« Previous | Main | Next »

'Global warming is all a myth', according to the Spectator

Post categories:

Shanta Barley | 16:36 UK time, Tuesday, 14 July 2009

Anyone seen the front page of the Spectator this week? Sprawled on a deckchair, wearing a pair of sunglasses and clutching a glass of chilled red grape juice in one hand, is Earth. In holiday mode. 'Relax', it coos. 'Global warming is all a myth'.

TheSpectator.JPG

A man has written a book which proves beyond all doubt, according to James Delingpole, that climate change 'is a dangerous, ruinously expensive fiction ... with no basis in scientific fact.'

That man is Professor Ian Plimer, an Australian geologist, and his book is called 'Heaven and Earth'.

'Sceptics' who refuse to acknowledge that the planet is warming are a dying breed, which makes Professor 'Cede no ground' Plimer all the more precious, writes Delingpole.

'Where fellow sceptics like Bjorn Lomborg or Lord Lawson of Blaby are prepared cautiously to endorse the International Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) more modest predictions', he notes, 'Plimer will cede no ground whatsoever'.

There's no doubt that some of Plimer's claims are true. For example, it's true that the Earth hasn't always had polar ice caps. They only formed about 35 million years ago, according to Dr Axel Kleidon. And it's true that climate change has occurred in the past, before humans existed.

For example, Earth's average temperature soared by up to 6 deg C about 55 million years ago, long before humans started burning the fossil fuels which contribute to climate change today.

But Bloom takes great exception to Plimer's claim that volcanoes produce more carbon dioxide than humans, mainly because we've already written a blog which says the opposite ('Tongan volcano spectacular, but small fry all the same').

Indeed, not everyone is as madly in love with Professor P as the smitten Delingpole. Take George Monbiot, who has drawn up a list of Plimer's mistakes. Apparently Plimer 'confuses the Sun's rotation with orbital motion around the solar system's centre of gravity'. Naughty professor.

All in all, Plimer's book is dismissed by Monbiot as 'utter nonsense' and 'a hilarious series of schoolboy errors'. Strange. I wouldn't have put Monbiot down as the giggling type.

Comments

  • 1. At 6:29pm on 14 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    Here's a good series to read up on about Plimer's paper. Lots of comment from other scientists in the series.

    http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/06/david_karoly_on_plimer.php

    Complain about this comment

  • 2. At 6:50pm on 14 Jul 2009, SheffTim wrote:

    A colleague of Prof. Ian Plimer - Prof. Barry Brook - who is from the same University as Pilmer (Prof Brook is Director of Climate Science at The Environment Institute, University of Adelaide.) does the debunking of Pilmer's 'Heaven and Earth' here.
    http://bravenewclimate.com/2008/09/01/spot-the-recycled-denial-iii-%E2%80%93-prof-ian-plimer/

    There's nothing new in this book, its recycled old arguments dressed up in a new dust jacket.

    Increasingly I am reminded of the debates of two much earlier scientific hot topics:
    One the hypothesis that ice ages and glaciers were responsible for the landscape we see today, not a biblical deluge.
    The other, of course, that small matter of Darwin's ideas on natural selection.

    Complain about this comment

  • 3. At 7:20pm on 14 Jul 2009, SheffTim wrote:

    Another Professor - Prof. Ian Enting - from University of Melbourne, has also provided a detailed, point-by-point critique of Prof. Pilmer's 'Heaven and Earth', that you can download as a 38 page PDF from this page.
    http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/04/23/ian-plimer-heaven-and-earth/

    Prof Brook also continues his critiques of the claims Prof. Pilmer makes on these pages.
    http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/04/23/ian-plimer-heaven-and-earth/
    http://bravenewclimate.com/2008/10/14/two-denialist-talking-points-quashed/

    Complain about this comment

  • 4. At 8:11pm on 14 Jul 2009, ManmadeupGW wrote:

    I don't think it is just Professor Plimer who thinks its a myth:-
    At Real Climate they are saying in the wordy paragraphs no global warming for twenty years and in the second paragraph they are in effect say they don't know what's happening.

    "We hypothesize that the established pre-1998 trend is the true forced warming signal, and that the climate system effectively overshot this signal in response to the 1997/98 El Niño. This overshoot is in the process of radiatively dissipating, and the climate will return to its earlier defined, greenhouse gas-forced warming signal. If this hypothesis is correct, the era of consistent record-breaking global mean temperatures will not resume until roughly 2020.

    Nature (with hopefully some constructive input from humans) will decide the global warming question based upon climate sensitivity, net radiative forcing, and oceanic storage of heat, not on the type of multi-decadal time scale variability we are discussing here. However, this apparent impulsive behavior explicitly highlights the fact that humanity is poking a complex, nonlinear system with GHG forcing and that there are no guarantees to how the climate may respond"
    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/07/warminginterrupted-much-ado-about-natural-variability/#comment-131141

    They probably would have been better of naming the article Much Ado About Nothing

    I trust the BBC will give due prominence to these comments?




    Complain about this comment

  • 5. At 8:41pm on 14 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    Ah, wrapupwarm, reading words and not understanding them, then interpreting them to suit your purposes.

    A pity you do not turn that "skeptic" gaze on Plimer's work. Or Lindzen's. Or Monktons. etc.

    A rather *directed* inquiry, really.

    1998 was a huge outlier. As such it changes the shape of a graph smoothed through those points for vast tracts through other years either side.

    And on visual inspection by someone either unknowing of statistics or with an axe to grind, there seems to be a flattening.

    Yet, take the last 10 years worth of data. 1999-2008. Doesn't include 1998. Take the average of those 10 years. Take the 10 years previous. 1989-1998. Includes 1998.

    If your supposition that there is no warming after 1998, there would be no difference or even a drop (since it includes what you say is the highest year after which it went down) from older to newer decade.

    Yet you see that there is a 0.17C difference. An increase between the two decades.

    The problem is psychological. Nobody REALLY sees a bunch of cherries or an apple or the face of their uncle in a cloud. And clouds don't REALLY shape themselves to other things.

    But we are pattern-making animals. Useful when you need to work out "is there a pattern of a lion in the grass over there?" to save your (or your family's) life.

    Spotting real trends in lines drawn on paper wasn't a selected trait and so we are bad at it.

    But using our brains (some of us) worked on maths to let us analyse such shapes without recourse to the poorly designed mental process.

    In short, you're wrong. And your need to misread what you say is shown by your nickname here on this site.

    Complain about this comment

  • 6. At 8:51pm on 14 Jul 2009, shantabarley wrote:

    Hello Wrapupwarm,

    Have you seen this previous blog on the lack of temperature increase on Earth since 1998 due a heat spike in that year?

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/climatechange/2009/07/is_the_climate_warming_or_cool.html

    Shanta

    Complain about this comment

  • 7. At 9:09pm on 14 Jul 2009, Tenuuc wrote:

    I was afraid this would happen. All the hard work which has been put into convincing the public that AGW is occurring is being undone by this sort of "Big Oil" sponsored research.

    We all know that CO2 is a toxic gas which must be completely eradicated from the atmosphere before we all fry. How can these pseudo-scientists possibly believe in a cooling trend when the Copenhagen papers prove temperatures are still rising, fuelled by the catastrophic increase in poisonous CO2 over the last 10 years.

    I hope the BBC don't go back on their pledge only to publish facts which support the theory of anthropomorphic global warming. Indeed, I'm surprised and shocked that they even reported about Professor Ian Plimer's 'denier' book, 'Heaven and Earth'.

    For many years science has worked by consensus within each speciality and agreement between the different branches of science not to rock the boat and tread on each others toes. The BBC need to understand that the science is settled and all reporting on evidence which contradicts AGW must be suppressed.

    Here's hoping this is just a lapse and in future they will continue to stick to their own policy, as they have successfully done over the last couple of years. Should they fail to do this, I'm sure that the government will cut the BBC's budget even further than they've already threatened to do.

    Complain about this comment

  • 8. At 9:24pm on 14 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    "We all know that CO2 is a toxic gas"

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide#Toxicity

    Yes, we do.

    Well, when I say "we", obviously I'm not including YOU in that.

    "For many years science has worked by consensus"

    Hang on, it used to be "science is not consensus". Has that changed since then?

    "all reporting on FALSIFIED evidence which contradicts AGW must be suppressed."

    Fixed that typo for you.

    "Professor Ian Plimer's 'denier' book, 'Heaven and Earth'."

    Just goes to show you that there's money in denialism as long as you don't mind ruining your reputation with scientists.

    "AGW is occurring is being undone by this sort of "Big Oil" sponsored research"

    Well, who do you think pays for the scientists to do this? They aren't doing it out of their own wallet, trust you me.

    And all the conferences. They don't come cheap. Well, they do for the speaker, but not for the conference organiser.

    Complain about this comment

  • 9. At 9:28pm on 14 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    PS: waste product: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/waste+product

    waste product
    n.
    An unusable or unwanted substance or material produced during or as a result of a process, such as metabolism or manufacturing.

    ++++

    Are you saying you WANT your car to produce CO2? That your local power stations is BETTER when it's producing CO2?

    PS before you respond, read:

    http://thingsbreak.wordpress.com/2008/07/08/co2-plant-food/

    Complain about this comment

  • 10. At 9:31pm on 14 Jul 2009, Jack Hughes wrote:

    It's good fun to watch the alarmists change tactics on the go.

    At one time 1998 was a record year - an omen - a signal from Gaia. Something to make us sit up and pay attention.

    But now it's an outlier - a year to ignore when looking at trends.

    Complain about this comment

  • 11. At 9:45pm on 14 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    It still IS a record year.

    BECAUSE it was an outlier.

    It was even known WHY.

    How does your inanity disprove AGW?

    And it isn't ignored when looking at trends. Read the post #5:

    "Yet, take the last 10 years worth of data. 1999-2008. Doesn't include 1998. Take the average of those 10 years. Take the 10 years previous. 1989-1998. Includes 1998."

    Then again you're the one who said it was cooling, pointed to the values you used to come to that conclusion and then I showed you that conclusion was completely wrong. Then you disappeared.

    Thereby proving the thesis that humans (especially dumb ones) are very bad at seeing the real trends since they are pattern matchers. Even if there's no such pattern there.

    Complain about this comment

  • 12. At 9:56pm on 14 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    It's sad seeing denialists grab wildly at straws as their shame is exposed...

    Complain about this comment

  • 13. At 10:16pm on 14 Jul 2009, shantabarley wrote:

    Interesting point, Tenuuc. Which aspects of the debate specificially do you think should be suppressed?

    Complain about this comment

  • 14. At 01:07am on 15 Jul 2009, SheffTim wrote:

    Tenuuc # 7. You may be interested in reading a post I just posted in the previous Peter Sissons debate. #21.
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/climatechange/2009/07/bbc_stifles_climate_change_deb.html

    Scientific consensus doesn't mean 'not to rock the boat and tread on each others toes'.
    It can mean: 'Scientific consensus is the collective judgement, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study. Consensus implies general agreement, though not necessarily unanimity.'
    Questioning, and new evidence and lines of enquiry, makes people continue refining and building their case. (Just as Shanta is trying to make you justify your statement and refine the argument; as we all do in day to day discourse.)
    Science is an ongoing, continual process.
    It may also be worth reading:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus

    But I see nothing in Professor Ian Plimer's book to make me rethink my what I know; and the Spectator is just attempting to play to (and therefore increase its sales doubtlessly) a particular, partisan audience it knows is receptive to such a message; a minority.

    I do agree with your point about 'big oil' (and coal etc), especially aboard.
    But, if you're confident in your case be prepared to stand up and justify it.
    After all, a majority of the world's population still believes in one creation myth or another. But that doesn't mean they right. I follow the science.
    If evidence emerges, from multiple lines of enquiry, that challenges current conventional thinking then I'm prepared to re-evaluate my thinking.

    But, at present I see nothing that makes me re-evaluate my belief that the case for anthropogenic global warming/climate change is currently the strongest and most convincing hypothesis regarding our current climatic situation.

    I tend to think in longer time-scales than most; (a century is a minute period in geological time; but short in terms of a human lifespan - that most of us measure time by); we'll have a much better idea (for better or worse) of what's the 'real' situation climate wise by 2050.

    Complain about this comment

  • 15. At 04:19am on 15 Jul 2009, Jack Hughes wrote:

    Be careful if Monbiot is your hero - he's made a few mistakes himself.

    I'm going to skip his mistake of starting the non-mainstream Respect Party - now headed up by George Galloway. It's the kind of mistake any one of us could easily make in the heat of the moment.

    A more recent example is on his own blog:

    Monbiot: Whoops I've boobed

    The Guardians George Monbiot suffers (at his own expense) from excessive zeal in trying to disprove a statement by Telegraph Columnist, Christopher Booker, in his post: How to disprove Christopher Booker in 26 seconds

    I set the stopwatch running, pasted National Snow and Ice Data Center into Google, found the site, clicked on News and Events > Press room > Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis and discovered that Bookers claim was nonsense. It took me 26 seconds.

    But then a couple of hours later, when commenters on his blog point out Monbiots own error in his 26 second rebuttal, he admits hes boobed:

    Whoops looks like Ive boobed. Sorry folks. As one of the posters on this thread points out, there are in fact two averages in play 1979-2000 and 1979-2009. It is therefore correct to state that the April 2009 extent exceeds the 1979-2009 average, but not the 1979-2000 average. It remains the case, however, that the data relate to April, not May. Please accept my apologies for my mistake and the confusion it has caused.

    He also confused Global and Polar.


    Full story on Watts up with that.

    Complain about this comment

  • 16. At 08:07am on 15 Jul 2009, LarryKealey wrote:



    @Tenuuc writes:

    We all know that CO2 is a toxic gas which must be completely eradicated from the atmosphere before we all fry.

    -------end of @Tenuuc writes--------------------------------

    Please dispute the following:

    While CO2 has toxic affects to humans at 100 times current concentrations, CO2 is essentially a "trace gas", without which almost all life on the planet would cease to exist. (I say almost, because silicon based life forms have been discovered near deep sea thermal vents - as opposed to most life forms on earth - which are carbon based - like us).

    I might also add that Nitrogen also has toxic affects at 3+ atmospheres of pressure (like below 100 ft of water). Many other gases and chemicals are non-toxic at certain temperatures, pressures and concentrations.

    CO2 is essential for life. Without it, all plant life would die, almost immediately, animal life would follow very shortly thereafter.

    You are obviously very uninformed and unfortunately ignorant of the important role of CO2 in our atmosphere and our biosphere.

    Perhaps it is ignorance such as yours which should be suppressed. While I agree with certain aspects of current AGW theory, I have serious skeptisism with regards to others.

    When you suggest that we should "repress debate and free speech" for any reason, I become very concerned. There are many who have come before you preaching the same old story - "we must, its for our own good".

    Repression is repression, regardless of the justifications. In America, we let the Neo-Nazi's march - and most laugh at them until they crawl back under their rocks in shame. Let it be the same with AGW.

    I have no doubts that the current theories regarding AGW and climate change will be supplanted, as our knowledge of the earth's climate system is developed further and we gain a better understanding. What those theories will be is hard to say, but science is constantly evolving. Beliefs changing - by stifling debate, you only stifle the scientific process, you retard advancement and development of a better understanding of the processes and mechanisms which drive Earths climate system.

    Your post reminds me of the movement to ban di-hydrogen monoxide as it, accounts for 90% of the greenhouse effect of earths atmosphere. Far more than anything else.

    Complain about this comment

  • 17. At 08:17am on 15 Jul 2009, LarryKealey wrote:

    This comment has been referred for further consideration. Explain

  • 18. At 08:37am on 15 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    "Tell me, would you support a ban (and eradication of) di-hydrogen Monoxide?"

    We ban the production of H2O (with impurities) on the streets. If you don't think so, try taking a pee in the street.

    Complain about this comment

  • 19. At 08:38am on 15 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    "Repression is repression, regardless of the justifications."

    So if I pop round your house and play the Big Bass Drum all night, you'll be OK? Or will you repress me?

    "Help help, I'm being oppressed!"

    What do you think the laws are? They are repressing people who just want to go out killing, raping or stealing. Are you up for banning them because they're repressing people?

    Hypocrite.

    Complain about this comment

  • 20. At 08:40am on 15 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    "Be careful if Monbiot is your hero - he's made a few mistakes himself."

    Yet Plimer's response to people pointing out his errors is to accuse them of unscientific witch-hunts.

    Yeah, you can see who's open minded.

    Complain about this comment

  • 21. At 08:59am on 15 Jul 2009, Tenuuc wrote:

    @ yeah_whatever (also covers points from shantabarley / SheffTim)
    ["For many years science has worked by consensus"

    Hang on, it used to be "science is not consensus". Has that changed since then?]

    Yes science has changed. The days when individual scientists could freely pursue their own agenda for research have long gone. The reason for this is that for many years the great majority of research is funded by government and, as in the case of CO2 and AGW, is targeted to get evidence to support a specific theory. It would be very inefficient and costly if science went back to the old system.

    ["all reporting on FALSIFIED evidence which contradicts AGW must be suppressed."

    Fixed that typo for you.]

    No typo. All areas of modern science have to be consensus driven to make cost effective progress. Trying to support many different parallel theories costs far too much and often results in indeterminate outcomes.

