sorry...  forgot this one.
merry Xmas...  ho ho ho....

MORE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE THAT GLOBAL WARMING IS A SCAM

http://english.aljazeera.net/focus/climatesos/2009/12/2009124191343603151.html

Concern over global warming has spawned such a highly charged and
polarised political movement, that real science has become sidelined
in favour of sound-bites and simple messages. The real science is not
as 'settled' as some politicians would have us believe.

There is a significant minority of climate scientists who look at the
data and conclude that we are dealing with natural cycles that are
peaking just as they have done on a regular basis over centuries.

These scientists are heavily outnumbered by the proliferation of
computer specialists who have created their own virtual planet –
people trained in maths and physics who may never have handled an
ice-core, tree-ring apparatus, sediments or stalagmites and all of the
proxy indicators of past temperature cycles.

In my view, the UN secretariat has marginalised their careful
assessment and warnings about natural cycles in favour of alarming
future projections generated by the computer model.

These real climate scientists know that the last major warm period was
a 1,000 years ago when the Vikings grew crops in Greenland – their
graves are still solid in the permafrost.

In between then and now, Europe and China experienced a Little Ice Age
– with widespread famine.

Reading the fine print

Taylor says satellite data debunks theories that climate change is unnatural
There is so much spin that you have to read the small print of the UN
reports where they admit to not understanding natural cycles and what
drives them.

Behind the scenes they acknowledge cycles are at work and contribute
to the warming and that it is only from the model that they derive the
dominance of carbon dioxide.

But the model does not easily simulate the poorly understood cycles.
Satellites do a better job and having spent three years studying the
data I conclude global warming is real but at least 80 per cent
natural cycle and 20 per cent human emissions.

My conclusions are supported by recent climate shifts that run counter
to model predictions. From the data on cycles I could predict that
after 2007, when Arctic summer ice reached a record low, it would
start to recover.

In 2008, it came back by 10 per cent. The majority expected it to
continue its decline to ice-free status by 2015. In 2009, it grew by
another 10 per cent.

Little Ice Age

The models beloved of the majority also predicted that the high-level
winds, known as the jet-stream, would shift north as the globe warmed.

The jet-stream directs wet weather from the Atlantic and in 2007 they
shifted south, bringing widespread flooding to Western Europe.

I have seen a minority report in Nasa's archives which shows that the
jet-stream shifts south as the magnetic field of the sun falls and
this was characteristic of the Little Ice Age.

In 2007, the sun's magnetic field fell to an all time low and this
repeated through 2008 and 2009, as did the floods.

Many solar scientists point to a link between this magnetic field and
climate on Earth and when the field is low, the Earth cools.

During the low in the 17th century the Thames in London froze every
winter for 50 years and summers were a washout.

Chinese and Russian scientists have better knowledge of these cycles,
because the cold periods induce widespread famine – and some of them
see all the signs of a new Little Ice Age.

Perhaps that's why their governments' sovereign funds are buying huge
tracts of productive land in the tropics – for food.

You may ask – if this is real science, how can the UN's
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ignore it and claim the
warming is caused by carbon dioxide.

Global spin?

Taylor says scientists may have manipulated data on emissions [AFP]
In fact, the scientists only agreed the warming is "very likely not
due to known natural causes acting alone" – and that is spun by the
policy-makers and the world's media.

The not-known natural causes are subject to high-level research
programmes because real scientists know they exist and are powerful.
And no real climate scientist ever said natural causes are acting
alone.

Up until the recent 'climate-gate' scandal, I accepted that the
objective data could be trusted.

But it now appears scientists upon whom the UN relies were busy
manipulating the data to produce a warmer globe and to eradicate what
they call 'lips' (i.e. cycles) that they cannot explain.

To compound matters, they then sought to undermine the Freedom of
Information Act and delete their records in advance of requests for
the data.

The issue of causation is crucial. The poorest people are already at
risk whether the globe warms or cools.

We need action on the real and immediate threats facing human support
systems from unavoidable natural climate change – but less than one
per cent of resources devoted to climate are spent on adaptation, the
rest goes on what will be ineffective attempts to 'stop climate
chaos'.

Peter Taylor is an ecologist and author of 'Chill: a reassessment of
global warming theory'.

The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not
necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial policy.

merry christmas grendel

Hmmm, you really struggle with what evidence is it seems Grendel.
That is one man's opinion, and he raises some issues which can be totally rejected, and some which are of interest to real climate scientists, but not of "significant" interest, because the probability of the theories being posited is so poorly backed up with reliable studies, and bear far greater resemblance to "Opinion", rather than "Evidence".

He does say he agrees that there is man made global warming, but he contends that man only causes 20%, and 80% of it is due to natural cycles, that he alone seems to understand.
If he understands them so well peerhaps(intentional spelling joke) he should have thought about writing a scientific study about them so other scientists could review his work, and help him to prove his claims.
No, instead he wrote a book, aimed at extracting some dollars from denialists who will be the only ones buying it, in the hope of maybe learning something that makes them sound less foolish.
Bad Luck, you won't find that magic bullet in this tome, lol.

But I give you some points Grendel, his work may have many glaring problems with it, but even so, he is far less foolish than previous professional opinions you have latched onto as your denialist scientician pinup boy of the day.

The most salient point you need to get through to your grey matter, which I know you have, but choose to leave in sleep mode sometimes, is that the facts of CO2 capturing infrared radiation, and thereby creating a measurable warming effect to the atmosphere are indisputable.

It is a known, a given, an accepted fact by ALL scientists, even your idiotic potty peer types do not try to argue against that basic fact.

Now if we use a car as an analogy, say the measurable warming effect of CO2 is the fuel we are pumping into the engine, and we got caught speeding, then denialists would be offering arguments that would be like; "but I pumped my tyres up harder than usual, which made the wheels bigger, so that is what made me go faster", or, "I think the wind was blowing in my face, slowing me, but when I went round the corner, I had a side breeze so went faster", or "I polished the car yesterday and with less resistance I found myself going faster."
Get it?

All of those things could have an effect, but to concentrate on those, and ignore how far down you have the accelerator pedal, is exactly what denialist scientists want to people to do, and to not appreciate that they are silly distractions, and you just need to accept that CO2 captures infrared radiation, which warms the atmosphere.

Repeat that 10,000 times;
CO2 captures infrared radiation, which warms the atmosphere.

Come back after that has sunk in and we will talk again.

yawn...  it aint me who is not getting it Mozza


take fingers out of ears stop shouting la la la and open eyes...

that's better

now engage brain

and read what this man has to say.

So far your rather feral attitude has done you no good at all.

I didn't write the article...  hence the title etc is not a concern of mine.

To base your objections to him on his experience etc is rather pathetic, but that's what you denialist/alarmists excel in.

THERE IS NO PROOF...  I REPEAT... NONE WHATSOEVER...  THAT MAN-MADE CO2 IS CAUSING CATASTROPHIC GLOBAL WARMING.

PERHAPS YOU MIGHT LIKE TO TRY FACTUAL REFUTATION OF WHAT HE SAYS INSTEAD OF THE USUAL RANT AND RAVE THAT REQUIRES NO BRAIN TO BE ENGAGED.

AS FOR ABBOTT...  NO LOVE HERE...  BUT GRATITUDE THAT SO FAR HE'S SAVED ME FROM THE ETS.  YOU SHOULD BE GRATEFUL TOO IF YOU KNEW ANYTHING.

YES CO2 IS ONE OF A RANGE OF GREENHOUSE GASSES, WHICH WORK TO KEEP THE PLANET TEMPERATE.  IT ALSO KEEPS PLANTS ALIVE WHICH IN TURN KEEP US ALIVE.

You also need to apologise to a lot of emminent scientists who disagree with you.

The only potty here is the one you wear on your head to protect you from the falling sky.  ;D

lol, make a list of the "Emminent" scientists that disagree with Global Warming, and I will personally write to every one of them who has written one paper which proves that Global Warming is, as you put it, a scam.

Refute his work?

I am not a scientist, but I have seen your responses to real science, where full and comprehensive refutation of your spurious clams is provided, but you invariably rin away, or change the subject.
YOU, never follow a scientific refutation through when they are presented to you, so I can understand why they would get frustrated even trying to engage denialists in meaningful argument, for they are not interested in science, if they were, they would not be denialists in the first place.

Grendel - I see your pile of ...3's and I raise you a royal flush:  ;)

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,,26412566-952,00.html

Quote:

QUEEN Elizabeth II has urged Australia and other Commonwealth nations to lead the world in responding to climate change at their meeting in the Caribbean. In her opening address to the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM) in the twin island nation of Trinidad and Tobago, Queen Elizabeth said the timing of the gathering was crucial as it would take place days before the December 7 United Nations climate change summit in Copenhagen, Denmark.

I mean, that's the kind of thing that should inspire you. My appeal to authority is better than your appeal to authority.  Come on mate, where is your blue blood? Where's your Australian heritage, hey mate?  The Queen of Australia (bless her heart) is telling you to do something about it....maaate.

- and my argument is actually more powerful than yours. My figure of authority is strongly backed by by a stack of peer reviewed and tested papers.  

Your argument is backed up by "comments over coffee" ..... or more likely something stronger. Nothing like the smell of crude oil in the morning.

Opinions count for nothing unless they are tried and tested by the scientific method.

The only papers that apply to this particular piece of bloggochunder, is perhaps Sorbent.  

rotflmao

wasn't she reading something written for her by the Labour Government?  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

BTW...  I didn't make any "appeal to authority"  just noted Mozzas ignorance.

Keep wafflin' you Amuso me.

Mozza...  stop telling lies about me. Your credibility is already shot.

Grendel wrote on Dec 10^th, 2009 at 2:09pm:

rotflmao wasn't she reading something written for her by the Labour Government?  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D BTW...  I didn't make any "appeal to authority"  just noted Mozzas ignorance. Keep wafflin' you Amuso me. Mozza...  stop telling lies about me. Your credibility is already shot.

Oh! So her Majesty's opinion does impress you after all. I knew you wouldn't let us down, Grendel.  Perhaps if she was reading something written by Arnie (I'll be back) Schwarzenegger, then you'd sit up and take notice?

I'm glad that opinions are so important to you, but opinions don't count for jack poo in Science - unless they are tested.

Liar liar pants on fire...  oooh must be global warming that did that eh Muso.

How you keep lying about what I actually say and think is beyond me.
Maybe you are dumber than I think.

Well the CO2 theory is just that... unproven.  Guess it is just an opinion then eh.

Next they'll be trying to take the blue out of the sky because temperatures are higher when the sky is blue.  :D :D :D

If you knew anything about politics and government and how things work in the UK, you'd never have gone there.  wait...  maybe you are stupid enough to have still gone there.  In which case there's the explanation of why "debating" you on this site is sooooooooo incredibly tedious.

Grendel wrote on Dec 10^th, 2009 at 3:10pm:

Well the CO2 theory is just that... unproven.  Guess it is just an opinion then eh.

No. It's not just an opinion. You obviously haven't been listening again.

Since when is an unproven theory a fact.

In my days it was just a working hypothesis based on an idea.

My my my...  you had me fooled for a while...  you are dumb.  ;D

Grendel wrote on Dec 10^th, 2009 at 3:23pm:

Since when is an unproven theory a fact. In my days it was just a working hypothesis based on an idea. My my my...  you had me fooled for a while...  you are dumb.  ;D

Read here:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1257561346/202#202

and here:

http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/hafemeister.cfm

A Tutorial on the Basic Physics of Climate Change

The latter is on the American Physical Society website. It's basically physics, and Physicists are among the most conservative scientists around.

It's basic science. ok? Not a conjucture. It's as basic and well established as the science that enables us to build a computer.

Been there done that.

The theory or should I say assumption... that man-made CO2 is causing catastrophic global warming, now known as Climate Change is a crock.

Now if you can actually prove it...  you'll be a world wide front page Muso.  

So far no one not even the IPCC has had the gall to make such a claim.  oh wait...  maybe Gore did and we all know what a giant intellect he is.  oh wait...  it was his idea in the first place.  Gee...  talk about credible sources eh.

Climate or should I say GLOBAL climate is a lot more complicated than the physics involved in your little example.

Or am I wrong about that too eh?

I don't dispute that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
I don't dispute that the globe warms and cools and greenhouse GASSES are part of that mechanism.

Neither do most of the people you call deniers and skeptics.
Nor do most of the emminent scientists you are arrogant enough to dismiss out of hand and rude enough to belittle.

For all intents and purposes it has been proven. It is about as conclusive as the prediction of the tides tomorrow. That's also part of a complex system, yet it is possible to predict the tides.

What it is not possible to predict is the outcome of the Copenhagen talks.

However, given a particular response by the world leaders, it is possible to predict the outcome in terms of global mean temperatures and atmospheric CO2 levels.

There are some natural unknowns. For example if we had a large stratospheric volcano, it would probably cause cooling for a number of years. If we had more severe outgassing of methane from thawing tundra, it could be a lot worse than it is.

All we can predict is the most likely, and probably most conservative outcome.  

I appreciate that like me, you reply to Grendel's idiotic propaganda cut and pastes, for the benefit of any who may not be familiar with the extent of deceit that emanates from Denialist campaigners, and never expect Grendel to ever admit to any error ever, or to ever acknowledge that lies he has posted have been exposed as lies many times over, for he continues to cut and paste the same old debunked garbage ad nauseum.

He chooses places like Heartland Institute, a extreme right wing bastion of idiocy that will run professional disinformation campaigns for your cause, for a price, as his sources for the cut and paste sprees he is most famous for.

Unfortunately with the demise of One Nation, he needed a new obsession, and lucky old us (sarc), he chose Denialism.

Just bear in mind, two rules Grendel assiduously follows, always ignore any, and all evidence that comes from actual scientists who specialise in the field, and who have submitted their work for peer review so that their conclusions can be checked and tested, and secondly;
Only ever believe what you read in Denialist blogs, because anonymous PR guys and ultra right wing extremists are the only people he trusts.

So in conclusion, we all know there is not a snowballs chance  ;D of Grendel ever honestly appraising the actual evidence available, and when he does more than cut and paste the professional lies from the denial sites we see him show his true colours. So much of the professionally contrived PR man bull he just pastes, can seem credible if you are unfamiliar with the real truth about the things they deliberately misrepresent, but do not buy it, such lies should never be left unchallenged.

Muso's wiki provides great information for any who are honestly seeking some clarification, and want to better educate themselves to be able to understand this issue better, plus it provides many links to actual studies and data which corroborate the facts he provides.

If you just want an easy primer to explain the common denialist lies, you can go to,
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/index/#Responses
which will show the scientific debunking of the lies Denialists put forward as alternative theories, plus you can also look up the opinions and credentials of the real scientists, as well as the Denialist scientists, and then make up your own mind who to believe.

So do not believe me, do not believe Grendel, go to the experts, and see if you believe them, I know I certainly do.

Whatever you do, never, ever accept any denialist argument without checking it out first at a reputable place where real scientists provide real answers, and then decide for yourself.

member , it is early winter there. Not full winter yet.



Quote:

Heavy snow has blanketed much of the central United States following a massive winter storm that left residents battling frigid temperatures and icy roads. Some parts of Michigan and Ohio are expected to get up to a metre of snow as the system which has battered the country since Sunday makes its way northwards up into Canada. "This one came roaring through, it came in off the west coast, started really getting put together in Utah and then just blasted across the plains," Pat Slattery, a spokesman for the National Weather Service, said on Thursday. "As the system moves through, back behind it all this Arctic air came pouring south out of Canada and sweeping across the plains." High winds were creating blizzard-like conditions even in areas where the snow had stopped falling by pulling snow drifts up off the ground, Slattery told AFP. Those winds were also adding a bitter bite to the already freezing winter air, complicating efforts to dig out from under the heavy snow. Wind chills were forecast to range from minus 26 to minus 34 degrees celsius from Wyoming to Wisconsin and even Iowa and Missouri for the next few days. The biggest snowfalls - as much as 150 cm - were recorded in the mountainous areas of Colorado and Utah. But 17 states from California to New Hampshire saw anywhere from 30 to 120 cm of snow and strong winds created drifts as high as 4.6 metres. Schools were closed, hundreds of flights were cancelled and thousands of people lost power after strong winds brought down lines. Major roads were completely blocked by the drifts and blowing snow, which defeated snow ploughs as the icy conditions made driving hazardous. Cars and even big trucks were sliding off the road and getting stuck in ditches. Stranded motorists were waiting at least a couple hours to be rescued during the height of the storm in Iowa, where the National Guard was called in to help after the state was blanketed with 22 to 41 cm of snow. While most of the major streets and highways were cleared on Thursday, many rural residents remained trapped in their homes while waiting for the ploughs to clear back roads. "It was a lot of snow. So today it's the aftermath, continuing to dig out for a lot of people," said Courtney Green, a spokeswoman for Iowa Department of Public Safety. "Things are bitterly, bitterly cold. It's like the snow squeaks when you walk on it, it's that cold."

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/snowblanketed-us-battles-freezing-winds-and-ice-20091211-kmmh.html

Damn - they got a cold spell in the US, that must mean it's a scam. Oh well, I suppose I'd better throw the laws of physics away.

Talk among yourselves. I'm just going to boil the kettle to make some ice. Then I'm going to set my perpetual motion machine working so that it gives me free electricity. I saw that on an internet blog too, so it must be true.  ;D
http://www.slideshare.net/watsonfru/magniwork-generator-review

But then I have to catch a gravity powered flight to Sydney :
http://www.fuellessflight.com/

Damn, I want me one of them anti gravity planes.

Mind you we could just get all the denialists to talk into collection tubes and run zeppelins off the emmissions.

AUSTRALIA faces having to make a hefty payout to help developing countries such as China and India cope with climate change in order to clinch a deal in Copenhagen.

Despite Australia facing a domestic Budget deficit of about $50 billion for the coming year, Climate Change Minister Penny Wong told The Sunday Mail from Copenhagen that Australia would have to contribute to so-called climate "abatement" funds if India and China were to come into the climate-change tent.


China has a trillion dollar trade surplus with the world stuck in its socks. And we have to give the frigging aid.

To the warmerists - you had to be naive or stupid not to have had an inkling for some time that this whole 'we'll be rooned' caper was about money. ANd now, you can see that your incontinent alarmisms has led to Antropogenic Global Corruption on a massive scale.

European carbon trade in the hands of organised crime
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oL-e33oaI94

Elsewhere in the news:
India's steel giant will reap $1.2 billion of your money in credits for more than dounbling poroducytion, as long as they do it in India.

What is the connection between Dr Rajendra Pachauri, the Indian railway engineer who has been much in evidence at the Copenhagen climate conference, as chairman of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and an Indian-owned steel company's decision to mothball its giant Teesside steel works next month, ripping the heart out of the town of Redcar by putting 1,700 people out of work?

Find out here.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6798052/What-links-the-Copenhagen-conference-with-the-steelworks-closing-in-Redcar.html

Hint:
Dr Pachauri's other main job, apart from being chairman of the IPCC, is as director-general of the Tata Energy Research Institute, funded by Tata [the Indian steel giant] , which he has run since 1981.

While I may share your concerns about just who gets our money, the statement that this is all about money is just not true, it is about trying to mitigate what we can, to the best of our abilities, the negative outcomes that we are likely to see from global warming.

The issues are seperate, and unfortunately, somewhat interdependent, but bad politicians does not negate the weight of scientific evidence that tells us we do need to act now.


If we had better leaders, we could expect better outcomes from things like Copenhagen, but we are stuck with the ones we have, and must still try and see that they do what is needed, without misdirecting too many resources into areas they should not go.

If we could stop wasting time and resources to try and educate people who refuse to listen about the realities of global warming, we could spend more time trying to get politicians to seek realistic solutions.

While I have absolutely no doubt that continuing to burn fossil fuels at the current rate will lead to dangerous climate change, I can see how this double standard for emission levels for developing countries could be manipulated by multinationals so that the emissions are simply moved to developing countries rather than the West.  

This is a travesty,  and I can see why Kevin Trenberth and James Hansen have recently spoken out against the COP15 conference.

It's not the multinationals. It's the Kevins, Als, Gordons and Tones (Blair) and the rest of the political class who are responsible.

They have been stupid enough to listen to the warmerists (you guys), amplified by the hordes of media studies graduates that form the 'media' today - semi-literate 30 year olds looking for self-realisation and to 'make a difference'.

They have also been stupid or villanous enough (no great powers of predictions are needed to guess this) to come up with the most corruptable schemes. Any wonder that the thirdy-worldy rent-seekers have twigged and now it's gizza  job  more money all round, as usual. Climate justice, innit.

soren - yes, I read about aussie giving china cash for the environment.
chinas one of the few countries in the world that has an ongoing surplus

Only a leftard would dream of such a self-flagellating way to help mother earth.

