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

COP15: Titanic nears the harbour

Richard Black | 13:51 UK time, Wednesday, 16 December 2009

"So, how are things going?"

The question comes in hourly from editors back in London, from friends, from other journalists around this huge, unwieldy conference.

The precise answer would vary from hour to hour, although an honest assessment would always include the words "I don't know".

Delegates in the conference hall at CopenhagenBut as we enter the high-level segment - the bit where ministers take up the reins from their professional negotiators - maybe it's time to attempt an assessment.

So how are things going?

People who've followed this process for years, people with the ears of important delegations, don't know; as one observed to me yesterday, "we are in uncharted territory".

What I think that means is that never before has there been a UN negotiation on issues with environmental, economic and legal implications conducted by heads of state and government.

Think of the complexity and the side-issues this negotiation drags in: overseas aid, economic development, colonialism old and new, legal rights to inspect other governments' actions, the breaking of historical promises on cutting carbon... and the reasons why European Commission negotiator Artur Runge-Metzger concluded that "in many cases we have exhausted the technical work, and it is time for a political choice to be made" become clear.

So that's what environment ministers now - and heads of state and government later - will have to do; to make those political choices.

But "making political choices" can easily turn into "making political deals". Many leaders are already here; and the deals, reportedly, are already being done.

I say "reportedly" because we journalists are working in even more of an information deficit than previously.

When two or three prime ministers have a conversation, the dribbles of detail emerge much more slowly and with far more spin than when the ordinary negotiators are involved.

So it is that last night came news of a proposal from Ethiopia - with support and encouragement from France and the UK - that they think could form the basis of a deal here.

Essentially, finance would be raised, rising up to $100bn per year by 2020 for the developing world from "innovative sources" - elements such as taxes on banking transactions and ship and aviation fuel, and levies on carbon trading.

The African group reportedly gave the Ethiopian negotiator a real roasting about this at their routine morning meeting, because the proposal gives ground on some of the African bloc's fundamental points - in particular, endorsing a temperature target of 2C when the vast majority of African nations want 1.5C.

Meles ZenawiBut the Ethiopian negotiator couldn't do anything about it, we're told, because it wasn't his deal - it was the deal of his president, Meles Zenawi, made on behalf of the African Union.

The document bears the strong scent of French fingers, in particular through its endorsement of the concept of a new super-UN environment organisation - a distinctly French initiative.

So other African negotiators may hate the idea, but they don't matter now; how African prime ministers and presidents see it is the only thing that matters.

What else is happening behind the scenes?

According to one Caribbean delegate I spoke with this morning - deals, deals and more deals.

In somewhat sombre mood, he explained that the most vulnerable countries should in principal stick to the positions they have adopted here - a temperature rise of no more than 1.5C, much more money for adaptation (based on the principle of historical responsibility for climate change) - but that most would crumble.

He offered me two examples of big countries (both in the developing world, incidentally) recently offering money to small island states tied to changing their position on climate change.

It's an Alice-in-Wonderland world. In the main plenary hall, delegates from big developing countries are demanding transparency and adherence to the texts that they have been negotiating here.

But in the private rooms, their own political lords and masters (and ladies and mistresses) are doing deals that ride roughshod over any notion of transparency.

"How's it going?"

According to Tuvalu's negotiator Ian Fry, not remotely as it should.

"I have the feeling that we are on the Titanic and sinking fast; but we can't launch any lifeboats because a member of the crew has decided we're not sinking and has decided to launch informal consultations."

Shipwreck or safe arrival? Bizarrely, just two days before governments are supposed to solve a problem that so many claim as a huge threat to the human race, the Titanic struggles of the negotiators are in danger of being swamped by the fast and loose launches of political expediency.

Comments

or register to comment.

  • 1. At 2:29pm on 16 Dec 2009, LabMunkey wrote:

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

  • 2. At 2:43pm on 16 Dec 2009, bowmanthebard wrote:

    I don't believe in religious apocalypse stuff, but I do believe that every now and again civilization goes through a sort of convulsion such as the French Revolution or the Reformation.

    The mainstream Western religions have been in retreat for at least a hundred years, and at the same time as they retreated, the word 'science' (a new word in English) came to be used more and more as a blanket term of approval for a vast range of activities, many of which do not deserve the name 'science' at all. For example, "social science" is just a flattering term for the fag-end of Marxism.

    Humans may have lost religion, but we never lost the urge to adopt an "authority" and take the word of the authority as a moral decree. Such decrees now come from people who call themselves "scientists" but whose business is nothing like biology, physics, chemistry, or any of the many successful branches of engineering that go hand-in-hand with real science. -- Where there is no testing, no predictive power worth talking about, no explanations giving a sense of "the key turning in the lock", there is no science worth the name.

    It seems to me that as climate change scepticism has been rising in its popularity, the reaction to it has become more and more hysterical. For example, today's London Times reports Al Gore as saying "the Arctic sea ice decline has accelerated far, far [my emphasis] beyond the expectations of the climate models". (In other words, he admits models are garbage -- but that's another story.) If you want to read someone in a religious funk "losing it" completely, try George Monbiot in yesterday's Guardian!

    I'm inclined to think that future generations will remember Copenhagen as a sort of mini re-run of the "Council of Trent" (where the authorities laid the plans for the counter-reformation). There seem to be so many people who are constitutionally incapable of thinking for themselves, and indeed unwilling to let other people think for themselves. Oh dear -- the endless conformism, appeals to authority, and requests for qualifications! And all the time the threat of Apocalypse dangled before us like eternal damnation!

    Complain about this comment

  • 3. At 2:56pm on 16 Dec 2009, Dempster wrote:

    Mr R. Black wrote:
    'Essentially, finance would be raised, rising up to $100bn per year by 2020 for the developing world from "innovative sources" - elements such as taxes on banking transactions and ship and aviation fuel, and levies on carbon trading'

    OK, so what it all boils down to is my bank charges are going up, food being transported to this country by sea, will make the family's weekly shopping bill go up, and finally when my youngest goes on his school trip to Greece next year, it's going to cost me more.

    So now we get to the point, namely:

    Climate change = more taxation, don't you just love 'em.


    Complain about this comment

  • 4. At 3:09pm on 16 Dec 2009, Spanglerboy wrote:

    Richard

    I think whatever comes out of COP15 will have to be unravelled over the next few years as it becomes apparent that the 2 cornerstones of AGW are AWOL

    On the one hand we have been led to believe that the warming at the end of the 20th century was unprecedented. This is likely to be shown to be untrue.

    And on the other hand we have been told repeatedely that feedbacks are positive. This also is likely to be shown to be untrue.

    So there is no doubt that the next few years will be very interesting and I would bet that a lot of time is going to be spent in various courts around the world as the lawyers finally get stuck into this morass. So enjoy the gravy while you can.

    Complain about this comment

  • 5. At 3:16pm on 16 Dec 2009, EuroSider wrote:

    I liked your analogy with the Titanic. That made me smile.
    So....this is rescue by committee!
    Perhaps they can agree to agree to have another meeting to discuss having another meeting where everyone will agree to have another meeting!
    While the planet slowly dies.

    Complain about this comment

  • 6. At 3:16pm on 16 Dec 2009, Sparklet wrote:

    So these politicians think they can adopt 'a temperature rise of no more than 1.5C' or endorse 'a temperature target of 2C'.
    Yes indeed Richard it is 'an Alice-in-Wonderland world'.

    Just look at how temperature has changed in the past

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/09/hockey-stick-observed-in-noaa-ice-core-data/

    Sometimes I really do think the lunatics have taken over the asylum!!!

    Complain about this comment

  • 7. At 3:19pm on 16 Dec 2009, Jack Frost wrote:

    Mr Edmonds would be in his element here. Each delegate has a box with differing amounts of billions in. With glazed ka-ching sign eyes they're asked.

    Deal or no deal?

    Complain about this comment

  • 8. At 3:31pm on 16 Dec 2009, tears of our forefathers wrote:

    Morning(ish) to you all.

    What can we expect next Richard? 'Skeptics' are all involved in a libertarian conspiracy to overthrow the monarchy (queen=woman aha!) and found a man-only republic? FYI i'd avoid comparing the AGW campaign to that ill fated vessel/rubbish film!

    for the science minded among you:

    http://www.warwickhughes.com/papers/idso98.htm

    'ABSTRACT: Over the course of the past 2 decades, I have analyzed a number of natural phenomena that reveal how Earth’s near surface air temperature responds to surface radiative perturbations. These studies all suggest that a 300 to 600 ppm doubling of the atmosphere’s CO2 concentration could raise the planet’s mean surface air temperature by only about 0.4°C. Even this modicum of warming may never be realized, however, for it could be negated by a number of planetary cooling forces that are intensified by warmer temperatures and by the strengthening of biological processes that are enhanced by the same rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration that drives the warming. Several of these cooling forces have individually been estimated to be of equivalent magnitude, but of opposite sign, to the typically predicted greenhouse effect of a doubling of the air’s CO2 content, which suggests to me that little net temperature change will ultimately result from the ongoing buildup of CO2 in Earth’s
    atmosphere. Consequently, I am skeptical of the predictions of significant CO2 induced global warming that are being made by state-of-the-art climate models and believe that much more work on a wide variety of research fronts will be required to properly resolve the issue.'


    i daresay the authors of this paper have been attacked and slandered by the likes of our kind host but i found it was worth a skim. i wonder if it made it in to the IPCC?

    Complain about this comment

  • 9. At 3:34pm on 16 Dec 2009, Kamboshigh wrote:

    See your still here Richard I want bother to read anything you wrote. Another Richard however, put the nonsense perfectly well

    http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2009/12/vast-nexus-of-influence.html

    Opening paragraph
    "No one but the utterly naïve greenies believe that the Mann-made global warming hype is anything to do with climate – much less saving the planet. It is, as always, about power, influence - and money."

    It might be a beyond Richard Blacks pencil box to actual get a grip on the facts.

    Complain about this comment

  • 10. At 3:35pm on 16 Dec 2009, Flatearther wrote:

    So everybody at Copenhagen is still in a state of cognitive dissonance.

    How is the weather by the way? I bet the conference is nicely warm and the food is hot. Wish I were there instead of out all day with my chain-saw preparing for the next but one winter. But the woodburner is roaring away here.

    Complain about this comment

  • 11. At 3:37pm on 16 Dec 2009, John Kazer wrote:

    A response to climate change is about risk management - if there's a chance it can happen then we should act to mitigate the risk (so it's just a question of willingness to pay).

    However, a parallel and much more certain problem exists which has essentially the same mitigation activity:

    At risk of adding to the de-ja-vu feel of these forums, any substantive response to my posts from Monday on peak oil and gas, as summarised nicely by the Chief Economist of the IEA:

    http://www.ft.com/cms/s/92d94ba6-24e4-11d8-81c6-08209b00dd01,id=071107000607,print=yes.html

    Abiotic oil formation is not a sensible answer (at the least it's clearly a very slow process, should it happen) and coal gasification/liquifaction isn't useful either because it doesn't alter the fundamental issue of resource constraint.

    Complain about this comment

  • 12. At 3:38pm on 16 Dec 2009, Flatearther wrote:

    You can come home now Richard. Prof Philip Stott has written Copenhagen up for you. I'm sure he won't mind you plagiarising it.

    http://web.me.com/sinfonia1/Clamour_Of_The_Times/Clamour_Of_The_Times/Entries/2009/12/16_My_Four_Theses_for_Copenhagen.html

    Complain about this comment

  • 13. At 3:41pm on 16 Dec 2009, AngusPangus wrote:

    What's the weather like there, Richard? Warm enough for you? Or have Useful Idiot managers Messrs Schmidt and Mann issued an edict not to talk about the cold?

    Complain about this comment

  • 14. At 3:42pm on 16 Dec 2009, Flatearther wrote:

    Sparklet #6

    Do you seriously think anyone at the Biased Broadcasting Corporation would look at WUWT?

    Complain about this comment

  • 15. At 4:06pm on 16 Dec 2009, Kamboshigh wrote:

    #11 John it has nothing to do with risk management. Do me favour and read the link at my post 9. It is not a sceptic bashing of the leftest point of view.

    Then lets talk about supposed risk management.

    Complain about this comment

  • 16. At 4:06pm on 16 Dec 2009, unbrainwashed wrote:

    Questions Questions???

    ''the bit where ministers take up the reins'' - Is that the bit they are FED what to say, and how much Tax they will promise to pay the UN?
    ''professional negotiators'' - Who EXACTLY are these people please?

    ''European Commission negotiator Artur Runge-Metzger concluded that "in many cases we have exhausted the technical work'' - How so? Please elucidate further on this?

    ''and it is time for a political choice to be made" become clear.'' - As if.....

    ''So that's what environment ministers now - and heads of state and government later - will have to do; to make those political choices.'' - Well, they better be reading the NON MSM Media and have an eye on the Election coming up in.... Oh! about 3 - 5 Months!

    ''But "making political choices" can easily turn into "making political deals". Many leaders are already here; and the deals, reportedly, are already being done.

    I say "reportedly" because we journalists are working in even more of an information deficit than previously.'' - WHY IS THIS SO!? WHAT ABOUT CLEAR AND TRANSPARENT DEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENT?
    ''Essentially, finance would be raised, rising up to $100bn per year by 2020 for the developing world from "innovative sources" - elements such as taxes on banking transactions and ship and aviation fuel, and levies on carbon trading.'' - OF COURSE EPA STATES CO2 A DANGER TO HUMAN HEALTH!

    The African group reportedly gave the Ethiopian negotiator a real roasting about this at their routine morning meeting, because the proposal gives ground on some of the African bloc's fundamental points - in particular, endorsing a temperature target of 2C when the vast majority of African nations want 1.5C.'' - IS THAT THE GLOBAL WARMING/COOLING/ WARMING/CLIMATE CHANGE/ACID OCEAN LINE WAVERING A BIT?

    --...it wasn't his deal - it was the deal of his president, Meles Zenawi, made on behalf of the African Union. - Where is it Written, and What gives him the Right to have so much power?

    ''The document bears the strong scent of French fingers, in particular through its endorsement of the concept of a new super-UN environment organisation - a distinctly French initiative.'' - Yeah yeah, Blame THE FRENCH! Ha ha ha!
    ''So other African negotiators may hate the idea, but they don't matter now; how African prime ministers and presidents see it is the only thing that matters.'' - Recipe for Strife and Disaster - MAN MADE DISASTER!

    ''According to one Caribbean delegate I spoke with this morning - deals, deals and more deals.'' - See! A NON TAXABLE ALL EXPENSES PAID FREE CHRISTMAS BASH CASINO!

    ''In somewhat sombre mood, he explained that the most vulnerable countries should in principal stick to the positions .....'' - Yeah, yeah.... But, they don't matter now because we are talking Carbon BABY! CARBON CREDITS! THE SUPERSERIAL DERIVATIVES!, STRUCTURED FINANCE MEATS NATURE! - BE AFRAID.... BE VERY AFRAID! Not that I want to be alarmist or anything.... just a quote from some crazy movie somewhere in time....

    ''He offered me two examples of big countries (both in the developing world, incidentally) recently offering money to small island states tied to changing their position on climate change.'' - WHAT WHAT WHAT!!!???

    ''It's an Alice-in-Wonderland world. '' - It just gets curiouser and curiouser....

    ''But in the private rooms, their own political lords and masters (and ladies and mistresses) are doing deals that ride roughshod over any notion of transparency.'' - CLEAR AND TRANSPARENT - GENERAL ELECTION!

    Shipwreck or safe arrival? - I AM GETTING A MORSE CODE S.O.S. THROUGH ON MY VALVE RADIO FROM Ho'po2GainKen 14.5 PerkWorld.CON.YUK. It's Milliband E! - IT SAYS....... SAVE OUR SINCERITY.....STOP.....SAVE OUR SINCERITY.....STOP - I ONLY HEARD IT BRIEFLY.... FOR A LITTLE WHILE, AND IT WAS FAINT..... THEN IT DIED...

    Questions Questions Questions....

    Complain about this comment

  • 17. At 4:10pm on 16 Dec 2009, RedGreenInBlue wrote:

    LabMunkey: "[...] richard?"

    Dempster: "Mr R. Black wrote: [...]"

    Spanglerboy: "Richard [...]"

    I'm a little puzzled. Richard is a journalist. If you have a beef with the science, then moan at the scientists. Read the research, find the errors, devise your own hypothesis, and most importantly, offer the evidence to show why it is superior to existing theory. (And show us your data and methods.)

    Even if the scientists are all allegedly grant-chasing scam artists, journals are always hoping to publish the next big ground-breaking paradigm-shifting scientific advance. (Just think of the impact factor.) So I'm off back to read the primary literature, and I look forward to reading LabMunkey, Dempster, Spanglerboy et al. in Nature in the near future.

    Complain about this comment

  • 18. At 4:23pm on 16 Dec 2009, bowmanthebard wrote:

    #11 John Kazer wrote:

    "risk management - if there's a chance it can happen then we should act to mitigate the risk (so it's just a question of willingness to pay)."

    I'm afraid there's much, much more to it than that. In the most simplistic, idealized terms, consider what actuaries call the "expected value" of a course of action -- the product of the desirability of a goal and the likelihood of achieving it (assuming we can attach numbers to those things). Even if we assume that climate change is happening, and that it is very undesirable, we also have to take into account how confident we can be that our efforts will actually avert it, as well as how undesirable the consequences of those efforts will be, as well as how confident we can be that those consequences will actually follow. And so on...

    In short, it's a lot more complicated than "Pascal's Wager", and there's a lot less certainty about each of the (much larger number of) alternatives!

    Complain about this comment

  • 19. At 4:24pm on 16 Dec 2009, minuend wrote:

    Copenhagen Day 9: Rockall Delegate's diary

    What a SHAMBLES

    I have been standing in the UN Face-Painting queue for over 3 hours. I was really looking forward to have my face painted as Spider-Man only to be told when it was my turn they had run out of red paint, plenty of green but no red. Boy was I angry!

    They offered to cut the price but I said, "No Deal". How can anyone take you seriously if your made up as GREEN Spider-Man.

    Complain about this comment

  • 20. At 4:27pm on 16 Dec 2009, ejUSA77 wrote:

    This is all about poor nations and their representatives using limited observations from a plethora of sources to cobble together the climate-change boogey monster to induce guilt in wealthier nations to aid in panhandling for more handouts. It’s a modern day sale of indulgences: CO2 emissions are bad, but pay us some cash in a “cap-n-trade” scam, and then it’s ok for you to pollute!
    Want the real facts? Look at the historical longer term weather patterns: there is a 30 year cycle of natural warm and cold cycles and we are coming to end of the latest 30 year warming cycle begun in the mid-1970s. Just look back at the data of the last 150 years, it’s plain to see. Also, there is a 300 year cycle of warming climate eras and “mini-ice ages,” and guess what? We are coming near the end of one of those as well. Again, look back, this time about 1500 years.
    In a few years we will be WISHING for global warming to counter the chilling effects of both of these natural climate cycles turning downward at the same time. THAT is the reason for the urgency at the Copenhagen talks now, the climate-change fear mongers secretly know they have little time left to con the people of rich nations into coughing up cash, and are laying on the guilt heavy on us for prospering and using any argument available to squeeze out a few more Dollars or Euros of our increasingly scarce wealth.

    Complain about this comment

  • 21. At 4:29pm on 16 Dec 2009, LabMunkey wrote:

    "I'm a little puzzled. Richard is a journalist. If you have a beef with the science, then moan at the scientists. Read the research, find the errors, devise your own hypothesis, and most importantly, offer the evidence to show why it is superior to existing theory. (And show us your data and methods.)"

    'we' have, however as outlined in the CRU emails there is an active movement to BLOCK any contradicting science that has already affected the main journals.

    but putting that aside, Richard is ignoring a massive issue (CRU hack/leak) and is furthering the segragation, isolation and demonisation of anyone who doesn't keel-toe to the AGW line.

    His last blog post proves this, as such i stand by my assertion that he should resign.

    Complain about this comment

  • 22. At 4:32pm on 16 Dec 2009, LabMunkey wrote:

    oh- and just realised how that last post could come across as- whiny and churlish, not my intention.

    There are numerous 'sceptic' papers that shouldn't be published, they pull the same 'tricks' the AGW ones do, but there are sufficient 'good' ones that have been blocked to justify my last post.

    Complain about this comment

  • 23. At 4:34pm on 16 Dec 2009, John Kazer wrote:

    #18 - bowman, that's kinda exactly my point about risk management. Large companies, insurance bods etc. make extremely complex multi-variate decisions like this often. Can't get it right, just work out percentage chances per scenario and costs to act under different scenarios.

    Still no comment on peak X...

    Complain about this comment

  • 24. At 4:44pm on 16 Dec 2009, SamuelPickwick wrote:

    #6 says it all. It is indeed an 'Alice in Wonderland' conference. When is King Canute going to turn up to help limit future temperature rises to 1.5 degrees? While they're about it, why not agree to limit temperature falls this winter? That would save on grit and salt and reduce accidents.
    The insanity and inanity of it all leaves me lost for words so I won't say anything more.

    Complain about this comment

  • 25. At 4:46pm on 16 Dec 2009, Dempster wrote:

    17. At 4:10pm on 16 Dec 2009, RedGreenInBlue

    The issue really is nothing to do with climate change, it's to do with something much more mundane......... new ways to increase the tax take without people screaming in anger too much.

    Everyone's discussing the science, but ultimately it will all revolve around one thing, money.


