Background notes to the Lang Hancock Memorial Lecture by Christopher Monckton (70 pages)
Click on the image to download the pdf.
—————–
CONTENTS
Death by consensus p 2
Can we trust the consensus? p 4
Concessions to consensus p14
Can we reliably predict long-term future climate states? p 15
Is the rate of global warming itself accelerating? p 24
Did we cause more than half the global warming since 1950? p 27
How much ‘dangerous’ global warming are we likely to cause by 2100? p 31
Is mitigation by controlling carbon dioxide emissions cost-effective? p 50
What about freedom and democracy? p 61
Save our lords the poor and the sick now or save the planet later? p 63
References p 66
———————————————
SITE NOTE: The site is undergoing maintenance this week, so will be down mid week. It will help in the long run. 🙂
PS: A big thank-you to Peter of Glenelg. 🙂 I wish I could send you an email.
See all posts tagged “Christopher Monckton”
Australian Green Party Leader admits Global Warming is Really all about World Government:
http://www.sovereignindependent.com/?p=22784
.
10
Jo Lucia is saying that ALL his lectures have been cancelled is this true please check maybe its just a dumb rumor.
10
What am I reading in the SMH that all 3 lectures that were booked to take place in German Clubs have been cancelled ?
Nazi jibe ends lectures
10
I hope someone in OZ can take this piece of journalistic (and editorial) lassitude to task:-
The “1.7 mm a year between 1900 and 2009” is from tide guages, the “3.2mm a year between 1993 and 2009” is from satellites i.e. disparate datasets and therefore NO acceleration since 1993 but that is what is implied from the way the sentence is couched.
No mention either that there has been a decelerating rate of sea level rise since about 2002 in the satellite record but at least Lloyd pointed out that Steffen’s prediction is “well above the recent historical average”.
10
What is democracy but an elected dictatorship owned and controlled by the Plutocrats – the real rulers,who see the government as a police force to protect their despotic pharisaical financial interests.
Their goal is for a Messiah which will be themselves as their own Messiah, gained by their progressive march to total central control – the ultimate end being the United Nations World Government.
The Bible says of them:- “…..Woe to you,scribes and Pharisees,hypocrites! For you travel land and sea to win one proselyte,and when he is won,you make him twice as much a son of hell as yourselves…….Woe to you,scribes and Pharisees,hypocrites! For you pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin,and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith. These you ought to have done,without leaving the others undone….Woe to you,scribes and Pharisees,hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs which indeed appear beautiful outwardly,but inside are full of dead mens bones and all uncleanness…” Matthew ch.23
10
Sure Kevin — no difference at all between Australia and N. Korea; or Cuba and the US.
Why don’t you just pop on over to one of those equivalent dictatorships and see for yourself? Let us know, if they let you, will you?
10
AGW Moriarty:
Odd thing is… Monckton actually agrees with Brown in at least one respect. Brown wants an elected world Government and Monckton agrees that any such institution, if it were to exist, should be elected quite unlike the EU Commissars who are appointed. The EU are the height of “unrepresentative swill” as Keating might say.
10
BobC @ 6
Karl Marx was a master of dialectics. Marxism is just the obverse of the Capitalist coin.North Korea or Australia, the endgame is World Government. It was Australia’s Dr Evatt who had a large role in the final drafting of the UN Charter which Australia ratified as a treaty in June 1945. And treaties when exercised become the supreme law of the land.
10
Julia Gillard and Wayne Swan are members of the Fabian Society
So they believe in right wing socialism. So the difference between them and communism is that socialism in all its forms
in a democratic company can be voted out by the people.
10
Bulldust Ive heard Monkton mentioning a threatening ‘one world govt’ before around the time of Copenhagen. Im not sure if he goes in total agreement with the NWO which DOES exist in the form of the Rockerfella based globalists, Bildeberg group, Trilateral Commission and CFR. Search them look at whos on them. Hilary Clinton some time back already got trouble for illegally attending a Bilderburg meeting although its known that many govt elected representatives attend illegally. And of course they love these green nutcases doing all that nice work for them like B Brown (nutcase general).
10
The warmist journal of record reports on Australia’s carbon dioxide tax disaster. And poor old Wollongong gets top billing. Which is more than the Fairfax rag the Sydney Morning Herald has managed despite having a tabloid in the steel and coal city.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jul/04/wollongong-view-of-australia-carbon-tax
Sorry a bit off topic but worth a read
10
Re @ 6
“…..The whole idea behind the phony demonising of carbon dioxide, an as important a gas as oxygen – is to monetise a building block of life. This is what the Western power elite conspiracy has sought to do in the past 100 years…….”
Source: The Daily Bell, “China & the West:One and the Same?”
http://dscoffins.blog.com/2011/06/28/international-capitalism-and-communism-are-two-sides-of-the-same-coin/
10
@ Bush bunny yes too many PMs and other pollys around the western govts are ‘members’ of certain societies, Fabian, Masons, Bohemian grove (a certain T Blair) etc. then theres this strangely sinister outfit in the UK I hadnt heard of till recently ‘common purpose’ some fake charity. To be watched I think. But never by the MSM!
@ Kevin Moore China and West one..NO, totally different philosophy, watch the space the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) and who attended it already condemned the invasion of Libya. Chinese alt media en.m4.cn.
10
Oh dear so sad never mind warmists!
on http://www.c3headlines.com/
“Note: Just prior to this posting, it became public that a new Proceedings of the National Academy of Science (PNAS) study confirms that global warming has been missing since 1998. This new study refutes James Hansen, Al Gore and all the IPCC Climategate scientists claims of “unequivocal,” “unprecedented,” and “accelerating” global warming they have made over recent years. Global warming skeptics have proven to be correct, which the below material also supports.”
10
Are these just draft notes? A proof reader may have pointed out to him that DDT wasn’t banned to use against Malaria.
10
Just finished skimming the Viscount’s background notes. I would summarise it as being in two parts. The first and largest section provides a great deal of argument as to why the Science is cetainly not settled. No doubt warmistadors will get stuck into this, build legions of strawmen and ‘robustly demolish’ his arguments.
Th second part asks us to address curent problems facing the very poorest amongst us by allocating relatively modest sums to address today’s ‘real and present’ injustices rather than the ‘precautionary’ imaginings of those whose compassion seems to reserved for future use only.
I’ll make a guess that little effort will be made by the latter to address the Viscount’s views on this small matter!
Hypocricy and in spades. Again.
10
On P.17 he puts a nail in the coffin of the argument that solar issues will lead to cooling over the next decades, given that:
“that neither the magnitude nor the timing nor the direction nor even the sign of their phase-transitions or, in modern mathematical parlance, bifurcations or, in environmentalist jargon, ―tipping points‖ can be predicted (Lorenz, 1963; IPCC, 2001).”
10
Thanks for your input MattB. You’ve singlehandedly proved my latter point.
DDT was de facto banned. Millions of children and adults died thanks to its reduced use by ‘concerned’ westerners tuttings.
Protest as much as you like. Millions died and eco-warriors will still pin medals on themselves for their campaigning while denying that any poor third worlder perished.
Shame on them and shame on you for denying their complicity in genocide.
I’ve seen the same with the denial of 1970’s Global Cooling. Denial, denial and yet more denial.
History may, indeed, be written by the victors. I’d wait a bit mate, if I were you, the war still has some time to go and it’s outcome is still to be decided.
10
Etienne De La Boetie [1530 – 1563] 16th century philosopher, writing on personal liberty, said:-
Liberty is the only joy upon which men do not seem to insist,for surely if they really wanted it they would receive it. Apparently they refuse this wonderful privelege because it is so easily acquired. Poor,wretched,and stupid peoples,nations determined on your own misfortune and blind to your own good! You let yourselves be deprived before your own eyes of the best part of your revenues;your fields are plundered,your homes robbed,your family heirlooms taken away. You live in such a way that you cannot claim a single thing as your own;and it would seem that you would consider yourselves lucky to be loaned your property,your families and your very lives.
All this havoc,this misfortune,this ruin descends upon you not from alien foes but from the one enemy whom you render as powerful as he is,for you so bravely go to war,for whose greatness you do not refuse to offer your own bodies unto death. He who thus domineers over you have only two eyes,only two hands,only one body,no more than is possessed by the least man among the infinite numbers dwelling in your cities;he has indeed nothing more than the power you confer on him to destroy you………..”
Source; Political Caregivers, Socialism and the Church|christian Foundations
http://dscoffins.blog.com/2011/07/04/socialism-and-the-church/
10
freedom to make things up…
here’s Alison and her fairytale about “deniers” who see our weather as natural, “shock jocks” who are any media personnel who understand a carbon tax will not alter the climate, and a “resident” who just pops up in Sydney with his vegetables:
4 July: Guardian: Alison Rourke in Wollongong: Woe in Wollongong as mining city prepares for Australia’s new carbon tax
City of coal and steel exemplifies hostility to a pollution levy, which has made prime minister Julia Gillard very unpopular
Rightwing shock jocks have also rammed home the anti-tax message, arguing that whatever Australia does will make little difference to the world’s climate…
The growing number of climate change deniers put recent events like this year’s devastating floods in Queensland and the most powerful cyclone in Australia’s history (cyclone Yasi in February 2011 was as powerful as hurricane Katrina) down to freaks of nature rather than climate change.
From his inner city veggie patch stocked with lettuce, beetroot and cabbage, Sydney resident Greg Bearup despairs at the government’s handling of the carbon tax debate. “I just can’t see how we went from 60-70% support for action on climate change to a position where Gillard looks like she could lose her job over it,” he said. “It’s unbelievable it could have been handled so badly.”
Bearup’s street is just 15 minutes from the centre of the city, but a world away from the glistening blue of the harbour. The area has been gentrified but remains a concrete jungle with first world war era houses.
Two years ago Bearup and his neighbours dug up the concrete in front of their homes and planted gardens. He says the concrete was acting as a heat bank. Removing it has lowered the temperature in the summer, reducing the need for air conditioning.
He said a carbon tax will make sure heavy polluting industries like mining pay their fair share for the damage they are causing to the environment. “Everyone should be making an individual contribution to tackling climate change,” he said.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jul/04/wollongong-view-of-australia-carbon-tax
Wikipedia: Greg Bearup
Greg Bearup is an Australian journalist, author and international election expert. He currently a feature writer at the Good Weekend magazine which is distributed with both The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age on Saturdays…
During this time he also filed for The Guardian, The Times and the Christian Science Monitor…
In 2008 Bearup travelled around Australia in a caravan with his partner, Lisa Upton, and young son, Joe. The adventure was documented in the book ‘Adventures in Caravanastan: Around Australia at 80ks’ (Random House Australia, ISBN 9781741666298)…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greg_Bearup
Raconteur: The Team (TWO PEOPLE ONLY, NAMELY THE FOLLOWING)
Lisa Upton, Director
More recently, she has been a regular guest on ABC radio 702 in Sydney and a contributor to the book Adventures In Caravanastan published by Random House.
Alison Rourke, Director
In print, Alison writes for the London-based Guardian and Observer newspapers. She is also a contributor to the BBC’s From Our Own Correspondent program…
In Australia she has worked for the ABC’s Foreign Correspondent and Lateline programs covering stories in Sydney, the Middle East and North Korea. Alison has also written journalism training programs for the United Nations.
(FROM THE HOMEPAGE) Raconteur is a boutique media company that prides itself on storytelling…
http://www.raconteur.com.au/the_team/the_team.phtml
story-tellers indeed. shame on The Guardian, not to mention the rest of the MSM who employs them.
10
A comment about page 1 of this review: When the ‘discovery’ of iron ore deposits was made public in the 1960s, I recalled my stratigraphy lecturer in geology in 1949 (at Sydney University) mentioning large iron ore deposits in north-west West Australia, but were regarded as being too remote for mining as infrastructure and transport did not exist. At the time, I did think it was strange that the so-called “experts” did not believe him, but that was and is typical of people who trust only their limited experiences.
10
To TRU post 14,
You need to have a closer look at the paper by pnas, they might be saying the world has not warmed from 1998 to 2008 but the reasons why are important. A combination of decreased TSI, transition from El Nino to La Nina, copious amounts of sulphur from China through increased coal burning and strataspheric water vapor (something they call black carbon?) decreasing by 10% since 2000.
All in all they claim the 1940 to 1970 cooling was caused majorly by a rise in sulphur, the warming that followed was caused by a global effort to clean up its act and therefore a reduction in sulphur occurred and so the planet warmed, but now the sulphur is back and the planet is cooling. If you look at the authors you will see a Micheal L Mann and now it should all make sense.
10
MattB @17.
Not sure what you’re getting at here but I took that to mean that chaotic systems are unpredictable meaning you nor I or anyone else can predict the outcome no matter how we evaluate it.
How does that drive a nail in the coffin of solar influences driving it cooler. I think your looking at this from a programmers perspective and not looking at the observed trends and Solar cycles.
It justs means a chaotic system is unpredictable so it would be a 50/50.
I don’t think your response is productive.
10
rjm385 – system = chaotic therefore unpredictable therefore one cannot predict what a change in solar input will do to the climate. Don;t blame me blame BoM.
10
In the iron ore embargo – I think it is pretty clear that the driving factor was restricting iron ore exports to Japan. The “consensus” was just a convenient reason. Hang on that does sound familiar.
10
Monckton wrote
In the 1960’s William Ruckleshaus overrode his own administrative law judge to ban DDT. He failed to disclose he was a member of an environmental group despite the fact that it was an obvious conflict of interest. At least 49 countries, including almost all of the developed world, has banned DDT. This ban is in essence a de facto ban for the developing world. As an example, Africa exports most of its agricultural products to Europe. European countries will not accept products that have been treated with DDT.
DDT is perfectly safe to use and has never been proven to cause death, the thinning of bird eggs, higher cancer rates, etc. The exception being a worker in a factory who was once saturated with several gallons of the concentrated form. As Steve Milloy wrote, “Rachel Carson lied and millions died!”. Everything that loony tune envirowacko bitch wrote about DDT has been thoroughly debunked! The ban on DDT is nothing more than an insidious form of population control practiced by the misanthropic, neo-malthusian greens that are afraid of anything with a chemical, “scary” sounding name. I have seen these dumbed down dimwits even sign a petition against a solvent that covers over 70% of the world’s surface, dihydrogen monoxide! You know, MattB, H2O, water?
From Cancun, Mexico COP16, climate “scientists” (and their useful idiots) rallying against the dangerous chemical! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzLs60ZaNW4
BTW, Matt, a child in Sub Saharan Africa dies every thirty seconds from Malaria. These self deluded defenders of the far flung marshes have killed more people than Stalin and Mao combined! If you had a choice between hiding under a bed net from sunset ’til sunrise and running for your life every waking minute or using DDT, which would you prefer? Care to ask the Africans what they think, Matt?
10
The background paper states “three score Years ago…”. A score is twenty years. 3 X 20 = 60. 2011 minus 60 years puts the date in question at 1951. World War II ended in 1945. Why would the government want to prevent the export of iron ore to Japan six years after the war ended? Your right, MattB, it does sound familiar! Same BS, different day (date?).
10
Pat @ 20
At least the article claims to be filed from Wollongong. Fairfax and the National ABC haven’t troubled to trip down the highway to Sydney to interview anyone here on the issue. Perhaps the reason she resorted to a veggie gardner/journo in inner city Sydney is that she would have struggled to find anyone outside the ALP/Greens apparachiks (a tiny faction) in Wollongong that support the tax. And most importantly she got this spot on:
“It’s all right for greenies to say this carbon tax has to happen, but we can’t all hug trees for a living,” said Brett Withers, who has worked as an industrial cleaning contractor in the steelworks for 20 years. “It might just be the straw that breaks the camel’s back. If the tax comes in, this area will be devastated. It’s not just the steel industry – it’s the butcher, the hairdresser and the baker. Everyone will suffer.”
Withers’ remarks illustrate a furious backlash against imminent government plans to introduce a carbon tax.
And she got that right. Furious it is.
10
MattB (@ 15) who is blind, deaf and doesn’t know what a search engine is… sez:
It’s typical of religious or political zealots to completely disrespect both history and the value of human life.
http://www.google.com.au/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=DDT+ban+killed+millions,+Malaria&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&redir_esc=&ei=eoMSTta6M4uNmQXks5W7Cw
Duh. Maybe Matt needs Google Braille.
I suppose MattB is anecdotal evidence that the DeSmogg blogger Chris Moonie is right. Skeptics are smarter than your average cringing Warmist. Not that being sharper than a rusty butter knife gives you bragging rights, mind you.
10
I guess that’s another rusty blade the warmists will have to take out of the back of Lord Monckton but I doubt it, there’s no fooling these narcissists.
It suprises me he still gets around. He must look like a porcupine and everyone of one the spines digging into the warmists hide with every Lecture. It must hurt them immensely.
Say Yes to election NOW !
10
The coffin of the criminal Malthusian warmists (and thats what they are) was/is really nailed shut in the 2009 Zbigniew Jaworowski paper “the Sun not man still rules our climate”. To be found here http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Global_Warming.html
10
The RU @#14.
Ha,, ha.
But it’s only missing. It may be a travesty, but what happened? Is it hiding, in the oceans perhaps, or did Phil mislay it, along with all that data ?
10
crakar 24 Thats a last ditch attempt by that fraudulent criminal Mann to explain cooling by false pretenses (again). Why isnt he in jail (not trying to sue Prof Tim Ball)
10
crakar24 –
different michael mann, the hockey stick man if michael e. mann.
Joe V –
but it will be back…
4 July: Reuters: Gerard Wynn: Asia pollution blamed for halt in warming: study
Other climate scientists broadly supported Monday’s study, stressing that over longer time periods rising greenhouse gas emissions would over-ride cooling factors.
“Long term warming will continue unless emissions are reduced,” said Peter Stott, head of climate monitoring at Britain’s Met Office.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/04/us-climate-sulphur-idUSTRE7634IQ20110704
from a non-scientist’s viewpoint, surely we should build more coal-fired plants and sell even more coal to china, and australia will have saved the world from CAGW!
10
RealUniverse @ #14
Wouldn’t Julia be better off spending all that Tax Payer’s Money on AUD 250,000 bounties for that ‘missing’ Global Warming’ ? All plausible explanations considered. Then we could all have a fair crack at it, instead of just favoured institutions.
10
This getting beyond a joke.
It just seems incredibly strange that because we have no warming for 12 yrs or thereabouts. We now see the results of the Climate Scientists latest foray into the twilight zone by backing up AGW with another theory of yet another dangerous episode for humanity.
