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

Cancun: The chihuahua that roared

Richard Black | 11:29 UK time, Saturday, 11 December 2010

If Copenhagen was the Great Dane that whimpered, Cancun has been the chihuahua that roared.

And what a surprise it was.Pablo Solon

Before the summit, expectations were so low that simply keeping the UN show on the road was all many observers (and some players) thought possible.

In the late morning of the final day, I came across Indian Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh explaining to a couple of delegates that "this process is dead".

Yet half a day later, Cancun produced almost global consensus on words that spell out a need to step up, urgently, action to curb greenhouse gas emissions.

The agreement here "affirms that climate change is one of the greatest challenges of our time".

It "recognises that deep cuts in global greenhouse gas emissions are required according to science", and that countries should "take urgent action" to meet the goal of holding the increase in global temperatures below 2C, measured against pre-industrial times.

It establishes mechanisms for transferring funds from rich countries to poor and helping them to spend it well on climate protection, acknowledging the rich world's historical responsibility for climate change.

It sets out parameters for reducing emissions from deforestation and for transferring clean technology from the west to the rest,

Achieving this needed a couple of fudges.

The US partly achieved its main priorities - giving the World Bank first go at running the big new fund, and having some degree of international monitoring on China's emissions - but the wording also allows China and other developing countries to escape with their sovereignity, as they see it, unaffected.

And Japan and Russia have been given a way to slide away from the Kyoto Protocol while maintaining the pledges they made around the Copenhagen summit.

Given the constraints of time, Copenhagen's legacy of mistrust and the domestic political concerns of countries from Japan to the US to India, this is much more than anyone had expected.

The back stories of how these deals are made are always long, involved and - at this timescale - untold.

But clearly the Mexican host government constructed a process that sought to include everyone, and that addressed the really knotty issues in small groups of interested parties, and kept at it until a way through was found.

Unlike Copenhagen, there was listening as well as talking.

So that's the roar.

However, if the agreement here acknowledges the need for deeper and faster emission curbs, it doesn't provide a visible way to achieve them - merely "urging" rich countries to do more.

The Kyoto Protocol text itself is still full of square brackets and options - on many, many issues.

And some of the important, tough details have been kicked into the long grass - notably, the issue of "legal form" - whether the next climate agreement should seek to be legally-binding or not.

So in terms of the most vital question for any climate accord - how much will it contribute to restricting man-made climate change? - you would have to answer, not as far as to meet the needs that it identifies.

But in the view of many observers here, it's laid the foundations for the comprehensive agreement they want.

Eyes now turn to Durban in South Africa, where next year's summit will be held.

In a sense, that's the last chance to get further targets under the Kyoto Protocol agreed, because the current targets run to 2012 only.

Building the deal that's desired by small island states, African nations, other "vulnerable" developing countries, the EU and many environmental groups won't be easy - far from it. There are many political obstacles on that road.

But the dog is rescuscitated and up and running... we'll see how far it goes.

Comments

or register to comment.

  • 1. At 12:13pm on 11 Dec 2010, Shadorne wrote:

    Dog is exactly the right term for the UN's ongoing shameful waste of taxpayer funds on the biggest scam in the history of the world.

    Complain about this comment

  • 2. At 12:22pm on 11 Dec 2010, Shadorne wrote:

    You Cancon some of the people some of the time but you Can'tcon all the people all the time.

    If the agreement here acknowledges the need for deeper and faster emission curbs, but doesn't provide a visible way to achieve them - then what is the point of this Dog and Pony show?

    Gravy train funding for Climate Change related jobs and more taxpayer funded conferences - that is really what this is all about - that is all this scam was ever about.

    Complain about this comment

  • 3. At 12:38pm on 11 Dec 2010, Richard Drake wrote:

    Exactly, Shadorne, we're all dog-tired of so much attempted global power-broking without anyone even mentioning the key scientific point: that without strong positive feedbacks from water vapour and clouds there can't possibly be a global warming crisis from man-made CO2. And the scientific evidence is increasingly that clouds make the feedbacks negative, not positive. The earth just isn't that unstable. Four billion years that allowed the evolution of life tells the same story. CanCon indeed.

    Complain about this comment

  • 4. At 12:44pm on 11 Dec 2010, excellentcatblogger wrote:

    So the next summit is in South Africa then. Not much chance of it being in Milton Keynes or Hull huh? There can never be too much glamour for the UN, right?

    Complain about this comment

  • 5. At 12:46pm on 11 Dec 2010, Yorkurbantree wrote:

    Well, I didn't see that coming. This outcome provides something for everyone. For those that accept the science, the deal shows consensus amongst the governments of the world of the need to tackle the problem and provides something of a way forward. For those that 'deny' climate change, the outcome is not as strong as it could have been. For those that are sceptical of AGW but actually care about the environment, their is some positive stuff on protecting the rainforests. And for those who just like making sarcastic comments about anything involving governments and the environment, the next meeting is in Durban 'which is well hot cos they just want a holiday...'.

    Complain about this comment

  • 6. At 12:52pm on 11 Dec 2010, Yorkurbantree wrote:

    Post 4: Given the levels of violent crime in South Africa, I'd much rather go to Milton Keynes. Not sure Hull is quite geared up for hosting a global conference, unless you propose they should all meet in the leisure centre and stay in local people's spare rooms...

    Complain about this comment

  • 7. At 12:53pm on 11 Dec 2010, Maria Ashot wrote:

    Stealth.

    Congratulations & extensive thanks to all who helped (and eternal shame upon those who did not).

    Bravissimi!

    Complain about this comment

  • 8. At 1:02pm on 11 Dec 2010, CChaplin wrote:

    Fossil fuels have a life expectancy of about 50 more years after which there should be negligible man made green house gases released into the atmosphere. It is going to be very difficult to control their use by nations or to ration them while they are still available. A sensible approach would be to try to reduce the carbon dioxide that’s already in the atmosphere to pre-industrial levels. We should be talking about how this could be done and implemented.

    Complain about this comment

  • 9. At 1:10pm on 11 Dec 2010, MangoChutney wrote:

    Unlike Copenhagen, there was listening as well as talking.

    If only they would listen to wider views on this issue, they may actually learn something, but then again, it was never about science, was it?

    /Mango

    Complain about this comment

  • 10. At 1:39pm on 11 Dec 2010, Martin wrote:

    If the more than 95% of scientists are right,this is more than urgent.
    If they are wrong,their recommendations will only do the environment good.
    The evidence is overwhelming.
    What possible mass hysteria would affect nearly all scientists to try and 'scam' the world?
    What would their motivation be?
    Just because you don't like something doesn't mean it's not true.
    The only people who are trying to scam anyone are the nay-sayers,all of whom have a clear set of vested interests,and are only out to make mega bucks in the short term.


    Complain about this comment

  • 11. At 1:46pm on 11 Dec 2010, Robert Leather wrote:

    Richard, you must be over the moon. Because the NASA Goddard Space Center has convincing proof that doubling CO2 will only result in 1.64c warming, 0.3c LOWER over land.

    You must be overjoyed... that's why you reported it and told the world about it.

    Oh, and the NASA SORCE satellite has real world data to prove that recent warming was in fact as a result of the sun. I'm sure you'll be reporting that as well. Yeah?

    Complain about this comment

  • 12. At 2:05pm on 11 Dec 2010, Spanglerboy wrote:

    @ Yorkurbantree

    "This outcome provides something for everyone."

    Yes indeed. Those living in fuel poverty in the UK can look forward to lots of other people joining their club.

    Complain about this comment

  • 13. At 2:11pm on 11 Dec 2010, Hugh Morley wrote:

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

  • 14. At 2:12pm on 11 Dec 2010, Peter317 wrote:

    Re #8:

    It would be even more sensible to use our massive supplies of low-grade coal to generate energy. That way, we'd produce loads of sulphate aerosols, which would have a cooling effect like they did from the '50s to the '70s, thus mitigating the effects of CO2. This would save us for the next few decades while new technologies are developed, and when we finally stop emitting CO2, atmospheric levels should drop rapidly, eliminating further need for the aerosols.
    The upside to this is that energy costs would remain affordable, and may even fall, and we would not have to redistribute large amounts of wealth to developing countries - leaving more money available to develop alternative energy sources.
    Also, if CAGW is proved to be false, we will then not have lost anything.
    The downside is that: a) the air won't be quite as clean as it could be, but we survived such conditions for decades in the past, and people in developing countries (and China) still live under such conditions, and b) we'll have acid rain once more. However, once we stop producing the aerosols, the forests will quickly recover - as they did before.

    Any takers?

    Complain about this comment

  • 15. At 2:42pm on 11 Dec 2010, MangoChutney wrote:

    @Hugh Morley #13

    It doesn't take a doctorate in earth sciences to know when something is intrinsically wrong

    /Mango

    Complain about this comment

  • 16. At 2:57pm on 11 Dec 2010, Shadorne wrote:

    Hugh Morley says:"The sheer scale of scientific ignorance in this comments page is, as usual, appalling. Unless you are literate in Earth sciences, keep your opinion to yourself, because it's worthless."

    Absolutely agree. Having a degree in Earth Science (Graduate Physics in Earth Sciences including Atmospheric Physics), I can confirm that catastrophic man-made global warming is entirely bogus. It is total nonsense lacking any credible concrete evidence. The scientific ignorance displayed by the UN IPCC, media, greens, politicians, many blogs and comments is indeed appalling.

    Complain about this comment

  • 17. At 3:04pm on 11 Dec 2010, BluesBerry wrote:

    The chihuahua that roared - love that title - Was it a roar heard around the world? Couldn't have been; I never heard it.
    If Copenhagen was the Great Dane that whimpered, Cancun has been the chihuahua that roared.
    Yes, Cancun has set up an almost global consensus on words (drawn up by developed countries in private sessions) that spell out a need to step up action to curb greenhouse gas emissions. So when do you think we can expect the United States to stop raising so many cattle and other meat products that eject all that methane into the atmosphere and polute clean waters?
    It "recognises that deep cuts in global greenhouse gas emissions are required according to science", and that countries should "take urgent action" to meet the goal of holding the increase in global temperatures below 2C, measured against pre-industrial times. Of course, the scientists have failed to meantion that this is not good enough, fast enough...If you want to know how I know this, just talk to Evo Morales and Pablo Solon, Bolivia.
    It establishes mechanisms for transferring funds from rich countries to poor and helping the poor to spend it well on climate protection; actually I trust the developing copuntries to spend it well more than I trust the developed countries to spend it well. Developed countries are too busy manufacturing for their military/industrial complexes.
    It sets out parameters for reducing emissions from deforestation and for transferring clean technology from the west to the rest...Excuse me? Exactly what has the west got to offer "the rest"? Is it the rest who deforest the land? Is it the rest who turn beautiful gulfs into oil sludge (e.g.Nigeria in its endles battle with Shell)?
    The US, the most guilty of proliferating the world with drones and white phosphorous and bombs that explode even long after they have been dropped, has partly achieved its main priorities - giving the World Bank first go at running the big new fund, and having some degree of international monitoring on China's emissions. What hypocracy!
    And Japan and Russia have been given a way to slide away from the Kyoto Protocol while maintaining the pledges they made around the Copenhagen summit. So, am I right in thinking that we now have nothing binding, no legally-binding obligations?
    The so-called agreement acknowledges the need for deeper and faster emission curbs, but no way, certainly no legally binding way, to achieve them - merely "urging" rich countries to do more.
    Eyes now turn to Durban in South Africa, where next year's summit will be held.
    Oh how befitting the great T.S. Elliot:
    The Hollow Men (1925) - a poem by T. S. Eliot.
    Note particularly: "Hollow Men".
    The final stanza is most applicable to the "action" of these "Hollow men":
    This is the way the world ends
    This is the way the world ends
    This is the way the world ends
    Not with a bang but a whimper.

    With Copenhagen's whimper, followed by Cancun's chihuahua roar.

    Complain about this comment

  • 18. At 3:08pm on 11 Dec 2010, Leedschris wrote:

    So, let me get this right. It's an agreement that all the rich countries need to cut emissions, but no countries agreed legal targets. And the news in this is.... what? What is the point of this costly climate change circus that goes on around the world? When will reality kick in and they realise that none of this apocalyptic nonsense is going to happen.

    What we have here is a situation in which the UK ALONE now has legal targets to cut CO2 emissions - an own goal that will have drastic effects on our economy. DeFRA itself has admitted that the additional burden of this nonsense will be several billions of pound per year to the UK and burden each of us with yet higher fuel bills. Given that the met office's own figures show on average 28,000 premature deaths in the UK from the cold each winter, burdening people with yet higher winter energy bills is a sick and cruel joke. Don't even get me started on the news of the 'green climate fund' - no wonder third world countries like this deal - it's yet more money being transferred from you and me to other countries. Scrap all this now and use the money to pay for free university education for everyone in the UK several times over.

    Meanwhile even if you believe in man made global warming this makes no difference - Chinese CO2 emissions have and will continue to rise and dwarf any reductions which might make. China INCREASES its emissions by the equivalent of total UK emissions every 18-24 months!

    We are in a madhouse.

    Complain about this comment

  • 19. At 3:41pm on 11 Dec 2010, dotconnect wrote:

    @Shadorne, #16

    // Having a degree in Earth Science (Graduate Physics in Earth Sciences
    // including Atmospheric Physics), I can confirm that catastrophic
    // man-made global warming is entirely bogus.


    Tell me, is your particular conclusion shared by the majority of scientists with the same or better qualifications than yourself? Do the majority of Earth Science/Atmospheric Physics grads agree with you that the idea of a significant man-made element to global warming is "entirely bogus"?

    • If so... that's a conspiracy of silence/censorship among the scientific community of quite unbelievable proportions, and I'm sure you'd have no trouble gathering everyone together and getting published, given the sheer weight of qualified opinion.

    • If not... then don't flatter yourself that you're "confirming" anything. You are simply stating what is just a personal and atypical (some might say "quirky") view.

    Complain about this comment

  • 20. At 3:42pm on 11 Dec 2010, Greenpa wrote:

    Richard- you realize, that all those dedicated, sincere people you met at the conference; the ones desperately trying to save our necks - will not read your blog and comments, because of the extremely high density of denialoons in the comments. It's just too painful, and wastes too much time- which is, of course, their goal.

    Yes, it's a big pain in the ass to clean them out. But well worth it. Over on the NYT, the Green Blogs folks just did successfully change their screening, and the result is fabulous- intelligent conversation. And no, they don't just outlaw denial; the occasional sincere but confused person is still permitted access.

    It matters. I hope you can make this forum useful. Your articles are excellent; but the comment space is a complete waste.

    Complain about this comment

  • 21. At 3:44pm on 11 Dec 2010, JaneBasingstoke wrote:

    The chihuahau that roared? LOL

    For those not au fait with the career of Peter Sellers
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p7L7WLFBYR4

    Complain about this comment

  • 22. At 3:45pm on 11 Dec 2010, papyrus wrote:

    It is so incredibly tiring to read these comments. I feel real temptation to summarise the AGW evidence again, but there is no point. It has been done thousands of times. Those in denial are not interested in reason.

    If anyone wants to know the facts, they should go and read about them, but by no account believe any random comments. Wikipedia is a good place to start, and follow the references within.

    Those who are not interested in reason should go and form a deniers' religion.

    Complain about this comment

  • 23. At 3:49pm on 11 Dec 2010, skywatcher1 wrote:

    I am glad to hear there was an agreement, though I'm concerned that in the short term little will be done to implement the goals.

    Shadorne, I find it hard to believe you have the qualifications you suggest, because your posts demonstrate utter illiteracy in atmospheric physics, and clearly you have not comprehended the papers showing AGW effects such as warming troposphere/cooling stratosphere, rising tropopause, increased downward longwave radiation, or reducing outgoing longwave radiation (all distinct fingerprint signatures of rising CO2 warming the atmosphere, not solar or other processes). This is atmospheric physics that has been understood for between 50 and 150 years, and is now directly observed, not just predicted by established theory or modelled. As for the rubbish about negative cloud feedbacks... quite how do you propose we have just had 2 million years of ice ages, if negative feedbacks dampen down climate sensitivity. It is simply not possible, as the climate forcing for teh ice ages (Milankovitch orbital variations) is much too small to drive ice ages without the CO2 positive feedback?

    Of course it's all a grand conspiracy between thousands of professional climate scientists and every major professional academic body (Royal Society, NAS and their equivalents) worldwide. We've just had the hottest November globally on record by the way, despite a mature La Nina and record low solar activity, so quite how did that happen? Answers on a postcard please! Clue: the IMBY snow didn't cover the world...

    Complain about this comment

  • 24. At 3:57pm on 11 Dec 2010, PAWB46 wrote:

    So they've agreed to transfer some of my hard-earned money to third-world dictators. Sounds typical to me. Thieving and lying b******s.

    Complain about this comment

  • 25. At 3:59pm on 11 Dec 2010, rossglory wrote:

    #15 mangochutneyuk

    "It doesn't take a doctorate in earth sciences to know when something is intrinsically wrong"

    maybe, be it certainly cant be called a scientific point of view

    Complain about this comment

  • 26. At 3:59pm on 11 Dec 2010, PAWB46 wrote:

    Shadorne: As one literate in a hard science (physics), I agree with you.

    Complain about this comment

  • 27. At 4:01pm on 11 Dec 2010, PAWB46 wrote:

    Shadorne: I note that skywatcher1 doesn't realise that physics has move on in the last 50 to 150 years.

    Complain about this comment

  • 28. At 4:20pm on 11 Dec 2010, Lamna nasus wrote:

    Climate Contrarians have no robust scientific evidence that anthropogenic forcings do not and cannot effect Climate.. what they have instead is a political echo chamber turned up to 11...

    Complain about this comment

  • 29. At 4:35pm on 11 Dec 2010, PAWB46 wrote:

    Climate alarmists have no robust scientific evidence that anthropogenic forcings affect [not effect] climate.. what they have instead is a political echo chamber turned up to 11...

    Complain about this comment

  • 30. At 4:36pm on 11 Dec 2010, Lamna nasus wrote:

    @27 PAWB46
    'I note that skywatcher1 doesn't realise that physics has move on in the last 50 to 150 years.'


    Perhaps you should address the points raised in skywatcher1's extremely concise post, rather than implying you know better on the basis of exactly zero evidence?...

    Do please expand on how physics has evolved to support the climate contrarian propaganda and naturally cite the authoritative papers published that support your claim.

    Complain about this comment

  • 31. At 4:40pm on 11 Dec 2010, davegee wrote:

    11. At 1:46pm on 11 Dec 2010, Robert Leather wrote:

    Richard, you must be over the moon. Because the NASA Goddard Space Center has convincing proof that doubling CO2 will only result in 1.64c warming, 0.3c LOWER over land.

    The paper in question is interesting and a press release describing it is on the Nasa Goddard Space Centre web site URL:http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/home/index.html.The lead author Lahouari Bounoua says he hopes the paper will show how plant growth with increasing CO2 levels will create a negative feedback not previously taken into account in many climate models. He is quoted as saying the "This feedback slows but does not alleviate the projected warming". So an important step in the quest to get increased accuracy in climate forecasts.

    Complain about this comment

  • 32. At 4:47pm on 11 Dec 2010, Shadorne wrote:

    Papyrus says: "If anyone wants to know the facts, they should go and read about them, but by no account believe any random comments. Wikipedia is a good place to start, and follow the references within."

    Wikipedia is most certainly not a good reference - the climate science section had been totally corrupted by William Connolley, who has been banned from editing Wikipedia for repeatedly subverting Wikipedia with the unscientific propaganda of man-made catastrophic warming. I'd start with a basic textbook like An Introduction to Atmospheric Radiation" by Liou. Richard Lindzen has some credible work.

    CO2 is a greenhouse gas - nobody credible would deny it - but all evidence suggests that additions are having a negligible effect at current concentrations.

    Complain about this comment

  • 33. At 5:02pm on 11 Dec 2010, quake wrote:

    "CO2 is a greenhouse gas - nobody credible would deny it - but all evidence suggests that additions are having a negligible effect at current concentrations."

    The evidence suggests about 3C warming per doubling at current concentrations.

    Complain about this comment

  • 34. At 5:04pm on 11 Dec 2010, Lamna nasus wrote:

    @29 PAWB46
    'Climate alarmists have no robust scientific evidence that anthropogenic forcings affect climate..'


    On the contrary -

    'Climate change: a summary of the science...

    ..The document was prepared by a working group chaired by Professor John Pethica, Vice President of the Royal Society and was approved by the Royal Society Council.'

    http://royalsociety.org/climate-change-summary-of-science/


    ..then we can progress to the thousands of reputable scientific studies that it is based on.

    In contrast what have you got?..

    Complain about this comment

  • 35. At 5:36pm on 11 Dec 2010, reflector2 wrote:

    To all these ‘literate’ people commenting on their personal degrees, well done chaps.
    However, the word is sustainability is it not? CO2 and methane will be a factor in future climate change and global warming, just as you clever chap’s will be in producing more and more, growing more and more for an exponentially expanding population.

    The problem is. The Earth will still be the same size!

    According to you lot there is nothing to worry about and everything is tickerty boo!

    From my perspective, something is going to give, and it is not superfluous opinions is it?

    And as for this agreement to agree;

    [It "recognises that deep cuts in global greenhouse gas emissions are required according to science", and that countries should "take urgent action" to meet the goal of holding the increase in global temperatures below 2C, measured against pre-industrial times.]

    Is just two steps back and one step forward.

    Or, ten years back! As i seem to remember all this hot air in the first Kyoto accord write up!!


    Cuger Brant would turn in his grave!

    Complain about this comment

  • 36. At 5:37pm on 11 Dec 2010, PAWB46 wrote:

    Nullius in verba.

    Evidence is what I have. Not pal-reviewed papers full of BS.

    Complain about this comment

  • 37. At 5:52pm on 11 Dec 2010, Jack Hughes wrote:

    This was never about "climate". Its always been about money and power.

    Complain about this comment

  • 38. At 6:00pm on 11 Dec 2010, reflector2 wrote:

    36. At 5:37pm on 11 Dec 2010, PAWB46 wrote:
    Nullius in verba.

    Evidence is what I have. Not pal-reviewed papers full of BS.

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

    With respect, doesn't everyone?
    It is just how you like to percieve it?
    Also, (with great respect) is not your little motto a bit of a paradox for you?





    Nullius addictus iurare in verba magistri

    Complain about this comment

  • 39. At 6:22pm on 11 Dec 2010, Cariboo wrote:

    @33 quake

    The evidence suggests about 3C warming per doubling at current concentrations.

    Evidence suggests? If it only suggests then it is not evidence.

    Complain about this comment

  • 40. At 6:32pm on 11 Dec 2010, bandythebane wrote:

    Lamna-nasus must surely be aware that the Royal Society for all its wonderful history is now sadly reduced. Under Martin Rees it moved away from excellence in science and into political advocacy.

    It mindlessly supported the Muir Russell whitewash of Phil Jones and his CRU cronies and now has approximately the same credibility as do they.

    Rees's successor I understand is trying to row back from this former extreme position but sadly the damage has already been done and it will take a long time for its reputation to recover.

    Complain about this comment

  • 41. At 6:41pm on 11 Dec 2010, CChaplin wrote:

    Peter317 @14. Coal is more widespread and might be around for a good deal more than oil and gas. As you say acid rain would be a problem but technology is available to clean up exhausts from coal fired power stations which would cancel out any benefit from the sulphate aerosols!

    Complain about this comment

  • 42. At 6:49pm on 11 Dec 2010, papyrus wrote:

    Of course if I quote Wikipedia then #32 Shadorne tries to discredit it by attacking one of its editors, and if #34 Lamna_nasus quotes the Royal Society, then #40 bandythebane will try to discredit the Royal Society. Anyone who does not agree with the deniers must be wrong!

    You could say that the AGW 'advocates' follow the same route. Sometimes they might. So the way to decide who is right would be to agree on a valid source, and then check what it says.

    The IPCC was supposed to be such a source.
    The Royal Society, the highest learned body in the UK could be such a source.
    The majority of scientists who work on this could be such a source.
    Obviously you don't accept these as they do not agree with you.

    So what source would you suggest that is acceptable to the majority?

    Complain about this comment

  • 43. At 6:53pm on 11 Dec 2010, 1european wrote:

    #36 PAWB46: "Evidence is what I have. Not pal-reviewed papers full of BS."

    Well, this is just GREAT: so peer review is just "BS", for The True Science is done by Lone Geniuses who are too great to be understood by the poor "folks" who review the papers... and PAWB46 is obviously one of those, too Great to submit his or her Great Ideas to the peer review "BS"!

    Well, the guys behind homeopathy, cold fusion, human cloning, ID and many others, were all in that Genius Club... and were in the end all debunked as total nonsense by peer review.
    On the other hand, stunningly, even Einstein with his VERY WEIRD ideas (for his time) did make it through peer review - strange, isn't it?

    People afraid of peer review are simply conscious that their stuff is rubbish - and obviously, they brand peer review as the "BS" that forbids them from being recognized for what they THINK they are, namely the Lone Geniuses nobody else is able to understand.

    Well, loonies sure are aplenty in this world.

    Complain about this comment

  • 44. At 6:55pm on 11 Dec 2010, PAWB46 wrote:

    The Royal Society is reliant for over 2/3 of its income on government grants. It therefore produces reports confirming what the government wants to hear.

    Complain about this comment

  • 45. At 7:21pm on 11 Dec 2010, John_from_Hendon wrote:

    A quick glance through the 44 posts above shows me that the AGW by CO2 lobby has failed to impress yet again. Although my Doctorate is not in Earth Science (it didn't exist!) as a Physicist I remain unimpressed by AGW by CO2 and it looks like the scientifically considered view that I hold has gained substantial support. We can't expect those whose jobs and whole careers are dependent on the false CO2 hypothesis to ever change their minds but the facts and events will smother them, but they will probably take their erroneous ideas to the grave.

    The main positive outcome that I see as coming from Cancun is the move towards amelioration of the effects of a variable climate. (Albeit still wasting billions/million/a few dollars on the false CO2 hypothesis.)

    Complain about this comment

  • 46. At 7:22pm on 11 Dec 2010, Cariboo wrote:

    @42 papyrus

    Anyone who does not agree with the deniers must be wrong!

    If you are an AGW atheist, absolutely but then pro AGW crowd think that deniers are 3 bricks short of a load.


    The IPCC was supposed to be such a source.

    The UN is supposed to be a lot of things but I think it has been usurped and has become somewhat of a wart. Cut of the funding for the UN.

    The Royal Society, the highest learned body in the UK could be such a source.

    See @40 bandythebane

    The majority of scientists who work on this could be such a source.

    For the most part AGW advocacy is required to get funding grants.

    Obviously you don't accept these as they do not agree with you.

    There is nothing wrong with your comprehension.

    So what source would you suggest that is acceptable to the majority?

    It is not a case of acceptability but rather who do each of us find credible. The majority of us are more interested in the offal that passes for TV programming. Only a few are interested enough the read this blog.

    Complain about this comment

  • 47. At 7:37pm on 11 Dec 2010, CanadianRockies wrote:

    Here's some of the tricks they used to fake data to produce the'hottest' year before the year ended but just in time for Cancun. But I guess the gang will argue that it is OK to use fraud fror their cause:

    http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2010/12/11/giss-temperatures-out-of-line-with-the-rest-of-the-world/

    http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2010/12/11/compare-giss-to-rss/

    http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2010/12/11/hansen-says-the-cold-is-localized-in-europe/

    http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2010/12/11/hansen-says-november-is-as-warm-as-april/

    Complain about this comment

  • 48. At 7:45pm on 11 Dec 2010, CanadianRockies wrote:

    #43. 1european wrote:

    "Well, this is just GREAT: so peer review is just "BS"..."

