Give me a billion dollars and a couple of years and I guarantee to have a dozen peer-reviewed papers in respectable journals supporting any crackpot theory you care to name. If they are forced to choose between integrity and having a job this time next year, most scientists will make the same decision as the rest of us. The AGW movement is a government power grab inspired by apocalyptic fear: unfortunately for them, fear has a short shelf-life.

'Now Gillard and her henchmen want to inflict a ‘carbon tax’ on us, oblivious it seems to the evidently corrupted processes on which the notion is based.'

Thanks Alex for summarizing it so nicely. Its time for Turnbull to resign and join the Greens/Labour.

Alex - I agree with the article but its always best to adopt neutral language in these things. Greenhousers are the ones who get emotive.

As for the sums cited, one of the more bizarre aspects of this bizarre debate is the way that greenhouse advocates point to $1 million here or $2 million there given by energy companies to convservative organisations, and overlook billions flowing into the greenhouse camp. Apart from the research funds cited, there are any number of well funded NGOs.

This flood of money has (almost)washed away all competing points of view in major institutions, yet activists still somehow manage to so completely ignore this reality that they publish whole books complaining that really the energy companies are driving the debate.

Excellent article, clarifying the damage done world wide by politics, since the fringe lunatics discovered how to be so effective in it, followed by the frauds who see how to profit from it.

There is a new type of fraud, against which there is no legislative protection to make it actionable.

Lies like the assertion that carbon dioxide is pollution do immense damage to the community, and their propogation needs to be punishable by prosecution.

If it is a crime to call a black man a "boong", how much more so is it a crime to call a beneficial gas like carbon dioxide a pollutant, with a reflection not just on one person, but on the many who produce this benefit to life, in their daily activities, by branding us all polluters.

Any one who joins in this AGW fraud is damaging their community. Juliar Dillard and Malcolm Turncoat are in the vanguard.

How could a government, any government, let go of such a precious resource, such a treasure as far as they are concerned: THE FEAR OF NATURE.

Governments' existence and their ongoing power to control and exploit depends on their ability to scare people into believing that the danger is somewhere "outside", that not only they are not the problem, but even that they are the solution, our "saviours" so to speak (which we supposedly ourselves "elected", to add insult to injury).

Alex, thanks for a small glimmer of sanity in the midst of this march of folly.

Unfortunately I feel you offer far too little and far too late. Skeptical science has been asleep at the wheel, a case of too many rational skeptics doing nothing.

Not only has skeptical science failed to reject the single orthodoxy in any meaningful way, it has lost its voice in the wider community. It can no longer get a hearing in the MSM or with our public broadcasters.

There certainly exists an astonishing volume of contrary science however; the “advocacy block” will go nowhere near any of it. In fact the advocacy block has recently ramped up the rhetoric to astonishing levels.

In the last few weeks we have had Garnaut, Karoly, Flim Flamery, Gillard and Combet, make public statements that are vigorously challenged as everything from “falsities” to outright “lies”. Everything these eminent people have made public is not only contestable, but they refuse to even respond to being challenged.

Meanwhile, the Australian public is about to be fined heavily for the crime of pollution.

You need to stop writing about it, get together and get public exposure against the travesty about to befall all of us. Do something.

So what's the point about research funding?
That university researchers shouldn't study anything important enough to attract external funding?

If "true believer" means a person who believes the experts until given a reason to suspect otherwise - the count me as one. And then, aren't the "true deniers" also mostly people with very limited knowledge of the science? (ie like 99% of the population).

Finally, a challenge to the author, or any true denier, or anyone else who is interested: just give me one scientific paper, which is either published in a reputable journal, or, if not, is
(1) written by someone who knows how to write a _scientific_ paper,
(2) written by someone who knows the basic science involved,
which supports the views of the "true deniers"

I say this not because I'm confident there are none (I don't know enough about the field) but because the ones I have seen (the ones various "true deniers" have sent me on occasion) manifestly fail one or both of the above requirements.

Jeremy - for heaven sake, there is plenty of material to show that the earth's climate varies naturally with solar and oceanic cycles.. see the paper

Persistent Solar Influence on North Atlantic Climate During the Holocene, Science, December 7, 2001. Bond et al

The paper has not been challenged by global warmers. What they do say is that the link has broken down in recent years. There is also plenty of evidence that climate is subject to major oceanic cycles - see the paper 'Advancing decadal-scale climate prediction in the North Atlantic sector, Nature letters, May 1, 2008' Keenlyside and others.

Also see material linking Australian rainfall patterns to changes in the Pacific Decadal Oscillation in the journal Geophysical Research Letters. There is a lot more of that. As you can see this business about CO2 driving climate has been seriously weakened of late, certainly for short term forecasts.

You will see various papers linking the output of numerical models to changes in temperatures, where those models include CO2 (plus changes in water vapour) as a factor. This is the "irrefutable evidence" you are talking about. I'm not aware of any other evidence, just efforts to exclude other factors.

So should we take these papers seriously. No. The only way to test numerical models is to see if they give a useful result (not judgement on past factors). Do the opinion of experts matter? No. In fact there is vast evidence to say that where the experts do not have a properly tested forecasting model on which to base judgements then their opinions are mostly valueless, even in their own field of expertise.

See the book Future Babble by Dan Gardner on sale now. Most entertaining.

Hope that helps.

Alex, Always good to see you published. And there are tenured physicists who say the climate scientists and meteorologist have got the basic physics relating to the thermodynamics of back radiation wrong and this is central to the climate models. Have you read 'Slaying the sky dragon: Death of the global warming theory'?

