course it seems part of the game is to adjust land based temperatures to show a warming trend (like Australia’s Bureau Of Meteorology), or to cherry pick records that support the case for action (like ignoring the satellite records that don’t show records despite record CO2 emissions).

    As usual, even if they believe the IPCC, here in Australia with less than 1.4% of global emissions lots of people forget what we do in isolation is irrelevant unless China, India, USA et al actually make real – not promised = action.

    Thankfully we have people like Jo and David spreading the truth in a sea of disinformation.

    http://www.smh.com.au/comment/climate-changes-amid-the-blaming-game-20150106-12irt2.html

    60

    • #
      The Backslider

      what we do in isolation is irrelevant unless China, India, USA et al actually make real – not promised = action.

      You are quite wrong with this. Even if China, India, USA et al did do something it would have no detectable effect on climate.

      80

      • #
        Cookster

        You are quite wrong with this. Even if China, India, USA et al did do something it would have no detectable effect on climate

        I agree. Which is why I preceded that statement with …..

        even if they believe the IPCC

        :-)

        60

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        Yes, when you think about it, it is the height of arrogance to think that mankind could actually have any real and lasting effect on the climate. Especially since climate appears to be a self-correcting mechanism, that has been working fine for millennia without our help or hinderance.

        70

    • #
      el gordo

      Cubby is now the deputy editor of that rag and without fear of contradiction I say he’s a disgrace. Its easy to see the propaganda, early in the story he mentions a couple of degrees rise in temperatures and then by the end of the yarn he he mentions a few degrees.

      ‘The unfolding consequences of a few degrees of temperature change are the reason I think it’s time to move on from the “climate change debate”, as it’s been portrayed. I believe the public has a broad understanding of the issue and wants to have a mature conversation about what comes next – impacts, adaption and solutions.’

      We demand a mature conversation Ben Cubby … I have a broad understanding of the issue and can prove beyond reasonable doubt that CO2 does not cause global warming, whereas global cooling is almost certain to follow the plateau in temperatures, so let’s talk about adaptation.

      50

  • #
    the Griss

    A bit OT.

    Look at these graphs from WFT

    See if you can tell, just from the graphs, when James Hanson, (who was at least part scientist) resigned from GISS

    ..and Gavin Schmidt (who is all activist) took over (initially on a casual basis to be made director later).

    Quite funny that it is so easy to pick ! :-)

    31

  • #
    TdeF

    It may be significant that David Karoly is loudly criticizing the BOM for refusing to connect recent slightly warmer years with alleged climate change. The BOM may be reacting reasonably to recent quite justified criticism at a Senate level over homogenization. There is even a disclaimer that the differences between the years are actually smaller than the errors in the data, while Karoly and others are desperate for record (averages), even to 0.05 degrees. There has been a turning of the tide at the BOM.

    You would expect most BOM are honest professional scientists with apolitical and substantial university science training who would be very surprised by the activities of what may be very few people. To systematically adjust, even discard real data to create a false impression of warming and hide the decline could be the work of some for whom the ends justify the means. As we have seen in so many important bodies, this usually comes from the top where fame and fortune are more important than for your average scientist who expects neither.

    Now if only the BOM could incorporate the early records, as the British have done back to the 17th century.

    20

    • #
      The Backslider

      It may be significant that David Karoly is loudly criticizing the BOM for refusing to connect recent slightly warmer years with alleged climate change

      Do you have a reference for this?

      00

      • #
        TdeF

        Yes, page 3 of the Australian, Graham Lloyd. “Hot run rolls on as 2014 comes in third”

        “Since National records began”
        a. Impressive but this means only since 1910, after the devastating decade long Federation drought
        where 3,000 people died from the heat and they had Stevenson Boxes and earlier boxes and good records.

        “However, as British officials said it was too early to say whether the decade long “pause” in temperatures had ended”
        a. it is not a decade, it is 18 years, nearly double that.
        b. Too early to say? What? No one said average temperatures had gone down, which does not mean temperatures had gone up. That is what a “pause” is. They are playing with 0.05C in an average?

        “The bureau was criticized by Melbourne University Professor David Karoly for not linking Australia’s hotter-than-average temperatures to man made climate change?
        a. how can Australia do this alone? Isn’t this just Australia’s temperature at best?
        b. what Australian climate change exactly? Bushfires? Droughts? Flooding rains? Tsunamis?

        To quote Karoly, “they seem unwilling to say the warming trend across Australia since 1950 is very likely due to human influences on the climate from increasing greenhouse gases, even though this has been concluded in a number of scientific studies over the last decade”.
        a. In the 65 years since 1950, for the last 18 world temperatures have not changed at all.
        b. Australia does not have its own sovereign CO2 levels. Either Global Warming is global or it is not. Why should Australia have its own climate change from its own CO2?

        The Met Office aid it was “too early to say if the “pause” in global temperature rises had ended”. “uncertainties in the data are larger than the difference between the top ranked years”.
        a. So the temperature has not changed for years within the accuracy of the measurements
        b. the word pause implies that the next move is up, so the question is loaded, as in do you deny the pause?

        “It was also a record hot year in France, Germany and Belgium.”
        a. Great! What we have is now is localised Global Warming. Do we have localized Global Cooling too? How was Kazakstan’s average?

