http://www.ad2000.com.au/articles/2008/jun2008p13_2819.html

Man-made climate change: politics not science
Peter Finlayson


Like many of our fellow citizens, Alex Gardner depends very much for his position on man-made climate change on his faith in the reliability of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

The book by Singer and Avery, published in its 2nd edition in 2007 just before the IPCC Fourth Technical Assessment Report (AR4), exposes much more evidence than space available in the March AD2000 allowed and shows that the findings in the IPCC reports do not conform to scientific orthodoxy and are not consensus documents. May I suggest that what Professor Gardner refers to as scientific orthodoxy is more correctly called political orthodoxy.

One piece of such omitted evidence was the fact that six separate sentences in an earlier draft IPCC report that cautioned against linking carbon dioxide to global warming were removed in the final report and replaced with the overarching conclusion that such a linkage is proven by the scientific data, a position which became the mantra for the alarmist lobby thereafter.

Omission
In relation to the omission of 'irradiance' in my article, I accept this criticism with due humility, mainly because this is part of the many uncertainties about the details of the complex climate science.

At the risk of confusing the reader, my understanding is that there is good correlation between sun spot activity and global temperatures, which has been known for a century, but the process involved is not yet understood. The IPCC's conclusion that solar irradiance has a minor influence on warming is an orthodox finding. However the IPCC AR4 omitted to adequately account for the solar-terrestrial factor, (which is where the science gets a bit 'heavy', for me anyway!)

The best way to understand this concept is to consider the earth and its atmospheric envelope as a giant evaporative cooling system. Thus, at its simplest, like the Coolgardie safe, as temperature rises, more moisture is evaporated from the oceans (and latent heat is exchanged), which ascends and condenses to form clouds, which thereby lower the surface temperature.

The calculated relationship between surface temperature rise and evaporation is well known to climate scientists. However, the IPCC, in acknowledging a relationship, chose to underestimate its cooling effect by two-thirds, presumably to ensure that the sensitivity of the climate models to carbon dioxide remains dominant.

This is another example of the data being adjusted to fit the ideology of the IPCC's politicised 'drivers'.

This piece of orthodox science highlighting the seriously incorrect rate of increase of evaporation with temperature in the IPCC models has been confirmed in two recent peer-reviewed papers, and adds to the other major flaws that have been identified in the computer models that form the basis for the IPCC's 2007 global warming projections. They explain why the Garnaut and Stern carbon dioxide economic impact analyses are grossly exaggerated.

Of course, political orthodoxy ignores these data to sustain its global hoax, just as it ignores the data that show that the pre-industrialisation climate was no more stable than it has been since.

pt1

Hmmm trilobites were bottom feeders too.  They were also pretty primitive and unsophisticated - they basically consumed everything they could find without being picky - including all the ***t that was available on the Cambrian ocean floor. Of course, like other primitive species,  they were doomed to extinction.  

Nice analogy. I think you should consider a new nickname. 'Grendel' is a bit jaded.  Trilobite is rather apt, don't you think?  

There is no point. Like everything else you churn up, it comes down to a number of commonly stated fallacies. For a start, there is a complete lack of appreciation of the importance of natural variability on short time scales, the common but erroneous belief that any attribution of past climate change to solar or other forcing means that CO2 has no radiative effect, and lastly, a hopeless lack of familiarity of the basic science of detection and attribution.

They don’t even notice the contradictions in their own citations.

muso, you are wrong again about extinction of primitive species this time. E.g. ants are biologically more primitive then dinosaurs  or humans yet they survived dinos and will survive nuclear wars, which will kill humans.
BTW, personal attack on your opponents discredit your environmental theories more then your opponents ever can. May be that is one of reasons why environmentalism has become so discredited lately.

muso wrote on Jul 6^th, 2009 at 6:00pm:


Yes they should've never came out of water then there would not be any environmental problems created by their descendants, but now with them out and mud all over the place there isn't clear view what the argument is all about Copenhagen or not. Nobody except few care any longer, the cynicism of political component is too great and too obvious.

muso wrote on Jul 7^th, 2009 at 8:39am:


Fair enough though if humanity is the reason of climate change then the change can't be stop without removing or modifying the reason.
With all the tropics coming may be the best chance on long ran is to to evolve back to underwater again?