Quote:

Americans pining for a white Christmas got more than they bargained for as a record-breaking snowstorm closed airports and roadways across the north-eastern United States, putting a damper on the holiday's biggest shopping weekend. In Europe, heavy snow and ice also caused travel chaos, as tens of thousands of European travellers were stranded on Sunday in rail stations, traffic jams and airports. Just days before the December 25 holiday, the eastern seaboard from North Carolina to New England in the US was digging out on Sunday from the worst blizzard in years, which closed train and bus service, paralysed air traffic and left hundreds of thousands of residents without power in some areas. Many churches cancelled Sunday services, as local officials urged residents to hunker down indoors as record snowfall wreaked havoc on the roadways. And the storm was a blow to the already reeling retail sector, which had been counting on cash registers loudly ringing on the Saturday before Christmas - traditionally the busiest shopping day of the year -- to make up for weeks of lackluster sales. "I think we can safely say that sales in the Washington region were crippled," Ellen Davis, vice president of the National Retail Federation, told AFP. She said the impact of the inclement weather went far beyond just making it harder for customers to snap up holiday gifts. Without shoppers out and about at shopping malls and along America's high streets "people weren't eating at restaurants, there wasn't any impulse buying," Davis said. With some $US15 billion of all nationwide sales occurring on the last weekend before Christmas, many shoppers trying to make up for lost time were likely to confront closes stores, unplowed roads and limited transportation options. But Davis said the impact of the blizzard on Christmas shopping would be felt differently across the country, depending on when the storm hit. While Washington, which received a total of 40 centimetres of snow, woke up on Saturday swathed in a deep white blanket under clear skies, the flakes were flying at the same time in New York and points north. "What we heard in New York is that couple of flurries get people more in the spirit of shopping," Davis told AFP. As the monster storm barrelled northward, the National Weather Service on Sunday posted blizzard warnings for southern New England, including Boston. "Heavy snow and strong winds could potentially cause localized whiteout conditions along the New England coast through early Sunday afternoon," the NWS said, predicting "local amounts of up to two feet (61 centimetres) possible where heavy snow persists the longest". The storm at one point stretched some 800 kilometres across a dozen states, affecting around a quarter of the US population. Much of the East Coast, home to tens of millions of Americans, turned into a winter wonderland, even if the conditions were as perilous as they were scenic. The NWS said it was the heaviest snow storm ever to hit the US capital region so early in December, in an area where snow does not usually fall until January or later, if at all. Three people died on Virginia roads Saturday as some 3000 accidents shut down interstates for several hours, according to the state's department of emergency management. The Virginia Department of Health confirmed one other storm-related death. And bus service around the region ground as road remained in many places slippery at best and in other places totally unplowed, making movement still difficult, hours after the storm had moved on. "There are huge piles of snow lining the edges of streets and blocking the bus stops," said John Catoe, the general manager of the Metropolitan Transit Authority. The transit authority also operates the area's regional subway system in Washington, Virginia and Maryland ran trains underground train service only, closing 39 of the system's 86 stations. Service slowly returned to the capital region's main airports after hundreds of flights were cancelled on Saturday, stranding thousands of passengers on one of the busiest travel weekends of the year. The annual year-end holiday travel season that official began Saturday, December 19 and continues through Saturday, January 2, just after the New Year's holiday. Meanwhile, Davis said that resourceful shoppers, rather than deferring their holiday purchases, likely would make up for lost time this week in the last few shopping days before Christmas on Friday. "You might see more people choose to purchase gift cards," she said. "I would imagine there were people online all day yesterday as opposed to being out" at the shopping malls, she said.

tbc

Quote:

Nineteen dead in Europe In Europe, at least 19 people froze to death, mainly in Poland and mostly homeless people or drinkers caught out in temperatures that were glacial across Europe, plunging as low as minus 33 Celsius in parts of Germany. Forecasters across the continent are expecting more snow and freezing rain over the next couple of days, but with temperatures rising slightly and the outlook gradually improving in the run-up to Christmas Day on Friday. Roads and railways were closed or disrupted by snow, black ice or floods across northern and western Europe from Portugal to the Netherlands, and flights from British, Belgian, Dutch, French and German airports delayed. The most embarrassing scenes for transport operators hit cross-Channel transport between Britain and France, after the Eurostar passenger service from London to Paris was shut down following at least five breakdowns. Eurostar, the operator of the Channel Tunnel passenger trains, admitted it could not say when services would resume, with more than 24,000 passengers attempting inter-city travel ahead of the Christmas break stranded. The company said it would send test trains along the route to see if they can withstand the sub-zero temperatures in northern France, which are thought to have caused trains to break down in the tunnel late Friday. "We did run two or three trains yesterday, they all got through the tunnel OK, but one or two of them showed symptoms of the problem that happened on Friday night," Eurostar director Richard Brown told the BBC. French Euro MP Dominique Baudis said he would call for the European Commission to investigate after he and his family were among those stuck. "The chain of events was an aberration. Eurostar's complete inertia was scandalous," he said, accusing the train operating firm of abandoning its passengers to their fate. More than 2,000 passengers spent Friday night trapped in the undersea tunnel, some without anything to eat or drink. There were reports of heated disputes on board and some passengers bitterly criticised the company. Approach roads to the ports of Dover and Calais were snarled by tail-backs because of heavy snow and queues of trucks waiting for delayed shuttle trains through the Channel Tunnel. "Eurotunnel has advised us that waiting times are up to two hours at the terminal," Kent police Superintendent Matthew Nix said, warning car and truck drivers without reservations to stay away. At Paris Charles de Gaulle airport 40 percent of flights were cancelled and the remaining services were leaving an average of one hour late, while the city's second airport Orly was the scene of a strike by security staff. In the Belgian capital Brussels a flight was able to leave just after sunrise for Seville in Spain, but afterwards heavy snow forced authorities to halt all flights from airports in Brussels, Liege and Charleroi. "We're putting everything into clearing the runway as quickly as possible, but it all depends on how the weather develops," a Brussels airport spokesman told AFP. Heavy snowfall also closed Germany's third largest airport in the western city of Duesseldorf, authorities said, and in the Netherlands a dozen flights from Amsterdam Schipol were cancelled. International Thalys trains between Brussels, Paris and Amsterdam were also delayed and Sunday football matches were cancelled as far south as Italy and across much of the north. AFP

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/cold-snap-strands-thousands-of-us-and-european-travellers-20091221-l866.html?autostart=1


pardon,  lying lefties?

Sprint mate, you can (and do) get cold snaps in a record hot year. It does happen.  ::)

A "cold snap" ........... what constitutes a "chilly period" ?


Quote:

Northern Europe is bracing for what is expected to be the coldest day yet of the big freeze affecting the region. Conditions have left many people dead and another Eurostar train has been stranded in the Channel Tunnel. The icy weather has disrupted flights at airports in the UK, France, Ireland and the Netherlands. In Germany, at least nine homeless men have frozen to death. The Arctic freeze has seen temperatures in central Sweden plunge to between minus 30 and minus 40 degrees Celsius, the coldest weather in more than 25 years. Gas supplies are running low in the UK where the national grid has had to start rationing supplies of energy. Around 10,000 schools shut down in Britain and will not reopen until well into next week. One Eurostar train arrived in London two hours late after breaking down in the Channel Tunnel, while four others were cancelled after snow got into the engines. The average weather in Britain recently has been only 2 degrees warmer than the North Pole.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/01/08/2787893.htm

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jan 8^th, 2010 at 4:12pm:

A "cold snap" ........... what constitutes a "chilly period" ? Quote: Northern Europe is bracing for what is expected to be the coldest day yet of the big freeze affecting the region. Conditions have left many people dead and another Eurostar train has been stranded in the Channel Tunnel. The icy weather has disrupted flights at airports in the UK, France, Ireland and the Netherlands. In Germany, at least nine homeless men have frozen to death. The Arctic freeze has seen temperatures in central Sweden plunge to between minus 30 and minus 40 degrees Celsius, the coldest weather in more than 25 years. Gas supplies are running low in the UK where the national grid has had to start rationing supplies of energy. Around 10,000 schools shut down in Britain and will not reopen until well into next week. One Eurostar train arrived in London two hours late after breaking down in the Channel Tunnel, while four others were cancelled after snow got into the engines. The average weather in Britain recently has been only 2 degrees warmer than the North Pole. http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/01/08/2787893.htm

Sprint, I expected you were a bit smarter than that, if its cold in Europe its because its winter old son its called the weather,don't be like the confusionalist who thinks the weather and climate are the same.
The weather changes on a day to day week to week basis. The climate is measured over a period of at least thirty years, do you comprehend that? its pretty simple really.
How about this, Sydney is a temperate city, climate change could well turn it into a sub tropical city, are you with me yet? now that dosn't mean its going to happen on the 7-7 2012 mate, its not going to happen over night, but it will happen. So dont expect to wake up tomorrow and see crocs in Brisbane river, that'll take a few years yet.In the meantime ,dont throw out your ugg boots.

Sorry skippy, I am not that smart gullible.

if there is global warming, should the globe be getting warmer?

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jan 8^th, 2010 at 4:37pm:

Sorry skippy, I am not that smart gullible. if there is global warming, should the globe be getting warmer?

Yes, it is. But you re acting very fukcing stupid if you keep confusing the weather with climate change, maybe that NZ education just isn't up to scratch old mate.
I do have to laugh at a kiwi saying they may be gullible though, I'm sure your mob invented the word.

I'ld seriously doubt kiwis invented the word gullible.
We don't even know what it means !!!! :-)


take care mate

http://resources0.news.com.au/images/2010/01/07/1225817/147360-britain-cold-weather.jpg

Shane Wilkinson drives his team of Siberian huskies in Wilton, southern England. Picture: AP


this is the global warming ruddy wanted to "save" the world from??????

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jan 8^th, 2010 at 4:37pm:

Sorry skippy, I am not that smart gullible. if there is global warming, should the globe be getting warmer?

What do you think the effect of global warming on the Gulf Stream is likely to be? (or is)

Do you expect the warming trend to be totally uniform across the world? - because nobody is saying that. Do you understand global warming to imply that we'll never get a single cold winter? If you do, you don't understand the basic principles.

muso wrote on Jan 8^th, 2010 at 8:07pm:

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jan 8th, 2010 at 4:37pm: Sorry skippy, I am not that smart gullible. if there is global warming, should the globe be getting warmer? What do you think the effect of global warming on the Gulf Stream is likely to be? (or is) Do you expect the warming trend to be totally uniform across the world? - because nobody is saying that. Do you understand global warming to imply that we'll never get a single cold winter? If you do, you don't understand the basic principles.

Good point. What exactly is an indicator of AGW actually happening? Apart from the statistical scare-mongering. The last decade was 0.2 degrees warmer than some other decade-average. There is no uniform pattern. There is certainly no correlation between CO2 output and warming. If hot summers and freezing winters aren't it - what then?

muso wrote on Jan 8^th, 2010 at 8:07pm:

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jan 8th, 2010 at 4:37pm: Sorry skippy, I am not that smart gullible. if there is global warming, should the globe be getting warmer? What do you think the effect of global warming on the Gulf Stream is likely to be? (or is) Do you expect the warming trend to be totally uniform across the world? - because nobody is saying that. Do you understand global warming to imply that we'll never get a single cold winter? If you do, you don't understand the basic principles.

Bozo Garrett was quick to shout 'global warming' when he heard that the last decade was 0.2 warmer than some other decade.

0.2 degree per decade. Just in Australia, as an average.

ANd the minister of the crown is stupid enough to get up and crow about it. Then 2 days later half the northern hemisphere is under snow. Doesn't Garret have access to the weather bureau's forecasts?

Bloody loonies.

Garrett has been exposed to some very loud music and possibly toxic substances in his youth.


Penny Wong looks after the Department of Climate Change. What did she say about it? Nothing? What a surprise!

Well ignorant denialists will of course be totally unaware of the predicted consequences of global warming, one of which was far more extreme weather variations in the atlantic coast regions, where even minor disruptions to the gulf stream would lead to colder winters.

Because that was based on work done by real scientists, it is unsurprising that denialist should be totally ignorant of it.
Maybe the potty peer can make up a theory for you, it might be the water vapour one again, he may not be a real scientist, but he gets a big tick for recycling. ;)

mozzaok wrote on Jan 8^th, 2010 at 9:06pm:

Well ignorant denialists will of course be totally unaware of the predicted consequences of global warming, one of which was far more extreme weather variations in the atlantic coast regions, where even minor disruptions to the gulf stream would lead to colder winters. Because that was based on work done by real scientists, it is unsurprising that denialist should be totally ignorant of it. Maybe the potty peer can make up a theory for you, it might be the water vapour one again, he may not be a real scientist, but he gets a big tick for recycling. ;)

You are thinking of the blockbuster Day After Tomorrow.


Relax. It was just  movie.

A Hollywood movie.

Soren wrote on Jan 8^th, 2010 at 9:27pm:

mozzaok wrote on Jan 8th, 2010 at 9:06pm: Well ignorant denialists will of course be totally unaware of the predicted consequences of global warming, one of which was far more extreme weather variations in the atlantic coast regions, where even minor disruptions to the gulf stream would lead to colder winters. Because that was based on work done by real scientists, it is unsurprising that denialist should be totally ignorant of it. Maybe the potty peer can make up a theory for you, it might be the water vapour one again, he may not be a real scientist, but he gets a big tick for recycling. ;) You are thinking of the blockbuster Day After Tomorrow. Relax. It was just  movie. A Hollywood movie.

The Day after Tomorrow was hype at its worst. Obviously it's not going to get to that stage where aircraft disappear over the Scottish Highlands due to extreme cold.

However, there has been a considerable amount of research on the effects of the Gulf Stream slowing.  While there is no strong concensus on it, some scientists suggest a sudden cooling in Winters  are likely over a short (one decade) timescale. It's a plausible scenario at least, and certainly nothing like the Hollywood Blockbuster, which was basically junk science.

One of the main protagonists was Terry Joyce:

http://www.whoi.edu/profile.do?id=tjoyce

A high school geography student knows about the Gulf Stream and how that makes life liveable in Britain/N Europe.

Bolt wrote on blog on the severe UK winter last year, got a mile of responses "I thought it was global WARMING LOL!" What a bunch of morons! Well, the Gulf stream got reduced even more and the UK winter is even more severe this year. What a surprise NOT!

lol, I watched a really, really low budget doomsday scenario film recently, where an asteroid broke up and a bit hit the earth, knocking it off it's axis, and mini magnetic poles, that killed anybody touching anything electrical as the pulses went by, were created willy nilly, so they dropped nuclear bombs in the mariana trench to knock it back on it's axis.

The interesting bit was the whole "pole reversal" scenario, where the earth does a somersault.
I suppose it is only "natural" though. ;D

Darwin wrote on Jan 8^th, 2010 at 10:34pm:

A high school geography student knows about the Gulf Stream and how that makes life liveable in Britain/N Europe. Bolt wrote on blog on the severe UK winter last year, got a mile of responses "I thought it was global WARMING LOL!" What a bunch of morons! Well, the Gulf stream got reduced even more and the UK winter is even more severe this year. What a surprise NOT!

Get your ermine cloaks.

Just if you live in the UK.

I'd love to see the education achievements of these denialists, anybody who has gone beyond year ten at high school would be able to understand the difference between climate and weather.

Yes, it is true that we do not know absolutely all the details of every factor that can impact on our weather, but we do know a great deal about a great many, enough to have a very high degree of confidence on the predictions that we receive every day.

We see denialists scoffing at scientists by saying they cannot even get tomorrow's forecast right, so why should we believe anything they say, yet the facts are that forecasting is extremely accurate, and very rarely are they very far off, if at all, with their predictions.

The effects of global warming, where the warming causes local changes to traditional moderating influences, like the gulf stream, are very well researched, and the prediction of colder, more violent storm seasons, has been forecast for some considerable time.

So put simply, unless we see a pattern of the GLOBAL temps dropping, or even stabilising, consistently over a significant period of time, then the claims that local cold snaps are signs that global warming has stopped, should be taken with a grain of salt.

The term "alarmists" is a popular one amongst denialists, for any who propose that humans should act to reduce CO2 emmissions drastically, and rapidly, to attempt to avert the worst scenarios from occurring, and the absolute worst possible effect for humans will be extinction.

If that is not alarming enough for the denialists, we can also look forward to having to witness some very unpleasant events along that path, if we decide to just keep trying to ignore it, but what the heck, it is only natural.

Food for thought Grendel. There's definitely not a 100% consesus that global warming is entirely generated by human activity, and as you say, naturally occurring climatic cycles are poorly understood. Still though, there is a lot of evidence which tells us that global warming is happening and is at least partially caused by us, and that evidence does NOT all come from computer modelling, as you suggest here. Regardless, whatever the cause of it, it seems to me that attempting to regulate our greenhouse gas emissions is a good thing, for all kinds of reasons, not all of which have to do with climate change.

nanatehay wrote on Jan 9^th, 2010 at 1:09pm:

and is at least partially caused by us,

That is the evidence I have been looking for, in vain. Where did you find it??

Hi Soren. I wasn't trying to present evidence, merely making an observation. If you ever get time out from being a snarky little pissant, go ahead and read up on the topic for youself. Or not; I could give a rat's rectum what you think.

nanatehay wrote on Jan 9^th, 2010 at 7:05pm:

Hi Soren. I wasn't trying to present evidence,

I know. There isn't any.

"There isn't any."

Oh my. Whatever shall I do. I've been put in my place by Soren's scathing wit:P

England is on the same latitude as Siberia, yet is much warmer.

Look up the latitudes of Anchorage, Alaska and London, England.

The Gulf stream is what makes UK/Northern Europe livable. Get your old school atlas out and look up those lattitudes then look at he map of ocean currents and try thinking for once.

BTW, excellent blog on the current NHemis big chill.

http://www.tnr.com/blog/the-vine/why-yes-it-chilly-out-right-now

nanatehay wrote on Jan 10^th, 2010 at 4:03am:

"There isn't any." Oh my. Whatever shall I do. I've been put in my place by Soren's scathing wit:P

No need to be intimidated, boy. If 'there isn't any' is searing wit in your mind then you are far too easily cowered.

Just show us what you take to be evidence of man-made climate change.

I stress man-made as the operative word, boy, in case mid-size sentences confuse you further, as they seem to be, considering that 'there isn' any' already created a considrable mental block for you.

Darwin wrote on Jan 10^th, 2010 at 5:14am:

England is on the same latitude as Siberia, yet is much warmer. Look up the latitudes of Anchorage, Alaska and London, England. The Gulf stream is what makes UK/Northern Europe livable. Get your old school atlas out and look up those lattitudes then look at he map of ocean currents and try thinking for once.

The Thames froze over many times before, as recently as the early 17th century.
http://www.londononline.co.uk/history/thames/3/

The Seine froze over as recently as 1907.

Global Cooling in 2009

2009 was another year of global cooling, which saw numerous low temperature and high snowfall records smashed. The Dutch canals froze over for the first time in 12 years, record cold came to Al Gore's home town and ironically a blizzard dumped snow on the Copenhagen convention where world leaders met to try and stop global warming. It was so cold that even the BBC was forced to ask, what happened to global warming? As Climategate would reveal, IPCC scientists had been hard at work hiding evidence of global cooling. Yet the observational evidence cannot be ignored.



http://www.populartechnology.net/2010/01/global-cooling-in-2009.html

See graphs, lists and links and other marvels. No models were used in the production of this article so be careful, for some of you this may be a novel experience: seeing observational evidence.

"No need to be intimidated, boy."

Intimimidated? My my, you think awfully highly of yourself Soren. Here's the thing though my friend; you're clever, even amusing at times, but you're not half as clever as you think. Calling me "boy," and attacking my grammar like a constipated schoolmarm, and imperiously demanding I provide information to back up a comment which wasn't even directed at you isn't intimidating; it's just the MO of a garden variety online lackwit. Feel free to come back with something else "clever" in response, and to imagine how impressed I am at your intellect.

Global cooling last year? Gee, what wonderful drugs you must be on!

As I suspected 'druggy' Soren's link is based on the massive 1998 El Nino outlier. He obviously has not tried any of the things I suggested or allowed himself to think of the Gulf Stream.


Fail!

nanatehay wrote on Jan 10^th, 2010 at 11:20am:

"No need to be intimidated, boy." Intimimidated? My my, you think awfully highly of yourself Soren. Here's the thing though my friend; you're clever, even amusing at times, but you're not half as clever as you think. Calling me "boy," and attacking my grammar like a constipated schoolmarm, and imperiously demanding I provide information to back up a comment which wasn't even directed at you isn't intimidating; it's just the MO of a garden variety online lackwit. Feel free to come back with something else "clever" in response, and to imagine how impressed I am at your intellect.

Somebody else must be logging in with your ID:



nanatehay wrote on Jan 10^th, 2010 at 4:03am:

"There isn't any." Oh my. Whatever shall I do. I've been put in my place by Soren's scathing wit:P

You did comment on my statement of not being any evidence of man-made climte change. You did pretend to be 'put into your place' by that simple statement.

SAying that there is no evidence is not putting you in your place, unless you are indeedd as insecure as you pretend.

ANd now, safely off-topic and back in your comfort zone, you can blabber on about wit and cleverness.

Soren says: "You did comment on my statement of not being any evidence of man-made climte change. You did pretend to be 'put into your place' by that simple statement."

It's called irony you peckerwood. Get over yourself already. Ciao baby, and big smoochies :D

nanatehay wrote on Jan 10^th, 2010 at 2:07pm:

and big smoochies :D

... on my big freckle. Ta.

With irony.

:D

Soren wrote on Jan 9^th, 2010 at 8:31pm:

nanatehay wrote on Jan 9th, 2010 at 7:05pm: Hi Soren. I wasn't trying to present evidence, I know. There isn't any.

- said with fingers firmly implanted in ears.

- There isn't any, and I don't want to hear any scary stories that there is.

Quote:

1. The pin-up species of global warming, the polar bear, is increasing in number, not decreasing. 2. The US President, Barack Obama, supports building nuclear power plants. Last week, in his State of the Union address, he said: ''To create more of these clean energy jobs, we need more production, more efficiency, more incentives. And that means building a new generation of safe, clean nuclear power plants in this country.'' 3. The Copenhagen climate conference descended into farce. The low point of the gridlock and posturing at Copenhagen came with the appearance by the socialist dictator of Venezuela, President Hugo Chavez, whose anti-capitalist diatribe drew a cheering ovation from thousands of left-wing ideologues. 4. The reputation of the chief United Nations scientist on global warming is in disrepair. Dr Rajendra Pachauri, the chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), is being investigated for financial irregularities, conflicts of interest and scientific distortion. He has already admitted publishing false data. 5. The supposed scientific consensus of the IPCC has been challenged by numerous distinguished scientists. 6. The politicisation of science leads to a heavy price being paid in poor countries. After Western environmentalists succeeded in banning or suppressing the use of the pesticide DDT, the rate of death by malaria rose into the millions. Some scholars estimate the death toll at 20 million or more, most of them children. 7. The biofuels industry has exacerbated world hunger. Diverting huge amounts of grain crops (as distinct from sugar cane) to biofuels has contributed to a rise in world food prices, felt acutely in the poorest nations. 8. The Kyoto Protocol has proved meaningless. Global carbon emissions are significantly higher today than they were when the Kyoto Protocol was introduced. 9. The United Nations global carbon emissions reduction target is a massively costly mirage. 10. Kevin Rudd's political bluff on emissions trading has been exposed.

