BBC BLOGS - Richard Black's Earth Watch
IN ASSOCIATION WITH
« Previous | Main | Next »

COP15: (No) Hopenhagen?

Richard Black | 15:55 UK time, Saturday, 19 December 2009

afp_kids_595x330.jpg
Everywhere you go in Copenhagen, you're met with two kinds of advertising poster.

One sells lingerie, the morning walk to the railway station bringing a sequence of scarcely clad models smiling unfeasibly in the freezing morning air.

The other sells hope. "Hopenhagen" has been the city's alternative name for the past fortnight, a campaigning city promoting its dream on banners, along with periodic exhortations to "seal the deal" and "bend the trend" (the trend of rising emissions, that is).

As the UN climate summit ends, the question is whether it brought the beginning of hope, or the end.

Depends on your point of view on climate change, of course. But for the thousands of campaigners here, the climate scientists, the delegations from small island states, what "hope" meant was clear; to secure a deal that would put our global society on course to prevent "dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system".

Not my phrase, that, but the key clause in the UN climate convention (UNFCCC) - agreed, lest we forget, at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro way back in 1992.

The mandate to reach a new agreement here was agreed in Bali two years ago, after the last report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) appeared to convince governments that dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system was not being prevented.

Key commitments in Bali included:

"A shared vision for long-term co-operative action, including a long-term global goal for emission reductions."

Did they get it? No. Reading behind national positions, disagreement about even the most basic measure - the size of temperature increase that countries would like to see - ranges from 1C to 3/4C

"Measurable, reportable and verifiable nationally appropriate mitigation commitments or actions... by all developed country parties."

Did they get it? Yes, except for the US, where MRV is not yet flying - no change there.

"Nationally appropriate mitigation actions by developing country parties... in a measurable, reportable and verifiable manner."

No; unless "verifying" means "believing what a country tells you it is doing".

"Improved access to adequate, predictable and sustainable financial resources... and the provision of new and additional resources."

Yes - kind of. There is money pledged, for sure, and a fund to run it.

Whether it's "predictable and sustainable" is another matter. The short-term "fast-start" finance should be, as it's mainly from the pockets of Japan, the EU and US; the longer-term stuff depends on mechanisms that don't yet exist and might encounter political obstacles.

As you'd expect, leaders from EU countries and the developing world states that really don't like this deal at all have been assuming rictus grins and telling us it's a "good first step".

Problem is, Bali was the "first step"; come to that, Rio was the "first step".

Where we go from here isn't clear at the moment; and even people who have followed this issue for years don't have ready answers.

What appears to have happened is that the UN process was effectively ambushed by countries that perhaps don't want there to be a UN process.

Which countries they might be doesn't take a detective of Sherlock Holmes' prowess to work out; look for ones that haven't signed up to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea or ratified the UN biodiversity convention, and another that does not on principle allow international oversight of anything.

Intriguingly, the morning after the deal was announced by White House press release, it wasn't clear whether it counts as an agreement within the UN system or whether it lies outside.

If parties had adopted the deal, it would be a UN issue. But they didn't, because there was no consensus; instead governments only decided to "take note" of the accord.

During their discussions afterwards, several delegations suggested this means it isn't a UN agreement - and various UN officials gave different interpretations.

If it turns out not to be a UN agreement, then - at the extreme end of things - the UN climate convention could effectively be dead as the powerful world's favoured instrument for controlling emissions.

A deal made at a UN summit would move outside, being a free-standing arrangement effectively decided by the 26 countries involved in the drafting.

It will mean that a select group of countries - the G20, or thereabouts - will basically decide what they want to do, and then do it.

That might sound like an extreme analysis, and perhaps it is; but in the last few years, climate pledges have been made in the G8, the Major Economies Forum and the Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation forum (Apec) - all places where countries can say what they want with no pesky small states around to demand that they do more.

Don't forget that there has been no real negotiation here on targets for developed nations. Sessions have been held, yes; but all developed countries set their own targets before they arrived, and stuck to them.

In principle, poor countries would lose from a transition away from the UNFCCC, because its mechanisms are supposed to bring them access to clean technology and money for forests and climate protection.

It's hard to overstate the size of the mood change that's occurred over the last few months - even over the last two days.

Approaching the summit, it appeared that pretty much all the countries wanted a new global climate deal under the UNFCCC umbrella. Politicians from many countries invested significant diplomatic effort to make it happen - apparently.

The concluding sequence of this much-hyped summit has left many observers and national delegations stunned.

Ministers and officials and scientists and campaigners and lobbyists who have dedicated huge swathes of the last year to making a tough deal happen watched aghast as Chinese and US leaders and their entourages flew in, took over the agenda and emerged with what was basically their own private deal, with leaders announcing it live on television before others realised it had happened.

Does Copenhagen, then, mark not the beginning of a new global climate regime but the end of the vision of global, negotiated climate governance?

Is it the end for the idea of global, negotiated governance on other environmental issues?

These are big questions that many never saw themselves having to ask in the Obama era.

In cafes and bars around (No) Hopenhagen, they're being asked now.


Comments

or register to comment.

  • 1. At 5:45pm on 19 Dec 2009, Trefor Jones wrote:

    Many thanks for your hard work.Viewed from a distance, Hopenhagen came over as an overblown hubristic farce. Its result, a deal worth less than the useless Kyoto Protocol. What was most significant is that when the deal was stitched up to save face, neither the UK ( or EU) were involved. If ever one needed an example as to how far our stock with the rest of the world has fallen,here it is. Hopefully, after Christmas everyone can cool down, get to the bottom of Climategate which inevitably skewed proseedings ( probably deliberately) and the Science ( with a big S.

    If Africa is to develop it needs to be given the ability to do so by free trade mechanisms rather than handouts, and the West needs to reindustrialize in order to produce as against buy post-carbon technology for the world without enough oil in 50 years time.

    As a post script I thought the performance of the UK team was lamentable and Ed Miliband ought to be sacked, Brown will have his comeuppance in the new year whatever the complexion of the next UK government. "Flat Earthers" indeed.

    Complain about this comment

  • 2. At 5:47pm on 19 Dec 2009, Zydeco wrote:

    Well done Richard for having the stamina to have lasted the last couple of weeks.

    The conclusions reached can, I feel, be summed up in a few words: Some Countries will only take AGW seriously if other Nations are prepared to make it worth their while.

    The whole climate debate at political level is about money. Either in the form of extra taxation or diversion of funds from other, in my opinion, far more worthy projects.

    Research into alternative fuels and energy scources is necessary as the present oil and gas reserves will run out. However, allocating vasts sums to a highly controversial theory based on arguable science is not necessary.

    Time out should now be taken to get a once and for all definitive result from ALL scientific opinion, not one driven by a political, tax raising agenda.

    Funding should be allocated to both sides of the argument, not just the one that suits political motives.
    This would be cheaper in the long term, than chucking vast amounts at something that, in fact might not be happening.

    Complain about this comment

  • 3. At 5:54pm on 19 Dec 2009, Financial Oxymorons wrote:

    If one of the next few years is warmer than 1998, will one portion of the gw sceptics start to become retrospectively disappointed.

    If all of the next few years are cooler than 1998, does this mean that the next ice age coincidentally happens to be starting.

    Whichever, how to protect living environments seems worth anyone's time and energies.

    Complain about this comment

  • 4. At 5:57pm on 19 Dec 2009, Maria Ashot wrote:

    Thank you for your update, Richard.

    Your reports & analysis have been consistently brilliant: one huge reason why I not only have hope, but conviction. We will not be put off.

    Your BBC colleagues are superb.

    A year or two after massive frauds were exposed, we are wiser for it. Then, too, it was China who bailed out the US -- out of self-interest.

    And now, again, frauds are being exposed -- even the ones who shamelessly allege "AGW is a fiction -- even a conspiracy."

    THEY are the conspiracy: THEY are the cabal. Not those of us who press ahead with what can no longer be deferred.

    Yes, you are right: this is perhaps not the First Step. That may actually have been Kyoto.

    But this is certainly The End of The Beginning, to use Churchill's term.

    The scales have fallen away from the eyes of the pro-mitigation camp. It does make it easier to fight when you can see with "HD vision". (I trust that has not yet been trademarked by the vision correction experts.)

    And a special "Thank You!" to the dedicated media pros of Copenhagen, who made all those webcasts possible, and ran a really sublime online interface for the rest of us.

    So, cheers to the Europeans, the Japanese, the UN, the committed Parties. We salute you!

    And we fight on: harder.

    USBASIC is on notice.



    Complain about this comment

  • 5. At 6:15pm on 19 Dec 2009, Crowcatcher wrote:

    Maria Ashot
    Once again you fail to answer your critics.
    Are you afraid of them?

    Complain about this comment

  • 6. At 6:16pm on 19 Dec 2009, Jonathan wrote:

    The IPCC is paid for by governments. The same governments are not acting upon the IPCC's recommendations, in spite of, allegedly, the best scientific advice available. The suggestion us that they don't see AGW as the threat others claim it to be.

    So called skeptics or deniers are not, in my experience, necessarily suggesting a "conspiracy" - this is a word that Richrd Black likes to put in our coleective mouth and it's obvious why. Such polarizations are intenetionallyn unhelpful. Governments do have political agendae, and where a particular societal inclination might satisfy the same they are often happy to get on board, whether they believe the facts of the case or not. Margeret Thatcher was very keen to support climate change work, but only as she wanted to see a greater move towards nuclear power. Repeating the message of AGW to the point where it becomes an unchallengable statement (as it seems to have done) to the public makes such a move much more palatable.

    Similarly, government agencies fund research, so such funding is entirely likely to be on the basis of support for a particular policy. This is not conspiracy, but quite normal human behaviour. From my extensive experience of academia, picking only those analytical tools, arguments and data that support a view is not seen as especially untoward, and is more like standard practice. If the CRU did not show that there was any AGW, then there would very little point in its continued existence. Repeated messages of "no AGW this year" would not be something any agency could continue to fund. What then for the Dr Jones et al to for a living? Their approach is entirely understandable and practical. There is nothing wrong in being concerned about getting paid. A belief that academics are purists and unbiased is quite delusional. I've yet to meet one who is. Otherwise, there really would be only one view in the scientific community and this is very clearly not the case. Again, no conspiracy, just normal human behaviour.


    The debate is not over. Regrettably, presentations such as seen on "Ethical Man" etc are too simplistic to be treated seriously by a genuine climatologist, but serve to further dupe and already duped public. This is what we find annoying. Okay, CO2 absorbs heat = atmosperic warming. More manmade CO2 = more warming. Simple. However, solar cycles also warm planet, seas warm, release CO2, atmosphere warms, sea warms, releases CO2 etc. It is possible that CO2 from mankind adds to this process now, but a) the effect of this is entirely unknown the range of warming suggested by the IPCC (some 4 degrees) is virtually -meaningless as any half decent climatologists knows and b) there is no way of forecasting the impact of said change, if it did happen and c) no models have yet explained the current stasis in warming, so their outputs are quite quationable. It's hard, therefore, to blindly accept what the IPCC says. Far from ignorant denial, this is strikingly intelligent behaviour.



    Complain about this comment

  • 7. At 6:16pm on 19 Dec 2009, Ken Appleby wrote:

    @4. Maria Ashot.

    Thank you to you Maria as well, for your valuable, eloquently expressed views and insights. With the greatest respect to the excellent Richard Black and his colleagues, I can't help feeling you are a little wasted in this particular forum.

    [Not sure I'm with you on the oxygen argument though :-) ]

    Complain about this comment

  • 8. At 6:23pm on 19 Dec 2009, JRWoodman wrote:


    Thanks for your work, Richard.

    COP15 ended much as I expected it would. I have come to the conclusion that until AGW starts to have an obvious impact on 'developed' countries, we will not see any significant action to curb emissions. Whatever our leaders say, too many things -- such as unrestrained economic growth -- are seen currently as more important than the biosphere.

    One day they'll get it. Unfortunately it will likely then be too late to prevent the catastrophe; the question will be more how we survive it.

    Complain about this comment

  • 9. At 6:23pm on 19 Dec 2009, Erik Bloodaxe wrote:

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

  • 10. At 6:36pm on 19 Dec 2009, greenNautilus wrote:

    Richard,

    Having sat through the chaos and emotionally draining world of UN summits myself, I am full of admiration for your work and careful reporting. The outcome this time around is dreadful; the world badly needs strong global governance in the face of the huge economic, social and environmental issues we are facing and we have just seen a process that undermines the very essence of trust and democracy, replacing true leadership with a celebrity culture. The shockingly cynical headlines of today's Daly Mail show how some are prepared to stand back and watch humanity head for self destruction as they wallow in self indulgence. Sadly the same self indulgence is shared by many political leaders.
    What is needed now is a period of careful and open reflection. Summits are more about 'positions' than listening and compromise. Right now we need more listening. Keep up the great work Richard.

    Complain about this comment

  • 11. At 6:42pm on 19 Dec 2009, Erik Bloodaxe wrote:

    The AGW meme has passed its high-water mark, 11 years after the mean global temperature peaked. There is now a tide of scepticism, which will only ebb if that peak is surpassed in the next decade.

    Complain about this comment

  • 12. At 6:58pm on 19 Dec 2009, jr4412 wrote:

    Richard Black.

    "Is it the end for the idea of global, negotiated governance on ... environmental issues?"

    the kind of aware and un-selfish negotiations that are needed to move the world from 'business as usual' to a more equitable and sustainable living never even happened, your posts reflect that.

    it may well have been the last chance to conduct this debate peacefully though, this time there were no immediate crises and disasters to dictate events.

    Complain about this comment

  • 13. At 7:03pm on 19 Dec 2009, bowmanthebard wrote:

    #10 greenNautilus wrote:

    "watch humanity head for self destruction"

    How, pray tell, do you suppose this "self-destruction" will happen? Little children beneath the relentless desert Sun gasping for oxygen as every cell in their little bodies literally cooks?

    We've all read a lot of blood-curdling imagery (and stomach-churning moralistic schmaltz) about how humanity faces extinction and all that, but really, have you given any thought to the difference between (a) cruelly killing actual people and (b) simply having a slightly different world in which there is no more cruelty or killing than already we have now?

    I suspect that many of you can't tell the difference between individual, sentient humans and collective, non-sentient humanity!

    Complain about this comment

  • 14. At 7:04pm on 19 Dec 2009, Coldcall wrote:


    What a load of tosh! This conference has been an unmitigated disaster, and a good thing too. After hearing politicians laughably discussing what sort of temperature limits they should enforce on mother nature, one knows we are dealing with class A deluded loonies.

    How will they punish mother nature if she does not comply with the 2 degree limit? It's almost funny except for that these climate prophets are running our governments.

    The stupidity of the agw bandwagon is becoming an epic of biblical proportions!



    Complain about this comment

  • 15. At 7:04pm on 19 Dec 2009, Zydeco wrote:

    Maria @ *4*

    Do you ever take time to look at any opposing science? Or are you so brain-washed by the AGW lobby that you can only espouse a one dimensional point of view.

    I do not consider myself a 'sceptic' but more as someone who is not wholly convinced by the pro AGW camp.
    I read both sides of the argument and, for the time being, believe that climate change is occuring and will continue - but as a natural phenomena - not necessarily man made.
    I question why the Earth has for billions of years experienced changes in sea levels and land mass even before mankind appeared on the Earth, but the current, ongoing change is now promoted by the pro lobby as entirely man made.

    I fully accept the need to find alternate scources of power, energy and fuel as the current resources are finite. I also fully accept that we need to manage those resources we do have in a better way. I fully support the idea of having cleaner air to breathe, but for health reasons, not necessarily because it will 'Save the Planet'

    I am not a scientist, so all the various graphs, charts, computer models and statistics thrown at me don't mean a lot.
    What I want to hear is reasoned, logical, unbiased interpretation of what all this data means, expressed in terms that a layman can understand. What I hear however, is howling invective and insult thrown by both sides; neither of which seem prepared to give any weight to the other side of the debate.
    I am of the generation that heard scientists predict an imminent ice-age within the same time span that global warming is now being mooted.
    These scientists were credited with being 'absolutely correct' in this prediction. They weren't. So why should I blindly accept that those who now forecast the complete opposite are 'absolutely right? They may or may not be, but their argument is not coming across to me as fully convincing.
    By the same token I do not fully accept the opinion of those who say AGW is a complete myth.

    What is badly needed is is a realistic assessment of all the data that is available - both for and against - and a neutral, knowledge based conclusion formulated. One that is free from political influence and spin. that the ordinary man in the street can understand.
    Until this happens I, and I believe, many like me will remain unconvinced.

    Complain about this comment

  • 16. At 7:08pm on 19 Dec 2009, JRWoodman wrote:


    Eric Bloodaxe. Forget the peaks; in isolation they're relatively meaningless. Only the underlying trend matters, and that's pointing upwards.

    http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/12/091208-copenhagen-climate-conference-global-warming-climategate.html

    Quote "The past decade has been the hottest on record, according to new global warming data released today at the Copenhagen climate conference by the World Meteorological Organization. What's more, 2009 is shaping up to be the fifth warmest year since coordinated record keeping began in 1850, according to preliminary figures released by the Geneva-based UN organization."

    Complain about this comment

  • 17. At 7:13pm on 19 Dec 2009, bowmanthebard wrote:

    #14 Coldcall wrote:

    [Stuff I approve of and was amused by. Winner of this month's bard award.]

    Complain about this comment

  • 18. At 7:19pm on 19 Dec 2009, Colonicus III wrote:

    I wish it had actually failed instead of this pathetic attempt at trying to look like they care.
    It's like someone who owes you £2000 giving you a fiver and saying 'You know I'm good for it'.
    It may be a step in the right direction, but landing on the moon was a step in the right direction of interstellar travel.

    It's worse than the talks collapsing, at least then there would be a big effort in the next few years, now goverments and people around the world will make a half hearted effort and think its going to help.

    I'm really disgusted but not even vaguely supprised.

    Political posturing and dummy spitting has got int he way again. Absolutley smegging typical.

    Complain about this comment

  • 19. At 7:20pm on 19 Dec 2009, Sparklet wrote:

    1. At 5:45pm on 19 Dec 2009, Trefor Jones wrote:

    "As a post script I thought the performance of the UK team was lamentable and Ed Miliband ought to be sacked, Brown will have his comeuppance in the new year whatever the complexion of the next UK government. "Flat Earthers" indeed."

    My thoughts also, indeed whenever the UK contingent are involved in such negotiations their performance is lamentable.
    When the BBC broadcast the documentary "Tony's Tight Spot" in 2006 - behind the scenes with Blair, Straw and the EU presidency - Blair & Straw came over more as excited school boys than the serious statesmen they purported to be and succeeded in surrendering much of the UK's EU rebate for very little in return.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/cooking-up-a-storm-behind-the-scenes-with-blair-straw-and-the-eu-presidency-466233.html

    Brown's performance at Copenhagen was no better, in fact in light of the dire straits in which he has placed the UK economy I found his attitude there as grotesque.

    Complain about this comment

  • 20. At 7:21pm on 19 Dec 2009, Erik Bloodaxe wrote:

    JR Woodman, if the 1998 peak isn't surpassed, the rise will be under 2 deg and everybody agrees that we can just about live with that. Nobody is going to get excited (rightly) unless that peak is surpassed. I make no claim as to if/when that will happen; but I will say that ANYBODY who claims they can do so with any accuracy is deluded or a charlatan, given what is deducible from empirical evidence.

    Complain about this comment

  • 21. At 7:37pm on 19 Dec 2009, bowmanthebard wrote:

    National Geographic wrote:

    "2009 is shaping up to be the fifth warmest year since coordinated record keeping began in 1850"

    Could someone who is feeling warm right now please send a message, just to remind me what it's like? -- I've been too cold for three years now without a break.

    Complain about this comment

  • 22. At 7:37pm on 19 Dec 2009, Sparklet wrote:

    Re #2. At 5:47pm on 19 Dec 2009, Zydeco wrote:

    "The conclusions reached can, I feel, be summed up in a few words: Some Countries will only take AGW seriously if other Nations are prepared to make it worth their while.

    The whole climate debate at political level is about money. Either in the form of extra taxation or diversion of funds from other, in my opinion, far more worthy projects.

    Research into alternative fuels and energy scources is necessary as the present oil and gas reserves will run out. However, allocating vasts sums to a highly controversial theory based on arguable science is not necessary.

    Time out should now be taken to get a once and for all definitive result from ALL scientific opinion, not one driven by a political, tax raising agenda.

    Funding should be allocated to both sides of the argument, not just the one that suits political motives.
    This would be cheaper in the long term, than chucking vast amounts at something that, in fact might not be happening."

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------

    Absolutely agree with this. In fact I think there should be a public enquiry into the whole 'climate science' debacle ie how grants have been allocated, how temperatures have been monitored, the exact coding and methodology used to interpret those results as well as a review of the actual scientific conclusions reached - it seems there has been far less of a 'consensus' than has been claimed.

    Considering the massive sums involved (trillions) in mitigation of a problem that may not exist there should also be a thorough investigation into the vested interests involved.

    Complain about this comment

  • 23. At 7:41pm on 19 Dec 2009, Robyn81 wrote:

    Richard,

    Like others, I've found your coverage absolutely excellent. Thank you!!!

    I resonate with the sentiments in your last post.. Yes, it certainly raises huge concerns that US, China & Co took it upon themselves to negotiate a separate deal. In my mind however, there are two things that make it a very complex picture, and soften my judgment on this situation.

    First, from the various reports over the last 2 days (yours included), it has seemed that the prospect of getting any common statement endorsed by all leaders was rapidly shrinking - there seemed to be just too much fatigue, lack of consensus, not to mention procedural confusion. So, the natural question is.. is this agreement hamered out by US/China et al a better outcome than simply no agreement at all - amongst any parties - at the end of this huge, two week conference? After all, they are major emitters, which is significant.

    Secondly, I think Obama *had* to have something apparently positive and solid to take back to the US, to procure ongoing support for the pending US legislation and continue winning over the US public to the climate mitigation cause. And this is really important for all of us, not just Americans.

    Personally, I don't think this sequence of events at Copenhagen marks the beginning of an abandonment of the quest for global governance in respect of the climate change issue or other huge environmental problems. The ongoing need for that is just too blatant. However, I think the conflicts amongst various groups of nations have become more apparent.. the gloves are off now. But perhaps that will be a good thing. I think a great deal will be learned from the Copenhagen experience, and there will be a new realism in the preparations for the next UN talks over the Summer and in Mexico City at the end of next year.


    Complain about this comment

  • 24. At 7:44pm on 19 Dec 2009, bowmanthebard wrote:

    #20 Erik Bloodaxe wrote:

    "ANYBODY who claims they can do so with any accuracy is deluded or a charlatan, given what is deducible from empirical evidence."

    Slight correction: Anyone who thinks theories or models or hypotheses or anything at all can be deduced from the "empirical evidence" is deluded or a charlatan.

    Predictions can be deduced from theories and hypotheses -- in other words, from guesses. Then observations are made to see if a guess's predictions are actually true. If the predictions are true, we have a better reason to think that our original guess was right. But it's still a guess.

    We must continually remind ourselves how much guesswork is involved in real science (which is quite different from this idiotic religious climate farce).

    Complain about this comment

  • 25. At 7:47pm on 19 Dec 2009, tears of our forefathers wrote:

    i withdraw my earlier kudos to the beeb mr black. you're just as whiny and hysterical as all the other useful idiot enablers.

    Complain about this comment

  • 26. At 7:53pm on 19 Dec 2009, xtragrumpymike2 wrote:

    May I add my thanks to Richard for your perseverance in the face of much (often very personal) hostility. It is always so easy to "shoot the messenger" when the message is unpalatable. Not only is it easy it is frequently the only reaction.
    I have read some very enjoyable comments, yes even some from self-professed sceptics particularly when they remind us that there are many other serious problems facing mankind!
    My concern there is that if our "decision makers" address these other problems with the same attitude and self-indulgence (thank you greenNautilus)as they have shown at "Hopenhagen", we don't expect much real attention being paid to any of these.
    If you have time to spare........now that the Xmas season is upon us......Google up "Rio Earth Summit" and read ALL the principles (there were 27 of them). The attendance there was only slightly less than at Copenhagen. These principles were all agreed then! ( Agenda 21...signed by 178 governments "decision makers")
    Ask yourselves .......how well have they done? How well have they honoured that agreement of nearly 18 years ago?
    A debate on that would be quite interesting!
    I have enjoyed reading the contributions from Maria, Ghost, Manysummits, Ross, Woodman and others too numerous to mention.(pardon the "shortenings")
    One final comment (again .thanks to Nautilus)
    "Right now we need more listening. "..........to which I would add:-

    "God gave us two ears and only one mouth".I wonder why?

    Merry Xmas and a better 2100 to everyone on this site.

    Complain about this comment

  • 27. At 8:09pm on 19 Dec 2009, yertizz wrote:

    In several blogs (including this one) and BC (before Copenhagen) I described this gathering as a wake.

    Looks like I was right. Welcome to the real world!

    Complain about this comment

  • 28. At 8:17pm on 19 Dec 2009, Niall wrote:

    Dear Richard,

    Just a quick note to say thanks for all the updates over the past few weeks. I've thoroughly enjoyed your witty and insightful observations on all things danish. It's been extremely frustrating scrolling down through pages and pages of comments (some more lucid than others) as both extremes of the argument slog it out with each other. There's been an awful lot of pontificating, but sadly not a lot of listening.

    You've come in for some flack to, unfairly so, in my opinion. Keep up the great work with the blog - consider me a convert.

    Complain about this comment

  • 29. At 8:45pm on 19 Dec 2009, bowmanthebard wrote:

    #26 xtragrumpymike2 wrote:

    "It is always so easy to 'shoot the messenger' when the message is unpalatable."

    Do you think a journalist should be a messenger, i.e. an evangelist? I passionately and professionally believe otherwise.

    I have no idea where you are coming from, but I regard a journalist as having duties -- including duties to expose cover ups, to explain and report facts, etc.

    Almost everyone who has praised Richard Black is on one side, and almost everyone who has criticized him is on the other side. Does that say anything to you about Richard Black's coverage of these events? Or does it confirm your prejudices about the other side?

    Complain about this comment

  • 30. At 9:00pm on 19 Dec 2009, tears of our forefathers wrote:

    maria seems to be just like her heroes al gore and richard black in one regard:

    not bright enough to realise that their credibility has evaporated and shush up as a result!

    @29

    a good point well made! good post sir! i hoped i was wrong and it seems i was. my apologies for the other day. as a special deal i'll give you best odds guaranteed on the crab folks sir! ;) fight the good fight. forgive my suspicion and baseless accusation.

    Complain about this comment

  • 31. At 9:04pm on 19 Dec 2009, jr4412 wrote:

    bowmanthebard #29.

    "..a messenger, i.e. an evangelist?"


    Wiktionary def's:

    messenger -- One who brings messages.

    evangelist -- An itinerant or special preacher, especially a revivalist. (derived from some old greek, meaning "bringer of good news" (my emphasis)).

    Complain about this comment

  • 32. At 9:12pm on 19 Dec 2009, Jack Hughes wrote:

    Richard's coverage has been totally lopsided.

    His worst moment was this Tuesday's psychobabble episode. Just to remind you of his words about skeptics:

    we shouldn't be talking about the science but about something unpleasant that happened in their childhood

    The current BBC staff are incapable of balanced coverage - they are all in the tank for Big Green.

    Complain about this comment

  • 33. At 9:16pm on 19 Dec 2009, Spanglerboy wrote:

    @Zydeco

    good posts

    a public enquiry might help but I fear science has got a lot of lost ground to make up

    on 3 October this year I sent an email to the Royal Society in the following terms

    "Sir I have been following the debate about climate change closely. I am alarmed that many scientists who are clearly proponents of AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) are regularly found to be guilty of some form of malfeasance - for instance, failing to provide in an open and transparent way the data upon which their research has been based, a practice which seems to be condoned by some of the supposedly respected scientific publications in breach of their rules; or producing the output of computer models as if it were scientific fact.

    I note that a certain Professor Briffa of CRU apparently took 9 years to publish the data behind his Yamal chronolgy. It would appear that it was the Royal Society that finally managed to bring this data into the public arena where it belongs.

    Whilst scientists clearly have the right to believe in a particular scientific hypothesis (such as AGW) they do science a massive disservice when they allow it to influence the integrity of their work. The irony is that such behaviour breeds scepticism in the public at large and seriously undermines the confidence of the public in the scientific method.

    I am surprised that scientists are allowed to get away with clear breaches of the rules. I note that at the top of this web page the Royal Society boasts '350 years of excellence in science'. I do not know if there is any regulatory body for scientists. I do not know if the Royal Society has any such role. However, it seems to me that the scientific excellence of the UK has suffered a severe downturn since the global warming debate began and it would surely re-establish public confidence in the scientific method if there was some form of public rebuke for those scientists who break the rules.

    As an aside I am aware that the Society is itself a believer. Be that as it may. Science is no respecter of beliefs. The scientific truth will out in the fullness of time but great harm will be done to this country and many other countries of the world if scientists continue to pursue personal agendas.

    I thank you for your indulgence and would be grateful for a response"

    Needless to say, I have not heard a dickie bird.

    Complain about this comment

  • 34. At 9:21pm on 19 Dec 2009, tears of our forefathers wrote:

    jr4412:

    now bold the word 'bringer' in your quote.

    Complain about this comment

  • 35. At 9:25pm on 19 Dec 2009, Jack Hughes wrote:

    A great spoof post from blogger DB:

    "(This is a guest blog from --- environment correspondent Richard Blackbin in Copenhagen.)

    "Why can't more people be just like me?

    "The question first came to mind on the plane to Copenhagen as I caressed my cheek with my Guardian COP15 84-page pull-out supplement.

    "If more people were like BBC environment correspondents, I reflected, then the world would be a better place because people like me understand things so much better than ordinary folk.

    "Gazing out from the window at the frosty city landscape while we circled the airport, another thought struck me: perhaps I should have worn a little more than a Greenpeace T-shirt, Bermuda shorts and Birkenstock sandals."

    Worth reading the whole piece and the comments here.

    Complain about this comment

  • 36. At 9:27pm on 19 Dec 2009, bowmanthebard wrote:

    #31 jr4412 wrote:
    "evangelist -- An itinerant or special preacher, especially a revivalist. (derived from some old greek, meaning "bringer of good news" (my emphasis))."

    #28 Niall wrote:
    "consider me a convert."

    Complain about this comment

  • 37. At 9:36pm on 19 Dec 2009, Flatearther wrote:

    I don't know how any sane person could stand two weeks of the unmitigated drivel that has passed for this summit. What a waste of two weeks of life. It must be difficult getting back into the real world. Or perhaps Richard prefers to remain in the insane phantasy world of the UN and world leaders and their weird acolytes. Richard, why don't you get a real job and do something useful with your life?

    Complain about this comment

  • 38. At 9:46pm on 19 Dec 2009, bowmanthebard wrote:

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

  • 39. At 9:53pm on 19 Dec 2009, Zydeco wrote:

    Spanglerboy @ *33*

    Thanks.

    I am not surprised that you haven't had a reply. I suspect that like me, you are a seeker of the truth behind all the rhetoric.
    It is this secretive 'outside the rules' manner of presenting data that puts me on alert that something 'fishy' may be going on. Likewise there too many vested interests in some elements of the pro AGW argument.

    I really don't want to be classed as a supporter or denier of AGW, I merely want to know what is actually going on.

    As I said before, I can't understand the scientific 'technobabble' and I don't trust the political spin.

    It seems to me that there are a lot of people out there who think that those who shout loudest end up being believed. They don't. They end up being ignored.

    There is probably a very strong case to be made one way or t'other, but I'm not hearing it. The argument has become too polarised. There has to be a middle ground somewhere, but no-one is voicing it.

    When the shouting stops and the reasoned talk starts, thein I will listen and make my judgement.

    Complain about this comment

  • 40. At 9:54pm on 19 Dec 2009, minuend wrote:

    The AGWers got their asses well and truly kicked in Copenhagen.

    Complain about this comment

  • 41. At 9:54pm on 19 Dec 2009, SolidStance wrote:

    I originally 'went with the flow' with regard to man made climate change and accepted the reported scientific consensus. However, recently I have become more sceptical. I believe proper science requires any hypothesis to be rigourously tested and the more you read into/hear about this subject its not clear if this is the case. For example, I was surprised to learn that the data/models used by the Climate Research Unit at UEA were not available for open scrutiny - surely there is nothing classified or commercially sensative about these and by openly publishing them much criticism will be diverted. What I find incredibly frustrating is that the news agencies (and especially the BBC) do not seem to pick up on issues such as this or on any of the rumoured anomolies even if it only to discredit them. Another example, there is a story going around that the Russians are claiming that the Met Office/CRU used only 40% of the data from Russia thus appearing to 'cherry picked' to prove their hypothesis. Is that true? Surely it would not take too much investigation to prove this one way or the other? The oft repeated 'scientific consensus' is nolonger good enough. Come on BBC lets start putting ALL the facts in front of the public so that we can decide.

    Complain about this comment

  • 42. At 9:54pm on 19 Dec 2009, FrankFisher wrote:

    How about a nod, Richard, to the many thousands of people who are chuffed to bits that this wretched global scam at Copenhagen has fallen apart? The lack of actual science in climate "science" strongly suggests AGW's a fake - it strikes me that if the greens really do want to persuade the world, then rather than flying 20,000 people in for a jamboree in denmark, they'd have been better off repeating the science froms cratch. Find new proxies, take new cores, oh and *keep* the raw data...

    Do it again, this time honestly, and let's see what comes up. I'm staggered that this pretty simple approach isn't even being suggested.

    Complain about this comment

  • 43. At 9:56pm on 19 Dec 2009, vagueofgodalming wrote:

    I guess the question is, will we agree together to reduce emissions drastically, or will a few powerful countries combine to do it.

    One thing's certain: as the Himalayan glaciers melt, China and India will find ever-increasing urgency to do something about this.

    Complain about this comment

  • 44. At 10:03pm on 19 Dec 2009, tears of our forefathers wrote:

    @43:

    would that be by 2035 or 2350? rofl.

    Complain about this comment

  • 45. At 10:11pm on 19 Dec 2009, MarcusAureliusII wrote:

    Perhaps this blog should now be called "The Black Watch" as a kind of death watch to the end. Whose computer will melt down last? Will London Bridge be under water? What would a 30 foot rise in sea level be like? Will it happen suddenly? We could use some global warming right now. The Eastern Seaboard of the United States is being hit by a monster blizzard. 5 or 7 degrees C warmer and it would just be rain.

    "Does Copenhagen, then, mark not the beginning of a new global climate regime but the end of the vision of global, negotiated climate governance?"

    Europeans may not care who governs them or how. Paris or London, Amsterdam or Rome or....Brussels. But Americans do. Americans did not fight for their freedom against the British, win two world wars, the cold awar against the Communists and fight the Islamic terrorists to be governed by some UN bureaucrat sitting in New York City, Geneva, or anywhere else. We do not accept the notion of world government or world governance. It is antithetical to our most basic values and we would die fighting as free men before we'd allow ourselves to be enslaved. It's a principle Europeans can't possibly understand. The proof is America's policy of MAD (mutally assured destruction) during the cold war. We would make life on earth impossible before we'd submit to the outsiders. We may do that anyway if the warm-mongers are right.

    Complain about this comment

  • 46. At 10:51pm on 19 Dec 2009, JRWoodman wrote:


    I sense that China now 'gets it' and we'd be well advised to watch them for some significant unilateral actions over Climate Change.

    Arguably it's the one country in the world that can really make change happen once it decides to make its move.

    Complain about this comment

  • 47. At 10:52pm on 19 Dec 2009, infiniti wrote:

    Re 33: Perhaps one reason you didn't recieve a response was because your claims about Briffa are false.

    "Briffa of CRU apparently took 9 years to publish the data behind his Yamal chronolgy"

    He couldn't publish the data, it wasn't his to publish.

    Complain about this comment

  • 48. At 11:00pm on 19 Dec 2009, tears of our forefathers wrote:

    @45

    some of us unfortunate euros care who govern us and are outraged at how things seem to be proceeding.

    fight the good fight.

    'Does Copenhagen, then, mark not the beginning of a new global climate regime but the end of the vision of global, negotiated climate governance?'

    anyone sneering at the worried-about-world-government-types ought to reread that line and ponder.

    see polly toynbees hysteria from today as well. she is a hairs breadth from calling for an ecofascist 'global regime' for our own good.

    Complain about this comment

  • 49. At 11:01pm on 19 Dec 2009, Jonathan Day wrote:

    I seriously doubt anyone expected Copenhagen to produce any real results. Let's face it, politicians aren't interested in 50 years down the road (when they'll be dead from old age), they're interested in prestige between elections and votes during. This conference was classic "Yes, Prime Minister" material. Does anyone know if the speeches were written by the scriptwriters for the series?

    To the skeptics, I would merely say this: it costs money to buy the materials to produce waste. You'll always have pollution, sure, but it only makes economic sense to turn as much muck into brass as you can. Pollution isn't just expensive to clean up, it's an expense merely because it's there. Why do you have to care about whether the "green lobby" is right, wrong or in fact a shade of mauve? Increased efficiency equals increased profits AND decreased greenhouse gasses. To block funding for development of green technologies is pure Luddite lunacy. It is going to HARM industry, not help it, no matter who is right in the global warming debate.

    To those who believe in global warming, well, your best bet might be to see if any of those Y2K bunkers are up for rent. Alternatively, do what the conservative lobby have done for years - get people to relocate so that they form a significant voting bloc. There's more than enough AGWers in the UK (and the US) to skew election results against many of the skeptics in positions of power. You'll find they stop being skeptical very quickly when they're in danger of losing that power. Like I said, the fanatical right-wingers have done this for years, so it's not like it's cheating any more and it's the only way left you'll ever get heard.

    (You'll be heard once sea levels rise back to Jurassic levels, sure, but it'll be a bit late to do anything then. According to James Lovelock, it's probably too late now. On that basis, if you REALLY believe in global warming and aren't just paying it lip service, then shrugging your shoulders isn't an option.)

    Complain about this comment

  • 50. At 11:01pm on 19 Dec 2009, blunderbunny wrote:

    @43 vagueofgodalming

    Except that those pesky little Himalayan glaciers aren't quite melting as was recently advertised and if they'll lie to you about that, what else are they lying to you about?

    Recently certain prominent AGWers seem to have discovered the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age, again, just a matter of months ago they were telling you that these absolutely did not exist. Indeed many of you on this blog have previously espoused such views, before these U-Turns were made and it’s all done without a hint of irony, not an iota of hypocrisy.... without so much as a pause for breath or even a "Hang on a minute, what's up with that..?"

    You (AGWers) continue blindly with this most unscientific of crusades and then you have the sheer barefaced cheek to launch ad hominem attacks on your critics, the so called deniers.

    It's a very good thing that in the end this stupid waste of money and effort came to nothing, who knows what sort of mess you might have created for the rest of us. At least now there's time for you to realize it's all over, for the headless chicken of Man Made Global warming to finally get the message that this particular remnant of a chicken is actually dead.

    Data manipulated, data sets cherry picked, models "tweeked", every proxy questioned, I could go on but what's the point, the idiocy of the average believer seems to be endemic.

    Complain about this comment

  • 51. At 11:12pm on 19 Dec 2009, G Kailis wrote:

    Green groups need to reflect and reconsider their strategy - how did their involvement contribute to this failure? Did media attention to the somehwat chaotic 'fringe festival' merely benefit spoiler nations such as the Sudan? What works in domestic democratic environments creating pressure on democratic countries is demonstratively not a winning strategy in a global UN setting - at least if action is the desired outcome.
    The real significance of these events do not relate to the science of global warming, but the failure of a global approach. Any real action will now need to take place in smaller groupings such as the G20 - as Richard suggests. The game has changed.

    Complain about this comment

  • 52. At 11:21pm on 19 Dec 2009, infiniti wrote:

    Re: "Another example, there is a story going around that the Russians are claiming that the Met Office/CRU used only 40% of the data from Russia thus appearing to 'cherry picked' to prove their hypothesis. Is that true? Surely it would not take too much investigation to prove this one way or the other?"

    nope
    http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/russian_analysis_confirms_20th.php

    Complain about this comment

  • 53. At 11:33pm on 19 Dec 2009, EPF wrote:

    In a major suprise, the world leaders failed to agree naff all. Well done to all of them.