What should we think of an emotive article from a sceptic criticising unqualified people writing about the science of climate by one not prepared to list their own qualifications?

While not a scientist, my research indicates that the scientifically unqualified make up the bulk of the sceptics. It also indicates that the measured climate trend is more severe than the worst case scenario agreed by panels of scientists trying to get to the bottom of the science.

Burra NSW

Interesting choice of words in the title - "corrupted by public money".

The OZ "Environment" Foundation, Quadrant, Rupert's WSJ and Walter Russell Mead are of course all fellow ideological travelers of the multitude of right-wing think tanks financed and sponsored by the Bradley Foundation.

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/lynde-and-harry-bradley-foundation

All of which deliberately specialize in deliberately corrupting the space and scope of public ideas, especially in the USA.

Although they oft-times complain about the misuse of public monies they seldom, if ever complain about the public monies spent in the projects described at this site. Indeed they more or less enthusiastically champion such "necessary" research.

http://demilitarize.org/fact-sheets/enfact-sheet-pentagon-universities

Jennifer, always good to see your comments. There are many more tenured physicists who say climate scientists and meteorologists have got the physics right (they still debate nuances, btw).

Have you read 'Principles of Planetary Climate' - Cambridge University Press?

Curmudgeon (Mark Lawson): of course there is natural variability, always was and always will. What most 'sceptics' don't seem to understand is that natural variability is now masked by an anthropogenic component.

See the book referred to Jennifer, also on sale now. Most informative.

Jeremy -- here are 850. Take your pick.

http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html

The world has got to get of oil. Polluters will pay. If you are a polluter you will pay tax. Not everyone is a polluter. The lifestyle junkies can be polluters.
I don,t know where you get your theories from. It will be months before the final model is worked out.

Interesting Jon J. So is this:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=571&p=12

especially the update (Feb 18) at the bottom.

it is sad how many have drunk the coolaid
its as if the forget the 'hole in the ozone-layer' scam
that was run on us all in the early 90's?...

recall the adverts ..of parched deserts
etc and all we needed to do was stop using hydrocarbons
[or cfc's]..or whatever

the thing is they really want a new tax
not on hydrocarbons or cfc's or methane
or any of the OTHER 'greenhouse gasses'
just a tax on carbon

just a tax for a few years
to set a base price..
then gift the carbon traders with their latest commodity
[iits perfect..a cap that reduces annually..[limiting supply]
and guess who corners the carbon market

how much we will pay
will be in the hands of the same people
who speculate on food and oil futures..[little wonder there are so many accountants in on this scam]...doing it today will be cheaper...lol

carbon price dont fix any problem
if there really is a problem

but we ben here before
notice italy[broke]..is ending subsidy on solar Sells
its failed every where its been tried...[spain is bust ..england who went big on wind..found it had to buy elect from france..this last COLD winter..cause wind hates cold weather..lol

anyhow its a scam
run by a lobby that has plenty of cash
and wants to make bucket loads more ...by trading carbon

If you consider that CO2, which animals breathe out and plants use to form their structure, is pollution then the 'big polluters' as Bob Brown puts it are actually animal and plant kingdom.

Putting that aside, how can you have a tax which rebates everyone?- its just a ludicrous lie from Labor. If people get 'rebated' then they will have no incentive to save energy!

Now hear this - the average Joe will pay through the nose and most of the population will not receive any reasonable rebate. Industry will not suffer because the job losses so incurred would be untenable for the Labor Party and the Unions, unless they are completely insane. The 'big polluters' will pay little.

All in all it will not change the temperature of the earth one millionth of a degree - though climate science may be again tempted to manipulate its figures to 'prove' how effective the tax is and keep the money rolling in.

Rebating everyone, i do not think so.
Those that use excessive power, those that over indulge in life style products, Fuel hungry cars, They are polluters. You always see the extreme side of things with out any model to comment on.

Jeremy, it is hard to believe you are serious, but here is a site with 850 peer reviewed papers :

http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html

It is not a matter of the Realists proving anything. The assertions are being made by the AGW backers without any science to back them. The IPCC, shown to be less than truthful, as well as lacking any scientific integrity, makes a claim that it is “very likely”, a most unscientific term.

This may explain why 31,000 scientists have petitioned the US Senate to take no action on AGW until some scientific basis is established.

http://www.oism.org/pproject/

You should understand that your approach makes you quite suspect. Why are you not enquiring the basis of the assertion of AGW? You would soon find that there is none. I have requested it many times on On Line Opinion,from AGW supporters. They never answer, because there is no answer. They just go away, and post on some site like Delta where there nonsense is unchallenged.

The alleged ill effects of global warming are non existent. There has been no warming of the globe since 1998, despite the increase in the beneficial gas carbon dioxide during that time. This puts the greenhouse gas assertions in substantial doubt.

Still flogging the spurious Skeptical Science site, bonmot?

Can you not find a fresh AGW fraud backing site. You still have provided no science to back the assertion of AGW. If there was any such science, the mendacious IPCC would tell us all about it, instead of pushing their spurious "very likely".

They promised discovery of a "hot spot" in the troposphere, to back their claim when they made it, years ago. The discovery made is that the "hot spot" does not exist. Their estimates on which they posited the hot spot, were greatly exaggerated (or lies).

Thank you Curmudgeon, but what I meant was an article supporting denial that CO2 causes (has caused, will cause) global warming.

The article you cite seems merely to show that there are other factors causing climate variability.

