Ken it is not a campaign by people who don't believe in the climate change religion that is causing doubt and people to abandon belief in the scare of climate change.

It is the fact the key indicators, used by climate terrorists to promote their religion, are now starting to produce results that are showing cooling rather than warming. That accompanied with the occurance of the absolute reverse of things climate experts predicted such as no snow, unending drought, increasing numbers and intensity of cyclones and other extreme weather events

Ken such thinges as
1. Increasing polar ice caps, in summer, stable surface temperatures, increasing Durinal Temperature Range and increasing Outgoing Long-range Radiation are now substaintiated by data and satelite evidence. The models used to support climate change were based on assumptions and guesswork.

Ken the antics of people like Flannery, Turney and the Hadleigh place in England, the NOAA in the US, the Bom in Australia and the irrespo sbility if the now changing IPCC at the UN just add to peoples doubt and the indermining of the Climate Change Religion and it's terrorist acolytes.

Ken
In any comparison of the global warming debate to the tobacco debate, the global warming industry (those pushing the concept of warming) are in the same position as big tobacco. Just consider, they are pushing an optional, luxury good - warnings of problems in the next few decades - and have to keep funding doubtful science to keep the public convinced enough to keep the research funds flowing.

There is no evidence that the resources industry has funded skeptical research.. about all anyone can point to are tiny grants ($100,000 here $200,000 there) to think tanks.. as opposed to the billions flooding into research into global warming. Just think of all the careers that now depend on keeping this story going.

Ignorance isn't always what you don't know it can be what you do know that is not correct. The author of this article is clearly ignorant of the connected community of AGW sceptics... It's culture and what motivates key players. Indeed it is our love of the truth and abhorrence for manufactured consensus science. Well funded we are not, a voice in the main stream media we lack, but the truth... It's on our side.

Great heading- the bitter fruits of induced ignorance.

But where is the content?

Our letter boxes daily stuffed with the remains of forests. The expansion of the railway network sacrificed at the altar of freeways and automobiles. The continuing erosion of top soil from Mono-culture farming and the absence of water conservation and management policies. The catastrophic waste caused by ever increasing manufacture of short lived disposable gadgets and appliances. The importing of containers of junk for land fill. The irony of lofting petrol fumes beside a non smoking el fresco dining area. The chemicals, pesticides, the enhancements and sugars in our food supply.

As you can see, Ignorance does not even begin to describe our culture. Expecting some Byzantine trading scheme to address the above sets a new high water mark for ignorance

Some reading for Ken…

Wanting to find a list of peer-reviewed papers supporting an alternative perspective on climate change?

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

The list includes 1350 plus papers on a range of topic.

To 'imajulianutter': Polar ice caps are DECREASING...easily researched.

The only real problem with the extremely ignorant mate, is, they're usually too ignorant, to actually have so much as a single inkling that they are in fact, extremely ignorant!
Hence we still have a flat earth society, and a small cadre of folks, who actually believe Australia, one of the largest single land masses in the world, is over populated. And some who just want to return to the good old days.
I can remember a time when most folks made do with hand-me-downs, went without shoes, walked or cycled to work or school, got by with a single meal a day, lived in tin shanties, with dirt floors, with no running water, or toilet facilities, went to bed with a belly growling with hunger. Or did the 7 day, sweat drenched, bent back dawn to dark gut bust, to earn just enough to survive!
Yes, they were the good old days, when far fewer of us were on the planet!
On the other hand, with more of us, we now have more services and options, and our formerly nonexistent safety network replaced with a real one!
The only people going hungry nowadays, are those who inject their welfare up their arms, or piss it against some wall, or pour it into some pokie somewhere, etc excetera and so on!
And the most ignorant of all, are those folk, who think our foreign aid, is just wasted money, even as they pour another beer down their necks, to swell already swollen bellies, or give yet another tug on the arm of a money gobbling, one armed bandit, etc excetera and so on!
Rhrosty.

Oh god. A historian lecturing us on something that requires math to understand!

What next? An article on tiddlywinks? Bet Ken knows more about that than he appears to know about physics & the effects of CO2.

Ken, the last thing we need is another fraud backing academic, like yourself.

