The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > 50 ways to deny climate change > Comments

50 ways to deny climate change : Comments

By Lyn Bender, published 5/11/2013

It is seems that there are fifty ways to do almost anything, and as an exercise I compiled a list of the fifty ways I observed as having been used to promote climate science denial.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 10
  7. 11
  8. 12
  9. All
You missed the most important, Lyn:

51. Not actually get any warmer, as measured by all the official and widely-used global temperature measures, for seventeen years.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/01/18-annual-climate-gabfests-16-years-without-warming/

Unfortunately for you, the greatest global climate change 'denier' is the global climate.
Posted by Jon J, Tuesday, 5 November 2013 6:16:26 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes indeed Lyn, the denialist camp has tentacles that spread into many aspects of our society and make it impossible for any meaningful action to ensue.

But as I keep saying; everyone – denialists, sceptics and ardent warmists – should all be united in the push to convert from fossil fuels to renewable energy as much as we can, and to stabilised population and do the various other things that comprise a concerted push towards a sustainable future.

Climate change should be beside the point! We’ve got to do the same sort of things regardless!

But then, the mindset needs to be there in our government and amongst at least some of those in positions of power in the business world.

So, just as has been the case with those who have pushed for growth, faster growth and evermore growth for decades, the vested-interest fraternity and their kowtowing little government buddies, of both persuasions, will continue to make sure that we don’t address the all-important imperative to wean ourselves off of our addiction to fossil fuels and steer humanity towards a sustainable future.
Posted by Ludwig, Tuesday, 5 November 2013 8:10:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
LOL Jon J, you have posted a classic example of number 27 on Lyn's list...
Flood the media with factually incorrect articles that discredit the climate science.
Posted by Beaunydal, Tuesday, 5 November 2013 8:26:27 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Jon J,

I think you'll find that your post is covered by point 25. - "Spread various myths that dispute climate change science."....and point 27. - "Flood the media with factually incorrect articles that discredit the climate science."

With extra brownie points for linking to WUWT.

Here's a relevant article on point 12. - "Discredit environmentalists and experts, rather than confront the evidence presented."

David Murray - “When I see some evidence of integrity amongst the scientists themselves. I often look at systems and behaviours as a way of judging something, and in this case, to watch the accusations that fly between these people suggests there’s been a breakdown in integrity in the science.”

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/nov/01/scientists-demand-apology-david-murray
Posted by Poirot, Tuesday, 5 November 2013 8:39:27 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Meanwhile I thoroughly recommend this talk:
http://www.guymcpherson.com/2013/10/presentation-in-boulder-colorado
Posted by Daffy Duck, Tuesday, 5 November 2013 10:09:07 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Lyn
you would be far more comfortable on other sites where this stuff is accepted uncritically, which is most other sites despite your claims.

You will also find that at this stage of the debate, with most participants polarised, you'll want a more subtle argument than this rather silly propaganda..

The Climate Commission, for example, was axed for the good reasons that not only was it producing straight propaganda rather than anything that could be described as independent advice, but also because its function could easily be taken over by other departments..
Posted by Curmudgeon, Tuesday, 5 November 2013 10:24:31 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Perfect example of how brainwashed people can be. She's never stopped for one moment to consider she could be wrong, nor has she read any of the opposing views.

All the emotive catchphrases too. "Denialist" , "children and grandchildren","vested interests" etc etc.

Oh and LOL "Create prisons (for asylum-seekers) on islands and Pacific nations impacted by climate change and threatened with inundation, through rising sea levels"

In summary, a representative of an extremist minority trying to impose its view on the majority.
Posted by Atman, Tuesday, 5 November 2013 10:25:34 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Remember the film: Bend it like Beckham?

Heck if you're reeeally good, try bending it like Lyn Bender!

No Lyn, no one denies climate change.The wiser heads just question 1)That there ever was a Goldilocks like equilibrium and/or ever can be, and 2) That the minute percentage of atmospheric Anthropogenic CO2 is responsible for everything from Tuvalu sinking to, QUOTE: "the ice caps melting".

I was watching a doco on SBS last night about volcanoes. Among the revelations was one that,a single volcano in Africa pumps out more sulfur dioxide than all the factories in Europe combined.

And --before one of the regular AGW spruikers jump in with their rote learned responses--yes, I know SO2 is not CO2 but it does tend to give some perspective, to make you wonder that there might be more things in heaven and earth impacting of climate than the lesser Horatio's at the IPCC are wont to own up to.


On the theme of 50 ways of doing things, have a look at Lyns list of "articles":
1) About 3 or 4 spruiking illegal immigration-translation: Open your borders Oz let every Tom Dick or Ali in.
2) Another 3 or 4 on supporting the underdeveloped world-translation:Oz how about transferring your industry/technology offshore
3) And the rest on AGW-translation:Oz just foot the bill each time someone foolhardy enough to clear the mangroves and settle on a delta gets flooded out.

Not yet 50! but closing fast.

Soon we'll have a full 50 ways of how to outsource your bleedin heart angst while getting everyone else to foot the bill.
Posted by SPQR, Tuesday, 5 November 2013 10:30:38 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sadly, Lyn this is not a particularly good article.

There are indeed multiple ways that those who wish to deny the link between carbon dioxide emissions and increasing global temperatures choose to do so. And lots of them have to do with the creation and promotion of pseudoscience (e.g. eyeballing climate data rather than doing proper analyses) that we see so often on this site.

However, including other axes you have to grind (asylum seekers and proposals to wind back environmental regulations) is unlikely to convince those who think climate change is all an environmentalist plot and will likely alienate those who are unsure on this topic.
Posted by Agronomist, Tuesday, 5 November 2013 11:30:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I am amused by all the references to "experts". Was 22 referring to Tim Flannery the mammologist? Is the head of the IPCC, a railway engineer, an "expert"?

Number 4 is also a cracker. The two gentlemen referred to were Labor appointments. (The Libs are now looking into these appointments).

Every one of these stupid points is quite easily repudiated. (I may do so later if time allows.)

