The opportunity cost of the lie of AGW is in the $trillions. That is money which could have provided energy to Africa, built a research post on the Moon and placed satellites in orbit sufficient to protect Earth from a real potential environmental disaster, asteroid strikes.

Instead we have had the egos of shonks, 3rd rate scientists and the monstrous ambitions of an unelected corrupt bureaucracy, the UN, catered for by this vast waste of money.

And yet not one of the leading exponents of this lie has yet been prosecuted.

It is extraordinary how much space OLO gives to views such as the ones expressed in this article. One has to assume that the editor shares Tony Abbott's well known dislike of and disregard for, scientific evidence. The science relating to climate change is well established and shared by 97% of the world's climate scientists. Yet the remaining 3% are given undue prominence, not only in OLO but also in the ignorant rantings of radio 'shock jocks', The Australian newspaper and its stablemates, and elsewhere.

Just to take one example of the consistent misrepresentation found in this anti-science propaganda. The author states "Yet, contrary to IPCC forecasts, global temperatures have actually plateaued over the past 17 years despite a rise in CO2 of about 8%. "

That is simply untrue. It reflects the author's bias as to how he defines "global temperature", which is the commonly misunderstood measure of global surface temperatures. They account for only 2% of the earth's warming. More importantly, the planet has continued to accumulate heat at a rate equivalent to four Hiroshima bomb detonations per second over the past 15 years (Nuccitelli 2014).

As to the role of human behaviour in that warming, the IPCC stated that the best estimate is that humans caused 100% of the global warming over the past 60 years. It follows that if we wish to modify that impact we have to modify the behaviour that causes the change. The overwhelming evidence for that change is the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Part of the tragedy for Australia is that tonight's Budget will probably reinforce the anti-science approach of this singularly dangerous government.

James slinks in and quotes the lie of the 97% consensus thoroughly discredited:

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11191-013-9647-9

And then sinks further by quoting Nuccitelli and the despicable Hiroshima analogy. This analogy was first used by Sandiford who is taken to task here:

http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com.au/2013/08/agw-lies-hiroshima-and-academics.html

Jo takes the ridiculous atom bomb analogy apart here:

http://joannenova.com.au/2013/12/sun-dumps-500-times-as-many-hiroshima-bombs-of-energy-as-climate-change/

The scare-mongering of the alarmists is not just absurd it is pernicious and has cost our community and the world a great deal.

The evil of wasted intelligence is perhaps greater than the trillions wasted by global warming alarmism. Seeing many of the world's nicest people completely taken in has been very sad; seeing the herd mind of multi-degreed people prevent them displaying rational skepticism is just so sad.

The vicious dishonesty of much 'global warming' writing is terrible; ad hominem disguised as argument; argument from authority disguised as science; and circular reasoning finally preventing any escape for the sufferer. James, get help.

Tulip mania is not over for many; to do real science now would undermine their self-concept. Rational people should keep their powder dry, as desperation will cause ever more irrational attempts to proselytise and coerce the community.

James
It is typical of the climate terrorists to set out to attack those who hold different opinions to themselves.

You started your post with an unfounded attack on people and organisations that promote the publication of a wide range of views.

Why can't you terrorists accept your views are now those of minority. To be consistant shouldn't you apply your own argument about an overwhelming consensus? After all you are not a climate scientist, you are merely another unqualified commentator.

By all means, don't believe the reality of global warming, but after reading the following link, go and buy a snorkel and flippers http://m.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/west-antarctic-ice-sheet-melt-unstoppable-pushing-sea-levels-higher-scientists-say-20140513-386en.html.

The evidence is in front of us. The agenda however, is to continue using fossil fuels, and since government taxes on fuel add up to about 60% of the price of fuel at the bowser, has a larger vested interest than the oil companies. Go figure, that government doesn't want to acknowledge global warming.

Hi Tom,

Sounds like there are many round the world that agree with you. Not that we hear much of it in Oz, perhaps that’s why we still have some vocal “believers” here.

It’s hard to see this alarmism going anywhere but backwards. The global infrastructure to support a global response to global warming has already gone. No emissions trading markets, no global agreement and the collapse of the global renewable energy industry.

Nothing can now be done even if there was a problem, thanks to alarmism it is now just another minority that cried Wolf too often.

Antarctic Sea Ice At Record Levels - The Australian, 12 May 2014

May 5: Global Sea Ice Area Second Highest On Record - Real Science, 8 May 2014

Most Himalayan Glaciers Stable And In A Steady State, New Study Finds - The Global Warming Policy Foundation, 10 May 2014

Will Solar Doldrums Lead To Global Cooling? - No Tricks Zone, 10 May 2014

Climate Change Debate: A Famous Scientist Becomes A Sceptic - Spiegel Online, 12 May 2014

Britain Wins Shale Battle As EU Leaves Fracking Out Of Stricter Environment Laws - Reuters, 21 December 2013

EU Gives Go-Ahead For Fracking After Brussels Vows No New Regulations - The Times, 21 December 2013

Dow Chemical Holds Back On Investment In Europe, Cities Costly Climate Policies - Bloomberg, 20 December 2013

Met Office Global Warming Prediction Falls Flat - IPCC Report blog, 20 November 2013

Melting ‘Not Undermining Greenland’s Ice Sheet’ - The Australian, 18 November 2013

David Whitehouse: Why The Global Warming ‘Pause’ Hasn’t Gone Away - The Global Warming Policy Foundation, 18 November 2013

the charlatons will need to find another source of income. This religion backed by junk science has been exposed and only flat earthers are still pushing it with some desire to see another diaster to justify their ignorance and deceitful propaganda. Such moral outrage will need to be directed elsewhere.

Dick
With all due respect the article does not provide any science backed reference to link man made co2 emissions to global warming nor to ocean heating nor to melting ice.

Please refer me to those peer reviewed articles so I can assess without relying on the views of journalists or a couple of unnamed or unaccredited scientists.
Thanks.

Here we go again, someone with no expertise in climate science writes an article about climate change including all the well exercised denier tropes.

Cherry picking 1998 as when temperature measurements started is always a good sign that denialism is to come. Sadly for Tom he is wrong. There has been statistically significant warming of surface temperatures since 1998. More importantly, there has also been warming of the deep oceans.

Quoting the nongovernmental panel on climate science as if they have any credibility is another sure give away that denialism is to come. They are a small rump group dedicated to the promotion of climate change denialism.

Harris has the irony to write quote Plato on the Noble Lie. Whether you would agree with Plato’s position or not (I for one disagree), it has no relevance to the Ignoble Lie promulgated by the Heartland Institute and its acolytes and by Harris in this article where he claims that global warming is not happening.

If we can ever get past the climate denialism to a discussion of what are the approaches to addressing a warming world, we could make some progress.

Imajulianutter, with all due respect, neither have you. However spindoc has gone to some considerable trouble to supply links to peer reviews.

But allow me to jog some memories of the political narrative pertaining to the carbon tax:

Firstly, we were sold on the concept of a carbon tax being placed upon polluting industries, in order to coerce them into using more environmentally friendly methods;

Next, was that industry would pass-on the tax to consumers, and that it was up to consumers to choose businesses that were more environmentally friendly, thereby encouraging competition and again, coercion, for pollutant companies to change their practices;

Now, it's a tax used by government on consumers.

Have companies changed their practices? No. But WE , the citizens, pay a carbon tax.

I've mentioned this before...we have the technology to be dramatically less pollutant than we are. But if government is making 60% on the price of petrol, why would they want us to use solar (they can't tax sunlight), or why use steam power for cars (as it would be considered immoral to tax water)? Government would lose billions of dollars per month in revenues if we dispensed with using petrol. So we pay exorbitant prices on petrol, and then pay a carbon tax on top for other energy and products.

Ergo, why would we believe what government says, or anything they pay scientists to say, since they would only pay those that support government's financial interests, which in turn, is polluting industry's interests?

Government doesn't run this country, big business does. Government just creates laws for big business to legally rape and pillage the people and the environment.

Dick

'Imajulianutter, with all due respect, neither have you.'

But I didn't make any assertions Dick, the article you quoted did.
I've just asked you for supporting references.

'Firstly, we were sold on the concept of a carbon tax ... '

Ahhh no. You were I wasn't.

'Next, was that industry would pass-on the tax to consumers
You might have believed the simplicity in that, I doubted it would work like that.

Ahhh the carbon tax laws were introduced by labor, the protector of the people. The libs want to ditch it.

Imajulianutter, I linked a newspaper article that cited two scientists. I'm not about to do your homework for you, so lookup their work if you're genuinely interested...but I have a strong sense that you're not.

I wasn't sold on anything, as it came out of the mouths of politicians. If you're a partisan supporter, then more fool you. Your mate in office is about to sell more Australian assets and further reduce revenue capabilities. Both sides have done it, claiming "fiscal responsibility". Both have sold us down the toilet.

If you remember the 80's, we changed car emissions and stopped using fluorocarbons as they were creating a hole in the ozone layer. Since doing that, the ozone layer has repaired itself somewhat. So if you're proffering that humanity has no impact upon the environment, I'd have to say that's swill.

I recognize that the planet has its own cycle. But to suggest we have no impact is just plain foolish. The amount of impact compared to the planet's cycle is the only debatable question, of which I certainly have no answer, nor most scientists. But pollutants and deforestation amongst other things, DO impact upon the environment.

Well, given my druthers, I'd raise the carbon tax to around a million dollars a ton.
However, the missing element is a cap, which could be current emission: meaning no sane person would ever actually pay this tax, repeat, no sane person would ever pay this tax!
And following that, I would want governments to invest in very localized, cheaper than coal thorium power. Localized, given that lowers retail costs, by a further half!
We have enough thorium to power the world for around 700 years! However, we could simply retain it for the huge economic advantages that would then accrue to us.
And it helps, that it is also carbon free power; meaning we can use it, to make steel using the direct reduction, arc furnace method, and get on refining aluminium, which is often described as congealed electricity.
And it could also underpin, a brand new light metals smelting industry
I just don't understand why all you folks are arguing about whether or not climate change is real or man made! It just doesn't matter!
Simply put, climate change is accepted by most nations, and we can, if we are bright, use that acceptance, to vastly improve our economy, by picking options that actually quite dramatically lower the cost of energy!
So what's the problem, Punch, Judy? Don't you like money?
Rhrosty.