You cannot even acknowledge that the tactics of the tobacco companies are those used by the AGW fraud promoters. The Realists simply tell the truth. You have the temerity to refer to Realists as “deniers”. I agree that they deny the misinformation of the AGW fraud, but they do not deny science, because you do not have any, and rely on the pathetic assertion of the mendacious IPCC that it is “94% certain”. This is based on the fact that despite great expenditure, no science hs been produced to show any measurable human effect on climate

If you know of any science which demonstrates any measurable effect of human emissions on climate then let us know about it. Otherwise, acknowledge the truth, and stop supporting the Climate Fraud industry by exploiting those sufficiently ignorant to believe your lies.

So what if science proves smoking is unhealthy.
Does that really justify the draconian dictatorship being constructed around it?

What about liberty?
Some property owners and businesses would happily accept smoking on their premises, but cannot even *choose* to do so.
The option to make that choice has been taken from them.

If the government were truly serious, they'd ban it outright.
But no, they collect too much tax from that "toxic" industry.

What's scientific has very little to do with human life or society.
What's scientific about people's love of birthdays, fireworks, chocolate cake?

I note a reference to "racial ignorance" but no explanation of what that is.

Presumably it's the people who accept what they see with their own eyes who are "ignorant".
While those who deny what they see are "informed".

Carol83

Please refer me to the peer reviewed literature, that contains no modelling and only verifiable data, to support your assertion.

thankyou

ps now tell me the verifiable actual data revealing trends in surface temps, DTR and OLR is all wrong.

Ken may have a point about our tendency to avoid “truths” we don’t want to believe, but his argument is spoiled by his own glaring ideological biases, most evident in the gratuitous swipes at “neoliberal capitalism’ and corporate legal rights. Appeals to authorities like Prince Charles are also less than convincing.

If he had addressed the outrageous, anti-scientific scare campaigns attacking GM food and fracking, he might give the appearance of some objectivity and balance. As it is, he seems to use “agnotology” as a catch-all term of abuse to sneer at those who don’t see the world his way.

Carol 3. Obviously the fraud-backing Chris Tourney believed the same nonsense as you, when he foolishly became ice-bound in the Antarctic.

See what happens when you are ignorant, (or fraudulent).

Unstinting expenditure of good old fossil fuel emissions soon had him out of his stupid predicament

Wanna see horror? Read the very short item at http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/mar/05/sydney-opera-house-statue-liberty-sea-level-climate-change-unesco?CMP=ema_632 and gasp!
That's what confronts our descendants if we go on denying the soothsaying.

Warm-monger Adam Vaughan has little faith in our credulity.

"There appears to be a strong divide between people who feel it [AGW] is a problem and people who don't," he sighs.

We spoilsports want the evidence.

Trouble about the evidence, we don't have 2000 years to collect it.

Neat, isn't it?

"Australia, one of the world's largest coal exporters, has its share of global warming sceptics and climate change deniers, pursuing the same strategies to obfuscate the issues."

If you don't know that the use of the term 'denier' to describe AGW sceptics is both inaccurate and highly offensive, then you obviously haven't been following the debate, and anything you have to say on it is clearly parroted from somebody else.

If you DO know that the term is highly offensive and chose to use it anyway, that reveals a degree of bias and prejudgement that, once again, calls the reliability of your arguments into question.

So which is it, Ken? Uninformed or deliberately offensive?

@Emperor Julian: "Trouble about the evidence, we don't have 2000 years to collect it."

Sea level is currently rising at a rate of around 3mm per year worldwide, according to Wikipedia. The Sydney Opera House is at a height of around 10.3 metres above sea level, which by my calculations gives us around -- well, as it turns out, you're right. We don't have 2000 years to collect the data. We have 3000 years.

Dear Ken,

For those who nailed their alarmist colors to the mast there is no hope. You can find all the elaborate and devious narratives you like to put yourself right but the more you write the less traction you get.

This article is a complex story, carefully woven around peripheral issues in your attempt to make it more general but it is still an alarmist versus skeptics story.

You need to take your complaints to the IPCC and the UNFCCC. I say this because they are the authoritative body.

Your narrative began to unravel on November 19, 2009 with the climategate emails. All things alarmist have been unraveling ever since. The alarmists have clung desperately to the endless deluge of thought terminating clichés in the hope that the dead cat might bounce.

There is no Kyoto, no emission trading markets, no global renewables industry and no political will to enact the legislation to revive the sustainable utopia. All that is left are the EU centric remnants now drifting back from the battlefield to rejoin the reality of fossil fueled economic growth.

There is no global anything left.

The early adopters of the CAGW scam will go down with the ship. Many will be high profile scientists, academics, politicians and many in the media. Their careers will end and their contributions forgotten, but no forgiven.

