Perhaps the difficulties arise, in part, from the fact that these are not three simple questions, but five very skilfully loaded questions.

More than three simple questions.
The world polar ice caps and frozen tundra are melting at levels NEVER seen in living memory.
Why I do not know
Is it man-made I do not know
But is it just possible that the LITTLE (or lots) that man does contribute will be the straw that breaks the camels back.
Come on we have all seen smog
Now is a chance to do something about it.
Even if you do not believe carbon pollution is killing the planet you can not deny it is killing our cities.

Well observed, Mr Bamford.

According to Sourcewatch, Carter has addressed the Heartland Institute and "is a member of the right-wing think tank the Institute of Public Affairs, and a founding member of the Australian Environment Foundation, a front group set up by the Institute of Public Affairs."

In other words, he's a free-market fundamentalist ideologue first and foremost, with no ethical qualms about setting up an "Astroturf" organisation.

How much regard for science can we expect him to have?

Thank you Senator for taking the time and your willingness to take the political heat on a topic that the government wants to use as it's "next big crisis" excuse for unrelenting spending.

I expect that this was the first time that Wong and her merry band of climate change advocates have had an intellectually based set of questions sent to them where the answers were not allowed to be soft and dodgy but rather forced to be fact based.

I really look forward to more fact based dialog on this topic.

Hopefully Sen. Fielding is making some belated efforts to get the minimum of understanding of climate issues a voting senator needs but he won't get honest climate science off Carter or Heartland. Carter needs to apply some science (ie true scepticism) to his own unfounded beliefs, rather than perpetuating misinformation and misunderstandings. Fielding should look to CSIRO, BoM, our excellent universities.
Bob, surface air temperatures, as I'm sure you've had people tell you many times, are not direct measures of Earth's net energy balance and are indicative of climate trends only as long term averages. Longer than 10 years. Try 30. Ocean Heat Content, meanwhile shows all the signs that would be expected and is closer to a direct measure of how much warming. Take a look at borehole temperatures too. Actually, look at the science in it's entirety rather than trying to rely on and perpetuate popular misunderstanding and misrepresentations of climate science as you normally do, in your advocacy of scientifically unsupportable disbelief. As Paul says, your questions are skillfully loaded.

What's so difficult? Between January and June the physics of our
planet and its axis allows me to reliably predict
a gradual cooling in Australia. If there is a week in April where
the temperature doesn't monotonically decrease, would I
be correct in throwing out my model and saying that
the standard explanations of the seasons is false?

Look at any retreat from glacial termination, does it
proceed monotonically? Of course not. There are way too many
feedbacks and too much complexity in the climate system. If you
really think a lack of monotonicity in global average surface
temperature invalidates a GCM like GISS E, then your
understanding of such matters is pretty primitive.

Paul, sounds like an evil conspiracy, 5 skillfully loaded questions subtly hidden under 3 questions that our chief scientist and advisers and Penny Wong a lawyer are flummoxed by - terrifying stuff - what are those 5 questions?

I'm impressed by Senator Fielding an engineer who has been lambasted on this forum as an idiot and patsy, being able to come up with questions that defy the Chief Scientist and a lawyer, perhaps you have all underestimated the good senator?

I do expect all the personal attacks on people and reputations and avoiding the issue, regular stuff on OLO, of course while still worshiping Al Gore, Nick Stern and various other high priests of the movement.

Beefyboy - carbon pollution? Its all that black soot obscuring the sky is it, no I don't think so. The panic and alarm you are meant to be believing in is CO2 pollution, one Carbon and two Oxygen. Even Penny Wong sees black skies so I understand your confusion. Why do you think there will be a straw that breaks the camels back - are you expecting some huge calamity, like a storm or such event that ends the world? Shows the green/eco propaganda works, none of the scientific community talks about a huge disaster, they say the sea might rise a little, and temperature might go up a little. As Dougie Adams said "don't panic".

Next we'll have shrill squeals of denial by folks who don't want the climate to change.

The climate is going to change, we're powerless to stop it, all we can do is adapt, oh and maybe pollute a little less, but that's just good housekeeping.

Bob, In the paragraph before your questions you describe Minister Wong as "Chief Scientist Penny Wong" This may be politically correct but certainly not factually correct.

Penny Wong's advisers are influenced (or should I say conned) by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). People should be made aware that the IPCC has been searching for evidence of man-made climate change, but after 20 years has failed to find any. It uses its unvalidated climate models to generate alarmist global warming propaganda, which the media faithfully disseminates. Yet the IPCC's models have failed to predict why there has been global cooling since 1998, failed to predict the El Nino effects, failed to explain why the last Northern winter was the coldest in 50 years. Clearly, no reliance can be placed on the models.

The climate hysterics don’t answer questions, don’t want debate because they know that their lies and lack of scientific due diligence will be quickly discredited.