Agro opines:

"There has been statistically significant warming of surface temperatures since 1998. More importantly, there has also been warming of the deep oceans."

OHC in the depths is a furphy because that warming, which is problematic anyway, is not coming from the surface with SST plummeting since 2003 and OHC to 700 meters flat over the same period. It must be the volcanoes or aliens on the ocean floor sending heat up. No doubt agro, who is in touch with aliens, will set us straight.

And global temps have been flat for periods up to over 17 years depending on which indice you use, which is interesting in itself; that is all the temp indices are different.

Dick links to the new wind paper by Nerilie J. Abram et al which supposedly shows Antarctic winds increasing and causing droughts in Australia.

What a terrible paper.

Every region and Australia as a whole is showing increases in rainfall except the South West which has its rainfall determined by the Indian Ocean Dipole not the Antarctic; BOM charts show this:

http://reg.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/timeseries.cgi?graph=rranom&area=mdb&season=0112&ave_yr=T

Winds world wide are decreasing due to "Stilling":

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022169411007487

Winds in Australia are declining:

http://www.bom.gov.au/amm/docs/2011/alexander_hres.pdf

The Antarctic Jet Stream is declining:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/windpower/8545306/Wind-farms-Britain-is-running-out-of-wind.html

And if AGW were real winds would be declining due to the reduced energy gradients between the poles and the rest of the globe; even Professor Mueller says that.

Just the usual crap from the alarmists with the usual alarmist devotees here to spruik the dream.

‘morning Agronomist,

Excellent stuff but may I just seek a little clarification?

So those with no climate expertise should be ignored, as you suggest with this author OK?

Those with a great deal of professional experience in climatology are OK as long as they don’t write papers on the topic or have them per reviewed and belong to the nongovernment panel on climate change, OK?

But it is OK for those who write the IPCC’s SPM to have not one single scientist of any description on their panel, OK?

You are happy to debate skeptics as long as they admit they are “denialist”, accept the CAGW proposition and then you think you might “make some progress”, OK?

But if we do admit we are denialist and even accept the CAGW proposition, you will still exclude us because we don’t have “expertise in climate science”, OK?

So if I take your entire list of “conditions of acceptability”, the entire global public is excluded even if they admit to their sins and convert and non-conformist science globally is excluded.

That means only members of the public that already believe in CAGW are allowed a voice, scientists are allowed a voice if they already believe, and even those who are non-scientists are OK if they support the cause, OK?

I don’t know you from a bar of soap Agronomist, yet there is one thing of which I can be absolutely certain, you said all the above but you could never get past your schizophrenia to explain it.

But I would like you to try.

(Health Warning:- Attempts to “feel” this post rather than “comprehending” it are potentially hazardous)

Spindoc...nicely put.

Cheers.

The fraud-backers were quick off the mark in comments. A truthful article about the AGW fraud really stirs them up. Understandably, as there is no science to support the fraud, they are reduced to blatant lies, like James’ 97% of climate scientists, and Dick thr Dunce on the melting Antarctic, where, in fact, the ice extent has established a new record:
“ the rapid expansion had continued into May and the seasonal cover was now bigger than the record “by a significant margin’’.“This exceeds the past record for the satellite era by about 320,000sq km, “
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/63013

Agronomist, the serial fraudbacker, is so ignorant of science that he has been known to give Skeptical Science as a “scientific” reference

This article is timely and welcome, because it reminds us that there is sanity and reason, which will eventually prevail over the madness and dishonesty of the AGW fraud. It gives us a look at the nonsense and complete lack of substance of those who support this obscene fraud

What you write here cohenite really is a joke.

Starting with ocean heat content there is an argument from incredulity, a bit of cherry picking and a major error. If the argument is that there has been no warming since 1998, then warming of the oceans should be considered from 1998. The heat content has gone up by 9 x 10^22 J in the 0-700 m http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/

cohenite though wants to cherry pick the period since 2003. Why? Even then his claim is bogus: heat content has gone up by 3 x 10^22 J. For the 0-2000 m heat content has gone up by 13 x 10^22 J since 1998 and by 8 x 10^22 J since 2003. Then because cohenite can’t understand why ocean heat content can increase even though sea surface temperatures are not different to those in the massive El Nino year of 1998 http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/ersst/visersst.php?img=ersst.1880.ann.png then it can’t be happening.

To top it off cohenite links to annual rainfall patterns for the Murray-Darling Basin in an attempt to disprove Abrahm et al’s statement that winter rainfall has declined in southern Australia. Something that has indeed happened. http://reg.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/timeseries.cgi?graph=rranom&area=saus&season=0608&ave_yr=T

spindoc, my mention of the lack of qualifications for Harris is an explanation of why the claims should be carefully examined. They are indeed found wanting. Harris is one of a group of complete amateurs in this area, like our own Anthony Cox, who get provided with a soapbox here and are happy to spout whatever rubbish they can so long as it denies the reality that the globe is warming and that humans are contributing to this. As for the NIPCC as far as I can determine it consists of 3 people – hence why I described it as a rump. One of those people heads up the Heartland Institute.

The IPCC SPM is authored by people who have appropriate expertise in the topic being addressed and contains biogeographers, economists, political geographers, ecologists, and climate scientists. This is the broad range of expertise that would be needed to address the issue of how to respond to climate change.

@Leo Lane...Hahahaha! Thanks for gut-wrenching laugh!

Did you actually make any calculations on the numbers given? 110,000 sq kms per day for the month of April, being 30 days, totals 3.3 million sq kms for that month. It then said the total ice sheet was approx 9 million sq kms. Which means that a growth of 3.3 million sq kms constitutes approx 50% increase in the size of the Antarctic ice sheet in one month. I suppose you're suggesting we've commenced an Ice Age, are you?

You totally ignore the fact that I acknowledged that the planet has its own cycle, and that it's debatable as to how much of climate change is planet vs human activity, but that both must impact. Which means, I don't really have an opinion, and my link of a drifting ice sheet was only one of interest, not of a claim for one argument or another.

And finally, my favorite, "Dick thr dunce"...immediately reminded me of the old joke, "before I went to yunyversity, I cooldnt even spel injuneer, and now I are one!"

I heartily congratulate you on your arrogant ignorance, illiteracy, lack of comprehension, cherry-picking, innumeracy and audacious use of ad hominem in the process.

Please don't bother replying.

‘morning Agronomist,

I’ve just checked your response against the points I asked you to address. I guess the schizophrenia has you beaten as you failed to address one single point.

Perhaps I could distill things down to something more manageable for you.

Since you have nominated all those, who by your reasoning should NOT participate in the CAGW debate, could you give us your nominations for those who ARE allowed to contribute?

Thanks.

Dick D and Agronomist. Both well said. If you look back at previous articles OLO has published on climate change you find exactly the same people, Cohenite, Lane, and their ilk spouting exactly the same kind of ill-informed unscientific rubbish in the comments section. Any attempts to lift the debate are invariably met with a barrage of ad hominen comments.

May I suggest you are both wasting your time trying to persuade them of anything that does not fit their extraordinarily narrow view of the world, a world free of facts, logic, common sense, evidence and humanity. But do keep writing. I at least generally learn something from what you say and am glad to do so.

2003 is the relevant time for OHC and the rest of the alleged OHC because that's when remotely reliable temp measurement began with the ARGO. Basically when you factor in the error prone measurement before ARGO nothing has been happening in the ocean since 1955:

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/annual-forcing-into-out-of-the-ocean.jpg

And Agro you dill, you've also only looked at the MDB in the BOM link which includes ALL regions! Check again.

James, the only scientific evidence you've ever presented to support your high-handed arrogance is, well, non-existent.

EVERY time a clown of AGW like you comes along with their nose in the air looking down at those who dare to doubt the given truth of AGW I have given you chapter and verse of the scientific reasons why AGW is a lie.

Your belief systems are your business; the rest of us should not have to pay and clean up after you. Between the alarmists and the Islamists this world is going to hell in a hand basket for no good reason except the disciples of both AGW and Islam are fanatics.

Dick and James,

All I have ever done with you two is to ask you to show me the peer reviewed literature that ties the cause of global warming to humans.

As usual you both refuse to answer my simple queries except with derision and personal attack.

Why is that?

Is it that there is no proof of the link.

Imajulianutter, can't you read, or are you too lazy?!? My last two posts stated clearly that I don't have an opinion, that the link I posted was out of interest and not argument for either side, that spindoc posted extensive links (how much more do you want?!?), that I won't do your homework for you, and that the planet's own cycle versus human impact are debatable.

Oh, I get it, you like trolling. Don't include me in your diatribe of trite.

@James O'Neill, thanks for your kind words and good advice. There's quite a few trolls here, isn't there? Is there a way to have private conversations at this forum? There's a few people I'd like to invite to another forum that's low on trolls, high on good discourse, but I wouldn't link it here for fear of some trolls following...plus it's poor form to link another forum at a forum. The only thing, is that it's an international forum, not an Aussie one...though with the partisan aggression and ad hominem that flies around here, some might find it refreshing. :)

Cheers.

so Dick does that mean you doubt AGW?

No need to be nasty now.

Some mothers do have them cohenite and I guess yours was one. There was quite a lot of data available from various temperature probes for ocean heat, at least to 700 m, prior to 2003. Regardless of that you were still wrong in your claim that ocean heat had not increased since 2003.

The best you can offer is Anthony Watts? You are not even trying now. This is a better place to get an assessment of trends in ocean heat back to 1955 http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2012GL051106/abstract;jsessionid=BB1EC9C84977C9211289ED4AA8488297.f01t02 It uses real data as opposed to Watts’ fake data and tells a very different story.

“And Agro you dill, you've also only looked at the MDB in the BOM link which includes ALL regions! Check again.” In fact I linked to southern Australian winter rainfall, which corresponds to the statement made by Abrahm et al. I don’t know what you have been smoking.

spindoc, I do hope you don’t hurt yourself wrestling with that strawman.