Do these guys sit around and play cards to come up with ideas like this. It may actually be based on some evidence and scientific method, but to be honest I think we have had enough. I suppose this came from some model too and there are a lots of “mays” and “possiblies” and a reference to the IPCC 80% certainty of AGW.
So if I read this right we can burn coal which produces both Carbon Dioxide and Sulphur Dioxide and they will cancel each other out.. So the questions begs …Where does the global warming come from…Something else maybe??
Say Yes to election NOW !
10
Yhaay! Pat @ #34.
Bring on all that ‘dirty’ coal, Eh ! And the dirtier the better. The only Catastrophy about Global Warming could turn out to be the Carbon Tax , which put an end to our only means of salvation – short of setting of a few large volcanoes anyway.
10
Pat @ 34
Pat, sorry that last post was meant a a response to your item # 34
10
Joe V # 32,
My understanding was that his dog ate the relevant raw data.
I know dogs like things that are raw, but …
10
OT a little
It should be interesting to see what happens at channel 10 after 7 & 9 rejected the red queens kind offer to do a Goebbels on Sunday night … Thank goodness for that ….note the government propaganda ministry has said it will record the drivel , then make it available for those who wish to use it . The ABC should be choked on their own sh.. !!!
10
@ Joe V #37 Yes but it really about dirty geopolitical politics and the UNIPCC panel of crooks conning Govts in the West to take up this sh..t!
Its all provable in so many sources that are reliable but they cant and, most probably, dont want to see it.
10
Does this paper rank along with the apologetics of Santer et al., in concocting elaborate constructions for the ‘missing’ Hot Spot, that didn’t exist ? What ‘ll it be next ? A peer reviewed compilation of evidence for the Tooth Fairy ?
10
The claim by Lang Hancock that he discovered the worlds largest iron ore deposit from his plane in 1952 is unadulterated BS. In fact the iron ore deposits had been discovered in the 19th century by government geologists. The existence of the Pilbara iron deposits was also common knowledge in the geology community. However the deposits were ignored because they were totally uneconomic to mine.
Just before WW2 the Australian government published a deliberately false report stating that Australia had only 60 million tons of iron ore as a pretext to ban sales to Japan.
10
can’t help wondering if this:
4 July: Age: Daniel Flitton: Move to block TV bid
An independent panel of public servants set up to evaluate the competing tenders saw Sky’s as the better bid, only for the government to baulk at the prospect of stripping the contract from the publicly funded ABC to hand it to a company part-owned by Mr Murdoch’s News Ltd, Channel Seven and the Nine Network. Labor then made late changes to the tender rules, sidelining the role of the independent panel and throwing the legitimacy of the process into doubt…
http://www.theage.com.au/business/media-and-marketing/move-to-block-tv-bid-20110703-1gxcj.html
might have led to this:
5 July: Australian: Ben Packham & James Chessell: Networks reject PM’s request for free airtime to deliver carbon tax address
JULIA Gillard has sought free TV airtime on all television networks on Sunday night for an address to the nation on her proposed carbon tax.
But at least two networks, Nine and Seven, have turned down the offer of the special prime ministerial broadcast…
An ABC spokesman said the Prime Minister’s office first raised the matter with the broadcaster about a week ago.
He said it was still awaiting an official request and could consider one when it arrived…
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/media/tony-windsor-ready-to-back-pms-carbon-tax-bill/story-e6frg8mf-1226088008618
and if Sky, Seven and Nine (who have all relentlessly shilled for a carbon tax and promoted CAGW) will change their tune now. of course, it may be too late!
5 July: SMH: AAP: Climate plan will not be instant success: PM
“We won’t see an instantaneous jump in support,” she said…
Opposition Leader Tony Abbott attacked the Prime Minister for not releasing the details in Parliament before the five-week winter break.
Mr Abbott said if the weekend announcement was to go ahead, Parliament should be recalled next week to properly scrutinise “the biggest structural change in our nation’s economic history”.
Ms Gillard told Parliament there would be no shortage of scrutiny.
“I will be out day after day following Sunday, taking every question from every Australian family who wants to ask me,” she said.
“I will be wearing out my shoe leather literally around the country, making sure Australian families who want answers about the carbon pricing package get those answers.”…
Meanwhile, Commonwealth Bank chief Ralph Norris said business would “welcome the certainty” of this weekend’s announcement.
“Having a very clear and specific understanding of what’s going to be in that legislation and how the carbon tax is actually going to be promulgated is going to obviously provide some degree of certainty,” he told reporters in Brisbane.
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/climate-plan-will-not-be-instant-success-pm-20110705-1h0e3.html
what a surprise…not…that another bank likes the idea!
it seems like the fight has just begun.
10
I just spent the afternoon reading Monkton’s Climate of Freedom paper. It’s probably the most concise compendium of the skeptical position I’ve ever read. It’s almost a skeptical manifesto. Print it out. Make your kids read it.
But in the end it doesn’t go far enough to outline just how civil liberties combined with a global free market of capital, services and—most importantly—IDEAS are the driving agents of ALL innovation. A sum greater than the parts.
Gillard says skeptics have no answers, just criticism. Not true. It’s just Alarmists seem intellectually ill-equipped to understand how innovation, evolution, liberty or complexity work. They imagine all dance on command. Oddly, for self-proclaimed Greenies, they don’t even seem to understand the nature of ecologies.
Humanity’s only way forward is to evolve – technologically and culturally….Sorry, Bob, returning to Socialist dark age is a recipe for a global holocaust.
Most importantly, we need to grok that techno-cultural evolution can not be mandated and stage managed by some unelected technocrat in consultation with PR experts any more than parliament can legislate fine weather or outlaw drought.
Yet the Gillard/Brown coalition assumes that expanding Government bureaucratic control of everything is the solution to every problem. In fact, allowing individual creativity and innovation to naturally, spontaneously, arise in a socioeconomic “ecosystem” which promotes individual civil liberty, economic and intellectual mobility with self-responsibility is how the future is always won.
Government must help preserve an economically liberal social eco-system in which creative paths in techno-cultural evolution are naturally selected for. Government can’t command specific creative solutions any more then it can commission the next great English-language novel. That’s the nature of complex, nonlinear systems like human societies, scientific discovery, great theatre or the weather–all poetic discontinuities that control-freak collectivists can’t tolerate since the likely outcome will blast their nascent oligarchies and fables to smithereens.
To curtail our civil liberties through onerous taxation, the collective Lysenkolization of science and education, the corruption of the democratic process (Gillard lied to steal an election) and hyper-regulation of market ecologies will stifle the very human creativity spirit which must soar to confront the various challenge our future presents. As historians have long noted it’s the failure of creativity that has always doomed civilisations first before the barbarians take the gate, though the later usual end up getting all the credit.
It’s as if we learned nothing from the competition between the two great socio-economic systems that went head to head in the Cold War last century. Freedom of thought and property versus the Soviet system of Big Government controls everything. How’d that work out? The Soviet system was one of the most uncreative, stifling and brutal that ever existed and it went extinct by the dead weight of its bloodyminded bureaucracy.
What we are fighting is an attempt to make the whole world one big Soviet gulag. Again.
We’ve past a tipping point where the power and hubris of the rent-seekers in our government bureaucracies, our institutions, our media and academies have become oligarchical and obscenely self-righteous. They’re so deluded by their own moral hubris and intellectual superiority that they have quietly decided the end justifies the means. This is the only explanation for their behaviour—from Mann’s Hockeystick to Climategate to Clive Hamilton’s call for the suspension of democracy to Bob Brown declaring the end of coal mining and one world eco-government are in sight…
They’ve lost the plot. Thank God, we still live in a democracy. It’s far too late to keep the bastards honest, but not too late to kick the bums out!
10
“.Sorry, Bob, returning to Socialist dark age is a recipe for a global holocaust.” This is what they , Malthusiasts, anti human (ists), want..a social Dark Age.
10
@45
The saddest thing of all ,is it’s all true , an agenda perhaps and policies based on failed social & economic systems are not rational , while large parts of the world try and distance themselves from the ETS and repair the damage done . This Government is trying to implement change on a scale that dwarfs the GST , denies common sense , denies the right to vote on a change that will permeate through generations , denies the basic right of science to questioned and more importantly take most of it’s voting population for fools ! The Govt is sowing the seeds of unrest, even the fools in Canberra must be able to see this ! WHY ? When times should be some of the best ever in our nations short history , how could we, with so much unrest around the globe contemplate restraining our economy with this albatross of a tax . Never before have I felt a greater unease at who is at the wheel , who is making the decisions . Wether this tax goes ahead or not , the damage already done is catastrophic to business investment , sovereign risk , as well foreign confidence in the ruling parties political leanings ! ( not to put to fine a point on it ) most big business understand that CAGW is a scam and the carbon tax is wealth redistribution , they also realize that it’s an economy killer , why has it not been more proactive , without real money to fight this affront to our democracy it could become law… The more this deceitful Government explains itself the more bloody questions I have to ask ……..PRIME MINISTER I KNOW HARD CORE PROPAGANDA WHEN I HEAR IT ……and the tactics it employs … a leaf from the book of Goebbels will damn you and your spineless govt to political oblivion !,
So I ask , why does australia have to save the planet by hurting all Australians , you must understand it’s not as though I’m worried about our poor boarder protection , our cattle farmers in the north , the suppression of free speech , the greens thrashing around like mad pit bulls , a foreign minister more worried about a job with the UN , it’s just the carbon tax . AND THE PROBLEM…. THAT EVERY SINGLE MP PROPPING UP THIS SORRY EXCUSE FOR A GOVERNMENT, APPEARS EVEN WITHOUT COMPUTER MODELING, TO HAVE AN IQ OF ZERO…. I have also noted a spine shortage in the Canberra area…
ELECTION NOW ! Down with the Red Queen !
10
Is it true all Lord Monckton’s planned talks have been cancelled including Brisbane at Garbodas convention centre
in Perth, Adelaide and Windsor?
10
I haven’t finished reading Monckton’s paper, but this passage on page 10 caught my eye.
“The legislative basis for the Attorney General‘s investigation is the Fraud against Taxpayers Act. The question he is asking is this: did those who compiled the hockey-stick graph knowingly fabricate data or falsify results in a manner calculated to defraud taxpayers by attracting research grants?”
Do we have an equivalent Act in Australia?
10
Wes @#45
So, eloquently stated and should be obvious to those alarmists who claim unearned intellectual superiority, whether it be MattB, JB, Lewandowsky, Garnaut, the appropriately monikered Mr Chubb, or any of the pro government apologists who have tried to ride the coat-tails of the CAGW gravy train. Some of these people presumably believe this to be a noble cause, with a little “gilding the lily” required for the sake of the overall betterment of ignorant humanity in the long run. They believe we need their guidance to some sustainable nirvana, even though they haven’t the foggiest idea how this might be achieved. The innovative ideas are to be produced out of the ether by the mechanism of removing every practical option off the table and wishing upon a star for new ideas, which will miraculously progress from concept to fruition in a heartbeat, a process that should need a decade or a generation to achieve is somehow to find a fast lane to become our savior from energy poverty and all it’s attendant consequences, socially and personally far more devastating than any consequence of merely allowing the natural course of events to drive progress.
The only way humanity will progress forward to a more efficient and pollution minimized future is by removing government shackles from individual ingenuity and innovative thinking. In order to progress beyond the lingering remnants of the 19th and 20th century industrial technology, government needs to remove it’s grubby hands from the wheels of progress and allow true free enterprise to provide sound, economically feasible alternatives that it is better served to provide. Government is a cancerous tumor spreading into all aspects of society, where for the most part it has little expertise, interest, or facility.
10
O/T but current-
Just heard on the news that HerRanganus’ Carbon Tax will be revenue neutral for “70%” of Australian households.
All I can surmise from that is that the tax loading on the “heavy polluters” is going to be SPECTACULAR!
Even a kitchen table economist would have to suspect that the accompanying loss of competitiveness of Australian exporters & producers to the local market will see the employment market collapse.
Perhaps that 70% will be the households dependent on social security.
I reckon the MPCCC has been testing out that Magic Horn of Plenty & may need to be investigated by the drug squad. ( that would explain why they have taken so long to make no sense )
10
Would it be possible to have this tattooed on the brown queens butt , so the red queen may be reminded of it frequently ……please
The only way humanity will progress forward to a more efficient and pollution minimized future is by removing government shackles from individual ingenuity and innovative thinking. In order to progress beyond the lingering remnants of the 19th and 20th century industrial technology, government needs to remove it’s grubby hands from the wheels of progress and allow true free enterprise to provide sound, economically feasible alternatives that it is better served to provide. Government is a cancerous tumor spreading into all aspects of society, where for the most part it has little expertise, interest, or facility.
10
@51 ….I’ve said it before elsewhere , but it don’t hurt repeating .
It would be quicker to train apes !
10
Winston, wes george and Raven you guys are all describing Malthusianism (anti human anti population, draconian population controls) go search Webster Tarley’s articles on it and other shattering observations.
You guys are onto it. Also mentioned by Jaworoski in his paper and numerous others describing the extreme ideas by the new left maniacs who have hijacked govts all over the western hemisphere.
10
my apologies- in my rant I used the phrase “progress forward”- I have obviously produced an unintended tautology there- just like the phrase “climate change”
10
Can you be prosecuted for having Malthusianism or Neo Malthusianism ?…..
10
As a skeptic I have been led to question the motives and credibility of this Chris Monckton character. (My apologies to any used car salesmen in the crowd for the following analogy.)
I’m rapidly heading to the conclusion that he is, for want of a better word, a used climate salesmen. He certainly has a role to play in society and he plays it well, but he’s a salesman who can and will sell you anything, the particular product doesn’t matter. He can and has pretended to be all things to all people subject to circumstance, at least until caught out.
Just as the tip of the proverbial, let’s look at that cutesy little logo he has attached to the banner of every page in the lecture. We would presume, correctly as it turns out, that it is his official crest as a hereditary Lord. But intriguingly his crest has changed in less than a year.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/aug/11/lords-climate-christopher-monckton
Comparing the crest from last year with the one on this document, the chains are now wavy instead of straight. So the crest has diverged from the real UK government crest even further, presumably in response to the complaints made in the House of Lords about Monckton’s misleading representations of his status and officialdom.
Far from being some unbending ancient tradition, Monckton’s crest is as pliable as the polls. He, like his crest, will be whatever you want to believe in this week.
Yes, there is a smear campaign against him, and a textual dirt file is out there. I’ve seen enough to get an idea of what’s going on. Even Plimer and Carter have made mistakes, presumably honest ones because hey we’re all human, but Monckton consistently goes further.
Which is not to say he knows nothing about the politics of the IPPC, where he is probably as expert as anybody. Nor perhaps even of basic climatology as long as he doesn’t screw up the equations again. His debating and oratory skills are of course famously excellent. But let’s not kid ourselves about what kind of person Nova’s “skeptic” crowd are uncritically welcoming with open arms. He is a political and PR mercenary for hire – and hire him you did. Twenty five dollars a head, not counting the generosity of the “two retired engineers from the Sunshine Coast” who paid to fly him over here.
What I’m getting at is this. I am uncomfortable about having the undecided public reach the correct conclusion through deceptive means because that is exactly the approach that the warmists have been taking. Monckton’s PR capabilities are needed… just not from Monckton. If we’ve got the facts on our side then we shouldn’t need a pretender; a used climate salesman. Indeed it only does us all harm if Monckton can’t find a way to put his past mistakes, unproven claims, and occasional deceptions all out to pasture… and quickly.
Of course help is appreciated at this critical moment in Aussie politics, and since the tour is booked and seems to be going ahead there is now not much that can be done to stop that. I still think it will prove to be a strategic error as well as being an abandonment of principle.
Does anyone else here see what I’m saying? Can you foresee a looming PR disaster which will distract from the observational basis of our skepticism? I can only hope that this tour manifests as a “preaching to the converted” exercise; to minimise bad press. But I suspect every event is likely to have watermelon journos lurking everywhere. I just have a bad feeling about the effect of this tour.
Now I go to post this comment, and I see all your discussion in the last few hours is cause for dismay. All I’m seeing here now is cheerleading, with words to the effect of “Protect civil liberties!”, “Expose the Communist Plot!”, “Malthusians!”, “burn the witches!”, etc. What exactly is the argumentative strategy there? To fight alarmism with equal and opposite alarmism? There should be absolutely no need to take the rhetoric of the carbon tax debate into the area of political ideologies if the SCIENTIFIC OBSERVATIONS say there is no climate catastrophe to be solved.
Keep it real, people.
10
Tell me about it, RealUniverse,
I’ve been studying the chatter at VHEMT (The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement) group on Yahoo! because they represent the bleeding edge in Green philosophy.
Ironically that the volunteer extinction movement often advocates not-so voluntary genocide for those of us who would rather not go extinct. They have cute slogans like…”Masturbate in the shower! Those naturally occurring vitamins & minerals will eventuallly find their way into the ecosystem… And for every happy event, a single blade of sea-grass will grow!”
and
“Cup the Carrot — Save the Whales!”
Very Hello Kitty stuff….Then suddenly they lapse into genocidal fantasy:
Sure VHEMT are mostly lone extremist nutters who represent only a tiny heavily sedated section of the population. But they all vote Green.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Voluntary_Human_Extinction/
And the VHEMT fight song…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jQPxxfaRzzc
And finally the long term economic plan Bob Brown and the new Green senate are working from. You can’t make this shyt up.
http://www.hubbertpeak.com/duncan/Olduvai.htm
10
HOLY EXPLODING WATERMELONS BATMAN!…..It’s the Wizard of OZ!!!!
http://fenbeagleblog.wordpress.com/2011/07/05/ivery-towers/
10
@57
You have to fight propaganda with propaganda , more so when your MSM is is being fed and abc or ministry of govt propaganda is corrupted ,the carbon tax is wrong , for so many reasons ,this may become an economic disaster for Australia , the CAGW Cultists will learn soon enough about the pain of bringing a stick to a gun fight , this is politics , politics is dirty , we need more people of the caliber of Monckton , Carter ,etc
Australians are not going to take this sh..t , I guarantee it ,when a countries freedom of speech is threatened you watch what happens , you think Greece is some fantasy at the moment or Spain an economic paradise, I don’t want that here ! You argue the means for reasons I don’t care for , and I don’t think I’m on my own there !