Thank you also for a link to 850 papers, but for me to go through a list, compiled by a person who thinks that more snow is inconsistent with global warming, is something I don't have time for. I'm still interested to be pointed to one of those papers which does support denial of the theory that CO2 causes global warming.

Leo, you may not wish to read this

http://www.garnautreview.org.au/update-2011/update-papers/up5-the-science-of-climate-change.pdf

but others may.

Btw, the troposphere is warming while the stratosphere is cooling - it seems you have been shown this a number of times.

bonmot - good to see that you understand there is natural variability. We're getting somewhere. Now you can grapple with the concept of trying to tell the difference between natural and forced variability. The only method of proof is through computer models which depend on assumptions, hence all the scepticism. Will read the book, however.

Jeremy - I didn't undestand your comment about snow. Am I suppose to have made a comment about snow? Those papers, which you asked for but don't want to read, add up to a contradiction of global warming theory.

A point I forgot in my earlier post, however, is that the amount of warming directly caused by CO2 is well known and beyond dispute. but its only about one degree for a doubling of CO2 (long story). The real question is over how much indirect warming it causes through change in the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere. That's an assumption. There's no direct proof of this, of which I'm aware, and hence no contradiction.

What you may be thinking of is that every now and then someone produces a paper pointing out that if they feed CO2 increases into computer models of historical temperature records or rainfall of certain regions, they can make the models give a result somewhere near the historic record. I'm not aware of anyone trying to contradict those papers, and I'm not sure why anyone would bother. But if you want to take comfort from that "proving" CO2 influences climate go ahead.

There have also been arguments over related issues such as whether CO2 cause historic shifts in temperatures such as the end of ice age. There the answer is an unequivocal no. I can cite papers on that too, if you want.

However, the real problem has been the lack of actual results with temperatures on a plateau for whatever reason for a decade and more.

Dear jeremy, thanks for your challenge. I’ll take it up as “a true denier” please, not that I know what one of those is, but more on that later.

What you requested was “just give me one scientific paper, which is either published in a reputable journal,” Then you say “aren't the "true deniers" also mostly people with very limited knowledge of the science? (ie like 99% of the population).”

Since I have, as you rightly say, “limited knowledge of the science”, how might I ask, am I supposed to provide you with what you ask if I don’t understand it? After all, I only have “questions”.

It would be much better to ask someone who really understands it, like Garnaut, Flannery, Karoly, Gillard and Combet. However, since I don’t understand the science I need to get someone who does understand to ask the questions for me. I nominate Professor Bob Carter who has recently written to Professor David Karoly Copied to:

University of Melbourne Chancellor and Vice-Chancellor.
Professor Andy Pitman, computer modeller and UN IPCC Lead Author
Professors Ove Hoegh-Guldberg and Tim Flannery
Dr Megan Clark, CSIRO Chief Executive
Dr Andrew Johnson, CSIRO Group Executive—Environment
All members of federal parliament
Various scientists
Chairman of the ABC Board
ABC's Managing Director
ABC's Chris Uhlmann.

Since Bob Carter has asked all the questions I would like answered, I am very much looking forward to answers. If on the other hand, you understand the science, perhaps you could answer these questions for OLO’ers, and then we don’t have to wait for Professor Karoly to provide them?

A denier is someone who refuses to accept an “empirical truth” and instead adopts an “irrational ideology”. When you can answer the questions about what “empirical truth” we are denying (as per Bob Carters Questions) and also explain what the irrational ideology being adopted is by asking such questions, then I would accept the “tag” of denier. Not sure what a “true denier” is though?

The empirical truth please? Answers to Bob Carters questions of David Karoly will do fine, thank you.

Curmudgeon,

You said:
Jeremy - I didn't undestand your comment about snow. Am I suppose to have made a comment about snow?

No, this was a response to someone else - it seems the list of 850 papers was compiled by someone who thinks that more snow is inconsistent with global warming.

You said:
Those papers, which you asked for but don't want to read, add up to a contradiction of global warming theory.

Which exactly? The first (from my reading its summary - the whole thing seems to be not available), and the rest (I gather from your own post) show other factors influencing climate. I don't think anyone denies this.

If you are prepared to identify _one_ which supports the denial of the role of CO2, which is available on the internet, I will definitely read it.

For the poster who referred to the petition project, look at what oism in the web address stands for. Then ask yourself: can you find scientific support for the denialist view in any less "odd-ball" institution than OISM?

Jeremy, you are probably just an AGW troll and nowhere near as ignorant as you pretend, but I will go along with it, this far.

There is a scientist named David Evans who was employed in the AGW scam until he realised the situation, and he is now happy to explain why AGW is a fraud. He learnt it from the inside of the AGW industry. He says:

“There is no hotspot in the tropics at 10 km up, so now we know that greenhouse warming is not the (main) cause of global warming — so we know that carbon emissions are not the (main) cause of global warming.”

http://mises.org/daily/2795

There are endless instances of dishonesty of the IPCC being shown up, and highlighted by emails of the scientists collaborating with the IPCC to hoodwink the public.

You can read them yourself on the internet, how they wished to “hide the decline” in temperature, how they unethically exercised control over previously respected scientific journals, and how they falsely presented “scientific data”.

All the public see are the headlines that the miscreants have been “cleared” by three different “enquiries”. This is the extent of the blatant corruption of the AGW pushers.

Just this dishonesty would convince me that AGW was wrong. Otherwise why could they not just tell the truth, if they had science to back their assertion, which they do not.

Get it clear, Jeremy, the onus is on the people asserting AGW to back it with science, which they are unable to do. There is no onus on the Realists, who you have the ill grace to call "deniers". Deniers are people who deny that AGW is unscientific, politically argued fraud.