    We can clearly now proceed to redraw emissions scenarios, we know where we are heading, the 'A' family of scenarios are were we will go, each nation for themselves, a few nations banding together but unable to make a major impact.

    It's depressing, our best chance especially for hundreds of millions in developing nations, semi arid regions and other areas were food stress is high, are for 2500 odd scientists to ALL be completely and totally wrong. Thing is, i am certain they are not, i know the work i did at university for my masters is not wrong.

    If i was allowed, i'd insert swear word here

    Complain about this comment

  • 54. At 11:56pm on 19 Dec 2009, GordonThought wrote:

    #39 Zydeco. (and others looking for something non-hysterical)

    As it happens, what you are looking for may have just been on television, on the bbc no less.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/search/?q=the%20climate%20wars

    Now I cant speak for how you will find the program, but personally I was in your position, and I found it informative and it does at least take a look at the sceptic evidence in a non-judgemental journalistic fashion (I lack the expertise to say whether it is unbiased, there could be things on either side, missed out, that I wouldnt have been aware of).

    I am reading too much about how the sceptics/deniers are never heard in the media. Does anyone read the Mail? I certainly hear the sceptics' arguments, over and over. Without taking a side on the evidence, I dont quite know where you are coming from.

    Complain about this comment

  • 55. At 11:58pm on 19 Dec 2009, Spanglerboy wrote:

    Infinity #47

    according to Wiki the scientific method incudes -

    '... Another basic expectation is to document, archive and share all data and methodology so they are available for careful scrutiny by other scientists, thereby allowing other researchers the opportunity to verify results by attempting to reproduce them. This practice, called full disclosure, also allows statistical measures of the reliability of these data to be established.'

    Bad science by any other name and implicitly condoned by the silence of the Royal Society.

    Complain about this comment

  • 56. At 00:08am on 20 Dec 2009, tears of our forefathers wrote:

    whenever anyone says: the game has changed I am reminded of the AGW brainwashing manual paid for by the UK government called the rules of the game.

    Complain about this comment

  • 57. At 00:34am on 20 Dec 2009, John wrote:

    Given that there is now little point in the BBC continuing the grotesque abundance of warming propaganda as seen in recent years, can we now have an assurance from the BBC that they will at least appear to be an unbiased and critical source of information and news, rather than a megaphone for the IPCC?
    I only ask because I, like many others not accepting unreservedly the unsubstantiated claims of possibly discredited scientists, pay my TV licence in anticipation of fair and balanced reporting and an acceptable level of value for money.

    Complain about this comment

  • 58. At 00:58am on 20 Dec 2009, tears of our forefathers wrote:

    Mr Black:

    any idea when you're going to report on the comments made in their speeches at hoaxenhagen by the likes of mugabe and chavez? or can we take your silence on the matter as tacit agreement with these tyrants and murderers???

    Complain about this comment

  • 59. At 00:59am on 20 Dec 2009, Zydeco wrote:

    GordonThought @ *54*

    Thanks for the link. Will have a look at it in the morning.

    Your point about the sceptic/deniers not being heard is valid to some extent, however I find that when their views are given space they are just as fanatical as the AGW proponents.
    It is this that is putting me off. It's a bit like forcing a child to eat their cabbage 'because it's good for you' It may be, but you won't convince the kid by stuffing it down their neck. You give them a reasoned explanation of the benefit of vitamins etc etc.

    This is exactly what is happening with the climate debate. Both sided are trying to force feed me the good bits of their argument, but with no reasonable explanation of why it is good for me. Hence my earlier comment that I would like a rational debate with, as mentioned by other bloggers on here, some honesty about the data.

    Complain about this comment

  • 60. At 01:01am on 20 Dec 2009, spectrum wrote:

    It's a shame that Shell Oil spent all that money on carbon trading / global warming propaganda in the Guardian and Independent, for nothing.

    Complain about this comment

  • 61. At 01:04am on 20 Dec 2009, blunderbunny wrote:

    @47 Infinity

    If you think that not sharing your data with others for independent verification is acceptable then you're really not qualified to comment on the 'science' related to anything are you?



    Complain about this comment

  • 62. At 01:25am on 20 Dec 2009, GK wrote:

    I must express my puzzlement as to why the climate change "skeptics" seem to feel that their position has been vindicated because this summit failed.

    The fact that a herd of bickering, self-interested, non-scientist politicians failed to do anything other than self-promote, posture, and antagonize each other is not an indication that "AGW is dead" or that decades of scientific observation have been in the service of some global scam. And while it is certainly not surprising, it is tragic.

    Anthropogenic effects on climate change are real, dangerous, and observable today. While you may shiver and reach to turn up the heating dial in your flat in New York, Beijing or London, or gripe at the prospect of scraping ice from your car's windscreen in Minneapolis, and think smugly to yourself "so much for global warming," there is a sweating farmer in Kiribati who toils on, despite the fact his sweet potato yield has been reduced by soil salination. Maybe he sweats and toils knowing that this is only the beginning.

    The numbers are hard, the science is hard. The truth... harder.

    Complain about this comment

  • 63. At 01:34am on 20 Dec 2009, Spanglerboy wrote:

    Blunderbunny #61

    Infinity does not realise that defending the indefensible undermines his credibility and generates scepticism. If the ship of AGW is to sink, Infinity will go down with it.

    Complain about this comment

  • 64. At 01:56am on 20 Dec 2009, Its Raining Sven - No More Sousa wrote:

    Seems Mother Nature has a brilliant sense of humour.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/19/obama-returns-from-the-copenhagen-global-warming-conference/#more-14304

    Complain about this comment

  • 65. At 01:57am on 20 Dec 2009, tears of our forefathers wrote:

    'The numbers are hard, the science is hard. The truth... harder. '


    ok.... nah the mods won't like it :)

    Complain about this comment

  • 66. At 02:01am on 20 Dec 2009, infiniti wrote:

    Re 61:

    I didn't say that. I pointed out that it wasn't Briffa's data to give out.

    Nor was the paper 9 years ago published by the Royal Sociey. So no wonder they ignored the emails accusing them of something they were not guilty of.

    Complain about this comment

  • 67. At 02:08am on 20 Dec 2009, wakeupbritain wrote:

    Lets move on and deal with how we cope with the impending little ice age caused by the lack of sunspot activity. Cold kills!

    Complain about this comment

  • 68. At 02:09am on 20 Dec 2009, infiniti wrote:

    Re 63:

    Climate Science is some of the most transparent fields for data access. You won't find many other sciences with such data availability to the public. For example look at the examples of data centers from the wikipedia link - dominated by climate data centers.

    The idea that AGW will just blow over because of politics (copenhagen, what blogs write) is nonsense. The physics and paleo evidence of high climate sensitivity and importance of co2 in climate have convinced a whole field of experts.

    Complain about this comment

  • 69. At 02:23am on 20 Dec 2009, Ken Appleby wrote:

    @62.GK

    Quite. I don't see the connection either.

    But please take heed of and heart from the posts from Maria Ashot in preceding blogs here about the quality of the arguments and people from all the nations at the meeting. Your use of such demeaning language does not fairly relfect their efforts nor assist understanding in any direction.

    Complain about this comment

  • 70. At 02:44am on 20 Dec 2009, manysummits wrote:

    It's takien me a while to catch up on all the previous blogs and posts !!

    To sensiblegrannie: Glad your son optimized your computer and that you enjoyed 'Home.'

    To Maria Ashot: The re-treaded noble savage isn't exactly what I had in mind. Have you read "Nutrition and Physical Degeneration", by the dentist/amateur anthropologist Weston Price, ca 1936?

    To extragrumpyemike: Glad you enjoyed a few of my comments. One never knows, without feedback.

    To jr4412: Time to implement those changes of your for the UN!

    - Manysummits -

    Complain about this comment

  • 71. At 03:25am on 20 Dec 2009, manysummits wrote:

    \\\ "Feet of Clay" ///

    "The title is a figure of speech from the Bible (Daniel 2:33-45) used to indicate a weakness or a hidden flaw in the character of a greatly admired or respected person:"
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feet_of_clay
    -----------------------------------------

    I remember the Winnipeg Fringe Festival in 1994 - my 'Year of the Pilgrim,' in which I definitively switched from being a conflicted logical person to a man who learned to trust completely his feelings, without abandoning the sometimes useful intellect.

    There was a saying from the Festival I remember:

    "A critic is like a dog who knows the way but can't drive the car."
    ----------

    I've been digesting Copenhagen as best I can, thanks especially to Richard Black and Maria Ashot.

    I am mildly disappointed, but there is a silver lining, I believe.

    One hundred and ninety-three countries participated, I understand, hosted by Denmark and Copenhagen - Manythanks!

    Framework by the United Nations - well done - Rio>Kyoto>Cop15>???

    Science by individual scientists - First Rate - & more to come!

    Oversight and Concensus by the many superb National Academies of Science, Universities, and Centers such as the Hadley Centre, the Goddard Institute for Space Sciences, Stockholm Resilience Centre, NGO's etc...

    World-wide front page coverage by the world media - Essential, and perhaps the most important outcome of COP15 - Climate Change is now at least on the radar screen of much of Humanity
    -------------

    Since I don't intend to be like that Winnipeg dog, where to from here?

    As this website is hosted in Great Britain, I will invoke the memory of Sir Ernest Shackleton, polar explorer and leader of men extraordinaire, whose family motto might be one we of the Anthropogenic Global Warming persuasion could well adopt:

    \\\ Fortitudine Vincimus — "by endurance we conquer" ///

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

    - Manysummits -

    Complain about this comment

  • 72. At 05:57am on 20 Dec 2009, lburt wrote:

    @manysummits #71
    I remember the Winnipeg Fringe Festival in 1994 - my 'Year of the Pilgrim,' in which I definitively switched from being a conflicted logical person to a man who learned to trust completely his feelings, without abandoning the sometimes useful intellect.

    I don't know what's more disturbing...that you made that sort of "realization" or that you'd actually express it aloud.
    ====================

    @GK #62 RE:skeptics feel vindicated by the Cop15 failure???
    Pretty sure most them are like me. We didn't want a "world government" set up. We didn't like the economic/social manipulation measures. And...we didn't want to pay 100 trillion to throw out perfectly good infrastructure and replace it with overpriced, under-performing, immature technology. Also, most of us are aware that colder weather is worse than warmer weather. But I don't know...maybe we just have a fear of fascism.
    ====================

    @Dessertfox #64 RE:Mother nature's sense of humor
    Yeah and the funniest thing about mother nature's sense of humor is that as the cooling period takes hold...all that brainwashing of the school kids will have been in vain. It's hard to keep believing that it's getting warmer all the time when winter storms become more and more frequent.
    ====================

    @exiledportfan #53 who wrote...
    we know where we are heading, the 'A' family of scenarios are were we will go...
    ...It's depressing, our best chance especially for hundreds of millions in developing nations, semi arid regions and other areas were food stress is high, are for 2500 odd scientists to ALL be completely and totally wrong. Thing is, i am certain they are not, i know the work i did at university for my masters is not wrong."


    You realize the actual warming rate is something only .5C/century, right??? WOW, are you ever setting yourself up for a rude awakening. BTW, the IPCC only had about 80 people in total involved with sciences that had ANYTHING REMOTELY to do with climate. The rest of the people listed are politicians or scientists from entirely unrelated fields. LOL, and the head of the IPCC is in fact...a railroad engineer.

    And yes...sadly what they taught you at the university had a LOT of really bad "science" mixed in. Various sciences have had similar failures in the past but this will go down as the greatest failure of science in history. I don't expect you to believe me, obviously. On the bright side, with the shock of realizing that some of what you've learned was nonsense...you will also get a bit of relief at knowing the world isn't doomed.

    Complain about this comment

  • 73. At 07:51am on 20 Dec 2009, Gates wrote:

    the political system has failed us all again. Perhaps now more so than ever. Politics is supposed to be about people and democracy, but politics has not been democratic for a long time. All politicians know how to do is politics. They know nothing of environmental issues or climate change threats, they are not scientists, so why are we leaving the fate of the earth in there hands instead of those who actually have done the research and know what actions need to be taken rather than those who are only influenced by business leaders. Business leaders are the ones with true power, not politicians. They are the ones that can bring down the worlds economies, or give thousands of jobs to those who need it but choose not to.

    Copenhagen proved to be business as usual for politics, ignoring the fact that the current political system is no longer just, fair or relevant and ignoring the fact that the way we live is not sustainable and dangerous to the very planet we call home.

    Complain about this comment

  • 74. At 08:28am on 20 Dec 2009, jauntycyclist wrote:

    how russia today viewed it

    ..UN is wrong body to tackle climate change

    Creating a virtual market in “permission to pollute” credits that actually reflects reality and the needs of industry, consumers and countries is well beyond the ability of the UN.

    Carbon trading is already corrupt. Why would you put it in the hands of the UN, which ran the Oil For Food Scandal with Saddam Hussain’s Iraq.

    Maurice Strong was the main mover behind the UN's involvement in fighting climate change.

    He received, countersigned and cashed a cheque for $1 Mln from Saddam Hussein's government in 1997 during the Iraq Oil For Food scandal. He resigned from the UN and went to live in China.

    However, he still sits on the board of the Chicago Climate Exchange that buys and sells carbon credits...


    http://rt.com/Top_News/2009-12-19/un-climate-change-tackle.html?fullstory

    Complain about this comment

  • 75. At 08:47am on 20 Dec 2009, elfrieda wrote:

    Zdeco @15
    I agree with what you are saying , its like all the same people are in to many pots and its all connected to politics ! the public need to know the results and how they got them on the front page , how can we make reasoned appraisals , it seems all the countries are in it for the big bucks on offer , and we all know where the money will go , they treat the voters as fools ( in some cases not wrong ).

    Complain about this comment

  • 76. At 09:00am on 20 Dec 2009, Jack Frost wrote:

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

  • 77. At 09:01am on 20 Dec 2009, bowmanthebard wrote:

    49 Jonathan Day wrote:
    "I seriously doubt anyone expected Copenhagen to produce any real results. Let's face it, politicians aren't interested in 50 years down the road"

    If the general public cares about 50 years down the road, the politicans whose careers depend on them have to at least act as if they care too.

    But the fact is that most of the general public don't care all that much about 50 years down the road -- and with good reason.

    Whenever we act, we have to take account of how desirable our goal is and how likely we are to achieve it. And we know next to nothing about 50 years down the road. Just think of what people 50 years ago could have guessed about the way we live today -- with technology that they could only decribe as "stunning", or even "miraculous".

    It is ridiculous to make anything but the vaguest plans for anything so far away in time.

    This vagueness about the likelihood of achieving our goals 50 years hence is matched by an even greater vagueness about what we should be trying to acieve. Some people say we are trying to avoid "extinction" -- but they seem to have no idea what "extinction" involves. They don't seem to distinguish between individuals and species. They seem to think "extinction" means more individuals dying prematurely. (Actually it means fewer individuals dying prematurely -- which is not to say "extinction" is a good thing!)

    I am not the least bit worried about "extinction" of the human species, because it's ridiculously unlikely and it's something that might happen in the future so distant it's "over the horizon"...

    But here's a challenge to those who are worried about "extinction": explain what's wrong with it!

    Complain about this comment

  • 78. At 09:03am on 20 Dec 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    Theres a good piece at The Air Vent today:

    http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/12/18/absurd-and-more-absurd/

    As usual please comment on the message, not the messenger

    Complain about this comment

  • 79. At 09:14am on 20 Dec 2009, Jack Frost wrote:

    http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/weather/12/19/winter.weather/index.html

    A major snowstorm slammed the East Coast and snarled the busy holiday travel season Saturday as airports shut down runways, rail service slowed and bus routes were suspended on the last weekend before Christmas.

    Record snowfall totals were reported Saturday afternoon at Washington Dulles and Reagan National airports -- and snow was still falling. Accumulation at Dulles reached 16 inches, breaking the old record of 10.6 inches set December, 12, 1964; 13.3 inches was reported at Reagan. The old record there was 11.5 inches set December 17, 1932.

    Complain about this comment

  • 80. At 09:41am on 20 Dec 2009, bowmanthebard wrote:

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

  • 81. At 10:28am on 20 Dec 2009, U14260427 wrote:

    " 73. At 07:51am on 20 Dec 2009, Gates wrote:

    the political system has failed us all again. Perhaps now more so than ever. Politics is supposed to be about people and democracy"

    It's been bought and sold in the US for years.

    When the CEO of Exxon gets paid $22.5Mil in one year as salary and perks, there's a lot of money to lose and a lot of money to spend to keep it.

    Egregious example for the US on healthcare and containing costs:

    http://www.youtube.com/user/TheYoungTurks#p/u/0/HVpyuyZb06s

    Obama couldn't get 2 more votes by just demanding when it came to the Public Option, but he could (and DID) get 9 votes to drop a plan to reduce health costs by $100Bn.

    Because the $100Bn would go to US medical companies...

    Complain about this comment

  • 82. At 10:39am on 20 Dec 2009, Gederts Skerstens wrote:

    Knock it off. It's junk. Like Witch-Hunting or Dragon-Slaying is junk.
    Fantasies to keep Priests fed.
    The thousands of delegates should now go home, quietly look at their CVs and consider engineering, or medical research, or composing music as new careers. Doing something useful.

    Complain about this comment

  • 83. At 10:50am on 20 Dec 2009, Annushka wrote:

    Thank you, Richard, for brilliant analysis. In one of your posts you complained that it's hard to report from the COP because it's impossible to have all the information. I think you are doing a marvelous job, and you have a surprisingly in-depth understanding of the process and issues at stake. Surprising because this is coming from somebody who has been in the process for over 10 years, sometimes as a negotiator, sometimes as an observer. I've been reading your blog for a while now and I always find you on the spot with your analysis of the situation. Thank you and keep it up!

    Complain about this comment

  • 84. At 11:31am on 20 Dec 2009, Jack Frost wrote:

    The head of the UN's climate change panel - Dr Rajendra Pachauri - is accused of making a fortune from his links with 'carbon trading' companies.



    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/6847227/Questions-over-business-deals-of-UN-climate-change-guru-Dr-Rajendra-Pachauri.html

    Complain about this comment

  • 85. At 11:35am on 20 Dec 2009, U14260427 wrote:


    "A major snowstorm slammed the East Coast ..."

    ...During winter.

    Why is that a news item?

    Ah, only because it's a ditto of "There is no warming, my lake is frozen!":

    http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=greenman3610#p/u/25/l0JsdSDa_bM

    Complain about this comment

  • 86. At 11:46am on 20 Dec 2009, Zydeco wrote:

    GordonThought @ *54*


    I've now had a chance to look at the link you gave. Thanks for that.

    It begs the question as to why the various camps are not discussing this amongst themselves.
    It would seem that, as I referred to earlier, both sides are so entrenched in their views, that no opposing evidence or opinion is allowed.

    This is not the way forward!

    If the pro AGW lobby is correct, then they MUST find a way of presenting it to the public that is believable.
    If the 'antis' are correct they need to produce far more compelling proof of why they don't accept AGW.

    To me, as someone who is in the middle, there must be an end to the trend of calling the other side 'zealots','flat-earthers' 'deniers' et al.
    It doesn't impress me and certainly adds nothing to their arguments.

    Let's have some proper debate, with both sides producing their evidence for assessment.
    Stop the chicanery that appears to be a tool in both sides argument.

    But, most important, get the politicians, sociologists, financiers and all other non-scientific bodies out of it.

    Let's us have a clear science based debate that hopefully can reach a final clear-cut proof one way or other.

    Complain about this comment

  • 87. At 11:51am on 20 Dec 2009, Zydeco wrote:

    Professor Moncton @ *85*

    What you highlight in your post is another anomoly that the public don't seem to understand. That Climate and Weather are different. Connected YES, but the same NO.

    Complain about this comment

  • 88. At 11:54am on 20 Dec 2009, MalMac wrote:

    Richard thank you for your realistic and balanced reports on the Copenhagen fiasco. It cannot have been easy to remain objective amidst all the fervor in the British camp, more akin to a Billy Graham revival meeting. Your colleague David Shukman was in his element there, just lacking saffron robes and tamourine to affirm his ecstasy in being present at his expected global nirvana. How crestfallen, by contrast was his demeanour in the sad aftermath, when the penny dropped that his tendentious reporting from every cherry-picked corner of the globe had fallen upon deaf ears.
    My hope is that you, Richard can lead the BBC's environmental circus back away from trick-of-the-loop acts and back to solid science.

    Complain about this comment

  • 89. At 11:59am on 20 Dec 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    @Yeah_Whatever #85

    For the same reason ice melting in summer is news

    Complain about this comment

  • 90. At 12:01pm on 20 Dec 2009, U14260427 wrote:

    @84

    Steve McIntyre is accused of making a fortune from his connections to the Fossil Fuel industry:

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

    "McIntyre was also exposed for having unreported ties to CGX Energy, Inc., an oil and gas exploration company, which listed McIntyre as a "strategic advisor."

    Complain about this comment

  • 91. At 12:04pm on 20 Dec 2009, ManmadeupGW wrote:

    "Does Copenhagen, then, mark not the beginning of a new global climate regime but the end of the vision of global, negotiated climate governance?"

    Why do all the Doogooder Doomsayers live in the west? Why not in the developing or third world? As I have said before there is only one thing worse than a hypocrite and that is a sanctimonious hyppocrite.

    Your use Mr Black of the word global climate regime is very apt. The regime has demonstrated systemic failure within the climate organisations that support the IPPC and the lack of proper governance within the IPPC has shown it and the climate organisations it uses are not fit for purpose.

    There is global warming the majority of which is man made up.

    Complain about this comment

  • 92. At 12:04pm on 20 Dec 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

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

  • 93. At 12:05pm on 20 Dec 2009, Sparklet wrote:

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

  • 94. At 12:06pm on 20 Dec 2009, bowmanthebard wrote:

    #86 Zydeco wrote:

    "If the 'antis' are correct they need to produce far more compelling proof of why they don't accept AGW."

    Suppose I claim that there's a huge asteroid heading for Earth, and it will kill us all unless we take big steps to avoid it. You have no reason to think that there's such an asteroid. Do you think that you are rationally obliged to provide reasons for your position as much as I am obliged to provide reasons for mine?

    Note that my claim is more extravagant than your claim. -- I think a bit of reflection will lead you to realize that the "burden of proof" weighs more heavily on my shoulders than on yours. You don't have to "prove" anything.

    Your request for "compelling proof" from sceptics assumes there's a symmetry between believing that something exists and believing it does not exist. But it has generally been held since George Berkeley that the "burden of proof" -- the obligation to provide reasons and evidence and so on -- lies more with those who make claim that something new exists than with those who sceptically deny such a claim.

    Sceptics claim that the world is probably chugging along pretty much the same as it ever was, and it would be foolish to make big changes in our lives to accomodate what seems to them to be a fantasy. Non-sceptics are making a much more extravagant claim, putting their faith in what seems to most people to be half-baked, dishonest theorizing.

    Complain about this comment

  • 95. At 12:09pm on 20 Dec 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    @Yeah_Whatever 90

    The difference between McIntyre and Pachauri is McIntyre is in private practice, whereas Pachauri is an official of the UN who stands to make a fortune by pushing AGW. You could also add Al Gore (Generation Investment Management), who is making a fortune investing in all things green

    Another difference is McIntyre has never denied his previous dealings with oil companies, indeed he lists them on his CV

    Complain about this comment

  • 96. At 12:09pm on 20 Dec 2009, U14260427 wrote:

    Zydeco, I think the pulbic (in general) DO understand.

    But they aren't motivated to speak as loudly as the dittos.

    How do I figure this? They accept "this is a hot summer". That is a climatology statement. You have to figure out averages and likely ranges AND include an idea of an extended present (the season "summer").

    But the dittos pretend not to understand to keep the debate running and run out the clock while they reap the rewards.

    Ever notice that when someone says "Both sides have behaved badly" they posit that we wait to see what happens.

    But that gives the same solution as those that deny AGW and according to the "even handed" speaker have also behaved badly.

    Precaution would lead you to go to "well, we don't know so lets reduce fossil fuel use anyway and if it turns out to be wrong in five years time, we still have cleaner air".

    Economic probity would leave you the same answer "well, we don't know so lets reduce fossil fuel use anyway and if it turns out to be wrong in five years time, we still have all that fossil fuel sitting in the ground to pick up and exploit".

    A Utilitarian approach would also say the same "if you can get the power from renewable sources then we still have an alternative source (the fossil fuels) for emergency use".

    Only those with a religious (God would not do this to His people [whilst forgetting the whole Garden of Eden thing]), political (libertarian and rightmost conservatives who demand government butt out [except in pork barrel works they can get a snout in]), or monetary (my stocks will tank because I've bought Exxon shares/I'm an Exxon employee) reason to continue to exploit AT MAXIMUM CAPACITY the fossil fuel sources want delay and business as usual.

    Complain about this comment

  • 97. At 12:12pm on 20 Dec 2009, Jack Frost wrote:

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

  • 98. At 12:14pm on 20 Dec 2009, Zydeco wrote:

    bowmanthebard @ *94*

    Exactly the point I have been trying to make in my earlier posts.

    Should I lie awake at night worried whether future generations are going to have a habitable World to live in or, should I sleep easy knowing there is nothing to worry about.

    The case for neither has been made.

    Complain about this comment

  • 99. At 12:14pm on 20 Dec 2009, U14260427 wrote:

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

  • 100. At 12:15pm on 20 Dec 2009, U14260427 wrote:

    "Why do all the Doogooder Doomsayers live in the west?"

    They don't.

    Therefore there's no answer to that question.

    Unless of course you mean "if I continue going west eventually I end up in Japan, so Japan is the west".

    Complain about this comment

  • 101. At 12:19pm on 20 Dec 2009, U14260427 wrote:

    PS this investing could be seen as "putting your money where your mouth is".

    After all, if there is no climate change and we ARE on a cooling trend, then in a few years this will be proven and his investments will tank.

    Complain about this comment

  • 102. At 12:20pm on 20 Dec 2009, Sparklet wrote:

    Re #90. At 12:01pm on 20 Dec 2009, Professor Monckton wrote:
    @84

    Steve McIntyre is accused of making a fortune from his connections to the Fossil Fuel industry:

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

    "McIntyre was also exposed for having unreported ties to CGX Energy, Inc., an oil and gas exploration company, which listed McIntyre as a "strategic advisor."

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------

    Hardly 'unreported' - interesting how 'sourcewatch' is simply a 'sexed-up' version of Wikipedia

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

    .... but then we're used to that sort of dirty politics in the UK.

    Complain about this comment

  • 103. At 12:30pm on 20 Dec 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    @Yeah_Whatever #101

    Not if the trading is fixed by governments

    Complain about this comment

  • 104. At 12:30pm on 20 Dec 2009, Zydeco wrote:

    Professor Monckton @ *96*

    If I am fully convinced that AGW is a reality then I will be as keen as the next person to take whatever steps are necessary to avoid future denegration of our planet. I would even, reluctantly, not complain about the additional taxes it is going to cost us.
    However, at the moment I am not convinced.

    On the other hand, I do not completely accept the anti-AGW case. It would be easy to join that camp on the grounds that it won't cost so much and I won't need to change my driving habits or our use of carbon creating facilities.
    I am not prepared to do that though. I believe that we need to utilise our resources in better fashion. I believe that cleaning up the atmosphere is a good thing - but not necessarily because of AGW reasons.

    Just to add an extra element into the debate, I don't hear much about population control and its relevance to adding to the carbon generation problem. It is a significant factor but one that doesn't seem to figure much in the argument from either camp.

    Complain about this comment

  • 105. At 12:32pm on 20 Dec 2009, U14260427 wrote:

    Sparklet, you've just wuwt many times before and blogs too to support your thesis that AGW is a scam. These are hardly reliable sources.

    ".... but then we're used to that sort of dirty politics in the UK. "

    Indeed. And the telegraph has gotten in to the eyebrows in these tactics. As have you, Larry and Al Core.

    You enter into these dirty tactics so often and so readily you must assume that any such dirt must be acceptable.

    Apparently only why you do this.

    This is called "hypocrisy".

    Complain about this comment

  • 106. At 12:36pm on 20 Dec 2009, Sparklet wrote:

    Interesting that my #93 was referred. But it's important to FOLLOW THE MONEY - it uncovers all sorts of 'skeletons'

    http://theconservativeblog.co.uk/?p=1473

    Complain about this comment

  • 107. At 12:39pm on 20 Dec 2009, U14260427 wrote:

    And further to the hypocrisy that is the dittos denying AGW, it's OK to call Phil Jones and Mike Mann frauds, but not their darling Steve McIntyre.

    Despite him being guilty as charged.

    He continued the rant for Briffa's data even though he'd had it for years.

    http://deepclimate.org/2009/10/04/climate-auditor-steve-mcintyre-yamal/

    His paper has had many problems pointed out to him but he refuses to listen:

    http://info-pollution.com/mandm.htm

    And that sourcewatch site references the sources that show he hid his affiliations.

    All of this far more clearly shown than the cries of "Fraud" levelled at Mann et al.

    But the dittos want dissention, they don't want truth. So they try to get it hidden. Shout it down. Dismiss it.

    Complain about this comment

  • 108. At 12:39pm on 20 Dec 2009, bowmanthebard wrote:

    #98 Zydeco wrote:

    "Should I lie awake at night worried whether future generations are going to have a habitable World to live in or, should I sleep easy knowing there is nothing to worry about."

    You can sleep soundly in your bed, knowing that "the end is nigh" is something that generation after generation of religiously-inclined humans have worried about, and that they all were wrong. Bad things do happen, of course, but they are best dealt with as they actually come up. If climate change is indeed underway, we have no idea what miraculous tools future generations will have at their disposal to deal with it, just as previous generations had no idea of the tools that we have at our disposal now, to deal with much more pressing problems than climate change -- such as shortage of food and drinkable water.

    Please consider how much attention many AGW worriers pay to factual accuracy. For example, one of the most highly-praised posters on this blog says that the cells of children's bodies will "literally cook" and that we are all running out of oxygen. These laughably inaccurate claims are lapped up because the poster is "on-side", and her posts are morally "on-message".

    Complain about this comment

  • 109. At 12:40pm on 20 Dec 2009, U14260427 wrote:

    Yes, Larry, even then.

    Since carbon trading isn't where the investements are.

    Which if you'd read you would know.

    But I suppose when the truth doesn't help, you just ignore it.

    \Professor Monckton.

    Complain about this comment

  • 110. At 12:43pm on 20 Dec 2009, U14260427 wrote:

    "If I am fully convinced that AGW is a reality then I will be as keen as the next person to take whatever steps are necessary to avoid future denegration of our planet."

    Then why aren't you convinced? Did you have to be fully convinced before you got a tooth filling?

    What remains? Read this:

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

    All the way back to 1829.

    What remains?

    Complain about this comment

  • 111. At 12:45pm on 20 Dec 2009, U14260427 wrote:

    "You can sleep soundly in your bed, knowing that "the end is nigh" is something that generation after generation of religiously-inclined humans have worried about"

    What does this have to do with the climate science?

    This isn't "the end is nigh", this is "stop drinking 10 pints a day or you'll kill yourself".

    But then again alarmists like you like to make up what the proposition is and then show it to be silly.

    This is called "strawman argument".

    Complain about this comment

  • 112. At 12:46pm on 20 Dec 2009, Sparklet wrote:

    Re #105. At 12:32pm on 20 Dec 2009, Professor Monckton

    I'll just have to remind you that WUWT was voted Best Science Blog 2008 and with good reason. It has exposed much of the faulty science behind the AGW scam

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/

    And it's thanks to Anthony Watts that we have the surface stations project exposing the scandalous way in which data collection has been skewed

    http://www.surfacestations.org/

    Readers are free to compare them with Real Climate the AGWers favourite and make their own minds up.

    http://www.realclimate.org/

    Complain about this comment

  • 113. At 12:47pm on 20 Dec 2009, U14260427 wrote:

    "For example, one of the most highly-praised posters on this blog says that the cells of children's bodies will "literally cook" and that we are all running out of oxygen."

    PS you'll notice he never gave a link to prove this.

    Nor any proof that this poster is most highly-praised (which I think would go to Bishop Hill if he turns up, Larry et al fawn over him like he's DiCaprio and they're 14-y.o. girls.)

    Complain about this comment

  • 114. At 12:47pm on 20 Dec 2009, sensiblegrannie wrote:

    Hello everyone,
    I haven't anything useful to say other than the fact that I have read all of your blogs. I am having way too much fun to sit hunched over the keyboard for hours. Follow manysummits advice and live a little.

    Complain about this comment

  • 115. At 12:51pm on 20 Dec 2009, U14260427 wrote:

    "But it's important to FOLLOW THE MONEY "

    Indeed.

    http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=a2ygdsSj.KQI

    http://priceofoil.org/fossil-fuel-subsidies/

    and on a peronal note:

    http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/PainAtThePump/story?id=1841989

    (note the profit of that one company too: 36Bn a year. It's not like they NEED the subsidies).

    Also check out who pays for McIntyre to turn up and speak. Do you think the luminaries for the dittos speak for free?

    No.

    Complain about this comment

  • 116. At 12:58pm on 20 Dec 2009, U14260427 wrote:

    "And it's thanks to Anthony Watts that we have the surface stations project exposing the scandalous way in which data collection has been skewed"

    How can you know that? Anthony hasn't released his paper. The only one is from NCDC (Watts has also complained that his data was used. So much for openness):

    http://www.rightsidenews.com/200906255245/energy-and-environment/noaa-and-ncdc-rebuke-watts-up-with-that.html

    http://climateprogress.org/2009/07/07/noaa-ncdc-is-the-us-temperature-record-reliable-deniers-anthony-watts-surfacestationsorg/

    Which shows that the data is not skewed.

    Also note that in other threads there have been accusations that the data has been "massaged".

    Accounting for changes in the surrounds of an observing site would be a massaging of the data.

    Heads the denialists win, tails, the AGW science loses.

    And removing bad sites (as watts proposed) would be throwing away data. Just as the CRU is accused of doing with Russian data by a thinktank/QUANGO.

    Heads the denialists win, tails, the AGW science loses.

    So if they massage the data, it's wrong, if they don't accord for changes in siting, they're wrong. If they include all data without QC throwing unrecoverable data out, they're wrong, if they include it, it's GIGO and therefore they're wrong.

    And they NEVER have to prove their points.

    Complain about this comment

  • 117. At 12:59pm on 20 Dec 2009, Zydeco wrote:

    In the midst of all the daebate let us not forget that climate change will eventually occur anyway as part of the Earth's natural cycle.

    I hope no-one is suggesting that we try to negate or reverse that event.

    Complain about this comment

  • 118. At 1:01pm on 20 Dec 2009, U14260427 wrote:

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

  • 119. At 1:05pm on 20 Dec 2009, U14260427 wrote:

    "In the midst of all the daebate let us not forget that climate change will eventually occur anyway as part of the Earth's natural cycle."

    And you WILL die.

    So why do you bother with a health plan or death insurance or eating right? After all, nobody got out of this life alive.

    I take it you're not a fan of this idea:

    "To laugh often and much; to win respect of intelligent people and the affection of children . . . to leave the world a better place. . . to know even one life has breathed easier because you have lived. This is to have succeeded."
    --Ralph Waldo Emerson

    http://www.freemaninstitute.com/quotes.htm

    PS I notice you haven't said what remains to be convincing to you.

    Complain about this comment

  • 120. At 1:09pm on 20 Dec 2009, U14260427 wrote:

    Yup, SCAM and FRAUD are OK for the denialerati but not when pointed against them.

    How shallow.

    How very very shallow.

    Complain about this comment

  • 121. At 1:12pm on 20 Dec 2009, Sparklet wrote:

    Re #115. At 12:51pm on 20 Dec 2009, Professor Monckton

    Which is peanuts to what the carbon market can grow into ... and for what NOTHING, mankind will be no better off, the poorer will be a lot poorer and the richer, obscenely wealthy.

    http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2009/12/protecting-big-carbon.html

    Complain about this comment

  • 122. At 1:14pm on 20 Dec 2009, kath wrote:

    Got degrees in environmental science and geology, certificates in physics, field biology (just so you know i have studied and keep myself informed about this), and i think we're screwed.
    expect food riots, mass migration, mass death-but mostly in poor countries we dont care about, more resource wars.
    mostly avoidable

    Complain about this comment

  • 123. At 1:21pm on 20 Dec 2009, U14260427 wrote:

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

  • 124. At 1:34pm on 20 Dec 2009, infiniti wrote:

    Re 116:

    Watt's has also stated he is keeping the surfacestations data private until he completes the analysis.

    This was in response to JohnV taking the data when the project was 40% complete and showing that the CRN1+2 good stations show hardly any difference than the CRN5 badly sited ones. NOAA did a similar analysis reaching the same conclusion shortly after.

    Watt's cried that such conclusions were wrong until more data was in and announced the data was now being kept private, presumably to prevent any more analysis of it by outsiders.

    Problem with that is everytime Watt's posts a "look at this station!" post the psuedoskeptics draw conclusions. It's only natural therefore that bodies like the NOAA and observers like JohnV would attempt to put these posts in context by looking at the big picture.

    One of the primary failings of WUWT blog and psuedoskeptics is that they regularly miss the forest from the trees. A year ago there was a post on WUWT claiming 115 NOAA cold records broken in the US in a single day. Watt's asked why the mainstream media weren't reporting it.

    A nice tree, so I looked at the forest and plotted all the daily records in the past few years. Took me a whole weekend downloading the data and analyzing it. 115 cold records broken simply turned out to be not particularly big news. If I recall correctly there were days with excess of 800 cold records broken back in years like 2003 and 2006. Still by then WUWT had moved on to another 20 posts of light-hearted claims so no scope to correct it.

    Another regularly repeating "missing the forest for the trees" is the claim that the surface record shows false warming over the last 30 years from "fraud, urban heat islands, ac units", you name it. The forest the psuedoskeptics ignore is that the satellite record shows similar warming to the surface record. And if indeed we were to reduce the surface temperature record as much as they think, the satellite records would show a lot more warming than the surface. Would that make any sense?
    http://denialdepot.blogspot.com/2009/11/correcting-gistemp.html

    Not to me, but the psuedoskeptics rarely think things through in terms of the consequences of their claims.

    Complain about this comment

  • 125. At 1:36pm on 20 Dec 2009, U14260427 wrote:

    Even the bare reported truth is wrong for the dittos.

    They must shout it down.

    And the moderators love it.

    Power.

    Complain about this comment

  • 126. At 1:38pm on 20 Dec 2009, bowmanthebard wrote:

    #122 kath wrote:
    "Got degrees in environmental science and geology, certificates in physics, field biology (just so you know i have studied and keep myself informed about this), and i think we're screwed."

    "I'm super-intelligent, and I think we're A-OK" -- bowmanthebard

    "My uncle was a great man -- he told me so himself" -- Spike Milligan

    Complain about this comment

  • 127. At 1:41pm on 20 Dec 2009, Zydeco wrote:

    119. At 1:05pm on 20 Dec 2009, Professor Monckton wrote:
    "In the midst of all the daebate let us not forget that climate change will eventually occur anyway as part of the Earth's natural cycle."

    And you WILL die.

    So why do you bother with a health plan or death insurance or eating right? After all, nobody got out of this life alive.

    I take it you're not a fan of this idea:......


    PS I notice you haven't said what remains to be convincing to you.

    ****************************

    To answer your last point first. What remains is the data.
    With allegations of corrupt, false and skewed data, are the 'facts' true?
    Where is the independent enqiry to clarify this?
    As I've already said, I am no scientist and, therefore can make no use whatsoever of the figures, projections etc myself. I have to rely on those more learned than me in such matters to interpret all this data and present me with the truth.
    This is not happening.

    Re your first point.
    Yes I do embrace a good quality of life, because I owe it to myself and my family to so do. As the patriarch of the family I see it as my position to be able to give advice, comfort and succour to those for whom I am responsible. However, when my grandchildren tell me that, in school, they are taught that AGW is fact, with no opposing view given, what am I supposed to do?
    Do I tell them it's a load of rubbish?
    Do I tell them it is real?

    I don't know.

    I do not have anything to confirm one way or t'other. The only advice I have given is to make sure they look at all viewpoints and make their own judgement.
    Is thing the right approach? You tell me!