This sad, sorry and very stupid article and marks a new low for OLO.
Posted by Sparkyq, Tuesday, 5 November 2013 11:33:42 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Lyn should have her articles of faith canonised. She has forgotten to write penalties for heretics. What a joke.
Posted by runner, Tuesday, 5 November 2013 11:50:25 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Don’t worry about them Lyn, deniers are all corrupted……Ive seen sharper golfballs....While losing ice is a natural part of a glacier’s lifecycle, many glaciers are now sloughing off faster than they are accumulating new snowmass. In other words, they’re shrinking. This shrinking is largely attributed to climate change. Not surprisingly, rising temperatures cause glaciers to melt at faster rates. Unless snow accumulation increases at a similar rate, the glacier cannot sustain itself. Scientists have reported temperature increases above the global average at higher altitudes, where glaciers are often found. The future is not looking bright for Himalayan glaciers.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ypiwKi-H5JM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I5aNCGWztB4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_76ljY_NbS0

Planet3
Posted by PLANET3, Tuesday, 5 November 2013 12:47:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well as Mark Twain said "I sometimes wonder whether the world is run by smart people who joke or imbeciles who are serious". Take your pick people.
Posted by ItsOnlyForLife, Tuesday, 5 November 2013 5:48:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
'In summary, a representative of an extremist minority trying to impose its view on the majority.'

just keep her away from the children.
Posted by runner, Tuesday, 5 November 2013 6:02:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Now what I'd really like to know is what set Lyn off on this crusade, on a subject she is not at all qualified to understand.

Of course she is entitled to an opinion, no matter how misguided, but why such a crusade? It really does come across as an obsession, by someone who's training & background does nothing to give her any authority or understanding on the subject.
Posted by Hasbeen, Tuesday, 5 November 2013 6:26:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
runner,

"just keep her away from the children."

I'm surmising that you'd also like evolutionary theory "kept away from the children".

Which kinda sums up your scientific prowess.

Hasbeen,

"Now what I'd really like to know is what set Lyn off on this crusade, on a subject she is not at all qualified to understand......who's training & background does nothing to give her any authority or understanding on the subject."

Considering your musings on the subject of AGW rest purely on...well...not much at all....except accusations of fraud and conspiracy.

That's a bit of a larf.
Posted by Poirot, Tuesday, 5 November 2013 7:40:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Lyn.

The reason why your side is losing the climate debate is because of several reasons.

You refuse to acknowledge that your opponents have a valid point of view and you refuse to address their points. Instead, you and your team have come onto OLO presenting articles like "The Psychology of Climate Change Denial" which accuse your opponents of serious mental problems, which is a great way to get your opponents back up and make them even more sceptical of your position.

You present your position as if you and your team are the font of all human knowledge who are just so absolutely ri-i-i-ight, that there is just no need at all to debate with your opponents. You claim that nearly all the world's scientists agree with you when my own research reveals that this is not the case. All scientists agree that climate changes, but they do not agree that human beings are the primary cause of it.

You ignore the fact that scientists who agree with your luddite view of human progress have been caught lying to the public and suppressing data which contradicts their position. You yourself refuse to even discuss why evidence which contradicts your position, like growing Antarctic sea ice, or no change on earth temperatures in 17 years.

When any group pushing a point of view acts with the imperiousness of absolute monarchs, and thinks that everybody who does not think like they do is an idiot, and that they need not justify their reasoning, they can hardly blame the people they so obviously despise for being sceptical of anything they advocate.
Posted by LEGO, Wednesday, 6 November 2013 4:17:26 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
No LEGO,

The simple truth is that OLO is place for "amateur" discussion on climate.

The reason is that scientists who are trained in the disciplines related to climate don't come here. They publish their peer reviewed conclusions elsewhere.

I read recently that Andrew Bolt is the most published commentary on climate change in Australia...what does that tell us about the "expertise" bandied around in the media.

Your post is a compendium of amateur AGW denial, something I've read a million times before by people who aren't climate scientists, have no basis on which to judge the science and who start from a premise (in your case, "skepticism") - and who rubbish scientists accordingly.

Why is it only climate scientists who are supposedly part of a scam?

It's because their findings have the capacity to alter the status quo.

The thing is that those with the most to lose under that scenario have a hordes of minions willing to aid them, not only in MSM, but also on social media like OLO.

"....and that they need not justify their reasoning..."

They do "justify their reasoning"...it's just that the likes of most "amateur" deniers haven't the capacity to understand it and aren't interested in trying to.
Posted by Poirot, Wednesday, 6 November 2013 7:56:49 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Poirot

one of the remaining faithful disciples despite the sinking ship. YOu are loyal, I'll give you that much. As for your science credentials, they have not taugh you to reason.
Posted by runner, Wednesday, 6 November 2013 8:27:32 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yeah, thanks for that, runner.

You being a such a font of reason...Lol!

The bottom line is that most of Lyn's points related to the political machinations afoot in this country and elsewhere to relegate climate science to a "scam".

It is pointless to argue the veracity of scientific conclusions when the starting point is such.

I see Johnny "no-science" Howard has stepped into the breach. stating as much and that on this subject he prefers to rely on "instinct".

We a have a new article thread by this gentleman today:

"Ray Evans is Secretary of the Lavoisier Group Inc. He is also an adviser to Bert Kelly Research Centre."

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/The_Bert_Kelly_Research_Centre

So OLO is not the place to discuss the veracity or not of scientific conclusions on global warming.

It's a place to challenge or promote politically charged AGW denial.

Nothing to do with the science whatsoever.
Posted by Poirot, Wednesday, 6 November 2013 9:13:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The author says this:

"Even though this economy is destroying the habitability of the planet and even as it approaches its own demise: like a virus slowly killing off its own host."

This comparison of humanity to a virus is common amongst the misanthropes who masquerade as alarmists; see:

http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com.au/2012/04/our-abc-green-narrative.html

AS you can see the author shares the mindset of those who compare the human race to a parasite, a disease, a cancer etc.

AGW is a failed theory. What is obnoxious is its adherents who continue to mask their fundamental hatred of humankind under the pretence of caring about this planet.
Posted by cohenite, Wednesday, 6 November 2013 11:57:13 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Cohenite.......you don't seriously believe that at all. The ABC this morning had the Greens leader pointing out quite clearly that Tony abbot has not got the future of the next generation in mind at all, not surprisingly considering the here and now is the most turning point in our earth history.