    Cosmology is a good example of this, where most of the current effort (and money) is going into trying to support minor changes to the theory like dark matter/energy and even to defending it's central tenet, the Big Bang. Little real money is being spent on gathering new knowledge into how the universe works.

    We don't have the luxury of time in the case of toxic CO2 and AGW, as in the next 10 years the climate tipping point will be reached and global warming will enter the catastrophic runaway phase, destroying all life on earth. It is vital that the fragile IPCC consensus holds together, at least until after Copenhagen, otherwise we will no be able to get the global agreement from politicians in place to spend the trillions we need to eradicate toxic CO2 from our atmosphere.

    The anonymous peer review system ensures that most of the scientific papers which have evidence which is contrary to the existence of AGW are suppressed. It is the job of the media to avoid giving publicity to the odd ones which slip through the net, whether the content is factual or not. The consensus view is vital if we are to get the population of the western world to pay the heavy additional taxes we need to move to clean green energy.

    Complain about this comment

  • 22. At 09:20am on 15 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    "["all reporting on FALSIFIED evidence which contradicts AGW must be suppressed."

    Fixed that typo for you.]

    No typo."

    Well, if it wasn't a typo, then it is a lie.

    "Yes science has changed. The days when individual scientists could freely pursue their own agenda for research have long gone. "

    Wrong.

    "The reason for this is that for many years the great majority of research is funded by government"

    Extremely wrong. More and more of the grant money is coming from private industry, not the public purse.

    "and, as in the case of CO2 and AGW, is targeted to get evidence to support a specific theory."

    Impressively gargantuanly wrong.

    It is most definitely not.

    You only think it is because YOU demand that AGW is wrong. And if there's no science to support that it isn't because YOU are wrong, it's because science MUST be directed away from it.

    You aren't that smart. Not by a long shot.

    There is no science proving AGW is wrong and that human production of CO2 is not the major cause of current temperature changes in recent decades and if continued will lead to change catastrophic to our current civilisation. Not because they are being directed to prove that right, but because the reality (which science explores) is that this theory is right.

    But because your dogma INSISTS that AGW is wrong, you'll just go insisting that the science is biased (except where it can be used to say you're right, until it's shown it can't, in which case you'll move back to the default "it's all a conspiracy" until another cod science piece turns up to be abused).

    This is what is meant by denialist.

    And you're one.

    "Cosmology is a good example of this,... Little real money is being spent on gathering new knowledge into how the universe works."

    Ah, you know as little of cosmology as you do of climate.

    Little real money is being spent on Cosmology AT ALL. I know, I have two friends who still struggle away in this field.

    "The consensus view is vital if we are to get the population of the western world to pay the heavy additional taxes we need to move to clean green energy."

    Nope, that is all about the mitigation. That isn't science, that's politics. The science is used to say what IS happening and what the expected result of a policy decision would be. Both are used to inform the process.

    And please prove that there are heavy additional taxes.

    NOTE: you'll have to take into account the unrelated increase in fossil fuel prices and the fact that externalities of fossil fuel use ought to be paid for, else you are unable to make the correct free market decision on what to spend your money on.

    You assert there will be heavy taxes. Read the Stern Report. Compared to doing nothing about it, we will SAVE trillions.

    Or do you bemoan the cost of a price of loaf, even though hospitalisation because of starvation is much more expensive?

    Complain about this comment

  • 23. At 09:31am on 15 Jul 2009, shantabarley wrote:

    Andrew Marr, presenter (AM): Now to climate change and those warnings in todays papers that were going to be paying more for our energy and having to change our lifestyles, and pretty fast. To achieve the ambitious targets that Britains announced, theres going to have to be a radical programme that will have an impact on every household and cost each of us more than £200, according to a report in one Sunday newspaper. Well Ed Miliband, the Energy Secretary is with me, good morning

    http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/news/AM_interview/AM_interview.aspx

    Complain about this comment

  • 24. At 09:44am on 15 Jul 2009, Jack Hughes wrote:

    Hi Bloggers !

    Please read posts carefully - there are at least 2 bloggers here - on different teams - who are pretending to play for the opposite team.

    Keeps the debate warming up...

    Complain about this comment

  • 25. At 10:41am on 15 Jul 2009, LarryKealey wrote:


    Very interesting. A book writen by a Physical Geologist. I am sure it is quite a page turner. Whether or not if disproves anything I am sure will be debated until the cows come home.

    I have no intention of reading it - even though the folks at the Spectre have "bought into it". And since then, the Guardian and BBC have both run stories on the book (or Spector's article about the book).

    Ian must be having a good laugh now, on his way to the bank - as I am sure the attention has generated a number of sales of his new book.

    And mind you, I am a skeptic. Not a "denier" nor a "global warming fascist".

    Cheers.

    Complain about this comment

  • 26. At 10:45am on 15 Jul 2009, Gates wrote:

    "And it's true that climate change has occurred in the past, before humans existed"

    Only an idiot would deny that. But only an idiot would use that as a reason for us not to act on global warming. We DO exist now. And if we want to continue existing on this planet we have to keep the environment sustainable and habitable.

    Complain about this comment

  • 27. At 10:55am on 15 Jul 2009, LarryKealey wrote:


    @Shanta #17

    I find it interesting how Mr. Milliband hedges so much...finally admitting: "yes there will be upward pressures on prices...."

    I also find it amazing, considering the depth of the issue in the UK - that he has not been named "Climate Change Czar" ala Obama Administration.

    Its funny, we (the US) don't have a "climate change czar" - we are spending a trillions an no czar for climate change...guess we need to spend another trillion to fund one...Not LOL

    Complain about this comment

  • 28. At 10:55am on 15 Jul 2009, Gates wrote:

    Oh yeah and you might want to read this:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/jul/09/george-monbiot-ian-plimer

    Complain about this comment

  • 29. At 11:01am on 15 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    There's already an upward pressure on prices.

    It's called "inflation".

    You certainly spin anything you can into alarmist nonsense, don't you Laz.

    Complain about this comment

  • 30. At 11:02am on 15 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    "who are pretending to play for the opposite team. "

    Your tinfoil hat is leaking...

    Complain about this comment

  • 31. At 11:04am on 15 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    "And mind you, I am a skeptic. Not a "denier" nor a "global warming fascist"."

    No, you are a denier.

    Take that post itself: you don't care if Ian Plimers book is correct or is so full of holes swiss cheese looks as solid as granite in comparison. All you can do is consider that he can make pots of money by writing a "science" book that says AGW is wrong.

    You don't care about the science against AGW, you just care there are words against AGW.

    You are a denialist.

    Complain about this comment

  • 32. At 11:04am on 15 Jul 2009, LarryKealey wrote:

    EWE (aka Yeah_whatever writes:

    We ban the production of H2O (with impurities) on the streets. If you don't think so, try taking a pee in the street.

    My response - that is not production, but distribution.

    Cheers

    Complain about this comment

  • 33. At 11:19am on 15 Jul 2009, LarryKealey wrote:


    #29

    Please get it right EWE...

    Those aren't my words - I was quoting your Climate Change Minister

    Complain about this comment

  • 34. At 11:21am on 15 Jul 2009, LarryKealey wrote:



    EWE - you know who you are...

    I don't care to spend my money on it. I doubt it contains anything really new, except for the author's musings...

    Complain about this comment

  • 35. At 11:24am on 15 Jul 2009, Jack Hughes wrote:

    Monbiot lists 8 errors in Plimer's book.

    A high court judge listed 9 errors in Gore's film.

    Who ya gonna trust ?

    Complain about this comment

  • 36. At 11:31am on 15 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    "My response - that is not production, but distribution."

    Potayto/potahto.

    Please show where the law is banning CO2.

    Or is this a result of your over-heated ego demanding that, since you believe AGW is wrong, there must be some vast conspiracy to avoid any evidence of it being wrong (since if there WERE no evidence, you'd be wrong, and that WILL NOT HAPPEN).

    Complain about this comment

  • 37. At 11:48am on 15 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    "we are spending a trillions an no czar"

    "We are spending trillions and have no czar."

    Or

    "We are spending a trillion and have no czar."

    Please show where this is written down as having been spent. It's easy to say you're spending trillions but can you prove it?

    You're also spending trillions in Iraq and now again in Afghanistan to ensure that cheap oil flows AND FLOWS IN US DOLLARS.

    Saddam wasn't invaded despite all the things he did until AFTER he decided to do all international trades in Euros rather than US Dollars.

    It is also telling that on the "Axis of Evil", the known bad boys in US eyes are on the list (Iran/NK) but so is, surprisingly, Venezuela. But their strange inclusion in that (don't remember any huge terrorist thread from Venezuela that isn't also done by scores of other states, including the US) is explained when you find that Venezuela also wants to trade oil in Euros rather than Dollars.

    And this war costing lives and billions a month is being paid over oil and the dollar as international currency for trading oil.

    You neglect those costs, though, since they don't support your political dogma of AGW being wrong.

    Complain about this comment

  • 38. At 11:49am on 15 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    "I doubt it contains anything really new, except for the author's musings..."

    Yet you have no problems in a pack of lies being printed as long as it pronounces that AGW is wrong.

    That's not skepticism. That's denial.

    Complain about this comment

  • 39. At 11:51am on 15 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    "Those aren't my words -"

    Yes they were. That entire post was your words. The meaning of the post is your meaning. And that post is meaningless.

    Hence your inability to say anything other than "look over there!" and running away.

    Complain about this comment

  • 40. At 12:16pm on 15 Jul 2009, Jack Hughes wrote:

    Is global warming causing a bit of over-heating ?

    Complain about this comment

  • 41. At 12:19pm on 15 Jul 2009, Gates wrote:

    @35

    Neither!

    Two Wrongs don't make a right! Neither does 8 or 9 for that matter.

    Stop acting like 'An Inconvenient truth' is a bible of climate change for you to pick holes in. Its not, its one mans opinion. Opinion is totally irrelevant to climate change. When people finally start working that out maybe we can actually do some research and look at the facts!

    Complain about this comment

  • 42. At 1:20pm on 15 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    "Monbiot lists 8 errors in Plimer's book. "

    And there are plenty more where that came from.

    "A high court judge listed 9 errors in Gore's film."

    Lets look at the errors:

    1) Evacuation of a pacific island to NZ. Evacuations were made. But not all the pacific islands.

    2) oceanic volcanoes produce the melting of ice. When there's nowhere near that level of activity.

    #1 doesn't prove or disprove AGW.

    #2 proves Plimer wrong.

    As to more errors from Plimer:

    http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2009/2593166.htm

    6+ errors

    http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2009/2586947.htm

    6+errors

    http://www.abc.net.au/rn/ockhamsrazor/stories/2009/2589206.htm

    12+errors

    http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/05/plimer_and_arctic_warming.php

    Another honker

    http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/05/ian_plimer_lies_about_source_o.php
    +1

    http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/04/the_science_is_missing_from_ia.php
    60 errors

    http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/04/23/ian-plimer-heaven-and-earth/
    14 figures are errors

    http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/05/ian_enting_is_checking_plimers.php
    390 errors

    http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/05/ian_enting_is_checking_plimers.php
    33 + 59 errors (- small overlap)

    http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/05/sales_of_heaven_and_earth.php
    1 error

    http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/05/reaction_to_ashleys_review_of.php
    closed minded attacks against not the errors but the people pointing them out

    http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,,25433059-5003900,00.html
    1 error but a stonking big one: the sun is made of iron..!

    Complain about this comment

  • 43. At 1:43pm on 15 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    "When people finally start working that out maybe we can actually do some research and look at the facts!"

    Ever seen the Jim Carey film "Liar, liar!"?

    The reason why the denialists like Jack don't want to do some research and look at the facts is the same as Jim's character: "I Object! Because it's damaging to my case!".

    Complain about this comment

  • 44. At 3:50pm on 15 Jul 2009, Tenuuc wrote:

    @LarryKealey

    Sorry, but the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has just officially declared carbon dioxide (CO2) to be a poison. I agree a very small amount is essential to plant life, but the current astronomically high levels of almost 400ppm of this toxic substance must be reduced urgently.

    @yeah_whatever
    Even a tin foil hat won't save you if CO2 continues to grow at its current rate. You need to wake up and smell the coffee. The fact is that this issue has gone way beyond the remit of science and it is now in the hands of politicians, under the auspices of the UN, who are driving this war against CO2 and climate change.

    Complain about this comment

  • 45. At 4:11pm on 15 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    Tennuc, you won't find a disagreement on post 44. Except "tin foil": science is still being done in the way it has been done. Except that private industry gets to put in a pittance toward research and then patents the results.

    To the rest:

    The CO2 is a waste product. And a waste product should be reduced or removed. It isn't being banned but the unaccounted bill for cleaning up the waste is now being addressed now that it can be seen as a problem.

    Mind you, I still don't see where there is a *ban* on CO2. Laz seems to think there is one but he's not managed to come back with where this law is that he is so scared of...

    Alarmism? From a denialist? Surely not!!!

    Complain about this comment

  • 46. At 4:22pm on 15 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    PS "it is now in the hands of politicians, under the auspices of the UN, who are driving this war against CO2 and climate change."

    The mitigation strategies were ALWAYS going to be in the hands of the politicians. Science was to show them the size of the problem and will come in again with probable results of a give strategy.

    Which is why the denialists started up with "There is no proof of warming" and have continued that meme. It is why "I'm not saying one way or the other who is right, but there is still a lot of debate, so until it's sorted out, we shouldn't do anything" is commonly said by denialists or the useful idiots.

    The point of them is to make the politicians not listen to the scientists.

    The science papers are not written for scientists which is why they are of such atrocious quality: they are written for politicians or to be waved at politicians. Most of whom don't have the training to see if the paper is good and definitely don't have the time.

    For their purposes, quality doesn't matter, facts don't matter. All that's needed is quantity.

    Complain about this comment

  • 47. At 4:25pm on 15 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    And there's more criticism of Plimers fiction writing credentials:

    http://www.cs.uwaterloo.ca/~shallit/plimer.html

    Complain about this comment

  • 48. At 4:26pm on 15 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    And on his current work of fiction...
    http://lippard.blogspot.com/2009/05/ian-plimer-on-climate-change.html

    Complain about this comment

  • 49. At 4:50pm on 15 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    That should be "Their science papers" rather than "The science papers" in 46.

    Complain about this comment

  • 50. At 5:51pm on 15 Jul 2009, agwbsdotcom wrote:

    This comment has been referred for further consideration. Explain

  • 51. At 6:16pm on 15 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    Adn fruit flies like a bananna.

    What the heck does that have to do with the size of an old style phennig, you insane troll?

    Complain about this comment

  • 52. At 7:10pm on 15 Jul 2009, ManmadeupGW wrote:

    Much Ado about CO2
    (20 years or what you will)
    The Earth's temperature may stay roughly the same for a decade, as natural climate cycles enter a cooling phase, scientists have predicted.

    A new computer model developed by German researchers, reported in the journal Nature, suggests the cooling will counter greenhouse warming.

    However, temperatures will again be rising quickly by about 2020, they say.
    The above was May 2008
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/climatechange/2009/07/anyone_seen_the_front_page.html

    The link I provided earlier to the Real Climate site regarding temperature stasis is best addressed here
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/07/14/real-climate-gives-reason-to-cheer/

    So for all the venom poured out against people who question the hypothesis that CO2 emissions will cause dangerous global warming it would appear the attacks have failed. The hypothesis is proven false.
    CO2 emissions rising global temperatures in stasis/falling.

    So when it gets colder its natural variability when it gets hotter its anthropogenic global warming?

    Complain about this comment

  • 53. At 7:11pm on 15 Jul 2009, Junk2Rubbish wrote:

    I'm not a climate change denier - I fully acknowledge that CC has always existed and dont go about under the misapprehension that climate change is not normal.

    But you cant deny that politicians do recognise a potential winner in CC. When temperatures go up, they can raise taxes and set up organisations to assist in their progress of further governance while all the time occupying a moral high ground. It will not matter if temperatures go down, for their cry will be "our policies are working - see, we're right!

    But to gain a full understanding of the scale of mankinds efforts to control CC we could do no worse than compare them with King Canute's efforts to stop the tide.

    I find it easier to follow that climatic changes are brought about primarily due to the influence of oceanic changes, which are huge and obvious (e.g. el Nino, la Nina), rather than any influence of mankind's rather miniscule production of a minor trace gas which has a definitely limited greenhouse effect as a property. (As a theory, its barely passed the hypothesis stage.)

    Never mind that economic ruin may result, the world's governments must demonstrate that they 'care' and be seen to be doing something, so todays politicians can set those impossible targets now and leave someone else to worry about them long after theyve all gone.

    Complain about this comment

  • 54. At 7:15pm on 15 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    "A new computer model developed by German researchers, reported in the journal Nature, suggests the cooling will counter greenhouse warming."

    Strangely credulous given his past rant about how models are all bogus.

    "CO2 emissions rising global temperatures in stasis/falling."

    It isn't falling.

    And it isn't stasis either.

    And this is not disproving AGW science anyway. So why bring it up?