And, of course, many, many people just don’t want to know what has really gone in the corrupt IPCC. When someone tries to tell them (Prof. Carter) he, his colleagues and Steve Fielding are accused of using “loaded questions”. What is loaded about asking why the models that have been used to predict gloom and doom cannot explain why the earth has been cooling since 1998? Why should we be taking notice of models anyway, when they can only ‘predict’ weather patterns for a week ahead; they are useless for any longer projections?

Then, of course, comes the old attempt at suppression from apologetics for the climate hysterics: Prof. Carter is part of a Right-wing think tank.

Science and changes in nature have nothing to do with politics. Politics is being used by the doom-merchants to degrade science; they are the ones using politics and ‘consensus’ in an attempt save face and the huge grants they get from Governments.

Climate alarmists, CO2 produced by man liars, have no right to even mention science because they are dragging us back to the dark ages – the end of the world is coming, and all of the superstitious nonsense of the Dark Ages.

People are frightened; politicians are wetting themselves because they want to be seen to be doing the ‘right’ thing. Anything is better than nothing! Rubbish. Now is the time for politicians to have the guts to do nothing. Their current plans will bring only huge cost to individuals and disaster to industry, while other countries not so interested in pleasing everybody will go ahead in leaps and bounds.

Paul/Sancho, these "five but very skilfully loaded questions" were, let me see? Ah yes, loaded by someone else?

This is certainly not an article aimed at the scientifically literate. The idea that we should all stop arguing because Professor Dick Lindzen of MIT has made a statement doesn't quite gel with scientific discussion as I know it. The idea too that any serious climate scientist would would be confident that climate modelling is over estimating future temperatures is also rather brave. There are simply too many factors influencing climate and there are too many positive feedback loops that will reinforce both increases and decreases in temperature. To make it worse, we really don't have the data to tell us how serious these positive feed back loops will be.

For those that are interested it is useful to have a look at ice core data for the last 400 years. (See: http://www.grida.no/_res/site/Image/series/vg-climate/large/2.jpg) This shows how the Milankovitch cycles (See: http://www.homepage.montana.edu/%7Egeol445/hyperglac/time1/milankov.htm)
dominate the temperature changes and how temperature and CO2 levels roughly track each other. They also show how fast temperature and CO2 rise once warming starts.
The other startling idea is that the carbon tax is all extra tax. The reality is that a large part of carbon tax will either replace an existing tax or return to consumers via compensation allowances. But I guess $4000 extra/family grabs our attention.

I like Kevin Rudd's way of washing his hand of global warming

If there is no global warming, he can also say, the data was in the Wong hands, the statistics that was given to me was Wong, it was the Wong prognosis

Kevin will alway be able to blame someone else. I say "Blame Canada"

"The other startling idea is that the carbon tax is all extra tax. The reality is that a large part of carbon tax will either replace an existing tax or return to consumers via compensation allowances. But I guess $4000 extra/family grabs our attention."
Well John why not leave the money in our pockets in the first place. The last thing Australia needs is another complex money-goround. We already have our current taxation system.

Perhaps the question should be why Carter and co-authors Evans, Frank and Kinnimouth want us to believe those are good questions when they are full of loaded assertions and imply things about the nature of climate that climate science doesn't say and aren't true.

The planet hasn't warmed? Rubbish. Ocean Heat Content has risen, there's less glacial ice, less mutiyear sea ice, less ice shelves, less ice in ice sheets, more heat in the ground (borehole temps). Those aren't exactly evidence of stasis and cooling are they? They've been rising over the periods the authors want us to believe don't have evidence of cooling. If they think Suface Air Temperature's (SAT's) should steadily rise year by year then they are denying the existence of natural cycles that make SAT's vary all the time. Remember natural cycles? Climate science does! Implying it ignores them is wrong.

Q3 is pure BS. Averages of GCM's might show average rises in SAT's, but individual runs show SAT's with variations - a bit like the reality that the authors neglect to take into consideration. No one, least of all climate scientists are predicting steady year by year rises in SAT's. Meanwhile GCMs show lots of variation around a long term warming trend. Some show nice steady plateaus for a couple of decades only to be followed by huge SAT rises. But don't quote me, go to a blog like RealClimate where real climate scientists hang out. Definitely don't take what Bob and co says they say as true. It isn't.

I notice a number of posters suggesting that ocean temperatures are climbing, which was contrary to what I understood to be the case, so I went looking for the most recent evidence on this.

This article seems to provide a good precis of the issue along with relevant and current references with some maths that is relatively easy to follow. Interested in comments http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/05/06/the-global-warming-hypothesis-and-ocean-heat/

"in any event, why is warming a problem if the Earth has experienced similar warmings in the past?"