    The value and quality of any peer review process depends ENTIRELY on the knowledge and objectivity of the 'peers' chosen to do it.

    When those peers are not objective it produces whatever they want. Given that so many people trained in science are now advocates masquerading as scientists this is a major problem in some fields now, particularly anything to do with the environment and especially the lucrative gravy train available to AGW advocating 'scientists.'

    This truth is self evident in the simple fact that the so-called peer review by the AGW herd missed so many blatant errors while people like our Canadian hero McIntyre found them.

    Complain about this comment

  • 49. At 7:47pm on 11 Dec 2010, CanadianRockies wrote:

    #36. PAWB46 wrote:

    "pal-reviewed papers"

    Perfect term!

    Yes, you review mine and I'll review yours, and then we'll all get funding for our pet projects and go to nice conferences.

    Complain about this comment

  • 50. At 7:59pm on 11 Dec 2010, CanadianRockies wrote:

    "If Copenhagen was the Great Dane that whimpered, Cancun has been the chihuahua that roared."

    Actually Copenhagen was a pack of green poodles barking fro scraps that finally ran off with their tails between their legs.

    One could call Cancun "the chihuahua that roared" because the yapping of those tiny rat-like dogs does fit the result.

    Complain about this comment

  • 51. At 7:59pm on 11 Dec 2010, Richard Drake wrote:

    At 6:53pm, 1european wrote:

    "On the other hand, stunningly, even Einstein with his VERY WEIRD ideas (for his time) did make it through peer review - strange, isn't it?"

    No, what's strange is that you make arguments when you know so little of the history of science. None of Einstein's breakthrough papers in 1905 - on black body radiation (which laid the foundation of quantum mechanics), on Special Relativity and on brownian motion were peer reviewed. They were published by editors of journals who thought they might have worth. Likewise his paper in 1915 on General Relativity.

    Peer review is a very recent phenomenon. Useful maybe - but in the internet age I doubt it. All the great scientists did without it before the 20th century. The key thing is the scientific method, particularly reproducibility - an area where many so-called findings of climate science seem strangely lacking.

    For instance, did you notice that when Phil Jones of the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia was questioned by MPs in March he admitted that no peer reviewer had ever asked for his data, so that they could reproduce his results. Only when people like Steve McIntyre started asking Jones and Michael Mann (originator of the notorious hockey stick) for their data and program code did the holes appear in that part of the peer reviewed science, leading on to Climategate. The General Circulation Models on which predictions of doom are said to be based are even worse.

    What's very strange is to be told that the 'time for debate is over' when such holes are there for any discerning person to see. I agree with Shadorne that Richard Lindzen is one of the few reliable guides through the minefield. Another honest climate scientist is Judith Curry. Neither of them would say the debate is over - far from it. Google their names and be prepared to learn.

    The extent of propaganda saying we have no time left, we must act, should be a warning to all. Such arguments were used by Hitler after the Reichstag fire (which the Nazis may well have started themselves) - before declaring himself dictator of Germany, in effect suspending the old constitution and democracy. It was a national emergency - there was no time to debate. Such gross manipulation has been used by every tyrant in history. I for one refuse to be cowed.

    Complain about this comment

  • 52. At 8:14pm on 11 Dec 2010, CanadianRockies wrote:

    Now, in the spirit of Cancun, I look forward to a report on the CO2 costs of Richard's trip to Cancun, including an accounting of who he paid his carbon offsets to and how those carbon offset payments are actually used.

    It would make an excellent blog topic.

    Complain about this comment

  • 53. At 8:38pm on 11 Dec 2010, nb wrote:

    You Can Con all the people of this World which has been done since 1946 and the Deforestation,destroying the Arctic Ice,use of fossil fuel in destroying the Atmosphere and Global Environment with greehouse gases emitted and polluted the atmosphere by China,USA,EU,Japan,Russia,India,Canada,Australia etc and the Whole World since 1946 is the present Climate Change and Global Warming.The weakest and
    Vulnerable poor population will be the victims of Climate Change and Global
    Warming like rise of sea levels and flooding low lying areas in the World especially coastal areas of South Asia and the World.If sincere action action is taken against reducing GHG emissions considerably and Deforestation in Brazil,Indonesia,Saving Arctic Ice and Glaciers Worldwide and protecting Animals and Wild life etc we can still save our global environment which is our best defence to the Global Warming and Climate Change caused by Excessive Human Exploitation of petroleum and minerals,deforestation and animals since 1946.

    Complain about this comment

  • 54. At 8:57pm on 11 Dec 2010, CChaplin wrote:

    Richard Drake @51 ‘The key thing is the scientific method, particularly reproducibility - an area where many so-called findings of climate science seem strangely lacking.’
    My science knowledge is limited but even I know that to reproduce the conditions in the atmosphere on a lab scale with the infinite number of variables is impossible. As far as interpretation of data is concerned we know it is rare to get absolutely perfect relationships and for any set of data you will have variations and if the scientist can explain these then he has proved his hypothesis. The emphasis is on ‘interpretation’ of the data-one needs certain level of understanding to arrive at the correct conclusion. For me the fact that you have rise in greenhouse gas concentration in the atmosphere which is an enclosed system is enough proof that heat will be retained in the atmosphere leading to global warming.

    Complain about this comment

  • 55. At 8:59pm on 11 Dec 2010, quake wrote:

    "We can't expect those whose jobs and whole careers are dependent on the false CO2 hypothesis to ever change their minds but the facts and events will smother them, but they will probably take their erroneous ideas to the grave."

    That's the same argument creationists use to explain why so many Biologists accept the theory of evolution.

    "Not pal-reviewed papers full of BS"

    And that's another argument creationists use.

    Sorry but these are just general science-denial tricks. Meaningless silly excuses to ignore what the output of the world's leading scientific institutes are saying.

    And then after dismissing national academies of science they will quote steve goddards blog.

    Priceless.

    Complain about this comment

  • 56. At 9:04pm on 11 Dec 2010, Cariboo wrote:

    @52 CanadianRockies

    Now, in the spirit of Cancun, I look forward to a report on the CO2 costs of Richard's trip to Cancun, including an accounting of who he paid his carbon offsets to and how those carbon offset payments are actually used.

    It would make an excellent blog topic.


    Character assassination is no fair.

    Complain about this comment

  • 57. At 9:07pm on 11 Dec 2010, Cariboo wrote:

    @53 nb

    Global Warming and Climate Change caused by Excessive Human Exploitation of petroleum and minerals,deforestation and animals since 1946

    Then stop consuming, put your money where your mouth is.

    Complain about this comment

  • 58. At 9:08pm on 11 Dec 2010, quake wrote:

    Re 51: "For instance, did you notice that when Phil Jones of the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia was questioned by MPs in March he admitted that no peer reviewer had ever asked for his data, so that they could reproduce his results."

    That's not what peer review is for. Peer review is to validate the reasoning, not to double check the working. That's a job for other researchers in seperate studies.

    And we now know noone actually needed Phil Jones data to reproduce the results. NASA and NOAA had already done it.

    Complain about this comment

  • 59. At 9:24pm on 11 Dec 2010, PAWB46 wrote:

    John_from_Hendon at 7:21pm on 11 Dec 2010:

    "A quick glance through the 44 posts above shows me that the AGW by CO2 lobby has failed to impress yet again. Although my Doctorate is not in Earth Science (it didn't exist!) as a Physicist I remain unimpressed by AGW by CO2 and it looks like the scientifically considered view that I hold has gained substantial support. We can't expect those whose jobs and whole careers are dependent on the false CO2 hypothesis to ever change their minds but the facts and events will smother them, but they will probably take their erroneous ideas to the grave."

    As another physicist whose doctorate is not in Earth Science (which didn't exist in my day), I agree with you entirely. It's strange how physicists, who understand the physical behaviour of the climate, seem to disagree with the likes of Jones, Briffa, Mann etc, who aren't proper scientists, but pass themselves off as climate experts. They are just tree-ring counters and data clerks.

    Complain about this comment

  • 60. At 9:24pm on 11 Dec 2010, Cariboo wrote:

    @58 quake

    That's not what peer review is for. Peer review is to validate the reasoning, not to double check the working. That's a job for other researchers in separate studies.

    Hockey stick!

    And we now know noone actually needed Phil Jones data to reproduce the results. NASA and NOAA had already done it.

    Circle the wagons!

    Complain about this comment

  • 61. At 10:05pm on 11 Dec 2010, GeoffWard wrote:

    BluesBerry wrote @ 17: “’If Copenhagen was the Great Dane that whimpered, Cancun has been the chihuahua that roared’. The chihuahua that roared - love that title - Was it a roar heard around the world? Couldn't have been; I never heard it.

    ’This is the way the world ends, this is the way the world ends, this is the way the world ends: - not with a bang but a whimper’. [from The Hollow Men (1925) - a poem by T. S. Eliot] …. With Copenhagen's whimper, followed by Cancun's Chihuahua-roar.”
    -----------------------------------------
    Hi, BluesBerry,
    Nice quote, but if the world ended at Copenhagen, would anybody hear the Chihuahua? ;)
    The real allusion is to the The Mouse That Roared (1955) by Leonard Wibberley. Apposite also to your posting, in the Cold War satire on politics and the condition of the world (especially the hegemonic role of the USA), the tiny imaginary European country Grand Fenwick is bankrupted by the US. GF declares war on the US - expecting to lose & hoping to rebuild a better economy via a Marshall Plan. GF ‘invades’ NY and accidentally wins by appropriating the prototype Doomsday Machine. With world survival now in the hands of the world’s smallest nation, things change! But before the nations of the world find out that the Doomsday Bomb is a dud, the ‘Tiny Twenty’ group (Big Three parody) becomes an aggregate of new ruling nations led by GF, and produce a (short-lived) New World Order. [Peter Sellers starred in the film version, heralding his greater ‘doomsday’ role in Doctor Strangelove (Or How I Learned To Love The Bomb).]
    However, Richard, the Chihuahua/Mouse allusion is poor for Cancun. The was no chance, there is no chance, and never could be any chance at all of The Maldives producing a New World Order of smaller nations to ameliorate atmospheric carbon, global temperature rise and the rise of sea-levels. The USA and China will do whatever they want, and will address their environmental ‘responsibility’ as a marginal activity and only inasmuch as it affords them economic opportunity and benefit.

    Complain about this comment

  • 62. At 10:23pm on 11 Dec 2010, quake wrote:

    "It's strange how physicists, who understand the physical behaviour of the climate, seem to disagree with the likes of Jones, Briffa, Mann etc"

    vs

    "We can't expect those whose jobs and whole careers are dependent on the false CO2 hypothesis to ever change their minds"

    So we are expected to believe both that physicists researching climate "disagree" and also that we can't expect them to disagree.

    Can anyone say contradiction?

    Why do these contradictions arise from skeptics? It's because their position is based on contrarianism and isn't based on a rational framework by which they could detect such contradictions before they accidentally make them.



    Complain about this comment

  • 63. At 10:27pm on 11 Dec 2010, GeoffWard wrote:

    PAWB46 59, & John_from_Hendon at 7:21pm, 11 Dec:
    "A quick glance through the 44 posts above shows me that the AGW by CO2 lobby has failed to impress yet again. Although my Doctorate is not in Earth Science (it didn't exist!) as a Physicist I remain unimpressed by AGW by CO2 ..."
    ........................
    Dear PAW & John,

    As a non-physicist, I am interested in the bits of *Physics* that cause you both to doubt AGW by CO2.
    Would you both be prepared to deploy your PhDs to good effect and show me where the *physics* of the argument(s) break down.

    I will (bravely) attempt to counter your counter-arguments.

    Geoff.

    Complain about this comment

  • 64. At 10:28pm on 11 Dec 2010, Cariboo wrote:

    @55 quake

    Sorry but these are just general science-denial tricks.

    As opposed to specific science-denial tricks. I am reminded of "Mikes nature trick".

    Complain about this comment

  • 65. At 10:30pm on 11 Dec 2010, Sparklet wrote:

    So we enslave our kids with debt but somehow find ourselves able to fund this nonsense.

    "In the short term, the Government’s own projection as to how much it will save is that the funding of university tuition will be cut by £2.9 billion by 2014. As it happens, £2.9 billion is the sum ring-fenced, by the same public spending review, to be given to developing countries to help them fight global warming with windmills and solar panels. It is also slightly less than the £3 billion by which our public debt is rising every week. These much-vaunted “cuts” are not all we are led to believe."

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/8196410/Student-fee-savings-will-fund-windmills-in-Africa.html

    And who can doubt "that much of the money will go straight into the bank accounts of corrupt third world leaders".

    For shame!

    Complain about this comment

  • 66. At 10:55pm on 11 Dec 2010, CanadianRockies wrote:

    #56. Cariboo wrote:

    "@52 CanadianRockies

    Now, in the spirit of Cancun, I look forward to a report on the CO2 costs of Richard's trip to Cancun, including an accounting of who he paid his carbon offsets to and how those carbon offset payments are actually used.

    It would make an excellent blog topic."

    Character assassination is no fair.

    -------

    Why would that be "character assassination"? I think it would be an excellent opportunity for Richard to demonstrate his commitment to the cause he is promoting. It would also be useful specific information on a number of levels and provide the basis of a good discussion.

    Complain about this comment

  • 67. At 11:07pm on 11 Dec 2010, CanadianRockies wrote:

    #55. quake

    "And then after dismissing national academies of science they will quote steve goddards blog."

    Quake, your blind and slavish reverence for authority figures would make you a perfect serf in the Middle Ages. You have the same mindset that desperately sought to dismiss the work of McIntyre et al because the AGW establishment told to you to, and you would probably have burned any books they told you to too. But people who still are capable of thinking for themselves know better than that.

    So you want to dismiss this article that Goddard compiled because... why? All he did was simply compare the various temperature records and, what do you know, the one created by your hero Hansen is a striking anomaly that conveniently supports Hansen's statements that this would be the hottest year.

    http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2010/12/11/giss-temperatures-out-of-line-with-the-rest-of-the-world/

    So, since you pretend to be all about 'science,' and thus rational thought, how would you explain that? I for one would certainly love to hear your critique of his methods or the results, or any logical explanation of what he found. Please, peer review it.







    Complain about this comment

  • 68. At 11:11pm on 11 Dec 2010, CanadianRockies wrote:

    #62. quake wrote:

    "It's strange how physicists, who understand the physical behaviour of the climate, seem to disagree with the likes of Jones, Briffa, Mann etc"

    vs

    "We can't expect those whose jobs and whole careers are dependent on the false CO2 hypothesis to ever change their minds"

    So we are expected to believe both that physicists researching climate "disagree" and also that we can't expect them to disagree.

    Can anyone say contradiction?

    --------

    Can anyone say duh. They physicists rarely if at all depend on the promotion of the AGW crisis for their funding, while Jones et al do.

    Not even a good try.


    Complain about this comment

  • 69. At 11:18pm on 11 Dec 2010, Cariboo wrote:

    @66 CanadianRockies

    #56. Cariboo wrote:

    "@52 CanadianRockies

    Why would that be "character assassination"? I think it would be an excellent opportunity for Richard to demonstrate his commitment to the cause he is promoting. It would also be useful specific information on a number of levels and provide the basis of a good discussion.

    Well it would along the lines of expecting Bill Clinton to get on TV and fess up to dirty deeds done with Monica.

    It would be a self inflicted injury, self assassination. Now if someone else spills the beans, that is another ballgame.

    Complain about this comment

  • 70. At 11:57pm on 11 Dec 2010, Cariboo wrote:

    @62. quake wrote:

    It's strange how physicists, who understand the physical behaviour of the climate, seem to disagree with the likes of Jones, Briffa, Mann etc.

    Understanding thermal dynamics has a lot to do with it. Check it out understand it and you too will question AGW.

    Complain about this comment

  • 71. At 00:52am on 12 Dec 2010, David from San Diego wrote:

    QUOTE: It establishes mechanisms for transferring funds from rich countries to poor and helping them to spend it well on climate protection ... END QUOTE. So, how much is solvent China going to send to the bankrupt U.S. and U.K., and when will we get the money? Will wealthy Saudi Arabia also be paying us money?

    Complain about this comment

  • 72. At 00:57am on 12 Dec 2010, Klaus Keunecke wrote:

    Why do the citizens of so many countries continue to send their elected or self-appointed government officials to an annual 'Fine Dining Event' in an 'Exotic Location' where nothing is accomplished that improves the natural environment of Planet Earth NOW...Because they give us hope - they give us that fuzzy warm feeling - they promise us great things for 2020 and 2050 when none of them will be around to be held accountable - they see to it that our tax-dollars are spent so that next year's budget will provide for more of the same...

    Enviroklaus

    Complain about this comment

  • 73. At 00:57am on 12 Dec 2010, b5happy wrote:


    I will say this meekly...

    I think it is fair to put forth this analogy:

    When Man landed on the Moon there was and still

    is a large group of individuals who deny flat out

    that it really happened. With circles and arrows

    they rail against it... I know a person who is

    smart and designs small aircraft which he flies.

    This person states that no way could the astronauts

    in the 1960's go into space with such slim space suits.

    I don't know what kind of outcome to expect...

    I will put my money on the side that feels, through

    their studies Man is placing a burden upon our

    environment that needs some attention.

    Complain about this comment

  • 74. At 00:58am on 12 Dec 2010, andrew9999 wrote:


    All you physicists on here Steve Goddard needs your help

    http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2010/12/11/hansen-says-november-is-as-warm-as-april/

    Bless him, poor Steve doesn't seem to understand the concept of anomaly, because November's anomaly was similar to April's, Steve thinks that means they were the same temperature. The monthly anomaly is the difference between that months average temperature and the long term average for THAT month.

    Steve likes Feynman because he quoted him on his site, maybe one of you on here could send him a copy of Feynman Lectures on Physics, because he so wants to do equations but he doesn't really know how, here's what happen last time
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/08/venus-envy/
    "If there were no Sun (or other external energy source) atmospheric temperature would approach absolute zero. As a result there would be almost no atmospheric pressure on any planet -> PV = nRT." Steve Goddard

    Oh dear, send your copies or write and tell poor Steve that atmospheric pressure is caused by the mass of air and the force of gravity which doesn't change with temperature, but maybe it does over at wuwt.

    Bless him, he does try hard.

    Complain about this comment

  • 75. At 01:48am on 12 Dec 2010, CanadianRockies wrote:

    #74. andrew9999

    That's very interesting. Now, how about your critique of this much more significant article:

    http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2010/12/11/giss-temperatures-out-of-line-with-the-rest-of-the-world/

    Complain about this comment

  • 76. At 01:53am on 12 Dec 2010, asherpat wrote:

    I do not wish to offend Richard Black, but the headline and the content of this post reads like wishful thinking at the best and propaganda to save the momentum behind the AGW band-wagon from fizzling.
    This was another lame conference of a lame-duck cause, and anyone who's unbiased will see it, all the more when cheerleaders try to put a lipsitck on a pig that it was. Nothing committal, NOTHING, came out of it, yet Richard Black calls is a "roar". Pity wishful thinking.
    The delegates confirmed that they still consider what Richard Lindzen aptly described in his WSJ article after Copenhagen: transfer money from poor people in the developed countries, to the Swiss accounts of rich people in poor countries.
    The whole point of the watermelon (green on the inside, red to the core) environmentalists movement is to make the rich into poor. It was admitted many times, but there are naive, even if well meaning souls that dont see it.
    Despite the unmasking of this shameful movement (ClimateGate, etc) and despite 15 years of no warming trend, despite inability of their pitiful models to replicate the past, let alone forecast the future, the battle is not won yet, unfortunately.
    Finally, this is an issue which, as anyone reading these comments will agree is of political controversy. In such case, I wonder if the positio of Richard Black which he will no doubt agree is biased towards one side of the political controversy, is consistent with the BBC rules.

    Complain about this comment

  • 77. At 02:37am on 12 Dec 2010, Tony wrote:

    "The evidence suggests about 3C warming per doubling at current concentrations."

    There is no evidence, but there are computer models that suggest this will happen some hundred years from now. Computer models similar to the one that can't predict a 100-year cold winter in Northern Europe just 2 months before it happens.

    The computer modellers themselves admit that their models don't handle water vapour feedback well. FYI water vapour here refers to clouds. Those things that represent 90+ percent of all greenhouse gas effects.

    Complain about this comment

  • 78. At 02:59am on 12 Dec 2010, RobWansbeck wrote:

    @74, andrew9999 wrote:

    “ All you physicists on here Steve Goddard needs your help

    http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2010/12/11/hansen-says-november-is-as-warm-as-april/

    Bless him, poor Steve doesn't seem to understand the concept of anomaly, because November's anomaly was similar to April's, Steve thinks that means they were the same temperature. The monthly anomaly is the difference between that months average temperature and the long term average for THAT month. “

    'Poor Steve' was speaking of anomalies, this is how warm or cold is described in climate terms.

    Complain about this comment

  • 79. At 03:10am on 12 Dec 2010, Peter317 wrote:

    Re #74:

    "Bless him, poor Steve doesn't seem to understand the concept of anomaly, because November's anomaly was similar to April's, Steve thinks that means they were the same temperature."

    Only in your fevered imagination. Read his article again until you understand it.

    Complain about this comment

  • 80. At 03:14am on 12 Dec 2010, Peter317 wrote:

    Re #73:

    Don't confuse strawman with spaceman

    Complain about this comment

  • 81. At 04:11am on 12 Dec 2010, skywatcher1 wrote:

    Tony, you fail miserably on the 'it's all models' fallacy (it's not, see Knutti and Hegerl 2008), and on the classic 'we can't forecast weather so therefore we can't forecast climate' fallacy (boundary conditions). As for your last paragraph, maybe you should learn about feedbacks versus forcings (hint - water vapour is a feedback, CO2 is a forcing at present).

    "steven goddard" has registered an epic fail on every subject he has ever written about, from the atmosphere of Venus to Arctic sea ice and Antarctic land ice. He has so little clue about the mechanics of the climate system that even extreme AGW skeptics should be embarassed to quote him.

    Complain about this comment

  • 82. At 05:01am on 12 Dec 2010, Steven wrote:

    Is Carbon dioxide a greenhouse gas? End of debate.

    The problem with these summits is that we are not negotiating with the right party. The problem is mother nature doesn't negotiate it dictates.

    There are to many variables for the scientific community to be accurate.

    You can now add this Quote from Science Daily to the long list of variables. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/03/100304142240.htm

    The East Siberian Arctic Shelf, long thought to be an impermeable barrier sealing in methane, is perforated and is leaking large amounts of methane into the atmosphere. Release of even a fraction of the methane stored in the shelf could trigger abrupt climate warming.

    Mother nature doesn't take bribes.

    Complain about this comment

  • 83. At 07:51am on 12 Dec 2010, asherpat wrote:

    @82 Steven,
    pls stop babbling about "mother nature" and throw around scientifically menaningless speculations. and stop "end-of-debating", this point is what brough me to question the whole AGW shambles. I was a happy and ingnorant bystander, until I saw the Prius-driving celeb Leo di-(Ford)-Capri introduce the ManBearPig himself to the adulating masses on the massive global satellite "save the world" or something "do". The Prius driver introduced his fellow umpteen-rooms mansion owner by "The debate is over", I will never forget that scene...That was when I reached for the PC and had a look at some other opinions, and it became clear to me, that this is just another ploy of the recently debunked social ideology called Communism - whoever controls CO2 emissions, controls the modern economy.
    But to the point - apart from the dramatic but laughable Gaia/Mother Earth jibes, can you back the methane-release argument by facts or is it just another the-sky-will-fall-from-something skare stories? Thought so, there are no facts to support the methane theory, but it looks good. Just like the explanation that it is cold in recent years because of the Global Warming (choose ur LoL theory - either the Gulf Stream slowing, the Greenland ice melt diluting the North Sea or the particles from China coal stations blocking the sun, anything goes!)
    Although the battle against neo-communists is not won yet, by any means, people are not stupid and ClimateGate opened the eyes of so many. In the end, freedom or human spririt will prevail, I just hope it will not take 70 years like in the case of the Soviet Union.

    Complain about this comment

  • 84. At 08:10am on 12 Dec 2010, PAWB46 wrote:

    Geoffward

    "As a non-physicist, I am interested in the bits of *Physics* that cause you both to doubt AGW by CO2."

    As you are not a physicist, I can understand your interest. If you had been educated under the tutillage of Richard Feynman, you would understand and wouldn't need to ask further. I suggest you go read his words of wisdom.

    Complain about this comment

  • 85. At 10:19am on 12 Dec 2010, MangoChutney wrote:

    @Richard

    Richard

    It seems Judith Curry is questioning one of the few items agreed between AGWer's and sceptics. This could have a direct affect on Cancun:

    http://judithcurry.com/2010/12/11/co2-no-feedback-sensitivity/

    CO2 doubling does not equal 1C

    /Mango

    Complain about this comment

  • 86. At 10:21am on 12 Dec 2010, Daragon wrote:

    Good Morning,

    I do applaud the effort, the dialog and consensus that can be established in small groups, and the result.

    Unfortunately, my country Canada brought very little to the table.

    * * *
    Bill C-311, the Climate Change Accountability Act, was introduced by Bruce Hyer, a New Democrat who represents Thunder Bay-Superior North in the House of Commons

    Bill C-311 was overwhelmingly supported by and passed in the elected House of Commons, thanks in part to the support of Canadians from across the country.

    Bill C-311 makes the Canadian government accountable for putting in place the solutions to reduce global warming emissions to safe levels – in line with targets that leading scientists say are necessary to avoid the devastating consequences of uncontrolled climate change.

    Prime Minister Stephen Harper has done what he promised never to do: allow the Senate to go against the will of the majority of our elected Members of Parliament and the Canadian public. On 2010 November 16, after a surprise vote and without any debate, unelected-and-appointed Conservative senators killed the Climate Change Accountability Act.
    (confirmation available)

    * * *

    Some good news:

    1. My company that I work for here in the south of France recently sold my division at a huge profit. Why? My company discovered a process to develop nuclear energy wih no radioactive waste. My company needed the cash from the sale to build a prototype nuclear plant. (confirmation requested)

    2. A German company found a way to build an array of solar collectors in North Africa that will provide all the electrical needs of Europe. The problem was how to transmit the electricity from North Africa to Europe. The German company found the solution and started to build the array. (confirmation requested)

    3. Israel has a target of no petrol pumps in the country by 2020.

    * * *
    Any country that falls down on a commitment to help the world with our collective responsibility to future generations to combat global warming will miss the market opportunities for these emerging technologies.

    Cordialement,
    Daragon
    Montpellier, France

    Complain about this comment

  • 87. At 10:37am on 12 Dec 2010, andrew9999 wrote:

    @peter317 robwansbeck

    Peter and rob, if Steve Goddard understands anomalies why is he comparing Aprils with Novembers it makes no sense, a month can have lower average temperatures than one month but a higher anomaly, I'm sure you understand how.

    Complain about this comment

  • 88. At 10:37am on 12 Dec 2010, sensiblegrannie wrote:

    Cancun is useful, whatever your environmental-religious persuasion. What the world needs right now is a joined up belief in something. Environmental change fulfills that belief-need and will hopefully, aid the balancing out of finances around the world. At present, the world needs product manufacture to drive the economies and there appears to be a terrific imbalance. Many of the products produced have been resource hungry, worthless trinkets, which people no longer want. How much better to invest in something more altruistic like 'saving the planet.'

    I can see many green industries developing and thriving around the world bringing in their wake, new opportunities for employment. The key goal should be provision of meaningful employment for the world population. You don't have to look far to see what happens when a country has minimal infrastructure and minimal paid employment.