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/facts-conveniently-brushed-over-by-the-global-warming-fanatics-20100131-n6fr.html

Sprintcyclist wrote on Feb 1^st, 2010 at 12:54pm:

Dr Rajendra Pachauri, the chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), is being investigated for financial irregularities, conflicts of interest and scientific distortion. He has already admitted publishing false data. http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/facts-conveniently-brushed-over-by-the-global-warming-fanatics-20100131-n6fr.html

Warm Front   [Mark Steyn]

Rajendra Pachauri, the cricket-loving climate-profiteering Nobel Peace Prize-winner with a carbon footprint almost as big as Al Gore's, heads up the IPCC, the global climate-change racket whose "settled science" is getting less settled by the minute. It seems an odd moment for Dr Pachauri to branch out into bodice-heaving fiction:

In breathless prose that risks making Dr Pachauri, who will be 70 this year, a laughing stock among the serious, high-minded scientists and world leaders with whom he mixes, he details sexual encounter after sexual encounter.

The book, which makes reference to the Kama Sutra, starts promisingly enough as it tells the story of a climate expert with a lament for the denuded mountain slopes of Nainital, in northern India, where deforestation by the timber mafia and politicians has "endangered the fragile ecosystem".

But talk of "denuding" is a clue of what is to come..

"Sanjay saw a shapely dark-skinned girl lying on Vinay’s bed. He was overcome by a lust that he had never known before ... He removed his clothes and began to feel Sajni’s body, caressing her voluptuous breasts."

But don't worry. Every sex scene in the book is peer-reviewed. Alas, like the IPCC report, not all of them live up to advance billing:

Sadly for Sanjay, writes Dr Pachauri, "the excitement got the better of him, before he could even get started".

Oh, dear. There are times when even a climate expert can't "hide the decline".

So much for the propaganda, now for the facts:

1. Scientists predict that, if current warming trends continue in the Arctic, two-thirds of the world's polar bears could disappear by 2050. At the most recent meeting of the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group (held in Copenhagen in 2009), the world's leading polar bear scientists reported that of the 19 subpopulations of polar bears, eight were declining, three were stable, one was increasing, and seven had insufficient data to make a determination. At their 2005 meeting in Seattle, the group reclassified the polar bear as vulnerable on the IUCN World Conservation Union's "Red List of Threatened Species," noting that the species could become extinct due to sea ice changes. Individual countries with polar bears have reclassified the species as well. Citing to concerns about shrinking sea ice habitat, the U.S. Department of the Interior announced on May 14, 2008, that it is listing the polar bear as a Threatened Species under the Endangered Species Act. Russia lists the polar bear as "a species of concern." The major threat to the polar bear is shrinking sea ice habitat due to climate change. Other threats include pollution, poaching, and industrial disturbances. Hunting could become a threat if populations are not well managed.

2. "The US President, Barack Obama, supports building nuclear power plants."

Personally, I agree with him. They have a very low carbon footprint.

3. The Copenhagen climate conference descended into farce.

- I think that's evidence of the fact that it was hijacked by poor nations wanting handouts. Since then there have been at least some agreement among the nations that produce around 80% of the greenhouse gas emissions reducing emissions by 20% by 2020, with potential for more reduction.

4.  If Bill Clinton's reputation was flawed, did that mean that the United States was a scam?

5. Close. Delete "distinguished scientists" and substitute "politically or otherwise motivated cranks".

6. What on earth has DDT got to do with Global Warming?

7. That may be true, but doesn't invalidate the fact that Anthropogenic Climate Disruption is an imminent threat to our economy and civilisation. On the other hand, the biggest potential threat to food crops is - you guessed it - Global Climate disruption (I use this term, because warming is not the only effect)

8. Correct. If the US and China were not part of Kyoto, why would you expect anything else?

9. It was actually designed to minimise costs. The effects of Climate disruption will be considerably more expensive than the costs of mitigating it - otherwise, why would you bother?

10. Kevin Rudd has never been fair dinkum on this issue. He just uses it as a means of gaining popularity. Like everything else the ALP has done on climate change, his CPRS was incredibly stupid. The subsidies to large industries were almost as stupid. The most intelligent thing that Kevin Rudd has done so far has been to give a speech in Chinese, and even then, he managed to piss off our major trading partner by talking about domestic issues.  

Soren wrote on Feb 1^st, 2010 at 1:44pm:

But talk of "denuding" is a clue of what is to come.. "Sanjay saw a shapely dark-skinned girl lying on Vinay’s bed. He was overcome by a lust that he had never known before ... He removed his clothes and began to feel Sajni’s body, caressing her voluptuous breasts."

I like this guy. He's a bit like Bill Clinton. ;D ;D


Ouch - that's a bit below the belt.   Rajendra Pachauri is a sleaze, therefore AGW is crap.

Like I said before, it's like saying that Bill Clinton is a lech, therefore the United States is a crock.

I'm totally dazzled by the 'BS baffles brain' approach.

muso wrote on Feb 1^st, 2010 at 1:56pm:

Soren wrote on Feb 1st, 2010 at 1:44pm: But talk of "denuding" is a clue of what is to come.. "Sanjay saw a shapely dark-skinned girl lying on Vinay’s bed. He was overcome by a lust that he had never known before ... He removed his clothes and began to feel Sajni’s body, caressing her voluptuous breasts." He's a bit like Bill Clinton. ;D ;D

Buzzzz. Correct. Give him a cigar...

Soren wrote on Feb 1^st, 2010 at 2:03pm:

Buzzzz. Correct. Give him a cigar...

So let me get this right - What you're saying is that anybody who has sex and talks about it, is essentially incapable of rational thought?

No. I am saying that Pachauri is a fraud like Clinton. ANd both happen to be lascivious.

The worst I'd say about Pachauri is that he's unconventional. He reminds me of the brand of environmentalist who goes around on speaking tours toting a guitar.

The guitar is usually a dead give-away that there will be less content and more entertainment, but once there you know that you're stuck there until the first coffee break, and after the first coffee break, the room seems strangely empty - and devoid of environmental professionals.    

I don't know if Pachauri is the best person to chair the IPCC.

So used are greens to sycophancy in the television studios that when they occasionally encounter even slightly hard questions they are outraged. Peter Sissons of the BBC: ‘I pointed out to [Caroline Lucas of the Green party] that the climate didn’t seem to be playing ball at the moment. We were having a particularly cold winter, even though carbon emissions were increasing. Indeed, there had been no warming for ten years, contradicting all the alarming computer predictions... Miss Lucas told me angrily that it was disgraceful that the BBC — the BBC! — should be giving any kind of publicity to those sort of views.’

Of course, reporters have been going native for decades. The difference is that they cannot now get away with it. When acid rain was all the rage in the 1980s, I was a science editor and I relayed all sorts of cataclysmic predictions from scientists and greens about its effect on forests. (Stern magazine said in 1984 that a third of Germany’s forests were already dead or dying and that experts believed all — all! — its conifers would be gone by 1990.) Today, we know that these predictions were wildly wrong and that far from dying out, forests in Germany, Sweden and North America actually thrived during that decade. I should have been more sceptical.

Yet, this time round, despite 20 years of being told they were not just factually but morally wrong, of being compared to Holocaust deniers, of being told they deserved to be tried for crimes against humanity, of being avoided at parties, climate sceptics seem to be growing in number and confidence by the day. What is the difference?


Find out at http://www.spectator.co.uk/spectator/thisweek/5749853/the-global-warming-guerrillas.thtml

Do you want to know why acid rain became a non-issue? Most of it was due to enormous regulatory measures aimed at emission controls from coal fired power stations. ESP's and scrubbing systems became the norm.  They reduced the pollution dramatically. Acid Rain was a major issue - it wiped out virtually all life in a number of lakes in Canada and Northern Europe. The lakes generally looked very pretty. The water was blue and transparent. It was just devoid of life.

Don't you find it slightly odd quoting the issue of one cold winter in the UK as evidence of changing weather climate (same thing innit ? - er nope)

muso wrote on Feb 5^th, 2010 at 6:27pm:

Don't you find it slightly odd quoting the issue of one cold winter in the UK as evidence of changing weather climate (same thing innit ? - er nope)

That, of course, is not the point of the anecdote. The point is that the arrogant or condescending warmerism is not getting the free run it used to.

So the next time you're on holiday near the sea and there's an impending  Tsunami, we won't make lots of noise to wake you up. That would just be bloody arrogant, and probably condescending too. After all, you understand that these are just natural events, they have happened before, and lots of foreign people got killed. Besides, how could we possibly understand the science behind it? Earthquakes are a complex natural system and we really need to do more study before taking such drastic action as waking you up, and besides,  everybody knows that we can't predict the future anyway.  

We'll just send you a nice, polite, politically correct email, because we know how much you love political correctness.  ;)


Your natural retort will be that we don't cause earthquakes. So does that make the science of prediction any more acceptable for you? Is scientific prediction reserved for naturally occurring events only where homosapiens is not complicit?

Quote:

[UP to 20 million farm animals may die in Mongolia before spring as the fiercest winter in living memory grips the country, International Aid Agencies warned today. Sky News reported that local experts have told the Red Cross half the entire country's livestock could be wiped out. A Sky News team that traveled through remote regions in Central Mongolia found cattle, goats and sheep frozen to death across the plains, with some herds almost completely wiped out. Outside her traditional home in Central Mongolia, grandmother Hotont Suon wept as she looked at the carcasses of her herd lying on their backs. Their legs to the air, they had been frozen to death. In the pens, sheep must huddle together to escape the bitter cold. "Our hay is all gone now. As our goats die we sell the hides and buy more fodder, but it only lasts a few days," Suon said. It's called the 'Dzud' - a multiple disaster with a summer drought followed by one of the coldest winters on record. It has left millions of livestock dying from a combination of exhaustion and starvation - some herders report that their cattle perish at the rate of 50 a night.

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,26691925-23109,00.html

lol, back to the shallow end sprint.

Maybe start collecting data in mongolia, and get back to us in thirty years or so, with a "climate" report, we can get "weather" reports on google.

muso wrote on Feb 7^th, 2010 at 8:58am:

So the next time you're on holiday near the sea and there's an impending  Tsunami, we won't make lots of noise to wake you up. That would just be bloody arrogant, and probably condescending too. After all, you understand that these are just natural events, they have happened before, and lots of foreign people got killed. Besides, how could we possibly understand the science behind it? Earthquakes are a complex natural system and we really need to do more study before taking such drastic action as waking you up, and besides,  everybody knows that we can't predict the future anyway.   We'll just send you a nice, polite, politically correct email, because we know how much you love political correctness.  ;) Your natural retort will be that we don't cause earthquakes. So does that make the science of prediction any more acceptable for you? Is scientific prediction reserved for naturally occurring events only where homosapiens is not complicit?

This analogy makes the same kind of category mistakes that all your other ones do - the banana weighing, the thermometer up a rat's arse, the drinking of poison and the rest.  

No - I think it's a really good analogy. You accept scientific knowledge only where it is convenient to do so.

The one graph that rules them all: tracking the rejection of AGW.

http://pajamasmedia.com/zombie/files/2010/02/AGW_hockey_stick_graph_big.gif

Not much to be gained by arguing with deniers!

Suggest join the NewAustralia Party instead. Currently membership is free.

We are promoting a revenue neutral tax swap as a way to provide an appropriate carbon price without having a massive net tax rise or bogus 'ETS'.

Our web site is here: www.NewAustralia.net.

Soren wrote on Mar 1^st, 2010 at 11:38am:

The one graph that rules them all: tracking the rejection of AGW. http://pajamasmedia.com/zombie/files/2010/02/AGW_hockey_stick_graph_big.gif

Thanks Soren Lorenson. Possibly even less authoritative than a Lord Monckton powerpoint slide, but certainly every bit as colourful! Maybe they should have incorporated that ever so tasteful House of Lords logo.

Well how timely, with even Homer telling us "statistics don't prove anything, 74% of people know that".

But the sad fact is that he may be right, I was listening to talkback the other evening and the idiotic droning of denialists was incessant, with nary a sensible view in sight.

As they say in the classics, nobody ever went broke from underestimating the intelligence of the average punter.

Strange how it always comes back to a contempt for the people.

Yes soren lorenson, at least your contempt is not so broadly directed. You of course reserve your contempt for science, scientists, their research and their publications.

Paella wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2010 at 1:16pm:

Yes soren lorenson, at least your contempt is not so broadly directed. You of course reserve your contempt for science, scientists, their research and their publications.

Wrong, as usual (are you conferring with Abu? I am detecting the same tendency of always getting the wrong end of the stick. I suggest you try going against your instinct when presented with a conundrum. You'll find you'll be right every time from then on.)

Scientists hiding their political agendas as if they were not political - that's what I don't like. But this appears to be a far too fine a distinction for your mind. Scientists can research away, as far as I am concerned. Pay them double. But they have no special place in politics.

ANd what's with the lorenson tag? Attempt at humour?

If you believe a scientific paper has been influenced by a political agenda, you should review the paper, present some evidence and publish your findings.

Or you could just cite someone else who has.

But oh, there isn't anyone.

If you want to know about soren lorenson, you could google it. But I strongly suggest that you google "scientific method" first.

Paella wrote on Mar 4^th, 2010 at 8:05am:

If you believe a scientific paper has been influenced by a political agenda, you should review the paper, present some evidence and publish your findings. Or you could just cite someone else who has. But oh, there isn't anyone.

The various recent debunkings have evidently bypassed you.

Paella wrote on Mar 4^th, 2010 at 8:05am:

If you want to know about soren lorenson, you could google it.

Ahh, sorry, didn't realise you were still in short pants, your imagination captured by the idea of imaginary friends.
Good for you. Never lose that innocence.

If you are aware of a published & peer reviewed "debunking", as you call it, please post a link to it.

I can help if you want, because I know of some. Of course, there will inevitably be a few, because scientific measurements can only be stated as a range with a stated confidence level.

So, if you state a conclusion with a 99% confidence interval, that seems pretty solid doesn't it? BUT if there are, say 2000 such reports, twenty of them will reach a false conclusion. TWENTY!

For this reason, if you reach a conclusion that seems to contradict existing theories, you do more research, gather new evidence and test that evidence.

Unless, of course, you are unscrupulous and realise that you can obtain a benefit from your probable false conclusion. But that would never happen would it now Professor Plimer?

Then of course if you need a particular conclusion that just happens to be ... like ... wrong, all you need to do is keep running your tests until you get a false positive. Then discard all the others and publish that one. Now that wouldn't happen, would it. Philip Morris, for example, would never have commissioned that sort of research would they. Oh, what's that? They did. OK, I'm sure that the oil, gas and coal companies wouldn't do it. Would they?

But never mind, take comfort in the fact that if something (such as this explanation) goes way over your head, you can always just dismiss it as elitist nonsense.

Paella wrote on Mar 4^th, 2010 at 6:08pm:

But never mind, take comfort in the fact that if something (such as this explanation) goes way over your head, you can always just dismiss it as elitist nonsense.

Thanks, I wondered what the discomfort in the neck was. I feel better, now that I know.

I'll keep waiting for you to post that link soren lorenson.

And waiting,

and waiting.

Really, I could help you out on that you know. But of course, someone as learned in the physical sciences as yourself wouldn't need my help, would they?

... and waiting ...

Paella wrote on Mar 5^th, 2010 at 12:01am:

I'll keep waiting for you to post that link soren lorenson. And waiting, and waiting. Really, I could help you out on that you know. But of course, someone as learned in the physical sciences as yourself wouldn't need my help, would they? ... and waiting ...

http://climatedebatedaily.com/


Have a look, see what's there.

Well, I've had a look, and I certainly don't see any scientific research testing a hypothesis that other scientific publications have been biased or are politically motivated.

That's mostly because there are no scientific publications of any type there at all. There are lots of references to scientific publications (there are a lot more references to non-scientific publications). But that website, soren lorenson, is a compiliation of articles by journalists. Not scientists.

Tell me, did you even look at if before you posted the link?

What's more, it's a crock. The site's aim is to portray that a serious debate about AGW exists at a scientific level. It does not.

I urge you have  a look at it though. Pay particular attention to some of the research cited by the denial articles. You will notice that those articles generally do not dispute AGW at all.

Cherry picking? I think so.

We have been through all this before you came in.

Climate change is constant given. AGW due to CO2 is a hypothesis. The historical correlation, let alone causation, between increased CO2 and warming has not been established. As past warmings have not been caused by CO2, present increases in global average temperatures cannot be conclusively attributed to CO2, manmade or otherwise.

The climate is not a simple machine: you add a small amount of extra trace gas (current CO2 levels are 0.0384 % of the atmosphere, up from 0.0280 % 200 years ago) and the whole mechanism will move in a single, predictable direction. CO2 is actually used by plants, on land and in the water.

No AGW predictions have come about in the last 20 years. Every prediction turned out to be wrong. The predictive power of the AGW hypothesis is diminishes as CO2 levels increse.

Dunno where you get that from. Arctic ice shrinking, glaciers melting, fewer and fewer cold records set, more and more hot records set and so on.

Soren lorenson, thanks for your post, but I've no idea what it has to do with the discussion. I can only suspect that it's an exercise in repeating something over and over again until you start to believe it yourself. Sadly, this method doesn't have much impact on empirically tested scientific hypotheses, but it seems to help a significant percentage of the populace to feel better. So feel free, I won't stop you.

In fact, I'm going to try it myself. I'm going to see if I can take any comfort in some of your more elaborate assertions ... let's see:


Quote:

The historical correlation ... between increased CO2 and warming has not been established.

That is indeed comforting, thank you. Of course, a "historical" correlation between getting run over by a freight train and getting killed has also never been established for any person who is still alive.

As for the nuclear physics theory regarding the energy differentials in light spectra emitted by carbon atoms when high frequency versus low frequency light are passed through them, well that's just a theory isn't it. Obviously, the absence of a "historical" correlation shows that the likes of Niels Bohr, Max Born, Werner Heisenberg, Erwin Schrödinger, Paul Dirac and particularly Wolfgang Pauli didn't know what they were talking about.


Quote:

Every [AGW] prediction turned out to be wrong.

Now that is a huge relief! That pesky James Hansen told us thirty years ago that the North-West passage would be navigable by the early 21st century. Clearly those ships that are currently cruising right down the centre of it are just forgetting to bump into the ice. As for the predictions that hurricanes would become more frequent, well, those climate scientists just haven't been able to count properly lately. Apparently it was also predicted that heat waves would be hotter and cold snaps would be colder. I'm damn glad to know that one turned out to be wrong, but I wonder why it's been so hot here of late. I guess folks in the Northern hemisphere might also be wondering why it's been so cold of late. The fact that climatologists predicted it, and it ... ummm, happened ... mere coincidence!

The 1980s would be the hottest decade on record - clearly a faulty thermometer.

The 1990s would be the hottest decade on record - obviously using the same thermometer.

The 2000s was also the hottest decade on record - that wasn't predicted in the 1970s. See, they were wrong on that too!

Another thing that they were wrong about - that arctic sea ice would recede in summer by more than 10%. Well, what would they know? They've been proven wrong because in 2006 it receded by 30%. Damned fools!

Soren Lorenson, thanks so much. You have put my mind at ease. Please share a few more of your mantras with us so I can continue with my new found habit of mindless repetition.

Well done Paella, your post quite neatly points out some of the most glaring omissions from Soren's unspecified list of predictions that real scientists made, and denialists, .....deny?

Once more we see denialism and reality progressing like parallel lines.

Perhaps when the right degree of perspective is introduced to denialists, we may see them at least appear to get closer to reality.

Do you think the denialists may be "accidentally" (wink, wink) confusing sensationalist media hyperbole with actual serious scientific opinion?
Nah, they would not seek to deliberately mislead and confuse, would they?

Paella wrote on Mar 10^th, 2010 at 5:44pm:

Soren lorenson, thanks for your post, but I've no idea what it has to do with the discussion. I can only suspect that it's an exercise in repeating something over and over again until you start to believe it yourself. Sadly, this method doesn't have much impact on empirically tested scientific hypotheses, but it seems to help a significant percentage of the populace to feel better. So feel free, I won't stop you. In fact, I'm going to try it myself. I'm going to see if I can take any comfort in some of your more elaborate assertions ... let's see: Quote: The historical correlation ... between increased CO2 and warming has not been established. That is indeed comforting, thank you. Of course, a "historical" correlation between getting run over by a freight train and getting killed has also never been established for any person who is still alive. As for the nuclear physics theory regarding the energy differentials in light spectra emitted by carbon atoms when high frequency versus low frequency light are passed through them, well that's just a theory isn't it. Obviously, the absence of a "historical" correlation shows that the likes of Niels Bohr, Max Born, Werner Heisenberg, Erwin Schrödinger, Paul Dirac and particularly Wolfgang Pauli didn't know what they were talking about.

Love the condescending voice, it reassures me that I am on the right track.

light spectra, carbon atoms, distinguished physicists - the climate is a different laboratory. There, carbon is not the sole dancer in the experiment. There, there are many more and much more significant dancers, a much mor complicated choreography,  huge variables, masses of unknown moves and steps,

very importantly, the climate is not a laboratory for the testing of carbon atom behaviour. So citing these distinguished scientists is largely irrelevant.

Paella wrote on Mar 10^th, 2010 at 5:44pm:

Now that is a huge relief! That pesky James Hansen told us thirty years ago that the North-West passage would be navigable by the early 21st century. Clearly those ships that are currently cruising right down the centre of it are just forgetting to bump into the ice. As for the predictions that hurricanes would become more frequent, well, those climate scientists just haven't been able to count properly lately. Apparently it was also predicted that heat waves would be hotter and cold snaps would be colder. I'm damn glad to know that one turned out to be wrong, but I wonder why it's been so hot here of late. I guess folks in the Northern hemisphere might also be wondering why it's been so cold of late. The fact that climatologists predicted it, and it ... ummm, happened ... mere coincidence!

You are condescending AND naive. Why do you think the North-West Passage is called the North West... er... Passage? Was it renamed from North-West Impassable Eternal Wall of Ice by said Hansen 30 years ago?

Hurrican frequency incresed - not true.

"Apparently it was also predicted..." cute. Apparently they did turn out wrong.

Are you really thinking that it had never snowed heavily in the Northern Hemisphere before?



Considering  your earlier bluster about scientific papers and peer review - your entire AGW mental furniture is sourced from the St Vinnies of the popular press and blogs.