If some want to play three wise monkeys, don’t play with our children’s futures, and more to the point….don’t blow smoke up our you know what’s.

It should be made standard, that no-one in the political circles be over the age of 55…..why you might ask……people of old age have less to loose and more to gamble.

Planet3
Posted by PLANET3, Wednesday, 6 November 2013 12:47:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
@Planet

<<Cohenite.......you don't seriously believe that at all. The ABC this morning had the Greens leader...>>

Come now Planet, you don't seriously believe anything you hear from the Greens OR the ABC?

And, if you hear it from the Greens, reported on the ABC it's doubly doubtful!
Posted by SPQR, Wednesday, 6 November 2013 12:59:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Come now Planet, you don't seriously believe anything you hear from the Greens OR the ABC?

Oh what should be, the course of actions be then? or just another great opinion from the monkey brothers/sisters:)

SPQR....give me your future forecasts for the next 50 years, then I'll give you mine.

Planet3
Posted by PLANET3, Wednesday, 6 November 2013 1:18:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
LEGO:
Unfortunately this is where we have descended to, " sides".
This subject is too serious to be treated like a sport and sides taken and a winner pronounced.
There can only be one loser in this , no matter what "side" you are on.
Poirot has put this quite clearly in his post.
I tend to think that OLO is not the right p[lace to discuss this being well populated with "deniers" and not a few trolls who argue for the sake of the argument.
I applaud your efforts Lyn for trying to put this on a higher plane but it would be better to treat this blog for what it is, a platform for astroturfers and just plain troublemakers.
Posted by Robert LePage, Wednesday, 6 November 2013 2:13:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"..the here and now is the most turning point in our earth history."

" ..don’t play with our children’s futures,.. "

Sorry planet, can't seem to find my violin at the moment but here are my predictions for the next fifty years -

We will have some hot years, some wet years, some dry years and some cold years and some years that just seem like any other year. Some years will be hotter than the previous and some colder. Some years will be wetter than the previous and some will be dryer. We will have storms, cyclones and hurricanes. In some years we will have more (and sometimes less) than in previous years. There will be bushfires too although some years will have greater fire activity than others. The ice in the arctic and anarctic will wax and wane according to whether it is a hot or a cold year. We will also have years where there is much volcanic activity and others less so. Likewise for earthquakes and the doomsayers will still be living in their riverside and seaside abodes.
Posted by Sparkyq, Wednesday, 6 November 2013 2:14:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Planet,

<<SPQR....give me your future forecasts for the next 50 years, then I'll give you mine>>

I haven't been to Delphi lately but, off-the-cuff:
The climate will be much as it is now.
People will generally be healthier and live longer.
And some new dooms day cult with be exciting Planet Nos 4,5,6.

Planet, I don't need you to show me yours I can see it now. If all the Planets align just right we'll have some world body telling us how many scoops of IPCC issue congee we can have each morning , how long we can burn the candles for each evening and what colour sackcloths we can wear.
Posted by SPQR, Wednesday, 6 November 2013 2:25:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You are right Robert LePage, OLO is not the place for people like you, Poirot, & gravy train riding academics to try pushing their codswallop on global warming.

There are far too many well educated capable people here for your tripe to have a chance.
Posted by Hasbeen, Wednesday, 6 November 2013 3:15:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"You are right Robert LePage, OLO is not the place for people like you, Poirot, & gravy train riding academics to try pushing their codswallop on global warming.

There are far too many well educated capable people here for your tripe to have a chance."

Hasbeen provides the comedy relief for today...

Bravo Hasbeen!
Posted by Poirot, Wednesday, 6 November 2013 3:52:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Robert LePage…isn’t trolling for trolls, trolling its self?
Rhetorical.

Sparkyq….save the sad music for the years we don’t understand.

“We will have some hot years, some wet years, some dry years and some cold years and some years that just seem like any other year”…A model, I wrote a few years ago explains the pendulum effect, where when in the past states for 4 seasons, the pendulum is still…hence what you have wrote.

Do I think our human time on this earth as in-fact sped up the processes…the answer is yes.

Years ago, it was argued that population could be a factor relating.

Runner..in respect of your beliefs…( please for them oh lord, for they know not what they do )

<<SPQR>>…yes your quite right.

Planet3
Posted by PLANET3, Wednesday, 6 November 2013 4:19:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hasbeen...if the hard questions are not asked....how will we learn?

Planet3
Posted by PLANET3, Wednesday, 6 November 2013 5:41:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To Poirot and Robert.

I have lived through a time when scientists claimed that planet Earth was headed towards a new Ice Age, and wonder of wonders, the last time I visited an ABC shop there was a new DVD for sale produced by scientists claiming the same thing. Now, I may only be an "amateur" but I know that the planet can not warm and cool at the same time.

I have lived through a time when a book was published in the 70's that was written by a bunch of scientists who claimed that the human race would run out of food and fuel within thirty years. Wrong again. Net came the Millennium bug. Wrong again.

I am also aware that the most reliable predictor for human behaviour is self interest, and with climate change scientists at war with geologists over 'man made global warming" then it is reasonable to assume that climate change scientists conclusions may be affected by their need for economic security and further research stipends.

Especially when they have been caught lying (climategate and "the Himalayan glaciers are disappearing).

Their credibility is further eroded when every time an extreme weather effect happens they automatically blame it on global warming. Some prominent climate change advocate fool even claimed that Australia had never had bushfires in September, which even I knew from memory was plainly wrong.

Now Lyn claims that the scientific debate is over. That is not how I see it, as a matter of fact, it seems to be warming up. People who claim that they are so obviously right but who never address the glaring facts which counter their claims, while personally attacking their opponents as mentally deranged, simply make me more liable to be suspicious of their real motives.
Posted by LEGO, Thursday, 7 November 2013 3:06:48 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
LEGO that is really strange. Because I don’t remember a consensus among scientists claiming there was going to be an ice age in the 1970s.