    Ask yourself, if you were poor, what would you rather be doing to earn money to live and what work would give you the best feeling of doing something worthwhile? What accessible opportunities are there right now? Perhaps some of you here who live in ivory towers should investigate current employment opportunities alongside reading graphs.

    Just a thoughts from granny. x

    Complain about this comment

  • 89. At 10:41am on 12 Dec 2010, bowmanthebard wrote:

    GeoffWard #63 wrote:

    As a non-physicist, I am interested in the bits of *Physics* that cause you both to doubt AGW by CO2.

    I'm not a physicist either, but I think an honest question deserves an honest answer. It's often good to go over old ground again as any of us might see something new. Here is a simple-minded answer:

    I completely accept the greenhouse effect and that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. But the proportion of CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere is very small. Large changes in that (still tiny) proportion over the centuries seem to have caused no discernible difference in the climate, which seems to vary constantly, and if anything seems linked more to solar activity than anything else.

    So far, I have a good reason to think that more CO2 will inevitably cause some slight warming, but that that warming is probably imperceptible, with a less discernible effect than natural solar variation.

    But so far I have omitted the great unknown -- the effects of water in the atmosphere. (Remember ours is the so-called "water planet".) Water in gaseous form -- i.e. water vapour -- is another greenhouse gas, causing more warming, but water in liquid form -- clouds -- reflects light and heat. The transition from one state to another is a further complication. So far no one seems to have made any serious attempt to find out what its overall effects are, and till they do no one knows.

    I repeat: no one knows.

    However, a large, influential, and highly moralistic academic (which I regard as synonymous with 'church') movement has been underway which seeks to persuade us that it does know, and that the prognosis is catastrophic. Yet a cursory glance at its methods reveals them to be farcical.

    So I am a sceptic about global warming. I am also a sceptic about the supposedly baleful effects of global warming, were it actually happening. Civilizations seem to develop when the climate warms, and sink back into disease and backwardness when the climate cools.

    Complain about this comment

  • 90. At 11:01am on 12 Dec 2010, JunkkMale wrote:

    '20. At 3:42pm on 11 Dec 2010, Greenpa wrote:

    Yes, it's a big pain in the ass to clean them out. But well worth it. Over on the NYT, the Green Blogs folks just did successfully change their screening, and the result is fabulous- intelligent conversation. And no, they don't just outlaw denial; the occasional sincere but confused person is still permitted access.

    It matters. I hope you can make this forum useful. Your articles are excellent; but the comment space is a complete waste.'


    Well worth repeating. An excellent summary of the situation that confronts those in the middle ground assessing arguments on their merits, or not.

    Now a deal has been cut, I look forward to some in-depth, forensic analysis in the media of how the money is going to spent that holds those who are providing it and those who are getting it to real account a bit more on tangibles and deliverables.

    It just seems for now a bit like an open line of credit has been extended with few real checks or balances, on the basis of sounding good over doing much... 'on words that spell out a need'... buying off bad international relations with guys one meets often at exotic locations in the cabana bar, but with dubious local impositions on those one has constituency assistants to gatekeep away.

    But one is sure that we have well qualified, objective guides on hand to help explain this all to us as it unfolds. The vast sums. The epic science. The way these are being used to swing a climate supertanker round and can be shown to be doing so with Dunkirk spirit. If with a flotilla of very nicely-appointed yachts with extra accommodation built in to ensure celebrities can land their helos and not very investigative 'reporters' can easily retype the press releases to file.

    If, presuming the sentiment quoted above is embraced wholeheartedly (and no reason to think it won't), perhaps in some places a tad skewed to those who shout loudest and believe they control the pitch more than other licence fee payers.

    What I have witnessed thus far by way of agreement seems more a not disinterested cabal of hypocritical freeloaders planning a suitable venue for the next one to be thrashed out in conducive surroundings. How that helps my kids is escaping me. Unless they join the climate caravan on salary or subisidy.

    It's a critical message, with a ton of very serious real science and engineering and social politics behind it. But the current crop of messengers seem only adept at ensuring they stay on message (or keeping others out of it), and still have shown little evidence of having any grasp of the latter three.

    Complain about this comment

  • 91. At 11:02am on 12 Dec 2010, JaneBasingstoke wrote:

    @PAWB46 #84

    You may want to clarify your #84.

    Feynman has produced a number of physics publications including his published lectures, which are used by many physics students. But he also taught physics directly to physics students.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Feynman_Lectures_on_Physics

    Are you merely putting yourself in the first category? Because if so people could misinterpret your post.

    Complain about this comment

  • 92. At 12:24pm on 12 Dec 2010, Martin Farrell wrote:

    Progress is never fast enough but look on the bright side and see Cancun as positive move. Copenhagen was massively overhyped and drowned under ecotourists which crushed it. Cancun was more realistic in its aspirations ad its outcome should give us some hope.

    Complain about this comment

  • 93. At 12:30pm on 12 Dec 2010, andrew9999 wrote:

    @canadianrockies

    In his other post you linked to SteveGoddard isn't comapring like with like.
    The RSS satellite data is for the lower troposphere not the surface(giss and hadcrut), so they are related but not the same thing. This is what RSS measures.
    http://www.remss.com/msu/msu_browse.html

    The base line average for all the different sets is different as well., giss 1951-1980, hadcrut 1961-1990, RSS 1979-2010.

    It is just meaningless what he does.

    Complain about this comment

  • 94. At 1:04pm on 12 Dec 2010, rossglory wrote:

    #91 JandBasingstoke

    i am a proud owner of a set of feynman's physics lectures but i can;t say i've read them cover to cover!

    i find the way his name is conjured up like some appeal to the gods, irritating. he hated bad science and was critical of bad physics as well as other branches of science and i am pretty certain that the posters here could not second guess what his views on agw today would have been. he had a brilliant mind....most that quote him do not.

    Complain about this comment

  • 95. At 1:11pm on 12 Dec 2010, bowmanthebard wrote:

    rossglory #94 wrote:

    i am pretty certain that the posters here could not second guess what his views on agw today would have been.

    Not that it matters much, as I agree there is too much hero-worship of Feynman, but he was very clear that he thought science used the hypothetico-deductive method -- the antithesis of the inductivism of AGW.

    Complain about this comment

  • 96. At 1:14pm on 12 Dec 2010, JaneBasingstoke wrote:

    @rossglory

    Feynman was as contrary as Lindzen (both with MIT connections) and a close friend of Freeman Dyson.

    I believe that Feynman would have been a full AGW sceptic, similar to Lindzen. And I'm saying that as a warmist.

    Complain about this comment

  • 97. At 1:22pm on 12 Dec 2010, jazbo wrote:

    "The paper in question is interesting and a press release describing it is on the Nasa Goddard Space Centre web site URL:http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/home/index.html.The lead author Lahouari Bounoua says he hopes the paper will show how plant growth with increasing CO2 levels will create a negative feedback not previously taken into account in many climate models. He is quoted as saying the "This feedback slows but does not alleviate the projected warming". So an important step in the quest to get increased accuracy in climate forecasts."


    So lets get this straight. many of us, in fact anyone with a brain, knows that increased CO2 leads to increased plant growth.

    NASA, the people you believers rely on for the gospel, have suddenly done a study TWENTY YEARS after the start of the debate saying "erm, actually plants could mean we need to look at the output of our models". ON top of that they have also recently said "erm, maybe we need to relook at the effects of the sun".

    And you people, you believers of the gospel of the church of climate change do not question the accuracy of the models as they exist.

    Weird, really weird.

    Complain about this comment

  • 98. At 1:25pm on 12 Dec 2010, jazbo wrote:

    33. At 5:02pm on 11 Dec 2010, quake wrote:


    The evidence suggests about 3C warming per doubling at current concentrations.

    Does it? Depends on whether you believe that concentrations in the upper bands of the atmosphere can gain enough CO2 to retain the heat rather than it escaping into space. Many people do not actually think we can put enough CO2 up there to do that.

    Complain about this comment

  • 99. At 1:28pm on 12 Dec 2010, LabMunkey wrote:

    aaand you're back in the room.

    As i predicted,cancouldawouldashoulda achieved nothing but more promises with no backing.

    I'm curious- is anyone (pro-cAGW) still confident in the process? It must be extremely frustrating having your 'future' decided by a bunch of sel-interested politicians. I know, were i pro-cAGW that it would drive me mad.

    There's a number of interesting topics to pick up on in this and the last two threads, but i have a new baby boy to look after (well... to fuss over bemusedly!) so i'll have to leave them for a week or so.

    Lets hope the pictures clearer by then!

    Complain about this comment

  • 100. At 1:28pm on 12 Dec 2010, jazbo wrote:

    35. At 5:36pm on 11 Dec 2010, reflector2 wrote:

    To all these ‘literate’ people commenting on their personal degrees, well done chaps.
    However, the word is sustainability is it not? CO2 and methane will be a factor in future climate change and global warming, just as you clever chap’s will be in producing more and more, growing more and more for an exponentially expanding population.

    The problem is. The Earth will still be the same size!

    According to you lot there is nothing to worry about and everything is tickerty boo!

    From my perspective, something is going to give, and it is not superfluous opinions is it?

    No it is not about opinions. It is about population control, the elephant in the room.

    CO2 driven climate change is much in dispute, the need to curb population growth is obvious to everyone.

    I do not agree that AGW is proven, but I do agree that people need to take responsibility for population growth. Limiting that will solve ALL the problems.

    Simple question to the AGW advocates and greenies. I have one child because I am actively making a sacrifice to save the planet from resource degeneration.

    How many children do you all have?

    Complain about this comment

  • 101. At 1:30pm on 12 Dec 2010, rossglory wrote:

    #89 bowmanthebard

    here's a simplistic reply.

    yes, there are many uncertainties but the boundaries of those uncertainties are fairly well known.

    cloud effects are not understood that well and this is no secret (http://www.reportingclimatescience.com/news-stories/article/global-warming-cloud-feedback-debate-heats-up-at-cancun.html)

    so ignoring you usual insult about agw being a religious belief, we are changing the atmospheric composition of co2 exponentially, there are powerful feedback effects (paleoclimatology shows this) which we don;t understand totally but warming feedbacks seems to be much more powerful (see DO events), climate sensitivity to co2 in the past has been significant, there has been a measured change in agst that can be modelled well but only by incorporating agw effects.

    so, you're right, we don't know anything FOR CERTAIN (what do we know for certain?) but only a fool would trust that the few negative feedbacks (which of course we don;t understand either) will prevent a significant greenhouse effect. it is estimated that 10 W/m2 would be enough to instigate a truly catastrophic
    greenhouse effect and although we're a long way from that it is feasible if we burn all fossil fuels (including coal and tar sands/shales).

    your faith that we do not have an issue totally bemuses me.

    Complain about this comment

  • 102. At 1:31pm on 12 Dec 2010, jazbo wrote:

    @42. At 6:49pm on 11 Dec 2010, papyrus wrote:

    in the light cablegate, do you believe everything the US government says?

    I suspect the answer has to be "no" for any right thinking person.

    So why do you take the words of the IPCC and other politically motivated organisations word as gospel?

    Complain about this comment

  • 103. At 1:57pm on 12 Dec 2010, yertizz wrote:

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

  • 104. At 1:59pm on 12 Dec 2010, Peter317 wrote:

    @Andrew9999 #87:

    No, it's you who's being a bit short on comprehension.
    He's not comparing anomalies for the months, but two sets of anomalies. The GISS set shows hardly any difference between the anomalies for the two months in question, whereas the RSS set shows a large difference.

    Complain about this comment

  • 105. At 2:02pm on 12 Dec 2010, melty wrote:

    Nice report.... sort of. When did the editors decide that BBC News reports should henceforth be written in the style of personal journal entry? Sigh.... and why can't we just have reports from the journalist WITHOUT the irritating and mindless comments appendage? I guess no-one is forcing us to read them but curiosity kills that cat. Why did Auntie gave Joe Q. Moron space on the page? Doesn't she know that the stupid burns?

    Complain about this comment

  • 106. At 2:23pm on 12 Dec 2010, bowmanthebard wrote:

    rossglory #101 wrote:

    ignoring you usual insult about agw being a religious belief

    On this occasion, I was not likening AGW to a religious belief but all of academia to the traditional church. That includes the physicists, the philosophers who teach the hypothetico-deductive method, and many others whose work I admire and whose opinions I agree with. Academia is like the traditional church for all sorts of reasons, not least because the same sorts of people are attracted to them. They have a very similar hierarchy, they play the same role in education, the same role as government "advisors", as "experts" who are consulted by the media, and worst of all as people who are considered "moral authorities" by the general public, who subsequently look up to them and take their word on important matters without question.

    Like the traditional church, academia treats some issues as worth disagreeing about, but treats other issues as not the sort of thing people ought to disagree about. There is a spectrum of attitudes to this second sort of issue, from "irrelevant to current debate" to downright "immoral". These attitudes correspond to traditional church attitudes as they ranged from holy fools (mad but not bad) to heretics (definitely bad rather than mad). Please note that I'm not saying there is any significant silencing of unwanted opinion. Most academics are very careful not to do that. It's more that some issues are "out of bounds", no matter what your opinion on them might be.

    Complain about this comment

  • 107. At 2:42pm on 12 Dec 2010, Brunnen wrote:

    @101. At 1:30pm on 12 Dec 2010, rossglory wrote:

    so ignoring you usual insult about agw being a religious belief,

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

    Hey, if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...

    Complain about this comment

  • 108. At 3:48pm on 12 Dec 2010, John_from_Hendon wrote:

    GeoffWard #63 wrote:

    "As a non-physicist, I am interested in the bits of *Physics* that cause you both to doubt AGW by CO2."

    Try theses arguments for size:

    For there being any validity in man doing anything to CO2 and expecting a resulting change in 'climate' a number of things have to be true:

    1. That it can be shown conclusively that changes in CO2 drive climate. For this to be asserted with any confidence it must be shown that the change in CO2 'preceded' the change in global temperature.

    This in turn requires that there exists reasonably accurate global temperature data and global CO2 data.

    This is the causality argument and CO2 fails this argument.

    2. That CO2 is a substantial or important 'cause' of change. This is very important as if CO2 is not 'responsible' and shown beyond experimental/measurement error to be 'the' major cause then other causes will make fiddling with anthropogenic CO2 pointless.

    I am particularly stuck by the importance of solar radiation (the solar flux) in maintaining the temperature of our planet. Our planet's main energy input is from the sun so small changes in the solar flux are important as are changes in obliquity (giving rise to the actual incidence of radiation from the sun on our planet during its orbit.

    Now let me examine using the mathematical tools of asymptotic the sun and its radiation vs our temperature. You may have noticed it tends to be substantially warmer in the summer than in the winter by tens of degrees centigrade. The characteristic of summer is when the part of our planet experiencing summer is more exposed to solar radiation and winter vice versa. I do not think that my last sentence is contestable.

    So we now have a 'proven' relationship with solar radiation and planetary temperature and a substantial temperature change of tens of degrees centigrade.

    Studies also show that solar radiation changes over time as does the orbit of our planet and the inclination of our planets rotation.

    Therefore we can test the probability of the CO2 hypothesis being the cause of the temperature change.

    First, for the CO2 argument having any probable validity: the main cause of planetary temperature must have been excluded - it hasn't been.

    Second, for the CO2 argument having any probable validity: CO2 must have been shown to rise or lower BEFORE planetary temperature - the opposite has been seen from the 'data'. A note on the 'data' - the historic data is basically rubbish for a number of well know reasons.

    The relationship between solar radiation and weather is still a better medium term forecasting tool than those used by the met offices around the globe. (see WeatherAction etc.)

    The main problem with the AGW mob is that they have so fiddled their own data that they have undermined every 'argument' that they have ever put forward.

    If I have to be pinned down I would plump for changes in solar radiation causing changes in medium term weather and climate as the sun is by orders of magnitude more powerful as a source of heat than anything else. I am completely unconvinced by AGW by CO2 - that is without even bothering to look at the so called data it claims 'proves' its case. But when you do look at the data the quality and estimation error is huge. I was particularly unimpressed by AGW supporters attempts to disprove medieval cooling. What is the point? - first they must show that the major energy source, the sun, is not the cause and they haven't done so.

    Complain about this comment

  • 109. At 3:57pm on 12 Dec 2010, GeoffWard wrote:

    quake wrote @ 33: "The evidence suggests about 3C warming per doubling at current concentrations......."
    jasonsceptic replied @ 95: "Does it? Depends on whether you believe that concentrations in the upper bands of the atmosphere can gain enough CO2 to retain the heat rather than it escaping into space. Many people do not actually think we can put enough CO2 up there to do that."
    .............
    Seem to remember that the circum-polar stratospheric 'jet-streams' have the capacity to seriously move tropospheric carbon loads upwards and into the zone where 'greenhouse effects' become applicable. The atmospheric complex models only match observations/physical measurements when stratospheric circulations are incorporated.
    Geoff.

    Complain about this comment

  • 110. At 4:42pm on 12 Dec 2010, GeoffWard wrote:


    "A quick glance through the 44 posts above shows me that the AGW by CO2 lobby has failed to impress yet again. Although my Doctorate is not in Earth Science (it didn't exist!) as a Physicist I remain unimpressed by AGW by CO2 ..." ("PAWB46 59, & similarly from John_from_Hendon at 7:21pm, 11 Dec)
    ........................
    Dear PAW & John,

    As a non-physicist, I am interested in the bits of *Physics* that cause you both to doubt AGW by CO2.
    Would you both be prepared to deploy your PhDs to good effect and show me where the *physics* of the argument(s) break down.

    I will (bravely) attempt to counter your counter-arguments.

    Geoff."

    ................

    "As you are not a physicist, I can understand your interest. If you had been educated under the tutillage of Richard Feynman, you would understand and wouldn't need to ask further. I suggest you go read his words of wisdom." (PAWB46 84)
    .........................

    No, PAWB46, your reply is a cop-out.
    Are you being truthful about your PhD claim or just being lazy, as you presently stand condemned by the inadequacy of your response?
    Either put your personal reputation on the line by using real physics in your own justification argument, or I suggest you change your blog-name.

    Complain about this comment

  • 111. At 4:50pm on 12 Dec 2010, GeoffWard wrote:


    "As a non-physicist, I am interested in the bits of *Physics* that cause you both to doubt AGW by CO2." (GeoffWard #63)

    "Try theses arguments for size: ........" (John_from_Hendon 108)
    ...............

    Thanks, John,
    will absorb, think, think some more and come back to you tomorrow (Christmas 'do' imminent!)
    Geoff.

    Complain about this comment

  • 112. At 5:20pm on 12 Dec 2010, bowmanthebard wrote:

    rossglory #101 wrote:

    we are changing the atmospheric composition of co2 exponentially,

    At no time has it been rising "exponentially". It has been rising in a non-linear way, yes, in accordance with variables that are by no means fixed. The most important of these variables are rates of industrialization, population, and availability of fossil fuels. But there is no reason to think that any of those three will stay as they have been during the period of the sharpest rise in CO2 of recent times. The availability of cheap oil, for a start, is bound to change quite soon.

    Furthermore, even if CO2 were rising geometrically, the more that gets added, the less of an effect each subsequent unit has.

    there are powerful feedback effects (paleoclimatology shows this) which we don;t understand totally but warming feedbacks seems to be much more powerful (see DO events), climate sensitivity to co2 in the past has been significant, there has been a measured change in agst that can be modelled well but only by incorporating agw effects.

    In my opinion all of that stuff is just pure pseudo-science. I honestly regard it as worse than useless, as it gets scientific methodology exactly backwards. Big words like 'paleoclimatology' don't cut any ice with me! I can see no difference between the climate now and the climate when I was a boy. My mother in her mid-eighties sees no difference between now and 70 years ago. The only people who think the climate is changing in an unusual way seem to be gullible young people who believe anything the latest academic movement says.

    your faith that we do not have an issue

    You seem to assume here that we need a reason to withhold belief in the existence of something. But it's the other way around: we need a reason to believe in the existence of something, and without such a reason, we shouldn't believe in its existence.

    I feel I just have no reason at all to believe that there is an issue, so I don't believe there is one.

    Complain about this comment

  • 113. At 5:47pm on 12 Dec 2010, JaneBasingstoke wrote:

    @andrew9999
    @PAWB46
    @rossglory
    @bowmanthebard
    @GeoffWard

    I think the debate would have been very different if Feynman was still alive.

    I think that much of the science would be unchanged, but that the public would have ended up being much more aware of the uncertainties and caveats. And that a much higher proportion of professional scientists, both climate scientists and non-climate scientists, would be AGW sceptics.

    I think that an IPCC like today's would have been effectively boycotted by many of the scientists on the grounds that they agreed with Feynman on the importance of doubt, and the importance of communicating that doubt properly. And I think the IPCC is an accidental conspiracy to hide those uncertainties and caveats from the public.

    It is not a deliberate conspiracy. But politicians live in a simplistic world of black and white. So rather than give someone the job of ensuring all the caveats and uncertainties are explained properly, they ask for the simplest possible explanation of what might happen. Keeping the IPCC literature simple naturally reduces the opportunity to communicate caveats and uncertainties properly. And then non-scientist politicians simplify it some more. They misunderstand, ignore or downplay the doubts even further.

    Communicating that doubt effectively would have killed the IPCC. The IPCC is basically a buck passing mechanism in disguise, scientists accept responsibility for any unpopular policies associated with the work of the IPCC, regardless of whether the problems associated with those policies are a sensible response to their work. If scientists are not prepared to accept this responsibility then politicians can't act.

    Without Feynman we've had some cheating.

    The scientists make the doubt clear to the more scientifically literate public, and many of the scientists are not natural communicators so many genuinely believe this communication will reach all the public. Others think they can communicate the doubt to the public by other means. But scientists aren't allowed to communicate that doubt properly in the more simplistic IPCC literature. And they don't have sufficient resources to balance this lack of communication of doubt elsewhere, especially when they keep getting diverted to defending their science from AGW sceptics.

    So the scientists get to pretend they're communicating the doubt properly to everyone and the politicians get to ignore inconvenient doubt.

    Cheating.

    And here sites like RealClimate and Skepticalscience and other scientific warmist sites have made a severe tactical error.

    Sites like RealClimate get their priorities wrong. They concentrate on tackling unfair and nonsensical criticisms of mainstream science. This is understandable, some of the criticism has got personal, but they need a moratorium on tackling this material. Other people's nonsense and other people's unfairness towards them is only made worse by them attempting to fix it directly. Instead they need to tackle their own flaws first.

    And the biggest flaw is the lack of communication of doubt, which is partly the scientists fault for not making it central to the IPCC's message. Not being central to the IPCC's message allowed politicians to downsize doubt. This downsizing of doubt hands victory on a platter to Big Carbon and Free Market right wing libertarian types. So warmists have to reclaim doubt. Only when the man in the street and the warmist activists are both fully au fait with all the doubts can warmist scientists begin to look at tackling nonsense or unfair criticism from their opponents.

    It was not always this way, but warmists in the debate have become like the North Wind. We are trying to blow a coat off a man by making him colder.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_North_Wind_and_the_Sun

    I think the sceptics are justified in banging on about Feynman and claiming him for their own.

    Feynman would have found any attempts to look at the question on his own frustrated by the sheer workload. He'd have kicked up merry h*** about the way the scientists were communicating their ideas. Look at some of the criticisms Lovelock and Hansen have made of the IPCC, and multiply the fuss made by 100x.

    I think Feynman would have been an AGW sceptic because it would have been beyond his resources to examine the issue properly, and Feynman always put doubt first. Even if he'd agreed with warmist scientists about AGW he'd have been on the AGW sceptic side for much of the debate, because the doubt has been downplayed and Feynman always put doubt first and always put Truth before politics.

    Complain about this comment

  • 114. At 7:00pm on 12 Dec 2010, blunderbunny wrote:

    @JaneBasingstoke #113

    I think Feynman would have approved of your post..... and having recently taken a pop at you, I'd like to formally apologise for that.

    Regards,

    One of the Lobby

    Complain about this comment

  • 115. At 7:02pm on 12 Dec 2010, GeoffWard wrote:

    "The evidence suggests about 3C warming per doubling at current concentrations......." (quake 33)
    .............
    jasonsceptic replied @ 95: "Does it? Depends on whether you believe that concentrations in the upper bands of the atmosphere can gain enough CO2 to retain the heat rather than it escaping into space. Many people do not actually think we can put enough CO2 up there to do that."
    .............
    "Seem to remember that the circum-polar stratospheric 'jet-streams' have the capacity to seriously move tropospheric carbon loads upwards and into the zone where 'greenhouse effects' become applicable. The atmospheric complex models only match observations/physical measurements when stratospheric circulations are incorporated." (me @ 109)
    .............
    A quick check shows that quake is about right:

    Classical physical principles show that the climate sensitivity approximates to 1oC, for a doubling of CO2 concentrations – this, in the absence of processes that amplify or reduce climate change (eg. subsequent water vapour increase, snow & ice reduction, albedo modification – all these things alter the balance of solar energy absorption and outward emittance from the atmosphere). The present – calculated - climate forcing of 1.6 Watts per metre squared (the amount of energy that falls on 1 square metre in 1 second = ‘Flux’) would lead to a globally averaged surface warming of about 0.4oC.
    However, the *actual change*, after accounting for the additional amplifying and reducing processes, will be greater than this. Increases in water vapour caused by atmospheric and surface warming will approximately double the climate sensitivity from 1oC to 2oC. Uncertainty around this figure comes from the actual geographic distribution of water vapour and cloud cover, and the nett global impact of the amplification and reduction balance of cloud cover. Complex climate models throw out a likely overall climate sensitivity in the range 2oC to 4.5oC

    Complain about this comment

  • 116. At 7:03pm on 12 Dec 2010, CChaplin wrote:

    89. At 10:41am on 12 Dec 2010, bowmanthebard. Thanks for enlightening us with the Physics. The great unknowns, solar variation and water vapour in the atmosphere. While I was reading this I was imagining a PhD Physicist with flu sitting in front of the fire and thinking, is he feeling hot because the fire is producing more heat than normal or is his clothing absorbing more heat than normal? Climate change research requires a multidisciplinary approach as there are biological, chemical, geological etc systems at play. I am sure Physics is important but reading contributions here from Physicists it seems they cannot even agree with each other let alone anyone else.

    Complain about this comment

  • 117. At 7:16pm on 12 Dec 2010, GeoffWard wrote:

    JaneBasingstoke wrote 112:
    "It is not a deliberate conspiracy. But politicians live in a simplistic world of black and white...."
    ...............................
    Jane, thanks for being the sheepdog to we errant sheep.
    But I just couldn't let your politician comment go .... All the politicians I ever knew lived and thrived in the world of dirty grey. Black and white is the bit before the discussion-behind-closed-doors, the deals, the trade-offs, and the corruption.
    Black and white is Bowman's Scientific Method - you know, the sort of (double-blind, control) science that we can't do with just one whole world in the test-tube.

    Complain about this comment

  • 118. At 7:25pm on 12 Dec 2010, LarryKealey wrote:



    @Richard,

    First, I must take exception to the comment:

    "If Copenhagen was the Great Dane that whimpered, Cancun has been the chihuahua that roared."

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

    While I am sure this is mearly a jest on your part, I feel it is inappropriate - comparison of Denmark as the "Great Dane" and Mexico as the "Chihuahua".