Notice how bonmot evades the issue of his failure to produce science to back the AGW assertion. He refers us to the pompous clown Ross Garnaut, who covers his backside in relation to the AGW fraud that he is pushing, by saying that science is not his field.

bonmot's post is a prime example of evasion, by use of weasel words. He is an expert at it.

jeremy, <<aren't the "true deniers" also mostly people with very limited knowledge of the science? (ie like 99% of the population).

Burra NSW << While not a scientist, my research indicates that the scientifically unqualified make up the bulk of the sceptics>>

bonmot, << What most 'sceptics' don't seem to understand is that natural variability is now masked by an anthropogenic component. >>

I think we get the message. We skeptics are all scientifically illiterate, so why do you keep flogging us to death with your science? What is it about your own contradictions you don’t understand?

If you are so smart, why don’t you take the “one scientific paper,” “written by someone who knows how to write a _scientific_ paper,” which you requested, and answer the scientific questions raised by Professor Bob Carter?

This “single scientific paper” you requested has already been sent to the entire, official, Australian “warmertariat”. See << Posted by spindoc, Friday, 11 March 2011 6:50:51 PM >>.

You offered the challenge and it has been accepted. Please meet your obligations under that challenge and respond.

If a “no scientific response” is the best the “warmertariat” has to offer, the judgment call has to be to “let them be”. There is nothing, it would seem, that skepticism can offer that will be of any value. They are a lost cause and do not wish to be found

jeremy - thank you for your explanation about snow. But I regret I must join the doubters. If you will recall in recent years global warmers have been warning repeatedly that snow would soon be a distant memory, only to be completely contradicted by events. Its one of those many situations where it is best to give a little (snow-covered) ground, rather than try to insist all along the global warming was really all about more snow.

As for the CO2, the actual reference is the classic paper The ice-core record: climate sensitivity and future greenhouse warming by a group of French scientists led by C. Lorius (Nature, September 13, 1990 – it’s available online). This says that doubling CO2 in the atmosphere will increase temperatures by 1.1 degrees – that is the effect, without feedbacks, will be 1.1 degrees.

Another paper, Recently opposite directed trends in climate forcings and the global mean surface temperature (Proceedings of the Royal Society A, July 13, 2007), "defends" global warming against attacks by the solar magnetism crowd. Unfortunately it conceeds that the link existed up to at least the mid-70s, and that destroys previous proofs using computer models. These models were set up to mimic the historical temperature record as definite "proof" of global warming but were shown, by the paper, to not incude a vital factor.

All this and the other papers I have cited do not destroy global warming as a theory, I admit - so its not directly contradicted, yet -but does gravely weaken it as a theory. It does destroy it as a forecasting system, however.

Enjoyed these exchanges. They've helped clarify my own thoughts on the issue.

I had heard of this new alarmist tactic demanding skeptics now prove CO2 is not causing dangerous climate disruption (did I get that right?) and this the first time I've seen it here on OLO ..

This was Trenbath's ploy recently to wordsmith carefully so that the weight of proof is removed from alarmists, who cannot produce the proof, rely on authority and weight of words .. but no proof of course.

Then we get the alarmists who say, but science isn't about truth .. or proof, it's about weight of evidence (or weight of printed paper .. one or the other), right up till they fell on Trenbath's ploy of demanding proof from skeptics

Ah, makes me happy to see such trickery and slippery scientists and alarmists at work .. now of course PROOF is the new demand of skeptics ..

Do you understand skepticism, it is questioning something that doesn't see quite right, that can't be proved .. but the alarmist response is bullying and derogatory insults .. yep, that's the new science.

Elephants will fall from the air say the scientists, well of course there won't say the sceptics, what an absurd thing to say .. there's no science to support such a thing .. PROVE IT, shout the alarmists!

The world is going to end say the alarmists, no it's not say the skeptics .. PROVE IT, shout the alarmists.

haha .. makes my day, to see alarmists grasping at such tactics, ah come on guys, seriously, how much will the temperature drop if we tax CO2 production? Don't tell me about other forms of pollution or AGW, it's about CO2 .. as our government.

Curmudgeon, we do not have to destroy anthropogenic global warming.

It only exists as a theory which becomes more threadbare every year.
AGW is struggling to be established. No science is “settled” about it. There is no consensus about it, other than in the lies of the fraud pushers, like Naomi Oreskes.

It is sad that there are so many scientists prepared to refrain from criticism of the myth, but there are far more than the 31,000 scientist who signed the petition to Congress, that say that there is no scientific base for AGW.

An estimated $90 bn has been spent in the frantic attempt to find some science which gives the AGW myth some reality. There is no such science.

Curmudgeon, it is up to the fraud pushers to establish a basis for AGW, not up to the Realists to disprove something that has no scientific basis for its existence.

As an honest scientist said recently:

“The truly objective scientist should be asking whether MORE, not less, atmospheric carbon dioxide is what we should be trying to achieve. There is more published real-world evidence for the benefits of more carbon dioxide, than for any damage caused by it. The benefits have been measured, and are real-world. The risks still remain theoretical.”

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/02/on-the-house-vote-to-defund-the-ipcc/

The Realists do not need to demolish something that has not been established. It is up to the Deniers. They deny that climate is governed by natural cycles. They have tried to prove otherwise, and have failed.

The Deniers of Nature are reduced to evasive nonsense posts like bonmot’s.

Carbon is Life. CO2 is a beneficial gas. AGW pushers, the Deniers, are anti life.