10
Fenbeagle @ 59
Heheh, that’s quite good artwork. Could that be Bolta behind the batman mask?
10
To Raven @ 60
Sorry, that is an unfamiliar turn of phrase. What did you mean by that statement?
10
Matt B, you cheated, you actually read Monckton’s stuff! I read a bit as well, and he is very good at glossing over the bits of his argument which are flawed. Its almost more fun to just ignore the sleight of hand and get swept up in his grand narrative.
I must say that Monckton puts together an appealing case. Wrong, but damn he is good!
I think he likes the notoriety, and plus we all get satisfaction from being in demand and doing stuff we do well, so I can see why he does it.
10
Andrew
In another universe….Far Far Away. It could be Tony, and Andrew Bolt (allegadly)
10
John Brookes @ 63
So, we can expect plenty of “informed comment”, can we John?
Pray tell, just for the record, which “bit” did you read?
The title?
10
But, in the meantime, there is more than just a theoretical difference between living in Australia or N. Korea. Given the choice, the majority of North Korea’s population would abandon their “posessions” in an instant and move blindly to Australia — the population of Australia has such a choice (to go to N. Korea), but nobody will take it. (I would take a bet on high odds that you won’t decide to move to N. Korea.)
The average man and woman doesn’t mistake theory for reality (and you don’t either, when it comes to taking action — your writing on this blog would get you sent to the gulag in N.K. At least in Australia, you have a voice and a choice.)
There are Communists and Totalitarians in every country that work to throw your freedom away — don’t help them by pretending that you don’t have any.
10
More on DDT here,
Patrick Moore interview (previously linked @ jonova)
10
Andrew McRae –
christopher monckton is scientifically literate, eloquent, willing to knock politicians from all sides and highly amusing. he has combined intellect with great humour to throw light on the scam of CAGW and its conjoined twin, CO2 taxes/offsets.
no-one imagines he is a guru, a great scientist, or that he has all the answers. but he is entitled to express himself however he likes.
the term ‘ecofascist’ has been around for ages. the MSM has never had a problem with anyone using the term. the MSM has also never had a problem with left and right politicians or activists referring to presidents, prime ministers, opponents – or anyone else for that matter – as Hitler, Goebbels, or Nazis. so why the nervousness?
the MSM – for various reasons – economic and geopolitical, but not scientific – is a player in this scam.
think mark latham’s “handshake” or howard dean’s “scream”. if you don’t know them, just google them. the MSM can make anything out of nothing, and nothing out of anything.
the world of CAGW sceptics would be a far duller place without christopher monckton.
10
theRealUniverse says: “Note: Just prior to this posting, it became public that a new Proceedings of the National Academy of Science (PNAS) study confirms that global warming has been missing since 1998.”
Try reading beyond the WUWT headline.
The paper says:
10
Fenbeagle@64
Ahhhhh, I actually should have said “Robin” since it’s the character at the top right that I meant. But you’ve let the cat out of the bag now… and presumably a Sarah Hansen-Young catwoman would be purrrrfectly SUITed for this drama. 😉
10
John Brookes @ #63
John , I’m glad you allowed yourself to risk reading it. Now please share with us just which bits appear to flawed as you put it ? I know whenever I believed Monckton to be wrong on some detail, whenever I took the trouble to look into further, well it was I that was wrong. Some of his stuff does require more than just a first pass to get it . So do please enlighten us.
10
Pat said…
Indeed. Far duller.
In the same vein we may also say that us skeptics will be “living in interesting times” over this fortnight… and for the next 4 years if reason gets left by the wayside, pipped to the post by postmodernist Precautionary piffle.
10
Blimey @ 69
And this is all covered and predicted in which one of the computer models used by the IPCC for their 2007 Report?
“Hindcasting” – which is all the above statement represents – is simply a matter of dreaming up an excuse for why you got it so bloody wrong in the first place.
A bit like how the claim that “snow would be a thing of the past”, had to morph into “global warming causes global cooling and MORE snow”, when the NH found itself up to its eyeballs in snow.
Tell us Blimey, now that you have used up the “natural variability card”, what will be the excuse when next NH winter is even colder than last year’s?
Seems to me, short of claiming an “Act of God”, you’ve just about run out of fairy tales.
10
A brilliant paper. And something caught my eye for which I wish to point out.
Firstly, I ask you all to look at the chart, on page nine of the paper, depicting the Mediaeval Warm Period:
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/monckton/climate-freedom-hancock-background.pdf
Secondly, I ask you to read the abstract from the ice core study ‘Timing of Atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic Temperature Changes Across Termination III’ which states “The sequence of events during termination III Co2 increase lagged Antarctic deglacial warming by 800 +/- 200 years…”
http://icebubbles.ucsd.edu/Publications/CaillonTermIII.pdf
Here is my observation…
1. The warming of the Mediaeval Warm Period started about 900/1000 years ago. Right?
2. Today, CO2 emissions are rising some 900/1000 years later. Right?
3. If the ice core sample test results are correct, then surely today’s rising C02 is related to the warming creating the Mediaeval Warm Period. Right?
For those of you with a scientific background, what do you think? Am I right or am i wrong?
10
And,
Well, we know you can cut and paste MattB — but understanding what you paste seems to still elude you.
Lorenz is saying that the phase transitions of chaotic systems can’t be predicted. If it was impossible to predict a chaotic system at all, then the weather service would have nothing to do — but weather predictions are pretty good for 3-5 days out. Chaotic systems have prediction horizons — I can confidently predict that when the sun goes down today, the temperature will drop, and the average temperature this winter will be less than the average temperature next summer. I cannot, however, predict when the climate will undergo a phase transition into the next Grand Ice Age.
You’re getting out of sync with your CAGW playbook, MattB — the current meme among the warmists is that Solar forcings don’t matter, so the Sun activity ramping down won’t make any difference. If you keep quoting Lorenz, you’ll undermine your whole argument.
10
@Crakar #22 – @realUniverse #33
PEER REVEIW
Guys can you take a look at this from Reuters.
“Asia pollution blamed for halt in warming: study”.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/04/us-climate-sulphur-idUSTRE7634IQ20110704
.
I think it puts a very different, (MSM), spin on what you are refering to.
I read it as BURN COAL and REDUCE GLOBAL WARMING.
“The study said that the halt in warming had fueled doubts about anthropogenic climate change, where scientists say manmade greenhouse gas emissions are heating the Earth.”
.
I read the paper on WUWT but I am not scientific enough to fully understand it.
.
The point I make is that the Reuters ‘BURN COAL and REDUCE GLOBAL WARMING’ article, (if that is what it it does actually infer) could be absolute dynamite for our cause.
It might even make a mockery of Bob Brown the
HIV’sIV’s’ Coal industry Policy..
Roll on Julia’s
Bloody SundayCarbon Sunday’ speech to the masses, in 5 sleeps time, at least then we can get really stuck into her. (urggggh – what a thought)Sorry for the feudian slip of tongue.
10
memoryvault says “And this is all covered and predicted in which one of the computer models used by the IPCC for their 2007 Report?”
The IPCC models used for the 2007 report did not take into account internal variability, nor would they have been able to forecast an extended solar minimum, nor can they predict that humans would emit greater than usual levels of sulphur.
Newer models do a better job with regards to internal variability.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/317/5839/796.abstract
memoryvault says ““Hindcasting” – which is all the above statement represents – is simply a matter of dreaming up an excuse for why you got it so bloody wrong in the first place.”
You have a misplaced expectation that it would be perfect. No science or forecasting tool is. Over time, our understanding of the science improves reinforcing what we already understand about greenhouse gases.
memoryvault says “A bit like how the claim that “snow would be a thing of the past”, had to morph into “global warming causes global cooling and MORE snow”, when the NH found itself up to its eyeballs in snow.”
No where in the IPCC report does it say this. You must be thinking about the statement by one person that was then captured by the media, before “spectics” heard about it and now promote this idea as if it were mainstream climate science.
memoryvault says “Tell us Blimey, now that you have used up the “natural variability card”, what will be the excuse when next NH winter is even colder than last year’s?”
You know there’s a whole second hemisphere to the planet?
memoryvault says “Seems to me, short of claiming an “Act of God”, you’ve just about run out of fairy tales.”
Now if only you could use logic in your argument.
10
@Blimey #77
“Linear Thinker” are we Blimey.
Shame
10
memoryvault@73
Nope.
Hindcasting may show that a model was either right or wrong, depending on what answer it gives.
Hindcasting itself is not a cop-out, it’s the logical thing to do. Train the model with historic data only up until a certain point, then run it forward to see if its projections match what actually happened next. It’s a forecast from the model’s perspective, but in reality you can already judge the prediction with hindsight.
Note, however, that training a model with ALL available data and then claiming that it successfully reproduces the real measurements is a form of cheating, because it isn’t hindcasting. Determining whether the IPCC do this is left as a homework exercise.
I’m under the impression that the secrecy still surrounding the GCMs makes it impossible to tell how the IPCC arrives at its confident assessments of model reliability. I think we need to open-source climate modelling, plus get a few hundred people to donate time on their PC or XBox’s GPU to run the models ourselves, in the same manner as BOINC and SETI@home. Hopefully there is some parallel algorithm out there for CFD and radiation that makes this possible.
10
Mervyn Sullivan says: “If the ice core sample test results are correct, then surely today’s rising C02 is related to the warming creating the Mediaeval Warm Period. Right?”
CO2 levels are higher today than at any point in the past 2.1 million years.
Not to mention the isotopic signature of atmospheric carbon indicating the additional amount is from human activities, nor that we know very accurately how many tonnes of CO2 we emit.
In previous interglacial periods the initial atmospheric CO2 level was equal with the water. As the water warmed it is less able to hold the Carbon so it was expelling more into the atmosphere than it was absorbing. This extra atmospheric CO2 acted as a feedback.
Today is different because the atmospheric CO2 levels are much much higher than the oceans.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/How-Jo-Nova-doesnt-get-the-CO2-lag.html
10
And,
Now, that’s really convenient: When predictions by climate scientists work out that “reinforces what we already understand about greenhouse gases”, but when they are wildly wrong, that’s just the media’s fault and should be ignored. (Hmm … I don’t remember any other climate scientists disputing the “no snow in the future” prediction by CRU senior research scientist Dr David Viner, when he made it back in 2000 — they were happy to let it stand as a warning against not taking AGW seriously.)
Now if you could only get us to accept your double standard.
10
Andrew McRae:
http://www.cesm.ucar.edu/models/ccsm3.0/
Great idea. 😉
http://climateprediction.net/
10
@BobC, I guess you missed the part by Viner himself.
10
OOPS
The Blimey (DCC) Troll is at it again.
Blimey – Why have the DCC doctored their figures for CO2-e emissions ?
10
10
@Blimey
“The IPCC models used for the 2007 report did not take into account internal variability… Newer models do a better job with regards to internal variability”
In plain English:
The IPCC 2007 Models were CRAP ?
10
Well, that’s only if you (conveniently) ignore the known problems with ice core atmospheric gas estimates.
CAGW (and Blimey’s arguments) are based on a severe cherry-picking of the scientific evidence.
10
BobC @ 87,
Blimey et.al. have a different view of reality than you. They believe, as Kant taught, that reality cannot be known “in and of itself” (meaning without perception and thought) and that the only “knowledge” possible is therefore social knowledge. Their reality resides in the minds of others – especially the minds of significant others. The significant others look to the minds of their significant others for their knowledge in endless recursion.
No where in the process does actual reality enter into their calculations. It is always and forever that knowledge is the knowledge of other..other…other…. Obviously then, since you are not one of his significant others, your knowledge does not count as knowledge for him. Your facts are therefore irrelevant to his thinking.
They collectively believe that, if they repeat their words often enough long enough, reality will obey and that you will thereby be forced to accept. Much the same as the witches and warlocks of the past cast spells by endlessly repeating complex verbal formula in ancient languages.
They fear having to face reality alone and think there is safety in numbers. That is why consensus is so important to them. That an endless sum of zeros will always equal zero does not impinge upon their awareness simply because they are not aware of reality – BY CHOICE!
If the Blimeys of the world are to be recovered, they must do the work for themselves. We cannot do it for them. We are each totally alone as we face reality and must do our own learning and knowing. Others can help or hinder but we must each do the necessary work ourselves. That is what they fear most and are desperately trying to hide from themselves and others.
Our only hope lies in the fact that not all men/women have abandoned their connection with reality and know that words are tools of thought and communication rather than weapons to be used to force reality into being what it is not.
20
Another excellent piece of work from the valiant viscount. Thank you very much for making it available here.
10
Memory Vault
Drop by on JD or LibertyGibbert some time.
10
Lionell Griffith @88):
Very interesting analysis, Lionell. Too bad we can’t confine them to a room and let them play their “video game” version of (virtual) reality without damaging everyone else.
Most people don’t share their disconnect with reality, since most people suffer the consequences of their actions. (Like the peasants in N. Korea aren’t fooled by clever “dialectical” arguments that they live in a society ‘equivalent’ to a democracy.)
I (like many engineers) build stuff that has to work — it doesn’t matter how cleverly I can argue that it should work (or how many academic scientists argue that it shouldn’t work). There are too many people who don’t get this, however. When my wife taught beginning Pascal at the local university, she would regularly have students coming to her with programs that wouldn’t run and arguing with her that they were nevertheless ‘correct’ (and should, therefore, get a passing grade). It took her a while to realize that these people were not joking.
Future “Blimeys” all.
10
BobC,
We experience the same reality. I too build stuff that has to work in both software and hardware. I have over 10 US/International patents on something that many vaunted PhD’s of high repute insist cannot work. Yet it does and magnificently so.
My secret is that I start with understanding the problem to its roots and derive the solution. They start from knowing the solution and hammer the problem until it submits to their will.
They don’t like it that their stuff takes a massive high priced multiprocessor system and expensive hardware to work – eventually. While mine works on $400 entry level laptops in near real time.
From their perspective I am not a team player because I ignored their so called solutions from the get go. I am not going to change and I doubt that they will either.
10
Blimey: #77
July 5th, 2011 at 11:55 pm
Wow, what an amazing statement by Blimey.
Blimey, let me take you to the AR4 Synthesis report. What is a ‘synthesis report’? some may ask. Below is the very first paragraph of this report..
In other words, a Synthesis report is effectively a summary.
Now, regarding the statement “The IPCC models used for the 2007 report did not take into account internal variability” I wonder how these top notch scientists would know whether a period of climate variation was natural or human induced, if they didn’t take natural variability into account? Well of course they did silly, here ’tis on page 39 of the synthesis report…
Hmmm, so it seems the IPCC GCMs HAVE included natural variability in their assessments.
So what gives Blimey, are you inadvertently wrong or deliberately misleading, in other words a frigging LIAR? Which is it pal?
Now regards SULPHUR (an aerosol). Could sulphur (aerosol)be conveniently used as a cop-out by the top-notch IPCC scientists?
One would presume these top-notchers have an intimate knowledge of the effects of sulphur (aerosols)on the global climate. Do they? Do they know enough to be able to say that the recent hiatus in warming was caused by evil Chinas emissions of sulphur (aerosols)? Lets go to the report….
Figure 2.4 in the Synthesis report lists the various Radiative Forcing
Components, their values in W/M2, and our Level Of Scientific Understanding (LOSU) of these components. For Blimeys sulphur (aerosols)we have….
DIRECT EFFECT….-0.5 [-0.9 to -0.1]WM2….LOSU….med/low
CLOUD ALBEDO EFFECT….-0.7 [-1.8 to -0.3]WM2….LOSU….low
So even though our LOSU is fu*k all about aerosols, as soon as the planet stops warming for 12+ years, you lot blame aerosols from China.
Blimey did you think we came down with the last shower? did you think we were as stooooopid as you? Did you think we were pooffo pinko commo alarmo human hating greeny leftard lemming self satisfying repetitive strokers like you?
I suggest you change your name to BLAME ME, it’s more befitting of a human hating lemming.
10
Several more motions over at Get Up , that were in the vein of let’s Shut Up Monckton, have disappeared since yesterday. Their comments have been merged under one anodyne title now called Combatting media disinformation on Climate Change.. Reading some of the comments you ‘ll see they don’t seem to quite fit the suggestion they now appear under.
One wonders if the extremists proposing & supporting the original suggestions would mind having their impassioned support for these activities hijacked to support this benign sounding campaign instead, or is it rather a cover for whats really been going on ? Ref shutting down is it 5 lecture venues now !
10
interesting look at the strange way UN talks the talk . Strange priorities ….
>>>>>>>>>
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/laudable-goals-dont-always-give-results/story-e6frg6ux-1226088316072
>>>>>>>>>
10
Ouch….
>>>>>>>>
China’s Communist Party-controlled news agency, Xinhau, carries this ominous little news story today: “Developed countries should take a lead in adopting verifiable goals to greatly reduce per capita carbon emissions, Foreign Ministry Spokesman Hong Lei said Tuesday …”
>>>>>>>>>
http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/carbon-tax-Gillard-China-coal-Labor-Greens-pd20110706-JGT5P?OpenDocument&emcontent_Burgess&src=rot
>>>>>>>>>
Those who live in glass houses………medial and co
10
@96 that should have been …. Merkal and co …sorry
10
Thanks Baa Humbug. Hopefully that will discourage the zombie liar troll Blimey.
10
The latest little glitch in the IPCC reports as being reported around the place now
http://judithcurry.com/2011/07/05/the-ipccs-alteration-of-forster-gregorys-model-independent-climate-sensitivity-results/
Usual playing with figures to fit the desired result. This on is for the maths geeks among us.
10
Ross –
was just about to pose the same page. hope jo reads it soon and comments.
10
Blimey 69 you MISS the whole point. It IS all natural theres NO correlation with CO2 and temperature in the geologic history. Would you like another LIST of the people that maintain it and email them for an explanation? Try Plimmer, Ball for a start. I also suggest you actually LOOK on the net for plenty of other references not hard to find. Of course it depends on the colour of your rose tinted glasses!
And Anrew McRae 57 Go and read the book by a certain John P Holdren science advisor to Obama, there he advocates exactly reducing the worlds population to 1 billion by what amount to eugenicist means.
10
Why no significant warming in the last 10-12 (or whatever) years? Apparently China’s coal-burning saved us from that:
http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/world/9791264/china-coal-surge-held-back-warming-study/
But the suplhur emissions and resulting evil acid rain must be stopped at all costs. It’s wonderful entertainment watching warmistas chase their tails trying to explain every perturbation of “global temperature” (which is a meaningless concept in any case … because we don’t have the capability to measure it effectively, least of all with land-based thermometers, but I digress) and explain that whatever happens, it results in environmental evil and must be stopped at all costs…
This clown show would be pure entertainment if the costs of the suggested action weren’t ridiculously high.