It seems a review of the literature agrees with me http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1. There were a handful (6 actually) scientific papers published in the 1970s suggesting the Earth would cool in the near future. Most did not predict an ice age. In contrast through the same period there were 37 scientific papers suggesting increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would lead to global warming. Here is the key figure from that paper http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/1970s_papers.gif

Just goes to show, you shouldn’t believe what you read in the press.
Posted by Agronomist, Thursday, 7 November 2013 8:51:43 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
LEGO,

Lots of points.

Regarding glacial retreat:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/himalayan-glaciers-growing-intermediate.htm

"The vast majority of glaciers are receding. And importantly, the shrinking trend is increasing (eg - 77% in 2002, 94% in 2003)."

What you should understand is that although their are some scientists who differ, the vast majority agree on AGW in areas pertinent to their expertise.

There is not a "war" between geologists and other scientists, just because Plimer made a splash with his book. (I believe there are many errors pointed out in it)

Those scientists involved in "so-called" climategate were "exonerated".

The Y2K bug was not problem because a lot of people worked very hard to address the problems foreseen before they could occur.

Regarding the early onset bushfires. I think you'll find that scientists were more likely to be circumspect on that issue - merely stating that a warmer world will inevitably lead to warmer summers and longer fire seasons. I believe it was the magnitude of the recent fires so early in the season which made people sit up and take notice, not necessarily the fact that a fire could erupt so early.

In fact scientists are the real skeptics, not the fake ones. It's part of their training to understand that the science is never settled.

However, with overwhelming evidence pointing to AGW, they are bound to publish their findings.

Do you remember the case of skeptic Richard Muller?

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.html?_r=0

He was a well known skeptic and the darling of other fake "skeptics" until he and his team delivered conclusions at odds with those "expected".

If you read the article you'll see he is still skeptical in some areas (hurricanes, polar bears, etc) but overall is convinced of the link between rising CO2 and warming. (it's a good article written by him - hope you'll read it)

If you're seeking "glaring facts" you'd do better to research more seriously than rely on "one offs" bandied about in the blogosphere..
Posted by Poirot, Thursday, 7 November 2013 8:52:43 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Hasbeen...if the hard questions are not asked....how will we learn?"

Planet3

If they actually asked any questions, or said something new, I'd be interested, but the blind repetition of ancient papers, long discredited, does become a bit boring.

Hell I think Poirot still quotes the hockey stick fairytale.

Incidentally has there ever been an apology for that bit of fraudulent "science"? Nah, of course not, it was from a climate scientists. How would you separate just one of their lies, from the rest.
Posted by Hasbeen, Thursday, 7 November 2013 11:50:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You can keep on waffling your no substance variety of "skepticism", Hasbeen.

This is the future of politically inspired and belligerent AGW denial.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/nov/06/global-warming-science-denial-losing-position

"In yesterday's Virginia governor's race, Terry McAuliffe's win over anti-science Republican Ken Cuccinelli is showing that being a climate-change denier is a losing political position. Certainly the election was about many issues, but climate change was the most striking difference between the two candidates. Virginia's voters clearly rejected Cuccinelli's attacks against climate scientists and his head-in-the-sand views.

Ken Cuccinelli has a history of not only discounting scientists but spending taxpayers' money to actively attack them. In 2010, he began a witch hunt and accused climate scientist Dr. Michael Mann of fraud. In the end, Cuccinelli's crusade wasted hundreds of thousands of hard-earned taxpayer dollars – waste that Virginia voters did not forget."

So the "Hockey Stick" guy wins in the end.

Tra la la.....
Posted by Poirot, Thursday, 7 November 2013 1:37:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks for confirming my argument Poirot.

Your scientific discussion tells us that well delivered spin wins elections.

SCIENCE? Come on lady.
Posted by Hasbeen, Thursday, 7 November 2013 3:03:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Your scientific discussion tells us that well delivered spin wins elections."
As is evidenced by Abbott winning the last election here?

But when will we begin to be sorry he won?
Posted by Robert LePage, Thursday, 7 November 2013 3:31:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Between them Agro and Poirot rely on sks twice, the Guardian once, the NYT once and Agro manages to sneak in a doozy of a PRP. Let's consider the paper but first from the 1970s and the prevailing hysteria then of an imminent ice-age:

http://www.denisdutton.com/newsweek_coolingworld.pdf

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/30713

A critique of Agro's paper:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/05/25/the-cia-documents-the-global-cooling-research-of-the-1970s/

More importantly the emerging consensus, which began with Keenlyside [2008] now is that we are going into a cooling period:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7191/full/nature06921.html

http://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/stadium-wave.pdf

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2013GL057877/pdf

And what is the sun doing? Oh dear:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/04/october-2013-sunspots-largest-jump-in-solar-cycle-24-so-far/

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/posts/Real-risk-of-a-Maunder-minimum-Little-Ice-Age-says-leading-scientist

Agro and Poirot, Tweedledee and Tweedledum.
Posted by cohenite, Thursday, 7 November 2013 3:47:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Anthony, you are simply embarrassing yourself now.

Firstly, there was no reliance by me on SkepticalScience. They merely hosted a figure from the paper I was citing that I was interested in showing. Secondly, to counter the evidence of the peer reviewed literature, you use two newspaper reports and a report from the CIA? Yes really. The critique of the paper published in 2008 was a CIA report from 1974. Come on Mr Cox, you have to do better than that.

And for someone so quick to link to their own posts on political party blogs and to posts on the WUWT blog, I suggest you should be a little more circumspect about your criticism of blogs. At least the authors on SkepticalScience have the appropriate training to understand science, which is more than can be said of Anthony Cox, Anthony Watts or David Archibald – or indeed many of the other luminaries you consistently link to.

A case in point: Keenlyside et al. did not predict global cooling. Their conclusion was:

“Our results suggest that global surface temperature may not increase over the next decade, as natural climate variations in the North Atlantic and tropical Pacific temporarily offset the projected anthropogenic warming.”

That one is an own goal there Mr Cox.
Posted by Agronomist, Thursday, 7 November 2013 6:28:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Agronomist.

That the Earth was heading towards a new Ice Age was taught to me by my Science teacher in my Science class in High school. This was also bandied about in contemporary news stories at the time with the usual bunch of Chicken Little's (who seem to revel in the idea of human catastrophe) recounting how bad it was going to be for the human race.