    Complain about this comment

  • 55. At 7:20pm on 15 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    "I find it easier to follow that climatic changes are brought about primarily due to the influence of oceanic changes, which are huge and obvious (e.g. el Nino, la Nina),"

    Why? Where do you think the energy comes from? Aliens in the deep ocean???

    I know. You find it easier then because your political dogma isn't going to be challenged.

    " rather than any influence of mankind's rather miniscule production of a minor trace gas which has a definitely limited greenhouse effect as a property. (As a theory, its barely passed the hypothesis stage."

    So many very wrong statements in there.

    Out of the trace gasses, CO2 is one of the biggest.

    What limit do you speak of?

    And it's been 150 years since proposed. It's WELL past the hypothesis stage.

    Again, before you make stupid statements like that, read the history of climate change (from waaay back before it was hip):

    http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

    Some points because I KNOW you won't read it:



    "In the 19th century, scientists realized that gases in the atmosphere cause a "greenhouse effect" which affects the planet's temperature. These scientists were interested chiefly in the possibility that a lower level of carbon dioxide gas might explain the ice ages of the distant past. At the turn of the century, Svante Arrhenius calculated that emissions from human industry might someday bring a global warming."

    "But would adding carbon dioxide in the upper layers of the air significantly change the surface temperature? Only detailed computations, point by point across the infrared spectrum and layer by layer up through the atmosphere, could answer that question. By 1956, such computations could be carried out thanks to the increasing power of digital computers."

    "Going beyond this qualitative result, Plass calculated that doubling the level would bring a 3-4°C rise"

    In 1956.

    Complain about this comment

  • 56. At 7:23pm on 15 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    "compare them with King Canute's efforts to stop the tide."

    1) King Canute was trying to prove that he couldn't change the tide. Your education is limited to a cut and paste of other peoples' arguments and even THEY are uneducated.

    2) The ones who are more like your portrayal of this are the denialists. Trying desperately to hold back the tide of data proving them wrong. And shrilly yelling about how their wet feet are the fault of a conspiracy to make the tide come in when it shouldn't.

    Complain about this comment

  • 57. At 8:27pm on 15 Jul 2009, ManmadeupGW wrote:

    @ Shanta Barley

    Thank you for the link which I missed originally because of the multi posting.

    Lets agree to disagree, because my view is that because global warming is not continuing as predicted, despite rising CO2 levels there is a lot of post rationalisation going on in the climate community.

    Take care and good evening.

    Complain about this comment

  • 58. At 9:49pm on 15 Jul 2009, Neil Hyde wrote:

    This will be an ad hom to those of a guilty conscience.

    They had come to a time when no one dared speak his mind, when fierce, growling dogs roamed everywhere, and when you had to watch your comrades torn to pieces after confessing to shocking crimes.
    Animal Farm
    Chapter 7.

    Complain about this comment

  • 59. At 9:59pm on 15 Jul 2009, Neil Hyde wrote:

    Reading out the figures in a shrill, rapid voice, he proved to them in detail that they had more oats, more hay, more turnips than they had had in Jones's day, that they worked shorter hours, that their drinking water was of better quality, that they lived longer, that a larger proportion of their young ones survived infancy, and that they had more straw in their stalls and suffered less from fleas.
    Animal Farm
    Squealer( Gore and Hansen) explain the "readjustment" of rations, Chapter 9.

    With apologies to G.Orwell

    Complain about this comment

  • 60. At 10:39pm on 15 Jul 2009, LarryKealey wrote:


    @Tenuuc

    With regards to the EPA declaring CO2 a poison - you are mistaken. A Liberal judge declared that CO2 is a pollutant and as such, that the EPA has the power to regulate CO2.

    Since then, the EPA has spent $0 on attempting to regulate CO2.

    This just represents yet another liberal judge trying to legislate from the bench - a serious problem we have here in America - a judge doesn't like the law, so the judge just does whatever he wants. The appeal will take months, so this story is not over yet.

    I will also iterate your suggestion that CO2 is a poison and must be irradicated - i.e. completely eliminated from the atmosphere. This would certainly mean DEATH to most life on the planet. Plants require CO2 for photosynthesis - take away CO2 - no photosynthesis, no plants, shortly after no, people, no animals. Do you wish to argue this point?

    I suggest you read up on CO2, plant life, photosynthesis and toxicity to humans.

    Me thinks EWE has a new buddy - then again, it could just be EWE has two logins...hmmm, something to ponder there. Both present ridiculous ideas.

    Complain about this comment

  • 61. At 10:59pm on 15 Jul 2009, Junk2Rubbish wrote:

    #55
    Why? Where do you think the energy comes from? Aliens in the deep ocean???
    Read again. Most of the energy ends up in the oceans from where it exerts influence on the climate. Im not disputing energy sources.

    What limit do you speak of?
    Once CO2 reaches around 500 parts in a million, thats the end of its effect. Having any more ppm will have no more effect. Furthermore, for each ppm being added each year the additional effect is becoming smaller.

    And its still an hypothesis because correlation is not causation. Theres still no proof and that means its not yet even a theory.

    Some points because I KNOW you won't read it:
    Actually, the history is not too bad. (Omits that CO2 tends to follow warming, but does lend support to the oceans having a big influence on climate)

    #56.
    1) King Canute was trying to prove that he couldn't change the tide. Your education is limited to a cut and paste of other peoples' arguments and even THEY are uneducated.
    Okay youre so educated but how is your ad homin relevant?

    2) The ones who are more like your portrayal of this are the denialists. Trying desperately to hold back the tide of data proving them wrong. And shrilly yelling about how their wet feet are the fault of a conspiracy to make the tide come in when it shouldn't.
    Sorry to disappoint you, but the climate will always change. Mankind must accept it and learn to adjust. Politicians taxes will have no effect.

    Mankind has an effect on the climate, the question is how much? I think very little and not worth plunging the western world into poverty for.

    Complain about this comment

  • 62. At 00:57am on 16 Jul 2009, agwbsdotcom wrote:

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

  • 63. At 08:51am on 16 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

  • 64. At 08:53am on 16 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    "Mankind has an effect on the climate, the question is how much? I think very little and not worth plunging the western world into poverty for."

    And you've done the sums for this, have you?

    Where are they?

    The "how much" was answered in 1956:

    "Going beyond this qualitative result, Plass calculated that doubling the level would bring a 3-4C rise"

    Just the physics. No modeling, just doing the sums.

    It was on this thread, but you didn't read it because it challenges your dogmatic belief based on hope.

    Complain about this comment

  • 65. At 09:06am on 16 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    "Once CO2 reaches around 500 parts in a million, thats the end of its effect. Having any more ppm will have no more effect."

    Your nick is well named. Junk science indeed.

    Have YOU done these sums? Did you real Plass's paper? No limit there. And it is observationally wrong too; the PETM had much higher (2000?) ppm of CO2. It got 22C warmer. Warmer than it was with 800ppm in the age of the dinosaurs.

    At least you answered the question, which is at least laudable. All we need to do now is update your knowledge from guesswork and gut feeling to facts.

    "Sorry to disappoint you, but the climate will always change. "

    I throw your words back at thee:
    "Read again.". I didn't say it would no longer change. But WE can stop changing it.

    If someone is a terminal patient, you can smother them with a pillow and kill them. They will still die. This is considered murder, though. You can't stop them dying by taking the pillow off their face, but you can stop YOU killing them by doing so.

    "Okay youre so educated but how is your ad homin relevant?"

    Because you display idiocy and do not check your statements for accuracy, this is not an ad-hom. Your display shows that your other statements are quite able to be just as wrong and unresearched. And you're an idiot for saying this sort of thing.

    Ad hom is "you're an idiot so your statements are wrong".

    It is not (and this is what I am saying): "your statements are wrong so you're an idiot".

    But it is a classic defense technique for the idiocracy. Doesn't really work.

    "And its still an hypothesis because correlation is not causation."

    Incorrect. It's proven. Arrhenius proved it, Tyndal hypothesised it. Callendal proved it in the historical records of the ice ages.

    Correlation PROVES the causation.

    It is true that correlation is not causation, but causation is PROVED BY correlation.

    But that is another classic denialist cut and paste argument.

    And it's not a skeptic one, since the sceptics used these arguments in the turn of the century. They were answered and went on to other things. Denialists deny the questions have been answered and ask them again. And again. And again...

    "Omits that CO2 tends to follow warming"

    "tends". So not always. Like in the PETM. Or today. Else where is the 800 year old warming that will produce this CO2?

    And that proves that CO2 has a warming:

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/co2-in-ice-cores/

    Again, skeptics asked this question decades ago. They were answered. Denialists deny the answer exists and ask again and again.

    Complain about this comment

  • 66. At 09:08am on 16 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    "I will also iterate your suggestion that CO2 is a poison and must be irradicated - i.e. completely eliminated from the atmosphere."

    Ah, we see Larry's "thought" processes at work. Again.

    Note how he says "completely eliminated from the atmosphere" yet the post he was talking about didn't say anything of the sort?

    Rather like his assertion that CO2 is being banned. And hasn't shown where this has been said (apart from him and his alarmist denialist cadre).

    Complain about this comment

  • 67. At 09:10am on 16 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    "I suggest you read up on CO2, plant life, photosynthesis and toxicity to humans. "

    I suggest you do so too.

    http://thingsbreak.wordpress.com/2008/07/08/co2-plant-food/

    Hmm. Corn fields with a higher CO2 air concentration (pumped over the plants) do worse. They may be growing bigger but their defences against the beetle that eats their leaves is lowered and their productivity goes down because the beetles eat their leaves.

    Complain about this comment

  • 68. At 09:13am on 16 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    "Lets agree to disagree, because my view is that because global warming is not continuing as predicted"

    Incorrect.

    A paper did come forward assuming that around 2000 for maybe 10 years the temperature wouldn't go up much compared to the previous decades. This was because they presumed that the strong El Nino would pump out more heat to be lost in the short term and that the energy well in the ocean would remove atmospheric energy quicker to replenish it.

    The temperature isn't going as the denialists predicted either.

    A point you fail to make in your outrage.

    Complain about this comment

  • 69. At 10:21am on 16 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    "i was innsinnuatinng that some people will believe annythinng."

    Yes, apparently you do.

    And your continuing wibbling would have gone along these lines if they hadn't talked about natural variability (where the flipping heck do you think the wobbling line in the annual trend upwards comes from? Lizard Alien Overlords???):

    "They are unscientific since they do not even concern themselves with the natural variability that a chaotic system includes".

    "And maybe China and India are going to halt all their frantic coal-fired power station building"

    China are building more green energy capacity faster than any other country.

    Why import oil and gas when you can use the native sunlight?

    And who do you have make all your stuff? China.

    And again with the tired old carp with the vostock. Doesn't disprove AGW and actually proves it.

    Try here (I know you won't read this either):

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/co2-in-ice-cores/

    Complain about this comment

  • 70. At 11:45am on 16 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    "35. At 11:24am on 15 Jul 2009, Jack_Hughes_NZ wrote:

    Monbiot lists 8 errors in Plimer's book. "

    for someone with such a distaste of errors, you may want to visit here too:

    http://www.altenergyaction.org/Monckton.html

    Complain about this comment

  • 71. At 12:58pm on 16 Jul 2009, agwbsdotcom wrote:

    yeah_whatever it is you who is not doing the reading. The Vostok link (as all the links in that post) was to show that CO2 causes "very bad things" to happen to us at low concentrations, and that extremely low levels are where we are currently at.

    As for the surreal climate link....

    "Some (currently unknown) process causes Antarctica and the surrounding ocean to warm. This process also causes CO2 to start rising, about 800 years later. Then CO2 further warms the whole planet, because of its heat-trapping properties. This leads to even further CO2 release."

    "currently unknown" = pure speculation from this point onward....

    At least they admit the "800 years later...." thing. And where they say that the oceans release the majority of CO2.

    One of the most enlightening things I ever did was accept an invitation to a Royal Society meeting. They don't "believe" in natural variability either. Its membership is more than 95% introverted, bombastic, pompous and righteous. And 99.5% mad. I didn't spot any lizards though.

    Complain about this comment

  • 72. At 1:35pm on 16 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    "yeah_whatever it is you who is not doing the reading"

    Nope, YOU aren't doing the reading.

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/co2-in-ice-cores/

    and in

    http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

    "The Vostok core, an ice driller declared, "turned the tide in the greenhouse gas controversy."(49) At the least it nailed down what one expert called an "emerging consensus that CO2 is an important component in the system of climatic feedbacks.""

    "extremely low levels are where we are currently at."

    From the above quote:

    "The CO2 levels in their record got as low as 180 parts per million in the cold periods and reached 280 in the warm periods, never higher. But in the air above the ice, the level of the gas had reached 350 far above anything seen in this geological era and still climbing."

    Back to you again:

    "As for the surreal climate link....
    ...
    "currently unknown" = pure speculation from this point onward...."

    But we currently know what is increasing the CO2 this time: our fossil fuels.

    Your comment hardly proves your point: it actually disproves it.

    "And where they say that the oceans release the majority of CO2."

    In the vostok cores. But that never got above 300ppm. It's higher than that now. And we KNOW how much of that is ours because fossil fuel CO2 has a different isotopic signature from bilogic sources.

    Again your "point" disproves your thesis that AGW is wrong.

    You don't even believe what you say. Else you'd read up and comprehend the counters. But you dare not, since you know that your ideals are dogmatically derived and not from rational thinking and that the science is not on your side.

    So you bang on the table...

    Complain about this comment

  • 73. At 1:39pm on 16 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    "One of the most enlightening things I ever did was accept an invitation to a Royal Society meeting. They don't "believe" in natural variability either."

    Of course, given your track record on accuracy of statements made on this and other blogs, this statement has all the solidity of the aether...

    Complain about this comment

  • 74. At 3:10pm on 16 Jul 2009, Junk2Rubbish wrote:

    You said: Have YOU done these sums? Did you real Plass's paper? No limit there.

    I am unable to find a link to Plass's paper, but from the article you pointed me to:-
    Apparently it took only a trace of the gas to "saturate" the absorption that is, in the bands of the spectrum where CO2 blocked radiation, it did it so thoroughly that more gas could make little difference. I apologise for not having a reference to my 'around 500 ppm' figure as it is only from memory, but the excerpt does indicate that the effect has a limit. There is a point where additional CO2 makes little difference.

    You said: And it is observationally wrong too; the PETM had much higher (2000?) ppm of CO2. It got 22C warmer. Warmer than it was with 800ppm in the age of the dinosaurs.
    But as you have read the Plass paper, I now await your apparently authoritative update to this wikipedia article, which says - The event saw global temperatures rise by around 6 °C over 20,000 years

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene%E2%80%93Eocene_Thermal_Maximum

    (I am aware that anybody can make whimsical changes to wikipeadia, and you can dismiss it if you wish, but you would think that the 60 years old work of Plass you seem to be claiming, as definititive, would at least get a mention in the article.)

    Correlation PROVES the causation.
    But if you look at a graph of cement production through the 20th century and compare it with increases in global temperatures, youll get at least as good a correlation as increasing atmospheric CO2 levels. Using your logic, this proves that global warming is caused by increases in cement production!! You take as proof what is merely evidence which might support a case.

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/co2-in-ice-cores/
    Early on, the article says: The other 4200 years of warming could in fact have been caused by CO2, as far as we can tell from this ice core data.
    I just dont like that word could.

    Denialists deny the answer exists and ask again and again.
    Hmmm, yes but here am I thinking that it was scientists who were trained to ask again and again.

    Complain about this comment

  • 75. At 3:50pm on 16 Jul 2009, Junk2Rubbish wrote:

    I apologise for not having a reference to my 'around 500 ppm' figure as it is only from memory, but the excerpt does indicate that the effect has a limit. There is a point where additional CO2 makes little difference.
    The addendum (only) to this article, shows what I am trying to say:
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/07/15/9373/#more-9373

    Complain about this comment

  • 76. At 3:54pm on 16 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    "Hmmm, yes but here am I thinking that it was scientists who were trained to ask again and again."

    No, you're thinking of six-year-olds: "Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet?...".

    "But if you look at a graph of cement production through the 20th century and compare it with increases in global temperatures, youll get at least as good a correlation as increasing atmospheric CO2 levels"

    And you picked that WHY? Because one of the results of cement curing is CO2 release.

    Again you come up with a point apparently to disprove AGW and yet it proves it.

    "Apparently it took only a trace of the gas to "saturate" the absorption that is, in the bands of the spectrum where CO2 blocked radiation, it did it so thoroughly that more gas could make little difference."

    And how wrong can you be.

    It has a lot of difference.

    a) The loss of heat from the earth system is from the upper atmosphere, where CO2 isn't saturated, but as density of CO2 increases, that level at which it is not saturated gets higher. So therefore the radiative loss to space reduces quickly.

    b) Not all bands are saturated.

    c) The absorption spectra has a falling off effect to either side. These areas decay logarithmically so are still unsaturated. Therefore as you increase the amount, the width of the saturated band gets higher. Trapping more heat.

    It probably won't do you any good to read Plass's paper since you don't even know what you're saying.

    From that link (which you say you've read, but it seems your myopia only extends to that which you can use to "disprove" AGW) there is:

    "And scientists were coming to see that you couldn't just calculate absorption for radiation passing through the atmosphere as a whole, you had to understand what happened in each layer which was far harder to calculate."