10
PS> I see MattB immediately jumped to one of the points completely irrelevant to climate ROFL. Like John Brookes, he is completely unable to raise valid points against the scientific argument. Instead we see hand waving and meaningless statements. Try building an argument on the science or against Monckton’s arguments and see how you go. I shall not prejudice your attempt… in fact I look forward to it. So far you have said nothing that is relevant.
10
IPCC what they mean is this “Our theory is correct [but fraudulent as is provable] so all data that doesnt agree with it is bad data”.
Agreed Bulldust too!
See the article in the SMH with some 64yo so called climate scientist (oh hes (pro AGW) CLIMATE SCIENTIST hes GOD he must be CORRECT)says there’s no debate huh! we don’t debate gravity (WRONG mr climate scientist go and read the astrophysical journals!).
10
Blimey@80
Hang on… we all remember Al Gore in “An Inconvenient Truth” and that famous graph of ‘Temperature v Co2’ and how he showed they tracked nicely. Al Gore himself was very impressed with the correlation. What did he say… when Co2 goes up, temperature goes up… ????? They fitted so perfectly! Oh… and he then mentioned the reason was complex but did not go on to explain why.
The graph, of course, was the fundamental evidence that underpinned Al Gore’s argument regarding rising Co2 levels and catastrophic man-made global warming.
Well, Al Gore got it wrong. There is common ground amongst scientists that Al Gore presented the relationship the wrong way round. That graph he used was derived from tests done on ice core samples. The study I quoted (see Mervyn Sullivan@74) clearly indicates that Gore misunderstood the relationship. The peer reviewed study provides evidence that the movement of Co2 levels in the atmosphere lags the temperature trend by 800 +/- 200 years.
So once you acknowledge that Al Gore got the ‘Temperature v. Co2’ relationship the wrong way round, you must acknowledge the results of the ice core samples are right… that Co2 levels are being influenced by what the temperature was doing some 800 to 1000 years ago.
It therefore makes sense that it is highly likely that the rising Co2 levels in the atmosphere, currently being experienced, could be due to the commencement of rising temperatures 800 to 1000 years ago, which gave rise to the Mediaeval Warm Period.
And by the way, check for yourself… Co2 levels in the past have been significantly higher then the present. In fact, the level of Co2 in the atmosphere, in this present era, is deemed to be the lowest experienced by the planet over many millions of years.
Finally… I am truly puzzled how alarmists can claim that the Co2 emitted by human activity is pollution… but the overwhelming 97% of the Co2 that enters the atmosphere each year from nature (source: IPCC AR4) is not pollution? The fact is Co2 is not a pollutant… it is a plant food… a vital part of life.
10
Blimey, John Brookes, MattB etc
So, just to make sure we’ve all got it straight, with no misunderstanding:
Burning coal causes global warming (increased CO2).
Burning coal causes global cooling (increased SO2).
NOT burning coal causes global cooling (decreased CO2).
NOT burning coal causes global warming (decreased SO2).
If that is indeed the case (ha ha), then it would seem to me all we have to do is burn just the “right” amount of coal to create the “ideal” global temperature.
So, if you guys can just advise what is the “ideal” global temperature, we can get some engineers to work out how many coal-fired power stations are just the “right” amount, and everything will be perfectly wonderful with no need for a “pollution” tax.
Seriously, you guys don’t really believe this crap do you?
10
For those of you posting on here that DONT believe that the science is corrupted read here about the hurricanes and the Chris Landsea controversy
http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2011/07/05/landsea-the-ipcc-the-union-of-concerned-scientists/
Great post memoryvault HAHA.
10
Mervyn Sullivan:
The fact that CO2 rises (and falls) after temperature in the ice core record reconstructions does not exclude that a third factor may be driving both series in some way. Correlation does not equal causation 🙂 In the absence of empirical verification it is all hypothetical speculation.
10
Memory vault in 106,
If i could give you 10….no 100 thumbs up i would.
Merv in 105,
You need to understand the mind of a warmbot before going down the path of debating them based on logic, before we continue a slight correction. When Al Gore made his movie he used ice core data that had a resolution greater than 2000 years, the ice data you speak of has a resolution of less than 2000 years which is why Gores data showed temp and CO2 superimposed on each other whilst your data shows a lag/lead. Your job now is to find out when Gore made his movie and when your ice core data was released, imagine for a second Gore had at his disposal the higher resolution data which showed CO2 lagging Temp but decided to use the lower resolution data. If he did this would you call him a fraud, a shyster, a conman. Would you think simpletons like Blimey et al would have been sucked in by this scam? Go on see for yourself what ice core data Gore had available to show in his movie.
In regards to lag/lead, put yourself in the shoes of Blimey for a moment. He will not debate you on this issue because the MWP did not exist, how does he know this? Because Al Gore told him. When confronted with the logic defying situation where history shows CO2 does not drive the temp his response is “But its different this time”. Why is it different you may ask? “Because before CO2 rise was in response to warming but now we are creating CO2 and the response is warming”.
I have tried to help people like Blimey through this maze of illogical trap doors in the passed but it is no easy task let me tell you but i will try again.
We know from ice data that temp rises first then 800 odd years later the CO2 rises.
Then the temp begins to drop, CO2 continues to rise slightly before it too begins to drop.
Ok lets stop there for a moment, what can we learn from this?
Obviously the temp drives CO2, but also this relationship and its timing can be seen repeatedly throughout the record which means other factors have very little effect and probably most importantly we can see the temp DROP WHILST CO2 IS STILL RISING BEFORE IT BEGINS TO FALL AS WELL.
Now fast forward to today, Blimey et al claim rising CO2 will cause CAGW via an increase in temps even though history shows us rising CO2 did not stop the temps from dropping at anytime in the past, Blimey et al response is “But its different this time”. By now you are probably comming to grips with the enormity of the task you have given yourself, i suggest you let sleeping dogs lie here as they lack the higher brain function we take for granted which of course is common sense.
10
Blimey @ 77
Hang on Blimey, isn’t the entire CAGW “theory” based on the claim by the IPCC, Jones, Hansen and others, that they “looked” at other causes of “variability” and were able to “discount” all of them – “proving” that CO2 was indeed the culprit.
If you are now disowning that Blimey, you have just removed the central foundation of the entire CAGW “theory”.
Actually Blimey, quite a few people did, in fact, do just that. Not that it matters much. According to the IPCC and the hockey-stick team, fluctuations in the sun’s activity are too small to account for global warming. Are you telling us now – contrary to “peer-reviewed” claims in IPCC 4 – that the sun’s activity (or lack of it) might just have something to do with global temperatures after all?
So, China spent a few decades building thousands of cheap, (dirty) coal-fired power stations (the kind banned here in OZ and most of the developed world for ages because of their high SO2 emissions), and not one person in the “thousands” of climate scientists who agree with the CAGW consensus ever thought it might just increase SO2 concentrations a tad.
Not that it matters. Real-life, measured, observable results show that SO2 and atmospheric particulates have actually been DECREASING for the past twenty years or so. But then, actual observable facts are such a nuisance in climate science aren’t they?
Actually, Blimey, if you want I’ll post a link to a “peer-reviewed, published” paper by our own CSIRO predicting that the skiing industry faced collapse in the “foreseeable future” due decreasing snowfall, due to CAGW. This paper is cited in IPCC 4.
I can post a link to a similar paper predicting much the same thing for the US ski industry. I’m pretty sure this paper is also cited in the IPCC 4.
That’s just off the top of my head – if you like, I’ll start searching.
That’s right Blimey, and guess what – it’s bloody freezing down here too.
10
OK no greenhouse effect
Heres Venus 96.5% CO2!
http://theendofthemystery.blogspot.com/2010/11/venus-no-greenhouse-effect.html
Without ANY greenhouse effect as promulgated by the IPCC, at any given pressure within the range of the Earth atmosphere, the temperature of the Venus atmosphere should be 1.176 times that of the corresponding Earth atmosphere.
The facts:
at 1000 millibars (mb), T_earth=287.4 (K), T_venus=338.6, ratio=1.178
at 900 mb, T_earth=281.7, T_venus=331.4, ratio=1.176
at 800 mb, T_earth=275.5, T_venus=322.9, ratio=1.172
at 700 mb, T_earth=268.6, T_venus=315.0, ratio=1.173
at 600 mb, T_earth=260.8, T_venus=302.1, ratio=1.158
at 500 mb, T_earth=251.9, T_venus=291.4, ratio=1.157
at 400 mb, T_earth=241.4, T_venus=278.6, ratio=1.154
at 300 mb, T_earth=228.6, T_venus=262.9, ratio=1.150
at 200 mb, T_earth=211.6, T_venus=247.1, ratio=1.168
(Venus temperatures are +/- 1.4K, Earth temp. are from std. atm)
And here..
The temperature profile of the atmosphere is basically determined only by gravity, which increases the pressure in the atmosphere the farther down toward the Earth’s surface you go (just like the pressure increases with depth in the water ocean), and the greater the pressure, the greater the temperature — the presence of infrared radiation, or infrared-absorbing gases, has essentially nothing to do with it.
IT always takes astrphysics to prove (certain) climate science incorrect! Why because understanding of real actual physics is better.
I will add this is also known in stellar atmospheres of stars.
10
It looks like the National Press Club has relented and has asked Monckton to speak on 19th July
Link to The Australian story
This is good news.
I’ve said before, Monckton is a brilliant strategist. This invite would NOT have happened if there was no controversy regards his comments on Garnaut.
10
“Burning coal, no less, is also cooling the planet allegedly, by greater emission of sulphur into the atmosphere, cancelling out the warming from CO2 we would otherwise have seen:”
from http://www.australianclimatemadness.com/2011/07/shock-burning-coal-now-causes-global-cooling/
Theyre right to dismiss this but Also: Well known from atmospheric physics the two hemispheres dont mix well at the sub tropopause levels therefore NH Particulates wont influence the SH much at all.
10
A correction to my post at #112
In fact this is not a talk but a debate with Australia Institute’s executive director, economist Richard Denniss.
Denniss has already accepted.
10
For the clot who marked my venus post with a dislike..Go live on Titan! (@-195 C all Methane another so called green house gas)
10
It seems a story in The Australian is grossly misrepresenting that talks by Monckton are being cancelled:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/capital-circle/controversial-climate-sceptic-lord-monckton-set-to-speak-at-national-press-club/story-fn59nqgy-1226088881113
See if they print my comment or correct the article:
The good news is that a former Greens adviser appears to have been silly enough to challenge Monckton to a debate. This will end in tears … delicious noob tears (apologies, gaming parlance kicked in there for a sec).
10
Missed your link Baa Humbug… disappointing that The Australian still focuses on the nazi thing and gives the false impression of cancelled talks.
10
MV @ 106 110 etc.
Nice posts – and I fully agree with Crackar! Blimey cops the full service – a light taunting followed by a thorough skewering.
I imagine Eddie would be able to predict what Blimey was being served on his plate for breakfast!
Cheers,
Speedy.
10
Baa Humbug …that means he won’t be able to speak in Melbourne that day … Oh well the press club exposure will be much more beneficial to the cause , me thinks .
10
Having sat down and had a couple pints with Lord Monckton on Monday night after listening to the presentations at UWA it has led me to reflect, once again, on how distorted the coverage in the media has become. It is an appalling disservice that the media simply parrot the alarmist groups while disparaging Monckton’s one slip endlessly without any regard for the scientific arguments he makes.
If the media were diligent in their jobs people would not be flocking to blog sites in droves to get a balanced perspective on the debate. It is because the media has been remiss in their duty to inform that frustration is building, and politicians become aloof from the electorate. Without a proper feedback mechanism (i.e. balanced media coverage) politicians can continue to spew their poisonous deceptions and half-truths without immediate public recourse.
It is sad that the Fourth Estate has fallen into such disrepair. It is only natural that it morph into the blogosphere, a proper Fourth Estate run by the people for the people. I stated 15 years ago, and will say it again, that the internet/www is probably the most significant force for democracy in the world today.
10
Bulldust@108
Correlation does not equal causation! Exactly!
But to demonstrate causation there must be a correlation.
So I wonder … where is the correlation that shows rising Co2 in the atmosphere is driving up temperature?
An how can the IPCC (and its believers) then try to claim that Co2, specifically from human activities, is the cause of catastrophic global warming?
The IPCC produced no empirical evidence to support this claim.
Hmmmmm!!!!
10
I have a question for Blimey et al, having successfully pulled the wool over the eyes of the gullible re volcanos emit very little CO2 when compared to man what chance do you give the same strategy succeeding in regards to convincing the gullible that all the sulphur that is now causing the cooling comes from man and not from all the volcanos?
10
Raven –
re China’s call to the developed world, couldn’t they be getting nervous about all the customers they had in mind for their wind turbines and solar panels?
Bulldust –
re the MSM – wouldn’t they be spruiking CAGW to keep those solar ads etc coming in?
if only the public would protest the MSM, by switching off their TVs and radios and cancelling their newspaper subscriptions or stop buying the newspapers (usually bought only for the sports news or obits), we would, perhaps, see a change.
as i don’t know a single person who wants the carbon tax, and most of my friends WERE labor or green voters, i’m more and more convinced that it’s only a hardcore 15% or thereabouts that is arguing for the carbon tax, and it’s time the MSM gave their customers what they want, which they claim is what they do already!
10
This will b e interesting:
10
Facts proving CAGW IS a grand global conspiracy check here
http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2011/02/big-oils-tree-huggers.html
“Last but not least, there is John P. Holdren, also a Council on Foreign Relations member, science adviser to both President Clinton and President Obama, and co-author with Bush science adviser Paul Ehrilich, of the now notorious “Ecoscience.” When Holdren isn’t brand-building for “Climate Disruption,” he is dreaming of a Malthusian fueled totalitarian global government that forcibly sterilizes the world’s population. He feared, erroneously as all Malthusians have done throughout history, that overpopulation would be the end of humanity. He claimed in his hubris filled, fact deficient book, “The No Growth Society,” that by the year 2040, the United States would have a dangerously unsustainable population of 280 million he called “much too many.” The current US population is over 300 million, and despite shockingly incompetent leadership, it is still sustainable.
“
10
politics in the pub
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwYyd2FEHP0
10
This is off topic but Jo needs a dedicated thread for us to list the screw ups of this government.
I was listening to senate question time on the radio as i drove home from work yesterday (yes i know i am pathetic), anyway the Liberal member for Gold Coast was saying that his constituents have to wait 6 years for the NBN co roll out so they can gain access to the “super fast 100 M/bit” broad band however as we speak Telstra is rolling out a 4th generation wireless network that will give Gold Coast residence super fast 100 M/bit broad band now.
The tax payer is not paying a cent for the Telstra network as Telstra is funding it themselves so why are we having to pay for a government regulated NBN network giving the same speeds? My son who claims to have all the wisdom of Moses at the tender age of 16 beleives the NBN will allow him to play Call Of Duty 4 online even faster even though we have ADSL2 (approx 1M/bit), not to mention he downloaded 70M.bits of music in under 3 minutes. I explained to him that increasing your speed by 98M/bits will not improve your COD4 by 98% in fact the improvement would be barely perceptible (2M/bits would be all yu need)and having to wait 3 minutes to download music is hadly an inconvenience.
Now this got me thinking, two points how many people out there really understand how over cooked this NBN is and secondly the design of this network flies in the face of the very systems engineering principles the government adhere to. Let me explain further.
If you are approached by a customer with a request to provide an engineering solution to a problem your design will address their problem and nothing more systems engineering shows a relationship between the amount of effort (cost) versus customer satisfaction (it does the job required). Therefore the more you spend on the design the more customer satisfaction but only to a point after which customer satisfaction does not improve so why spend big dollars on chasing a gold plate solution.
Take myself as an example, i can play COD4 online quite well with a 1M/bit connection a 2M/bit connection would be great (customer satisfaction goes up) but a 100M/bit connection will not improve my COD4 online experience any more than 2M/bits (customer satisfaction stays the same but costs blow out or gold plate solution). I can download music very quickly at 2M/bits even quicker but with 100M/bits even quicker again but who cares if it takes 2 minutes or 45 seconds really…who cares?
I can see no reason why the government have gone way over the top on this except one, some time ago the government wanted to bring in a filter to spy on its citizens thinly disguised as a child porn filter, it was defeated mainly because it would slow down the internet to the point it would stop but with the NBN ……………or am i seeing a conspiracy that is not really there?
10
Another big spend!
More Waste!
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/emergency-carbon-tax-compensation-for-power-plants/story-fn59niix-1226088902937
The government has to pay in order to gain acceptance of this CO2 Tax. The only focus group it should be putting the TAX to – is the Australian public through an election.
10
Mervyn Sullivan:
July 6th, 2011 at 1:45 pm
Bulldust@108
Correlation does not equal causation! Exactly!
But to demonstrate causation there must be a correlation.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Bingo … and this is the difference between what statisticians & mathematicians call a “necessary condition” and a “sufficient condition.” It is covered on Wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessary_and_sufficient_condition
That temperature rises preceded CO2 rises would be a necessary condition for causation, but not a sufficient condition.
10
PS> I am inclined to think it realistic that increased temperatures increase the release of CO2 from oceans and that there is a smallish feedback because of the Greenhouse Effect, but given the logarhytmic tapering of the impact of increasing CO2 it is clear that this is not sufficient to cause an out-of-control feedback spiral. This is where the entire modelling exercise comes in with massive positive feedbacks from water vapour, which are patent rubbish. If the system were so sensitive it would long ago have spiralled out of whack (for lack of a better word springing to mind). The fact that it hasn’t, over millions and millions of years of high and low temperatures and CO2 concentrations should be ample evidence for anyone with a bit of common sense to recognise that the IPCC estimates of water vapour feedback are pure fantasy. But vested interests keep driving the CAGW meme…
10
True news in 76, sorry for the late reply to your post.
To understand this paper all you need to do is understand a few basic principles of this scam.
1, There is no -ve feedback to rising CO2 emissions only +ve.
2, Left up to its devices the planet would regulate the temp to a millionth of a degree, in other words it would be as flat as a billiard table (refer Hockey stick).
3, Internal variability (TSI, ENSO, PDO etc) cannot explain the warming seen since the industrial revlolution ergo CO2 caused the warming and is to blame.
