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

No Benny! Science is in a crisis, we need a review. If Greens cared about the planet, they’d demand one.

Benny Peiser lays out the situation in the UK and Europe in a long interview on GWPF. It’s interesting, and I agree (more on that below), except for the point when he says it’s too soon to do a review of the science. Dear Benny, in the politest possible way — that’s barking. The review of the science is not too soon, it’s too late  — it should have been done 10 years ago, before we spent billions, and the Greens ought to be calling for one right now.

…[sceptics are treated like] a neo-Nazi or a racist, it’s as bad as that in certain circles.

Think about it:  the future of the planet (galaxy etc.) depends on convincing people to cut carbon emissions, and skeptics are everywhere and growing in number. Is there any better way to quell the dissent? The end-of-the-world memes are failing and the only way to clear the decks is the old fashioned way — air it, have it out, do the battle, and may the best team win. Obviously, since climate scientists are the experts and 97% of them agree, it will be a lay down misère — all the misguided nuclear physicists, surgeons, math-heads, geo’s and engineer deniers will get publicly trounced, and for once and for all it will be settled. I can’t imagine why The Greens / Grantham institute / IPCC have missed this opportunity and allowed thousands of other scientists to seed so much doubt. For goodness sake, get skeptical scientists and not-so-skeptical-scientists on a joint platforms, and televise the whole thing. That’s “moving forward”.

Right now, skeptical commentators are scoring win after win just pointing out how cowardly the consensus crew are, and how they depend on toxic bullying and namecalling to silence critics. (Perhaps Benny is hoping to fool them into thinking we take them seriously?)

Andrew Foster on Benny Peiser:

Amber Rudd has ruled out a review of the science and Peiser concurs. “I think it’s far too early because it’s too fuzzy. All the national academies are still adamant that everything is right, they’ve got everything right and nothing has changed. I think we need more time before we can say with some confidence that something is seriously wrong.”

Predicting the climate may be “fuzzy” but the failure of the hypothesis is beyond “wrong” and into “legendary”. History books will be written about the tragic state of climate science in 2016. As I’ve said before — the models not only fail on global decadal scales, but on regional, local, short term, [1] [2], polar[3], and upper tropospheric scales[4] [5] too. They fail on humidity[6], rainfall[7], drought [8] and they fail on clouds [9]. The hot spot is missing, the major feedbacks are not amplifying the effect of CO2 as assumed. Indeed Evans has shown that current models are missing the obvious big major feedbacks completely, and ignoring the massive fields and fluxes off the Sun.  Current modelers have entirely missed the possibility of cooling coming soon.

The failure is so complete we are scraping the barrel to imagine wild possibilities whereby the theory-of-man-made-climate-control might be not-completely-absolutely-dead. For it to be correct,  the natural forces that pushed the climate up and down for the last 500 million years stopped in 1880 when the first coal station was built. Or rather, they phased out over the decades as human emissions grew so as to keep the rate of decadal warming exactly the same in the 1980s as it was in 1870s. Could be.

The Committee on Climate Change says the pause doesn’t change things: “Scientists are confident the temperature will rise more quickly again, as greenhouse gas emissions continue and current cooling influences subside. The pause does not substantially affect long-term projections.”

The pause doesn’t “affect” the long term projections inasmuch as it destroys the models. Those natural cycles that phased out in 1880ish phased back in 1999 to create the pause they can’t explain. (What bad luck for the models?)

Says Peiser: “I think everyone will be observing what will happen to the temperature over the next five years or so.” If temperatures don’t shoot up, science faces a crisis.

Science faces a crisis? No, the crisis is here: funding is near 100% monopolistic, lacking in diversity, and politically correct; scientists have been sacked, exiled, abandoned at airports, and public data is hidden, or adjusted with secret methods. Peer review permits the junk and blocks the replies that fix the mistakes. Meanwhile the last backup in the failure of the science industry are the science writers. But they laud the scientists who hide their methods and who have a vested interest in the results, while they attack the volunteers who do honest work for free.

“Science faces a big test. If it turns out to be wrong – and I’m not saying it is but there’s a slight chance – then people will ask, ‘How is it possible that science failed us to such an extent, it shut down the debate, and forced governments into these billions and trillions of damaging policies?

Science faces a big test? No. What people call “the science” is not even science. It’s a political movement that has rebadged itself as “science” and taken the funding from people who use the scientific method. There is no part of real science that says that if the predictions fail then the theory is correct and the data needs to be changed.

I think they [scientists] have failed already, even if they’re right. I think it was a mistake to suppress critical views because science works best when it is tested all the time.”

Hear Hear.

On politics and policy Peiser is sharp:

Peiser thinks the Paris agreement has been over-hyped. “Paris has essentially failed just as much as Copenhagen, except the PR was better.” But David Cameron said it was a “historic deal” and legally binding. “That’s right – legally binding to meet again. The only legally binding thing is the process – it’s legally binding to meet again and to review every five years and to reassess the pledges. But there is nothing about the actual CO2 targets.” -

He thinks EU leaders will probably abandon their unilateral approach to emission reductions. “

My concern with Paris that Peiser doesn’t mention is the possibility where weak Paris waffle gets used as one half of a two pronged legal pincer movement. Some countries have legally binding domestic legislation that was waiting for a “global agreement” of the sort that the toothless Paris deal may trigger.

Peiser captures how things have changed in the last ten years:

The main change has been in the public mood. “When we spoke in 2006, 2008, there was hardly a newspaper that would dare to publish anything asking awkward questions. There was not only a complete party consensus – remember, there were only five MPs who voted against the Climate Change Act – there was almost a complete media consensus too. That has changed significantly and that has opened the public debate. It hasn’t trickled down yet to the kind of chattering classes and MPs but there is now much more questioning: ‘Hold on, does that add up? Does that make sense? How much does it actually cost?’All these questions are now in the public domain.”

A left/right split has opened up. “All centre-right papers tend to be sceptical – The Mail, The Sun, The Telegraph, The Times – they all have continuously sceptical, critical articles, columns, op-eds. Mainly because of the impact of the policies – they realise something isn’t working. Subsidising so much renewables is causing all sorts of unintended consequences.”

The political picture is largely unchanged, however. “The Conservative Party is still where it was seven-eight years ago. They haven’t changed. I mean you could argue that a few ministers within the Government who are dealing with these issues are beginning to realise there are problems and are making some noises to say ‘hold on’.

But the political picture has transformed in the US with the conservatives competing to be skeptical in the Presidential campaign. In Australia, there was progress, but now the conservatives are a Labor lite crew.

Amber Rudd has made it perfectly clear now that the main energy priority in the UK is no longer climate change. The main priority is affordability and security of energy and climate comes third. It used to be climate first. “It’s not that they can suddenly do the maths, it’s just they realise they get a lot of flak and criticism and people are saying why are we wasting billions and billions of pounds on energy systems that don’t work 24/7?”

Peiser: skeptics are treated like they are neo-Nazi’s

A great summary of the Green Blob and cohort of vested interests

For many people climate change is more than just a policy issue, he says. “It’s so deeply ingrained, it’s almost a belief system and the pressure to conform is enormous, perhaps even more than seven or eight years ago. In polite society you do not mention that you’re not entirely sure about this agenda. This is like being a neo-Nazi or a racist, it’s as bad as that in certain circles. “On the other hand, when you look at the surveys where people are actually asked about climate change, the majority of Britons are no longer bothered, there’s a fatigue, ‘Oh, we’ve heard it all before.’”