I can't believe an intelligent person even asking this question. So I'll ask one too - maybe it's one for Professor Plimer, who I understand is a geologist, not a climate scientist. Here it is:

During the periods of rapid temperature rise millions of years ago, with accompanying rapid sea level rise, how did places like Sydney, London, Hamburg and New York manage? How much did it cost relative to their national GDP?

How many living creatures died as a direct result? Did their scientists, ethicists, politicians, etc, think that mattered?

Etc, etc. But maybe the folk that asked that question will not see the sarcasm, and take my questions seriously. I wonder.

Since when did Governments ever have to address science issues in order to appease the Greens. All they have to do is go along with the dogma in order to sure up the Green vote (as if the Greens would preference the Liberals anyway). The climate change champions really have egg all over their face but like good earth worshippers they fail to show a tint of humility. Instead they continue to preach religous dogmas and jump on anyone challenging their doctrine. Quite hilarous to see the game played out except for those losing jobs and families through this stupidity. Thankfully people are now demanding some evidence for the Greens ridiculous dogmas. Don't hold your breath.

Graham Young

I appreciate OLO's connection with Jennifer Marohasy's and her concomitant parading of the 'denialist's' platform 'Watt's Up With That'.

What I fail to appreciate is your (and their) failure to go directly to the source. Preferring to mislead, misrepresent or distort (either intentionally or unintentionally) what climate scientists are actually saying.

Have you actually understood what Josh Willis' has published? These might put it all in context:

http://ecco.jpl.nasa.gov/~jwillis/willis_sl_budget_final.pdf

http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/goos/meetings/2008/XBT/bias_AMS.pdf

Or have you been seduced by errors or corrections in the Argo float data (something of which I am waiting for Spencer to acknowledge)?

You (as chief editor and moderator of OLO) are just creating noise and confusion for the onlookers (good for business no doubt), imho.

Do you agree that:

- CO2 makes up a total of 0.038% of the Earth’s atmosphere?

- The sun’s output varies constantly as it goes through long (thousands of years) and short (11 year) cycles?

- The sun provides (on average) 1,367 watts per square metre of energy to the Earth’s atmosphere and is the source of all our energy and light?

- The average human exhales 329kg of CO2 annually while breathing?

- The Earth’s climate has been considerably hotter and considerably colder throughout the Earth’s (and mankind’s) history, and that likewise CO2 levels have been historically considerably higher and lower in the past?

- The worldwide carbon trading market is predicted to worth in excess of a trillion US dollars annually to certain banks and corporations, and worth billions in tax revenues for Governments worldwide?

- A corporations primary legal duty is to return profit to its shareholders, and not for the betterment of mankind?

- The world’s media is funded, directly or indirectly (advertising), by corporations or Governments?

- The majority of scientific research in all fields is funded by Government grants or Corporate grants?

- Excluding computer modelling of CO2 impact, mankind is definitely adversely affecting the earths closed eco-system through, amongst others, oceanic plastic pollution, deforestation, over-fishing, chemicals in the water table, smoke haze, and habitat destruction?

If you have answered Yes to all or the majority of these, then you must rationally also question the received wisdom and motives of 99% of the “environmental” stories that the media & opinion formers put out on a daily basis.

There can never be definitive right or wrong. But on the balance of probabilities what does the rational You think is the most likely?

http://www.openyoureyesnews.com/?tag=climate-chang

Jimmy ..

1. Your URL needs an "e" at the end of the line.

2. What's your point?

3. The original piece had 3 questions, then there is a conspiracy theory in the posts of 5 hidden questions, now you pop up with 10 .. spooky!

I was going to challenge the IPCC to tell us about the last Ice Age which was only 15,000 years ago and resulted in real global warming. Thank goodness it gave Homo Sapiens it's first break and I bet that really ticks off the Greens lol.
Then I thought that the Victorian Weather Bureau cannot even get tommorows weather right and then I thought gee trillions of dollars from us taxpayers going to this mob trying to frighten me!
Then I thought Nah just nick off!

Vintage Q&A. Accuse others of doing what you are doing yourself and prosecute a vendetta against one or more people while you are at it. On Line Opinion has no connection with Jennifer Marohasy, so I am not sure why her name is invoked.

Q&A generally pretends to some erudition, which is generally demonstrated by throwing a couple of references to papers around, without explaining exactly what it is the papers say. If he's so smart perhaps he could explain it to the rest of us. But he won't because the paper doesn't demonstrate what he implies it does.

The paper of which Josh Willis is an author, agrees with the other paper by Craig Loehle cited in the post I linked to that ocean temperature has in fact decreased in the last 6 years. (Temperature is measured by the Argo system of floats). It also agrees that most of the heat in the ocean is in the top 1000 or so metres.

This is a problem for global warming enthusiasts because it means that the rate at which heat is escaping into space is increasing, which is at odds with GCM model predictions. It also suggests there is no locked-in warming in the system which will manifest later, as suggested by people like James Hansen.