    Complain about this comment

  • 128. At 1:42pm on 20 Dec 2009, U14260427 wrote:

    "Watt's has also stated he is keeping the surfacestations data private until he completes the analysis."

    And this is completely against the demands from people like Watts to open up ALL THEIR DATA.

    The NCDC took the 70 stations that Watts had already said was good and plotted the graph that resulted from their use.

    Explain how the data would show something different? Is Watts in on the scam and only did the ones that showed an increasing trend like NCDC have in their original paper first?

    This seems highly unlikely, doesn't it.

    So out of 70 that a skeptic saw as well positioned and acceptable, they show the same trend as the NCDC report shows.

    Completely NOT showing that the temperature trend is borked as originally claimed.

    Complain about this comment

  • 129. At 1:44pm on 20 Dec 2009, U14260427 wrote:

    PS didn't Watts say that he'd produce the report when 70% done? All he has to do to hide is data is then not complete it.

    But if he hasn't completed, how can Sparky say

    "And it's thanks to Anthony Watts that we have the surface stations project exposing the scandalous way in which data collection has been skewed"

    When even Anthony Watts says he hasn't done it yet?

    Complain about this comment

  • 130. At 1:46pm on 20 Dec 2009, U14260427 wrote:

    ""I'm super-intelligent, and I think we're A-OK" -- bowmanthebard"

    "However, I can't do the maths, so I'll make silly statements instead" -- bowmanthebard

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2009/12/a_tale_of_two_superpowers.html#P90071690

    Complain about this comment

  • 131. At 1:47pm on 20 Dec 2009, JaneBasingstoke wrote:

    @Jack Hughes #35

    Careful. Richard Black might have a sense of humour about "Richard Blackbin". But will Brendan O'Neill?

    http://www.amazon.co.uk/Can-Recycle-My-Granny-Eco-dilemmas/dp/0340955651

    Complain about this comment

  • 132. At 1:50pm on 20 Dec 2009, U14260427 wrote:

    "To answer your last point first. What remains is the data."

    What data?

    There's more than just the temperature record. Sea ice retreat and thinning.

    "With allegations of corrupt, false and skewed data, are the 'facts' true?"

    So you'll take *allegations* of corruption, falsity and skew in the data, on face value, but not the 100 year record?

    Have you looked at that page I referred you to?

    It goes into the science.

    To expect that there is no warming would require that you ignore the reports of Exxon and BP et al about how much oil they sell.

    Have you read the science?

    Have you checked how big a conspiracy this would have to be? I mean, they're even getting the freaking pine beetles in on the deal!!!

    Complain about this comment

  • 133. At 1:52pm on 20 Dec 2009, U14260427 wrote:

    "Do I tell them it's a load of rubbish?
    Do I tell them it is real?"

    You tell them there's enough of a chance that it's worth doing something about it.

    Or do you let them run across the road, or play outside in the streets after dark because there's no proof that YOUR children are at risk?

    In fact, don't you already spend lots of money on a "just in case"? Insurance?

    Complain about this comment

  • 134. At 1:55pm on 20 Dec 2009, infiniti wrote:

    128:

    Although to be fair understandably he doesn't want others to produce a paper about the data he collected before he does. Although that wasn't the nature of JohnV or NOAA's analysis.

    Also the JohnV and NOAA station comparison was of homogenized data. There is no choice there but of course there is the possibility that the good stations are influenced by the bad stations?

    Complain about this comment

  • 135. At 1:56pm on 20 Dec 2009, U14260427 wrote:

    Do you think the gardeners of the USA are in on the "scam"?

    http://www.garden.org/regional/report/description/full/13

    They don't get grants for climate change research, do they?

    Complain about this comment

  • 136. At 1:59pm on 20 Dec 2009, bowmanthebard wrote:

    #127 Zydeco wrote:

    "The only advice I have given is to make sure they look at all viewpoints and make their own judgement.
    Is thing the right approach? You tell me!"

    Yes, it is the right approach.

    The human condition is one of uncertainty. No one denies that uncertainty is uncomfortable, of course.

    Complain about this comment

  • 137. At 1:59pm on 20 Dec 2009, Mark Riches wrote:

    I'm fed up with all this nonsense.

    Nobody now disputes (even the respected anti-AGW scientists) that global warming is real. The only question is what is causing it.

    The best 'model' or explanation that seems to explain things is AGW.

    Any person that can come up with a better model/explanation (or even one that comes close to being as succesful as AGW) I am sure will recieve the Nobel prize. Quite a reward.

    Until then, I will believe the best model that we have have (AGW) and take note of its predictions - Anything else is plain foolish.

    Complain about this comment

  • 138. At 2:04pm on 20 Dec 2009, infiniti wrote:

    re 129: "didn't Watts say that he'd produce the report when 70% done?"

    The site says it's 80% done and there will be a paper in a few months

    Complain about this comment

  • 139. At 2:05pm on 20 Dec 2009, LabMunkey wrote:

    Merry holidays everyone.

    @Richard. I certainly admire your perserverance- regardless of my views of your reporting, you're certainly a more patient man than i to be able to be surrounded by all those politicians and not get the unsurpressable urge to go on a killing spree yelling 'give me a sodding straight answer you muppets!!'

    ahem.

    I would also say, that i still found your posts one-sided and i am still very annoyed over your sexist piece.

    Re-zydeco (i think).

    It is good that you are trying to decide for yourself and you clearly haven't been taken in by the BS peddled by both sides which is excellent. The only thing i would say is in a scientific debate the default position is not 'in the middle', it is in the 'sceptical' side.

    Now i am by no means trying to force your opinion here (and i'd hope it'd never work anyway), but in science the onus of proof is on those pusching the theory. If you're not convinced by it, then you disregard the theory.

    Re-data sharing. Any scientist who repeatedly and illegally (FOIA) refuses to share his data doesn't deserve to be called a scientist, regardless of their field. Saying 'i'll release it when i've made the analysis' is not a defendable position- if you have not yet performed your analysis, you shouldn't be commenting on it.

    Complain about this comment

  • 140. At 2:08pm on 20 Dec 2009, U14260427 wrote:

    "Also the JohnV and NOAA station comparison was of homogenized data. There is no choice there but of course there is the possibility that the good stations are influenced by the bad stations?"

    Uh, I'm trying to work out what you're saying.

    NCDC took 70 stations that Watts said was good. He hadn't completed.

    Watts complaint was that so many sites were badly placed that the warming trend was DUE TO THE BAD SITES and not due to CO2.

    NCDC took ***70*** sites. 70 ***good*** sites by Watts estimation.

    Then ran the same analysis.

    The bad sites never got in.

    The trend still appeared.

    Therefore the proposition that the trend was solely due to an artifact of creeping urbanisation is wrong.

    The "bad" sites (by Watts' estimation, though he hasn't actually shown that, just pictures he gets to vet and no justification for why they are reading incorrectly and uncorrectably) don't get a look in.

    So how can they influence the 70 sites?

    So the answer to your query is "no".

    But I'm left wondering why you asked.

    Sure, the *original* NCDC trend used nearby stations to work out (automatically) which stations to remove. And since thermometers measure local changes, you need some form-fitting to work out what that means to the representative volume you're assigning to that measure.

    But the "bad" stations were left out and the graph pretty much unchanged and still showing the warming trend.

    Complain about this comment

  • 141. At 2:09pm on 20 Dec 2009, U14260427 wrote:

    "The human condition is one of uncertainty. No one denies that uncertainty is uncomfortable, of course."

    So what is the chance that AGW science is right by your estimation?

    Complain about this comment

  • 142. At 2:10pm on 20 Dec 2009, U14260427 wrote:

    "The site says it's 80% done and there will be a paper in a few months"

    So Sparky was wrong, then? We don't have Watts to thank for whatever it is he's assuming is the case.

    Complain about this comment

  • 143. At 2:11pm on 20 Dec 2009, LabMunkey wrote:

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100020304/climategate-peak-oil-the-cru-and-the-oman-connection/

    lol bit over the top. Well, a LOT over the top but an interesting read

    Complain about this comment

  • 144. At 2:17pm on 20 Dec 2009, infiniti wrote:

    137: "Nobody now disputes (even the respected anti-AGW scientists) that global warming is real. The only question is what is causing it."

    Plenty of people will refuse to concede any ground to the science unless they have to.

    What about all the claims of fraud of temperature records and claims that scientists have ignored UHI. If that isn't an attempt to claim it hasn't warmed then what is it?

    Complain about this comment

  • 145. At 2:17pm on 20 Dec 2009, U14260427 wrote:

    "It is good that you are trying to decide for yourself and you clearly haven't been taken in by the BS peddled by both sides which is excellent."

    See post #


    "The only thing i would say is in a scientific debate the default position is not 'in the middle', it is in the 'sceptical' side."

    Which exists within the IPCC.

    Not with the dittos.

    Don't believe me?

    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/contents.html

    Examples:

    9.6 Observational Constraints on Climate Sensitivity
    9.6.1 Methods to Estimate Climate Sensitivity
    9.6.2 Estimates of Climate Sensitivity Based on Instrumental Observations
    9.6.3 Estimates of Climate Sensitivity Based on Palaeoclimatic Data
    9.6.4 Summary of Observational Constraints for Climate Sensitivity

    FAQ 9.2 Can the Warming of the 20th Century be Explained by Natural Variability?

    FAQ 7.1 Are the Increases in Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Other Greenhouse Gases During the Industrial Era Caused by Human Activities?

    They ask the questions.

    Look at this graph:

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

    Notice something on there you NEVER see on ditto graphs from denialists?

    Those green I-bars are error bars.

    Admitting there's the possibility that the plain old graph shows a picture not in 100% agreement with the world, but that the best guess is there.

    Complain about this comment

  • 146. At 2:18pm on 20 Dec 2009, U14260427 wrote:

    labmunkey, did you do the maths, then?

    What did you work out to be the minimum period for signal to exceed the noise?

    20-30 years?

    Complain about this comment

  • 147. At 2:20pm on 20 Dec 2009, U14260427 wrote:

    That should have been a link to post 96 in post 145.

    bowman "even handed" the bard saying "do nothing, it's the only safe thing to do!".

    Complain about this comment

  • 148. At 2:27pm on 20 Dec 2009, Mark Riches wrote:

    #144

    As I said - respected scientists accept global warming.

    Of course there are other theories, and down-right misinformation or even slander (it's odd that when rational discussion fails the irrational takes over in argumets). However the fact remains that as yet no-one has disproved the broad theory.

    I suspect that 'climate-gate' when investigated by UN and otheres will reveal that nothing at all untoward happened and that will then only strengthen AGW.


    Complain about this comment

  • 149. At 2:32pm on 20 Dec 2009, Zydeco wrote:

    139. At 2:05pm on 20 Dec 2009, LabMunkey wrote:


    ....Re-zydeco (i think).

    It is good that you are trying to decide for yourself and you clearly haven't been taken in by the BS peddled by both sides which is excellent. The only thing i would say is in a scientific debate the default position is not 'in the middle', it is in the 'sceptical' side.

    Now i am by no means trying to force your opinion here (and i'd hope it'd never work anyway), but in science the onus of proof is on those pusching the theory. If you're not convinced by it, then you disregard the theory.

    ****************************

    Yes it was me.

    I suppose that by your definition I am of the 'sceptic' view. However, I am sceptical about both sides of the argument. What does that make me?

    I am of an age that means I am never gonna know what the reality is.
    I do, hopefully though, have enough years left to play my part in doing thev right thing, whatever that may be.


    Some on this and other blogs have likened AGW to insurance. I don't agree with that. I take out car insurance a) because it's the law and b) because I MIGHT have a crash, not because I AM going to crash. The AGW comparison only allows for the latter.

    So do I budget for the extra costs of AGW and perhaps deprive my family of some of the niceties of life, or do I spend now and provide for my kith and kin?

    It's a quandary!!

    Complain about this comment

  • 150. At 2:32pm on 20 Dec 2009, MarcusAureliusII wrote:

    "The sneer is gone from Casey's lip, his teeth are clenched in hate,
    He pounds with cruel violence his bat upon the plate;
    And now the pitcher holds the ball, and now he lets it go,
    And now the air is shattered by the force of Casey's blow.

    Oh, somewhere in this favoured land the sun is shining bright,
    The band is playing somewhere, and somewhere hearts are light;
    And somewhere men are laughing, and somewhere children shout,
    But there is no joy in Mudville--mighty Casey has struck out."

    Well children, I'm sorry to say there is no Haagen dazs in Hopelesshagen for dessert tonight, just cold tough suet.

    Complain about this comment

  • 151. At 2:45pm on 20 Dec 2009, infiniti wrote:

    re 140:

    Maybe I misunderstood what NOAA did. There are two possibilities:

    1. Take all the stations, homogenize them. Plot the good station trends and bad station trends.

    2. Take the good stations, homogenize them and plot them. Then take the bad stations, homogenize them and plot them.

    The problem with #1 is that good station data is influenced by nearby bad station data during the homogenization process as far as I know. This might have negliable impact but that's not proven by this approach.

    #2 would be a superior method as there is no way bad station data can even influence the good station data.

    I am concerned that JohnV and NOAA used method #1. I might be wrong I will go have a look (I had assumed it was #1 because I hadn't even thought about the possibility of #2 until now)

    Complain about this comment

  • 152. At 2:45pm on 20 Dec 2009, Spanglerboy wrote:

    MarcusAureliusII #150

    Talking of Romans reminds me. It was the Romans who invented ice cream. And when Caesar conquered the Gauls and is reputed to have said 'Veni. Vidi. Vici.' he actually said 'Veni. Vidi. Vici. Mivi.' I came. I saw. I conquered. I had an ice cream on a stick.'

    Proof positive I think of the Roman Warm Period

    Complain about this comment

  • 153. At 2:53pm on 20 Dec 2009, infiniti wrote:

    I just checked and the NOAA used method #1. This doesn't prove the bad stations don't influence the record. Afterall a totally invalid homogenization process could snap all the good station data to match the nearby bad stations, then when the good and bad are plotted seperately they would all match up.

    Complain about this comment

  • 154. At 2:55pm on 20 Dec 2009, U14260427 wrote:

    re 151. They did neither.

    3. Take the good stations, homogenize them and plot them

    That's all.

    This is what you should do to find out if the warming trend is because you have many stations that have changed. Take those out to see how different a picture you get.

    Complain about this comment

  • 155. At 3:02pm on 20 Dec 2009, U14260427 wrote:

    "I suppose that by your definition I am of the 'sceptic' view."

    How can you be skeptical of something you haven't read?

    Read the IPCC reports.

    "However, I am sceptical about both sides of the argument. What does that make me?"

    Uninformed.

    That's OK, but if you're uninformed WILLINGLY, then absent yourself from the discussion, since you have nothing to add but questions about things that aren't questioned.

    "I take out car insurance a) because it's the law and b) because I MIGHT have a crash, "

    And why do you take out health insurance?

    How about home contents insurance?

    And if the government says "we have to pay £100 a year to increase renewables and reduce power consumption in case AGW is right", then it's EXACTLY like your car insurance.

    And here is where you now show yourself as partisan:

    "So do I budget for the extra costs of AGW and perhaps deprive my family of some of the niceties of life, or do I spend now and provide for my kith and kin?"

    How about

    "So do I budget for the extra cost of AGW and perhaps save my family from the dire straits resulting from climate change, or do I spend now and provide for my kith and kin?"

    Because both assume that AGW is false under your wording.

    Alternatively, you could assume AGW is true and word it like this:

    "So do I budget for the extra cost of AGW and perhaps save my family from the dire straits resulting from climate change, or do I spend on me now and provide a terrible future my kith and kin?"

    Would you have accepted that?

    No.

    Your wording is partisan. It assumes that there's no downside to AGW or that it doesn't exist.

    Complain about this comment

  • 156. At 3:03pm on 20 Dec 2009, U14260427 wrote:

    Spangler, I think I'll bookmark that so that when someone asks why I ridicule denialists, I can point them to a good example of why.

    Complain about this comment

  • 157. At 3:04pm on 20 Dec 2009, U14260427 wrote:

    "153. At 2:53pm on 20 Dec 2009, infinity wrote:

    I just checked and the NOAA used method #1."

    On the full dataset.

    Which is the correct thing to do.

    They did #3 on the response to surfacestations on the 70 sites Watts said were good ones.

    Complain about this comment

  • 158. At 3:24pm on 20 Dec 2009, JunkkMale wrote:

    1. At 5:45pm on 19 Dec 2009, Trefor Jones
    As a post script I thought the performance of the UK team was lamentable and Ed Miliband ought to be sacked, Brown will have his comeuppance in the new year whatever the complexion of the next UK government. "Flat Earthers" indeed.


    Time for UK Gov to show we're serious and break out the big guns?

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/dec/19/copenhagen-climate-summit-john-prescott?showallcomments=true#end-of-comments

    Or... not. Commenters seem less than convinced.

    Like Gordon, he seems to have confused 'we in the UK' with 'me, me, me...'. Again. Plus ca change.

    Wryly noting tweets from various irony-deficient journalists, pols and 'green' activists moaning that they are stuck in airports on account of the blizzards. And looking forward to catching up at the next jolly.

    And here was me thinking it was about reducing GHGs. How did that part work out again?

    Complain about this comment

  • 159. At 3:25pm on 20 Dec 2009, Neil Hyde wrote:

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

  • 160. At 3:28pm on 20 Dec 2009, Peter317 wrote:

    #140:

    "But the "bad" stations were left out and the graph pretty much unchanged and still showing the warming trend."

    Doesn't the fact that both graphs are virtually identical strike you as being a bit odd?
    I mean, the one graph is of ~70 'good' stations, presumably scattered over the large and climactically diverse area of the USA, and the other includes all ~1200 stations. I would expect to see large differences between the two graphs, with any possible UHI effects showing up as a difference in the overall trend.
    Unless, of course, there was a large degree of cross-contamination in the homogenisation process.

    Complain about this comment

  • 161. At 3:30pm on 20 Dec 2009, Spanglerboy wrote:

    Zydeco

    I would guess that after reading the various posts on this blog you will be feeling more scptical than ever. That's how it works. The proponents of AGW re-inforce our scepticism and try to push us further away from the middle ground. The truth will out.

    keep an open mind

    Complain about this comment

  • 162. At 3:31pm on 20 Dec 2009, infiniti wrote:

    From the NOAA description it sounds like they extracted the 70 stations after homogenization.

    "Two national time series were made using the same homogeneity adjusted data set and the same gridding and area averaging technique used by NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center for its annual climate monitoring. One analysis was for the full USHCN version 2 data set. The other
    used only USHCN version 2 data from the 70 stations that surfacestations.org classified as good or best."

    That's not 100% clear, but it sounds to me like they took the homogenized USHCN dataset, plotted all of it and plotted the subset of 70 stations.

    That alone doesn't prove the good stations weren't influenced by the bad stations during homogenization.

    However looking through the USHCN description of the homogenization process (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/ushcn/) it like it detects jumps in station records which are not found in neighbouring records. Given the nature of site placement issues, the jumps in bad stations will not be coordinated, therefore I can't see how a good station would be influenced by a bad one.

    It would still be better if they used the #3 technique you mention. Would be a proof of sorts and wouldn't leave any room to claim bad siting influences the record.

    Complain about this comment

  • 163. At 3:32pm on 20 Dec 2009, bowmanthebard wrote:

    I'm not bothing to read most of this stuff, but it is a pleasure to see the impotent gnashing of teeth, isn't it?

    Complain about this comment

  • 164. At 3:36pm on 20 Dec 2009, Peter317 wrote:

    #145: Yes, there's a large degree of uncertainty, caveats and scepticism expressed in those papers.
    The funny thing is, few, if any, of those caveats and uncertainties find their way into the Summaries for Policymakers, and. if any of them do, they are considerably downplayed.

    Complain about this comment

  • 165. At 3:37pm on 20 Dec 2009, U14260427 wrote:

    "And here was me thinking it was about reducing GHGs. How did that part work out again?"

    You've never thought that in your life.

    you thought it was a scam to get taxes up.

    Rewriting history, eh?

    "Doesn't the fact that both graphs are virtually identical strike you as being a bit odd?"

    Only if you're convinced that either

    a) the data MUST be wrong to show a warming trend because I know there isn't one
    or
    b) Watts is in on the game and selected ones that concurred with the NCDC and disproved his thesis

    I mean, would you be surprised if I rolled 1000 dice and found the average was very close to 3.5 and you took a random selection of those dice rolls to number 100 sub-selection and that TOO came to an average very close to 3.5?

    Would you?

    "That's not 100% clear, but it sounds to me like they took the homogenized USHCN dataset, plotted all of it and plotted the subset of 70 stations.T

    They took the changes that they KNOW have an effect on that station (e.g. they changed the station so it had a white stephensons screen in 1962, which will make the reading cooler, just simple engineering will prove that). They didn't take the reading of the bad stations into account.

    In the proper release, yes. In the rebuttal of Watts' word, yes.

    Complain about this comment

  • 166. At 3:38pm on 20 Dec 2009, U14260427 wrote:

    It is, bowman.

    Oh, you think the gnashing isn't the dittos?

    Ah, 'fraid I can't help there. See an optician.

    Complain about this comment

  • 167. At 3:41pm on 20 Dec 2009, tears of our forefathers wrote:

    hehe, it's pretty amazing how the proAGW peeps have all gone nuts neh?

    Hoaxenhagen: Act on CO2, It's all (and always was was) Just an Act.


    international RICO legislation ASAP and lets shut down the enron-style carbon traders too!

    Complain about this comment

  • 168. At 3:41pm on 20 Dec 2009, MarcusAureliusII wrote:

    Professor Mockingbird;

    "How can you be skeptical of something you haven't read?"

    That's an easy one. The report purports to be the result of scientific research. But both direct revelations such as the e-mails from the University of East Anglia and NASA are stronly indicitative of the fact that the scientific method was not used to reach the conclusions stated. In fact the research appears to have been fudged to arrive at a predetermined conclusion. This is not science it is propaganda. For the conclusion to be respected, it must have been carried out using all of the data, clear reasonable explanations for data that doesn't fit the model given, and the entire research effort open to peer review. That just hasn't happened. It doesn't matter what field of study it's in or what it says, it cannot be accepted as a valid scientific argument at this time. Back to square one but this time only by people who can still be trusted. Those who have faked their reports have struck out and are ejected from the rest of the game as a penalty. They forfeitted their right to be players, to be trusted or taken seriously again. One such foul and they are dismissed for life. Just like the guy in Korea who said he'd cloned a human being. Just because someone gets a job at a prestigious organization like UEA or NASA or NOAA and has a platform to speak from doesn't confer immunity from careful scrutiny nor is he automatically above suspicion no matter what. I don't come from Europe and I am no respector of aristocricy, social or scientific. It all stands or falls on its own merits period. This one is now fallen. It will also discredit those organizations if they don't distance themselves from the flawed product of their employees just as Leeds University is now discredited for failing to clearly and completely distance itself through dismissal of Professor McIntosh for his obvious fatal blunder in his own area of supposed expertise, thermodynamics. He used his fatally flawed understanding of it to support his assertion for divine creation of life on earth. Now Leeds University's graduates are not qualified candidates for jobs I interview for that require a diploma from an accredited school of higher education. It too is suspect, not to be trusted.

    Complain about this comment

  • 169. At 3:46pm on 20 Dec 2009, U14260427 wrote:

    @164, yes, that's because it says it's a summary.

    Ever written a science (or any for-journal) paper? What goes there? All the workings out and the caveats or just the results?

    And the summary SAYS its a summary and points to the WG papers.

    The WG papers point to the science papers in the journals.

    The methods and results and error bars are listed there too.

    Your way the summary would be longer than the document itself.

    Handy if you want to delay action, I guess.

    Complain about this comment

  • 170. At 3:46pm on 20 Dec 2009, infiniti wrote:

    "Doesn't the fact that both graphs are virtually identical strike you as being a bit odd?
    I mean, the one graph is of ~70 'good' stations, presumably scattered over the large and climactically diverse area of the USA, and the other includes all ~1200 stations. I would expect to see large differences between the two graphs, with any possible UHI effects showing up as a difference in the overall trend.
    Unless, of course, there was a large degree of cross-contamination in the homogenisation process."

    That's the point of homogenization, if done perfectly there should be no significant difference between good and bad stations when you are done.

    Complain about this comment

  • 171. At 3:47pm on 20 Dec 2009, Zydeco wrote:

    Professor Monckton @ *155*

    Referring to my *140*

    "However, I am sceptical about both sides of the argument. What does that make me?"

    Uninformed.

    *******************************

    Exactly! And why am I uninformed? Because people like me are not getting information in a form that makes sense.
    A lot of you on here - including your noble self - are throwing around references to graphs, charts, scientific data etc. that are meaningless to anybody who doesn't have the necessary scientific background (that includes some, but not all, who are actually quoting such references)

    It is not helped by the personal comments exchanged by certain parties.

    I come onto these blogs to try and learn. To try to gather knowledge that makes sense to me. To hear argument voiced in plain language.

    And why? Because I want to know.

    I make my point of view quite clear, and acknowledge my ignorance in regard to pure scientific technospeak. I make no pretence of speaking from a position of 'inner knowledge' or close familiarity with all the papers published on the subject.
    All I seek is clear, unspun, unbiased truth. It may not exist. The wide disparity of views here probably confirms that.
    If you are all reading the same science, why do you reach different conclusions? Why aren't you singing from the same hymn sheet?
    If more erudite persons than myself can reach different views from the same data, what chance a mere mortal like me?


    It is all very well saying ' pay an extra £100 per annum in case AGW is right, but, to use your ploy, why not pay nothing in case AGW is wrong.

    There you go! I can make pointless statements too

    You may be right about leaving the blog. It is becoming a personal battle between certain parties and is reaching the realms of immovable objects meeting irresistable forces. Repitition is King.

    My thanks to those who have added to my understanding.

    My thanks also to those who haven't. At least they have contributed to my belief that the science is controversial and that there is no concensus - and probably never will be - about AGW.
    I wish you all well in your interminable exchanges.

    A Merry Christmas to one and all.

    Complain about this comment

  • 172. At 3:53pm on 20 Dec 2009, Peter317 wrote:

    #165:

    "I mean, would you be surprised if I rolled 1000 dice and found the average was very close to 3.5 and you took a random selection of those dice rolls to number 100 sub-selection and that TOO came to an average very close to 3.5?"

    Taking your analogy a bit further - I might expect the average to be about the same, but I would not expect to see the same sequence of numbers appearing.

    Complain about this comment

  • 173. At 3:57pm on 20 Dec 2009, Crowcatcher wrote:

    Professor Monckton
    Oh dear! You are getting as boring as Maria Ashot and Many Summits so I will give you a short laesson on the Earth's climate from the perspective of geological time scale.
    For 90% of the last billion years the mean surface temperature has been a remarkably stable 10C warmer than at present, with no polar ice caps, and with no discernible adverse effects on the developement of life. The only adverse times being those of the three previous Ice Ages and the very rare catastrophic events such meteorite strikes and volcanic trapp events.
    The main 'driver' of climate changes is the position of the continents due to tectonic plate movement affecting heat flow via the oceans between the equator and the poles.
    We are currently somwhere near the middle of the current Ice Age, it will eventually end and temperature will return to the +10c that can be regarded as normal.
    The geological evidence shows that during this ice age life is much better during the warmer interglacial periods than during the glaciations when the atmosphere is much drier and deserts much more extensive.
    So where is the problem with the possibilty of a tiny amount of man-made warming, even if the worst IPCC projections are correct we will still end up 7c lower than the norm.
    What we certainly do have to fear for our descendents is the decline into the next glaciation.
    The other factor I don't like about you posts is your belief that we "sceptics" don't care about our environment, I do passionately, and do as much as I can to pratise what I believe, but I'm not letting myself be fooled by mindless alarmism on the "we're all doomed" lines.

    Complain about this comment

  • 174. At 4:04pm on 20 Dec 2009, MarcusAureliusII wrote:

    Professor Mockingbird;

    "And the summary SAYS its a summary and points to the WG papers.

    The WG papers point to the science papers in the journals.

    The methods and results and error bars are listed there too.

    Your way the summary would be longer than the document itself.

    Handy if you want to delay action, I guess."

    This paper points to that paper which point to the other paper. You have to trace the tree back to its roots and here we find that at least in part they are rotted, always were. Considering what is at stake either way and how disruptive it would be to undergo the size and nature of the metamorphosis the global warm-mongers are demanding, it is vital that the underlying science be dead right without any question. You cannot afford to buy a hugely expensive insurance policy when you are already just about bankrupt unless you are certain that the danger is very grave and very real. Based on what has been revealed, we don't seem to be there yet. If the warm-mongers are ultimately proven to be right in the end, they will have done us all a grave disservice by presenting us with entirely flawed arguments which when revealed are completely dissuasive to many of us. They will have squandered precious time with lies to provoke us to jump when they should have been trying harder to find out the real truth so that we could be certain it won't be a jump out of the frying pan and into the fire. It is they who trashed the whole thing and they who are to blame if they turn out to be right and we do nothing because it appears they have lied through their teeth. We can't act on what they have given us so far, it's just too drastic. And they even were lying from the beginning telling us then that the sacrifices would have to make would be minimal and relatively painless. It doesn't look very minimal or painless anymore.

    Complain about this comment

  • 175. At 4:29pm on 20 Dec 2009, MarcusAureliusII wrote:

    Zodiac;

    "Professor Monckton @ *155*

    Referring to my *140*

    "However, I am sceptical about both sides of the argument. What does that make me?"

    Uninformed."

    There are very few informed people about this subject. To be informed you'd have to have access to all of the data, have the time, skill and facility to analyze it, commanding knowledge of the underlying sciences involved to put it in context and even then you might draw the conclusion that the data is inconclusive. The only other thing you can do is to listen to what people who purport to be informed say about it, and often get it second or third or fifth hand in the media. How do you know if they are telling you the truth? The truth of being right or even just the truth of what they believe having viewed the problem impartially and objectively? Life experience. When people try to get you to act rashly, drastically by telling you things that are alarming, and then it comes out that they are not telling you the whole truth and nothing but the truth, you come to the conclusion that they might be lying. And then you don't know what to believe. But one thing you do not want to do is act solely on their warnings. It is better to wait for a more reliable and informed opinion from others than to commit to a risky and possibly unnecessary plan of action or one that even if justified by the preponderence of evidence might not work. These people seem to me to be groping in the dark at best, just plain lying at worst. Events of the last few weeks make me think it may be time to re-read Arthur Miller's famous play "Death of a Salesman." These salesmen seem to at least have had their sales pitch put on its deathbed.

    Complain about this comment

  • 176. At 4:32pm on 20 Dec 2009, davblo wrote:

    Crowcatcher #173: "I will give you a short laesson [sic] on the Earth's climate..."

    Thanks for 2 new ones...

    90. The main 'driver' of climate change is tectonic plate movement
    91. I'm not letting myself be fooled by mindless alarmism on the "we're all doomed" lines

    Also...

    Crowcatcher #173: "The geological evidence shows that during this ice age life is much better during the warmer interglacial periods than during the glaciations when the atmosphere is much drier and deserts much more extensive."

    You lost me there. Is there a typo in that, or did you mean to have 3 "durings". When is life better?

    /davblo

    Complain about this comment

  • 177. At 4:36pm on 20 Dec 2009, Peter317 wrote:

    #170:

    "if done perfectly"

    And there lies the rub

    Complain about this comment

  • 178. At 4:36pm on 20 Dec 2009, Jack Frost wrote:

    Lets face it, the bubble has burst on Global Warming. The propaganda armagedon machine reached fever pitch to scare the living daylights out of the gullible and young, all to no avail as the Brokenhagen summit fizzled away to nothing. The doom sayers made a pretty penny or two from books and vids, the well funded scientists held out as long as they could to rake in the last dregs of money.

    Like the last night of the fun fair, the scary white knuckle rides are all being turned off one by one and the punters trudge home without winning the gold fish.



    I suppose theres always 2012 for the next loonie armagedon none-event.

    Complain about this comment

  • 179. At 4:39pm on 20 Dec 2009, Jack Hughes wrote:

    @zydeco

    I would be checking exactly what the AGWers are proposing.

    It's something like: the weather gods are angry and will do bad stuff later this century.

    Alright this is a bit tongue-in-cheek but do try and establish exactly what they are saying. And note that a skeptic does not need to describe a different set of weather gods. The skeptic can just point out the holes in the theory - or can just laugh at it.

    Complain about this comment

  • 180. At 4:39pm on 20 Dec 2009, infiniti wrote:

    Re 173: "For 90% of the last billion years the mean surface temperature has been a remarkably stable 10C warmer than at present, with no polar ice caps, and with no discernible adverse effects on the developement of life. The only adverse times being those of the three previous Ice Ages and the very rare catastrophic events such meteorite strikes and volcanic trapp events."

    The ability of past species to living in a climate 10C warmer than present doesn't demonstrate that species that live in today's climate could survive a rapid transition to such a climate 10C warmer.

    "The main 'driver' of climate changes is the position of the continents due to tectonic plate movement affecting heat flow via the oceans between the equator and the poles."

    It is notable that during time period much warmer than present co2 was also much higher than present.

    "So where is the problem with the possibilty of a tiny amount of man-made warming, even if the worst IPCC projections are correct we will still end up 7c lower than the norm."

    Because 3C warming globally in less than 200 years is a rapid transition geologically speaking.

    Complain about this comment

  • 181. At 4:40pm on 20 Dec 2009, Peter317 wrote:

    #169: I expect a summary to be an accurate representation of the whole.

    Do you imagine that the politicians, media and activists read much past the summaries?

    Complain about this comment

  • 182. At 4:45pm on 20 Dec 2009, jon112dk wrote:

    Well Jokenhagen is over. The 55,000 'environmentalists' will hop on their gas guzzling jet planes and doing some emmitting all the way back home.

    I understand this is a non-binding 'accord'

    I can only hope that if no one else is actually going to comply then we will do the same. Particularly in relation to Brown's commitment to pay out yet more - £1.5bn!!! - to foreigners when his own country is collapsing. Not a penny more aid until they start reducing their emmissions/populations and we actually have money to spare.

    Complain about this comment

  • 183. At 4:53pm on 20 Dec 2009, Crowcatcher wrote:

    Davblo
    Yes!
    "Ice age" is the long colder period of several million years, "Glacial" and "interglacials" are the variations within that ice age (following the Milankovich predictions) There aren't many who know the difference!
    Suggest you Wiki "Ice Age"

    Complain about this comment

  • 184. At 4:55pm on 20 Dec 2009, infiniti wrote:

    Re 174: "Considering what is at stake either way and how disruptive it would be to undergo the size and nature of the metamorphosis the global warm-mongers are demanding, it is vital that the underlying science be dead right without any question"

    Your demand for what is vital is one sided. We are undertaking a Great Experiment - raising the level of co2 in the atmosphere before we know for sure what effect that will have.

    Why isn't it equally vital to curtail this experiment until science proves without any question that continued emissions will not significantly affect climate?

    "If the warm-mongers are ultimately proven to be right in the end, they will have done us all a grave disservice by presenting us with entirely flawed arguments which when revealed are completely dissuasive to many of us."

    No you would have done us a great disservice by appealing to uncertainty as an excuse to continue the Great Experiment when there is strong scientific evidence that it will have a significant effect on climate.

    Complain about this comment

  • 185. At 4:57pm on 20 Dec 2009, infiniti wrote:

    Re 177:
    So you think it's odd that the data resembles what you'd expect if the homogenization was done properly. Right.

    Complain about this comment

  • 186. At 5:02pm on 20 Dec 2009, infiniti wrote:

    Re 176: Continental drift does affect climate, I don't think it's the main driver though. He's refering to interglacial and glacial periods within the major ice age of the past 3 million years.

    Complain about this comment

  • 187. At 5:07pm on 20 Dec 2009, Jack Hughes wrote:

    Is climate-gator Professor Phil Jones now in hiding?

    Bishop Hill has the story.

    Complain about this comment

  • 188. At 5:07pm on 20 Dec 2009, Spanglerboy wrote:

    putting those emails in context. an interesting article by Douglass and Christy

    http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/a_climatology_conspiracy.html

    Mark better get those ad homs prepared fast

    Complain about this comment

  • 189. At 5:08pm on 20 Dec 2009, Jack Frost wrote:

    Its over guys and gals, be sure to turn off the lights on your way out.



    Merry Winterville

    Complain about this comment

  • 190. At 5:34pm on 20 Dec 2009, manysummits wrote:

    \\\ Feet of Clay - Part II /// (Part I @ #71)

    "As we enter 2010, the ugly acronym, "Afpak," will bedevil, befuddle and consume the Obama White House that so unwisely and rashly ignored Gen. Douglas MacArthur's wise warning to avoid land wars in Asia."

    - Eric Margolis, Dec 20/09; "U.S. Turbulence buffets Pakistan."

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Margolis
    ----------------

    The 'military/industrial complex' of President Dwight Eisenhower's 1961 speech is a juggernaut, and the wise warrior will take care to avoid its tread.

    And yet the siren call to action pounds in the ears:

    "Duty-towards-Self."

    - Manysummits -

    Complain about this comment

  • 191. At 5:35pm on 20 Dec 2009, Ken Appleby wrote:

    @173. Crowcatcher
    "... I will give you a short laesson on the Earth's climate from the perspective of geological time scale. For 90% of the last billion years the mean surface temperature has been a remarkably stable 10C warmer than at present, with no polar ice caps, ..."

    No it hasn't. Nobody is very sure about global temperatures prior to about 540Mya. Where do you get your information from for the preceding 460? It is recently recognised that 700-600 Mya the Earth was frozen from pole to pole. We have better consensus on temperatures since the Cambrian at 540Mya because of the existence of skeletonised fossils. Since then temperatures have fluctuated roughly 6C or 10C either side of today's, depending on who you ask. The global temperature has not been "stable" at all during that period, if by stable you mean constant for long periods of time.

    "and with no discernible adverse effects on the developement of life"

    This is a meaningless statement. You might mean that no species were affected by climate change during the last billion years. If you do you are manifestly wrong. If you mean that life was not wiped out by climate change you are correct, but missing the point. "Life" is not the issue here. "Life" will be fine. It's civilisation that is at stake.

    Complain about this comment

  • 192. At 5:42pm on 20 Dec 2009, Pete wrote:

    YAD061 will tell you all you need to know

    Complain about this comment

  • 193. At 5:44pm on 20 Dec 2009, bowmanthebard wrote:

    #191 Ken Appleby wrote:

    "It's civilisation that is at stake."

    Could you say a bit more about the threat as you perceive it? -- Humans live in a very wide range of habitats, from from savannah to tundra, thanks to near-universal technology such as clothing, house-building, fishing, agriculture etc.. If the changes as you anticipate them happen relatively slowly (i.e. more slowly than in science-fiction movies) what exactly threatens "civilization itself"?

    Complain about this comment

  • 194. At 5:45pm on 20 Dec 2009, tears of our forefathers wrote:

    IMO 'civilisation' is most at threat from unquestioning true believers forcing their beliefs (deliberate use of a word implying faith) onto the rest of the population.

    Complain about this comment

  • 195. At 5:55pm on 20 Dec 2009, Peter317 wrote:

    #185:

    Only if both sets are homogenised together. If they're homogenised separately (as you've already opined that they should be) then I would expect detail differences, and an overall trend which may or may not be the same.

    Complain about this comment

  • 196. At 6:00pm on 20 Dec 2009, bowmanthebard wrote:

    @ Ken Appleby:

    For what it's worth, I agree with your claim (#191) that global climate has not been "stable" in any meaningful way over the (very) long run. So changeable have temperatures been, in fact, that it's a mistake to think there's a "normal" temperature. One of the reasons I keep returning to the idea that AGW is essentially a "religious anxiety" is that most religions assume there is a "way the world was meant to be" -- God's plan for the world if you like. As soon as we give up that idea, and I think we should, all we have to do is make sure that we are able to accommodate change, not try to avoid change.

    We humans are very adaptable. For example, we have made the transition from eating meat and fruit to largely eating grass (in the form of processed, genetically modified grasses such as rice and wheat). Something as everyday as cooking is a stunning achievement for an animal, but perhaps not so suprising from the creature that can fly, live underwater, travel in space, etc..