    In my view, this belittles the very proud and diverse nation of Mexico - almost a flagship to much of the world. Perhaps you should get out of Cancun sometime and see what Mexico really has to offer. Sure, by American standards or European, much of Mexico is poor, but Mexico is far from a third world country. Many people may not realize this, but the US and Mexico are forever tied. Most of the Mexicans I have known are as hard working - or harder than most from all the other countries I have visited. Mexicans want a better life for their children. And they will do what they have to - whatever it takes to get it. They are decent, honest, hard working people.

    While Mexico is in the middle of its emergence - which is where it is, it certainly has a few issues to deal with - but deal with them they have or are. The most serious social issue is probably the cartels, controlling crime from the south - but in time, they too shall be defeated as Mexico emerges into its place in the world community.

    Mexico is not 'quaint charm' - as so many see it in places like Cancun - but a very large, diverse nation of many peoples, cultures, landscapes, environments and heratige.

    Chihuahua is a state in Mexico - in the north of Mexico, south of Big Bend in Texas. There is a diverse culture within this region - as within all the regions of Mexico. A culture and nations and peoples who were way ahead of us as we crawled out of the dark ages. It is a collage of both ancient cultures and european influence - blended very nicely. They are emerging from 'third worldness' and poverty and doing so quite well. As with any bushel, there are a few rotten apples - but we won't do comparisons between Europeans and Mexicans here - I would not want to offend anyone.

    I have been to Mexico dozens of times in my life and stayed for months on a number of occations. When I was a young man, I naturally thought Mexcan women were beautiful and exotic and 'perfect'. I wanted the 'real thing' - the 'girl next door' that most Mexican girls/women are.

    People see the prostitutes in the 'Mexican part' of the tourist towns and think they see 'real Mexico'. It was not long before I learned just how hard it was to court a 'girl next door' in Mexico. Not because they are hard to find, you find many of them working in your tourists hotes, they are the majority - they are smart and want not only the real thing, but the right thing. Very fine, upstanding people with high morals anyone with knowlege would say of the Mexican people. It is hard to come from afar and be truly accepted and trusted, I believe I have achieved that in my lifetime.

    I suppose I have beat this one over the head - but I could go on as to what a success Mexico is becoming - the changes I have seen in my lifetime - the people I have known.

    Needless to day, your comment was not appreciated...

    Kindest Regards.

    Kealey

    Complain about this comment

  • 119. At 7:32pm on 12 Dec 2010, blunderbunny wrote:

    @GeoffWard

    So where's your actual evidence(models don't count)for these huge positive feebacks? Come to that where's the heat?

    Even in GISS's giddiest moments of manipulation, the figures don't add up and if you were to consider the other temp records they definitely don't add up. If now you'd seek to invoke natural variations(PDO, ENSO, NAO, etc etc) to explain this missing heat, then you're also forced to also acknowledge their positive impacts on temps, which then leaves the case for (C)AGW dead in the water. With special attention to the 'C' in that particular acronym.

    Unless, you can find a lot of heat and find it very, very quickly, it's all over bar the shouting.

    Plus, it's no good saying:

    Things are melting - Ahem, they are supposed to......
    It's getting warmer - Yes, that's supposed to happen too (plus hasn't been playing ball recently)

    The temp changes need to be statistically significant, and even your own side (well the non-rabid ones) have to admit that they are not.

    Can you say "Tropospheric Hotspot"? Once, the pronunciation has been mastered. Perhaps, you'd like to spend some time looking for it - Please, let us know how you get on with that? Here’s a hint, don’t start your search for it at ”skepticalscience.com”

    Regards,

    One of the Lobby

    Complain about this comment

  • 120. At 7:39pm on 12 Dec 2010, MangoChutney wrote:

    @GeoffWard #115

    Classical physical principles show that the climate sensitivity approximates to 1oC, for a doubling of CO2 concentrations

    Judith Curry isn't so sure on that point:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/12/cancun_the_chihuahua_that_roar.html#P104085178

    Complex climate models throw out a likely overall climate sensitivity in the range 2oC to 4.5oC

    Even the IPCC doesn't rate the climate models, Geoff:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/11/four_degrees_of_hurt.html#P103637718

    /Mango

    Complain about this comment

  • 121. At 7:41pm on 12 Dec 2010, MangoChutney wrote:

    If Copenhagen was the Great Dane that whimpered, Cancun has been the chihuahua that roared

    I once witnessed a Chihuahua kill a Great Dane - the Great Dane choked on it! LOL

    Although, that's the way Cancun will go to ;)

    /Mango

    Complain about this comment

  • 122. At 7:43pm on 12 Dec 2010, MangoChutney wrote:

    The Missing Hotspot:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/12/time_to_get_down_to_business_a.html#P104084157

    /Mango

    Complain about this comment

  • 123. At 7:55pm on 12 Dec 2010, Barry Woods wrote:

    113#

    Excellent comment!!!

    To add to it, the warmist side started believing their own PR, and calling people deniars was only ever going to end up as counter productive..

    Look at the damage, Gordon Brown did with his 'flat-earther' 'anti-science' comments and Ed Milliband#s 'climate sabatouers' denaiars comments.

    Phd History, degree politics economics between them..

    It was so counter productive, it got the likes of me commenting at the BBC... ;)

    I even started my own blog (early days)
    www.realclimategate.org

    Complain about this comment

  • 124. At 8:02pm on 12 Dec 2010, LarryKealey wrote:

    @Richard,

    Now that we have that out of the way...

    Surely, you cannot be declaring a 'victory here' - can you? I must hand it to you, you keep thumping that drum, in perfect rhythm, through hailstorm after hailstorm, One failure after another.

    What do we have here, exactly? We have a 'commitment' from a bunch of delegates whom, it was reported, when asked, most, [enthusiastically] signed petitions both to cripple the US economy and to ban water. I mean get real. There was no climate change victory here.


    There is perhaps - if it can pass a thousand hurdles, an attempt to create a new mechanism(s) for the transfer of wealth. Hopefully (but I do have serious doubts) - mechanisms which will have more of an impact on the poor and the environment.

    This fund will be administered by the world bank. As the US desires - because in my opinion - the UN cannot be trusted to administer the funds. [moderators please note, I defame no one, this is just my opinion - no defamation toward any particular person, just mistrust of the institution].

    The new Congress will not allow Obama to 'print anymore money'. For those of you who may not understand how it works in the US, all appropriations bills (i.e. funding, spending, etc) must originate in the House of Representatives - The president writes a budget and presents it to the house - and then they do what they want with it. The now Republican, House of Representatives.

    The money - if it is approved and put in the budget - will have to come from somewhere. It will mean robbing other programs. I would expect that the majority will come from other International-Aid type programs. This is not just 'extra money' lying around on the white house lawn - it is fall here (actually bitterly cold winter - except by the calendar) and all the leaves have but fallen.

    The US economy is a long way from being in 'good shape'. Fiscal conservatisism is coming back into vogue in a big way. People have been making hard choices for some time.

    Just realize, that what you call a victory (and a 100B out of the minimum of 270B going in and no 'protocal' after Kyoto) is no victory - and it will come at a price. I sure hope these 'new mechanisms' will have a greater impact and be more robust against corruption than those which they replace.

    BTW - did you get out of Cancun at all?

    And how nice about Durban, I do hope you enjoy next year's holiday in South Africa. Do try and catch a safari (camera...like I do...) or get out on the ocean and witness the Great White Shark in its greatest home, while you still can. Surely, you can take a day off from the conferences to chronicle some of the other environmental and humanistic issues of the 'host country' for your junket.

    Cheers.

    Kealey

    Complain about this comment

  • 125. At 8:04pm on 12 Dec 2010, CanadianRockies wrote:

    #93. andrew9999 wrote:

    Well Andrew in my #75 I asked you for your comments on this VERY significant story:

    http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2010/12/11/giss-temperatures-out-of-line-with-the-rest-of-the-world/

    Thanks for answering, but your answer raises some inconvenient problems for some of the AGW apologists here. You wrote that

    "The RSS satellite data is for the lower troposphere not the surface(giss and hadcrut), so they are related but not the same thing."

    Yet if you read many posts here you will find some people claiming that the satellite data 'confirms' some surface data sets, and in this case, for what it is worth, it does correlate with the other data EXCEPT for the GISS.

    So, why is HANSEN's GISS so different? Because its manipulated junk, as usual from Hansen.

    You also added this for those who did not already know it:

    "The base line average for all the different sets is different as well., giss 1951-1980, hadcrut 1961-1990, RSS 1979-2010."

    This does, of course, raise all sorts of inconvenient questions about the comparisons between these data sets. perhaps most notable is that the GISS base line just happens to conveniently cover a cooling period which conveniently exaggerates the subsequent warming period (which, by the way, is now over). So the GISS was set up to support Hansen's 'Global Warming' tale - just like when they turned off the air conditioners when Hansen presented his lies to Congress.

    So, when you say "It is just meaningless what he does," that only applies to Hansen, in scientific terms at least. Unfortyunately it is not meaningless in general because some people actually still believ what he says and it shows what his employer NASA has become.

    Now, here's more on Hansen's manufactured data:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/12/hansen-feels-the-need-to-explain-why-giss-is-high-in-the-midst-of-frigid-air/

    I can hardly wait for Hansen's explanation. Maybe he will need to consult with Jones for a good story about how a dog ate his data or something.

    Complain about this comment

  • 126. At 8:08pm on 12 Dec 2010, CanadianRockies wrote:

    113. JaneBasingstoke wrote:

    "I think the IPCC is an accidental conspiracy to hide those uncertainties and caveats from the public."

    Accidental. Thanks for a good laugh Jane!


    Complain about this comment

  • 127. At 8:21pm on 12 Dec 2010, CanadianRockies wrote:

    #105. melty wrote:

    "When did the editors decide that BBC News reports should henceforth be written in the style of personal journal entry?"

    This is not a "news report." As stated above it is Richard's "take" on this story, an opinion piece, and we all know what Richard is promoting.

    So if you were looking for objective journalism you will not find it here. But it does provide a starting point for discussions.



    Complain about this comment

  • 128. At 8:41pm on 12 Dec 2010, Lamna nasus wrote:

    @119blunderbunny
    'So where's your actual evidence(models don't count)...'

    That's unfortunate.. because that would mean none of the Contrarian models count either...

    Complain about this comment

  • 129. At 9:16pm on 12 Dec 2010, Stench_of_Hypocrisy wrote:

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

  • 130. At 9:17pm on 12 Dec 2010, GeoffWard wrote:

    blunderbunny wrote 119: "@GeoffWard ...Can you say "Tropospheric Hotspot"? Once, the pronunciation has been mastered. perhaps you'd like to spend some time looking for it - Please, let us know how you get on."
    ..........
    Serious response tomorrow, but for now...
    My wife says I have no idea where the hotspot is. I'll keep searching and let you know when I find it!

    Complain about this comment

  • 131. At 9:20pm on 12 Dec 2010, Jack Hughes wrote:

    @Jane,

    Great comment on Feynman.

    His 1974 warning on cargo cult science seems like a perfect fit for what goes on today...

    "I call these things cargo cult science, because they follow all the apparent precepts and forms of scientific investigation, but they're missing something essential..."

    He continues

    "It's a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty--a kind of leaning over backwards. For example, if you're doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid--not only what you think is right about it: other causes that could possibly explain your results"

    Does this ring any bells ?

    He finishes with an intellectual knock-out punch:

    "There is also a more subtle problem.
    When you have put a lot of ideas together to make an elaborate
    theory, you want to make sure, when explaining what it fits, that
    those things it fits are not just the things that gave you the idea
    for the theory; but that the finished theory makes something else
    come out right, in addition."

    In other words your theory must be able to predict something else.

    Remember, of course that this "climate" stuff is not about science or the environment anyway. It's a grab for power and money.

    The "climate scare" is just the pretext-du-jour for a power and money grab.

    Complain about this comment

  • 132. At 10:15pm on 12 Dec 2010, quake wrote:

    Re 125. CanadianRockies wrote:

    "Yet if you read many posts here you will find some people claiming that the satellite data 'confirms' some surface data sets, and in this case, for what it is worth, it does correlate with the other data EXCEPT for the GISS."

    It confirms the longterm warming trend. All of the metrics show about 0.16C/decade since 1979 (except UAH which shows about 0.14C IIRC).

    Not that it can be expected that the surface and satellites should show the same exact same trend of warming, because they are measuring different things, but the fact that they are close means the surface warming is very likely not mostly UHI effect.

    What you are looking at instead is a month to month comparison, here I wouldn't expect the surface and satellites to agree because temperature anomalies in the the lower atmosphere and at the surface are not precisely tied together month to month. Also on a monthly scale there is a higher degree of uncertainty. Even the satellite records don't agree with each other month to month and they are measuring the same thing!

    "So, why is HANSEN's GISS so different? Because its manipulated junk, as usual from Hansen."

    Not good enough. That's not a reason, it's just handwaving. The source code is out there as is the station data, so in order to conclude, rather than just assume, GISTEMP is wrong you need to identify an argument why.

    "This does, of course, raise all sorts of inconvenient questions about the comparisons between these data sets. perhaps most notable is that the GISS base line just happens to conveniently cover a cooling period which conveniently exaggerates the subsequent warming period (which, by the way, is now over). So the GISS was set up to support Hansen's 'Global Warming' tale - just like when they turned off the air conditioners when Hansen presented his lies to Congress."

    I know the answer to this one and it doesn't bode well that you've assumed the wrong thing and attached a conspiracy theory to it. This might be a lesson of caution not to jump to conclusions in future.

    The reason GISTEMP uses 1951-1980 baseline is because that is what it started off using when it was first developed (the 90s and 00s hadn't happened yet). Subsequently that baseline hasn't been changed because it was thought that was best for consistency. Changing the baseline would cause all the old published figures, graphs and maps to not be directly comparable with new ones.

    And the choice of baseline doesn't exaggerate any warming period. The baseline choice doesn't affect the trend.

    "I can hardly wait for Hansen's explanation. Maybe he will need to consult with Jones for a good story about how a dog ate his data or something."

    Instead of drinking the WUWT coolade how about actually checking scientific sources?

    Here you presume that Hansen is going to give some explanation. In actual fact he's already given the explanation. Did you only read the title?

    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2010november/

    Complain about this comment

  • 133. At 10:46pm on 12 Dec 2010, quake wrote:

    "In other words your theory must be able to predict something else."

    Such as decades of warming. Check.


    Complain about this comment

  • 134. At 10:53pm on 12 Dec 2010, JaneBasingstoke wrote:

    @GeoffWard #117

    That's a different type of grey.

    For an example of what I mean by politicians seeing in black and white. There was a lot of discussion before the 2003 invasion of Iraq, people on both sides made sensible points. But the actual decision for the UK was made by a man who asked himself the simple question "Is Saddam evil or not".

    Saddam was evil. Evil evil evil. Therefore the UK had to be part of the 2003 invasion of Iraq. No apologies from Blair, it was the Right Thing to do.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8485694.stm

    Complain about this comment

  • 135. At 11:09pm on 12 Dec 2010, blunderbunny wrote:

    @Lamna_nasus #128

    "'So where's your actual evidence(models don't count)...'

    That's unfortunate.. because that would mean none of the Contrarian models count either..."

    I guess I'll regret asking, but what models are those then?

    @Geoffward

    Ahh, okay - Now I understand, where the confusion is coming from.... we've been looking for the wrong kind of spot all along - If I were you, I'd forget about my post and get on with enjoying yourself ;-)

    Regards,

    One of the Lobby



    Complain about this comment

  • 136. At 00:01am on 13 Dec 2010, CanadianRockies wrote:

    #132 Quake,

    You are welcome to believe Hansen's "hottest year" story if you want, and all his and your other rationalizations too.

    But you dodged my question which was "So, why is HANSEN's GISS so different?"

    You said that "in order to conclude, rather than just assume, GISTEMP is wrong you need to identify an argument why."

    My simple answer is that it is such an obvious anomaly that it should be discarded until Hansen et al, not me, explains it. Can you imagine another scientific question where such an anomaly would simply be accepted as valid? Such things beg, demand to be explained before they are accepted... in real science at least.

    But just to be clear, it should not surprise anyone if there has been some warming since the 1880s because we have been coming out of the Little Ice Age since then. That is the simplest explanation for any warming and as anyone who has looked at any of the long term ice core data KNOWS that the current trends are well within the boundaries of natural variation - except, apparently, the natural variation 'deniers.'

    Within that larger cycle, from about 1970 to about 2000 we were in a warming trend, and now it appears that we are in another cooling trend, a cycle which appears to best be explained by the factors discussed in this fascinating article:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/11/19/integrating-enso-multidecadal-changes-in-sea-surface-temperature/

    Prior to about 1970 there was another cooling period, which caused short term thinkers to predict an imminent ice age; during the subsequent warming period the same kind of thinking has supported the current (though already obsolete) global warming story. Schneider, more recently a zealous advocate for The Warming, was earlier predicting that ice age.

    As for this being the "hottest year"... how about if we follow your mantra and wait until the year is actually over and, most importantly, see the PEER REVIEWED - NOT pal reviewed - paper which confirms that. So far it appears to be nothing more than the usual scary blather timed for stampeding lemmings for Cancun.

    Complain about this comment

  • 137. At 00:08am on 13 Dec 2010, CanadianRockies wrote:

    Quake... more on the Myth of the Hottest Year, from your favourite source:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/12/tisdale-k-o-es-gisss-latest-warmest-year-nonsense/

    Complain about this comment

  • 138. At 01:42am on 13 Dec 2010, Lamna nasus wrote:

    @135 blunderbunny
    'I guess I'll regret asking, but what models are those then?


    Lindzen..

    'A recent paper by Lindzen and Choi in GRL (2009) (LC09) purported to demonstrate that climate had a strong negative feedback and that climate models are quite wrong in their relationships between changes in surface temperature and corresponding changes in outgoing radiation escaping to space...

    With the hype surrounding the manuscript, one would think that the article provides a sound, rock solid basis for a reduced climate sensitivity. However, our examination of the study’s methods demonstrates that this is not the case. In an article in press (Trenberth et al. 2010 (sub. requ.), hereafter TFOW), we show that LC09 is gravely flawed and its results are wrong on multiple fronts.'

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/01/lindzen-and-choi-unraveled/



    Svensmark...

    'Peter Laut, is Professor (emeritus) of physics at The Technical University of Denmark and former scientific advisor on climate change for The Danish Energy Agency. He has long been a critic of the hypothesis that solar activity dominates the global warming trend, and has been involved in a series of heated public debates in Denmark. Even though most of his arguments concern scientific issues, such as data handling, and arithmetic errors...'

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/something-is-x-in-the-state-of-denmark/

    Complain about this comment

  • 139. At 03:02am on 13 Dec 2010, Lamna nasus wrote:

    @137 Canadian Rockies

    ..Bob who?.. reviewed where?.. with what qualifications?.. is this just some random Contrarian blogger making unsubstantiated claims, being given a guest spot on WUWT, simply because he has posted a Contrarian opinion which references genuine scientific studies?...


    .. and 'Bob' appears to have popped up making unsubstantiated Contrarian claims before -

    'The peer-reviewed full OHC data tells us we're still warming. Had you actually read my post or the JGR papers, then you'd know there is high variability in the upper ocean data. Congrats. You confirmed the peer-reviewed literature.

    And the fact that you threw the name of peer-reviewed article into your headline doesn't turn your post into a peer-reviewed article. '


    not to mention -


    'I tried to replicate Bob Tisdale’s heat content graphs from the same data and can’t replicate the cooling that he found...

    I think either he made a mistake in analysis, or else he simply made a mistake by using preliminary data.

    Reinforces Romm’s comment about peer-reviewed analysis being better than bloggers.'

    http://climateprogress.org/2009/10/10/skeptical-science-global-warming-not-cooling-is-still-happening-ocean-heat-content/

    Complain about this comment

  • 140. At 03:15am on 13 Dec 2010, blunderbunny wrote:

    @Lamna_nasus

    Do you actually read the stuff you post?

    Lindzen and Choi were testing the predictions made by the GCMs, they were not their own models....and the models were found wanting

    As to Trenberth et al 2010, debunking anything, the idea's hilarious. Seriously Mate, you'll need to at least try a little bit better than that.

    Then me move on to then next link, which again has nothing to do with sceptical climate models

    I know that reading can sometimes be difficult, especially some of the big words, but seriously.... D minus - must try harder

    You could at least read stuff or you could just knock it all on the head and take up shark spotting ;-)

    Regards,

    One of the Lobby

    Plus, that's the same Dr. Trenberth that brought you the need for scientists to “massage their data, exercising judgment about what might be defective and best disregarded"

    Complain about this comment

  • 141. At 03:54am on 13 Dec 2010, blunderbunny wrote:

    @Lamna_nasus

    So where's this heat then? Perhaps, you're going to point me to GISS?

    Care to explain that 0.74?

    UAH and RSS were only 0.381 and 0.312, doesn't that seem just a little odd to you? Smelling something fishy yet?

    That'll be the penguins. They fly North for the Winter, don't'cha know....... Well it's just as likely as 0.74 ;-)

    Just Curious

    One of the Lobby

    Complain about this comment

  • 142. At 05:51am on 13 Dec 2010, Lamna nasus wrote:

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

  • 143. At 06:21am on 13 Dec 2010, Lamna nasus wrote:

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

  • 144. At 06:43am on 13 Dec 2010, Lamna nasus wrote:

    @140 blunderbunny
    '..that's the same Dr. Trenberth that brought you the need for scientists to “massage their data, exercising judgment about what might be defective and best disregarded" '

    Are you seriously suggesting that scientists should not rigorously examine their data for faults?



    @140 blunderbunny
    'Lindzen and Choi were testing the predictions made by the GCMs, they were not their own models....and the models were found wanting'



    Incorrect, they constructed an alternative model which was subsequently demonstrated to be flawed -

    'A goal of LC09 was to quantify the cloud feedback by examining variability in top-of-atmosphere (TOA) radiative fluxes in the tropics as it relates to variability in mean sea surface temperature (SST). To do this they examine only tropical data. In general, they find that during periods of higher-than-normal SST, the radiation emitted and reflected to space by the earth goes up as well, cooling the Earth and amounting to an overall negative climate feedback. To show this, they select intervals of warming and cooling (in a time series of monthly averaged values) and compare fluxes at their endpoints (see Figure). They didn’t provide an objective criterion for selecting these endpoints and in some instances (see their Fig. 1), the selection of these intervals actually appears to be quite odd...

    The result one obtains in estimating the feedback by this method turns out to be heavily dependent on the endpoints chosen. [edit] In TFOW we show that the apparent relationship is reduced to zero if one chooses to displace the endpoints selected in LC09 by a month or less. So with this method the perceived feedback can be whatever one wishes it to be, and the result obtained by LC09 is actually very unlikely. This is not then really indicative of a robust cloud feedback. '
    - Realclimate 8 January 2010



    @140 blunderbunny
    'Then me move on to then next link...'


    Indeed -

    '..the conspicuous steep rise of the solar curve actually had nothing to do with the behavior of the sun, but had been created (accidentally?) by a change of the mathematical procedure used to calculate the points creating the steep rise. I published this finding in 2003 in The Journal of Atmospheric and Solar‐Terrestrial Physics, but had already presented my critique in the year 2000 at a conference on “The Solar Cycle and Terrestrial Climate”, arranged by the European Space Agency.

    'In the late 1990’s a series of articles seemed to provide additional credibility to the ‘solar theory’. In 1996 Henrik Svensmark and Eigil Friis‐Christensen presented observations which apparently lent support to the solar theory. At a conference in Birmingham they showed that some solar related data (this time the intensity of galactic cosmic rays) correlated strongly with some terrestrial data (total cloud cover). The agreement was striking for the years 1984‐90, which was the period for which data were available. However, as every scientist knows, an agreement only extending over a short time span, here seven years, can be misleading. So, to test a possible causal relationship, the authors in their later publications, two articles published in 1997 and 1998 respectively, added some more recent data, which they claimed demonstrated that the close agreement extended beyond the seven years.
    However, close inspection of their work revealed two fatal flaws:

    1) Most of the added data were totally irrelevant in the context of the article, but created the false impression that the close agreement with the solar curve did extend beyond the original seven years (see my paper for details). Actually, the authors’ procedure is like adding bananas to a statistic on apples and then claiming the statistic to be on apples alone.

    2) However, the authors had also added relevant data. These were all displayed in the 1997‐article, but some of them were removed again in the 1998‐article. Strangely enough, the removed data were precisely those data which indicated a beginning disagreement with the solar theory, a disagreement that would become dramatic when more observational data became available in the following years (See my 2003‐article for details).
    - Climate Change: The Role of Flawed Science, An analysis by Peter Laut, November 2009


    Did you wish to be more specific in your definition of 'models'?..



    Complain about this comment

  • 145. At 07:08am on 13 Dec 2010, asherpat wrote:

    The discussion above descended, as expected, to a slugfest about the validity and the magnitude of AGW. So much for the "concesus" and "there is no argument, the science is settled".

    But this is not the point. Unfortunately, there is little discussion about the original Richard Black's blog post and the conference in Cancun - was it a success, a failure? Is Richard Black trying to cheerlead a dead horse or we are witnessing the revival of Kyoto/Rio/Copenhagen?

    Complain about this comment

  • 146. At 08:56am on 13 Dec 2010, sensiblegrannie wrote:

    What happens next?

    Complain about this comment

  • 147. At 09:22am on 13 Dec 2010, sensiblegrannie wrote:

    Perhaps I am being over imaginative but to me it looks as if the environment is showing more signs of stress. There appears to be more manifestations of biological entities attacking humans.
    Shark attacks; cholera; dengue; etc.
    Is nature going to show its teeth and fight back? Is the shark attack a sign that the ocean food chain is being so depleted that sharks have resorted to eating humans? Even is Cancun is a success there is still the issue of human populations depleting resources at an ever increasing rate.

    Complain about this comment

  • 148. At 09:26am on 13 Dec 2010, blunderbunny wrote:

    @Lamna_nasus

    Personally, I define model by use of the word model...... Silly I know

    They didn't use their own GCM's, that's the whole point of the paper - it's to show that the models don't actually match the ERBE data........

    From the paper in question:

    “Climate feedbacks are estimated from fluctuations in the
    outgoing radiation budget from the latest version of Earth
    Radiation Budget Experiment (ERBE) nonscanner data.
    It appears, for the entire tropics, the observed outgoing
    radiation fluxes increase with the increase in sea surface
    temperatures (SSTs). The observed behavior of radiation
    fluxes implies negative feedback processes associated with
    relatively low climate sensitivity. This is the opposite of
    the behavior of 11 atmospheric models forced by the same
    SSTs. Therefore, the models display much higher climate
    sensitivity than is inferred from ERBE, though it is difficult to
    pin down such high sensitivities with any precision.”


    Here's an idea, maybe you should read the paper itself not what realclimate says about it, plus even reading accompanied by cutting and pasting does not seem to equate to comprehension.

    And Svensmark, is again, just playing with data and analysing stats etc.

    So, nope, again that's not how I define sceptical modelling. Something, approaching "Well, you see, we created this fantastic Model and compared our GCM to........."

    You could have just said it's a "fair cop guv" I didn't read them

    I guess it really depends on how you define model. If any mathematical analysis of any description is considered to be modelling, then yes some modelling may have occurred, but using that sort of definition, I’ve just sub consciously modelled picking up my tea cup and raising it to my lips. Did I spill anything.... Nope..... Seems that I’ve empirically tested that too ;-)

    Plus, all of this is really a straw man............. what about the penguins?

    Where's the heat?

    Where's the hotspot?