    Yet this is exactly what you're doing by saying that there is no effect because it's saturated.

    In fact your figure of 500ppm would not fit this meme either: saturation at sea level happens at about the 1ppm.

    ONE PART PER MILLION SATURATES CO2 IR ABSORPTION.

    "I apologise for not having a reference to my 'around 500 ppm' figure as it is only from memory, but the excerpt does indicate that the effect has a limit."

    Your memory is wrong. And you seemed so *certain* of the 500ppm. How do you know that these questions have not been answered? How do you know that your memory is leading you astray. It has done so with the 500ppm meme you have and trivially provably so.

    There is no limit. About the only limit possible is when the optical depth of IR because of CO2 places the 1 optical depth limit at the tropopause.

    That won't happen until somewhere around the 14,000ppm mark. If that.

    Ask astronomers, if you don't trust climatologists.

    Complain about this comment

  • 77. At 5:05pm on 16 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    "The addendum (only) to this article, shows what I am trying to say:"

    "Warming Caused by Soot, Not CO2"

    Uhm, where does that come from your posting previous???

    But anyway, inside that link:

    "The absorption frequencies of CO2 are already saturated,"

    Oh, look, the saturated gassy argument. Answered in 1956 and still being asked in 2009.

    "Consequently, as the level of CO2 in the atmosphere increases, the rise in temperature for a given increase in CO2 becomes smaller. "

    But for the same fractional increase of CO2, the difference is the same.

    And the Vostok cores show a 100ppm increase from 180 to 280ppm. About 60%. That takes us all the way from a deep glacial to a warm interglacial.

    We have changed CO2 40%. An increase to 550ppm would be as big a fractional increase and yet we're at the warm interglacial. This is not kansas any more, folks...

    "Because CO2 on its own cannot account for the observed temperature rise in the past century, climate modelers assume that linkages exist between CO2 and other climate influences, mainly water vapor"

    And because of that, AGW is wrong???

    "To compensate for the missing forcing, models are tuned to include a certain amount of extra warming linked to carbon dioxide levels"

    Ah, no.

    No, if you look at the source code for the GISS model you will not find it is tuned to give a certain amount of warming. Merely stating this isn't proving it. Unless you're a credulous.

    "A large aerosol cooling, therefore, implies a correspondingly large climate sensitivity."

    To aerosols, yes. But that aerosol stuff gets rained out because we have quite a wet planet and lots of those aerosols make great condensation nuclei...

    "The upshot of this is that sensitivity values used in models for the past quarter of a century have been set too high."

    Incorrect.

    Measurement of the change of temperature and the change of solar constant and the gasses in the atmosphere show that if the sensitivity is outside the range of 1.5 to 4.5 with an average of 3C per doubling of CO2, then there is no explanation for the historical record. If this person wants to say it's much less than that, they must explain the paleoclimate record with that sensitivity.

    I note that they do not do so...

    "Now that we know the models used by climate scientists were all tuned incorrectly"

    Only if you bought in to the baseless accusation that they are tuned.

    They are not.

    "Once again a new paper in a peer reviewed journal has brought to light significant flaws in the ways models are configuredforced to match known historical results even when erroneous values are used for fundamental parameters."

    Ah, the good old "there is a new paper, which you can be assured says what I say it does and that there are no errors in it, unlike all the others that show AGW is real because those ones are full of errors, even though they too are peer reviewed".

    "with enough tweaking, a model can be made to fit any set of reference data"

    Does kind of require tweaking in the first place.

    And this doesn't make forecasts work, since they only work in scenarios you tweaked for.

    Yet Hansen's 1981 paper had a theoretical large volcanic eruption in it. A real eruption happened from a large volcano a few years after. The shape response and depth of global temperature response was remarkably close to the real one. The real volcano was bigger than the one put in the model, but rerunning the EXACT SAME MODEL with NO changes except the change of the volcano description produced the right shape too.

    How can you tweak your model to manage that???

    Obviously you can't and therefore the hypothesis of tweaking is proven wrong.

    "Be safe, enjoy the interglacial and stay skeptical."

    Just as long as you aren't skeptical of what wattsupwithtat puts up...

    Complain about this comment

  • 78. At 6:28pm on 16 Jul 2009, Junk2Rubbish wrote:

    #75
    The addendum (only) to this article, shows what I am trying to say:
    Can you guess why I put "(only)" ?
    Answer: I wanted to ignore the rest of the article.

    #77
    Didn't stop you though! :)

    Complain about this comment

  • 79. At 7:27pm on 16 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    So the paper doesn't actually say what you wanted to say.

    Why am I not surprised.

    It is also incorrect as shown in post 77.

    So again, how does that link do anything to answer your case that AGW is unproven or wrong?

    You've already made several statements that, as opposed to supporting your hypothesis that AGW isn't proven and it's not CO2's fault that have, actually, been proof that AGW is proven and CO2 is the major factor.

    And then you link to a blog site (oh dear) with Anthony Watts (oh dear: he's just a weatherman. And you KNOW that they can't predict the weather four days in advance, so how can he predict that these papers are right???) to a long rant about how models are tweaked. Yet as #77 shows, they are not. Else unexpected events like a big eruption would not have come out right: there would be nothing to tweak it against...

    And that was just one of many fallacies in that unreviewed and credulously received blog posting.

    Complain about this comment

  • 80. At 7:53pm on 16 Jul 2009, ManmadeupGW wrote:

    This comment has been referred for further consideration. Explain

  • 81. At 8:01pm on 16 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    Well, that certainly proved nothing.

    Complain about this comment

  • 82. At 8:10pm on 16 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    Having looked at the addendum, I'm afraid you have it completely wrong.

    YET AGAIN you miss out the quote on the site I gave SEVERAL TIMES NOW.

    "The logic is rather simple once it is grasped, but it takes a new way of looking at the atmosphere not as a single slab, like the gas in Koch's tube (or the glass over a greenhouse), but as a set of interacting layers. (The full explanation is in the essay on Simple Models, use link at right.)"

    And what is that addendum showing?

    A single slab.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/climatechange/2009/07/dont_trust_a_stressedout_scien.html#P82861163

    Read up on optical depth here:

    http://spiff.rit.edu/classes/phys440/lectures/optd/optd.html

    So when you double density, the optical depth of the atmosphere doubles. Therefore the height at which IR gets out to space and is lost gets higher.

    But the higher you are in the atmosphere, the colder it is.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_body#Planck.27s_law_of_black-body_radiation

    Therefore you will see less energy leaving the higher you go.

    Now, if you are losing less energy than you get in, what happens?

    You're awfully willful in your desire not to read anything if it isn't saying "AGW is wrong", aren't you all?

    Complain about this comment

  • 83. At 8:18pm on 16 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    Junk says: "You said: And it is observationally wrong too; the PETM had much higher (2000?) ppm of CO2. It got 22C warmer. Warmer than it was with 800ppm in the age of the dinosaurs.
    But as you have read the Plass paper, I now await your apparently authoritative update to this wikipedia article, which says - The event saw global temperatures rise by around 6 C over 20,000 years"

    A) The Plass Paper wasn't about the PETM.

    B) The Wiki Article disagrees:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene-Eocene_Thermal_Maximum#Climate

    And I quote:
    +++
    the surface waters of the northernmost Arctic ocean warmed, seasonally at least, enough to support tropical lifeforms requiring surface temperatures of over 22°C.
    ++++

    Complain about this comment

  • 84. At 8:25pm on 16 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    And it looks like the CO2 levels were 20,000ppm.

    Well above 500ppm.

    http://news.mongabay.com/2006/1207-petm.html

    NOTE: the graph there shows how much CO2 there would be given the sensitivity of climate to CO2.

    If the AGW deniers are right and the sensitivity of temperature to CO2 doubling is 0.1C per doubling, you need a trans-infinite concentration of CO2.

    It only gets to 20,000 ppm if sensitivity to CO2 doubling is around 1.5C per doubling.

    It's something you don't see the deniers do when they say that the IPCC figure of ~3C is vastly over reality and it is much, much lower.

    If it's too low, you can't get the changes you see in the past...

    But they don't check THEIR values are right, do they.

    Complain about this comment

  • 85. At 8:32pm on 16 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    Might as well point out to show how denialists are running a tag team, Junk's proposition here is the EXACT SAME one that CuckooToo tried.

    It failed.

    Isn't the definition of insanity "trying the same thing over and over again, expecting a different result"?

    Complain about this comment

  • 86. At 9:18pm on 16 Jul 2009, Neil Hyde wrote:

    @85

    Try " Pot , kettle black " it seems to fit perfectly !!

    Complain about this comment

  • 87. At 9:26pm on 16 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    Well, reading up on PCA seems to corroborate RC's claim that M&M use too few eigenvectors.

    Almost none of the variability is taken by using M&M's procedure. It looks likely therefore that with the reduced set of 2 dimensions that M&M want to use will not select anything useful from ANY data. Too much data variability is left unaccounted for.

    NOTE: for those of you interested, PCA is meant to find independent axes to trend data against to reduce the RMS error around that axis as much as possible. E.g. if you have a scatter plot of X/Y values around x=y and you decide for some strange reason to use an axis of x and y with a centre in the middle of the dataset, you will have equal amounts of scatter around those axes and will not find any correlation. However, picking an axis of x=y and x=-y and putting the centre in the middle of the dataset you will remove most of the scatter around you axis of x=y and, depending on how closely the scatter ranges around that straight line, you may not even need the x=-y axis.

    After all, in this case, you get the scatter from just that single axis. All you get from the scatter around the x=-y axis is how long you trail the data for along the x=y axis.

    Assuming that the calculation of the eigenvectors given here

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/11/pca-details/

    is right (and that is a reasonable one since M&M haven't countered those figures), the M&M attempt to find the signal in the noise is bound to failure by their selection of mean position: no vector has any particular monopoly on the scatter, and selecting just two covers a minority of it. Any correlation resulting would inevitably look little better than random noise.

    Maybe this is what Rob did.

    Used M&M's selection of data values and mean and vectors to include and found no difference in ***McIntyre and McKitrick's*** analysis of the historical data and random noise.

    Not because the data is like noise but that the analysis picked vectors that did not reduce the analysis needs to find the signal and then refused to use enough vectors to locate it.

    Maybe if Rob can just give the RE value he had for both sets, this would narrow this down...

    Complain about this comment

  • 88. At 9:29pm on 16 Jul 2009, agwbsdotcom wrote:


    Talking to yourself could be considered a bit weird also. Let me see....

    CET 1698 7.63C
    CET 1708 9.67C

    CET 1998 10.34C
    CET 2008 9.97

    and they're off.....

    Complain about this comment

  • 89. At 9:30pm on 16 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    Yeah, I must be insane responding to all these people who don't read what I say.

    If you haven't anything better to add, though, you'd better go Hyde.

    Complain about this comment

  • 90. At 9:33pm on 16 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    I guess Chutney will now be accepting AGW is real. NCDC have the results: this is the second warmest June ever (GISS has the same rank). And the NCDC say it's the warmest ever june for ocean and SH temperatures.

    I mean, he likes those single-month values. He uses it all the time.

    As long as they allow him to show them proving AGW doesn't exist.

    Then again, he DOES say he's a skeptic. Maybe he'll be equally skeptical of the denial of AGW too...

    Complain about this comment

  • 91. At 9:38pm on 16 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    My posting 90 was out before 88 was viewable.

    Wonder if he's going to change his mind now that he knows that June is the second hottest ever...

    Complain about this comment

  • 92. At 11:44pm on 16 Jul 2009, ManmadeupGW wrote:

    @ EWE (TUP)

    Why are you providing links to the Real Climate site they have never been right about anything. They also censor posts and are unwilling/incapable of admitting the Hockey Stick graph was/is a statistical nonsense.

    Why have you hijacked this post I think people should ignore you because you confirm the old saying empty vessels make the most noise.

    Complain about this comment

  • 93. At 06:59am on 17 Jul 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    @yeah_whatever #90

    I guess we will never know what the true statistics are, as long as the holders of the raw data refuse to release it:

    http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=6346

    Please don't have this post removed just because it doesn't fit with your idealised view of climate scientists and dogma

    Chutney doesn't rely on single month values. Chutney pointed you in the direction of Spencers work, which shows a zero anomaly for the 30 year satallite period, which you reject because it doesn't fit with your dogma.

    I agree with you when you say NCDC and GISS show this June to be the second hottest, but so what? UAH and RSS show the 30 year anomaly as being zero. The NASA UAH MSU satellite tells us May was the 15th coldest in the satellite era - is that significant? I don't think so.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/07/03/uah-global-temperature-anomaly-for-june-09-zero/
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/07/03/uah-global-temperature-anomaly-for-june-09-zero/

    (I know you will say wattsupwithtat is a rag, but try to spare the attacks and comment on the data from UAH and RSS, please)

    What amazes me about you and other true believers, is you don't have any room in your minds for even a hint of scepticism, despite the evidence for being circumstantial at best. Correlation does not equal causation.

    People like me accept recorded temperatures rose towards the end of the 20th century, (your buddies over at RealClimate accept temperatures have fallen over the last 10 years (didn't Gavin say 20 years of temperatures not rising would be enough to disprove AGW? Well, we are half way there!)), we accept that man needs to manage resources a lot better, we accept that man does influence climate (deforestation etc), but what we don't accept is CO2 is such the big influence on climate that the anti-fossil fuel brigade claim it is.

    Complain about this comment

  • 94. At 09:19am on 17 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    We DO know that you'll ignore any data that doesn't agree with your worldview. We DO know that you "assume" knowledge that when it is shown to be nonexistent leaves you running away to hide. Throwing an insult behind you as you leave.

    "People like me accept recorded temperatures rose towards the end of the 20th century, (your buddies over at RealClimate accept temperatures have fallen over the last 10 years"

    It is lower now than it was at the maximum. However, that is a tautology. The definition of a maximum means that if you are not the maximum, you are lower than the maximum.

    And we are not halfway there.

    Again Chutney shows how little he cares for facts when they get in the way of his dogma:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/climatechange/2009/07/is_the_climate_warming_or_cool.html#P82634488

    the last 10 years is warmer than the previous 10.

    This is ***cooling***????

    If you wish to continue making a fool of yourself, go ahead.

    Complain about this comment

  • 95. At 09:22am on 17 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    "Chutney doesn't rely on single month values."

    Yes he does:

    "What is the current temperature anomaly according to UAH (one of the accurate satellite measures)? 0.001 degree. So it is 0.001 degree hotter now than "average"."

    Is what you said.

    0.001 degree is a single month value. And you use that single month value is what you used to "prove" it was cooling.

    Again you show how you ignore anything that disproves your dogma about AGW. Even when it's you that says it.

    Complain about this comment

  • 96. At 09:25am on 17 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    The village idiot burbles:

    "Why are you providing links to the Real Climate site they have never been right about anything"

    Well if your view is that AGW MUST BE WRONG, then yes, they would never be right. Since they don't support the village idiot.

    However, they DO have real scientists running the site, unlike the drivel site wattsupwithtat you continually link to as if this is somehow a link to the Nature papers.

    And RealClimate also have the facts on their side.

    The problem is, like Colbert says, facts have a well-known liberal bias. And neo-cons hate to face facts.

    Complain about this comment

  • 97. At 1:40pm on 17 Jul 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    This comment has been referred for further consideration. Explain

  • 98. At 1:55pm on 17 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    Other examples of Chutney's inability to answer queries him/her self:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/climatechange/2009/07/is_the_climate_warming_or_cool.html#P82797070

    I take it the nil response means that Chutney accepts those as facts..?

    Complain about this comment

  • 99. At 2:01pm on 17 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    "Note: Hypothesis - a scientific hypothesis is not the same as a scientific theory"

    Indeed.

    And AGW is a theory explaining the facts not a hypothesis that may explain the facts.

    That quote there isn't about AGW.

    Then again you don't care when spouting your lies, do you. If you can keep "on message" and spread FUD your work is done and you can collect your paycheck.

    Complain about this comment

  • 100. At 2:05pm on 17 Jul 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    This comment has been referred for further consideration. Explain

  • 101. At 2:09pm on 17 Jul 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    #98

    i'm afraid most of your comments get lost in a tidal wave of bile

    Complain about this comment

  • 102. At 2:16pm on 17 Jul 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    #99

    Isn't about AGW?

    Complain about this comment

  • 103. At 2:22pm on 17 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    "(I know you will say wattsupwithtat is a rag, but try to spare the attacks and comment on the data from UAH and RSS, please)"

    Yes, it IS a rag.

    As can be seen by the terrible partisan spin put on the data.

    UAH and RSS are measuring the full air temperatures, which includes the lower stratosphere. A fact missed by watt's hatchet piece.

    The signature of GG warming is that the troposphere gets warmer, BUT the stratosphere gets colder. Another fact "missed" by the trolling piece written.

    Now, if the temperature of the stratosphere is going down, and the tropsphere goes up, what is the overall signal of adding them both together?

    A question left unasked in that op-ed disguising itself as factual reporting.

    Complain about this comment

  • 104. At 2:23pm on 17 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    And check up the credentials and degrees/postdoc of the people on the site.