He believes vested interests act as a big barrier to rolling back policy. “All the landowners [on whose land wind-farms/solar farms have been built], all the families who have solar panels on their roofs, for them it’s an investment, they don’t want to lose that at all. Then you have the green NGOs and the green civil servants – in Paris there were 15,000 green bureaucrats.

So every government has created these institutions, almost in every department, almost everywhere someone is working on climate energy, renewables. You have an institutionalised force that lives off this very agenda. You have this ‘green blob’ that is very active and who wants to pursue this forever. “That is why I think any rollback will be piecemeal and gradual – more and more programmes will be cut, once you cut the programmes the jobs will go, and the blob shrinks. But it is very, very influential, very powerful. The green blob can organise campaigns – that they can do very effectively. They are trying these kinds of intimidation tactics that if you question any of this then you are portrayed as a very bad person.” What does he want to happen? “I think fracking and shale [oil and gas] would be a big boost to the UK economy and energy security. And I would like to see a return to rational discussion and debating where people with different views on these things are able to discuss them.” He takes a close interest in climate science. “I still believe that the basic paradigm is correct – that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that as we pump more and more of it into the atmosphere it will have a warming effect. That I fully accept. The big question always has been, ‘So how much of an effect, what are the feedbacks, what are the kind of knock-on effects of that? Will it accelerate, or will it be balanced by other feedbacks?

In the end, we ask the same question as Benny about the problem of predicting climate change. But I won’t pay the state controlled science industry the respect of calling it “the science” or pretending it might still be correct. If any of their projections are right with the political quasi religious method they use, it’s because they got lucky. It ain’t the scientific method.

POST NOTE

Just so no one mistakes the spirit here — Benny Peiser does a magnificent job with the GWPF. I’m always interested in what he had to say — especially on Brit and EU politics.  I’m having a pointed fun poke at his comment here, but it was only a couple of lines in a long interview. For all I know these were just quick asides…

The GWPF publishes excellent science reports (check them out).

REFERENCES


[1^] Anagnostopoulos, G. G., D. Koutsoyiannis, A. Christofides, A. Efstratiadis, and N. Mamassis, (2010). A comparison of local and aggregated climate model outputs with observed data’, Hydrological Sciences Journal, 55: 7, 1094 — 1110 [PDF]

[2^] Koutsoyiannis, D., Efstratiadis, A., Mamassis, N. & Christofides, A.(2008) On the credibility of  climate predictions. Hydrol. Sci. J. 53(4), 671–684. changes [PDF]

[3^] Previdi, M. and Polvani, L. M. (2014), Climate system response to stratospheric ozone depletion and recovery. Q.J.R. Meteorol. Soc.. doi: 10.1002/qj.233

[4^] Christy J.R., Herman, B., Pielke, Sr., R, 3, Klotzbach, P., McNide, R.T., Hnilo J.J., Spencer R.W., Chase, T. and Douglass, D: (2010) What Do Observational Datasets Say about Modeled Tropospheric Temperature Trends since 1979? Remote Sensing 2010, 2, 2148-2169; doi:10.3390/rs2092148 [PDF]

[5^] Fu, Q, Manabe, S., and Johanson, C. (2011) On the warming in the tropical upper troposphere: Models vs observations, Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 38, L15704, doi:10.1029/2011GL048101, 2011 [PDF] [Discussion]

[6^] Paltridge, G., Arking, A., Pook, M., 2009. Trends in middle- and upper-level tropospheric humidity from NCEP reanalysis data. Theoretical and Applied Climatology, Volume 98, Numbers 3-4, pp. 351-35). [PDF]

[7^] Anagnostopoulos, G. G., D. Koutsoyiannis, A. Christofides, A. Efstratiadis, and N. Mamassis, (2010). A comparison of local and aggregated climate model outputs with observed data’, Hydrological Sciences Journal, 55: 7, 1094 — 1110 [PDF]

[8^] Sheffield, Wood & Roderick (2012) Little change in global drought over the past 60 years, Letter Nature, vol 491, 437

[9^] Miller, M., Ghate, V., Zahn, R., (2012) The Radiation Budget of the West African Sahel 1 and its Controls: A Perspective from 2 Observations and Global Climate Models. in press Journal of Climate [abstract] [PDF]

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.2/10 (77 votes cast)
No Benny! Science is in a crisis, we need a review. If Greens cared about the planet, they'd demand one., 9.2 out of 10 based on 77 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/jxlowz3

106 comments to No Benny! Science is in a crisis, we need a review. If Greens cared about the planet, they’d demand one.

  • #

    How on earth did we get to this point?

    151

    • #
      PeterS

      We got here in a number of ways. One, the scientific community as a whole failed to follow their own rules and allowed the global warming hoax to continue and grow into the biggest scam in history. Modern science has betrayed the search for truth. Two, the greed for power and control by the left saw this as the perfect opportunity to enslave the world and force upon us their ideologies and morals as they hate the Western democratic way with a vengeance. Granted it’s far from perfect as Winston Churchill stated but all other forms are far worse, and that includes socialism of all forms (left – communism, right – Nazism, all others in between). Three, the public in general are naive, gullible and/or non-thinkers so they will believe almost anything that’s repeatedly told to them through the mass media. They are the tree main reasons why and how we got here.

      582

      • #
        el gordo

        ‘Three, the public in general are naive, gullible and/or non-thinkers so they will believe almost anything that’s repeatedly told to them through the mass media.’

        People have busy lives and lack the confidence to get involved, and powerful propaganda keeps them mute. Admittedly a lot are gullible, but that goes with the territory.

        ‘Nearly one in five Australians do not believe in climate change, making the country the worst in the world for climate sceptics, a study of almost 20,000 people has found.

        ‘The research by the University of Tasmania found 17 per cent of Australians thought climate change was not real, compared with 15 per cent of people in Norway, 13 per cent of New Zealanders and 12 per cent of Americans.’

        Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/australia-tops-the-world-for-climate-change-denial-study-20150717-gierns.html#ixzz40mlfW2gc
        Follow us: @smh on Twitter | sydneymorningherald on Facebook

        194

        • #
          RB

          ‘Nearly one in five Australians do not believe in climate change, making the country the worst in the world for climate sceptics, a study of almost 20,000 people has found.

          Stupid question. How many think that

          the climate hasn’t changed
          it hasn’t noticeably changed
          it has changed a little, naturally
          it has changed significantly, mostly natural
          it has changed significantly due to fossil fuel use but not enough to believe the themageddon stories
          etc.

          10

      • #
        mc

        Don’t forget the men in white coats syndrome.

        From THE RISE by Sarah Lewis:

        In the 195os, psychologist Solomon Asch demonstrated how, without knowing it, we tend to abandon our own opinion altogether under two conditions: 1) when we anticipate that our opinion differs from that of a group and 2) when we have to state our dissent aloud. Asch demonstrated this idea with one experiment where he placed a volunteer in a room with seven other people who had all volunteered for a simple test in visual acumen. The volunteer didn’t know that the group was made up of actors deliberately giving incorrect answers. Each person in the group would take a turn and state aloud which line is of equal length to the line on the card on the left.

        [Two separate cards; one on the left with 1 vertical line, the other, with 3 vertical lines of differing lengths.]