Ok with the above in mind lets look at the facts, the temp dropped from 1940 to 1970 when CO2 as it was increasing should have forced the temp to go up so to keep the scam alive they needed to invent an excuse, they blamed sulphur emissions from fossil fuel burning. Now the beauty of this was that now man was causing both cooling and warming AKA climate change. Running in parallel to this GISS over the years has adjusted this cooling to the point where it is almost unrecognisable, one can only assume this was done just in case the sulphur trick did not work.
Then the temps rose from 1970 to 2000 (partly due to GISS adjustments) but officially it was because we cleaned up our fossil fuel emissions which is in fact an accurate statement, so without the additional sulphur there was nothing to mask the warming from CO2, then unexpectedly the planet stopped warming for at least ten years. After years of denying and adjusting this fact could no longer be ignored, hence the new paper.
The new paper details the cooling effects by a lower TSI, transition from El Nino to La Nina and an unexpected drop in stratospheric water vapor. However when added together these natural events cannot explain the cooling so there must be something else to blame. The only plausible (in their mind) “something else” is sulphur which of course is a man produced product that has caused the cooling, they have simply tried the same old trick they used back in the 40’s to 70’s. So either way evil man is to blame.
This is important because if you try to mount a case against the AGW theory the warmbots will simply turn the tables on you and say “we are causing the cooling” another reason to get rid of fossil fuels, dont you just love the level of complexity these guys go to to maintain the faith.
A few points about the paper, firstly no evidence that they quantified the amount of sulphur spewed out by Asian factories compared to the volcanic activity of recent years. Secondly no explanation for the 10% drop in WV in the stratosphere since 2000 which to me is very important because lets not forget what teh warmbots tell us which is as CO2 rises so will temp causing a small warming but this warming will lead to an increase in WV (+ve feedback) which is what will give us the CAGW they all preach about.
So a question or two, if CO2 has increased by 25% in the last decade why/how has WV decreased by 10% over the same period? I suspect the sulphur idea is a red herring and the real reason why temps have not risen is due to the reduction of WV but the paper glosses over this because it flies in the face of settled science.
10
Pat @123
My tv doesn’t even have an antenna , I only watch DVDs 🙂
10
Looking at the blogosphere this afternoon articles mainly prove that
Match set to the skeptics. Alarmists = headless chickens! One pro AGW site claiming M. Mann exonerated..should be incarcerated.
Excellent one on little ice age by Nils-Axel Morner
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/07/05/nils-axel-morner-arctic-environment-by-the-middle-of-this-century/
10
pat @123
i’m more and more convinced that it’s only a hardcore 15% or thereabouts that is arguing for the carbon tax
I believe a certain Austrian corporal started out in a beer hall somewhere in Germany a while back , with less than that?!? 😉
10
Good read , Real Universe .
Any chance we could petition to have this bit tattooed on the red queens bum …there will be room for capitals…
At any rate, from a Solar-Terrestrial point of view, we will, by the middle of this century, be in a New Solar Minimum and in a New Little Ice Age. This conclusion is completely opposite to the scenarios presented by IPCC
10
Real Universe
we will be in a new major Solar Minimum. It is to be expected that we will then have a new “Little Ice Age” over the Arctic and NW Europe
Is there any study on the southern regions ?, as they would be affected in a similar manner , if not more so I would have wagered .
10
Score to date:
memoryvault: 100 Bananas in pyjamas: NIL
ABC’s Bananas in Pyjamas – the 3 Bees = Brooksie, Blimmey and mattyBee
Bananas in pyjamas are coming down the stairs, Bananas in pyjamas are coming down in pairs, Bananas in pyjamas are chasing teddy bears….. then they all
10
Raven I would expect the SH will be affected as well but in what way i guess would depend on the circum antarctic current. I supect well ge frozen to some extent. Looks like starting already this season.
@ 135, And are you opening a tatto shop? haha.
10
Raven @ 136
I think weather-wise east coastal OZ will be cold, but alright. Inland maybe not so good. Perth and SW WA will be like Tassie, and Tassie will be like Antarctica.
That’s the weather.
Exactly what we do with the ten million plus refugees from England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland I’m not so sure about, given they will all have families here who will be pushing to allow them entry.
Then, of course, there’s the even greater numbers of refugees from the Scandinavian countries, the Netherlands, Ukraine, Germany etc, many of whom also have family ties here.
Of course, if we’d spent the last twenty years building infrastructure (power generation and distribution, water collection and distribution, major arterial road systems, encouraging regional development and growth etc) things wouldn’t be so bad.
Oh well, at least they will all have access to fast internet – if they can afford it.
10
Real Universe What a an idea , …….not only are they carbon neutral , Tattoos are very popular , could have a special ” crest of ignorance ” for green voters , a red and green chicken bending over holding a sickle on a brown background ,incorporating some kind of nifty black cross , being made by little red pixie with a hammer … 🙂 🙂 ….not to mention the senate special green edition …… 9 green turkeys lined up end to end with their heads all obscured by their sphincter … On a red and brown background …
10
Memoryvault…
Exactly what we do with the ten million plus refugees from England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland I’m not so sure about, given they will all have families here who will be pushing to allow them entry.
Perhaps we could pitch a really really big tent in the outback , that will keep all those spinning wheels at the at the nationalized blanket making headquarters Canberra in gainful green employment. 🙂 not to mention the TWU ..top wheelbarrows unlimited .. Each comes with it’s own green slave to use as an engine … 😉
10
theRealUniverse:
July 6th, 2011 at 11:49 am
“OK no greenhouse effect”
While I agree with the general thrust of your argument, we do have a stratosphere on Earth due to the presence of oxygen which becomes ozone under the influence of solar UV. This causes the tropopause which does put a lid on convection. I don’t know if solar UV can cause disassociation of Co2 and warm the Venusian or Martian atmospheres at altitude. I did look up the lapse rate of the Martian atmosphere and it does seem to have a stratosphere of sorts. Anyone know more about this?
10
Mike this guy Prof. Claes Johnson, “Climate Thermodynamics” says its all thermodynamics. The so called back radiation theory if false and has no basis in physics. Not sure about the Martian tropopause it’d be pretty weak as Mars has a surface pressure of about 7mb.
Venus has still allot of unknowns as to it volcanic activity at the surface etc too so thered be other factors that may influence surface temp. I havent seen ref to a tropopause remember Venus surface pressure is 90 earth ATM! and its 60km deep, earth is a paultry 12 by comparason.
Raven @ 140 ROFLMAO!
10
Good thing they managed to fix this ( no sarcasm intended)
Federal Agriculture Minister Joe Ludwig announces end of live export ban
By Malcolm Farr, National Political Editor From: news.com.au July 06, 2011 6:51pm
..and before Sunday … My how the world works( sarcasm intended)
10
Looks like they have put batteries in the clockwork goose , it’s lurching about stuck on hypocritical …
Treasurer Wayne Swan said the release of the full carbon tax package would mark a turnaround in the government’s climate campaign.
“We absolutely look forward to this debate so all of the scaremongering from those opposite can be exposed for what it is,” he said.
What odds the battery goes flat before debate time ….And I thought you wound it up ….with a cheque , and just how would worse be a turnaround , Goood Grief Charlie Brown !
10
Raven
Now they have backed down on the cattle exports , maybe a backdown on the carbon tax would be worthwhile !!!
Seriously at the moment Gillard and the ALP are toast and next election stand to get seriously wiped out.( Gillards reputation will be….. fill in the gap ) From a political point of view if she pulled the rug out from under the Greens with the Carbon Tax and abandoned it , what has she got to lose ?–but maybe gain quite abit. A little bit of egg on the face , but so what.
I know it won’t happen but if I was a backbencher in a marginal seat I would be making the suggestion to her.
10
It wasn’t defeated… recently Telstra and Optus started filtering on a “voluntary” basis where the meaning of voluntary is they tried not to tell too many people what they were doing, and if you don’t like it you can voluntarily try a different ISP.
Price of freedom, eternal vigilance, etc, etc.
10
I’m sure this will help , mulching trees for jet fuel ,…wasn’t aware virgin was part of the cult…seems strange to spend more for the same level of carbon , tree haters apparently ,sickem brown queen .
VIRGIN Australia has formed a venture with Dynamotive Energy Systems and closely-held Renewable Oil that aims to turn eucalypt trees into jet fuel.
10
Sorry this is so late, but mattb’s ignorance cries out for clarification. First:
A proof reader (or anyone) would also tell you that DDT is not used against MALARIA, but instead used to kill mosquitos that carry malaria. You sound like Frank Burns when he was killing rats to get rid of Hemorrhagic Fever.
Second:
You should not pontificate on subjects you are ignorant on. Chaotic, in a math sense, does not mean it is not predictable or it cannot be modeled. It merely means it does not follow a simple pattern. However with higher mathematics, it usually can be modeled and predicted. Your very gods of AGW basically refute what you say as the weather system, and hence the climate (since climate comes from weather) is chaotic, yet they are trying to model it every day (and tell us the world is doomed). Their problem is they are using relative simple mathematics.
10
Ross@146
They know their toast ..that’s what worries me …I hope it’s not half way through a 50 year plan to return Australia to the rightful leaders of the communist world government,step 22 join hands with radical green traitors to deflect blame, step 23 , totally wipe out own party ,reselect only approved candidates from red brigade , step 25 spend next 20 years rebuilding own party …a bit like UN approach to CAGW , they don’t have enough fifth column scientists yet , however give em enough rope and they will hang all of us if were not careful . It’s always wise to note the little things , such as 68,000 Non Govt teachers distancing themselves from you know what …..and you know who ..
10
On polytiks is Abbot an alarmist in sheeps clothing? Im sure he either secretly believes in this horse manure or is playing gamzies? He just says TAX is bad didnt hear him say he actually doesnt believe. Unlike the local govt minister in NZ Rodney Hide who is real skeptic.
10
therealuniverse@143:
Oh. You do realise that even Monckton (and Jo) think that the “so called back radiation theory” is kosha. Maybe you do, and are just being fiercely independent in your beliefs. Wrong, but fiercely independent, and that is the important thing, isn’t it?
10
John Brookes @ 152
Good to see you’ve shown up John B.
No doubt you want to address the absurdity in cultist logic that I discussed at #106.
Or maybe you’re here to defend the attack I made on Blimey and “your” cult at #110.
Or could it be you are finally ready to tell us your “Plan B”.
Surely you are here for some actually worthwhile reason John?
Surely you didn’t drop in just to remind us, that here, unlike Septic Science and Unreal Climate, we agree to disagree on all sorts of things and respect each person’s right to hold and discuss different logical opinions.
10
@151 Real Universe …
A ..he doesn’t want offend the UN.
B.. He is a politician and wants an each way bet .
C..He would shoot himself in the foot leaning to the skeptic .
D.. Would seem his logical avenue , unless he’s just another CAGW stooge in waiting , perhaps explain how he can achieve the same abatement as proposed by the ALP / greens buy doing nothing , as we are already doing a fare share and according to the best independent advice we are about middle of the road , not where the ALP claims, in danger of being left behind by the rest of the world, he could also explain honestly where he stands personally , something I will want to know before I would vote for him , …. A bit of truth repeated ad nauseam might just stick !
10
Raven @ 154
You got it at B. Raven.
He’s just another politician who, at the moment, sees some votes in trying not to alienate all of the “global warming” fraternity.
As such he is just another gutless, spineless wannabe – no better or worse than the rest of them. It grieves me that there are so many people who think an election is going to make stuff-all difference.
And on that unhappy note I’m off to bed.
10
BobC says: “Yeah, I did miss that — why don’t you provide a link?”
Why don’t you look at the same article your quote came from. Google is your friend.
BobC says: “Well, that’s only if you (conveniently) ignore the known problems with ice core atmospheric gas estimates.”
Funny how peer-reviewed science doesn’t have a problem with it, but a web-blogger seems to think they have all the answers.
I’d like to see the peer-reviewed science (not Monckton science) that shows stomata is more accurate than ice cores data. The ice core samples the air directly from bubbles trapped within the ice. The stomatal response also reacts to drier conditions and you are indirectly measuring by looking at stomata density, rather than directly sampling the CO2 level.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/286/5446/1815.full
Also ironic that you accuse me of ignoring points whilst you did exactly that yourself.
10
Baa Humbug says: “Well of course they did silly, here ’tis on page 39 of the synthesis report … … Hmmm, so it seems the IPCC GCMs HAVE included natural variability in their assessments.”
Perhaps you should learn the difference between “internal variability” and “natural forcing”.
If you had bothered to read the peer-reviewed paper I linked to then you would have realised these are not my words.
Even Bob “cough skeptic cough” Carter agrees with me at the 6 minute mark -> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCXDISLXTaY
Baa Humbug says: “So what gives Blimey, are you inadvertently wrong or deliberately misleading, in other words a frigging LIAR? Which is it pal?”
As it turned out you didn’t do your research and yet again you were wrong, or misleading, or in your words “a frigging LIAR”.
Baa Humbug says: “So even though our LOSU is fu*k all about aerosols, as soon as the planet stops warming for 12+ years, you lot blame aerosols from China.”
You missed a few items, see earlier post. 😉
10
theRealUniverse says: “Blimey 69 you MISS the whole point. It IS all natural theres NO correlation with CO2 and temperature in the geologic history.”
I just chose to read the paper rather than the WUWT article. The peer-reviewed paper said
theRealUniverse says: “Would you like another LIST of the people that maintain it and email them for an explanation? Try Plimmer.”
Do you mean Plimer with his book of fairy tales?
http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/04/23/ian-plimer-heaven-and-earth/
theRealUniverse says: “I also suggest you actually LOOK on the net for plenty of other references not hard to find. Of course it depends on the colour of your rose tinted glasses!”
Actually it depends on whether you like science performed by experts and published in peer-reviewed journals or whether you prefer the word of anyone on the internet capable of writing words.
10
Mervyn Sullivan says: “Well, Al Gore got it wrong. There is common ground amongst scientists that Al Gore presented the relationship the wrong way round.”
I agree, don’t trust politicians for climate science, don’t ask a denist, don’t ask a biologist. Ask a climate scientist.
Richard Alley explains the relationship better than Gore. http://www.agu.org/meetings/fm09/lectures/lecture_videos/A23A.shtml
For a condensed read http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature-intermediate.htm
Mervyn Sullivan says: “It therefore makes sense that it is highly likely that the rising Co2 levels in the atmosphere, currently being experienced, could be due to the commencement of rising temperatures 800 to 1000 years ago, which gave rise to the Mediaeval Warm Period.”
The shifts in temperature during the interglacial periods was much larger than the MWP and yet the change on CO2 levels were much much lower than what we’ve experienced since we began emissions. The number to support your theory don’t stack up. As mentioned above, it also requires the ocean to heat first before the rise and the oceans would need to be a net emitter of CO2, which currently they are not, they are getting more acidic, less alkaline.
We also know that there is isotopic evidence suggesting we are the cause. The atmospheric ratio of carbon-12 to carbon-13 has been rising – this can’t be explained if the change were natural.
Mervyn Sullivan says: “And by the way, check for yourself… Co2 levels in the past have been significantly higher then the present.”
Yes I am aware of that.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/07/110705183847.htm
There wasn’t 7 billion people trying to live on it at the time.
Mervyn Sullivan says: “Finally… I am truly puzzled how alarmists can claim that the Co2 emitted by human activity is pollution… but the overwhelming 97% of the Co2 that enters the atmosphere each year from nature (source: IPCC AR4) is not pollution?”
The change in the balance is why CO2 is now a problem. If the planet were to have emitted 3% more year after year then we’d be dealing with natural changes rather than man-made ones.
Mervyn Sullivan says: “The fact is Co2 is not a pollutant… ”
Yes it is.
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/Ocean+Acidification
Mervyn Sullivan says: “it is a plant food… a vital part of life.”
Vital though many molecules are, in high concentrations they can be quite the opposite and whilst some plants may benefit, others may not.
Looking at just the CO2 level is over-simplistic. On a warming planet you will need to account for drier soils, higher incidents of floods, more intense droughts, invasive insects.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-plant-food.htm
10
memoryvault says “If that is indeed the case (ha ha), then it would seem to me all we have to do is burn just the “right” amount of coal to create the “ideal” global temperature.”
Older coal stations generally create more SO2 per GW of electricity, as does the burning of brown coal.
CO2 lingers in the atmosphere for a much longer time than SO2.
It’s desirable to keep emissions of SO2 low for other health-related reasons.
memoryvault says “So, if you guys can just advise what is the “ideal” global temperature”
There is no ideal temperature, however the last 8,000 years were stable enough to allow human population to expand from around 1 million to 7 billion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png
10
crakar24 says: “We know from ice data that temp rises first then 800 odd years later the CO2 rises.”
Seriously? What part of the CO2 feedback theory do you not understand?
The number of times on this forum I’ve heard “Oh, but CO2 lags temp!!!”, only to put forth the concept of CO2 as a feedback and direct you to climate scientists that explain how this works, only to have, just a few posts later someone else say “Oh, but CO2 lags temp!!!”. You’re either too stupid to consider the feedback mechanism simply wish to bury your heads in the sand. I seriously do not know which category you fall into.
10
memoryvault says: “Hang on Blimey, isn’t the entire CAGW “theory” based on the claim by the IPCC, Jones, Hansen and others, that they “looked” at other causes of “variability” and were able to “discount” all of them – “proving” that CO2 was indeed the culprit.”
They were able to deduce the change in natural forces and establish they were not causing the amount of warming we were seeing. On a side note you also seem to be getting confused between “natural forces” and “variability”.
memoryvault says: “Actually Blimey, quite a few people did, in fact, do just that. ”
And like the winners at the races they’ll make you very aware of it. The gamblers that lost stay silent. But again you miss the point, the models were not focussed on getting solar predictions exactly right because that’s irrelevant when trying to assess what effect GHG will have. Regardless of what the sun does, the increase in GHG will have a greater effect on the long term temperature trend.
memoryvault says: “Not that it matters much. According to the IPCC and the hockey-stick team, fluctuations in the sun’s activity are too small to account for global warming. Are you telling us now – contrary to “peer-reviewed” claims in IPCC 4 – that the sun’s activity (or lack of it) might just have something to do with global temperatures after all?”