This may well be a terrifying prospect however, like so many who have written so much to create and defend CAGW, it will come back to bite you in every conceivable way.

You seem like an educated, intelligent and articulate person, how on earth did you get conned by this?

Formulate an exit plan, have an “each way bet”, jump ship or go down with it!

Hi, 'imajulianutter'...I fear I may dream of religious terrorists and acolytes!
I'm sorry I can't answer your post script as to whether cited data "is[sic]all wrong" or are accurate. As a non-scientist, my comment derived from reading the daily New York Times ( a global 'paper of record'), the odd Science Monthly and, sometimes, Google.
Certainly not the peer-reviewed research you require. It has been oddly confronting to read the the strong negative emotions aroused, for some writers, by this article.

'Prince Charles clearly targeted all such sophistry in February 2014, when he praised the finalists for the Young Sustainability Entrepreneur Prize, and criticized the deniers of human-made climate change as a 'headless chicken brigade'

absolutely amazing how those who are personally moral bereft then embrace the Greens religion.

Carol3. The fraud backing New York Times had an Environmental Desk, devoted to Climate Fraud, but it closed this desk when it realised the contempt in which the fraud of AGW was held.

The Climategate emails exposed the criminality of the climate scientists, and despite the fraudulent “Enquiries” that purported to “clear” them, a large proportion of the public is aware of the fraud.

Why do you find airing of the truth to be negative?. I find the responses denigrating fraud to be quite positive. It is the fraud backing article I find negative and offensive.

There is absolutely no doubt that the take up of carbon dioxide in oceans happens; the result is acidification. Its pure chemistry, acidification of oceans is not something we were aware of 30 years ago. There is no escaping the fact that the burning of fossil fuels creates more carbon dioxide than was occurring in the pre-industrial period.
Carbon dioxide being taken up by oceans is part of the climate change cycle; as is, the take up of warmth.
In relation to sheet ice in the Arctic area, it has been stated that there was more of a coverage in 2013 than in 2012; therefore, melting of the ice sheet was not happening. What was not stated by deniers is that the sheet ice in 2013 was quite thin, evidenced by a blue tinge shown in satellite photos; and also huge fissures were visible in the ice sheet. These fissures had not been seen before.
Apart from these factors methane is being voided at alarming rates from the Arctic region a phenomena I gather that had only begun to be particularly noticed 2005-6 but in vastly smaller volumes.
What I have mentioned here are absolute facts, not speculation, nothing drawn from computer models. Nothing to do with any political agendas; as some deniers suggest.

Some misinformation comes to us through either misinterpretation by the media or distortion.

http://www.mediander.com/connects/36786/little-ice-age/?utm_source=taboola&utm_medium=content&utm_campaign=TabClick#!/37053/maunder-minimum/video

http://www.antarctica.gov.au/about-us/publications/australian-antarctic-magazine/2011-2015/issue-25-december-2013/science/speeding-towards-an-acid-ocean

Carol83
May your dreams be interesting.

So you cannot supply peer reviewed literature. That makes the claim not easily researched. Otherwise you would have done so.

Heating in Arctic area, the last reference is by the Royal Soceity:

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/02/13/3280421/arctic-autumn-staggering-warming/

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v5/n6/full/ngeo1480.html

http://arctic-news.blogspot.com.au/p/runaway-warming.html

http://methane-hydrates.blogspot.com.au/

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/03/04/3357501/warm-winter-iditarod-minefield-snow/

http://www.pri.org/stories/2013-12-12/thawing-ocean-floor-pours-methane-atmosphere-and-its-only-getting-worse

http://royalsociety.org/uploadedFiles/Royal_Society_Content/policy/projects/climate-evidence-causes/climate-change-evidence-causes.pdf

Page 14 of the Royal Society shows how there has been a 40% reduction in ice sheet by 2012.
Quote in relation to methane from RC peer reviewed document:

" As another example, Arctic warming could destabilise methane (a greenhouse gas) trapped in ocean sediments and permafrost,
potentially leading to a rapid release of a large amount of methane. If such a rapid release occurred, then
major, fast climate changes would ensue.
Such high-risk changes are considered unlikely in this century, but are by definition hard to predict"

Measurements of methane being taken at present are not healthy.

Hi ant,

Would this by any chance be the same “Royal Society”?