        Notable prejudicial phrases are ‘since records began’, ‘pause’, ‘decade’,'too early’, even ‘warmest’ and they are measuring an ‘average’, something which itself can change from year to year without any great implications. Is that the average maximum, the average mean, the average median, the daily average? Is there any weighting for area affected or if you have more measurement in one place, does that count more? How does that ‘averaging’ work?

        Subsequent years in any location are not identical and ten year cycles are well know in most countries. Averaged across a country, whatever that implies, makes it hard to draw conclusions when Hobart is averaged with Carnaveron or Port Augusta.

        However my point is the fact that Karoly would criticize the BOM is a significant stament reported top of the third page by Lloyd. That the BOM will not draw conclusions about alleged Climate Change, Global Warming and CO2 is also significant. They will not even give tacit assent by answering the loaded question about ‘the pause’. Also rainfall has gone up. Good. Climate Change.

        50

        • #
          The Backslider

          they seem unwilling to say the warming trend across Australia since 1950

          This is a blatant lie! The warming was between 1978 and 1998.

          10

          • #
            the Griss

            The real unadjusted data I have seen appears to indicate that the warmest period was the last decade of 1800′s and first decade of the 1900′s

            A step down around 1920, a spike around 1938, then a gradual cooling until around 1960-1965, which was the coolest period,

            …followed by warming back up to now, but still somewhat cooler than the late 1800′s.

            20

  • #
    TdeF

    Sorry. No deaths directly attributable to the Federation drought alone. I had read that figure and was shocked by it but believe in hindsight may be dramatic allocation. Sure there may have been a lot of deaths in that long hot period attributed to the heat, but it is doubtful that any were attributable to the drought any more than happens in long hot periods anywhere. I have read of deaths in Chicago in summer around 700 in some recent years attributable to the heat, but these are usually elderly people and a sign of poverty and lack of medical care. The same logic may have been used but the stock losses were massive, again as happens in long droughts in Australia.

    20

    • #
      pattoh

      http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/46050184

      HEAT WAVE OF 1896
      114 DEGREES AT BOURKE
      FOR PERIOD OF SIX WEEKS MAXIMUM OF 128 DEGREES
      In 1895 at Bourke there were 66 deaths from heat apoplexy over a period of six weeks, during which time the heat was never under 114 degrees shade heat- and, what was worse, never under 100 degrees at night (says the “Western Age’*). The maximum temperature recorded under true shade conditions was 128 degrees.
      Visualise the heat! Never under
      100 degrees for six weeks, day or
      night.
      Apoplexy-stricken persons fall down on the footpaths. Hansom cabs patrol- led the streets. They were laden with ice.’ When a subject fell over he was placed in the cab. Ice was packed around him and he was rushed to the hospital. At the hospital the victim
      of the heat was placed in a room full of ice. His pillow was an ice block, and ice was packed all round him, and nurses undressed him after that.,
      Hundreds were saved in this way. But outside of Bourke there was no such relief. When a man gets heat apoplexy he becomes. un-normal. He sheds his clothes at intervals until he is naked, all the while walking round in circles. That is why many of the victims of the 1896 heat wave in the Bourke district were found entangled
      in rabbit-proof fences. Or rather, what was discovered was their skele-
      tons.
      The women and children of Bourke in that year had an awful experience. Sleep was impossible. Families walk- ed the streets the whole night in negligible clothing. Many went into the Darling River and stayed there for hours up to their necks, but the water was luke warm. It gave no relief. Mr. Macdougall, manager of the Pera Bore Experimental Farm, was discovered dead in his bed. The thermometer on his wall at 10 o’clock at night disclosed that the tempera- ture was 130 degrees. Finally the Government of the day granted free railway passes to women and children to go to cooler climates.

      60

      • #
        TdeF

        Actually I have experienced these conditions on summer in Colorado for six weeks straight. 100F every day and 104F at night, a bit like Adelaide. This was a fairly normal summer for Colorado even at 6000 feet on the high flat plains. The vital difference was the humidity was 90%, so the airconditioners turned quickly to iceblocks on the inside and stopped working. In winter, the same location was -40C/-40F, so an 80C difference from summer to winter! Now that’s real climate change.

        The non survivable bits in the Federation Drought were the peaks at 128F/53C. However consider Baghdad reaches 56 on a summer’s day with an average summer maximum of 44C. For the early Australians, British people used to water and cool breezes, such temperatures are not survivable.

        However to read argument that a 0.05C increase in an average is life threatening is absurd.

        Also, instead of asking the BOM whether the ‘pause’ had ended, we should be asking if the temperatures had peaked?

        30

  • #
    gl of fnq

    If i remember correctly , one of the first tasks set for the Csiro by the newly elected Alp gov was to associate CO2 with climate change.That was the entire criteria to substantiate their reasoning behind the Ets come carbon tax . Since then there has been massive media coverage and the govt paid for Garnaut report to scare most the average joe’s into thinking sacrifices to the economy are better made now than later . This is govt using gov resources csiro,bom,abc to full advantage in Aust. Obviously it has happened on a larger scale with UN and EU and is now making headway in US. Meanwhile largest co2 emitter ,China will continue to ignore(good on them) the scaremongering and continue on their merry way improving living standards for their 100′s millions of citizens . Wealth and investment produce more wealth and investment as proven in western world and now china also .If only the money wasted on devaluing our economies had been invested else where perhaps in Africa ,they might be enjoying some prosperity by now.

    30