    In any event if I believe that boom and bust has been eradicated, and if I believe there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and that Dr David Kelly committed suicide. And finally if I believe in climate change caused by humans.

    Now if I believe in all these things, would you, the government, just leave me in peace, and not launch any more new initiatives or tax rises, whilst I endeavour to get my family through this recession?

    Do you think you could manage that?
    Or will there be something else I will be required to believe in? and subsequently taxed on.

    Complain about this comment

  • 26. At 4:46pm on 16 Dec 2009, nick-ynysmon wrote:

    we should celebrate common sense , not this silly agenda and confidence trick called the Copenhagen summit.
    common sense that some are beginning to see through the lies, obfuscations, and twisting of the climate data,
    It is simple logic, if the summit is based on some myth and fallacy, such as AGW, then it must have a covert purpose. We are left then, with the further manipulation of people and countries, the entrenchment of the globalist agenda, the centralization of authority in the United Nations etc. A world government in the making.
    thus, all is in keeping with what we know of the Bilderbergers, and who attends their meetings also what we know if the CFR, and trilateralists.
    The myth of global warming was used as a means to the end of bringing about this central control of the worlds population, now we will see what draconian taxes are brought in, and if Obama overrides his congress to bring some ratification of this treaty. The next few months will show just what the actual agenda is on all this. Once we see more of our freedom taken away.
    AS there is no man made global warming and the data are fixed to support this silly myth, it is obvious something else is being planned.

    Complain about this comment

  • 27. At 4:52pm on 16 Dec 2009, Maria Ashot wrote:

    We have a great deal of leverage on our side and we intend to use every single microgram of it.

    The blocs will be busted, as blocs always are. Reason will prevail.

    A super-UN organisation is not only necessary, it has been made inevitable by the lunatic fringes (at both ends of the social fabric).

    That is what happens when people act up at an important event. They don't get invited back to the next party.

    Forge ahead, Europe! And Bravissimi Tutti!

    With All My Love & Kudos -- Eternal Glory --

    Complain about this comment

  • 28. At 4:59pm on 16 Dec 2009, Dempster wrote:

    27. At 4:52pm on 16 Dec 2009, Maria Ashot

    I think when the final bill for all this arrives on the average working Joe's door step, he should re-address it and send to you.

    Complain about this comment

  • 29. At 5:03pm on 16 Dec 2009, Solarping wrote:

    could the signing of agreements be comparable to signing a contract let’s say for a purchase, and not seeing the fine print of the total contract, such is the case with these agreements when not all the total data of what is influencing climate change within regions, a lot would have to with LMF wind charges and fluctuations with in certain areas not yet accessed.

    Complain about this comment

  • 30. At 5:04pm on 16 Dec 2009, Kamboshigh wrote:

    #23

    John okay you don't want to read the post at 9. So lets try and see what COP15 is real about. Yes it is risk management but has nothing to do with the planet. It is risk management to protect the interests of individuals who have far more money than you or I.

    Please tell me you have the ablity to see what is going on especially when the IPCC chairman looks likely to make millions on ensuring that this goes through.

    This not saving the planet but their bank accounts and private jets.

    Complain about this comment

  • 31. At 5:07pm on 16 Dec 2009, Maria Ashot wrote:

    No. 28, The average working Joe in the USA has a vote and should learn to have used it, many elections ago.

    The average working Joe in the USA has been bankrupted by the people who created the climate threat through their rapacious greed and selfishness.

    The average working Joe in the USA would like some income security and an affordable health care system, that costs less him than $10K a year just to keep it "available" in case of need.

    The average working Joe in the USA is a whole lot more like me than you might realise, Dempster.

    Are you an "average working Joe"? For real?

    Let's compare notes, shall we?

    What's in your stock portfolio?

    I don't have one: but if I did, it would contain the stocks of all the American corporate entities who signed the letter to President Obama in support of the Copenhagen Conference -- plus, of course, Apple.

    And it would contain NONE of the shares of any of the companies that did not subscribe to those commitments.

    You?

    Complain about this comment

  • 32. At 5:08pm on 16 Dec 2009, selfevidenttruths wrote:

    On the previous thread Richard has posted a reply.

    Complain about this comment

  • 33. At 5:17pm on 16 Dec 2009, Patobanton wrote:

    #22 - LabMunkey

    "but there are sufficient 'good' ones that have been blocked"

    List me ten papers that show AGW isn't happening.

    Complain about this comment

  • 34. At 5:17pm on 16 Dec 2009, Dempster wrote:

    31. At 5:07pm on 16 Dec 2009, Maria Ashot wrote:
    'What's in your stock portfolio?'

    I can tell you what's in the kitchen cupboard love, nearest thing I've got to stock is labelled OXO.

    Do you originate from this planet?

    I wonder if the X Files are actually true.

    Complain about this comment

  • 35. At 5:19pm on 16 Dec 2009, ghostofsichuan wrote:

    Politicians in town, means decisions will be political but that is the way it works. To my knowledge national budgets have never been at the approval of scientist. This is the process, good or bad, like or dislike, this is the way it works. The agenda has always been emission "trading", giving the bigger and richer nations the right to pollute. of course that process does nothing to address the issue. After the governments and banks colluded to create the financial collapse there became a need to refill the cofers. Unfortunately, the very people who betrayed everyone will be in charge of that as well. There are solutions but it is unlikely that this process will produce them. The normal tactic of governments is to wait for a crisis and when it is pointed out that the crisis could have been avoided the messengers are defamed and subjected to being called negativist who delay the process of dealing with the crisis. Maybe coincidence but the Tang, Yuan and Ming dynasties all fell following period of drought..what would be called today, climate related political instability.

    Complain about this comment

  • 36. At 5:23pm on 16 Dec 2009, yertizz wrote:

    Richard says:'...the Titanic struggles of the negotiators are in danger of being swamped by the fast and loose launches of political expediency.....'

    To paraphrase Monty Python: A statement of the Bleedin' Obvious if ever there was one. Do you get paid serious amounts of Licence-fee payers' hard-earned cash to come up with this stuff?

    Flatearther @ 12....nice one!

    Complain about this comment

  • 37. At 5:28pm on 16 Dec 2009, tears of our forefathers wrote:

    @33

    no one is writing papers saying global warming isn't/didn't happen during the last 100 years. a lot of people have written papers questioning among other things:

    the impact of co2 overall vs other factors (from the sun to water vapour)

    the impact of human additions of co2



    in my post number 8 i provide a link to a peer reviewed paper that suggests the climate is less sensitive to co2 forcing than we are regularly told these days. to be honest: educate yourself, its not our responsibilty.

    Complain about this comment

  • 38. At 5:30pm on 16 Dec 2009, Flatearther wrote:

    Reading the comments here and people's attitude to paying taxes to solve this non-existent problem of climate change, I am led back to further thoughts about Richard's ridiculous article yesterday about sceptics.

    It seems to me there are two types of people in the world.

    There are those whose livelihoods depend on them producing something that other people are prepared to buy. If they are producing something useless, then they are out of a job. On the whole these people are sceptics.

    Then there are those who are paid for doing something regardless of whether anyone wants it. This group of people includes politicians, civil servants, BBC employees, etc. They get paid regardless of what they do and regardless of whether anyone wants what they produce. These people can afford to go along with the flow (the consensus) because they get paid regardless. In fact they might lose their jobs if they don't accept the consensus said to exist by their ultimate bosses, the politicians. It doesn't matter to them whether AGW is a scam. They can afford not to be sceptical; or conversely, they can't afford to be sceptical. I bet Richard's career would come to an end if he declared he was a sceptic.

    So I think this hypothesis is much more realistic then Richard's. Anybody got any evidence one way or the other?

    My evidence is my own circumstance and that of fellow sceptics that I know. None of us get paid by the taxpayer. We have to earn a living by producing something that somebody else is prepared to pay for and we don't like seeing some scrounging politicians wanting to take more and more of it away from us.

    Complain about this comment

  • 39. At 5:30pm on 16 Dec 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    Titanic Nears the Harbour

    Watch as the Titanic hits the ice berg and sinks without trace

    >;-)

    Complain about this comment

  • 40. At 5:31pm on 16 Dec 2009, U14260427 wrote:

    " 34. At 5:17pm on 16 Dec 2009, Dempster wrote:

    31. At 5:07pm on 16 Dec 2009, Maria Ashot wrote:
    'What's in your stock portfolio?'

    I can tell you what's in the kitchen cupboard love, nearest thing I've got to stock is labelled OXO.

    Do you originate from this planet?

    I wonder if the X Files are actually true. "

    Given the vitriol such sexism cause for Mr Black on another thread, where is the outrage here???

    Complain about this comment

  • 41. At 5:33pm on 16 Dec 2009, U14260427 wrote:

    I'm afraid I have some bad news:

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

    All that science. Blown.

    Complain about this comment

  • 42. At 5:36pm on 16 Dec 2009, unbrainwashed wrote:

    In Dark Days such as this the Govtsplural.inc should just keep schtum and give everybody a million bux... Some people will spend it, some people will save it, others will fritter it away BUT! EVERYBODY would be fed, sheltered and employed doing something..... and the Banksters would be happy, the Retail Sector would be happy, and the Service Sector would also be happy.

    And we all get on with our day and see where we get in...... a few years time.

    I bet a lot MORE SCIENCE would be done as well!

    Got another Morse Message..... The Ships going down fast... Here... http://www.tate.org.uk/servlet/ViewWork?workid=27072&tabview=image

    Complain about this comment

  • 43. At 5:37pm on 16 Dec 2009, selfevidenttruths wrote:

    Another pile of **** from Mr Hari

    http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-its-the-protesters-who-offer-the-best-hope-for-our-planet-1841887.html

    and this is supposed to persuade? I knew what to expect, guess I'm a masochist.

    Complain about this comment

  • 44. At 5:44pm on 16 Dec 2009, unbrainwashed wrote:

    Today's forecast
    Rain/Snow Showers
    Hi: 35°F / 2°C
    Lo: 28°F / -2°C
    Tomorrow's forecast
    Snow Showers
    Hi: 29°F / -2°C
    Lo: 26°F / -3°C

    http://worldtimeserver.com/weather_in_DK.aspx?forecastid=DAXX0009

    can this be trusted? probably -12℃

    Complain about this comment

  • 45. At 5:49pm on 16 Dec 2009, U14260427 wrote:

    re: 44.

    Yeah. Keeps happening at this time of year in the north. Winds. Rain. Snow. Cold.

    Still, it's just random. You can't predict weather months in advance.

    Complain about this comment

  • 46. At 5:51pm on 16 Dec 2009, unbrainwashed wrote:

    31.

    You got ONE thing right!

    Apple!..... begins with A

    But hey.... Did they rip the name from The Beatles?

    Complain about this comment

  • 47. At 5:54pm on 16 Dec 2009, Dempster wrote:

    40. At 5:31pm on 16 Dec 2009, Lord Monckton wrote:
    'Given the vitriol such sexism cause for Mr Black on another thread, where is the outrage here???'

    I save my outrage for the damn government and the banks, because between the two of them, they managed to have me over consistently for the thick end of thirty years, I jest you not.

    You want some outrage, I'll give you outrage, I am a self employed working Joe, husband and father of three, and I have sufficient outrage to sink a small ferry.


    Complain about this comment

  • 48. At 5:59pm on 16 Dec 2009, U14260427 wrote:

    "You want some outrage, I'll give you outrage, I am a self employed working Joe, husband and father of three, and I have sufficient outrage to sink a small ferry."

    And an ego to match, it seems.

    If I called your missus "love", would I be looking for my teeth about now?

    And as a self-employed Joe I can practically guarantee you're earning more than I do.

    Complain about this comment

  • 49. At 6:06pm on 16 Dec 2009, John Kazer wrote:

    #30 - Kambos, lol, are you seriously saying that the financial earnings from carbon trading are so attractive compared to financial and oil industries?

    Why would these folk go through this effort for gains of such low relative scale?

    Derivatives market last year = $600 trillion traded. Annual oil consumption = 30 billion barrels at $70 a pop = $2.1 trillion.

    EU-ETS traded about $100 billion traded this year.

    Still no responses on peak oil...

    Complain about this comment

  • 50. At 6:12pm on 16 Dec 2009, Patobanton wrote:

    #37 Tears of our forefathers

    Maybe you'll forgive me if I dont take Warwick Hughes, "free lance earth scientist from Australia" http://www.warwickhughes.com/
    as my gospel truth on this issue. Your link is to a paper from 1998, which I would suggest is not at the vanguard of climate research. You might also want to check the Idso's links to the coal and oil industries (Exxon, Western Fuels Association).

    I take issue with your final point teliing me to "educate myself, it's not your responsibility". I actually know quite a bit about this issue, but you are trying to convince me that everything I and tens of thousands of scientists know to be true, is wrong. Therefore it is very much your job to educate me if you ever expect me to believe in the money grabbing/tax raising/new world order/religious hysteria/lefty conspiracy(delete as appropriate)agenda that people on here seem to think exists. Provide some proof, or even something that doesn't quite seem to be so half-baked and maybe just maybe I'll believe you. If you can't then I'd think about getting a hobby.

    Complain about this comment

  • 51. At 6:14pm on 16 Dec 2009, Jonathan wrote:

    Now we read that the intelligent rational "in full possession of the facts" climate non-sceptics (mostly women apparently) are engaging in the entirely intelligent and rational process of causing a riot.

    Meanwhile the ignorant, dogmatic and reactionary men sceptics stay calmly at home.

    Ho hum...

    Complain about this comment

  • 52. At 6:26pm on 16 Dec 2009, bowmanthebard wrote:

    #23 John Kazer wrote:

    "bowman, that's kinda exactly my point about risk management."

    I thought your point was that one clear course of action was unambiguously indicated: "we gotta do something now or we're all gonna fry! Awww, the humanity!"

    My point is that even if we accept that global warming is actually happening (and I don't) and that global warming is a bad thing (and I don't), our best options are not at all clear. At the very least we have to weigh two abstract arithmetical products against each other: the goodness-of-avoiding-global-warming-times-our-confidence-we-can-avoid-it versus the goodness-of-avoiding-severe-economic-decline-times-our-confidence-that-we-can-avoid-it.

    Both of the latter are extremely abstract "quantities" (actually, they're not really quantities at all as numbers cannot even in principle be assigned to either). So "what should be done rationally" is by no means clear, even if we unquestioningly accept the latest papal bull from Gore.

    "Still no comment on peak X..."

    I'm not sure what you want me to comment on. Every scarce commodity has its "peak", and then we move on to new technology. No one thinks we will be using oil for power in a century or two (or even a few decades from now, if you prefer.) The usual pattern is this: the shift occurs rather slowly at first as the price inches up, but then research and development are stepped up, because they become increasingly promising, and then -- much more suddenly -- some new technology is adopted. Usually, the world is changed for the better. What do you want me to comment on? Surely everyone in this debate welcomes the idea of less dependence on oil?

    Complain about this comment

  • 53. At 6:37pm on 16 Dec 2009, Dempster wrote:

    48. At 5:59pm on 16 Dec 2009, Lord Monckton

    Right your honour, you’ve asked for it, so here it comes.

    I John Dempster an average self employed working Joe, husband and father of three say this:

    I’ve worked my nuts off for longer than I can remember to keep a roof over the family’s head and food on the table and at the moment I’m struggling.

    I have witnessed at first hand the business of irresponsible government and reckless financial lending.

    I’ll tell you a story.

    One Christmas Eve in the early 1990’s my last job of the year was to check the condition of a recently repossessed terraced property.

    On entering I noted that the large items of furniture were still there, sofa, wardrobes, beds, freezer etc, but personal possessions and easily portable items had been removed.

    Last on the list was a check of the roof space area and water tanks.
    In the middle of the roof space was a pile of ‘things’ covered by a blanket.
    I lifted the blanket to reveal the kid’s Christmas presents.

    Whoever had been repossessed had presumably ignored, or not realised the gravity of the situation, and had to leave in a hurry. I knocked on other doors in the street in an attempt to find out where the previous owners had gone, …… no one knew.

    I have seen the consequence of irresponsible government’s and financial lending.

    I have seen anxious children’s eyes, unable to understand why their security is about to vanish and the meaning of the word destitution.

    I have seen the usual residue of family life scattered across a terraced house floor and pictures of sporting hero’s and school achievements, still pinned to a child’s bedroom wall.

    There will be many who will pay a very high price for the government’s and banks financial mismanagement, but the truly innocent are the younger generation.

    So when those who wish to load upon the average working Joe more costs by way of taxation, irrespective of what name it goes under and the effects it may have, yes I am outraged, because ultimately those who can no longer afford it will fold, and destitution will beckon.

    As regards your teeth, you keep ‘em, but think of those who can no longer get access to an NHS dentist and can't afford to go private.



    Complain about this comment

  • 54. At 6:49pm on 16 Dec 2009, LarryKealey wrote:


    I must say, I got a good laugh over this one:

    "Essentially, finance would be raised, rising up to $100bn per year by 2020 for the developing world from "innovative sources" - elements such as taxes on banking transactions and ship and aviation fuel, and levies on carbon trading."

    Where, ultimately do they think that money will come from? It will come from middle class taxpayers. And where will it go? IMHO - to corrupt third world dictators or worse. And still the people of Ethiopia will be starving.

    Oh, and here is another goodie:

    "I have the feeling that we are on the Titanic and sinking fast; but we can't launch any lifeboats because a member of the crew has decided we're not sinking and has decided to launch informal consultations."

    Newsflash - Tuvalu is sinking - not because of sea level rise, but because it is sinking - mainly because of natural erosion exacerbated by unsuitable development and an ever growing population over-tapping the water table.

    @Richard, you will be happy to hear that Copenhagen has made the news in the US again - constant barrage of protesters being beaten by police. One would think that the activists are getting what they want - but its never enough...not until we all live in the stone age again.

    Well, I suppose that I really didn't expect you to answer the questions posed in post #33 yesterday - as reasonable as they were. But what can one expect from someone who lives in a simplistic, one-issue fantasy world, such as yourself.

    Enjoy the party - but go easy on the caviar, not good for digestion.

    -Kealey

    Complain about this comment

  • 55. At 6:57pm on 16 Dec 2009, tears of our forefathers wrote:

    @50

    as i said in my first post: i daresay the authors of this paper have been attacked and slandered by the likes of our kind host...

    i said nothing about a gospel truth i merely directed you to a paper when you had asked for papers. evidently they are big oil shills. my bad.

    regarding:

    'Therefore it is very much your job to educate me if you ever expect me to believe in the money grabbing/tax raising/new world order/religious hysteria/lefty conspiracy(delete as appropriate)agenda'

    Think you on the fact that the deaf cannot hear and the blind cannot see. What senses do we lack that we can't see and hear another world all around us.

    you're mind seems pretty made up either way.

    peace out

    Complain about this comment

  • 56. At 7:02pm on 16 Dec 2009, tears of our forefathers wrote:

    ps patobanton:

    AGW is an unsinkable duck:

    temps rise? its cos of co2
    temps don't rise? its cos climate is so complex that we mortals cannot understand it.

    respectfully

    TOOF

    Complain about this comment

  • 57. At 7:03pm on 16 Dec 2009, LarryKealey wrote:


    #31

    Maria, I really doubt that you are old enough to know what it means to be a 'working joe'. I also wonder how much of the world you have seen - most of it is not very nice. Handing over 100B a year to corrupt, unelected governments is just plain foolish. Oh, and hey - newsflash, the world is not going to end in 20 years or 50 years if we don't shut down all the power plants next week. But you just keep on believing all that non-sense and political science...lol

    When you grow up, your rampant liberalism will fade as reality sets in, until then, enjoy your fantasy land.

    Complain about this comment

  • 58. At 7:03pm on 16 Dec 2009, Paul Kerr wrote:

    For Richard,
    You are obviously near the end of a gruelling week. Your discussions are getting more disjointed, but maybe that is symptomatic of the conference
    I know sex is always good for a bit of provocation but why no mention of Al Gores contribution yesterday or today?
    The Times and the Guardian covered what was I felt was a splendid exposition of his thinking.(you see he didnt retract whereas the scientists shrank in horror at his simplistic analysis)
    The BBC amonsgt others broadcast his Apocylypse(by)Global Warming theories regularly in the past, it seems shy on covering his latest 'work'
    Was it editorial policy not to cover this or did I miss something?

    Complain about this comment

  • 59. At 7:16pm on 16 Dec 2009, AngusPangus wrote:

    How many blog words have you written in the last month, Richard? Where is your analysis of the Climategate emails and documents? You ARE the "Environment Correspondent" for the BBC's website right? Or does that mean that your role is limited to toeing the party line; doing your bit to prop up the sexed-up dodgy dossier of WMD (Weather of Mass Destruction)? Better to spend your time writing things like your silly distraction piece from yesterday, eh? Trying to pretend its not there won't make it go away, you know. It's almost like you're.......... in denial.

    Complain about this comment

  • 60. At 7:29pm on 16 Dec 2009, do_not_track wrote:

    I think it's going pretty well. More people seem to be taking an interest in the science, rather than blindly accepting some of the wilder claims, no rash promises seem to have been agreed, and many of the alarmists have shown their hand. it is becoming clearer that the calls for action are generally driven by ideological motivations - and also clear that the peer reviewed literature does not represent the full picture. More investigation of the detail of the instrumental temperature record, UHI and selective site selection may be very revealing.

    Complain about this comment

  • 61. At 7:35pm on 16 Dec 2009, Maria Ashot wrote:

    No. 58, Paul Kerr: Funny, I don't find it at all "disjointed."