Paella wrote on Mar 10^th, 2010 at 5:44pm:

The 1980s would be the hottest decade on record - clearly a faulty thermometer. The 1990s would be the hottest decade on record - obviously using the same thermometer. The 2000s was also the hottest decade on record - that wasn't predicted in the 1970s. See, they were wrong on that too! Another thing that they were wrong about - that arctic sea ice would recede in summer by more than 10%. Well, what would they know? They've been proven wrong because in 2006 it receded by 30%. Damned fools! Soren Lorenson, thanks so much. You have put my mind at ease. Please share a few more of your mantras with us so I can continue with my new found habit of mindless repetition.

You might want to revisit those records and insert the word 'since' into each and supply the rough date. On record is obviously not 'of all time'. Are you suggesting that it had nevr been as warm in this plans as in the last 3 decades? Or that arctic ice has never been below current levels? Or that the seas levels have never been as they are now?

In any case, global warming is not the same as antropogenic global warming. So this stuff is irrelevant to the AGW debate unless you can demonstrate that they are caused by increased atmospheric CO2. But you cannot. Nobody can.
You can hypothesise, but then you would have to also explain why temperatures did not rise as a result of increased atmospheric CO2 in the past. But you can't explain it because you do not know.

Soren wrote on Mar 10^th, 2010 at 9:35pm:

In any case, global warming is not the same as antropogenic global warming. So this stuff is irrelevant to the AGW debate unless you can demonstrate that they are caused by increased atmospheric CO2. But you cannot. Nobody can. You can hypothesise, but then you would have to also explain why temperatures did not rise as a result of increased atmospheric CO2 in the past.

Old wine in new bottles.  Soren, do you actually suffer from medium term memory loss, or are you conveniently forgetting my post that discussed the PETM and the fact that the temperature change in Ice Ages cannot be accounted for by changes in solar irradiance alone? The enormous emissions of CO2 in the last 50 years were perhaps unprecedented, however the effects of changing CO2 in the atmosphere can be determined, and the paleo-temperature record which your blogosphere is so keen to quote (even though they have no idea how it was derived) is ample confirmation of the role of CO2 radiative forcing in global warming.

Then(there's more) we have Mount Pinatubo. This was an episode where the sun was effectively turned down due to the effects of volcanic dust, and it gave us an excellent opportunity to test the models. The models came out consistently correct. The radiative forcing equation for CO2  (ΔF=5.35.ln(C/C0) has been shown to be correct.

But then (I know you want more) there is the overwhelming evidence that shows a decrease in long wave radiation emitted to space when measured between a period of 20 years using satellite techniques.


Quote:

But you can't explain it because you do not know.

It's you who doesn't know. Just repeating the mantra "There is no evidence"  doesn't make the evidence go away.

Paella - thanks for 'holding the fort'. I've been seriously tangled up with ISO 14001 certification, as well as EEO, NPI and NGERS records systems in the last month.

Hi muso, nice to see you back, I really enjoy reading the factual responses you supply.

Your scientific explanations of the processes that are at play are always enlightening, as well as easily understandable, and verifiable, which is a very rare combination in this debate, so, "well done old boy".

What temperature rise does this radiative forcing equate to muso?

pjb05 wrote on Mar 11^th, 2010 at 12:07pm:

What temperature rise does this radiative forcing equate to muso?

Good question. The total climate sensitivity is around 3 Celsius degrees for a doubling of CO2 atmospheric concentration. That has several components built into it.

Roughly 1 Celsius degree of that sensitivity is due to direct radiative forcing from CO2. The remainder is due to feedbacks which are a consequence of the radiative forcing effect of CO2.  The feedbacks include that due to water vapour.

The overall effect of the warming effect of CO2 is an increase in atmospheric moisture. I'm pretty sure that I mentioned that before. Of course water vapour distribution in the atmosphere is not uniform, but one of the consequences of global warming will be increased atmospheric moisture, and even increased precipitation in some regions.

So overall, we can expect more rain in summer and more snow in winter(in places where it's cold enough. It's not quite that simple, because the tropical latitudes will get drier and the higher latitudes will generally get wetter.  (That's a gross simplification. For more details, check page 16 of the summary for policy makers - link below)

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf

That report also shows the relative magnitude of the various forcings.

muso wrote on Mar 11^th, 2010 at 7:04pm:

[quote author=pjb05 link=1260407542/90#101 date=1268273276] So overall, we can expect more rain in summer and more snow in winter(in places where it's cold enough. It's not quite that simple, because the tropical latitudes will get drier and the higher latitudes will generally get wetter.  (That's a gross simplification. For more details, check page 16 of the summary for policy makers - link below)

Woohoo!!! Bring it on, as the poet says!!!

Why are you so enthusiastic about  more frequent droughts in Australia ?

Either way, these are the minor consequences.

Because he has no f**ing idea.

Besides, it seems the CSIRO will soon be implicated in this vast conspiracy ...

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/03/15/2845519.htm

The data:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/126560/Americans-Global-Warming-Concerns-Continue-Drop.aspx


You gotta believe the consensus, what?

Soren wrote on Mar 16^th, 2010 at 10:33am:

The data: http://www.gallup.com/poll/126560/Americans-Global-Warming-Concerns-Continue-Drop.aspx You gotta believe the consensus, what?

There is a difference between the concensus of dumbf uck yanks and that of expert scientists, but dont let the facts get in the way of your  climate  terrorist beliefs,soren.
Are you American by any chance?

Soren wrote on Mar 16^th, 2010 at 10:33am:

The data: http://www.gallup.com/poll/126560/Americans-Global-Warming-Concerns-Continue-Drop.aspx You gotta believe the consensus, what?

You got to believe that something is sadly amiss in the US:

http://wvarner.blogspot.com/2007/02/20-percent-of-americans-belief-that-sun.html

Quote:

Over 40 percent of Americans do not believe in evolution and about 20 percent, when asked if the earth orbits the sun or vice versa, say it’s the sun that does the orbiting.

Scientific research by consensus - Scary

Maybe we should take that approach for medicine too. Can you imagine the doctors of the future having the choice of "Phone a friend" or "ask the audience"  when it comes to prescribing medications?

And don't forget they can't recite the alphabet unless the pronunciation of Z is changed to rhyme with V.

I'm suprised only 40% of them agree with Soren.

Paella and Muso, you both stupidly and reflexively fall into the lazy  'look how stupid the Americans are' trope, and miss the pertinent point because it is painful - your case is unconvincing and increasingly so. A few years ago these same stupid Americans did believe in climate change. But now, your stocks are down. Yes, yes, it's all the bloggers' fault.

Look at the Indian results - most of them haven't even heard of climate change. How f*&%ing stupid are Indians, eh, Paella. Never mind how they say Z -  they don't even have a proper friggin' alphabet! Explains it all for ya, don't it?



http://www.gallup.com/poll/124595/top-emitting-countries-differ-climate-change-threat.aspx

The point, soren lorenson, since I have to painstakingly point it out to you, is to highlight the absence of logic in your reasoning that "American's don't believe it, therefore it can't be true". Americans say 'zee', soren lorenson. By your reasoning, we should all say 'zee' too, because Americans must be right.

By the way, there has never been a majority of Americans who accept that global warming is caused by human activities. Your source is wrong.

Just to make the point perfectly clear, Americans generally believe in creationism. By your reasoning, therefore, you should believe in creationism too.

But oh, that's right you do believe in creationism!

I rest my case.

Paella wrote on Mar 16^th, 2010 at 11:49pm:

The point, soren lorenson, since I have to painstakingly point it out to you, is to highlight the absence of logic in your reasoning that "American's don't believe it, therefore it can't be true".

Hey, pal, you are joining dots that exist only in your head.  Nowhere did I say or imply what you are imagining. I said that your case is increasingly unconvincing.  If you want to be believed, you must do better. And before that, when I posted the link to Gallup, I made fun of the warmerist fetish about data. But you are too thick and in too much of a rush to preconceived conclusion and wild surmises to properly read and comprehend even simple sentences.
Is that too harsh? Well, that's the advice you should stick on your bathroom mirror: must do better.

Quote:

If you want to be believed, you must do better.

Soren

That is a pretty fair point, and we do know that scientists are probably not the best media animals around, instead preferring to continue with actual work that may have some benefit, or at least be meaningful, in helping to fill in those pesky dots.

It is a pretty decent analogy you give us there, because at the moment we have a dot picture with at least 90% of the dots connected, but still we get the denialists screaming out, contrary to the weight of evidence right before them,it is a hippo, no, it's a dog, or if you are a potty peer, it is probably a pink elephant.

The sticking point to the argument for getting scientists to be more vocal is twofold, at least, primarily, as I already said, they would prefer to be doing real work, rather than refuting silly contentions raised by the likes of potty peers, they do not need to put any work, or thought, into making up lies, but it takes time to research, and reference all the reasons why they are lies.
That being said, a group of scientists do contribute to the "RealClimate" site;
http://www.realclimate.org/
and there they debunk the most loudly and oft repeated lies quite thoroughly, so at least we can get a good indication from that whether people are really skeptics, or just ratbag denialists, for the ones that keep repeating the thoroughly debunked lies, after reading the scientific response to the lies, fall into the latter category.

Secondly, we have possibly the main reason that we do not see many scientists on our tellys giving us a good old heart to heart, and this is because they are notoriously poor spin merchants, and would likely drift off into such detail as to merely confuse, rather than enlighten the average joe citizen, by answering questions too thoroughly, and too exactly to ever fit the time frame they would be given in our "sound grab" addicted media.

All is not lost though, we do have advisors who manage to get the relevant information to the policy makers, and we have seen an unprecedented acceptance of their work by governments, of every possible political persuasion, all over the planet.

Now is the fact that 40 odd percent americans don't get it a concern, of course it is, as is the fact that 25% also believe they will see the second coming of christ in their lifetime, and even greater numbers than that, being, I believe, to be a figure similiar to the number of GW doubters, who also believe that dinosaurs and humans lived together on this planet, at the same time!
Seriously now, I mean, who needs science when you have The Flintstones?

Love denialism Fred?  I Yubba Dubba Doo.

Don't know why you bother with these goobers Soren.

Mozz...  Realclimate...  don't make me laugh.

Of course they reflect the close minded beliefs of that Climate Change Acolyte and Australian of the Year Tim (Got it wrong again) Flannery.  Who probably wrote most of their nursery books.

excerpts...

Professor Flannery, an alarmist author, is best-known for his widely publicised doom-laden predictions about the fate of Australia’s coastal cities.

Two years ago, he warned that “the water problem is so severe for Adelaide that it may run out of water by early 2009”. Yesterday, Adelaide’s reservoirs were 66 per cent full, according to the Weather Channel’s records.

In June 2007, he warned that Brisbane’s “water supplies are so low they need desalinated water urgently, possibly in as little as 18 months”, but according to the same source the city’s reservoirs 72.3 per cent full yesterday.

In 2005, he predicted Sydney’s dams could be dry by 2007, yesterday they were 56.6 per cent full.

In 2004, he said global warming, which he blames on humans, was such that “there is a fair chance Perth will be the 21st century’s first ghost metropolis”, Perth, which now has a desalination plant, is enjoying dam levels that are 43.5 per cent full.
In fact, Perth now has a desalination plant and dams that are 51 per cent full.

In 2007, he also warned that scientists feared that 2008 “may be the Arctic’s first ice-free year”.
In fact, the ice cover increased in both the Arctic and the Antarctic in 2008 and last year.

Even Flannery conceded in an interview with the ABC’s Lateline last November that the world “hadn’t seen a continuation of that (warming) trend” and “the computer modelling and the real world data disagree”.

Oh dear...  something mozz and company refuse to concede.  Talk about DENIALISTS.

Oh well back to sanity in the real world, you have my sympathies Soren.  You'd get further talking to a brick wall.

Perfect timing, we have a fan of "Bedrock" chime in right on cue, I wonder if he was surveyed in any of those reports, he may have scored a hat trick. ;D ;D

we can get a good indication from that whether people are really skeptics, or just ratbag denialists, for the ones that keep repeating the thoroughly debunked lies, after reading the scientific response to the lies, fall into the latter category.



lol, anyone want to take a stab at who I am thinking of right now? ;)

::)

No refutation possible eh Mozzyman...  :D

How're your mates at East Anglia and the IPCC going?  ;D ;D ;D

No, it's refutable, but I am cowering at the prospect of dealing with such a towering intellect, and ethical role model, as yourself. ;)

Another possibility is that I think you are a bonehead incapable of even a glimmer of rational behaviour on the issue of climate change.

I have seen others give you the benefit of the doubt, and engage you on this issue, but when things get too hot for you, 'scuse the pun, you turn tail and disappear, to pop your idiotic mug up months later, and start repeating your earlier discredited garbage for a rerun.

That just makes you a pest, not someone to actually engage with on any issue of importance.

Well you keep on being rude and irrational if that makes you feel better.
Keep telling yourself crap about me and name-calling that's ok by me.
That's why I don't bother with you people anymore.
Time will tell, and it's not looking good for you lot.

Soren wrote on Mar 17^th, 2010 at 12:12am:

Nowhere did I say or imply what you are imagining ... when I posted the link to Gallup, I made fun of the warmerist fetish about data.

Then why exactly did you post the link, soren lorenson? What other possible reason could there be for posting that nonsense? Even if your intention really was to make fun of "the warmerist fetish about data", I'll gladly stick my hand up to that one.

Silly me, being obsessed with such a trivial think like data!

Perhaps I should develop a fetish for myths, half-truths, misconceptions, preconceptions and just plain old lies instead. But it doesn't seem to be working all that well for you, so no thanks.

Grendel wrote on Mar 17^th, 2010 at 3:28am:

...  Realclimate...  don't make me laugh.

Tell me puppy, do you have anything more substantial to say about the realclimate.org website? Like, anything substantial at all?

Please, if you can discredit anything you find on realclimate.org, with evidence (solid, peer reviewed evidence), let's hear about it. Can't wait.

Also, please let me know: if I have a standard dice, and I say before throwing it that there is a one in three chance that the number I am about to throw will be more than four. Then I throw a two. Was I wrong?

Btw, agreed: climate porn doesn't really help anyone but deniers, and Flannery sails dangerously close to that wind.

Puppy still thinks the world is flat, just ignore him, most people do, there is no point entertaining conpironuts.
What annoys me the most is that while the likes of puppy try to muddy the waters with their lies people are losing their houses.
Just down the road from me at Belongil beach many houses are in danger of disappearing into the ocean, it doesn't matter if the cause of this is climate change brought on by man made causes or if it is a natural occurrence, the fact is the climate is changing and confusionalists like the dogster are doing their best to convince people otherwise.
I wonder if some of these people who are losing their houses could take legal action against these morons, its akin to saying its OK to smoke 40 fags a day nothing will happen to you.

Quote:

Just down the road from me at Belongil beach many houses are in danger of disappearing into the ocean, it doesn't matter if the cause of this is climate change brought on by man made causes or if it is a natural occurrence, the fact is the climate is changing and confusionalists like the dogster are doing their best to convince people otherwise.

Funny, cos a Kiwi guy I work with told me that the west coast of (north island?) is gaining land while the corresponding east coast is losing land (beach houses falling into the sea).

Global warming or something else?

Please tell me its not the whole bloody island coming to Australia. ;D

Of course I must assume that you already know it is Helian.
I think it is coming our way at about a foot per year, or 30cm for we bi-lengthal people, lol.

So start practicing, "I wud love some feush and cheups, thankyou."

mozzaok wrote on Mar 18^th, 2010 at 10:35am:

Of course I must assume that you already know it is Helian. I think it is coming our way at about a foot per year, or 30cm for we bi-lengthal people, lol. So start practicing, "I wud love some feush and cheups, thankyou."

OK, so that's... 2000 kilometres multiplied by... 100000.... divided by 30....

which equals  :o  6666666 years.... Oh my god, 666 the mark of the beast :o

Let me just add my heart-felt welcome to Grendel. Good to see you back....mate.

:-*   ;D

He's a fragile flower, so treat him nicely OK?

Oops...did I say something wrong?
...better lay down some more of that heavy duty ricepaper.

..but back to the topic.

Its going be cool wet winter.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8594000/8594561.stm

Grendel wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2010 at 10:24pm:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8594000/8594561.stm

When you're finished with the fairy tales read the facts from Australia's most respected body on science.Some  think that by reading a couple of dissenting nutters they know more than the experts at the likes of the CSIRO.In fact climate deniers are not just ill informed but a danger to our society, I put them in the same class as Holocaust deniers.

http://www.csiro.au/resources/pfbg.html

You mean the same CSIRO that threatened to sack staff that published material dissenting from your belief?

There was an interesting segment on the Science Show yesterday about so-called Climate Skeptics. There are some good quotes in there once the transcript comes out.  

Grendel wrote on Apr 6^th, 2010 at 10:21am:

You mean the same CSIRO that threatened to sack staff that published material dissenting from your belief?

See what I mean?, the CSIRO don't need deniers amongst their midst, the CSIRO are among the most respected organisations in the world,they leave the confusionalist line to the loony fringe, the CSIRO are interested in science facts not confusionalist fiction, they leave that to the likes of yourself who peddle this  offensive fiction.

I'm sorry...  are you saying they'd hire someone who could make a mistake or have an error of judgement?
Or are you in denial of the fact I mentioned?

Hard to tell with you sometimes Skippy.

Grendel wrote on Apr 6^th, 2010 at 11:30am:

I'm sorry...  are you saying they'd hire someone who could make a mistake or have an error of judgement? Or are you in denial of the fact I mentioned? Hard to tell with you sometimes Skippy.

What I'm saying is that the CSIRO should not employ confusionalists.
Global warming is a proven fact there would be no need for the CSIRO to employ people who cannot grasp that reality.

Yes global warming happens as does cooling...  your belief however is NOT a proven fact.

Your idea re who the CSIRO should be allowed to employ is also crap.

Quote:

your belief however is NOT a proven fact.

On the contrary, my belief,as you put it, is a proven fact among the great majority of science experts  THE WORLD OVER, you just choose to ignore that proof instead preferring the opinion of the loony fringe.
While I admire people questioning things they are not sure about to ignore the evidence of man made global warming is just plain stupid.

Lol
Unfortunately for you...  it's not a proven anything.

Well in science, we don't actually talk about proven facts, and although everybody says it, the term "exact science" is an oxymoron in itself.  Hardly anything is exact in the natural world.

You can speak in terms of precision and accuracy, and you can say that there is strong evidence that greenhouse gases released to the atmosphere by human activities are the main cause of contemporary global warming, and you can say that with at least a 99% certainty.

Of course, the phenomenon is not uniform, and climate  change is really only determined at 30 year intervals, so when you get a colder than average year - or even month, some people will pounce on that data.  It doesn't even have to be a scientifically valid point, just as long as they can fool a few more people.

Quote:

You can speak in terms of precision and accuracy, and you can say that there is strong evidence that greenhouse gases released to the atmosphere by human activities are the main cause of contemporary global warming, and you can say that with at least a 99% certainty.

That'll do me,99% certainty. 8-)

Is that 99% a scientific figure or just a figure of speech? Or plucked out of thin atmospgeric CO2?

A scientific figure, albeit a conservatively low one.

muso wrote on Apr 7^th, 2010 at 9:51am:

A scientific figure, albeit a conservatively low one.

LOL ;D

muso wrote on Apr 7^th, 2010 at 9:51am:

A scientific figure, albeit a conservatively low one.

Plagued by reports of sloppy work, falsifications and exaggerations, climate research is facing a crisis of confidence. How reliable are the predictions about global warming and its consequences? And would it really be the end of the world if temperatures rose by more than the much-quoted limit of two degrees Celsius?

(a figure also plucked out of thin atmospheric CO2)

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,687259,00.html

You know your credibility is diminished when even the Germans are sceptical...

That questionable methods have been used to collect data in support of a particular conclusion, says nothing as to the validity of the conclusion.

There has been much debate over a small number of questionable methodologies used by the IPCC, among others (as there should be), but virtually no serious debate as to the validity of the conclusions.

Now why would that be?

Paella wrote on Apr 7^th, 2010 at 6:07pm:

That questionable methods have been used to collect data in support of a particular conclusion, says nothing as to the validity of the conclusion.

If not that, what then? What does it say?
Not only the method but the data istelf is questioned - or has that eluded you?

Soren wrote on Apr 7^th, 2010 at 7:14pm:

If not that, what then? What does it say? Not only the method but the data istelf is questioned - or has that eluded you?

For ****'s sake soren lorenson, must I spell everything out?

Suppose I selected a random sample of people who have borne children to test my hypothesis that only women can have babies. I subsequently formulate a conclusion that my hypothesis is correct: only women can have babies. Subsequently it is shown that my selection methodolgy was biased in favour of the selection of people with telephones.

Does it therefore follow that my conclusion is incorrect?

Think real hard.

Paella wrote on Apr 7^th, 2010 at 10:54pm:

Soren wrote on Apr 7th, 2010 at 7:14pm: If not that, what then? What does it say? Not only the method but the data istelf is questioned - or has that eluded you? For ****'s sake soren lorenson, must I spell everything out? Suppose I selected a random sample of people who have borne children to test my hypothesis that only women can have babies. I subsequently formulate a conclusion that my hypothesis is correct: only women can have babies. Subsequently it is shown that my selection methodolgy was biased in favour of the selection of people with telephones. Does it therefore follow that my conclusion is incorrect? Think real hard.

It's only that simple in your mind.

Almost every figure selected by AGW boosters - 2 degrees warming is the tipping point, for example - is pure bluster and bvllshit. It's just all made up guesswork. The 99% certainty is journalsitic crap. That you still continue to throw this kind of nonsense around, and with petulance unabated, shows that you understand nothing.

The vehemence of your conviction is proof positive that you are not speaking out of scientific certainty but political conviction. The inane analogy about women and babies is just the cherry on top. It is this kind of temperament and this kind of inanity mixed with rightous bluster that has seen AGW steadily lose credibility. If you had any brains you'd stop. But you won't because you don't.