I haven’t made any statement about who shouldn’t be allowed to participate in a debate about climate science. I have merely pointed out that there is a preponderance of amateurs amongst those denying the world is getting warmer and cautioned that amateurs, due to their lack of expertise, frequently get it wrong.

Ah fudge agro; Levitus 2012; done to death here:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/23/an-ocean-of-overconfidence/#more-61861

And here:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/05/16/trenberths-missing-heat-still-missing-new-paper-shows-a-flat-ocean-temperature-trend-0-09c-over-the-past-55-years/

But David Stockwell has the most interesting critique of Levitus 2012:

http://landshape.org/enm/levitus-data-on-ocean-forcing-confirms-skeptics-falsifies-ipcc/

In fact Levitus 2012 severely undermines AGW. The IPCC says:

“The understanding of anthropogenic warming and cooling influences on climate has improved since the TAR, leading to very high confidence that the effect of human activities since 1750 has been a net positive forcing of +1.6 [+0.6 to +2.4] W m–2.”

Levitus 2012 concludes:

“The heat content of the world ocean for the 0-2000 m layer increased by 24.0×1022 J corresponding to a rate of 0.39 Wm-2 (per unit area of the world ocean) and a volume mean warming of 0.09ºC. This warming rate corresponds to a rate of 0.27 Wm-2 per unit area of earth’s surface.”

And my comment about Southern rainfall and the IOD still stands.

As usual thanks for coming agro.

Dick the Dunce. Thanks for all those figures on the record expansion of ice in the Antarctic. I do not know what you meant by them, but at least we know that the article to which you linked us was a fraud-backing lie. That is why I mistook you for a fraud-backer, and am so pleased to hear that you are not.

Unfortunately your style is somehow reminiscent of Agronomist who is a heavily committed fraud-backer. He also throws around numbers trying to convince himself that global warming has not ceased, despite all scientific observations that it has.

These are your words Dick,” By all means, don't believe the reality of global warming, but after reading the following link, go and buy a snorkel and flippers http://m.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/west-antarctic-ice-sheet-melt-unstoppable-pushing-sea-levels-higher-scientists-say-20140513-386en.html.

The evidence is in front of us. “

That certainly sounds like an ignorant fraud-backer, and the article contains the baseless assertion of “human caused global warming”, so thanks for setting things straight.

Truly wish I had more time for playing here because these things are terrific fun but other things have intervened.

Let me dip the toe in though.

Hey Leo and Spindoc, could you be a little more specific about what you mean when you claim the Antarctic sea ice is at record levels?

What does that mean for global warming? What if I told the region around the south pole is currently averaging temperatures nearly 4C above normal? Is that figure something you would accept? And if so would that make you reassess any notion of the Antarctic region being colder than normal?

steele

show us the data supporting your assertion.

For the benefit of all those who still believe in the science behind CAGW, I have a suggestion.

If the science is so compelling, what should happen is that a global body like the UN should form a committee which requires member states to sign binding agreements to cut CO2 emissions, fund research and set RET’s.

That UN committee should then create a UN panel to review all the tax payer funded research each year to determine just how effective the measures have been.

They will also need to establish emissions trading markets so that investors can purchase certificates and sell them for a profit to those countries who fall short of their targets. We could have a market in the USA, say Chicago, one for the UN and one for the EU.

A global renewable energy industry index of say the top 30 renewable industry corporations (call it say RENIXX) can be listed for investment through the worlds largest Banks, super funds and investment Banks. These huge corporations would contract to build the wind farms and solar power stations.

Wealthy land owners can then donate their land for a fee to host the renewable generation. Government can then subsidize the renewable energy corporations to guarantee they make profits.

The really, really neat thing about this global infrastructure is that the Big Banks, Wealthy Investors, the worlds largest industrial corporations, research organizations. wealthy land owners and political elites get to make lots and lots of money, all guaranteed by legislation.

The public get the privilege of paying for all this through their general taxes, through levies on their energy bills and through lost jobs as energy intensive industries close or shift off shore.

All this can be created if the science is credible. If it is not credible, all this infrastructure will simply collapse and the public remnants of the CAGW movement will be left to chatter without purpose on various blogs.

That infrastructure is all gone because your science cannot even convince the global infrastructure created for it in the first place.

But you still debate it posthumously? RIP.

Dear imajulianutter,

More than happy to provide the source to you but first can I have your understanding of spindoc's quote “Antarctic Sea Ice At Record Levels - The Australian, 12 May 2014” ? Do you accept it as factual and substantive? What does it mean in the global warming debate?

And if you do would accept that the area around the South Pole warming nearly 4C above average would be countervailing evidence?

I notice spindoc has dodged the question so it is up to you my friend.

@Imajuluanutter, I don't have an opinion, since I'm not a climatologist. I'm interested, but not opinionated on the topic. My link, as I said, was of interest not of argument. It was a follow-on from an article I read previously about a large iceberg that broke off the Antarctic continent...http://www.scar.org/news/antarctic/. The iceberg story is in the link, amongst other stories. I didn't originally read of it at the link site but in the SMH, but it's the same story.

Here's the issue of adopting an extreme view one way or the other on an issue like the planet's climate, for me anyway...I don't believe we'll truly understand our own planet's processes until we have developed the ability for terraforming other planets, and buggered them up, learning from our mistakes. So to adopt an extreme view either side of the debate strikes me as more of ego than it does of understanding, since I don't believe we yet have that level of knowledge. As it is with viewing the cosmos, scientists are as often amazed at new findings as they are validated with confirmations of theories. So to claim understanding of our own planet smacks of conceit, not understanding, and of having a preconceived opinion and then cherry-picking those that validate that opinion.

So posters advocating such extremism of belief are in effect displaying their own ego and unreasonable-ness in refusing to discuss things calmly. Abuse is the norm at this forum, which is disappointing.

@Leo Lame..."fraud-backer"?!? Did you go to the Fox News school of repetition, abuse and yelling to tell a story? How puerile of you.

Your zealotry only exemplifies the danger that you epitomize...extremism.

Hi Steelie,

Still bending those “truths” I see.

You suggest I should explain one of the eleven recent press releases I posted. The one you picked on was from The Australian, May 12, 2014.

I can assure you that I did not write that article or for that matter, any of the others, it is not my “quote” I just provided the links. If you still want an explanation you can contact the author direct, Graham Lloyd, Environmental Editor at the Australian.

Like most posters on OLO or even in the wider public domain, I wouldn’t have the foggiest idea about CAGW. I can however spot a scam when I see one.

As I said in my previous post, your science couldn’t even sustain the global infrastructure that was created to respond to CAGW. That’s how we know it was all a load of old tosh.

<< That infrastructure is all gone because your science cannot even convince the global infrastructure created for it in the first place. But you still debate it posthumously? RIP. >>

Where do you find the energy to debate a phenomenon that is already dead? The only place this now gets discussed is on blogs by people like you. Duh!

Dear spindoc,

The only reason for my choice was that it was the first on the list. I'm sure that examination of the others you posted would yield much the same. But it is you who have flagged them here to support your contention that AGW is dead yet you seem neither to have understood them nor shown any willingness to defend them. Quite telling one would have thought. It appears all you do is grab any headline you come across which supports your blinkered view and then post it. How can we take anything you post with any seriousness when this is your modus operandi?

So I invite you to give this one a crack. What does it mean when it states “Antarctic Sea Ice At Record Levels”?

Hi Steelie,

Your question should be directed to the author, you have his details.

You are correct in one respect, that I posted these articles from around the globe to demonstrate that the alarmism and science promoted by CAGW believers, is contradicted by much of the international media. As you are aware I post similar links about every couple of months.

Let me put this another way Steelie. If this is a global issue and requires a global response, where is the global infrastructure that was in place but is no longer? If you do feel there is anything left, can you tell us what it is?

You are a strong promoter of the science behind CAGW and that’s fine. It’s all you have left anyway.

That said, there seems little point in debating your science with those who don’t understand it, which includes me. You should however, take your science to those who can respond to it. Politicians in Australia, overseas and perhaps more importantly to the UNFCCC and the IPCC.

There comes a point Steelie, when the constant banging on about CAGW and the alarmist perspective becomes counter productive.

Looking forward to hearing about the global infrastructure to support this global problem.

cohenite, you must really be smoking something now. Not a single one of those pages criticises the results of Levitus et al.

In the first two Anthony Watts accepts the data of Levitus et al. because he wants to use it to attack something else. Watts of course shows his true ignorance of physical processes by comparing the amount of warming of the oceans with the predicted warming of the atmosphere – ignoring the fact that it takes more energy to warm water than the atmosphere.

However, I dare say Watts attacks Levitus et al. elsewhere when it suits his purpose.

Stockwell also seems to accept the results of Levitus et al., but makes the physics faux par of trying to claim that it is not possible for a water body to transfer heat to another object. Why, I can’t understand because that is something you can easily observe.

Your joke about Levitus et al. undermining AGW is a good one and I laughed heartily at it. I am sure only the gullible, like your acolyte imajulianutter, will readily accept your explanation that because there is a difference in the amount of energy absorbed by the oceans and the amount absorbed by the atmosphere that means no heat has been absorbed at all.

You make an interesting suggestion spindoc, but not one I think at all workable. It assumes for a start that everyone will behave in a rational way. Unfortunately, we know that is not the case. There are a group of fruitcakes around who are happy to shell out large amounts of money for magic water as a cure for disease. The behaviour of humans is no way to assess the validity of science.

Hi Agronomist,

So you don’t think my suggestion would work?

It was not really a “suggestion” you nincompoop!

What I described was the whole UNFCCC, IPCC, Kyoto, Emissions Trading Markets, RENIXX renewable Energy Industrials, financiers and profiteers that are the CAGW infrastructure.

Kyoto passed away quietly in intensive care on December 12, 2012, the Chicago Climate Exchange closed in 2011 and the UN/EU markets collapsed from $45 per ton in 2008 to $4 per ton in 2012, the RENIXX index collapsed in January 2013.

The only think you got right was that it “was unworkable”. Of course it was unworkable, that’s why the whole scam collapsed.