    Now see if you can find Anthony Watt's graduate education record...

    Complain about this comment

  • 105. At 2:24pm on 17 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    No, 97 quote isn't about AGW.

    Blind as well?

    Complain about this comment

  • 106. At 5:38pm on 17 Jul 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    all the huffing and puffing from certain posters claiming all sceptic websites etc are clueless and yet no comment on http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/climatechange/2009/07/anyone_seen_the_front_page.html#P83022472

    interesting

    Complain about this comment

  • 107. At 5:47pm on 17 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    What's interesting is that he has to go and push that without asking about the degree qualifications of Anthony Watts.

    Which are nonexistant.

    Yet Gavin Schmidt, Raypierre and Mike all have impressive resume's.

    And Have you checked the Heartland Institute?

    Big payers of people like Watts and Lindzen etc.

    Interesting, hmm?

    Complain about this comment

  • 108. At 6:10pm on 17 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    See
    http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Anthony_Watts

    "Watts was a speaker at the International Conference on Climate Change (2009) organized by the Heartland Institute think tank. Watts is also listed as a speaker for the Heartland Institute's June 2009 Third International Conference on Climate Change."

    Nice gigs. Wonder whether he was given a nice hotel for that...

    Or Lindzen:

    http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Richard_S._Lindzen

    "He is one of the leading global warming skeptics and is a member of the Science, Health, and Economic Advisory Council, of the Annapolis Center, a Maryland-based think tank which has been funded by corporations including ExxonMobil."

    Ah, the joys of being in a quango!

    Roy Spencer?

    http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Roy_Spencer

    "Since February 2004 he has been a columnist for TCS Daily writing over forty columns, almost entirely on the the topic of global warming. Until 2006, TCS Daily was run by DCI Group, a lobbying firm that works for ExxonMobil."

    Plimer?

    http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Ian_Plimer

    "He is a global warming sceptic and a non-executive director of three mining companies: Ivanhoe Australia, a subsidiary of Bob Friedland's Ivanhoe Mines, as well as CBH Resources and Kefi Minerals."

    How about McIntyre:

    http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Stephen_McIntyre

    "Stephen McIntyre has worked in mineral exploration for 30 years, much of that time as an officer or director of several public mineral exploration companies. McIntyre is also a headliner at the International Conference on Climate Change (2009), a gathering of climate change skeptics in New York from March 8th-10th. "

    (remember that ICCC is funded by the Heartland Institute).

    McKitrick:

    http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Ross_McKitrick

    "Ross McKitrick is an Associate Professor in the Economics Department at the University of Guelph, Ontario, and, since October 2002, has been a Senior Fellow at the Fraser Institute, a libertarian think tank based in Vancouver, British Columbia"

    "For example in late 1999 defended the Fraser Institute when it criticised proposals for an Endangered Species Act in Canada. "

    The things you find...

    Complain about this comment

  • 109. At 6:22pm on 17 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    This comment has been referred for further consideration. Explain

  • 110. At 6:25pm on 17 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    This comment has been referred for further consideration. Explain

  • 111. At 6:25pm on 17 Jul 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    WHOIS information for realclimate.org :

    Domain Name:REALCLIMATE.ORG
    Created On:19-Nov-2004 16:39:03 UTC
    Last Updated On:29-May-2009 12:45:52 UTC
    Expiration Date:19-Nov-2010 16:39:03 UTC
    Registrant Name:
    Registrant Organization:Environmental Media Services

    http://www.activistcash.com/organization_overview.cfm/oid/110

    Complain about this comment

  • 112. At 6:38pm on 17 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dcxVwEfq4bM&feature=channel

    Have a look.

    If you disagree with something, say so, else you concede the allegations are indefensible.

    Complain about this comment

  • 113. At 6:43pm on 17 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    And that proves what?

    That the site is hosted on a network.

    Do they pay RC or do RC pay them to host?

    Indymedia were hosted on rackspace. The whois led there. But Rackspace didn't pay Indymedia to host videos of plainclothes police officers starting Riots in the G8 summit...

    Complain about this comment

  • 114. At 6:45pm on 17 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_Media_Services

    "Environmental Media Services (EMS) is a Washington, D.C. based nonprofit organization that is "dedicated to expanding media coverage of critical environmental and public health issues"[1]. EMS was founded in 1994 by Arlie Schardt, a former journalist, former communications director for Al Gore's 2000 Presidential campaign, and former head of the Environmental Defense Fund during the 1970"

    OOOH!!!!! SCARY!!!!!

    Pfft.

    Complain about this comment

  • 115. At 6:49pm on 17 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    Compare EMS's $873,000 in a year income with Heartland Institute's $5.2 million revenues.

    Complain about this comment

  • 116. At 6:53pm on 17 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    Further to post 93, did you know about this?

    http://www.enn.com/top_stories/article/9019/print

    Complain about this comment

  • 117. At 6:58pm on 17 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    And more further to 93, why did he say it was the UAH data and point not to the UAH data source?

    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/2007/ann/msu2007-pg.gif

    That would be why!

    Complain about this comment

  • 118. At 7:07pm on 17 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/notes#wti

    Will show you how picking your points carefully from a dataset can have inordinate consequences for whether you get the answer you want or not.

    As Chutney's teleprompter will attest!

    Complain about this comment

  • 119. At 7:07pm on 17 Jul 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_Media_Services

    Their primary activities include holding forums that bring scientists knowledgeable in current environmental issues together with journalists, providing web hosting and support for environmental issues sites like RealClimate, and providing recommendations to journalists trying to locate experts knowledgeable on environmental topics. They also issue press releases related to environmental issues and provide an aggregration service that disseminates recent news on environmental topics.

    EMS is closely allied with Fenton Communications, "the largest public interest communications firm in the [United States]", which specializes in providing public relations for nonprofit organizations dealing with public policy issues.

    Complain about this comment

  • 120. At 7:18pm on 17 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    Ah, Chutney is silencing the critics again...

    Complain about this comment

  • 121. At 7:28pm on 17 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    Yup.

    So on one side we have $873,000, paying for a website hosting.

    On the other, $5,200,000 paying for meetings and conferences and speakers. At which many people who are senior executives at SEVERAL geological/energy companies AT THE SAME TIME (sheesh, if the job is so difficult it pays so well, how come you can do several at the same time???).

    Complain about this comment

  • 122. At 7:39pm on 17 Jul 2009, Tony B wrote:

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

  • 123. At 7:44pm on 17 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    MangoChutney again quietens the opposition....

    Complain about this comment

  • 124. At 7:46pm on 17 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    Well 120 came back. Seems like someone is getting too eager to silence the debate even for the moderators on the blog.

    Complain about this comment

  • 125. At 9:24pm on 17 Jul 2009, Neil Hyde wrote:

    @89

    Hyde here, and unlike Mark(YW) I don't have anything to hide. I do have a considerable amount to say if you would be so kind as to allow someone else to post on YOUR blog, which is what it appears to have become. Obviously a troll , the question is , are you a BBC troll , or just the common or garden Gaurdianista?

    Continually quoting, nay shouting the "Green mantra" does not prove your case , the only way to do that , would be by reasoned argument, quoting empirical evidence to support your case , which you have singularly failed to do.

    In a previous crossing of swords, you stated that if nobody believed in models , they would not fly on an aeroplane. Sorry to shatter that theory, but as an aircraft engineer, I will give you the current example of the Boeing 787 "Dreamliner".

    Designed on a computer, on the basis of models , this was going to be a huge leap forward in reliability and economic operation. The beauty of the aviation industry, is that nothing gets in to the air, until it is proven by empirical evidence, in the case of a new aircraft , the fatigue test airframe. When the computer models were tested , they were WRONG , so an engineering solution was constructed , based on results.

    So, Mark(YW) or whatever you wish to call yourself on this or any other BBC environmental blog , please , please ,please, show me the empirical evidence for a CO2 influence on the global temperature.

    As a PS , which computer model predicted the current financial crisis ?

    Try going outside your comfort zone , or better still try arguing your case without turning to your usual reference point of GS's so called "Real Climate"

    Complain about this comment

  • 126. At 09:38am on 18 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

  • 127. At 11:10am on 18 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    " please ,please, show me the empirical evidence for a CO2 influence on the global temperature."


    Yes.

    CO2 traps IR and slows its release.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius#Greenhouse_effect

    http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm
    Tyndall set out to find whether there was in fact any gas in the atmosphere that could trap heat rays. In 1859, his careful laboratory work identified several gases that did just that. The most important was simple water vapor (H2O). Also effective was carbon dioxide (CO2), although in the atmosphere the gas is only a few parts in ten thousand.

    We are releasing a lot.

    http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
    http://www.marktaw.com/culture_and_media/politics/GlobalOil.html

    Therefore it is warming the atmosphere.

    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif

    +++

    Now, where is YOUR empirical evidence that CO2 doesn't cause warming?

    Complain about this comment

  • 128. At 11:21am on 18 Jul 2009, Neil Hyde wrote:

    @127

    In the Vostock ice cores

    Complain about this comment

  • 129. At 12:29pm on 18 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    The Vostok ice cores prove CO2 warms the planet, though.

    Complain about this comment

  • 130. At 7:45pm on 18 Jul 2009, Neil Hyde wrote:

    Vostock ice cores prove that CO2 follows temperature rise, not the other way round , but don't worry about facts or quotes from Einstein, the biased blog moderators will protect you.

    Mods , please publish the complaint procedure to be followed concerning moderation standards as you cannot be bothered to respond to mails

    Complain about this comment

  • 131. At 8:32pm on 18 Jul 2009, Neil Hyde wrote:

    .........and if the mods will check this quotation from Albert Einstein before they remove it .

    "Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocre minds.
    The latter cannot understand it when a man does not thoughtlessly
    submit to hereditary prejudices but honestly and courageously uses his intelligence."

    Complain about this comment

  • 132. At 8:34pm on 18 Jul 2009, RobWansbeck wrote:

    YW, #87, not only continues to demonstrate his lack of understanding of historic temperature reconstructions but now helps bring it to a larger audience by placing the same post on different blogs.

    After accusing people of lying for questioning the validity of temperature reconstructions we find that YW doesn't even recognize the title of a paper he is defending.

    YW then writes:
    ' Well, reading up on PCA seems to corroborate RC's claim that M&M use too few eigenvectors '

    One would have hoped that YW would have looked at the method before accusing others and the above quote suggests that much further reading is required.

    He then ends with:
    ' Maybe if Rob can just give the RE value he had for both sets, this would narrow this down... '

    Wow, does he really believe that a specific RE is determined by the method and the data have no relevance? Maybe he is correct, maybe that is why some methods are vulnerable to noise.

    Here are two RE figures that are well reported: 0.51 and 0.46.

    YW appears to be blissfully unaware that a large part of the criticism of Mann's work was his failure to provide r2 verification statistics.

    When M&M came up with a figure of 0.02 for the AD1400 step Mann replied with the following:

    ' This claim by MM is just another in a series of disingenuous (off
    the record: plainly dishonest) allegations by them about our work. Our
    reconstruction passes both RE and R^2 verification statistics if
    calculated correctly. I hope you are not fooled by any of the "myths"
    about the hockey stick that are perpetuated by contrarians, right-wing
    think tanks, and fossil fuel industry disinformation. (Michael Mann
    2005) '

    Mann's view was supported by Wahl and Ammann. Unfortunately they were forced to disclose their r2 figure following a complaint. It turned out to be .018 for the AD1400 step virtually identical to the M&M figure that Mann had derided.

    Complain about this comment

  • 133. At 9:02pm on 18 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    re 130:

    Take a look again at the graph.

    See a CO2 rise?

    Yes?

    Now what does the temperature do after that?

    Rise.

    That CO2 rise caused a temperature rise.

    Ergo, proving CO2 warms the planet.

    Complain about this comment

  • 134. At 9:03pm on 18 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    What was the RE figure Rob?

    Complain about this comment

  • 135. At 9:05pm on 18 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:


    "Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocre minds."

    Yes, the IPCC and climate scientists HAVE had violent opposition from mediocre and lower standard minds.

    Glad you regognise it.

    After all, all these claims of "They are a political arm" or "they merely say what their political masters tell them to say" and "it's all a scam so that they can get money for their research" is all the denialists (and you're one of them, Wimpy!) tell of them.

    Attacks against their ability and work by people who don't know the science.

    Complain about this comment

  • 136. At 9:12pm on 18 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    Rob seems to be unaware that an r2 test is used in Mann's paper and shows a confirmation.

    Complain about this comment

  • 137. At 9:20pm on 18 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    And maybe Rob would want to read

    Casualty Actuarial Society Forum, D Lee Barclay: "A Statistical Note On Trend Factors, The Meaning of R-Squared"


    Through simple graphical examples, Barclay showed that the coefficient of variation (R) is, by itself, a poor measure of goodness-of-fit.

    This may be worthwhile reading for anyone who just assumes that since someone says a test has failed, there is no skill in the graph.

    Complain about this comment

  • 138. At 9:22pm on 18 Jul 2009, Neil Hyde wrote:

    So another quote from Einstein is not good enough for YW(Mark) should we move on to Freeman Dyson? Or do Einstein and Dyson fit your opinion of "mediocre and lower standard minds"

    ........ definition of an internet "troll" for the mods :

    Someone who posts continually, flooding blogs with their opinion, using argumentative statements unsupported by data to justify their position.

    Come on mods , get a grip !!!!!

    Complain about this comment

  • 139. At 9:28pm on 18 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    Yup, sounds like you, wimpy.

    'course you get to play tag team with others in your office, but hey.

    And as to your definition: it seems to apply to you doubly: where did you get that definition of "troll"? You have no support for that definition, do you...

    Are you denying that the ice cores show temperature increasing after CO2 increases?

    Complain about this comment

  • 140. At 9:31pm on 18 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    One definition of troll I have found has this gem on it, though:

    trolling
    Act of appearing on internet forums and boards with malicious intent. Trolling includes...
    -putting the forum down and encouraging people to leave.

    Isn't that what Cuckoo, Larry and Bish all done?

    Complain about this comment

  • 141. At 9:49pm on 18 Jul 2009, Neil Hyde wrote:

    ....don't understand the "wimpy" Mark, as for playing tag in my office , its a little difficult at 30,000 ft, and as to my definition applying to me doubly , you should take that as a compliment , as I am only following your example.

    However, the huge differnce between you and I , is, I am capable of reading all sources and forming my own opinion , instead of basing my arguments on recieved(RC) wisdom.

    Complain about this comment

  • 142. At 9:50pm on 18 Jul 2009, Neil Hyde wrote:

    @139

    Vostock ice cores show temperature increasing , and 800 years later CO2 increasing.

    Complain about this comment

  • 143. At 01:33am on 19 Jul 2009, RobWansbeck wrote:

    re YW, #137, after I wrote:

    ' YW appears to be blissfully unaware that a large part of the criticism of Mann's work was his failure to provide r2 verification statistics. '

    YW responds:

    ' Rob seems to be unaware that an r2 test is used in Mann's paper and shows a confirmation. '

    I am aware that this was claimed but at the time was unaware that the figure and the method used were available.
    It is some time since I looked at this in detail so I am willing to accept that the r2 figure and the method used for its derivation are now available. I have been unable to find this information so would be grateful for a link.

    Your other point cautioning over-reliance on r2 alone has some validity but Mann claims his paper has passed this test. This again is one of the problems: if it passes the test it shows confirmation and if it fails the test it shows a failure of the test. Make your mind up.

    To keep things friendly, which I try to do but may not always have succeeded, take a look at http://www.r-project.org/ and download R.

    Most of the people that you criticize make their code available so that it can easily be downloaded and run in R and it is usually well remarked so can be, relatively, easily followed.
    This will allow you to replicate their work and find any errors. Errors do occur but are rapidly spotted and corrected.
    This is in stark contrast to many papers by climate scientists who seem unwilling to provide their methods in a rapidly reproducible format.

    I'm sure you will agree that papers discussing a subject as important as climate change should be made as accessible as possible to allow the rapid exposition of any errors or uncertainties. This can only help the speed with which we gain a better understanding of how things work.

    Complain about this comment

  • 144. At 02:07am on 19 Jul 2009, RobWansbeck wrote:

    BTW, YW, are you aware of any instance of RE being cited as the overriding verification statistic before these apparently unfounded allegations that Mann's paper had failed the r2 test?

    Complain about this comment

  • 145. At 08:55am on 19 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    @142 and after the CO2 increase, an increase in temperature.

    Complain about this comment

  • 146. At 08:58am on 19 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    " I am capable of reading all sources and forming my own opinion"

    Evidence would appear to say otherwise.

    You haven't read this:

    http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

    And despite the temperature and fossil fuel record and the rise in temperature after co2 rises in the voskock cores, you STILL haven't changed your mind about AGW.

    It seems like you are the one who just repeats the same old things that you've read elsewhere and doesn't change their position.

    Yet you project this on to me.

    It's a common psychological problem...

    Complain about this comment

  • 147. At 09:27am on 19 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    "Most of the people that you criticize make their code available so that it can easily be downloaded and run in R and it is usually well remarked so can be, relatively, easily followed."

    And most that YOU criticise make their code available so that it can be easily downloaded and run in R and it is usually well commented and so can be easily followed.