    Complain about this comment

  • 197. At 6:17pm on 20 Dec 2009, JaneBasingstoke wrote:

    @Zydeco #171

    My sympathies. Unfortunately most of the people here are interested in expressing their opinions.

    I warn you that I am a pro-AGW debater, so the following will be biased towards pro-AGW arguments.

    As for the "insurance" line, the debater here who puts it best is xtragrumpymike2. xtragrumpymike2 is based in New Zealand so there's currently a 13 hour time difference (12 hours ahead + 1 hour daylight saving) between him and Britain.

    If you are based in the UK and have the time and bandwidth you could watch some of the BBC's recent stuff on iPlayer. Note, it is pro-AGW, but it will give you enough of a grounding to understand the sceptics. Recent stuff includes

    Earth: The Climate Wars
    [three episodes, originally transmitted in 2008]
    [available until 12:19am Wednesday 23rd December 2009, Thursday 24th, Friday 25th respectively (note 12:19am is very early in the morning)]
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00djvq9

    Hot Planet
    [available until8:59pm Sunday 20th December 2009 (today)]
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00jf6md

    There is other stuff out there. Both "An Inconvenient Truth" (pro-AGW) and "The Great Global Warming Swindle" (sceptic) contain flaws. If you watch either of them you need to read up on the relevant criticisms too.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimmock_v_Secretary_of_State_for_Education_and_Skills#The_nine_inaccuracies
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle

    David Attenborough also did a pair of programmes, "Are We Changing Planet Earth?" and "Can We Save Planet Earth?".

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Are_We_Changing_Planet_Earth%3F
    http://www.amazon.co.uk/Truth-About-Climate-Change-DVD/dp/B00179CXIK/ref=pd_sim_d_h__1

    Apart from "The Great Global Warming Swindle" I am not aware of any introductory presentation of the sceptic case. Perhaps a sceptic might be able to help there.

    Complain about this comment

  • 198. At 6:30pm on 20 Dec 2009, tears of our forefathers wrote:

    a few skeptic vids:
    lord mockton on fora.tv
    http://fora.tv/2009/12/17/FORAtv_Exclusive_Interview_with_Lord_Monckton_at_COP15#fullprogram

    the cloud mystery (well worth a watch):
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKoUwttE0BA

    climate change: is co2 the cause?
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOLkze-9GcI

    don't panic:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6AJ9-fwSMWY

    thers loads more out there. anyone else notice how its really hard to find sceptic vids from 'official' media?


    Complain about this comment

  • 199. At 6:31pm on 20 Dec 2009, tears of our forefathers wrote:

    regarding the global warming swindel: only 9 inaccuracies? an inconvenient truth has around 35 mistakes and outright lies in it. that's why its no longer allowed to be shown in schools without a disclaimer explaining a few of the choice ones.

    Complain about this comment

  • 200. At 6:38pm on 20 Dec 2009, JaneBasingstoke wrote:

    @Jack Hughes #187

    1. Phil Jones has stood down pending the results of the inquiry into the emails.
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/norfolk/8389727.stm

    2. Phil Jones has received death threats.
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/08/hacked-climate-emails-death-threats

    Complain about this comment

  • 201. At 6:40pm on 20 Dec 2009, bowmanthebard wrote:

    #197 JaneBasingstoke wrote:

    "Apart from "The Great Global Warming Swindle" I am not aware of any introductory presentation of the sceptic case. Perhaps a sceptic might be able to help there."

    If I might volunteer something here, the sceptical case is a "negative" one, so it isn't as cohesive as the "positive" theory of AGW -- nor does it need to be, plaese note davblo! So there isn't a clear "case" to be presented.

    By analogy, suppose someone says UFOs are aliens invading Earth. They have to have a cohesive, internally consistent theory about UFOs -- that they are from Mars, that their occupants are here to take over Earth, and so on. A sceptic about UFOs is simply sceptical about that theory -- he might say "I don't know what they are, except they're probably not Martians!" One sceptic might say UFOs are the planet Venus, another that they're Russian secret weapon tests, another that they're atmospheric effects, and so on.

    I'm sceptical about the "science" of climate change because I think it has not followed scientific method (it should be hypothesis followed by tests, not extrapolation from prior "data"). I'm also sceptical about human failings -- we are a religious animal, and tend to suppose there is a "way things are meant to be" even though there isn't. I'm sceptical about the idea that climate change would be a bad thing even if it were actually happening. I'm sceptical about our efforts to reverse climate change, even if it were happening, as the "cure" might be a lot worse than the supposed "disease"....

    And so on. It's not a cohesive theory so much as a set of disbelieving attitudes. So I haven't made a full-scale big-budget movie laying out my "case"!

    Complain about this comment

  • 202. At 6:53pm on 20 Dec 2009, RobWansbeck wrote:

    Wikipedia has little credibility as an unbiased source of climate-change information:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/19/wikibullies-at-work-the-national-post-exposes-broad-trust-issues-over-wikipedia-climate-information/#more-14314

    William Connolley has recently been removed from his position but only time will tell if things improve.

    As far as I am aware the errors in 'Swindle' have been corrected but the errors in 'An Inconvenient Truth' still remain.

    Complain about this comment

  • 203. At 6:58pm on 20 Dec 2009, bowmanthebard wrote:

    'I haven't made a full-scale big-budget movie laying out my "case"!'

    -- But if Dickie Attenborough happens to be reading this -- all you have to do is ask, dahling!

    Complain about this comment

  • 204. At 6:59pm on 20 Dec 2009, infiniti wrote:

    there's an interesting page here showing how co2 levels are likely to play out under different emission and uptake scenarios.
    http://carboncycle.aos.wisc.edu/index.php?page=carbon-budget-tool

    We are currently emitting about 8 billion tons of carbon per year. Will we ever emit as much as 16 billion tons per year? 24 billion? If coal and oil were infinitly accessible I would say almost definitely.

    But given they are not is it even feasible that we could be emitting 3 times more co2 than we are today by 2100?

    For my guess I made co2 emissions ramp up to 10 billion tons per year by 2020 and then its flat after that due to my total guess at peak oil and coal.

    This results in co2 peaking at about 500ppm in 2080. I left everything else like ocean uptake as defaults.

    Complain about this comment

  • 205. At 7:15pm on 20 Dec 2009, Zydeco wrote:

    JaneBasingstoke @ *197*

    Thanks for those links Jane.

    Some of those I am familiar with, the others I will take time to look up.
    No need to worry about being pro-AGW, I might end up being the same.
    As you have gathered and understood from my earlier posts, I am seeking to find information that I can understand that will enable me to make an informed decision about which camp to follow.

    I left the blog earlier as a certain professor seems to think being pro-AGW is compulsory and posting on the blog requires one to be fully au fait with the scientific minutae.
    I'm sure that Richard doesn't intend his blog to be that exclusive.

    BTW There was an anti-AGW programme on Channel 4 some months ago called 'A Covenient Fiction' by Dr. Steven Hayward. It was made as a response to Al Gore's 'An Inconvenient Truth'
    I am unaware of what his credentials or background are though.
    Don't know if there's a link to it.

    Complain about this comment

  • 206. At 7:19pm on 20 Dec 2009, bowmanthebard wrote:

    I disagree with JaneBasingstoke's overall position on climate change, but I wholeheartedly endorse and draw attention to this from #197:

    "I warn you that I am a pro-AGW debater, so the following will be biased towards pro-AGW arguments."

    Anyone who prefaces their comment with this sort of careful, honest, self-effacing warning should be listened to. My guess is that you are in safe hands here.

    Complain about this comment

  • 207. At 7:44pm on 20 Dec 2009, JaneBasingstoke wrote:

    @tears of our forefathers #199

    The "nine inaccuracies" are those highlit by the judge in the Dimmock case. They are the inaccuracies that schoolchildren have to have pointed out to them.

    Monckton's "35 errors" are actually not all errors per se. Some of them are errors. But some of them are points of disagreement between pro-AGW debaters and some sceptics. And some of them seem to be double counting, for instance two references to hurricanes (11 and 13), another to typhoons (12), another to storm insurance (14) and another to tornadoes (16).

    http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/goreerrors.html

    Complain about this comment

  • 208. At 7:45pm on 20 Dec 2009, JaneBasingstoke wrote:

    @RobWansbeck #202

    "Wikipedia has little credibility as an unbiased source of climate-change information:"

    and

    "As far as I am aware the errors in 'Swindle' have been corrected but the errors in 'An Inconvenient Truth' still remain."

    The Wikipedia entry acknowledges this

    "Following criticism from scientists the film has been changed since it was first broadcast on Channel 4. One graph had its time axis relabelled, the claim that volcanoes produce more CO2 than humans was removed, and following objections about how his interview had been used, the interview with Carl Wunsch was removed for the international and DVD releases of the programme."

    Complain about this comment

  • 209. At 7:59pm on 20 Dec 2009, ADMac wrote:

    Two topical cartoons

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00661/TTM191901CC_RGB_ONL_661678a.jpg

    http://muttscomics.com/art/images/daily/120609.gif

    Complain about this comment

  • 210. At 8:08pm on 20 Dec 2009, Ken Appleby wrote:

    @193.

    The major consequences of climate change have been expounded elsewhere. I trust you don't want me to repeat all that. :-)

    I confess I am a lot less sure of my ground on that subject, but there are really two main things that worry me personally. One is the dependence of society on complex and fragile infrastructures, the other is that the changes will not be gradual.

    Until recently, the infrastructure of society was, as it always had been, distributed and not dependent on sophisticated technology. A failure of one part of the system did not affect the rest. Society is now so interconnected and dependent on technology (at a higher level than houses and agriculture, at the level of software, the internet and mobile communications, for example) that it is now vulnerable to a system-wide collapse. We have developed a marvelous infrastructure and become totally dependent on it. I try to imagine what would happen to society in Europe if the electricity supply network failed for a period of, say, 6 months. Food supplies in the shops would disappear because it could no longer be transported and the coordination of its production and delivery could no longer be achieved. Information about what is happening elsewhere in the country, let alone the world, would no longer be available.

    Global warming does threaten us at that level, I believe, because there is no spare capacity in the infrastructure. Electricity supplies in Europe, for example, depend on gas and oil from Russia. Without it we really would have the situation I describe above. In a future where wars over resources, food and land are being fought the chances of that supply continuing uninterrupted for long periods are nil.

    Climate changes are not, in general gradual. "The Day After Tomorrow" is a fallacy, but "Next Month" probably isn't. Some recently published work analysing lake sediments in Ireland show that around 9000 years ago the climate there changed from something similar to what it is now to permafrost in less than a year. The climate did not recover for many centuries. The Greenland ice-cores also show many such very rapid and extreme changes. There are other potential catastrophic changes, such as submarine landslips caused by rising sea-levels and increased erosion; landslips like these occurred off the Norway coast in the North Sea a few thousand years ago and caused tsunamis big enough to have destroyed cities had they existed.

    I don't think rapid change is necessarily imminent, but I think rapid change is inevitable and will be catastrophic for most of the human population.

    Complain about this comment

  • 211. At 8:09pm on 20 Dec 2009, MarcusAureliusII wrote:

    infinitesimal;

    It isn't that I don't take the issue of the climate seriously. It is that I don't take you seriously. Nor those who speak like you do. No more than I take the prattlings of people who tell me the end is coming because the bible predicts that it is. You make as much sense to me as they do. They have no evidence, you have no evidence. What you have appears to be a story as invented as theirs is. When genuine honest scientists have real evidence they are willing to share completly, openly, freely, without tricks, gimmicks, deliberate omissions, then I will listen to it, not before. And when they do, they'd better come up with a plan to stop it that they can demonstrate will actually work without turning us back to the pre-industrial revolution era. That is what they are asking for and they will not get it. Not from me, not before they have something much better than they've come up with so far. At this point their science seems to be pure junk.

    Complain about this comment

  • 212. At 8:09pm on 20 Dec 2009, RobWansbeck wrote:

    A wonderful quote from the Wikipedia article about 'Swindle':

    In a BBC interview about this study (solar influence), Lockwood commented on the graphs shown in the documentary:

    “All the graphs they showed stopped in about 1980, and I knew why, because things diverged after that ... You can't just ignore bits of data that you do not like.”

    Oh yes you can if you're a climate scientist.

    Complain about this comment

  • 213. At 8:17pm on 20 Dec 2009, WhiteOwl wrote:

    Richard,
    God gave you a brain, don't you think that it is time to start using it?
    The people want openness and honesty not political agendas with the main players getting filthy rich and JoePublic picking up the bill.
    AGW has been busted. It is now the time for a public inquiry as to how this farce came about. Oh yes, we would like to see these pseudo scientists in the dock to explain why they manipulated the data. Perhaps the carbon credits industry should also be put under the microscope and why leading figures in the farce have so many vested interests.
    Richard, you have done England a great disservice but the damage to your own integrity should hurt the most.

    Complain about this comment

  • 214. At 8:25pm on 20 Dec 2009, tears of our forefathers wrote:

    jane:

    regarding wiki:

    your 208 post doesn't mention the removal of mr connolley or in any demonstrate that he hasn't damaged wikis reputation for impartiality on this subject.

    the link called 'don't panic' from my earleir post is the sceptics presentation for the California Regional Council of Rural Counties climate change debate. i find it a fair presentation of the sceptics problems with AGW science.

    the cloud mystery link is a documentary regarding CERNS CLOUD experiment which examines the suns role in driving climate.

    Complain about this comment

  • 215. At 8:34pm on 20 Dec 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    @TOOF #214

    The CLOUD experiment is also looking at a potential cosmic ray influence

    Complain about this comment

  • 216. At 8:38pm on 20 Dec 2009, D_H_Wilko wrote:

    198 re
    http://fora.tv/2009/12/17/FORAtv_Exclusive_Interview_with_Lord_Monckton_at_COP15#fullprogram

    Watched that video With lord Monckton. Is water vapour a stronger greenhouse gas than Co2 which I've read many times during these discussions, or does it cool the planet in the form of clouds? I know in winter if its cloudy, it tends to be warmer than if it isn't. So I would say that it is the later. The sceptics seem to be contradicting themselves. There's water in a desert atmosphere, but it needs to be cool enough to form cloud. I'm not a scientist but Lord Monckton seems to be talking rubbish.

    With his lobby group.


    Complain about this comment

  • 217. At 8:39pm on 20 Dec 2009, Ken Appleby wrote:

    @196. "One of the reasons I keep returning to the idea that AGW is essentially a "religious anxiety" is that most religions assume there is a "way the world was meant to be" -- God's plan for the world if you like."

    That is very interesting. It's my view that anti-AGW arguments are driven by the same kind of thing: that there is nothing to worry about because the world is vast, eternal and beyond our influence. It clearly is none of those things, any more than the climate is inherently stable.

    I don't think it's going to help by flinging accusations of "religion" at each other though. :-)

    The climate has not even been "stable" during civilization's development. Taking the very long view there really is nothing to worry about if all you are concerned with is survival of the species. Humans will still be around, clustered around the Arctic sea and maybe the edges of the Antarctic continent. But it's my children and grandchildren's lives I worry about.

    Complain about this comment

  • 218. At 8:39pm on 20 Dec 2009, JaneBasingstoke wrote:

    @tears of our forefathers #214

    Can't inform people about a news event that I only just read about. Certainly I can't inform RobWansbeck, as it was his post that informed me.

    Complain about this comment

  • 219. At 8:44pm on 20 Dec 2009, tears of our forefathers wrote:

    indeed mango, thank you for clarifying. its take on solar wind and cosmic ray interaction on global climate was very interesting.

    Complain about this comment

  • 220. At 8:45pm on 20 Dec 2009, MarcusAureliusII wrote:

    KA;

    "Society is now so interconnected and dependent on technology (at a higher level than houses and agriculture, at the level of software, the internet and mobile communications, for example) that it is now vulnerable to a system-wide collapse."

    That is correct. For example, in August 2004, a single electical feeder in Ohio was overloaded and failed. It started a chain reaction called a catastrophic cascade mode failure. Very quickly the entire electrical power distribution network (power grid) of Norteast North America including parts of Canada went off line. That wasn't supposed to be possible but it happened. Nobody knows if it could really happen again. The assumption that our technology is infallible and invulnerable is on very shaky ground, especially since the same minds that precipitated the demise of the financial system have also played the same game of Russian Roulette with the physical infrastructure at all levels including the private sector, government, and the utility companies themselves. All in a misguided effort to save money. Engineers who are familiar with it know that failure is not a question of "if" but of "when." They also know that if the failures occur with considerable and sustained frequency, there will not be nearly enough people with the specialized skills to patch it back together and get it back to where it was. In the US, the required skills cannot be imported because of vast differences in many aspects of the way things are done including codes, products, methods, design philosophy, details, and of course there is the language barrier. Even architects trained in the UK use terminology that is different and unfamiliar to the point of being incomprehensible to American construction contractors as a simple example. People in skilled construction trades have a saying; "Pay me now or pay me later." Where will the money come from when the crisis hits? That will be a problem for politicians, businessmen, and economists who got us here to figure out but if they don't come up with answers fast, they will sit around in the dark without heat or air conditioning or any other operating electrial appliances just like everyone else.

    Complain about this comment

  • 221. At 8:48pm on 20 Dec 2009, tears of our forefathers wrote:

    @216

    i think of monckton as a kind sceptic version of gore (though with a lot less of a vested interest, gore owns a substantial chunk of the chicago climate exchange). he is a campaigner rather than a scientist. its as easy to shoot him down for you guys as it is for us to shoot down gore.

    Complain about this comment

  • 222. At 9:07pm on 20 Dec 2009, tears of our forefathers wrote:

    217. At 8:39pm on 20 Dec 2009, Ken Appleby wrote:

    'I don't think it's going to help by flinging accusations of "religion" at each other though. :-)'

    fair enough, a lot of pro AGW peeps are just going on the flawed science. it is kind of true though regarding a lot of the other proAGWers IMO. see the recent works of lovelock and gore.

    Complain about this comment

  • 223. At 9:10pm on 20 Dec 2009, bowmanthebard wrote:

    "I'm not a scientist but Lord Monckton seems to be talking rubbish."

    For the sake of clarity, can people who choose names such as "Al Gore" and "professor Monkton" get a bit of imagination and stop causing confusion?

    An e-name like either of the above is pathetic.

    Like the inevitable giant papier-mache head that puts in an appearance at every establishment "street protest".

    -- Aha! -- it says -- We have heard the name of X and/or recognixe X's face! Deal with that!

    Complain about this comment

  • 224. At 9:18pm on 20 Dec 2009, tears of our forefathers wrote:

    'The sceptics seem to be contradicting themselves'

    monckton doesn't represent all sceptics and if he did make a mistake (he generally seems to pretty well informed and willing to take the infinte flack from proAGWers) that doesn't invalidate all sceptics. does gores misrepresentation of climatologists data (which even they complain about) invalidate the 'science'? no. the fact that it is a non-falsifiable hypothesis, based on the ideas of post normal science, that invalidates it.

    Complain about this comment

  • 225. At 9:19pm on 20 Dec 2009, infiniti wrote:

    211 MarcusAureliusII:

    I don't tolerate disingenous people. I don't believe for a second you take the issue seriously. If you did you wouldn't have applied the precautionary princple to just one side of the issue.

    Complain about this comment

  • 226. At 9:20pm on 20 Dec 2009, lburt wrote:

    @infinity #204 RE:model

    LOL, did you notice that no matter what reasonable figure you plug in there...it never comes out to a lot of warming? And that's with the rather foolish assumption that the 1960-present "rate of warming" is ACTUALLY based mostly on CO2...and it quite clearly is not. Any reasonable estimate of the warming rate from CO2 would take into account the fact that the 1940s were warmer than the 60s and that there was a pre-existing warming trend. And...in 70 years we've seen no evidence of warming sufficient to require positive feedback. In fact, it actually requires that CO2 have a lower impact on temperature or that feedbacks be negative.

    @Professor Monckton RE:pretty much everything you've said
    Pretty much everything you wrote was nothing but logical fallacies and general PR drivel. Perhaps instead of endless appeals to ignorance, false dichotomies, ad hominems, etc...you could have focused on the facts...like the fact that we've only been warming at .5C/century and that's with a preexisting warming trend. Even ignoring the preexisting warming trend there are no apparently no positive feedbacks. Assuming the warming trend was continuing, it actually requires fairly potent negative feedbacks.

    This just in...real climate hacked???
    I was just going to glance at it and it only says "It works!" Hmmmm.

    Complain about this comment

  • 227. At 9:21pm on 20 Dec 2009, Ken Appleby wrote:

    @222

    I personally think James Lovelock is a genius and a treasure. His thinking is inspirational and his perspective masterful. I wish more people would listen seriously to him.

    His Gaia concept, though, in my very humble opinion, while fascinating and delightful, is fictional. It has been as counter-productive to understanding as the New Scientist "Darwin Was Wrong" headline.

    Complain about this comment

  • 228. At 9:23pm on 20 Dec 2009, infiniti wrote:

    213: "AGW has been busted"

    Totally incorrect. The science still strongly suggests significant warming from doubling co2.

    You'll no doubt be confused by the next IPCC report and the continued support of the scientific community to the evidence backed theory that manmade emissions warm the climate. You'll be saying "what?? But I thought that was busted in 2009!"

    But no. Politics doesn't "bust" scientific theories.

    Complain about this comment

  • 229. At 9:23pm on 20 Dec 2009, Neil Hyde wrote:

    Follow the funding !

    http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/11/the_warmist_pr_con_job.html

    Complain about this comment

  • 230. At 9:25pm on 20 Dec 2009, Neil Hyde wrote:


    @ my own 229 if it doesn't get blocked/referred , it is an example of what the BBC used to do , called investigative journalism !

    Complain about this comment

  • 231. At 9:28pm on 20 Dec 2009, infiniti wrote:

    re 216: "The sceptics seem to be contradicting themselves"

    what's new? when people just start flinging mud without coordination it tends to go in all kinds of directions. There are sites all over the internet making absolutely mind bogglingly crazy "scientific" arguments for why manmade global warming is a myth. A lot of them contradict other sites. Most of them go unanswered. There is no paid body of experts to correct people on the internet and so a lot of the false claims go unanswered and become part of a monsterous Canon.

    Complain about this comment

  • 232. At 9:38pm on 20 Dec 2009, tears of our forefathers wrote:

    @227

    personally i think lovelock was originally describing a metaphor. one i very much agreed with. his work was hardly as original as people who've never studied biology seem to think it was. (that is not meant as an ad hom, i have no idea what you've studied: it is my opinion of a lot of people who espouse gaia-ism)

    however: i disagree with him on few key issues regarding how unnatural humanity is in the vision he paints. his later books become even more psuedospiritual (and doom laden) and if you doubt that it his books have been taken out of context and used to fuel eco-spiritualism then we'll have to agree to disagree.

    respectfully

    TOOF

    Complain about this comment

  • 233. At 9:38pm on 20 Dec 2009, lburt wrote:

    @infinity #231 RE:skeptics contradicting themselves

    There are mindbogglingly crazy things said on both sides for similar reasons...the main difference being that a lot of the mindbogglingly crazy stuff on the AGW side is accepted dogma. Like for instance, the silly notion that 2C higher global temperatures will be devastating or the notion of powerful positive feedbacks.

    Complain about this comment

  • 234. At 9:39pm on 20 Dec 2009, infiniti wrote:

    Re 226: Try and get less warming than over the 20th century. It's very hard.

    The 1960-present rate of warming being caused mostly by CO2 - the physics fit and there are no alternative explainations. It's more than a mere assumption.

    "Any reasonable estimate of the warming rate from CO2 would take into account the fact that the 1940s were warmer than the 60s and that there was a pre-existing warming trend."

    That is taken into account. Strong warming (eg 2C to 4C) from a doubling of co2 is not based on the rate of warming 1960 to present. It's based on physics and paleodata.

    "in 70 years we've seen no evidence of warming sufficient to require positive feedback"

    That depends on the forcings and the calculated forcings over the interval are compatible with positive feedback. In fact the evidence for overall positive feedback in climate (ie climate sensitivity > ~1C) is great. The large fluctuations of past climate (millions of years back) are currently only explainable with high sensitivity climate.

    Also note that a low climate sensitivity would still involve plenty of climate change - you are just trading in temperature rise for something else. For example instead of a 3C temperature rise you want a significant increase in cloud albedo - you reduce sunlight reaching the Earth's surface and therefore reduce total temperature rise. But what impact will the overall reduction in sunlight? Either way human activity changes the climate significantly if we double co2.

    Complain about this comment

  • 235. At 9:43pm on 20 Dec 2009, tears of our forefathers wrote:

    infinty:

    'you are what you say we are na na na'

    that would be about as useful a contribution to the discussion as any you have made while i've been posting here.

    you just seem to parrot ad homs and 'on message' rubbish.

    i don't respect what you say or how you debate but i'll defend you're right to continue posting. you're a gift that keeps on giving to the sceptics.

    Complain about this comment

  • 236. At 9:57pm on 20 Dec 2009, Ken Appleby wrote:

    @231 infinity

    I think you make a very good point. How do we counter the "monstrous Canon"? (What a good name!)

    We still have "reputable" journals which coordinate the peer-review and publication of new knowledge, but they are undermined by these rapid changes. Is it still the case that the internet informs popular opinion while the established channels continue to form the core of reliable knowledge?

    Complain about this comment

  • 237. At 9:59pm on 20 Dec 2009, Jack Hughes wrote:

    Follow the money.

    Britain's Daily Telegraph raises Questions over business deals of UN climate change guru Dr Rajendra Pachauri

    Although Dr Pachauri is often presented as a scientist (he was even once described by the BBC as “the world’s top climate scientist”), as a former railway engineer with a PhD in economics he has no qualifications in climate science at all.

    What has also almost entirely escaped attention, however, is how Dr Pachauri has established an astonishing worldwide portfolio of business interests with bodies which have been investing billions of dollars in organisations dependent on the IPCC’s policy recommendations.

    These outfits include banks, oil and energy companies and investment funds heavily involved in ‘carbon trading’ and ‘sustainable technologies’, which together make up the fastest-growing commodity market in the world, estimated soon to be worth trillions of dollars a year.

    Complain about this comment

  • 238. At 10:00pm on 20 Dec 2009, infiniti wrote:

    Re 235:

    Or maybe it's that I don't tolerate idiots

    Complain about this comment

  • 239. At 10:15pm on 20 Dec 2009, Ken Appleby wrote:

    @232.
    "(that is not meant as an ad hom, i have no idea what you've studied: it is my opinion of a lot of people who espouse gaia-ism)" Eh? I said that I thought Lovelock's Gaia ideas were fictional.

    ".. how unnatural humanity is in the vision he paints" He doesn't do that at all in my reading of his books.

    "psuedospiritual" I don't know what you mean by that. To me his works seem to contain none of that, mostly hard science.

    "If you doubt that it his books have been taken out of context and used to fuel eco-spiritualism then we'll have to agree to disagree." We agree.

    His idea of grinding up nuclear waste and spreading it over natural resources we need to preserve is pure planet-saving genius, IMO.

    Complain about this comment

  • 240. At 10:15pm on 20 Dec 2009, tears of our forefathers wrote:

    @infinity

    so anyone who doesn't share your opinion is an idiot? that sounds pretty close minded and kind of proves my point. cheers.

    Complain about this comment

  • 241. At 10:15pm on 20 Dec 2009, John Lloyd wrote:

    Well, well, maybe things are looking up.
    The temperature here is now -14C.
    An improvement on the -10C of Friday.
    Also, I have found what appears to be a rational climate scientist . .
    apparantly a very rare animal. Do read the link . . .
    Petr Chylek: Open Letter to the Climate Research Community
    http://www.thegwpf.org/opinion-pros-a-cons/218-petr-chylek-open-letter-to-the-climate-research-community.html
    I would hope that this is the start of a real change in culture amongst the whole climate science community.

    Complain about this comment

  • 242. At 10:17pm on 20 Dec 2009, The Realist wrote:

    Richard Black,

    If you actually expected anything to happen from this Media Charade then you are deluded and you are in the wrong job. As a journalist you should know very well by now that these climate meetings are a farce and that the governments of this world have no intention of doing anything.

    It is about time the media starting speaking sense instead thrusting such poor quality faeces down our throats time after time again.

    How many times have we heared deals signed and not acted upon, how many times have the same countries not signed any deal at all. And each time a new Media Circus is arranged the Media reports on it like something good is going to happen. It is sickening.

    Next time Richard, do your job properly because that is why we pay you. You tell everyone from the start that in the unlikelihood of any deal being signed, history has shown every single time that it meant nothing at all and people in charge have no interest.

    Writing reports that give the gullible hope is disgusting. It is about time the truth came from reporters and then the people will get angry, and it is then your place to put pressure on them to make the decision makers to make the difference or move out of politics forever.

    The politicians are owning you right now! It is a sorry state of journalism when even BBC hides the truth that these Climate Meetings and the Leaders attitudes to commit towards reducing climate change is a joke.

    I said before the meeting happened that nothing will change. I should be writing for the BBC... not you!

    Complain about this comment

  • 243. At 10:18pm on 20 Dec 2009, MarcusAureliusII wrote:

    infinitesimal;

    "I don't tolerate disingenous people. I don't believe for a second you take the issue seriously."

    The burden of proof is on those who assert the sky is falling, not on those who don't believe it. They must prove the sky is actually falling, that they know why it is falling, and that they know that the sacrifices they demand will have an effect in stopping it. So far they haven't done any of that. What they have done is demonstrate that if they are not lying, they have done a very good immitation of it.

    Complain about this comment

  • 244. At 10:28pm on 20 Dec 2009, Ken Appleby wrote:

    @238. infinity @240. tears of our forefathers

    And now we shift into pointless personal attacks that lead away from any understanding of the physical world. Your egos are not as important as the issue being discussed. It's so juvenile of you. Please grow up.

    Complain about this comment

  • 245. At 10:31pm on 20 Dec 2009, infiniti wrote:

    Re 240:
    I am glad we agree

    Complain about this comment

  • 246. At 10:31pm on 20 Dec 2009, GeeDeeSea wrote:

    @Ken Appleby #210

    "Society is now so interconnected and dependent on technology (at a higher level than houses and agriculture, at the level of software, the internet and mobile communications, for example) that it is now vulnerable to a system-wide collapse."

    Though more adaptive when given time, a similar inter-dependency exists within nature. Take out one biosphere and it impacts on another.

    Complain about this comment

  • 247. At 10:32pm on 20 Dec 2009, tears of our forefathers wrote:

    mr appleby:

    i was trying to avoid a general statement being taken out of context.
    we must have read different versions of his books from the sound of it.
    so he doesn't espouse that humans/co2 will be the death of the biosphere whom he names and anthropomorphicizes as Gaia?
    Really?
    were you actually trying to misinterpret my post?

    Complain about this comment

  • 248. At 10:39pm on 20 Dec 2009, tears of our forefathers wrote:

    'It's so juvenile of you. Please grow up.'

    that also smells like an ad hom mssr. how does one spell hypocrit (or is that an ad hom too?) never fear, i've said what i wanted to mr infinity and your good self.

    Complain about this comment

  • 249. At 10:45pm on 20 Dec 2009, SamuelPickwick wrote:

    well, all those of us who said the meeting was a meaningless farce and a waste of time have been proved right.

    All we have is content-free non-agreement.

    And Richard Black is left looking very silly with his dozens of posts anticipating and hyping this non-event, while ignoring the real issue of the leaked emails and dubious dealings of the so-called climate scientists.

    Complain about this comment

  • 250. At 10:53pm on 20 Dec 2009, infiniti wrote:

    re 243:

    The scientific evidence is on the side of significant climate change if we continue emitting. This will happen within a geological blink of a eye so very little time for ecosystems to adapt. With climate and life on Earth so complex it is unimaginable that a large change in climate will have little knock on effects. The risk of problems will increase with the magnitude of climate change. Some people feel the risk is enough to warrant curtailing emissions to limit the amount of change we will cause. Proof is an unreasonably unobtainable high bar.

    Complain about this comment

  • 251. At 10:56pm on 20 Dec 2009, infiniti wrote:

    re 244: sorry, good point

    Complain about this comment

  • 252. At 11:00pm on 20 Dec 2009, Ken Appleby wrote:

    @247. tears of our forefathers
    "so he doesn't espouse that humans/co2 will be the death of the biosphere whom he names and anthropomorphicizes as Gaia?"

    Well it would take me a day or so to re-read "The Revenge Of Gaia" but no, as I recall it he doesn't do any of those things. I am open to being corrected on that of course. I think you are using the "make a caricature and ridicule it" approach to argument. As I recall, The "death of the biosphere" is not in his language. He is unconcerned about the "biosphere" at that level. Indeed his argument is that the biosphere will be just fine thank you and will do whatever is necessary to preserve itself, including eradicating human civilisation if necessary (that's the bit I don't agree with.)

    And his argument certainly isn't "anthropomorphising" the biosphere, in my opinion. He does not equate the biosphere with anything human.

    "were you actually trying to misinterpret my post?" No. I am sorry if I gave the impression that I was. I was just trying to understand it.

    Complain about this comment

  • 253. At 11:10pm on 20 Dec 2009, infiniti wrote:

    re 236:
    There's not much that can be done, unless governments are willing to shell out for people acting between scientists and the public and explicitly tasked with defending the science from baseless accusations.

    In anycase if AGW is correct, which I think it is, all it will take is to wait for temperature to increase significantly in coming years to change mass opinion. In a way the skeptics have set up a large test of the theory, which they'll have a hard time backpeddling from if it passes. People will start questioning why anyone was saying AGW was a hoax in the first place and will become slightly more immune to such attempts thereafter.

    Complain about this comment

  • 254. At 11:15pm on 20 Dec 2009, tears of our forefathers wrote:

    are these comments cantradictory?

    "regarding how unnatural humanity is in the vision he paints' He doesn't do that at all in my reading of his books. "
    vs
    "including eradicating human civilisation if necessary (that's the bit I don't agree with.)"
    including:
    "His idea of grinding up nuclear waste and spreading it over natural resources we need to preserve is pure planet-saving genius, IMO."

    (irradiate large chunks of the surface of the world to stop humans interfering? what about all the bunnies and birds? and plants, they don't like radiation either)

    you also have a habit of sly ad homs in my incredibly humble opinion:

    "'monstrous canon'(what a good name)"

    "Is it still the case that the internet informs popular opinion while the established channels continue to form the core of reliable knowledge?"

    "I was just trying to understand it."

    meh.

    Complain about this comment

  • 255. At 11:15pm on 20 Dec 2009, John Lloyd wrote:

    Re: 250 Infinity
    Proof is an unreasonably unobtainable high bar .

    NICE ONE. WOW . Sounds just like a politician . . . . .
    "Just trust me, I know what is best for you. . . . .
    Surely, you don't need proof . . . .
    Its rude to even ask me for proof .
    Are you questioning my integrity ? "

    Simple Answer: Yes .


    Complain about this comment

  • 256. At 11:17pm on 20 Dec 2009, manysummits wrote:

    To Ken Appleby - all posts:

    I enjoyed your posts - Nice to hear from you.

    The noted paleontologist Peter Ward recently published a book countering the idea of 'Gaia,' titled: "The Medea Hypothesis: Is Life on Earth Ultimately Self-Destructive?" (2009)

    I have read several of James Lovelock's books, including his most recent "The Vanishing Face of Gaia: A Final Warning", (2009).

    I agree - a genius, though some of his views I question. And mostly hard science - yes.

    The recent Copenhagen Accord would I think endorse James Lovelock's vision of our collective future. Technically the problems we face are soluble - in the political world of today, i.e., reality, it is not happening, at least not quickly or decisively.

    I just met for a two hour coffee with a mountain partner, Dr. Chaos, and we discussed Copenhagen. Dr. Chaos is professor emeritus, non-linear dynamics, and his remark was something to the effect that the sea would have to be lapping in the corridors of Wall Street before change will occur.

    George Monbiot's latest article is scathing - "Scramble for the Atmosphere," December 18, 2009; but I noted with interest the following remark:

    "There the barrister Polly Higgins laid out a different approach. Her declaration of planetary rights invests ecosystems with similar legal safeguards to those won by humans after the second world war(2). It changes the legal relationship between humans, the atmosphere and the biosphere from ownership to stewardship."

    http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2009/12/18/scramble-for-the-atmosphere/
    ----------------

    For myself, I wonder when the other shoe is going to drop?

    The financial meltdown was the first shoe, and I think it is only the warning shot over the bow, so to speak. Shamelessly, the champions of free enterprise seemed only too willing to say "Charity Please," and now that they have got it, a return to business as usual is our reward.

    To lighten up a bit, a visitor from the star system of Aldebaran ("the follower" - Wikipedia) might well ask:

    \\\ Who's the head lemming? ///

    - Manysummits -

    Complain about this comment

  • 257. At 11:31pm on 20 Dec 2009, manysummits wrote:

    I just now have a copy of James Hansen's new "Storms of my Grandchildren," (2009), and I can't wait to read it.

    In the meantime, I thought to present a bit of information which some may find useful, including myself:

    "The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) is a corporation in the United States whose members serve pro bono as "advisers to the nation on science, engineering, and medicine...

    The Act of Incorporation, signed by President Abraham Lincoln on March 3, 1863, created the National Academy of Sciences and named 50 charter members...

    As of spring 2009, the National Academy of Sciences included about 2,100 members and 380 foreign associates...

    Election to membership is one of the highest honors (however, not as high as a Nobel Prize) that can be accorded to a scientist and recognizes scientists who have made distinguished and continuing achievements in original research. Nearly 200 members have won a Nobel Prize."

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_National_Academy_of_Sciences
    --------------

    James Hansen, the author of the book "Storms of my Grandchilden":

    Hansen was elected to the National Academy of Sciences in 1996 for his "development of pioneering radiative transfer models and studies of planetary atmospheres; development of simplified and three-dimensional global climate models; explication of climate forcing mechanisms; analysis of current climate trends from observational data; and projections of anthropogenic impacts on the global climate system."

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

    - Manysummits -

    Complain about this comment

  • 258. At 11:34pm on 20 Dec 2009, davblo wrote:

    Crowcatcher #183: 'Davblo Yes! "Ice age" is the long colder period of several million years, "Glacial" and "interglacials" are the variations within that ice age ... There aren't many who know the difference!'

    infinity #186: "He's refering to interglacial and glacial periods within the major ice age of the past 3 million years.

    Just to say thanks for explaining. I hadn't noticed that subtlety and scope for confusion in the terminology.

    You say "There aren't many who know the difference".

    Then I think it's well worth reading up on; eg at "Ice age (disambiguation)".

    /davblo

    Complain about this comment

  • 259. At 11:54pm on 20 Dec 2009, davblo wrote:

    manysummits #256: "George Monbiot's latest article is scathing..."

    Thanks for the link.

    His "call" reminds me of "The Emperor has no clothes..."

    All the best; davblo

    Complain about this comment

  • 260. At 00:34am on 21 Dec 2009, ManmadeupGW wrote:

    I would have thought that now we know that global warming is man made up we can all move on.

    Just think of all that money we can save?

    Complain about this comment

  • 261. At 00:40am on 21 Dec 2009, tears of our forefathers wrote:

    anyone else amused by the term 'hard science'?

    science either is or is not. describing something as hard science only makes any sense at all in terms of 'difficult science'. you do not add weight to science by calling it hard or settled or the consensus. you in fact inform people that it is controversial and you are choosing to believe it despite the controversy.


    Complain about this comment

  • 262. At 01:03am on 21 Dec 2009, ManmadeupGW wrote:

    "Goodbye Africa, goodbye south Asia; goodbye glaciers and sea ice, coral reefs and rainforest; it was nice knowing you, not that we really cared. The governments which moved so swiftly to save the banks have bickered and filibustered while the biosphere burns."

    The above is a quote by Mr Monbiot who is clearly upset by something.

    I would respond Hello freedom, goodbye tyranny.

    There is no global warming it was all man made up and now we can all have a Merry Christmas and Prosperous New Year.

    Complain about this comment

  • 263. At 01:11am on 21 Dec 2009, ricardo coelho wrote:

    Actually, Hopenhagen greenwash shows what is wrong with climate negotiations: corporate lobbies rule over citizens' needs. We really need to reclaim power and to democratize the world, developing community-based solutions fro climate change and other environmental problems. The alternative is to continue on this unsustainable path, mining the basis of our survival.