    Seems exceedingly lucid, and deliciously stylish to boot.

    Plus I really like your voice -- voices, actually, from what has been made available.

    You have all been doing quite a splendid job, in defiance of all the invective being hurled from certain desperate quarters.

    Happy Christmas & All Other Holidays to the intrepid moderators, as well. Here's hoping we have at least on occasion brought smiles to your faces, and not just caused you to grit your teeth in dismay.

    Cheers!

    Complain about this comment

  • 62. At 7:41pm on 16 Dec 2009, bandythebane wrote:

    It is nice to see it has dawned on You at last Richard. "Alice in Wonderland" is just about right. But who do you think is the Red Queen and whose heads are going to come off.

    Complain about this comment

  • 63. At 7:42pm on 16 Dec 2009, Maria Ashot wrote:

    Congratulations!

    "Scientists crack 'entire genetic code' of cancer"

    What an impressive convergence of developments: humanity chooses to regulate itself in a way that allows the entire planet to thrive in a more favourable way -- and a key milestone in cancer research is passed, opening up new vistas to further vital improvements in human health care.

    A wonderful development that should inspire everyone, and please anyone!

    Complain about this comment

  • 64. At 7:47pm on 16 Dec 2009, Patobanton wrote:

    @56
    My mind is only "made-up" to the extent that I am yet to see anything of any substance to make me re-evaluate my positions. I am genuinely interested in finding out if I've been too hasty in making up my mind - hence my appeal for the scientific papers/articles that cast doubt on the prevailing wisdom.

    However, I have to admit the evidence being put forward to support the sceptic argument isn't particularly convincing. Firstly we seem to have the school of thought stating its all about a money grabbing/tax raising/new world order/religious hysteria/lefty conspiracy. For short I'm going to call this the 'I'm so angry' theory from now on. If you break any of these arguments down rationally they just dont make sense, and I've actually tried to find the sense in them. If it was a conspiracy it is clearly the most useless one ever.

    Failing to see any reason in this I asked for the documentary evidence which seemingly consists of some 'leaked' emails, none of which overturn the thousands of other streams of evidence. And this one article from 1998 that you posted, which I'm slightly dubious about. There is also Professor Pilmer whose evidence does not seem that reliable given his choice to blame volcanoes that no-one knows about but him. The evidence about the Medieval Warm Period also seems a bit sketchy. Vinland = Vineland, therefore grapes, therefore hot, therefore climate change is all natural, if it even exists (really is this what it comes down to?).

    So therefore I'd quite like to be pointed in the direction of the evidence demonstrating climate change doesn't exist or that it's all natural or that there is a global conspiracy that many of the posters on here seem to think exists. Serious answers welcome.

    Complain about this comment

  • 65. At 7:53pm on 16 Dec 2009, AngusPangus wrote:

    **Breaking news**

    Has the motley CRU's tag-team mate, the Hadley Centre, cherry picked Russian weather stations in order to exaggerate warming in HadCRUT temperature records? See Jeff Id's blog (where Climategate first broke) at:

    http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/12/16/2744/

    Have no fear! Our intrepid Environment Correspondent will soon be on the case and post a stunning in-depth investigation on his blog (*tumbleweed*).....

    Complain about this comment

  • 66. At 8:11pm on 16 Dec 2009, Sparklet wrote:

    MORE TAMPERING WITH STATION DATA - RUSSIA THIS TIME

    Complain about this comment

  • 67. At 8:13pm on 16 Dec 2009, tears of our forefathers wrote:

    @64:

    if you haven't already done so and don't have some preconcieved notions that invalidates anything they say i'd recommend for a skeptical perspective:
    wattsupwiththat climateaudit climatesanity

    many posters here have provided a lot of good (and bad) links to various propaganda for both sides. in my opinion: there is very little real science on either side but much propaganda.

    IMO the emails are far more damning than the msm has let on, not regarding the science but the morals and possibly illegal activities bu certain highly placed climatologists. the programmers notes have also been missed by the beeb, somehow, and are (IMO) quite damning.

    i'd also recommend reading about 'post normal science' from an objective point of view (not the beeb alas). if you are a fan of the scientific method being employed for 'policy science': you'll be angry too.

    Complain about this comment

  • 68. At 8:23pm on 16 Dec 2009, ghostofsichuan wrote:

    Richard: some years back I was working in medical research testing electric shock therapy on bain functioning. Unfortunately, one of our Lab Monkies escaped. Do you think he has been found?

    Complain about this comment

  • 69. At 8:25pm on 16 Dec 2009, tears of our forefathers wrote:

    regarding my 67 post:

    the programmers notes have also been missed by the beeb, somehow, and are (IMO) quite damning.

    should have been

    the programmers notes have also been missed by the beeb, somehow, and are (IMO) quite damning regarding the reliability and objectivity of the science.

    apologies

    PNS was all the proof of conspiracy/collusion/mass-manipulation i needed. it is appalling that in the 21st century politicians and pressure groups are corrupting the scientific method.

    TOOF

    Complain about this comment

  • 70. At 8:26pm on 16 Dec 2009, Maria Ashot wrote:

    Here is a poem written by Vice-President Al Gore. I like it. I like the genuine love & boldness behind it. I think it is worth sharing:

    One thin September soon
    A floating continent disappears
    In midnight sun

    Vapors rise as
    Fever settles on an acid sea
    Neptune's bones dissolve

    Snow glides from the mountain
    Ice fathers floods for a season
    A hard rain comes quickly

    Then dirt is parched
    Kindling is placed in the forest
    For the lightning's celebration

    Unknown creatures
    Take their leave, unmourned
    Horsemen ready their stirrups

    Passion seeks heroes and friends
    The bell of the city
    On the hill is rung

    The shepherd cries
    The hour of choosing has arrived
    Here are your tools

    Complain about this comment

  • 71. At 8:30pm on 16 Dec 2009, Flatearther wrote:

    Patobanton #64, you aren't a scientist then, otherwise you'd know that climate change has been happening for 4.5billion years. What we need is evidence that the current warming (if it exists outside the manipulated data) is man-made rather than natural. Show us the evidence supporting your position.

    Complain about this comment

  • 72. At 8:35pm on 16 Dec 2009, John Kazer wrote:

    #52 - bowman you make a really good point about wanting to reduce (mitigate?) use of non-renewable resources. How many mitigation steps for reducing oil/gas/coal use are the same as those useful for mitigating AGW? Considerable overlap.

    Therefore my point in discussing this topic is that in large part you can kill 2 birds with one stone.

    The aim of risk management is to deal in uncertainty - that's why it's a useful tool for analysing least-risk and least-effect routes into the future. Don't just assume I'm saying that AGW is a done deal - how unscientific, sorry.

    #54 - Larry, where do you think large amounts of oil cash go today?

    Complain about this comment

  • 73. At 8:39pm on 16 Dec 2009, tears of our forefathers wrote:

    maria:

    How can I tax thee? Let me count the ways
    I’ll tax thee to the depth and breadth and height
    My paws can reach, when grasping out of sight
    For the subtlest lie, the twist of truth.
    I’ll tax thee in every way
    my waking thought’s can draw
    By quiet deed and shouted claim
    I’ll tax thee freely, as men fight the lies
    I’ll tax thee freely, as men shout to be heard
    I’ll tax thee with a fervour put to use
    In my old greed, and with shameless pride
    I’ll tax thee with a skill that once seemed lost
    With my lost saints I’ll tax your every breath,
    smiles, tears and if God choose,
    I’ll tax thee more after death.

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100019364/climategate-the-inaugural-al-gore-prize-poetry-competition/

    Complain about this comment

  • 74. At 8:41pm on 16 Dec 2009, Flatearther wrote:

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

  • 75. At 8:50pm on 16 Dec 2009, AngusPangus wrote:

    @ Maria Ashot:

    You crack me up!

    (but I think some don't realise that you're a p-taker....)

    Complain about this comment

  • 76. At 8:59pm on 16 Dec 2009, sensiblegrannie wrote:

    manysummits,
    I tried to watch the video(Home) you suggested but it wouldn't play continuously. From the fits and starts that I did see it looked rather beautiful and I wish I could have seen the rest of it as a continuous play. You are right, we should celebrate what we have and what we can achieve if we try.
    Richard,
    I have thrown my one and only custard pie at you. When does the Copenhagen debate finish, is it this weekend or will it have to go over time if there are continuing issues?

    Complain about this comment

  • 77. At 9:02pm on 16 Dec 2009, tears of our forefathers wrote:

    maria:

    can i please get a link off you for your

    "Scientists crack 'entire genetic code' of cancer"

    post please? i studied genetics at uni a few years ago and that post doesn't make much sense but its possible you've accidentally misrepresented the article?

    still i've maintained a vague (amateur) interest in the field and the article you refered to would be interesting reading for me.

    thanks

    Complain about this comment

  • 78. At 9:10pm on 16 Dec 2009, Dempster wrote:

    70. At 8:26pm on 16 Dec 2009, Maria Ashot wrote:
    'Here is a poem written by Vice-President Al Gore. I like it'

    Al Gore’s poem, the unpublished last verse:

    Now with your tools
    Go the fields and the factories
    Work out your hearts
    And then let us bleed you dry with CO2 emissions tax

    Complain about this comment

  • 79. At 9:15pm on 16 Dec 2009, Patobanton wrote:

    #71 Flatearther
    Can you let me know what your definition of a "scientist" is?

    There seems to be a lot of these "scientists" who dont actually explain what branch of science they are active in. A Professor specialising in Quantum Mechanics may be a scientist but that doesn't mean they know anything about climate change. It's a bit like saying I studied Social Anthropology and am therefore perfectly well placed to discuss the finer elements of employment law.

    What level do I need to have reached to be called a "scientist". Presumably you feel only "scientists" are allowed to comment, if so what kind of scientist are you?

    As for me presenting my evidence, I think rather that it is you who are challenging the prevailing current of scientific opinion and therefore up to you to demonstrate why thousands of eminent scientists that actually work in fields related to this issue are wrong.

    I'm not entirely sure what your point is regarding climate changing for the last 4.5 billion years? Yes it always changes. What difference does it make to our response if its man made or natural?

    Complain about this comment

  • 80. At 9:21pm on 16 Dec 2009, Dempster wrote:

    I suppose any one out there has probably guessed by now that I’m a government sceptic, in fact I’ve got to the point if they told me climate change caused by man wasn’t happening, I’d truly believe that it was.

    I’ve seen destitution and mass unemployment and I’ve worked like a dog for long hours with no respite to keep a family funded.

    I’m tired of the constant bleeting of politicians and ‘activists’ which ultimately results in burdening the average working Joe & Jane with more bureaucracy and taxes; that in turn makes it harder for them to raise a family and keep a roof over their heads.

    So if there are any working Joes and Janes out there, god help us, because it looks like no one else will.

    Complain about this comment

  • 81. At 9:27pm on 16 Dec 2009, Jack Frost wrote:

    " 70. At 8:26pm on 16 Dec 2009, Maria Ashot wrote:

    Here is a poem written by Vice-President Al Gore. I like it. I like the genuine love & boldness behind it. I think it is worth sharing:"

    Many thanks Maria

    I've been working on another, its still work in progress so please bear with me.

    Doom, gloom, doom.
    Doom, gloom, doom.
    Never look at the moon

    Polar Bear swim
    Polar Bear dance
    Never trust France


    Short, yes, but I think it captures the mood somewhat.





    Complain about this comment

  • 82. At 9:30pm on 16 Dec 2009, John OSullivan wrote:

    Russian scientists have just completed their analysis of the Climategate fudging and proved that the data sets for Russia and the whole of the former Soviet Union were rigged!
    The Russians specifically state that the full set of Russian data does NOT support global warming, imagine how different the bright red dot over Russia now looks. Bear in mind that the Russian data alone accounts for over 12% of all the IPCC data. We also know there are big discrepancies in the New Zealand and Australian data. While the oldest raw data in the world, from the CET ( Central England Temperature) record proves no warming in the UK for over 350 years!
    Again the new Russian accusation is completely believable, yet is completely unverifiable because CRU has refused to release the data. This data and code release that is the subject of illegal blocking of FOIA’s (freedom of information) is one of the keys in the Climategate emails. We need to know the list of stations used and we must have copies of the raw data to properly assess if a mega fraud has been perpetrated. If the Climategate scientists were real scientists and not crooks they would not have defied FOIA requests for three years. This is not how proper scientists do their work. And we would not now be in the position where lawsuits have been served to force these snake oil salesmen to show the world what they've got to hide.
    Go see the Wattsupwiththat blog for the details.
    The Russians are now making a very powerful accusation, which if true could totally stand on its head the whole climate science debate. Many of the so-called peer-reviewed papers allegedly supporting man made global warming are based on the Russian dataset that has the highest trend of the major ground datasets.

    Complain about this comment

  • 83. At 9:34pm on 16 Dec 2009, Flatearther wrote:

    Patobanton: If you are a scientist you'll understand scientific methodology. Natural climate change doesn't need proof. Man-made climate change needs evidence to show it's not natural. Where is it?

    Complain about this comment

  • 84. At 9:35pm on 16 Dec 2009, Yorkurbantree wrote:

    I'm not a big fan of linking to other websites. However, as a one of: check out the debate between Monbiot and Plimer on ABC television. It can be watched online and is easy to find. Both rather boorish chaps but worth a watch (not so good for those who quote Pilmer all the time).

    Complain about this comment

  • 85. At 9:36pm on 16 Dec 2009, infiniti wrote:

    37 "no one is writing papers saying global warming isn't/didn't happen during the last 100 years.":

    Some have gone a step further than that

    Does a Global Temperature Exist?
    Essex, Christopher; McKitrick, Ross; Andresen, Bjarne
    Journal of Non-Equilibrium Thermodynamics, vol. 32, issue 1, pp. 1-27

    Complain about this comment

  • 86. At 9:36pm on 16 Dec 2009, Flatearther wrote:

    I'm with you Dempster, as are lots more. If only we lived in a democracy. We need referenda, that would sort the bugg**s out.

    Complain about this comment

  • 87. At 9:45pm on 16 Dec 2009, John Kazer wrote:

    A quick table:

    Mitigate AWG Mitigate peak oil
    ---------------------------------------
    reduce deforestation ditto
    reduce oil use ditto
    reduce gas use ditto
    make agriculture
    more efficient ditto
    etc.

    There's a pattern. Why are we spending so much effort in a polarised debate about AGW when there so many things we should just get on and sort out?

    Complain about this comment

  • 88. At 9:47pm on 16 Dec 2009, tears of our forefathers wrote:

    @82

    its all unravelling now hah! alas mr dempster in his post number 80 was bang on the money.

    @80

    'So if there are any working Joes and Janes out there, god help us, because it looks like no one else will.'

    QFT

    Complain about this comment

  • 89. At 9:47pm on 16 Dec 2009, Dempster wrote:

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

  • 90. At 9:49pm on 16 Dec 2009, selfevidenttruths wrote:

    @Tears 77: I believe Maria was referring to this:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8414124.stm

    Complain about this comment

  • 91. At 9:50pm on 16 Dec 2009, Patobanton wrote:

    #83
    I take it you're not a "scientist" then flatearther.

    As for the evidence - I don't know if you've heard of the IPCC reports. If you haven't then fair enough. If you have and dont believe them, then I thinks it's up to you to present evidence why you think they're wrong, something which you seem to think you could easily do. So do it.

    And I repeat my final point.
    What difference does it make to our response if climate change is man made or natural?

    Complain about this comment

  • 92. At 9:50pm on 16 Dec 2009, tears of our forefathers wrote:

    @85
    i haven't read the article yet, out of interest have you?
    is it possible you're taking the title of that paper out of context a little? thanks for bringing it to my attention though. more reading!

    like a 'trick' being another way of saying technique perhaps?

    Complain about this comment

  • 93. At 9:53pm on 16 Dec 2009, John Kazer wrote:

    #82 - erm, John, give us some references to your claims?

    CET graph:
    http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcet/
    looks like a recent rise to me.

    Complain about this comment

  • 94. At 9:54pm on 16 Dec 2009, who said what wrote:


    Due to current economic and climate conditions we are openning our new housing developement. On the outskirts of London set in beautiful country side this exciting new housing developement offfers the very latest technology and modern living.

    Our unique mud hut construction means that your carbon foot print is virtualy nil. Each of the mud huts includes a toilet hole, washing hole, urine recycler,open plan sewage and parking for one donkey.

    Complain about this comment

  • 95. At 9:59pm on 16 Dec 2009, Scott Goodfellow wrote:

    As someone interested in BBC news about climate change and interested in the Copenhagen summit, I find the long trail of spiteful, ill-informed and off topic comments on this and other climate change items really off-putting. Why do a small band of angry head-in-the-sand luddites get to dominate the online debate? I would rather the BBC stopped giving a platform to these crazies and just used a couple of more interesting responses to show the flavour of the argument. Why can't we have a letters editor to bin the mad stuff?

    PS I don't even mind if you bin this too!

    Complain about this comment

  • 96. At 10:00pm on 16 Dec 2009, tears of our forefathers wrote:

    @90

    cheers! that is indeed good news. good old non politicized pre post normal science! mainly because i smoke (please don't rant about risk assessment anyone, i'm trying to quit!)

    Complain about this comment

  • 97. At 10:08pm on 16 Dec 2009, Flatearther wrote:

    Patobanton: I've read the relevant IPCC WGI reports. There's no evidence in there for AGW. Show me the report number and page and I'll get back to you. It's surprising how many of you warmists have told me it's in the IPCC reports, but nobody has yet shown me where.

    Complain about this comment

  • 98. At 10:09pm on 16 Dec 2009, infiniti wrote:

    "On Tuesday, the Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) issued a report claiming that the Hadley Center for Climate Change based at the headquarters of the British Meteorological Office in Exeter (Devon, England) had probably tampered with Russian-climate data"

    My first thought, as a genuine skeptic, is who is the Institute of Economic Analysis, for that sounds like a political think-tank rather than a scientific organisation. Will be the first thing I check.

    Then I notice an overall glaring contradiction. The claim that the raw data CRU used and even the stations they used are not known does not jive with the 25% figure below. How could someone calculate that without knowing at least the stations CRU uses?

    "Analysts say Russian meteorological stations cover most of the country’s territory, and that the Hadley Center had used data submitted by only 25% of such stations in its reports"

    Something doesn't add up.

    Complain about this comment

  • 99. At 10:11pm on 16 Dec 2009, HARRY README wrote:

    Top Climate Boss in 'Moonlighting' Row

    Top IPCC boss Rajendra Pachauri has already created dozens of green jobs - for himself:

    When he's not working tirelessly for the IPCC, Dr Pachauri's day job is Director-General of The Energy Research Institute (TERI) - which he has held since April 2001, having become its Director and head in 1981 when it was the Tata Energy Research Institute.

    He is also a strategic advisor to the private equity investment firm Pegasus Capital Advisors LP, which he became in February of this year. In December 2007, be became a member of the Senior Advisory Board of Siderian ventures based in San Francisco.

    This is a venture capital business owned by the Dutch multinational business incubator and operator in sustainable technology, Tendris Holding, itself part-owned by electronics giant Philips. It acquired a minority interest [Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator] in order to "explore new business opportunities in the area of sustainability." As a member of the Senior Advisory Board of Siderian, Dr Pachauri is expected to provide the Fund and its portfolio companies "with access, standing and industry exposure at the highest level."

    In June 2008, Dr Pachauri became a member of the Board of the Nordic bank Glitnir, which that year launched the The Sustainable Future Fund, Iceland, a new savings account "designed to help the environment." Then, the fund was expected to accumulate up to €4 billion within a few years, thus becoming one of the largest private funds supporting research into sustainable development. That same month of June 2008, Dr Pachauri also became Chairman of the Indochina Sustainable Infrastructure Fund. Under its CEO Rick Mayo Smith, it was looking to raise at least $100 billion from the private sector.

    The previous April 2008 was also a busy month. Dr Pachauri joined the Board of the Credit Suisse Research Institute, Zurich and became a member of the Advisory Group for the Rockefeller Foundation, USA. Then, in May he became a member of the Board of the International Risk Governance Council in Geneva.

    Continues for dozens and dozens of other lucrative roles...

    H/T to blogger Richard North

    Complain about this comment

  • 100. At 10:19pm on 16 Dec 2009, Dempster wrote:

    95. At 9:59pm on 16 Dec 2009, Scott Goodfellow

    You want to moderate what people say, why would you want to do such a thing?

    Complain about this comment

  • 101. At 10:37pm on 16 Dec 2009, yertizz wrote:

    Flatearther @ 97. I doubt you will get a sensible response from Patobanton. The trouble is, like all Warmists, he is big on claiming to support transparency and openness but seriously short on actually putting this in to practice.

    Complain about this comment

  • 102. At 11:01pm on 16 Dec 2009, John Kazer wrote:

    So, if there were other perfectly good reasons for doing most (all?) of the mitigation actions required by AGW would you all support doing them? And if so, can we go home now and spend all this time and energy actually doing them?

    Peak oil
    Biodiversity protection
    Water conservation
    etc.

    Complain about this comment

  • 103. At 11:09pm on 16 Dec 2009, John Kazer wrote:

    ...Energy security and diversity of supply
    local air pollution reduction
    support for poor farmers in most countries
    etc.

    Complain about this comment

  • 104. At 11:10pm on 16 Dec 2009, Patobanton wrote:

    @101

    Not sure what your point is, and resent being called a warmist.

    So far on this thread I've asked where the evidence against AGW is, largely because I genuinely want to know if there is some big academic report/study I've missed.