I love it how the confusionalists always state that global warming is losing credibility, where is the proof of this? is that what Monkton said? or maybe it was Barnaby.I have seen no evidence of people changing their mind on global warming, I think the confusionalist is getting confused(lol) with people being scared by the confusionalist campaign re increasing costs of power bills, yes people are concerned that their power bills will rise as a result of global warming but the smart ones are taking action by installing solar power and the like. As a matter of fact people who live in NSW can actually earn money and wipe out their power bills if they install solar power they get a minimum return of 1370 dollars a year, so instead of being afraid of rising costs the smart ones are capitalising on it.

Soren wrote on Apr 7^th, 2010 at 11:21pm:

Almost every figure selected by AGW boosters - 2 degrees warming is the tipping point, for example - is pure bluster and bvllshit.

Yes it is. Did you just make it up? It doesn't appear in any IPCC Reports that I'm aware of.  So 2 Degrees C is the tipping point - for what exactly?

If you mean the 2 degree C Guardrail, - that's based on risk assessment taking into account numerous studies addressing 5 key areas of consequence:

1. Risk to Unique and Threatened Systems
2. Risk of Extreme Weather Events
3. Distribution of Impacts
4. Aggregate Impacts
5. Risk of Large Scale Discontinuities

Most of these risks are specifically economic in nature and the guardrail itself was a compromise.


Quote:

In summary, although a 2 degree C rise in temperature above pre-industrial remains the most commonly quoted guardrail for avoiding dangerous climate change, it nevertheless carries significant risks of deleterious impacts for society and the environment.

(From the Copenhagen Synthesis report.)

Rarely has a scientific idea had such a strong impact on world politics. Most countries have now recognized the two-degree target. If the two-degree limit were exceeded, German Environment Minister Norbert Röttgen announced ahead of the failed Copenhagen summit, "life on our planet, as we know it today, would no longer be possible."
But this is scientific nonsense. "Two degrees is not a magical limit -- it's clearly a political goal," says Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK). "The world will not come to an end right away in the event of stronger warming, nor are we definitely saved if warming is not as significant. The reality, of course, is much more complicated."
Schellnhuber ought to know. He is the father of the two-degree target.
"Yes, I plead guilty," he says, smiling. The idea didn't hurt his career. In fact, it made him Germany's most influential climatologist. Schellnhuber, a theoretical physicist, became Chancellor Angela Merkel's chief scientific adviser -- a position any researcher would envy.


http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,687259,00.html

Soren wrote on Apr 7^th, 2010 at 11:21pm:

The vehemence of your conviction is proof positive that you are not speaking out of scientific certainty but political conviction. The inane analogy about women and babies is just the cherry on top.

Denialists: The IPCC, and others, have made errors in the collection and analysis of data used to support conclusions regarding anthropogenic global warming. Therefore, anthropogenic global warming does not exist.

My analogy: I made errors in the collection of analysis of data used to support a conclusion regarding which of the human sexes are capable of having babies. Therefore, men can have babies.

Please tell me exactly where my analogy is inconsistent with denialist reasoning.

And in case you were wondering, men can't have babies.

As to the allegation that I am motivated by political conviction, let me make this clear: I desperately want the denialists to be right. You may doubt that, but I will add this: I have three young children. No egotistical desire to be right, nor any "political conviction", is worth a pinch of sh*t compared to that. Think about it.

The language of that Die Spiegel report alone makes it clear that it's a political piece with very little scientific basis. The fact that they have dragged out the sad argument of the hockey stick data confirms this even more.

Haven't they got any new arguments that we haven't already addressed?

You forget the "denialists" are the "believers" they deny anyone who dissents from their pov.

To be skeptical is not to be in denial.  To have an open mind is not to be in denial.  Correlation does not implyl causation.

---

Quote:

To have an open mind is not to be in denial.

True.
So why don't you have an open enough mind to believe the great majority of experts on the subject?

A real skeptic would have a problem accepting what is written by most denialists, because a true skeptic would question all information and its sources, and would subject it to rigorous analysis.

I have no problem with genuine skeptics. On the other hand, deliberate liars and those who deliberately distort and cherry pick the data to suit their own particular crusade against science, I do have a problem with.

Correct, Grendel, correlation does not imply causation.

What it does provide, where a causative mechanism is known, is evidence that either:

- a causative relationship exists between the two observed phenomena, or
- both of the observed phenomena are influenced by another external phenomena.

In more plain English, that means that if you can provide a reason for one thing causing another, correlation suggests that it may be right, unless both things are being influenced by something else (such as US music quality and oil production, which have both been influenced by an increase in international trade).

The mechanism for warming occurs at the sub-atomic level: certain substances block more low frequency light than high frequency light, hence the energy differential is retained in the atmosphere as heat. Now if quantities of those certain substances are increasing in our atmosphere, then theoretically, warming will occur. It might be prudent then to see if warming has occurred over the same period that the substances (GHGs) have been increasing. And lo and behold ...

The correlation between GHG levels and global temperatures therefore provides evidence that either:

- increasing levels of GHGs cause higher global temperatures,
- increased global temperatures cause increased level of GHGs, or
- both global temperatures and GHG levels are influenced by a common external phenomena.

Unless,

- an uncanny coincidence has occurred.

Perhaps the following graph would have been more appropriate:

http://www.venganza.org/images/PiratesVsTemp.png

There is NO PROOF that man made emissions are the primary driver of climate change.

I guess your belief is based on a false premise then P.

You had better start again then eh.  ;D

Good luck Paella. I've already given the sub-atomic explanation to Soren, who at least doesn't suffer from broken record syndrome.

I sadly suspect that I might be wasting my time here.

Yes, unlike yourself Muso Soren doesn't suffer from that particular problem nor your hypocrisy, how's the cherry pickin' going BTW.

The pro-AGW crowd here is positively oblivious to the fact that here and in the wider world they are the kind of ambassadors for AGW that Abu Rashid is for Islam. You could be right about AGW like Abu could be right about Islam - but who the hell wants to have anything to do with whatever it is that you are selling??

AGW and Islam are political issues. Yacking on about your AGW science and Islamic science is not enough. You both want people to see the world diffrently. Pissing on them for not being like you is just the stupidest, most counter-productive way ever. You are both suffering from the same delusion - you think you are incontroveribly right.

Grendel wrote on Apr 8^th, 2010 at 7:15pm:

There is NO PROOF that man made emissions are the primary driver of climate change. I guess your belief is based on a false premise then P. You had better start again then eh.  ;D

There will always be uncertainties in understanding something as complex as the world's climate, or the workings of the human brain for that matter. however the evidence of global warming is so strong that every National Academy of Science of national or international standing agrees that it is a real and serious threat, and that it is caused primarily as a result of  human activities - mainly fossil fuel burning.  The evidence comes from direct measurements of rising surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures and from phenomena such as increases in average global sea levels. The causative mechanism has been discussed before.

There is no proof that you would get drunk if you drank a bottle of scotch. Try telling it to the police. In life, we settle for much lower standards than proof every day.  Whether we know it or not, most of us tend to take a risk managment approach based on evidence.

Can you prove that you won't get run over by a bus if you cross the road?

Can you prove that it's 100% safe to get out of bed tomorrow morning?            

No? Well you're living your life on a false premise.

By the way, if you stay in bed and don't get any exercise, that would carry a substantial risk of cardiovascular disease too.

It seems that most things in life are not proven. We generally take a risk management approach based on the best evidence available.                                                

Grendel wrote on Apr 8^th, 2010 at 7:15pm:

There is NO PROOF that man made emissions are the primary driver of climate change.

And just what is your standard of proof?

The tobacco industry for years insisted that there was NO PROOF that smoking causes lung cancer. And, as they were insiting on a level of mathematical, deductive proof, they were correct. Because to this day, there is NO SUCH PROOF that smoking causes lung cancer. This is because the evidence for such relies on the scientific method: a form of inductive reasoning. Inductive reasoning cannot positively and categorically PROVE anything to the same standard that, say, you can prove that a+b = b+a. There is an inherent uncertainty in the physical universe. It is one of the most fundamental laws of nature.

The tobacco industry was very successful in touting this NO PROOF mantra. No doubt the deniers will do the same, with considerable success. I doubt, however, that they will have as much success as the tobacco industry, largely because many more people are conscious of the risk management approach, as outlined my Muso, that we all take to living our lives.

Obviously MY standard of proof is something more substantial than yours.

Soren wrote on Apr 8^th, 2010 at 8:58pm:

You could be right about AGW ... but who the hell wants to have anything to do with whatever it is that you are selling??

Thank you soren lorenson, thank you ... for admitting that the core of your objection lies in the fact that it can't be true, because we just bloody well don't want it to be true. It's an incon-bloody-venient truth, so to speak.

But guess what charlie, none of us want it to be true. Some of us, at least, are refraining from burying our heads in the sand.

Grendel wrote on Apr 8^th, 2010 at 10:01pm:

Obviously MY standard of proof is something more substantial than yours.

That's good, beopup. But ... ummm ... what is it?

Paella wrote on Apr 8^th, 2010 at 10:03pm:

Soren wrote on Apr 8th, 2010 at 8:58pm: You could be right about AGW ... but who the hell wants to have anything to do with whatever it is that you are selling?? Thank you soren lorenson, thank you ... for admitting that the core of your objection lies in the fact that it can't be true, because we just bloody well don't want it to be true. It's an incon-bloody-venient truth, so to speak. But guess what charlie, none of us want it to be true. Some of us, at least, are refraining from burying our heads in the sand.

This is what I have been saying all along, johnny, you just came in late.  This 'gotcha' mentality, btw, is not doing any great service to your cause.

AGW boosters want people to change the way they see the world and the way they live. That's a political task. So far, you haven't been up to it. Showing off the little learning boosters have in science, gleaned from newpapers and magazines, is of little use.

Soren wrote on Apr 9^th, 2010 at 8:05am:

Showing off the little learning boosters have in science, gleened from newpapers and magazines, is of little use.

I'd suggest that Paella knows a lot more of the science than you give him credit for, and I don't believe it was gleened (sic) from newspapers and magazines either.  

It's more than a bit rude to assume that your opponents have little grounding in a subject when you really don't have a clue about them. You haven't met me, and I'm pretty sure you haven't met Paella either.

Considering the paucity of your own 'knowledge' on the subject, such an attitude reeks of hypocrisy. It is obvious to everybody else that you haven't so much as glanced at a science textbook, and even the material designed for school age students goes way over your head.

The very fact that you regurgitate your articles of faith so diligently and that you are totally impervious to intelligent discourse on the subject shows how effectively you have been 'shafted' by the blogarazzi.

You have been socially engineered, and the process has been so successful that you even accuse experts of being socially engineered.

I don't think I have anyhting to add to Muso's remarks.

But since soren lorenson wants to call into question my knowledge, experience and education in this field, perhaps he would be willing to share the details of his own?

Thought not.

This is obviously a non-sceintific argument. Nothing on these blogs is a scientific argument.

As a political argument, it is lousy: you are saying you are right because I am incapable of understanding why you are right and because I do not accept the grounds on which you claim to be right.

Way to go. This is what has seen your stock go down steadily around the world for years now. But do persist.

You are simply unable to grasp that parading your scientific learning is not enough. You want social action which is a totally non-scientific matter and has abolutely nothing to do with sub-atomic physics. If you think that citing authorities about physics will also appear authoritative in the sphere of politics, you are deluded.

With every utterance, boosters continue to overstate their case. There have been so many wild claims by boosters that now everything you say is suspect.

Soren wrote on Apr 9^th, 2010 at 10:43am:

With every utterance, boosters continue to overstate their case.

I'm glad you brought that up, soren lorenson, because as was pointed out recently by William Freudenburg, Professor of Environment and Society at the University of California, "...that is a testable hypothesis."

Denialists are normally very careful not to couch their arguments in terms of a hypothesis that can be tested, but they've slipped up this time. Do you want to know how it tests?

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2010/2859986.htm

Oh, and I'm glad that you have settled the issue of relocating people who live in high-risk bushfire areas. Clearly, such a "social action" has nothing to do with thermodynamics, so they can all relax.

Soren wrote on Apr 9^th, 2010 at 10:43am:

As a political argument, it is lousy: you are saying you are right because I am incapable of understanding why you are right and because I do not accept the grounds on which you claim to be right. Way to go. This is what has seen your stock go down steadily around the world for years now. But do persist. You are simply unable to grasp that parading your scientific learning is not enough. You want social action which is a totally non-scientific matter and has abolutely nothing to do with sub-atomic physics. If you think that citing authorities about physics will also appear authoritative in the sphere of politics, you are deluded.

"That is to say, we tend to assume that the public are confused because they have a deficit of scientific knowledge, education and cognitive skills. That is to say that they're scientifically illiterate.
So if the problem is a deficit, then the remedy for it is a surfeit. So it seems to me that the scientific community has succumbed to or fallen into or pursued what I would call a supply side response. You see this all around, including very much so in our society here today, that we try to supply good information with public outreach efforts, K-12 science education and various statements on web pages. That is to say, efforts to supply the necessary information.
…
I think we know empirically that the supply side model has failed. But moreover, and the point I'd really like to make when we think about this as a scientific community, is that I think that the supply side model is itself unscientific because it flies in the face of the evidence of what we know about what we're doing.
So all of the polls clearly show us that whatever it is we've done has not been effective, our message has not gotten through to the American people. In fact a completely different message has gotten through which is that scientists are arguing, that there is still a lot of scientific uncertainty, that more research is needed, and that a lot of what we're seeing can be explained by natural variability."
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2010/2859986.htm



I told you - you are simply unable to grasp that parading your science is not enough.

Good. That was the program I was talking about earlier. I see that the transcript is up. Some of the facts and figures quoted on there are very illuminating. I'll expand on that later.


Soren, let's make a deal - the next time you have a serious medical condition, let's put some treatment options in the form of a poll and make a democratic decision on the best option. Why leave it to experts?  there's strength in numbers. 19,000 medical practitioners  can't be wrong! There must be at least 30 qualified surgeons on this forum alone, depending on how you look at it :)

I know you don't understand...

Whether I am sick or cured, and how, makes absolutely no demands on you or the others on this forum. Not so with AGW. AGW is about what we ALL should do. Your inability to come up with an even remotely relevant analogy shows that you really, really do not even begin to understand where you have gone wrong.


But go ahead, give as more graphs and the usual eyewash.

Soren wrote on Apr 9^th, 2010 at 1:28pm:

Whether I am sick or cured, and how, makes absolutely no demands on you or the others on this forum. Not so with AGW. AGW is about what we ALL should do. But go ahead, give as more graphs and the usual eyewash.

It has more to do with what governments should do. It makes no difference to you or me (at least our way of life) whether our Energy resources are renewable or  fossil derived.

We can quite happily go about our lives living on renewable energy. Nobody is asking you to live in tree-houses or  caves, or wear natural fibres, or eat Muesli for that matter. That's how it might be misrepresented.

If our electricity all came from geothermal energy, we could go on living our lives the same way.  If our automotive fuel was renewable, fast cars could be designed to run just as well on the new fuels.

Whether you're sick or your car is sick, or the environment is sick, we still bring in experts in the field - not politicians.

soren lorenson, I wholeheartedly agree with Naomi Oreskes' remarks above. As to why you quoted her, I've got no idea. If anything, the fact that nothing she has to say helps your argument in any way, shows only that are struggling with understanding Naomi Oreskes, if not struggling to understand your own argument.

I'm still waiting to hear where my 'people who have babies' analogy is inconsistent with denialist reasoning. Will I be waiting long? While you're at it, I'm sure you can let me know where the bush-fire risk relocation analogy is invalid. I look forward to hearing it. But never mind, if you can't actually come up with a logical, coherent reason, just keep repeating that it's 'not even remotely relevant'. That will do the trick.

---

By the way, this might help:

anal·o·gy, noun - a form of logical inference based on the assumption that if two phenomena have some characteristics which are similar, then there may be similarities in respect of other characteristics.

Paella wrote on Apr 9^th, 2010 at 1:58pm:

I've got no idea.

That's as good a motto for you as you are ever likely to get. Here is the central idea - sorry about including all the other sentences earlier. I was trying to be fair and give the context - clearly unhelpful for you.

"So all of the polls clearly show us that whatever it is we've done has not been effective."

Geddit? Probably not...


Re analogy, it rests on the "assumption that if two phenomena have some characteristics which are similar.... etc." Climate change modelling and pregnancy by women and not men have nothing in common.

Firstly, you should learn to quote correctly. But never mind, I'm happy to concede I've got no idea about a great many things. I do, however, try to have at least some idea about which things I have no idea about. Suggest you try the same.

Please clear something up for me. Your focus seems to have changed from 'AGW is not happening', to 'the general public do not understand AGW'. Are you claiming that it therefore follows that AGW is not happening? It certainly seems to read that way.

By its very nature, no one understands, for example, quantum entanglement. So does it also therefore follow that quantum entanglement is not happening?

But at least you, if no one else, will be safe in the event of a nuclear war: by your reasoning, as long as you don't understand nuclear fission, it won't hurt you. It simply will not be happening.

We have been through all this before, and Soren is absolutely correct in his assertion that we all believe what we are told about AGW, as a matter of trust, he would probably call that faith, but it is most definitely trust.

I am not a climate scientist, in fact I am not a scientist of any kind, and I cannot independently check any of the more pertinent facts in any concrete fashion, so I have to choose who is most likely to be giving me correct information, pretty much on trust.

I simply determine that choosing reputable expert scientists that work in reputable universities etc. may be a more credible source than the experts that denialists choose, from these "institutes" that pop up every two minutes in an old tractor shed, or disused office block, and peddle denialism, evangelism, and republicanism, all from the same desk.
If you go the tractor shed experts, you can buy nukeyullar falledout sheltas for yer backyard at da same time, and theys can include comforting bible verses to go with it.

Just a matter of who to believe.

Here is a link to source watch, and what they think of the oregon institute of science and medicine.

This very place has been cited by every denialist here as a credible source of information, yet they have the strange idea that actual scientists working in teaching universities, not farm sheds whose primary purpose seems to be to print misleading pamphlets.

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

Tough decision, but I managed it. ::)

ROTFLMAO...  how disingenuous of you Mozz...

Oh well anything to justify a belief eh.

Grendel wrote on Apr 9^th, 2010 at 10:44pm:

ROTFLMAO...  how disingenuous of you Mozz... Oh well anything to justify a belief eh.

Another masterful contribution from beopuppy, our resident intellectual titan.

You don't have to write a thesis to be right P.

Which you would probably find comforting, but for the fact that you don't seem capable of either.

yawn

Would you care to explain what you found disingenous about my response Grendel?

I thought I was stating a pretty easily understood concept, that unless we are actual climate scientists, we all are investing our trust into the judgement of others, as to what is, and what is not credible.

I chose the oregon institute of science and medicine as an example of a source I do not trust, as it was a source that every single denialist who posts here has cited as their source of information on at least one occasion.
I then gave a link for a site which offers assessments on the value of information provided by sites, which was to show that I am not alone in questioning the validity of their right to be considered as serious contributors to the sum of human knowledge on climate change.

So can you please explain how that is disingenuous?

Oh I'm sure you can find lots of scientists who dissent from your belief that don't work in so called tractor sheds.  Or can't you?

So are you saying that the these people from the oregon institute of science and medicine no longer have your full and unwavering support Grendel?

Are their humble tractor shed origins the cause of your abandonment of them, or the fact that they are inveterate shysters who are crazier than a hat full of puckered monkey rings?

You seem to treat them like the embarrasing family member that we all wish would have just stayed home, but it was not long ago that you, and other denialists were championing their noble work in saving mankind from those money grubbing scientists secretly meeting to plot the next dastardly step on their way to total world domination, (maniacal laughter optional).

What makes you say they had it...  they were proffered up as part of  a point in an argument remember.

oh and just because people work in what you deride as a "tractor shed" doesn't make them unqualified or not proficient or credible.  I know people in the Antarctic working in a "cargo container" and they are very credible.

Now that you've tried to steer away from the obvious flaw in your crap...  how about you address the point made eh.

Are there or are there not prominent qualified people that do not hold with your belief?

I don't know, are there?
Perhaps you could name them, if you think there are relevant people I am neglecting.
You could also name a relevant contribution they have made in the field relating to climate science in say the last twenty years or so, which makes them eligible to be considered as having any expertise in the area they wish to comment.

So list these denialists experts for me please, and I will see what they have to say for themselves.

Grendel wrote on Apr 10^th, 2010 at 1:02pm:

Are there or are there not prominent qualified people that do not hold with your belief?

Perhaps twenty ...

http://web.archive.org/web/20060823125025/http://www.sciam.com/page.cfm?section=sidebar&articleID=0004F43C-DC1A-1C6E-84A9809EC588EF21

Nevermind. You only need another 31,980 to match the boast.

LOl

yeah right.

get back to us when you've done a complete census hey.

BTW...  link provided...  complete rubbish at any level.  GIGO.

Oh and Mozz thanks for proving me right about how disingenuous and biased you are.  ;D ;D ;D

Still waiting for your list Grendel, don't tell me this has just been more noxious gas emmissions.

Grendel wrote on Apr 10^th, 2010 at 3:21pm:

BTW...  link provided...  complete rubbish at any level.  GIGO.

So the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (all seven of them) represents respectable and credible scientific authority, but Scientific American publishes "complete rubbish"? OK then.

I trust that you will hold the AGW counter opinions published in Scientific American in the same low regard? I doubt it.

Please just quote me don't make up stories ok.


Are you gonna answer Mozzas question for him p?

Oh and quote me in context ok.

lol, this is an open forum Grendel, everyone is welcome to put in their two bob's worth.
Currently we mostly get the impression that you do not have enough faith in the people you choose to trust for your information to even say who they are anymore, assuming you still do not attach any credibility to the oregon petition nonsense.

How many people in the scientific world do their best work in their dying days?
Sadly it seems to me that most legitimate scientists who oppose AGW, are retired or in their twilight days, and so to seek a cause to reignite old passion or even re-attain a lost sense of worth is a motivation which needs to be considered in more than one or two cases.

So, list away Grendel, tell us whom you trust so much that you are willing to bet the earth on their arguments.

lol

liar liar pants on fire...  Mozz

why do you people need to lie, call people names, ridicule and shoot messengers...  (all of which are the main reasons I can't be bothered about this topic these days)

That is some bundle of fear you must have eh.

Now when are you going to stop lying about what i say and believe and answer my questions or will this be like so many times before where i keep asking and you keep wriggling.