    Yet somehow that doesn't stop you either.

    Complain about this comment

  • 148. At 4:33pm on 19 Jul 2009, Junk2Rubbish wrote:

    #82
    "The logic is rather simple once it is grasped, but it takes a new way of looking at the atmosphere not as a single slab, like the gas in Koch's tube (or the glass over a greenhouse), but as a set of interacting layers.

    So while co2 absorbs all InfraRed heat (that is IR at the 2.7, 3 and 15 wavelengths) in the first layer, we must consider subsequent layers simply because they capable of absorbing IR.

    But the IR has already been absorbed in the first layer, so where does the 'new' IR come from?

    Complain about this comment

  • 149. At 6:24pm on 19 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    "So while co2 absorbs all InfraRed heat (that is IR at the 2.7, 3 and 15 wavelengths) in the first layer, "

    And we have a repeat of Chutney's monologue of ignorance:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/climatechange/2009/07/dont_trust_a_stressedout_scien.html#P82872340

    "you get "adding 35% to the concentration of CO2 increases the optical depth of the atmosphere or the box in the lab by 35%". I agree the saturation band will get slightly wider, but are you saying 35% wider?"

    This despite an earlier post

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/climatechange/2009/07/dont_trust_a_stressedout_scien.html#P82785145

    which explains what optical depth is.

    Complain about this comment

  • 150. At 6:31pm on 19 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    "But the IR has already been absorbed in the first layer, so where does the 'new' IR come from?"

    It's where does that IR go to.

    And it's held back by the upper layers.

    They keep saying they are skeptics and that they read and are open minded yet despite multiple posts of this link:

    http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

    and the pointing out of this section in it:

    "The physicist Gilbert N. Plass took up the challenge of calculating the transmission of radiation through the atmosphere, nailing down the likelihood that adding more CO2 would increase the interference with infrared radiation. Going beyond this qualitative result, Plass calculated that doubling the level would bring a 3-4°C rise."

    This science, so unknown to the denialist was done in 1956.

    When you put one blanket on, you warm up. But if you put two on, despite having 100% of the conductivity moderated by that one blanket, you get warmer still.

    But this doesn't give them a talking point.

    There is no new IR. It takes longer for the IR to leave.

    So where it took 1 hour for X amount of IR energy to leave, it took 2 hours to leave. Then three. Then four....

    But the incoming rate didn't stop.

    So the incoming radiation builds up.

    But they don't want people *thinking*.

    Complain about this comment

  • 151. At 9:19pm on 19 Jul 2009, Neil Hyde wrote:

    YW (Marks) gospel would appear to be WP58 , the same as followed by Auntie, ie if you keep saying it long enough , people will believe it .

    http://www.tyndall.ac.uk/publications/working_papers/wp58.pdf

    Complain about this comment

  • 152. At 9:57pm on 19 Jul 2009, Neil Hyde wrote:

    ........and please YW , when have the CRU responded to FOI requests for their source codes ? About as frequently as the BBC !!!!!! It would seem that the FOI is only to be used against other parties who do not agree with recieved wisdom.

    .....and mods , where is the complaint procedure or contact number ?

    ... or are you covering up a BBC employee ?

    Complain about this comment

  • 153. At 10:11pm on 19 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    ".....and mods , where is the complaint procedure or contact number ?"

    Can I get you a whaaaaaaambulance?

    There's the GISS code.

    Go get it.

    http://www.giss.nasa.gov/tools/modelE/

    Or does the fact that the GISS models show the same sort of thing that the Hadley Centre one does mean it's right?

    Complain about this comment

  • 154. At 10:20pm on 19 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    And to soothe wimpy's paranoia, check out how well "protected" I am:

    # 126. At 09:38am on 18 Jul 2009, yeah_whatever

    This comment has been referred to the moderators. Explain.

    +++

    #

    # 110. At 6:25pm on 17 Jul 2009, yeah_whatever

    This comment has been referred to the moderators. Explain.

    +++

    # 109. At 6:22pm on 17 Jul 2009, yeah_whatever

    This comment has been referred to the moderators. Explain.

    +++

    Complain about this comment

  • 155. At 10:24pm on 19 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    in #148 Junk repeats his statements that CO2 is saturated therefore it can't be a cause of warming.

    He'd done that earlier too. On this thread.

    And answer was given:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/climatechange/2009/07/anyone_seen_the_front_page.html#P82980455

    And no counter.

    Yet he repeats the same old canard as if it wasn't answered at all (even incorrectly).

    Yup, they are so open minded that anything said to them falls straight out...

    Complain about this comment

  • 156. At 08:32am on 20 Jul 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    @toughNeilHyde

    #151

    Interesting document Neil

    I thought it would be a good idea to show the documents title and publisher:

    The Social Simulation of the Public Perception of Weather Events and their Effect upon the Development of Belief in Anthropogenic Climate Change - Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research Working Paper 58

    I see they are also trying to change AGW for Anthropogenic Climate Change - clearly this name change must indicate that things are WORSE THAN WE THOUGHT ;)

    I haven't read it all yet, but here is an interesting conclusion:

    Temperature alone, unless extreme in either rise or fall in a relatively short time frame is not likely to have as significant an impact on belief formation as are 2nd order impacts in the form of extreme events, i.e. flooding, drought, etc. These in turn are not likely to have as significant an impact unless they touch on the human socio-economic experience, 3rd order impacts.

    Complain about this comment

  • 157. At 08:49am on 20 Jul 2009, U14073700 wrote:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/feb/02/frontpagenews.climatechange

    "Scientists offered cash to dispute climate study"

    Complain about this comment

  • 158. At 09:48am on 20 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    So? *I* would like to know how you think too.

    At least five people on these message boards has come up with CO2 cannot be causing warming since it is saturated. Several times each.

    And it has been answered several times.

    But not once has any proof been given that

    "The physicist Gilbert N. Plass took up the challenge of calculating the transmission of radiation through the atmosphere, nailing down the likelihood that adding more CO2 would increase the interference with infrared radiation. Going beyond this qualitative resut, Plass calculated that doubling the level would bring a 3-4°C rise."

    was wrong.

    In fact the proof that these people don't even know the science hasn't made them think again.

    So I would love to know how to open their minds to the truth.

    I guess you guys don't like that, since you're living a comfortable lie.

    Complain about this comment

  • 159. At 09:57am on 20 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    Ah, an alarmist revision of the history:

    "I see they are also trying to change AGW for Anthropogenic Climate Change - clearly this name change must indicate that things are WORSE THAN WE THOUGHT"

    from http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/science/hadleycentre/

    "Three events occurred in 1988 that assisted greatly in bringing the issue of man-made climate change to the notice of politicians:

    * A World Ministerial Conference on Climate Change in June hosted by the government of Canada.
    * A speech in September by Margaret Thatcher where she mentioned the science of anthropogenic climate change and the importance of action to combat climate change.
    * The first meeting of the IPCC in Geneva in November 1988. Delegates from many countries agreed to set up an international assessment of the science of climate change, together with its likely impacts and the policy options.

    In December 1988 the UK Government announced it was committed to extending its influence internationally to provide information about climate change and to supporting appropriate research. Discussions were held with the Department of the Environment to strengthen climate research at the Met Office. This led, in November 1989, to an announcement of a new centre for climate change research in the Met Office then called the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research."

    It was climate change in 1988.

    Then again, I don't suppose Chutney remembers that.

    Complain about this comment

  • 160. At 11:46am on 20 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

  • 161. At 11:51am on 20 Jul 2009, Tony B wrote:

    A debate is a debate, it will have more than one opinion (otherwise what's the point) and it does not need breathtakingly arrogant, rude and insulting trolls taking the place over.

    Anyone with more than half a brain (cue a typical response from The Predictable One, along the lines of "Clearly that leaves you out") can understand that we are not frying yet (in spite of what the Met Office and others with a strong vested interest in climate catastrophe claim), that there is increasingly unavoidable evidence that we are not even warming to any significant degree currently, and that there have been quite recent periods when the world was warmer than it is now. Like the 1930s.

    Funny how every year the Met Office tries to hype up the non-existent problem with scare stories about the impending heatwave, yet we still get our typical, miserably cool summer, with the odd hot week here and there. Just like we have done every year I can remember.

    This is becoming as predictable as The Predictable One

    Complain about this comment

  • 162. At 11:58am on 20 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    " A debate is a debate, it will have more than one opinion "

    And sometimes one of those opinions is wrong.

    The point of a debate isn't to refute someone's arguments eternally. It is to find the truth of the arguments.

    Something very very few self-proclaimed "skeptics" have managed.

    Complain about this comment

  • 163. At 12:27pm on 20 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    Predictably, the denialist trolls and lies.

    Where is this "heat wave scare"???

    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/science/creating/monthsahead/seasonal/2009/summer.html

    Do YOU see it?

    "For the UK and much of Europe temperatures for the rest of the summer are likely to be above average."

    I don't see it.

    Maybe someone is (predictably) making things up.

    This is known as "lying"...

    Complain about this comment

  • 164. At 6:30pm on 20 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    " that there is increasingly unavoidable evidence that we are not even warming to any significant degree currently, "

    A lot of weasel words there.

    All to avoid saying a lie but with enough vagueness to give the right "message".

    We are not warming to any significant degree this year.

    Or last year.

    Or any year before that.

    However, the TREND is up.

    This denialist would like you to believe that he means "the trend is no significant warming".

    This is incorrect.

    And I wonder where all those denialists who said it was all due to the sun warming up? With no sunspots, the sun is cooler, so we should AT LEAST be back in the 70's by now.

    Yet we aren't. Last year was warmer than any one year before 1998. That is most of the 90's.

    I guess they'll come up with something else when this year is higher than last. As they do all the time.

    They have no theory. They need no theory. They WANT no theory. A theory after all can be disproved. They don't WANT to be disproved. So they sit and use weasel words.

    "It could be something we don't know about!".

    Well, according to your meme, you don't know CO2 can cause warming. So maybe that is what's causing warming.

    Reckon?

    Nah, you'll ignore it all. It's not "on message".

    Complain about this comment

  • 165. At 9:45pm on 20 Jul 2009, Tony B wrote:

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

  • 166. At 10:12pm on 20 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

  • 167. At 04:07am on 21 Jul 2009, LarryKealey wrote:


    @Tony

    #161 - I agree completely with the assertion that a "debate is a debate". It is realy the quality of the debate that is at issue. Unfortunatly, the quality here is "not what it should be' - would you not agree?

    Cheers.

    Complain about this comment

  • 168. At 07:03am on 21 Jul 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    i'd agree

    Complain about this comment

  • 169. At 09:25am on 21 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    Well, yes, you'd agree with anything from someone that says AGW is wrong.

    I bet you figure that the Sun probably IS made of Iron, just like Ian Plimer says!

    And again the hypocrisy shows up: "Oh, it's terrible with all these people being nasty"/"Lovely job being nasty there".

    And not even no complaints, laudits for a troll. Because the troll is attacking someone who lets you know the truth that the denialists don't want you to consider.

    Pathetic, isn't it.

    Complain about this comment

  • 170. At 10:00am on 21 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    And debate isn't just a series of statements contradicting another's position:

    http://www.mindspring.com/~mfpatton/sketch.htm

    We've had several times "CO2 can't cause it because it is saturated".

    Despite no contradiction of the reason why this is not valid, and despite the absolute proof that the person holding this position doesn't know the veriest smidgen of the science, it continues to appear.

    Denial of the proof. Because it doesn't bolster the denialist argument.

    And Larry, why is it that if AGW is being debated, we should do nothing? After all, that's what you should do if AGW is wrong, not if it's uncertain.

    And since the downsides of not doing something is bad, unless the downsides of doing something is likewise bad (please prove this: it wasn't true for CFC's despite all the doom-and-gloom alarmism about how they would go out of business if they had to abandon CFCs, so the burden of proof is on you), you should at least do no more.

    Then again, that isn't on the right message for denialists, is it. The only reason to keep a "debate" going is to stop anything being done. There's no science on their side, so sophistry is all they have left.

    And they bang on the table.

    Complain about this comment

  • 171. At 1:15pm on 22 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    And Mysterious toadie quote mines to mislead.

    From the link given: "Forecasters say it is still too early to say if this summer will be hot. "

    What a troll.

    Complain about this comment

  • 172. At 2:07pm on 22 Jul 2009, Tony B wrote:

    @171.

    Hmmm...

    Interesting.

    You appear to have access to a post of mine, that was modded out, probably before it even got posted.

    How did you manage that, then?

    Working for the BBC, are we?

    And the missing text - which you, of course avoid, is

    ".......but the signs so far are that it will be warmer than our last two summers......."

    (Well how about that - it could be warmer than 2 really cold summers...)

    ".... and conditions could well trigger its (the Met Office) heatwave warning system.
    In London, this would mean daytime temperatures had exceeded 32C and night-time temperatures were over 18C degrees. In the North West, it would be 30C and 15C, respectively.
    Wayne Elliott, Head of Health Forecasting at the Met Office, said: "Summer is nearly with us and it's a good time to prepare for the high temperatures that we can experience in this country."

    Yes - the high temperatures.

    Where are they?

    Complain about this comment

  • 173. At 2:18pm on 22 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    "You appear to have access to a post of mine, that was modded out, probably before it even got posted."

    So?

    If someone else read it and blanked it, I would be able to read it.

    Tinfoil hat slipping???

    "Working for the BBC, are we?"

    No. Are you?


    ".... and conditions could well trigger its (the Met Office) heatwave warning system.
    In London, this would mean daytime temperatures had exceeded 32C and night-time temperatures were over 18C degrees. In the North West, it would be 30C and 15C, respectively."

    And the nuclear early warning system would be triggered by the contrails of rockets from Russia over Europe.

    This doesn't mean that our early warning system says that we're under nuclear attack.

    How do you expect to fool ANYONE with such lame quote mining?

    "Summer is nearly with us and it's a good time to prepare for the high temperatures that we can experience in this country."

    Yes. Summer has high temperatures.

    But they haven't said it would be a heatwave.

    They've said what would *constitute* a heatwave.

    Then again *comprehension* isn't your forte, is it.

    Complain about this comment

  • 174. At 2:47pm on 22 Jul 2009, Tony B wrote:

    Yes - but what we really need is a "Sky falling in" warning. Oh - no we already have that.

    "oh but they haven't actually said there would be a heatwave" blah blah" in a whiney Neil kind of a voice.

    So why are they making such a fuss about it?

    Warning - great white sharks in the Thames might be dangerous for bathers - here are some useful, no essential tips - should you be attacked by one...blah blah blah"

    And I am still wondering how you would be able to read a post of mine if it had been pre-modded out.

    Do please explain, oh expert on everything known to man. And more.

    Always assuming you can explain something without sinking into a sea of sarcastic vitriol.

    Ah - that'll be a "No" on that one, I think

    Complain about this comment

  • 175. At 3:12pm on 22 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    "Yes - but what we really need is a "Sky falling in" warning. Oh - no we already have that."

    No we don't.

    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/science/creating/monthsahead/seasonal/2009/summer.html

    "For the UK and much of Europe temperatures for the rest of the summer are likely to be above average."

    "So why are they making such a fuss about it?"

    Uh, it's a news site.

    "And I am still wondering how you would be able to read a post of mine if it had been pre-modded out."

    Because it wasn't.

    Does seem the simplest solution unless you're a tinfoil-hat-brigade member.

    "Always assuming you can explain something without sinking into a sea of sarcastic vitriol."

    What then was this:

    "Do please explain, oh expert on everything known to man. And more."

    What a hypocrite.

    Complain about this comment

  • 176. At 5:13pm on 22 Jul 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    @mysteriousTony-B

    take it from someone who has been there - you're wasting your time, Tony

    Complain about this comment

  • 177. At 9:05pm on 22 Jul 2009, Neil Hyde wrote:

    Here's one for Mark to read( Warning , it has no wiki headlines!!)

    [Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]
    ...... and I have no problem admitting that I have been behind most of YW's post's being removed through complaints.

    Every time dear old Mark uses the word "lie" "lying" or anything similar to attack anyone of a differing opinion, I will do so again.

    Now Mark, what page of WP58 are we up to now, so I can prepare my answer before you post it ?

    Complain about this comment

  • 178. At 9:07pm on 22 Jul 2009, Neil Hyde wrote:

    ......and here is the great "Barbecue summer" from our ever reliable Met Office.

    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2009/pr20090430.html

    Complain about this comment

  • 179. At 9:09pm on 22 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    "Every time dear old Mark uses the word "lie" "lying" or anything similar to attack anyone of a differing opinion, I will do so again."

    OK, every time I see a denialist saying that the IPCC or climate science is lying or just on the gravy train, I'll mail the moderators and get them to remove the posts.

    Complain about this comment

  • 180. At 9:11pm on 22 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    So a "heatwave" to denialists is "there's an average amount of rain"???

    That's what that link says.

    Here is the summer forecast:

    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/science/creating/monthsahead/seasonal/2009/summer.html

    For the UK and much of Europe temperatures for the rest of the summer are likely to be above average.

    For the rest of summer, rainfall is likely to be near average over the UK. A repeat of the very wet summers of 2007 and 2008 remains unlikely.