    Regards,

    One of the Lobby

    Complain about this comment

  • 149. At 09:58am on 13 Dec 2010, blunderbunny wrote:

    @Lamna_nasus

    Almost forgot, from my earlier post:

    'Plus, that's the same Dr. Trenberth that brought you the need for scientists to “massage their data, exercising judgment about what might be defective and best disregarded"'

    Prompted this, from you:

    'Are you seriously suggesting that scientists should not rigorously examine their data for fault'

    Data, once collected is sacrosanct. If you manipulate/pre-process it any way then that needs to be explained very clearly in flashing bold double extra large type. Plus, you'll need to be very, very explicit why it's necessary and you'll need to be able to provide the original unmolested data when asked for it.

    Generally, just assuming that inconvenient data is/must be bad is not considered a good enough excuse for changing it. Indeed, in many fields of study/scientific endeavour changing it could land you at least in court and potentially in prison.

    Regards,

    One of the Lobby

    Complain about this comment

  • 150. At 10:02am on 13 Dec 2010, Brunnen wrote:

    @147. At 09:22am on 13 Dec 2010, sensiblegrannie wrote:

    Perhaps I am being over imaginative but to me it looks as if the environment is showing more signs of stress. There appears to be more manifestations of biological entities attacking humans.
    Shark attacks; cholera; dengue; etc.

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

    The short answer to that would be no. Emphatically no.

    The idea that beings without high intelligence could be involved in some sort of worldwide conspiracy to teach mankind a lesson is, at best, fanciful.

    The Gaia theory is complete nonsense and deserves no more respect than phrenology or homeopathy.

    Complain about this comment

  • 151. At 10:08am on 13 Dec 2010, bowmanthebard wrote:

    In my opinion, a 'model' differs from a hypothesis in that it mimics its subject matter rather than describing it.

    For example, Newton's law of gravitation 'F = GmM/r^2' describes the magnitude of the force between two objects, and depending on whether the actual force between two objects really does have the magnitude the law says it has, it's true or false.

    Now imagine one of those chutes you sometimes see for giving coins to charity. It's basically a circular pit with a hole in the middle, and smooth sides which are angled like the flared bell of a trumpet. Coins rolled in at the right angle will roll around and around pleasingly before eventually falling into the hole. But any rolling object such as a marble would be accelerated as if subject to a force from the centre. Such an object would serve as a model of the force of gravity rather than as a description of it.

    Models are usually much more complicated than hypotheses, because they do not refer to items in the world the way language does; but there is no reason why they can't be tested against reality and found to be "good enough" or "not good enough".

    Complain about this comment

  • 152. At 10:16am on 13 Dec 2010, SR wrote:

    @blunderbunny

    The realclimate link showing the arguments against Lindzen's idea (which really, just echo published science) has not been addressed by you.

    Can you go through each point of the following link, one by one:

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/01/lindzen-and-choi-unraveled/

    ...and respond. It's all very well to take shots in the dark against models and climate science in general, but there is actually an extruciatingly large amount of work that goes into getting the methods correct. Best, therefore, to shoot down each point one by one rather than trying to fell the whole thing in one shot...

    Complain about this comment

  • 153. At 10:21am on 13 Dec 2010, quake wrote:

    Re 141

    "Care to explain that 0.74?

    UAH and RSS were only 0.381 and 0.312, doesn't that seem just a little odd to you?"

    0.74C above what? 0.381C and 0.312C above what? You have to use the same baseline in order to do a fair comparison. Otherwise the discrepancy is exagerated by the fact that the satellites use a warmer baseline.

    Complain about this comment

  • 154. At 10:26am on 13 Dec 2010, sensiblegrannie wrote:

    Brunnen at post 150

    ...which leads me directly to the next question which I am not going to ask.

    Complain about this comment

  • 155. At 10:53am on 13 Dec 2010, bowmanthebard wrote:

    SR #152 wrote:

    there is actually an extruciatingly large amount of work that goes into getting the methods correct.

    Did you mean to say "models" here? What does it mean to say they do work to get the "methods" correct?

    Complain about this comment

  • 156. At 11:05am on 13 Dec 2010, sensiblegrannie wrote:

    bowmanthebard at post 155
    Surely, you need 'methods' before you make the 'models?' How else are you going to refer back if the model doesn't work?

    Complain about this comment

  • 157. At 11:05am on 13 Dec 2010, oobuc5 wrote:

    Why was the sun,s natural cycle left out of the [planet warming ]calculations ?

    The americans have used the worlds longest ice core drill in the world
    to obtain weather info going back futher than anyone else ,to veryfy climate changes, what happened to these figures ?

    Late sixties americans start a program to place deep sea bouys in the worlds oceans to gauge temp /current of the oceans ,this program continues to this day ,what are the figures ?

    1969 american economy is forcast to be in decline because of the forcast for [peak oil ] what is needed is a mirical like planent warming then we get the emission regulation and car engines loaded with expensive sensors and they have to have to have any fault diagnosed with expensive equipment ,and the american economy regenerates, this same model serves the rest of the world ,but it makes you think that without the [ planet warming ]or [ climate change ] sinario blowing up all over the world where would the worlds economies be now ?

    missing infomation /figures massarged /tell them any crap attitude and then cover it up ! I dont know you tell me !

    Complain about this comment

  • 158. At 11:24am on 13 Dec 2010, quake wrote:

    "Why was the sun,s natural cycle left out of the [planet warming ]calculations ?"

    It wasn't.

    Complain about this comment

  • 159. At 11:28am on 13 Dec 2010, oobuc5 wrote:

    climate change /planet warming,whatever you want to call it happens in cycles ,it gets hotter it gets cooler the only annoying thing in all of this is that busness men /politicins use it to make trillions of dollars / pounds ,its about basing your total economy on oil and then reaching [peak oil ] the whole climate thing is about the G club =g2 g10 /g20 /,these are the people who decide where the worlds money goes ,along with the worlds resources .

    There are too many people in the world and war is the last resort due to the expence so blame it on the[ make love not war ] generation and tell them its all their fault ,and then you can tax them for poluting the planet .

    [planet warming /climate change whatever you want to call it is about money /resources /and power look around you !

    Complain about this comment

  • 160. At 11:29am on 13 Dec 2010, bowmanthebard wrote:

    156. At 11:05am on 13 Dec 2010, sensiblegrannie wrote:

    Surely, you need 'methods' before you make the 'models?' How else are you going to refer back if the model doesn't work?

    I'm wondering how they judge a model "not to work" -- in other words, what it is the model fails to fit. Once we're clear about that, I'm wondering how they change their methods -- rather than just initial conditions which are part of the model itself -- if a model doesn't fit whatever it is they were hoping it would fit!

    Complain about this comment

  • 161. At 11:34am on 13 Dec 2010, bowmanthebard wrote:

    Actually, the whole discussion about methods and models has got so vague and abstract I feel like I'm trying to nail Jell-o to the wall.

    A few simple questions asking for non-technical answers:

    1. A computer climate model is a model of what?
    2. What is it made to "fit"?
    3. How is it tested?
    4. What changes are made to it when it fails a test of "fit"?
    5. What changes are made to the methods used?

    Complain about this comment

  • 162. At 11:43am on 13 Dec 2010, Lamna nasus wrote:

    @148 blunderbunny
    'Personally, I define model by use of the word model...... Silly I know'


    So the answer is no.. thank you.


    Quoting from Lindzen's paper doesn't make it correct or automatically confer any authority on your own position.. address the criticisms raised by the scientific community to Lindzen's paper or you have got nothing.. cutting and pasting does not equate to comprehension... explain the lack of objective criterion for selecting their endpoints and why their model can be robust at the same time as allowing the perceived feedback to be whatever one wishes it to be.



    @148 blunderbunny
    'Svensmark, is again, just playing with data and analysing stats etc...'


    .. 'just playing'.. so no modeling to demonstrate his theory works just an appeal to statistics.. and then that analysis was demonstrated to have made important and substantive errors by Professor Laut.


    The Vertical Structure of Temperature in the Tropics: Different Flavors of El Niño, Trenberth and Smith 2006, addresses the hotspot.. as for the heat.. a considerable amount is buffered by the planets oceans.
    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/

    Complain about this comment

  • 163. At 12:06pm on 13 Dec 2010, Brunnen wrote:

    @154. At 10:26am on 13 Dec 2010, sensiblegrannie wrote:

    Brunnen at post 150

    ...which leads me directly to the next question which I am not going to ask.

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

    Please do ask. There are no stupid questions, only stupid answers. I'll try my best to avoid a stupid answer...

    Complain about this comment

  • 164. At 12:49pm on 13 Dec 2010, SR wrote:

    @bowmanthebard, post 160.

    Yes, there are ways to determine how 'good' a model is. Is the best way to treat the model not to treat it as a black box with inputs and outputs? Even though today's inputs may not be testable without a time machine, we can plug into the same black box historical data and see how the model predictions compared to what actually happened.

    To be fair to today's models, they are quite good at hindcasting. The point about methods derives from the fact that every element of the model needs to be vigorously backed up - you can't just fudge it to get what you want or to make it fit historical data. The fact that the models are quite good at hindcasting, and the robustness of the theoretical work backing them up is a good indicator that our current understanding of how CO2 effects climate is not that far off. Just as a reminder, nobody has yet found a valid (by valid, one that agrees with the current understanding of atmospheric physics, of course) model that can explain 20th century warming without including the effects of CO2.

    Complain about this comment

  • 165. At 12:54pm on 13 Dec 2010, Robert Leather wrote:

    Well done for thinking the $100 billion CO2 gravy train is a good thing for the world. Or how certain individuals stands to be tens of millions from the Cap and Trade BUSINESS. Or perhaps the allowance of derivatives in this market.

    You idiot.

    It's NOTHING to do with the environment and EVERYTHING to do with making money and keeping power; and you've bought into it hook line and sinker.


    But then you do represent the Ministry of Truth, so what are we to expect.....

    .. this comment never being moderated onto the board for one.

    Complain about this comment

  • 166. At 1:20pm on 13 Dec 2010, ghostofsichuan wrote:

    We have an agreement not to do anything for a very long time and when that time comes we will do very little. It is encouraging to see the countries all working together.
    Business wins again. Guilt money to developing nations, traditionally, bribes to national leaders.
    It would be unfair to hold businesses responsible for pollution and such when they cause when bankers were rewarded for robbing the treasuries.
    We are in a political Dark Ages and the Vandals are at the gates.

    Complain about this comment

  • 167. At 1:41pm on 13 Dec 2010, JaneBasingstoke wrote:

    @GeoffWard #117

    "the sheepdog to we errant sheep"

    That ain't me.

    First off I am just as guilty of the tactical error. Secondly I have a big mouth and my #112 included an opinion that covers why us warmists are losing the debate so badly. (It isn't just the UK's cold winter. It predated last year's cold.)

    Of course if you have other ideas covering the same subject I would be interested to hear them.

    Complain about this comment

  • 168. At 1:43pm on 13 Dec 2010, bowmanthebard wrote:

    SR #164 wrote:

    To be fair to today's models, they are quite good at hindcasting.

    The trouble is, "hindcasting" is dangerously ambiguous. It can mean "predicting data that, although of the past climate, had no part whatever in the construction of the model and was in effect unseen"; or it can mean "predicting data that had some part in shaping the model".

    Can you positively confirm that all that is meant by "hindcasting" here is very strictly the former, and not the latter?

    Complain about this comment

  • 169. At 2:08pm on 13 Dec 2010, bowmanthebard wrote:

    GeoffWard #117 wrote:

    Black and white is Bowman's Scientific Method - you know, the sort of (double-blind, control) science that we can't do with just one whole world in the test-tube.

    That's a very unfair comment. I have never, ever asked for "double blind" or "control" anything, as all of that stuff is just fine-tuning of the very inductivism I have been rubbishing for ages.

    All I am insisting on is that hypotheses be tested, because it's only in passing tests that we get empirical reasons to think a hypothesis is true. Constructing a hypothesis to fit some prior "data" is completely misguided, whether or not you add "double blind" and/or various other "control" constraints, because all you will be doing still is constructing something ad hoc. Something specifically made up with the purpose of fitting data will fit those data, but it is very unlikely to fit the world, which is what truth involves.

    Far from insisting on having the world in a test tube, I'm insisting that you guys wake up to the fact that all you are doing is amplifying extraneous noise, so you end up with reams and reams and reams of artifactual detail. It is YOU lot, not Ie, who imagine that you "have the world in a test tube".

    Your remark echoes JaneBasingstoke's occasional hint that logic is too demanding for real science, or that its strictures are too strict, or that they demand some sort of ideal crystalline purity, unlike the rough ground of real science.

    But really, I've been saying all along that the structure of science just cannot fit the model of deduction -- which is what your inductivism amounts to. Instead, I've been saying that science is essentially guesswork, unconstrained by logic.

    Complain about this comment

  • 170. At 2:15pm on 13 Dec 2010, bowmanthebard wrote:

    "It is YOU lot, not Ie,"

    Aw rats -- that's what you get for trying to do grammar good and change 'me' to 'I'!

    Complain about this comment

  • 171. At 2:16pm on 13 Dec 2010, LarryKealey wrote:


    158. At 11:24am on 13 Dec 2010, quake wrote:
    "Why was the sun,s natural cycle left out of the [planet warming ]calculations ?"

    It wasn't.


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

    Please describe in detail the natural cycles (emphasis on plural) of the sun and how they were incorporated into the models.

    We know very little about the 'cycles of the sun' and their effects upon both the sun and our beautiful little blue ball. Sure, we know some about the 11 year sunspot cycle - but tell me, what drives it? Why does it exist? What other cycles on other timescales drive the climate of the sun?

    Love to hear about how much we really [don't] know.

    Cheers.

    Kealey

    Complain about this comment

  • 172. At 2:48pm on 13 Dec 2010, blunderbunny wrote:

    @Lamna_nasus

    First things first, it wasn't me that brought up the existence of Sceptical models, and it wasn me that chose to use examples of work that didn't include a sceptical model.......

    So, I think you should have the good grace to admit when you're wrong...

    I'm waiting................

    Secondly, my opinion of Trenberth, is my own. But I would not trust any of his work where it involved any data analysis (Given his public stance on manipulation), so that's kind of his whole body of work really ;-)

    Thirdly, it's not up to me to defend either Lindzen and Choi or indeed Svensmark. As far as I can tell, they do quite a job of doing that for themselves.

    Still waiting...............

    Regards,

    One of the Lobby

    Complain about this comment

  • 173. At 3:08pm on 13 Dec 2010, blunderbunny wrote:

    @Quake

    Okay, should have been more precise. I was referring to the GISS November temperature anomaly 0.74C and the UAH and RSS anomalies, which were only 0.381 and 0.312:

    Even if you look at the anomalies adjusted for baseleines:

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

    You've still got a 0.119C and 0.188 difference to explain.

    Regards,

    One of the Lobby

    Complain about this comment

  • 174. At 3:38pm on 13 Dec 2010, Lamna nasus wrote:

    @172 blunderbunny


    First, Lindzen's work contains modeling and Svensmark's work is statistical modeling.. and both are skeptics.. so you are in for a very long wait.

    Second, you appear unable to explain the shortcomings in both those studies.. I have provided rebuttals to both, so your opinion of their merit is flawed.

    Third, your thesis that any adjustment to scientific data means that the study is untrustworthy, should of course be applied to all skeptic studies, in the interests of balance.. so that's Svensmark's work dealt with already -

    '..These were all displayed in the 1997‐article, but some of them were removed again in the 1998‐article. Strangely enough, the removed data were precisely those data which indicated a beginning disagreement with the solar theory...'
    - Climate Change: The Role of Flawed Science, An analysis by Peter Laut, November 2009'

    Complain about this comment

  • 175. At 3:50pm on 13 Dec 2010, quake wrote:

    "You've still got a 0.119C and 0.188 difference to explain"

    What was the difference between HadCRUT and UAH/RSS in January?

    Complain about this comment

  • 176. At 4:02pm on 13 Dec 2010, blunderbunny wrote:

    @lamna_nasus

    I can only assume that you are being deliberately obtuse. You brought these papers up, not me, why would I be remotely interested in defending them? As I've said already, they are more than capable of defending themselves.

    I don't have a very high opinion of Trenberth and I think I've made myself clear as to why.

    So let's perhaps return to the questions that you seem so keen to dodge, where's the heat? Where's the Troposheric hotspot?

    Regards,

    One of the Lobby

    Complain about this comment

  • 177. At 4:12pm on 13 Dec 2010, blunderbunny wrote:

    @Lamna_nasus

    "First, Lindzen's work contains modeling and Svensmark's work is statistical modeling.. and both are skeptics.. so you are in for a very long wait."

    It does not contain any sceptical models !!!

    It's a test of a set of por-AGW GCMs, against actual data...... a test where the models didn't do very well. If it wasn't considered a thorn in the side of the "Team" it wouldn't have warranted it's own little post on RC, now would it?

    Svensmark work, does not contain a model at all. It's just an analysis of the data.

    Potential moderation, prevents me from describing you accurately,

    One of the Lobby

    Complain about this comment

  • 178. At 4:14pm on 13 Dec 2010, AngusPangus wrote:

    SR @ #164,

    Did you just cut-and-paste that from RealClimate without acknowledging your source??

    "black box" "quite good at hindcasting" "robustness" all sound rather, well....Gavinesque

    Complain about this comment

  • 179. At 4:21pm on 13 Dec 2010, Lamna nasus wrote:

    @176 blunderbunny

    You are already discussing that subject with quake I wouldn't dream of cutting in.

    Complain about this comment

  • 180. At 5:07pm on 13 Dec 2010, Arcid wrote:

    SR wrote:

    @bowmanthebard, post 160.

    Yes, there are ways to determine how 'good' a model is. Is the best way to treat the model not to treat it as a black box with inputs and outputs? Even though today's inputs may not be testable without a time machine, we can plug into the same black box historical data and see how the model predictions compared to what actually happened.

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

    The problem with this is that it doesn't really show you how good a model is. The only way you could do that is to make a set of predictions for a future date (1 weeks time, 1 months time, 3 months time etc, adjust by timescale) and then compare after the time has passed.

    The reason is that if the models are to be considered to have any worth they would need to be updated as the observed results come up and inevitable vary from the data. While this can be useful it's a method of working which often leads to fitting the data around the assumptions if you're dealing with the number of unknows that the climate has.

    Also, the current climate models are good at hindcasting as you say, but this is to be expected when the models are being updated in this manner. What you have isn't so much a fairly well tuned model of the climate as a set of functions fine tuned to give you todays weather from yesterdays data. That's a massive difference

    Complain about this comment

  • 181. At 5:30pm on 13 Dec 2010, bowmanthebard wrote:

    Yours truly (having a conversation with himself) wrote:

    science is essentially guesswork, unconstrained by logic

    What I should have said was "science is essentially guesswork, constrained in a much more limited way by logic than inductivists think".

    Complain about this comment

  • 182. At 5:55pm on 13 Dec 2010, CanadianRockies wrote:

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

  • 183. At 6:12pm on 13 Dec 2010, Lamna nasus wrote:

    @177 blunderbunny


    calm yourself bb.. Svensmark's study produces a statistical model for cosmic ray effects on climate.. this is precisely why I asked you if you wanted to supply a more precise definition of 'model'.. which you failed to accept.

    Further you should note, Svensmark states -

    '..From cloud satellite observations and numerical cloud modeling it is found that a 1% change in the total composition of Earth's cloud cover correspond to a 0.5W/m2 change in met radiative forcing...

    This does not imply that other factors can not affect clouds or climate. However a cloud cover that is modulated by solar activity in this way will have an influence on climate...

    It is necessary to identify a micro-physical mechanism, which might not be an easy task.'
    - 'Influence of Cosmic Rays on Earth's Climate', Svensmark*, Physical Review Letters 15th Oct. 98.

    So Svensmark references 'numerical cloud modeling'.. does not actually detail precisely how his thesis works at the micro-physical level.. or rule out 'other factors' affecting climate either.. indeed the idea that the average state of the Heliosphere affects Earth's climate, is not exactly contentious.

    Complain about this comment

  • 184. At 6:16pm on 13 Dec 2010, bowmanthebard wrote:

    Any model that is just a "black box" with inputs and outputs would be an "oracle" -- and an extremely wonky one at that, because its "pronouncements" wouldn't be lawlike. In other words, it wouldn't embody the essential linkage between initial conditions and output.

    To go back to another recent conversation, it would be like what Tycho Brahe might have come up with using his own figures of past apparent planetary positions had he been really good at Fourier analysis, say, but knew absolutely nothing about the Sun as the centre of the solar system, or elliptical orbits, or planets sweeping out equal areas in equal times.

    That would have been a disaster! The extrapolated figures would just go all over the place! A total random chaotic mess!

    You're not trying to tell me that that's what these nitwits are up to? -- If so, I will borrow one of their favourite phrases: "it's even worse than I thought!"

    Complain about this comment

  • 185. At 6:17pm on 13 Dec 2010, CanadianRockies wrote:

    139. Lamna_nasus wrote:

    ..Bob who?.. reviewed where?.. with what qualifications?.. is this just some random Contrarian blogger making unsubstantiated claims..."

    Sorry, but this trick doesn't work anymore. But to answer your question, here's Tisdale's own site and what he has done to date.

    http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/

    Blog Archive
    ▼ 2010 (88)
    ▼ December (2)
    The ENSO-Related Variations In Kuroshio-Oyashio Ex...
    November 2010 SST Anomaly Update
    ► November (8)
    Long-Term ONI-Like Table Of El Niño and La Niña Ev...
    PRELIMINARY November 2010 SST Anomaly Update
    Does Hadley Centre Sea Surface Temperature Data (H...
    Guan and Nigam 2008 And 2009
    Mid-November 2010 SST Anomaly Update
    Multidecadal Changes In Sea Surface Temperature
    October 2010 SST Anomaly Update
    PRELIMINARY October 2010 SST Anomaly Update
    ► October (5)
    Mid-October 2010 SST Anomaly Update
    Update And Changes To NODC Ocean Heat Content Data...
    September 2010 SST Anomaly Update
    On The Differences Between Surface And TLT Dataset...
    October 2010 Update to NODC Ocean Heat Content Dat...
    ► September (7)
    PRELIMINARY September 2010 SST Anomaly Update
    Mid-September 2010 SST Anomaly Update
    The Declines In Global Temperatures From El Niño T...
    An Inverse Relationship Between The PDO And North ...
    The Multivariate ENSO Index (MEI) Captures The Glo...
    August 2010 SST Anomaly Update
    An Introduction To ENSO, AMO, and PDO -- Part 3
    ► August (9)
    PRELIMINARY August 2010 SST Anomaly Update
    On Lee and McPhaden (2010) “Increasing intensity o...
    The Global Coverage of NCDC Merged Land + Sea Surf...
    Mid-August 2010 SST Anomaly Update
    On Liu and Curry (2010) “Accelerated Warming of th...
    An Introduction To ENSO, AMO, and PDO -- Part 2
    July 2010 SST Anomaly Update
    An Introduction To ENSO, AMO, and PDO – Part 1
    No Preliminary SST Data For July 2010---Yet
    ► July (6)
    LINKS TO SST ANOMALY UPDATES
    Land Surface Temperature Contribution To Non-Polar...
    Notes On The GISTEMP Ratio Of Land To Sea Surface ...
    La Niña Update – Week Of July 7, 2010
    June 2010 SST Anomaly Update
    An Overview Of Sea Surface Temperature Datasets Us...
    ► June (5)
    PRELIMINARY June 2010 SST Anomaly Update
    January To March 2010 NODC Ocean Heat Content (0-7...
    La Niña Is Not The Opposite Of El Niño – The Video...
    May 2010 SST Anomaly Update
    PRELIMINARY May 2010 SST Anomaly Update
    ► May (8)
    GISS Deletes Arctic And Southern Ocean Sea Surface...
    Mid-May 2010 SST Anomaly Update
    Tom Karl’s Trends Are Wrong - At Least in Slide 21...
    NINO3.4 SST Anomalies Are Now Negative
    April 2010 SST Anomaly Update
    NINO3.4 SST Anomalies In Neutral Territory
    The 2009/10 Warming Of The South Atlantic
    Typical (Average) El Nino, Traditional El Nino, an...
    ► April (7)
    ► March (11)
    ► February (6)
    ► January (14)
    ► 2009 (149)
    ► December (15)
    ► November (12)
    ► October (13)
    ► September (11)
    ► August (8)
    ► July (16)
    ► June (13)
    ► May (12)
    ► April (8)
    ► March (14)
    ► February (11)
    ► January (16)
    ► 2008 (117)
    ► December (15)
    ► November (20)
    ► October (14)
    ► September (11)
    ► August (12)
    ► July (14)
    ► June (19)
    ► May (10)
    ► April (2)


    Complain about this comment

  • 186. At 6:52pm on 13 Dec 2010, CanadianRockies wrote:

    146. sensiblegrannie wrote:

    "What happens next?"

    The AGW crisis industry hunkers down and desperately searches for new faked data to prove cold is warm and everything is caused by CO2. This industry should just die but there's too much vested money in it already, not to mention the egos of a whole herd of Prince Charles types.

    #147. sensiblegrannie wrote:

    "Perhaps I am being over imaginative but to me it looks as if the environment is showing more signs of stress. There appears to be more manifestations of biological entities attacking humans.
    Shark attacks; cholera; dengue; etc."

    Yes you are being imaginative, and falling for the usual AGW trick of cherry picking anecdotal information to fit your conclusion.

    Perhaps you will find some interesting parallels with this:

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/32396573/Witch-Hunting-Maunder

    Excerpt: "The Age of Witch-Hunting thus seems pretty congruent with the era of the Little Ice Age. The peaks of the persecution coincide with the critical points of climatic deterioration. Witches traditionally had been held responsible for bad weather which was so dangerous for the precarious agriculture of the pre-industrial period. But it was only in the 15th century that ecclesiastical and secular authorities accepted the reality of that crime. The 1420ies, the 1450ies, and the last two decades of the fifteenth century, well known in the history of climate, were decisive years in which secular and ecclesiastical authorities increasingly accepted the existence of weather-making witches. During the "cumulative sequences of coldness" in the years 1560-1574, 1583-1589 and 1623-1630, again 1678-1698 (Pfister 1988, 150) people demanded the eradication of the witches whom they held responsible for climatic aberrations. Obviously it was the impact of the Little Ice Age which increased the pressure from below and made parts of the intellectual elites believe in the existence of witchcraft. So it is possible to say: witchcraft was the unique crime of the Little Ice Age."

    Now we have CO2 as the groupthink demon instead of witches. Cannot burn witches anymore because of the CO2 emissions... and there's no money in it.

    P.S. brunnen's comments put the icing on the cake.

    Complain about this comment

  • 187. At 7:12pm on 13 Dec 2010, CanadianRockies wrote:

    The story behind Hansen's "hottest year" in three clear graphics:

    http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2010/12/13/hansens-hottest-year-ever-is-primarily-based-on-fabricated-data/

    A big picture view that questions the CO2 story:

    http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2010/12/13/geologic-record-shows-no-relationship-between-temperature-and-co2/

    And on the topic of models:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/05/new-peer-reviewed-paper-shows-just-how-bad-the-climate-models-are/

    Complain about this comment

  • 188. At 7:15pm on 13 Dec 2010, quake wrote:

    "Please describe in detail the natural cycles (emphasis on plural) of the sun and how they were incorporated into the models."

    The 11-year cycle and the change in direct solar output over the 20th century are included and not ignored.

    What is left that is ignored? The word ignored suggests that there is a known cycle with known quantified temperature effect that has been omitted from the calculations. As far as I am aware that isn't the case.