        Staring at the page, it looks obvious which one is correct. When asked alone, without this planted group scenario, the person would give the right answer 95 percent of the time on average. Yet in the group experiment, the volunteer would go along with the group of actors and give a correct answer only approximately 25 percent of the time. The larger the number of opponents in the group, the more errors the volunteer made. Yet when each volunteer learned about the influence of the group on their answer after Asch revealed the results of the experiment, they typically expressed little or no awareness of changing their answers in response to group pressure. In other cases, they claimed that they weren’t sure of the answer. Not only do we often give up on ourselves when faced with holding a minority opinion. We don’t even know that we’re doing it. When we decide not to give up on our dissenting view, the body pays a price. Neuroeconomist Gregory Berns discovered this when updating the Asch experiment in 2005 at Emory University by using fMRI imagery. He wanted to determine what was going on in the brain when individuals shifted their opinion to conform to that of the group. His study found that in instances where a person gave an answer that was different from the group’s, there was more activity in the amygdala, initiating the “fight-or-flight” feeling we get in a state of trepidation. Standing your ground in the face of a majority requires courage, the hallmark trait of the iconoclast.

        140

        • #
          OriginalSteve

          I tend to think you have to be a little ornery to be able to see past the flock of sheep that people have been turned into. I think having a bit of rebel within you is required to be able to withstand the group think and pressure to conform. Rebellion for rebellions sake is stupid, unless its to right a wrong or point out massive lies that are deceieving a huge amount of mankind.

          From a Christian perspective, even within the church there is denominational pressures to conform within the denomination and those who *actually* follow the Bible can often run foul of those who just want a predictable quiet life within a denomination, especially if the denomination doesnt quite follow Christs teachings properly. That said, Jesus was a “heretic” in manys eyes bcause he called out the Pharasees and the powers of the day on religious matetrs ( only ) and they hated him for it, but he wasnt worried one jot what they thought of him…..even Herod cut Johns head off when John pointed out stealing Herods’ brothers’ wife for himself was wrong.

          30

        • #
          mc

          Sorry, wrong intro to my post above, should be don’t forget about peer group pressure.

          10

        • #
          Owen Morgan

          That’s very intriguing. I think politics works in the same way (which may be no coincidence). To steer clear of current politics, everyone in the UK knew that Edward Heath (PM, 1970-74) couldn’t speak French to save his life. When he did, he was, as in many other ways, a national embarrassment, but party supporters would extol his gibberings in French after the scole of Stratford atte Bowe, whether they themselves couldn’t understand a word of French, or, in quite a few cases, spoke French perfectly, but wanted to go along with the crowd.

          20

    • #
      King Geo

      Science has been corrupted, that is Climate Science. And the blame can be attributed mainly to the IPCC who were only interested in “one side of the story” ,ie confirming the “Theory of AGW”. In the future this deception will be exposed and all those involved “hung out to dry”, not in a world overcome by GW but in a world trying to adapt to the ravages of the imminent “LIA” which is predicted to rear its ugly head later next decade. What is also of concern is that the next LIA may well be the trigger for the next “Ice Age [IA]“. Let’s face it we have been in the Holocene Interglacial for 11,700 years now and the next IA is due. The last IA lasted for ~ 90,000 years. How many Climate Scientists are studying GC [LIA's & IA's]? Very few I suspect. The tragedy is that US$trillions have been squandered adapting to “non-existent GW” and not the real imminent threat, GC!!!

      223

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      Another reason is the education system itself. I have mentioned this before.

      It has always been difficult to find teachers who know science, beyond the boundaries of the curriculum. It is even more difficult to entice working scientists to give up their interesting projects, just to teach a bunch of snotty-nose kids in a secondary school. There is an adage: “Those that can do, and those that can’t teach”.

      So as the world becomes more industrialised, and more dependent upon science, we find that the quality of science education in schools is actually on the decline. Not everywhere, and not all the time, but enough to make a difference.

      So, will school leavers, looking to go to University, choose a science career, or will they take an easier course in Political Science or the Humanities, where numeracy is optional?

      Climate change exists, because there is a consensus that it exists, and that is sufficient, if you have no real concept of the scientific process.

      351

      • #
        Ted O'Brien

        In Australia our education system has indeed been hijacked, a long time ago. The NSW Teachers’ Federation has from time to time elected Communists to the presidency of the union, which cannot but indicate a substantial Marxist influence in the system.

        In 1999 Australia had a referendum on “Should Australia become a republic?” This was nonsensical, as we already have a republic. The No vote prevailed, largely because the electorate saw it as a nonsense and didn’t trust the proponents. The leader of the Opposition then declared that they needed another ten years to get the people educated to accept it. He surely meant exactly, literally what he said. That it would take ten years to get 50% + 1 of the population brainwashed through our education system.

        16 years on this is surely the explanation for much of the nonsense we are seeing in government circles in recent times. And to fix it it is necessary that a large part of the education system should be returned to the free market. Then we can get the education we want, not the education the bookworms want.

        301

      • #
        OriginalSteve

        I agree. Its hard to find science teachers who will actuially rattle cages. The leftists have used their standard thug tactics to make teaching an almost closed shop where the shop steward decalres anything “black” that is seen as going against the shop rules…..

        Even within science you have elements of engineering like Scalar tech within electrical enginering basically ignored by the west, so its doesnt stop at just education….

        30

      • #
        Allen Ford

        There is an adage: “Those that can do, and those that can’t teach”.

        Plus, there is a corollary to this saying, Rereke:

        Those who can’t teach, preach!

        10

      • #
        stan stendera

        Bravo!

        00

    • #
      Jon

      Modern Marxism also included nature and climate as victim groups that need to be protected from humans. In other words humans need to be controlled and regulated. It’s actually about political power, how much and who are going to have it?

      221

    • #
      Geoff Sherrington

      bemused,
      If you need a simple explanation that of necessity generalises, try this:
      Scientists working on climate change seldom conducted a formal analysis of uncertainty in their estimates and measurements. Consequently, without error envelopes to show how much information was simply natural variation, it was too easy to promote the hypothesis that events additional to natural variation were real and significant.
      This conclusion would not have been reached if one could see the correct error envelopes and then the noisy data swimming between very wide limits.

      Envelopes of error, performed formally and correctly, are an early indicator of the quality of the work.

      242

    • #
      Shane

      I quite like Michael Crichton’s piece Aliens Cause Global Warming for an exploration of how we ended up here. Not so much for an analysis of global warming itself, but how science step by step progressed from its origins to the current media driven political entity.

      60

    • #

      Unquestioned and inherently divisive dogmas (like the “greenhouse effect” in today’s consensus science, which even most “skeptics” are unable to understand is completely false), long-nurtured in every segment of society, and now working together for nothing but ill. We are witnessing the destructive fruition of long-nurtured dogmas, both inside and outside of science. And you continue to listen to all the wrong voices of supposed reason–or, more correctly, you are not able to focus on the small voice–sorry, that’s me, with my Venus/Earth temperatures comparison and its inescapable consequences–you should all be heeding first and foremost. Until you do properly focus, on the definitive evidence, there is no valid climate science, no competent climate scientists, and no rational “climate policy” possible.

      113

  • #
    el gordo

    “Science faces a big test. If it turns out to be wrong – and I’m not saying it is but there’s a slight chance…”

    More than a slight chance Benny, the plateau in temperatures and a quiet sun means there is a better than even chance its going to get cooler very soon.

    412

  • #
    F.I.N.

    I can’t think why The Greens / Grantham institute / IPCC have missed this opportunity and allowed thousands of other scientists to seed so much doubt. For goodness sake, get skeptical scientists and not-so-skeptical-scientists on a joint platforms, and televise the whole thing. That’s “moving forward”.