It was all REAL you unmitigated idiot.

Ok steelee I accept the assertion temps around the antarctic are rising by 4 degrees.
Now provide me proof of AGW.

You're always fun agro; especially when you are being devious. The Willis post at WUWT notes this about Levitus 2012:

"Here’s the problem I have with this graph. It claims that we know the temperature of the top two kilometres (1.2 miles) of the ocean in 1955-60 with an error of plus or minus one and a half hundredths of a degree C …

It also claims that we currently know the temperature of the top 2 kilometers of the global ocean, which is some 673,423,330,000,000,000 tonnes (673 quadrillion tonnes) of water, with an error of plus or minus two thousandths of a degree C …"

Aren't models wonderful things?

David Stockwell's excellent piece compares the IPCC forcing as expressed in atmospheric temperature as being "+1.6 [+0.6 to +2.4] W m–2.” to Levitus 2012 which shows a rate of 0.27 Wm-2 also expressed as atmospheric temperature which is less than 1/6th of the official IPCC forcing. This comparison is predicated on heat moving from the ocean to the atmosphere!

So when you say David Stockwell says "that it is not possible for a water body to transfer heat to another object" you have either completely misunderstood him or are verballing him

Agro

'The behaviour of humans is no way to assess the validity of science.'

But hey Agro isn't consensus a uniquely human behaviour?

lol lol rocking lol

nincompoop, unmitigated idiot are really very kindly

Dick, your term “extremism” and your parameters for it do not seem appropriate. I assert the truth, and you find me extreme. You call yourself “Dastardly Dick”, and then say that I am puerile? “Fraud-backer” is a most appropriate term It is not about name calling, if that is what you mean by “puerile”, but about composing the right name.
When I originally became interested, I wanted to know about the science. I eventually discovered that it was not about science, but about duping people The Climategate emails banished any doubts I had about the bad faith of the AGW promoters.

As to the science, Professor Bob Carter says:
, with the formation of the IPCC, and a parallel huge expansion of research and consultancy money into climate studies, energy studies and climate policy, an intensive effort has been made to identify and measure the human signature in the global temperature record at a cost that probably exceeds $100 billion. And, as Kevin Rudd might put it, “You know what? No such signature has been able to be isolated and measured.”
That, of course, doesn’t mean that humans have no effect on global temperature, because we know that carbon dioxide is a mild greenhouse gas, and we can also measure the local temperature effects of human activity, which are both warming (from the urban heat island effect) and cooling (due to other land-use change, including irrigation). Sum these effects all over the world and obviously there must be a global signal; that we can’t identify and measure it indicates that the signal is so small that it is lost in the noise of natural climate variation.
http://anhonestclimatedebate.wordpress.com/tag/professor-bob-carter/

It is fraudulent to represent that human emissions have any but a trivial effect, which is not measurable.

.

Dear spindoc,

Lol mate okay. You remind me of one of those poor characters who gets around with a sandwich board advertising slung around his neck. Most do it for the money but you do it for free. Here is a dollar in your cup anyway.

Dear imajulianutter,

Thanks for accepting the area around the south pole is experiencing temperatures nearly 4 degrees warmer than normal. Puts things in perspective doesn't it.

So the proof you required for AGW. I'm sure we have waltzed this dance before but here goes. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, humans are directly responsible for increasing the concentration of it in our atmosphere, pure physics says it has to have an impact on temperatures. If you don't accept this tell me what law of physics you are determined to ignore.

That steele is not proof.
It is a mad mass of unsupported assertions from which you try to deduce a result.
You haven't supplied any supported proof of AGW.
To you it is a belief. I need actual proof.

Now tell me what are the normal temps around antarctic for you see I believe your beliefs so suspect that while your claim temps have risen 4degrees and there is no specified starting point they might still be in a range that allows antarctic ice to increase.

In the last couple of weeks Reports have been published about changes that are actually occurring created through climate change. There has been the NCA document outlining climate change in the US. There have also been Reports about how glaciers in West Antarctica have been retreating at a fast pace.

One of the Reports about Antarctica uses data derived from satellites, planes and ships; that is, measurable data. The other Report has arisen from computer modelling, both studies agree that glaciers are in retreat in Western Antarctica.
The NCA Report lists all areas in the US as having been impacted by climate change.
Climate change deniers have yet to produce peer reviewed documents as extensive as those created by climate change scientists.

Newspapers from Alaska and Sweden acknowledge anomalous temperature changes. A tourist document from Greenland acknowledges glacier retreat.
A paper by Professor Lesack in relation to the McKenzie River has shown how temperatures have been increasing over decades (published in 2014). Professor Lesack found that temperatures had been rising over many decades (beginning in 1958), temperatures had increased by 3.2 degrees C in Spring and 5.3 degrees C in Winter.
Have the deniers been able to debunk epidemiological studies in relation to ailments created by climate change ...I don't think so.
Have deniers been able to show that permafrost is stable and not melting... I don't think so.
Have deniers been able to show how coastlines in Alaska are not being savagely eroded as they are no longer protected by ice... I don't think so.
Ice melts through warmth; I'm waiting to have somebody deny this.

Credibility is lost when deniers keep suggesting that temperatures have been in decline over the last 17 years when records have since been broken. There is an over 70% chance we will experience an extensive El Nino event later this year; and going on into next year, how will that be described if it occurs?

If the deniers can come up with a document such as the NCA referenced by over 3,000 papers, then, they might have credibility.

Now that Witless is attempting to misinform us again, we might look at the true situation of AGW, and its invalidity:
“the key question concerns the magnitude of warming caused by the rather small 7 billion tonnes of industrial carbon dioxide that enter the atmosphere each year, compared with the natural flows from land and sea of over 200 billion tonnes.
Despite well over twenty years of study by thousands of scientists, and the expenditure of more than $100 billion in research money, an accurate quantitative answer to this question remains unknown.
Scientists who advise the United Nations (UN) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) worry that a doubling of carbon dioxide over pre-industrial levels will cause warming of between 3 and 6 deg. Celsius, whereas independent scientists calculate that the warming for a doubling will be much less - somewhere between about 0.3 and 1.2 deg. Celsius.
Meanwhile, the scientific evidence now overwhelmingly indicates that any human warming effect is deeply submerged within planet Earth's natural variations of temperature.
Importantly, no global warming has now occurred since 1997, despite an increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide of 8%, which in turn represents 34% of all the extra human-related carbon dioxide contributed since the industrial revolution.
Few of these facts are new, yet until recently the public have been relentlessly misinformed that human-caused global warming was causing polar bears to die out, more and more intense storms, droughts and floods to occur, the monsoons to fail, sea-level rise to accelerate, ice to melt at unnatural rates, that late 20th century temperature was warmer than ever before and that speculative computer models could predict the temperature accurately one hundred years into the future.
It now turns out that not one of these assertions is true. http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/report-gives-the-truth-about-climate-at-last/story-fni0cwl5-1226720428390
AGW is a fraud, Witless, do try to remember, and stop reminding us of what a fool you are.

*Sigh*

Dear imajulianutter,

I did not provide a “mass of unsupported assertions” but rather gave three generally undisputed (by rational human beings) facts.

1. CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
2. Humans are responsible for increasing the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.
3. Basic physics tell us that increased concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere must impact global temperatures.

If you are wishing to challenge any of the laws of physics that derive these facts feel free to inform us of which ones they are so we can directly ascertain where your suspension of reality kicks in.

ant, you have been beaten from pillar to post with your assertions and 'links'; you obviously go to alarmist sites, pick up the latest agitprop and disseminate it without disturbing one neuron. The latest paper by England about the Western Antarctic peninsula about to fall into the sea and droughts in Australia and all the rest is pure bunkum. In fact the WAP is accumulating ice as this 2012 paper shows:

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/pip/2012GL052559.shtml#content

AGW is belief and hysteria.

Mr Redux says:

"1. CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
2. Humans are responsible for increasing the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.
3. Basic physics tell us that increased concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere must impact global temperatures."

All are half-truths at best.

1 Co2 is photoluminescent; this was established by Tyndall and Arrhenius; however in the real world this laboratory result is confounded by water which dominates the heat absorbing properties of CO2; in any event Beer lambert's law means the heat trapping property of CO2 is exhausted at about 100 ppm. This is confirmed by Hottel's principles.

2 Highly problematic. Henry's law shows that in a warming world natural CO2 will increase form the ocean. It is almost certain that most if not all of the increase in CO2 has a natural origin; see:

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=14581

3 Nope; there is no correlation between CO2 and temperature for all time scales.

Back again to the pseudoscience of the NCA Report, ant? I gave you the link to the critique of the report which states “You need to add that you also relied upon non-peer-reviewed grey literature produced by advocacy or political organizations.”.

You come back here again with,” the NCA referenced by over 3,000 papers”. As I pointed out, the NCA Report is pseudo-scientific nonsense, and referencing 3000 papers of non-scientific grey literature changes nothing.

You are strongly attached to fraud-backing, so are protective of the ignorance upon which it is based, but the NCA Report is one pack of lies which you now have to let go.
http://dailycaller.com/2014/05/06/dissenting-scientists-label-white-house-climate-report-as-pseudoscience/

‘morning Steelie,

The question I asked was, If CAGW s is a global issue and requires a global response, where is the global infrastructure? If you do feel there is anything important left, can you tell us what it is?

Your answer was a “sandwich board” ?

I take it there is “nothing” remaining of CAGW infrastructure otherwise you would have been only too eager to tell us?

Just like poor Agro, all you have left is the pseudo-science that you bought from the IPCC, upon which a great CAGW empire was once built.

Now the empire is gone and all you have left to play with is the pseudo-science.

cohenite, it is interesting that you use a 2012 paper to show that the latest 2014 research papers are wrong.
You have no answers in relation to Professor Lesack's research.
Nor do you have have answers for the other matters I mentioned that are actually happening, showing climate change. The problem is that you cannot argue against facts.

cohenite, where is your expertise to say that climate change science is wrong. What area do you have a PhD in?