    I've been given a link to an amateur website, a link to an article that was written 11 years ago by people with links to the oil lobby. I admit all of this was done in good faith by TOOF who is at least trying to help me find some info out. There are also some suggestions for Blogs, which I'll look at when I get a chance.

    The reposnse from not Flatearth was that I'm not a scientist - hardly relevant. Again I'm not sure the point, especially as they are not a scientist, not even one unconnected to climate science. And then from you calling me a warmist, and prattling on about tranparency and openess as if that had anything to do with the price of fish.

    All I asked for is some useful sources for this information that you feel is so devastating to the body of climate science. The response has hardly been overwhelming. All I ask for is 10 articles/papers that demonstrate climate change is not man made or not worth doing anything about.

    And again, how should our reponse differ if the climate change is natural as opposed to man made?

    @97 - I'll get back to you with the IPCC reports, which I'm not entirely sure you've actually read.

    Complain about this comment

  • 105. At 11:20pm on 16 Dec 2009, John Kazer wrote:

    #104 Pato, I think the problem from a "denier" perspective is one of speed (is it really actually changing now, as in the past 200 years) at all?) and causation (if you don't know the cause, can you fix it?).

    I've tried posting the "infamous" hockey stick, based as we know on several types of data (one of which is tree rings, another is weather stations) and shown how it's up-ticked in the past few decades - but no "denier" believes the data.

    So I've made a set of similar points to yours, in terms of "what if there are many reasons for acting as if there really was AGW".

    No response, which is starting to make me conclude that there isn't one other than "oh, OK, lets do that then".

    Complain about this comment

  • 106. At 11:30pm on 16 Dec 2009, tears of our forefathers wrote:

    @ patobanton

    any thoughts on 'post normal science' yet? you seem to have ignored that and it is worthy of attention. as i say PNS and the appalling propaganda (see the 'age of stupid': *best Randy Marsh impression* WE DIDN'T LISTEN) are all the proof i needed. googling 'the rulesofthegame.pdf' will lead you a green propaganda manual paid for by the UK govt. its scary stuff if you think people should be allowed to make up their own minds.

    @ john kazer

    i agree their are many worthy environmental or conservation causes. don't you think they might suffer somewhat from diverting funds to 'fight' manbearpig?

    Complain about this comment

  • 107. At 11:39pm on 16 Dec 2009, who said what wrote:

    December 15, 2009

    Water Vapour Positive feed back

    WASHINGTON – Researchers studying carbon dioxide, a leading greenhouse gas and a key driver of global climate change, now have a new tool at their disposal: daily global measurements of carbon dioxide in a key part of our atmosphere. The data are courtesy of the Atmospheric Infrared Sounder (AIRS) instrument on NASA's Aqua spacecraft.

    http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2009-196

    Complain about this comment

  • 108. At 11:41pm on 16 Dec 2009, mickthebish wrote:

    The world is run by big business, government is dictated to by the big players, the ones who fund their party. We have all seen the conciquences of allowing big financial institutions the opportunity to ruin the world economy for heir own gain. What we are seeing with this , and many other climate negosiations, is the same thing. Governments, politcians, third world countries lining their own pockets at the expence of the poor, and at the expence of the world. I see little hope of the current political elite doing anything to halt the coming catastrophy, other than them insulating themselves from it with paper money!. Yes one can buy security from danger with money, however can you buy true freedom for you and your family if the rest of the world is DEAD?.

    Complain about this comment

  • 109. At 11:41pm on 16 Dec 2009, bandythebane wrote:

    Hasn't John Kazer read and understood the emails or their explanation (in a most readable form in the Daily Mail Special Report)?.

    "Mike's trick" to "hide the decline" was actually to conceal all of his graph based on proxies post 1960 because it had a prominent downtick that he could not manage to get rid of and replace it from elsewhere with something that gave him an uptick.

    Why on earth should anyone believe the result of this kind of deception?

    Complain about this comment

  • 110. At 11:42pm on 16 Dec 2009, tears of our forefathers wrote:

    http://cfact.eu/2009/12/16/cfact-unmasks-greenpeace-ships-as-propaganda-warrior-ship-of-lies/

    hoho, there are some real environmentalists out there, fighting the good fight!

    Complain about this comment

  • 111. At 11:42pm on 16 Dec 2009, John Kazer wrote:

    #106 you completely miss my point which I hoped was quite clear - the same measures can almost always be used to tackle more than one issue (i.e. both AGW and something else).

    Complain about this comment

  • 112. At 11:44pm on 16 Dec 2009, John Kazer wrote:

    #106 "people make up their minds" - well we spend £20 billion a year on advertising in the UK. I think you're being disingenuous.

    Complain about this comment

  • 113. At 11:47pm on 16 Dec 2009, Spanglerboy wrote:

    @ Patobanton

    I think the sceptics have been way too harsh. If you really want to find out for yourself then you need to do a lot of reading. If you are interested in the sceptic view try http://www.c3headlines.com/ which references numerous publications. Keep an open mind and you will soon recognise the people who are overegging it on each side of the debate.

    Complain about this comment

  • 114. At 11:51pm on 16 Dec 2009, thinkforyourself wrote:

    BBC moderators. Post 89 is clearly an incitement to violence and I respectfully ask for it to be removed.
    These people are scaring the children.

    Complain about this comment

  • 115. At 00:03am on 17 Dec 2009, thinkforyourself wrote:

    Well said Scott at 95.
    Unfortunately for the majority of BBC license fee payers, no sensible debate can take place on here. It’s mostly been taken over by fossil fuel industry proxies all over the world, purporting to be real people.

    You can see the same effect on the ‘have your say’ threads on this subject. Most of the threads are fairly balanced but the ones that get ‘voted up’ the ‘Readers recommended’ list are all these crazy rants, quite nasty and violent in parts. They are obviously being ‘traded up’ by the same business interests as they don’t reflect the relative balance of the incoming thread.

    Complain about this comment

  • 116. At 00:06am on 17 Dec 2009, tears of our forefathers wrote:

    @111

    i don't think i did sir. either way:

    Why is it necessary to use a ruse (co2 causes climate change) to win funding for innately worthy causes?

    What if we spend billions on sea defences and the oceans don't rise like the goracle thinks they will? ok like the scientist al gore misquotes and misrepresents think they might, maybe although they haven't thus far? wouldn't that money be better spent on genuine conservation issues? i hate to invoke the precautionary principle...

    respectfully

    TOOF

    Complain about this comment

  • 117. At 00:10am on 17 Dec 2009, tears of our forefathers wrote:

    @112

    actually read the rules of the game and come back to me on that one please.

    its not just about changing opinions its about changing behaviour inline with the proAGW agenda using insidious marketing tricks and an understanding of social brownian motion. its pretty sick. any one who values freedom of speech and peoples right to make up their own minds must find it so IMO.

    Complain about this comment

  • 118. At 00:11am on 17 Dec 2009, John Kazer wrote:

    #109 there are good reasons for doing what Phil did, all of which have been available in peer reviewed papers in public for years. But yet again you are focussing on the minor part of my point and avoiding the question.

    I'm off, might have the resolve to return tomorrow.

    Complain about this comment

  • 119. At 00:31am on 17 Dec 2009, John wrote:

    #109 there are good reasons for doing what Phil did"

    There most certainly are, but he got caught out unfortunately for him.

    Complain about this comment

  • 120. At 00:36am on 17 Dec 2009, tears of our forefathers wrote:

    @118

    do you know 'Phil' (i assume you refer to Prof. P. Jones right at the heart of the 'climategate' scandal, right?) personally? can you just list the perfectly acceptable reasons for doing what Phil did for stupid old me please?

    i've watched bowman (who has the patience of a saint) go round in circles with you.

    Complain about this comment

  • 121. At 00:48am on 17 Dec 2009, poitsplace wrote:

    @who said what #107 RE:Water Vapour Positive feed back

    Overall feedbacks are the only important thing...but this press announcement reads like they're trying to slip something past people. The way in which water vapor deals with energy is radically different than CO2's. 30% of Earth's energy budget has to pass through water vapor in the form of latent heat before being released. Its one of the main driving forces of the tropospheric gradient and contributes significantly (along with the ocean currents) to the disproportionate, high latitude warming (which is its self a negative feedback thanks to the exponential increase in radiant output that comes with higher temperatures)

    Complain about this comment

  • 122. At 00:56am on 17 Dec 2009, jazbo wrote:

    People on both sides of the divide are guilty of bad science and inconclusive arguements, that much is now clear. The CRU emails, which EVERYONE should read, clearly show that manipulation, bullying, outright lies and arrogance were present amongst the scientists everyone thinks are infallible.

    They also tried to touch up no lesser company the Esso (yes Exxon) to et funding, again its all in the emails. So both sides are muddied, not just the "sceptics".

    Complain about this comment

  • 123. At 00:58am on 17 Dec 2009, jazbo wrote:

    Excellent write up here about Newsnight's attempt to prove co2 is the culprit:

    http://blackswhitewash.com/2009/12/16/the-ethical-man-preaches-to-sheeple-on-newsnight/

    Complain about this comment

  • 124. At 01:02am on 17 Dec 2009, tears of our forefathers wrote:

    @115

    has it occured to you that those of us whom you seem to think should be censored and whom you accuse of being in the pay big oil et al (i wish, i'd love to be paid to do this) are in fact representative of genuine grassroots points of view?

    your sly ad hom was misplaced sir. i believe that in years to come 'astroturfers' (ie fake grassroots) will be hilariously linked to proAGW (ie red not green) bloggers. just you wait.

    wish i'd not been WALKING home from work while post 89 was UNCENSORED.


    peace out.

    Complain about this comment

  • 125. At 02:47am on 17 Dec 2009, WolfiePeters wrote:

    Here are a few random thoughts from someone who isn’t a climate modeller and knows little or nothing about global warming. I admit to being an active cynic. I’d also claim to be old, intelligent and honest.

    I have used the results of atmospheric and ocean modellers in other contexts. The models are complex and non-linear and require assumptions and closure. Basically this means they have to make a lot of assumptions about how some things behave. The consequence is that predictions of the future are likely to be inaccurate. However, you can often, given a few points to match, ‘predict’ the past.

    I don’t believe or trust politicians. My experience is that they do not worry about anything if it doesn’t happen before the next election. If they appear to, it’s likely to be an excuse to get them out of a jam – such as raise taxes to solve debt, a chance to line their own pockets or shear lunacy. Let’s put it this way, if UK gov were serious about CO2 emissions, would they let rural post offices and village shops close?

    Big oil gets mentioned a lot. In fact, successful big oil employs some of the best geologists and environmental modellers. It has to in order to find fossil hydrocarbons and produce them from reservoirs under some of the roughest seas. We might not trust big oil too far, but probably a lot further than politicians. Has anyone asked their opinion or looked at what they are doing?

    I am afraid that a lot of us are trying to look green with hybrid cars that have a biiger CO2 impact than an old clunker. Are we mad, posers or just falling for advertising hype?

    Personally, I believe that there is some sort of global warming going on. From what I can understand it probably goes back to the arrival of the human population and has varied with it. I don’t know if CO2 is a cause or a consequence or something that goes on at the same time. In view of the time scales, I don’t think that industrialisation, motor cars or air travel necessarily have a great deal to do with the warming. The human source probably has more to do with agriculture and deforestation.

    What should we do about CO2? How healthy is it to breathe the stuff? It might not kill us, but it might give us all migraines. Seriously, we should be careful about our influence on the Earth if we hope to stay here long-term. That probably means being careful about all our emissions and working to control or slowly reduce the human population.

    Complain about this comment

  • 126. At 03:22am on 17 Dec 2009, tears of our forefathers wrote:

    'working to control or slowly reduce the human population.'

    the population bomb myth. again. please give up this appallingly anti-human meme. if you genuinely fear the effects too many people please support GM crops and new agricultural techniques, don't buy 'organic' foods and don't support the IMO evilly misrepresented 'biofuels'.

    live up to Norman Borlaugs legacy.

    wolfie, in all sincerity i cannot agree with you in this regard.

    i'm calling it a night now. on the morrow peeps.

    Complain about this comment

  • 127. At 03:52am on 17 Dec 2009, tears of our forefathers wrote:

    lol i lied, i'm still up, sleep is for the weak:

    mr kazer:
    i've been doing some googling.

    is this your website by any chance sir?

    http://www.johnkazer.com/

    will you answer my accusation that you know mr jones personally please?

    Complain about this comment

  • 128. At 03:59am on 17 Dec 2009, tears of our forefathers wrote:

    not the john kazer who is:


    Current

    * Carbon Footprint Certification Manager at The Carbon Trust

    Past

    * Project Manager at Pi Shurlok Ltd

    Education

    * University of East Anglia
    * The University of Sheffield
    * The University of Edinburgh

    * The University of Sheffield

    surely not sir? say it ain't so or i will LMAO!

    Complain about this comment

  • 129. At 04:00am on 17 Dec 2009, tears of our forefathers wrote:

    i think we all just learnt a valuable lesson about posting under an asuumed identity if we have a conflict of interest. good night all. i'v done my good deed for this day/year.

    Complain about this comment

  • 130. At 04:26am on 17 Dec 2009, tears of our forefathers wrote:

    sorry one more:

    how often are we told that the skeptic/denier/flatearthing/antiscience etc etc ad nauseam peeps are all paid up oil lobby folks? Mr kazer i am experiencing my greatest schadenfreude since the climategate story broke! thank you sir!


    ROFLMAO!

    Complain about this comment

  • 131. At 06:27am on 17 Dec 2009, poitsplace wrote:

    @John Kazer #111 who wrote...
    "#106 you completely miss my point which I hoped was quite clear - the same measures can almost always be used to tackle more than one issue (i.e. both AGW and something else)."

    Yeah but stopping CO2 is going to cost hundreds of trillions and requires that new energy infrastructure suffer the rather annoying "pay it all right now" problem...while the technology that lets you burn coal cleanly is relatively cheap and allows people to pay as they go.

    This is especially important for developing nations. The sooner they develop the sooner their populations will level off. What you're REALLY talking about is suppressing these countries until renewables are as cheap as coal. If they start developing now and ignore CO2 their populations will level off sooner. If they wait their populations will continue to rise for much longer and by the way, their quality of life will be far lower. Even in polluted developing nation cities the people are happy because of expanding opportunities and an otherwise rising quality of life. During similar development in the west...the pollution still didn't offset the massive increases in life span gained by having the new technologies available.

    At copenhagen they're trying to force a COMPLETELY artificial system on these people. They talk about placing limits on the developing nations...when the developing nations would self-limit if only conditions were tolerable enough that they could afford to care about birth control and pollution.

    By the way...important side note! While everyone rambles on at copenhagen with their do-gooder, socialist agenda...what they COMPLETELY fail to realize is that no matter what you do to society...the people that will end up having a disproportionately large impact will be the ones seeking power and/or wealth. If you kick them out of their high paying board room positions they will just end up taking whatever power they can.

    There's a reason they're in those jobs...it's because they're more driven to do that than the rest of us. I know I'm too freaking lazy to be a workaholic. This is why communism failed. You can inspire a revolution (communist, green or otherwise) but people seldom stay inspired for long...and then you're once again left with more people working the system for personal gain.

    Complain about this comment

  • 132. At 07:27am on 17 Dec 2009, Flatearther wrote:

    tears of our forefathers #127 to 130:

    Thank you for that information about John Kazer. Now that John Kazer is someone who has an enormous personal vested interest in promoting AGW.

    He makes big oil look good.

    Complain about this comment

  • 133. At 07:44am on 17 Dec 2009, Flatearther wrote:

    I think the lesson from John Kazer is that all posters here should say where they are coming from and whether they have vested interests either way.

    Me I'm a retired scientist. Never worked for big oil or coal or the taxpayer. No vested interest apart from in the truth and in trying to prevent corrupted governments/NGOs raiding the pension pot I worked damned hard for.

    Complain about this comment

  • 134. At 08:16am on 17 Dec 2009, xtragrumpymike2 wrote:

    Re:-
    128. At 03:59am on 17 Dec 2009, tears of our forefathers wrote:

    not the john kazer who is:
    etc.etc.etc.

    If he is, do you find that a problem?

    Seems to me that this guy is far better qualified to discuss the issues involved here than many of the self professed experts contributing so much garbage.

    So far, one has identified himself as a Rocket Scientist from Texas another is a structural engineer from New Zealand. Then there was the fellow (from UK I believe) who got it so wrong about Hydro power not to mention the fellow who claimed that oil was not a fossil fuel. Then there are the others who can only quote papers they have read........they only read papers that support their view....never anything that disagrees of course (and I appreciate that applies to persons on both side of this debate) Many of the papers quoted come from dubious sources ( and I am well aware there are genuine eminent scientists whose views differ from those at IPCC but they aren't present on this blog))

    So...........surely it,s good to have someone on this blog that you can debate with on a peer to peer basis.

    Or are you inferring that he is somehow "contaminated" (that can work both ways, too)

    Being I'm 12,000 miles away from dear old "pommy" land, I guess no-ones awake over there yet so this probably won't get read.

    Complain about this comment

  • 135. At 08:19am on 17 Dec 2009, Flatearther wrote:

    Patobanton #104:

    "I'll get back to you with the IPCC reports, which I'm not entirely sure you've actually read."

    Please don't waste your time. I've searched many times without finding the evidence. It's obvious really that there is no evidence. If there were evidence it would be head-lined in the "Summary for Policymakers". Because there is no evidence, all the IPCC can come up with is "it is very likely".

    Complain about this comment

  • 136. At 08:19am on 17 Dec 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    It seems I could be wrong on AGW!

    This article has hit me hard:

    http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2009-196

    It seems NASA has empirical evidence that climate sensitivity is high , although the first thing i noticed is they didn't take into account clouds. I will have to read this again I think and look into it further.

    This has come as quite a shock to me

    Any comments?

    /mango

    Complain about this comment

  • 137. At 08:20am on 17 Dec 2009, xtragrumpymike2 wrote:

    Re:-

    129. At 04:00am on 17 Dec 2009, tears of our forefathers wrote:

    i think we all just learnt a valuable lesson about posting under an asuumed identity if we have a conflict of interest. good night all. i'v done my good deed for this day/year.

    So....I gather you are using an assumed (somewhat better spelling than your own) name because "you have a conflict of interest"

    Thanks for being so honest.

    Complain about this comment

  • 138. At 08:25am on 17 Dec 2009, John Kazer wrote:

    Yep, that's me. Public and open.

    #127 I had a whole 2 lectures from Phil Jones last year, so I couldn't say I know him.

    #131 Why is it going to cost hundreds of trillions? You're just plucking numbers out of thin air.

    Have I been "promoting AGW"? Think not, just trying to explain the science a little and show there is more to the debate than AGW. By barring folk who work in the environment industry from the debate on spurious "you've got a vested interest" grounds, you shouldn't be talking to scientists either (with any sort of opinion) - ridiculous.

    Somehow you think that job => opinion, when sometimes it just might be the other way round.

    Complain about this comment

  • 139. At 08:26am on 17 Dec 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    the thing that confuses me is if the pro-AGW scientists are correct, why did they hide and manipulate the data?

    http://climateaudit.org/2009/12/16/iearussia-hadley-center-probably-tampered-with-russian-climate-data/

    Complain about this comment

  • 140. At 08:27am on 17 Dec 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    @mike #137

    That's just a typo mike, no need for that sort of sniping

    /mango

    Complain about this comment

  • 141. At 08:35am on 17 Dec 2009, John Kazer wrote:

    #131 Now you raise some points about *how* we move forward which are useful. You are over-generalising about developing countries and not taking their views on board.

    Some, e.g. Brazil, do quite well powering a large part of their country from hydro and ethanol. Others are buying land elsewhere in an attempt to mitigate the risk of sea level rise e.g. Maldives.

    Many countries made a tech leap from zero to huge mobile phone networks very quickly, avoiding expensive copper wire systems. Oil and coal dependence is also expensive, cashwise and politically - perhaps it would be to developing countries long-term benefit if they were more self-sufficient in energy?

    Complain about this comment

  • 142. At 08:39am on 17 Dec 2009, infiniti wrote:

    wrt water vapor feedback and AIRS

    Observed and Simulated Upper-Tropospheric Water Vapor Feedback
    Gettleman & Fu
    Journal of Climate Volume 21, Issue 13 (July 2008)

    “Satellite measurements from the Atmospheric Infrared Sounder (AIRS) in the upper troposphere over 4.5 yr are used to assess the covariation of upper-tropospheric humidity and temperature with surface temperatures, which can be used to constrain the upper-tropospheric moistening due to the water vapor feedback. … Results indicate that the upper troposphere maintains nearly constant relative humidity for observed perturbations to ocean surface temperatures over the observed period, with increases in temperature ~ 1.5 times the changes at the surface, and corresponding increases in water vapor (specific humidity) of 10%–25% °C−1. Increases in water vapor are largest at pressures below 400 hPa, but they have a double peak structure. Simulations reproduce these changes quantitatively and qualitatively.”

    A different method:

    Water-vapor climate feedback inferred from climate fluctuations, 2003–2008
    Dessler, A. E., Z. Zhang, and P. Yang (2008), Water-vapor climate feedback inferred from climate fluctuations, 2003–2008, Geophys. Res. Lett., 35
    “Between 2003 and 2008, the global-average surface temperature of the Earth varied by 0.6°C. We analyze here the response of tropospheric water vapor to these variations. Height-resolved measurements of specific humidity (q) and relative humidity (RH) are obtained from NASA’s satelliteborne Atmospheric Infrared Sounder (AIRS). … The water-vapor feedback implied by these observations is strongly positive, with an average magnitude of [lambda]q = 2.04 W/m2/K, similar to that simulated by climate models.”