The change in solar forcing does have an impact on temperatures as was mentioned in the IPCC report and in this latest report. For more than 30 years the solar forcing has been in decline whilst temperatures continue to rise. Trying to pin warming/cooling on one cause is stupid.
memoryvault says: “So, China spent a few decades building thousands of cheap, (dirty) coal-fired power stations”
The climate scientists would be well aware of the impact SO2 has. That doesn’t mean they are about to factor this into their models. There’s a limit to computing power and the time and resources available for modelling. As science advances and models increase in complexity they will start to factor in more short term influences so that they can account better for short term fluctuations – even if it is irrelevant for assessing the long term impact of GHG.
memoryvault says: “Actually, Blimey, if you want I’ll post a link to a “peer-reviewed, published” paper by our own CSIRO predicting that the skiing industry faced collapse in the “foreseeable future” due decreasing snowfall, due to CAGW. This paper is cited in IPCC 4.”
Please do I’d be interested in reading it. Snow in Australia has always been marginal so it’s no surprise that it would be at risk in the future.
memoryvault says: “That’s right Blimey, and guess what – it’s bloody freezing down here too.”
Thanks for the local weather update but I’d prefer if you stick to the topic of GLOBAL CLIMATE change.
10
Mervyn Sullivan says: “The IPCC produced no empirical evidence to support this claim.”
A remarkably wild stab in the dark here, but I’m guessing you’ve not read the IPCC report?
10
crakar24 says: “I have a question for Blimey et al, having successfully pulled the wool over the eyes of the gullible re volcanos emit very little CO2 when compared to man …”
You have evidence to the contrary?
http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/climate.php
crakar24 says: “what chance do you give the same strategy succeeding in regards to convincing the gullible that all the sulphur that is now causing the cooling comes from man and not from all the volcanos?”
Volcanoes contribute to cooling as well – as stated on previous link.
10
crakar24 says: “3, Internal variability (TSI, ENSO, PDO etc) cannot explain the warming seen”
But is does add to the variability that shows up in the surface temperature record, thus allowing amateurs to make incorrect analysis as you’ve just shown.
crakar24 says: “Then the temps rose from 1970 to 2000 (partly due to GISS adjustments)”
Four different organisations show the same trend although two did not start until later.
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1970/to:2000/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1970/to:2000/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1970/to:2000/plot/gistemp/from:1970/to:2000/trend/plot/uah/from:1970/to:2000/plot/uah/from:1970/to:2000/trend/plot/rss/from:1970/to:2000/plot/rss/from:1970/to:2000/trend
crakar24 says: “A few points about the paper, firstly no evidence that they quantified the amount of sulphur spewed out by Asian factories compared to the volcanic activity of recent years.”
Just because you are unaware, doesn’t mean others share the same level of ignorance.
http://www.atmos-chem-phys.org/10/6311/2010/acp-10-6311-2010.pdf
crakar24 says: “So a question or two, if CO2 has increased by 25% in the last decade why/how has WV decreased by 10% over the same period?”
That’s only one question, but hey the science is available if you’re willing to look.
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/41594
10
memoryvault @ 153:
We already know John Brooke’s “Plan B”. It’s genocide with a large dose of eugenics mixed in. Population control as an ultimate solution has been explicitly stated by him time and time again on this blog. John is so intelligent and his plan so perfect that, he doesn’t have to explain the details with plebs like you or me. In fact, any ethical or technical discourse with sceptical simpletons such as us is beneath him.
crakar24 @ 127:
I’ve got wireless 4G which is now at an oversold threshold by my provider. In the city during business hours it is half the speed of dialup! Wireless has a limited bandwidth capacity, fiber does not. In fact fiber has just had some exciting technological developments in terms of speed and capacity. NBN will easily be able to deliver 100Gb/sec.
Will 100Gb be enough? Hardly. Distributed computing is more or less the path which IT will take. Artificial intelligence algorithms and advanced object relational mapping require enormous amounts of processing and storage which can only be achieved through networked systems. Active data normalisation will see files and databases regularly shuffled around the internet from server to server to free up primary processing for performance. Servers will more and more fill the role of program cache management, not data archiving.
10
@ Blimey:
Actually, no. We’ve all studied the C02 as a feedback and it’s bunk. The very fact that it lags heat by 800 years demonstrates this prefectly. If C02 was a net positive feedback then the temperature record clearly shows that the planet should have entered a run-away hot house, because it had pasted a tipping point, having dire consequences, meaning that it was beyond the point of no return, many times. On every upswing and downswing in the temperature record, the earth has proven the C02 is not a net positive feedback. I have yet to see any argument refuting this FACT that is even remotely coherent(IE: suspends by disbelief enough to be a good bedtime horror story).
Oh, you’re talking about the unexplained temperature variations within the record’s margin of error? Seriously, this is not even close to being an argument. What part of within thermometer margin of error do you not understand? That is how small the warming is. No amount of government funded modeling, with all the fudge factors in the world is going to change that.
My very favourite part of the Climategate documents.
And this, is where your argument goes supanova. WTF!?! Let’s just ignore your amplifying feedback argument and how it relates to what you just said for a second. Yep, that’s making my head hurt. So, ah, forget it. If you want to ignore the temperature reconstructions for earth’s very long term history which shows absolutely no correlation between C02 and temperature then, there’s nothing really to debate here. Move along people.
Yeah, I bolded that bit for you. 🙂
10
Bransons take on carbon tax…
RICHARD BRANSON: Any tax should be done on a global basis, I think ideally, not on a country-by-country basis. There’s a big meeting in Durban in December and hopefully something will be put through so that if it’s done on a global basis it doesn’t disadvantage individual countries or individual companies.
ANNIE GUEST: His various companies are facing these issues globally, including campaigning against the European Union’s proposal to include foreign airlines like Virgin Atlantic in its emissions trading scheme.
Here, he took a careful approach in making his point.
RICHARD BRANSON: I don’t want to get too drawn into domestic politics in Australia. I mean I know that something’s going to come out on Sunday and we’ll see what is said. But if it disadvantages Australian companies and Australian people; anyway that’s a question that Australians are going to have to ask themselves.
Abc pm
10
and all day you guys have been missing the big story!
http://judithcurry.com/2011/07/05/the-ipccs-alteration-of-forster-gregorys-model-independent-climate-sensitivity-results/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/07/05/the-ipcc-and-high-biased-climate-sensitivity/
For those trying to follow it all try the explanation in the comments at
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2011/7/5/ipcc-on-climate-sensitivity.html?currentPage=2#comments
Jul 6, 2011 at 9:52 AM | Unregistered CommenterJeremy Harvey
10
And that was easier than providing your link? the Google search [Viner “snowfalls are now just a thing of the past”] returns 24,000 results — which one do you think I looked at? (Are you sure you know anything about Google?)
Still haven’t responded to the problem of a ‘theory’ that can explain everything after it happens, but can’t predict anything before it happens.
Well, that’s just your ignorance speaking, Blimey. There is a robust debate in the peer-reviewed literature about the limitations of ice core gas sampling (see here and here for examples, and here for a summary and listing of other papers). (Of course, warmists ignore any peer-reviewed literature they don’t want to deal with.)
Google is not your friend Blimey, since it allows folks to identify the B.S. you try to use as arguments.
10
Blimey (July 7th, 2011 at 12:31 am) posts what he thinks is a peer-reviewed paper disputing the efficacy of stomata as indicators of past CO2 atmospheric levels:
Then chides me with:
Whoops! You should have read more than the first couple of paragraphs. The link is to a critique of a paper which showed large and variable CO2 concentrations in the early Holocene atmosphere — and the author’s response . While the critique questions the accuracy of stomata for this purpose, the response by the authors adequately answers all the criticisms and shows that they are not relevant.
So, this link didn’t even come close to making your argument that
but rather made my point that “there is a robust debate in the peer-reviewed literature”.
Feel free to make any other points for me that you like.
10
Thanks Pete H. @#61.
So really it’s suggesting a central climate sensitivity of 1.6 Cdeg. Per CO2 doubling eh !
Not far from Monckton’s central estimate 1.4, inhis Monthly CO2 Report
I can hardly wait to hear his take on the details of these figures.
Brilliant work there by Nic Lewis.
10
PSALM 2010-2011;
FIRST BOOK OF GOVERNMENT
Julia is the shepherd I did not want.
She leadeth me beside the still factories.
She restoreth my faith in the Liberal party.
She guideth me in the path of unemployment for her party’s sake.
Yea, though I walk through the valley of the bread line,
I shall fear no hunger for her bailouts are with me.
She has anointed my income with taxes,
My expenses runneth over.
Surely, poverty and hard living will follow me all the days of my life.
And I will live in a rented home forever.
I am glad I am Australian.
I am glad that I am free.
But I wish I was a dog
And Julia was a tree.
10
Well it seems we are getting a price tag of $23/tonne:
http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/newshome/9796823/23-carbon-tax-price-revealed/
Got to like this angle the Government is seeking to push:
The GST replaced existing wholesale sales taxes*, the carbon dioxide tax is an entirely new tax. Once again the Government will be caught telling porkies. Expect the opposition to jump all over this.
10
You wonder what possessed people to think that this was the right person to sell a carbon (dioxide) tax to ordinary Australians:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/executive-lifestyle/cate-rolls-out-red-armani-to-light-up-paris/story-e6frg8k6-1226089273435
Anyone who thinks that this will resonate with average Australians is clearly clueless.
10
Inco. @ #39
Is that why they were calling it doggy data ?
10
From #1.
As if we didn’t know.
Sometimes I wish I had a couple of hundred thousand of those Martian machines from War of the Worlds. Wow, couldn’t I set the world to rights in a hurry.
But you all better be glad I don’t have them because after the big jobs come the smaller and smaller jobs government shouldn’t do and finally the invented jobs and before you know it, I’m ten times Hitler in Spades.
And there’s the rub. Is our civilization going the way of all the others? It happens from lack of interest. Just look at what took up America’s time for weeks…a dumbass trial in Florida, not what our government is doing.
That noise you hear is me screaming!
10
doubt if this was even in the Courier Mail, as the link is a Quest Newspaper one, but see followup from local paper below the link:
20 June: Quest Newspapers Logan: Courier Mail: Jessica Bayfield: Logan to struggle with electricity price rise
Logan businesses are finding times are tough, and a 6.6 per cent increase in electricity prices is only going to make things harder…
“The price increases announced will seriously jeopardise business viability in Queensland,” CCIQ (Chamber of Commerce and Industry Queensland) President David Goodwin said.
“The ongoing electricity price rises of this kind are simply unsustainable…of even greater concern is that this price increase is completely separate from any future possible carbon tax or other emissions reduction programs.”
Mr Goodwin said since deregulation in 2007, electricity prices had risen on average 10.43 per cent each year, which was a 64 per cent increase over the last five years.
For the full story and reaction from the Beenleigh-Yatala and Logan Chamber’s read next weeks Albert and Logan News.
http://www.couriermail.com.au/questnews/logan/logan-to-struggle-with-electricity-price-rise/story-fn8m0u8i-1226077170887
not online but the President of the Beenleigh-Yatala Chamber of Commerce President, Kerry Armstrong, is finally quoted in the Albert and Logan News on 6th July re electricity costs crippling small business livelihoods:
Kerry Armstrong, President Bennleigh-Yatala Chamber of Commerce: “Small businesses are wondering when it’s all going to stop”…
“Sales aren’t as frequent and the increased costs are being passed on to customers who are paying more and not getting their money’s worth.
Things are not very good, especially because their is also the carbon tax to worry about.”
10
Lionel # 88
Raven # 134
Lionel & Raven – Methinks that the fervent belief in the falsity of AGW is a product of a Goebellian technique. If you assume that we have a mind that accepts as gospel truth whatever the ABC and SBS say, then we also see minds that will rationalize all examples that expose the lie.
There is (just as there was in the 1930s) a belief that this thing(CO2, industry, anyone who disagrees) is evil, the cause of all my woes and it must be eliminated. Such extremism does not survive without the constant drip of propaganda, it must have constant reinforcement and a large slice of the population to endure.
Logic, reason and facts (as history has demonstrated) will not change the belief system. Disillusionment with the belief system will only come when the infrastructure that supports it (the propaganda) either collapses or is demolished.
Hence you get the irrational, sciolist views that are exhibited on this blog by the likes of Blimey, MattB Brookes etc. The views that they espouse will not be altered by argument or reality.
10
don’t know why this is in the Daily Mail and not the Telegraph:
6 July: UK Daily Mail: Christopher Booker: Global warming? A new ice age? The only certainty is that YOU’RE paying for the hysteria of our politicians
Dr Robert Kaufman of Boston University blamed China this week. ‘During the Chinese economic expansion there was a huge increase in sulphur emissions,’ he said. And this was the cause of global cooling…
It was men such as Schneider and Hansen who, at the end of the Eighties, so terrified the politicians with their theory that CO2 equalled global warming that, within a few years, the world’s leaders were gathering in vast conferences in Rio and Kyoto to sign treaties that committed us to massive cuts in the CO2 emissions on which the global economy depended.
For a while it seemed that the theory they had programmed into dozens of computer models was being confirmed by the evidence. CO2 levels continued to rise and temperatures appeared to follow suit.
But then, more recently, it became obvious that something had gone seriously awry with the theory.
Sure, CO2 in the atmosphere was still continuing to rise. But no longer were temperatures rising in synch, as the computer models predicted they should…
So, some of those on the warm-ist side of the argument came up with a compromise theory.
Maybe, they agreed, the world was now heading for a period of cooling, but the effect of these natural factors was only to ‘mask the underlying warming trend’.
Within a decade or two, the warming produced by man-made CO2 would come back worse than ever…
Whatever happens now, whether it is hot or cold, whether we get heatwaves or record snowfalls, floods or droughts, sooner or later we hear those familiar little voices piping up to tell us that the blame for all these ‘extreme weather events’ still lies on ‘disruption’ to the climate caused by the sinful activities of mankind.
They’re all at it — from the environmental activists of Greenpeace, the WWF and their allies in the BBC and the Met Office, to those thousands of scientists across the world who have received billions in funding from governments investing in climate change research and prevention — all still battling to keep in being the greatest scare story in the history of the world.
The truth is that it becomes ever more obvious that none of them really has a clue as to what is responsible for the changes in our climate. They can’t even tell us what global temperatures will be next month or next year, let alone what they will be in 100 years’ time, as they like to pretend their computer models can predict. But the really terrifying thing about all this is that our politicians have become so locked into the scare story that there is not yet the slightest sign they are prepared to notice the reality now crowding in on them on every side — that global warming is by no means a certainty.
Three years ago, when the hysteria over global warming was still at its height, our own British politicians voted almost unanimously for the Climate Change Act committing us, uniquely in the world, to cut our CO2 emissions by 80 per cent within 40 years.
Even on the Government’s own figures, showing that this will cost us up to £18 billion every year until 2050, it is by far the most expensive law ever passed by Parliament.
We are also committed to meet an EU target that, within a mere nine years, we must generate a third of our electricity from ‘renewables’ — mainly by spending £200 billion on building thousands more windmills so useless that, last weekend, they could produce only half a per cent of the power we actually needed.
As our politicians continually impose on us ever higher taxes and other costs supposedly in the cause of ‘fighting climate change’ — costs that have already helped to increase every family’s energy bills by an average £200 a year — they have been carried away by a collective fantasy that has no parallel in history.
And all this is happening in the name of a theory so fraudulent that the same people who told us the world is about to fry unless we close down all those power stations are now telling us the same power stations may be heading us into a new ice age.
Truly, the lunatics have taken over the asylum. And short of some massive injection of common sense from the British people, it seems the rest of us are condemned to live in it.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2011667/Global-warming-new-ice-age-YOURE-paying-politicians-hysteria.html?ITO=1490
as for the Kaufmann et al paper which ridiculously concluded that burning coal in China halted the temperature rise in the past decade, there is no doubt this was merely the CAGW alarmists’ attempt to cover up the fact there’s been no statistically-significant global warming since 1995, which Phil Jones agreed to when asked by the BBC in February 2010.
kaufmann’s been in the game a very long time:
October, 1991: Robert K. Kaufmann: Limits on the economic effectiveness of a carbon tax.
The Energy Journal
A carbon tax levied as a rate also may alleviate one of the main obstacles to a carbon tax. In its current formulation, a carbon tax has a very large negative effect on the coal industry (see the DGEM model in CBO, 1990). This effect is caused by the large increase in the price of coal relative to oil or gas. Because coal is much less expensive per heat unit than oil or natural gas, a carbon tax increases the price of coal relative to oil or natural gas by a ratio much greater than the emission rate of coal relative to oil or natural gas. The large increase in the price of coal relative to oil or natural gas generated by a carbon tax may be too great if the purpose of the tax is to internalize the costs associated with the emissions of carbon dioxide. A carbon tax imposed as rate that is based on the emission of [CO.sub.2] relative to natural gas may alleviate this distortion because it will ensure that the slope of the budget line for fuel purchases shifts according to relative rates of [CO.sub.2] emissions…
http://207.171.3.200/tradejournals/article/11778798.html
kaufmann has also authored with one of our ANU guys:
2004: ANU: Time Series Properties of Global Climate Variables: Detection and Attribution of Climate Change
Authors: Stern, David I
Kaufmann, Robert K
https://digitalcollections.anu.edu.au/handle/1885/40906
Stern on his own:
2001: ANU: Centre for Resource and Environmental Studies,Ecological Economics Program: Global Sulfur Emissions in the 1990s by David I. Stern
https://digitalcollections.anu.edu.au/bitstream/1885/40922/2/eep0103.pdf
btw i cannot find a michael l. mann at the harvard Dept of Economics website or anywhere else online. is he just a student? anyone know?
10
Here is an Interesting view for a person that rejects any notion of conspiracy in the carbon agenda .
“Labor toys with population policy, it toys with gay marriage, it toys with euthanasia and it toys with animal rights. But if, at the margin, there is a choice to be made between people and nature, it will, if it knows what is good for it, remain wedded to a human conception of history.”
“If it wanders down an anti-humanist path in search of green votes it risks its major-party status. Be wary, comrades: environment in the service of humanity, yes; the rest of the Greens’ anti-humanist agenda, never.”
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/commentary/anti-human-greens-wont-usurp-labor/story-e6frgd0x-1226089236332
Copy of an email reply on 9/6/11 asking for his opinion re anti humanist politics
Subject: RE: Climate scam founders ?