Where is the evidence to say temperatures have not increased in Alaska, that Inuit do not need relocating, that no slumping is taking place,and coastlines are not being eroded etc.

Can you give evidence that temperatures have not been increasing in NZ; remember, a Court case was fought over this matter and the deniers lost, and had to pay costs ( the Conversation).

cohenite, you know whats going on in Antarctica; so could you please tell NASA that they are wrong in the data (not computer modelling) they have compiled in relation to the Thwaites, Haynes, Pope, Smith and Kohler glaciers. In a past post I have written about the Pine Island glacier.
I'm still wondering how ice melts without warmth, please tell.

Leo, you talk about pseudoscience and provide a newspaper article.
How many temperature records have been broken; Leo, since 1998?
There is a distinct possibility that with an el nino event having a high possibility of happening that record temperatures will occur at the end of the year and into the next. BOM has indicated that there is over a 70% chance of an el nino event happening, and another source says an 80% chance.

Are Courts committing fraud, Leo?

http://theconversation.com/an-insiders-story-of-the-global-attack-on-climate-science-21972

As far as disclosure is concerned, I do not belong to any political Party, I happen to believe what the great majority of climate scientists are saying. I gain no money resources through the stance I take, nor do I seek any. Where possible I seek objective data showing something has actually happened; but deniers still try to suggest that the objective facts are wrong, or obfuscate.
Many who deny climate change are supported by fossil fuel companies or have particular political views; science is different to having a political view.
What's your view cohenite, on some people confusing politics and science?

In reply to your stupid question, ant, the Court acted properly, and gave a decision on the case as presented to it.

The case was badly handled, and NIWA got away with it.

The plaintiff; Climate Science Coalition, obviously did not obtain proper scientific advice for presentation of its case, and lost. It is now seeking information which may enable a fresh approach, but says it is being obstructed by NIWA.
http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/tag/nz-temperature-records/

You have never produced a link to any science which supports AGW. Even if you wish to believe, contrary to scientific observation, that global warming is taking place there is no basis for you to assert that it is human in origin.
As to the scientific majority, the assertion that 97% of climate scientists support the AGW assertion is a lie, so you do not accept the majority view, you accept a blatant lie about that view.

There is no science to show that human emissions have any measurable effect on climate, and to assert otherwise is fraudulent, so you are a fraud-backer. Of course, if you refer me to science which shows otherwise, I will discontinue that view.

Leo, your suggesting that New Zealand temperatures were "fraudulently" taken, when you suggest that your denier mates handled the Court case badly. Quite a breathtaking conspiracy theory

For an analysis of the NIWA case see here:

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=14122

Dear cohenite,

You seem to manage periods of lucidity and then you post rubbish like your last one and once again it reveals how borderline crackpot you really are. I know for Leo, spindoc and imajulianutter that theirs is a political mantra of faith but you are determined, almost pathologically so, to immerse yourself in the science. So for you to reject even basic physics requires a mindset that is frankly incomprehensible to normal people.

1. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. I know this has always been a sticking point to you and you are welcome to it but don't go calling what the rest of the world accepts as a physical fact a 'half truth' when it isn't.
2. I said “Humans are responsible for increasing the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.” and you say this is highly problematic? What? How on earth can our burning of copious tonnages of fossil fuels not increase the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. No link to some incestuous, uncredentialed skeptics article can change that physical fact.
3. Finally you argue with a most basic contention; that an increase in the concentration of a greenhouse gas in our atmosphere must have an impact on temperature. That is what the basic physics says will happen yet you claim that some concocted non-correlation breaks that physical law as well.

This is flat earth stuff. The Leo Lanes, spindocs, and imajulainutter may well chant their mantra from their skeptics madrassa but often it is the self appointed leaders who are the most afflicted. Such is the case here.

“ The problem is that you cannot argue against facts.”. Not true, ant, that is how you always argue.
The fact is that there is no science to support the assertion of AGW, You assert AGW constantly.

“Leo, your suggesting that New Zealand temperatures were "fraudulently" taken” Where did I, or any one else, make such a stupid suggestion?. The case was about adjustment of data. Having read more about it, scientific advice, as I previously suggested, would not have helped as the rulings by the Judge, on expert evidence made the case impossible.
Steele has had another ramble through the rubbish of his mind. He describes the science which we dish up to him as “political Mantras”.
No wonder he never learns anything.

Thanks for that Mr Redux. Your rant is as cogent a piece of fluff, hyperbole, snide condescension, verballing and ratbaggery as any other I have been exposed to in my journey amongst the AGW glitterati.

Let's just take your first point: CO2 is a greenhouse gas, a misnomer wilfully and persistently used by the alarmists since greenhouses warm by a lack of convection not through radiation but like so many other small lies of AGW we'll ignore that and look at the bigger lie.

I said CO2 is photoluminescent, didn't I? Do you disagree with that? And then I mentioned Beer lambert and Hottel, didn't I? Do you disagree that CO2 is subject to Beer Lambert which produces the log constraint on the 'greenhouse' effect of additional CO2?

And do you disagree with Hottel's principles who found that CO2 emissivity levels off at ~200 ppmV in an infinite optical path; an infinite optical path is the basis of the AGW modelling. Hottel Charts are a scientific paradigm. Hottel's data was confirmed in the 1970s by Leveck. So there can be no CO2-AGW because it's effect ceases at about 200ppmV.

Do you disagree with that? If so put up your alternative AGW reality.

Steelee

There you go again with you unique way of deduction. Do you need reminding of your past performances?
Nothing that you say here proves AGW.

I can just as easily assert that since temps are no longer rising but co2 emission are continuing to rise more rapidly (both can be supported with references)there is no relation between the two.

Come on steelee even climate terrorists admit their data from ice cores shows that in the past the planet warmed before co2 levels rose.
Do you want a reference? Ask ant he supplied the link.

Lol

Who me? Chant mantra?
Show me where witless.

“Three Australasian researchers have shown that natural forces are the dominant influence on climate, in a study just published in the highly-regarded Journal of Geophysical Research. According to this study little or none of the late 20th century global warming and cooling can be attributed to human activity.
The research, by Chris de Freitas, a climate scientist at the University of Auckland in New Zealand, John McLean (Melbourne) and Bob Carter (James Cook University), finds that the El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) is a key indicator of global atmospheric temperatures seven months later. As an additional influence, intermittent volcanic activity injects cooling aerosols into the atmosphere and produces significant cooling.”
http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=18243

I have posted this before, and post it again as a sample of what the delusional Steele calls a “political mantra”
A large part of his gravitation to the name” Witless”, comes from his inability to participate in rational discussion, of which labeling a reference to science as a “political mantra” forms only a small part.

Dear cohenite,

CO2 is photoluminescent? What on earth does that even mean?

CO2 is an infrared active green house gas.

You wrote; “CO2 is a greenhouse gas, a misnomer wilfully and persistently used by the alarmists”

Gawd struth!

“The existence of the greenhouse effect was argued for by Joseph Fourier in 1824. The argument and the evidence was further strengthened by Claude Pouillet in 1827 and 1838, and reasoned from experimental observations by John Tyndall in 1859, and more fully quantified by Svante Arrhenius in 1896.”
Wikipedia

So all these gentlemen were 'alarmists' were they?

What about Alexander Graham Bell? He wrote that the continued burning of fossil fuels “would have a sort of greenhouse effect”.

It is a term persistently accepted and used by everyone for well over a hundred years.

You and your three acolytes are so very fringe my friend. A distraction and perhaps sometimes an amusement but little else.

Dear spindoc,

I didn't address your question as you had dodged mine. I can try again if you like.

What does it mean when it states “Antarctic Sea Ice At Record Levels”?

Mr Redux, you are trolling, badly; I explained why the term "greenhouse" is wrong but you ignored that; I mentioned Tyndall and Arrhenius's work but you ignored that; and I referred to Beer Lambert and Hottel's work which you also ignored and to top it off you gasp at my reference to photoluminescence as though your ignorance is the benchmark of truth or some such thing.

The hallmark of the troll is to ignore factual contradiction of whatever pie-brained thing they are advocating and continue insulting and advocating. Well done Mr Redux: member of AGW trolls.

hey Ant

'I happen to believe what the great majority of climate scientists are saying.'

Look what your fellow terrorists believe about consensus science.

'The behaviour of humans is no way to assess the validity of science.'

Agronomist

Dear cohenite,

Troll huh?

Let us see.

You started in the very first post on this thread with “shonks”, “3rd rate scientists” and the “monstrous ambitions” and “corrupt bureaucracy”.

Your next post included: “James slinks in”, “lie”, “discredited”, “scare-mongering”, “pernicious”, and “absurd”.

And on it has gone including you linking those of us who accept a warming planet with Islamists.

Yet you have the temerity to call me a troll? Mate I'm just dishing back a small amount of what you have been serving up the entire thread and yet again you want to sook up about it. Once again you probably have 2 choices, back off or suck it up, I will leave that up to you.

And this load of tosh from you;

“I said CO2 is photoluminescent, didn't I? Do you disagree with that? And then I mentioned Beer lambert and Hottel, didn't I? Do you disagree that CO2 is subject to Beer Lambert which produces the log constraint on the 'greenhouse' effect of additional CO2? And do you disagree with Hottel's principles who found that CO2 emissivity levels off at ~200 ppmV in an infinite optical path; an infinite optical path is the basis of the AGW modelling. Hottel Charts are a scientific paradigm. Hottel's data was confirmed in the 1970s by Leveck. So there can be no CO2-AGW because it's effect ceases at about 200ppmV.”

That is just your little ink trick. Now what did I call you in a past thread? Pearl I think from Finding Nemo. http://youtu.be/rkO03zVFvXA

So I will try again, I asked a very simple question; what on earth does “CO2 is photoluminescent” mean?

Come on mate you can do it, no inking this time.

Note; this little exchange we constantly repeat really has become a broken record, tiresome to all and sundry I would imagine but you guys need to park the baying hounds act, savaging anyone who doesn't agree with you. Then I would be happily fade away.

There is a peer-reviewed survey showing that only 36% of scientists consider that global warming is caused by humans. So you can now be truthful, ant, and still agree with the majority of scientists. Humans do not cause global warming, Nature does.