    I’m guessing the reason might be that they probably have sock drawers in more urgent need of attention. But seriously, they have much better things to do and I’m sure all would consider it a waste of time which is probably stating the bleeding obvious. The debate has been had in the scientific sphere which is as it should be. The skeptics have yet to land a blow as every major science organisation on the planet agrees. Force X anyone? What are you going to do, bleed on them? (that’s a Python ref in case you missed it).

    330

    • #
      James Murphy

      “…The debate has been had in the scientific sphere which is as it should be…”

      I didn’t realise that the myriad of interactions involving the sun, the atmosphere, the land, and the oceans (to name just 4 areas of many) were so thoroughly understood. Obviously I stand corrected.

      Still, it is good to know from someone as obviously well credentialed and knowledgable as you, that such an incredibly complex system has been investigated and understood to the point where there is apparently no longer any need, or reason for any debate or discussion – which, i assume means that you have no problem with cutting the majority of research funding in these areas – after all, we would not accept research funding going towards other areas where it has been deemed that there is no longer any real need for major research – like determining of smoking causes cancer, “squaring the circle”, or determining if the square root of -1 is indeed irrational, or, maybe work to prove the laws of thermodynamics? Why should we then accept that there still needs to be vast sums of research money spent on “the climate”? (note that I never said all funding should be removed)

      251

    • #

      F.I.N.

      The debate has been had in the scientific sphere which is as it should be.

      Where is the debate? More importantly, on what definition of science?

      The skeptics have yet to land a blow as every major science organisation on the planet agrees.

      In legal terms the statements of scientific organisations are hearsay. If agreement was based on assessing the overwhelming evidence for a non-trivial potential problem, then such statements would be unnecessary. Skeptic opinion would be trounced by comparing the evidence with the counter arguments.

      121

    • #
      Reed Coray

      F.I.N., the “debate” as you call it wasn’t a debate. “Science” has very little to do with the consensus. Rather, survival, fame and fortune created the current situation. Similar to wolves living on a preserve where on one side food is continuously being supplied by an outside entity–think a socialistic government; and on the other side wolves are being shot by another outside entity–think a left-leaning press. If it isn’t obvious to F.I.N., it’s obvious to me that independent of the natural distribution of “wolf food” over the preserve, in short order there will be a lot more wolves on the feeding side than on the shooting side all trumpeting the superiority of their side of the preserve because they want to keep the food supplier happy and avoid being shot. All of which has nothing to do with the natural distribution of “wolf food”, but rather has everything to do with survival of the wolf pack. In a survival sense, it’s understandable. In my opinion, the current “scientific consensus” proves nothing about the natural world; but instead, proves that scientists (at least climate scientists, and possibly all scientists) place personal goals above scientific goals.

      101

    • #
      el gordo

      ‘The debate has been had in the scientific sphere …’

      Climate scientists have brainwashed themselves into believing a falsehood for the sake of material security, its a disgrace.

      Anyway the sun and moon have a big influence on earthly weather and climate, CO2 not at all.

      https://climategrog.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/lunisolar_60y.png

      10

  • #
    MelbourneFox

    All the more reason to start cutting the big green blog back ASAP.

    91

  • #
    Gary in Erko

    The reason for the left/right division about climate science isn’t because the left is rational and scientific and the right is money hungry and conservative. The reason is because “climate science” is political and nothing else. There’s no science in it.

    362

    • #
      Yonniestone

      The idea of an open review has always been unnecessary because it’s their science their consensus and their PC stamp of protectionism.

      222

    • #
      Glen Michel

      Undoubtedly, the science in many ways-peripheral to the main agenda.Manipulation of the masses;media are largely ignorant.Same goes for your 2nd and 3rd tier scientists- who graduate from our institutions playing along.Never questioning.The zeitgeist is one of control by the successful infiltration of our institutions by Marxists,Malthusians and Marcusians.

      91

    • #
      Jon

      Agree what we witness is Environmentalism and climate being politizised by Marxism. It is Marxism.

      111

  • #
    TdeF

    Sophistry and waffle

    “I think we need more time before we can say with some confidence that something is seriously wrong.”

    Why? I thought we needed that in the first place before the world spent trillions of dollars? What about the precautionary principle?

    222

  • #
    TdeF

    “current cooling influences subside”

    What? When did these become known? What are they? When did they happen and why aren’t they in the models? so the reason the world is not heating is cooling influences? I thought the heat was stolen? The reason sea rise has slowed is not the massive increase in Antarctic ice (which matches) but the the water has vanished somewhere it cannot be found?

    This is sounding like the day after the Rapture.

    222

    • #
      Manfred

      TdeF, the water vanished because it got soaked up by the parched land. NASA just twigged, didn’t yah know?
      It’s yet another revealed unknown in the ‘settled science’, which is simply ‘far too fuzzy’ to debate….yet.

      “I think it’s far too early because it’s too fuzzy. All the national academies are still adamant that everything is right, they’ve got everything right and nothing has changed. I think we need more time before we can say with some confidence that something is seriously wrong.”

      Meanwhile,

      “current cooling influences subside”

      and it’s out with the chain saws again, to free those pesky goal posts and run them around to some fresh, hitherto unappreciated position. /sarc

      Increasingly, the believers like The Pope, adopt pontification as their chief source of evidence.

      151

      • #
        TdeF

        Yes, that explanation sounded superficially plausible, but we are talking about a sudden 2mm in every 10mm? Why would the last 2mm be soaked up? So it also sounds equally just made up. The more likely explanation is that either the steady rise did not happen or there is a sudden and severe cooling in Antarctica. It is amazing in Warming science that any old throw away explanation must be the truth. No need to prove it. Just make it up.

        Last year the new ice levels in Antarctica as measured by satellites worked out by my calculations to a 6mm drop for the world oceans. No one wants to talk about the huge amount of new ice in the Antarctic, except Prof Turkey and his Ship of Fools. He only knows about sea ice anyway, which means nothing to sea levels. Even he had his amazing adiabatic wind explanation for why he was trapped in non existent ice. You just make it up and say you are a Professor.

        191

  • #
    manalive

    “Paris has essentially failed just as much as Copenhagen, except the PR was better …”.

    If Paris has been a success we should be seeing a slow down in the rate of the Mauna Loa CO2 concentration increase pretty soon.

    181

    • #
      Kevin Lohse

      The success or otherwise of Paris will be measured n to by IPCC and NOAA but by the IMF and the World Bank. it is the massive transfer of wealth from the 1st to the 3rd world and the institution of global governance for which CAGW was a trojan horse which is the real business. the Green Blob has all but served it’s purpose and will be quietly cast adrift.

      131

  • #
    Peter C

    What a topic! T%here is so much here to discuss and comment on. I am looking forward to reading all the discussion.

    Lets start here;

    Think about it: the future of the planet (galaxy etc.) depends on convincing people to cut carbon emissions, and skeptics are everywhere and growing in number. Is there any better way to quell the dissent?…the only way to clear the decks is the old fashioned way — air it, have it out, do the battle, and may the best team win. Obviously, since climate scientists are the experts and 97% of them agree, it will be a lay down misère — all the misguided nuclear physicists, surgeons, math-heads, geo’s and engineer deniers will get publicly trounced, and for once and for all it will be settled. I can’t imagine why The Greens / Grantham institute / IPCC have missed this opportunity and allowed thousands of other scientists to seed so much doubt.