The ABC shop is still selling that DVD on Earth heading towards a new Ice Age. I would love to buy it, but at $45 bucks it is a bit much for me in my present financial state.

The idea that surfaced in the 80's that that we were running out of oil and food actually had an amusing aside. A lot of people with expensive V8 cars sold them off at a pittance because they believed that fuel prices would skyrocket so much that V8 cars would be expensive dinosaurs. It was heaven for the rev head brigade who seem to have more street smarts than the bourgeoisie. They bought up cheaply every V8 car they could get and it was not uncommon to see mullet heads driving Holden Statesman's. Anyone else remember that?

Today, I hear that people began selling shore front real estate for the same reason, although I also heard that Climate Change Commissioner Tim Flannery recently bought a waterside home. You don't think he started this rumour about global warming to get himself some cheap sea side land, do you?

Lastly, our own former Prime Minister John Howard has recently claimed that he was conned by climate change and he has declared himself a "climate change agnostic."

You are losing the debate.
Posted by LEGO, Thursday, 7 November 2013 6:44:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Aww shucks, cohenite, sorry to link to a site that relies on empirical data from trained scientists.

Sorry for linking to an article by Muller himself.

Here's one from your fave site, WUWT.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/06/briggs-on-berkeleys-best-plus-my-thoughts-from-my-visit-there/

Nice guy, Anthony Watts is waxing lyrical on his support for Muller and the BEST team.

A few highlights:

".....Now contrast Rohde with Dr. Muller who has gone on record as saying that he disagrees with some of the methods seen in previous science related to the issue. We have what some would call a “warmist” and a “skeptic” both leading a project. When has that ever happened in Climate Science?"

"....Rohde hasn’t been very outspoken, which is why few people have heard of him. I met with him and I can say that Mann, Hansen, Jones, or Trenberth he isn’t. What struck me most about Rohde, besides his quiet demeanor, was the fact that is was he who came up with a method to deal with one of the greatest problems in the surface temperature record that skeptics have been discussing. His method, which I’ve been given in confidence and agreed not to discuss, gave me me one of those “Gee whiz, why didn’t I think of that?” moments. So, the fact that he was willing to look at the problem fresh, and come up with a solution that speaks to skeptical concerns, gives me greater confidence that he isn’t just another Hansen and Jones re-run."

"But here’s the thing: I have no certainty nor expectations in the results. Like them, I have no idea whether it will show more warming, about the same, no change, or cooling in the land surface temperature record they are analyzing. Neither do they, as they have not run the full data set, only small test runs on certain areas to evaluate the code. However, I can say that having examined the method, on the surface it seems to be a novel approach that handles many of the issues that have been raised."

Of course, that's "before" BEST came to a conclusion at odds with "skeptics".....before they disowned Muller.
Posted by Poirot, Thursday, 7 November 2013 7:02:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Jeez, LEGO.

You've posed some real clinchers there.

"The ABC shop is still selling that DVD on Earth heading towards a new Ice Age. I would love to buy it, but at $45 bucks it is a bit much for me in my present financial state."

".... I also heard that Climate Change Commissioner Tim Flannery recently bought a waterside home. You don't think he started this rumour about global warming to get himself some cheap sea side land, do you?"

And....the Pièce de résistance:

"Lastly, our own former Prime Minister John Howard has recently claimed that he was conned by climate change and he has declared himself a "climate change agnostic.""

Ho, Ho, ho.....

Well that makes all the difference!
Posted by Poirot, Thursday, 7 November 2013 8:23:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Agro, I'll ignore Poirot who is off with the pixies; you know in your vestige of a mind that AGW is a farce yet you still persist. Keenlyside was the first of many papers, like the Curry and Lui ones I link to above and which you ignore, which have amusingly attempted to explain the failure of their theory on the basis of the fact that temperatures are not going up despite rising CO2. Here are some more:

http://library.wmo.int/opac/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=5600

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/csi/images/GRL2009_ClimateWarming.pdf

http://www.cawcr.gov.au/staff/jma/Decadal.trends.Meehl.JClim.2013.pdf

http://journalofcosmology.com/QingBinLu.pdf

I love these papers; they are so inventive in their reasons for the failure of AGW. You are so flummoxed by this that you claim Keenlyside does not predict global cooling; no he just predicts a failure to warm. Can the English language sustain so much torture? Perhaps not so lets look at the same conclusions in German:

http://www.eike-klima-energie.eu/news-cache/abkuehlung-kommt-fakten-zum-klimawandel-seit-der-kleinen-eiszeit/

Don't be a dumpfbacke all your life Agro.
Posted by cohenite, Thursday, 7 November 2013 9:55:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Anthony, Oh dear, oh dear oh dear. You do have trouble with this stuff. Having demonstrated that Keenlyside did not predict a cooling period, but merely predicted that temperatures would not rise for a while, we should look at what Li et al. says. Their important conclusion is:

“NHT in 2012–2027 is predicted to fall slightly over the next decades, due to the recent NAO decadal weakening that temporarily offsets the anthropogenically induced warming.”

Firstly, it is northern hemisphere predictions only. Secondly the prediction is for a temporary effect based on a model proposing a cyclical nature of a long-term oscillation in weather systems will offset the warming caused by carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Within Li et al. is the prediction that when the systems go back the other way, the warming will be back with a vengeance. Indeed, Li et al. in Figure 3b show an underlying trend of about 0.9 C per century warming for the NH caused by anthropogenic factors.

Next to Wyatt and Curry. This really is a poor piece of work. Wyatt and Curry’s stadium wave hypothesis has no physical explanation as to why it would occur. It is simply an exercise in curve fitting and only appears as a signal in the noise if you treat the noise in a particular way. Wyatt and Curry’s explanation as to why the signal would be there seems to be “because magic”.

I could go on and on about these papers you dredge up from the margins of the climate science literature, the Journal of Cosmology for example, and then you fail to understand what the authors are claiming about their work and are unable to critically analyse the conclusion.