“The Royal Society [of Britain], a venerable institution with more than 300 years on its back, has been served with a scientific challenge from independent scientists. The dispute is about the society’s continued refusal to even acknowledge, much less discuss, evidence to the contrary of their stance on carbon dioxide as THE “climate change” villain and the amounts and rates involved in the carbon cycle in various compartments of the Earth’s ecosphere. The society has now been challenged in a paper, The Carbon Cycle and Royal Society Math by Dr Klaus L.E. Kaiser. “

http://principia-scientific.org/publications/PROM/PROM-KAISER-Carbon_Cycle_and_RS_Math.pdf

Ant, you say a lot but I found nothing relevant in your post. Do you mean that the fraud backing Chris Tourney should be excused his stupidity because he was misled by the Royal Society?
The “acidification of oceans” is about as relevant as the acidification of soft drinks. There has been some research on the effect of acidification on marine life, and it apparently has a positive effect.

Nature has a huge carbon cycle, which works very efficiently. It has processed all the human emissions without missing a beat. The effect of human emissions is trivial, which is why you can find no science which shows any measurable effect of human emissions.

You might acknowledge that, if you wish to contribute something relevant.

spindoc, I had a look at the reference you gave and then went to a reference that had been used by Klaus Kaiser,

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/#mlo_growth

The reference clearly shows that there is 398.03 ppm of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. that is about 100 ppm higher than measured for the last 800,000 years

http://blog.timesunion.com/weather/400-ppm/2791/

But your point about how long carbon dioxide lasts is academic when you consider the amount of methane that is being released. That is measurable just as CO2 is.
In 1980 the amount of methane measured globally was around 1550 parts per billion, they are currently measuring around 1,900 ppb in the Arctic region alone and it is known that it is also being released elsewhere. Nothing futuristic about this. I believe the projections made are complaints made by many in relation to climate science.

Acidification has already been blamed for killing off sections of coral reefs, it is known that it will have a big impact on fisheries in the future. You might not be old enough to know able acid rain that destroyed a large section of the famous Black Forest years ago. Acidification has the same impact in the ocean. Clearly, anybody who denies acidification in oceans has done very little reading in relation to science.
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/What+is+Ocean+Acidification%3F

http://oceanacidification.net/

Leo Lane please provide references that show that acidification in the ocean is of no concern.

I would have thought being concerned for the health of fish stock would be worth considering.

ant,

You said << spindoc, I had a look at the reference you gave and then went to a reference that had been used by Klaus Kaiser, >>

Rubbish!

Once you saw on the link, the maths, the equations and real scientific analysis on the PDF file you ran a million miles in the opposite direction, you knew you were done over.

If you did read the paper on the link provided, why don’t you share with us the summary conclusions from that report that you supposedly “read”?

Just copy it out and post it!

You also said << your point about how long carbon dioxide lasts is academic”. What point was that ant? I did not make one. I simply posted a link to the challenge made by real scientists to the Royal Society that you referenced.

ant, when you have hit rock bottom, stop digging.

Ken:

Thanks for the article - very timely indeed. You may be interested in the philosophical school of critical realism, which adds a layer of philosophical support for what you're saying.

Regards,
Jim Page

Hello Ant I think I see your point here. First it was global warming now it is climate change. I do remember the acid rain hoo hah, rain is acidic and always has been. So now we are being prepared to move on to methane as a kazillion times worse than Co2 rather than stay with a current argument.
Ant, good work, a moving target is so much harder to hit. I just cannot understand how people who are not getting a nice little drink out of this nonsense support those that are? Please explain.

Ant, I cannot find the research which found a positive effect on breeding,

As you have seen from the link you supplied, the assertion that acidification will have an adverse effect is speculative, which does not mean that the fraud backers will not promote it as they have the baseless AGW .scam. In fact the frauds at Skeptical Science, are doing it right now.

The fraud promoters’ problem is that people enjoy drinking carbonic acid all the time with far higher acidity than the ocean

As to the “acid rain” myth raised by the deranged Rachel Carson:
“e NAPAP (National Acid Rain Precipitation Assessment Project) study published in 1989 – which took ten years and cost $500 million, the most comprehensive federal study ever undertaken — proved that acid rain was a minor nuisance and that passing expensive regulation would do little to address the supposed problem”.
http://www.nationalreview.com/planet-gore/14489/truth-about-acid-rain-msm-wants-bury-climaquiddick/henry-payne

Carson’s book, “Silent Spring” was full of such imbecilic rubbish that it was a founding document of the green movement, the movement which remains inflicted on us up to the present day.
The book had such an effect that despite the report on acid rain, and a comprehensive report showing that DDT is safe, it was politically unwise to refrain from legislation aimed at acid rain, which was passed, and the banning of DDT, which went ahead, despite there being no rational basis for it, just a book by a mad woman..
So there is a precedent for the AGW fraud. Group madness is a fact of life.