    Complain about this comment

  • 143. At 08:47am on 17 Dec 2009, John Kazer wrote:

    #125 Wolfie, interesting post. I posted a couple days ago on Richard's blog some data from BP - their world-wide energy reserves and consumption data.

    Basically some very simple plotting of the data shows that in all likelihood peak oil and peak gas have already happened and we're on a downward (and increasingly expensive) downward curve with fossil fuels.

    #31 here:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2009/12/cop15_still_squabbling_over_fo.html

    The International Energy Agency have the same opinion (see #11 above).

    How we shift from fossil fuels is the key thing, not should we.

    And clearly these big energy companies and organisations know this

    Complain about this comment

  • 144. At 08:49am on 17 Dec 2009, Dempster wrote:

    136. At 08:19am on 17 Dec 2009, MangoChutneyUKOK wrote:
    It seems I could be wrong on AGW!
    This article has hit me hard:
    http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2009-196

    Very good link that.

    Although there is a funny side to NASA’ jet propulsion laboratory going on about CO2 emissions. Perhaps if they stopped firing rockets all over the place it would help.

    Complain about this comment

  • 145. At 08:52am on 17 Dec 2009, xtragrumpymike2 wrote:

    RE:-
    133. At 07:44am on 17 Dec 2009, Flatearther wrote:

    I think the lesson from John Kazer is that all posters here should say where they are coming from and whether they have vested interests either way.

    Agreed entirely. Anyone who wants to know who I (really) am (I'm still very grumpy.........just ask my better half)

    Retired chemical engineer

    Know diddly squat about "climate" science (like most people on this blog)

    Spent thirty five years in risk management related to hazardous chemicals

    Most experienced person in this field in this country (notice, I did not I repeat NOT say "expert")

    I could go on but I will probably bore you.

    Where am I coming from?

    Similar in many ways to Mango............who champions clean water for everyone ()I agree!

    Having just had a melanoma cut out from my arm.......successfully I might add thanks to a diminutive female Malaysian surgeon....I campaign for clean air for everyone. In my book, that means not pulling oxygen out of the air and replacing it with carbon dioxide (the process of combustion)

    For those unfamiliar with melanoma, it is a condition from which many die here in the Southern Hemisphere due to the enlarged hole in the ozone layer. Science has adequately demonstrated that this is MOST PROBABLY due to the indiscriminate use of certain chemicals....notably chloro fluoro carbons and similar , chemicals now banned. When industries began using these chemicals, which were very beneficial in many processes, particularly as refrigerants and aerosol propellants their adverse effect on the atmosphere was unknown.

    Please note also my wording........."MOST PROBABLY". Since this effect cannot be demonstrated "WITH CERTAINTY" the precautionary principle and risk management come into play (just like CO2 and Global Warming)

    That's what I am and where I am "coming from".

    Now.....how about the rest of you?





    Complain about this comment

  • 146. At 09:02am on 17 Dec 2009, xtragrumpymike2 wrote:

    Re:-
    140. At 08:27am on 17 Dec 2009, MangoChutneyUKOK wrote:

    @mike #137

    That's just a typo mike, no need for that sort of sniping

    /mango

    Just "what" is the typo? The spelling? Agreed! Or the "conflict of interest"?

    Maybe it would also help if you drew some of the "sniping" style of comments to others as well. I frequently find so called discussions on this blog degenerating to kindergarten playground level.

    Who was it on this blog who made the statement about pointing fingers? One points one way, Where do the other three point?

    Complain about this comment

  • 147. At 09:02am on 17 Dec 2009, simon-swede wrote:

    Mango at #136

    Thanks Mango! (and my hat off to you for posting this)

    Concerning your comment about clouds, I noted in the last paragraph of the page for which you provided the link, that "AIRS observes and records the global daily distribution of temperature, water vapor, CLOUDS [emphasis added] and several atmospheric gases including ozone, methane and carbon monoxide. With the addition of the mid-tropospheric carbon dioxide data set this week, a seven-year digital record is now complete for use by the scientific community and the public."

    So, the data should be there and if it hasn't been incorporated in the analysis already, presumably that is the intention?





    Complain about this comment

  • 148. At 09:06am on 17 Dec 2009, LabMunkey wrote:

    i seemed to have missed the russian news- has it been confirmed yet?

    Complain about this comment

  • 149. At 09:09am on 17 Dec 2009, Crowcatcher wrote:

    Maria Ashot
    When I first started reading your contributions to this "debate" I tended to agree with most of what you had to say, especially that we need to take radical measures to prserve our biosphere for whatever the reason.
    My belief is that we must reduce our unbridled consumption, but we must do it for the right reasons, not some pseudo-scientific fudge.
    BUT your contibutions have become more bizarre and esoteric, your latest quoting of Al Gore being particularly so on the grounds that, at best, he can be described as a monumental hyocrite because he does nothing in his personal life to indicate that he believes what he says.
    Richard's last post on the balance of the sexes in the "sceptic" community would have been better done on the subject of "Why are 100% of AGW protagonists such hypocrites"
    I don't know of one single one who makes any attempt to reduce his "carbon footprint" to negligable (i.e. zero) proportions. (Oh yes! The brainless English Prince has bought all his staff bicycles)
    I would be interested to know what yours is (no offsetting fudges) - mines 1.8 tonnes p.a.
    To paraphrase Pro. Philip Stott "I'll believe in AGW when all of our (British) politicians vote turn of Parliament's floodlights"

    Complain about this comment

  • 150. At 09:11am on 17 Dec 2009, Dempster wrote:

    145. At 08:52am on 17 Dec 2009, xtragrumpymike2

    This is where I’m coming from:

    I’m a self employed working Joe, husband and father of three.

    And I don’t know whether CO2 causes climate change or not. Never done any research, read only a few articles, so I don’t know the answer.

    However I do believe that the rise in taxation over the last 100 years has been accompanied by a similar rise in CO2 emissions.

    And now they want to raise an extra £100 billion in taxes.

    Complain about this comment

  • 151. At 09:15am on 17 Dec 2009, simon-swede wrote:

    Mango at #136 (and Infinity at #142)

    The following is an excerpt from the conclusions of the paper by Gettleman & Fu which infinity mentions at #142.

    "... These results provide enhanced confidence in the range of climate sensitivity in climate simulations, which are based on a positive upper tropospheric water vapor feedback. This is a necessary but not sufficient condition for trusting future climate projections from GCMs. Furthermore, the results hint at a vertical structure to the variations, which may help reveal the processes responsible. Further process oriented
    studies will be valuable in verifying that moistening affects climate and in understanding how clouds at various levels may change with changes to surface temperatures."


    The following is an excerpt from the final section ("Strength of the Water-Vapor Feedback") of the Dessler, Zhang, and Yang paper, also referenced by infinity:

    “The existence of a strong and positive water-vapor feedback means that projected business-as-usual greenhouse gas emissions over the next century are virtually guaranteed to produce warming of several degrees Celsius. The only way that will not happen is if a strong, negative, and currently unknown feedback is discovered somewhere in our climate system.”

    Complain about this comment

  • 152. At 09:23am on 17 Dec 2009, LabMunkey wrote:

    @ Richard

    Nice to see you finally put a responce in (last thread). I still think you mis-represented the issue and i still think it was a cheap shot. Either that or you really had no comprehension of the kind of responce it would illicite, though i wouldn't have thought that possible for a seasoned reporter....

    I'm still amazed at the BBC's lack of coverage over 'climategate'. It was interesting to watch on the news this morning A newspaper being held up with 'Russians claim climate change is a hoax' written all over it, only for the presenter to comment on a picture of nicole kidmans makeup instead.


    It really is getting to a point where the mantra 'nothing to see here' should be adopted as the BBC motto.

    I still think you are not doing your job in investigating the following issues

    -FOIA avoidance
    -Data deletion
    -Peer Review highjacking
    -'Ghost' weather stations
    -data tampering (UK, NZ, AUS and now russia(??)

    All are potentially very important to the AGW theory.

    So i'll ask you a direct question- are you ignoring anything to do with climate gate because you think it's not worth covering or because it conflicts with your views?

    Complain about this comment

  • 153. At 09:39am on 17 Dec 2009, minuend wrote:

    The Russian authorities have confirmed reports that UK climate scientists manipulated data to exaggerate global warming.

    Here is a new release:

    "A discussion of the November 2009 Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident, referred to by some sources as "Climategate," continues against the backdrop of the abortive UN Climate Conference in Copenhagen (COP15) discussing alternative agreements to replace the 1997 Kyoto Protocol that aimed to combat global warming.

    The incident involved an e-mail server used by the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA) in Norwich, East England. Unknown persons stole and anonymously disseminated thousands of e-mails and other documents dealing with the global-warming issue made over the course of 13 years.

    Controversy arose after various allegations were made including that climate scientists colluded to withhold scientific evidence and manipulated data to make the case for global warming appear stronger than it is.

    Climategate has already affected Russia. On Tuesday, the Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) issued a report claiming that the Hadley Center for Climate Change based at the headquarters of the British Meteorological Office in Exeter (Devon, England) had probably tampered with Russian-climate data.

    The IEA believes that Russian meteorological-station data did not substantiate the anthropogenic global-warming theory.

    Analysts say Russian meteorological stations cover most of the country's territory, and that the Hadley Center had used data submitted by only 25% of such stations in its reports.

    Over 40% of Russian territory was not included in global-temperature calculations for some other reasons, rather than the lack of meteorological stations and observations.

    The data of stations located in areas not listed in the Hadley Climate Research Unit Temperature UK (HadCRUT) survey often does not show any substantial warming in the late 20th century and the early 21st century.

    The HadCRUT database includes specific stations providing incomplete data and highlighting the global-warming process, rather than stations facilitating uninterrupted observations.

    On the whole, climatologists use the incomplete findings of meteorological stations far more often than those providing complete observations.

    IEA analysts say climatologists use the data of stations located in large populated centers that are influenced by the urban-warming effect more frequently than the correct data of remote stations.

    The scale of global warming was exaggerated due to temperature distortions for Russia accounting for 12.5% of the world's land mass. The IEA said it was necessary to recalculate all global-temperature data in order to assess the scale of such exaggeration.

    Global-temperature data will have to be modified if similar climate-date procedures have been used from other national data because the calculations used by COP15 analysts, including financial calculations, are based on HadCRUT research."


    Here is how UK climate scientists got away with it (until now).

    http://climateaudit.org/2009/12/16/iearussia-hadley-center-probably-tampered-with-russian-climate-data/

    Complain about this comment

  • 154. At 09:40am on 17 Dec 2009, xtragrumpymike2 wrote:

    Re;-
    151. At 09:15am on 17 Dec 2009, simon-swede wrote:
    “The existence of a strong and positive water-vapor feedback means that projected business-as-usual greenhouse gas emissions over the next century are virtually guaranteed to produce warming of several degrees Celsius. The only way that will not happen is if a strong, negative, and currently unknown feedback is discovered somewhere in our climate system.”

    Which is exactly why the "precautionary Principle" and hence "risk management" become so important and why "principle 15" was written into the Rio Earth Summit agreement by all delegates that attended that summit back in 1992.

    This may be abhorrent to "pure" scientists, but having made so many mistakes in the past and where "uncertainty" exists, this becomes the only logical path to follow where a serous risk has been demonstrated to exist (IPCC report 1990 updated for the Rio Summit)

    Complain about this comment

  • 155. At 09:40am on 17 Dec 2009, DisgustedOfMitcham2 wrote:

    Just a thought, but I wonder if this summit is really going about things the right way. There seem to be thousands of people there, and they are taking 2 weeks.

    Given that we all know that work expands to fill the time and resources available, I can't help thinking that that wasn't the right way to do things.

    My guess is that if you took just 2 or 3 people from each participating country and gave them just 1 day to go through all the negotiations, it would have been considerably more productive.

    And had a lower carbon footprint as a bonus.

    Complain about this comment

  • 156. At 09:42am on 17 Dec 2009, xtragrumpymike2 wrote:

    Re:-
    150. At 09:11am on 17 Dec 2009, Dempster wrote:

    145. At 08:52am on 17 Dec 2009, xtragrumpymike2

    This is where I’m coming from:

    Thanks, Dempster, now lets see who else follows suit.

    Complain about this comment

  • 157. At 09:44am on 17 Dec 2009, Asopus wrote:

    #84

    The link to the Plimer Monbiot debate:

    http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2009/s2772906.htm

    Complain about this comment

  • 158. At 09:51am on 17 Dec 2009, infiniti wrote:

    Is the "Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA)" a science or meteorological organization? Or a think-tank?

    Complain about this comment

  • 159. At 09:53am on 17 Dec 2009, unbrainwashed wrote:

    138. At 08:25am on 17 Dec 2009, John Kazer wrote:

    This is for you....

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WCkOmcIl79s

    Complain about this comment

  • 160. At 09:57am on 17 Dec 2009, U14260427 wrote:

    "I’ll tell you a story. "

    No thanks. I had enough of Jackanory when I was a child.

    Complain about this comment

  • 161. At 09:59am on 17 Dec 2009, U14260427 wrote:

    I wonder why these russians didn't run their own model with this left out data included.

    It's not like you can't get the code for the GISS model and not as if they are banned from having supercomputers either.

    Maybe the data is just bad.

    Nah, gotta be a conspiracy.

    Complain about this comment

  • 162. At 10:00am on 17 Dec 2009, simon-swede wrote:

    Minuend at #153

    I am not sure what you mean when you refer to "Russian authorities". Normally when I see a refernce to national "authorities" I would take this to mean an official government source, but your 'news release' refers only to the Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis - which is a private organisation.

    Is this the case? If so, it is not the Russian "authorities" confirming anything!

    I don't know much about the Moscow IEA but from the description of their fields of activity, climate doesn't seem to be a focus. Similarly, I don't know anything about their past work (if any) on climate issues but elsewhere I have seen them likened to the US 'Cato Institute' which has a very pronounced position on climate change.

    Here's a web-based summary of the institute.

    The Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) was founded in 1994 as an independent, non-governmental, non-political and non-commercial organization.

    IEA's main objectives are:

    - fostering development of economic and social sciences
    - studying Russian and foreign experience of solving problems of economic policy, market economy and ecomnomic reform
    - hold consultations concerning economic and social policy with the Russian government bodies and NGOs
    - and publish economic research materials

    IEA focuses on such areas as mutual influence of economic growth, economic and political freedom .

    Their web-site: [Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]

    Complain about this comment

  • 163. At 10:01am on 17 Dec 2009, U14260427 wrote:

    The Dutch get 20% of their power from renewables.

    Complain about this comment

  • 164. At 10:05am on 17 Dec 2009, LabMunkey wrote:

    quick question- i'm unable to get my hands on the new nasa report linked above, onlt the summary on the website- anyone got a direct linky? I'm interested in the raw data.

    Also, am i understanding this right- they have measurements that show that co2 levels are affecting the temperatures via positive feedback mechanisms? What and how are they measuring and how is this related to CO2/AGW.

    Also, regardless of these findings- how does it square with the falling global temps??

    Complain about this comment

  • 165. At 10:10am on 17 Dec 2009, xtragrumpymike2 wrote:

    Re:-
    157. At 09:44am on 17 Dec 2009, Asopus wrote:

    #84

    The link to the Plimer Monbiot debate:
    Certainly not too good for those who quote Plimer all the time (note any "vested interests " in this guy?) and also not too good for those who continually knock Monbiot.

    As the saying goes............the plot thickens! Indeed it does.

    Complain about this comment

  • 166. At 10:22am on 17 Dec 2009, xtragrumpymike2 wrote:

    Re:-
    159. At 09:53am on 17 Dec 2009, unbrainwashed wrote:

    138. At 08:25am on 17 Dec 2009, John Kazer wrote:

    This is for you....

    Yes, indeed, a beautiful song.....one of my favorites....I personally quoted it on another blog. However.........

    Who do you think the "Rich men" are? (I mean the really, really rich men)

    Where do you think "they" got it from?

    How do you think "they" intend to hang on to it? And get more?

    Haven't you learned anything from recent events?

    Perhaps you really are "brainwashed" and your reference is totally misplaced here.

    Complain about this comment

  • 167. At 10:25am on 17 Dec 2009, LabMunkey wrote:

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100020126/climategate-goes-serial-now-the-russians-confirm-that-uk-climate-scientists-manipulated-data-to-exaggerate-global-warming/

    Complain about this comment

  • 168. At 10:27am on 17 Dec 2009, minuend wrote:

    NASA Scientist comments, "People discussing the NASA-AIRS results should realise how these sorts of instruments measure temperature, H2O concentration, etc. In general what these satellites measure directly are the infrared and microwave spectral intensities of the electomagnetic radiation leaving the earth’s atmosphere and reaching the orbiting satellite. For any given column of air with known concentrations of gases at known temperatures (from ground to top of atmosphere), you can predict exactly what these spectral intensities ought to be (in the absence of clouds and aerosols). Going the other direction, however, is a very different kettle of fish — you have to start with a reasonably good guess as to the gas concentrations and temperatures from the ground up, and then adjust within constraints until you match the observed spectral intensities. Change the initial guesses and overall constraints, and you change the final estimate or “measurement” of the gas concentrations and temperatures. These programs involve lots of high-powered statistics, lots of calculations, lots of dependence on what we think the atmosphere is like, and are thoroughly understood by only a very small and relatively inbred community of scientists. Other scientists and engineers working on the project are never really in a good position to debate the validity or performance of this community’s science products and computer programs — they tend to be a “black box” to everybody else on the team. The big uncertainty in this area are clouds — ideally you want a clear view down to the ground from the satellite or, second best, a single opaque layer of clouds at a known altitude. The game is often to exclude parts of the satellite field of view seriously contaminated by clouds and then calculate gas concentrations and temperature values “in between” the multiply cloudy parts of the scene."

    There is so much uncertainty in the data and in the assumptions that it WRONG to conclude that the AIRS satellite is showing positive water vapor feedback.

    Complain about this comment

  • 169. At 10:29am on 17 Dec 2009, LabMunkey wrote:

    @ 161

    "I wonder why these russians didn't run their own model with this left out data included"

    they have

    http://rt.com/Top_News/2009-12-17/data-cherry-picked-climatologists.html?fullstory

    Complain about this comment

  • 170. At 10:29am on 17 Dec 2009, xtragrumpymike2 wrote:

    Re:-
    164. At 10:05am on 17 Dec 2009, LabMunkey wrote:
    Also, regardless of these findings- how does it square with the falling global temps??

    What falling Global temps?

    Just because many have "cherry-picked" own version of the data doesn't make it fact. Research a little bit deeper!

    No-one has denied that 1998 (or was it 1997) was the hottest (measured so far......predictions for next year are that 2010 may beat it........we'll just have to wait and see) the TREND is still positive!

    Complain about this comment

  • 171. At 10:29am on 17 Dec 2009, U14260427 wrote:

    "why did they hide and manipulate the data?"

    1) Because the law says they can't give away someone else's work. you want them to commit piracy?

    2) Because if they didn't "manipulate" the data, the surfacestations.org site would be correct and the data collected in the US would be contaminated with UHI and bad site effects. Your query makes this a "heads I win, tails you lose" proposition:

    You Win: They've manipulated the data!
    IPCC Lose: They haven't corrected for UHI and bad site effects!

    Complain about this comment

  • 172. At 10:32am on 17 Dec 2009, xtragrumpymike2 wrote:


    * 164. At 10:05am on 17 Dec 2009, LabMunkey wrote:
    Sorry, I forgot......you sacked me from your lab, didn't you.

    Complain about this comment

  • 173. At 10:34am on 17 Dec 2009, xtragrumpymike2 wrote:

    I see the moderators are having a rough time.

    Complain about this comment

  • 174. At 10:38am on 17 Dec 2009, U14260427 wrote:

    xtragrumpymike2 @165. It's all because the conspiracy laced Plimers water with a hallucinogenic.

    Really.

    Complain about this comment

  • 175. At 10:42am on 17 Dec 2009, simon-swede wrote:

    Minuend’s posting at #153 is misleading when he refers to the Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) as “the Russian authorities”. They are not an official government body but simply a non-governmental organisation, a think-tank. It is not clear to me whether they have any experience in climate.

    In the Climateaudit link provided by Minuend, it is made clear that the Moscow IEA is not an official body. It is likened to such bodies as the Cato Institute and it is also suggested that their comments should be treated with caution.

    Extract from Climateaudit link from #153:

    “… [Note: The Institute for Economic Analysis is not the Russian equivalent of the UK Met Office; the Russian Met Office may have a different view.] [Further note: maybe even akin to Cato Institute or CEI. Comments on data need to be cross-examined before relying on them.]…”

    A web search for the IEA in Russia found the following:

    “The Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA)as founded in 1994 as an independent, non-governmental, non-political and non-commercial organization. IEA's main objectives are:
    - fostering development of economic and social sciences;
    - studying Russian and foreign experience of solving problems of economic policy, market economy and economic reform;
    - hold consultations concerning economic and social policy with the Russian government bodies and NGOs; and
    - publish economic research materials.
    IEA focuses on such areas as mutual influence of economic growth, economic and political freedom.”

    (This is a reposting of my #162, which I believe has been referred because I gave a link to the IEA’s web-page – which unfortunately was in Russian… silly me!)