“People who look behind the self-serving statements by global warming alarmists about an alleged “consensus” have always known that no such alarmist consensus exists among scientists. Now that we have access to hard surveys of scientists themselves, it is becoming clear that not only do many scientists dispute the asserted global warming crisis, but these skeptical scientists may indeed form a scientific consensus”

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/02/13/peer-reviewed-survey-finds-majority-of-scientists-skeptical-of-global-warming-crisis/

Mr Redux asks again what photoluminescence means/ Mr Redux can do his own goggling. And for our edification can explain how and why this quality applies to CO2 at Earth temperatures and not N2 and O2, which are the bulk of the atmosphere; and again why this quality in CO2 is constrained by Beer Lambert and Hottel.

Yeah it's true Mr Redux I do disdain the alarmists with their high and mighty attitudes. But its not me who thinks he can save the world by making other people's lives miserable. Is it?

Now I'm bored with your bibs and bobs; do your homework or admit you can't.

Carbon dioxide is "photoluminescent"?
LOL

I think what Mr Redux is trying to say, in a roundabout way, is that you should actually do some homework of your own before you look like an idiot.

Ooops too late.

Even though I have not yet seen CO2 glow in the dark, if it keeps increasing maybe we are all in for a bright future.

HAHAHA

Where would I get my chuckles from if I didn't visit this backwater occasionally?

Keep it up fellas

The photoluminescence or otherwise of CO2 has no relevance to Steele’s fraud-backing.
Because he has no science to back his situation, he is driven to drag the thread off topic with antics, like stupid questions, rather than admit that his position has no merit. His only gain , so far, by these tactics, is to be referred to as “Witless”.

Bugsy finds him amusing. It would be nice if Bugsy knew somewhere, away from here, where Witless would be appreciated, and persuade him to go there.

I took Cohenite's advice and googled photoluminescent Co2 to bring me up to speed on this interesting phenomena.
http://www.google.com.au/?gfe_rd=cr&ei=Gfl3U9-HE8yN8Qfg8oGYBw#q=photoluminescent+co2&start=10
Perhaps this is such a recent discovery it has not yet made it on the Internet or is it really conceivable that Cohenite is wrong!
:-)

Yeah thanks guys; CO2 absorbs and emits IR not visible light; my bad.

You see, how easy it is to admit a mistake?

Leo, you say climate science is fraud constantly, and occasionally provide a doubtful reference. Yet, thousands of scientists indicate that climate change is happening. You have not produced any proof that climate change is not happening. Climate scientists state that drought, bushfires, and storm surges will occur. It happens that there have been huge floods in Britain, parts of the US, and Serbia/Bosnia. Current floods in Serbia/Bosnia have not been recorded since records have been kept. There are severe droughts in Brasil, Texas and California at present. California has had twice the number bushfires with one sourc calling a particular fire a "firenado".
Recorded temperatures have been higher in Scandinavia,Alaska and Greenland. Several people died in Victoria through heat stroke in January 2014.
Please tell me, and others what causes ice to melt.
We have glacier retreat in the US, Greenland and Western Antarctica.
All of these matters are happening in 2014 and provide a legitimate reason why climate change research should continue. It is fossil fuel corporations that seek to slow down acceptance of climate change. The same strategy that the tobacco industry has used in the past.

That's right ant, climate change is happening; no one disputes that; the issue is what is causing it; my money's on the Sun, you and a decreasing band are saying it is human CO2 [which doesn't glow in the dark].

As for fraud check the emails and we'll see how the Mann vs Steyn case pans out.

ant asserts that I say climate science is a fraud. I have clearly said that the absence of science to support it makes the assertion of AGW a fraud.
I informed her that if she could reference any science which demonstrated a measurable effect of human emissions on climate I would reconsider.
I have asked her what she means by “climate change”. Is she speaking English or using the fraudulent definition produced by the Climate Criminals, the IPCC?
“Climate change” in English, is happening. “climate change” in criminalese, is not happening. She never answers relevant questions,but produces stupid questions to ask
I referred her to the study which shows that assertion of AGW is baseless, but the obligation is on her, making the assertion of AGW to produce the science which she has failed to do
I posted this yesterday, no doubt ant was careful to avoid reading it:
. Three Australasian researchers have shown that natural forces are the dominant influence on climate, in a study just published in the highly-regarded Journal of Geophysical Research. According to this study little or none of the late 20th century global warming and cooling can be attributed to human activity.
The research, by Chris de Freitas, a climate scientist at the University of Auckland in New Zealand, John McLean (Melbourne) and Bob Carter (James Cook University), finds that the El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) is a key indicator of global atmospheric temperatures seven months later. As an additional influence, intermittent volcanic activity injects cooling aerosols into the atmosphere and produces significant cooling.”
http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=18243

cohenite, the sun has been in a period where cooling should have been happening; there has been little sunspot activity.

http://phys.org/news/2013-11-solar-minimal-role-global.html


http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2013/10/no,-climate-scientists-don%E2%80%99t-think-we%E2%80%99re-heading-for-another-little-ice-age/

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/03/more-on-sun-climate-relations/comment-page-3/

Quote from the Real Climate site:
"After all, 2009 was the second-warmest year on record, and by far the warmest in the southern hemisphere, despite the record solar minimum. The solar signal for the past 25 years is not just small but negative (i.e. cooling), but this has not noticeably slowed down global warming. But there are also many unknowns remaining, and the largest uncertainties concern clouds, cloud physics, and their impact on climate. In this sense, I find it ironic that some people still rely on the cosmic rays argument as their strongest argument against AGW – it does involve poorly known clouds physics! - See more at: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/03/more-on-sun-climate-relations/comment-page-3/#sthash.M5NFLAd4.dpuf"

Dear bugsy and warmair,

I was hoping to have cohenite dig his hole a little deeper but that would have been servicing a guilty pleasure so thank you for bring it to a head.

I think the message so called 'photoluminescence' has delivered has been salutary especially in light of his own words;

“to top it off you gasp at my reference to photoluminescence as though your ignorance is the benchmark of truth or some such thing”

“Mr Redux asks again what photoluminescence means/ Mr Redux can do his own goggling.”

And we can't forget Leo's beautiful summation;

“Because he has no science to back his situation, he is driven to drag the thread off topic with antics, like stupid questions, rather than admit that his position has no merit.”

Oh these things are great fun.

hey ant

what about those ice core studies which you supplied which showed climate started warming before co2 increased?

How come they haven't undermined your religious faith.

I have still your link.

Do you need to see it again?

now ant these latest links you supply confirm solar effect on climate.
The terrorists have been denying and ignoring this effect for years.

They now belatedly acknowledge the effects and launch studies to refute the effect but the best they can come up with is assertions their studies show that they only effect the climate by 10% or they are not strong enough to effect immediate cooling by overcoming the warming.

Mate do you realise that if their studies prove defective, wrong or turn out like the ice core studies you will have utterly destroyed your own religion of AGW.

When that occurs what straws are you going to grasp at then.

Very droll Mr Redux. Excitation and emission but not with visible light. It's certainly excited you clowns. I guess the victories are far and few apart when you support AGW.

Now back to business. What about Beer Lambert and Hottel?

I note you and the giggle squad haven't said anything about them. And you won't because you will focus on the photoluminescence and ignore the lack of any evidence for AGW and the disproof of it offered by BL and Hottel.

Typical.

Steele suffers the delusion that he is smart, despite the fact that he has never outsmarted anyone but himself. Part of his delusional state is seeing an illustration of his idiocy, like the irrelevant nonsense over photoluminescsence as a victory for him. It showed him as a timewaster as well as a fraud-backer who ignores the fact that there is no science to support the AGW fraud while he tries to distract people with pointless nonsense.. Cohenite is right but was mistaken on one trifling point. Witless is wrong, but picked up one peripheral error by Cohenite. In his delusional reality, this makes him a winner.
He is, in reality, a loser, backing a fraud, without a shred of science to justify him.

Fraud-backers have managed to block publication of a scientific paper questioning the IPCC’s assertion on the effect of CO2 on climate. Careful, ant, if you read this you will cease to be sufficiently ignorant to assert the AGW fraud.

• “ Professor Bengtsson's research suggested carbon dioxide may be less damaging to the planet than feared
• Says he's been subjected to 'unbearable' pressure from other researchers

• Has warned of increasing politicisation of the once 'peaceful' science
• Others describe a 'poisonous atmosphere' fuelled by plotting researchers”

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2630958/I-victimised-challenging-zealots-says-Professor-Poison-plots-battle-neuter-climate-change-critics.html

Dear Leo Lane,

Sorry mate I have indeed been ignoring you for far too long. It is your turn now and you have my undivided attention.

Let's look together at a recent post from your good self.

You asserted;

“There is a peer-reviewed survey showing that only 36% of scientists consider that global warming is caused by humans.”

My question to you is do you really believe there is a peer reviewed study showing only 36% of scientists consider global warming is caused by humans? If there is could you please provide it because your link certainly doesn't.

Others might regard you as being happy to dump regurgitated garbage into this forum but I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt. You could retract your assertion or stand by it. Your choice.

Steele, thanks for your interest. Here is the link: http://oss.sagepub.com/content/33/11/1477.full.

The survey was done last year, so if you know of a later one, please let us know.

Ant gives us a reference to Realclimate, the site of the Climategate miscreant, Michael Mann.

Mann has sued Tim Ball, a prominent climate scientist, for saying that Mann should be in the State penitentiary for his climate science activities. Mann is now required to produce his work on the infamous “hockey stick to the Court. Perhaps we should await the outcome of the case, before considering Mann as a scientific reference.
So far, Mann has falsely submitted to the Court that he is a Nobel Laureate, and that he was cleared by enquiries into Climategate. He altered a quote from the Muir Russell enquiry in a misleading way, before submission to the Court. All reasons to anticipate a good result for Ball against Mann.

Dear Leo Lane,

Nah mate you have stuffed the link up. You were going to direct me toward a study that showed “a peer-reviewed survey showing that only 36% of scientists consider that global warming is caused by humans”. I've already gone through that one and it ain't it.