Leo Lane says:

Jeremy, you are probably just an AGW troll and nowhere near as ignorant as you
pretend

I haven't intended to pretend but I'll tell you anyway: I know a very great
deal more relevant science than most people and a very great deal less than
scientists who work in the area.

I didn't mean to insult anyone by calling them "deniers" - the phrase "true
believers" in the original article
(and I indicated I'm not exactly sure what that means) seemed to be
well matched by the phrase "true deniers".

spindoc

You say:
This “single scientific paper” you requested has already been sent to the
entire, official, Australian “warmertariat”. See << Posted by spindoc, Friday,
11 March 2011 6:50:51 PM >>.

I do not understand how this post directs me to a paper for me to read.
The next poster (curmudgeon) shows how to reference a paper.

You say:
You offered the challenge and it has been accepted. Please meet your
obligations under that challenge and respond.

The only obligation I undertook was to read such a paper. I will read the one
that the next poster (curmudgeon) has indicated, assuming I can find it online.

curmudgeon:
Thanks for the references - actually I'll read the second one.

About the first - according to your description it confirms that the "elephant
in the room", so to speak, is feedbacks rather than pure CO2 forcing. True.
(which is why there is so much uncertainty. But to use the terminology of
stock market commentators - the risks (chance of surprises) are clearly more on
the "upside" than on the "downside").

This is one of several things that I see the doubters excitedly "discover",
which the scientists (including, here, people like me), knew or expected
all along. My reaction is "So ??"

The list of such things includes:
It's getting wetter, not drier, in some places
It's getting drier, not wetter, in some places
It's getting snowier, in some places
It's getting colder, in some places, in some seasons
Water vapour is the biggest greenhouse gas

A diesel truck blowing black smoke is carbon.
Water vapour is white.
Co2 is colourless odourless
Isn,t it a carbon tax,

curmudgeon,

Thanks for the references - good examples of papers which look like
what I call a "serious scientific paper".

The thing is, though, the Lockwood and Fröhlich 2007 paper says there "is
considerable evidence for solar influence on the Earth’s pre-industrial climate
and the Sun may well have been a factor in post-industrial climate change in
the first half of the last century," but they also say
"over the past 20 years, all the trends in the Sun
that could have had an influence on the Earth’s climate have
been in the opposite direction to that required to explain the observed rise in
global mean temperatures."

That is, the story one hears sometimes, that the warming trend is due to
changed solar activity, doesn't fit the facts.

If I understand your point about computer models, it means that computer models
which don't take solar activity into account would be wrong. (Agreed!)
Are you suggesting that computer models didn't take solar activity
into account? The paper makes no such suggestion.
It also makes it clear that the relevance of solar
variation to climate variation was known and studied at least since 1990,
so it seems unlikely that computer models would have ignored this factor.
But if you know that they did ignore solar variation please advise.

As for the Lorius paper, what you say about it is exactly right - it also goes
on to give (with more uncertainty) a feedback factor of 3. That is, if CO2
increase directly gives a temperature increase of 1.2 degrees, then when you
include the indirect effects (more water vapour, less reflective sea ice, etc)
you get an increase of 3.6 degrees.

As explained at
http://www.skepticalscience.com/water-vapor-greenhouse-gas-intermediate.htm
which gives figures of 1 degree and 3 degrees respectively.

So they're good papers (so far as I can tell), which don't support the
doubters/deniers (or whatever I should call them) at all

That’s OK jeremy, you just keep on playing “scientific information” with you chemistry set. My grandkids have an old cash register in the attic, you can play “shops’ next.

I don’t think anyone expected you to answer any questions you never do, just more scientific mumbo jumbo. I do understand why you should volunteer to interact with only the 1% of the population that do understand the science, that way you never will have to provide any answers.

spin doc - have you (or anyone) asked me any questions? - I haven't noticed. Not that you have any reason to expect that I should be able to answer them

You can't make a case for increased immigration or ANY immigration (more PEOPLE folks) at all in a country that is so afraid of AGW (that's PEOPLE caused warming folks) that it must introduce new hefty quality-of-life-reducing taxes.

It's either insanity or the EVILEST 'Con' since Hitler promised Germany the World in 1938.

I mean its like the captain of sinking ship taking on Gold bullion from rescue boats, (saying it will prevent sinking because it can pay for repairs) and then sending rescuers away because She believes when She gets to Port She will be the Richest most influential person on the Planet. All the passengers are so afraid they ACTUALLY believe this INSANITY rather than THINK for themselves & shoot through with the next rescue boat.

Julia Rudd and Tony Hockey ultimately will go down in history as the biggest proponents of self-serving BS PROPAGANDA since the Red suited pointy tailed Adolf Hitler.

And can you believe that the Australian people allow this insanity ?Currently nearly 1/2 of Australians were born overseas and couldn't care less if Australia turns into a bankrupt desert. All foreign interests infecting this nation care about is keeping Australia's bounteous wealth being sucked out by losers and sent to foreign shores. Of course our politicians are getting trinkets, GST and obsequious bitch slapping Parliament House POWER & will be looking the wrong way when the the Shi Tzu multicultyral axe falls.

No wonder the Yanks love Julia. Through the tears in Congress you can almost hear "There's one born Every minute!"