Are there prominent qualified people that dissent from your belief?

I could answer it for you of course...  but you cant even bring yourself to utter the simple truth.  

I don't know, you are the one clearly implying there are, but refusing to list any, you won't even put up a single name to give us a clue as to who you trust, and why.

This isn't a hidden knowledge quiz Mozz...  dont try to turn it into something that is about me...  its just about general knowledge and current affairs.

Are there prominent qualified people that dissent from your belief?

if you don't know how can you make the claims you make?

I would be grateful for a reference to a scientific paper (not a newspaper interview) in which a scientist of note declares his finding that global warming is caused by human CO2 emission.

In the meantime, I have found this US Senate page listing some converts from AGW to scepticism:
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=927b9303-802a-23ad-494b-dccb00b51a12

No doubt they are all old and in the coal industry's pocket.



I am not trying to dodge the sceptical line - but so what if the globe warms by an average of 2 degrees? Or 3. Beach holidays in Lappland and more sand for everyone. What's evolution for??!

Soren wrote on Apr 10^th, 2010 at 6:50pm:

I would be grateful for a reference to a scientific paper (not a newspaper interview) in which a scientist of note declares his finding that global warming is caused by human CO2 emission.

Here is one. How many others do you want?

http://ipsapp009.kluweronline.com/content/search/4592/66/4/fulltext.pdf

another on the basic science:
http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/climatechange.pdf

Quote:

No doubt they are all old and in the coal industry's pocket.

- Or politicians who don't understand the issues.


Quote:

I am not trying to dodge the sceptical line - but so what if the globe warms by an average of 2 degrees? Or 3. Beach holidays in Lappland and more sand for everyone. What's evolution for??!

The 2 degrees is what we need to keep it down to as an absolute minimum. If we do nothing, that figure could be much higher.

The sort of effects we're talking about are melting of glaciers and the consequent shortage of water in certain parts of the world, such as SE Asia.

Then there are effects on major world crops. Haven't I covered all this before?

One of the worst effects will be ocean acidification and the effects on economically important fish stocks - and shallow coral reef systems.

The only real answer to extreme cooling or warming is adaptation...  and that doesn't involve pretending we can control the weather and climate through CO2.

muso wrote on Apr 10^th, 2010 at 7:38pm:

Soren wrote on Apr 10th, 2010 at 6:50pm: I would be grateful for a reference to a scientific paper (not a newspaper interview) in which a scientist of note declares his finding that global warming is caused by human CO2 emission. Here is one. How many others do you want? http://ipsapp009.kluweronline.com/content/search/4592/66/4/fulltext.pdf

Can't open it. Will try at work on Monday.

Quote:

another on the basic science: http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/climatechange.pdf

White House briefing paper - a summary for politicians. I meant actual scientific paper/s.



Quote:

The 2 degrees is what we need to keep it down to as an absolute minimum. If we do nothing, that figure could be much higher. The sort of effects we're talking about are melting of glaciers and the consequent shortage of water in certain parts of the world, such as SE Asia. Then there are effects on major world crops. Haven't I covered all this before? One of the worst effects will be ocean acidification and the effects on economically important fish stocks - and shallow coral reef systems.

I do think it is the absolute height of arrogance to imagine that it is in our gift to control the climate to suit or economic needs, down to fishing and scuba diving in coral reefs.

Hasn't the climate changed before, disrupting economic activity? Will it not change again in the future, regardless of us? ANd there are my next questions:

What will you accept as the point of falsifiability of the AGW theory?

And a supplementary: what will you do if the climate changes, as it has before, independently of human activity?
Are we outside nature? Are we not part of the 'natural' ecosystem? Isn't whatever we do a natural phenomenon?
(careful, trick question: we are either animals or we are not).i

Grendel wrote on Apr 10^th, 2010 at 6:16pm:

This isn't a hidden knowledge quiz Mozz...  dont try to turn it into something that is about me...  its just about general knowledge and current affairs. Are there prominent qualified people that dissent from your belief? if you don't know how can you make the claims you make?

No Grendel, I seriously do not know if there are any.

I would seriously doubt it though, that is why I asked you to supply the names of these prominent qualified people whom you trust enough to form your opinion that man's activities have no effect on the climate, so naturally it follows that there is nothing man can do to change climate.

Now I strongly disagree with those last two contentions, which form the cornerstone of just about all denialist argument, so I would really like to know just who you believe is qualified in the field of climate science and holds those same denialist beliefs.

Now the fact that this is the fourth or fifth time today that I have asked, and that you have so far refused to supply any names, signals that you are not as confident in their credentials, or arguments, as you claim to be.

It seems to me that my admitting that all lay people are working from a position of choosing who to trust on this issue is a fairly obvious thing to acknowledge, and those of us who do believe the vast majority of scientists who completely agree with all the facts that muso has put in front of you, have got our cards face up on the table, whilst denialists keep making spurious suggestions that they have some mysterious scientific ace up their sleeve, well if they do then it is time to play it, or just stop bluffing.

Then you have a big problem re knowledge and credibility.

if you were in anyway unbiased and had an open mind on the subject you'd know the answer is YES...  you'd also know it is very easy to google such information.

So it's Mozza the 3 wise monkeys...  how sad.

Here's a list of prominent AGW sceptics, from what appears to be th US Senate's website.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=927b9303-802a-23ad-494b-dccb00b51a12

Well thankyou Soren for at least pointing in the vague general direction of what you consider as trustworthy sources.

Now that senate report from 2007 did link to many scientists who produced theories that went against the concensus of scientific opinion, and it did not take a lot of research to find that most, if not all of them, have had their methodology, and findings either totally discredited, or seriousll questioned, when their work was examined in detail.

Now that a political party would seek out evidence to support their own denialist stance is not particularly surprising, but the fact remains that the most recent studies you point to were over 4 years ago, and yet their arguments and conclusions were so underwhelming that no government, or scientific organisation has adopted them as credible enough to change policy away from accepting that AGW is very real, and needing to be addressed.

LOL...  I note that the "seriously discredited" seems to work in only one direction for you Mozz.

BTW there are many many more people not listed there, not that you even attempted to answer my question...  answering a question with a question is NO ANSWER Mozz.

Refusing to utter the word YES... where it is obviously the correct answer, is certainly the sign of a person in deep denial of the truth.

As for your deep belief in the "Emperors New Clothes Syndrome" so apparent in this issue...  oh dear, what can one say...  sigh.

How about you give us a list of qualified people that we can all dissect to see just how right you are beo? note I said qualified, we don't need a list of people who are prominent like Monkton, just a list of qualified experts on global warming if you can, though I doubt it will surface.

lol indeed, kenny, still too afraid to even nominate who you believe about climate change is just validating my opinion that they will be the usual bunch of wacko extremists who have been held up to public ridicule for their inane statements and dishonest tactics.

You give yourself far too much credit by adopting the term skeptic, untruthfully, and inaccurately, when you are in fact denialists, plain and simple.

Skeptics question honestly, and honesty and denialism are about as far removed as is possible.

So try and be honest and at least admit that you believe people like Plimer, and Monckton, and it is from such unreliable sources that you take your stance.

look Mozz I asked you a question...  you proved you couldn't answer it.
In doing so you proved you have a completely biased pov.

That was my objective not to have you try and squirm out of it by making it all about me.

Funnily enough you just mentioned 2 well known ie; prominent skeptics, and one of them is very well qualified to hold an opinion on the subject.

So I gather your reticence is a measure of your denial.  How sad.

Are you blind as well as stupid? I did answer it, and I will rephrase it so even slightly delusional dullards can keep up, NO, I do not know of any renowned climate experts that take a denialists position about climate change.

So stop flattering yourself that you are some noble skeptic, protecting human knowledge from extremist garbage, you are about as far from that position as any human I know.

Forget not that you have posted the oregon petition garbage as your proof, as you have posted Plimer's piffle, and Monckton's mindless mumbo jumbo, so it is a wee bit late to pretend you are on the side of reason.

Well at least that sorts that out, we all should be able to move on now that beo has proved he cannot come up with any credible experts.
I 've been thinking for a while now that the best he could do were Monkton and Plimer, I just wanted to confirm it.

shut up Skippy your lies and fabrications irk me you idiot.

Grendel wrote on Apr 11^th, 2010 at 3:26pm:

shut up Skippy your lies and fabrications irk me you idiot.

Tut tut, temper temper, you know that's not good for your blood pressure.No lies or fabrications here ol son I leave that you, I even gave you a chance to substantiate your drivel, you failed,again.

Quote:

Funnily enough you just mentioned 2 well known ie; prominent skeptics, and one of them is very well qualified to hold an opinion on the subject.

Just out of curiousity, which of the two, Plimer, or Monckton, do you consideras very well qualified to hold an opinion on the subject?

We all know what is said about opinions don't we?

I think what is more pertinent would be to ask what research have they done in the field, which has been scrutinised and then accepted as resonable by their peers, would be a more reliable criteria to judge the worth of attaching yourself to their opinions.

Quote:

Just out of curiousity, which of the two, Plimer, or Monckton, do you consideras very well qualified to hold an opinion on the subject?

that's a great question.

Quote:

Tut tut, temper temper, you know that's not good for your blood pressure.No lies or fabrications here ol son I leave that you, I even gave you a chance to substantiate your drivel, you failed,again.

All lies and fabrication Skip...  if you don't know that then you really are an idiot.

You lot just like stringing me along and wasting my time...  

Oh and Mozz...  I form my own opinions I don't attach myself to the opinion of others.  maybe you should try that sometime, but first you have to open that closed mind of yours.

Quote:

Oh and Mozz...  I form my own opinions I don't attach myself to the opinion of others.  maybe you should try that sometime, but first you have to open that closed mind of yours.

So you don't agree with Monkton or Plimer?
You came to your conclusion about global warming from reading no one else's studies? WOW. ::)

[quote][
Funnily enough you just mentioned 2 well known ie; prominent skeptics, and one of them is very well qualified to hold an opinion on the subject/quote]

Would the other beo answer this for us? the one who wrote this and says either Monkton or Plimer is well qualified.

Quote:

Oh and Mozz...  I form my own opinions I don't attach myself to the opinion of others.

Well we never would have guessed. ;D ;D ;D
Expert opinions are very over rated in some people's determination.
I mean who needs doctors?
"Just pass me an ice pick and a mirror, I'll do my own lobotomy thanks."

---

oh very funny how I laughed...

Ridicule will not win the day mozz...

perhaps only intelligent people can form their own opinions based on all the facts after all.

Perhaps you should do more reading eh.

As yet I'm unconvinced by those you believe, unconditionally it seems, and hence dismiss all others no matter their vocation and qualification.

I'm not sure who is right yet due to the complete obfuscation from one side and paucity of access to those on the other.

I doubt we will know the truth of the matter for perhaps 50 to 100 years or maybe even longer.  Will you apologise if you were wrong?  To those you've maligned and ridiculed?  

I am almost certain though that technologies will change in that time and we will no longer require this argument.

Are you aware that CO2 not only "traps" heat but also "stops" it entering our lower atmosphere?  If then we concentrate on lowering it's concentration, are we diminishing the heat trapped or allowing more to enter? Don't believe me?  Google Lidar.

mozzaok wrote on Apr 11^th, 2010 at 3:40pm:

Quote: Funnily enough you just mentioned 2 well known ie; prominent skeptics, and one of them is very well qualified to hold an opinion on the subject. Just out of curiousity, which of the two, Plimer, or Monckton, do you consideras very well qualified to hold an opinion on the subject?

Clever.

But they are at least as qualified to hold an opinion as you or I. If you were asking this question in good faith you would refrain from expressing an opinion on this and a great many other topics.

But you aren't, so you don't.

Con: Earth is never in equilibrium
By Richard S. Lindzen
Thursday, April 8, 2010

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

CAMBRIDGE, MASS. — EDITOR’S NOTE: The writer is addressing the question, Is climate change real?

To a significant extent, the issue of climate change revolves around the elevation of the commonplace to the ancient level of ominous omen. In a world where climate change has always been the norm, climate change is now taken as punishment for sinful levels of consumption. In a world where we experience temperature changes of tens of degrees in a single day, we treat changes of a few tenths of a degree in some statistical residue, known as the global mean temperature anomaly (GATA), as portents of disaster.

Earth has had ice ages and warmer periods when alligators were found in Spitzbergen. Ice ages have occurred in a 100,000-year cycle for the last 700,000 years, and there have been previous interglacials that appear to have been warmer than the present despite lower carbon-dioxide levels. More recently, we have had the medieval warm period and the little ice age. During the latter, alpine glaciers advanced to the chagrin of overrun villages. Since the beginning of the 19th century, these glaciers have been retreating. Frankly, we don’t fully understand either the advance or the retreat, and, indeed, some alpine glaciers are advancing again.

For small changes in GATA, there is no need for any external cause. Earth is never exactly in equilibrium. The motions of the massive oceans where heat is moved between deep layers and the surface provides variability on time scales from years to centuries. Examples include El Nino, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, the Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation, etc. Recent work suggests that this variability is enough to account for all change in the globally averaged temperature anomaly since the 19th century. To be sure, man’s emissions of carbon dioxide must have some impact. The question of importance, however, is how much.

A generally accepted answer is that a doubling of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere (it turns out that one gets the same value for a doubling regardless of what value one starts from) would perturb the energy balance of Earth about 2 percent, and this would produce about 2 degrees Fahrenheit warming in the absence of feedbacks. The observed warming over the past century, even if it were all due to increases in carbon dioxide, would not imply any greater warming.

However, current climate models do predict that a doubling of carbon dioxide might produce more warming: from 3.6 degrees F to 9 degrees F or more. They do so because within these models the far more important radiative substances, water vapor and clouds, act to greatly amplify whatever an increase in carbon dioxide might do. This is known as positive feedback. Thus, if adding carbon dioxide reduces the ability of the earth system to cool by emitting thermal radiation to space, the positive feedbacks will further reduce this ability.

It is again acknowledged that such processes are poorly handled in current models, and there is substantial evidence that the feedbacks may actually be negative rather than positive. Citing but one example, 2.5 billion years ago the sun’s brightness was 20 percent to 30 percent less than it is today (compared to the 2 percent change in energy balance associated with a doubling of carbon-dioxide levels) yet the oceans were unfrozen and the temperatures appear to have been similar to today’s.

This was referred to by Carl Sagan as the Early Faint Sun Paradox. For 30 years, there has been an unsuccessful search for a greenhouse gas resolution of the paradox, but it turns out that a modest negative feedback from clouds is entirely adequate. With the positive feedback in current models, the resolution would be essentially impossible.

Interestingly, according to the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the greenhouse forcing from manmade gases is already about 86 percent of what one expects from a doubling of carbon dioxide (with about half coming from methane, nitrous oxide, freons, and ozone). Thus, these models should show much more warming than has been observed. The reason they don’t is that they have arbitrarily removed the difference and attributed this to essentially unknown aerosols.

The IPCC claim that most of the recent warming (since the 1950s) is due to man assumed that current models adequately accounted for natural internal variability. The failure of these models to anticipate the fact that there has been no statistically significant warming for the past 14 years or so contradicts this assumption. This has been acknowledged by major modeling groups in England and Germany.

However, the modelers chose not to stress this. Rather they suggested that the models could be further corrected, and that warming would resume by 2009, 2013, or even 2030.

Global warming enthusiasts have responded to the absence of warming in recent years by arguing that the past decade has been the warmest on record. We are still speaking of tenths of a degree, and the records themselves have come into question. Since we are, according to these records, in a relatively warm period, it is not surprising that the past decade was the warmest on record. This in no way contradicts the absence of increasing temperatures for over a decade.

Given that the evidence (and I have noted only a few of many pieces of evidence) suggests that anthropogenic warming has been greatly exaggerated, so too is the basis for alarm. However, the case for alarm would still be weak even if anthropogenic global warming were significant. Polar bears, arctic summer sea ice, regional droughts and floods, coral bleaching, hurricanes, alpine glaciers, malaria, etc., all depend not on GATA but on a huge number of regional variables including temperature, humidity, cloud cover, precipitation, and direction and magnitude of wind and the state of the ocean.

The fact that some models suggest changes in alarming phenomena will accompany global warming does not logically imply that changes in these phenomena imply global warming. This is not to say that disasters will not occur; they always have occurred, and this will not change in the future. Fighting global warming with symbolic gestures will certainly not change this. However, history tells us that greater wealth and development can profoundly increase our resilience.

One may ask why there has been the astounding upsurge in alarmism in the past four years. When an issue like global warming is around for more than 20 years, numerous agendas are developed to exploit the issue. The interests of the environmental movement in acquiring more power, influence and donations are reasonably clear. So, too, are the interests of bureaucrats for whom control of carbon dioxide is a dream come true. After all, carbon dioxide is a product of breathing itself.

Politicians can see the possibility of taxation that will be cheerfully accepted to save Earth. Nations see how to exploit this issue in order to gain competitive advantages. So do private firms. The case of Enron (a now bankrupt Texas energy firm) is illustrative. Before disintegrating in a pyrotechnic display of unscrupulous manipulation, Enron was one of the most intense lobbyists for Kyoto. It had hoped to become a trading firm dealing in carbon-emission rights. This was no small hope. These rights are likely to amount to trillions of dollars, and the commissions will run into many billions.

It is probably no accident that Al Gore himself is associated with such activities. The sale of indulgences is already in full swing with organizations selling offsets to one’s carbon footprint while sometimes acknowledging that the offsets are irrelevant. The possibilities for corruption are immense.

Finally, there are the well-meaning individuals who believe that in accepting the alarmist view of climate change, they are displaying intelligence and virtue. For them, psychic welfare is at stake.

Clearly, the possibility that warming may have ceased could provoke a sense of urgency. For those committed to the more venal agendas, the need to act soon, before the public appreciates the situation, is real indeed. However, the need to courageously resist hysteria is equally clear. Wasting resources on symbolically fighting ever-present climate change is no substitute for prudence.

Richard S. Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan professor of atmospheric science at MIT. Readers may send him e-mail at rlindzenmit.edu. He wrote this for The Free Lance-Star in Fredericksburg, Va.

EDITORIAL: Global warming's unscientific methodScience is undermined by scaremongers' abuse of peer-review processFont By THE WASHINGTON TIMES

The prophets of global warming continue to lament as their carefully crafted yarn unravels before their eyes. Ross McKitrick, an intrepid economics professor from the University of Guelph in Ontario, Canada, has tugged apart the thin mathematical threads that once held together the story of climate change.

Recent attempts to silence Mr. McKitrick illuminate the extent to which the alarmists have abandoned proper scientific method in their pursuit of political goals.

Mr. McKitrick has spent the past two years attempting to publish a scientific paper that documents a fundamental error in the 2007 United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report. This U.N. document serves as the sole authority upon which the Environmental Protection Agency based its December "endangerment finding" that will allow unelected bureaucrats to impose cap-and-trade-style regulations without a vote of Congress. The cost to the public in higher gas and energy prices will run in the billions.

One might think that the scientific community would be extra diligent in double-checking the conclusions of a report carrying such weighty real-world consequences. In fact, the opposite happened. Seven scientific journals circled the wagons to block publication of Mr. McKitrick's explosive findings.

The IPCC report argued that temperatures rose one degree Celsius over the course of a century as a direct result of man-made carbon-dioxide emissions. This tiny change in temperature was calculated through the use of an "adjusted" set of global surface-temperature readings. Mr. McKitrick found that factors unrelated to global climate contaminated this data set, resulting in a higher temperature reading. He showed a statistically significant correlation between the change in temperature readings and socioeconomic indicators. It makes sense, for example, that replacing trees and forests with concrete and glass skyscrapers might contribute to the .01 degree annual increase in local temperature readings. This "urban heat island" effect would not be present in readings taken outside the asphalt jungle.

Scientific journals evaluate arguments of this sort using a peer-review process by which purportedly impartial experts in the relevant field verify the paper's accuracy and suitability for publication. By addressing issues raised by reviewers, researchers are able to present an improved and refined final product. In Mr. McKitrick's case, the process appears to have been abused to stifle dissent.

The leading journals Science and Nature both rejected the paper as too specialized and lacking in novelty. The Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society did not respond. Reasons given for refusing the paper in other outlets frequently contradicted one another.
One of the famous leaked e-mails from the former head of the Climatic Research Unit at Britain's University of East Anglia sheds light on what really happens behind the scenes. "I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report," professor Phil Jones wrote in reference to a 2004 journal article by Mr. McKitrick. "Kevin and I will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"

Mr. McKitrick's views were indeed excluded from the IPCC report, but his paper will now be published in a forthcoming edition of Statistics, Politics and Policy. One of that journal's editors told The Washington Times that the submission was treated as "fairly routine." That is to say, they treated it as scientists should.

The soundness of a statistical analysis does not change simply because the numbers point to a truth inconvenient for those seeking to manipulate science to advance political policy. Thanks to the exposure of East Anglia's unscientific method, the public can peer behind the curtains and see that the emperors of warming have no clothes

The 20-year effort by environmentalists to establish climate science as the primary basis for far-reaching action to decarbonize the global energy economy today lies in ruins. Backlash in reaction to “Climategate” and recent controversies involving the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)’s 2007 assessment report are but the latest evidence that such efforts have evidently failed.

While the urge to blame fossil-fuel-funded skeptics for this recent bad turn of events has proven irresistible for most environmental leaders and pundits, forward-looking greens wishing to ascertain what might be salvaged from the wreckage would be well advised to look closer to home. Climate science, even at its most uncontroversial, could never motivate the remaking of the entire global energy economy. Efforts to use climate science to threaten an apocalyptic future should we fail to embrace green proposals, and to characterize present-day natural disasters as terrifying previews of an impending day of reckoning, have only served to undermine the credibility of both climate science and progressive energy policy.

http://e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2257


Learn that highlighted bit by heart, people.

What to say to a global warming alarmistBy MARK LANDSBAUM
2010-02-12 13:30:12

It has been tough to keep up with all the bad news for global warming alarmists. We're on the edge of our chair, waiting for the next shoe to drop. This has been an Imelda Marcos kind of season for shoe-dropping about global warming.

At your next dinner party, here are some of the latest talking points to bring up when someone reminds you that Al Gore and the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change won Nobel prizes for their work on global warming.