    Complain about this comment

  • 181. At 9:12pm on 22 Jul 2009, Neil Hyde wrote:

    re my 177

    Not sure why the link does not work, but here is the abstract of the paper, full paper search for arxiv.org

    2 Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner
    Abstract
    The atmospheric greenhouse eect, an idea that many authors trace back to the
    traditional works of Fourier (1824), Tyndall (1861), and Arrhenius (1896), and which
    is still supported in global climatology, essentially describes a ctitious mechanism, in
    which a planetary atmosphere acts as a heat pump driven by an environment that is
    radiatively interacting with but radiatively equilibrated to the atmospheric system. Ac-
    cording to the second law of thermodynamics such a planetary machine can never exist.
    Nevertheless, in almost all texts of global climatology and in a widespread secondary
    literature it is taken for granted that such mechanism is real and stands on a rm sci-
    entic foundation. In this paper the popular conjecture is analyzed and the underlying
    physical principles are claried. By showing that (a) there are no common physical laws
    between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the ctitious atmospheric green-
    house eects, (b) there are no calculations to determine an average surface temperature
    of a planet, (c) the frequently mentioned dierence of 33 C is a meaningless number
    calculated wrongly, (d) the formulas of cavity radiation are used inappropriately, (e) the
    assumption of a radiative balance is unphysical, (f) thermal conductivity and friction
    must not be set to zero, the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture is falsied.
    Electronic version of an article published as International Journal of Modern Physics
    B, Vol. 23, No. 3 (2009) 275{364 , DOI No: 10.1142/S021797920904984X, c
    World
    Scientic Publishing Company, http://www.worldscinet.com/ijmpb.

    Complain about this comment

  • 182. At 9:19pm on 22 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    "Every time dear old Mark uses the word "lie" "lying" or anything similar to attack anyone of a differing opinion, I will do so again."

    Well isn't THAT open minded!

    We see the true denialist colours come out!

    What about when, say, toady-B does something similar to attack anyone of a differing opinion?

    Or you yourself?

    How about Tom Tripps himself? After all, he's saying that the IPCC is lying...

    Ah, no, he's found an attack vector to shut the truth out.

    We hear the stamp of the Inquisition in the denialist boots of "tough" Neil Hyde...

    Complain about this comment

  • 183. At 9:22pm on 22 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    "2 Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner"

    Ah, I wondered when that work of fiction was going to turn up.

    http://rabett.blogspot.com/2009/04/end-of-road-thanks-to-everyone-who.html


    In a paper that recently appeared in the International Journal of Modern Physics Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner (2009, hereafter GT09)claim to have falsified the existence of an atmospheric greenhouse effect. Here, we show that their methods, logic, and conclusions are in error. The authors describe problems that are not really problems. They are either not related to the greenhouse effect, or well known and understood minor issues such as the differences between the mechanisms by which a glass greenhouse warms and that by which the greenhouse effect leads to a warmer surface.

    Complain about this comment

  • 184. At 9:28pm on 22 Jul 2009, Neil Hyde wrote:

    @179

    ........and you will be waiting a long time Mark, because the people who dispute the findings/projections of the IPCC do not accuse them of lying , just being wrong in their interpretations, and using poor methods. You may not understand it , but there is a difference.

    And, straight from the pages of WP58, the quote from the link I posted which you seek to avoid.

    The coming summer is 'odds on for a barbecue summer', according to long-range forecasts. Summer temperatures across the UK are likely to be warmer than average and rainfall near or below average for the three months of summer.

    Chief Meteorologist at the Met Office, Ewen McCallum, said: "After two disappointingly-wet summers, the signs are much more promising this year. We can expect times when temperatures will be above 30 °C, something we hardly saw at all last year."

    Although the forecast is for a drier and warmer summer than average it does not rule out the chances of seeing some heavy downpours at times. However, a repeat of the wet summers of 2007 and 2008 is unlikely.


    I'm sure if I were to go to the Met office archive for 2007/2008 I would find the same forecast.

    Complain about this comment

  • 185. At 9:31pm on 22 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    And there's more...

    "The first of these claims in GT09 is the assertion that Clausius' statement of the second law of thermodynamics forbids transfer of heat from a colder atmosphere to a warmer surface. However, the second law requires consideration of all heat flows in a process, so one must simultaneously include the larger transfer of thermal energy from the surface to the atmosphere. Clausius statement also does not impede temperature changes resulting from a change in system properties such as adding glass to a greenhouse, or adding infrared-absorbing gases to the atmosphere. Any warming under such a change comes from the gradual build-up of energy and heat flows to a new steady-state, not the transfer of energy from cold to warm regions."

    Complain about this comment

  • 186. At 9:32pm on 22 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    ...we find that Gerlich and Tscheuschner obtain an absurd result by using a very unphysical assumption, that each part of the planet's surface immediately cools or heats to reach an equilibrium with the locally impinging solar radiation, thereby neglecting the thermal inertia of the oceans, atmosphere and ground and all other heat transfer processes within the atmosphere and surface. Were this to be the case, all parts of the Earth would immediately drop to almost absolute zero at night, and the discrepancy between Earths observed average temperature and the average on this hypothetical Earth would be very large, over 100 K.

    Complain about this comment

  • 187. At 9:33pm on 22 Jul 2009, Neil Hyde wrote:

    re183

    WP page 23 , keep going with the adhoms . There is far more peer review conducted at the IJMP, than either the blog you quote or the IPCC.

    Complain about this comment

  • 188. At 9:41pm on 22 Jul 2009, Neil Hyde wrote:

    @182

    You really are confusing me with the standards that you apply. Where have I personally attacked you ? I accused you of being a troll , which is a statement of fact as you continuall prove.

    Where did Tripp accuse the IPCC of lying, he disputed the concensus.

    The "Inquisition" is the green mantra which tries to stifle all contrary opinions and refuses to debate the issue at a scientist to politician (Gore, GS , MM) level.

    Complain about this comment

  • 189. At 9:45pm on 22 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    "There is far more peer review conducted at the IJMP, than either the blog you quote or the IPCC."

    I guess you don't have anything you can debate about Eli's dissection of Gerlich's fantasy publication, so you have to resort to more sideways attacks...

    Complain about this comment

  • 190. At 9:46pm on 22 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    "and you will be waiting a long time Mark, because the people who dispute the findings/projections of the IPCC do not accuse them of lying"

    Uh, Gerlich does.

    Prof. Dr. Gerhard Gerlich teaches Mathematical Physics at the Technical University Carolo-Wilhelmina in Braunschweig (Germany).

    He ended his speech "Die physikalischen Grundlagen des Treibhauseffektes und fiktiver Treibhauseffekte" (The physical fundamentals of the greenhouse effect and fictitious greenhouse effects).

    So are you going to block him from appearing?

    You'll have to kill your own message, mind...

    Complain about this comment

  • 191. At 9:48pm on 22 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    "The coming summer is 'odds on for a barbecue summer', according to long-range forecasts. Summer temperatures across the UK are likely to be warmer than average and rainfall near or below average for the three months of summer."

    So you read "warmer than average" and "average rainfall" as a heatwave???

    But you know what REALLY kills a barbie?

    Rain.

    Especially lots of rain.

    This doesn't require a heatwave.

    You have no clue whatsoever about the english language, do you.

    Complain about this comment

  • 192. At 9:58pm on 22 Jul 2009, Neil Hyde wrote:

    .....from the OED :

    Fictitious: Imaginary or invented, not real .

    Where is the accusation of "lying" in that ? As I said , using poor methods , leads to incorrect , in the authors opinions , poor conclusions.

    Difference of opinion is not an accusation of lying , no matter how many times you say it (WP58 page 32)

    Complain about this comment

  • 193. At 10:04pm on 22 Jul 2009, Neil Hyde wrote:

    .... I really must go to bed and catch this up in the morning , but I will leave you with this thought .

    "Temperature above 30deg" "a drier and warmer summer" , I somehow think my grasp of English is better than yours.

    Read your own quote.

    Complain about this comment

  • 194. At 11:13pm on 22 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:


    "Temperature above 30deg"

    Lets look at the rest of that quote, shall we. We don't want you spreading fiction or things that aren't real...

    "We can expect times when temperatures will be above 30 °C, something we hardly saw at all last year."

    So we saw 30C temperatures last year. We'll expect it this year. Presumably more often.

    Still doesn't say "this summer will be a heatwave".

    Still, you like your fictional version better.

    I prefer the truth myself.

    Complain about this comment

  • 195. At 11:29pm on 22 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

  • 196. At 11:33pm on 22 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    "Difference of opinion is not an accusation of lying"

    It is when your opinion differs from the facts.

    Complain about this comment

  • 197. At 03:33am on 23 Jul 2009, LarryKealey wrote:


    @yeah_whatever writes: (post number 66)

    "I will also iterate your suggestion that CO2 is a poison and must be irradicated - i.e. completely eliminated from the atmosphere."

    Ah, we see Larry's "thought" processes at work. Again.

    Note how he says "completely eliminated from the atmosphere" yet the post he was talking about didn't say anything of the sort?

    ------end of yeah_whatever writes -----------------------

    Might I quote from the posting I was responding to: (YW is quoting my previous post in the first sentance).

    ----------------------------------------------------------

    @Tunnic writes (post #7)

    We all know that CO2 is a toxic gas which must be completely eradicated from the atmosphere before we all fry. How can these pseudo-scientists possibly believe in a cooling trend when the Copenhagen papers prove temperatures are still rising, fuelled by the catastrophic increase in poisonous CO2 over the last 10 years.

    ------------end of @Tunnic writes ----------------------------

    Sorry, but CO2 is not a "poison" - while it is "toxic" at certain concentrations and partial pressures - water and just about everything under the sun (including the sun) is toxic if you consume or are exposed to too much of it. Complete eradication (of CO2) - which, in his own words @Tunnic believes is essential - would result in the end of (most) life as we know it. Care to debate this? There is silicone based life living near thermal vents in the deep sea that might survive, but thats about it.

    My thought process at work. Please tell me what is wrong with them? Actually, it wasn't in the IPCC bible - so it must be wrong - or not worthy of consideration, so please, don't bother to respond. It would just be a waste of your (infinately more valuable) time.

    Cheers.

    Complain about this comment

  • 198. At 03:45am on 23 Jul 2009, LarryKealey wrote:


    @yeah_whatever,

    Just as we have started to engage in polite discussion and debate, it would seem that things have deteriorated somewhat.

    Like I said, I am here for the polite debate. A jab or two and a bit of sarcasm is fine, but...

    Lets hope the tone and respect of our discussions improve.

    Cheers.

    Complain about this comment

  • 199. At 04:52am on 23 Jul 2009, LarryKealey wrote:


    @yeah_whatever

    FYI. I did not refer your post (#195) to the moderators. It is late here, hope you have a nice day. I think 197 and 198 are awaiting moderation because they were replies...

    Cheers.

    Kealey

    Complain about this comment

  • 200. At 07:02am on 23 Jul 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    #189

    I guess you don't have anything you can debate about Eli's dissection of Gerlich's fantasy publication, so you have to resort to more sideways attacks...

    and have her remarks been peer reviewed and published or is it just a blog?

    Complain about this comment

  • 201. At 10:32am on 23 Jul 2009, U13900240 wrote:

    You don't believe the peer-reviewed IPCC reports. Or the peer-reviewed MBH paper.

    This paper is horrendously wrong. And saying "oh, that blog doesn't prove it" doesn't cut it.

    If that paper were right, then nighttime in the UK on a clear night would be just as cold as the Saharan clear night time temperature.

    It isn't.

    Because CO2 does trap heat.

    That paper is completely and utterly wrong.

    The Rabbett link shows you a complete dissertation of where it is wrong.

    If you have a problem with it, then explain where it is wrong.

    Complain about this comment

  • 202. At 10:44am on 23 Jul 2009, LarryKealey wrote:


    @yeah_whatever

    Re: #197 - I am ready to accept your apology any time...until then...[end of discussion].

    Cheers.

    Complain about this comment

  • 203. At 1:23pm on 23 Jul 2009, LarryKealey wrote:


    @yeah_whatever writes:

    If that paper were right, then nighttime in the UK on a clear night would be just as cold as the Saharan clear night time temperature.

    It isn't.

    Because CO2 does trap heat.

    That paper is completely and utterly wrong.

    -------------end of yeah_whatever writes--------------------

    Actually, if not for two factors, a clear night in the UK would be as cold as a clear night in the Sahara - the first is humidity - water vapor - the Number 1 GHG. It is much more humid in the UK at night then the Sahara, thus the actual "heat content" of the air is much greater. there is less energy in the air The other major factor is reflection - much more energy of the sun is reflected by the light colored sands of the Sahara than the darker ground cover of the UK. This causes heat to be absorbed by the ground at a much greater rate. At night, this heat is radiated, helping to "warm" the air in the UK.

    Cheers.

    PS - I haven't read the paper, only commented on your comments. I thus have no opinion on the paper nor its authors.

    Complain about this comment

  • 204. At 2:06pm on 23 Jul 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    YW #201 says the blog is correct

    then let him/her publish

    Complain about this comment

  • 205. At 2:20pm on 23 Jul 2009, LarryKealey wrote:


    @Tenuuc

    Your posts indicate that anything which is critical of any of the (many) AGW theories should be suppressed. While many have fought and died for your (and my) right to freely express our opinions and for our civil liberties - you would throw all that away - based upon the absurd assumption that "the science is settled". Well, science will never be "settled". Stifling of opinion and debate does not advance science, but retards its progress.

    Please, if you desire a repressive government where any non-conforming opinion should be suppressed, them plese move to Iran (or many other totalitarian countries). Please let me know in a few years just how much you enjoy living in such a society. I am certain you will be forced to say that you 'love it' or be thrown in jail...LOL

    I do not agree with anything you have said on this forum, yet will defend with my life your right to express your views - no matter how outrageous they may seem to me...you should think twice about giving up civil liberties (like freedom of speech, thought, religion, press, etc). You might not like it when you are censored.

    Cheers.

    Complain about this comment

  • 206. At 5:37pm on 23 Jul 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    Breaking News: Paper confirms nature not man responsible for recent global warming

    Three Australasian researchers have shown that natural forces are the dominant influence on climate, in a study just published in the highly-regarded Journal of Geophysical Research. According to this study little or none of the late 20th century global warming and cooling can be attributed to human activity.

    http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=3756

    I haven't ready the detail yet

    Complain about this comment

  • 207. At 9:35pm on 23 Jul 2009, Neil Hyde wrote:

    It would appear that a change of login http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/profile?userid=13900240

    is enough for the mods to allow Mark to continue, which is a shame as we had just begun to restore this blog to some modicum of reasoned debate.

    I would echo Larry Kealys comment wholeheartedly.

    Complain about this comment

  • 208. At 9:57pm on 23 Jul 2009, Neil Hyde wrote:

    ........as a little ps for UB40 , having spent many years in the Arabian peninsula , believe me from personal experience ( not computer models) it is damn cold in the desert at night . Perhaps you should do some real reading and have some facts to back up you assertions.

    Better still , try going there yourself rather than living your life viariously through computer blogs.

    Complain about this comment

  • 209. At 10:16pm on 23 Jul 2009, Neil Hyde wrote:

    The BBC are partial to utilising the FOI , except as it applies to themselves, will this be reported at all ?

    Our Ref: 22-06-2009-131902-003 23 July 2009
    Dear Mr McIntyre

    Request for Information Information not Held and Refusal to Disclose Information
    Your correspondence dated 9 June 2009 has been considered to be a request for information in accordance with the Environmental Information Regulations 2004. The Ministry of Defence is permitted to withhold information where exceptions are considered justifiable.

    You asked You stated that CRUTEM3 data that you held was the value added data. Pursuant to the Environmental Information Regulations Act 2004, please provide me with this data in the digital form, together with any documents that you hold describing the procedures under which the data has been quality controlled and where deemed appropriate, adjusted to account for apparent non-climatic influences.

    Your request has been assessed and this letter is to inform you that the Met Office does hold some information covered by the request. We do not hold documents describing the procedures under which the data has been quality controlled or adjusted to account for apparent non-climatic influences.

    The information held by the Met Office is withheld in accordance with the following exceptions pursuant to the Environmental Information Regulations Act 2004:
    Section 12 (5) (a) Information likely to prejudice relations between the United Kingdom and any International organisation;
    Section 12 (5) (e) Confidentiality of commercial or industrial information where such confidentiality is provided by law to protect a legitimate economic interest.
    Section 12 (5) (f) (i) (iii) The supplier was not under legal obligation to supply the information and has not consented to its disclosure.

    As the above exceptions are qualified exceptions, a public interest test was undertaken by the Met Office to consider whether there are overriding reasons why disclosure of this information would not be in the public interest. The Met Office has duly considered these reasons in conjunction with the public interest in disclosing the requested information, in particular the benefits of assisting the public having information on environmental information, whereby they would hope to influence decisions from a position of knowledge rather than speculation.
    Access to environmental information is particularly important as environmental issues affect
    the whole population.