BTW, there was a measuring problem with Argo, but both these papers account for it. I'm not the one with a tendency to "mislead, misrepresent or distort".

Thanks for the heads up RPG, the link should have read
http://www.openyoureyesnews.com/?tag=climate-change

My point is that the 'debate' should be seen as far from over if you have clarity of perception after looking at the big picture and not just what the media pumps out each day.

Sorry, no conspiracy theory here just human and corporate psychology.

I reckon that one of the reasons that both sides are spinning out the Godwin Grech et al e:mail saga is that both see that issue as sucking oxygen away from the discussion that the really don't want to have - ie, answering Steve Fielding's three questions. The fact is that both Labor and Liberals realise that there are no satisfactory answers, and that the lack of satisfactory answers throws the whole ETS scheme into doubt.

The fact is that Steve Fielding, by his simple insistence on common sense questions that all MPs and Senators should have already asked, has shown up most parliamentarians as shallow followers of what they think is the public mood. When will they all wake up and realise that what Steve Fielding is showing them the way to get re-elected!

The next issue to address is the cost/benefit of the ETS scheme for the average voter. It will cost me how much? And the benefit to me is? And the benefit to the planet? Then why on earth is it being rammed down my throat? Who benefits?

Herb, The only ones who would benefit from the ETS would be large corporations and the banks. You and I will pay through the nose for no benefit whatsoever to our enviroment. It will be another stock market style trading floor.

It is interesting to note that most of the attendees at international climate change conferences are representitives of these large corporations seeking to spend money on anything that will give them carbon credits.

"Not a climate scientist" is mentioned by some warming alarmists, recently in relation to Ian Plimer. If a geologist who can tell us about climate over the ages from cores, bores, sea beds etc., doesn't know a great deal about climate, I'll eat my hat.

Detractors of 'non-climate' scientists would do well to investigate the qualifications of people who came up with the IPCC 'consensus'. Most of them were not scientists of any kind - merely your old fashioned enviro-nuts. The 'science' used by the IPCC has been discredited by independent researchers many times.

Science has be so corrupted and mis-used in this climate farce that it will take generations for people to have any faith in it again.

James, thanks for clarifying. I do agree that the press loves a panic and bad news, of which AGW is full of.

It's easy to write, easy to defend (there's a consensus you know) and you can flame anyone you don't like.

I think the Google wars on OLO are getting pretty run down, though some will defend their favorite site to the death, or the alter whichever. Everyone can find a point of view on the internet to support their pet claim, theory, hate or scorn.

Rational thought is rarely entered into, it's all a panic and it has to be fixed now! Yet time passes and still there are no effects, climate goes on ever changing at the same pace that it always did, slowly, so what.

Leigh - isn't the head of the IPCC, Pachauri, a railway engineer? (Is that a new branch of climate science now?)

Dear me, you really can't have any engineers dipping in can you? (Q&A will bite for sure)

Leigh, yesterday in the "Global Warming basics" thread you wrote "I would be interested to know what you regard as the "intellectual depths" Plimer had to plummet to in order to support his argument
...
I'm not a scientist myself, and I may not have recognised the relevant material."

So I provided you with a review of Plimer's book - published in an anti-environment, pro-industry paper - which spells out the deficiencies, pseudo-science and even plagiarism which Plimer sank to in writing Heaven & Earth.

And yet here you are today still writing about Plimer as if he has an unquestionable and scientifically solid reputation.

Here's the link again. Demonstrate to us that you've read and understood it before you come back with more tiresome ranting about "corrupted and mis-used" science. You really are painting yourself as king of the online hypocrites.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,,25433059-5003900,00.html

Sancho, today, with all our media staffed by people who have done a literary subject at any of our uni's, it is not a matter of some of our papers being to the right.

It's a matter of some of them being just a little less left.

I know it's hard for many of you to accept as you have no idea of where the middle is.

I often wonder how our AGW folk can spend so much time flying. I sometimes get a picture of them crowding so far left, in the palne, that it tips over. Better still is the one where they crowd so far out onto the port wing, to avoid any middle ground, that one by one, they slide off.

It does tickle my fancy to think there is still some justice left in the world, even if only in my imagination.

"If the subject were anything less serious than the future habitability of the planet Earth, I wouldn't go to the trouble of writing this review."
The author of this review (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,,25433059-5003900,00.html) shoots himself in the foot in the first few lines! Hardly an unbiased point of view.

Sorry, Sparkyq. I couldn't see the part of your post where you point out some factual errors in the review, or explain why Plimer plagiarised work and used statistics that even the most committed AGW denialists binned years ago, and why that doesn't trash his whole thesis.

Is your strongest argument that the reviewer sees no reason to disagree with the huge majority of qualified scientists - the ones that actually submit their work for review and criticism?

Put those goalposts back. I still want to see Leigh miss them.