ClimateGate – This scandal began the latest round of revelations when thousands of leaked documents from Britain's East Anglia Climate Research Unit showed systematic suppression and discrediting of climate skeptics' views and discarding of temperature data, suggesting a bias for making the case for warming. Why do such a thing if, as global warming defenders contend, the "science is settled?"

FOIGate – The British government has since determined someone at East Anglia committed a crime by refusing to release global warming documents sought in 95 Freedom of Information Act requests. The CRU is one of three international agencies compiling global temperature data. If their stuff's so solid, why the secrecy?

ChinaGate – An investigation by the U.K.'s left-leaning Guardian newspaper found evidence that Chinese weather station measurements not only were seriously flawed, but couldn't be located. "Where exactly are 42 weather monitoring stations in remote parts of rural China?" the paper asked. The paper's investigation also couldn't find corroboration of what Chinese scientists turned over to American scientists, leaving unanswered, "how much of the warming seen in recent decades is due to the local effects of spreading cities, rather than global warming?" The Guardian contends that researchers covered up the missing data for years.

HimalayaGate – An Indian climate official admitted in January that, as lead author of the IPCC's Asian report, he intentionally exaggerated when claiming Himalayan glaciers would melt away by 2035 in order to prod governments into action. This fraudulent claim was not based on scientific research or peer-reviewed. Instead it was originally advanced by a researcher, since hired by a global warming research organization, who later admitted it was "speculation" lifted from a popular magazine. This political, not scientific, motivation at least got some researcher funded.

PachauriGate – Rajendra Pachauri, the IPCC chairman who accepted with Al Gore the Nobel Prize for scaring people witless, at first defended the Himalaya melting scenario. Critics, he said, practiced "voodoo science." After the melting-scam perpetrator 'fessed up, Pachauri admitted to making a mistake. But, he insisted, we still should trust him.

PachauriGate II – Pachauri also claimed he didn't know before the 192-nation climate summit meeting in Copenhagen in December that the bogus Himalayan glacier claim was sheer speculation. But the London Times reported that a prominent science journalist said he had pointed out those errors in several e-mails and discussions to Pachauri, who "decided to overlook it." Stonewalling? Cover up? Pachauri says he was "preoccupied." Well, no sense spoiling the Copenhagen party, where countries like Pachauri's India hoped to wrench billions from countries like the United States to combat global warming's melting glaciers. Now there are calls for Pachauri's resignation.

SternGate – One excuse for imposing worldwide climate crackdown has been the U.K.'s 2006 Stern Report, an economic doomsday prediction commissioned by the government. Now the U.K. Telegraph reports that quietly after publication "some of these predictions had been watered down because the scientific evidence on which they were based could not be verified." Among original claims now deleted were that northwest Australia has had stronger typhoons in recent decades, and that southern Australia lost rainfall because of rising ocean temperatures. Exaggerated claims get headlines. Later, news reporters disclose the truth. Why is that?

SternGate II – A researcher now claims the Stern Report misquoted his work to suggest a firm link between global warming and more-frequent and severe floods and hurricanes. Robert Muir-Wood said his original research showed no such link. He accused Stern of "going far beyond what was an acceptable extrapolation of the evidence." We're shocked.

AmazonGate – The London Times exposed another shocker: the IPCC claim that global warming will wipe out rain forests was fraudulent, yet advanced as "peer-reveiwed" science. The Times said the assertion actually "was based on an unsubstantiated claim by green campaigners who had little scientific expertise," "authored by two green activists" and lifted from a report from the World Wildlife Fund, an environmental pressure group. The "research" was based on a popular science magazine report that didn't bother to assess rainfall. Instead, it looked at the impact of logging and burning. The original report suggested "up to 40 percent" of Brazilian rain forest was extremely sensitive to small reductions in the amount of rainfall, but the IPCC expanded that to cover the entire Amazon, the Times reported.

PeerReviewGate – The U.K. Sunday Telegraph has documented at least 16 nonpeer-reviewed reports (so far) from the advocacy group World Wildlife Fund that were used in the IPCC's climate change bible, which calls for capping manmade greenhouse gases.

RussiaGate – Even when global warming alarmists base claims on scientific measurements, they've often had their finger on the scale. Russian think tank investigators evaluated thousands of documents and e-mails leaked from the East Anglia research center and concluded readings from the coldest regions of their nation had been omitted, driving average temperatures up about half a degree.

Russia-Gate II – Speaking of Russia, a presentation last October to the Geological Society of America showed how tree-ring data from Russia indicated cooling after 1961, but was deceptively truncated and only artfully discussed in IPCC publications. Well, at least the tree-ring data made it into the IPCC report, albeit disguised and misrepresented.

U.S.Gate – If Brits can't be trusted, are Yanks more reliable? The U.S. National Climate Data Center has been manipulating weather data too, say computer expert E. Michael Smith and meteorologist Joesph D'Aleo. Forty years ago there were 6,000 surface-temperature measuring stations, but only 1,500 by 1990, which coincides with what global warming alarmists say was a record temperature increase. Most of the deleted stations were in colder regions, just as in the Russian case, resulting in misleading higher average temperatures.

IceGate – Hardly a continent has escaped global warming skewing. The IPCC based its findings of reductions in mountain ice in the Andes, Alps and in Africa on a feature story of climbers' anecdotes in a popular mountaineering magazine, and a dissertation by a Switzerland university student, quoting mountain guides. Peer-reviewed? Hype? Worse?

ResearchGate – The global warming camp is reeling so much lately it must have seemed like a major victory when a Penn State University inquiry into climate scientist Michael Mann found no misconduct regarding three accusations of climate research impropriety. But the university did find "further investigation is warranted" to determine whether Mann engaged in actions that "seriously deviated from accepted practices for proposing, conducting or reporting research or other scholarly activities." Being investigated for only one fraud is a global warming victory these days.

ReefGate – Let's not forget the alleged link between climate change and coral reef degradation. The IPCC cited not peer-reviewed literature, but advocacy articles by Greenpeace, the publicity-hungry advocacy group, as its sole source for this claim.

AfricaGate – The IPCC claim that rising temperatures could cut in half agricultural yields in African countries turns out to have come from a 2003 paper published by a Canadian environmental think tank – not a peer-reviewed scientific journal.

DutchGate – The IPCC also claimed rising sea levels endanger the 55 percent of the Netherlands it says is below sea level. The portion of the Netherlands below sea level actually is 20 percent. The Dutch environment minister said she will no longer tolerate climate researchers' errors.

AlaskaGate – Geologists for Space Studies in Geophysics and Oceanography and their U.S. and Canadian colleagues say previous studies largely overestimated by 40 percent Alaskan glacier loss for 40 years. This flawed data are fed into those computers to predict future warming.

Fold this column up and lay it next to your napkin the next time you have Al Gore or his ilk to dine. It should make interesting after-dinner conversation.

http://www.ocregister.com/common/printer/view.php?db=ocregister&id=234092

None of this, of course, needs to be published in a peer reviewed journal to make it valid.

Soren lorenson, since you are obviously willing to to accept Lindzen as an authority on the topic, do you now also accept that AGW is real?

Lindzen certainly does.

Paella wrote on Apr 8^th, 2010 at 10:05pm:

Grendel wrote on Apr 8th, 2010 at 10:01pm: Obviously MY standard of proof is something more substantial than yours. That's good, beopup. But ... ummm ... what is it?

Still waiting beopuppy.

I particularly want to know which stanadard of proof you adopted when assessing the claims of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine.

you're wasting your time Paella, beo always runs away and hides under his rock when confronted with the hard questions like,
is the earth flat.

smack off Skippy you are a lying idiot.

My recollection re the Oregon Petition P is that someone else brought it up and I filled in a gap by answering a question they were asked.  Simple as that.

http://www.oism.org/pproject/

Feel free to check the petitioner list and verify or refute their claims.

Quote:

Feel free to check the petitioner list and verify or refute their claims.

LOL, their claims go against the finding of 99.9% of the worlds science community.
You've always got to have some nutter who believes them though, this forum has two.
Hi beo and soren.

Oh, so someone else brought up the Oregon Petition ...


Grendel wrote on Dec 10^th, 2009 at 5:40pm:

Ah...  just since I was here and the denialists were making such pathetic attempts to dismiss 31,000 signatures. http://www.aim.org/briefing/31000-signatures-prove-no-consensus-about-global-warming/ Robinson spoke about his petition signed by 31,000 U.S. scientists who reject the claims that “human release of greenhouse gases is damaging our climate.”

That is your username up there, isnt't it? And I believe you actually started the thread.

Perhaps someone hacked your account?

And as for:

Quote:

Feel free to check the petitioner list and verify or refute their claims.

As I pointed out to you, Scientific American already did that. But you responded by describing it as nonsense, which demonstrates only that you consider the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine to be a more credible authority than Scientific American. I asked if you would are similarly scathing of the the counter AGW stories run in Scientific American, but you elected not to answer. I also asked which standard of proof you applied when assessing the credibility of the OISM's reports. Again, you opted out of answering.

The last time I commented on the petition was because someone else was being attacked by you mob and couldn't supply info in fact he couldn't even name the petition.  hence my last reply P.

Obviously I knew about it.

I still have no idea where you got that quote from...  if only I had as much time to waste. feel free to post the actual topic, I'll then check out the context and perhaps if i go back far enough it may even be the last time I mentioned it which is when I was providing info for the poor sod being attacked.

I have read all the attacks on the petition and the people who supported it. BTW yes, much of the attacks are biased drivel.  Many written by people driven by their political beliefs against whom they see as a political enemy.

Even source watch (a politically biased "forum") could not avoid biased reporting and it purports to be non-political in its deliberations.

So feel free to post the topic and I'll have a look.

Oh and BTW I did start a topic (cant remember what or when) due to that person being attacked so if that is where you got that quote it only backs up what i already stated.

I don't lie P.

Your personal attempts to prove otherwise are pathetic. This isn't a personal issue with me.  Pity you guys are so much like religious zealots out for blood on it.

Here it is ...

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1260430855

Note that within an hour Mozz had pointed out to you that it has been discredited.

Forgotten, huh? Suppressed more likely.

Is that the sound of your pedals going backwards?

Seems you posted whilst I was updating mine...  pity eh.

I would have responded to Mozz wouldn't I.

BTW that topic was in response to you lot attacking Tom or someone.

So I told the truth after all.

Gee who'd have thought.

Puppy, a word of advice: when you've been really really stitched up, best policy is to just admit it an move on.

If you persist with this line you are just going to end up looking like an even bigger idiot.

Denialism is very circular in it's nature, and to be fair, they have to be, they have no new arguments, they just have to keep rehashing the old.
Grendel starting the thread back in December last year about the Oregon Petition being evidence that scientists disagree with the AGW theory was just him re-submitting the same old tripe, which he had posted before, and we had gone through the case against it before, more than once.

You see the only argument they have is that the vast majority of the world's scientists are all working together in a secret cabal, which is in cahoots with an other secret cabal, probably lefties, but definitely unsavoury characters who want to impose a NEW WORLD ORDER onto mankind.

All this climategate crap they carry on with, I mean how idiotic do you need to be to actually be impressed by some dunderhead putting "gate" at the end of every word to insinuate a massive political coverup?
Pretty damned idiotic is my assessment of them.

The trouble with these buffoons is that they actually do honest skepticism a massive disservice, because science, and scientists should always be questioning, and re-checking the work of their peers, because that is how we actually make progress, but with these clowns misappropriating, then misconstruing every challenging idea as removing the keystone of the whole scientific consensus is just making scientists want to be less open about their work, which is the last thing we need.

Denialists are a serious problem because they deter open inquiry rather than champion it as they claim.

mozzaok wrote on Apr 12^th, 2010 at 4:10pm:

science, and scientists should always be questioning, and re-checking the work of their peers, because that is how we actually make progress, but with these clowns misappropriating, then misconstruing every challenging idea as removing the keystone of the whole scientific consensus is just making scientists want to be less open about their work, which is the last thing we need. Denialists are a serious problem because they deter open inquiry rather than champion it as they claim.

ANd you are calling sceptical arguments circular?!?  By your reckoning and mindset, the village council is increasingly reluctant to be open and honest because the village idiot was making fun of them.


Mozz, it's the dunderheads that are forcing the scientists to be less sloppy.  It's an awful lot of stupid 'gates' for something that is presented as straightforward and past dispute.

"Efforts to use climate science to threaten an apocalyptic future should we fail to embrace green proposals, and to characterize present-day natural disasters as terrifying previews of an impending day of reckoning, have only served to undermine the credibility of both climate science and progressive energy policy."

You can't go past this. This has been exposed by the village idiots. No mean feat for dunderheads. ANd it reflects really, really badly on the boosters (and their psychic need to be virtuous) that mere idots could expose something like this.

yawn...  one more time for the Uber Dummies...

Quote:

Grendel starting the thread back in December last year about the Oregon Petition being evidence that scientists disagree with the AGW theory was just him re-submitting the same old tripe, which he had posted before, and we had gone through the case against it before, more than once.

Grendel posted it because a person posting here was being attacked and ridiculed for saying that there were dissenters and no "real' concensus.  he quoted 30,000 people  and a petition but didn't know more about it.  

Grendel posted the information to back up his assertion.

Them's tha facts... ::) ::) ::)

When you can say that everyone who has signed it, and it is still available to sign, is a fraud and not qualified to comment you may have a leg to stand on.  But as I have pointed out b4 there have been more than 1 petition and more than one official letter sent to governments dissenting the religion of Gore and his believers.
Oh and BTW P I'm quite happy for anyone to read the topic 31,000 signatories and make their own conclusion.

One thing they will notice is vindication of what I said re Tom and my inclusion in that debate,

No, really beo, give it away. You're making a spectacle of yourself. You even edited your post after you'd been caught out. Just move on, the rest of us are starting to feel embarrassed for you.

Paella wrote on Apr 12^th, 2010 at 1:29am:

Soren lorenson, since you are obviously willing to to accept Lindzen as an authority on the topic, do you now also accept that AGW is real? Lindzen certainly does.

Ummmm, soren lorenson ... wakey wakey!

We need an answer ....

listen Pooella...  nothing you say seems related to reality.  ;D ;D ;D

but if you like being personal and paying out on me 'cause it makes you feel good...  go right ahead..  this is just what all you denialist/alarmists do, it's all a part of your insecurity about your delusion.

I'm quite content that sane people can actually tell reality from your delusions and lies.  ;D ;D ;D

Ok, see if you can convince a single sane person to read through this thread and post a conclusion saying they agree that everything you've posted about the OISM is consistent and accurate (edited post included).

Actually, I'd even be surprised if you can find an insane person willing to do that.

(But cheer up, even your heroes Andrew Bolt and Piers Akerman have been sucked in by the Oregon Petition. Neither of them retracted either, but at least they have both been clever enough to shut up about it since it was pointed out to them. You're obviously even dumber than Piers. Hmmm, unlikley, but possible, I suppose.)

For Soren, who interpreted my argument as the village idiot shaming the town council, I at least agree that the idea of denialists as village idiots is appropriate, and one I heartily agree with him on.

The point he missed, how surprising, is that when any minor disagreement, revision, or even flaw, is pounced upon as necessitating the rejection of the whole, which is overwhelmingly not proven as flawed, by his village idiots, then we have the situation where we would be destroying something worthwhile for no good reason, and that just would not be a sensible course of action, and then the council would tell the idiot to f off.

It would be akin to people who found out certain medical procedures used were sometimes flawed, or not the optimal ones, and then accusing all doctors of conspiring to pervert medical knowledge, and also to demand all hospitals be closed down, and all medical treatment stopped, until we can have all medical practitioners and scientists agree just what is the optimal treatment, for every condition, in every circumstance, forever.

The result would be that nothing would ever be solved, nothing would progress, the process would have been stopped, and people would suffer who otherwise may not.

Make no mistake, this is exactly what these denialists want to happen to climate science, they want the process stopped.

A true skeptic would not be trying to stop the process of understanding, the person who does that is far more sinister.

I struggle to understand how denialists can ignore the fact that climate scientists are merely trying to find the best way to avoid unnecessary human suffering, yet they continue with their ridiculous delusion of secret cabals and secret world orders, I mean really, how freakin' loopy are these people?
The less loopy ones will avoid mentioning those core beliefs, but scratch any denialist, and that insane belief is what you will find.

yawn mozz...  now your making up deluded crap about everyone who dissents your pov, to satisfy yourself that you are right.  ROTFLMAO

Pooella...  you are a very sad individual...  Bolt and Akerman are not heroes of mine, but they may be brighter than you.

Grendel wrote on Apr 12^th, 2010 at 9:29pm:

yawn mozz...  now your making up deluded crap about everyone who dissents your pov, to satisfy yourself that you are right.  ROTFLMAO

Grendel, come on. I'm not trying to be malicious or score a point: you're posting really immature stuff and it's just getting sillier and sillier. Let's try and stick to the topic and we'll move away from the whole OISM thing. We're done with it.

mozzaok wrote on Apr 12^th, 2010 at 9:24pm:

The result would be that nothing would ever be solved, nothing would progress, the process would have been stopped, and people would suffer who otherwise may not. Make no mistake, this is exactly what these denialists want to happen to climate science, they want the process stopped. A true skeptic would not be trying to stop the process of understanding, the person who does that is far more sinister.

That is bollocks on stilts, Mozz. Absolute nonsense. Show us a single call for the end of research into how the climate works.

Calling for the end of crazy exaggeration (like yours above, for example) is not the same as calling for the end of disinterested research. Get real.

apoplectic...

I was going to ask if you guys have such little self awareness, but I realise it is a silly question, because you don't realise it, otherwise you would not keep posting cut and pastes from pathetic denialist drivel sites.

Now baby steps for the guys who do not know their scientiticians from scientists, do you not assert that the world's scientists are colluding to scam the public?

Don't bother answering, we know you do, you started this thread about it, and we are sick of hearing the pathetic delusional justifications for those inane beliefs.

So you assert that scientists are crooked, and trying to fool the world, to make it a worse place, and your mighty maverick scienticians are the only ones smart enough to uncover their fraud, and so we should stop the crooked scientists and start listening to the scienticians from oregon and their ilk.

As far as I am concerned, that is definitely working against the process of honest scientific enquiry.

The only frauds are the has beens and hacks seeking five minutes of fame and a few bucks as a denialist darling, I know some ultra conservative nutjobs make a good living pandering to the delusions and prejudices of the extreme right, it is a rich vein of gold that seems never ending at times.

mozzaok wrote on Apr 12^th, 2010 at 11:53pm:

I was going to ask if you guys have such little self awareness, but I realise it is a silly question, because you don't realise it, otherwise you would not keep posting cut and pastes from pathetic denialist drivel sites. Now baby steps for the guys who do not know their scientiticians from scientists, do you not assert that the world's scientists are colluding to scam the public? Don't bother answering, we know you do, you started this thread about it, and we are sick of hearing the pathetic delusional justifications for those inane beliefs. So you assert that scientists are crooked, and trying to fool the world, to make it a worse place, and your mighty maverick scienticians are the only ones smart enough to uncover their fraud, and so we should stop the crooked scientists and start listening to the scienticians from oregon and their ilk. As far as I am concerned, that is definitely working against the process of honest scientific enquiry. The only frauds are the has beens and hacks seeking five minutes of fame and a few bucks as a denialist darling, I know some ultra conservative nutjobs make a good living pandering to the delusions and prejudices of the extreme right, it is a rich vein of gold that seems never ending at times.

Is this the Karma that's supposed to run over everyone's dogma? Everyone who does not share it is stupid or venal.

That seems to me much more like dogma and a very incontinent one at that.

yawn...


Quote:

Now baby steps for the guys who do not know their scientiticians from scientists, do you not assert that the world's scientists are colluding to scam the public?

No.
But it has been proven that denialist/alarmist scientists have been less than cooperative and in fact dismissive of their fellows who do not share their beliefs on the subject.
Gore's propaganda piece; The Inconvenient fluff,  being a scam of rather large proportions and inaccuracies.


Quote:

So you assert that scientists are crooked, and trying to fool the world, to make it a worse place, and your mighty maverick scienticians are the only ones smart enough to uncover their fraud, and so we should stop the crooked scientists and start listening to the scienticians from oregon and their ilk.

Nope, I assert that I am not convinced that man made CO2 emissions is the driver that will cause the apocalypse you believe it will.  
I believe that denialist/alarmist scientists are basing their beliefs on a flawed premise and flawed modeling (which also has been proven) and in some cases dubious data.
Also that the IPCC, not a scientific body, has created reports based on biased data and derivative conclusions, and that it has a political agenda (also a proven point).
I also believe that climate is much more complicated than is being admitted and that we don't know all there is to know about it (a very recent admission) and that we cannot control the weather and climate through CO2.

I also think you Mozz are a complete idiot about this subject.

OK Grendel, I think I get it now.
You start a thread implying you have evidence to prove global warming is a scam, not merely incorrect, or misguided, but a scam.
Your words, your assertion.

Do you believe that the thousands of scientists directly involved at the elite level are all conspiring to scam mankind?

Perhaps you even think that the further tens of thousands of highly credntialed scientists that agree with the AGW theory are also a party to perpetrating this scam?

Do you believe any of that?
Come on you started this thread over four months ago, at the time shouting about evidence that AGW is a scam, so if that is still your contention, at least have the guts to tell us just who do you believe is perpetrating this scam.

Please, tell us.

Now apart from being an incorrigible smartarse, which you all know, I am also somewhat of an accomplished clairvoyant, which may surprise you.

My prediction for today is that Grendel will not tell us who he thinks is scamming us, but he will continue to assert that the evidence he has against them is very strong.
Today's Lucky Colour; Green
Today's Lucky Numbers;7, 11, 14, 19, 23, and 42.
Good Luck, and be careful out there.

Grendel wrote on Apr 13^th, 2010 at 12:58am:

Nope, I assert that I am not convinced that man made CO2 emissions is the driver that will cause the apocalypse you believe it will.

Are you suggesting that you accept man made CO2 emissions are causing global warming, but not at a rate that will cause an apocalypse?

Paella wrote on Apr 12^th, 2010 at 1:38pm:

Puppy, a word of advice: when you've been really really stitched up, best policy is to just admit it an move on. If you persist with this line you are just going to end up looking like an even bigger idiot.