    Complain about this comment

  • 176. At 10:43am on 17 Dec 2009, xtragrumpymike2 wrote:

    Can't wait for the Moderators any more......Mum says I must stop playing.....she's getting even grumpier than me..........goodnight (here) have fun!

    Complain about this comment

  • 177. At 10:47am on 17 Dec 2009, unbrainwashed wrote:

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

  • 178. At 10:49am on 17 Dec 2009, simon-swede wrote:

    AIRS data

    LabMunkey at #164 asks where the AIRS data can be found. The NASA Jet Propulsion Lab's AIRS data products are free and are available to the science community and general public.

    The "very imaginatively" named web-site for this is:

    http://airs.jpl.nasa.gov/data_products/get_AIRS_data/

    They also have a question and answers service for those who have a question for which there is no ready answer in the AIRS documentation...

    Enjoy!

    Complain about this comment

  • 179. At 10:55am on 17 Dec 2009, simon-swede wrote:

    Minuend at #168

    Who is "NASA Scientist"? From the language I'm guessing that this isn't something from the AIRS team or from an official NASA source?

    Complain about this comment

  • 180. At 10:57am on 17 Dec 2009, WAMO wrote:

    "The Dutch get 20% of their power from renewables."

    NOPE and what they get is heavy subsidized (with taxpayers money)

    A nice site for everyone: Armagh Observatory

    for example:

    http://star.arm.ac.uk/climate/intro.html
    http://star.arm.ac.uk/press/2009/treerings_2009dec.html
    [Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]

    the last document give stemperatures from 1796 to 2002
    you can search the site for the temperatures upto december 2009
    you will see that the last decade has indeed been the warmest on record (in Armagh)
    I doubt however they match the temperatures of the medieval.


    Complain about this comment

  • 181. At 10:58am on 17 Dec 2009, WolfiePeters wrote:

    @ 126, tears of our forefathers wrote:

    "the population bomb myth. again. please give up this appallingly anti-human meme."

    Tears, I don't regard population growth as a bomb, but there must be some eventual constraint. The more there are of us, the more space we occupy to support ourselves, the more rubbish we pour out, the more misery we produce, the more problems we have, etc. It seems wiser to encourage some gentle self-control than have it imposed by the environment.

    The only way I see it as anti-human is that there are fewer young people to pay our pensions. And that wouldn't be a problem if governments and companies didn't rob the pension funds. Maybe that's the reason we need a carbon tax.

    Complain about this comment

  • 182. At 10:59am on 17 Dec 2009, U14260427 wrote:

    @169 "they have"

    that "full story" link doesn't say they used the data in their own climate model run.

    Why do you say they have, then?

    Complain about this comment

  • 183. At 11:00am on 17 Dec 2009, LabMunkey wrote:

    @ 170

    "What falling Global temps?

    Just because many have "cherry-picked" own version of the data doesn't make it fact. Research a little bit deeper!

    No-one has denied that 1998 (or was it 1997) was the hottest (measured so far......predictions for next year are that 2010 may beat it........we'll just have to wait and see) the TREND is still positive!"

    excuse me? i've seen and posted numerous links that show a downward trend in global temps in the noughties. I've also shown links that question the 'hottest' year on record (bearing in mind the records are very short, improperly collected/adjusted and have been shown to be tampered with).

    You keep holding onto those assertions there bud.

    Complain about this comment

  • 184. At 11:03am on 17 Dec 2009, U14260427 wrote:

    "I'm interested in the raw data."

    CAPTAIN SUBTEXT interprets:

    Not really, though. It's a good wheeze to try when I know that this would require the same sort of breaking the law as releasing the Microsoft XP Shared Source code that the DoD has and could therefore be claimed under FOI.

    Complain about this comment

  • 185. At 11:03am on 17 Dec 2009, LabMunkey wrote:

    @ 171

    "You Win: They've manipulated the data!
    IPCC Lose: They haven't corrected for UHI and bad site effects"

    I don't think we're quibbling over statistically relevant data correction. What we ARE quibbling over is the highly arbitrary and statistically UNSOUND HIE adjustments they do make- the Vienna case study (that i've linked more than once) catagorically proves this. They adjust the temperatures too much, and in a way that presents an increase in global temp where there may not be one.

    Couple this with the repeatedly moved stations, the missing and 'invented' stations and frankly, you just can't trust their data.

    Complain about this comment

  • 186. At 11:04am on 17 Dec 2009, poitsplace wrote:

    @infinity
    @xtragrumpymike2
    @simon-swede

    RE: "positive" water vapor feedback

    Only one problem, according to these studies, we can apparently feel the feedback pretty much instantly (from a climate standpoint). They observed this supposedly substantial "positive feedback" within a span of just a few years. Were you capable of critical thinking on these matters you would have noticed that we should also be substantially hotter than we are now...a bit over TWICE the anomaly, by my guestimation.

    The problem is that you guys keep (intentionally?) putting on blinders and looking at uselessly small amounts of data that might on the surface suggest significant warming, ignore things that would dampen warming and then act like you're talking about it like it's "science" when the way you're discussing it is more like religion.

    So...extra water vapor...I didn't see them mentioning cloud cover...how much was reflected away by extra cloud formation? Was the microwave unit simply passing through the CLOUDS and reading that as "enhanced greenhouse warming?" Was the water vapor increase driven by temperature or did the thing that drove temperature drive water vapor too (or perhaps drove temperature through water vapor). You still have this HORRIBLE problem with your global warming hypotheses...the world is not warming at all and has not warmed enough to even account for CO2 increases. That is THE primary indicator that feedbacks are negative when you don't understand the system...that you see no evidence of ACTUAL feedback of the kind predicted.

    It doesn't matter if you can cherry pick data that (on the surface) confirms your hypothesis...when the fundamental criteria isn't met (like this lack of sufficient warming) you're just wrong. You DO realize there's ONLY about 60% of the theoretical maximum (2.2watts/square meter) forcing left for a doubling of CO2, right? We're already up by 40% but...no outrageous warming ...and with a SUPPOSED feedback that's capable of working within a couple years.

    Complain about this comment

  • 187. At 11:06am on 17 Dec 2009, U14260427 wrote:

    I'd just like to know how someone would know they're unbrainwashed.

    I mean, every moonie or brianwashed xenite says they're not brainwashed.

    Complain about this comment

  • 188. At 11:07am on 17 Dec 2009, LabMunkey wrote:

    also

    "1) Because the law says they can't give away someone else's work. you want them to commit piracy"

    actually, once the works been published, it and all the data pertaining to it are regarded 'as being in the public domain', so it can be republished at will. The only issue comes from journal access and registration to these journals, and of course, the correct referencing.

    The law therefore does not stop you doing that. Also, the freedom of information act will also come into play here.

    Complain about this comment

  • 189. At 11:10am on 17 Dec 2009, U14260427 wrote:

    "in fact I’ve got to the point if they told me climate change caused by man wasn’t happening, I’d truly believe that it was."

    Dempster, the Bush government says it wasn't happening.

    Therefore it must.

    Dogma's a b*tch, innit.

    Complain about this comment

  • 190. At 11:10am on 17 Dec 2009, WolfiePeters wrote:

    @143, John Kazer wrote:

    "Basically some very simple plotting of the data shows that in all likelihood peak oil and peak gas have already happened and we're on a downward (and increasingly expensive) downward curve with fossil fuels."

    Agreed, up to a point. But:

    1. If the fossil fuel situation was as close to the limit as you seem to imply (I may be inferring too much from your words), there would not be a question about limiting its use, assuming it's the source of the problem.

    2. Oil is still an extremely cheap and convenient source of energy. My feeling is that it will remain so for a long time. If we require other sources before the economic pressure forces them, we have to make those sources equally cheap and convenient.

    Even if you disagree with the details of what I say, it remains that CHEAP and CONVENIENT have to be target features of energy sources for them to compete.

    Complain about this comment

  • 191. At 11:10am on 17 Dec 2009, minuend wrote:

    The Russian IEA report shows that there has been a 0.1C cooling over the last decade and that there has been no significant warming over the past 50 years in Russia.

    [Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]

    These results reflect concerns over the temperature adjustments to the records for North America, South America and Australia/New Zealand.

    CRU scientists have a lot of explaining to do.

    Complain about this comment

  • 192. At 11:12am on 17 Dec 2009, unbrainwashed wrote:

    ALERT ALERT ALERT!!!


    UK to censor internet
    Thursday, December 17, 2009 – 12:27

    The Internet is really the last form of true freedom of speech in the world and especially many places where tyrants rule and freedom of speech is usually banned or when someone does speak out in their country they get persecuted or killed.

    China, the worlds biggest and most famous hater of free speech is now followed by Australia but it does not just stop there. Plans are in place that the UK is next, they are the next country where dictatorship style laws will be in place soon, actually that already happened, this time we are talking about the internet. Soon they will filter the internet in the UK as well.

    http://fto.co.za/news/uk-censor-internet-2009121716041.html

    Complain about this comment

  • 193. At 11:12am on 17 Dec 2009, LabMunkey wrote:

    @178
    thank you i'll have a look now. well, inbetween work.

    @172- no-no, you're just relegated to buffer prep :-)

    Complain about this comment

  • 194. At 11:16am on 17 Dec 2009, U14260427 wrote:

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

  • 195. At 11:20am on 17 Dec 2009, U14260427 wrote:

    "No-one has denied that 1998 (or was it 1997) was the hottest"

    What is evident by a blind test (they didn't know what the data was from) that statisticians said there was no trend available for the data 1998-date and that any conclusions were unsupported by the evidence.

    And you yourself don't know whether it was 98 or 97. Well, according to the CRU data (which you say is unreliable) it's 98. But according to the GISS data (which isn't implicated) it was 2005. 2007 equal second with 1998.

    So, yes, it HAS been denied that there has been no warming since 1998 and EVERONE disagrees that there has been no warming since 1997.

    And worse, there is NO TREND from the data 1998 to date.

    Fail?

    No, EPIC fail.

    Complain about this comment

  • 196. At 11:22am on 17 Dec 2009, U14260427 wrote:

    "What we ARE quibbling over is the highly arbitrary and statistically UNSOUND HIE adjustments they do make"

    And someone who doesn't know enough statistics to know about statistical significance knows they are statistically UNSOUND how?

    I mean, you don't seem to care that your statements "its cooling since 1998" is statistically UNSOUND, because that statement accords with your preconceptions. But here you say the manipulations (which you have now changed to something MUCH more narrow and nuanced: caught on the hop, labmunkey?) are statisticall UNSOUND and therefore must be rejected.

    Complain about this comment

  • 197. At 11:28am on 17 Dec 2009, U14260427 wrote:

    "1. If the fossil fuel situation was as close to the limit as you seem to imply (I may be inferring too much from your words), there would not be a question about limiting its use, assuming it's the source of the problem."

    Please read up on what "Peak Oil" means.

    It doesn't mean "we're running out" but that supply cannot be increased to match demand and the consequence of that is that (because of supply/demand economics) the price of oil will rise.

    What's happened to the price of oil?

    And there's plenty coal around. A steam-powered car wouldn't be workable, though.

    Complain about this comment

  • 198. At 11:29am on 17 Dec 2009, LabMunkey wrote:

    @189 Dempster, the Bush government says it wasn't happening.

    Therefore it must.



    thats actually a reasonably strong argument- :-)

    Complain about this comment

  • 199. At 11:30am on 17 Dec 2009, U14260427 wrote:

    "actually, once the works been published, it and all the data pertaining to it are regarded 'as being in the public domain', so it can be republished at will."

    Uh, no.

    In just the same way as Microsoft's new Operating system is published you can't get hold of the source code, because that's not part of the published work.

    Licenses can change that (the GPL being one of the very few), but if you think this true, demand Microsoft's source code under that interpretation.

    Complain about this comment

  • 200. At 11:34am on 17 Dec 2009, bowmanthebard wrote:

    #143 John Kazer wrote:

    "Basically some very simple plotting of the data shows that in all likelihood peak oil and peak gas have already happened and we're on a downward (and increasingly expensive) downward curve with fossil fuels."

    In that case, why bother doing anything at Copenhagen? If it will become increasingly costly to use fossil fuels, less and less will be used because the alternatives will be cheaper, and the trend will be downwards anyway. Assuming there is a problem: problem solved!

    Complain about this comment

  • 201. At 11:36am on 17 Dec 2009, U14260427 wrote:

    PS
    "2. Oil is still an extremely cheap and convenient source of energy."

    And this is why there has to be government intervention.

    Because oil is only cheap if you ignore the externalities.

    In the US alone in 1991 it was estimated to be a cost of $54 billion to $232 billion:

    http://go.ucsusa.org/publications/report.cfm?publicationID=149

    Or from a site that does NOT support AGW:

    http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2007/01/18/how-large-are-federal-oil-subsidies/

    Other places have done studies:

    http://www.mindfully.org/Energy/Fossil-Fuel-Subsidies.htm

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

    http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/60-second-science/post.cfm?id=how-much-in-subsidies-do-fossil-fue-2009-09-18

    and so on.

    Complain about this comment

  • 202. At 11:44am on 17 Dec 2009, LabMunkey wrote:

    @196

    You seem to have gotten yourself confused-

    "What we ARE quibbling over is the highly arbitrary and statistically UNSOUND HIE adjustments they do make"

    And someone who doesn't know enough statistics to know about statistical significance knows they are statistically UNSOUND how?
    --- sorry? you know this how?

    I mean, you don't seem to care that your statements "its cooling since 1998" is statistically UNSOUND, because that statement accords with your preconceptions. But here you say the manipulations (which you have now changed to something MUCH more narrow and nuanced: caught on the hop, labmunkey?) are statisticall UNSOUND and therefore must be rejected."
    --- and here starts the confusion. Please highlight the post where i stated "it's cooling sinnce 1998". Go on... i'll wait. In fact i think you'll find i was quoting someone else.... but too much to expect you to actually READ a post huh.

    Finally, it is not I that claims the HIE adjustments are unsound, more the peer reviewed paper i linked earlier which PROVES it. I'm claiming it as i have seen and linked proof on the matter. Again- get your facts straight


    Complain about this comment

  • 203. At 11:46am on 17 Dec 2009, selfevidenttruths wrote:

    @All: An analysis on the CRU data from RC.

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/12/are-the-cru-data-suspect-an-objective-assessment/

    Read through the comments too, interesting. Am waiting to hear their take on the 'Russian story'.

    Tears: Mine and others comments on population are not anti-human. We are currently at 6.8 billion, and that will probably rise to over 9 billion by 2050. Given that there are increasing stresses on our ecosystems (eg: many people struggling for access to clean water) and that many of those people are living on a fraction of the resources we do, it would seem prudent to moderate our growth. Do you think our planet is infinite?

    To anyone who has'n't yet looked at David Mackeys book "Sustainable Energy - Without The Hot Air"

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/12/are-the-cru-data-suspect-an-objective-assessment/

    Have a look, some of the conclusions are a bit depressing. It would seem that renewables are not quite the hly grail we would all wish for. Time for some hard decisions, or to make fusion a massive priority - probably both.

    Mango: Yes that is significant news from NASA, one of the main uncertainties is in the feedbacks and clouds. That is some evidence for positive feedback from water vapour. I'm sure some of the points that poits made are valid, and of course there may be negative feedbacks that we are unaware of, but more useful data can only be welcomed.

    Complain about this comment

  • 204. At 11:48am on 17 Dec 2009, LabMunkey wrote:

    @199

    you're clearly not a scientist are you

    "actually, once the works been published, it and all the data pertaining to it are regarded 'as being in the public domain', so it can be republished at will."

    "Uh, no.

    In just the same way as Microsoft's new Operating system is published you can't get hold of the source code, because that's not part of the published work.

    Licenses can change that (the GPL being one of the very few), but if you think this true, demand Microsoft's source code under that interpretation."

    i am reffering to scientific results/data/papers/findings which cannot be copyrighted. These are different to any other source of publishing. Science does not work the way everything else does, so don't try to 'assume' things in science are the same as the commercial world. as they aren't.

    For example, it is impossible to patent anything scientific that has been published. It is classed as 'in the public domain' and is therefore 'prior art'.

    Complain about this comment

  • 205. At 11:49am on 17 Dec 2009, minuend wrote:

    The Russian IEA report on temperature data shows that Russia has COOLED by 0.1C over the last 10 years and that there has been NO signficant warming for over 50 years.

    The scientists at CRU have a lot of explaining to do.


    Complain about this comment

  • 206. At 11:49am on 17 Dec 2009, JunkkMale wrote:

    Meanwhile, back in the news (there's a funny link in the comments to our dear leader going where he's told and taking others with him...ironic... If it was Bush it would be main lead on BBC now)...

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jameskirkup/100020159/copenhagen-climate-conference-gordon-brown-says-co2-makes-god-change-the-weather/comment-page-1/#comment-100108379

    Maybe he gets his science settled in the same place Milibands E. & D. make their dioramas to try and scare Nordic ministers with alligators in Gothenburg high street:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00pfk53/Newsnight_16_12_2009/

    It has certainly convinced many who saw it:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/fromthewebteam/2009/12/wednesday_16_december_2009_in.html#commentsanchor

    Complain about this comment

  • 207. At 11:53am on 17 Dec 2009, MarcusAureliusII wrote:

    Well the EU-rop-ians have done it again, squandered a rare opportunity to impose a plan to destroy industrial society in the West that wouldn't work at stopping climate change. Last time it was their propensity for America bashing in Kyoto that did them in. The US Senate unanimously gave them the middle finger of their collective right hand. Since then the Congress has been cotrolled by Republicans or later the White House under President Bush who wouldn't fall for what is in reality a plan for global redistribution of wealth, not for preventing climate change. So a left leaning Democratic President and a Congress controlled by the Democrats was finally after over fifteen years another oppportunity that presented itself to impose another ill conceived fatally flawed plan on the more affluent of us. And what did the EU-rope-ians do with that opportunity? They squandered it too, this time because of their propensity to create useless epic monuments like the Air Blunderbus or the EU itself. What a chaotic riot Copenhagen turned out to be. Was that supposed to be a climate summit...or an EU nadir?

    If the gloom and doom environmentalist are right and the world will come to an end, those who write humanity's epitaph during the final days in the hope that some future civilization will discover a record of us and learn from our mistakes, I'm sure Copenhagen in 2009 will deserve at least some mention.

    Complain about this comment

  • 208. At 11:54am on 17 Dec 2009, selfevidenttruths wrote:

    Oooops.

    "Our" means all of us, ie humanity.
    Posted same link twice the correct link for Mackey's book is:

    http://www.withouthotair.com/Contents.html

    Complain about this comment

  • 209. At 11:55am on 17 Dec 2009, manysummits wrote:

    To MangoChutneyUKOK #136:

    Never thought I'd live to see the day.

    Here is James Hansen's latest, on the instrumental tempertature record and 'Climatgate':

    Dec. 16, 2009: The Temperature of Science: Discussion of global temperature change and more
    http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/

    Regards,

    - Manysummits -

    Complain about this comment

  • 210. At 11:56am on 17 Dec 2009, LabMunkey wrote:

    re my post @ 202.

    slight typo

    read-Finally, it is not I that claims the HIE adjustments are unsound, more the peer reviewed paper i linked earlier which PROVES it. I'm claiming it as i have seen and linked proof on the matter. Again- get your facts straight

    should read
    Finally, it is not ONLY I that claims the HIE adjustments are unsound, more the peer reviewed paper i linked earlier which PROVES it. I'm claiming it as i have seen and linked proof on the matter. Again- get your facts straight

    Complain about this comment

  • 211. At 11:57am on 17 Dec 2009, U14260427 wrote:

    "In that case, why bother doing anything at Copenhagen? "

    Because there's still a lot down there and they want to promote the tar sands.

    Duh.

    Complain about this comment

  • 212. At 11:58am on 17 Dec 2009, U14260427 wrote:

    "The Russian IEA report on temperature data shows that Russia has COOLED by 0.1C"

    I take it you have the RAW DATA and their methods, algorithms, thermometer reports, pictures of the locations and site reports etc?

    Complain about this comment

  • 213. At 12:00pm on 17 Dec 2009, U14260427 wrote:

    "i am reffering to scientific results/data/papers/findings which cannot be copyrighted."

    Yes, I know.

    But the data producing is not part of the paper or findings just as the source code is not part of the Operating System Microsoft produces.

    Complain about this comment

  • 214. At 12:02pm on 17 Dec 2009, U14260427 wrote:

    "Finally, it is not I that claims the HIE adjustments are unsound, more the peer reviewed paper i linked earlier which PROVES it"

    And you believe the scientists? Have you checked this?

    And I doubt that the link you gave does any such thing: the last one you gave didn't show what you said it did, so why should this one?

    And peer reviewed paper? I though peer review was just clique based back-scratching between people singing from the same hymn sheet...

    Complain about this comment

  • 215. At 12:05pm on 17 Dec 2009, U14260427 wrote:

    "If it was Bush it would be main lead on BBC now)... "

    Actually, no.

    During the Bush era, press that didn't toe the line were not invited.

    Complain about this comment

  • 216. At 12:07pm on 17 Dec 2009, selfevidenttruths wrote:

    Is this the right time to be cutting back on research funding?

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8417365.stm

    I'd sacrifice a few useless government departments instead.

    Complain about this comment

  • 217. At 12:10pm on 17 Dec 2009, davblo wrote:

    poitsplace #186: "RE: "positive" water vapor feedback"

    Looking back I found this gem which I had missed earlier, concerning your statement "BTW the UK uses 1 terawatt (Trillion watts) per day."

    poitsplace COP15 Copenhagen climate summit: Day 3 #117: "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."