Sancho, your review mentions Plimer recycling Durkin's graph, "neglecting even to make the changes that Durkin made following an outcry over the fact that the past two decades of temperature measurements had been mysteriously deleted."

Interesting, as something Ashley doesn't mention is that had he done so, it would show that the past two decades now show virtually no net change in temperature over that period.

What we were fed in the media via the IPCC's activist core was a 0.3 degree increase per decade. I think the public has a right to ask why this hasn't happened, and whether the certainties of climate science are as rock solid as portrayed.

Given what is being demanded of the world by the IPCC, the attention given to Plimer's book shows a curious choice of targets to scrutinize.

I should point out an error in my previous post - late at night and not necessarily thinking straight. The decline in total energy in the global system doesn't mean that more heat is escaping into space, although it could. More likely it means that less energy is getting in from space. Whether this is because of aerosols, cloud formation, fluctuations in solar energy, or something else, who knows, but it challenges the central role that has been given to CO2.

>> "Interesting, as something Ashley doesn't mention is that had he done so, [the graph] would show that the past two decades now show virtually no net change in temperature over that period." <<

Correct - which is why Durkin changed it. The NASA data that Durkin's graph purports to represent showed a sharp and significant increase in temperatures during those two decades. But that information would completely undermine the GCCS's core argument. Noticing the discrepancy, Durkin showed respect for both science and the public by correcting the graph before using it in his documentary.

Just kidding! What he actually did was chop off 20 years of inconvenient data and present it as fact. This is what we call "fraud" or "a lie". Although that obviously didn't stop Plimer using it in his book.

Now, you would know all this already, fungo, which makes it simply unbelievable that Plimer didn't. There are bazillion websites where you can see the graphs side by side and read Durkin's specious explanations.

So, correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be saying that Durkin's version of the graph should be used, not because it represents genuine data, but because it's favourable to AGW denialism.

That, of course, is the de facto position of AGW "skeptics", but it's nice to see someone being open about it. Coupled with Leigh's self-absorbed whining about his precious pennies, we have the denialist philosophy in a nutshell: "To hell with truth and the environment. Tell any lie you need to, just as long as it doesn't cost me any money".

And just for the record folks, all these GW believers use solar powered computers. The also go to bed when the sun goes down and rise at dawn. They are vegans. They walk everywhere and only cook on sunny days in a solar powered oven. They have a pedal powered pump to pump rain water through their shower heads.

I'm sure this is true, because if they really believed they would be doing their utmost to help the environment and not indulging in any form of activity that would lead to further carbon emmissions.

I rest my case

That is so pathetic, Graham.

So you “went looking for the most recent evidence” and surprise surprise, found Mr William DiPuccio, ex-weather forecaster/ex-science teacher (now self publisher) who is a guest poster on “denialist” blog sites, including ‘Watt’s Up With That’ and Jennifer Marohasy’s – well done Graham, maybe you can get an article from him as well.

Yet, I have the audacity to actually go to some of the real “most recent” peer reviewed published scientific papers so that others (if not you) can read and comprehend them, in context to what you and Mr DiPuccio have said.

And you come back with:

<< If he's so smart perhaps he could explain it to the rest of us. But he won't because the paper doesn't demonstrate what he implies it does. >>

Graham, you are playing the man again. I did not imply anything from either the Willis or Wijffels et al papers. It is you who are doing the implying, not me.

You say:

“... This is a problem for global warming enthusiasts because it means that the rate at which heat is escaping into space is increasing ...”

I see you were “not necessarily thinking straight”. I was about to say:

No. You are implying this. If not, maybe you should just give everyone here a citation, particularly since we have the technology to measure this “escaping heat”.

Or maybe someone just got in your ear and pointed out your statement was so far off the planet.

Incidentally, if you are implying I am a “global warming enthusiast” then I assert you really don’t understand what a scientist working in the field does.

Oh no! Sparkyq is failing to put forward a substantive argument or address the glaring deficiencies of his previous post! Instead, he's lumping 89% of Australians into a hippie stereotype that's at least 30 years out of date!

Run, my dreadlocked comrades! Hide behind the wind turbines before he calls climate change a religion!

Please, Sparky, have mercy. I beg you - don't continue to produce no facts or data, or rely on trite and childish insults to move your argument forward. Your primacy is so great that you needn't back your argument up with anything like proof!

You have brought the sustainability movement to its knees. Don't humiliate us any further with your complete lack of scientific knowledge or recycled statements that were disproved decades ago.

You're torturing us with your bald lack of evidence! Do the humane thing and stop proclaiming that 9 in 10 Australians are vegan solar power fanatics!

How much more can we bear? I beseech you not to destroy us by labelling climate change an "industry", or implying that research scientists live in gold-plated mansions by dint of their Marxist conspiracy to destroy Western society.

Your intelligence, articulation, and marshalling of facts is breathtaking to behold. With Sparkyq on their side, the AGW denialists will surely march to victory over the ignorant majority.