    Ricardo Coelho
    http://cooltheearth.wordpress.com/

    Complain about this comment

  • 264. At 01:25am on 21 Dec 2009, ManmadeupGW wrote:

    @ Tears etc

    Lord Rutherford said there is only Physics and stamp collecting. If he were alive today he would add dismissively climate science.

    Complain about this comment

  • 265. At 01:29am on 21 Dec 2009, Maria Ashot wrote:

    The science is not in question. You may disparage some personalities, or their quirks, or their beliefs -- but the science itself is not in question.

    You can't pretend we don't have ice sheets melting when we do. You can't dismiss that as having no significance. They were rock solid when I was born; they started melting when I was a young woman. And they are melting at an accelerating rate.

    Only a person with an agenda that pre-empts concern for personal safety or the welfare of loved ones, or a person with a personality disorder, could pretend that rapidly melting ice is not an indicator or warming.

    Science, the process & discipline whereby data is interpreted into some understanding of a phenomenon, inevitably lags behind the data it observes, records, interprets.

    In other words, by the time you know you have metastatic cancer, the damage has already gone deep into your body, and spread far.

    Exactly the same thing is going on with the climate.

    While I do wish more had been achieved in the Copenhagen Accord, I still view it as something that shows a positive shift -- provided earnest & urgent action follows the earnest & urgent(-sounding) words.

    Ultimately, the 3-page document has to be seen in the context of everything else everyone who had a voice said there, and has said since. In the days of indelible records, the words spoken by a Chinese or American or Indian or other leader, or public figure, are cast in concrete, and can be measured, sifted, reinforced over & over.

    So we, the people of the grass roots as it were, do have means to keep the leaders whose lifestyles we sustain, honest.

    It did take far too long -- 25 years, by my reckoning, even if Monbiot only indicates 17 -- to get a proper sense of urgency into the heads of state & heads of governments, and the all-too-slow banking sector. (Why is it they are so happy embracing risk on paper with exotic financial instruments, yet so conservative about funding innovative energy industry even when its upsides are obvious?)

    Let us assume that urgency is finally here.

    Even while we prepare aggressively for the Berlin ministers' meeting in June, and the Dec. 2010 conference in Mexico , the private sector as well as the public sectors of the great sovereign states need to act right away, bringing to bear straightforward mitigation strategies that do not require international consensus.

    We have glaciers melting in a number of countries: the US, Russia, Chile, Nepal, to name a few. Greenland has gained considerable autonomy from Denmark, yet it is still very integrated in many ways. An interesting concept to consider would be to harvest the glaciers rather than allow them to melt wastefully into the oceans.

    If we know we have not adopted measures stringent enough to slow down temperature rise -- and if we know rising sea levels are a threat -- and if we know fresh water diluting the upper layers of the oceans wreaks havoc with the currents -- then the logical thing is to prevent the fresh waters that are locked into the glaciers & ice sheets from melting away and flowing into the sea.

    Harvest and capture as much as you can. Yes, they do look pretty while they are white, and yes they reflect sunlight back. But you can also cover stripped surface terrain with reflective white canvas, the kind we use to make sails (natural fibre is probably more earth friendly).

    And if the goal is to prevent rising waters, then harvesting the ice is something that must be considered, at least until such time as we have modified our industries sufficiently to make them low-carbon, and slow down or even reverse the warming/melting.

    Complain about this comment

  • 266. At 01:56am on 21 Dec 2009, ManmadeupGW wrote:

    @ Maria Ashot

    Truth is freedom lies are chains, history is the key to our freedon.

    "It will without doubt have come to your Lordship's knowledge that a considerable change of climate, inexplicable at present to us, must have taken place in the Circumpolar Regions, by which the severity of the cold that has for centuries past enclosed the seas in the high northern latitudes in an impenetrable barrier of ice has been during the last two years, greatly abated.

    (This) affords ample proof that new sources of warmth have been opened and give us leave to hope that the Arctic Seas may at this time be more accessible than they have been for centuries past, and that discoveries may now be made in them not only interesting to the advancement of science but also to the future intercourse of mankind and the commerce of distant nations."
    President of the Royal Society, London, to the Admiralty, 20th November, 1817

    Complain about this comment

  • 267. At 02:06am on 21 Dec 2009, tears of our forefathers wrote:

    ms ashot:

    someone in your situation (google her peeps) can hardly claim to be of the grassroots. sorry but you can't. when was the last time you held a low wage job with shifts not set hours? decades surely? you exist in a stratum of society that does very little yet makes a lot of noise. very impressive cv and international 'blogging' activity by the way.

    Complain about this comment

  • 268. At 02:25am on 21 Dec 2009, tears of our forefathers wrote:

    mrs ashot: do you intend to any of the questions that have been asked of you by others earlier in these blogs? one i would like answered is what NGOs you are a member of. i'm afraid you don't strike me as a 9-5, grassroots sort of person.

    Complain about this comment

  • 269. At 04:08am on 21 Dec 2009, lburt wrote:

    @infinity #234
    "The 1960-present rate of warming being caused mostly by CO2 - the physics fit and there are no alternative explainations. It's more than a mere assumption."

    You just contradicted yourself within your own explanation and are apparently completely oblivious to this fact.

    So...you CAN'T explain the behavior before but you're telling me that without any assumptions you just know that all temperature variation apparent for the entire history of earth (that we can work out) just suddenly stopped in 1960 and THEN since you know that there's no natural variation, that the warming is caused by CO2. What a stupid explanation.

    The alternative explanation is that it simply warmed like it did 50 years earlier. How hard an explanation is THAT to deal with? The alternative is that we're in a period that's warming just like the other numerous other warming periods we can detect during this interglacial (some of which appear to be many times the size of the tiny rise we've had so far)

    No...yours truly is an assumption and it's obviously a flawed assumption.

    "It's based on physics and paleodata."
    Also the paleodata is based on the wrong assumption entirely. Does not show the driving behavior you seem to think it does...not where we can observe the levels in ice cores...not where we can observe it in more ancient proxies. Temperature/CO2 sometimes go in RADICALLY different directions...ie CO2 driving is an EXTREMELY poor explanation.


    "For example instead of a 3C temperature rise you want a significant increase in cloud albedo"
    Ah, but that's just it...your 3C figure would its self require powerful positive feedbacks. Feedbacks are negative so it's never going to be fighting even that much forcing. Its fighting a theoretical maximum (and again, hitting the theoretical maximum is VERY unlikely) of about 1.2C from the CO2 forcing and reducing it to only about .6C of forcing if it cuts it in half. So...1/5 the cloud feedback you're thinking as a theoretical maximum.

    Complain about this comment

  • 270. At 06:08am on 21 Dec 2009, powermeerkat wrote:

    As soon as I dig out myself from under 2 feet of snow (temperature right now being mild minus 17 Celsius) I'll look again at those "hard core data" contained in the leaked e-mails (Climategate).

    And as for Obama's position and a failed attempt at extorting money from U.S., last time I checked we had a long standing policy of not negotiating with terrorists.

    And I don't see any indications that U.S. Senate is going to try and change this policy any time soon.

    Complain about this comment

  • 271. At 06:09am on 21 Dec 2009, Donald Rennie wrote:

    "Actually, Hopenhagen greenwash shows what is wrong with climate negotiations: corporate lobbies rule over citizens' needs. We really need to reclaim power and to democratize the world, developing community-based solutions fro climate change and other environmental problems. The alternative is to continue on this unsustainable path, mining the basis of our survival."

    The above is true, but will be difficult to implement. Judging by the comments on this board, the people are heavily divided, and tragically misinformed.

    And I'm not sure if democratizing the world, is really the ultimate solution, as current systems of electing leaders by popularity contest, are too far removed, to properly be used to asses individual acts.

    If we democratize broadcast media, will that ensure the whole truth is always reported? This is of course needed, because whoever controls the truth, controls the world.

    We need fundamental improvements to how all; truth, laws, and actions, are evaluated.

    Complain about this comment

  • 272. At 07:48am on 21 Dec 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    @Maria Ashot #265

    You can't pretend we don't have ice sheets melting when we do. You can't dismiss that as having no significance. They were rock solid when I was born; they started melting when I was a young woman. And they are melting at an accelerating rate.

    Maria,

    You tell us you have been involved since the 80's, how does melting ice sheets prove the warming is man made?

    Only a person with an agenda that pre-empts concern for personal safety or the welfare of loved ones, or a person with a personality disorder, could pretend that rapidly melting ice is not an indicator or warming.

    Really? So you think anybody who disagrees with your absurd fallacy about AGW and O2 depletion has a personality disorder?

    Sorry, I couldn't be bothered reading the rest

    /Mango

    Complain about this comment

  • 273. At 08:10am on 21 Dec 2009, bowmanthebard wrote:

    @Ken Appleby #210

    "Society is now so interconnected and dependent on technology (at a higher level than houses and agriculture, at the level of software, the internet and mobile communications, for example) that it is now vulnerable to a system-wide collapse."

    I don't think you have any good reasons for saying this -- it's just the familiar "apocalyptic" picture transferred to a dubious sociological realm. (But I'm as sceptical about sociology's claim to being a "science" as I am about climatology.)

    Things occasionally do go wrong: the power cut in 2004 did spread -- although it did not spread throughout the entire US. It wasn't all that big a deal. Sometimes things don't go as wrong as we expect: the collapse of the Twin Towers did not significantly affect the running of the internet, despite its being a central "node" in the network.

    Almost everything is already at full "carrying capacity". I have already argued that this applies to population, but it also applies to traffic of all kinds. When they make the roads bigger, more people travel on them, until traffic jams slow them down again. It now takes a little less time to travel across London than it did 100 years ago, but there isn't much difference because both were always at "carrying capacity". Many people think their broadband goes at about the same speed as the dial-up connection they had ten years ago.

    The idea that people will be huddled along the edge of the Antarctic when the temperature goes up seems like a weird fantasy to me. Why wouldn't they simply move inland? And why wouldn't people live in air-conditioned houses elsewhere? And anyway, why would they need to? A few degrees really isn't all that much. The whole thing seems ad hoc and wonky to me, as if we're all so used to having apocalyptic visions that crazy scenarios seem less crazy just because we're a bit more familiar with them!

    Complain about this comment

  • 274. At 08:12am on 21 Dec 2009, bowmanthebard wrote:

    #265 Maria Ashot wrote:

    "The science is not in question."

    Then whatever you are talking about isn't science.

    Complain about this comment

  • 275. At 08:22am on 21 Dec 2009, bowmanthebard wrote:

    "Society is now so interconnected and dependent on technology (at a higher level than houses and agriculture, at the level of software, the internet and mobile communications, for example) that it is now vulnerable to a system-wide collapse."

    I forgot to mention: isn't this the dreaded "Millenium Bug"?

    Personally, I don't think a temporary disruption to mobile phones is quite the same thing as the "end of civilization". It might be the start of civilization!

    Complain about this comment

  • 276. At 08:32am on 21 Dec 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    @TOOF #269

    It's not just Maria, I have repeatedly asked 2 vociferous contributors to answer their critics on other posts, but they are either unable to do so or unwilling.

    One of my questions is actually in the gentleman concerned area of expertise, but still he refuses to answer

    /Mango

    Complain about this comment

  • 277. At 08:33am on 21 Dec 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    @bowmanthebard #275

    Personally, I don't think a temporary disruption to mobile phones is quite the same thing as the "end of civilization". It might be the start of civilization!

    lmao

    agreed, my friend

    Complain about this comment

  • 278. At 08:36am on 21 Dec 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    Disruption of the Peer-Review Process by The Team

    The CRU e-mails have revealed how the normal conventions of the peer review process appear to have been compromised by a team* of global warming scientists, with the willing cooperation of the editor of the International Journal of Climatology (IJC), Glenn McGregor.

    http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/a_climatology_conspiracy.html

    /Mango

    Complain about this comment

  • 279. At 08:56am on 21 Dec 2009, U14260427 wrote:

    Is teary complaining about Gaia theory but completely ignorant of Ian Plimer's "proof" (along with all his other "proofs") of the sun being made of iron?

    And Larry, #278, you're really linking to a blog called "american thinker"? For real???

    Complain about this comment

  • 280. At 09:05am on 21 Dec 2009, infiniti wrote:

    re 269:
    "but you're telling me that without any assumptions you just know that all temperature variation apparent for the entire history of earth (that we can work out) just suddenly stopped in 1960"

    In the whole history of the planet the last 50 years had the best human climate observation systems in place. Warming since 1960 (or 1970, or even 1950) of about 0.5C is not explained by various measured natural forcings over this time period. It's not simply internal variation - the planet has gained heat - how? That requires an explaination. For example solar falls short. Rising greenhouse gases can explain it, are even necessary to explain the warming in the absense of any alternate explaination. The models expect that kind of warming from the rise in ghg seen, as do paleo data. This is part of the explainatory power of AGW theory.

    You can also consider the warming since 1990 a passed test of the theory. AGW put it's neck on the line and passed. There was also an issue in 2000 where skeptics were arguing AGW was wrong because satellites showed the atmosphere wasn't warming. A few years late and a discovered error later it was found the satellites do show that atmosphere warming. Another potentially falsifying test passed by AGW. And I am sure you will see another test passed in coming years as warming continues. These episodes strengthen the theory, but are curiously forgotten by skeptics hell bent on calling it an assumption.

    "The alternative explanation is that it simply warmed like it did 50 years earlier."

    That's a non-explaination. It's no different to saying "it happened because it happened". Doesn't actually explain why it happened. Even if it cooled since 1960 you could have said "it simply cooled like it did 2 decades earlier". No predictive power, no ability to be tested.

    Paleodata not only provides strong evidence that climate sensitivity is high and feedback in climate is net positive, but also that co2 has had a significant warming influence in the past. Science cannot explain how past periods of Earth could have got so hot if they ignore the strong warming effect of greenhouse gases.

    An Observationally Based Estimate of the Climate Sensitivity
    Journal of Climate, Vol. 15 (November 2002), pp. 3117-3121

    Deriving global climate sensitivity from palaeoclimate reconstructions
    Nature 360, 573 - 576 (10 December 1992)

    Climate sensitivity constrained by CO2 concentrations over the past 420 million years
    Nature 446, 530-532 (29 March 2007)

    Complain about this comment

  • 281. At 09:30am on 21 Dec 2009, LabMunkey wrote:

    @265 and 'most' agw-ers.

    Maria made an assertion that needs to be picked up. paraphrased as- 'the ice sheets are melting therfore MMCC is undeniable'.

    This is a phallacy that is being purported by the AGW side.

    Ice sheets melting doesn't prove MMCC.
    Sea level rises (though they're constant and small) don't prove MMCC.
    Temp rises DON'T prove MMCC. ]

    These are symptoms of climate change, NOT a proof of a cause. Unless people on BOTH sides of the argument can grasp this point, i'd suggest you stop commenting.


    What WOULD prove MMCC is a provable link between CO2 and temp. This is what the sceptics keep asking for, and has so far not been supplied.

    Now laboratory experiments of CO2 absorption are a good start- however you cannot then extrapolate these up to a real world system- it doesn't work like that- just as a vaccine tested in the lab will almost never work in-body.

    So, research showing localised temperature fluctuations after extensive co2 release could work, something that shows how tagged (radiolabelled) CO2 interacts in the atmosphere would be good. Even something that can reproduceably measure co2 levels in the atmosphere, the location, distribution and movements would be good (which is why that nasa paper is a good start, but still not proof due to the measuring inaccuracies and assumptions). We'd then need to tie that into temp changes, so some way of testing the associated mechanisms.

    If you can provide info/papers on any of that then great lets look at it. Otherwise, MMCC is still unproven.

    I say again. Scientific consensus means nothing- just because lots of people say something doesn't make it right. ESPECIALLY in science. And especially when they steadfastly refuse to share their raw data.

    Complain about this comment

  • 282. At 09:30am on 21 Dec 2009, bowmanthebard wrote:

    "Ian Plimer's "proof" (along with all his other "proofs") of the sun being made of iron?"

    Reference?

    Complain about this comment

  • 283. At 09:32am on 21 Dec 2009, U14260427 wrote:

    And when it comes to jun science, there's some familiar names here, arguing that there's no such problem as passive smoking or a problem with CFCs:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Global_warming_controversy&oldid=280378850#CFCs_and_ozone_layer

    Complain about this comment

  • 284. At 09:32am on 21 Dec 2009, John Lloyd wrote:

    Re: Maria Ashot.
    "The science is not in question. You may disparage some personalities, or their quirks, or their beliefs -- but the science itself is not in question."
    Maria, I don't know what your scientific qualifications are that enables you to make such a confident remark. I am not that well qualified - I only have a 1st Class Honours.
    However, this guy below is extremely well qualified and has an very impressive climate science track record as well. Have a look .
    Petr Chylek: Open Letter to the Climate Research Community
    http://www.thegwpf.org/opinion-pros-a-cons/218-petr-chylek-open-letter-to-the-climate-research-community.html
    Perhaps you should ask him to take you out for dinner so he can explain to you why he is so concerned that the "science" is in doubt.
    Somehow, I think that I am more likely to believe him than you.

    Complain about this comment

  • 285. At 09:33am on 21 Dec 2009, LabMunkey wrote:

    "Paleodata not only provides strong evidence that climate sensitivity is high and feedback in climate is net positive, but also that co2 has had a significant warming influence in the past. Science cannot explain how past periods of Earth could have got so hot if they ignore the strong warming effect of greenhouse gases.
    "

    just because science cannot explain something doesn't mean your theory is right.

    Also, i thought the icecore data showed the exact opposite of what you claimed?

    thanks for posting the papers though. I'll looksie.

    Complain about this comment

  • 286. At 09:39am on 21 Dec 2009, LabMunkey wrote:

    "You can also consider the warming since 1990 a passed test of the theory. AGW put it's neck on the line and passed"

    again, not really proof as the climate was already warming.

    it's the link between the two we need bud- you got any papers on that then we're rocking.

    Complain about this comment

  • 287. At 09:50am on 21 Dec 2009, Mincepie Murderer wrote:

    No surprise that the Chinese aren't interested in playing the global politics game. But to their credit, they've had the most effective policy for conserving resources/reducing emissions in place for years - the one-child policy.

    The rest of the world should follow their lead.

    Complain about this comment

  • 288. At 10:01am on 21 Dec 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    @Yeah_Whatever #279

    I’m not sure why you are calling me Larry, it’s not my name – ask Larry if you wish - whereas we all recognise you are Yeah_Whatever, including Davblo2, so there is no point in denying it. Anyway:

    you're really linking to a blog called "american thinker"? For real???

    Yes, so please don’t attack the messenger and try to comment on the content or do you have a problem with commenting on the content and can only attack the messenger

    /Mango

    Complain about this comment

  • 289. At 10:14am on 21 Dec 2009, Philippe de Casabianca wrote:

    If we compare expectations raised one year ago after the Poznan COP 14 and the outcome of the Copenhagen COP 15, it is indeed true that frustrations must be very high. The cahotic management of the Conference center has not helped to improve the reputation of such climate talks: it was clear however well before the begining of the talks that the Copenhagen meeting would attract a lot of stakeholders and politicians, at least only to be seen in Copenhagen as somebody that would save the planet.

    Many discussions ahve turned around the climate issues and the losses we would encounter if nothing was done. The limitation of 2°C is to be ranked in the same range: much ado about the problem, very little on concrete solutions. No solutions? Oh, sorry, yes, climate talks have spoken of financial solutions... Having in mind that many people claim that there is an emergency needed, it is quite strange that so few people speak of the most efficient way to use that "climate money".

    At least one book did. Written by Professor Robert Kandel, "Turning the Tide on Climate Change" (http://sendit.cefic.org/DMZ/DownLoad.aspx?UID=e4a3fb41-082a-452b-8fc3-1fe70bef6ff5) was distributed at the COP 15 conference so to show the bridge between climate change solutions and climate change issues.
    Robert Kandel’s story proposes a critical review of the science on climate change in order to better implement greenhouse savings for a low carbon economy. It is a scientific book for non specialist readers with attractive pictures and sound graphs. It helps to understand the real climate change debate and why we must go beyond it with effective solutions.

    It shows the added value of the European Union to Climate change talks and explains where the greatest savings are possible via proper use of chemicals developed for every day concerns. It is a book for Copenhagen decision makers and consumers looking for a truly and attractive sustainable society.

    Complain about this comment

  • 290. At 10:15am on 21 Dec 2009, sensiblegrannie wrote:

    While enjoying the rare hedonistic pleasure of swimming, sauna, steam room in a private leasure centre, I started wondering about the cost of heating and maintaining such a place in the dead of winter, when heating one's humble hearth costs the earth. My 2 boxes of irradiated out-of-season strawberries FLOWN from Egypt (impulse buy from the local market) suddenly lost their appeal when carbon guilt set in.
    Are we going to see the end of such carbon luxury or are we going to keep on going until traders stop placing such luxuries out there to tempt us into carbon sinning?

    Complain about this comment

  • 291. At 10:34am on 21 Dec 2009, bowmanthebard wrote:

    #290 sensiblegrannie wrote:

    "are we going to keep on going until traders stop placing such luxuries out there to tempt us into carbon sinning?"

    I trust you are being funny when you write as if the problem is the traders placing luxuries before you rather than you paying for luxuries? I'm amused!

    Complain about this comment

  • 292. At 10:34am on 21 Dec 2009, bowmanthebard wrote:

    I'll ask again:

    Where is "Ian Plimer's "proof" [...] of the sun being made of iron?"

    Complain about this comment

  • 293. At 10:38am on 21 Dec 2009, John wrote:

    I'm afraid you are all missing the elephant in the room.
    Anthropogenic Continental Drift has been identified as a massive threat to the planet and nothing is being done about it.
    I hope the BBC will set up a special team, perhaps headed by Professor Monckton here (as he clearly has nothing better to do) so that we can all take whatever action is needed to save the world.
    Please see http://thepeoplescube.com/red/viewtopic.php?t=1668 and act now all you dear and wonderful friends.

    Complain about this comment

  • 294. At 10:47am on 21 Dec 2009, Mincepie Murderer wrote:

    Global warming (man-made or otherwise) isn’t going to be doom and gloom for everyone. China, for example, could do quite well – they’d suffer coastal flooding, but on the plus side vast tracts of their frozen north would be opened up for settlement and agriculture. Cheap labour and resources are in endless supply, it wouldn’t take them long to systematically abandon and rebuild Shanghai, Hong Kong etc. once the sea level started to rise.

    The Chinese politicians don’t have to worry about popularity with their electorate. A few million deaths from drought/starvation/natural disasters has never bothered them in the past.

    Complain about this comment

  • 295. At 10:58am on 21 Dec 2009, LabMunkey wrote:

    @293.
    lol

    Complain about this comment

  • 296. At 11:07am on 21 Dec 2009, U14260427 wrote:

    Here you go:

    http://bigcitylib.blogspot.com/2009/05/ian-plimer-and-iron-sun.html

    PS No, there's no proof the sun is made of iron. Doesn't stop Plimer saying it is, though.

    Complain about this comment

  • 297. At 11:08am on 21 Dec 2009, U14260427 wrote:

    Larry (@288),

    1) Your name isn't MangoChutneyOKUK

    2) and my nickname isn't Yeah whatever, yet you keep calling me that. Why?

    Complain about this comment

  • 298. At 11:09am on 21 Dec 2009, U14260427 wrote:

    "LabMunkey wrote:

    "You can also consider the warming since 1990 a passed test of the theory. AGW put it's neck on the line and passed"

    again, not really proof as the climate was already warming."

    Yes, because AGW caused warming. It started before 1990, you know.

    Duh.

    Complain about this comment

  • 299. At 11:11am on 21 Dec 2009, U14260427 wrote:

    PS I do have other things to do, you know, bow man.

    Complain about this comment

  • 300. At 11:17am on 21 Dec 2009, selfevidenttruths wrote:

    @brazen: Thanks for that link. One of the funniest things I have read in years!

    Complain about this comment

  • 301. At 11:18am on 21 Dec 2009, sensiblegrannie wrote:

    bowmanthebard,
    Ah-ha someone with brains to go with wit.

    manysummits. @ post 256
    I trust your coffee was from sustainable sources? You think the other 'shoe' is going to drop? This doesn't feel like footfall to me. It seems more like a circus act, possibly a five ring circus act, unless my gut instinct is wrong.

    Complain about this comment

  • 302. At 11:18am on 21 Dec 2009, lburt wrote:

    @infinity #280
    RE:The alternative explanation is that it simply warmed like it did 50 years earlier.

    "That's a non-explaination. It's no different to saying "it happened because it happened". Doesn't actually explain why it happened. Even if it cooled since 1960 you could have said "it simply cooled like it did 2 decades earlier". No predictive power, no ability to be tested."


    It WOULD be different if you could explain ANY of the other variations of the past. You can't! Not only that according to YOUR silly hypothesis the rest of the holocene is unexplainable. In terms of climate driving the correlation between CO2 and temperature is absolutely terrible. The temperature rises while CO2 levels remain the same for hundreds of years or the temperature plummets while CO2 levels remain higher for sometimes a thousand years. It does the same thing in the paleoclimate record. The temperatures have remained high as CO2 levels fell by an order of magnitude and vice versa.

    ALL your supposed "evidence" for high sensitivity is completely ambiguous. LITERALLY the only correlation that makes any sense is temperature drives CO2 levels. You have some side evidence that there may be SOME warming from CO2 but the tiny amount of warming caused by CO2 pales in comparison and would require sensitivities so incredibly high that temperatures could NEVER be stable.

    If the sensitivity were as high as you think the current temperatures would be rising relentlessly and not by the pathetic little bits they are now. Have you ever actually looked at the power of an glacial/interglacial swing??? It requires a truly massive change in earth's energy budget.

    Here you are claiming the earth is so sensitive that enough CO2 to cause maybe 2 watts/meter difference, gradually changing over 1000 years was enough to drive temperatures up by 10C...and yet here we sit with a similar and near instantaneous (on geological scales) increase in our CO2 levels and temperatures are lumbering along at what are arguably normal rates. This last warm period had rates of increase nearly identical to those of the previous warming period and a plateau at the end. Why are you acting like the behavior is SO radically different that it can ONLY be explained if it is ENTIRELY caused by CO2? You obviously haven't thought this through at all.

    Honestly, the ONLY correlation between climate and CO2 that makes any sense is if climate drives CO2 and CO2 does almost nothing. You're looking at the whole scientific method backward. You have a hypothesis that fails...repeatedly and at every place you try to apply it. If CO2 were so powerful it would overwhelm the Milankovitch cycles COMPLETELY and never allow the return to colder temperatures...10C higher temperatures for a piddly increase from 200ppm to 280ppm, indeed. How do you even suggest things like that with a straight face? Clearly something entirely different is driving the climate and pulls the rug out from under CO2 with so much force its as if the environment had virtually no sensitivity to CO2 at all.

    There is simply no answer to this for CO2 as a climate driver. The ONLY way to explain it is if CO2 is simply along for the ride and its levels are largely driven by degassing of the oceans.

    Complain about this comment

  • 303. At 11:21am on 21 Dec 2009, lburt wrote:

    @Lime Candy #294 RE:China and climate change

    You also have to remember that china actually has written records of periods in the earth's history when it was about as warm as the peak IPCC temperature predictions. They've actually commented on this already pointing out there seem to be some good and bad points but nothing that really stands out.

    Complain about this comment

  • 304. At 11:23am on 21 Dec 2009, LabMunkey wrote:

    @298

    quite- but doesn't the 'upward' trend begin before significant human related c02 was released?

    Also- i'm assuming you were the u123452457621973561 fella, not sure why you keep changing your name- but i haven't forgotten about that data analysis. I've had some 'work' data dropped on me to deal with first. I should be able to have a look tomorrow (re-global temperature trends, error limits and statistical significane) to see what i come up with- though at this stage i still think it's all in the scale and you'll (i'll) be able to show what i want dependant on that scale.

    Complain about this comment

  • 305. At 11:25am on 21 Dec 2009, Bill Winspur wrote:

    I wish I could be a denier, oblivious to the deepening global catastrophe of crop failures, acidified oceans, flooding coastal areas, famine, and climate-driven migration. It must be nice to think that there is nothing wrong with dumping train-loads of coal into the atmosphere every day.

    AGW is not a traditional political problem like GATT, free-trade, or the conquest of one society by another. It is ultimately about a global human population crash. Predictably, the political leadership of major polluters: India, China, the US, and Canada, act as though the scope and geography of AGW-induced death is a issue to be negotiated later on. They really do not get it, which is a shock.

    After the utter failure of Copenhagen, nothing stands in the way of catastrophic AGW. It is politically acceptable.

    Complain about this comment

  • 306. At 11:31am on 21 Dec 2009, LabMunkey wrote:

    "After the utter failure of Copenhagen, nothing stands in the way of catastrophic AGW. It is politically acceptable."

    except maybe the planet not doing what it's told.....

    Complain about this comment

  • 307. At 11:35am on 21 Dec 2009, John Lloyd wrote:

    STOP PRESS : NEW COURT CASE
    The Defendant : Carbon Dioxide
    The Judge ( & Jury ): AGW
    Judge to Defendant: You are accused of killing millions of humans by increasing the temperature of the planet. If found guilty, you are for the chop. How do you plead ?
    Defendant: I believe I am innocent, but please present your evidence.
    Judge & Jury: Don't be so silly. This truth is self-evident. We don't need proof or further evidence. As Infinity has said in post #250 - Proof is an unreasonably unobtainable bar.
    Defendant: But that's not fair. I thought I was innocent until proven guilty. Without compelling evidence and proof, there is no justice and no truth. Without truth there is only untruths, deliberate misinformation and propaganda.
    Judge & Jury: I find you guilty. You are simply too dangerous to be allowed a fair trial.
    Defendant: I thought you were a rational liberally minded person. Instead I find that you have lost sight of your values. You are mad. Well, I suppose I don't mind getting the chop as I don't want to live in a world that has no interest in truth and justice. Farewell cruel world . . .

    Complain about this comment

  • 308. At 11:38am on 21 Dec 2009, U14260427 wrote:

    "Honestly, the ONLY correlation between climate and CO2 that makes any sense is if climate drives CO2 and CO2 does almost nothing."

    Honestly, the correlation came AFTER the causation was already worked out. Tyndall.

    And how does that make sense today anyway? We're raising CO2 by burning fossil carbon.

    PETM also caused climate change and that doesn't follow your "correlation" either.

    Anti-science.

    Complain about this comment

  • 309. At 11:40am on 21 Dec 2009, U14260427 wrote:

    "quite- but doesn't the 'upward' trend begin before significant human related c02 was released?"

    No, since 1750 to date, 74% of the change can be explained by temperatures being related to ln(CO2).

    But that came AFTER the causation was figured out with real science. The correlation proves the causation.

    Complain about this comment

  • 310. At 11:44am on 21 Dec 2009, selfevidenttruths wrote:

    @poits 302 & others: Have a look at this when you have the time.

    http://www.agu.org/meetings/fm09/lectures/lecture_videos/A23A.shtml

    An unrelated point: No one involved with the IPCC should have any connections with any energy concerns, green or otherwise. The current head should step down in my opinion. There is an obvious conflict of interest.

    Complain about this comment

  • 311. At 11:46am on 21 Dec 2009, bowmanthebard wrote:

    "PS No, there's no proof the sun is made of iron. Doesn't stop Plimer saying it is, though."

    Where does he say it?

    Complain about this comment

  • 312. At 11:55am on 21 Dec 2009, selfevidenttruths wrote:

    On a note of blog etiquette: Might I suggest that we address each other by our chosen screen names, and that if we do shorten them, that is all we do, ie, no changing of vowels etc. for perceived humorous effect. Just a thought. Oh and by the way, just being rude to someone is not an argument ad hominem. No doubt will see you all after the xmas period. Hope everyone enjoys the holidays. .

    Complain about this comment

  • 313. At 11:58am on 21 Dec 2009, manysummits wrote:

    To davblo2: He is an Emperor - and he no longer has any clothes. Ditto for many others, but not all. Still digesting all this - it's sinking in. I think we're in trouble.

    To Maria Ashot: The bankers only talk free market and risk. They are risk-averse, and take no chances - with their money. But with your money, and ours - this they will risk - because it is no risk to themselves.

    To sensiblegrannie: I wish it were a Circus Act - I remember going as a child. What we are seeing is the flagrant display of power and wealth, and true and open contempt for the people - and they are not afraid of us, or of the media, or of the NGO's.
    -------------------

    I thought Roger Harrabin's piece excellent:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8423822.stm

    One veteran of these talks told me: "All these leaders have signed up to climate policies and targets, but they don't realise the scale of the clean industrial revolution that we need to undertake if we're going to protect the climate. They think they can do some version of modified business as usual. They haven't got a clue."
    --------------------------------------------

    I'm not so sure of this last bit "They haven't got a clue".

    I've read some on the military's preparations re climate change, and while all of this is top secret and classified, one can read between the lines.

    The Military indeed has more than a clue, and is entirely up to speed on climate change.

    The leaders are not clueless - not the big players - far from it.

    But are they in fact in charge anymore?

    Do we still have a functioning democracy?

    - Manysummits -

    Complain about this comment

  • 314. At 12:19pm on 21 Dec 2009, infiniti wrote:

    On have your say there is a comment that reads:

    "volcano in southern Chile that is burping and belching millions of tons of ash, carbon dioxide and debris into the air. In two weeks it has spit out more CO2 (Carbon Dioxide) than the sum total of all human activity has in more than two decades"

    This comment was recommended by 201 users.

    Just goes to show the utter waves of scientific ignorance we face.

    Complain about this comment

  • 315. At 12:29pm on 21 Dec 2009, Michael wrote:

    People should not be so disheartened. Such a massive problem as climate change was never going to be resolved for ever by one conference. It was never realistic to believe that 192 countries (or was it 193?) would be able to agree on a common formula. Also, everybody should know by now that no agreement reached by a conference of this kind can be legally binding without further measures by national legislatures. US President Woodrow Wilson promoted the League of Nations at the Versailles Conference in 1919, but it was never ratified by the Senate so the US never joined.

    It is interesting too how weak European countries appeared to be in the shadow of the US and China. Is it not now absolutely clear that more coordination is required at the EU level if Europe is to exert more influence internationally? Brown, Merkel and Sarkozy sitting about together in armchairs are never going to achieve anything.

    Supporters of realistic measures to combat climate change must work out a better approach if they wish to succeed.

    Complain about this comment

  • 316. At 12:53pm on 21 Dec 2009, LabMunkey wrote:

    @309
    "No, since 1750 to date, 74% of the change can be explained by temperatures being related to ln(CO2).

    But that came AFTER the causation was figured out with real science. The correlation proves the causation"

    How can they be explained though? it's a coincidental link not a causal one. Also, where's that 74% come from?

    And, im confused by your last sentence, are you saying- they think c02 causes temp rises, so as temp rises are happening that proves co2 is the cause??

    Complain about this comment

  • 317. At 1:02pm on 21 Dec 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    The rise in global temperatures since 1880 closely correlates with increases in postal charges, sparking alarm that CO2 has been usurped as the main driver of climate change

    http://joannenova.com.au/2009/05/shock-global-temperatures-driven-by-us-postal-charges/

    lol

    Complain about this comment

  • 318. At 1:10pm on 21 Dec 2009, LabMunkey wrote:

    @317. nice. which erm, nicely backs up my question at the end of post 316.

    Complain about this comment

  • 319. At 1:13pm on 21 Dec 2009, LarryKealey wrote:

    #317 @Mango

    The correlation between postal rates and rising temperatures is old news bro - this one broke first about 6 or 7 years ago. But, as they say...oldie but goodie.

    Cheers Mate.

    Kealey

    Complain about this comment

  • 320. At 1:16pm on 21 Dec 2009, jazbo wrote:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00dqcmw/Earth_The_Climate_Wars_Fight_for_the_Future/

    Forward to 33 mins and watch to 38 mins.

    "The younger dryas ended in one year."

    A sudden jump of 5 degrees in "less than a human lifetime", and possibly as much as 5 degrees in one year.

    From the core and the documentary clip we can conclude the following are signs of a rapid warming climate change:

    1. Heavier snowfall - check
    2. Rapid temperature uplift - check.
    3. Man pumping co2 into the atmosphere - ch...aah.


    Yet despite saying that we don't know what caused the rapid upwards shift in a few years that ended the younger dryas 10,000 years ago, Dr Iain Stewart, pro-AGW scientist, spends the next 20 minutes telling us its our fault its happening this time and we need to change our ways or die. He also neglects to mention that our ancestors survived the massive climate change, and in fact flourished.

    This is a perfect example of why the pro-AGW argument is so completely illogical. They bang on about short term data as proof yet the long term trend shows a pattern that has always existed and looks little different now if taken in that long term context.

    We are certain the earths temperature has been much higher and much lower than today on dozens of occasions. The reality is that nobody can prove that what has happened in the past 50 years is un-natural when placed within the context of MILLIONS of years of endless fluctuations of comparable, or greater size.

    Climate has always changed and VERY rapidly, even the pro-AGW Iain Stweart agrees. He is however, like many others, happy to suddenly pin the cause of it on mankind. Logical? He is happy to suggest that we can somehow change our ways and stop it, despite the evidence it has always changed rapidly. Logical?

    There are proven cycles of 100K years, 28k years and even 1500 years. The temperature has peaked and troughed violently since the big bang. Proven.

    But this time its definitely our fault, apparently, despite the fact it was not our fault the previous ten thousand times.

    We have populated inhospitable areas of the planet. We have created borders that stop natural human migration. we have built close to the sea despite the geological evidence that the levels have risen and fall by tens of metres throughout history. We have bred like rabbits making population shifts impossible in the modern age.

    Those are problems we have created which make adapting to inevitable climate change more difficult.

    Adapt to something that has always happened and survive, or pretend we can control it and die, that I would suggest is the reality we face as a species.





    Complain about this comment

  • 321. At 1:20pm on 21 Dec 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    @LarryKealy #319

    The correlation between postal rates and rising temperatures is old news bro - this one broke first about 6 or 7 years ago. But, as they say...oldie but goodie.

    Yeah, I know, but since the Global Warm-Mongers keep resurrecting their CO2 causes global warming mantra, I thought i'd throw that one back out there

    /mango

    Complain about this comment

  • 322. At 1:22pm on 21 Dec 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    @jasonsceptic #320

    And don't forget when Doggerland was flooded, the sea advanced at a rate of 1m per week - that is pretty fast (obviously it was at the end of the last ice age, but still pretty fast)

    Complain about this comment

  • 323. At 1:25pm on 21 Dec 2009, lburt wrote:

    @Professor Monckton #309
    "And how does that make sense today anyway? We're raising CO2 by burning fossil carbon.
    PETM also caused climate change and that doesn't follow your "correlation" either.
    Anti-science."


    No, we don't know that the PETM was caused by CO2...in fact when compared to the record of climate, it looks pretty obvious that it had little if anything to do with CO2...yes, there's a little spike.
    http://static.seekingalpha.com/uploads/2009/9/25/saupload_2___450mm_yrs_of_temps.jpg

    In what way does that show any sort of driving force by CO2????

    The only way it would is if you put on your "AGW vision goggles" that only lets you see the places where there's a correlation.

    Complain about this comment

  • 324. At 1:27pm on 21 Dec 2009, LarryKealey wrote:



    @Maria Ashot #265 wrote:

    "If we know we have not adopted measures stringent enough to slow down temperature rise -- and if we know rising sea levels are a threat -- and if we know fresh water diluting the upper layers of the oceans wreaks havoc with the currents -- then the logical thing is to prevent the fresh waters that are locked into the glaciers & ice sheets from melting away and flowing into the sea."

    Please, pray tell, exactly how would you go about doing this?

    Also, please note, Ice Sheets are floating on the water to begin with - so as they break off and become icebergs and melt, they DO NOT add anything to sea level rise. Try this - fill a glass with ice and water, then take a marker and mark the water level - let all the ice melt in the glass - and note the water level - it hasn't changed. It is still right there were you marked it.

    With regards to ocean currents - I think you have watched "The Day After Tomorrow" too many times. We know more about the surface of the moon or mars than we do our own oceans. Certainly there are theories regarding ocean currents and their drivers; however, we have yet to even map all the ocean currents, their interactions, nor do we understand the real drivers. We don't even know where all the underwater volcanos are - and if you think all that hot water being created at the bottom of the ocean does not have an effect - you are truly clueless.