    You go to great lengths and resort to insults (see actual comment for details) to cover up and avoid admitting your misunderstanding and mistake. Most would simply say yes I was wrong and I've learned something. But no, not you.

    It's not about being "more specific", it's not about "phrasing it differently". It's all about showing that you know what you are talking about.

    I repeat. As someone who has demonstrated clearly that they do not understand the concepts they are dealing with, your comments must be taken with extreme scepticism; and that goes for your #186 here.

    /davblo

    Complain about this comment

  • 218. At 12:11pm on 17 Dec 2009, U14260427 wrote:

    Standard alarmist fearmongering:

    "Well the EU-rop-ians have done it again, squandered a rare opportunity to impose a plan to destroy industrial society in the West that wouldn't work at stopping climate change."

    Got any proof that a proposal would destroy industrial society in the West?

    Complain about this comment

  • 219. At 12:21pm on 17 Dec 2009, U14260427 wrote:

    "I'm claiming it as i have seen and linked proof on the matter."

    And you've checked their working? You've done the maths? You've read the raw data?

    "Again- get your facts straight"

    Uh, I quote:

    "slight typo"

    And you have stated that that full story link shows the russian IEA (somewhat similar to Heartland Institute) have used the data they say is missing in their own model of the climate.

    It doesn't.

    Now back to "I've seen it".

    you don't know what statistical significance IS. You claim 1998-date shows a cooling trend but that is statistically UNSOUND. You;ve been told this but ignore it. Therefore either you're extremely partisan or you don't know statistics well enough to realist the need, which means yuo can't prove anything with "I've seen it" because I've seen elves too. In Lord Of The Rings.

    Complain about this comment

  • 220. At 12:22pm on 17 Dec 2009, unbrainwashed wrote:

    194. At 11:16am on 17 Dec 2009, U14260427 wrote:

    ALL Fair Points Sir/Madam....

    Complain about this comment

  • 221. At 12:34pm on 17 Dec 2009, LabMunkey wrote:

    @ 213 ""i am reffering to scientific results/data/papers/findings which cannot be copyrighted."

    Yes, I know.

    But the data producing is not part of the paper or findings just as the source code is not part of the Operating System Microsoft produces"

    which is my main problem with climate science. Other 'fields' publish the raw data as a matter of course.


    @214 "And I doubt that the link you gave does any such thing: the last one you gave didn't show what you said it did, so why should this one?
    "

    erm... you do actually know that was just the abstract and you have to download the full paper right? i'd suggest you try again.

    "And peer reviewed paper? I though peer review was just clique based back-scratching between people singing from the same hymn sheet..."
    well, if you can provde emails that prove this was occuring for the authors of that paper i'll gladly dismiss it. No, wait, that's just the CRU lot....

    Complain about this comment

  • 222. At 12:38pm on 17 Dec 2009, LabMunkey wrote:

    @219

    "you don't know what statistical significance IS. You claim 1998-date shows a cooling trend but that is statistically UNSOUND" i've done no such thing. i stated something different. GO BACK AND READ MY POST PROPERLY.

    Complain about this comment

  • 223. At 12:45pm on 17 Dec 2009, U14260427 wrote:

    "Other 'fields' publish the raw data as a matter of course."

    Really?

    FDA submissions by GSK?

    Complain about this comment

  • 224. At 12:47pm on 17 Dec 2009, tears of our forefathers wrote:

    kk
    in response to the 'you use a psuedonym ergo you work for big oil' (pitiful ad hom in light of how google was my friend last night) thing:

    full disclosure:

    i'm almost (worryingly) 30 years old and still gainfully employed (as i have been since i finished uni 6 years ago where i studied genetics and bioinformatics) in a IMO soul destroying (yet private sector) job.

    i work in a (fairly) lowly position in the gambling industry (i have a wee bit of experience in using odds and probabilities to dupe people who shouldn't have passed gcse maths out of their cash. something i believe we share mr kazer?). not one of the big 3 if you know your bookies but a reasonable competitor to them.

    mr kazer a lot of your earlier posts regarding the precautionary principle and risk assessment now seem like maybe you should have been a lot more upfront about your vested interest. i'm not suggesting you were deliberately disingenuous (although personally i think you were) but you gotta admit its pretty funny in light of the 'all skeptics are big oil shills' meme?

    out of interest, how can the Carbon Footprint Certification Manager at The Carbon Trust (something of a vested interest neh? wow) have so much time on his hands to post on the beeb blogs? i thought you'd be busier than that tbh. also i bet you've got your own printed copy of the rules of the game don't ya? signed by monbiot and miliband mebbe?

    how bout you grumpy, infinity and mr tree et al? any more vested interests we should perhaps be informed about? i've aired my opinion on astroturfing being a watermelons delight and mr kazer did sort of confirm it for me.

    peace out

    Complain about this comment

  • 225. At 12:47pm on 17 Dec 2009, U14260427 wrote:

    @222 I HAVE READ YOUR POST PROPERLY. JUST NOT IN THE WAY YOU WANT TO BE READ AS WHEN REBUTTED.

    You want to be read as "it's been cooling since 1998" as though that is a cooling trend.

    But you don't want to be read as "it's been cooling since 1998" when it comes to having to defend the indefensible.

    After all "It's colder in 2008 than it was in 1998" is correct. But that doesn't lend itself to the insinuation.

    Complain about this comment

  • 226. At 12:48pm on 17 Dec 2009, LabMunkey wrote:


    you don't know what statistical significance IS. You claim 1998-date shows a cooling trend but that is statistically UNSOUND. You;ve been told this but ignore it. Therefore either you're extremely partisan or you don't know statistics well enough to realist the need, which means yuo can't prove anything with "I've seen it" because I've seen elves too. In Lord Of The Rings.

    ok, in an attempt to move this away from something approaching a he-said, she-said argument. lets try this again.

    The post 1998 (your words) cooling phase can be classed as statistically significant, given the small amount of REAL world data we have (not proxies) ten years of data is good data (collection issues aside). Though whether it is significant for global temperature trends is a different point (we have to decide just how long a 'trend' must continue in a climate shift for it to be significant), i've not seen any papers on this so i can't comment on what would be a good timeframe.

    For you to prove that ten years of data is not statistically sound you will have to show error levels that encompas more than, or a significant proportion of, this time span, whilst still remaining within the percieved trend. NOw, unfortunatley you cannot do that without casting huge doubt over large portions of the 'warming phase', so it's a chicken and egg situation- you either accept the recent cooling trend as statistically significant, or you open up the possiblilty that the warming trend (although for a MUCh longer time period) is not as pronounced (as the error level adjustments will have to increase to compensate).

    Simples.

    Make sense?

    Re: i've seen it remark.

    Yes i have, i also posted it. It only takes one paper to disprove a theory. this was it- until you can find a direct counter to that paper.

    Complain about this comment

  • 227. At 12:49pm on 17 Dec 2009, U14260427 wrote:

    "erm... you do actually know that was just the abstract and you have to download the full paper right? "

    Nope, the link gave no pdf.

    I suggest you reread^W read that link and check.

    Complain about this comment

  • 228. At 12:52pm on 17 Dec 2009, U14260427 wrote:

    Thank you unbrainwashed. I hope too there will be uprising against super-national organisations with their own remit outside the laws of the nations and international law such as proposed by ACTA, which is a treaty being made in secret under "national security" reasons, though they can include uncertified people from industry around the table.

    There IS a problem with politicians.

    But it looks (and it does from your apparently newfound, though after update, maybe incorrectly assumed, care for government secrecy) like this REAL problem is being picked up for use to deny AGW or actions to mitigate.

    Complain about this comment

  • 229. At 12:53pm on 17 Dec 2009, LabMunkey wrote:

    @227 OH! apologies if thats true- i posted it in a prior discussion and it worked fine then. I'll check and if necessary, re-find it.

    Sorry.

    Complain about this comment

  • 230. At 12:55pm on 17 Dec 2009, LabMunkey wrote:

    @227. go read 183 and try again. i'm quoting YOU.

    Complain about this comment

  • 231. At 12:55pm on 17 Dec 2009, U14260427 wrote:

    "The post 1998 (your words) cooling phase can be classed as statistically significant,"

    Wrong again.

    statistically, the post 1998 data shows a warming phase. This warming phase is not statistically significant.

    Did you not check the data here to see that it WAS cooling? Or did you just accept the word of someone else who did some maths and said it showed cooling?

    Complain about this comment

  • 232. At 12:56pm on 17 Dec 2009, U14260427 wrote:

    "For you to prove that ten years of data is not statistically sound you will have to show error levels"

    No, YOU are making the statement that it's been cooling.

    YOU have to prove it's statistically sound.

    Complain about this comment

  • 233. At 12:58pm on 17 Dec 2009, infiniti wrote:

    re 222: "i stated something different"

    you stated that the 00s have seen cooling. But I think all temperature records (UAH, RSS, GISTEMP, HadCRUT, JMA, NCDC) show a warming trend from Jan 2000 onwards.

    Complain about this comment

  • 234. At 1:00pm on 17 Dec 2009, tears of our forefathers wrote:

    thinking about it

    1) that was typo on assumed yesterday thanks for pointing it out so kindly. glad you weren't trying to nitpick or distract from the rest of what i said though! i've suggested the beeb splash a few licence fees on a spelling/grammar checker for their blogs and i don't think i'd be the only one to benefit! anyone join me on that one?

    2) regarding 'someone qualified to discuss this, peer to peer' how about if a skeptic was working for say esso? or had done 20 years ago in a relevant field say hydrocarbon exploration? that is used to discredit so many skeptics i cannot count the times i see it. yet more hypocrisy and double standards from the left.

    Complain about this comment

  • 235. At 1:07pm on 17 Dec 2009, U14260427 wrote:

    reading 183 and I see exactly what you say you haven't done: "i've seen and posted numerous links that show a downward trend in global temps in the noughties."

    you haven't because there is no downward trend in the noughties. It's actually a GREATER trend upward than if you include the 1998 (which was either the highest or equal second highest temperature). If you remove a high number from a set at the beginning of a time line dataset you get a lower starting point and similar end point. This increases the upward gradient. And since it's a shorter period, that compresses the change and increases the upward gradient still more.

    Which would be known for anyone who has done any form of statistical course at secondary school.

    Which would likely not be enough knowledge of the subject to check whether an "authority" is telling the truth about statistically unwarranted changes.

    Complain about this comment

  • 236. At 1:08pm on 17 Dec 2009, LabMunkey wrote:

    you were right the link had moved.

    so-

    a paper that shows with vienna as an example, how adjustments by population (the current method) are inaccurate and misleading- actively skewing the data.

    http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/klu/clim/1998/00000038/00000001/00140536


    apologies for the bad link earlier.

    Complain about this comment

  • 237. At 1:09pm on 17 Dec 2009, U14260427 wrote:

    Look at the right, tears. "WHERE IS THE RAW DATA!!! Oh, your data says AGW is wrong? No worries, we don't need to see it."

    Complain about this comment

  • 238. At 1:16pm on 17 Dec 2009, U14260427 wrote:

    If anyone's wondering, even though an Al Gore posts here who isn't THE Al Gore, and even though there is no Lord Monckton, the name Lord Monkton as a nickname is considered by somebody (Christopher Monckton (or is that Bishop Hill?)) to be the name of someone else and breaks the rules.

    Just goes to prove how the denialists work, and that there are several here at BBC Moderation Central.

    ProAGW: Oh, someone's using my name? Pfeh. Who cares.
    BBCMods: Oh, there's no problem using the name of a ProAGW prominent figure

    AntiAGW: SOMEONE IS USING A NAME LIKE MINE!!! SUE THE BEEB!!!!
    BBCMods: Yeth, Marthter.

    It's nice to see the Anti are so open minded.

    Complain about this comment

  • 239. At 1:20pm on 17 Dec 2009, LabMunkey wrote:

    http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2009/10/26/ap-impact-statisticians-reject-global-cooling/

    heres a link.

    Complain about this comment

  • 240. At 1:29pm on 17 Dec 2009, selfevidenttruths wrote:

    There is a new thread, but this research is of interest:

    http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/himalayan-soot.html

    Complain about this comment

  • 241. At 1:31pm on 17 Dec 2009, LabMunkey wrote:

    http://images.dailytech.com/nimage/7390_large_hadcrut.jpg

    Complain about this comment

  • 242. At 1:31pm on 17 Dec 2009, LabMunkey wrote:

    241 a line of best fit from 1998 would show a downward trend

    Complain about this comment

  • 243. At 1:42pm on 17 Dec 2009, U14260427 wrote:

    Oh dear. labmunkey, when did you jump over from the russian IEA claims to Vienna? Now if you hadn't been strident about how I hadn't read your stuff, strident you had proven and read things, I wouldn't bother bringing it up (for reasons that will become clear later).

    But you did.

    There's the problem. Accusations and then when nailed down (after how many posts?) you get a different message out is the MO of the denial of AGW.

    Sad.

    As to the paper, it's only talking about theUrban Heat Island effect (remember, this isn't in Siberia, where the current "FRAUD PROVEN!" screams are coming from).

    Go back in time...

    +++

    171. At 10:29am on 17 Dec 2009, Lord Monckton wrote:

    "why did they hide and manipulate the data?"

    1) Because the law says they can't give away someone else's work. you want them to commit piracy?

    2) Because if they didn't "manipulate" the data, the surfacestations.org site would be correct and the data collected in the US would be contaminated with UHI and bad site effects. Your query makes this a "heads I win, tails you lose" proposition:

    You Win: They've manipulated the data!
    IPCC Lose: They haven't corrected for UHI and bad site effects!

    +++

    So your proof they are manipulating data is a paper on how if you don't manipulate the data you have a bias in your record (note: the paper doesn't say what effect this has on the regional, never mind global, record).

    Complain about this comment

  • 244. At 1:43pm on 17 Dec 2009, U14260427 wrote:

    PS how come I have to pay to get the full report? I thought that all the papers HAD TO BE FREE!!! PLUS the data behind it.

    Complain about this comment

  • 245. At 1:43pm on 17 Dec 2009, MangoChutney wrote:


    NASA's press release

    http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2009-196

    Dessler explained that most of the warming caused by carbon dioxide does not come directly from carbon dioxide, but from effects known as feedbacks. Water vapor is a particularly important feedback.

    Surely this is wrong - water vapour is not a feedback, but supposedly amplifies CO2 warming, and negative cloud feedback has not been taken into account?

    simon-swede #147

    Concerning your comment about clouds, I noted in the last paragraph of the page for which you provided the link, that "AIRS observes and records the global daily distribution of temperature, water vapor, CLOUDS [emphasis added] and several atmospheric gases including ozone, methane and carbon monoxide. With the addition of the mid-tropospheric carbon dioxide data set this week, a seven-year digital record is now complete for use by the scientific community and the public."

    So, the data should be there and if it hasn't been incorporated in the analysis already, presumably that is the intention?


    Exactly Simon, why don't they include low level clouds, which are a negative feedback, when they have the data? Poitsplace #186 makes a good point:

    I didn't see them mentioning cloud cover...how much was reflected away by extra cloud formation? Was the microwave unit simply passing through the CLOUDS and reading that as "enhanced greenhouse warming?" Was the water vapor increase driven by temperature or did the thing that drove temperature drive water vapor too (or perhaps drove temperature through water vapor).

    Water vapour is a negative feedback, so why doesn't the AIRS show this negative feedback. Also, temperatures have flattened / decreased (yes, i do still think temps are on an upward trend, so please don't argue the point), they have measured water vapour for around 8 years and yet they report water vapour increases with global warming.

    @manysummits #209

    To MangoChutneyUKOK #136: Never thought I'd live to see the day.

    The chickens haven't hatched yet, manysummits, but it is interesting that you choose to respond to me, after all this time of non-response, when i think i am saying something in your favour.


    I am still a little taken aback by this report and i want to read further about AIRS, including views by The Team and by people such as Pielke, Spencer etc

    /mango

    Complain about this comment

  • 246. At 2:02pm on 17 Dec 2009, LabMunkey wrote:

    @ 243.

    Erm, right i think we need to take a step back here as it's getting confusing. I was reffering to the Russian thing and the HIE adjustments seperatley. Were you reffering to the adjustments with relation the the russian data? If so i think we're been discussing different bits.

    Complain about this comment

  • 247. At 2:02pm on 17 Dec 2009, tears of our forefathers wrote:

    237. At 1:09pm on 17 Dec 2009, U14260427 wrote:

    i'm not disagreeing with you but i don't think it invalidates what i said. i'm just sick of the kneejerk 'all skeptics are fossil fuel shills' slander that is the instant response to anything that refutes AGW, much like most antiAGW peeps will simply blindly sieze on anything that suits their worldview and not apply the same level of 'skepticism'. it seems to me to be truer (but not conclusively so) when reversed.

    i try to regularly read/scan reuters, huff po, drudge, Aunty and a few other news aggregators from both sides of what i feel is a faux political divide. more disclosure: i'm more a fan of individual liberty than big government as a problem solver but won't be voting in the upcoming election as all parties strike me as corrupt and incompetent, fairly equally.

    lefties and righties agree on about 90% of things but differ (often pretty slightly) in their prefered solution to whatever the 'issue' is.

    Complain about this comment

  • 248. At 2:06pm on 17 Dec 2009, poitsplace wrote:

    @davblo #217 RE:your attempting to deflect

    Don't be such a sore loser. Even the guy that complained said he knew exactly what I meant. Anyway, instead of actually answering the post (#217) (which you seldom, if ever do...usually it's just you spamming with your stupid list) you "just found" (convenient, ay?) a post from about 7 blog entries ago of me complaing about someone getting overly picky about understood concepts on a casual forum.

    But then, why would anyone take anything you say seriously when you have repeatedly pointed out that you have nothing substantial to say and that you prefer to present non-facts...lol, especially when the message I'm replying to does the exact same thing.

    Complain about this comment

  • 249. At 2:08pm on 17 Dec 2009, LabMunkey wrote:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/12/historical-video-perspective-our-current-unprecedented-global-warming-in-the-context-of-scale/

    Complain about this comment

  • 250. At 2:10pm on 17 Dec 2009, U14260427 wrote:

    @242.

    Uh, nope. It doesn't. Do a fit to that graph and it goes up.

    Go get the data, put it in Excel and ask it to draw a linear regression (least RMS error) line to that.

    Positive.

    PS: all statisticians and working scientists know you should put error bars on your final result to determine whether your results are good or not. Don't forget that.

    Complain about this comment

  • 251. At 2:14pm on 17 Dec 2009, selfevidenttruths wrote:

    @Mango: Warming for doubling of CO2 is around 1.2 degrees, further warming mainly due to positive feedback from water vapour (as many sceptics have proclaimed strongly water is a greenhouse gas too). Amplifying = feedback. Yes feedback from clouds has yet to be fully considered.
    Btw, have you seen the other NASA research, also significant I think. I've posted a link above in my post at 240.

    Complain about this comment

  • 252. At 2:16pm on 17 Dec 2009, LabMunkey wrote:

    @250.

    righto i'll give it a bash when i get the chance.

    "PS: all statisticians and working scientists know you should put error bars on your final result to determine whether your results are good or not. Don't forget that!" yeah, we do that routinely here.

    Complain about this comment

  • 253. At 2:16pm on 17 Dec 2009, U14260427 wrote:

    "I was reffering to the Russian thing and the HIE adjustments seperatley."

    How could ANYONE not reading your mind know that?

    @171 you responded to with HIE adjustments claims but @171 was a response to @139 "why did they hide and manipulate the data?" followed by a link to the russian complaint alone.

    And why run off a sidestreet like that anyway? It doesn't prove @139 was not running a heads-i-win/tails-you-lose scam.

    And still nothing on what this paper is showing (except that you can't get stuff for free and have to pay for it, even if it's the RESULTS ALONE, which rather undermines your point that you want the data for free. Pay for it, bub.)

    Complain about this comment

  • 254. At 2:19pm on 17 Dec 2009, U14260427 wrote:

    Unfortunately, anyone wanting to use the CLOUDS as proof AGW is no problem have to continue to use very early preliminary reports from before they did the experiment to see an effect, since after running the experiment, all the effects they get are "Wall effects" where the activity seen is a consequence of the chamber being small.

    Subtracting the wall effects and CLOUD shows no pertinent trend from GCRs.

    Complain about this comment

  • 255. At 2:20pm on 17 Dec 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

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

  • 256. At 2:24pm on 17 Dec 2009, U14260427 wrote:

    "yeah, we do that routinely here."

    The IPCC reports do.

    Have you read them?

    Complain about this comment

  • 257. At 2:28pm on 17 Dec 2009, selfevidenttruths wrote:

    The latest thread at Real Climate is a discussion of the CRU data, with now some references to the Russian stuff. Anyone who really wants to debate statistical analysis should go there. If you think it is pro AGW consider this: it is better to test your ideas with those who disagree with you, if your arguments can stand that test then they truly have merit.

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/12/are-the-cru-data-suspect-an-objective-assessment/

    Complain about this comment

  • 258. At 2:32pm on 17 Dec 2009, U14260427 wrote:

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

  • 259. At 2:39pm on 17 Dec 2009, U14260427 wrote:

    PS are we going to get an "I'm Spartacus!" moment here?

    :-P

    Complain about this comment

  • 260. At 2:39pm on 17 Dec 2009, LabMunkey wrote:

    And still nothing on what this paper is showing (except that you can't get stuff for free and have to pay for it, even if it's the RESULTS ALONE, which rather undermines your point that you want the data for free. Pay for it, bub.)

    erm, i never said it was free, i just said it was in the public domain. You want the data, pay for it.