    Complain about this comment

  • 189. At 7:17pm on 13 Dec 2010, Lamna nasus wrote:

    @185 CanadiaRockies

    Don't duck the question.. who is Bob Tisdale and what are his qualifications?.. because referring to a random 'guest poster' on a political blog as an authoritative scientific figure.. if he doesn't have any scientific qualifications and is virtually unknown apart from his own blog.. is a trick that really doesn't work...

    Complain about this comment

  • 190. At 7:28pm on 13 Dec 2010, bowmanthebard wrote:

    Lamna_nasus #189 wrote:

    who is Bob Tisdale and what are his qualifications?

    I re-post this as a near-perfect example of the fallacy of appeal to authority, so beloved of the scientifically illiterate.

    Complain about this comment

  • 191. At 7:32pm on 13 Dec 2010, GeoffWard wrote:

    "As a non-physicist, I am interested in the bits of *Physics* that cause you both to doubt AGW by CO2." (GeoffWard 63)
    ..............................
    ”Try these arguments for size” (John_from_Hendon wrote @ 108):
    ............................................
    CO2 and its C-Cycle modify heat retention & fluxes in the ‘heat-in/heat-out vessel called Earth. It is demonstrable in physical laboratory experiments, so the test is ‘does the Earth demonstrate a different set of physical principles?’ There is a (Natural) Greenhouse Effect which moderates or modifies climate, but not in a physical-linear fashion (though cause and effect calculations can use linear algebra, etc); on one scale, climate is chaotic, exhibiting complex unpredictable internal variations with strange attractors that can switch the global climate between ‘stable’ states, two of which are (i) where we are now and (ii) snowball earth, and, on a lesser scale, glacial to interglacial shifts. Climate change can result in hemisphere-wide increases and decreases at the same time within a global nett increase (or decrease) in atmosphere/land-surface temperature; or it can be largely restricted to global regions such as sub-Saharan Africa (Internal Climate Variability). Driving forces may be eg. Earth-Solar orbital eccentricity, magnetic poles-reversal, and El Nino, conveyors, monsoons, etc, but switchings-on/off (cusp change) is not the province of CO2 *alone*, and certainly not (so far) AGW CO2 as a simple increment of ‘natural’ greenhouse gas levels. ‘Natural’ CO2 and anthropogenic CO2 are undoubted contributors to Positive Climate (Radiative) Forcing when in atmospheric increase, and to Negative Forcing when entering geological sinks. Climate changes act to restore the balance between the energy absorbed from the Sun and the infrared energy emitted into space, however, contemporary conditions favour Positive Forcing (=warming).The rate at which heat is moved from the surface to the ocean depths is an important factor in determining the speed at which climate can change in response to climate forcing, but cusp-change can replace this slow change with an acute climatic shift of state.

    We can understand the present global climatic position as being on a multi-vectored response surface, where a shift of climate state to a massively different state becomes increasingly likely as the present state approaches an inflection (cusp). The flip, if and when it occurs, is a ‘low energy’ flip, but the entropy implications of having flipped make any change back to the previous alternate state a practical impossibility (and not one that is remotely within the capability of man). Thus, the imperative is to create global conditions that track our position on the response surface away from any cusp…. And this is what management of the incremental (primary anthropogenc and secondarily released – forest-burn, clathrate-release, CFCs, NOxs, etc) load of atmospheric greenhouse gases is all about.

    Yes, CO2 is only part of the story, and cause & response are frequently obscure, and complex-modeling is always incomplete, and human beings can only manage what is manageable (solar orbit change is not yet within our capability; atmospheric gaseous loadings are.).

    I am aware that the human race can adapt to most physical conditions that ‘slow’ climate change can throw at us because the laws of physics shows us the limits of change. But what the ‘physics of stability’ (and probably the human species) cannot accommodate is the unintended and unpredictable consequence of chaotic state-change.

    As I used to say to my children “Stay away from the edge”.

    Complain about this comment

  • 192. At 7:39pm on 13 Dec 2010, quake wrote:

    Re 185:

    Bob Tisdale should submit his ideas to peer review if they are that technical in nature and he considers them to be correct and the mainstream view to be wrong. It's a key means to convince other experts, and that's surely who you need to convince to get an idea into mainstream acceptance.

    Otherwise he could post to that blog for 100 years and never recieve a view from someone who knows enough to scrutinize his idea. That means that not only do we the laypeople never see a critique, but also the idea stays hidden.

    Complain about this comment

  • 193. At 7:43pm on 13 Dec 2010, CanadianRockies wrote:

    #189. Lamna_nasus wrote:

    "Don't duck the question.. who is Bob Tisdale and what are his qualifications?"

    Children need to do their own homework, so please do.

    I recall the same kind of questions about McIntyre... you know, our Canadian hero who showed what the Mann-made hockey stick really was.

    On the other hand, Hansen, Mann and Jones have lots of "qualifications" and plenty of pal reviewed papers.

    What matters is the content.

    But if we are supposed to close our minds to everything that has not been pal reviewed by the AGW gang, why are so many people going on about the 'hottest year'? Or has the gang already produced a pal reviewed paper on that before the year ended?

    Complain about this comment

  • 194. At 7:46pm on 13 Dec 2010, CanadianRockies wrote:

    #190. bowmanthebard

    Exactly.

    Complain about this comment

  • 195. At 7:48pm on 13 Dec 2010, bowmanthebard wrote:

    quake #192 wrote:

    ... should submit his ideas to peer review if they are that technical in nature and he considers them to be correct and the mainstream view to be wrong.

    Translation: "... should submit his ideas to the holy inquisition if they are that theological in nature and he considers them to be to be correct and the official church view to be wrong."

    Have you no shame about your attitudes to heretics? Have you no knowledge of the history of that sort of conformism? What sort of authoritarian are you?

    Complain about this comment

  • 196. At 7:52pm on 13 Dec 2010, quake wrote:

    Re 190

    I can't speak for anyone else, but I don't understand what Bob Tisdale's argument is. I don't have sufficient expertize in the ocean datasets nor an understanding of climate mechanisms in the ocean to personally assess what he's arguing.

    I said I can't speak for anyone else but I seriously doubt anyone here or reading WUWT has the knowledge to assess what Bob Tisdale is arguing (that knowledge might be a little greater than the knowledge needed to make the argument as is sometimes the case)

    So in the absense of being able to figure it out ourselves, what Lamna_nasus is effectively looking for is what I would look for too. Namely a published background in this area that would indicate other experts have been over the work. Otherwise who has checked it?

    Ironically I think the actual fallacy of argument from authority here could in fact be the very citation of Bob Tisdale's blog posts as an argument.

    "Here's an argument none of us understand that looks quite technical" seems to be an argument from authority as we are supposed to believe an argument we can't understand is authorative because it looks authorative, not because we can assess it to be right.

    Complain about this comment

  • 197. At 8:04pm on 13 Dec 2010, CanadianRockies wrote:

    192. quake

    First, I'll second bowmanthebard's #195.

    Are you the only person left who does not know how corrupted the peer review system is in this field? That was one of the key revelations of Climategate - for those who didn't already know it.

    The so called 'peers' were just advocates masquerading as scientists, pal reviewing each other's papers while attempting to control the publishing process... and they got away with it for a long time.

    That said, the rest of your comment is living in the past. Virtually all of the very legitimate questions about the AGW orthodoxy ("science") have originated from the blogosphere and have, in case you haven't noticed, had an effect and have not remained "hidden."

    Complain about this comment

  • 198. At 8:11pm on 13 Dec 2010, Lamna nasus wrote:

    @196 quake
    'I don't understand what Bob Tisdale's argument is.'

    The Tisdale blog looks like a professional article service for Contrarian activists .. it starts up from nothing with that format and there are no personal details.

    Tisdale has turned up in the comments section of a couple of the scientific blogs and interestingly they had the same opinion as you.. the 'headlines' do not appear to match the articles.. but they are designed to look authoritative..

    Complain about this comment

  • 199. At 8:23pm on 13 Dec 2010, sensiblegrannie wrote:

    bowmanthebard at post 161
    The only way to control jell o is to pour it into a mold where it will take on the shape of the mold. That is the trouble with something unsupported and formless, it needs a little help.

    Complain about this comment

  • 200. At 8:40pm on 13 Dec 2010, CanadianRockies wrote:

    #198. Lamna_nasus wrote:

    "The Tisdale blog looks like a professional article service for Contrarian activists..."

    No. He doesn't get paid to do it. On the other hand Real Climate is a state sponsored blog for professional AGW activists, but you seem to have no problem with that.

    I notice that you never actually address the contents of Tisdale's articles but just attempt to smear them. The gang used to do that to our Candian hero McIntyre too, but it doesn't work anymore.

    Quake, Tisdale's articles are quite understandable with just a little effort, and the comments following them will answer many questions about them. They also do find the flaws in his work, and point them out, and he often quickly answers them and when it makes sense to him, adjusts accordingly. Unlike censored sites like Real Climate, anyone can comment (unless just plain rude) and unlike the AGW types, he is very open to criticism, acknowledges when he made an error, learns from that, and proceeds accordingly. That is how real scientific thinking works... the debate is never over, particularly when looking at something as complex as the global climate system.

    Now, to be redundant, I'll post this link again. No matter what you may think about its conclusions it is a fascinating look at some of the drivers of climate:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/11/19/integrating-enso-multidecadal-changes-in-sea-surface-temperature/

    So, if you want to learn something, or at least get some food for thought from outside of the simplistic CO2 box, it is worth a look.



    Complain about this comment

  • 201. At 8:53pm on 13 Dec 2010, Lamna nasus wrote:

    @193 CanadianRockies
    'who showed what the Mann-made hockey stick really was.'


    Mostly correct.. according to the National Research Council...



    Complain about this comment

  • 202. At 9:04pm on 13 Dec 2010, CanadianRockies wrote:

    Here's the latest in-depth examination of the hockey stick... and, sorry, but you can't use your standard 'but it isn't peer reviewed' line here.

    "The McShane & Wyner discussion is now available at the Annals of Applied Statistics" and this provides links to the whole discussion.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/13/mcshane-wyner-hockey-stick-smackdown-redux/

    Complain about this comment

  • 203. At 9:34pm on 13 Dec 2010, Jake Schmidt wrote:

    The Cancun Agreements are a detailed set of visionary, yet pragmatic principles that make important strides to begin implementing the agreement reached in Copenhagen last year. The countries gathered in Cancun made progress on emissions reductions, greater transparency, forest preservation and the creation of the green fund to help mobilize much needed investments throughout the world.
    We aren’t done in our battle to address global warming, but these agreements provide a foundation from which to build further action.
    In Cancun, country after country stood up and let their voice be heard that they saw significant promise in the agreement and they would support its adoption by the UN. Countries ranging from the big emitters, the most vulnerable, middle income, the developed and developing world, and from all the different regions of the world rose up in those final hours. It was a sight that I’ve never seen in my years in these negotiations.
    We’ll need that new spirit to remain as much more work lies ahead. Time is not on our side, so we must rise above and find the needed solutions to this challenge.
    For more on my take on the agreement: http://bit.ly/fYC7iQ
    -----
    Jake Schmidt
    International Climate Policy Director, Natural Resources Defense Council

    Complain about this comment

  • 204. At 9:43pm on 13 Dec 2010, RobWansbeck wrote:

    People still quoting realclimate would do well to check the history of Steig et al 2009 and learn how foolish it can be to dismiss blogs.

    http://climateaudit.org/2010/12/11/remember-gavins-taunts-about-steig-et-al-2009/

    At the time Steig 09 came out, RC's Gavin responding to criticism said:

    “... All in all, the critical commentary about this paper has been remarkably weak. ..

    The poor level of their response is not surprising, but it does exemplify the tactics of the whole ‘bury ones head in the sand” movement – they’d much rather make noise than actually work out what is happening. It would be nice if this demonstration of intellectual bankruptcy got some media attention itself. ...“

    Perhaps Richard would like to give this quote the media attention that Gavin requested.

    The realclimate scientists even suggested that the bloggers take a Matlab course.

    The problem for the realclimate scientists was that the paper contained well documented problems that they appear to have been unaware of.
    Having played the derision card and failed they moved to plan B, censorship.

    Unfortunately the RC taunts had led bloggers to write their own paper highlighting the errors in Steig 09. For 10 months a single reviewer (who appears to have been a team) fought to block publication until finally the Journal of Climate accepted the blogger's paper, O'Donnell et al 2010.

    When the paper is released those who worship peer review will finally learn what the blog world has known for almost 2 years. This is not a good way to do science, in fact realclimate has even censored one of the authors commenting on his own peer reviewed paper.

    Had these climate scientists been more prepared to listen to their critics years ago then the flawed Steig 09 paper plus all the Hockey-stick nonsense could have been avoided and the science would have been much better for it.

    Complain about this comment

  • 205. At 9:51pm on 13 Dec 2010, JaneBasingstoke wrote:

    @bowmanthebard #161
    @sensiblegrannie #199

    Jelly makes a very good home for office stationery...

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dqlhn8-Wa78

    :-)

    Complain about this comment

  • 206. At 9:54pm on 13 Dec 2010, Lamna nasus wrote:

    202 CanadianRockies
    'Here's the latest in-depth examination of the hockey stick... and, sorry, but you can't use your standard 'but it isn't peer reviewed' line here.'


    ..indeed -


    A Statistical Analysis Of Multiple Temperature Proxies: Are Reconstructions Of Surface Temperatures Over The Last 1000 Years Reliable?

    '...If we consider rolling decades, 1997-2006 is the warmest on record; our model gives an 80% chance that it was the warmest in the past thousand years...'

    - Blakeley B McShane and Abraham J Wyner



    ..that was the paper you were referring to, right?....

    Complain about this comment

  • 207. At 10:06pm on 13 Dec 2010, CanadianRockies wrote:

    #206. Lamna_nasus

    Good cherry picking! That is ONE of the papers. Try reading the rest, and particularly the Rejoinder.

    Complain about this comment

  • 208. At 10:10pm on 13 Dec 2010, RobWansbeck wrote:

    @206, Lamna_nasus wrote quoting McShane and Wyner :

    '...If we consider rolling decades, 1997-2006 is the warmest on record; our model gives an 80% chance that it was the warmest in the past thousand years...'

    You need to read the paper more carefully and the assumptions it makes regarding their model.

    They explicitly state that they are examining the mathematics not the data.

    Complain about this comment

  • 209. At 11:04pm on 13 Dec 2010, John_from_Hendon wrote:

    #191. GeoffWard wrote:

    "CO2 and its C-Cycle modify heat retention & fluxes in the ‘heat-in/heat-out vessel called Earth."

    Error in the first line, Sorry - the experiment does not simulate the earth receiving a variable solar flux. So all of your subsequent argument is void.

    "CO2 is only part of the story"

    True, it reflects the result of external heating and dose not drive the heating. None of the CO2 related arguments offer an 'explanation' of anything. They are based on irrelevant 'modelling' and false associations.

    We live on a planet that is externally heated giving us seasons that we can relate to the distance and inclination of our planets access of rotation to the heat source. This heat source is capable of altering the temperature of the surface of the planet by up to 100 degrees kelvin from coldest to hottest within the time of six months. We also know that the solar flux varies dramatically from sun spot data etc.

    The CO2 mob posit a model that suggests that a change in CO2 will change temperatures by a couple of degrees (even if we accept their flawed models). So what you have to show conclusively is that the main heat source (the Sun) is constant (which we know it isn't) as a couple of percent change in solar radiation flux would reverse entirely or double the CO2 effect.

    This CO2 stuff is just terrible science.

    Complain about this comment

  • 210. At 11:22pm on 13 Dec 2010, rossglory wrote:

    bowmanthebard

    A few simple questions asking for non-technical answers:

    1. A computer climate model is a model of what?
    whatever it is modelling
    2. What is it made to "fit"?
    nothing, but if it fits past data it is probably doing what it was designed to do
    3. How is it tested?
    see 2
    4. What changes are made to it when it fails a test of "fit"?
    depends
    5. What changes are made to the methods used?
    depends

    Complain about this comment

  • 211. At 00:38am on 14 Dec 2010, quake wrote:

    "Are you the only person left who does not know how corrupted the peer review system is in this field? That was one of the key revelations of Climategate - for those who didn't already know it."

    The idea that half a dozen scientists controlled the worlds climate journals is a nonsensical conspiracy theory. It's just a convenient and false excuse used by skeptics to explain why the peer reviewed literature supports AGW. Creationists also attack the peer review system as corrupt and claim they are being discriminated against for a similar reason.

    Meanwhile the latest WUWT attack on GISTEMP has been shredded to pieces
    http://tamino.wordpress.com/2010/12/13/odd-man-out/

    Complain about this comment

  • 212. At 00:44am on 14 Dec 2010, quake wrote:

    Re 209: "as a couple of percent change in solar radiation flux would reverse entirely or double the CO2 effect."

    Accidentally you've just backed the power of the CO2 changes we are making.

    A couple of percent change in solar radiation within a century is massive and infeasible given the observed behavior of the Sun. It just doesn't happen. The last solar cycle maximum, considered quite high, to the recent solar cycle minimum, considered extraordinarily low, represented only a 0.1% drop in solar output.

    A doubling of CO2 is equivalent to a 2% increase in solar output.

    Complain about this comment

  • 213. At 00:51am on 14 Dec 2010, quake wrote:

    "Quake, Tisdale's articles are quite understandable with just a little effort, and the comments following them will answer many questions about them."

    It's not enough. I can follow what Tisdale is saying about El Nino leading to the heat pooling further west, and hence he expects from that there will be a step change upwards in global temperature in coming years (kind of contradicting the cooling predictions skeptics are making). I don't see why that would exclude greenhouse warming though.

    What I can't do though is tell whether his claims are consistent with the state of knowledge about ENSO in the field that studies it. Obviously I can't ask Tisdale because if he has made a mistake he won't know what it is and neither will I.

    Complain about this comment

  • 214. At 01:10am on 14 Dec 2010, skywatcher1 wrote:

    Nice set of conspiracy theories we have here... somebody refers to a good bit of science, and we have "appeal to authority" or "the peer review provess is skewed". Anyone who dares suggest that actually the peer review process is anything but broken, and refers to the five or six independent investigations that have cleared climate scientists of wrongdoing gets hit with a shout of "whitewash!" It boils down to some people really not wanting to hear that the basic science, underpinned by sound atmospheric physics of considerable maturity, actually to have been very well verified, many times over.

    The fact that blatantly wrong papers by McKitrick and Macintyre (degrees for radians?), McLean et al (remove a linear trend then claim that there is no trend in the original data), Lindzenand Choi (extreme sensitivity to choice of endpoints, so pick a gradient you like), and the latest, is McShane and Wyner (general utter failure to grasp climate science or management of palaeoclimatic datasets, and the object of two peer-reviewed rebuttals by Tinsley and by Schmidt). See John Mashey's expose of the Wegman report's failings and its relationship to M&W at Deep Climate and elsewhere ("Strange Science and the Wegman Report"). So bad science can and does get peer-review published, because there are innumerable journal outlets. How bad does a scientist have to be in order not to get published at all?

    McShane and Wyner were indeed attempting to attack the methodology behind just one of the many "hockey sticks" (odd, as a great many different hockey sticks exist, constructed with many different methodologies and datasets), yet they quite utterly failed to grasp the concepts of, or effect a demolition of, the one hockey stick they attacked. Deep Climate has an online rebuttal that covers many of the points made in the peer-reviewed rebuttals.

    Funny how the likes of Watts or Macintyre uncritically promote material by discredited commentators such as Monckton or Goddard alongside any old rubbish paper that happens to be contrary to the science of AGW. Anyone would think he was utterly blind to the concept of rational thought. His latest epic fail on baselines (implications of 'out of date' baselines, anyone?) should be looked up at Tamino's blog - the debunking of Watts really is like shooting fish in a barrel, but I guess someone has to do it!

    Complain about this comment

  • 215. At 02:28am on 14 Dec 2010, CanadianRockies wrote:

    #211. quake

    Re 'peer review,' you might want to read the Climategte emails on that topic.

    Thanks for that link to tamino. That is an excellent critique and raises some valid points. So I went back to that WUWT article and read the comments and, voila, tamino's points were being raised by the commenters there too. So, that is what I would call open and transparent peer review, which is the best we can hope for.

    Now this whole discussion is about anomalies. Buried in the WUWT comments is a reminder of a very interesting discussion on them by 'anna v' that appears in the comments (at December 13, 2010 at 2:08 am)on this earlier article:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/05/new-peer-reviewed-paper-shows-just-how-bad-the-climate-models-are/

    Puts this whole discussion into a rather different perspective. So does another comment (December 12, 2010 at 5:27 pm):

    "please remember that the GISS “anomaly” is not really a comparison of the temperatures from a thermometer now to that thermometer in the past.

    They use a ‘Grid / Box anomaly” that is constructed by comparing a set of thermometers NOW to a completely different set of thermometers THEN.

    So is my new Mercedes hotter than my old ’67 VW? And does that mean cars are getting hotter?….

    This is a splice artifact being dressed up as an anomaly. Splicing new thermometers onto old thermometers (often in different places) and calling the hockey stick a “trend”."





    Complain about this comment

  • 216. At 02:38am on 14 Dec 2010, CanadianRockies wrote:

    #214 skywatcher 1 - Oh, I see. If peer reviewed papers agree with you they're good, and blogs are bad. But when they don't you cite DeepClimate. So both peer reviewed papers and blogs can be reliable or not, depending on their specific content. I agree.

    Setting aside the details for a moment, care to comment on this:

    http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2010/12/13/geologic-record-shows-no-relationship-between-temperature-and-co2/

    It is information posted by Goddard, not from him, and it does seem to question the fundamentals of the CO2 story.



    Complain about this comment

  • 217. At 06:05am on 14 Dec 2010, rossglory wrote:

    #216 candianrockies

    "Setting aside the details for a moment, care to comment on this:

    http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2010/12/13/geologic-record-shows-no-relationship-between-temperature-and-co2/

    It is information posted by Goddard, not from him, and it does seem to question the fundamentals of the CO2 story."

    what is there to comment on? it's a pretty picture from a site called 'frontiers of freedom'. can i guess what their political affiliation is? their mission statement may help:

    whose mission is to promote conservative public policy based on the principles of individual freedom, peace through strength, limited government, free enterprise, and traditional American values as found in the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.

    i.e. a neoconservative lobby group. why do you guys persist in muddying the waters with this right wing rubbish?

    Complain about this comment

  • 218. At 06:17am on 14 Dec 2010, rossglory wrote:

    #214 skywatcher1

    all good stuff

    "the debunking of Watts really is like shooting fish in a barrel, but I guess someone has to do it!"

    all the contrarians have to do is keep pushing the level of doubt. a paper like odonnel gets published and they're whooping and hollering like cheer leaders. it's no good pointing out that it doesn;t refute agw and indicates that antartica IS getting warmer despite the standard contrarian shibboleth that it's getting colder.

    pushing doubt is the standard tool and has been used in the past on smoking and cancer, acid rain and pollution, the ozone hole and cfcs, passive smoking and cancer, ddt and ecological damage etc etc etc.

    Complain about this comment

  • 219. At 07:10am on 14 Dec 2010, MangoChutney wrote:

    @Jake Schmidt #203

    Could you care to comment on the following in realtion to the AGW nonsense?

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/12/unlikely_marriage_powers_ahead.html#P103991684

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/12/time_to_get_down_to_business_a.html#P104054451
    ("scientist" reporting incorrect information about Kilimanjaro)

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/12/time_to_get_down_to_business_a.html#P104084157
    (missing signature of AGW)

    Thanks in anticipation

    /Mango

    Complain about this comment

  • 220. At 07:48am on 14 Dec 2010, MangoChutney wrote:

    Seems we have seen it all before:

    From the Ecologist January 1972:

    A Blueprint for Survival (later a book, The Blueprint)

    The first line tells us that an industrial way of life is “not sustainable” and then goes on to say humans are consuming too much, polluting too much, and having too many babies. We’re told economic growth is the enemy and that austerity is the answer. We’re warned that unless things change radically “a succession of famines, epidemics, social crises and wars” are inevitable.

    We should be concerned by “the extreme gravity of the global situation”
    ---------------------

    If current trends persist “the irreversible disruption of the life-support systems on this planet, possibly by the end of the [20th] century, certainly with the lifetimes of our children, are inevitable"
    ---------------------

    Governments are refusing to face facts and therefore are failing to undertake necessary “corrective measures"
    ---------------------

    A self-appointed group of “scientists and industrialists...is currently trying to persuade governments, industrial leaders and trade unions throughout the world to face these facts and to take appropriate action while there is yet time"
    ---------------------

    A new political movement is necessary; this movement must embrace “a new philosophy of life, whose goals can be achieved without destroying the environment”

    So for 40 years some people have been trying to make us change our ways to suit their beliefs

    Today they're still using the same arguments

    /Mango

    (I know, I'm a conspiracy theorist)

    Complain about this comment

  • 221. At 07:48am on 14 Dec 2010, Darren McGuinness wrote:

    Perhaps the actual deals made weren't all that great, but there were some improvements on previous conferences. Especially Bali: http://tinyurl.com/23tchfd

    Climate change is a non-debate any longer, but it's about trying to convince people it's a human right/social legal responsibility to start taking it incredibly seriously and putting stuff in place to start off-setting where we can.

    'McGuinness

    Complain about this comment

  • 222. At 08:01am on 14 Dec 2010, Cariboo wrote:

    @217 rossglory

    why do you guys persist in muddying the waters with this right wing rubbish?

    Probably because your lot muddy the waters with AGW rubbish and accept as gospel the pal reviews.

    What I would like to know, is there a recognized climate model that incorporates convection and conduction? Conduction in particular as a heat transfer mechanism and convection as a transport mechanism.

    Complain about this comment

  • 223. At 08:13am on 14 Dec 2010, Cariboo wrote:

    @221 Darren McGuinness

    Climate change is a non-debate any longer, but it's about trying to convince people it's a human right/social legal responsibility to start taking it incredibly seriously and putting stuff in place to start off-setting where we can.

    Have you :
    - stopped using any transport system powered by fosil fuels.
    - got off the electrical grid.
    - become a vegitatian.
    - started to grow your own veggies to minimize the use of fosil fuels.
    - you limited your hydration to just water, preferably rain water.

    This could go on adnausiam, the point is if you are not taking some major steps in the direction that you are advocating then you are saying that somebody should. I cannot say that I would disagee with you but I would say that the somebody should be you.

    Complain about this comment

  • 224. At 08:25am on 14 Dec 2010, PAWB46 wrote:

    Jake Schmidt, International Climate Policy Director, Natural Resources Defense Council

    Just another person from an NGO making money out of the AGW scam.

    They are getting worried that their well-funded lifestyles, telling others how they should lead their poorer lifestyles, are coming to an end.

    Complain about this comment

  • 225. At 09:22am on 14 Dec 2010, simon-swede wrote:

    Here's a new paper that Mango might want to read:

    A Determination of the Cloud Feedback from Climate Variations over the Past Decade
    A. E. Dessler
    Science, Vol. 330, no. 6010, pp. 1523-1527
    10 December 2010

    A related "News of the Week" story based on it was also published by Science at the same time:

    El Niño Lends More Confidence to Strong Global Warming
    Richard A. Kerr
    Science, Vol. 330, no. 6010. p. 1465
    10 December 2010

    Complain about this comment

  • 226. At 09:48am on 14 Dec 2010, Cariboo wrote:

    Buying carbon offsets is just buying environmental indulgences. Indulgences make two people feel better. The person paying for their sins to be atoned and the scam artist (environmental organization) as they make yet another offshore bank deposit.

    Complain about this comment

  • 227. At 10:33am on 14 Dec 2010, Barry Woods wrote:

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

  • 228. At 10:44am on 14 Dec 2010, Barry Woods wrote:

    Thanks Jane...