    One reason why we do not have that debate is because the Greens do not actually believe their own BS. They know the argument is weak. They won’t have an open debate because they don’t have too. They control the debate and the universities and the public institutions and the scientific societies. They control the message and they will stay on message. Even the major political parties feel too weak to confront them at present.

    If there was going to be an inquiry into the science it would be an inquiry with a predetermined conclusion eg Stern review or Garnaut review!

    If we are to make a difference it must come from the grass roots. Mark Steyn talked about this at the Melbourne dinner on Friday night. He some how was instrumental in getting Canada to change its anti free speech legislation (Section 13). As he put it, if you can make enough fuss eventually even bad politicians will be forced to do the right thing.

    Making a fuss is something that the JoNova blog is doing and so is the Institute of Public Affairs (IPA). But the IPA only has 3,500 members which is not yet enough to to make bad politicians do the right thing! Please have a look at their website and join. Numbers are important. You will not joining a political party but a think tank which is committed to principles of individual freedom.

    While I would dearly love to see a real and open debate on the science I do not think it can happen just yet.

    241

    • #
      Jon

      An open debate with Marxism? First you have to take back the science in environmentalism and climate science?

      52

      • #
        Yonniestone

        Karl Marx’s prediction that the future of humanity would be either “socialism or barbarism”, give me barbarism any day over his hyper controlled idealism.

        Debate with Marxism all you want, it always ends with recruiting the strongest legal teams, Smith & Wesson, Heckler & Koch etc etc….

        131

        • #
          OriginalSteve

          Well you can see inside a Leftists mind with the comment Mao once made:

          “political power comes from the barrel of a gun”.

          The leftist view is pure thuggery *because* they know socialism is theft of resources from the many and concentrate it in the hads of a few, but call it “equality”. And if you dare complain, youre called an enemy of the people and duly executed or sent to Siberia….or in todays age youre called a “terrorist’ and slapped with a control order….

          Thuggery is thuggery – it has no place in democarcy and they very well know it…..

          30

  • #
    Manfred

    In the end, we ask the same question as Benny about the problem of predicting climate change. But I won’t pay the state controlled science industry the respect of calling it “the science” or pretending it might still be correct. If any of their projections are right with the political quasi religious method they use, it’s because they got lucky. It ain’t the scientific method.

    Sung to the tune: “Let’s Call the Whole Thing Off

    If you like prediction and I like projection, I think it’s cold and you think it’s hot, prediction, projection, cold, hot, let’s call the whole thing off.

    PS. Jo, edit. bibliography. ref. 1 & 7 appear identical.

    70

  • #
    peter

    Hasn’t anyone played bridge? A “lay down misère” means you loose EVERY trick. Even with all your cards on the table, no opponent can play anything to loose a trick to you. Climate scientists playing a hand that is a lay down misère will loose every trick (argument) to the skeptics. Jo, I’m sure that this would be the case in an open debate on climate change. Bring it on – now please ?

    61

  • #
    Glen Michel

    O/T but Reports of cyclone Winston being Cat.5 and the worst to hit the Southern Hemisphere.Any verification? But, Hey! Aren’t they all the worst evah..

    91

  • #
    • #
      Peter C

      Interesting. Night time Solar!

      Their price is still about double what our Latrobe Valley brown coal fired stations supply at.

      And it remains to be seen if they can actually supply night time power in any quantity at those prices. Worth watching.

      50

      • #
        Graeme No.3

        Peter C:

        The prices are in US$, so the prices they are quoting are 2-3 times what coal would cost. Also Abengoa is heading into bankruptcy.
        As for overnight power, the solar heat method is far more expensive and usually has to run a gas turbine in the morning to warm the molten salts AND to supply electricity for the morning peak time.
        The latest green wet dream is in Morocco with “the world’s largest solar heat plant”. The first stage will only have 3 hours storage, and none of the first 3 units will run 24 hours. The rough cost of electricity is $265 per MWh (coal $30).

        Rereke:

        What sound does a herd of unicorns make?

        80

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      That mooing sound you can hear, is a herd of bullocks.

      80

  • #
    Raven

    Climate Science™ – the Dead Parrot sketch of Science.

    31

  • #

    The text in the Thread mentions where Amber Rudd says this: (my bolding here)

    “It’s not that they can suddenly do the maths, it’s just they realise they get a lot of flak and criticism and people are saying why are we wasting billions and billions of pounds on energy systems that don’t work 24/7?

    The trouble with that statement is that very few people are in fact actually saying that.

    The problem is that for so long, so many urgers have been telling (well brainwashing in reality) the general public that those renewables of choice actually CAN do this, and they patently can’t. It’s becoming almost impossible to say anywhere that they can’t do this, because the public understanding is that they CAN. They (the average person) actually DO believe they can.

    I dread the time when someone in a position of power actually says this, and then goes on to show exactly why they can’t. The public backlash will be huge, but it’s almost got to the point now where no one will ever be game enough to say it.

    And for the life of me, if the problem with CO2 emissions is as dire as the scientists make out, I cannot see why all those Scientists aren’t screaming at the top of their voices to turn the bl00dy things off ….. right now, and we’ll deal with the electrical power problem after, but turn them off first, otherwise we’re all dead.

    No, the money is the lure here. While ever money is literally thrown at them, they won’t say a single thing to jeapordise what they are getting paid to say.

    And if these scientists are so absolutely certain of what they are saying, why have none of them actually investigated the ability of those renewables to replace those power plants which they tell us are the root cause of the problem. They have the brain power to get their science background in the first place, so surely, they can actually look at the replacement thing, and see the truth of the matter.

    It’s a hopeless cause on so many fronts, that it seems to me that someone, somewhere is just waiting for the catastrophe to hit when they do close them down.

    And then all you’ll hear is the Dorrie Evans comeback ….. “Why wasn’t I told?” which will be closely followed by looking for someone to blame.

    It’ll be too d@mned late then.

    Tony.

    232

    • #
      TdeF

      Tony, it will be 30 years in 2018 since the formation of the IPCC. At no time have I read any actual proof that man made CO2 is warming the planet and without any warming, how do we get Climate Change? It remains a wild unproven and now discredited hypothesis despite even little Australia having 350 full time public service scientists on the job for no apparent reason. As they close down that huge program, what was the conclusion? That things change? What was the solution?

      So to expect people to question the value of ‘renewable’ energy is on a par with the questioning of the basic premise, that we actually have a problem. How many politicians have any understanding of science at all? Maybe 1%.

      The real tragedy is that nothing is being spent on alternative energy which politicians do not understand. Imagine a $1000Billion dollars a year on fusion? Or $100Billion on Thorium reactors. Or $10Billion on alternative metals to carbon for storage, if only to save precious carbon compounds. Imagine geoforming Australia to increase rainfall, improve water distribution and retention and change weather patterns? It could be done.

      No, it is all going on quite insane windmills and solar panels, usually for the richest, most self indulgent countries and people on the planet. Like all rich Greens, they pretend to care but it is all about them. Do they care that windmills are an abject failure. No.

      202

      • #
        Mari C

        TdeF, you can’t geoform any where in the world, at all, the greens would self-immolate. Wait, maybe that’s not such a bad idea….

        mari

        40

    • #
      ianl8888

      I’ve been saying that for about 30 years. For my pains I was labelled “cynical” – not true, of course

      “Cassandra” I’ll accept

      40

  • #
    tom0mason

    How did we get here?

    It’s a triumph of the will.
    The illogical, insane, hysterical will of the political left.