    Complain about this comment

  • 261. At 2:39pm on 17 Dec 2009, selfevidenttruths wrote:

    @Lab 249: Whatever else we argue about that certainly gives some context. Notice how even during the last ice age there are some pretty dramatic spikes.

    Complain about this comment

  • 262. At 2:46pm on 17 Dec 2009, LabMunkey wrote:

    @253-

    yup we're arguing different bits- i got mixed up in the replies and was responding to you without the context of the message you were responding too.

    Complain about this comment

  • 263. At 2:49pm on 17 Dec 2009, U14260427 wrote:

    "erm, i never said it was free, i just said it was in the public domain."

    erm, so try posting a free copy on your website and see how that turns out.

    And the data you are clamouring for is available just like that paper is. All you do is pay for it.

    Complain about this comment

  • 264. At 2:50pm on 17 Dec 2009, LabMunkey wrote:

    @261
    good isn't it?!

    Complain about this comment

  • 265. At 2:52pm on 17 Dec 2009, U14260427 wrote:

    " yup we're arguing different bits"

    Because you're arguing multiple items in one post, bringing in new ones without fanfare and confusing yourself.

    Of course if you post separate single-item issues you'll be accused of spamming.

    Complain about this comment

  • 266. At 2:56pm on 17 Dec 2009, U14260427 wrote:

    @261 Read the IPCC reports. It isn't anything new or astounding.

    Well, not to anyone actually reading what they're skeptical of, anyway.

    Complain about this comment

  • 267. At 2:58pm on 17 Dec 2009, LabMunkey wrote:

    erm, so try posting a free copy on your website and see how that turns out.


    but thats not the issue. even if you have to pay for it, it's freely available. My issue is people asking for the data and being REFUSED.

    Re:- the other data i was after, my place of work has many subscriptions to different journals so i can probably get the data that way- IF it's been released./

    Complain about this comment

  • 268. At 3:04pm on 17 Dec 2009, LabMunkey wrote:

    " yup we're arguing different bits"

    Because you're arguing multiple items in one post, bringing in new ones without fanfare and confusing yourself.

    Of course if you post separate single-item issues you'll be accused of spamming

    pretty much. think i best limit my responses then.

    Complain about this comment

  • 269. At 3:09pm on 17 Dec 2009, U14260427 wrote:

    "but thats not the issue. even if you have to pay for it, it's freely available."

    So is the data.

    Complain about this comment

  • 270. At 3:19pm on 17 Dec 2009, selfevidenttruths wrote:

    @266: Never said it was, but a little context is helpful sometime don't you think, ie, drastic climate change can occur without any human forcings. That is not to say etc, etc ...

    Complain about this comment

  • 271. At 3:19pm on 17 Dec 2009, U14260427 wrote:

    LabMunkey, someone on RC did the maths:

    "Average October-November temperatures from GISStemp from 1998 to 2009 (November 2009 recently showed up), and do a regression. What you get is a trend of 0.028C per year (2.8C per century)"

    GISStemp data is freely available.

    And as a help, RealClimate has made available all the data they can currently locate and link to here:

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/wheres-the-data/

    Complain about this comment

  • 272. At 3:23pm on 17 Dec 2009, selfevidenttruths wrote:

    I might hasten to add that I am aware that the paleoclimatic record shows much greater temperature changes at the poles compared to the equator, luckily for the evolution of the human race.

    Complain about this comment

  • 273. At 3:26pm on 17 Dec 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

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

  • 274. At 3:29pm on 17 Dec 2009, LabMunkey wrote:

    @271. ta. will have a bash,.

    Complain about this comment

  • 275. At 3:29pm on 17 Dec 2009, Sue Doughcoup wrote:

    People think the Titanic was sunk by hitting an iceberg. It was, but because it was poorly built and that it was carrying far too many people for the rescue facilities. It hit the iceberg because it didn't have the support to see what was coming in time to take corrective action.

    Complain about this comment

  • 276. At 3:51pm on 17 Dec 2009, U14260427 wrote:

    Please keep on this, labmunkey, there HAVE been good arguments for errors and omissions in the IPCC report, the AIT movie and other things (the surfacestations.org site, had it turned up 15 years earlier, would have helped the climate observing network in the US IMMENSELY), so ***skepticism*** is wanted.

    You need to find out yourself what's going on and then you'll see that many of the "proofs" of AGW falsity is nothing of the sort.

    But they continue to persist again and again (and again...) and so any REAL issue is lost in a see of dittos.

    Your posts have far too often been dittos.

    Find out what's REALLY going on with these blog-sport proofs and you'll post less but they will not be dittos and may have been rebutted but if so only to those on the inside of the science and I won't be able to help, but maybe RealClimate will. Just don't go there with dittos.

    Complain about this comment

  • 277. At 4:15pm on 17 Dec 2009, JunkkMale wrote:

    215. At 12:05pm on 17 Dec 2009, U14260427 wrote:
    "If it was Bush it would be main lead on BBC now)... "

    Actually, no.

    During the Bush era, press that didn't toe the line were not invited.


    Two wrongs, I fear. Yet once precedents are set...

    http://www.ecohearth.com/eco-blogs/mainstream-media-green/1040-what-the-obamafox-news-controversy-means-for-the-environment.html

    Complain about this comment

  • 278. At 4:25pm on 17 Dec 2009, mattmurdock wrote:

    @276 U14260427

    So the following analysis of all the major temperature records, which show with confidence that the warming trend is lower than the models, you would class as a ditto?

    http://masterresource.org/?p=5240

    Essentially it says that depending on where you choose to start and stop, you can show warming, no change or cooling using all of the major temperature records (GISS, NCDC, CRU, UAH, RSS). All of the major temperature records show that we are in a cooling period at the moment, with a major statistically significant cooling period in the last 5 years.

    In the interest of disclosure a la xtragrumpymike2, I am white, 35, an IT professional with no formal science training since A level physics but a lot of data analysis and problem solving experience, a hobby student of psychology and a natural cynic when it comes to 'man's' self important belief that they are responsible for everything good or bad in the world.

    Now you can also point out that the blog that analysis is on trends towards the sceptical, but I feel as you have put forward RealClimate as a source of information, and that strongly trends towards the AGW position, that would not be a fair dismissal of the analysis.

    In addition, Gavin had commented directly on the analysis, calling it vaguely ok but claiming an error in the statistical process:

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/10/a-warming-pause/comment-page-7/#comment-138126

    However, here is a debunking of that debunk, showing that if the statistical process presented in one of Gavin's own papers is used, the end result of the analysis is essentially the same:

    http://rankexploits.com/musings/2009/adding-apples-and-oranges-to-cherry-picking/

    Note, none of these analyses invalidate the idea that the Earth has been warming, they just show that despite CO2 emissions rising the amount of warming has not increased as per the models' predictions, and that the temperature records used by the models are now showing a cooling trend.

    Interested to hear your, and others, responses to this.

    Complain about this comment

  • 279. At 4:41pm on 17 Dec 2009, U14260427 wrote:

    @277 doesn't say how that is wrong.

    Complain about this comment

  • 280. At 5:01pm on 17 Dec 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

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

  • 281. At 5:04pm on 17 Dec 2009, U14260427 wrote:

    "Essentially it says that depending on where you choose to start and stop, you can show warming, no change or cooling using all of the major temperature records (GISS, NCDC, CRU, UAH, RSS)."

    Correct.

    This is why your error bars are so important.

    If you say "this temperature is rising 2.8C per century" but that is based on a fit to numbers that have an RMS displacement from that plotted line that is +/- 5C per century (90% confidence), you have no statistically significant response.

    In the global average temperature, signal to noise gets equal at about 15-20 years, that is, take each graph and split them into 15 (or 20) year segments and calculate the linear plot and RMS error and you'll get, an error in the line of something around the same as the gradient you calculate.

    I.e. any conclusion you make on any one of those periods about what the REAL increase average is is about 50-50 chance of being right.

    For an interval of 30 years, your determination of temperature gradient with a linear fit is significantly above the noise to make a statement of what the gradient is.

    But this is NOT "take the temperature 30 years ago and compare it to this year" because that's only two points. The error goes up again (by the square root of 29 as a factor).

    "All of the major temperature records show that we are in a cooling period at the moment, with a major statistically significant cooling period in the last 5 years."

    Except they don't.

    Error bars? Do they include the ~0.17C/decade AGW science says? Then you can't prove it's cooling.

    But I note you just say it is.

    I also note that you keep changing where you take from. Which you;ve already admitted "depending on where you choose to start and stop, you can show warming, no change or cooling".

    Complain about this comment

  • 282. At 5:25pm on 17 Dec 2009, U14260427 wrote:

    "Interested to hear your, and others, responses to this."

    Here it is:

    Only those trying to disprove AGW science think that CO2 is the only climate driver.

    The IPCC don't think so.

    You see the sunspots change the solar constant by about 0.1%. Out of the 250 W effective from the sun (it's dark at night and cooler when the sun is not overhead), that would be 0.25W.

    The forcing from the CUMULATIVE effect of CO2 (with feedbacks) is about 4W.

    About 8x bigger.

    Since warming has started, there's been a change of about 1.5C per century average.

    And warming is about 100 years old as far as increased CO2 goes. So the solar output can hide the increase due to CO2 for about 12.5 years if the sun hits a less active phase for a long time.

    And the sun's been and gone done that just now.

    Complain about this comment

  • 283. At 5:46pm on 17 Dec 2009, mattmurdock wrote:

    @281 U14...

    Did you actually take any time to read the links in my post?

    Evidently not, as they clearly show that the statistical work done shows both significance and includes the error bars. In fact, as I said, the methods use match the methods used by Gavin in one of his papers. The only difference is the period that is chosen.

    And I note you just say it isn't cooling, without doing any analysis.

    The point is that anyone cherry picking the data can make it say anything you want it to say - that in itself is an indication that the analysis work has some way to go before it can be held as conclusive evidence of either warming or cooling.

    Of course, you can just ignore this and continue to spout off if you like, it is after all a free country.

    Complain about this comment

  • 284. At 5:56pm on 17 Dec 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    hmmmm, somebody seems to be having my posts removed

    hmmm, yeah, whatever

    /mango

    Complain about this comment

  • 285. At 6:03pm on 17 Dec 2009, U14260427 wrote:

    "Did you actually take any time to read the links in my post?"

    Yes.

    Post 1: No error bars.

    Post 2: No error bars.

    Post 3: Cutnpaste job from Post 1. No error bars.

    Complain about this comment

  • 286. At 6:06pm on 17 Dec 2009, U14260427 wrote:

    I have also said it was not significant therefore I've not actually said that there is a warming trend.

    However, you DO say there is a cooling trend AND it is statistically significant.

    Yet failed to prove your assertion.

    Heck, given that you've said you pointed to data with error bars in three posts but those posts fail to have any error bars on them, you've not had a good track record here in your statements' veracity.

    Complain about this comment

  • 287. At 6:10pm on 17 Dec 2009, mattmurdock wrote:

    @282 U14...

    You do realise what you just said does not flow at all?

    Sunspots can cause 0.25W forcing, CO2 causes 4W forcing (due to some feedbacks that are assumed but not actually measured) and yet the forcing from the Sun can mask the forcing from CO2 because the Sun is in a minimum?

    Surely, based on that logic, if the Sun is at a minimum it can reverse 4W of forcing, so therefore when it is at a maximum can it cause 4W of forcing? If so surely the Sun can explain all the warming? Note I do not believe that, just simply following your points along.

    Based on that, how on earth can the AGW science conclusively prove CO2 is an issue, if the Sun is a bigger influence on global temperature? And if the Sun is not such a big influence on global temperature, why does the temperature record not show a steady and continued rise over the last 5 to 10 years?

    Could it be because there are a number of factors involved in climate change, and the models are overly simplistic simply because no one fully understands all of those factors?

    Complain about this comment

  • 288. At 6:16pm on 17 Dec 2009, U14260427 wrote:

    "Surely, based on that logic, if the Sun is at a minimum it can reverse 4W of forcing"

    No, a minimum is 99.9% of nominal average TSI power. Not 0.

    "If so surely the Sun can explain all the warming? "

    Nope, doesn't follow from the earlier suppositions. However, all the energy is from the sun. CO2 just traps a small amount of it. That small amount is now about 4W per square meter.

    Without that extra (anthropogenic) CO2, the earth would be cooler because 4W wouldn't be coming back from the extra CO2 and the concomitant feedback processes.

    "Could it be because there are a number of factors involved in climate change"

    Not according to you. You seem to argue that CO2 is the only factor.

    "and the models are overly simplistic"

    That assumption is incorrect. Many hindcasts have shown skill and the post-release eruption of Mt Pinatubo followed the same process as the hypothetical volcanic eruption James Hansen's 1988 GCM delineated.

    A model much more simplistic and of much lower resolution than GCMs today.

    So they are not overly simplistic at all.

    Care to prove it?

    Complain about this comment

  • 289. At 6:17pm on 17 Dec 2009, mattmurdock wrote:

    @286 U142...

    OK, again you are obviously suffering from some sort of reading comprehension issue, or you really do not understand what you are talking about.

    In both posts, the underlying temperature records, along with the adjustments and error bars, have been put through a statistical exercise to turn those values into trend values, and those trend values have then been plotted. Those trend values which, based on the error bars and adjustments and on the statistical analysis of the data, are statistically significant have been marked as filled points. From this, the conclusion is that the trend values for the last 5 years are negative and are statistically significant.

    Again, I repeat, the second link then shows the same dataset put through the statistical models used by Gavin Schmidt in a 2008 paper, to counter a concern he had that a particular statistical correction had not been accounted for in the table from the first link. This showed an almost identical set of trend values.

    And if your best defense to this is that you, yourself, have never asserted that there is a warming trend that is statistically significant, despite asserting 1.5C per decade warming in other posts, then I have to conclude that you are trolling here without any understanding of what you are posting.

    Complain about this comment

  • 290. At 6:25pm on 17 Dec 2009, U14260427 wrote:

    "In both posts, the underlying temperature records, along with the adjustments and error bars"

    There is no such method.

    Just a fit to what gradient they say they get if you pick a certain start point and end on the same end point.

    Nothing about the errors in those figures.

    Where, for example, is the error for the 2 year fit?

    Nonexistent.

    In fact how could you add the gradient AND the errors in that gradient and get only one line with axes of

    Gradient of temperature rise
    Number of years selected to average over.

    ?

    It doesn't.

    Complain about this comment

  • 291. At 6:39pm on 17 Dec 2009, MangoChutney wrote:

    @the mods

    why do you allow people to post ridiculous posts like this:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2009/12/cop15_titanic_nears_the_harbou.html#P89949876

    and then not allow responses to the email?

    I'm not complaining and i don't want the post removed, because it tells us all we need to know about the poster

    Complain about this comment

  • 292. At 6:50pm on 17 Dec 2009, mattmurdock wrote:

    @290 U142...

    You really do not have a clue what you are talking about - so probably not worth us continuing this discussion to be honest.

    But in the spirit of sharing, I will give it one last attempt.

    The charts at those links are not showing the actual temperature values. They are showing the statistically averaged temperature trend for given 10 year periods. These statistical averages are based on the underlying data and error bars, and the methods used to produce them determine if the final result is statistically significant or not.

    And, given you seem to be fond of Gavin and the RealClimate blog, I remind you one final time that he found only one potential concern in the approach taken to produce the measure of statistical significance, and that concern was addressed in the second link. So from that it is possible to infer that he has no further issue with the trend values shown.

    So I ask you again - how is it that based on trends that go up and go down over various time periods, it is possible (given only the currently available, instrument record data on the gas makeup of the atmosphere and the temperature of the land, air and ocean) to prove that catastrophic warming is going to occur due to increased levels of CO2?

    Complain about this comment

  • 293. At 9:08pm on 17 Dec 2009, infiniti wrote:

    Re 287:

    "Sunspots can cause 0.25W forcing, CO2 causes 4W forcing (due to some feedbacks that are assumed but not actually measured) and yet the forcing from the Sun can mask the forcing from CO2 because the Sun is in a minimum?"

    The 4Wm-2 forcing is for a doubling of co2 ie a 100% increase. If over a 5 year period co2 increases about 3% then the forcing is more like 0.15Wm-2. So yes on a 5 year timescale solar can dominate.

    Complain about this comment

  • 294. At 09:56am on 18 Dec 2009, U14260427 wrote:

    "291. At 6:39pm on 17 Dec 2009, MangoChutneyUKOK wrote:

    @the mods"

    HOW DARE YOU SILENCE ME!!!!

    I'LL GET YOU AND YOUR LITTLE DOG TOO!!!

    Come on Larry, do you know what the definition of paranoid is? You feel like everyone is out to get you.

    Just like you did in Cop15:Breaking a deal.

    Along with your paranoid "I'LL GET YOU, GADGET!" insanity there on that thread.

    Complain about this comment

  • 295. At 10:12am on 18 Dec 2009, U14260427 wrote:

    @mattmurdoch (Daredevil was blind too, so good choice of handle)
    "You really do not have a clue what you are talking about - so probably not worth us continuing this discussion to be honest."

    You keep repeating this but what you say it contains it doesn't.

    "These statistical averages are based on the underlying data and error bars, and the methods used to produce them determine if the final result is statistically significant or not."

    They do? How? You still haven't answered it, just said that "it does!".

    Here's how you can tell.

    Trend for period: 0.017+/-0.20

    Trend not significant.

    Plotted: One point.

    How is it taking the significance into account, there?

    Alternatively, there are AT LEAST three numbers there: minimum, median, maximum.

    Plotted: One point.

    How are the three numbers represented in the one point?


    You haven't even described the site yourself. When you say:

    "They are showing the statistically averaged temperature trend for given 10 year periods."

    The graph showing the trends has as its x-axis the label:

    "Start Year (trend length, years)"

    and has values

    1989(20)
    1990(19)
    1991(18)
    ...

    Therefore the trend is not a set of 10-year trends. It's a set of how long a trend you took. And if there were no trend (flat line) with noisy data the error bars increase as you reduce the number of points down to infinity at 1 point.

    Nothing like that appears on the graph.

    The "Global Temperature Anomalies" graph doesn't have error bars on it.

    GISS does:

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

    See those green I-bars? Errors in determining the mean.

    Your posted link has nothing like that.

    Yet still you maintain that the link includes error bars and accuse me of not reading.

    You didn't read. This is patently obvious.

    PS I note too that the graph says 2004(5) which means it is including 2009 but we haven't finished 2009 yet.

    Complain about this comment

  • 296. At 10:14am on 18 Dec 2009, U14260427 wrote:

    "If over a 5 year period co2 increases about 3% then the forcing is more like 0.15Wm-2. So yes on a 5 year timescale solar can dominate."

    Indeed.

    So 10 years is easily possible.

    Just like Mojab Latif said.

    But those who maintain that a 5-year lack of increase in temperatures are building a strawman zombie. This would only be the case if there were no other forcings.

    Funny how that is exactly what the denialists proclaim is wrong with the IPCC: they only consider CO2. Yet when they want to debunk it, they assume CO2 is the only effect.

    Projection.

    Complain about this comment

  • 297. At 12:38pm on 18 Dec 2009, mattmurdock wrote:

    @295 U14...

    OK, I am man enough to admit my mistake - you are right, the table is explict that these are trend values from the given date up to 2009, not trend values on 10 year cycles.

    However, my mistake does not devalue the core point, which is taking temperature record data, applying a statistical model used by AGW supporting climate modellers to determine a trend over time, and plotting that using various time periods shows that none of the records show consistent warming trends over anything lower than a 20 year period.

    Given we have a supposedly reliable instrument record of temperature back to at least 1960, and that the trend from 1960 onwards shows only a small trend to warming (lower than the IPCC models predict), and also given your assertions that there are a number of forcings that can either result in warming or cooling irrespective of CO2 levels in the atmosphere, can you not at least agree that the focus on CO2 as the causing of the warming is misplaced? And also that we do not have enough data at the moment to be certain on whether the temperature increase will accelerate or decelerate?

    Is this not, in and of itself, enough doubt to suggest the science is not 'settled'?

    Complain about this comment

  • 298. At 11:54pm on 05 Jan 2010, varkom wrote:

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

  • 299. At 00:04am on 06 Jan 2010, U14260427 wrote:

    Matt tries:
    "Given we have a supposedly reliable instrument record of temperature back to at least 1960, and that the trend from 1960 onwards shows only a small trend to warming"

    We have more than that. Take a look at this graph:

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

    Does that look like it's cooled? Does that look like a small trend?

    "Is this not, in and of itself, enough doubt to suggest the science is not 'settled'?"

    No. Have a look at the graph.

    "can you not at least agree that the focus on CO2 as the causing of the warming is misplaced?"

    No. The biggest single factor is CO2.

    And the warming from CO2 means more H2O vapour. Which is also a greenhouse gas and causes more warming.

    So knocking CO2 on the head knocks out the #1 and #2 greenhouse gasses.

    Got any way we can force the water out of the air, Matt?

    "However, my mistake does not devalue the core point, which is taking temperature record data, applying a statistical model used by AGW supporting climate modellers"

    And your "core point" is wrong.

    The GCMs are not statistical models. They're physical models.

    Here's the source code to one:

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

    and here's a discussion on them:

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/11/faq-on-climate-models/

    When your "core point" is wrong, is your argument now in DESPERATE need of a rethink?

    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.