Spindoctor, your paper created by Klaus Kaiser has not been peer reviewed and it seems to me that you have not read your own reference. It was a dispute about the longevity of carbon dioxide and the amount of carbon dioxide created by anthropogenic means. The Royal Society and US National Academy of Sciences suggested that it takes millennia for carbon dioxide to break down , it being something Klaus Kaiser disputed. In my response back I gave two clues that a perceptive reader would have noted that I had actually read your paper and not run off a million miles as you suggested.
Kaiser talks about the RC paper of 2010, the reference I gave was published this year; though I realize his paper was made available this year.
Klaus Kaiser used as a reference http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/#mlo_growth which stated that the measured amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is a shade under 400ppm. If you check Klaus Kaisers’s paper you will see that at the bottom of his paper he gave the noaa reference. If you read his paper he talks about the longevity of CO2 something I thought you had understood.
About 30-40% of carbon dioxide is taken up by ocean and forms a carbonic acid. That is not something Kaiser has taken into account. CO2 is not the only greenhouse gas, I’ll leave it to you to find out what they are. Incidentally, the oceans have been picking up 93.4 percent of warming.
We are about to go into an El Nino cycle meaning we can expect warmer temperatures. There is generally a three to four year cycle between El Nino and La Nina, three years have elapsed since the last El Nino.
Spindoc, if you cannot understand what you use as a reference, and where it sits in the scheme of things don’t use it.
http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~archer/reprints/archer.2008.tail_implications.pdf http://www.skepticalscience.com/modelling-the-apocalypse.html http://www.skepticalscience.com/dodgy_diagrams_1_residence_time.htm

JBowyer, I used the example of the Black Forest as action was taken through ensuring that sulphur and nitrogen oxide are now treated on the basis of a refinement of technology. Queenstown in Tasmania is an example of a town where sulphur oxide made a huge mess.
And you are right there is still some low ph rain in particular areas. In the 1960s it was beginning to be realized that the Black Forest was being damaged by acid rain. It had been a anthropogenic problem sorted out without fuss.

Leo Lane, acidification of oceans is something that is happening it has an impact on coral and shelled organisms. It means that part of the food chain is disrupted. There are coral reefs that have been hit by acidification there is nothing academic or computer modeled in relation to that.

ant,

“In summary The Royal Society’s claim that it would take millennia for CO2 from human activity to dissipate from the atmosphere is clearly untenable. However, it would also appear inconceivable to think that the RS would not have done a few of such simple order-of-magnitude calculations, as shown above, to confirm the veracity of their claims. Therefore, even though it took months to prepare the revision to their previous document on that subject, it appears the Royal Society’s math is still wrong.”

“Klaus Kaiser PhD, retired, author of CONVENIENT MYTHS (www.convenientmyths.com); Research Scientist with a major government research institute; Peer Reviewer for several journals; Chief Editor of one. For any scientist, at least a rudimentary understanding of the principles of other scientific disciplines is necessary when undertaking research in any field”.

Spindoc
If Klaus Kaiser is right then that’s great; however, there have been experiments completed that would dispute what he has suggested. It would be great if he was right as when mitigation happens then positive changes will happen quickly. The point is that the level of CO2 is increasing as measured at Hawaii and Cape Grim whether it lasts a day, a month, or whatever; if it is increasing it is an academic point. However, the literature generally goes against what Klaus Kaiser has stated. I identified a deficit in that he did not take account of the CO2 being taken up by oceans.
I noticed that you have quoted part of his cv; the scientists who believe climate change is real, certainly have impressive cvs as well, your quote is a non- sequitur.
My interest particularly has been in what has been happening in the Arctic area; where record temperatures have been happening, there has been a melting of glaciers and the Arctic ice sheet over several decades. There are no arguments in relation to that, no computer modeling; it’s what is actually happening. The ice sheet is thin and easily broken up by storms. Ice reflects the sun’s rays, the dark water takes in warmth from the sun; that is seen to be a problem. Already much methane is being discharged, methane and methane hydrate are a particular worry. Deniers can scoff, but that does not make any difference to what is happening, nothing to do with computer modelling

Hi ant,

What can I say, "come in spinner".

spindoc, I'm sorry if you can't argue against facts.