******
I do not believe in conspiracies, nor do I quibble the science, I jus think that the response to the possible harm of climate change has been silly …
Cheers
Gary
Honourable Dr Gary Johns
Associate Professor
Public Policy Institute
Australian Catholic University
Interesting in light of recent developments in the catholic & non government teachers parting company with the ACTU over its green agenda & bias…
Perhaps another lightbulb moment in the making .
Note I’m not having a shot at the chap , I’m only pointing out where the wind is blowing !
10
great article on Debora Cameron, ABC 702 morning presenter.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/the-eruption-of-deborah-cameron-could-it-be-linked-to-global-warming/story-fn72xczz-1226089260113
there’s more!!
10
Waffle in 158,
Your wireless is failing due to capacity which can be easily fixed by increasing the capacity of the tower but you will need to increase the bandwidth of the microwave link and/or the FIBRE cable from the tower to the exchange and beyond, who ever told you fibre does not suffer the same problem is telling you porky pies. When you talk about fibre from say Adelaide to Darwin it runs as single mode but around a city it is multi mode and it can only support so many users before it too will need to be upgraded and dont forget we have to convert electrical energy into light and back again a few times which also affects its speed. Imagine fibre to everyones house in the country all getting converted to and from light many times as it is multiplex together as it makes its way from house to exchange to the switching centre and then out into the ether all running at 100M/bits? or even 100G/bits as you say. You talk about capacity issues now……you aint seen nothing yet. On the other hand the take up of NBN will be low so it might be OK.
10
RICHARD BRANSON: Any tax should be done on a global basis, I think ideally, not on a country-by-country basis. There’s a big meeting in Durban in December and hopefully something will be put through so that if it’s done on a global basis it doesn’t disadvantage individual countries or individual companies.
Global basis = One World Govt.THru the UN(IPCC) Branson’s a globalist!
10
Seems that people are universally disgusted with the way Joooooolya is handling the carbon (dioxide) tax at The Australian:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/polluters-spared-tax-on-carbon/story-fn59niix-1226089354737
I wrote:
10
Brooks @152, I dont think that the back radiation theory is correct so therefore i disagree with Monckton. Cleared that up? And just because I disagree with it (like all good science) I respect him for his opinion and his pursuit of this scam.
10
I’ve never been a fan of conspiracy theories but I urge everyone wanting knowledge of the powerful forces at work to visit this site. It is a fantastic resource with many links to which anyone can be directed to help them make up their own minds.
http://green-agenda.com/index.html
I’ve included a few documented samples of quotes.
“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?” – Maurice Strong, head of the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro and Executive Officer for Reform in the Office of the Secretary General of the United Nations.
(Strong was instrumental in setting up the UNIPCC)
“The common enemy of humanity is man.
In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up
with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming,
water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these
dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through
changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome.
The real enemy then, is humanity itself.”
– Club of Rome,
premier environmental think-tank,
consultants to the United Nations
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“We need to get some broad based support,
to capture the public’s imagination…
So we have to offer up scary scenarios,
make simplified, dramatic statements
and make little mention of any doubts…
Each of us has to decide what the right balance
is between being effective and being honest.”
– Prof. Stephen Schneider,
Stanford Professor of Climatology,
lead author of many IPCC reports
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“We’ve got to ride this global warming issue.
Even if the theory of global warming is wrong,
we will be doing the right thing in terms of
economic and environmental policy.”
– Timothy Wirth,
President of the UN Foundation
(Note:Tim Wirth organised the appearance of James Hansen before the US Senate in 1988 and admitted he chose the predicted hottest day of the month and had opened all the windows of the meeting room the night before so the air conditioning would not work!)
“No matter if the science of global warming is all phony…
climate change provides the greatest opportunity to
bring about justice and equality in the world.”
– Christine Stewart,
former Canadian Minister of the Environment
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“The data doesn’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations
on the data. We’re basing them on the climate models.”
– Prof. Chris Folland,
Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“The models are convenient fictions
that provide something very useful.”
– Dr David Frame,
climate modeler, Oxford University
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“I believe it is appropriate to have an ‘over-representation’ of the facts
on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience.”
– Al Gore,
Climate Change activist
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“It doesn’t matter what is true,
it only matters what people believe is true.”
– Paul Watson,
co-founder of Greenpeace
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“The only way to get our society to truly change is to
frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe.”
– emeritus professor Daniel Botkin
10
theRealUniverse:
July 6th, 2011 at 7:49 pm
I don’t have a problem with IR absorbing gases absorbing IR. I have a thought experiment that could even be run as a real experiment.
Take a small copper sphere with an embedded resistor as a heater in it connected to the outside world by thin wires.
Surround it a small distance away by a thin copper shell and at a greater distance by another thin copper shell. The space between is evacuated. All the copper is treated to be as close to emissivity 1.0 as possible. Dunk the whole shebang in liquid helium(can use LN2 if you want be be cheaper but liquid helium nicely approximates the cosmic background). Initially run this without the thin copper inner shell. Establish sufficient heater current to heat the inner sphere to around 288deg K. Now put in the inner thin copper shell and the same heater current.
What happens to the temperature of the inner sphere and what happens to the temperature of the thin shell surrounding it?
Have at it folks.
10
Here we are Joooooooooooooooooooooooooolya’s speech at the Lowry Institute
contains..”Today, the culmination of this domestic and global action is in sight. Much progress has been made, but, the truth is that there is still a long way to go. In fact, the hardest part of our journey is ahead of us over the next 31 days.
[are you going to keep trying Joooooooooooooooooooooooooliya]
This is a profoundly important time for our nation, for our world and for our planet.”
[Yes so a one world govt can be established, and destroy all development and your the sucker in the middle]
Go here http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/ and read down and see whos on the Lowry Institute! Mind boggling.
10
Hey Blimey you wrote a few posts directed at me that i recieved via email but they do not appear to be here in the thread (maybe i am going blind), so i will paste them in and respond OK.
Original post
“Author: Blimey
Comment:
crakar24 says: “We know from ice data that temp rises first then 800 odd years later the CO2 rises.”
Seriously? What part of the CO2 feedback theory do you not understand?
The number of times on this forum I’ve heard “Oh, but CO2 lags temp!!!”, only to put forth the concept of CO2 as a feedback and direct you to climate scientists that explain how this works, only to have, just a few posts later someone else say “Oh, but CO2 lags temp!!!”. You’re either too stupid to consider the feedback mechanism simply wish to bury your heads in the sand. I seriously do not know which category you fall into.”
response
Are you saying the ice core data is incorrect?
In regards to feed back and ice core data, the data shows the temp begin to rise now we do not know why the temp rose except to say it was not from rising CO2. 800 years later the CO2 began to rise so in this case temp is driving CO2. When the temp stops rising and begins to fall the CO2 continues to rise for a few years and then it also begins to fall. So we have a situation where whatever was causing the temp to rise stops, the temp begins to fall whilst CO2 continues to rise. This rise in CO2 is unable to force the temp to continue to rise, it may cause the temp to drop at a slower rate than it rose but CO2 could not force the temp to continue to rise.
Now Blimey from the ice core data AND I STRESS FROM THE ICE CORE DATA do you agree with what i have said?
10
Next email from a Blimey post
“Author: Blimey
Comment:
crakar24 says: “I have a question for Blimey et al, having successfully pulled the wool over the eyes of the gullible re volcanos emit very little CO2 when compared to man …”
You have evidence to the contrary?
http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/climate.php
crakar24 says: “what chance do you give the same strategy succeeding in regards to convincing the gullible that all the sulphur that is now causing the cooling comes from man and not from all the volcanos?”
Volcanoes contribute to cooling as well – as stated on previous link.
response
Thanks for the link, in summary even though we have little data on the total submarine volcanos lets assume man produces more CO2 than volcanos……but that was not the question was it Blimey. The link clearly states that volcanos contribute to global cooling via sulphur emissions and now back to my question “what chance do you give the same strategy succeeding in regards to convincing the gullible that all the sulphur that is now causing the cooling comes from man and not from all the volcanos?”
And your answer to the question is…………………………….
10
Crakar – there are things other than CO2 that influence the earth’s climate. You must agree with this as it is the basis of many skeptical arguments “i.e. ITS THE SUN”
So you have the planet… something that is NOT CO2 causes warming (take your pick what it may have been).
At some stage that warming (not caused by CO2) causes CO2 levels to rise. (I’m pretty sure you are still with me here as you know CO2 lags temp).
The rising C02 causes warming. THe other factor that caused the initial warming may or may not still be operating at this time.
Now you would also be in agreement that in the past the earth has cooled. Something must have caused that cooling. So you have this situation where CO2 is causing warming, and by whatever mechanism that has been triggered CO2 is rising, BUT THERE IS SOME OTHER THING CAUSING COOLING and in a situation where the cooling is greater than the CO2 warming, then you would have a situation where temp drops even though CO2 is rising.
When people talk “runaway warming” it is always with the proviso that something could happen that causes cooling, as long as it is a stronger force than what is causing the warming. It’s a no brainer.
Imagine a situation where you have a leaky bucket. Water drips out. If you put a hose in to the bucket and turn it on the bucket gets fuller even though some water is still leaking out.
10
Dont believe in the globalist agenda..here direct from the UN’s mouth
on http://sppiblog.org/news/even-u-n-admits-that-going-green-will-cost-76-trillion
”
The new 251-page report with the benign sounding name of the “World Economic and Social Survey 2011” is rife with goodies calling for “a radically new economic strategy” and “global governance.”Throw in possible national energy use caps and a massive redistribution of wealth and the survey is trying to remake the entire globe. The report has the imprimatur of the U.N., with the preface signed by U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon – all part of the “goal of full decarbonization of the global energy system by 2050.”
Make no mistake, much of this has nothing to do with climate.”
It means YOU and ME mate! Must PAY now for our sins of CO2.
Total insanity. Total Fascism.
10
The last of your posts states
“Author: Blimey
Comment:
crakar24 says: “3, Internal variability (TSI, ENSO, PDO etc) cannot explain the warming seen”
But is does add to the variability that shows up in the surface temperature record, thus allowing amateurs to make incorrect analysis as you’ve just shown.
crakar24 says: “Then the temps rose from 1970 to 2000 (partly due to GISS adjustments)”
Four different organisations show the same trend although two did not start until later.
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1970/to:2000/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1970/to:2000/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1970/to:2000/plot/gistemp/from:1970/to:2000/trend/plot/uah/from:1970/to:2000/plot/uah/from:1970/to:2000/trend/plot/rss/from:1970/to:2000/plot/rss/from:1970/to:2000/trend
crakar24 says: “A few points about the paper, firstly no evidence that they quantified the amount of sulphur spewed out by Asian factories compared to the volcanic activity of recent years.”
Just because you are unaware, doesn’t mean others share the same level of ignorance.”
response
Blimey said “crakar24 says: “3, Internal variability (TSI, ENSO, PDO etc) cannot explain the warming seen”
But is does add to the variability that shows up in the surface temperature record, thus allowing amateurs to make incorrect analysis as you’ve just shown.”
Blimey you cannot take what i say out of context to create your own version of reality and then use it to show me to be a fool, the only fool here is you.
Blimey then said “crakar24 says: “Then the temps rose from 1970 to 2000 (partly due to GISS adjustments)”
Four different organisations show the same trend although two did not start until later.
Blimey GISS have been caught with their fingers in the till so many times now that the only organisation that still take them seriously is the IPCC. GISS are the only organisation that feel it scientifically prudent to adjust temperature readings taken 100 years ago without justification or explanation.
Blimey then says “crakar24 says: “A few points about the paper, firstly no evidence that they quantified the amount of sulphur spewed out by Asian factories compared to the volcanic activity of recent years.”
Just because you are unaware, doesn’t mean others share the same level of ignorance.”
BlimeyThis paper is a scientific document making claims about sulphur levels in the atmosphere, do the authors establish any credibility to their claim that sulphur emissions have increased since the 1990’s, do the authors establish any credibility to the claim that China is responsible for the as yet unsubstantiated increase in sulphur, do the authors offer an explanation for the 10% drop in water vapor? Of course the answer to these questions are NO and yet i am the one you lable as ignorant what a complete fool you are.
10
MattB in 184,
Thanks for your version of events, the main point i take away from your post is that CO2 is a very, very weak driver of climate and i do not see how your explanation supports the theory of AGW. Could you please explain in more detail how the many other factors that overpowered CO2 in the past are not doing it now.
TIA
Crakar
10
Because they are not present now. If they were we would be cooling. Yes vague answer, but it is clear the earth has been a lot cooler and a lot hotter, for a variety of reasons, most of which are cyclical. If whatever made us very cold in the past was a factor right now then we would be a lot colder or heading there fast.
I don’t agree that CO2 is a very very weak driver, and it is certainly not something you could take away from my post. Indeed there are stronger drivers however. A heavyweight fighter losing a title fight does not make him a very very weak fighter.
10
Just to add… if one of those big cooling factors were to kick in, then we would cool regardless of CO2, but then we are talking cooling that pretty much means the end of civilisation.
10
MattB in 188,
“Because they are not present now”
What is not present now?
10
That what made us cooler in the past. Look it is only wikipedia but here is a nice summary of the options: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change#Orbital_variations
What’s your fancy? Orbital variations? They are pretty heavy hitters so I hear and may well give new kid on the block Mr CO2 a lesson about brutal and pulverising changes in climate.
But look, lets take the Milankovitch Cycles. So the earth is BLOODY COLD due to some combination of “Earth’s eccentricity, changes in the tilt angle of Earth’s axis of rotation, and precession of Earth’s axis”
A progression of these leads to warming. Why would CO2 have been rising independently of this? It would be very strange to look at an ice core record and expect CO2 levels to lead a milankovitch type warming event don’t you think? But it would not be at all surprising to find out that this warming may well lead to changes in the earth’s atmosphere as things warm up – unless you are someone who thinks the composition of the earth’s atmosphere never changes, which I don’t think you are.
Now lets head to the other extreme, and Mr CO2 has been doing some warming of his own, you think he can stand in the way of Mr Milankovitch? No way… but he can cause some serious havoc when he’s not looking for quite a few millennia.
10
Hmmmm ….somehow I dont think china and Brown share the same ideology China slaps ‘limited’ economy
Daniel Flitton
CHINA has delivered a scathing assessment of weaknesses in Australia’s ”dual-speed and patchwork” economy, saying it relies too heavily on Beijing’s demand for minerals.
It has also launched a bid to bring Chinese workers to Australia to deal with what it describes as an ”infrastructure bottleneck and shortage of skilled labour”.
The economic lesson did not end there, with Chinese diplomat Ouyang Cheng telling a business forum in Adelaide yesterday that Chinese business held ”some worries” about Labor’s revised mining tax. He later told The Age he was not in a position to detail those concerns.
And it doesn’t get any better ……
So let’s have a carbon tax as well..?
http://www.theage.com.au/national/china-slaps-limited-economy-20110706-1h2ln.html#ixzz1RMeJe0Fd
10
MattB in 191,
The only time i have ever heard it referred to as “Mr” was in that Al Gore film, your sarcasm has been noted and also expected as i realise the temerity i am showing by merely asking a question.
Now back to your theory of the theory, ok lets say the temp and CO2 levels are bumbling along (presumably CO2 has the temp under control) and then things begin to change via M cycles. The first thing that happens is the temp begins to drop and a few years later CO2 drops ergo CO2 is a weak forcing and was unable to hold the temp at a higher level. The Earth cools for a prolonged period of time both Temp and CO2 are at low levels, then the clouds part and the sun begins to shine and the temp begins to increase and a few years later CO2 begins to rise.
At this point MattB when does CO2 take control of the temp again only to lose control when something else bigger comes along?
TIA
Crakar
10
did the australian population just get smaller?
7 July: SMH: Fewer to pay carbon tax
by Tom Arup/Michelle Grattan
The government is expected to include a $1.275 billion compensation package for coal miners under the scheme…
Ms Gillard said: ”I am very confident the coal industry has got a fantastic future in this nation; a future of growing jobs with $70 billion in the pipeline.”…
http://www.smh.com.au/small-business/managing/fewer-to-pay-carbon-tax-20110707-1h3i0.html
and the Greens and GetUp are backing this total insanity!
6 July: Guardian: Fiona Harvey: Climate change will increase threat of war, Chris Huhne to warnUK climate secretary to tell defence experts that conflict caused by climate change risks reversing the progress of civilisation
Climate change will lead to an increased threat of wars, violence and military action against the UK, and risks reversing the progress of civilisation, the energy and climate secretary Chris Huhne will say on Thursday, in his strongest warning yet that the lack of progress on greenhouse gas emission cuts would damage the UK’s national interests.
“Climate change is a threat multiplier. It will make unstable states more unstable, poor nations poorer, inequality more pronounced, and conflict more likely,” Huhne is expected to say in a speech to defence experts. “And the areas of most geopolitical risk are also most at risk of climate change.”
He will warn that climate change risks reversing the progress made in prosperity and democracy since the industrial revolution, arguing that the results of global warming could lead to a return to a “Hobbesian” world in which life is “nasty, brutish and short”.
Huhne believes the UK and other countries must act urgently to prepare for the threat. “We cannot be 100% sure that our enemies will attack our country, but we do not hesitate to prepare for the eventuality,” he plans to say. “The same principle applies to climate change, which a report published by the Ministry of Defence (MoD) has identified as one of the four critical issues that will affect everyone on the planet over the next 30 years.”.
His comparison of climate change and terrorism echoes Sir David King, the former chief scientific adviser to the government who warned in 2004 that global warning posed “a bigger threat than terrorism”…
Huhne will quote military experts, including the MoD and the US Pentagon, who have warned that climate change will increase the risk of conflict and potentially terrorism…
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jul/06/climate-change-war-chris-huhne
Huhne must tell our PM to stop mining all that coal and selling it to China. the PM must close those mines now! LOL.
10
That wasn’t sarcasm… it was science communication. For what it siworth I’ve not seen the movie so I’ll have to take your word for it.
CO2 may or may not drop in your situation there. It has in the past but who knows. But as today, CO2 will do what CO2 does naturally until such a time that some event causes significant incrase in CO2 levels, such as the past 100 odd years of fossil fuel use. It is also possible that Mr CO2 may well have pumped some iron and can in fact fight off attacks from many of the old-guard.
This is the whole point – outside of natual cycles that generaly take a long time, humans have created a situation where CO2 is increasing and warming the planet. So in the absence of other influnces, and as predictable as they are none are expected any time soon, we are warming the planet, meaning that this little fluke of an ecosystem that happens to be highly favourable to human civilisation, may be turned in to one that is not so good for humans.