    I'm banned for saying less than your comment at the Guardian.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/discussion/comment-permalink/8800299

    We are probably on the same side, ie ethics, honesty, openess of a debate -whilst of course disagreeing as friends can about some issues..

    Complain about this comment

  • 229. At 11:16am on 14 Dec 2010, Barry Woods wrote:

    The Chihuahua may roar, if the elephant (Cagw delusion)is banned from the room.

    fao Jane...
    http://www.realclimategate.org/2010/12/george-monbiot-complains-about-astroturfing/

    It is entirely possible, given the tiny amount of traffic in the CaCC web forums - that more sceptics are signed up to Skeptic Alerts, than CaCC 'alarmists' not lukewarmers like our friend Jane.

    Complain about this comment

  • 230. At 11:33am on 14 Dec 2010, Barry Woods wrote:

    Actually Jane...

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/discussion/comment-permalink/8800174

    This come across as calling me a 'sock puppet'

    I am definetly a sceptic - so what is the point you are making...
    readingit again, it is about wolfie, but It could be taken as attcking me...!

    Complain about this comment

  • 231. At 11:41am on 14 Dec 2010, bowmanthebard wrote:

    I've often commented on how common -- and how foolish -- it is to assume one's opponents are insincere. To imagine that the hordes of people currently expressing scepticism about AGW are part of an organized, paid campaign is to indulge a paranoid fantasy.

    Furthermore, that sort of fantasy seriously weakens anyone's position, because it will inevitably cause one to underestimate one's opponents!

    Why do otherwise intelligent people -- and I have complained about them on both sides -- "rationalize" themselves into losing touch with reality?

    It begins with moral fervour. If you disagree with someone over a factual matter, you just think they're mistaken about the truth. But if you disagree with someone over a moral matter, you think they're more or less wicked. Because you think of them as wicked, you start to attribute bad motives to them. It's a short step from there to accusing them of being in the pay of big oil, or of aiming to divest decent folk of their pensions as part of a mighty plot to redistribute wealth.

    Hollywood has long known that moral indignation is the greatest "suspender of disbelief" there is. When Jack Palance the evil gunfighter rides into town in the movie Shane, we are so dazzled by his moral badness that we fail to notice he is riding a teeny-weeny horse.

    It is too late for George Monbiot, who has long lived in a la-la land of "paid astroturfers". But it's not too late for the rest of us. I implore everyone here on the BBC blogs to keep in touch with reality and check yourself if you find yourself overwhelmed by the urge to accuse your opponents of political skullduggery.

    There are some situations in which it is best to suspend moral judgement, or better still, to embrace toleration as a virtue rather than a sign of weakness.

    Complain about this comment

  • 232. At 12:05pm on 14 Dec 2010, GeoffWard wrote:

    MangoChutneyUKOK wrote 220:
    Seems we have seen it all before: "From the Ecologist January 1972: 'A Blueprint for Survival' ... The first line tells us that an industrial way of life is “not sustainable” and then goes on to say humans are consuming too much, polluting too much, and having too many babies. We’re told economic growth is the enemy and that austerity is the answer. We’re warned that unless things change radically “a succession of famines, epidemics, social crises and wars” are inevitable.
    Today they're still using the same arguments"
    .....................................................
    Thanks, Mango.
    You have brought back memories with the Ecologist 1972 article - this was instrumental, along with the Blueprint, in our development of Environmental Science degrees in the UK - this was before the 'subject' of environmental awareness and understanding was recognised as appropriate for teaching in UK schools. My career moved from Applied Biology & biochemistry at about this time with the creation of one of the first of these specialist degrees. Though I remain seriously stretched with heavy math and physics, my overview is generally sound.
    I remain, after all these years, seriously concerned at the way we humans allow the rape of our planet to continue unabated. I understand your conspiracy 'paranoia' but remain more concerned at the ecological state of the earth, its lands, its oceans and its atmosphere.
    Geoff.

    Complain about this comment

  • 233. At 12:14pm on 14 Dec 2010, Lamna nasus wrote:

    @229 Barry Woods


    ..except the elephant isn't banned from the room.. it just has to come up with something better than Creationist quality science to get published and stop recycling absolute rubbish from neoconservative, political lobby groups to be taken seriously.

    I am more than happy to engage with genuine science but the fact is WUWT and its acolytes simply endlessly recycle material that has been disproved.. yet claim to be skeptical because they have thoroughly researched the subject...

    It is impossible to have thoroughly researched the subject and not have discovered that much of the skeptic material has already been disproved, unless you are only using Contrarian sources which contradicts the claim of skepticism.. to be a genuine skeptic you have to apply that to the Contrarian material as well, which clearly many Contrarian activists have not.

    .. and as several other contributors have pointed out the anti science aversion to peer review evaporates whenever a 'skeptic' paper is published.. which is precisely the same approach as Creationists.. its all a conspiracy!.. except the bits that agree with them..



    Complain about this comment

  • 234. At 12:19pm on 14 Dec 2010, GeoffWard wrote:

    bowmanthebard wrote, 231: "I've often commented on how common -- and how foolish -- it is to assume one's opponents are insincere. To imagine that the hordes of people currently expressing scepticism about AGW are part of an organized, paid campaign is to indulge a paranoid fantasy....etc."
    ...............................
    Bowman,
    much impressed with this posting of yours - we should all read it in full.
    PS. Sorry I upset you with Scientific Method comment - just a tease.
    Geoff.

    Complain about this comment

  • 235. At 12:36pm on 14 Dec 2010, JaneBasingstoke wrote:

    @Barry Woods #230

    Actually intended as the opposite.

    There is a possibility that Wolfiewoods could have "borrowed" his surname from you. (I doubt it, timing wrong.) But Wolfie may have been encouraging people make the connection to you.
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/11/copenhagen_or_babel_-_a_climat.html#P103203604

    Complain about this comment

  • 236. At 12:40pm on 14 Dec 2010, JaneBasingstoke wrote:

    @Barry Woods #228

    "banned for less"

    That's because I am not calling Monbiot hypocritical.

    (A strictly applied Guardian moderation rule is posts can't misrepresent or gratuitously insult Guardian journalists, regardless of whether or not the journalist would prefer to tackle the criticism head on.)
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/community-standards

    Instead I am showing how and why the CCC email campaign could be contributing to the extra sceptic posts.

    Complain about this comment

  • 237. At 12:41pm on 14 Dec 2010, bowmanthebard wrote:

    May I take the silence to mean that the following "answers" are generally considered adequate by other believers in AGW?

    bowmanthebard: 1. A computer climate model is a model of what?
    rossglory: whatever it is modelling
    bowmanthebard: 2. What is it made to "fit"?
    rossglory: nothing, but if it fits past data it is probably doing what it was designed to do
    bowmanthebard: 3. How is it tested?
    rossglory: see 2
    bowmanthebard: 4. What changes are made to it when it fails a test of "fit"?
    rossglory: depends
    bowmanthebard: 5. What changes are made to the methods used?
    rossglory: depends

    Complain about this comment

  • 238. At 1:03pm on 14 Dec 2010, Barry Woods wrote:

    233#
    How do you know that if comments are deleted...

    Reading Uiversity - Climate Science Exlained - public lecture last month.If Professor Arnell - Walker Institure(2nd, 3rd, 4th Ipcc reports lead author, and soon to be 5th), can call people like Hansen alarmist, for his seal level scares and announcements.
    Why do I get blocked or called a 'deniar' for saying the same thing.


    236#

    I didn't exactly call him hypocrital either....
    ......the evidence you provided suggests that.

    I have always been polite, well as polite as at the BBC...

    So why I am blocked at Cif, I am unsure...
    Much more critical stuff is allowed through...(Maybe on an automatic list?)

    This one for example (just after George!)
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/discussion/comment-permalink/8795441

    Complain about this comment

  • 239. At 1:07pm on 14 Dec 2010, Barry Woods wrote:

    236#

    Well it certainly explains all the 'warmist' 'guests' in James Delingpole's comments and Bishop Hill's

    who do NOT delete them (delingpole is plagued with 'alarmists')

    So who do you trust...

    I'm not so sure, as Cif delete people out of hand.. see bishop Hill a few articles about the Guardain Deletion, James Randerson commented once defending th epolicy.... then loads of regulars came and asked what about these comments... He never came back.

    Complain about this comment

  • 240. At 1:09pm on 14 Dec 2010, Wolfiewoods wrote:

    JaneBasingstoke & Barry Woods @#230

    My name is not Woods, when I signed up to the BBC I wanted the user name Wolfie as that was an old nick name, unfortunately that name was already taken therefore I picked Wolfiewoods for no particular reason, I was at that time unaware of Barry Woods. When on a previous thread I confided that I had another presence on the BBC I was not alluding to Barry Woods, the name is an unfortunate coincidence that I have not exploited. If I get more time over the Xmas break I might start posting at the Guardian, I like to get some in.

    Complain about this comment

  • 241. At 1:13pm on 14 Dec 2010, bowmanthebard wrote:

    It's remarkable how easily we all find some "exceptional circumstance" that, to us, warrants silencing an opinion we disagree with.

    By far the commonest such excuse is that the other side isn't "playing by the rules" in some way. They're all "paid astroturfers", for example, the only fair reaction to which is to "level the playing field" by shutting them all up!

    We'll never learn, will we?

    Complain about this comment

  • 242. At 2:00pm on 14 Dec 2010, sensiblegrannie wrote:

    JaneBasingstoke
    Very funny ;-) I got a bit sidetracked and looked at the other office howlers.

    message, medium, method, media

    How I see it:
    The medium is the formless jelly, whatever colour and flavour you like. (raw data sets)
    The container is the choice of mold to pour the jelly in
    Extra additions to the jelly (see utube video eg office stapler)
    The jelly setting depends on dilution, time, temperature
    The clarity of the unmolded of the jelly depends on careful mold preparation
    Delivery and service is paramount and can either enhance or totally put one off the final product.
    reflection and feedback about the presentation and quality of the jelly, priceless

    PS Nailing jello to the wall was interesting, I tried it years ago as an art piece.

    Complain about this comment

  • 243. At 2:39pm on 14 Dec 2010, sensiblegrannie wrote:

    A christmas story for the year 2010 and a reason for some much needed joined up thinking.
    http://dyinginhaiti.blogspot.com/2010/12/cholera-claims-young-victim.html

    Complain about this comment

  • 244. At 2:45pm on 14 Dec 2010, Lamna nasus wrote:

    @228 Barry Woods


    .. on the whole if you take another look at your post when it is moderated, you can generally tell which bits the moderator regards as needing a rewrite.. sometimes it may take several rewrites to get a version both you and the moderator are happy with.. and you may find that different moderators will interpret the rules slightly differently.

    Outright bans may reflect the editorial policy of the forum.. this is quite common on neoconservative forums, so it doesn't surprise me (although I think it is regrettable) if some environmental forums operate a reciprocal arrangement.. or it may be a result of breaking the FUA of the forum repeatedly in a manner that the moderators regard as provocation for the sake of provocation, rather than robust debate.

    The issue of Astroturfing arises simply because there are well documented cases of it having occurred and therefore denying it happens would be naive.. where the debate gets more opaque is classification of individuals using Astroturfing materials, who may not be directly aware of its source.

    There is also the blokish tribalism sometimes demonstrated by contributors with conservative views.. environmental activists as a group tend to more disparate in their approach.. a friend once remarked it was rather like trying to herd cats...


    @200 CanadianRockies
    '#198. Lamna_nasus wrote:

    "The Tisdale blog looks like a professional article service for Contrarian activists..."

    No. He doesn't get paid to do it'...

    I don't think you are in a position to verify that..
    *looks pointedly at Bob Tisdale blog's donation button facility*...

    Complain about this comment

  • 245. At 2:46pm on 14 Dec 2010, GeoffWard wrote:

    "As a non-physicist, I am interested in the bits of *Physics* that cause you (both) to doubt AGW by CO2." (GeoffWard 63)
    ..............................
    ”Try these arguments for size……etc” (John_from_Hendon wrote @ 108):
    …………………………………..
    "CO2 and its C-Cycle modify heat retention & fluxes in the ‘heat-in/heat-out vessel called Earth. … etc.“ (#191. GeoffWard)
    …………………………………..
    “Error in the first line, Sorry - the experiment does not simulate the earth receiving a variable solar flux. So all of your subsequent argument is void.
    (CO2) reflects the result of external heating and does not drive the heating. None of the CO2 related arguments offer an 'explanation' of anything. They are based on irrelevant 'modelling' and false associations….
    The CO2 mob posit a model that suggests that a change in CO2 will change temperatures by a couple of degrees (even if we accept their flawed models). So what you have to show conclusively is that the main heat source (the Sun) is constant (which we know it isn't) as a couple of percent change in solar radiation flux would reverse entirely or double the CO2 effect. This CO2 stuff is just terrible science.” (John_from_Hendon 209)
    …………………………………….
    John,
    you say you have a PhD in physics, so I have to believe your posting; but I was hoping for some serious physics in your response.
    Your argument seems to be that a couple of % change in incoming radiation equals ‘the CO2 effect’. Quake wrote to you @ 212 “Accidentally you've just backed the power of the CO2 changes we are making. *A couple of percent change in solar radiation within a century is massive and unfeasible given the observed behaviour of the Sun. It just doesn't happen. The last solar cycle maximum, considered quite high, to the recent solar cycle minimum, considered extraordinarily low, represented only a 0.1% drop in solar output”.*
    -
    Surely somebody out there has some physics to deploy! My 191 is available for refutation and, as a non-maths/physicist, I will not be hurt by you explaining my errors.
    Geoff

    Complain about this comment

  • 246. At 2:51pm on 14 Dec 2010, GeoffWard wrote:

    sensiblegrannie & Jane
    Re: Nailing jello to the wall....just needs a bit of phase change (solid CO2) - but it can be a shattering experience.

    Complain about this comment

  • 247. At 3:12pm on 14 Dec 2010, JaneBasingstoke wrote:

    "apparent hypocracy of the article" BWoods article at Real Climategate

    "I didn't exactly call him hypocrital either....
    ......the evidence you provided suggests that."
    Barry Woods, this thread, #238

    Barry, I don't moderate CiF threads. It's not a job I would find easy, they have some very strict rules, this strictness is partly imposed on them due to libel laws, and I believe in freedom of speech. I do know they are very sensitive to perceived insults of their journalists, so some posts are best backed with evidence.

    I also point out that even if you personally are on pre-mod the threads as a whole, including all new arrivals, are post-moderated.

    Complain about this comment

  • 248. At 3:21pm on 14 Dec 2010, Brunnen wrote:

    @244. At 2:45pm on 14 Dec 2010, Lamna_nasus wrote:

    There is also the blokish tribalism sometimes demonstrated by contributors with conservative views.. environmental activists as a group tend to more disparate in their approach.

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

    Utter rubbish. I have yet to encounter an environmental activist that wasn't also left leaning in their politics. How FAR left varies, but it's only a matter of degree.

    Meanwhile, your labeling of sceptics as 'contrarians' and 'deniers' adds absolutely nothing to the debate and shows nothing more than a glaring ignorance of those who do not share your views on AGW.

    Complain about this comment

  • 249. At 3:39pm on 14 Dec 2010, JaneBasingstoke wrote:

    @Barry Woods #239

    I am not signed up to the CCC email thing. Not. Doesn't appeal.

    Both the Delingpole and the Bishop Hill blogs came to my attention through links on these BBC threads. Most of these links were posted by sceptics.

    Personally I find the Delingpole threads too intimidating to want to post there. His fanbase have very strong views. I have considered posting at the Bishop Hill threads where the atmosphere is civilised. But as a warmist I would still find that scary. Relations between both sides of the debate are not healthy and are prone to misunderstandings.

    Delingpole also got free advertising of a type he probably didn't want on a RealClimate thread...
    (warning, very warmist thread)
    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/09/hey-ya-mal/

    Incidentally Delingpole couldn't simply delete warmist comments just because they are warmist. His blog is part of the Telegraph site, so it is subject to Telegraph moderator leniency towards other points of view, as much as it is subject to Telegraph moderation rules.

    Complain about this comment

  • 250. At 3:41pm on 14 Dec 2010, bowmanthebard wrote:

    Lamna_nasus #244 wrote:

    The issue of Astroturfing arises simply because there are well documented cases of it having occurred

    Could you direct me to one such "well-documented" case? Is it genuinely "well-documented" or is it just mentioned by George Monbiot?

    I'd be interested in contacting whoever has the money for that sort of thing, as I can always do with a few extra bob during the run-in to Christmas.

    I wonder if my sponsors would insist that I tone down my scrupulously two-sided messages and get "on side"?

    Complain about this comment

  • 251. At 4:21pm on 14 Dec 2010, Lamna nasus wrote:

    248. Brunnen
    'Utter rubbish.'

    ..your equal concern and outrage directed at those using terms such as.. watermelon.. alarmist.. scientific illiterate.. glaring ignorance..idiot.. etc. is duly noted...

    My conservative friends regard me as a socialist, however my socialist friends regard me as a conservative..which appears to make me a centrist...

    It is a persistent attribute of conservatives that criticism of their world view, is automatically abuse and trolling.. however no matter how abusive a conservative post is, because it is 'telling the 'truth' it is therefore acceptable.. freedom to agree, is not freedom at all...

    'Denier' - someone who denies that anthropogenic forcings affect climate.. therefore justifiable.. conservatives wishing to control a debate will portray this as a Holocaust reference to get it banned.

    'Contrarian' - someone who takes a position contrary to the reputable scientific community.. therefore justifiable.. conservatives wishing to control a debate will attempt to portray this as unacceptably pejorative ..

    The reason 'Skeptic' is acceptable is because it confers a respectability and authority that is not in fact inherent in the viewpoint.. and as I pointed out earlier, blatantly disregards the fact that very little skepticism is actually involved.. 'its on WUWT so it must be the truth', is not skepticism...

    Attempting to control the language of debate is a disingenuous attempt to gain a subliminal advantage.

    Complain about this comment

  • 252. At 4:48pm on 14 Dec 2010, JunkkMale wrote:

    248. At 3:21pm on 14 Dec 2010, Brunnen wrote:
    I have yet to encounter an environmental activist that wasn't also left leaning in their politics. How FAR left varies, but it's only a matter of degree.


    One supposes that in an era when everything and everybody seems to require a label, if only to assist with the tribal score tally that exists on blogs especially, certain collective terms are inevitable.

    Never been that keen myself, as they simply didn't apply when I tried to use them or had them imposed, and hence they had no value. My views on various issues seem to swing wildly between the banners of such camps depending more on how rational I find the respective arguments, of course often skewed by the innate compassion that humans are blessed with that can throw brute logic to the winds.

    I'd like to think I am apolitical, but of course I'm not. And by process of elimination (pretty much anything Labour and its 'leadership' has touched appalls me, so any alternatives seem preferable if only in relative terms) I'd probably be deemed more right of centre on many... most issues.

    But, and in the way only nicknamed bloggers on threads can grandly claim, I am also most certainly an environmental activist. I spend all my time seeking to find, and promote ways to reduce waste and boost efficiencies. I also, on occasion, can be easily seduced to appreciating the joys of reduction, though a pragmatic streak concerning Darwinain human nature and the realities of the capitalist system do quickly present boundaries.

    So I think it is possible to bridge the divide you suggest.

    Where I am finding myself in uncomfortable territory as a 'greenie' is in what seem more pressing threats to my kids' futures, namely in the areas of intolerance and suppression of free speech by 'some' in the name of 'all'.

    I like hearing all sides, and am comfortable with folk presenting them, even if I may not agree. I prefer argument to succeed, or fail, on its merits or lack of. Hence not being over keen on editorial influences being imposed anywhere before one gets to see the views and coming to a conclusion.

    That of course does seem to put my preferred stance somewhat at odds with many who do think only their view should be presented, and prevail. Which 'side' that is, let history decide.

    Complain about this comment

  • 253. At 4:49pm on 14 Dec 2010, Kamboshigh wrote:

    Surely if a Great Dane wimpered then it would still drown our a roar from a Chihuahua. Which just about sums up the spin really if a Chihuahua grabs you by the trouser leg you can knock it across the room, a Great Dane on he other hand?

    Anyway, nice to see where are taxes are going, that was a really god blog Richard did about the Chinnese being on board, I wonder why?

    http://e360.yale.edu/feature/perverse_co2_payments_send_flood_of_money_to_china_/2350/

    Complain about this comment

  • 254. At 4:51pm on 14 Dec 2010, Brunnen wrote:

    I think I can add 'rampant pomposity' to glaring ignorance'.

    Your attempts to justify your use of abusive terms is laughable. I use the term watermelon to sarcastically refer to those who use environmental issues to further a leftist agenda. Would you like to pretend such people don't exist or aren't trying to use the IPCC to redistribute wealth?

    You use terms like contrarian and denier to try and belittle those who disagree with the conclusions of climate scientists who claim the planet is warming because of human activity.

    You're the one trying to control the debate here by trying to rubbish the very real concerns of those who disagree with you.

    Complain about this comment

  • 255. At 4:56pm on 14 Dec 2010, Kamboshigh wrote:

    #251,

    One of those troll things by the sound perhaps Lamna you should read Bowmens excellent points at 231.

    Engage brain before out bursts, nobody on this site is paid to comment then maybe I am wrong.

    As to Bob Tisdale now I wonder who he really is? He certainly puts the the likes of GISS in their place doesn't he? That is a massive depth of knowledge he commands

    Complain about this comment

  • 256. At 5:22pm on 14 Dec 2010, Brunnen wrote:

    255. At 4:56pm on 14 Dec 2010, Kamboshigh wrote:

    nobody on this site is paid to comment then maybe I am wrong.

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

    I bloody wish.

    Dear Big Oil / Evil Planet Rapists

    I am still waiting for my cheque. I have been posting here for over a year, putting up with all sorts of nonsense and reading entries that range from incisive and clear to tree hugging nonsense. I deserve renumeration. Apparently.

    Your partner in Evil,

    Brunnen

    Complain about this comment

  • 257. At 5:31pm on 14 Dec 2010, bandythebane wrote:

    Jane I wonder why you gave us such an old (pre-climategate) link to realclimate.

    It was interesting to see from this how Gavin at the time was fulminating about McIntyre and so stoutly defending against "hockey stick" attacks.

    Now, 15 months later he is still doing much the same, though as it would appear McShane and Wyner as reasonably heavy duty statisticians are not too impressed by his efforts. They say for example that his application of ad hoc methods (to decide which samples to use in proxy analysis models) "increases model uncertainty in ways that are unmeasurable and uncorrectable".

    That kind of thing sounds pretty damning to me and leads me to think that in spite of the considerable smokescreen and widespread support from the sidelines, the hockeystick's days are numbered.

    Complain about this comment

  • 258. At 5:56pm on 14 Dec 2010, JaneBasingstoke wrote:

    @bowmanthebard #250

    Monbiot does like referencing his articles.
    (warning, very warmist article)
    http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2010/12/13/reclaim-the-cyber-commons/

    You may be interested in the earliest posts of "spacedout" at the Guardian, where it was not clear from spacedout's third person references to Dr Richard North of the EUReferendum blog that spacedout was Dr Richard North of the EUReferendum blog. Subsequent posts and an article at the EUReferendum blog clarified this situation.
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2010/jun/24/sunday-times-amazongate-ipcc?showallcomments=true
    http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2010/06/where-is-evidence.html

    Complain about this comment

  • 259. At 6:07pm on 14 Dec 2010, Lamna nasus wrote:

    @250 bowmanthebard
    'Could you direct me to one such "well-documented" case? ..

    Certainly.. and you should immediately recognise it.. the School Governor who launched a legal challenge to Al Gore's film 'An Inconvenient Truth' (no, I am not a Gore fanboy and for the record I have never seen the film) was Stewart Dimmock, an activist for the Scientific Alliance, a neoconservative, industry lobby group -
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/oct/14/schools.film


    I could enlarge on the links between this group and other 'think tanks' in the USA and Australia along with the lecture tours, seminars and film screenings they fund raise for and promote.. but I think the moderators would probably decide that the necessity for double checking references for legal purposes, would take too long and cut this post.. anyone who is interested can start with the Scientific Alliance, then research the Institute of Public Affairs in Australia, plus the individuals associated with it and take it from there...

    Complain about this comment

  • 260. At 6:23pm on 14 Dec 2010, MangoChutney wrote:

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

  • 261. At 6:36pm on 14 Dec 2010, MangoChutney wrote:

    hmmmm, try again:

    simon-swede @225

    Here's a new paper that Mango might want to read: A Determination of the Cloud Feedback from Climate Variations over the Past DecadeA. E. DesslerScience, Vol. 330, no. 6010, pp. 1523-152710 December 2010

    Hi Simon

    Thanks for this. I did spot it and have been trying to read. First impression:

    Dessler states:

    In our present climate, the reflection of solar energy back to space dominates, and the net effect of clouds is to reduce the net flux of incoming energy at the top of the atmosphere (TOA) by ~20W/m2, as compared to an otherwise identical planet without clouds

    Could the Pinker paper help explain the additional warming?

    read the paper (bit about clouds) because the mods wouldn't let me post

    [Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]/Mango

    Complain about this comment

  • 262. At 6:43pm on 14 Dec 2010, Jack Hughes wrote:

    On a lighter note comedy duo Armstrong and Miller do a funny skit on global warming.

    Very funny - I'm not sure how they got this past the BBC High Command.

    Complain about this comment

  • 263. At 6:46pm on 14 Dec 2010, Jack Hughes wrote:

    @Jane - more hypocrisy from Monbiot.

    Monbiot is a founder member of the astroturf group CACC.

    (And was also a founder member of the bizarre Respect Party)

    Complain about this comment

  • 264. At 6:53pm on 14 Dec 2010, JaneBasingstoke wrote:

    @bandythebane #257

    Because the topic of conversation was Delingpole having problems with warmists commenting on his blog. The RealClimate link includes two links to a Delingpole article, right at the top of the page. One link is labelled "MASSIVE lie". The other link is labelled "Daily Telegraph".

    This will have introduced many warmists to Delingpole's blog.

    Complain about this comment

  • 265. At 7:11pm on 14 Dec 2010, bowmanthebard wrote:

    JaneBasingstoke #258 wrote:

    Monbiot does like referencing his articles.

    I accept that sometimes the Chinese, Iranian or North Korean government sponsors the occasional whip-round and write-in, rather as the local school might sponsor a "write to your MP to keep the library open" campaign. But it's a very big jump from there to the idea expressed on Monbiot's current blog that the (now apparently majority) opposition to AGW theory (as expressed in this blog) is organized and paid for by some sinister Western corporate forces.

    Most of us here use a nom-de-blog because we want to be able to speak freely and not to be scrutinized a la Lamna_"who is he and what are his qualifications?"_nasus. Most of us here have also have an interest in the environment and the issue of global warming. It is very likely that a few of us, on both sides, have more than an amateur interest in these matters, simply because people tend to pursue careers in things they are interested in. I used to teach philosophy of science -- does that mean I have a "professional interest"?

    Monbiot seems to think that the combination of "not using a real name" and "having a professional interest" amounts to out-and-out personation, which is surely stretching things a bit. It stretches things even further to suppose it follows that anyone who fits that description is a corporate "plant" saying what him masters have him you to say for purposes of misleading the public. Once we get to the idea that there is an organized campaign of paid operatives working as a claque to drown out the well-meaning opinions of poor honest folk, it's not just stretching, it's barking!

    Which corporate body or agent, for goodness' sake, would think it's so important that its own opinion looks like the "majority opinion" on blogs -- I mean, really, blogs! -- that they are prepared to pay money for it? It's a completely nutty idea. No one would entertain it for a second if they didn't have an over-inflated sense of their own worth as the writer of a -- you got it -- blog!