    Consideration of Exception Regulation 12 (5) (a)
    Much of the requested data comes from individual Scientists and Institutions from several countries. The Met Office received the data information from Professor Jones at the University of East Anglia on the strict understanding by the data providers that this station data must not be publicly released. If any of this information were released, scientists could be reluctant to share information and participate in scientific projects with the public sector organisations based in the UK in future. It would also damage the trust that scientists have in those scientists who happen to be employed in the public sector and could show the Met Office ignored the confidentiality in which the data information was provided.

    We considered that if the public have information on environmental matters, they could hope to influence decisions from a position of knowledge rather than speculation. However, the effective conduct of international relations depends upon maintaining trust and confidence between states and international organisations. This relationship of trust allows for the free and frank exchange of information on the understanding that it will be treated in confidence. If the United Kingdom does not respect such confidences, its ability to protect and promote United Kingdom interests through international relations may be hampered. Competitors/ Collaborators could be damaged by the release of information which was given to us in confidence and this will detrimentally affect the ability of the Met Office (UK) to co-operate with meteorological organisations and governments of other countries. This could also provoke a negative reaction from scientist globally if their information which they have requested remains private is disclosed.

    Consideration of Exception Regulation 12 (5) (e)
    The information is also withheld in accordance with the exception under regulation 12 (5) (e) because the information comprises of Station Data which are commercially sensitive for many of the data sources (particularly European and African Meteorological services) release of any data could adversely affect relationships with other Institutions and individuals, who may plan to use their data for their own commercial interests. Some of this is documented in Hulme, 1996 but this is not a globally comprehensive summary.

    The Met Office are not party to information which would allow us to determine which countries and stations data can or cannot be released as records were not kept, or given to the Met Office, therefore we cannot release data where we have no authority to do so. Competitors or collaborators could be damaged by the release of information which was given to us in confidence and could affect their ability to trade.

    The Met Office uses the data solely and expressly to create a gridded product that we distribute without condition.

    Consideration of Exception Regulation 12 (5) (f) (i) and (iii)
    The information is also withheld in accordance with the exception under regulation 12 (5) (f) (i) (iii) as Professor Jones was not legally bound to release the data to the Met Office and has not consented to the disclosure to any other party. As stated above in 12 (5) (a) Some of the information was provided to Professor Jones on the strict understanding by the data providers that this station data must not be publicly released and it cannot be determined which countries or stations data were given in confidence as records were not kept. The Met Office received the data from Professor Jones on the proviso that it would not be released to any other source and to release it without authority would seriously affect the relationship between the United Kingdom and other Countries and Institutions.

    I hope this answers your enquiry.

    If you are not satisfied with this response or you wish to complain about any aspect of the handling of your request, then you should contact me in the first instance. If informal resolution is not possible and you are still dissatisfied then you may apply for an independent internal review by contacting the Head of Corporate Information, 6th Floor, MOD Main Building, Whitehall, SW1A 2HB (e-mail CIO-XD@mod.uk). Please note that any request for an internal review must be made within 40 working days of the date on which the attempt to reach informal resolution has come to an end.

    If you remain dissatisfied following an internal review, you may take your complaint to the Information Commissioner under the provisions of Section 50 of the Freedom of Information Act. Please note that the Information Commissioner will not investigate your case until the MOD internal review process has been completed. Further details of the role and powers of the Information Commissioner can be found on the Commissioner's website, www.ico.gov.uk.

    Yours sincerely,
    Marion Archer
    FOI Manager


    ........and in light of that , sign this : http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/CRUSourceCodes/

    Complain about this comment

  • 210. At 07:18am on 24 Jul 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    @neil

    i have, on several occasions, tried to link to the ClimateAudit article showing Phil Jones has refused to hand over the raw data and has done for many months (as has John Mitchell of the Met Office), but each time YW (i assume - apologies if it isn't) has managed to get the comment removed

    your petition needs wider publication. Perhaps you should add John Mitchells inability to produce correspondence with the IPCC to your petition?

    Complain about this comment

  • 211. At 5:52pm on 24 Jul 2009, Neil Hyde wrote:

    @210

    Unfortunately it will not let me edit the petition, or I would have corrected my omission of the request for raw data also.

    Not seen any coverage on the BBC yet !! Perhaps they may like to report this letter from our "Dear Leader" where he admits that despite all the media and government claims about the concensus of "2500" of the worlds leading climate scientists, the figure is a little smaller.

    Dear Neil
    Thank you for your email of 4 December, which was passed on to me by the Simon Mayo Radio Show.
    I know that arguments over the science of climate change continue to provoke heated debated and strong feelings. I don't intend to rehearse all those arguments here, but I will tell you why the British Government has confidence in the assessments provided by the IPCC.
    The Assessments represent the consensus of thousands of scientists worldwide, who gather to review the vast emerging scientific literature on climate change as published in the leading peer-reviewed scientific journals. No one government, organisation or individual has sole responsibility for any part of the report - thus ensuring overall shared responsibility. The objectivity of the IPCCs reports are ensured by the broad and open review process for the draft reports, in which anthropogenic climate change sceptics participate.
    For example, the 2007 Assessment Report on the Physical Science Basis of Climate Change was produced by a Working Group featuring more than 600 climate scientists, whose names and affiliations are listed in the report. Given their subject matter, it is entirely appropriate that the other two Working Groups on Impacts, Adaptation & Vulnerability and on Mitigation drew input from a more diverse pool of experts, including specialists in economics, sociology and technology.
    I appreciate the point you make that global temperatures have fallen slightly over the past three years. However, this is entirely consistent with the effects of short term natural climate variability - particularly the strong La Niña conditions currently prevailing in the Pacific - within a
    - 2 -
    trend of long term warming. The La Niña effect is expected to disappear soon, after which the long term warming trend is expected to resume.
    In conclusion, I am entirely satisfied that it the Government should continue to accept the advice and evidence of the IPCC, and I see no evidence from the conditions of the last three years to change that view.
    I know you will disagree with that conclusion, but nevertheless, I am very grateful for your email.

    Unfortunately , those reports by 600 scientists are then put in to the Policy for Summary Makers by just 52 political appointees.

    Complain about this comment

  • 212. At 6:01pm on 24 Jul 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    anybody know who audits the IPCC and the other alarmists?

    there is a good write up here:

    http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/climate_money.html (see the pdf)

    asking the question "if we have spent over $79b in 20 years, why do we still not have an empirical evidence to show prove AGW"

    see here for the Indian perspective on AGW
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2009/07/thanks_for_all_the_responses.html#P83350286

    PS it's very quiet in here, is YW on holiday?

    Complain about this comment

  • 213. At 10:32pm on 26 Jul 2009, LarryKealey wrote:


    @Mango

    I don't know if you noticed - but YW seemed to quit posting when his user name was changed. Me thinks he has been asked to be polite one to many times - but I can't really say. It is a casual relationship such as the one between current temperature rise and CO2 emissions - although I would be least skeptical of the first theory than the second. Its really a shame, he could have been enjoyable to debate with if and if and if and if...well, you get the idea...

    Regarding your reference to your post on Richard Black's blog. While I agree with you, I look at the wider picture. Right now we give big bucks to some of the worst polluters in the world (in India especially) - just because they install GHG scrubbers...or other CO2 emissions "cuts". Meanwhile they destroy the environment, foul the water from wells, poison crops, they "emit" many many chemical pollutants - really horrible stuff, the list goes on...

    Of course India is going to press every advantage they can - and get every "free" penny from us that they can. If you were in their shoes, wouldn't you? If we are going to give them money, it should be to rebuild plants (ground up) with modern technology (as opposed to 50's to 70's technology) - to clean up - and we should charge those companies who wish to have their products sold here (US) and in the UK (as well as the rest of the OCED) to help pay for that cleanup and rebuilding.

    Instead of denying the third world financing to build coal plants, we should provide them with the finance and help them with current technology. They (the third world) for the most part, want electricity to run their wells, heat their homes, irrigate their crops, etc. Energy for tractors, transportation to markets, etc. We can make them build their own coal plant without our help - or we can help them - with some cash to help them implement today's technology into the design. While we search for better alternatives. (cheaper, reliable sources of electricity, like the dream of fusion or maybe even something better [magnetic or gravitational or hydrogen] - but these things will take decades). We have to bridge the gap in the meantime: and that means coal, nuclear, natural gas and oil products.

    Cheers

    Complain about this comment

  • 214. At 08:19am on 27 Jul 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    @larry

    I understand what you are saying, but my words were:

    it could be argued that india are rejecting AGW for political and economical reasons, but their environment minister, Jairam Ramesh, seems to be rejecting the whole notion that AGW is causing the Himalayas to melt.

    "Jairam Ramesh, the Indian environment minister, accused the developed world of needlessly raising alarm over melting Himalayan glaciers.

    He dismissed scientists predictions that Himalayan glaciers might disappear within 40 years as a result of global warming."


    So, on the one hand I agree that India may be playing the economical gain, but their environment minister went on record questioning the whole AGW hypothesis giving the melting glaziers as an example. Of course, that statement could be part of the game. If the industry minister had made this statement, i would think it was part of the game, but i am surprised this statement comes from the environment minister and assume he has listened to his advisers, weighed the evidence and come to the conclusion that AGW is false.

    Do you think giving cash to help them build cleaner energy gives developing nations an unfair advantage, especially when the CO2 link to climate change isn't proved?

    Complain about this comment

  • 215. At 08:21am on 27 Jul 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    i think YW is on holiday and was hoping to come back as the new name, thinking nobody would notice, but he couldn't resist making a few comments before he went

    blew his cover wide open!

    Complain about this comment

  • 216. At 9:36pm on 28 Jul 2009, LarryKealey wrote:


    @Mango

    Sorry if I misunderstood. As to your post:

    I don't think we need give money to India or China to develop - but maybe give them technology for cleaner coal plants (talking about SO2, NOX's & Mercury - not CO2). One of the big issues I have is Africa and some of the poorer nations of Asia - I do think we should help them - but not by giving food - but by helping them to grow their own food. The "green lobby" has successfully prevented financial institutions and other organizations from helping major energy projects if they involved fossil fuels (i.e. coal). The development of the West can be (IMHO) attributed to two factors (as well as our success, particularly the last half century) cheap energy and cheap food.

    I consider myself to be an environmentalist and a humanist. I think the only way we can preserve and restore and maintain as much natural environment as possible is through development of the undeveloped world. Grow more food on less land, feed more people, preserve more habitats. No, I don't think we should give money to chemical plants in India (or anywhere else) for installing GHG scrubbers. If they are big polluters - we should refuse their products. I would like to see an Africa that contributed to the "world economy" rather than being a "drag" on it...

    Cheers Mate.

    PS - what happened to @Tim?

    Complain about this comment

  • 217. At 08:38am on 29 Jul 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    no apology required, larry

    i also think of myself as an environmentalist and i think there are so many problems in the world that could be resolved using the enormous sums of money trying the "solve" global warming. There was a guy on Richards blog who used to bang on about giving clean water to the world for a ridiculously low figure, would save more lives in a year than the $b spent on AGW would in 100 years (or something like that) and i totally agreed with him

    PS is Tim on holiday with YW? Scary lol

    Complain about this comment

  • 218. At 6:35pm on 29 Jul 2009, LarryKealey wrote:


    @Mango

    Could not agree more.

    PS - maybe Tim and YW are at the Isle of Wright, with the protesters...or methinks YW maybe got banned...;)

    Complain about this comment

  • 219. At 11:57pm on 29 Jul 2009, Lloyd wrote:

    The sheer desperation of U123454321's posts have made this a must-read blog.

    Complain about this comment

  • 220. At 4:39pm on 01 Aug 2009, agwbsdotcom wrote:

    I would have chosen a word far different from desperation but the moderators would bin me ;-)

    I am loving the American Chemical Society members railing at the gross, political, ignorance of their newsletter editor. Seems there are lots of deniers inside "The world's largest scientific society."

    "One outraged ACS member wrote to Baum: When all is said and done, and you and your kind are proven wrong (again), you will have moved on to be an unthinking urn for another rat pleading catastrophe. You will be removed. I promise."

    http://climatedepot.com/a/2213/Climate-Revolt-Worlds-Largest-Science-Group-Startled-By-Outpouring-of-Scientists-Rejecting-ManMade-Climate-Fears-Clamor-for-Editor-to-Be-Removed

    Chemists eh? I have been rebuked before because "the chemists say so...."

    So, who to trust? An obviously political astronomer and his obviously non-scientific political buddy or, amongst others ....

    Geochemist R. Everett Langford wrote: I am appalled at the condescending attitude of Rudy Baum, Al Gore, President Barack Obama, et al., who essentially tell us that there is no need for further researchthat the matter is solved.

    ACS scientist Dennis Malpass wrote: Your editorial was a disgrace. It was filled with misinformation, half-truths, and ad hominem attacks on those who dare disagree with you. Shameful!

    ACS member scientist Dr. Howard Hayden, a Physics Professor Emeritus from the University of Connecticut: Baum's remarks are particularly disquieting because of his hostility toward skepticism, which is part of every scientist's soul. Let's cut to the chase with some questions for Baum: Which of the 20-odd major climate models has settled the science, such that all of the rest are now discarded? [...] Do you refer to 'climate change' instead of 'global warming' because the claim of anthropogenic global warming has become increasingly contrary to fact?"

    ??

    Science? Pah, we don' need no steenkin' science.




    Complain about this comment

  • 221. At 6:37pm on 01 Aug 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    @agwbsdotcom

    the American Physical Society membership is also calling for the APS statement on climate change to be changed radically

    Complain about this comment

  • 222. At 10:39am on 02 Aug 2009, agwbsdotcom wrote:

    @MangoChutneyUKOK

    I am following that one too ;-)


    I also note that my totally innocuous post prior to the one where the resident arch dweller responds and calls me "you insane troll" gets culled and his doesn't? OK, my next post giving a possible explanation may have transgressed the delicate fabric of BBC etiquette but really, lizards do like it hot.

    Actually, thinking about it, I prefer it this way.


    Complain about this comment

  • 223. At 6:28pm on 02 Aug 2009, Gednorth wrote:

    This is one of the best sites I have come across on climate change:

    http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/consensus_what_consensus_among_climate_scientists_the_debate_is_not_over.html

    What I would like to see is a long televised debate on the subject involving real facts rather than soundbites or the usual 'IPPC says it is true so it must be right' type view usually propounded. I really think I am being taken for an idiot on this stuff and feel I as a licence payer I deserve better.

    Complain about this comment

  • 224. At 8:46pm on 09 Aug 2009, DavidSRoss wrote:


    George Monbiot is claiming succes in getting Ian Plimer to address his points:


    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/aug/05/climate-change-scepticism

    Complain about this comment

  • 225. At 11:40am on 20 Aug 2009, ClimateRush wrote:

    If you are worried about climate change and want to help pressure the government into taking more action, join Climate Rush during their roadshow in September through South West England.
    Climate Rush are a rapidly growing group who target climate change in the same way that the Suffragettes tackled women’s rights – by taking creative and covert direct action. They are rapidly getting a name for themselves for their peaceful, imaginative and defiant stunts, not least for their success in shutting down Heathrow's Terminal 1 earlier this year, by holding an Edwardian tea party in the terminal hall, complete with string quartet.
    In September Climate Rush will be taking a few horses and carts equipped with solar panels and wind turbines out on to the roads of South West England. During their journey, they will be stopping off at various points to engage with the public and various celebrity guests, and get involved with stunts, workshops, cinema screenings, music and games. There will be plenty of fun, but there is a serious point - to highlight the importance of the Copenhagen climate talks in December and the inadequacies of the UK government response to the urgency of the climate change problem.
    Please visit our website www.climaterush.co.uk for more information.

    Complain about this comment

  • 226. At 3:11pm on 21 Sep 2009, Pickaxe123 wrote:

    I'm concered about my impact on the environment. I heat my home with heating oil but am worried about what this is doing to the environment. I live in a rural area of lincolnshire so there's not much alternative to heating my home with oil except wood and LPG... but I don't know if this is even more harmful. I have just found a website called heating oil who offer Group Buying Days, this seems like a great way to help the environment because me and my friends can order together so we keep tankers off the roads more, reducing CO2 emissions.
    I would like to see more information on the internet about the effects of heating oil on the environment. On most climate change sites I go on there are articles on gas and electric heating but little on the effects of heating oil.
    Does anyone have any figures about heating oil and ways to minimise my impact on the environment?

    Complain about this comment

  • 227. At 1:10pm on 05 Oct 2009, aka19219 wrote:



    Tenuuc states that in regards to AGW the "science is settled"!!! Were this the case, then surely there would be no need for climate research? Surely there is so much climate research going on because, in the general scheme of things we know next to nothing about the complexity of climatic interactions. I am a scientist with expereince in computer modelling (though not in the area of climate research)and know that you cannot begin to accurately predict future trends without first tying down the nature and behaviour of ALL variables acting at the present that you use in your model. With so many unknowns, and a plethora of assumptions, can we really be confident about our predictions?? To say that CO2 is the only variable of consequence is to ignore the complexity of nature, and to believe that humans are capable of reversing global climate trends is frankly arrogant. By the way, if C02 is a polluting greenhouse gas (even though it is a plant food) should we not be offsetting our respiration?

    Complain about this comment

View these comments in RSS

BBC iD

Sign in

BBC navigation

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.