    Please, now that Dopenhagen is over - can you give it a rest? In your posts, two things have become evident - one that you don't understand the science of climate change - you mearly regurgitate the propaganda that you hear and read from your Pro-AGW sites. Second, Richard is obviously your 'super hero'.

    A real shame that someone apparently as caring as you of earth's environment continues to ignore all the dire and urgent environmental and humanistic issues which have remained ignored for our entire lifetimes. How about something worthy, like saving the sharks or the peat bogs?

    Cheers.

    Kealey

    Cheers.

    Kealey

    Complain about this comment

  • 325. At 1:47pm on 21 Dec 2009, LarryKealey wrote:

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

  • 326. At 1:49pm on 21 Dec 2009, Spanglerboy wrote:

    'Observations collated at the Met Office Hadley Centre and the University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit indicate that the rate of increase in global average surface temperature between 1975 and 1998 was similar to the rates of increase observed between 1860 and 1880 and between 1910 and 1940 (approximately 0.16 C° per decade).' per Lord Hunt of King's Heath

    There was nothing unusual about the increase in global temperatures at the end of the 20th century.

    Complain about this comment

  • 327. At 2:01pm on 21 Dec 2009, Jack Frost wrote:

    ITS NOT THE END OF THE WORLD

    "Kids are introduced to science as something that is life threatening and deprived of exploration through health and
    safety. They are being brainwashed into believing that science and technology is crippling the Earth and our future when exactly the opposite is true."

    http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/147328/It-s-not-the-end-of-the-World-


    Complain about this comment

  • 328. At 2:02pm on 21 Dec 2009, infiniti wrote:

    its not about it being unusual, it's about explaining it. Thus far the only explaination for the Earth gaining heat in the past 30 years, and may I say also quite a simple explaination too, is the rise in ghgs.

    Complain about this comment

  • 329. At 2:02pm on 21 Dec 2009, jazbo wrote:

    For anyone who thinks that the CRU emails are no big deal, but has not actually bothered to read them or discover the context or the implcations, why not educate yourself, with this documetary Fox news showed yesterday:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UisVhZHouq4&feature=player_embedded#

    When will the BBC conduct a similar documentary investigation?

    Complain about this comment

  • 330. At 2:15pm on 21 Dec 2009, LabMunkey wrote:

    @327

    great article that i suggest all read it.

    Complain about this comment

  • 331. At 2:18pm on 21 Dec 2009, jr4412 wrote:

    manysummits #313.

    "Do we still have a functioning democracy?"

    wondering about the relevance of that given "..the military's preparations re climate change.." and the 'education' doled out to the demos, as for example in #327.

    Complain about this comment

  • 332. At 2:23pm on 21 Dec 2009, Spanglerboy wrote:

    'its not about it being unusual, it's about explaining it. Thus far the only explaination for the Earth gaining heat in the past 30 years, and may I say also quite a simple explaination too, is the rise in ghgs.'

    and what is the explanation for the earth gaining a similar amount of heat between 1860-1880 and 1910-1940?

    Complain about this comment

  • 333. At 2:49pm on 21 Dec 2009, U14260427 wrote:

    OK, so why is Professor Monckton? Hmm?

    Anyone?

    Come on now, who am I impersonating?

    The moderators being tinpot dictators again?

    Yeah.

    Spineless.

    Complain about this comment

  • 334. At 2:50pm on 21 Dec 2009, lburt wrote:

    @infinity #328 who wrote...
    "Its not about it being unusual, it's about explaining it. Thus far the only explaination for the Earth gaining heat in the past 30 years, and may I say also quite a simple explaination too, is the rise in ghgs."

    So climatologists lack of imagination or absolute knowledge "We can't think of anything else so that must be it" is how we know what is causing climate change. Sounds to me that expectations drive climate more than CO2.

    What's so sad is that we have such an IMMEDIATE example of similar climate changes that are obviously NOT driven by CO2 and yet you are completely willing to write them off...and in fact you MUST write them off because that's the only way your narrow worldview could possibly survive. Without your blinders on you would have to face up to the pre-existing warming trend and the numerous increases in temperature...many of which are far greater.

    But of course, you're going to go back to "but this tiny little period right here shows a correlation", aren't you? It reminds me of that scene from Spinal Tap in which the guy cannot understand that simply having a control that goes to 11 instead of 10 doesn't mean its any better. "But this one goes to eleven."

    Yes, you're right...it MUST be CO2 because that's the only evidence you will allow yourself to look at.

    Complain about this comment

  • 335. At 2:52pm on 21 Dec 2009, U14260427 wrote:

    "No, we don't know that the PETM was caused by CO2..."

    Yes we do.

    To a far better level of "know" than we do the MWP.

    Complain about this comment

  • 336. At 2:53pm on 21 Dec 2009, tears of our forefathers wrote:

    Anyone else find it funny that europe and the US had their (remaining) freedoms protected by the russians and chinese at copenhagen?

    A letter from David Bellamy printed in the daily telegraph (a paper i am rapidly growing fond of):

    SIR – The only good news to come out of Copenhagen is that, in the words of Greenpeace: "There are no targets for carbon cuts and no agreement on a legally binding treaty."

    Hooray! Along with tens of thousands of global-warming sceptics, the world can now breathe a sigh of relief and return to the sanity of real science, which counsels that carbon dioxide is not a poison, let alone likely to cause a heat-driven Armageddon.

    We can now burn non-sulphurous coal again to ameliorate the effects of the colder climate that has already been with us for the past decade and is likely to stay for the next 30 years.

    Dr David Bellamy
    Bedburn, Co Durham

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/letters/6851649/After-a-decade-of-global-cooling-we-should-sigh-with-relief-at-Copenhagens-failure.html


    give that man tv show again beeb.

    Complain about this comment

  • 337. At 2:54pm on 21 Dec 2009, lburt wrote:

    Ok, I may not agree with whoever the heck U14260427 is...but I saw no problems with his former name. C'mon people...it's not just pointless, annoying and oppressive...it makes things confusing

    Complain about this comment

  • 338. At 3:02pm on 21 Dec 2009, LabMunkey wrote:

    @337 re 333.

    i agree, in fact he's making me look at something i took on (too much) faith again- so if anything (despite his rants) he's being quite useful. I too have found nothing offensive in what he writes and would prefer he kept to one name, so if you are blocking him (mods), stop.

    Complain about this comment

  • 339. At 3:04pm on 21 Dec 2009, U14260427 wrote:

    "Which is peanuts to what the carbon market can grow into"

    Look, I know there's a "futures market" in trading circles.

    But who can spend money FROM THE FUTURE???

    The pennies now stack up HUGELY on the Fossil Fuel side.

    They have REAL money to spend NOW.

    And much more of it.

    And when the oil prices become scarce in the Middle East, the tar sands of Canada and the USA will become quadrillion dollar resources.

    That's how big this can become for Canada and the US.

    Complain about this comment

  • 340. At 3:12pm on 21 Dec 2009, John Lloyd wrote:

    For all the climate scientists in this blog.
    What we need is a computer model which will re-run the world environment for the last 1,000 ( or even 2,000 years ). Inputs should include all the usual suspects ( and obviously include CO2 ). The model will only prove to be acceptable if its output temperatures for the 1,000 years match all known historical temperatures to within 0.5C (outputs being say one average temperature for each year ). Inputs must also match all widely accepted & proven datasets.
    If this model's output does match exactly to the history shown in the HadCRUT and NASA GISS datasets, then I think I would say that we truly do understand the mechanisms that control the climate on this planet.
    Until then . . . it is all just talk, & smoke and mirrors . I think we are a long long way from this at present. So, what are you waiting for. Get to work, sort your models out. I don't want to hear any more speculative hypotheses until we have a undeniably accurate model.

    Complain about this comment

  • 341. At 3:15pm on 21 Dec 2009, U14260427 wrote:

    You mean the David Bellamy who claimed he was canned for dissing John Major?

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

    "In 1997 he stood unsuccessfully against the incumbent Prime Minister John Major for the Referendum Party. Bellamy credits this campaign with the decline in his career as a popular celebrity and television personality, stating in 2002:"

    The David Bellamy who mistyped 55% as 555?

    http://www.layscience.net/node/209

    The one in favour of wind power?

    http://www.swanseafoe.org.uk/david-bellamy-supporting-wiind-power.html

    And thinks AGW is real and a problem:

    http://www.swanseafoe.org.uk/david-bellamy-and-bad-science-bellamy-and-bunkum.html

    "In 1992, he signed an open letter, published in the Guardian, saying “We are convinced that the continued emission of carbon dioxide at current rates could result in dramatic and devastating climate change in all regions of the world.”, and in 1996 he signed a letter to the Times arguing that “Continued increases in the global emissions of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels are likely to lead to climate change at a rate greater than the Earth has experienced at any time during the last 10,000 years.”


    the one who managed several mistakes in the opening minutes of his spiel?
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/mar/16/monbiot-bellamy-climate-change-denier

    That David Bellamy?

    Complain about this comment

  • 342. At 3:16pm on 21 Dec 2009, U14260427 wrote:

    "In what way does that show any sort of driving force by CO2????"

    The science.

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

    Complain about this comment

  • 343. At 3:17pm on 21 Dec 2009, Spanglerboy wrote:

    Richard

    A Fox News program on the state of climate science ia available here

    http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/12/21/6043/#more-7126

    Do you think the BBC could do something similar?

    Complain about this comment

  • 344. At 3:21pm on 21 Dec 2009, Spanglerboy wrote:

    Mark #341

    your comments could be construed as ad hominem

    Complain about this comment

  • 345. At 3:21pm on 21 Dec 2009, jr4412 wrote:

    Spanglerboy #343.

    "A Fox News program ... Do you think the BBC could do something similar?"

    how depressing, is BBC News 24 not one-dimensional enough?

    Complain about this comment

  • 346. At 3:21pm on 21 Dec 2009, John Lloyd wrote:

    Going further. Until we have this undeniabley accurate model, there is no point in having any more pointless conferences like Copenhagen. Once such a truly accurate model has been built, thouroughly tested and verified by the widest possible peer review as being totally accurate, then the scientists who built it should present it to a UN conference and explain what inputs are controlling the temperature of the planet and open the widest possible scientific discussion as to potential solutions.
    Then pause ( for 18 months ) for further thought, before meeting again to get a global consensus and agreement on the solutions.

    Complain about this comment

  • 347. At 3:36pm on 21 Dec 2009, tears of our forefathers wrote:

    Bellamy was canned, imo, for not toeing the line when it came to AGW. nothing some ubertroll says referencing wiki (lol) will persuade me. he himself says it was because he was sceptical of AGW.

    Complain about this comment

  • 348. At 3:41pm on 21 Dec 2009, Flatearther wrote:

    More biased propaganda from the Bullshit Broadcasting Corporation: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8424522.stm

    Complain about this comment

  • 349. At 3:47pm on 21 Dec 2009, John Lloyd wrote:

    Some more to add to #346
    UN should offer a $10million prize to the scientists who can build this truly accurate envoronmental / climate model totally verified by peer review representing say >80% of the most knowledgeable climate scientists in the world.
    re my comment " agreement on solutions"
    jumping the gun !!! Apologies . . .This comment does assume that the model will predict climate problems that will need solutions . . .The model of course may show that there will be no problems .

    Complain about this comment

  • 350. At 4:22pm on 21 Dec 2009, Spanglerboy wrote:

    Richard

    the piece referred to by Flatearther @ 348 includes the following - "The accord does refer to the target of limiting global warming to 2C above pre-industrial temperatures, ......"

    And you yourself have made variuos references to holding temperatures to a certain level.

    For us to take such statements seriously there must be some calculations to show how this can be achieved. Presumably the politicians at Copenhagen have a simple guide showing

    1 billion tonnes MMCO2 = global temperature rise of 0.000xC

    if there is anything out there that might enlighten us can you please share it

    many thanks

    Spanglerboy

    PS I can see this might come across as being facetious but it is not intended to be. I really want to know how this is intended to work.

    Complain about this comment

  • 351. At 4:23pm on 21 Dec 2009, U14260427 wrote:


    "your comments could be construed as ad hominem"

    How?

    And how about all the ad homs put on here by you and your coworkers? (e.g. 237, 95, 84)

    Complain about this comment

  • 352. At 4:25pm on 21 Dec 2009, U14260427 wrote:

    @poit: aye, when things are wrong, they're wrong. And this isn't about some complex analysis, the black-and-white rules show naff all to justify it.

    Complain about this comment

  • 353. At 4:39pm on 21 Dec 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    @U14260427 #351

    How does #84, 95 & 237 constitute an ad hom? Either the head of the UN's climate change panel - Dr Rajendra Pachauri, is earning a lot of money through his company or he isn't

    Which is it to be?

    Yes or no?

    Complain about this comment

  • 354. At 4:42pm on 21 Dec 2009, davblo wrote:

    MangoChutneyUKOK #317: "The rise in global temperatures since 1880 closely correlates with increases in postal charges, sparking alarm that CO2 has been usurped as the main driver of climate change"

    MangoChutneyUKOK #321: "I thought i'd throw that one back out there"

    Since you saw fit to "throw" it out here, I may as well oblige and "catch" it...

    92. Global temp rise since 1880 closely correlates with increases in postal charges

    Let me know when you'd like to see the whole list again.

    /davblo

    Complain about this comment

  • 355. At 4:45pm on 21 Dec 2009, Spanglerboy wrote:

    Mark #351

    David Bellamy used to believe in AGW. He changed his mind after researching the issue. His opinion now differs from yours. So you attack his ability to type accurately!

    You also accuse me of ad hom attacks. Can you give me an example.

    I do not feel responsible for the acts of my co-workers, largely because I aren't.

    Complain about this comment

  • 356. At 4:45pm on 21 Dec 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    @davblo2 #354

    lmao

    cheers mate, have a good christmas

    Complain about this comment

  • 357. At 4:53pm on 21 Dec 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    @Spanglerboy #355

    "Co-worker" could imply we are being paid for our sceptical views on AGW and of course he has made an explicit accusation here:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2009/12/cop15_nothing_new_in_obamas_sp.html#P90066983

    but then cannot back it up with proof as requested here:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2009/12/cop15_nothing_new_in_obamas_sp.html#P90067732

    The representation of "views" here is an indication of how much money is involved in the fossil fuel industry and how much they can afford to pay useful idiots to post.

    Do you actually have evidence to support this absurd claim?

    If not, could i suggest you withdraw your claim?

    Complain about this comment

  • 358. At 5:23pm on 21 Dec 2009, Spanglerboy wrote:

    Mango

    I didn't really give much thought to the use of the word 'co-workers' but it may be Mark thinks we are all working together to refute his view of the world. My opinion is that people on this blog tend to speak their own minds and by and large tend to avoid the group think that might characterise a public face to face discussion. Distinct lack of mutual back slapping which I find healthy.

    but I do sooooo totally lurve your monicker!

    regards

    SB

    Complain about this comment

  • 359. At 5:53pm on 21 Dec 2009, tears of our forefathers wrote:

    another quote for you all with reference to 'climatologists':

    “I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives”.
    Leo Tolstoy (1828 – 1910)

    Complain about this comment

  • 360. At 5:58pm on 21 Dec 2009, lburt wrote:

    @U14260427 /prof munckton #342 who answered a radically different question about the history of CO2 "In what way does that show any sort of driving force by CO2????" with this....

    "The science. http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

    Yes, this is an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT THING from the atmosphere. According to oversimplified physics for heat pipes they shouldn't conduct any better than a piece of metal...however add in the vapor phase transitions of the fluid inside and you get far greater "conductivity" than any solid piece of metal.

    A sealed sample on a lab bench IS NOT a dynamic atmosphere. The theoretical maximum (which is what you're talking about with that idiotic drivel you and every other AGW fanatic keeps posting about raw absorption math) has little to do with the environment you're talking about. There are CONSTANT convection currents and releases of latent heat that COMPLETELY bypass these "forcings". Where the heck do you think the water in clouds comes from anyway??? Does that just work thru magic in your tiny little universe? You DO realize the energy in the cycle making those clouds accounts for 30% of the energy budget of the sun, right????

    Once again, what YOU are suggesting would require that there be NO convection. It would require some sort of magical force field that never let molecules move more than a short distance from where they were (only far enough to bump their neighbors), thereby forcing the atmosphere to ONLY transfer energy through radiation. In the real world, however we have powerful convection currents that drive immense amounts of air all around the planet. Perhaps you've even experienced some of these forces...I think it has some strange and mythical name like..."wind".

    Now talking about that totally inadequate math as if the description of a slab-like atmosphere had anything to do with the planet on which you live. Sheesh.

    Complain about this comment

  • 361. At 6:20pm on 21 Dec 2009, Zydeco wrote:

    346. At 3:21pm on 21 Dec 2009, John Lloyd wrote:

    .....Then pause ( for 18 months ) for further thought, before meeting again to get a global consensus and agreement on the solutions.

    ****************************

    Do you honestly believe the AGW lobby can go 18 months without a carbon fuelled junket. No chance!!

    Complain about this comment

  • 362. At 6:26pm on 21 Dec 2009, John Lloyd wrote:

    Ref : #359 tears of our forefathers

    Like it - excellent quote from Tolstoy.

    Very few people are always right ( close to zero % ).
    ( My wife has has a magnet on the fridge
    " I always wanted to marry "Mr Right"
    but I never knew his first name would be Always.... " )

    I believe everybody has difficulty admitting that their past opinion(s) were wrong, which is why it is so important to keep an open mind .
    Never become so committed to a hypothesis that you become blind.
    ( There is none so blind as those who don't want to see )

    Complain about this comment

  • 363. At 6:53pm on 21 Dec 2009, infiniti wrote:

    re 332: solar forcing and ghg increase

    Complain about this comment

  • 364. At 6:56pm on 21 Dec 2009, davblo wrote:

    poitsplace #360: "Yes, this is an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT THING from the atmosphere..."

    Is this the same poitsplace, talking about energy flow in block capitals, who still hasn't acknowledged the error in saying...

    "BTW the UK uses 1 terawatt (Trillion watts) per day"

    ...and the best he could manage was...

    "Were this a scientific paper I would have expressed such energies in a more specific way. ... I was wrong about the terawatt comment. I could have phrased it differently."

    I repeat; there is no way that someone who understands the physics would make that mistake and then attempt to wriggle out of it in that way.

    Just where are you getting you "science" from.

    /davblo

    Complain about this comment

  • 365. At 6:58pm on 21 Dec 2009, U14260427 wrote:

    "According to oversimplified physics for heat pipes they shouldn't conduct any better than a piece of metal"

    That isn't an oversimplified physics for heat pipes.

    "A sealed sample on a lab bench IS NOT a dynamic atmosphere."

    Indeed not. Which was the reason why Arrhenius was considered to be on to the wrong thing because they thought that CO2 was saturated and couldn't affect the temperatures.

    But Gilbert Plass showed that it DID make a difference.

    Did you not read the link?

    PS that's the same reason why Beers' Law doesn't prove CO2 has no effect: the atmosphere is not a homogenous glass tube.

    "There are CONSTANT convection currents and releases of latent heat that COMPLETELY bypass these "forcings"."

    Utterly wrong.

    Do you know NOTHING about meteorology? Do you know what the tropopause is? Or why deep convective clouds have "Anvil heads"?

    Convection doesn't get the heat out of the system.

    It has to escape into space.

    Which doesn't convect. Unless you're a believer in the aether.

    It seems that YOU are the one posting drivel. This is not the first time for you.


    "Now talking about that totally inadequate math as if the description of a slab-like atmosphere had anything to do with the planet on which you live."

    See. Proof you haven't read it.

    Quote:

    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.

    Complain about this comment

  • 366. At 6:59pm on 21 Dec 2009, U14260427 wrote:

    "Never become so committed to a hypothesis that you become blind."

    Seems to be more the case of polit and pals.

    Absolutely 150% convinced that the IPCC is wrong.

    Complain about this comment

  • 367. At 7:00pm on 21 Dec 2009, infiniti wrote:

    re 340:

    Model output can match GISTEMP and HadCrut. What's your fallback plan?

    Complain about this comment

  • 368. At 7:02pm on 21 Dec 2009, U14260427 wrote:

    Spanky @355.

    "David Bellamy used to believe in AGW. "

    And that was after he stopped being on the telly.

    Timeline goes:

    On Telly
    years pass
    Not On Telly
    years pass
    Believes AGW
    years pass
    Blames his lack of TV appearance on fighting John Major
    years pass
    Pronounces that his stance on AGW was the reason


    You didn't read anything, did you.

    It's all there.

    Complain about this comment

  • 369. At 7:05pm on 21 Dec 2009, U14260427 wrote:

    And how is my posting ad hom?

    Everything David Bellamy claimed is reported.

    They are factual and genuine.

    Or can you prove that someone on the IPCC team travelled back in time to change history...

    Complain about this comment

  • 370. At 7:06pm on 21 Dec 2009, tears of our forefathers wrote:

    Mr Lloyd:

    I think I was trying to suggest that we shouldn't be too hard on those people who have invested 20 years of their lives into a theory that has gradually been corrupted to serve a political agenda. They're only human. They're not evil, just wrong IMO.

    Regarding your £10 million prize to redesign the climate models: I don't believe we can redesign them to be accurate because as it stands there are still too many factors we just don't understand and cannot model. I'm looking forward to the results of the CERN CLOUD experiments, I think they will provide a big leap forward in our understanding of climate drivers.

    My faveourite quote from the great Frank Herbert:

    Think you on the fact that the deaf cannot hear and the blind cannot see. What senses do we lack that we cannot see and hear another world all around us?

    Complain about this comment

  • 371. At 7:07pm on 21 Dec 2009, U14260427 wrote:

    poit, what happens when a column of air rises, by the way?

    HINT: It cools.

    Complain about this comment

  • 372. At 7:08pm on 21 Dec 2009, U14260427 wrote:

    PS SpankyBoy, my name's not Mark either.

    Complain about this comment

  • 373. At 7:09pm on 21 Dec 2009, U14260427 wrote:

    "Just where are you getting you "science" from.

    /davblo"

    The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine.

    You can get a good degree from them over the internet and you never have to take classes!

    Complain about this comment

  • 374. At 7:15pm on 21 Dec 2009, Maria Ashot wrote:

    No. 359: Yes, and it applies to all of you who are pretending there is nothing wrong with the environment that our greed & mediocrity is the cause of.

    Take a look in the mirror. Listen to yourselves.

    Complain about this comment

  • 375. At 7:20pm on 21 Dec 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    @U14260427 #369

    You didn't answer my question here:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2009/12/cop15_no_hopenhagen.html#P90125498

    I'll repeat it:

    How does #84, 95 & 237 constitute an ad hom? Either the head of the UN's climate change panel - Dr Rajendra Pachauri, is earning a lot of money through his company or he isn't

    Which is it to be?

    Yes or no?

    Complain about this comment

  • 376. At 7:23pm on 21 Dec 2009, bowmanthebard wrote:

    #305 Bill Winspur wrote:

    "I wish I could be a denier, oblivious to the deepening global catastrophe of crop failures, acidified oceans, flooding coastal areas, famine, and climate-driven migration. It must be nice to think that there is nothing wrong with dumping train-loads of coal into the atmosphere every day."

    Let's take these in turn:

    1. What do you expect to cause crop failures? Usually, more CO2 + more liquid water + more heat = more plant life.

    2. Acidified oceans are a strange worry. Even the most excessive estimates of CO2 production cannot acidify the oceans by any significant amount, assuming we're talking about carbonic acid (the stuff that makes a Coke burp pungent). The commonest fossils everyone finds in limestone are sea shells that lived in much richer CO2 levels than we could ever get.

    3. Flooding coastal areas occur wherever there are coastal areas (statistically, because not all coasts are cliffs). Higher sea levels bring less coast, and hence less flooding coastal areas. Remember that people do not live near coasts because a population explosion has caused them to finally reach the edge of the land!

    4. Famines are inevitable wherever people live in poverty, because wherever "life is cheap" people they have more children. If the developing world were allowed to grow economically, the people would invest more in each child -- and have fewer children, who eat less. This is standard for the Western world, and should be allowed, nay, encouraged in the developing world. Solution: less poverty!

    5. Does anyone know anyone who "migrated from" a place because of the climate? (I assume "migrating" and "going on holiday" are different!)

    6. Practically every single atom of carbon in those "train-loads of coal" you mention was already in the atmosphere, before it got taken out. Now we're putting it back, but the stuff we're putting back is simultaneously being taken out, by plants that will eventually become the coal of future generations of creatures on Earth -- whatever they may be.

    Since CO2 levels are rising, we can assume that more is being put in than taken out at the moment, but why worry about that? The easily-got carbon fuels (such as coal) are looking distinctly obsolete compared to nuclear power, etc., and they're supposed to be getting less and less easily-got by the decade, so sooner or later, one way or another, CO2 levels will fall.

    (If you worry about that sort of thing, although I don't think you should.)

    Complain about this comment

  • 377. At 7:24pm on 21 Dec 2009, John Lloyd wrote:

    Re : 367 Infinity

    Fallback plan ?
    We may need to get some better brains to develop the model(s). We may need to go into more detail & get more data in some areas and take more time. What is the advantage in coming to a premature conclusion ?
    These are very complex models with hundreds of variables that we may not have good data on ( for example what data do we have on say solar activity 500 years ago, or ocean currents 500 years ago ).
    What we should definitely not do is to jump to the wrong conclusions simply because we think we need answers fast but don't have an accurate model .

    If you do that, there is a very high probability you will simply get in a real mess and lose all credibility . Maybe that is where we are right now.

    Complain about this comment

  • 378. At 7:27pm on 21 Dec 2009, xtragrumpymike2 wrote:

    Whatever happened to the Spirit of Christmas?

    Peace and Goodwill to ALL mankind ( I assume that means both pro and anti -AGW lobbies)

    As for the current gloating may I once again repeat the words of "The Gambler"

    "......never count your money while the cards are on the table........"

    While China (the new world super "economy" power) and America (the fading world super "economy"power) are still talking, the Horse Trading will continue!

    "......there'll be time enough for counting (gloating)........."

    When both China and America declare that AGW is a scam!

    Until then..........Happy New Year everyone.

    Complain about this comment

  • 379. At 7:31pm on 21 Dec 2009, tears of our forefathers wrote:

    mrs ashot:

    still no intention of responding to the perfectly reasonable questions posed by myself and others on these blogs i see. maybe i'll pay more heed to your words when you've answered a few of them.

    Complain about this comment

  • 380. At 7:33pm on 21 Dec 2009, xtragrumpymike2 wrote:

    Very few people are always right ( close to zero % ).
    ( My wife has has a magnet on the fridge
    " I always wanted to marry "Mr Right"
    but I never knew his first name would be Always.... " )

    Thanks, John.....will have to keep that one away from my wife!

    Complain about this comment

  • 381. At 7:35pm on 21 Dec 2009, tears of our forefathers wrote:

    regarding co2 being good for plants:

    Successful indoor growers implement methods to increase CO2 concentrations in their enclosure. The typical outdoor air we breathe contains 0.03 - 0.045% (300 - 450 ppm) CO2. Research demonstrates that optimum growth and production for most plants occur between 1200 - 1500 ppm CO2. These optimum CO2 levels can boost plant metabolism, growth and yield by 25 - 60%.

    from

    http://www.planetnatural.com/site/xdpy/kb/implementing-co2.html

    let me guess, they're big oil shills right?

    Complain about this comment

  • 382. At 7:36pm on 21 Dec 2009, tears of our forefathers wrote:

    'our greed & mediocrity '

    speak for yourself. i'm neither thank you very much ;)

    Complain about this comment

  • 383. At 7:40pm on 21 Dec 2009, infiniti wrote:

    377:

    I am not jumping to any conclusions. The current science shows that it's likely that doubling co2 causes somewhere between 1.5C and 4.5C global warming. That's not a conclusion, it's the result of over a century of ongoing climate research.

    Complain about this comment

  • 384. At 7:51pm on 21 Dec 2009, tears of our forefathers wrote:

    Mr grumpy:

    I agree:

    Merry christmas and a happy new year to everyone whatever you believe on this issue.

    Complain about this comment

  • 385. At 7:51pm on 21 Dec 2009, Maria Ashot wrote:

    Mr Forefathers: Thank you for the courtesy (No. 379).

    Sorry, I have been busy with many of the latest developments.

    Do feel free to repeat the questions -- with my apologies for putting you through the extra effort -- and let's see if I can't answer some of them.

    You know, as I do, that this conversation often involves a lot of slogging through some oddities. So forgive me if I have appeared distracted at times. It is true that I am also attempting to keep a little storm-buffeted ship afloat.

    But in my profession, questions are never to be avoided and always are met with respect for the interlocutor.
    So ask away, and I shall check back in about 15-20 mins to read what the questions are, and offer you my responses.

    Cheers, sir!

    Complain about this comment

  • 386. At 7:52pm on 21 Dec 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    @infinity #383

    That's not a conclusion, it's the result of over a century of ongoing climate research.

    ......that doesn't take into account observational evidence which shows climate sensitivity is low

    Complain about this comment

  • 387. At 7:57pm on 21 Dec 2009, tears of our forefathers wrote:

    this was john daly's last paper before he died in 2004 (the guy whose death prompted a gentle gloat which kicked up a bit of a stink from the emails):

    http://www.john-daly.com/peerrev1.htm

    'The Greenhouse Industry

    On this website, frequent reference has been made to the so-called `Greenhouse Industry'. The term itself implies that scientists and policy-makers involved in climate change gain an economic benefit from over-emphasising the theorised effects of man-made `global warming'. That such a benefit exists is undeniable - consider the explosive growth of climate-related research institutions and academics in the last 25 years, with all the opportunities for travel to exotic locations for conferences and the improved prospects for promotion which exists. This is one of the few sciences where a kind of Hollywood `star' system applies, where fame and applause greets those scientists who tell the industry exactly what it wants to hear. This star system is the very antithesis of science, yet is encouraged quite blatantly by the industry and its leading body - the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (UN-IPCC).

    Stephen Schneider, Ann Henderson-Sellers, Phil Jones, Ben Santer, Tom Wigley, and most recently Michael Mann, are the most notable examples of this star celebrity system operating in climate science. '

    how right he was.

    Complain about this comment

  • 388. At 8:04pm on 21 Dec 2009, infiniti wrote:

    Re: 386

    yes it does

    Complain about this comment

  • 389. At 8:16pm on 21 Dec 2009, tears of our forefathers wrote:

    mrs ashot:

    works pretty quiet tonight (i love the snow, everythings been abondoned except the darts and they're all running late!) so i've hunted down some links to the earlier posts asking you a few questions:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2009/12/cop15_deal_or_no_deal.html#P90036930

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2009/12/cop15_deal_or_no_deal.html#P90023686

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2009/12/cop15_deal_or_no_deal.html#P90036930

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2009/12/cop15_deal_or_no_deal.html#P90039747

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2009/12/cop15_deal_or_no_deal.html#P90043335

    there are probably a few more out there i've missed but that seems to be most of them.

    thanks in advance

    Complain about this comment

  • 390. At 8:20pm on 21 Dec 2009, John wrote:

    Just in case there is anybody having difficulty sleeping, here are one or two peer reviewed papers which are considered as sceptical of AGW.
    Worth noting for future reference.

    http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html

    Complain about this comment

  • 391. At 8:33pm on 21 Dec 2009, tears of our forefathers wrote:

    brazenearlybird:

    thanks for that link! great find. one or two lol!!!

    Complain about this comment

  • 392. At 8:38pm on 21 Dec 2009, lburt wrote:

    @davblo #364 who wrote...
    "Is this the same poitsplace, talking about energy flow in block capitals, who still hasn't acknowledged the error in saying..."

    ("BTW the UK uses 1 terawatt (Trillion watts) per day")


    Once again, I'm sorry you're unable to understand that I meant terawatt hours(which is sad because everyone else did, including the guy that commented). But hey, if this repeated stamping your feet and pouting about it isn't working out for you...perhaps you could instead try holding your breath until mommy makes you stop.

    cheers

    Complain about this comment

  • 393. At 8:41pm on 21 Dec 2009, Spanglerboy wrote:

    Infinity

    You say 'its not about it being unusual, it's about explaining it. Thus far the only explaination for the Earth gaining heat in the past 30 years, and may I say also quite a simple explaination too, is the rise in ghgs.'

    Then as regards the similar rise in temperatures for the years 1860-1880 and 1910-1940 you say 'solar forcing and ghg increase'

    So in the earlier years the sun was a driver but at the end of the 20th century the only explanation is the rise in ghgs. That does not sound very convincing.

    Perhaps others with greater knowledge of these matters can help us out?

    Complain about this comment

  • 394. At 8:42pm on 21 Dec 2009, U14260427 wrote:

    "......that doesn't take into account observational evidence which shows climate sensitivity is low..."

    Like 2.5-4C per doubling low?

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

    If you think the observations were not treated with the correct techniques, feel free to post "corrections".

    (PS that's also the likely outcome of the IPCC model ensembles. It's impossible to get the PETM to exist with sensitivity less than about 1.5C per doubling)

    Complain about this comment

  • 395. At 8:43pm on 21 Dec 2009, U14260427 wrote:

    "......that doesn't take into account observational evidence which shows climate sensitivity is low..."

    Like 2.5-4C per doubling low?

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

    If you think the observations were not treated with the correct techniques, feel free to post "corrections".

    (PS that's also the likely outcome of the IPCC model ensembles. It's impossible to get the PETM to exist with sensitivity less than about 1.5C per doubling)

    Complain about this comment

  • 396. At 8:45pm on 21 Dec 2009, U14260427 wrote:

    "Successful indoor growers implement methods to increase CO2 concentrations in their enclosure. "

    As so eloquently pointed out elsewhere by spanky, the earth's atmosphere isn't a greenhouse all closed in.

    PS: didn't you check up on plant biology?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebig's_law_of_the_minimum

    Plants cannot live on CO2 alone...

    Complain about this comment

  • 397. At 8:46pm on 21 Dec 2009, U14260427 wrote:

    @387, pioneered by Plimer, Monckton, Seitz and Spencer.

    Complain about this comment

  • 398. At 8:48pm on 21 Dec 2009, U14260427 wrote:

    mongo (@375) you never answered mine. I shall recount: how is my post an ad hom?

    You made the statement, prove it.

    Complain about this comment

  • 399. At 8:55pm on 21 Dec 2009, U14260427 wrote:

    Let me take these in turn:

    "1. What do you expect to cause crop failures? Usually, more CO2 + more liquid water + more heat = more plant life."

    Where's the more water coming from? Sahel expanding. Flooding waters don't help either, just ask Bangladesh.

    Equation unequal.


    "2. Acidified oceans are a strange worry. Even the most excessive estimates of CO2 production cannot acidify the oceans by any significant amount,"

    Unless you're a creature that builds bodies or structures for living based on limestone.

    And anything that feeds on those.

    And anything that feeds on the feeders of those.

    And all the way up the food chain.

    "3. Flooding coastal areas occur wherever there are coastal areas (statistically, because not all coasts are cliffs). Higher sea levels bring less coast, and hence less flooding coastal areas."

    Insanity. Orwellian, even: War Is Peace.

    "4. Famines are inevitable wherever people live in poverty,"

    It's even more inevitable if you remove their water their homes and the land.

    "5. Does anyone know anyone who "migrated from" a place because of the climate?"

    This is what we're trying to avoid having to do.

    If you wish to make room for the dispossessed in the name of "adapting" please offer your services to Red Cross.

    "6. Practically every single atom of carbon in those "train-loads of coal" you mention was already in the atmosphere, before it got taken out."

    Over millions of years.

    And we're taking it out in centuries.

    A trickle of water can be drunk.

    A flood can drown you.

    "Since CO2 levels are rising, we can assume that more is being put in than taken out at the moment"

    Well done.

    "but why worry about that?"

    Because last time that amount of CO2 was out there, Oxfordshire was flooded.

    Not too nice for Oxfordshire.


    "The easily-got carbon fuels (such as coal) are looking distinctly obsolete compared to nuclear power, etc.,"

    They are easily got, however. So why not leave them there so if we are REALLY stuck for energy we have a source. E.g. if we need to evacuate the earth for an ELE asteroid.

    "and they're supposed to be getting less and less easily-got by the decade, so sooner or later, one way or another, CO2 levels will fall."

    In a million years

    Complain about this comment

  • 400. At 9:03pm on 21 Dec 2009, John Lloyd wrote:

    #383 Infinity
    Sorry for the delay in replying, it has started snowing heavily here resulting in a few problems !

    Doubling CO2 from what level to what level ?
    100ppm to 200ppm or from 400 ppm to 800 ppm or what?
    Also what is happening to the other hundreds of variables in the model ? What effect does the higher CO2 have on plant metabolism, growth and yield . What CO2 absorpion changes are going on in the model and why ? etc etc. Is your model accurate in replicating past temperature changes, say 500 - 600 years ago.?
    It is a bit simplistic to quote such figures unless you give complete details of the context. ( Please don't expand here, just send your paper for peer review ).

    If the existing models were considered by consensus to be truly reliable, I think there would be much wider agreement in the community on the CO2 issue than there is. There would also be no need for the kind of culture that developed at East Anglia to try and manipulate the peer review system and blacklist certain publications. That type of culture is (I think) probably the result of a having a "weak / unreliable" model that is likely to attract critical comments. There is no doubt that some models are much better than others. Maybe yours is truly accurate and, if so, you should be able to persuade the rest of the community that the CO2 issue is fully proven. However, at the moment, the community does not appear to believe that there is a completely reliable model available, and hence there are sceptics even amongst some of the most highly qualified climate scientists on the planet.

    Complain about this comment

  • 401. At 9:04pm on 21 Dec 2009, infiniti wrote:

    393: "So in the earlier years the sun was a driver but at the end of the 20th century the only explanation is the rise in ghgs. That does not sound very convincing."

    It might do with one additional fact: Solar activity rose and peaked in the 1950s and has been flat since.

    Complain about this comment

  • 402. At 9:06pm on 21 Dec 2009, Erik Bloodaxe wrote:

    U14260427 re #395

    Wikipedia is not to be trusted. Its climate articles are rigorously censored by one William Connolley, Green party activist and founder member of the shrill realclimate.org. Nothing contrary to the bogus "consensus", even from peer-reviewed journals, survives his censorship.

    See here, for example:

    http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/12/18/370719.aspx

    Complain about this comment

  • 403. At 9:12pm on 21 Dec 2009, Maria Ashot wrote:

    No. 324, Kealey: Well, I would even consider something as straightforward as transferring ice-pack from the threatened ice-sheets onto tankers & parking it in refrigerated tanks in Australia.

    Alternatively, building refrigeration systems onto Antarctic or Greenland terrain in order to slow down the loss of ice could be conceived of.

    In a broader sense: if you know you have a problem, and the numbers are working against you, and you can't even bring yourselves to ensure the integrity of forestlands on Earth today, how can you even look at yourselves in the morning, when you stand in front of the mirror?

    Why could the US decide it was important to fund a mission to the Moon, or now Russians want to fund a mission to Mars, but no one thinks its important to actually try doing something -- funded, designed, engineered, implemented -- to preserve human habitats?

    Complain about this comment

  • 404. At 9:12pm on 21 Dec 2009, tears of our forefathers wrote:

    '"1. What do you expect to cause crop failures? Usually, more CO2 + more liquid water + more heat = more plant life."

    Where's the more water coming from? Sahel expanding. Flooding waters don't help either, just ask Bangladesh.'

    it is also believed that increased co2 levels might actually reduce plant water needs. higher levels of co2 might actually make some areas currently marginal able to support agriculture. not in europe, we can grow stuff just fine but in various bits of the third world it could be helpful.

    don't know why i'm bothering, you're not ahuman being you're some sort of proAGW computer program. waste of time talking to you.

    Complain about this comment

  • 405. At 9:17pm on 21 Dec 2009, tears of our forefathers wrote:

    mrs ashot:

    was your objective to simply waste my time? or will you address the questions in the links i posted for you?

    Complain about this comment

  • 406. At 9:20pm on 21 Dec 2009, bowmanthebard wrote:

    more liquid water + more heat = more plant life.

    Where's the more water coming from?

    Glaciers, icecaps, etc.?