Q&A, that's as close to a concession as I have seen you make. The argument is whether ocean temperature has been decreasing. It has. You've obviously given-up trying to prove that it hasn't or you wouldn't have launched the diatribe above which avoids the substantive point altogether.

Mr DiPuccio actually references the paper that you claim you turned-up, but you couldn't read the graphs in it and claimed that Josh Willis had been "misrepresented". You've obviously gone back for a closer look!

If you find it too hard to argue the facts and want to rely on reputation I'd rather rely on the analysis of DiPuccio, who is demonstrably a real person, than you a pseudonymus poster to our forum who claims to be a scientist. There is nothing in what you post that suggests you understand science. Maybe you're employed in the field, but that doesn't make you a scientist.

The only fault you could point to in my post was the one I picked-up. If you want to punish people for making mistakes in the conversational space that is a forum, then you are going to make it difficult to have a civilised conversation online. Pity that you don't hold Al Gore to the same standard for his "documentary", even though one would have to say that a documentary was in an entirely different position for accuracy than a forum thread.

It wasn't "off the planet" to suggest that more energy is escaping into space, just less likely than the alternative explanation that there is less energy getting through to the earth.

The latter proposition is supported by Spencer's work with clouds and then there is the aerosol proposition which the AGW enthusiasts like yourself push.

Whatever...you have to provide an explanation as to why global heat has declined while CO2 has increased. Blustering might drive a wind turbine, but it proves nothing.

About some of these 'facts', Graham, I am trying to reconcile a few of these that seem to have been quoted by various posters.

Has the 'cooling' been going on for 6 years as you claim, or since 2000-2001 (8-9 years) as Mark Lawson claims or 11 years (since 1998) as various other posters claim?

I looked at the data that Mark Lawson posted that he said was from Hadley, apparently a source that he feels is accurate and saw that the second hottest year on record (that is, since scientific measurements of temperature have been made directly) was 2005. This means that the years flanking 2005 were cooler does it not? If this is the case, how can it be cooling before 2005? Surely the 'cooling' represents the 3.5 years after 2005?

In any case, how does the number of years that are claimed as 'cooling' years differ? I have my personal suspicions, but I would like to hear yours.

Hi Bugsy. The six or so years of cooling that I am referring to is for ocean temperature, not atmospheric temperature. 1998 was definitely a peak of the previous warming trend as far as we know at the moment. It could start warming again, in which case it will no longer be a peak.

The Hadley data is handily graphed on their website at http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/comparison.html. They graph a 21 point binomial filter over it as well which is equivalent to a 10 year average. The binomial figure is showing that a down-trend has started, but of course it says nothing about how prolonged such a trend might be.

Averages always pick downtrends after they have started.

Lawson would presumably pick 1998 as the point that the downtrend started. 2005 can't be the start because it isn't the highest point, but as it is lower than 1998 is still part of the cooling trend. The 10 year average starts to turn down just before 2005, and keeps going down even after accounting for it.

Cooling can't have been going on for 11 years, because for that to be factual we would need to know this year's average temperature, which we won't for another 6 months.

But I think the argument about whether there is a cooling or a warming trend is a distraction from the real argument which is the complete disconnect between air temperature and increases in greenhouse gases. To explain that disconnect you have to find a reservoir where the extra heat that is supposed to be in the system can be hiding, which is why ocean temperature is crucial to whether there is any sort of correlation.

I make these comments from the point of view that I would expect increased CO2 in the atmosphere to increase global temperature. In that context the real argument is by how much, whether this matters, and if so, is it beneficial or damaging to human life.

No Graham.

I have not tried to prove (or disprove) whether ocean temperatures have been decreasing (or increasing). You really should stop putting words into my mouth.

As I pointed out to all and sundry, you were the one who “went looking for the most recent evidence”. And it was you who came up trumps with a ‘denialist’ blog site. All I did was to suggest that it may have been more scientific (if not prudent) to go to the primary source in question, in this case – Josh Willis, who incidentally says in Mr DiPuccio’s own citations:


“Call me Embarrassed. Some years ago ... I co-authored a paper with two colleagues that documented a rapid and recent cooling in the watery part of the world (Lyman et al., 2006). Our results were met with a certain amount of surprise and scepticism by the climate science community, but they caused a great deal of excitement among deniers of global warming.”

“So you can imagine how I felt when I finally discovered that the result was wrong. After more scrutiny of the data, we eventually showed that the cooling was caused by a small warm bias in the old ocean observing system, along with a huge cold bias among a few instruments in the new one.”

“Now that humans have become a major force in the Earth’s climate it is of paramount importance to build and maintain observing systems that can keep track of our ever- increasing impact.”

As I have consistently said on OLO, so called ‘alarmists’ AND ‘deniers’, should pull their collective butts out of their nether-nethers. Including (for your information) the political activist Al Gore, and the frustrated author of this current article.