You see that particular study drew “from survey responses of 1077 professional engineers and geoscientists” so certainly not all scientists.

More importantly was the location Alberta, Canada, you know the place, that is where the tar sands are, the dirtiest form of petrochemical mining known to man kind.

“To answer this question, we consider how climate change is constructed by professional engineers and geoscientists in the province of Alberta, Canada. We begin by describing our research context and the strategic importance of Canadian oil worldwide, to the economy of Canada, and the province of Alberta. We outline the influential role of engineers and geoscientists within this industry, which allows them to affect national and international policy.”

Of course the survey targeted at a truly unbiased group, the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Alberta (APEGA), keeping in mind “the petroleum industry – through oil and gas companies, related industrial services, and consulting services – is the largest employer, either directly or indirectly, of professional engineers and geoscientists in Alberta”.

APEGA paid for it, distributed the questionnaire in the association's newsletter 'The Pegg”and only 1 in 40 members bothered to reply.

But even given all that only 24% of the respondents thought that humans were having no impact on global warming.

So dear Leo this couldn't have been the survey you had touted because to have used this make the unqualified claim that “only 36% of scientists consider that global warming is caused by humans” would be truly scurrilous and shameful. It would be like quoting tobacco scientist to make the case that smoking isn't harmful.

No I don't think even you would sink that low my friend so I put this down to a simple mistake and invite you to provide a link to the real study.

Mr Redux peddling mischief as usual. The scientists who are sceptical, an oxymoron, which unfortunately has to said because of the capture by AGW ideologues of the description, "scientists" greatly outnumber the alarmists.

The Oregon Petition is a great example of this and a credit for those scientists brave enough to resist the bullying and unscientific tactics of the alarmists:

http://www.petitionproject.org/

AGW is not a product of science but ideology and faith; which is why its supporters are so unreasonable and condescending; they have seen the light.

Dear cohenite,

I believe in your excitement you had really meant to write;

"AGW is not a product of science but ideology and faith; which is why its supporters are so unreasonable and condescending; they have seen the photoluminecence."

I suppose I could trawl the comments for the multifarious errors on your part Mr Redux but since you support AGW which is one big mistake I won't bother; I'll content myself with asking you throw some light, photoluminescent or otherwise on how AGW explains Beer Lambert and Hottel.

I eagerly await your superior knowledge on these vexed issues.

The Oregon Petition? cohenite has really jumped the shark this time around. The signers of this petition are mostly vets and doctors. And the odd person who was dead when they signed it like Charles A Papacostas.

I suppose if you have zombies in your corner, you don't need to have science on your side.

Bait offered and sucked down by the resident alarmist Leviathan.

Of course the Oregon petition is phony; alarmists say so. And of course the alarmists say nothing about the scandal at Oregon University involving Art Robinson who set up the OP:

http://joannenova.com.au/2011/04/the-moment-to-test-what-we-are-made-of-is-here/

Dear cohenite,

Oh you are a silly duffer my friend, AGW doesn't explain anything rather it is a phenomena that is examined by science such a Beer Lambert.

So my question to you is how does Beer Lambert explain AGW? Don't be shy now.

Mr Redux your question doesn't make sense and if it is some ham-fisted attempt at further entrapment so you can shout 'gotcha' as with your cunning trap about a climatically significant period then I'm not interested.

BL establishes a declining effect of heat trapping by extra CO2; for instance read this:

http://www.lavoisier.com.au/articles/greenhouse-science/climate-change/Hammer2007.pdf

Noting Figure 2

Dear cohenite,

I'm so looking forward to reading your link because I'm sure it will be unbiased, peer reviewed, and from a climate scientist, or at least a scientist of some sort.

Okay let us see, the Lavoisier Group? There goes any sense of un-biased material I'm afraid.

No fear, I'm sure it will be peer reviewed, oops, nope.

Well perhaps from a climate scientist? Um, nope.

A scientist of some description? Nope.

Okay mate what would you like me to do now?

Actually Clive Hamilton said of the Lavoisier Group that one can always find one of the following positions in their publications;

1. There is no evidence of global warming.

2. If there is evidence of global warming, then it is not due to human activity.

3. If global warming is occurring and it is due to human activity, then it is not going to be damaging.

4. If global warming is occurring and it is due to human activity, and it is going to be damaging, then the costs of avoiding it are too high, so we should do nothing.

Could you tell the assembled audience where you lie on the spectrum? I think floating somewhere between 1 and 2 but I will let you speak for yourself.

Well Mr Redux, Mike Hammer is a scientist and I knew:

1 you wouldn't read his paper,

2 or if you did you wouldn't understand it,

3 or if you did understand it you would either ignore it

4 or misrepresent it

Pick one Mr Redux.

Mike Hammer is an engineer. Has a Master of Engineering Science from University of Melbourne and works for the equipment manufacturer Agilent Technologies.

Wrong in the first sentence. Need we bother going on?

If you are going to appeal to authority cohenite, at least make sure you have authorities you can appeal to.

Dear cohenite,

In my response I asked “Okay mate what would you like me to do now?”

There are many pieces of presumed evidence that are bandied around in this debate. No one has the time to digest them all. Some are obviously worth the effort but getting one's head around a paper can take time and patience.

So how to judge whether the effort might be warranted? Well as I stated the first assessment should be is it coming from an unbiased source. Proper scientific process is designed to combat bias and that is why the second question should be was the paper peer reviewed. The next obvious question is whether the author is an scientific expert in the field. So if we are discussing AGW an expert would be a climate scientist. If none of the above apply then the last measure would be is the author a scientist.

As this paper has struck out on all counts why are you expecting anyone to put the effort into assessing it especially since you have shown time and time again that you have little understanding yourself of the papers you post here. Your modus operandi is to quickly move to the next obscure piece when challenged.

But this is my commitment, if you can give me a fulsome explanation of Hammer's paper and tell us what it means in the context of AGW, then I will take a proper look at it.

Some how I doubt that is going to happen.

. Steele, thanks for your feedback, it is interesting to see your approach. You imply that the engineers and geoscientists are biased, because they are involved in the oil industry. This makes them knowledgeable in the field of climate science, because their industry is confronted with it. They have to consider the science from the point of view of their industry, and the effect it is alleged to have on climate. This is part of the background of the survey and in no way invalidates its conclusions. Do you invalidate a survey of climate scientists because the Climategate emails show that their approach is not only unscientific, but fraudulent?

You have given us a sample of your reasoning as a fraud-backer.It has no validity. The article to which I originally referred, and of which you were so disparaging gave a reasonable summary. Your careful analysis of it was two words:” regurgitated garbage “. In summary the article said:
Only 36 percent of respondents say humans are the main cause. The authors of the survey report, however, note that the overwhelming majority of scientists fall within four other models, each of which is sceptical of alarmist global warming claims.
Taken together, these four sceptical groups numerically blow away the 36 percent of scientists who believe global warming is human caused and a serious concern.
One interesting aspect of this new survey is the unmistakably alarmist bent of the survey takers. They frequently use terms such as “denier” to describe scientists who are skeptical of an asserted global warming crisis, and they refer to skeptical scientists as “speaking against climate science” rather than “speaking against asserted climate projections.” Accordingly, alarmists will have a hard time arguing the survey is biased or somehow connected to the ‘vast right-wing climate denial machine.’
This is a reasonable summary, and was opposed only by invective from Steele. He sees his whole pitiful effort as a “victory”.
.

What a snob you are agro; typical of the PhDs who are so smart and running the AGW scam. Anyway keep up the 'good' work.

If Hammer, nice fellow that he is, is too low for your tastes Mr Redux than read this about Beer Lambert:

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/173/3992/138.short

They say:

"It is found that, although the addition of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere does increase the surface temperature, the rate of temperature increase diminishes with increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere."

The aerosol findings are also interesting.

But that'll do for me.

“But this is my commitment, if you can give me a fulsome explanation of Hammer's paper and tell us what it means in the context of AGW, then I will take a proper look at it. Some how I doubt that is going to happen.”

Prophecy. It is a gift.

And just to prove it wasn't a fluke;

“Your modus operandi is to quickly move to the next obscure piece when challenged.”

The abstract of an article published in 1971?

Oh my goodness.

Dear cohenite,

Mr Hammer may well be a lovely bloke but he isn't a scientist. Would I put more weight on his offerings than those of a lawyer? Of course. And I'm much more comfortable driving around in a car designed by engineers than by scientists.

But where the science of Global Warming is concerned my main go to source will be scientist, preferably of the climate variety.

Dear Leo Lane,

So this was the article to which you were referring.

Sorry mate but you have proven yourself to be scurrilous and shameful. Even the Heartland Institute chap who wrote the Forbes article qualified his remarks; “Only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis, according to a survey”.

But you gave no qualification did you? Your exact quote is;

“There is a peer-reviewed survey showing that only 36% of scientists consider that global warming is caused by humans.”

The survey group was APEGA members of which scientists make up less than 7% of its membership.

Shame sir shame! That is utter fraud in anyone's eyes. Hang your head.

.
Thanks, Steele, for your further input and demonstration of the mental processes of a fraud-backer, or, in your case, a sneaky fraud-backer. I gave the link to that article in the first post in which I mentioned the survey. You pressed for the link to the peer reviewed survey, which I gave you.
The article, which was the original reference upon which I relied, says “ geoscientists (also known as earth scientists) and engineers hold similar views as meteorologists. Two recent surveys of meteorologists (summarized here and here) revealed similar skepticism of alarmist global warming Claims”.

You left this out, Witless, so your sneaky mendacity has dumped you right in it again.
If only you could escape the delusion that you are smart, you would not create these situations, and make such a fool of yourself

Come in spinner.

Dear Leo,

The precise reason I asked you for a direct link to the survey was so you couldn't use an excuse like “The article, which was the original reference upon which I relied”. You can't blame the article if you had taken the time to read the survey for yourself and I gave you every opportunity to do so.

The same applies now. Have you looked at the surveys of meteorologists referenced by the senior fellow from the Heartland Institute or are you just regurgitating his garbage again? Please note I am not saying the studies are garbage, they are what they are, rather it is his take on them that stinks to high heaven. Since you are mainly quoting him you have brought that odour here.