AGW? Forget it. Civil war is a far more certain fear for those with an ear to the ground.

lets hear..todays weather forcast
[quote jerry my numbers]

""The list of such things includes:
It's getting wetter,
It's getting drier,
It's getting snowier,
It's getting colder,""

[this wether forcast is brought to you thanks to manipluation that seeks to cover all bases
its cooling
its warming
its changing
so lets tax it

""Water vapour is the biggest greenhouse gas""

too right
LETS TAX IT
maybe we can use less
make it rain less
or make it rain more
maybe we can pay people to pump it underground

or subsidise those who get it
and tax those who dont

ps carbon dioxide is the biggest by quantity
not by affect

one methane is hundred times worse..than one carben do-oxide
one nitrous oxide is hundred times worse..than one carbon dioxide

WHY DONY WE TAX THEM?

cause the beloved farmers
and beloved miners produce most of that
and no govt ..would be allowed to tax those
[they have advertising dollar ability and a lobby that dont quit]

jeremy, our government and it advisors have made public statements as the basis for imposing a CO2 Tax.

These statements have been scientifically challenged, not that anyone would know much of this from our media however, the many questions that have been raised are of serious concern and material to informed public debate and decision making.

I’ve included the article by Bob Carter published recently in Quadrant, this is particularly relevant as he stresses the need for the “empirical science” which he claims is missing from the political statements.

If, as you said, you “know a very great deal more relevant science than most people” Perhaps you could point us to the empirical science that answers the questions raised by the public statements made by Gillard, Combet, Karoly, Flannery and Garnaut?

Thanking you in anticipation.

Article by Greg Combet, Minister for Climate Change – Questions arising.

http://www.conscious.com.au/__documents/Combet2011March03.pdf

Letter from Malcolm Roberts to Professor Karoly. Questions arising.

http://www.conscious.com.au/__documents/academic%20experts/Karoly%20E-mail%20January,%202011.pdf

Article in Quadrant by Bob Carter- Questions Arising.

http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2011/02/gillard-ignores-the-science

FOR CARBON TAX PROTESTS ALL AROUND THE COUNTRY SEE;
http://www.nocarbontax.com.au/?p=602

STOP THE NONSENSE BEFORE WE ALL ENTER TOTAL SERFDOM STATUS.

spindoc,

I also said that I know a very great deal less of the relevant science than the experts.

Regarding Combet's article, neither the article or the responses go into the scientific detail. The responses (as far as I read it) seem to be focussed on the meaning of the word "pollution". The fact that CO2 is necessary to life on earth is one of those things which all the scientists know - so what? I didn't see any dispute in the rest of it on any _scientific_ point.

The second reference was questions to Karoly - some questions specifically about something (not quoted) which Karoly is alleged to have said - I can't answer for him. Others are about the IPCC - not about science. For Q4 - the answer is to look at relevant scientific papers, eg the 1990 paper by Lorius et al, (detail in curmudgeon's post). Though I don't know what you want - your previous post seemed to indicate you don't like reading scientific statements.

The Quadrant article: goes off on the meaning of the word "pollution", tells us what every scientist knows about photosynthesis (which every scientist knows is completely and totally irrelevant to whether CO2 has a role as a greenhouse gas in climate change), but also has this fixation on 1998. (You may have heard that 1998 was considerably warmer than the years immediately before or after: an example of temperature variation for reasons other than CO2 - which increases steadily from year to year). Long term trends are something else (think of graphs of share prices!).

Anyhow he's mostly being political - he doesn't raise any scientific questions that can be answered by anything more specific than just "read the literature".

Can I suggest you read the scientific papers that curmudgeon cited, and compare them with the articles you've cited? What's in those papers represents how scientific research is done. To show that someone else's science is wrong requires the same sort of work, written up the same way - unfortunately it's equally difficult to understand without the necessary background knowledge.

Do we need science to impose a tax on pollution, Why incite co2 carbon is the tax. They are seperable ingredients.
Until a model is developed you are jumping at shadows. Iwould rather have Julia,s idea rather than Toni,s idea. of a tax.
Oil is the big killer, followed by coal. They must be bought under control.

Jeremy
just a simple question, is your last name "Sear" by any chance?

jeremy, I don’t think you are taking this very seriously.

We have a government that is about to impose a tax on every Australian, which is based upon the assertions made by ministers and their advisors. Now the whole basis has been seriously questioned by scientists.

When you refer to Combets’ statement, you say it does not go into scientific detail, you mean it is unsubstantiated? Correct? That is why the questions have been asked in the first place isn’t it?

We have government ministers and their advisors telling the public that we must be taxed and the reason is what? These were the questions you were asked to answer.

It is unreasonable of you to assert that I am one of the 99% that does not understand the science and then challenge me to understand the science by “reading up” on it. What is it with you?

You do understand the science so if you have the answers please provide them. If you cannot justify or validate the statements made to the Australian public, that’s OK, just admit it. Nothing wrong with that, it seems the government can’t either.

The Australian electorate is being asked to understand that the government, its advisors and well read people like you have the answers. The problem seems to be that no matter who we ask, the answer is always the same, “Oh well, you don’t understand”. A blinding glimpse of the obvious really. That’s why we keep asking the questions, Doh!

I calculated that your response to my request has a “fog index” of 35.4. Three times the norm. That tells me that you don’t have the “foggiest”, not a clue; you are just full of it.

When are we dummies going to get some answers?

I'm guessing when you're prepared to actually listen to them.

Leo Lane - fully agree..

Jeremy - good stuff! I quoted the CO2 temperatures effect in the Lorius paper as as that's not controversial at all. The addition to the debate over climate sensitivity to CO2 is controversial. The sensitivity factor has been kicked around quite a bit. Scientists are now making systematic efforts to track water vapour concentrations in the upper atmosphere, which they should have done right from the start.