As for my pseudonym – I am playing by the rules you yourself allow for OLO (without which the vast majority of posters would rather not engage, imho). Notwithstanding, you persistently want to ‘play’ me and go for my jugular – methinks you protest too much, Graham.

cont'd

Cont’d

As for Spencer, we have more in common that you would ever dream.

What we don’t have in common – he pre-publishes on a ‘denialist’ blog site (WUWT) a ‘paper’ that had serious issues (errors) without peer review (unless you can call WUWT posters his peers) . This is not unexpected from the Heartland cabal, of which Bob Carter is also a flag waver.

Btw, Mr DiPuccio did NOT reference the paper that I “turned-up”. He did however reference a paper co-authored by James Hansen, Gavin Schmidt and Josh Willis – fancy that.

Fwiw, I agree with Josh - multiyear periods of little warming (or even cooling) are not unusual.

Barry: Hey, Barry.
Barry: Yes, Barry.
Barry: I dunno, Barry. It’s just, well, these measurements is showing a cooling, Barry.
Barry: Oi, what? That can’t be right.
Barry: ‘Tis, Barry. Look for yourself. Definite cooling.
Barry: Better check the instruments, Barry.
Barry: Ah, I got it, Barry. There must be a “warm bias” in the old data, and a “cool bias” in the new data. Easily sorted.

(tinker, tinker)

Barry: That should do it.
Barry: Nice work, Barry. Don’t ya love science? Not just getting warmer in the future, but colder in the past, ay Barry. ‘Ere, you done them grant applications yet?
Barry: Relax, Barry. All under control. You booked the plane tickets to Copenaygin?
Barry: All sorted, my son. Should be a hoot this year. I hear that Sally bird from Greenpeace is gonna be there. Cwoar! Wouldn’t mind warmin’ her globes, ey Barry. Nudge, nudge.
Barry. Do they make that nice ice cream in Copenaygin, Barry?
Barry: Believe so, Barry, believe so.
Barry: ‘Ere, Barry?
Barry: Yes, Barry.
Barry: Do you ever…
Barry: What, Barry?
Barry: I dunno, Barry, do you ever, you know, fink of goin’ straight?
Barry: What! On this little earner? Never.
Barry: But what if, you know, people start noticing, well, you know, that it’s not atchally gettin’ warmer?
Barry: No one ever got rich overestimating the intelligence of the common man, my son. Besides, if this one falls through, I’ve got another one I’m workin’ on.
Barry: What’s that, Barry?
Barry: How’s this? Clothes gives ya cancer.
Barry: Ay, what?
Barry: Clothes gives ya cancer.
Barry: Gees, Barry. That’d put the textile industry in a right muck.
Barry: Precisely, my son. Precisely. ‘Ere, pass us another beaker of the ethanol, will ya. Mind the lab coat! Mind the lab coat! Only just had it dry-cleaned this morning.
Barry: ‘Ere ya go.
Barry: Cheers, old son!
Barry: Cheers!

(clink, clink)

Senator Fielding is either relying on the advice of three incompetent scientists or is being guided by scientists who are skillfully manipulating the debate. Either way the Senator is being set up to make a fool of himself.
As has already been pointed out these questions may appear simple but they do not admit to a simple answer. With regard to the first question the assumption is that there is a direct correlation between CO2 and rise in temperature and that both can be expressed in terms of straight line graph. As with all complex dynamic systems climate change is not that easily described. What we can point to is that the underlying trend is one of consistently increasing temperatures roughly in line with the increase of CO2 concentrations. The second question is really a set of questions - yes global warming of this magnitude has occurred in the past - once in human history, at a time when the world's population was sufficiently small to enable the mass migration of people to more hospitable climes. The third question can only be regarded as a debating trick. Competent scientists are aware of the limitations of computer models.
Prudent public policy demands that we ask the question "can we really afford to take the risk to assume that AGW is false?" Should we play Russian Roulette with our future?

I have to take BAYGON to task on his post. The questions are questions and the answers have NOT been forthcomming because the evidence shows the opposite of what these AGW drones are claiming whilst they sponge off us.
When was this period of previous global warming you are referring to?
No one has mentioned the Ice Age (Ages) but if you are, that was what spurred mankind from primitive societies into cities and civilization, anathama to the Greens but without it we would not be here.
The AGW drones were claiming a new ice age in the 1970's supported by our taxpayer dollars courtesy of PM Whitlam.
No BAYGON, the questions remain unanswered and Fielding should dig in and tell the Senate (Government) NO!

Q&A, you continue to duck the facts. There has been a decrease in global heat over the last decade or so, and all of what you have cited, and what DiPuccio cites, supports that. All your bluster about DiPuccio not being peer reviewed is just an irrelevant distraction. He doesn't have to be peer reviewed to provide a good explanation. And he provides a good explanation and you haven't produced one fact which contradicts it.