    Complain about this comment

  • 407. At 9:30pm on 21 Dec 2009, infiniti wrote:

    Re 400:

    I am not a climate modeller. If you want to see how models work, here's a primer:
    http://www.aip.org/history/climate/GCM.htm

    If you want to know the relevant climate model output for this issue see the IPCC reports.





    Complain about this comment

  • 408. At 9:32pm on 21 Dec 2009, davblo wrote:

    poitsplace #392: "Once again, I'm sorry you're unable to understand that I meant terawatt hours(which is sad because everyone else did, including the guy that commented)."

    It's not for us to guess what you mean, but for you to state clearly and unambiguously what you mean.

    But once again you miss the mark; saying just "terawatt hours".

    Maybe you mean "terawatt hours per day".

    We shouldn't have to guess; and you should admit mistakes in an honourable fashion if you want to be taken seriously.

    Your final sentence in #392, which I won't repeat here, is childish in the extreme and looses you even more respect.

    /davblo

    Complain about this comment

  • 409. At 9:33pm on 21 Dec 2009, U14260427 wrote:

    "Glaciers, icecaps, etc.?"

    They run into the sea.

    When they're melted, they aren't there any more.

    "it is also believed that increased co2 levels might actually reduce plant water needs."

    It is believed that Xenu the galactic emperor is imprisoned under a mountain.

    However, plant needs are still based on the law of the minimum. And real field trials with actual living plants outside do not bear this out.

    There are many human food plants that cannot take Carbon from the air but have to take it another way. Increased CO2 doesn't help those.

    "Wikipedia is not to be trusted"

    It's quite trustable. Unless you're a conspiracy theorist.

    But the article also names papers produced. Look them up.

    If you're not going to trust them, why do you trust ones that say it's A-OK?

    "Doubling CO2 from what level to what level ?"

    Huh?

    It doesn't matter to a huge extent. after a few ppm it's doubling.

    10 doubled is 20. 2.5-4C warming.

    100 doubled is 200. 2.5-4C warming.

    You know.

    Doubling.

    "Also what is happening to the other hundreds of variables in the model ?"

    This isn't a computer model. It's observation. Did you bother to read it? At all?

    "Maybe yours is truly accurate and, if so, you should be able to persuade the rest of the community that the CO2 issue is fully proven."

    It is fully proven.

    As much as it's proven man has landed on the moon.

    Though there are people who disagree.

    As much as it's proven that the sun is a big ball of hydrogen and helium incandescent through nuclear fusion at its core.

    Though there are many people who disagree.

    etc.

    Complain about this comment

  • 410. At 9:46pm on 21 Dec 2009, tears of our forefathers wrote:

    warmer air has a higher saturation point with regards to H2O and will increase evaporation from the oceans.

    also your levels of temp increase due to co2 are based on faulty science.

    error... does not compute...error

    Complain about this comment

  • 411. At 9:47pm on 21 Dec 2009, thinkforyourself wrote:

    New evidence from the met office says warming is more pronounced than that predicted by HadCRUT.

    Quote: ‘New analysis released today has shown the global temperature rise calculated by the Met Office’s HadCRUT record is at the lower end of likely warming.’

    Details here:-

    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2009/pr20091218b.html


    Referring to post 241:-

    Petr Chylek confirms the link between increasing CO2 in the atmosphere and warming. He is, however, at the lower end of climate sensitivity predictions. The section from his paper, below, still allows for the possibility of a two degree warming from a doubling of CO2. He finds:-

    ‘Consequently, the observed global warming is the result of an increasing concentration of carbon dioxide and a decreasing concentration of tropospheric aerosols. The climate sensitivity parameter, which relates the top-of-the-atmosphere radiative forcing to the change of the global surface air temperature, is derived from analyses of satellite observations of the aerosol optical depth, changes in the carbon dioxide concentration, and the increase in the global temperature. Considering the last decade, when both the decreasing aerosol optical depth and the increasing carbon dioxide concentration have been causing warming, we deduce the climate sensitivity to be 0.4 (with uncertainty of 0.1)K/Wm-2. This value corresponds to a warming of about 1.6 (with uncertainty of 0.4) deg C due to doubling the amount of carbon dioxide from its pre-industrial level.’

    I can’t see anything to make us complacent, here. Other scientists are at the higher end of predictions and thus we arrive at the IPCC mean values for climate sensitivity. In addition, fossil fuel emissions will still carry on at an accelerating pace without any global agreement. We would then be looking at tripling atmospheric CO2 by 2100. We don’t really know what happens at these levels.

    I don’t think we should be feeling smug.

    Complain about this comment

  • 412. At 9:53pm on 21 Dec 2009, Maria Ashot wrote:

    Mr. Forefathers, Thank you for No. 389: I will try to tackle them, at least the ones I found from the list you provided.

    OK, here goes, with apologies if they are not in the desired order:

    1. Why do I travel so much on BA? BA is my favourite airline; they have excellent fares and superb service.

    Not having flown for several decades, at all, and having spent eight years without using a personal automobile, at all, I feel I have earned the right to fly for a few years. I love trains and prefer non-polluting forms of transport. I walk a great deal, find it is good for my health (and everyone else in the family got healthier from living without a car). We use a car-share service sometimes, also something I endorse.

    If I had my druthers, I would live in the EU full-time, take the train everywhere, and once a year travel by ship to the New(er) World. That would suit me fine.

    However, at the present time, with the third kid in a US high school, I do have to spend a significant amount of time in the US, and so I do have to go back & forth. The work I do has value, at least for some people I know, but it does not pay much (nothing at all in fact, most of the time) and so I do the best I can to avoid being a burden. By the way, no one in my family of refugees/immigrants has ever taken a cent of any kind of public assistance, entitlement programme or anything of the sort. Our carbon footprint is tiny. I have not commuted to work in a personal vehicle since 1993. My current commute -- when I am not flying on BA & taking the Tube from Heathrow -- is less than 12 feet.

    2. My husband's views:

    My husband believes, as I do, that Russia took a huge wrong turn in 1917. More precisely, we both believe Europe took a huge wrong turn in 1914, and that much of the madness & pendulum swings of atrocities & recessions that followed for the next century or so (almost at that mark now) are a direct result of that wrong turn.

    This fundamental shared ideological position is what allows the two of us to get along as well as we do.

    The main difference between Mr Ashot & myself is that he is disinclined to view humankind in a positive light. I still do. I still believe -- even from looking at him, and his work, and following his personal efforts for the past quarter-century -- that human beings have the Light of God inside them (all of us, whether we stumble & fail or not), that we have the capacity to do extraordinary things, that we can find remarkable solutions to the most distressing problems, that we can accomplish anything we put our minds to -- if our purpose is true, and our motivation to rise above the limitations thrown up by ignorance, indolence or indifference.

    Even though Ashot likes to act the misanthrope, he is actually just a regular, decent European male with all the typical wonderful qualities of the same -- probably not very different from you.

    And even thought he likes to argue with me, and complain about me, and say things not very different from some of the things some of you have said, he still likes the results -- and, by implication, he still knows that I am a very dependable kind of friend, Brother-in-Arms (love that song by MK), whatever you want to call it.
    Yeah, and Mother to the Offspring.

    He does not, however, have the English to read anything I write, even if he does inspire quite a bit of it, because I am even more disinclined to accept a world that is hard on people like him or our children, than I normally would be, if it were just being hard on me.

    We had an exciting and interesting interaction with the collapsing USSR, which began with a 32-page letter I wrote, in longhand, and of course in beautiful, poetic Russian, to M Gorbachev, back in the summer of 1986.
    Some have suggested our story would make a fine thriller.

    It is true that my experiences in the USSR left me generally unafraid. There were some sticky moments, yet, here I am, and nothing as bad as what was going on there then exists anywhere anymore. (Yes, I realise some of the Russian citizens quoted by the BBC occasionally say "It is scarier under Putin." In my opinion, that is a contemptible lie -- or they have amnesia, or they are under 30 years old. Russia still has a lot of work to do, and is doing it. But it is Heaven & Earth compared to where it was before, which was hellish.)

    Mr Gorbachev became a friend. The late Mrs Gorbachev admired my husband's work even before that fateful step I took, however. She was an extraordinary woman and actually deserves a lot more credit than has been given to her in official texts for helping bring liberalisation to the former Soviet bloc of European nations, and to Russia itself.

    The Gorbachevs really were intelligent people whose overriding goal was to make the country change for the better without descending into some kind of bloodbath. They were also influential in supporting the work of pro-environment scientists & activists (some of whom I met in person back in 1983, who really pushed me towards getting an education in this subject) against the planet-raping dinosaurs of the degenerate Communist system. You know the ideology of Communism is ultimately about enslaving a population and then mining its resources for the benefit of a corrupt few.

    So that's two questions, Mr Forefathers. More soon.

    Complain about this comment

  • 413. At 9:57pm on 21 Dec 2009, U14260427 wrote:

    tears, are your intentions to waste Maria's time?

    Complain about this comment

  • 414. At 9:57pm on 21 Dec 2009, tears of our forefathers wrote:

    from :[Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]

    Compared to plants grown at existing carbon dioxide
    levels, plants “fertilized” by elevated levels of atmospheric
    carbon dioxide increase their photosynthesis rates (Norby et
    al. 1999, Kimball et al. 2002, Nowak et al. 2004). In addition,
    carbon dioxide-fertilized plants respond with increased
    biomass (dry weight), improved water use efficiency, and an increased tolerance of low light levels. Free-Air Carbon
    Dioxide Enrichment (FACE) research and other studies have
    focused on plant response to carbon dioxide levels of 550 parts
    per million or more, but it seems likely that plants in range
    and wildland environments are “fertilized” by modern levels
    (which are about one-third higher than pre-industrial levels
    of 280 parts per million). FACE experiments involve exposing
    plants in the field to elevated carbon dioxide levels.


    'improved water use efficiency'

    Complain about this comment

  • 415. At 9:59pm on 21 Dec 2009, U14260427 wrote:

    "warmer air has a higher saturation point with regards to H2O and will increase evaporation from the oceans."

    Indeed, it's a feedback. Amplifying other forces on the climate.

    And what happens next?

    "also your levels of temp increase due to co2 are based on faulty science."

    No they aren't. If you feel they are, please supply evidence and supporting theory to show this. They aren't new papers and have managed to stand so far. But maybe you know better.

    Complain about this comment

  • 416. At 9:59pm on 21 Dec 2009, Peter317 wrote:

    #409:

    ""Wikipedia is not to be trusted"

    It's quite trustable. Unless you're a conspiracy theorist."

    Just open:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_sensitivity

    or just about any other article to do with climate change, click on the discussion tab, and see how the same names appear over and over again - Connolley et al.
    They have turned Wikipedia into their own personal feifdom, and they make sure that nothing appears on the Wiki pages that they don't want there.
    Don't take my word for it, it's there for anyone to see.

    Conspiracy? Yes, I would say so.

    Complain about this comment

  • 417. At 10:00pm on 21 Dec 2009, davblo wrote:

    Aren't we loosing the thread here?

    What did the Copenhagen climate summit achieve?

    Isn't it odd that such an enormous meeting of the world's great leaders leaves people wondering what it actually achieved?

    Agreements, disagreements; points given and taken; why isn't it all clearly and unambiguously documented and presented to us? Why wasn't there a closing session where they presented the results to the world and let us know how things will (should) turn out? (Did I miss it)

    Politics I guess.

    /davblo

    Complain about this comment

  • 418. At 10:12pm on 21 Dec 2009, U14260427 wrote:

    "or just about any other article to do with climate change, click on the discussion tab, and see how the same names appear over and over again"

    And who else would you have update specialised information?

    And they do list the papers.

    But if your a paranoiac maybe you can't trust anyone, since anyone could be one of THEM.

    Which begs the question: how can you know anything?

    "Don't take my word for it"

    I won't.

    "It", though, is a conspiracy theory and an ad hom. Are the data wrong?

    Seems you don't have an answer apart from "THEY are conspiring".

    Complain about this comment

  • 419. At 10:14pm on 21 Dec 2009, tears of our forefathers wrote:

    mrs ashot:

    i have to say i am greatly impressed with your history and your polylinguidity (not sure that's a real word). i'm currently studying french in my spare time and am looking to add russian or arabic as the next language i have a crack at so i like people who like languages!

    i cannot agree with your perception of the AGW situation but thank you for at least making a start on addressing some of the questions. it is helpful to understand where you are coming from and, no offese, you do seem to be coming from way out of left field sometimes.

    merry christmas and a happy new year.

    ps Gorbachev is someone i have a very mixed opinion on.

    Complain about this comment

  • 420. At 10:15pm on 21 Dec 2009, U14260427 wrote:

    @414 may I present you another problem for you:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2009/12/cop15_no_hopenhagen.html#P90133180

    Read point 3.

    Ta.

    Complain about this comment

  • 421. At 10:18pm on 21 Dec 2009, Spanglerboy wrote:

    Infinity

    I dont want to be a nuisance, but in the interests of expanding my limited knowledge, can you let me know what is meant by solar activity? Is this the same as the sunspot count? Or is it a measure of irradiation or something else? I have done a quick search on solar activity and most sites seem to show sunspot numbers which look lower in the earlier part of the 20th century than the later part. Or if you can provide a link that would help.

    Thanks


    Complain about this comment

  • 422. At 10:19pm on 21 Dec 2009, U14260427 wrote:

    PS Check the IPCC report and the 11 pages of referred papers.

    If the IPCC report was not an acceptable synthesis of those, the denialists would have jumped on that with glee.

    Complain about this comment

  • 423. At 10:22pm on 21 Dec 2009, tears of our forefathers wrote:

    positive feedback does not dominate nature. simples.

    Complain about this comment

  • 424. At 10:23pm on 21 Dec 2009, bowmanthebard wrote:

    '"Glaciers, icecaps, etc.?"
    They run into the sea.
    When they're melted, they aren't there any more.'

    I think you'll find that frozen water (i.e. ice) turns into liquid water when it melts.

    This may be safe enough for a young person like yourself to try at home, if you ask your parents' permission first.

    Complain about this comment

  • 425. At 10:29pm on 21 Dec 2009, tears of our forefathers wrote:

    @420

    no thanks autotroll, others have more patience than i to go round in circles with you.

    Complain about this comment

  • 426. At 10:38pm on 21 Dec 2009, thinkforyourself wrote:

    Hadcrut global surface temperature for November is the 5th warmist in the instrument record. The other four are 1997, 2001, 2004 and 2005. They say:-

    ‘The annual timeseries illustrates the increase since the 1850s in global mean temperatures. This increase is much larger than the known sources of error. The warming has occurred in two main phases: 1920-40 and particularly since the mid-1970s. Research at the Met Office Hadley Centre using state-of-the-art climate models has shown that this behaviour can only adequately be accounted for by a combination of natural and human factors: the latter dominate.’
    So the climate models reflect what is being observed.

    Complain about this comment

  • 427. At 10:53pm on 21 Dec 2009, tears of our forefathers wrote:

    thinkforyourself:

    LOL! if i was looking to support the AGW case i'd not be refering to the work of those (allegedly) about to be charged with violating FOI laws and dismissed in shame for (allegedly) corrupting the peer review process. you guys are getting desperate. even mike mann (whose in a very similar boat) has hung them out to dry, see his recent editorial in the washington post, read the comments for a taste of grassroots opinion in the US.

    linky: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/17/AR2009121703682.html

    Complain about this comment

  • 428. At 10:58pm on 21 Dec 2009, John Lloyd wrote:

    This is something I was going to mention yesterday but got distracted.
    There are lots of different ways of looking at the temperature issue.
    Simplistically, just consider two of them :
    1. Historical trends
    2. Cause and Effect
    I strongly believe that climate models should focus on "Cause and Effect" and then be verified on the basis that the model can reproduce historical trends in temperatures very accurately using proven input variables. For me at least this provides some confidence that the science has identified the inputs, and the mechanisms and their interaction correctly. Just analyzing trends, I feel does not really provide much in the way of understanding. Where past temperature trends have gone up and down, as on this planet, trends in themselves are not that useful. Temperatures on the planet vary considerably. There is obviously a large seasonal cyclical variations Winter - Summer, (which can be enormous; makes the 2 degrees mentioned at Copenhagen seem minute). There are annual variations in average temperatures which can also be large - up and down ( despite annual changes in ghgs being nowhere near the same ). Then there are numerous other cycles and factors at work - solar activity, the effects of clouds, the effect of ocean currents, the effect of moisture / precipitation, volcanic activity, the jet stream, continental drift, etc etc.
    How much do we really know about all this ? Can we explain the various ice ages and replicate them in our models ? Are ice ages cyclical? What really caused them ? Have they finished or will they occur again ? Then looking at shorter time scales, we have weather forecasters using models to try and forecast the weather a month ahead - how accurate are those forecasts ? Overall, I would say our level of knowledge and understanding is still pretty limited, partly due to the absence of accurate historical data ( not just temperature data & the proxy issues but data on many other significant variables ). The easy option has been to opt out of building really complex models and focus on climate models that just look at the interaction of a just a few variables and draw conclusions from them. This is mainly where the ghg issue has been modelled. However, I think these smaller less complex models have a real weakness, which I would summarize in the phrase : "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing". Can a simpler model with a relatively small number of variables really enable you to accurately predict the future ? I do not believe that it can. What you have to assume is that the few variables that you have chosen to build into the model are in fact the most important and influential variables that control the temperature and that the numerous absent variables & interactions are insignificant. But how can you know that for sure, if you have never built a full model with all the variables and interactions in?. Hence there must be doubts surrounding the results. A simple model is by definition incomplete and hence so are the conclusions that are drawn from it.

    Complain about this comment

  • 429. At 10:59pm on 21 Dec 2009, thinkforyourself wrote:

    If anyone doubts that the addition of a very small amount of one element or chemical to a large mass of another can have a profound effect on the properties of that large mass, consider how iron is affected by the addition of carbon to become steel:-
    Mechanical properties of iron and its alloys are evaluated using a variety of tests such as tensile tests. The results are so consistent that tests of iron are often used to relate the results of one test to another. Those measurements reveal that mechanical properties of iron crucially depend on purity: Purest research-purpose single crystals of iron are softer than aluminium. Addition of only 10 parts per million of carbon doubles their strength.
    The hardness increases rapidly with carbon content up to 0.2% and saturates at ~0.6%. The purest industrially produced iron (about 99.99% purity) has a hardness of 20–30 Brinell.

    Complain about this comment

  • 430. At 11:09pm on 21 Dec 2009, Maria Ashot wrote:

    OK, this is for Mr Forefathers, continuing to answer questions that were put to me earlier, that I had not gotten around to answering sooner:

    With regard to the question about the existence of some kind of "agenda" to lie to the human race about what our collective mismanagement of resources was doing to the planet:

    When I referred to efforts that began before 1980, I was referring to the efforts of people like the faculty I worked with at Harvard (as their student) as well as distinguished scientists & authors I met in the early 1980s, who had by then logged probably well over a decade, some of them, spreading the word about their findings in the field & lab regarding the damage being done.

    If you recall that until around 1990-1991, we had what amounted to a divided geopolitical landscape, with Two Realities operating, each one quite blind to the true nature of the other, it was not until the declared end of the Cold War that information became more broadly available to people on the other side of the divide, and even to many people on the inside of their own particular system.

    In the USSR, Gorbachev's policy of Glasnost (literally, "Vocalisation") was the first official decree allowing any kind of specialised data to be discussed in the public space, by non-specialists (that would be me) as well as by specialists. Until that time, even discussing data on environmental conditions was criminal, and dangerous. The scientists who took time to speak with me, for many hours and even weeks on end, and to smuggle letters & books outside the USSR through me (and others as well, perhaps) were literally risking their lives.

    Now, I would ask those who question the truth about AGW: "How many scientists do you imagine would be prepared to Risk Their Lives --literally -- to risk spending 25 years in the Gulag in Magadan or Yakutia for passing classified information to an American about the conditions of the environment as it was impacted by heavy Soviet industry -- if they did not in fact believe that there was a compelling reason to be concerned about what was happening that endangered even human survival per se?"

    Those people in what I refer to as "Palin's Posse" or the "Denial Detachment" who believe pro-Copenhagen, pro-IPCC or pro-UN FCCC parties are somehow involved in a "political agenda" or a "conspiracy" of some kind to Dispossess the Wealthy or harm their own national/individual sovereignty through "doctored data" are -- unless they are themselves involved in a conspiracy to serve the commercial interests of the worst offenders -- hamstrung by their lack of immediate personal familiarity with how industry operates in other corners of the world.

    Oh, in the best case, you will look at Robert Harrabin's reports, or glance at some video or snapshots on CNN or CBS, and get the sense that, yes, smokestacks pollute.

    But most of you won't even bother to do that.

    You keep going around in circles with familiar phrases that give you comfort.

    You won't stay up to watch Nightline show you how a cell phone is put together, or how gold is being extracted in Peru. You never even had the stomach to watch the footage of the tsunami aftermath, either. You did not watch Blood Diamond, and you imagine Leonardo Di Caprio is just a Hollywood pretty-boy.

    You won't do the hard research, yet you have no shortage of disparaging remarks for those of us who have, and who do, and who won't stop.

    Because we know that heptyl pollution -- from rockets -- causes birth defects. Because we have heard from the Ministry of Health in Ukraine, and from the most ostensibly "anti-Russian" elements in the city of Lvov (who actually speak perfect Russian and are trained scientists) that they have one of the worst rates of infant morbidity and gestational anomalies in the world, post- Chernobyl.

    Because we go out there in the field and speak with Brazilians, Tajiks, Turkmens, Kazakhs, Chinese, Taiwanese, Japanese, Canadians, Spaniards -- and Californians -- and we exchange data.

    And that is what some of us (I am just one little person out of many thousands, judging just from the MoveOn community in Northern California, and no, I do not agree with all of their politics, but I do agree with them on the need for rededication to eco-sanity in the USA, certainly) have been doing for well over thirty years.

    Much of that you don't know about, because you don't rub shoulders with this community.

    And very few people are willing to write about it as candidly & relentlessly as I have, here. Why do I dot this? Because I believe many of you, on the other side, are indeed well-intentioned, and can be brought around to see things rationally.

    To understand that a whole lot of business on this planet is done in untidy & really, literally, Sense-Less ways. For no good reason whatsoever. And easily fixable. EASILY.

    Tell an African woman you have a way to make sure she has no more than three pregnancies, and three healthy babies, for her entire lifetime and watch her weep with joy. Really, not a stretch. Imagine all those poor women living in constant fear of rape, which is happening all the time, anywhere, brutally, with impunity... Now imagine how much worse the experience for them when they also face the heightened risk of a pregnancy -- a High-Risk Pregnancy -- as a direct result of that highly likely rape.

    Imagine all the slaves employed all over the planet in manufacturing soccer balls, tennis balls, sports shirts for your favourite brand. You know how little they are paid. You know how much the items cost.

    Now suppose you had the means to make those items cost twice as much, so half as many would be sold -- without significantly reducing the revenue streams of the shareholders -- and so those slaves could actually be paid two or three times more per item, and laws could be passed & enforced to shut down anyone who did not comply with international child labour statutes.

    How bad is that? How much does it infringe on sacrosanct national sovereignty & corporate governance?

    Why does any little girl require more than 1, 2, 3 Barbie dolls? Why does any growing kid require more the 3 or 4 Gap for Kids shirts in the closet? You know they'll never wear them out!

    No one needs to pass laws to accomplish these things. All that needs to happen is for the leadership of the private sector, working with the leadership of the public sector, to sit back down at the drawing board and re-invent how business is done, with an eye to HALVING emissions by 2020.

    IT CAN BE DONE. IT IS EASIER THAN CURING CANCER.

    And we are on track to do that, too.

    All it takes is getting away from some old Calvinist ideas, such as the notion that every person on earth needs to be working six and a half days a week at their trade, for 10 hours or so a day.

    Shift gears to a four-day work week, as Utah has done, and already you will reduce emissions.

    Pass an international ban on using wood for non-essential goods (such as disposable chopsticks) and you will do something.

    Double the price of new furniture and encourage people to recycle and refinish older furniture, instead of just dumping it into landfills or burning it for firewood, and bingo: you're doing something for planet earth.

    Make people pay for the American telephone directory book, instead of just handing them out for free. There are so many ways we can make waste unappealing...

    It is time to face the music: things could be done many better ways than we have allowed them to be done, for far too long. Instead of grousing about it, let's have some fun thinking of better ways to live.

    Complain about this comment

  • 431. At 11:11pm on 21 Dec 2009, Peter317 wrote:

    #426:

    "Hadcrut global surface temperature for November is the 5th warmist in the instrument record."

    Wow! November 5th, eh? What about the other 364 days of the year? Multiplied by 5? That's potential for 1820 records!

    /sarc off>

    Complain about this comment

  • 432. At 11:12pm on 21 Dec 2009, bowmanthebard wrote:

    #417 davblo wrote:

    "why isn't it all clearly and unambiguously documented and presented to us?
    Politics I guess."

    Politics as usual, yes, but journalism whose shameful, cowardly, uninformed standards will inform future generations.

    A journalist's job is to expose a cover-up, not to collude with it.

    Complain about this comment

  • 433. At 11:14pm on 21 Dec 2009, Peter317 wrote:

    #418:

    "Seems you don't have an answer apart from "THEY are conspiring"."

    And it seems you have an answer for everything.

    Complain about this comment

  • 434. At 11:22pm on 21 Dec 2009, thinkforyourself wrote:

    Good link from post 427. Read it all the way down. Here it is again:-
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/17/AR2009121703682.html

    Complain about this comment

  • 435. At 11:28pm on 21 Dec 2009, Peter317 wrote:

    #430:

    Wow, Maria, you know me better than I know myself.

    Let's get married...

    Complain about this comment

  • 436. At 11:42pm on 21 Dec 2009, tears of our forefathers wrote:

    mrs ashot:

    i don't disagree with much of what you say. in my defence at what could be taken as accusations i walk 2 miles to work everyday (whatever the weather), i eat simple, often uncooked foods in sensible amounts. i don't use plastic bags, i recycle some things but not everything because i looked into it and concluded some of it was not necessary etcetc the only thing even vaguely frivolous about my lifestyle is my PC, and i don't feel that is a frivolous thing at all but a necessity in this age. i would not of voted for palin had i been an american in the last election.

    you presuppose an awful lot about your interlocutors some of which is quite insulting. my primary concern is the misrepresentation of facts to the public in order to motivate them. however noble those who espouse it believe the cause to be; giving children nightmares by essentially lying to them (i'm thinking of al gore rather than the ipcc) is wrong .

    the other problem is that the people telling us to let them sort it all out seem to be much the same people (bp and shell make a killing on the back of this scare due to higher oil per barrel prices and are poised to own the 'renewables' markets and it seems all beaurocrats are just as incompetent and foolish as every other beaurocrat) who raped the planet in the first place.

    Complain about this comment

  • 437. At 11:45pm on 21 Dec 2009, tears of our forefathers wrote:

    @434:

    yeah on message 'i didn't do it' and 'it proves nuzink',

    now read the comments mate.

    Complain about this comment

  • 438. At 00:13am on 22 Dec 2009, jr4412 wrote:

    Maria Ashot #430.

    excellent post.

    "And we are on track to do that, too."

    would I could share your optimism.

    Complain about this comment

  • 439. At 04:34am on 22 Dec 2009, TJ wrote:

    Maria @430.

    I've contributed to this blog off and on for a year or so and I can say that the vast majority of folks posting here will support just about everything you say. You write very eloquently and this was a good read. I too can testify to the times before the Wall came down when I used to drive into West Berlin along the autobahn and pass cities like Magdeburg which was disgusting even at a distance.

    I wonder why you write as you do, as if you are trying to make a point to others on this post, whom I feel confident in saying will be behind you. This topic is about AGW, CO2 'pollution' and the Copenhagen summit. It has absolutely, dilly squat, totally nothing to do with environmental destruction that you very well allude to.

    Science has taken a dreadful blow with the shenanigans and goings on in climate science. I'm surprised, that with your obvious experienced background, that you do not say more in this area of debate. There are is real environmental pollution out there that we all can get on board with. CO2 is not one of them. It’s consuming too much of our energies and is playing into the hands of opportunists.

    It would be good to get you focused on the real villains.



    Complain about this comment

  • 440. At 05:27am on 22 Dec 2009, jobsw32 wrote:

    no I think that the UK is looking a wee bit unsteady for any binding deals to go through and the situation should definitely stay under review.

    Complain about this comment

  • 441. At 05:37am on 22 Dec 2009, lburt wrote:

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

  • 442. At 06:19am on 22 Dec 2009, lburt wrote:

    @U14260427 #389 RE: 2.5-4C in models and PETM requires high sensitivity

    The problem with saying the PETM requires high sensitivity is that it ignores everything everything else. Every single case you put forth of high sensitivity requires that you put on blinders and ignore some other period relatively close to that time frame which shows the wrong temperatures entirely. Something entirely different MUST be going on and most likely a slew of other things are going on. Simply put, plugging in the sort of sensitivity to CO2 that you're talking about makes OTHER periods impossible. You simply ignore these periods because of your AGW blinders.

    You say for instance "Like 2.5-4C per doubling low?" but what you're quoting from that article involves the glacial to interglacial transition. This is NOT the same thing at all. The albedo feedback possible during the glacial/interglacial transitions is IMMENSE...almost an order of magnitude higher than if ALL ice we currently have were to melt. In fact, the albedo feedback is so incredibly high it could account for essentially ALL of the glacial/interglacial changes. This albedo feedback is essentially absent now. The greenland ice sheet couldn't even melt fast enough to help provide feedback.

    BTW, NO...I didn't read through your stupid history of the AGW theory piece. It was 20 pages long. I just skimmed it but never saw a hint of anything I hadn't seen already. I have actually gone over the literature. If you have some bit of data from there that you feel is going to prove something other than a theoretical maximum from CO2 of about 1.2 watts you should quote it or something.

    Also in your previous post you mentioned the tropopause in response to my point about the atmosphere mixing. Yes, I'm well aware of the tropopause. I'm also aware that the tropopause doesn't act in any way like AGW proponents suggest it should. Did you know the height of the tropopause doesn't appear to have ANYTHING to do with the CO2 level? The tropopause is at an altitude roughly proportional to ground temperature. This means in higher latitudes the tropopause is actually in a region of the atmosphere where CO2 concentrations are twice as high as they are for the tropopause in equatorial regions.

    Also, the tropopause marks the top of the atmosphere's convection zone. It's also the coldest part of the atmosphere, flanked by warmer temperatures below and warmer temperatures above. CO2's spectrum shows that the tropopause is at the emission temperature of the more saturated bits of CO2's spectrum. The notch can get no deeper there and so it can only widen. That last little tidbit drops the maximum absorption for a doubling to 3.4 watts instead of 3.7watts. Well...actually if I recall when I worked that out it was actually for a 280ppm to 600ppm which is MORE than a doubling and we've already had 40% of even that amount of "forcing". We basically have about 2 watts more (theoretical maximum) forcing from a doubling of pre-industrial levels of CO2.

    The climate may indeed be warming some from CO2 (as most skeptics here agree) its just that it doesn't seem to want to warm at the levels indicated by the IPCC. The IPCC models diverged IMMEDIATELY from reality as soon as they were into actual predictions. How can you possibly believe the "high sensitivity" thing as if it were some sort of immutable constant? Yeah, sure you get lots of morons making big speeches and pointing out teeny, tiny bits of history where "we can't explain it any other way" but they do so at the expense of 90+% of all of earth's history. That's like someone claiming they're psychic because they can predict the outcome of a coin toss a quarter of the time.

    Complain about this comment

  • 443. At 06:29am on 22 Dec 2009, lburt wrote:

    @davblo

    You're being treated like a child because you're acting like a child (with your repeating what other posters say just for the sake of repeating it, the fact that you have specifically said you're trying to NOT make any valid points (or points at all), etc). I really wonder why you're even here.

    Complain about this comment

  • 444. At 08:46am on 22 Dec 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    @U14260427 #394

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

    Wiki has lost all credibility (if it ever had any!) and will not have any credibility until the mess created by Connelly is sorted out. And don't mention the "conspiracy theorist" jibe, if you look at the talk pages of Wiki, you will see for yourself exactly how Connelly manipulated Wiki - it's all there

    #398

    mongo [lol how very witty!] (@375) you never answered mine. I shall recount: how is my post an ad hom?

    You made the statement, prove it.


    I think you will find it was somebody else who said your original statement was an ad hom attack, not me, but anyway how about answering now?

    How does #84, 95 & 237 constitute an ad hom? Either the head of the UN's climate change panel - Dr Rajendra Pachauri, is earning a lot of money through his company or he isn't

    Which is it to be?

    Yes or no?

    #415

    Indeed, it's a feedback. Amplifying other forces on the climate.

    Observational science (i.e. real world) tells us vapour is an overall negative feedback

    Also read poitsplace post #442


    /Mango

    Complain about this comment

  • 445. At 09:19am on 22 Dec 2009, lburt wrote:

    @MangoChutneyUKOK RE:Wiki has lost all credibility

    What's amazing is that they're starting to uncover all manner of individuals acting alone...modifying or covering up data that just didn't fit with their new-found environmentalist faith. Australia's temperatures show a significant "adjustment", New Zealand's temperature increase is almost entirely "adjustment". I've known for some time of the activities of some on wikipedia. We're not finding one global conspiracy, we're finding an occasional conspiracy and lots of people acting alone for their cause.

    It's just like instances in which individuals in a religion KNOW that their religion is true so they lie about seeing various phenomenon...with only the best of intentions of bringing more people to their god. Some of these people are likely of the opinion that the hypothesis of substantial (more than the theoretical maximum from CO2 absorption) AGW is proven and that their inconvenient finds need to be tweaked. Some are probably from that small group of humanity hating environmentalists...just trying to save the planet. In the end, however...they're fooling themselves along with everyone else.

    The case for substantial AGW is awful even WITH all their tampering. How much worse is it WITHOUT the falsified data? How much less convincing is it without the endless droning of the AGW PR machine and it's fanatical minions? I keep saying it...this will go down as the worst failure of science in history.

    Complain about this comment

  • 446. At 09:30am on 22 Dec 2009, Ken Appleby wrote:

    @403. Maria Ashot writes: "Well, I would even consider something as straightforward as transferring ice-pack from the threatened ice-sheets onto tankers & parking it in refrigerated tanks in Australia. Alternatively, building refrigeration systems onto Antarctic or Greenland terrain in order to slow down the loss of ice could be conceived of."

    This idea is so naive it's hard to know where to start.

    The quantity of ice melting from Greenland alone is about two hundred cubic kilometres per year. Cubic kilometres, not cubic metres. The idea of chipping such bits off, shipping them to a warmer part of the world and storing them in refrigerated containers is the kind of idea a small child would conceive of.

    As is refrigerating the ice sheets in situ. Charming, but daft.

    Refrigeration systems don't create cold. They just move heat from one place to another, less than completely efficiently. A quick calculation suggests you need about 64MW of power to reduce the temperature of a cubic km of ice by 1C over a year, at perfect efficiency. The amount of power required to move enough heat out of entire ice sheets to prevent them thawing would require hundreds, no thousands, of power stations to be built on or near the ice-sheets. The fuel to drive them would need to be delivered (and presumably the C sequestered somewhere!) Some extraordinary genius engineer would need to be found to find a way to take heat out of such vast volumes of ice, transfer it somewhere "safe" and to do with it without causing more melting than the whole process is intended to prevent.

    Complain about this comment

  • 447. At 09:36am on 22 Dec 2009, Flatearther wrote:

    For Richard and for anyone interested in the truth behind the corruption and fraud that has been going on with regards to AGW and the IPPC, I suggest reading the following:

    http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/a_climatology_conspiracy.html

    http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/12/18/terence-corcoran-a-2-000-page-epic-of-science-and-skepticism-part-1.aspx

    http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/12/21/terence-corcoran-a-2-000-page-epic-of-science-and-skepticism-part-2.aspx

    Complain about this comment

  • 448. At 10:00am on 22 Dec 2009, Jack Hughes wrote:

    Danish Hosts in 'Missing Country' Row

    "We just are not sure if we had 192 or 193 countries at the conference" said the Danish Minister of Climate and Jamborees.

    "We used a state-of-the-art computer simulation to plan the catering"

    She denies rumours that the Atlantis Delegates are now seeking bogus-asylum.

    The BBC's Richard Black switches between 192 and 193 in different stories.

    The Grauniad's George Monbiot said: "Climate change is already happening - a whole country has disappeared".

    Shami Chakrabati said: "I'm already on the Today Programme 6 times this week - I can't comment on everything. Well not yet."

    Complain about this comment

  • 449. At 10:03am on 22 Dec 2009, bowmanthebard wrote:

    It seems to me that the debate is diminished by participants paying too much attention to personalities.

    There have been many references to "ad hominem" arguments -- arguments "against the man" instead of against the factual inaccuracy of what he says.

    It is considered a fallacy of relevance to treat someone's personality as relevant to what he is saying as long as he is not giving testimony. There is a "pro hominem" fallacy of relevance as well as an "ad hominem" fallacy.

    For example, I don't doubt that Maria Ashot is a moral beacon to us all, but can we please focus on the gross factual inaccuracies of some of the things she has said?

    For example, she has claimed that climate change will make every cell in children's bodies "literally cook". She has also claimed that we are all running short of oxygen.

    It has also been claimed (not by Maria Ashot) that Ian Plimer says somewhere that "the Sun is made out of iron". I cannot find where he says this. He does claim that heavier elements such as iron have to form inside stars, but that's just mainstream physics.

    At the risk of adding my own "ad hominem" argument to the general hubbub, I think it is unbecoming for non-sceptics to let claims that they themselves probably regard as untrue pass without comment.

    Complain about this comment

  • 450. At 10:18am on 22 Dec 2009, Nicko wrote:

    Not the outcome we were wanting or hoping for - although I think all of us in our heart of hearts knew that wasn't going to happen. But we, the media, politicians and NGOs should be careful not to cause a backlash by poopooing copenhagen entirely. Some momentum was built. Constructive criticism is necessary, but we must find a way to maintain that momentum and move it onwards and upwards. How do you think we should strive to achieve that? Especially when much of the media are jumping on the opportunities to report criticism and finger-pointing?

    Complain about this comment

  • 451. At 10:23am on 22 Dec 2009, Flatearther wrote:

    Richard: Are you environmental correspondents not allowed to do any investigative journalism, of the type admirably performed by Terence Corcoran?

    Or would the BBC not allow you to publish anything contrary to the biased view?

    Complain about this comment

  • 452. At 10:31am on 22 Dec 2009, bowmanthebard wrote:

    A lot of people seem to form opinions by seeing who else has the opinion: "person X believes it, and person X is morally good -- so I'll believe it too".

    That is a contemptible way of forming opinions. Never, ever let your morality guide your factual beliefs.

    Complain about this comment

  • 453. At 10:59am on 22 Dec 2009, simon-swede wrote:

    The International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) publishes the Earth Negotiations Bulletin (ENB). This service has provided daily detailed updates from Copenhagen (see http://www.iisd.ca/climate/cop15/).

    Today (22 December) the ENB presents an overall summary and analysis of the Copenhagen meeting (see http://www.iisd.ca/vol12/enb12459e.html). This report concludes with a final section 'Copenhagen in Context', which states as follows:

    " Now that the last “confusing” and “highly emotional”
    moments in Copenhagen are history, the question remains of
    how the Conference and its outcome should be characterized in
    the larger scheme of things. Was Copenhagen a failure? There
    seems to be no question that the deep divisions and ill will that
    characterized the negotiations and the resulting Copenhagen
    Accord were disappointing to many negotiators and observers
    alike. However, when looking back through the history of the
    UNFCCC, there has been important progress in the past five
    years. In other words, long-term discussions have evolved from
    an informal one-day seminar for government experts in May
    2005, through the Convention Dialogue and Bali Roadmap, to
    the Copenhagen Conference, where, for the very first time, the
    majority of the world’s leaders gathered to frankly and seriously
    discuss climate change – now commonly recognized as a serious
    threat to humanity. Their discussions also covered a full range
    of formerly “unmentionable” issues, such as adaptation and
    mitigation by developing countries. Agreement was reached
    on mitigation actions by both developed and major developing
    countries, and billions of US dollars were pledged for short- and
    long-term finance. Had the threat posed by climate change not
    been so urgent and serious, delegates would therefore have had
    every reason to be satisfied with their achievements over the past
    few years. However, as things stand, the Copenhagen outcome
    highlights that an enormous amount of work remains to be done
    before people can safely believe that the world has seen a turning
    point in the fight against climate change. It remains to be seen whether the political and public profile created in Copenhagen can be translated into a binding and ambitious international agreement on climate change."