    I worry that Monbiot doesn't get out enough. Everywhere I go -- especially since the cold spell last winter and another pleasant but not at all hot summer -- people are saying, "so much for global warming! Huh!" No wonder there's a large proportion of bloggers who are also saying much the same thing. It isn't a plot. That just what people think. They're tired of seeing none of this supposed warming for themselves.

    I suggest the following journalistic assignment: someone should pose as a sceptic, tip the wink to the "right people" that he's a willing "astroturfer", arrange to pick up the cash, then have a Channel 4 camera crew standing by for the subsequent "sting".

    It should be quite easy too -- as long as there really are people prepared to pay for the services of "astroturfers".

    And if there aren't any takers? -- Well, that would make the people who tell us it's happening look a bit silly and sad, wouldn't it?


    Complain about this comment

  • 266. At 7:11pm on 14 Dec 2010, JaneBasingstoke wrote:

    @Jack Hughes #263

    The Campaign against Climate Change email campaign is deeply flawed.

    However they are not astroturfers. They are very open about what they are doing. And they are not funding their recipients. If you call CCC's clumsy emails astroturf then you have to call every partisan blog astroturf. Because they all introduce their visitors to other elements in the blogosphere and they all lobby on their take on climate politics.

    If CCC had a daily blog instead of their current system of daily emails (available to anyone) would you still call them astroturf?

    Incidentally Monbiot is only "honorary" president, and the email campaign is only part of CCC's lobbying.

    Complain about this comment

  • 267. At 7:15pm on 14 Dec 2010, MangoChutney wrote:

    sorry Simon, the mods won't let me post the link to the paper:

    try googling:

    Do Satellites Detect Trends in Surface Solar Radiation?

    R. T. Pinker, B. Zhang and E. G. Dutton
    Science 6 May 2005:
    Vol. 308 no. 5723 pp. 850-854

    /Mango

    Complain about this comment

  • 268. At 7:18pm on 14 Dec 2010, bowmanthebard wrote:

    259. At 6:07pm on 14 Dec 2010, Lamna_nasus wrote:

    the School Governor who launched a legal challenge to Al Gore's film 'An Inconvenient Truth' (no, I am not a Gore fanboy and for the record I have never seen the film) was Stewart Dimmock, an activist for the Scientific Alliance, a neoconservative, industry lobby group

    But who was paid to write loads of silly messages to silly blogs? Where are these messages? Is there some sort of ghost writer earning a packet, firing them off for a living? It sounds crazy!

    Complain about this comment

  • 269. At 7:32pm on 14 Dec 2010, Shadorne wrote:

    This report from NASA might be another nail in the coffin for the catastrophic man-made global warming scare.

    http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/heat-island-sprawl.html

    The actual urban heat island effects (as measured by satellite) appear to be far greater than anyone expected. When proper corrections are made then the modest 0.6 degree rise over the last century of global warming (from the ground based temperature record) will be even less.

    Game Over for one silly exaggerated scare story!

    The media, unscrupulous scientists, politicians and their investor buddies will need to find another scary scam to keep the sheeple handing over billions of their hard earned taxpayer money.

    Complain about this comment

  • 270. At 7:33pm on 14 Dec 2010, JaneBasingstoke wrote:

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

  • 271. At 7:51pm on 14 Dec 2010, JaneBasingstoke wrote:

    Quoting three overlooked sentences in defence of an author's character is infringing copyright of that author? OK, shorter quote.

    @bowmanthebard #265

    It's more buried in the latest article than some of his previous articles on the same subject. But Monbiot does make this comment (highlights mine):

    "I'm not suggesting that most of the people trying to derail these discussions are paid to do so, though I would be surprised if none were."
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/libertycentral/2010/dec/13/astroturf-libertarians-internet-democracy?showallcomments=true
    http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2010/12/13/reclaim-the-cyber-commons/

    Complain about this comment

  • 272. At 7:51pm on 14 Dec 2010, quake wrote:

    worth watching
    http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/history.html

    Complain about this comment

  • 273. At 7:53pm on 14 Dec 2010, jsobry wrote:

    Regarding the statements in 109 seemingly made by John from Hendon

    Please explain the logic to me of the following:
    "The experiment does not simulate the earth receiving a variable solar flux"
    How is one going to simulate a variable solar flux?

    In addition if CO2 reflects or absorbs and then reflects infrared radiation which is considered to be correct based on the experiment then it should not matter whether the heat source is a match, a bunsen burner, a coal fired power plant or the sun, whether variable or not.
    The scientific models regarding black body radiation are supposed to be universally correct regardless of the heat source or the amount of heat.
    Indeed if there was no sun at all but the planet was on average 15 degrees Celsius and if there was CO2 in the air then the radiation from the planet to outer space would be retarded by the CO2 partially reflecting that radiation back to the surface.


    This is followed by the non-sequitur:
    "So all of your subsequent argument is void"
    All the subsequent argument could be perfectly valid even if there is something wrong with the first statement.

    This is followed by:
    "True, it reflects the result of external heating and dose not drive the heating."
    Please tell me which part of this amazing sentence is actually "True".
    I suppose "it" refers to CO2. Then, I assume, that by "the result of external heating" you are actually referring to the infrared radiation and you fail to mention that CO2 only reflects a relatively small part of that radiation and only part of that reflected radiation is directed towards the surface of the planet.
    Any piece of matter "A" emitting radiation (be it infrared, blue, violet or any other frequency or combination thereof) will subsequently heat some other piece of matter "B" that absorbs that radiation when the radiation comes into contact with that piece of matter "B" and therefor that heated matter "B" is then a source of heat and will radiate in turn and hence become a source of heat and radiation.
    It is immaterial whether that body is made of cast iron as is my woodstove or that body is made of CO2. Therefor CO2 can be a source of heat.
    So your statement "dose not drive the heating" is in fact not accurate. When the CO2 is of the proper temperature and when we are only talking about this CO2 then it does drive the heat.

    The rest of the statements are generally of the same nature.

    "None of the CO2 related arguments offer an 'explanation' of anything."
    This statement is obviously in contradiction of your own earlier statement that started with "True,...". Obviously that statement must be an explanation of some thing. Perhaps any thing?

    Then we have the following illuminating phrase:
    "They are based on irrelevant 'modelling' and false associations".
    Again, I would argue that any model no matter how poorly fashioned or designed can be relevant. Even the Bible was a relevant and adequate model of whatever the people of that time thought about and what was in their mind as "God's creation".
    There is no such thing as a "false association", the word irrelevant could have been more appropriate in this case. I plan on having rhubarb soup with rattle snake eyes for dinner. Is that a false association? I could certainly have that for dinner but it is irrelevant because I'm just kidding.

    Now the next statements are really revealing.

    "We live on a planet that is externally heated giving us seasons that we can relate to the distance and inclination of our planets access of rotation to the heat source."

    The distance of the planet to the heat source has nothing to do with the seasons. At best and depending on variation in the solar flux this may or may not actually increase the amount of radiation reaching the planet. It may equally or not decrease the amount of radiation reaching the planet depending again on the solar variable flux. Viewed over sufficiently long periods of time this may not have any impact at all.

    I do not understand what "access of rotation to the heat source" means. It is true that the inclination of the planet's axis defines to a certain extent the seasons that we experience. In addition, the precession of the axis further influences the distribution of sunshine on the planet but in no way increases or decreases the total amount of solar radiation reaching the planet.
    The rotation of the earth has of course an enormous impact, relatively speaking, because that makes the difference between day and night. Where I live in Canada this difference happens to be very pronounced and the subsequent temperatures may differ by as much as 30 degrees Celsius. This is not the case in the country where I am from, to wit Belgium, where the difference was more like 10 degrees or less usually or at most 20 degrees exceptionally.
    So, the geometry of the planet's orbit has some impact on the climate and the weather. But I would argue that it has a lot more impact on the daily, weekly and monthly weather than on the climate. In short, or at length if you prefer, winter is winter, spring is spring, summer is summer and fall is autumn. Little of this has anything to do with the climate as defined by scientists and a lot to do with the weather as defined by scientists.
    I think more than anything this is what confuses so many people and what the scientists have failed to explain properly to ordinary people.
    There is in fact no such thing as a global climate experienced by ordinary people on a daily basis. I do not care what the global average temperature is on a given day when it is -26 degrees in the morning and +4 degrees in the afternoon. I almost never experience the average global temperature, it hardly ever is the average global temperature where I live and I doubt that there are many places on the planet where you can experience the average global temperature on a regular basis. In all honesty, in a normal way of talking that ordinary people do, there is no such thing as a global climate.
    The climate is a scientific artifact. But it is nevertheless very true and it is all around us while we can not see it or feel it or sense it. The average temperature does not exist. It is only the result of a calculation. That is where the rubber meets the road and that is where one has to do some thinking. It is not easy to understand and grasp something that by all common experience does not seem to exist but nevertheless does exist and may afect us in ways we do not expect.

    More revealing statements:
    This heat source is capable of altering the temperature of the surface of the planet by up to 100 degrees kelvin from coldest to hottest within the time of six months.

    Please explain to me how a heat source will alter the temperature to the coldest side of the 100 degrees mentioned in six months time. As far as I am concerned a heat source can only heat whatever is allready colder than the heat source itself. So if there is a difference of 100 degrees between the hottest and the coldest I would rather suspect that the planet is simultaneously always cooling because that is the fate of any warm body according to the physical laws and constantly and partially being heated by the sun and in a minor way by other factors. The sum of the cooling and the heating will produce a set of resulting temperatures in various places and at various times. The many temperatures may have a range of well over 100 degrees Kelvin.

    "We also know that the solar flux varies dramatically from sun spot data etc."
    The solar flux does not vary dramatically unless you define dramatically as less than 1 percent change in the total solar radiation. The solar energy reaching the top of the atmosphere varies around some 1360 watts a few watts up and down based on recent measurements taken by satellites in the last 30 years or so.
    Nevertheless this small variation could have a pronounced effect on the planet when all else that defines the climate is held constant. Even a very few watts over extended periods of time would make a considerable difference. Sofar we have not seen any extended period of time where the total solar radiation has been considerably higher than the average.
    Indeed every indication is that the sun has been relatively stable over the last 30 years. There is some historical evidence that the sun has been extremely quiet for an extended period of time as in the Maunder minimum. On the other hand there has not been any historical evidence produced where the sun was exceptionally active during a comparable period of time as far as I know.

    Finally the last statement:
    "The CO2 mob posit a model that suggests that a change in CO2 will change temperatures by a couple of degrees (even if we accept their flawed models). So what you have to show conclusively is that the main heat source (the Sun) is constant (which we know it isn't) as a couple of percent change in solar radiation flux would reverse entirely or double the CO2 effect."

    Nothing scientific or true is included in this statement. Please explain what a CO2 mob is. The mob does not suggest that a change in CO2 will change temperatures by a couple of degrees.And the mob is fully aware that the models are not perfect. Indeed the very definition of a model implies that it cannot be perfect. But that same definition does imply that a model may reach an uncanny similarity with the real thing being modeled.
    The mob does suggest that for a given increase in CO2 concentration there will be a given retardation of outgoing infrared radiation which will, all other factors remaining constant, warm the planet to a certain extent and that the converse is also true i.e. that a decrease in CO2 concentration will ... etc. etc.
    The mob also suggests that currently we can measure the increasing concentration of CO2 and the resulting increasing globally averaged temperature, that the increasing CO2 is due to a large extent to human activities and that the rate of increase is generally increasing in the last 30 years.
    The net result is that the changes in the climate both natuaral and caused by humans is proceeding. That at times the natural variability will be pronounced and at other times the human caused variability will be pronounced and on the whole that the human caused variation will become more and more noticeable as time goes on, that is to say as humanity keeps pumping more CO2 into the atmosphere via a multitude of means.

    Therefor the sun, the variable sun, has almost no influence on this. We should be grateful that the sun has been relatively quiet and has not helped to aggravate the situation. But regardless of the intensity of the sun's radiation the fact remains that every day the average temperature is higher than it would have been if we did not have the increase in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.
    The ultimate result of all this variability is what the CO2 mob is worried about. If the sun were unexpectedly to increase the total radiation reaching the planet we would be in far worse trouble than if we did not have all that humanly added CO2 in the atmosphere. If the natural cooling influence of both the arctic and antarctic ice and snow are decreased due to human induced global warming then we will be ill prepared for any increase in the variable solar flux. The same applies to any other factors that determine the climate and the average global temperature.
    The sun is indeed not constant but the consequence of having an atmosphere enriched in CO2 is that any decrease in solar radiation is partially negated by more CO2 and any increase in solar radiation will be partially accentuated by more CO2. This is what I would call a loose loose proposition.

    In conclusion:
    "This CO2 stuff is just terrible science."

    The statements in this blog update are just awful science by any measure.
    Nothing even remotely enlightening is contained in these statements.
    The aggregate of these statements are just so much drivel.
    In comparison this CO2 stuff is wonderful science.

    Complain about this comment

  • 274. At 7:53pm on 14 Dec 2010, CanadianRockies wrote:

    244. At 2:45pm on 14 Dec 2010, Lamna_nasus wrote:

    @200 CanadianRockies
    '#198. Lamna_nasus wrote:

    "The Tisdale blog looks like a professional article service for Contrarian activists..."

    No. He doesn't get paid to do it'...

    I don't think you are in a position to verify that..
    *looks pointedly at Bob Tisdale blog's donation button facility*...

    -----------

    Well nasus - or may I just call you susan - that is hardly the same as being a paid employee, like the gang at Real Climate. Or a paid AGW blogger like Richard.

    The real comparison here is between the tens of billions spent promoting the AGW story by governments and other vested interest to what is spent supporting the contrary arguments (and objective research).

    In any case, what matters is the content. Yes, people like Tisdale do make mistakes but so does the AGW gang. The differense seems to be that Tisdale has an open searching mind and learns from his errors while the AGW gang simply searches for anything to support their predetermined conclusion and clings to that no matter what... and there is no doubt whatsoever that the AGW gang had decided that CO2 was their demon BEFORE any research was done... and that the debate was over from the day somebody decided that. That is not scientific enquiry.

    Complain about this comment

  • 275. At 8:01pm on 14 Dec 2010, CanadianRockies wrote:

    #251. Lamna_nasus

    The first problem with the word 'denier' is that it is a false label. Denial, by any dictionary definition, is the refusal to accept something that is KNOWN... and contrary to the 'debate is over' thinking perpertrated by the AGW gang, their beliefs are not known facts but rather speculated... a hypothesis at best.

    Or, if you can provide some conclusive proof of the AGW hypothesis, please do... because nobody else can.

    The second problem is the negative connotations, which you want to pretend are not part of the reason that label was chosen.

    So, how about this. We KNOW that the climate varies naturally. Doesn't that make many of the AGW gang natural climate change deniers?

    Complain about this comment

  • 276. At 8:04pm on 14 Dec 2010, bowmanthebard wrote:

    JaneBasingstoke #266 wrote:

    However they are not astroturfers.

    Of course they're not. No one is. The idea that there are any astroturfers is bonkers! What sort of eejit would part with his money to run the risk of looking like the opposite of the underdog?

    One of the biggest of many tactical/rhetorical mistakes on the part of non-sceptics was to suppose that the people of the UK are attracted to "what the majority of experts" tell us, when they don't deign to attempt to explain what they're doing. Disaster! (It may work in Sweden, perhaps, but not here.)

    Complain about this comment

  • 277. At 8:06pm on 14 Dec 2010, Barry Woods wrote:

    249#

    Jane, I'm sure you would be very welcome at Bishop Hill..

    Or Keith Kloor's website - Collide a Scape(Watts UP) thinks he is Pro AGW.

    Or Judith Curry's - Climate Etc (luke warm)

    Or even my own - (start your own it is fun)

    The common factor, is Keith, Judith, Bishop Hill - do NOT delete people out of hand, as I have had personal experience of at Realclimate/Guardian

    You think you have problems, a good friend of my wife and I, co edited the 2001 IPCC synthesis report - you know, the one with 'the hockey stick' in it..

    We disagree and can maange not to call each other 'alarmist' and 'deniars'. A close in-law is also has been a parliamentary candiadye for the Green's and is a Press Officer..

    Both nice, very inteleigent people, lost in groupthink/ cultural delusion.
    But my IPCC friend and her very senior boss, calls Hansen alarmist.

    Complain about this comment

  • 278. At 8:07pm on 14 Dec 2010, CanadianRockies wrote:

    Back on topic, here's some commentary on this neutered toothless Chihuahua from Canada's national newspaper.

    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/opinion/great-news-from-cancun/article1836376/

    Complain about this comment

  • 279. At 8:14pm on 14 Dec 2010, CanadianRockies wrote:

    269. Shadorne wrote:

    "This report from NASA might be another nail in the coffin for the catastrophic man-made global warming scare.

    http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/heat-island-sprawl.html

    The actual urban heat island effects (as measured by satellite) appear to be far greater than anyone expected..."

    No, no, no, Shadorne, that must be wrong! Every time I have mentioned this inconvenient fact the AGW posters here have insisted that that fundamental problem has been 'debunked.'

    And each time I laughed. And asked for some reference... and got nothing of course.

    But obviously whoever wrote that paper must have been bribed by Big Oil and turned 'right wing' to suggest such a thing. Hansen is going to be very, very mad.

    Or maybe they are just reading Watts's blog too much and getting fooled by all the research they did on this subject... none of which has been 'debunked' at all.

    Complain about this comment

  • 280. At 8:19pm on 14 Dec 2010, jackcowper wrote:

    Lamna @ 251

    As you are in a explaining mood today maybe you could justify the comment you made on 16 Oct 2010. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/profile.shtml?userid=14288010)

    Lamna_nasus wrote:


    Short memories in the denialist jihadi camp..

    Unfortunately this comment was eventually removed by the mods but I did ask you why the need to be so abusive (http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/profile.shtml?userid=14644753). So please explain why the need for constant low level insults, ad-homs etc. It's because of people like you I became a skeptic.

    Complain about this comment

  • 281. At 8:19pm on 14 Dec 2010, jsobry wrote:

    Re #269 and the urban heat island effect.

    From the article you referred to:
    "Cities in desert regions, such as Las Vegas, in contrast, often have weak heat islands or are actually cooler than the surrounding rural area."

    Nice cherry picking.

    Also from the same article:
    "Ratcheting up temperatures can have significant -- and deadly -- consequences for cities. Heat islands not only cause air conditioner and electricity usage to surge, but they also increase the mortality of elderly people and those with pre-existing respiratory and cardiovascular illness."

    I will not mention that CO2 concentrations over cities are much higher than measured on Mauna Loa by Mr. Keeling.
    To wit from the same article:
    "It is the lack of cooling at nighttime, rather than high daytime temperatures, that poses a health risk," said Benedicte Dousset, a scientist from the University of Hawaii who also presented data about heat islands at the AGU meeting.

    If you are going to use a scientific presentation it would be nice if you reflect the whole thing rather than just the part that suits your argument. Unless you just want to win an argument and do not care about the truth.


    Complain about this comment

  • 282. At 8:19pm on 14 Dec 2010, CanadianRockies wrote:

    #270. At 7:33pm on 14 Dec 2010, JaneBasingstoke wrote:

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

    -------

    WHAT??? Jane never breaks the rules!!!

    Perhaps the mere mention of Delingpole put you on the high-alert watch list. We wouldn't want BBC readers to accidentally go and read some of his very humorous and/or biting takes on this topic, would we? Or worse, read the comments there.

    Complain about this comment

  • 283. At 8:20pm on 14 Dec 2010, MangoChutney wrote:

    @quake #272

    I'd be more impressed if they showed the temperature alongside the CO2 level, so you could see CO2 lagging temperature by around 800 years

    /Mango

    Complain about this comment

  • 284. At 8:36pm on 14 Dec 2010, Barry Woods wrote:

    277 -
    I must type more slowly and correct my typo's, before posting.... ;)

    That's why I started my own blog, it's got an EDIT function !!

    Complain about this comment

  • 285. At 8:50pm on 14 Dec 2010, CanadianRockies wrote:

    #281. jsobry

    Your comments might have some validity IF the surface temperature stations were evenly distributed but they are not. These graphics show their actual coverage and how that relates to the extrapolated temperatures used to invent the 'hottest year.'

    http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2010/12/13/hansens-hottest-year-ever-is-primarily-based-on-fabricated-data/

    Note how 'hot' it is where they have the fewest stations, like the Arctic. This methodology is a fine example of junk science supporting a predetermined view.

    And this problem has been exacerbated by the REDUCTION of weather stations in rural or non-UHI areas, which gives even more weight to UHI impacted stations. Its Madoff material.

    Or, to paraphrase you: 'If they are going to use a scientific presentation it would be nice if you reflect the whole thing rather than just the part that suits their argument. Unless they just want to win an argument and do not care about the truth.'

    Complain about this comment

  • 286. At 8:54pm on 14 Dec 2010, sensiblegrannie wrote:

    In five years time when the probe leaves our solar system and heads off into unchartered space and transmitting back novel data, will all the other data analysis have to change to fit in with the new information? There appears to be a boundary between our solar system and the next. I was wondering, do scientists only measure what is within the confines of that boundary? Do the effects of other solar systems affect our solar system?

    Can scientists rely on the discrete data obtained from the mechanisms of our planet or do they really have to look at data coming in from all parts of our solar system to get a true picture of how everything functions?

    Complain about this comment

  • 287. At 9:30pm on 14 Dec 2010, GeoffWard wrote:

    Re: 109: "Surely somebody out there has some physics to deploy!
    My 191 is available for refutation and, as a non-maths/physicist, I will not be hurt by you explaining my errors. Geoff"
    .......................
    "Regarding the statements in 109 seemingly made by John from Hendon ......
    The statements in this blog update are just awful science by any measure.
    Nothing even remotely enlightening is contained in these statements.
    The aggregate of these statements are just so much drivel.
    In comparison this CO2 stuff is wonderful science." (jsobry @ 273)
    ......................
    Thanks, jsobry,
    you stepped in where the usual Earth Watch blog-community prefered not to tread (though God knows why not, as they all seem to be at least school science trained).
    -
    My 191 still has many more points worthy of being taken up, especially the chaos-catastrophe issue. Would welcome any comments wrt AGW.
    Geoff



    Complain about this comment

  • 288. At 10:08pm on 14 Dec 2010, TV Licence fee payer against BBC censorship wrote:

    Why doesn't the BBC allow the voices who question MMGW to have an equal voice on the airwaves, a lot of the so called facts about MMGW is nothing but pure propaganda and thus way it is reported is reminiscent of the state media within those dictatorships of the 1930s to 1990s. By removing the ability of any other point of view to be heard the population can be effectively brainwashed into accepting ever greater measures against the unwelcome element. The BBC should be reporting the facts, not the propaganda...

    Complain about this comment

  • 289. At 10:16pm on 14 Dec 2010, TV Licence fee payer against BBC censorship wrote:

    8. At 1:02pm on 11 Dec 2010, CChaplin wrote:

    " sensible approach would be to try to reduce the carbon dioxide that’s already in the atmosphere to pre-industrial levels. We should be talking about how this could be done and implemented."

    I believe that Bin laden found the answer to that problem when he went to live in Afghanistan, not what he got up to but were he (reportedly) lived, I have it on good authority that the life portrayed in those "Flintstones" cartoons was far from the real!

    Complain about this comment

  • 290. At 10:20pm on 14 Dec 2010, Yorkurbantree wrote:

    A quick bit of tidying up:

    Post 248: “Utter rubbish. I have yet to encounter an environmental activist that wasn't also left leaning in their politics. How FAR left varies, but it's only a matter of degree.”

    How about Zac Goldsmith, John Gummer, Prince Charles etc etc etc

    Post 262: “On a lighter note comedy duo Armstrong and Miller do a funny skit on global warming. Very funny - I'm not sure how they got this past the BBC High Command.”

    You answer your own question there – it got through because it is funny. The link that you post to on James Delingpole's blog is rather funny in itself. Delingpole doesn't do his research and has to issue an apology for getting it all wrong (not for the first time...).

    Post 276: “Of course they're not. No one is. The idea that there are any astroturfers is bonkers! “

    If you bothered to read the article in question properly, you might not be so jaw droppingly naïve. There is copious evidence of astroturfing on a range of subjects, such as tobacco and environmental controls (try one of those books I mentioned a while back). Just because you are not being paid to post stuff on the internet, it doesn't mean others are not. After all, people regularly come on here quoting internet opinion polls etc, so the medium is clearly one for those with a financial agenda to focus on...

    Post 278: A right wing opinion piece writer who has a remit to 'spark controversy'. If someone came on here recommending work by Polly Toynby or George Galloway you would rightly ridicule it. So why do you lot persist in doing the same thing with 'shock jock' neo-con opinion piece writers? They just preach to the converted.

    Post 288: The fact that the mods allowed you to post that comment quite brilliantly critiques your own argument.

    Complain about this comment

  • 291. At 10:25pm on 14 Dec 2010, CanadianRockies wrote:

    286. sensiblegrannie wrote:

    "Can scientists rely on the discrete data obtained from the mechanisms of our planet or do they really have to look at data coming in from all parts of our solar system to get a true picture of how everything functions?"

    Good point. But they already do look at workings of our solar system to explain climate changes. Google the Croll-Milankovitch theory for example. Needless to say, the sun has something to do with our climate, and so does the way our planet moves around it.

    Perhaps the UN needs vast amounts of new funding for a new agency - based in Geneva of course - to control the sun? For the children, of course.



    Complain about this comment

  • 292. At 10:39pm on 14 Dec 2010, TV Licence fee payer against BBC censorship wrote:

    290. At 10:20pm on 14 Dec 2010, Yorkurbantree wrote:

    "Post 288: The fact that the mods allowed you to post that comment quite brilliantly critiques your own argument."

    Why, the truth hurts does it?... Yes perhaps the parallels are uncomfortable but they are correct all the same (and is equal to any of the scare stories put about by the MMGW lobby [1]). Perhaps you would prefer this analogy, unless both side of a coin or banknote can be seen it's impossible to even guess if the money is real or fake.

    [1] such as the film "The Day After Tomorrow", often shown to unquestioning school kids as a 'researched fact'

    Complain about this comment

  • 293. At 11:05pm on 14 Dec 2010, CanadianRockies wrote:

    290. Yorkurbantree

    I do enjoy your comments. Nice to see how someone views a scientific question through simplistic 'right wing' versus 'left wing' glasses.

    But it is worth noting again that that supposedly 'right wing' columnist has been a long time contributor to what is commonly known as Canada's national newspaper, which, except for her, has been pushing the AGW story as relentlessly as the BBC.

    So, why doesn't the BBC have ANYBODY who is not pushing AGW? Where is the Richard White to balance things off?

    Since the BBC and Richard does not provide any objective or balanced coverage, it is only appropriate to post other perspectives on this story.

    Complain about this comment

  • 294. At 11:24pm on 14 Dec 2010, CChaplin wrote:

    289. At 10:16pm on 14 Dec 2010, TV Licence fee payer against BBC censorship
    I meant carbon capture as opposed to reducing carbon release. If you have a finite end point as all Fossil fuels have you will get to it sooner or later. If you calculate all the carbon from fossil fuels remaining it will give you total carbon that will be released theoretically. You can delay reaching the point when we have consumed all fossil fuels and there is maximum carbon in the atmosphere or start removing it now to get a head start. Does not mean we have to live in caves if anthing we could carry on consuming fossil fuels at present rate. Taxes on fossil fuels could go to capture carbon.

    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.