There is no rule on On Line Opinion barring you from using your real name, so why don't you use it? You presume to criticise people like Bob Carter not on the basis of anything he says, but just because of who he is and who he associates with. If you think that is fair, then tell us who you are so we can apply the same standards to you.

The fact that you post anonymously, and the lack of substance in what you post, indicates that your reputation isn't going to support your argument. But surprise us. Maybe you are a professor or respectable research scientist.

So, no one's managed to accurately predict the weather? Gee, imagine that.
What we do know, it that oil supplies are FINITE.
Coal supplies are finite.
Natural gas is finite.
Even uranium is finite.
There is absolutely no sign that the world will ever use less energy than we are using now; in fact the exact opposite.
Credible financial models indicate that virtually all our fossil fuel reserves will be consumed by the end of this century. That's in the life times of my children.
If they are going to be virtually gone in the next 90 years, how expensive are they going to get?
Whether AGW is real or not, doesn't really matter. We need to preserve valuable resources for future generations, simply because it is the right and responsible thing to do.
We can either start making the necessary adjustments now, or wait until it is too late and see the world as we know it, go out not with a whimper, but a whole lot of bangs.
There is no way the vast majority of the Human Race is going to just sit down quietly and DIE, while a tiny minority enjoy the lifestyle of kings and potentates.

af100
That was genuinely funny.

GrahamY
All white noise, as usual.

Australian Long range Weather forecaster Indigo Jones RIP forecast 50 years ago that Australia would experience the longest drought in recorded history starting in 1990!

Yeah, an the climate scientists at the Dept of Meterology can't tell us what the weather will be next week!

The long-range weather forecaster was Inigo (not Indigo) Jones: he was descended from the great English architect of the same name, who died in 1652. The Australian Inigo Jones died in 1954, so all of his forecasts must have been made more than 50 years ago.

I checked out the Inigo Jones forecast and he did say the longest running drought would be until 2008. I have been expecting the deluge that usually follows droughts and we will certainly see how this all pans out in the next few years.
I believe the shrill and hysterical AGW people are terrified that the climate will change before the taxes are effected and they will not be able to claim the credit!
Again and again keep asking what happened to the Y2000 bug hoax and who was held to account? Certainly not the fraudster computer people who probably constructed the IPCC climate modelling or the politicians now trying to steal our money through fraudulent taxation!

>> I believe the shrill and hysterical AGW people are terrified that the climate will change before the taxes are effected and they will not be able to claim the credit! <<

Funny how denialists always try to turn it into a petty argument about money. Do they do it because they think it's a clever bait-and-switch, or because they think money-grubbing is everyone's top priority?

Incidentally, JBowyer, read through your post a few times and ask yourself if you should be accusing others of shrillness.

Sancho, have a look at pages 11 and 12 on this link
http://zerohedge.blogspot.com/2009/06/goldman-sachs-engineering-every-major.html and then descibe the money side of the argument as "petty"

It really is about time someone fixed this server error bug.
Is it a linux or microsoft box ?

J Bower;
The Y2K bug was real enough, it is just that a lot of
programmers did a lot of work checking programs to make sure that there
would be no unexpected crashes, and fixing them if there was a problem.

Green Jobs; We hear a lot of talk about green jobs.
About the only ones I hear about are installing PV cell systems and
adding co2 sequestration systems to power stations.
What are the jobs that take up tens of thousands of workers ?

You know, it all sounds like vapour jobs to me.

IanC, Thank you,I stand corrected with respect to Inigo (not Indigo) Jones! RIP. If only he was still here today to rebuke the current set of global warning climate change charlatans .

Sparkyq, a cap-and-trade system is, in my opinion, the worst possible way of addressing climate change. It's intended to appease industry by maintaining the status quo and ensuring share prices while creating the illusion of action. I don't disagree at all with the argument that greedy institutions, not the environent, will be the beneficiaries of an emissions trading scheme.

What I'm referring to is, firstly, the bizarre claim that the world's scientists are collaborating to fake their results to ensure their continued funding. For one thing, if they were only in it for the cash they could sign up to an industry think tank and make much more for less work by attacking their peers and producing lazy pseudo science. For another, most scientists want to make a lasting contribution to human knowledge. God knows, no-one goes into science for the money, so we're talking about a committed and passionate profession, not one composed of money-grubbing shysters.

Secondly, JBowyer claims that addressing climate change is a cover for increasing the tax grab. That's actually a fair criticism of governments, but he's extending it to include the rest of us, who give a damn about the planet and don't want to see it wrecked for the sake of a few share portfolios. The corollary of that argument is the frankly insane conspiracy theory that says environmentalism is actually communism, with the hidden agenda of destroying the capitalist economy.

That sort of paranoid hysteria would be an entertaining curiosity if the conservative media weren't broadcasting it as a viable claim.