    Complain about this comment

  • 454. At 11:02am on 22 Dec 2009, LabMunkey wrote:

    So much jibba jabba one hardly knows where to start.

    Re- maria.

    I believe your heart is in the right place, however i also believe you have many (if not all) your facts muddled up. I would also like you to read the next sentence many times:

    Sceptics do not want to pollute/destroy the earth- they only want the truth.


    You make repeated statements that anyone who is against/sceptical of AGW is out to destroy the planet. Please stop.

    re- models vs reality. Lets gloss over the fact that the models are woefully inaccurate. That they even fail to predict past events, that they don't include everything (clouds, currents, etc), and that they're programmed by the same data that has HUGE questions over it's integrity...

    these models have diverged from observed readings. The IPCC statements on the models and their predictions has been proven wrong.

    This leaves only 1 explanation; the climate scientists who programmed the models do not understand the system they are modelling. (Please, i'd love you to try and debate that point...) If they don't understand the system, they are therefore unable to comment on anything affecting it and to make predictions. Hence all current models, used by the governments and IPCC are worthless. This is simple logic.

    The IPCC predictions. I constantly hear that the world is changing towards the upper limit of the IPCC predictions. I would like someone to substanciate this, as as far as i'm aware, temperature rises have been relatively constant (even glossing over the data issues), average sea level rises have been constant for over 100 years, and the antarctic/antarctica are gaining swathes of ice.

    So either the IPCC are using the natural changes in the world as a means of bolstering their argument (poorly), or they, and whoever reports this statement (world changing at uipper limit of IPCC predictions) is lying.

    Finally. I'd just like to point out again the following:

    -The CRU data/programming notes and emails show, at the best Gross scientific misconduct (peer review abuse, personal attacks, FOIA avoidances), at the worst severe scientific fraud.
    -The CRU has lost/deleted the data it's entire body of work is based on. It's 'misplaced' the most important piece of information that institute holds.
    -the equivalent (CRU) institutions in NZ and AUS have been caught, red handed, manipulating raw data to depict trends where none exist.
    -NASA, the CRU and other temperature monitoring/climate change institutions are steadfastly perverting the scientific process by refusing, repeatedly to release their raw data. They are also refusing FOI requests, as a result these institutions are being taken to court.
    -Climate change science receives millions in grants from oil companies (just to head that one off at the pass)

    these points, SHOULD, at the very least cause reason to pause and think- hang onm maybe the sceptics have a point here. Sceptics are often accused of having their heads in the sand over the issue, i would suggest that it is the other way around.

    disclaimer---- i'm all for conservation, recycling, renewables, stopping deforsetation, habitat protection etc etc. Just before someone attaks me for being a planet-hater.

    Complain about this comment

  • 455. At 11:16am on 22 Dec 2009, LabMunkey wrote:

    http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Moberg2005.html

    the data source is in the link.

    Complain about this comment

  • 456. At 11:20am on 22 Dec 2009, jr4412 wrote:

    LabMunkey #454.

    "these points, SHOULD, at the very least cause reason to pause and think.."

    correct, however (and that's not to excuse anything) one has to bear in mind that we do live in a world driven by competition against each other (rather than competing with), a world where data can be "protected" by intellectual property "laws", a world where lives are increasingly cheap. I think many (if not most) of these sientists simply try their best in a topsy-turvy setup.

    Complain about this comment

  • 457. At 11:28am on 22 Dec 2009, Spanglerboy wrote:

    Simon-swede #453

    I note there is no reference to the underlying science supporting climate change. It seems that at the political level the science is still settled. However, with a number of investigations and potential law suits pending, the underlying science is likely to come in for some very close scrutiny. It will be interesting to see if it withstands that scrutiny.

    Complain about this comment

  • 458. At 11:31am on 22 Dec 2009, LabMunkey wrote:

    @456
    "correct, however (and that's not to excuse anything) one has to bear in mind that we do live in a world driven by competition against each other (rather than competing with), a world where data can be "protected" by intellectual property "laws", a world where lives are increasingly cheap. I think many (if not most) of these sientists simply try their best in a topsy-turvy setup"

    certain things i could rogive these scientist, but loosing raw data and REFUSING to release raw data is not one of them. That is against the scientific principle and immediatley casts them into suspision.

    Complain about this comment

  • 459. At 11:37am on 22 Dec 2009, LabMunkey wrote:

    ok i've been trying to look at the raw data for temperatures.

    They don't make it easy do they. Does anyone have a link for a tabulated RAW DATA (i don't want the anomalies) for the average weather station temps?

    I've gone through some of the UK ones indivudually, and it seems to be colder now that in was in 1960 (though that was a bit of a spike...) they also don't include the data for dec of this year, which is SURE to lower the average....


    Basically i need to be able to tabulate the average global temps ( i dont mind if it's split via hemisphere), without having to go through every station and input the data manually- i frankly don't have the time!!

    cheers,
    lab

    Complain about this comment

  • 460. At 11:37am on 22 Dec 2009, John Lloyd wrote:

    Re: 411 thinkforyourself
    You refer to Petr Chylek's work but you omit to mention that, despite his findings, he himself is still a sceptic. Indeed as he puts it . . .
    "I have published well over 100 peer-reviewed papers, and I am a Fellow of the American Geophysical Union, the Optical Society of America, and Los Alamos National Laboratory. Within the last few years I was also honored to be included in Wikipedia’s blacklist of “climate skeptics”. "
    I am not aware that he has recently changed his views . . . ..

    Complain about this comment

  • 461. At 11:41am on 22 Dec 2009, bowmanthebard wrote:

    #454 LabMunkey wrote:

    "Re- maria.

    I believe your heart is in the right place"

    Why? It is much easier -- lazier, more self-flattering, narcissistic, etc. -- to present oneself as a caring person than as a baby-eater.

    Surely a decent moral education should teach a person to resist narcissistic claims that "I care more than you", "I am a saint", etc., as much as a decent scientific education teaches a person to question received opinion?

    Complain about this comment

  • 462. At 11:52am on 22 Dec 2009, LabMunkey wrote:

    @461

    ""Re- maria.

    I believe your heart is in the right place"

    Why? It is much easier -- lazier, more self-flattering, narcissistic, etc. -- to present oneself as a caring person than as a baby-eater.

    "

    because people who rely on their emoutions to inform their decisions DO generally have the best of intentions. They are also, arguable the most dangerous.

    Complain about this comment

  • 463. At 12:04pm on 22 Dec 2009, bowmanthebard wrote:

    Anyone who routinely says "others are less morally good than me" cannot have their heart in the right place, if you ask me!

    The worst atrocities are committed by people who immodestly think they have better moral judgement than others, and who are prepared to take "radical" (often violent) action for their unquestioned "cause".

    Complain about this comment

  • 464. At 12:06pm on 22 Dec 2009, LabMunkey wrote:

    good point.

    Complain about this comment

  • 465. At 12:08pm on 22 Dec 2009, Ken Appleby wrote:

    @459. LabMunkey wrote: "ok i've been trying to look at the raw data for temperatures.
    They don't make it easy do they. Does anyone have a link for a tabulated RAW DATA (i don't want the anomalies) for the average weather station temps?"

    The HADCRUT3 data were available from [Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]

    but that site seems to be currently off-line. These are globally gridded annual data since 1850. The met office web site is allegedly helpful on this.

    I have a copy of the dataset from the end of October 2009. If you'd like a copy please let me know how to make it available to you. It's about 8Mb tabulated ascii.

    Complain about this comment

  • 466. At 12:11pm on 22 Dec 2009, jr4412 wrote:

    bowmanthebard #461.

    "It is much easier ... to present oneself as a caring person.."

    safer, too.

    Complain about this comment

  • 467. At 12:39pm on 22 Dec 2009, LabMunkey wrote:

    @456, oh brilliant thanks.

    Yeah i've looked at those sites, but they're not tabulated how i need (i.e. i'd have to manually transfer as they wont past into excel. that just adds scope for errors).

    not sure how we'd do this though. Erm, i'll get back to you- i may create a web email just for this so you can send, i'll then delete account (as i'd obv have to post addy on this blog...)

    any other suggestions be good.

    Complain about this comment

  • 468. At 12:41pm on 22 Dec 2009, Sparklet wrote:

    I'm afraid anyone who writes the following leaves me feeling rather uncomfortable -

    "I note with some satisfaction that EGaidar kicked the bucket. Maybe it marks the beginning of the end of the culture of Greed, in Russia. Because that is what his fat little cheeks represented, to me.

    I met him once, in the 1990s, courtesy of Sun Microsystems. He had excellent English, no manners to speak of -- and really, really lame ideas. You could tell all he was after was pleasing whomever would give him the fattest bank account.

    And now, at the ripe age of 53 -- just a 15-16 months older than I am -- his tenure as midwife of Russian 20th century oligarchy comes to an abrupt end."

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/gavinhewitt/2009/12/climate_change_and_big_figures.html#P90132665


    [But I can see I have an awful lot of catching-up to do so will be back later.]

    Complain about this comment

  • 469. At 12:54pm on 22 Dec 2009, John Lloyd wrote:

    Re: 411 thinkforyourself
    You refer to Petr Chylek's work . . .
    Just to ensure that he is not misquoted
    This is what he has said:
    "carbon dioxide should not be considered as a dominant force behind the current warming...how much of the [temperature] increase can be ascribed to CO2, to changes in solar activity, or to the natural variability of climate is uncertain"[52]

    Complain about this comment

  • 470. At 12:54pm on 22 Dec 2009, infiniti wrote:

    re 454:

    "re- models vs reality. Lets gloss over the fact that the models are woefully inaccurate."

    I disagree, they are quite accurate at their domain which is climate. Even a model inaccurate at fiddly details can be accurate at the bigger picture for bigger changes. For example even the simplest climate model could accurately predict what would happen if solar output doubled.

    "That they even fail to predict past events"

    Interesting, because I've had many a skeptic tell me that 'models can be tuned to say anything'. Who is wrong, you or them? Doesn't this highlight a woeful inaccuracy in skeptic talking points?

    In any case models can predict past events. 20th century for example (which is when I usually recieve the 'well models can be tuned to show anything' line).

    "that they don't include everything (clouds, currents, etc), and that they're programmed by the same data that has HUGE questions over it's integrity..."

    They do include clouds and currents, not perfectly, but they do include them. The GISS ModelE code has been public for years now. It's on google code I believe. Feel free to descibe the "huge questions" you think exist over it's integrity. Or any of the other dozens of models by research teams from around the world.

    "these models have diverged from observed readings"

    Over a time period too short that it's a problem - yet.

    "The IPCC statements on the models and their predictions has been proven wrong."

    Crying proof on that is totally jumping the gun...If we did that about any part of the science you would go ape.

    "This leaves only 1 explanation; the climate scientists who programmed the models do not understand the system they are modelling (Please, i'd love you to try and debate that point...)"

    It's not a binary either-or situation. They obviously understand it to a degree, or else the models wouldn't show similar results to the actual climate.

    "The CRU data/programming notes and emails show, at the best Gross scientific misconduct (peer review abuse, personal attacks, FOIA avoidances), at the worst severe scientific fraud."

    No they don't.

    "The CRU has lost/deleted the data it's entire body of work is based on. It's 'misplaced' the most important piece of information that institute holds"

    More exageration. It wasn't the "most important" piece of information. You can obtain raw station temperature data from GHCN.

    "the equivalent (CRU) institutions in NZ and AUS have been caught, red handed, manipulating raw data to depict trends where none exist."

    Perhaps you could explain to me why skeptics were caught red handed pretending that raw station data didn't need adjustments.

    "NASA, the CRU and other temperature monitoring/climate change institutions are steadfastly perverting the scientific process by refusing, repeatedly to release their raw data. They are also refusing FOI requests, as a result these institutions are being taken to court."

    A lot of FOI requests have been answered by these institutions but some are misguided cannot be honored. A lot of data is up online, skeptics rarely seem interested in it or complain it's too complicated.

    "these points, SHOULD, at the very least cause reason to pause and think- hang onm maybe the sceptics have a point here"

    Sure, but on further investigation they would find many of the points have no substance behind them.

    Complain about this comment

  • 471. At 1:37pm on 22 Dec 2009, LabMunkey wrote:

    @470

    ""re- models vs reality. Lets gloss over the fact that the models are woefully inaccurate."

    I disagree, they are quite accurate at their domain which is climate. Even a model inaccurate at fiddly details can be accurate at the bigger picture for bigger changes. For example even the simplest climate model could accurately predict what would happen if solar output doubled.
    "
    ###totally irrelavent. being able to model the inpact of the main powersource behind our climate doubling is vastly different to modelling levels of a TRACE gas in our atmosphere.

    ""That they even fail to predict past events"

    Interesting, because I've had many a skeptic tell me that 'models can be tuned to say anything'. Who is wrong, you or them? Doesn't this highlight a woeful inaccuracy in skeptic talking points"

    ###again- you're misrepresenting things here. Saying models can be tuned to say anything and saying they are woefully inaccurate are two separate things. Come now, surely you can see that?

    "It's not a binary either-or situation. They obviously understand it to a degree, or else the models wouldn't show similar results to the actual climate"
    #### similar results? excuse me? please post some this i HAVE to see.

    "In any case models can predict past events. 20th century for example (which is when I usually recieve the 'well models can be tuned to show anything' line).
    "
    ####again- you're being disingenouous here. They an predict recent events fine, but not further back. or they can predict historic events, not current. there's a slight issue there don't you think? they are unable to present a model that predicts both historical and current trends, despite their asserttions on CO2. the models therefrore are inaccurate.

    ""The CRU data/programming notes and emails show, at the best Gross scientific misconduct (peer review abuse, personal attacks, FOIA avoidances), at the worst severe scientific fraud."

    No they don't.
    "
    ###really? talking about how to exclude people from papers not misconduct? talking about purposley giving negative reviews to papers that contradict their stance isn't gross misconduct? talking about deleting data isn't gross misconduct? personal attacks isn't gross misconduct? Any other industry/company they'd have been sacked on the spot.

    ""The CRU has lost/deleted the data it's entire body of work is based on. It's 'misplaced' the most important piece of information that institute holds"

    More exageration. It wasn't the "most important" piece of information. You can obtain raw station temperature data from GHCN"
    well, here we have a difference of sources. I was under the impression the CRU data that was lost held unrecoverable station data that noone else had access too. If this isn't the case can you provide a link please/proof? ta. (as if i'm wrong i'll retract that statement)

    ""the equivalent (CRU) institutions in NZ and AUS have been caught, red handed, manipulating raw data to depict trends where none exist."

    Perhaps you could explain to me why skeptics were caught red handed pretending that raw station data didn't need adjustments"
    #### you're trying really hard here aren't you. Station data does need to be adjusted, however sceptics are arguing the validity of the data collected, the location and the DEGREE of adjustments. Noone (competent) is arguing against adjustments, what we are arguing is THEIR adjustments (which HAVE been shown to be fraudulent in AUS and NZ) and the refusal to post the raw data for people to check (excepting aus and nz obv)

    "A lot of FOI requests have been answered by these institutions but some are misguided cannot be honored. A lot of data is up online, skeptics rarely seem interested in it or complain it's too complicated"
    A lot of summarised, adjusted data is online yes. the raw, individual recordings aren't. These cases wouldn't have even got to sumitted to court were they to be unfounded. Hiding raw data and only showing your adjusted values is against science and against the FOI act- anyway you cut it.

    "Sure, but on further investigation they would find many of the points have no substance behind them"

    really? you failed to debunk any of them.

    Complain about this comment

  • 472. At 1:44pm on 22 Dec 2009, bowmanthebard wrote:

    "In any case models can predict past events. 20th century for example"

    I'm trying to work out what this might mean. That a model predicted the 20th century would happen? Was her name Cindy?

    Strictly speaking, only future events can be predicted. Loosely speaking -- much too loose for my liking -- a model can be said to "predict" (or better, "postdict") by filling in gaps between data points in the past that have yet to be filled. But when these are filled, retrospectively, it isn't direct observation that provides the data but some new interpretation of old "proxy" (i.e. fake) data. That's not good enough for me. It's another dishonest conjuring trick.

    A model or hypothesis whose purpose is to predict -- whose predictive powers we are expected to put our trust in -- is only as good as its ability to literally predict data that have yet to be got from direct measurement.

    (Some hypotheses have great explanatory power rather than predictive power, which is fine as long as we are not asked to trust their predictive power. For example, the theory of evolution is very powerful as far as explanation is concerned, but little predictive power. However, we are not expected to put our trust in its predictive powers.)

    Complain about this comment

  • 473. At 1:50pm on 22 Dec 2009, Ken Appleby wrote:

    @467 LabMunkey

    You can import the data into Excel using the get external data tool, but at least in my antique version of that you need to split the data into two files.

    I have put the data here, as a zip of those two files.

    [Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]

    I believe this is within the house rules, so I hope the moderators will pass the link. If not, go to the 4shared site and search for it. It should appear in their search results soon.

    Good luck with it!

    Complain about this comment

  • 474. At 1:53pm on 22 Dec 2009, bowmanthebard wrote:

    The real killer blow to the theory of AGW was not a few dodgy emails and dirty dealings, but the fact that the last ten years of non-warming looks so inconclusive to the untrained eye, and the untrained eye is in fact a very good judge of genuine observational evidence. The untrained eyes of the general public are better than the "trained" eye at judging the correlation -- or lack of obvious correlation -- between temperatures and CO2.

    The "hockey stick" graph was an extremely effective rhetorical tool because it seemed to show a very clear, decisive correlation. But that might tool has turned into smoke, and non-experts know it. The game is up.

    Complain about this comment

  • 475. At 2:16pm on 22 Dec 2009, John wrote:

    Labmunkey 459

    I have found it a great way to look at temperature and rainfall.
    Apologies if you have already seen it.

    http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/climate.aspx

    Complain about this comment

  • 476. At 2:22pm on 22 Dec 2009, John wrote:

    Oops!

    Sorry. Wrong URL. Try this one.

    http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/

    Complain about this comment

  • 477. At 2:32pm on 22 Dec 2009, excellentcatblogger wrote:

    Question:

    The Arctic polarice caps are melting (the debate is how fast): does any data exist measuring the sea temperatures beneath these melting ice caps?

    The reason I ask is that the volcanic activity on the sea bed below the ice cap is VERY active:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/06/25/surprise-explosive-volcanic-eruption-under-the-arctic-ice-found/

    http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/5589

    I am open minded on global warming, but I think it is too simplistic to point at only one cause. That said I understand it has to be simplistic as politicians are involved, and the present lot make Dan Quayle seem like an Einstein!

    The fact remains that when it comes to earth science we know precious little. What exactly exists below the lava/magma level is anyone's guess - how could any probe get through layers of molten rock? In reality our knowledge is confined to the surface, atmosphere and a few miles(?) beneath the surface which is about 5 percent of the whole planet system.

    Complain about this comment

  • 478. At 2:33pm on 22 Dec 2009, sensiblegrannie wrote:

    'This is the season to be jolly tra la la...

    bowmanthebard at post 472,
    A prediction or a hypothesis is usually arrived at by observing something, noticing a pattern or trend and predicting a possible outcome based on the pattern or trend observed. Of course if the original data is falsified then any prediction is going to be completely wrong. The trick is to step back and look at the broader picture, step forward and look at the microscopic detail, deconstruct the information and then reformulate. If you reformulate your information following a rigid set of rules then there is a danger that your result will be purely a man made construct with no bearing on nature at all. Consider fractals generated by a computer, then look at the fractals generated by nature and notice the difference. Some of the 'noise' generated by the real thing is what makes it real.

    Maria Ashot knows how to write. Rather than trashing what maria writes, why not USE her ability to convey the correct information in a way that is objective and subjective?
    I do not believe that all information has to be served up in an objective way. We are creatures of emotion. It makes perfect sense to give the objective picture of a situation followed by some sort of subjective response. Surely it is the role of the Blog to enable a mixed approach to a particular subject?
    No one is suggesting that they are more saintly or more moralistic than others. What we write is subject to interpretation and not always correctly.

    If you want to dine in a posh restaurant in the company of refined people, you go to a restaurant. If you want to read only peer reviewed papers, reporting to convey truth, go directly to the source.

    If you want fast food, you take your chance and mix with the riff-raff and the posh, all part of the ambiance. The blog has a certain ambiance which might be lost if we all became toooooooo seriousssssss bah humbug.

    We all have certain strengths, lets celebrate them please.


    merry christmas xx

    Complain about this comment

  • 479. At 3:15pm on 22 Dec 2009, sensiblegrannie wrote:

    If you want to see something really spooky,
    try a google search of carboncapturerreport which gives a detailed account of everyone important, involved in any sort of media, strutting their stuff about climate or whatever. There are profiled lists of people and Maria Ashot is in there. I haven't checked to see if any other of our names appear there yet.

    Complain about this comment

  • 480. At 3:33pm on 22 Dec 2009, bowmanthebard wrote:

    sensiblegrannie wrote:

    "A prediction or a hypothesis is usually arrived at by observing something, noticing a pattern or trend and predicting a possible outcome based on the pattern or trend observed."

    Sorry, but I just don't agree with that at all. It's the sort of thing psychologists often say (which explains why I keep saying psychology isn't a proper science!). By the way, might I hazard a guess that you have a degree in psychology?

    The main reason why that simply can't be right about science is that scientific hypotheses purport to describe things that cannot be seen directly, such as electrons, viruses, forces, fields (not the agricultural kind!), chemical reactions, the greenhouse effect...

    Countless humans saw the tides going in and out, but it took a Newton to hypothesize about a force of gravity as its cause. Countless humans saw lightning, saw fire, saw the stars wheeling overhead. Hardly any of them hypothesized about electricity, about oxidation, about the Earth spinning in space...

    Those are essentially a matter of imagination, creativity, guesswork, testing, cunning, etc.... not simply generalizating from what we can already see!

    Complain about this comment

  • 481. At 3:36pm on 22 Dec 2009, bowmanthebard wrote:

    sensiblegrannie wrote:

    "Maria Ashot knows how to write."

    Yeah, but do you think she will ever be able to write well?

    In my opinion, good writing is not sentimental or moralistic -- nor does it accuse people one disagrees with of trying to destroy the planet!

    Complain about this comment

  • 482. At 3:55pm on 22 Dec 2009, Crowcatcher wrote:

    For those of you living in Britain, today's Home Planet on Radio 4 is well worth listening to, highlighting how much better the environment was in the "Medieval Warm Period"
    Available here (eventually) :-
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00pcjh6

    Complain about this comment

  • 483. At 4:17pm on 22 Dec 2009, ghostofsichuan wrote:

    People do not need the permission of government to proceed with purchasing alternative energies and making better choices about products and insisting that their governments address this issue. This will be a slow process because the governments represent coal, oil and wealth and therefore will protect those investments. Just reality.....governments only do the right thing when they have no other choice...and not always then. China and India are jumping off the cliff of modernization and following the Western model....they have bankers too and a tradition of corruption much longer than that of the West and more ingrained. People change things, not governments, they simply follow when change comes from the actions of the people and try to take credit for the change...politicans are not people of integrity.....always willing to trade a vote for someone with the right connections. Just accept them for who they are....people are disappointed because their expectations are too high. A half step out of the cave and devastated much of what is in our reach. Now that everyone has attended the circus it is time to get back to work. If other nations (and individuals) stopped buying Chinese or Indian goods, they would change, it is that simple....the same for the US. All national economies really do function on the small purchases that citizens make every day.
    The governments wanted to sell the right to pollute and that was not something they could sell at home politically...so nothing else mattered to them and the Chinese had bought the African vote and India could just play along. No revenues for governments...no deal....and people thought it was about the environment.

    For the deniers: some things you say are really ignorant. Because it snowed somewhere does not mean climate change is not taking place. One of the concepts is that extreme weather events would be more frequent, such as the snow storm on the East Coast of the US. If there was a hot day in August, that single day does not validate global warming either...it is a "pattern", not single events.

    Complain about this comment

  • 484. At 4:21pm on 22 Dec 2009, sensiblegrannie wrote:

    bowmanthebard,
    You flatter me. I do not have a degree in psychology, I couldn't afford to go and get one of those as well. and besides it would take too long. Imagination, creativity and guesswork, correct, you win a gold star. You can keep cunning for the politics.
    There is a scientist in all of us who chose to observe and question. Without imagination, some of the greatest achievements of mankind would have stayed as a series of experiments. Imagination is that giant leap of faith when someone makes the decision to go for it. Perhaps there would have been more scientists achieving even greater things if they had not have been shackled into breeding, serfdom or wage slavery. Just because it appears as if hardly any people think, 'it ain't necessarily so.'


    Complain about this comment

  • 485. At 4:59pm on 22 Dec 2009, lburt wrote:

    @ghostofsichuan #483 who wrote
    "One of the concepts is that extreme weather events would be more frequent, such as the snow storm on the East Coast of the US. If there was a hot day in August, that single day does not validate global warming either...it is a "pattern", not single events."

    Except if you asked ANY meteorologist what would happen with disproportionate warming of the high latitudes (which is what happens with warming in general) they'd tell you that weather would get ever more calm. One of the most powerful driving forces of extreme weather is the clash between air masses from high/low latitudes...and the gradient (and therefore the overall power) is greatly reduced by the disproportionate warming of the high latitudes.

    In reality, it turns out its all just a load of garbage passed off as "fact" by fear mongering alarmists that think people are too brainwashed to actually check the facts (or their minions). Its sort of like the way many STILL ramble on about "increased hurricane activity" when it turns out we've hit some of the lowest levels of hurricane activity ever recorded.

    No, it appears that whatever drives the PDO and other persistent ocean current systems has a far greater impact on such aspects of the climate. It is likely the recent switch to the cooling mode is what has caused the polar vortex to become unstable and lash out onto the continents and blanket them with snow...even on one of the top ten warmest years.

    Complain about this comment

  • 486. At 5:11pm on 22 Dec 2009, Michael wrote:

    This seems to be a massive failure by our world leaders. As you point out we have already had more than enough 'first steps' and each time we take two steps forwards and then two back. With every summit like this the cost and difficulty of combating global warming increases.

    Obama's actions seem like a feat of heroism at first glance, but in reality all he has done is snubbed the rest of the world and completely ignored the point of the summit. With the current deal the hundreds of small nations were treated as completely sulfurous, and I can fully understand their anger.

    Smaller and developing countries wanted the more powerful or larger to face up to their responsibilities and be able to have a say in the process, that was the whole point! Unfortunatley I fear Copenhagen has done far more damage than good here - with many nations moods transforming from hope to anger - and for many it has confirmed their fears that the more powerful nations will continue to bully the developing world into whatever stance they see fit.

    A cynical view could be that perhaps this was the US's thinking - worried by the rising economies of contries such as China and India, or even African contries, they decided to sabotage the collective climate change effort and put themselves in control.

    Meaning to or not, that is what they have managed to do. At the current pace it may soon be inevitable that much of the developing world will collapse into war and further into poverty - is it too far a stretch of the imagination to think that this might be what some countries want?

    Complain about this comment

  • 487. At 5:14pm on 22 Dec 2009, Andrew Gillett wrote:

    474 "The real killer blow to the theory of AGW was not a few dodgy emails and dirty dealings, but the fact that the last ten years of non-warming looks so inconclusive to the untrained eye"

    You are correct that the science can look inconclusive to the untrained eye. Perhaps those eyes could do with some more training. The reality is that science is despite the warming trend, natural variability still exists, and periods of stasis or slight cooling are not unexpected by climate scientists. No scientist claims that global warming means every year will be slightly warmer than the last. Ironically, if 1998 had not been so far above the trend, the average of recent temperatures would be cooler but there would likely be less public uncertainty over the science because skeptics would not have been able to cherry pick 1998 as a starting year for their comparisons.

    Complain about this comment

  • 488. At 5:29pm on 22 Dec 2009, tears of our forefathers wrote:

    yesterday i had an interesting chat with a friend of mine who is researching genetic lineages at a prominent british uni:

    he said that when reading a scientific paper you must read the data and the figures first. then the the methodology to check that the data has been properly processed into the result figures and then the conlusions of the author in order that the authors opinions don't prejudice your assessment of their work. you then form a fair opinion and can either agree or disagree with the authors conclusions based on their data and methodology. this doesn't, indeed courtesy of people like our kind host cannot, happen in climate science, that much is clear.

    therefore: it ain't science.

    Complain about this comment

  • 489. At 5:38pm on 22 Dec 2009, lburt wrote:

    @ghostofsichuan

    Oops! What a difference a word makes. Some stuff got inadvertently deleted in the editing process. Most importantly, one word. I'd meant it to say 'In reality, it turns out its all just a load of garbage ORIGINALLY passed off as "fact" by fear mongering alarmists'

    Didn't mean to imply you were a part of a massive, fear mongering, AGW propaganda machine...just fooled into believing it by a massive, fear mongering, AGW propaganda machine.

    Complain about this comment

  • 490. At 5:40pm on 22 Dec 2009, tears of our forefathers wrote:

    climatologist purport to have achieved a profound understanding of the lithosphere, the biosphere, the atmosphere and the incredibly complex million-year-long-and-more-rapid-processes that interconnect them. is anyone foolish enough (except our host)to take their word on such profound, implausible claim?

    Complain about this comment

  • 491. At 6:15pm on 22 Dec 2009, Ken Appleby wrote:

    @467 LabMunkey.

    I have just taken the HADCRUT3 dataset, which is the record of global temperatures since 1850, monthly, on a lat-long grid, which you can download form the met office web site, extracted all the geographical locations where there is a complete record every month from Jan 1850 (there are 27 of them), taken simple 12-month averages and plotted them in a spreadsheet. Adopting the "layman's squint" approach to analysis, there definitely appears to be a general rise of 1K over the last 25 years or so, and nothing comparable prior to that.

    Complain about this comment

  • 492. At 7:01pm on 22 Dec 2009, John Lloyd wrote:

    For the attention Maria Ashot
    Ref: your comment . . "The science is not in question."
    Please read this history ( analysis from http://network.nationalpost.com/ )
    Briffa submitted a paper to Science magazine, critiquing elements of Mann’s hockey stick paper and presenting his own 2,000-year tree-ring-based paleo record.
    Briffa sent Mann a copy of his Science article on April 12, advising Mann that he had “decided to mention uncertainties in tree-ring data while pushing the need for more work.” Earlier emails also show Briffa struggling with Russian tree-ring results and the reports of Russian scientists on their difficulties. Their findings often contradicted the idea that the world is warmer today than hundreds or even thousands of years ago. “Relatively high number of trees has been noted during 750-1450 AD. There is no evidence of a moving polar timberline in the north during the last century,” wrote Rashit Hanntemirov from Russia in October 1998 — implying that warming has been common in the past and that nothing unusual was happening today.
    The reference to 750-1450 would appear to support the long-held scientific view on the existence of a Medieval Warm Period that might have been hotter than the 20th century. A couple of weeks later, another Russian, Eugene Vaganov, wrote in a paper saying that “the warming in the middle of the 20th century is not extraordinary. The warming at the border of the 1st and 2nd millennia was more long in time and similar in amplitude.”
    Briffa, in his Science paper, proposed his own 2,000-year record as an alternative to Mann’s hockey stick, using other data, including collections from Sweden and Yamal, in Siberia. The paper raises issues that cast doubt on Mann’s version of climate history. Mann notoriously posits that the widely accepted existence of a Medieval Warm Period, and a subsequent Little Ice Age, are scientifically dubious phases that never happened. When Mann saw the pre-publication version of Briffa’s critical paper, he blew up. In an April 13 email, he wrote to Briffa complaining that his work is “very misleading” and that it is “a bit unfair” in the way Briffa presents Mann’s perspective.
    Mann said another section in Briffa’s paper was “incorrect” and that it misrepresented the level of uncertainty in Mann’s work. “Our uncertainties are based both on 20th century calibration and independent confirmation from 19th century data. PLEASE MAKE SURE this is clear.” Mann asks Briffa to remove parts of his 2,000 year graph. Mann criticizes Briffa for using tree-ring density data as opposed to the tree-ring width data that Mann had been using because he found density measures inadequate.
    Finally, in an important concluding remark, Mann tells Briffa to “correct” his definitions regarding “global temperature and non-temperature proxies.” Mann prefers using the words “global climate proxies,” thus giving the impression that proxies from tree rings and other sources and actual temperatures are one and the same for IPCC purposes. What Mann appears to be talking about here is the use of what CRU head Phil Jones would later refer to as Mann’s “trick” and how he was able to “hide the decline” that Briffa’s tree-ring research showed i.e. that Briffa's 20th century temperatures were cooler rather than warmer. A series of email exchanges, some heated and involving a range of scientists, follows. It appears, moreover, that Mann had interfered with the peer-review process of Briffa’s article at Science magazine. One of Mann’s associates, Raymond Bradley at the University of Massachusetts, on April 19, wrote to Science editor Julia Uppenbrink, saying, “I would like to disassociate myself from Mike Mann’s view” regarding the climate warming article.

    Complain about this comment

  • 493. At 7:10pm on 22 Dec 2009, rossglory wrote:

    #485 poitsplace

    good to see you still spouting rubbish. latent heat drives tropical storms not the high/low latitude heat differential.

    keep up the bad work.

    warmist regards,

    Complain about this comment

  • 494. At 7:35pm on 22 Dec 2009, BeneGesserit wrote:

    So funny to see the alarmists wondering why the farce known as AGW is falling flat on it's face.

    Face it, COP15 was a massive flop. Perhaps the timely release of the manipulated temp data by CRU et al helped. Perhaps the knowledge that the temp has flatlined while all the so-called models predicted large (and increasing) temperature increases was putting doubt into the believers.

    Perhaps now this silly AGW hype will go into the garbage heap of history where it belongs - with all the other absurdly nonsensical hype we've been subjected to over the last few decades.

    Complain about this comment

  • 495. At 8:06pm on 22 Dec 2009, bowmanthebard wrote:

    #484 sensiblegrannie wrote:

    "Just because it appears as if hardly any people think, 'it ain't necessarily so.'"

    That is the right way to think -- and I say: keeping thinking this way!

    I didn't mean "cunning" in a bad way. Science definitely involves cunning, and there is a heartbreaking beauty in its cunning. If you love beauty, just ask and I'll show you the beauty of science.

    Complain about this comment

  • 496. At 8:18pm on 22 Dec 2009, Peter317 wrote:

    #493: Had you read that posting properly before jumping to conclusions, you will have seen that what was being discussed was extreme weather events, "such as the snow storm on the East Coast of the US", and NOT tropical storms.
    In any case, tropical storms are dependent on tropical ocean surface temps, so, with little or no warming in the tropics, these are not likely to get worse, are they?

    Complain about this comment

  • 497. At 8:36pm on 22 Dec 2009, infiniti wrote:

    Re 471:

    "being able to model the inpact of the main powersource behind our climate doubling is vastly different to modelling levels of a TRACE gas in our atmosphere"

    I agree simple models could get the main effects of doubling solar output right. What about a 10% increase? 2%? 0.1%? Of course as it drops we have less effect and so it's harder to determine the main impacts. I think even a 2% increase (which is equivalent to co2 doubling) is big enough for the models to be capable of telling us stuff about that impact. On that scale i don't think they are woefully inaccurate. I would maintain the phrase woefully inaccurate to describe something that doesn't work at all.

    "Saying models can be tuned to say anything and saying they are woefully inaccurate are two separate things"

    Why would they be woefully inaccurate though if they could be tuned to show anything? You said they fail to predict past events. Well assuming we know what happened in a particular past events (not always true) and the models can be tuned to say anything, why haven't the models been tuned to predict past events?

    "similar results? excuse me? please post some this i HAVE to see."

    The models are better at some things than others, they are not perfect by a longshot, but I wouldn't use the phrase woefully inaccurate. This image shows modelled vs observed annual precipitation. Annual is a wide range with a lot of noise smoothed out so the models have an easier task, if they had to model a single day it would be far less accurate (possibly woefully)
    http://www.exploratorium.edu/climate/global-effects/data/map6-2.jpg

    "again- you're being disingenouous here. They an predict recent events fine, but not further back"

    In a lot of those cases we don't really know the past events with much accuracy. In order to model a distant climate perfectly (an unobtainable goal) solar output, greenhouse gas levels, geography, ice cover, etc has to all be known. In some cases this is the main uncertainty, for example modelling the temperature of the greenland ice sheet during the last glacial has the hideous problem of the greenland ice sheet elevation changing over time which due to lapse rate affects the temperature at the surface.

    "talking about how to exclude people from papers not misconduct? talking about purposley giving negative reviews to papers that contradict their stance isn't gross misconduct?"

    This is how peer review works, unfairly. In the sense that negative reviews happen and scientists are subjective. If they really think a paper is bad they might act against it.

    "talking about deleting data isn't gross misconduct?"

    Deliberately deleting data would be gross misconduct, but talking about it no.

    "personal attacks isn't gross misconduct?"

    Definitely not

    "well, here we have a difference of sources. I was under the impression the CRU data that was lost held unrecoverable station data that noone else had access too"

    The CRU doesn't produce station temperature records, they obtained station data from meterological bodies in various countries and kept copies, those copies were the ones lost/deleted. GHCN in the US also obtained station data from various countries, that's online.
    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/ghcn-monthly/index.php

    "Station data does need to be adjusted, however sceptics are arguing the validity of the data collected"

    I saw the original claims made against NIWA (National Insitute of Water and Atmospheric Research - New Zealand) by a group calling itself the "New Zealand Climate Science Coalition". The claim was was simply that the temperature record didn't match the raw data, as if that was evidence of fraud in itself:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/25/uh-oh-raw-data-in-new-zealand-tells-a-different-story-than-the-official-one/

    "A lot of summarised, adjusted data is online yes. the raw, individual recordings aren't"

    The raw data is available above in the GHCN link above. There is raw data and adjusted data.

    Complain about this comment

  • 498. At 8:38pm on 22 Dec 2009, sensiblegrannie wrote:

    bowmanthebard,
    Bring it on. We could all do with some beauty treatment.

    Complain about this comment

  • 499. At 8:47pm on 22 Dec 2009, lburt wrote:

    @rossglory #493

    Well the original post was about winter weather so the answer touched on that...and then I went ahead and touched on tropical storms which THEORETICALLY would have more energy if CO2 changed the gradient of the troposphere but DOH! Theoretical amounts of something are seldom what you get. In this case it turns out the ocean currents have more to do with it, shear winds (which should ALSO increase with warming) so...it's kind of a crapshoot working out what will go on.

    But thanks for playing. As a departing gift you'll win a version of our home game.

    Complain about this comment

  • 500. At 9:03pm on 22 Dec 2009, ghostofsichuan wrote:

    Not having been the victim of a science education I must rely on the research of others with no vested interest of my own. My concern is with the billions of tons of chemicals spewed into the air every year with little or no concern, or research about the health effects on people, animals and plants. Because governments cannot be trusted we can hope that research will provide some enlightenment on these areas. I think that calling this issue a hoax is simply silly and probably politically motivated, some apparently believe that politics is the same as science. I, being more political, clearly see the difference. As anyone can see, the politicans claim this is a crisis but cannot get anything done and do not budget appropriate resources to finding non-fossil fuels to combat their own predictions. The idea of a new and cheap non-fossil fuel just scares politicans as they have a tax structure that supports the continuation of fossil fuels. I don't think the grid or most of the existing infrastructure is necessary and that available technologies could provide for individual control of power use and generation but governments have no interest in that, again related to the tax system and campaign contributions and whose families are in charge in some countries. The entire energy market is a form of socialism. Big companies are protected from competition, do not comply with environmental regulations that governments should enforce and have been given tax advantages in some countries, all under the name of private sector. In state run operations the fox is guarding the hen house and complaints are viewed as anti-nationalist. Big business is the welfare state, much more than anything countries provide to the poor.There is a political theroy that says that the more competing systems confront each other the more they become alike. When the West was in confrontation with the Soviet Union the competition was in technology. Now that the competition has moved to China the competition is in corruption. Human beings are creatures of habit and we have difficulties breaking even bad habits.

    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.