10
Crackar24
And how does the IPCC et al prove that any warming since the end of the little ice age (which, of course, never happened) was due to man-made CO2?
Simple – if one uses a circular argument methodology. One simply assumes that CO2 did the warming over the period in question, calculate the difference in temperature, divide it by the change in CO2 level (or logarithm etc thereof) and the then one arrives at a CO2 climate sensitivity.
The second phase is when one applies the CO2 climate sensitivity to the difference in CO2 betweeen the beginning and the end of the period in question and – hey presto! – one has fully explained the change in temperature over this period. This is how robust climate models are made.
Mere mortals like us should never, ever, doubt this “Science”.
Cheers,
Speedy.
10
Lord Monckton interview with Adam Spencer, ABC Breakfast.
http://www.abc.net.au/sydney/programs/702_breakfast/
http://blogs.abc.net.au/files/monckton-part-1-1.mp3
http://blogs.abc.net.au/files/monckton-part-2-1.mp3
10
crakra24 @ 193,
By MattB’s statement at 188 “Because they are not present now.” he means that when there are no other forcing agents around and about CO2 is in control. When another forcing agent is present, CO2 loses control.
Interesting world MattB lives in. He can be anything he wants to be as long as he is alone and has no competition. For example, he can be a totally amazing scientist if there is no one around who knows anything about science to question him. However, let anyone who has learned anything and has done anything for real start to question him, his brilliance does not shine so brightly.
The apex of his brilliance is reached by his notion that CO2 is a strong driver when it has nothing to fight against then all the other times, it simply is not strong enough. Yet it is still a strong driver.
10
No no no Lionell. Surely you admit that if there were some other forcing doing something more than CO2 then that other forcing would dominate. Surely you don’t disagree with that? I never said that “no other focing agents (are) around” Just none strong enough to counter CO2/GHGs at present.
Strength of a forcing is relative surely? Can you not imagine a situation where Exhibit A would be described as “strong” but when pitted against Exhibit F, Exhibit F is stronger.
You seem to think that if CO2 is a strong driver then that implies there is nothing stronger.
I’m teaching my 5yo to read at the moment, so I could pass you some tips about the meaning of similar words… strong, strongER, strongEST for example.
10
@ janama, Yes Just listened to that “attempted bashing” sorry interview of Monkton by a wakko warmist ABC biased stuckup interviewer. Irrelevant stuff like are you really a peer of the realm..so what.. next.. get on with it. Although Monckton ends it. Insulting pratt didnt even let Monckton finish his question because he didnt get his ‘answers’.
Mike Borgelt @ 189 Interesting Ill think about it.
10
And Janama, I guess you’ve never experienced the usual conduct of “shock jocks”. Spencer learning a few tricks it seems. If it was face to face MoB would probably accuse Spencer of making fun of his eyes!
10
MattB in 195,
“it was science communication”………….Mr CO2 pumping iron is science communication, WTF!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Sorry Matt but you make no sense at all, you make sense at the start with M cycles and ice ages etc but then you make a leap of faith claiming Co2 now drives temp supported only by Mr CO2 and his gym membership and a “who knows what will happen approach”.
It is painfully obvious to me and i am sure anyone else who is reading our exchanges that you have now idea how/what or when Co2 went from being a by product of temp changes to now being the controller of temp changes. I dont blame you for not knowing because the people you get your info from cant explain it either as AL Gore said “its complicated” but you would not know that as you have not seen his movie.
I suggest you go and do a bit of research on the subject and come back with another hare brained idea that you picked up from RC or elsewhere and we can demolish that one, we can repeat the process as many times as you like until you finally understand (using logic, common sense and reason) that CO2 is not this great big climate driver others make it out to be.
Good luck and all the best on your quest for knowledge MattB
10
MattB @ 199,
Yes, IF there are no other forcing agents as strong or stronger at work than CO2 then CO2 has control. So what? That is about as useful as saying that If pigs had wings, they could fly.
The issue is knowing and being able to prove when CO2 is or is not “in control”. If you can do that, you might have something interesting to say. As it is, you have said nothing that can be tested. Your words mean anything and nothing at the same time.
10
Speedy in 196,
Mere mortals indeed Speedy, mere mortals indeed. However due to their hubris it has not dawned on them that sulphur is not a thinking being and capable of rational thought therfore it cannot materialise and dematerialise at will, or in this case at exactly 30 year periods and indeed we are only a decade into its 3rd magical trick. The beauty of sulphur (for a faith guided scientist) is that we know very little about its affects as a GHG which means they can tweak its affects or as MattB would term it “science communication”, they can fudge its affects. The greater its affects the greater the power of their omni potent God.
For example sulphur was so powerful during a 30 year period (1940 to 1970) that not only did it override the warming affects of CO2 it actually dropped the global temperature, only to magically disappear for another 30 year period allowing us to catch a glimpse of the omni potent God in all its glory. Sulphur has since risen from the ashes once again to cast a shadow of death over us.
There is an old saying Speedy, “For believers no explanation is necessary, for deniers no explanation will suffice and for skeptics……well we are just caught in the middle”
10
The irony is that ABC Interviewer Spencer missed that Monckton is a mathematician. Spencer prides himself on his mathematical skills – perhaps he could have solved Eternity II for the Lord as no one so far has! 🙂
10
MattB @ 184
Why does CO2 have to be a cause of ANY warming at all. Surely the simplest explanation is that the Greenhouse effect of CO2, if it exists at all, is of such an insignificant order of magnitude that it is a trivial or non existent bystander in the whole global temperature phenomenon compared with solar and cosmic forces that are as yet not fully understood. No need for any complex circuitous logic, back radiation theories or self justifying hindcasting with fudge factors, mythical algorithms, computer generated special effects wizardry that would make Speilberg envious, lame suppositions (eg China’s SO2 output as a cause of cooling) to fill in gaps in our knowledge to explain a complete lack of correlation with observations versus modelled theoretical expectations. TSI alone is NOT the only influence of the sun in spite of what GCMs would have us believe. Clearly solar magnetism, variations in the sun with respect to the barycentre of the solar system, and the influence of cosmic rays, etc, etc- all not considered to be factors by the alarmit clique yet I certainly am of the opinion that much greater weight needs to be given to these astrophysical effects which even cursory examination suggests play at least some role in climate. No one on your side has yet explained how positive feedback through water vapour could possibly be true when radiosonde data shows that there has been a REDUCTION over the last 60 years in atmospheric humidity which would counteract any effect of rising CO2 in that time ( Miscolkzi). It seems to me that the hydrological cycle and clouds trump any pi squeak effect that CO2 may have even if there was some mild logarythmic influence on warming. No brainer is right!
10
Well he’s not really a mathematician is he?
10
When all the Watermelon Warmers admit their Lie
We will raise a Monument into the Sky
A monument of solid Carbon
To commemorate their Bogus Bargain.
10
“Why does CO2 have to be a cause of ANY warming at all. ”
Ans – it doesn’t, it could just be like many other gases that are not a cause of warming. But it isn’t. My reading is that this is not seriously in dispute.
Talk of “climate sensitivity” – well my explanation above stands regardless of climate senstivity… it is a completely non-controversial explanation of how CO2 lagging temps is pretty much irrelevant.
10
MattB when does Blimey take over, just asking?
By the way post 209 sums up your confusion for want of a better word perfectly.
Climate sensitivity is the key to what we are talking about, the historical data which you are adverse to shows the sensitivity to be quite low but yet you seem to be able to seperate that reality from today somehow.
You have gone to great lengths explaining how the Earth has cycled in and out of ice ages which have been controlled by things other than CO2 and yet you now claim CO2 will lead us into oblivion.
Just so i dont waste any more time with you on this can i ask a honest question and get an honest answer?
The question is,
A, do you base your opinions on the scientific evidence available to you or
B, do you base your opinions on a belief that man made “pollution” will destroy the Earth?
Please answer this question honestly
Thanks
Crakar
10
Crakar I’m sure we’d both answer A.
I have no concerns that human “pollution” will destroy the earth. “THe Earth” will be quite fine.
Crakar what you seem to miss btw is regardless of whether “sensitivity” is low or high, it is perfectly normal and acceptable and not at all at odds with the theory of AGW for CO2 levels to LAG temp changes. That is all my science communication stories say. Does not mater if Mr CO2 is Arnie or Mr Bean.
10
“MattB”,
Clearly your forte is COMEDY and not science.
Time to go back to your mummys basement and your star trek reruns.
10
The thought of this “mattb” imbecile having children disturbs me greatly.
He is a prime example of why some people should be sterilized!
10
Damian in post 213,
This type of talk does not help the debate please refrain from making these type of comments in the future.
Cheers
Crakar
10
Matt in 211,
Ok A it is thats good. So what you are saying is the fact that temp leads CO2 does not support my case at all and we can then logically conclude it does not support yours either so where does that leave us? If we cant look at the past?
If you believe CO2 is driving the temps then is there a lag, does CO2 rise and then temp rise, if so then what is the lag? 1 week, 1 month, 1 year?
10
I probably should have worded this better- What I meant to say was – Why does RISING CO2 have to cause any SIGNIFICANT warming at all? There are so many other influences in the long term climate variability which are chaotic and asynchronous. CO2 seems to me to be the snotty nosed little scrawny kid in the corner with glasses, who seems an unlikely to compete with the jocks from the football team when it comes to getting the girls. Mr CO2 would be likely to spend most of his time in the Chess club, not exactly the chick magnet you make him out to be, MattB.
10
There seems to some confusion here about what MattB has been trying to say regarding CO2 “forcings”. Let’s see if I can simplify it for you. Here is:
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The MattB Simplified ‘Something Else’ Statement of Catastrophic Climate Change
1. In the beginning was the Glacial.
2. Then ‘Something Else’ made the planet warm up.
3. ‘Something Else’ was not linear; ‘Something Else’ acted with an amazing cyclical regularity.
4. ‘Something Else’ made the planet heat for about 20 – 30 years, then cool for about 20 – 30 years with monotonous regularity.
5. ‘Further, ‘Something Else’ made successive cycles progressively warmer than the previous ones for about 150 years, then progressively cooler for about 150 years. The MWP and LIA are examples of the high and low points in this longer cycle.
6. This continued for about 11,500 years with ‘Something Else’ pretty-much controlling the flow and ebb of global temperature with (comparatively) clockwork precision.
7. Then, on the 23rd of October, 1946 – rumour has it at about 4.00pm in the afternoon (Greenwich Mean Time) – ‘Something Else’ decided to go on long service leave.
8. Before departing for Majorca for a well-earned break, ‘Something Else’ appointed Mann-Made CO2 as its delegate in controlling the regular ebb and flow of climate temperatures in the same 20 – 30 year cycles.
9. Mann-Made CO2 has done a pretty good job of maintaining exactly the same cycles as previously overseen by ‘Something Else’.
10. This proves conclusively that:
. . . . . . . . . . Mann-Made CO2 is responsible for Pretty-Much Everything**, and
. . . . . . . . . . It’s worse than we thought.
** See http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm for further information
10
Crackar in #215. You are spot on.
1) The fact that CO2 lags temps does nothing for your argument, other than provide a tag line to confuse people or raise doubts.
2) The fact that the CO2 lag is not inconsistent with AGW theory should in no way be used to claim that AGW theiry is true. A useful corrolation perhaps.
10
MV I’d prefer you replaced “something else” with “varying contributions from a number of something elses”
10
Herewith is my e-mail to Professor Robson and the only response from his office. I received it to-day. To my knowledge, Robson has not made an acceptable statement on the matter so my assessment of him stands.
10
MattB @ 219
MattB by all means consider ‘Something Else’ as a plural.
A polished turd remains a turd, nonetheless.
10
I’d like to post but the mods are back to their usual trick of blocking my posts. Oh dear! Funny way to “win” a debate.
REPLY: Blimey, apologies, I’m travelling, and barely have access or time. I have 700 emails, I can’t read them all until I’m back at my desk. I’m not sure if you have been moderated. I may have an email explaining that (do you?) or it may be that by the time I got a chance to check the pending file there were 8 or so comments from you in there, and I’m not sure why. Since I am dependant and grateful for my moderators help, I trust their judgement, but it may be that this is a simple communication error. I’m trying to get in touch with them to find out.
10
Queen of contradiction.
http://itsnotnova.wordpress.com/2011/07/07/nova-queen-of-contradiction-on-climate-of-freedom/
10
Heavens! A web site dedicated to dissing Joanne? I guess she isn’t quite as inconsequential as warmists like to pretend.
Perhaps, Blimey, you should read the guide for commenting — it might explain why you are moderated.
Of course, you can also email Joanne and she will explain. I doubt you will share that explanation with us, however.
10
Moderators, if Blimey has been actively moderated on this thread could you email me, and I’ll try to check asap… or is this just a communication delay? Thanks, Jo
[Blimey posted 10 lengthy posts in about 10 minutes time. 8 of them were put into “pending” status almost immediately where they remain. This was done to prevent a spam like domination of the thread. If you’d like Blimey to fill all your threads I’m certain he’d be willing and able to accommodate. Perhaps a Guest Post by Blimey is in order?] ED
10
Jo and ED,
I happen to be familiar with the actual posts featured in Blimey’s “complaint”.
Contrary to Blimey’s assertion (that they were blocked), they were ultimately posted.
[In this case Blimey is partly correct. There are still eight of
his/herits posts held in “pending”. I will not release them until Jo has time to respond. Blimey has to realise that this moderator won’t let it dominate the blog. If it wants to post single subjects for debate and allow for others to respond, it is not banned. Spamming 10 posts isn’t going to get by me. Anyone subscribed to this thread would have received all 10 of his/her posts via e-mail.] EDBlimey has just used the fact that his posts were temporarily held up pending scrutiny (for a perfectly good reason) to create the impression that he is being censored out.
Or put another way, Blimey has diddled with the data.
But then what else would you expect?
He’s training to become a Climate Scientist.
Jokes aside, Jo it seems to me that Blimey’s nasty little exercise in bending the truth into a vicious slander almost certainly contravenes the WORDPRESS TOC.
A formal complaint would probably see the site pulled down.
[Good advice and I hope Jo looks into that ] ED
[There is more. Blimey has proven its intent by trying to circumvent the WordPress defense against trolls. It believed it was banned, when it was not, changed IP addresses and signed in with “Blimey2”. This is telling to me. Blimey is behaving more like a stalker or a lover spurned. Clearly there is a mental disorder present in Blimey.] ED
[ If Jo doesn’t like my interpretation of the events at play or my perception of what is best for the blog, she may terminate my volunteer position at any time. I only ask for a letter of reference to Watts Up or something] ED
10
This is the meme you will soon be seeing from the AGW crowd as their prognostications of doom and gloom fail to materialize. Even when they are proved wrong, they will continue the illusion that you must sacrifice your rights for the greater glory of the empire.
10
If MattB had a mind and if he actually used it, he might say something that had real world content. As it is, he gives us an endless list of if’s. They all have the value of “if pigs had wings, they could fly” (ie verbal noise). A huge pile of IF’s along with $3.95 can buy you a cup of coffee at a well known coffee place. Take away the $3.95 and you have a useless pile of IF’s.
MattB, how about some IS for a change? Along with the hard REPRODUCIBLE evidence that the is actually IS.
10
MattB:
July 5th, 2011 at 11:20 am
“Are these just draft notes? A proof reader may have pointed out to him that DDT wasn’t banned to use against Malaria.”
Ever had Malaria Matt? Have you even been to Africa and seen the misery Malaria caused? Then again your type want to reduce world population huh?
As usual you are wrong and the W.H.O. only recently allowed its use indoors to control the Mossies that carry it.
I can tell you, I did 10 years in Nigeria and spent a considerable sum buying medicine for my workers and their families who could not afford the cure. I also contracted it and you have no idea how bad it is! You still cannot buy DDT in Nigeria!
You have no idea how I am trying to keep expletives out of this post having seen children dying from the needless bug! All because you and your kind set off alarmist garbage!
10
Thanks to the moderators and replies.
We’re speaking at a protest today in Sydney Hyde Park at 12.oo
.I’ll have time tomorrow to look at comments on this thread then.
Thanks,
Jo
PS ED… sorry if you think Blimey is being coddled! I’m just in the dark. Apologies if I havent seen your email. About three days of my email are unopened. There are just too many for me to look at, and I havent got my mobile broadband working this trip…
I’m so grateful for all the moderators help. I’d have to shut the site down when I traveled if there were not dedicated volunteers making sure the comments weren’t misused. Thank you ED! 🙁
10
For those interested:
M’lud Monckton will be with George and Paul on Sydney radio 2UE 954 after 10:30 AM.
10
ED says: “Spamming 10 posts isn’t going to get by me.”
The posts were not spam. Each post is a well thought out reply to earlier posts by various individuals. I wrote my posts during the day (offline) and was posting them during the night when I did have internet connection.
That is clear by looking at [snip] contradiction-on-climate-of-freedom/
[Pffttt. Listen to Blimey whinge like a child! All my work lost to the moderator.
spamming is posting a barrage of posts such that response is difficult or impossible. You weren’t banned, your posts may be released later when Jo has returned from traveling.
Before that happens, explain your attempt to circumvent an imaginary ban by posting as Blimey2?
Besides that what level of arrogance permits you to assume that you have no rules to follow here?
Explain your pathological need to troll here.
Why don’t you quit hiding your identity and stand up?] ED
10
Blimey, your comments have been approved. Since there is no money exchanging hands for anyone on this site, and you are an anonymous user of a free service, perhaps you’ll be more understanding when due to travel commitments I’m not available at your beck and call. Posting ten long comments in the space of ten minutes, and then posting under a different anonymous ID meant that ED quite reasonably saw a red-flag.
You could always of course, provide a real name, to earn you a modicum of respect.
10
ED, whoever you are, thank you for standing fast against Blimey.
[Thanx]ED
10
Jo, if you take the time to read my comments then you will realise this is NOT spam. Your ED needs better training.
[Does the Troll Uni have a wing for moderator training?] ED
10
Blimey: What part of
do you fail to understand? The ED also said that anyone posting such a barrage would likewise be held up (even myself, I warrent). No one is allowed to hijack a thread by sheer volume — not too difficult to understand, is it?
ED had you nailed when he/she said
Perhaps it’s lack of reading comprehension, instead?
10
[…] Warming Is Real and Has Consequences – Part IDo climate sceptics and anti-nukes matterMonckton: The Climate of Freedom — Hancock Lecture — Background Notes […]
10