It reminds me of this You Tube video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYFQZFL0yoo

Grendel wrote on Apr 13^th, 2010 at 12:58am:

Nope, I assert that I am not convinced that man made CO2 emissions is the driver that will cause the apocalypse you believe it will.

Is that apocalypse as in Armageddon? You mean with strange beasts with 666 written on their forehead and the final battle between good and evil?

You'll have to explain what you mean by this apocalypse that we all apparently believe in.

Never denied that CO2 is one of the greenhouse gases.

Never denied that temperatures had risen.

Only really dumb people would accuse me of that.

Quote:

MORE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE THAT GLOBAL WARMING IS A SCAM http://english.aljazeera.net/focus/climatesos/2009/12/2009124191343603151.html

Dear Mozz you claim I made a claim that Global Warming is a scam....  did I?  I suggest you look above at the TITLE of the article I posted.  I also suggest you look at the end of the topic title.  Is that a question mark we all see there?  You do know what a question mark indicates don't you?  :D

Don't keep lying about what I say and believe.   ::) ::) ::)

You morons that keep feeding off each other to ridicule other people... you really need to get a life.

Paella wrote on Apr 12^th, 2010 at 1:29am:

Soren lorenson, since you are obviously willing to to accept Lindzen as an authority on the topic, do you now also accept that AGW is real? Lindzen certainly does.

Not in his most recent article which I have posted above.

Grendel wrote on Apr 13^th, 2010 at 12:43pm:

Never denied that CO2 is one of the greenhouse gases. Never denied that temperatures had risen. Only really dumb people would accuse me of that.

Was anyone accusing you of that?

Are you suggesting that you accept man made CO2 emissions are causing global warming, but not at a rate that will cause an apocalypse?

Well yes helian, but only a handful of idiots here.

You rephrase the vague double barrel question and I'll attempt to answer it.

Wow Grendel, you are setting your standards lower and lower, and backtracking with abandon from your previous, stridently asserted, beliefs, and the truth, it would seem.

Is it your contention that you never argued that AGW is a scam?

Be careful how you answer, these servers hold a lot of info, even the old stuff we have posted, and may have forgotten about.

So I will give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume you have merely forgotten how often you asserted we "alarmists" are all just a bunch of dills being conned, and that you are not deliberately trying to deny that fact.

It is OK to make mistakes, we all do, but telling porkies to try and avert the consequences is never a noble choice, and very rarely a wise one.

No Mozz I have never changed my view on this, just minor points in my understanding of the science.

post away Mozz...  but replying to your misquotes, misinterpretations and outright lies will be tedious as ever.  


Quote:

Never denied that CO2 is one of the greenhouse gases. Never denied that temperatures had risen. Only really dumb people would accuse me of that.

gee Mozz, what group does that put you in?  You cant even get lies about me and the title of this topic right....   ;D ;D ;D

mozzaok wrote on Apr 14^th, 2010 at 2:22pm:

AGW is a scam?

Here's articulation of the scam of AGW in a nutshell, again:

Efforts to use climate science to threaten an apocalyptic future should we fail to embrace green proposals, and to characterize present-day natural disasters as terrifying previews of an impending day of reckoning, have only served to undermine the credibility of both climate science and progressive energy policy.

http://e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2257




The strident, condescending overshouting and jostling and moral preening has done immense harm, as usual.

A bit of a weak response to what is a pretty straight forward challenge to Grendel, admit you argued that AGW was just a massive scam, or deny you argued that point.

Pathetic prevarications are not answers.

The fact is these deniers recognise how loony their belief in a global conspiracy sounds, so they try to avoid openly saying it, they just hint at it over and over.

They were not always so shy though, in the past they have called it a con, a scam, a conspiracy, the whole range of nutty paranoid delusions that we see over and over.

Not unlike the secret zionist organisations that really run the world.
I wonder if an denialists could fill us in with that particularly entertaining belief?

Anyone? ::)

AGW as perpetrated by Al Gore, Flannery, Rudd an all their ilk was/is a massive scam.


Ballsy enough for you?

Yes Soren, I had already noticed that you had acknowledged it as a scam, but it was Grendel denying he had ever done so, and that is why I wanted him to answer.

He does not mean to lie, he mostly doesn't even really believe he is, but somewhere inside he must know he has, otherwise he would not be trying so hard to wriggle out of giving a straight answer.
I would just like to see him acknowledge the fact that he too, like the rest of us, makes mistakes.


Now as for you "ballsilly" ;) going with the scam argument, would you care to explain who were the architects of the scam, what were the objectives of the scam, and what methods were used to gain the cooperation of tens of thousands of scientists to collude with this scam?

So got a "ballsy" answer to those questions?

Soren wrote on Apr 14^th, 2010 at 12:13am:

Paella wrote on Apr 12th, 2010 at 1:29am: Soren lorenson, since you are obviously willing to to accept Lindzen as an authority on the topic, do you now also accept that AGW is real? Lindzen certainly does. Not in his most recent article which I have posted above.

Are you as certain of that as you are of your assertion that AGW is not happening?

Alright Mozz you lying poo...


Quote:

A bit of a weak response to what is a pretty straight forward challenge to Grendel, admit you argued that AGW was just a massive scam, or deny you argued that point.

Please provide the quotes.

Soren wrote on Apr 14^th, 2010 at 6:58pm:

Paella wrote on Apr 14th, 2010 at 3:40pm: Lindzen says that it (AGW) does. Where, in that article from the Washington Post, did he say that?

How about "To be sure, man’s emissions of carbon dioxide must have some impact. The question of importance, however, is how much."

Did you even read it?

Seems very straight forward...  doesn't mean he agrees with anything you might think on the subject though.

Wake up beo, whether or not I agree with Lindzen is not this issue (I don't, btw). Now if you don't mind, soren and I are trying to have a grown up conversation.

Oh I think Soren has given up trying to have one of those with you...  every post you make proves you are incapable of it.

Beo you are to be commended for putting some thought in to a comeback for a change. Don't you think the above is just a wee bit more entertaining than "Yawn" or "ROFLMAO"?

I quite like this development. Excellent progress, please keep it up.

mozzaok wrote on Apr 14^th, 2010 at 7:22pm:

Yes Soren, I had already noticed that you had acknowledged it as a scam, but it was Grendel denying he had ever done so, and that is why I wanted him to answer. He does not mean to lie, he mostly doesn't even really believe he is, but somewhere inside he must know he has, otherwise he would not be trying so hard to wriggle out of giving a straight answer. I would just like to see him acknowledge the fact that he too, like the rest of us, makes mistakes. Now as for you "ballsilly" ;) going with the scam argument, would you care to explain who were the architects of the scam, what were the objectives of the scam, and what methods were used to gain the cooperation of tens of thousands of scientists to collude with this scam? So got a "ballsy" answer to those questions?

Read it all.

Gore got an Oscar AND the Nobel Peace Prize. How much more proof of groupthink do you want?? The only thoughtful and mature response to all this sh!t is merciless satire and ridicule. The banwagon was practically overflowing until the various scandals and climate-gates started to break. Now the mindless sychophancy has abeted somewhat, thank go...,  er, thank goodness. (phew!)

;)

---

OK I've got my six-shooter out. Any posts that contain nothing more substantial than a personal insult will be deleted (if I see them on time).

Fair enough?

Soren wrote on Apr 14^th, 2010 at 11:14pm:

The banwagon was practically overflowing until the various scandals and climate-gates started to break. Now the mindless sychophancy has abeted somewhat, thank go...,  er, thank goodness. (phew!)

I already explained the principles in some considerable detail, and the best you could come up with was (paraphrased ) - "I don't like it"

If anything is mindless.......

Well i see you've deleted a yawn or two of mine with soft comment on it yet leave Paellas original flame... way to go fair moderator  ::) ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

I am happy for any comments of mine that have no relevance to the subject matter to be deleted: we don't need to give BO any real ammunition, let him keep firing duds (like the last two in that new thread which, thankfully, no one has dignified with a response). However keep in mind that BO has a very broad definition of "flame": perhaps not as broad as "any post that BO disagrees with", but his definition certainly includes any satire or sarcasm. Both of which are useful and entertaining rhetorical devices.

I also think this post should be deleted, once considered.

most of your posts are just flames...  certainly the ones directed at me are you even follow me around to flame me.  ::)

no denying that eh pooella.

Paella wrote on Apr 15^th, 2010 at 12:57pm:

... keep in mind that BO has a very broad definition of "flame" ...

I rest my case.

yawn

Quote:

Beo you are to be commended for putting some thought in to a comeback for a change. Don't you think the above is just a wee bit more entertaining than "Yawn" or "ROFLMAO"? I quite like this development. Excellent progress, please keep it up.

just a flame no topic content whatsoever...

I rest MY case...  

QED

I gather you won't be able to control yourself and not respond yet again...   ::) ::) ::)  even though I just proved you wrong yet again  ::)

perhaps you could just apologise for once that might be nice  ;D

Well, let's get back on subject, the Oxburgh Report that looked into the allegations arising from the hacked emails, or "climategate, as the denialists dubbed it.

Here is a pertinent quote from their report;
“We saw no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work of the Climatic Research Unit and had it been there we believe that it is likely that we would have detected it,” says the Oxburgh report. “Rather we found a small group of dedicated if slightly disorganised researchers who were ill-prepared for being the focus of public attention.”

This report reviewed 11 publications considered to be representative of the CRU’s output (including two papers published in Nature). These cover direct temperature observations and the tree ring work that has caused many climate change sceptics to get so hot under the collar.

The tree-ring work was considered by the panel to have been “carried out with integrity” and the methods used in the direct temperature work were “fair and satisfactory”. However, the lack of proper statistical input into CRU’s research did displease Oxburgh’s panel.


So there was no manipulation of data to deceive people, or to change the scientific value of their work, but has a single denialist acknowledged that fact?
Of course not, they keep repeating their lies, because they "Believe" them, once more they show a total and arrogant disregard for the actual evidence.

Or as put by Bob Ward;

Quote:

Bob Ward, policy and communications director at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change, said in a statement, “The panel has carried out a thorough investigation of the evidence, and anybody who simply rejects these findings will show that they are motivated by prejudice and ideology rather than by scepticism and a desire to uncover the truth. I think those so-called sceptics and commentators in the media who have attempted to undermine the credibility of climate change science on the basis of the hacked e-mails now need to apologise for misleading the public about their significance.”

Here is the link to the blog page I copied this from, where you can also download a pdf of the Oxburgh Report, if you wish.
http://blogs.nature.com/climatefeedback/

I keep hearing it was bit of a "whitewash" Mozz and the terms of reference made it so.

of course you could google more diverse opinion if you were fair dinkum...

like I did...

Climategate Investigation A Monumental Whitewash
One down, two to go: First “investigation” into data fixing scandal clears scientists, says warming is real
Steve Watson

A Parliamentary investigation into the climategate scandal has cleared the scientists involved of any data fixing and subversion of the peer review process, and notes that the scandal provides no evidence to challenge the notion that human activity is causing catastrophic global warming.

The House of Commons’ Science and Technology Committee Report (PDF), the first of three investigations into climategate, produced its report after only a single day of oral testimony.

The report concludes that UN IPCC affiliated scientists at the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit, led by director Phil Jones (pictured at the hearing), did not tamper with data in an effort to exaggerate the threat of global warming.

The Report states that “The scientific reputation of Professor Jones and CRU remains intact”.

The committee added that it found nothing sinister in Jones’ use of the words “hide the decline” and “trick” with regards to data on temperature changes.

The committee contends that when Jones stated “hide the decline” in an email to his colleagues, he was referring to discarding erroneous data, rather than deliberately concealing it.

The report also states that Jones’ use of the word ‘trick’ “appears to be a colloquialism for a ‘neat’ method of handling data.”

The Committee pulled this explanation from testimony by the CRU itself, which stated:

   …as for the (now notorious) word 'trick', so deeply appealing to the media, this has been richly misinterpreted and quoted out of context. It was used in an informal email, discussing the difficulties of statistical presentation. It does not mean a 'ruse' or method of deception. In context it is obvious that it is used in the informal sense of 'the best way of doing something'. In this case it was 'the trick or knack' of constructing a statistical illustration which would combine the most reliable proxy and instrumental evidence of temperature trends.

Scientist Steve McIntyre, who is mentioned over 100 times in the hacked emails has consistently explained how this explanation is insufficient and falls flat on its face.

On his blog, Climate Audit, McIntyre rebuts the Parliamentary Committee’s conclusion, noting:

“Contrary to [the University of East Anglia's] claims, there is no valid statistical procedure supporting the substitution of tree ring proxy,”

“This is absurd.” McIntyre added, “The trick was not a "neat" way of handling data, nor a recognized form of statistical analysis. The trick was a clever way of tricking the readers of the IPCC 2001 graphic into receiving a false rhetorical impression of the coherency of proxies -- a point understood at the beginning by Jon Stewart of the Daily Show, but now misunderstood due to continued disinformation.”

McIntyre points out that at no time did even the CRU itself contend that any of its data was “erroneous”, so to conclude that it had to dispose of such data is ludicrous:

   In addition, their suggestion that Jones and others were doing nothing more than "discarding data known to be erroneous" is simply absurd. There was no testimony to the Committee (nor has it ever been suggested) that the tree ring data was measured incorrectly or that the data was "erroneous" -- the data is what it is. The tree ring data goes down instead of up -- but that doesn't make it "erroneous". It only means that the data is a bad proxy -- something that was concealed from IPCC readers.

McIntyre submitted notes to the Science and Technology Committee on this very detail of the matter, however, it seems his detailed description has been completely disregarded.

The idea that the “trick” was not to conceal data that was out of step with the scientists warming thesis also falls down when you consider that the code within the CRU’s climate models prove that temperature numbers were "artificially adjusted" to hide the decline in global warming since the 1960's.

This information was leaked along with the inflammatory emails referring to it and provides the real smoking gun. However, predictably, there is no mention of the coding in the STC report.

With reference to charges of subverting the peer review process by Jones and the CRU, the report states “the evidence we have seen does not suggest that Jones was trying to subvert the peer review process”, adding that academics should not be criticised for “informal comments” on papers.

So when Phil Jones wrote the following to climate scientist Michael Mann of Penn State University: We “will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!” that was not a declaration of intent, according to the STC investigation.

The committee essentially believes it is A-OK for the CRU scientists to routinely refer to any research offering alternate viewpoints as “disinformation“,”misinformation” or “crap” that needs to be kept out of the public domain. The committee sees no problem with the fact that those same scientists have the power to do just that.

pt 1

pt 2.

It is backwards and upside down to constantly refer to a “scientific consensus” in order to back up claims of human induced warming and then to essentially state that it doesn’t matter whether or not the scientists at the head of that same consensus have operated within a culture of stonewalling dissenting evidence, theories, data and viewpoints.

After one afternoon of interviews, the STC report concludes “We have found no reason in this unfortunate episode to challenge the scientific consensus.”

“There was no evidence to challenge the ’scientific consensus’ that global warming is induced by human activities.” the report states elsewhere.

Of course, the committee did not spend any time looking at the science, and it was never the intention of the investigation to vindicate the scientific theory behind anthropogenic global warming, however, those two juicy quotes will serve to do so in the eyes of the media and the public at large.

The STC investigation into climategate is farcical on its face. The Committee itself admits that it’s report is insufficient and does not cover all the issues. Phil Willis, the committee’s chairman, noted that it had to produce something quickly before the British general election, and a possible change of government, in May.

“Clearly we would have liked to spend more time on this,” Willis said, adding “We had to get something out before we were sent packing.”

Though the Committee condemned the CRU for withholding information requested by outsiders under Britain’s freedom of information laws, it failed to determine whether Professor Jones had actively deleted information to prevent requests to publish it, as indicated by requests made by Jones in emails to his colleagues.

“The culture of non-disclosure at CRU and instances where information may have been deleted to avoid disclosure, particularly to climate change sceptics, we felt was reprehensible,” Willis told a news conference.

However, the report does not indict Jones on these charges, perhaps because, as revealed by one of the MP on the committee in comments to The Times of London, all members had agreed not to question Professor Jones too closely because of his “fragile condition” – now that’s what I call getting to the bottom of the matter.

Phil Willis also said that the further two pending inquiries into the e-mail scandal would provide a more in depth review. However, as we have previously reported, we can hardly expect the so called “independent” investigation led by Sir Muir Russell to be in any form impartial, given that Russell himself vehemently supports the notion of anthropogenic global warming and has constructed a panel of “experts” that share the same views.

Those views clearly contradict the founding principle of the inquiry – to appoint experts who do not have a "predetermined view on climate change and climate science".

Thus, any notion that this investigation might shake the foundations of the perceived “consensus” on climate science, by being anything other than favourable to Phil Jones and the CRU, is highly unlikely.

Once again it will be left to the alternative media and the blogs to expose these whitewash reports for what they are, given that the vast majority of the corporate mainstream media will undoubtedly run with headlines such as “Investigation Clears Climate Scientists” and “Warming Science Vindicated”, headlines that will be repeated ad infinitum by warmists, carbon trading scam artists and eco-fascists everywhere.

Update: Yep, the media is running with those afore mentioned headlines.

http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=29769

Grendel wrote on Apr 15^th, 2010 at 1:52pm:

Scientist Steve McIntyre, who is mentioned over 100 times in the hacked emails has consistently explained how this explanation is insufficient and falls flat on its face.

You mean Steve McIntyre as in

"I've spent most of my life in business, mostly on the stock market side of mining exploration deals," (Steve McIntyre, 2009)

Do Stock Market pundits and ex Gold Mining Executives automatically qualify as Scientists, and in Climate Science in particular?

- Or is he qualified by virtue of his two published articles in "Energy and Environment" a publication that is not carried in the ISI listing of peer-reviewed journals?

Grendel - Have you tried to publish in Energy and Environment?  You should. They are not very picky who they publish, and you could make a name for yourself.

Good grief...  i wouldn't know you from a bar of soap muso...  so i trust you less than people in the public eye.

Once more all we get from you is cherry picking and shooting messengers.

Well bugger off.  The ARTICLE addresses Mozz's point.  As do many other articles on the Net.  ::)

ps...  there are at least 2 more enquiries to go.

Quote:

Grendel - Have you tried to publish in Energy and Environment?  You should. They are not very picky who they publish, and you could make a name for yourself.

I'm sure he'd have a following, a rather small deluded following, but a following all the same. ;D

Good to see your fair moderation policy at work...  oh and BTW who is going to censor your flames  :D

muso wrote on Apr 15^th, 2010 at 2:38pm:

Grendel wrote on Apr 15th, 2010 at 1:52pm: Scientist Steve McIntyre, who is mentioned over 100 times in the hacked emails has consistently explained how this explanation is insufficient and falls flat on its face. You mean Steve McIntyre as in "I've spent most of my life in business, mostly on the stock market side of mining exploration deals," (Steve McIntyre, 2009) Do Stock Market pundits and ex Gold Mining Executives automatically qualify as Scientists, and in Climate Science in particular? - Or is he qualified by virtue of his two published articles in "Energy and Environment" a publication that is not carried in the ISI listing of peer-reviewed journals? Grendel - Have you tried to publish in Energy and Environment?  You should. They are not very picky who they publish, and you could make a name for yourself.

I think you will find he is an expert in statistics, and his criticisms of the AGW theory were based in this field.

pjb05 wrote on Apr 15^th, 2010 at 2:54pm:

muso wrote on Apr 15th, 2010 at 2:38pm: Grendel wrote on Apr 15th, 2010 at 1:52pm: Scientist Steve McIntyre, who is mentioned over 100 times in the hacked emails has consistently explained how this explanation is insufficient and falls flat on its face. You mean Steve McIntyre as in "I've spent most of my life in business, mostly on the stock market side of mining exploration deals," (Steve McIntyre, 2009) Do Stock Market pundits and ex Gold Mining Executives automatically qualify as Scientists, and in Climate Science in particular? - Or is he qualified by virtue of his two published articles in "Energy and Environment" a publication that is not carried in the ISI listing of peer-reviewed journals? Grendel - Have you tried to publish in Energy and Environment?  You should. They are not very picky who they publish, and you could make a name for yourself. I think you will find he is an expert in statistics, and his criticisms of the AGW theory were based in this field.

So we can discount his comments on the validity of tree ring data? The issue is a technical one - the fact that the correlation of tree ring size and temperature hasn't held for the most recent period of history - probably due to pollution/ increased UV radiation or some other factor.  

The whole issue is irrelevant anyway, because for this period of history, we can measure temperatures directly.  A Tree-ring expert has stated that the data is not valid, and that it should be discounted.

On the other hand Steve McIntyre an ex Stock market pundit (and not a dendro expert) says that the technical data is valid and that the expert was wrong.

So what this is about is that instead of using calibrated thermometers and remote sensing, we should be cutting bits out of trees and analysing them.

The tree ring data shows that the global temperatures have been decreasing.  :o

Actually (now let's get serious), this is backed up by another study which shows that Himalayan Yaks scratch their arses more often when the temperature is higher.

I believe that the author  of that study stated that this data should not be used as a temperature proxy because it's too unreliable.

The temperature trend has been downwards. Of course, the author is an expert on Yak's arses, but perhaps we should ask Steve McIntyre before we dismiss  this important study in its entirety?

Grendel wrote on Apr 15^th, 2010 at 2:46pm:

Good grief...  i wouldn't know you from a bar of soap muso...

No - and you're not going to.  ;)

- but it's not my qualifications that are being called into question here.

Google more diverse opinions?

Seriously Grendel, I am really finding it a bit of a stretch to take you seriously.
Your "opinion" piece was from Steve McIntyre's Denialist website, which I would be pretty confident you, of all people, wouldn't need to google, ...but wait..... I have another moment of prescience coming on, and I see "Bookmarks", many bookmarks, many denialist sites.
The great mozza know all, ;) see all ;)

Paella wrote on Apr 14^th, 2010 at 9:00pm:

Soren wrote on Apr 14th, 2010 at 6:58pm: Paella wrote on Apr 14th, 2010 at 3:40pm: Lindzen says that it (AGW) does. Where, in that article from the Washington Post, did he say that? How about "To be sure, man’s emissions of carbon dioxide must have some impact. The question of importance, however, is how much." Did you even read it?

Cat got your tongue?