Go read the studies he speaks of and we can have a conversation.

Thanks, Steele, that is about as rational as your brilliant commentary on the article; "regurgitated garbage".
I know that you have to be careful not to learn anything, since it is your ignorance which sustains your ability to support the AGW fraud, but it does disqualify you from rational discussion.

“That is utter fraud in anyone's eyes” No, Steele, only in the eyes of an ignoramus , like yourself. What I said is supported because of the surveys showing the alignment of the opinions of the scientists. Steele wants to hide part of the evidence known to everyone, to claim something to be untrue. Rat cunning is only rewarded like that in your delusional world, Steele, not in the real world.

I see no reason to question the assertion about the surveys of meteorologists being aligned in their outcome with the survey of engineers and scientists. As Steele points out, the article emanates from Heartland, which I have found to be a reliable source. I have seen no valid criticism of it. The fraud-backers are reduced to criticizing it on the sources of its funding, not on its activity or information.. Steele might want to impugn the reference to the surveys, if it were possible, as it might partially redeem his situation.

I looked at one of the reports which says, in part:.

Only 24 percent of the survey respondents agree with United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assertion, “Most of the warming since 1950 is very likely human-induced.”
Only 19 percent agree with the claim, “Global climate models are reliable in their projection for a warming of the planet.”
Only 19 percent agree with the assertion, “Global climate models are reliable in their projections for precipitation and drought.”
Only 45 percent disagree with Weather Channel cofounder John Coleman’s strongly worded statement, “Global warming is a scam.”

http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2010/02/01/meteorologists-reject-uns-global-warming-claims

I found this quite encouraging. The truth is not yet buried.

Hello, do you know how can I&#12288;post my opinion on the Article section?

I have got to laugh at/with this from Leo Lane:

<<Steele wants to hide part of the evidence known to everyone, to claim something to be untrue. Rat cunning is only rewarded like that in your delusional world, Steele, not in the real world.>>

It's uncanny how unrelated posters, on a disperate assortment of threads, can come up with exactly the same charcter assessment of Steele --LOL.

Dear SPQR,

Not uncanny at all mate.

I have outed both of you for fraudulently posting garbage on this forum. It is a common form of defense from your side to accuse your accuser of the same crime you have been exposed for.

Leo was found out by claiming that “There is a peer-reviewed survey showing that only 36% of scientists consider that global warming is caused by humans.” when the study he quoted showed no such thing.

Banjo got found out posting a picture of a woman apparently holding a sign that said “Behead those who claim Islam is violent”. It was photoshopped nonsense. You defended him by claiming I couldn't “vouch for the whole of London” basically saying there may well have been a burka clad women somewhere in London holding a sign that said “Behead those who claim Islam is violent”.

It was sheer and utter bollocks of course but you persisted in propagating the fraud.

So was there an apology from any of you? No because you think the best form of defense is attack. Having your fraud outed you then claim those exposing you are themselves fraudulent. Truly despicable.

If you had any regard for common ethical behaviour you should have apologised. Instead you accuse others of the crime you have been outed over. That sir is unethical, bereft of common decency, and a sad reflection on you as a person.

You have my pity.

Dear Leo Lane,

I don't often and paste entire scripts but felt it appropriate. Here is an open letter by the researchers of the study you and the other scurrilous fraud Heartland's James Taylor have chosen to distort, misquote, hijack and abuse.

Statement by Neil Stenhouse, Edward Maibach, Sara Cobb, Ray Ban, Paul Croft, Keith Seitter, and Anthony Leiserowitz:

James Taylor’s interpretation of our study is wrong. We found high levels of expert consensus on human-caused climate change.

We appreciate the reader engagement with our recently published paper in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society (doi: 10.1175/BAMS-D-13-00091.1) which explores the perspectives of AMS members on issues related to climate change.  Some readers may wish to flatten the complexity of our data into a narrative line that tells the story they want it to tell, harnessing facts to make a particular case; others may build a case on the nature of the facts. The first is a political process, and the second an empirical, scientific process. Our paper was written as a scientific paper, with the aim of inquiry and discovery.Should some readers wish to ignore or distort our findings for ideological ends, we can’t stop them.  Readers who consider our findings more objectively, however, are likely to reach conclusions that differ starkly from those of Mr. Taylor.

In our paper, we assessed whether or not AMS members are convinced that global warming is occurring, and if so, what they feel is the cause. Among all the respondents, about 7 out of 10 (73%) said human activities have contributed to global warming.  To then assess how this perception varied among respondents with different levels of expertise, we sub-divided respondents based on their self-assessed area of expertise – climate science vs. meteorology and atmospheric science – and whether or not they have published peer-reviewed research in the previous five years, and if so, on what topic. Our premise was that AMS members who are actively conducting and publishing climate science research have greater expertise on climate science than AMS members who have other areas of expertise.

Cont...

Cont...

We found that more than 9 out of 10 climate science experts (93%) who publish mostly on climate change, and the same proportion (93%) of climate experts who publish mostly on other topics, were convinced that humans have contributed to global warming. We also found that about 8 out of 10 meteorologists and atmospheric scientists who publish on climate (79%) or other topics (78%) were convinced that humans have contributed to global warming. Lastly, we found that the group least likely to be convinced that humans have contributed to global warming was AMS members who do not publish research in the peer-reviewed scientific literature; only six out of 10 AMS members in this group (62%) were convinced.

Contrasting with Mr. Taylor's caricature of the results, in the paper we concluded that: "These results, together with those of other similar studies, suggest high levels of expert consensus about human-caused climate change." We continue to stand by this conclusion, and would urge readers not to be misled by selective reporting of our results.

Moreover, in the paper we explained that our findings are likely a conservative estimate of AMS member agreement that human-caused climate change is occurring. Some of our survey respondents told us that had we asked about the warming in the past 50 years – rather than the warming in the past 150 years – more respondents would have answered affirmatively (i.e., indicating that human-caused climate change is occurring).  Their point was that the science more clearly indicates human causation of climate change over past 50 years than over the past 150 years.

End quote.

Fraud-backer!

Okay all fun aside this is pretty unpleasant rhetoric to be bandying around. If you want to continue to engage in it I will send it back with interest. You cracking on about 'fraud-backer' will elicit the same from me. But I really think it would be far less confrontational to dial it back a bit especially if you keep getting dacked all the time as seems to be your wont.

Up to you my friend.

A fairer analysis of the Meteorological Survey is by Judith Curry:

http://judithcurry.com/2013/11/10/the-52-consensus/

And Anthony Watts:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/20/the-97-consensus-myth-busted-by-a-real-survey/

Many AGW scientists either don't know what they are talking about or don't like what their results show. The survey asked:

“Is global warming happening? If so, what is its cause?”

Respondent options were:
&#9726;Yes: Mostly human
&#9726;Yes: Equally human and natural
&#9726;Yes: Mostly natural
&#9726;Yes: Insufficient evidence [to determine cause]
&#9726;Yes: Don’t know cause
&#9726;Don’t know if global warming is happening
&#9726;Global warming is not happening

Just 52% of survey respondents answered Yes: Mostly human.

The other 48% either questioned whether global warming is happening or would not ascribe human activity as the Primary cause.

You really re a joke, Steele. A bad joke, but, nevertheless, a joke.
You have a letter from Stenhouse, vilifying Taylor for his report on Stenhouse’s survey, based on material cobbled up by Stenhouse since Taylor made him aware of the implications of his own survey. That would be fraudulent under your rules, Steele, bearing in mind the basis of your ridiculous accusation against me. You thought you were joking when you called Stenhouse a fraud-backer, but you were completely accurate.
Taylor has some edifying observations on “ why Stenhouse conducted the survey in the first place. Most likely, the psychologist lives in an echo chamber of like-minded global warming alarmists and expected the survey to reveal a broad alarmist consensus. Now that Stenhouse doesn’t like the survey results, he trashes AMS meteorologists’ ability to hold informed opinions on global warming...no surprise given that his job is to spread global warming alarm. The website for the George Mason Center for Climate Change Communication, under whose auspices he conducted the survey, states at the very top, “Climate change is the result of human actions and choices.”
tp://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/12/05/global-warming-alarmist-trashes-his-own-poll-of-meteorologists-showing-no-climate-crisis/

Steele, your objection to “fraud backer” is strange. When you asserted support for AGW, you were asked for the science which supported it. You never supplied it, and I supplied science which shows that the human effect on climate is so insignificant as to be undetectable.

In spite of this, you continue to support AGW, while aware that it is fraudulent.
“Fraud-backer” is an accurate description of your position, so please clarify your objection, or direct us to any science which supports AGW.

In your delusional world you tell me”you keep getting dacked all the time” . In the real world, you have not laid a glove on me, and have simply made a fool of yourself in your pathetic efforts to defend your position.

Leo...hello again....so its all a conspiracy....or is it extended time to think?

Kat

Dear Leo Lane,

Lol.

You really are a joy my friend. I especially like this;

“In the real world, you have not laid a glove on me, and have simply made a fool of yourself in your pathetic efforts to defend your position.”

http://youtu.be/zKhEw7nD9C4?t=1m27s

Thanks, Steele,. I see that you have no science and no objection to “fraud-backer". Your role model may be the Black Knight, but you will never have his finesse

Humans...101...

hey Steelee

The behaviour of humans is no way to assess the validity of science.
Posted by Agronomist, Thursday, 15 May 2014 2:54:46 PM

laugh laugh laugh Agro is one of your mates.

Roll up roll up get your climate change science here:-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeYfl45X1wo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPRd5GT0v0I

http://www.science.org.au/sites/default/files/user-content/resources/file/climatechange2010_1.pdf

http://www.bom.gov.au/state-of-the-climate/

http://climate.nasa.gov/key_indicators/

https://royalsociety.org/~/media/Royal_Society_Content/policy/publications/2010/4294972962.pdf

You sound like a circus spruker warmie.

You sound like a circus spruker warmie.
Quote imajulianutter

You got it in one, I knew their had to be some way to appeal to some of the clowns on this thread.