Solar - you are confusing two types of solar. Everybody else does this, even senior scientists, so not its not surprising. There is direct effect - the sun's output varies slightly, and that's the effect that has long been tracked and is well known - then there is solar magnetic, the outward manifestation of which is sunspots.

The Lockwood-Frolich,paper I quoted was, in effect, denying the solar magnetic link for recent years. Now they were quite right, apparently, to say that the link seems to have broken down. But the sun has been behaving so oddly of late that the apparent breakdown is no real proof - something's going on but what?

However, the admission that the sun has been driving climate up until at least the 1980s or so chopped at the heart of the proof climate scientists have been using. They set up the models with and without carbon in the atmos over a few decades, and lo the one with the carbon forcing is a better fit - ergo carbon forcing must be a factor. This is (almost) the only way to tell the difference between artificial and natural warming. (Actually there are others, but global warmers don't like they because the verdict is mostly natural.)

Unfortunately, a major driver of climate, the solar magnetic effect wasn't in those models (solar forcing was, not solar magnetic). So at the least it all has to be redone. Certainly any projections made using these models have to be junked, as have all the calculations on sensitivity.

Forecasting of any kind is hard to get right, and very easy to get wrong.

Which apparently makes it dead easy to write books that critical of forecasting.

Although they're not exactly up there with Clive Cussler.

spindoc,

I'm not sure why I should be obliged to find an answer for every question you
ask. It's reasonable to expect me to answer questions about assertions I've
made - that's all.

you say:
When you refer to Combets’ statement, you say it does not go into scientific
detail, you mean it is unsubstantiated?

Well, he doesn't give detail about the scientific research - that doesn't mean
it doesn't exist.

You say:
We have government ministers and their advisors telling the public that we must
be taxed and the reason is what? These were the questions you were asked to
answer.

And I decline to do so. See above.

you say:
It is unreasonable of you to assert that I am one of the 99% that does not
understand the science and then challenge me to understand the science by
“reading up” on it. What is it with you?

Did I say that about you? But if it's so then I see the problem,
but there's no way of answering questions about the science without mentioning
the science.

(you say)
You do understand the science so if you have the answers please provide them.

Well the scientific background, which motivates government policy, is there,
even if you don't read it.
Anyway, what questions, exactly, do you want answers to?
If you want everything I know about climate change - I won't, it's a time issue.
If you want everything known about it - I can't.
But you might try http://www.skepticalscience.com/ - it has information in
varying levels of scientific detail.

(you say)
I calculated that your response to my request has a “fog index” of 35.4. Three
times the norm. That tells me that you don’t have the “foggiest”, not a clue;
you are just full of it.
When are we dummies going to get some answers?

The answers are definitely there.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/ may be good for you to get
the level of scientific detail you want,
you can select to get information at levels you select:
Basic, Intermediate, Advanced.

Jeremy, you said << I'm not sure why I should be obliged to find an answer for every question you ask. It's reasonable to expect me to answer questions about assertions I've
made - that's all. >>

And you also said, << If "true believer" means a person who believes the experts until given a reason to suspect otherwise - then count me as one. >>

Good, so now we that you do indeed assert that AGW is true.

So let’s keep this really simple. Below is just one statement made by Greg Combet and just one question from Malcolm Roberts. All you have to do is answer one simple question which will then support your assertion.

Statement: “The scientific evidence is clear that carbon pollution is contributing to climate change.”

(Greg Combet, Minister for Climate Change in The Australian.)

www.theaustralian.com.au/.../carbon-price-is-the-best-way-forward/story-fn5oad9h-
1226012246858

Question: “Please provide one specific piece of scientifically measured real-­world evidence that human production of carbon dioxide caused global warming or in any way affected global climate?”

(Malcolm Roberts BE (Hons), MBA (Chicago) Fellow AICD, MAIM, MAusIMM, MAME (USA), MIMM (UK), Fellow ASQ (USA, Aust), March 3rd, 2011

At the risk of repeating myself, you are all arguing about what may
well turn out to be a non event.
The Uppsala Universities Global Energy Systems Group has made a study
of all oil fields, coal fields and natural gas fields and published
the paper in a resources journal.

The upshot is that there is significantly less fossil fuels to be burnt
than previously believed.

The IPCC has yet to rerun its computer models against the March 2010
more realistic data for fossil fuel availability.

So why are you still discussing it ?

The argument is redundant until such times as they rerun the program.
I hope the IPCC is not trying to ignore the new data.
They wouldn't would they ?

http://aleklett.wordpress.com/2010/03/01/validity-of-the-fossil-fuel-production-outlooks-in-the-ipcc-emission-scenarios/

or

http://tinyurl.com/yhqn2pv

Bazz, would you buy a car from the IPCC?. Their funding was pulled by the US on Jan. 19th, 2011. They have been soundly trashed by one of their own authors and many others. They are done like a dogs' dinner, finnished, caput, a dead parrot. Forget them, everyone else has.

the landline program, reported on the greenhouse polutant nitrous oxide[300 times worse than co2]

it might be on this link
http://www.abc.net.au/landline/content/2010/s3162720.htm

if not it will be on this one
http://www.abc.net.au/landline/content/2010/s3162717.htm

anyhow about one third
of all nitrogen applied to farms gets turned into nitrous oxide..
[300 times worse per part than one part of co2]

there followed this report
with a guy who talked sense re carbon tax etc

he revealed some scary info..scary as in
it costs 20 trillion to remove .0001 percent of co2

so clearly taxing it
..is of no use whatsoever

thus the tax is a fraud*
..a clear scam

he said ..we would be bettter off
putting our money into research..
to find alternatives..

this would require less than we are wasting[on solar/wind scams
and the solar hotwater subsidies]..that do little or nothing

AND only needing of arround a billion per year
not the 35 to 46 billion the NEW BIG TAX WILL RAKE IN
*[each year]

this link links to part one
also interesting
http://www.abc.net.au/landline/content/2010/s3156370.htm

these links deserve their own topic
but mostly they deserve reply from the think to know it alls
blogging for the new tax...