It seems to me that your assessment of the quality of anything to do with climate science is based entirely on whether it conforms to your political beliefs. That is religion, not science. You appear to simply blindly follow Anthony Watts. Everytime Watts comes up with a new, and wrong, explanation of why human activity can't influence climate you come and post it over here.
Posted by Agronomist, Friday, 8 November 2013 9:01:23 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
How clever Agro! AGW has always been compared to a religion what with its gaia and apocalyptic visions and prophecies. Yet you reverse the comparison and compare scepticism to a religion; how witty; you must have been a hoot in sophistry 101.

All those papers and many more look at natural variation being greater than AGW to produce the predicted cooling over the next period from a decade to 50 years. That's their spiel. It makes no sense.

In those periods where the natural variability was correlated with AGW the AGW period should have been much hotter; for instance the 1990s. What happened to natural variation then?

Then there is the issue that the temperature trend for the first half of the 20thC is the same as for the second except there was no AGW during the first half:

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/1895-1946_1957-2008_temperature-compare.png

Isn't that hilarious Agro; where's the dampening effect of natural variation then?

Then we have those pinnacles of AGW science Foster and Rahmstorf who removed natural factors from the temperature trend to isolate a pure AGW temperature signal:

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/6/4/044022

Foster and Rahmstorf were left with a range of 0.014 to 0.018 K yr&#8722;1 as the ‘pure’ AGW forcing. This rate was constant from 1979. This should have set the alarm bells ringing for a start since CO2 was increasing exponentially during this period; if the dominant forcing factor was increasing the AGW temperature effect should also have been increasing regardless of natural variation. Or are you saying natural variation somehow adjusts in response to AGW? You wouldn't be the first.

F&R say this about natural factors:

“Short-term cyclical factors like ENSO and the solar cycle average to about zero net effect over time, and volcanic influences are temporary.”

That is wrong and it encapsulates everything that is wrong about AGW; that is nature would remain in balance if it were not for AGW. Is that what you believe [sic] Agro?
Posted by cohenite, Friday, 8 November 2013 10:04:34 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Poirot, I have lived long enough to see so many doomsday scenario's advocated by hysterical people come to naught that my bullsheet antennae automatically rises when I hear another. Everything from global warming to global cooling. We are going to get hit by an asteroid. The next influenza epidemic will wipe out the human race. Aeroplanes will drop out of the sky because of the Millennium bug. We are running out of oil. We are running out of food. The next coronal mass ejection will destroy the Earhs electricity grids and civilisation will be destroyed.

Get a grip.

Scepticism about global warming began when the first expensive gabfest about that subject occurred in Europe in the worst blizzard ever recorded. The climate "scientists" who advocate it have been caught suppressing any data which contravenes their view. The geologist scientists dispute the predictions of the climate change scientists. There have just been too many ridiculous claims by climate change advocates that are so obviously potty that their credibility is eroding. Everything from Tim Flannery's "The dams will never fill again" to the latest BS claim that bushfires have never occurred in September.

But probably the most pertinent fact about global warming is that it is advocated most by the trendy lefty brigade who can always be relied upon to do the opposite of what everybody else does, and who have an uncanny ability to always back the wrong horse.
Posted by LEGO, Saturday, 9 November 2013 6:18:20 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Lego,

<<But probably the most pertinent fact about global warming is that it is advocated most by the trendy lefty brigade who can always be relied upon to do the opposite of what everybody else does, and who have an uncanny ability to always back the wrong horse.>>

LOL

Yep that is the most reliable measure!
Posted by SPQR, Saturday, 9 November 2013 6:29:05 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
LEGO,

Yeah thanks for that.

So your research nous and scientific qualifications, expertise and judgment rests on your opinion that you possess something called a "bullsheet antennae".

Most heartening indeed!
Posted by Poirot, Saturday, 9 November 2013 8:02:55 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
LEGO,

Here's where you might begin to educate yourself rather than flying by dodgy antennae.
http://forecast.uchicago.edu/lectures.html

Natural variability can not possibly account for the extreme global warming since 1970, especially. Mann's Hockey-Stick is apparent when you look at this time period over longer contexts.

I'm betting on the coupling between CO2 and temperature we have evidence of, for at least the last 800,000 years, to continue. You are either betting it won't, or you don't care.

If you're betting it won't, what's your basis? Where's the smoking gun? Here's one of the lectures http://www.kaltura.com/tiny/k8j3u going to some of that. It's your responsibility to provide an alternative model that matches the temperature record if you eschew the CO2/AGW hypothesis.

If, OTOH, perhaps you't care, like our government. http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/coalition-turns-back-on-un-climate-summit-20131107-2x2ur.html
Posted by Luciferase, Saturday, 9 November 2013 9:59:53 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Luciferace, I don't debate against links. I don't even click on them, because I was once invited to click on a link and I got the worst virus I have ever had, so bad that my computer shop recommended that I retire that computer. And yes, the I am sure that the person who invited me to click on the link set me up.

Dear Poirot. Oh, I get it, you are a scientist so you can comment on man made global warming while us cretinous suburbanites may not. You have lost the plot again. Your problem is, that you can not convince the public that your fave little cause is valid, and unless you can debate at a level that the public can relate to, then you might as well piiss up a rope.

What is it with you trendy lefties that you are always convinced that the world is going to end? No wonder all of the stupid cults always try to recruit in universities. They know that while people in your educated caste have high academic intelligence, at the street level you are so naïve and lacking in street smarts that you should not be let out on the streets without a white cane.
Posted by LEGO, Saturday, 9 November 2013 6:25:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Stick to books or bury your head then, LEGO, but if you're betting the coupling between CO2 concentration and surface air temperature won't continue, what's your basis? Where's the smoking gun?
Posted by Luciferase, Saturday, 9 November 2013 6:42:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
LEGO,

"Dear Poirot. Oh, I get it, you are a scientist so you can comment on man made global warming while us cretinous suburbanites may not. You have lost the plot again. Your problem is, that you can not convince the public that your fave little cause is valid, and unless you can debate at a level that the public can relate to, then you might as well piiss up a rope."

I'm not a scientist...... (but flattered that you think so)

I'm a suburbanite - who just happens to trust people who are trained, who work and have expertise in the areas associated with climate.

Just like if we were discussing medical science, I would have confidence in scientists who are trained, who work and have expertise in areas associated with biology and medicine.