    Once the foundations of this madness was set in the UN back in the 1970s this path was inevitable …

    It is now the duty of all those who believe in a future of real social freedom, logic and science to fight the lies and influence of this well financed, politically powerful and corrupting influence.
    Fight with truth and logic as Joanne does here.

    120

    • #
      Peter C

      Once the foundations of this madness was set in the UN back in the 1970s this path was inevitable …

      Not inevitable. But it takes a while for the rest of us animals to figure out what the pigs have been doing (Orwell – Animal Farm) Now we know. Now is the time to rally around and kick up a huge stink.

      The left is powerful right now. They have their hands on the levers of power and they are not about to let go.

      Check this out; from the Union of Concerned Scientists (Not one of them a Scientist by the way)

      Dominos and Starbucks Dirty Little Secret.

      Our strategy is simple and effective:

      1. Set the science-based standard for deforestation-free palm oil and score how companies do against this standard.

      2. Engage corporate executives in direct talks with UCS experts to map out the details of how each company can make the switch to palm oil that preserves tropical forests.

      3. And if they balk? We rally our nearly 500,000 supporters to send letters, call corporate phone lines, and show up at corporations’ front doors in protest—to show just how serious and powerful we are.
      But our work is far from over. We need all major palm oil users to get on board, or else there will always be a market for thoughtless palm oil producers to stick to their old and disastrous ways: burning carbon-rich forests in delicate ecosystems like Indonesia’s, all for short-term corporate profit.

      And that’s where you come in. UCS member support is the reason we’ve made such great progress on palm oil deforestation so far. But the brands that haven’t signed on yet—they’re the toughest to get.

      Peter—help push corporations to do the right thing on tropical deforestation. Renew your support with a 2016 membership gift.

      The Union of Concerned Scientists is a socialist environmental organisation which is trying to subvert the American Social Dynamic. In this case two well regarded companies, Starbucks (coffee house) and Domino’s (Pizzas) have not signed on to their agenda (about palm oil- nor paid the bribe) and they are being targeted for special treatment.

      Now is the time to make a fuss about the relentless oppression of our democracy (which is what is going on). I cannot fathom the minds of the Union of Concerned Scientists but I do know that I do not agree with them.

      Make a fuss now! Support Starbucks (if you still have one- they did not do well in in Australia) and also Domino’s. Resist the subversion of our society by these nutcases,

      Join the IPA!

      120

  • #
    TdeF

    Benny Peiser? Is this Benny?

    Ph.D. , University of Frankfurt (1993).

    Peiser studied political science, English, and sports science

    He is a real intellectual rival to Australian of the Year, Tim Flannery, English (his native language) and extinct kangaroos. A ‘sports anthropologist?’. What on earth qualifies someone to be a commentator on meteorology, physics, chemistry, mathematics and computer modelling and hard science with these qualifications? Then you might say that about the UN’s Christiana Figueres, another anthropologist but in the ruling family of Costa Rica.

    Still he gets to write a summary of the subject for the Wall Street journal, be director of the Global Warming Policy foundation and speak at the heartland institute. I must have the wrong person?

    For a skeptic, he seems more Lomborg “I do not think anyone is questioning that we are in a period of global warming. Neither do I doubt that the overwhelming majority of climatologists is agreed that the current warming period is mostly due to human impact”

    A real skeptic would say so what to 0.8C and the majority of climatologists means 40%, not 97% if you read the Cook article carefully.

    So my real puzzle is why anyone takes any notice, except that like Flannery, he is a recognized long term player. It does make you wonder why being called Doctor means you are expert in everything, just like Flannery. To be fair, he denies any real knowledge but is interested in the exaggeration of the health impacts of warming, much as Lomborg questions the extreme priority put on the one alleged problem. Neither of them really question the basic warmist claim of global warming but the excuses for the failure to warm at all are wearing a bit thin after twenty years.

    160

    • #
      DaleC

      Yes the very same. His Wikipedia entry makes his relationship to the climate debate clear:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benny_Peiser

      He is co-editor of Energy & Environment, one of the few journals which publishes anti-consensus papers (including two by Steve McIntyre).

      He is quite influential and generally well-respected.

      Regarding what one studied: my degrees were in classical languages and literature, yet I work as a software engineer – what one did as a student can have little bearing on expertise a few decades later.

      161

      • #
        TdeF

        People can change careers, but some things are pyramidal like mathematics. An interest in the subject is not enough. Music and computer programming are notable exceptions, where basic skills and a flair are sometimes all that is needed. You have to learn the basics and build. Many sciences are the same. You need solid grounding in essential concepts. Computer programming is applied logic, not science although logic is needed in both.

        I cannot myself see the transition between studying ancient kangaroos and engineering, as with Tim Flannery. I cannot see the transition between sports science/physiology and physical science. Mathematics is the key difference. Much computer programming does not require it, which is the difference between data processing and real world simulation. So he may have developed a skeptical approach to science, but that does not make him a scientist. While scientists are skeptics by definition, being skeptical does not make you a scientist.

        81

    • #

      Just so no one mistakes my point — Benny Peiser does a magnificent job with the GWPF. I’m always interested in what he had to say.

      I’m having a pointed fun poke at him here but it was only a couple of lines in a long interview. For all I know these were just quick asides.

      I would not for a minute put him and Flannery in the same grouping.

      142

      • #
        grahamd

        My sentiments exactly Jo, anyone that is on Benny Peisers mailing list, will appreciate the relentless efforts he makes to disseminate the latest information to us skeptics.

        50

      • #

        Just so no one mistakes my poin

        the evidence from above is that few actually read your point and just proceeded to write whatever was on their mind at the time. As usual.

        03

  • #
    Kim

    1) I’m not privy to all the details, but I do understand that there are a number of technical problems with how solar and wind farms can effect the grid. I understand that they can trigger sub stations to switch off supply – requires the electricity company crews to come out and reset the breakers.

    2) What’s needed is to make solar farms and wind farms mainstream. As such to require them to supply to the supply standards that all other suppliers are required to supply to – voltage, current, power, frequency and stability of supply. ie. what comes out of the solar farm or wind farm is supplied to these standards. And, yes, it will require them to redesign their farms and to put in more equipment.

    131

    • #
      Rollo

      I agree Kim, companies running solar and wind arrays need to guarantee supply of 24/7 base load power as do inferior coal fired stations. To smooth the bumps they would be free to use batteries, molten salt systems, pumped hydro or any technology they desire. We have been told for many years that renewables are more cost effective and efficient than dirty coal. Let them prove it.

      70

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      Kim:

      Not sure how to put this, but you need some “inertia” in the system to cover minor blips. With coal it is the 1500+tons of generator and turbine running at 3000 rpm which slow slightly under a rapid change in demand. With hydro you often have turbines spinning at speed and with very rapid response. Nuclear uses large steam turbines as above. Even diesel generators can be built with (largish) flywheels to cover a short gap.
      The trouble with wind and solar is that they are more likely to be the source of imperfect supply. Solar heat is small scale with toy turbines, so no joy there.
      The only way to use renewables full time is to have wind that is fairly constant (Ha!) or solar PV where the sun doesn’t go behind a cloud etc. Solar heat would have to get approx. 7-8 times bigger, but the amount of area needed and the cost rules it out. (The new Noor plant in Morocco, when the first 3 stages are built won’t be as big as the obsolescent coal plant shutting down next month in Port Augusta, and will cost $A12.5 billion. A new CCGT gas plant as rejected by the SA Government would cost one tenth of that and supply more electric power, more reliably, and at a quarter of the cost).