[who arn't raking it in
off the green subsidies...lol]
either selling
or putting the govt gifts ..on their roofs

or getting a feedin tarrif..[up to 3 times the normal rate]
and free nightime power..talk about bludgers..oppertuinists

greenies bah
they love selling lies to induce fears
to make others feel guilty..and for them to feel good

@bonmot, Friday, 11 March 2011 3:34:17 PM

Regarding the discredited Skeptical Science article you linked, I suggest you read the Rebuttal which also discredits the "Update",

Google Scholar Illiteracy at Skeptical Science

http://www.populartechnology.net/2011/02/google-scholar-illiteracy-at-skeptical.html

@Posted by jeremy, Friday, 11 March 2011 4:01:06 PM

You have been presented with irrefutable evidence to what you demanded. The list includes papers that not only support skepticism of AGW but also the negative environmental or socio-economic effects of AGW. It is all in there,

850 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of "Man-Made" Global Warming (AGW) Alarm

http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html

Just so you understand the common skeptic argument is not that it is impossible for man-made activities to cause "any" warming (no matter how small that may be) but that it is no cause for alarm and the warming will be largely beneficial.

@jeremy, Friday, 11 March 2011 7:14:26 PM

That is correct I believe increases in cold weather and snowfall, record cold temperatures and record snowfalls to be inconsistent with the theory of "global warming". However, I do believe them to be consistent with climate change.

It is clear you do not understand anything about the Peer-Reviewed literature. Most papers require a subscription or a fee to view them. Sometime these are available for free online, where I have found them, it is linked via the (PDF) link. If a paper has (PDF) following the title then it is fully available. Thus the first paper is fully available. It is out of my control to be able to provide the full paper where it is not already available online and this elementary knowledge is known by anyone who would make such silly requests as you have.

You have thus irrefutably demonstrated you have absolutely no knowledge about the peer-reviewed literature and are instead repeating talking points you heard elsewhere. You have effectively discredited yourself.

it is getting absurdly difficult to find info
i heard on bbc last night a sceme to create biogas in kenya
that is going to produce *6 times the carbondi-oxide
it is intended to 'fix'

dw tv reported on the same thing the day before
both searches have been prevented finding
[just trying to connect to bbc has taken 8 minutes so far]

entering search terms into the box only gives a waiting loopy circle

sio from memory the sceme has been given massive hectars of land
to grow a weed people cant eat..to burn it to make biogas to make electicity..the whole sceme is paid for with euro carbon credits

seems many vilage's have been seized
and that food crops even have been taken over[to grow non food]
add in the poor dont use electicity...and will be given 'jobs' perpetually harvesting a poisen weed in lue of growing their own food

if only you could hear what was said
i did find dorkins was born in kenya
and a lot of other useless info about other things

oh i got a search result

Search results for kenya biogas
Sorry, there are no results for your search.

For advice on how to use BBC Search
see our Frequently Asked Questions.

talk about fiddling while rome burns

its a scam people
to subsidise land clearing
[jobs for serfs and cash to the masters]

not only are the concept's based in fraud
so too is the fruits..[dont say you wernt told]

oh plenty of old 'good' stuff turned up
[from last year]
..ie pre publicity spin /pr

but not the latest
as was revealed while you slept

who cares*
go back to sleep

its worth a reading
http://www.openaustralia.org/debates/?id=2011-03-24.30.1

""The Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Bill 2011 fulfils an election commitment to give farmers, forest growers and landholders access to carbon markets.""

note these are the big poluters getting bailed out

read on

""This will begin to unlock the abatement opportunities
in the land sector which currently..

*make up 23 per cent of Australia’s emissions.*

*Australia has amongst the highest agricultural emissions of the developed countries*""

mainly via their generating *nitrous oxide
[300 times worse than carbon dioxide]
from nitrogen[see previous posts]
and landline link

BUT THATS NOT BEING TAXED...
now you know why

we made a promise

thus we talk of greenhouse gasses
but only tax carbon..lol

under one god,you say "300 times worse than carbon dioxide". CO2 would have to be bad before something could be worse than it. Clearly, it is not.

Carbon dioxide is a beneficial trace gas, without which plant life, including the crops on which we and much animal life, live, would not survive.

This odourless colourless gas comprises only 388 parts per million of our atmosphere at present, which is, happily, well above the marginal 280 ppm at which we languished before.

The improvement in volume, although small has been beneficial to plant life generally and has played a large part in the greening of millions of acres, previously desert sands, in the Sahara.

The assertion that it would cause warming of the globe, by conflicted scientists backing the IPCC's AGW myth has been overtaken by reality, in that the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere has not been accompanied by the predicted warming. Like almost every prediction of the IPCC, in their pushing of the AGW myth, reality has proved to be otherwise than as the IPCC predict.

We need 500 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere, to be comfortable in relation to the welfare of plant life.

If there is a remote chance that it causes warming, we have yet to see any detrimental effects of warming, or any evidence to support the IPCC's predicted ill effects of warming. On their past record we can be confident that they are wrong.

The greenhouse gas theory obviously needs a big overhaul, to align it with facts, and the real world.

Trusting that this assists your comprehension.