For some reason scientists who deal with climate are singled out for abuse, ridicule and accusations of fraud and conspiracy.

It's because their findings have the capacity to alter the economic/political status quo.

That's why right wing think tanks like Heartland fund denial and junk science and target them...taking advantage of people like you to blow their trumpets for them.
Posted by Poirot, Saturday, 9 November 2013 9:10:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Luciferase what extreme warming? Do you mean like the Medieval Warm Period, current temperatures are yet to reach?

Poirot, I'll make one last try.

You suggest you trust medical science. Well apart from a couple of glaring instances, so you should. Medical research is published with full disclosure of the research, & can thus be duplicated by anyone who cares to do so.

Products go through double blind testing, fully documented, & repeatable.

Climate science is exactly the opposite to this. Researchers refuse to give the details of their research, expecting the world to take their word it is correct.

Remember "hide the decline"? Where a totally false set of figures were spliced into a graph, when the true figures produced a result showing cooling.

Remember how our "trust me" scientists formed a cheer squad for this cleaver "trick".

Remember the cheer squad discussing by email, the necessity of "getting rid of" the Medieval Warm Period.

Surely you have seen the continual "adjustment/corrections" to the temperature record of so many areas. Like the 2 degree upward adjustment to Darwin temperature. Have you ever seen or heard any justification of these "corrections"?

Of course you haven't, you have to take it on "TRUST".

You must be aware that a doubling of CO2 could produce at an extreme maximum a 0.9C temperature increase. To get the catastrophic in there you have to assume an extreme positive feed back from things like clouds. All those models currently failing do just this, although most recent research suggests clouds give a negative feedback.

There is too much smoke for there to be no fire. If you want the math it is available. If you want a serious discussion, it is also available.

If not we can assume you are just another lefty trying to use a fraud to cover another objective. Do tell us which.
Posted by Hasbeen, Saturday, 9 November 2013 11:16:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Three or four weeks ago we had a couple of scorchers, and all the hacks were screaming it was sure fire proof of AGW.

The last week and a half (in my area at least) we have had a spate of days & nights more reminiscent of winter than late spring, and the hacks are hiding under their beds --typical!
Posted by SPQR, Sunday, 10 November 2013 6:23:49 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Poirot. There were scientists trained in climate subjects who confidently predicted that the Earth was returning to a new Ice Age. Now they are saying that the Earth is heating up. There were people who knew all about climate and weather twho predicted that "the dams would never fill " and that "Australia did not get bushfires in September." They were wrong.

There were scientists who knew all about agriculture and horticulture who predicted that humans were going to run out of food. They were wrong. There were scientists who work in the oil industry who predicted that we would run out of oil by the 1990's. They were wrong.

There were scientists who know all about comnputers who predicted catastrophe over the Millennium bug. They were wrong. Same for meteorites and epidemics.

Scientists need to earn their living, and if they can think up a doomsday scenario which will panic governments into giving them millions, they will do it. And they will be backed by the public service who can't help themselves where it comes to empire building with the public picking up the tab.

What we have have a dispute between two branches of science with the climatologists and their computer modelling predicting catastrophe from carbon emissions, and the geologists with their physical proof that the Earth's atmosphere once contained 50m times more carbon dioxide than at present, and the Earth was colder than it is now.

The biggest factor in Earth's temperature is the amount of energy output from the sun which varies, and there is nothing we can do about that. Although I hear that Tim Flannery is trying to start a new government department that will regulate the sun and tax it's output.
Posted by LEGO, Sunday, 10 November 2013 7:25:38 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
SPQR,:
If you had read and absorbed any of the climate science about AGW you would have realised that there will be "extremes" of weather events. That means both hot and cold, wet and dry.

Poirot:
I admire your persistence in trying to educate the cretinous suburbanites but it is a futile task. They are not able to reason or are trolls only able to argue nonsense.

LEGO:
"I don't even click on them, because I was once invited to click on a link and I got the worst virus I have ever had, so bad that my computer shop recommended that I retire that computer. "

Just wipe the drive and reinstall the system next time this happens, you will be able to continue to annoy us then with your old computer.
Posted by Robert LePage, Sunday, 10 November 2013 8:36:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
LRGO,

With all due respect, this statement is trite.

"What we have have a dispute between two branches of science with the climatologists and their computer modelling predicting catastrophe from carbon emissions, and the geologists with their physical proof that the Earth's atmosphere once contained 50m times more carbon dioxide than at present, and the Earth was colder than it is now."

The overwhelming majority of scientists concerned with the "many" disciplines associated with climate "agree" with AGW....that is - their investigations, and their papers confirm those findings.

Yes there are a minority who dispute it, like the author of the DVD you cited, but they are a "vast minority"

You can waffle on about a time when C02 was this and when it was that...the point is that humans have enjoyed a "rare" epoch when planetary climate has been stable enough for human civilisation to thrive.

There are a plethora of mitigating factors dictating earth's climate...which for some reason all the "skeptics' appear to think are ignored by scientists when conducting investigations in their own particular areas of climate science.

Here's Muller again:

"How definite is the attribution to humans? The carbon dioxide curve gives a better match than anything else we’ve tried. Its magnitude is consistent with the calculated greenhouse effect — extra warming from trapped heat radiation. These facts don’t prove causality and they shouldn’t end skepticism, but they raise the bar: to be considered seriously, an alternative explanation must match the data at least as well as carbon dioxide does. Adding methane, a second greenhouse gas, to our analysis doesn’t change the results. Moreover, our analysis does not depend on large, complex global climate models, the huge computer programs that are notorious for their hidden assumptions and adjustable parameters. Our result is based simply on the close agreement between the shape of the observed temperature rise and the known greenhouse gas increase."

Humans burning fossil fuels at the rate they have since the Industrial Revolution have contributed to what is considered on a geological time scale as - a "sudden outgassing".

Sudden outgassings change planetary climate.
Posted by Poirot, Sunday, 10 November 2013 8:38:35 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Robert LePage,

Yes I'm familiar with the AGW advocates catch all clause. Unless it is --Goldilocks like --not too hot and not too cold, not too dry and not too wet it has to be AGW at play.