      70

      • #
        Graeme No.3

        Kim:
        “The real and reactive power, and frequency and voltage of the energy of wind turbine plants are variable. These very short-term variations are due to a blade passing the mast*, about once per second, and the various wind speed velocities and directions entering the plane swept by the rotor. A plant with multiple wind turbines would have a “fuzzy”, low-quality, unsteady output. These short-term variations are separate from those due to the weather, and usually need to be reduced, such as by reactive power compensation with synchronous-condenser systems, before feeding into a grid, especially “weak” grids, to avoid excessive grid disturbances.”

        That from Willem Post
        http://euanmearns.com/blowout-week-112/#comment-16074

        There are various posts dealing with supply difficulties e.g. the comments in El Hierro – up to 41 hours of renewables….
        (ignore comments from sod ).

        40

        • #
          Sceptic56109

          The solution to the problem of intermittent power supply from wind and solar is obvious.

          Do not allow windfarms or solar farms to connect to the grid. Instead, have them pump water up a hill to a reservoir with a hydro turbine feeding the grid.
          Oh yeah, people who believe in global warming (predominately left-wing voters) should pay the extra cash required for this electricity supply.

          30

    • #
      tom0mason

      Kim,
      worry not for the future, where the ‘smart grid’ will protect the substation by removing excess consumers from the grid preemptively through control of smart meters.

      The future’s dark, the future’s green! :evil:

      50

      • #
        OriginalSteve

        Actually this is a point I hadnt considered – smart meters are for the covering up of the whole mess….

        We are considering putting solar panels on the roof, however we will need to put 50Hz notch filters on all our appliances to stop utility “snooping” in through the mains…..

        00

  • #

    The more I watch academia dismissing the values of science and instead abusing the name of science to push their own PC culture and politics, the more I’ve realised that academia isn’t the guardian of science that it pretends to be.

    Instead, almost all those who demand the highest standards of proof and evidence and demand verification by experiment come from an engineering background or if they are in academia, they are amongst the few real scientists would could do equally well as engineers.

    So, it’s my firm view, that academia really cares very little about “science” – and like climate, in subjects where there is no “engineering customer”, the academics are quite happy to totally ignore the requirements of good science. And far from upholding the standards of science, most academics are more than happy to push bad science if it suits their politics.

    130

  • #
  • #
  • #
    Adam Gallon

    No review will be undertaken any time soon.
    There’s too much money at stake, too much political power and too many vested interests.
    Huge amounts of tax rely upon the populations, as a whole, accepting that burning “Carbon” is naughty, nay lethal! and so must be reined in.
    The first Western government that shows signs of breaking ranks, will be jumped upon by the rest. That one domino, if left to fall, will bring the whole lot down.
    Goodbye to taxing vehicles according to how much CO2 they emit per km driven, goodbye to specific fuel duties, goodbye to extra taxation upon people for have the temerity to fly off on holiday.
    Goodbye to any “Green” levies.
    Then they’ll be attention turned towards all these wind & solar subsidy farms, chop their subsidies & the companies behind them will quickly fold, leaving the skeletons of the hardware to rot & eventually the tax payer will have to cough up for their removal.
    Then they’ll be some very awkward moments, as attention is turned to the politicians, so some very big scapegoats will need to be found.
    We’re in a situation similar to that Germany & Austro-Hungary found themselves in by December 1914. They realised that they weren’t going to win, but withdrawl to their pre-August boundaries was politically unthinkable.

    100

  • #
    Analitik

    I blame Al Gore

    The bogus “scientists” (eg James Hanson), and left wing, apocalyptic lobbyists (eg Naomi Orekes) and industral profiteers (eg Maurice Strong) would not have been able to pervert the general scientific community without strong political backing and Al Gore provided this during his stint as Vice President under Bill Clinton.

    The Club of Rome ran a similar agenda for decades with only minor success but it was the political patronage from Al Gore that allowed the Global Warming/Climate Change cohort to gain traction and undermine the scientific process,

    111

  • #

    The attitude of the media isd softening towards sceptics.

    I was allowed 10 minutes on Paul Hudson’s Weather Show for BBC Radio and permitted to say that the climate shifts recently observed are the opposite of those predicted by the CO2 theory and that all gases, including non radiative ones contribute to the greenhouse effect via conduction and convection thus reducing CO2 to irrelevance.

    Apparently I am to return next year to report on how things develop.

    292

  • #
    philthegeek

    Well, on the science of predicting how people will vote its “interesting times”.

    Trump leading the Republicans in the US. Bush dynasty finished apparently. Senate voting “reform” coming up here this week, and Newspoll coming out at 50/50 this week.

    40

  • #
    philthegeek

    Says Peiser: “I think everyone will be observing what will happen to the temperature over the next five years or so.” If temperatures don’t shoot up, science faces a crisis.

    ??? to say that, after a big el Nino??

    51

  • #
    Carbon500

    Stephen Wilde: I note with interest your comment that “I was allowed 10 minutes on Paul Hudson’s Weather Show for BBC Radio and permitted to say that the climate shifts recently observed are the opposite of those predicted by the CO2 theory and that all gases, including non radiative ones contribute to the greenhouse effect via conduction and convection thus reducing CO2 to irrelevance.”
    It’s about seven years since I started to take an interest in the CO2 story. Early questions which occurred to me were the following.
    CO2 absorbs infrared radiation, raising the energy within the molecule to an excited state, which we sense as a rise in temperature. If so, how long does the molecule remain excited? Is the energy lost within, shall we say, microseconds or much longer? Might it be reasonable to argue that CO2 has an important to play in moving heat upwards as well as delaying its transit?
    It seems that water vapour and CO2 are considered as quite separate entities in the atmosphere – at least as I understand it from what I have read.
    I have often wondered if they interact or compete in some way for infrared energy, particularly as (again, if I understand it correctly) the wavelengths they absorb overlap. If so, then it seems to me that an interesting experiment would be to investigate what happens in a chamber wherein the CO2 and water vapour levels can be varied relative to one another. I am curious as to why this doesn’t appear to have been done – does this seem a reasonable question? Might water vapour absorb infrared preferentially? Here’s a role for practical, observational science – but I can’t find any answers to this question.
    The atmospheric CO2 levels from Mauna Loa and other sites are easily found, but again I find myself asking another question. How much do CO2 levels vary over land and sea? As an example, it seems to me that CO2 levels over a field following a rainstorm would be expected to be lower than the current average 400ppm due to the solubility of CO2 – in this case perhaps when dissolved in raindrops.
    ‘Climate science’ seems to me to suffer from a broad brush approach, but the basics don’t appear to have been answered.
    All comments welcome!

    71

    • #
      tom0mason

      Carbon500

      It seems that water vapour and CO2 are considered as quite separate entities in the atmosphere – at least as I understand it from what I have read.

      Exactly the atmosphere is not just a static mix of gases but a dynamic exchange of gases, vapors, particulates, and ionic fluids — CO2 dissolved in water makes an acid, what is the IR implications of this dynamic exchange.
      See http://newscenter.lbl.gov/2015/06/16/unravelling-the-mysteries-of-carbonic-acid/ .
      And what about all the other atmospheric ionic aqueous exchanges?
      ¯
      .
      But there again this is all settle science — well isn’t it?

      60

      • #
        Carbon500

        Thanks tomomason – a fascinating link, with proper experimental/observational science. Wonderful!
        It’s reassuring to know that my questions are reasonable ones to ask, since my background is in biological science and not physics or mathematics.

        30

    • #
      stan stendera

      Corn grows very fast in the morning until it uses up the CO2 in the air in the field. Then it nearly stops until the next morning when the CO2 has been replenished overnight. Wind is very good for corn farmers because it replenishes the CO2 in the field so the corn can grow in the afternoon. Of course too much wind is bad.

      00

  • #

    Peiser: “I still believe that the basic paradigm is correct – that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that as we pump more and more of it into the atmosphere it will have a warming effect. That I fully accept.”

    How can anyone “fully accept” such a “basic paradigm,” where “paradigm” is defined as “a typical example or pattern of something, a model,” when the hypothesis or the predictions of “a typical pattern” have not been borne out by real-world evidence, with no global warming for almost 19 years during which time CO2 concentrations rose by 10%? When we know that CO2 levels rise AFTER warming has occurred? Etc?

    52

  • #

    Before long they’ll be treating climate skeptics like that watermelon Darth Vader

    20

    • #
      AndyG55

      You would think those guys would learn to hold their hamburger properly, wouldn’t you.

      So pitiful.. that “where’s my hamburger gone?” look.

      20

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    If the Science were to be reviewed, what do you think the chance is that it would be an honest review?

    And yes, I’m cynical about it. There has been plenty of chance to look at the science and find out it doesn’t support the thesis we’re told it supports. But no one is interested.

    71

  • #
    Alexander

    To understand the realpolitic of the so-called “climate-change” conversation, any left-versus-right, environmentalist-versus-capitalist, bureaucracy-versus-the people, science-versus-cupidity, liberal-versus-conservative, truth-versus-greed model is not adequate. These are merely content-domains (and distractions) within a larger context.

    A far more useful model is to interpret the tension as a faction-fight within the global plutocratic oligarchy, a struggle for control of resources, financial advantage, political power, and relative status that is driving the pervasive cultural and social engineering we have been seeing on the matter. A neo-feudal model is much more realistic than the “democracy” and “due-process” fantasies we have been indoctrinated into believing are the true basis for our polity.

    This ad hoc use of “science” has been nothing more than an pretext to lever the hard-won authority of genuine science to advance a political agenda, and not just using climate science, but medicine and other disciplines as well.

    The legitimate basis for that that authority has now been eroded as more and more people (but probably not a sufficiency) become aware of this corruption of science, and as “science” is seen to be a trade guild working for the interests of control-obsessed ideologues and power-mad sociopaths.

    Using post-Modern “science,” white-coated researchers can deliver their neo-feudal owners any conclusion desired to protect and advance their economic interests and their political advantage.

    If history teaches us anything, it is that there is no clan, tribal band, kingdom, or empire that cannot be fractured by ambition and dissention as its “leaders” maneuver and manipulate for power. And there is no sub-class that cannot be fractured — even atomized — by divide-and-conquer chaos.

    Our hegemony-lusting owners have become masterful at such engineered power-plays, and their task has been made easier by their invisibility behind a curtain of ideology and secular religions. We can only know who they are by strong inference, as their chattel front-men (“leaders” and celebrities) stand in our direct vision and act out the charades that we have been conditioned to accept as “reality.”

    That the actual science is settled is irrelevant in a political conversation. Since we have no power over the principal players in this all-pervasive manipulation, wherein “truth” is lost in a curtain of noise and “factoids,” it’s time to move on and start looking closely, as best we can, at the “Man behind the Curtain.”

    And one aspect of “moving on” means to recognize the “climate-change” political manipulation as an intentional systematic distraction from the real devastation of the biosphere from industrial toxicity and mechanical disruption (including imperial wars of conquest and chaos) generated by neo-feudal oligarchs — the same ones who are using cultural and social engineering to advance their political and class-war hegemonist agendas (indoctrinating you into their specious religion-like cults of “economics” and “scientism”).

    And because we are on the inside looking out (again, as best we can), it’s difficult to see our own conditioning and blind-spots. As fish in water, we can still at least ask, “What is this soup we’re swimming in?”

    Tha answer is much larger than this thread or even this forum can address with any facility and thoroughness, as it undermines our very psyches and operating paradigm — and then it’s turtles and turkeys all the way up…

    31

  • #
    ScotsmaninUtah

    I agree , Science is not in crisis !

    Jo , sometimes you post articles which are great . but sometimes you post a “Mark Steyn on steroids” rebuff that is so destructiv it is a like watching the Russian Tsar explode.

    22

  • #
    KinkyKeith

    We need a review of “The Science”.

    The so called models have never been anything but a way of preventing people from getting

    at the truth, specifically about Human Origin CO2 and its’ place in the so called Man Made Global Warming disaster.

    They “analyzed” one small component (IR -CO2 interaction) of the whole complex interaction of energy sources and sinks regulating our planet and presented that as a convenient truth.

    It was never a truth.

    When their “models” were shown to be flawed, because of inadequate analysis of all relevant factors they invented a new factor, Back-Warming.

    The only place you are likely to experience “back-warming” is lying face down on the sand at the beach in summer.

    http://joannenova.com.au/2015/10/new-science-16-building-the-alternative-model-and-why-it-solves-so-many-major-problems/#comment-1760017

    KK

    11

  • #
    Paul

    “Paris has essentially failed just as much as Copenhagen, except the PR was better.”

    Wrong!
    They got over 190 countries to sit down and agree to something.
    Now they know they can do it, they will be busy writing their agendas, for the next sitting.
    Welcome to the new global government.
    Maybe the next agenda is AGENDA 21

    20

  • #
    David S

    I still think that climate sceptics do themselves a disservice by stating that they acknowledge that C02 causes warming but we argue about the extent. I have failed to be convinced that there is any correlation between CO2 and temperature gains the last 18 years have proven that. So stop trying to concede this as a concession to warmists as if pretending that some how we are on the same side , it’s just a matter of degree ( 2 degrees to be exact). The reality is the correlation is so tenuous that if it does exist it is so weak as to be inconsequential.

    30

  • #
    Owen Morgan

    The pause does not substantially affect long-term projections.

    Jo already skewered this phrase, from the monumentally clueless Committee on Climate Change, not Benny Peiser, but I’d just like to emphasize how Alice-in-Wonderland it sounds. The pause, the thing that obviously does exist**, makes no difference to things concocted solely on computers.

    So, translated: We don’t change Wonderland, just because reality refuses to conform. Which is fine, if you’re Alice, with a get-out-of-Wonderland-free card. Unfortunately, we’re stuck with nightmare-Wonderland, with Duchess-high taxes, Dormouse-levels of energy, Cheshire Cat grins to builders of wind-follies and off-with-their-heads attitudes to speakers of the truth.

    ** I am not betting that it actually is merely a “pause”.

    21

    • #
      stan stendera

      Owen, you are probably right. Paleoclimatology has revealed that prior to the onset of a renewed glacial phase of an ice age there is usually an uptick in the ambient temperature. We’ve had that uptick, therefore a strong cooling period may well follow. Meaning new glaciation and expanding ice caps. Expanding ice caps are already happening in the Southern hemisphere. I hope I don’t live long enough to see the results of renewed glaciation, although I would love to see what happens to the global warming loons if such happens. It is important to remember here that an ice age is defined as a period when their are ice caps. We are in an ice age! What we are in is an interglacial period which is probably nearing its end.

      11