It has never been a Goldilocks world!

Hey, is it safe for you guys to crawl out from under your bed yet?
Posted by SPQR, Sunday, 10 November 2013 8:46:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks Poirot, you've answered my question.

I will not bother with you, or [deleted for abuse] Robert LePage, again.
Posted by Hasbeen, Sunday, 10 November 2013 9:36:46 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hasbeen,

I'm not particularly concerned whether ignore me or engage me.....please yourself.

As for your postulations of so-called "climategate - I note you failed to mention the exonerations.

http://profmandia.wordpress.com/2010/04/18/climategate-coverage-unfair-unbalanced/

People might like to have a good read of Prof. Mandia's investigation into media coverage of the accusations compared to media coverage of the exonerations of Michael Mann and Phil Jones.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy

"On 22 January 2010, the House of Commons Science and Technology Select Committee announced it would conduct an inquiry into the affair, examining the implications of the disclosure for the integrity of scientific research.....The Science and Technology Select Committee inquiry reported on 31 March 2010 that it had found that "the scientific reputation of Professor Jones and CRU remains intact". The emails and claims raised in the controversy did not challenge the scientific consensus that "global warming is happening and that it is induced by human activity". The MPs had seen no evidence to support claims that Jones had tampered with data or interfered with the peer-review process"

"The report of the independent Science Assessment Panel was published on 14 April 2010 and concluded that the panel had seen "no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work of the Climatic Research Unit." It found that the CRU's work had been "carried out with integrity" and had used "fair and satisfactory" methods. The CRU was found to be "objective and dispassionate in their view of the data and their results, and there was no hint of tailoring results to a particular agenda." Instead, "their sole aim was to establish as robust a record of temperatures in recent centuries as possible."

"Speaking at a press conference to announce the report, the panel's chair, Lord Oxburgh, stated that his team had found "absolutely no evidence of any impropriety whatsoever" and that "whatever was said in the emails, the basic science seems to have been done fairly and properly."

One could go on...but we only have 350 words per post....
Posted by Poirot, Sunday, 10 November 2013 10:10:26 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The same truth that finally whacked Muller in the eye does not move the likes of Hasbeen or LEGO. These guys are saying that for some strange reason, right now, as never in at least the last 800,000 years, CO2/Temperature coupling is decoupling.

Really? For what reason? Do tell, and save us all the unnecessary angst.
Posted by Luciferase, Sunday, 10 November 2013 10:15:46 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Poirot.

There was no industrial revolution 2000 years ago when it was warmer than it is today and the Romans were growing grapes in the South of Britain. There was no industrial revolution 1000 years ago when it was warmer than today and Erich the Red discovered a "Greenland" which today is covered in ice and glaciers.

Newspapers have reported that Earth's temperatures have not risen in 17 years and there is a deafening silence from the climate change advocates about that. So too, is the deafening silence from the climate change believers about the recently reported fact that Antarctic sea ice has reached its largest recorded extent. Until your friends can explain how the Earth does not seem to be warming and it even seems to be cooling, then whatever the say I will take with a grain of salt.

Scientists have been found to be wrong in their doomsday predictions too many times for any sensible person to get their knickers in a knot over another doomsday scare. The public is getting more and more sceptical of climate change because your "scientist" friends seem more prone to making wild claims which are the public regard as potty than actually addressing the questions which the sceptical public wants answered.
Posted by LEGO, Sunday, 10 November 2013 4:52:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
LEGO,,

You're a veritable climate myth compendium.

Something like this one from Skeptical Science (it's okay to click - my Norton gives it a green tick!)

http://skepticalscience.com/argument.php

So, if we examine your points: (most of which are covered in SKS's list of popular "skeptic" arguments - there's 174 listed here by popularity, and a counter argument is provided for each)

No. 39 covers your Greenland point.

No. 5 covers "It's cooling".

No. 14 covers "we're heading into an ice age".

No's. 9 and 51 cover "It hasn't warmed for 14/15/16/17 years (take yer pick)

I'll chuck in No. 153 to cover your reference to other epochs when it was warmer...

Can't find anything on Romans and grapes there, but found this on Real Climate (Norton says that's safe too!)

I'd study that SkS list closely - one can never have too many "skeptic" arguments to scatter about on forums.
Posted by Poirot, Sunday, 10 November 2013 6:33:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thank you for that link, Poirot. (I normally won't click on links, but I made an exception to you)

I liked this one.

"By 1980 the predictions about ice ages had ceased, due to the overwhelming evidence contained in an increasing number of reports that warned of global warming."

How about in thirty years time we get another one like...?

"By 2020 the predictions about global warming had ceased, due to the overwhelming evidence contained in an increasing number of reports that warned of Earths temperatures were stable."

If they admit that they got it wrong before.......(finish the sentence).
Posted by LEGO, Monday, 11 November 2013 6:27:39 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Much of the 'debate' here simply highlights the idea us humans think we are very smart and knowledgeable when in reality we are mostly insignificant. It is the politics rather than science of climate change posing the risk. Political power continues to use any arguments available to plug into public sentiment and sell their brand as the better option. A half decent option would suit me. Pity there are none.
Posted by malingerer, Monday, 11 November 2013 9:02:10 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Graham,

I am not too happy at having some of my post "deleted for abuse", when that exact part of my post was cut & pasted from the post by Robert LePage just above it.

Would you care to explain why it is abuse in my post, when it is not in his.

I actually cut & pasted it as I thought the bloke was getting a bit too low, a habit of his.

I await your answer with interest.
Posted by Hasbeen, Monday, 11 November 2013 2:42:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Professor Plimer, professor of geology.

"We're playing a very, very small part indeed, because the main greenhouse gas is water vapor. Carbon dioxide is a very minor gas in the atmosphere and about 90% of the CO2 in the atmosphere comes from de-gassing of the planet, through volcanoes, carbon dioxide oozing out from the soils, from algae, from bacteria, from plants. And the human contribution of carbon dioxide probably only contributes about 0.1% of the global temperature. So what we are doing is having an extremely minor effect on the planet."
Posted by LEGO, Tuesday, 12 November 2013 5:44:43 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 10
  7. 11
  8. 12
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy