Well, global warming has been proved by statistics to be rubbish, so it is climate change, naturally and regularly occurring, and beyond the control of we mere mortals, who have to adapt, shut up, and get on with life, ignoring the Marxist money-grubbers playing on fear to aid their criminal extortion of huge sums of money from us.

All this article proves is that what passes for standards in 'social science' research is actually pretty poor, and that Don is actually a pretty sucky researcher, by his own admission.

Imagine an actual scientist quoting anonymous comments from a blog as support for their argument? They would be laughed at.

Don mentions a second-hand newspaper account of the Luntz memo, but doesn't bother actually providing a link, which would have taken all of about 2 seconds to find. The article gives the impression that he couldn't find it.

For reference Don here is one of the many that are available on the web:
http://web.archive.org/web/20121030085144/http://www.ewg.org/files/LuntzResearch_environment.pdf

If you have a good read of it Don, I think you will find it very interesting, and if written in 2001, quite prophetic. It's as if most of the conservatives actually read it and used it. Imagine that.

If you can outline what type of search you actually did for Google Scholar that you couldn't get data past 2008 for some reason, I can help you there too.

In nature it's always cyclic, the changes. Now it's time when it's getting warmer. Nothing to worry about.

I would imagine that poverty would be almost banished and the globe cleaned up had Governments not wasted so much money on the gw charlatans. So many have been so dumbed down by pseudo science. What a shameless bunch. No doubt Obama and Rudd still think its the biggest moral dilemma of the century. What a joke and they accuse Hanson of being simple.

Whatever term is used to describe climate change/global warming it is just academic.

My hypothesis is that warmth causes the cryosphere to melt, thaw or regress.
The glaciers on the Andes, Himalayas, European Alps, New Zealand Alps, Alaska and Canada are regressing. Sea ice in the Arctic is diminishing. Permafrost areas in Siberia, Northern Canada, and Alaska are thawing. Ice sheets/shelves/glaciers in Antarctica ( Pine Island, Totten, and Larsen C) and Greenland, are breaking down. Islands off the Siberian coast are eroding as permafrost is thawing. Last winter the Bering Sea was ice free.

If the planet was cooling as some deniers suggest (WUWT had an article about 3 weeks ago); then, a break down in the cryosphere would not be a feature of what is going on.
The Sierra Nevada has had poor snow falls which impact on an already moisture depleted California.

Oceans generally are displaying warmth, “the blob” has reappeared on the Eastern Pacific, high temperature in the Gulf of Mexico has created rain bombs which have impacted on the South East of the USA.
There have been some very serious Typhoons in the Pacific Ocean, an indication of extra warmth in tropical waters. Due to super storms such as Winston and Haiyan, it has been suggested that a category 6 is added to the storm scale.
These factors have been developing over decades.

With all those features, it is a nonsense to suggest there has been no warming of the planet since 1998. It is not necessary to take temperature measurements to show warming is occurring as the Earth is showing signs of warming.
Hypothesis supported.

Hi Don,

Vegetable growers used to call their glass-houses, green-houses. They pump CO2 into them in order to stimulate growth. CO2 does that. Growing plants suck up CO2. It's in what we eat. It's also what we breath out.

World temperatures have risen about a degree Celsius in the past century. Sea-levels have risen a couple of inches.

One would think that, as temperature rises across all that vast area of northern Europe/Asia and Canada, i.e. Siberia etc., the areas capable of raising crops, etc., would advance towards the North Pole by, say, fifty kilometres for every degree rise. If the distance across that stretch of country is about fifteen thousand kilometres altogether, then up to 750,000 square kilometres of virgin country could be opened up for production, for every degree rise in Celsius.

Global warming is also supposed to increase rainfall, in tropical and sub-tropical areas, such as south of the Sahara, and across our North. Again, these are huge areas, maybe a quarter of a million square kilometres in sub-Saharan Africa, and half as much again across our North.

So why not a permanent program of mass tree-planting across our North ? Better rainfall could then be turned to advantage, in order to suck CO2 out of the atmosphere, on an on-going basis, forever, in irrigating vast areas of trees ? Of course, careful selection of species, for milling, forty or fifty years down the track, into furniture, house-frames, weather-boarding, etc., as well as mulching off-cuts for fertiliser ?

As well, permanent employment for thousands of Aboriginal able-bodied people, near their home 'communities' ? Of course, people would need to gain skills in nursery work (imagine how many nurseries across the entire North), irrigation, transport, and eventual milling, with various trades spinning off from there ?

Of course, it would need greatly increased coal production, to keep up the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, well into the future, before nuclear power kicks in. Of course, then, we would have to burn wood in order to keep up world CO2 levels.

What do you reckon ?

Cheers,

Joe

Don,

This article is not addressing the important issues. I suggest focus should be maintained on the key issue that is the Achilles heel of the climate alarmist's agenda. That is, there is no valid evidence that GHG emissions will do more harm than good. The focus needs to be on the ‘damage function’ not on temperature trends, temperature changes, climate sensitivity, or emissions rates. If the damage function shows damages will be negligible, zero or negative (i.e. net beneficial), there is no reason for concern. And no valid justification for mitigation policies or funding the 'climate industry'.

Empirical evidence to derive of calibrate the damage functions is lacking. As IPCC AR5 WG3 Chapter 3 says: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg3/ipcc_wg3_ar5_chapter3.pdf says:

- “Damage functions in existing Integrated Assessment Models (IAMs) are of low reliability (high confidence).” [3.9, 3.12]”

- “Our general conclusion is that the reliability of damage functions in current IAMs is low.” [p247]

- “As discussed in Section 3.9, the aggregate damage functions used in many IAMs are generated from a remarkable paucity of data and are thus of low reliability.”

“Assessing the Social Costs and Benefits of Regulating Carbon Emissions” says:
“Social cost of carbon should be set at zero” http://reason.org/files/social_costs_of_regulating_carbon.pdf

Richard Tol, one of the foremost authorities on estimating the economic cost of climate change, published Figure 3 here: http://www.copenhagenconsensus.com/sites/default/files/climate_change.pdf which I interpret as warming would be net-beneficial to around 4C (if we ignore for now the energy cost item; IMO, he overestimates the cost of energy because he assumes cost of energy will increase significantly in future; Tol seems to believe renewables are the future).

The belief that GHG emissions will be damaging is based on dogma, innuendo and unsupported or poorly supported assumptions.

Bias on impacts of GHG emissions

“The Case Against a U.S. Carbon Tax” explains many, but not all, the problems with the estimates of SCC and of the hypothesized costs of climate change. https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/pa801.pdf

“SCC Calculations

In addition to such procedural problems with the use of the SCC in federal policy, there are deeper conceptual concerns. The average layperson may have the belief that the SCC is an empirical fact of nature that scientists in white lab coats measure with their equipment. However, in reality the SCC is a malleable concept that is entirely driven by analysts’ (largely arbitrary) initial assumptions. The estimated SCC can be quite large, small, or even negative— the latter meaning that greenhouse gas emissions should arguably be subsidized because they benefit humanity—depending on defensible adjustments of the inputs to the analysis.

But the possibility of such negative SCC values is rarely, if ever, reported. A recent study assessed the scientific literature on the SCC and determined that there exists a large and significant publication bias toward reporting only those results that indicated a positive SCC. The authors calculated that the selection bias resulted in a three- to four-times overestimate of the mean SCC value in the current mainstream economics literature. Such selective reporting of results can build upon itself to further enhance the biases in the literature, for example when future studies are developed from extant findings.”

Read the full article here:
http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/pa801.pdf
Especially notice chart atr the top that compares fifteen recent estimates of the climate sensitivity with the values being used in the models for estimating and projecting future climate damages

We don't need to "think" about disastrous ice melts and destructive weather events etc/etc. Just witness them as our everyday reality. So what difference can it possibly make how you label the cause and effect factors!

They tell me you used to be a reputable scientist Don, with an enviable reputation? Surely they jest!?
Alan B.

Two things. First the ABC report that fifteen of the last sixteen years have been the hottest on record. Wow this has not been the case here in Melbourne but if this is true the temperature must have increased world wide but by how much? If this is true if should be quantifiable without any need to abuse people who do not believe it?
Second we were told how much better diesel was for the enviroment and people than petrol. It turns out that forty years later they were completely wrong and now the opposite is the case. No chance of any of those scientific experts being called to account now.
However let us all abuse, complain and deride the current crop of science charlatans and keep reminding them what money grubbing thieves and liars they are!

Its rather unfair and not a little strange to be criticising this article for not addressing the issues others want addressed. Surely it should be examined on its own terms.

Basically the author is wondering aloud as to why he had/has the perception that the term 'climate change' has become more prevalent than 'global warming' when the objective data doesn't appear to support that. I also had/have the view that CC is more preferred these days as compared to the past and that the change occurred around the time that the hiatus became an accepted phenomena.

Repeating what I wrote on the author's website:

For what its worth:
Using Google Trends (which goes back to 2004) we find that the term Global Warming was consistently used more often (and often significantly more often) than ‘climate change’ right up until around 2013. From then one term seems to be used just as often as t’other.

That applies both worldwide and in the USA. Interestingly, in Oz ‘global warming was the preferred term up until around 2008 but since then ‘climate change’ has been consistently more preferred and is now used twice as often as GW.

Loudmouth,

Since you are interested in using the enhanced CO2 levels to help green the planet you might find this of interest:

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v6/n8/full/nclimate3004.html

Gaia is doing the greening all by herself. No need to get the government involved in tree planting. Just let the natural negative feedbacks run their course. More vegetation, more land being 'greened', higher crop yields. What's not to like. Seems like nature just loves all that extra fertiliser.

Where plants do grow better this is offset by where they grow worse.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Er3iD5PIR00

This ‘name change’ conspiracy theory is so funny. Let’s get a few facts established with a few extensive quotes.

The CBD documentary "The Denial Machine" shows Luntz discussing why the Bush regime changed the language from the scary “Global Warming” to the more ambiguous “Climate Change”. (5 minutes)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_WiTVL9iT1w

It was always called Climate Science but in the last 40 years mankind’s influence has more specifically been referred to as Global Warming. The terms are nearly interchangeable, but if there is a difference it is that the scientific papers use Climate Change and layman’s articles and reporting use Global Warming.

As the Skeptical Science summary says:
“In fact, according to Google Books, the usage of both terms in books published in the United States has increased at similar rates over the past 40 years….
…Perhaps the only individual to advocate the change was Frank Luntz, a Republican political strategist and global warming skeptic, who used focus group results to determine that the term 'climate change' is less frightening to the general public than 'global warming'. There is simply no factual basis whatsoever to the myth "they changed the name from global warming to climate change".
https://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-global-warming.htm

Climate science is old. Fourier discovered greenhouse gases nearly 200 years ago.

“By the late 1930’s it was common knowledge that the world had been warming up. Grandfathers were saying that the younger generation had it easy: none of those early frosts and daunting blizzards of bygone times. And in fact, as one magazine put it in 1951, “The old-timers are right-winters arent’ what they were.” The evidence was largely anecdotal. Rivers failed to freeze over as formerly, glaciers retreated, and fish were found north of their former haunts. But detailed analysis of temperature statistics also seemed undeniably to show a rise…
Nobody was worried…
…By the early 1960’s much had changed.
Spencer Weart
Physics Today 1997
http://www.glerl.noaa.gov/seagrant/ClimateChangeWhiteboard/Resources/Uncertainty/climatech/weart97PR.pdf

Climate change was becoming mainstream science by 1958 as the Bell Telephone company Science Hour demonstrates. 1958, enjoy the retro animation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-AXBbuDxRY

Peter
The Cato Institute is funded by fossil fuel companies so naturally they will present material that conflicts with climate science.

The Arctic Ocean is showing how climate change is becoming quite serious.
Dr Joe Romm, a Physicist headlines his article with:

“A collapse in Arctic sea ice volume spells disaster for the rest of the planet. Global warming drives a stunning collapse in sea ice volume.”

Quote:
“The sharp decline in Arctic sea ice area in recent decades has been matched by a harder-to-see, but equally sharp, drop in sea ice thickness. The combined result has been a warming-driven collapse in total sea ice volume; to about one quarter of its 1980 level.”

And:

“Unfortunately, what happens in the Arctic does not stay in the Arctic. The accelerated loss of Arctic sea ice drives more extreme weather in North America, while speeding up both Greenland ice sheet melt (which causes faster sea level rise) and the defrosting of carbon-rich permafrost.”

The article provides a graph displaying the breakdown in sea ice volume:

http://thinkprogress.org/watch-the-arctic-death-spiral-in-this-amazing-video-b63486b99383#.udjgqnpmd

Temperature in the Arctic has been increasing since 1971:

http://pbs.twimg.com/media/CvQeFLbVUAEFX4z.jpg:large

So we have decreasing:

Sea ice thickness
Sea ice extent
Sea ice volume
Loss of multi year ice

Included is an increase in temperature; all of these factors developing over decades.
Also, islands off Siberia have permafrost thawing which has created a situation where they are eroding.

The Arctic has an impact on the climate of the Northern Hemisphere and ultimately the Southern Hemisphere.

Ant,

>"Peter
The Cato Institute is funded by fossil fuel companies so naturally they will present material that conflicts with climate science.
"
Your comment warrants just one response:

It is totally irrelevant who published the analysis. Your comments begins with a pathetic the ad hominem fallacy, one of the signs of intellectual dishonesty. From there on nothing you say is worth addressing. If you have significant points to refute in the article, make them. But if they do not show a significant error that changes the main point of the paper, don't waste your time,

I'll add one more response: the economic cost of sea level rise is trivial and GHG mitigation policies would have no effect. For the costs in perspective, see the link I posted in my comment (it is free access to a paper that is also published).

"Richard Tol, one of the foremost authorities on estimating the economic cost of climate change, published Figure 3 here: http://www.copenhagenconsensus.com/sites/default/files/climate_change.pdf "

Also see: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11027-010-9220-7

Peter Lang,
when you quote people who are known to be 'issue driven' you take away not only from your own credibility, but the credibility of anything you've written in favour of nuclear power. You just confirm the cliche paradigm of the far-right being hostile to climate science, but in favour of nuclear power. If the far left are saying "Climate change is a real and present danger, and so we all have to abandon energy intense lifestyles and live with an Amish amount of electricity in a Powerdown world," then the opposite end of the cliche is people like you who say "There is no climate change, and nuclear power is the answer."
His work has been criticised for projecting costs over too short a timescale,
(Markandya)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Tol#Copenhagen_Consensus

...and for distorting statistics and misleading the public about what the climate science actually concludes in various regards.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?f=climate-contrarians-accidentally-confirm-97-percent-consensus

I don't know why the old, peer-reviewed, demonstrable physics and chemistry of climate science bug you so much Peter, but you seriously detract from your own credibility every time you post like this, and poison the well of all your other papers.

Max Green,

Consider for a long time just how hypocritical is your comment.

You just linked to Skeptical Science. All involved in that site are issue driven, ideologues spreading dogma. You probably have no idea to what extent, because I suspect you are issue driven yourself. The whole climate industry is issue driven.

My response to Ant applies equally to you. Debate the substance the points raised, not who published it.

I'm just in case we care about the environment :)

Peter Lang,
The Tooth Fairy said you're wrong. Debate the substance the points raised, not who published it.

Max Green

The substance of the point you raised was ad hominem. It is debated - or rather entirely debunked - by pointing out that it's a logical fallacy, which you then compound by your appeal to absent unspecified authority plus the Tooth Fairy - how appropriate.

You need to catch up with intellectual developments of 2400 years ago, feller.

All
This is just the same old same old. Every time, the warmists enter the discussion having assumed in their own favour everything in issue without showing evidence or reason, then when challenged respond with nothing but ad hominem and appeal to authority, and then go out backwards and slink off when challenged to show the workings by which they have figured out the alleged net benefits of policy, and how they would know. Then they just pop up again in another thread re-running all the same ideologically-driven nonsense they have completely failed to defend in the prior thread.

Squarking "science" is not science, you fools. It's an appeal to authority.

The fact is, all the models that predicted catastrophic global warming were wrong. And if they were right, we are already beyond the alleged tipping point and policy can't help. So it's nonsense either way.

Peter

ExxonMobil is a step closer to potentially being prosecuted for misleading financial markets. This has occurred through funding denier groups such as the Cato Institute to create confusion in rellation to climate science and their scientists in the 1970s reporting about the emissions of fossil fuels impacting on climate.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/10/26/in-a-loss-for-exxonmobil-ny-supreme-court-orders-oil-giant-to-produce-climate-documents/?utm_term=.0295e868d83b&wpisrc=al_alert-hse

My last post was about how Arctic sea ice is reaching levels of great concern; since 1979 around 75% of sea ice volume has been lost. The trend lines for sea ice extent, amount of multi year ice, ice thickness and volume have all been going in the wrong direction for decades. A reference from a Physicist was provided.

Once the Arctic is ice free the albedo effect is lost, and the dark waters will take up heat energy. A recipe for abrupt climate change.

Already in 1912 a very short article was written about the impact of fossil fuels on the atmosphere:

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/10/21/coals-link-to-global-warming-explained-in-1912/?module=BlogPost-ReadMore&version=Blog+Main&action=Click&contentCollection=Climate+Change&pgtype=Blogs&region=Body&_r=1#more-58613

In the 1850s (Eighteen Fifties) experiments were being conducted by Eunice Foote on the warming characteristics of CO2.

Peter, I accept the science of climate change which has a history going back almost 200 years; I do not accept denier arguments which have a history of a couple of decades +. Denier arguments stem from fossil fuel companies doing everything possible to maintain profits.

The IMF have investigated the cost of fossil fuels, they state the cost is 10 million dollars per minute:

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/may/18/fossil-fuel-companies-getting-10m-a-minute-in-subsidies-says-imf

Ant, have a look at other stuff the IMF are involved with. In fact their principal duty is International money, surely? Those idiots have presided over the biggest debt binge since the late 1700's which resulted in catastrophy for the economies of Europe. We still have to experience this and those over paid idiots will all be on million dollar pensions. When they can start fulfilling their primary function I will listen to what they bleat about anything else!
In 1990 I was involved in a project and we needed to know year round average temperatures and humidity in Melbourne. The nice bloke at the Meteorological Bureau volunteered that temperatures they collected, were remarkably stable for the last 100 years? Now of course they doubled their budget by adding "Climate Change" to their organisation.
Personally I think halve the amount of money available to this nonsense and watch the flim flam artists depart lol.
Also it seems that there are nefarious political figures in the US funding our green revolutionaries, now why would they do that? Save the planet, don't make me laugh!

Peter you say:
"Debate the substance the points raised, not who published it."

For lay people it is possible to debate opinion; but, not possible to debate science.
The volume of sea ice volume in the Arctic Ocean has decreased by about 75% between 1979 and 2016) is a fact, it is not debatable. The volume has been obtained through PIOMAS and confirmed by satelitte.
The "about" is stated on the basis that there are yearly variations; but, the the trend line is continually going down.

I don't think anyone doubts that the term 'climate change' has been around for a long time. The point the author was making was that it seems to have become used more often in the past decade than before. But that's only a perception. It can't be proven one way or t'other although I think my link to Google Trends, in the absence of other data, carries some weight at least vis a vis Oz. The interesting question is why there was change from GW to CC around 2008 and my guess is that that was around the time when the general public started to become aware that world temps weren't doing what they were supposed to do.

Re Tol. I guess its pretty easy to go off and find some derogatory comments about this person or that and then present those as definitive. That is especially so as regards non-alarmists since making derogatory comments about them is the main form of argument used by alarmists.
But Tol can't be all bad. After all, we've now found out that one of the leading lights of the we're-all-gunna-die brigade has been passing Tol's work off as his own in order to gain kudos and taxpayer funding:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3863462/Exposed-university-helped-secure-9million-money-passing-rivals-research-bankroll-climate-change-agenda.html#ixzz4NtxXsjTi

Don, your confusion comes from your assumption that GW and CC are two names for the same thing. In fact, they are two nodes in a chain of causation.
Burning fossil fuels -> More GHGs -> GW -> CC -> economic disruption.
So it's not one or the other, it's both. Which term should be used depends on the focus of the discussion.

(It is further confused by GW not being quite the right term anyway; it should perhaps be Global Heating. E.g. if a block of ice warms by 1 degree, so slips into the sea and melts, the total heat content has gone up, but the average temperature has gone down.)

GW is predicted by the observation of increased GHGs and the known physics thereof.
GW as fact can be inferred from satellite observations that show more radiation coming in than going out.
Direct measure of GW is trickier, largely because of the huge heat buffer of the oceans, and the difficulty of monitoring extensively there and at high latitudes.

A small increase in global average temperatures can have dramatic effects on climate. Small ocean temperature changes cause El Ninos and La Ninas. A small increase in the global average will make some places quite a bit hotter, some cooler, some wetter, some drier. It will certainly increase the water content of the atmosphere, which is likely to cause more powerful cyclones.

Understanding these distinctions is crucial. In an Alaskan cold snap, Sarah Palin's confusion between GW and CC led to her anatomically ironic remark "Global Warming my gluteus maximus".

Actually mhaze, I don;t think Google Trends carries much weight at all. The Google Books ngram at least has what terms were used in texts by authors, so can track change and usage in popular media and literature.

However, Google Trends only looks at search term usage, so the higher the value, the more people were actually searching for that term at that time. The major peak you will see at March 2007 for global warming coincides with the release of the film The Great Global Warming Swindle. So one piece of popular media can have an immense effect that drowns out any actual popular usage of the term by scientists or politicians. And the USA introduces a very large bias when looking at world stats. Australian stats and usage don't really rate much, and both are pretty close to each other for most of the time. When you look at the trends for global warming as a film subject compared to climate change, worldwide, global warming has always outranked climate change and is only after 2008 has the gap really narrowed. But then again, it's searches for those terms as a film subject, so again biased by the films that are out there.

I prefer the book results myself, they look more consistent with writers attitudes and subjects in literature media forms rather than just public perceptions and interest on the internet. Climate change has always been the preferred term in print, so that also does not support the perception that things somehow changed after 2003 either way.

Perceptions are always just that and exceptionally biased in people who wan to believe them, data shows us that things are often different to your perceptions. Scientists are trained to look at data.

Jardine K,
you've got that backward. The deniers stick their fingers in their ears and SHOUT 'findings' from their favourite denialist echo-chambers, and the 'warmists' listen to the latest peer-reviewed science. Sometimes I might reply a little tersely to people like Peter Lang, but it's just because I'm tired of the childish attention seeking antics of denialist trolls. Some mornings I wake up and just can't handle thinking about the sheer stubbornness of denialist trolls ignoring science, every day and night. It must be exhausting!

I just didn't have the energy to explore his paper, and go ask the peer-reviewed community, and have them point out XYZ which has been dealt with 1000 times before, only to have Peter Lang turn around and change the subject without so much as blinking that he had quoted something completely rubbish and debunkable by REAL science... IF Peter had been bothered to look! He's a smart guy, and can google with the best of them. Why he doesn't bother to check what the peer-review circuit says is anyone's guess. Why you don't is anyone's guess. I don't know how one's personal politics trumps what peer-reviewed, empirical, testable, demonstrable physics says, but there's a LOT of TRUMPING going on in the world lately, even in American politics. (LOL!) So who knows WHY you choose to side with the anti-science? But you do. And sometimes I just decide I've got a life, and don't want to waste it researching the tired old cliche's of internet trolls.

Thanks, Don, for your comprehensive survey of the use of the terminology.

An important factor, which you do not mention, is that the IPCC defined “climate change” as being a change caused by human activity, the fraudulent intent being that the use of the term carried the implication that the change was human caused.
“n the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), where climate change refers to a change of climate that is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and that is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods.”
https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/mains1.html
This was a big factor in adoption of the term “climate change”, because the IPCC have no science to support their baseless assertion that global warming is human caused.
The IPCC rely on scurrilous tricks like this to back up their blatant lies about human emissions affecting climate.

There is no science to show that human emissions have a measurable effect on climate.

"This was a big factor in adoption of the term “climate change”, because the IPCC have no science to support their baseless assertion that global warming is human caused."

No, no evidence at all.
That is, unless one is looking at the science. Then there's all the evidence in the world. But if you're a denialist, and you shout into the echo-chamber a few times a day, you might just convince yourself. Just shout "There's no place like home" 3 times and click your Ruby Slippers together, then just maybe, the big bad climate monster will stay away another day. You'll find comfort in your delusions one more night.

But those of us who respect science actually watch demonstrations like the following:

CO2's heat trapping ability:-
Mythbusters: 3 minutes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPRd5GT0v0I

Watch the candle at 90 seconds in! The candle heat demonstration only goes for a minute.
(The rest of the video is great, and demonstrates the accuracy of today's climate models).
http://climatecrocks.com/2009/07/25/this-years-model/

Max, the school dunce.
I know you have no science to show a measurable human effect on climate, so do not go to all that trouble to try to distract from the fact that you are a fraud promoter, with no science.
Here is what a real scientist said:”. The issue is not "is climate change happening", for it always is and always has. Nor is it about whether carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas or not, because all scientists agree that it is.
Rather, 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."...

"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

Max, you should wait until you have left school, before attempting to post on the Forum.

Leo Lane - Listen to our ABC they said that this year is on track to be the hottest ever! Not only that but 15 of the last 16 years have been the hottest ever? Have a think even if the temperature went up by only 0.1 per cent then it would have to have gone up by 1.5 degrees over this time. No answer that I have heard to that one.
All this "Science", what? Surely they give where the measurements are taken from and the "ACTUAL" measurement so it can be verified? Peer review is OK as long as the other bloke is not getting a fat bribe from that US idiot running Clinton's election campaign.

JBowyer.
Thanks, but the fraud promoters claim every year to be “hottest on record”, until someone promotes the truth. It is a ploy which fools a lot of the gullible.
“Any temperature claim of “hottest year” based on surface data is based on hundredths of a degree hotter than previous “hottest years”. This immeasurable difference is not even within the margin of error of temperature gauges. The claim of the “hottest year” is simply a political statement not based on temperature facts. “Hottest year” claims are based on minute fractions of a degree while ignoring satellite data showing Earth is continuing the 18 plus year ‘pause’ or ‘standstill’. See: The Great Pause lengthens again: Global temperature update: The Pause is now 18 years 3 months (219 months)”
http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/01/16/scientists-balk-at-hottest-year-claims-we-are-arguing-over-the-significance-of-hundredths-of-a-degree-the-pause-continues/

Leo

The cryosphere is in a bad state at both Poles.
The volume of sea ice when measured in September is about 75% less than it was in 1979.
Islands off Siberia have permafrost thawing, and as a result major erosion is taking place. Clearly, these islands are not just near the border of the Arctic Circle.
In 2016 two ice breakers were able to travel all the way to the North Pole.
Please provide that reference you gave elsewhere about Arctic sea ice extent post the minimum, so we can all have a good laugh.
Concern has been expressed about the instability of ice sheets and glaciers of Western Antarctica.
Concern has been expressed about the rate of melting of glaciers in the Himalayas; and right around the Earth.

The "blob" has reappeared in the NE Pacific.
Oceans generally have been measured as being warm.
A number of coral reefs have been impacted; not just the GBR.
Rain bombs are happening around the globe giving credence to warm oceans and a warm atmosphere. A warm atmosphere is able to hold more water vapour.

Please provide evidence to show warmth has had no impact on the above occurrences.
Abuse is a clear signal you are not able to do so.

Yes, flea, still posting irrelevant material, because there is no science to show any measurable human effect on climate.
Not much more that a fraud promoting unqualified ignoramus, like yourself, can do, is there?
Are you proposing any action, or do you just want to waste space on the forum?

My comment about your Arctic reference in relation to another article may have been too cryptic; here is a graph displaying what's going on at present:

http://ads.nipr.ac.jp/vishop/#/extent

But, the important times are when maximum and minimum extents are created in April and September. Your reerence had drawn attention to rapid ice formation around 10 days after the minimum had been reached. It had not been a case of misrepreseting the data; but, simply showing a lack of understanding.

Ant, I don;t know why you waste energy replying to most of the trolls on this forum.

Leo lane is in the same camp (maybe he/she is Malcolm Roberts) who continually "bangs" on about proof or empirical evidence as if that proves that CC is not related to increases in CO2 which is from human activities

As all scientists know, you can't even prove Newton's inverse square laws of Gravity but you can infer the reason an apple falls to earth or a spacecraft stays in orbit is the absence of any other explanation and continual observation. In fact stellar paths of Mars landers etc while mathematically computed, are continually monitored just in case Newton made a mistake :)

Similarly we may never prove that CC is happening or having an adverse affect but there are overwhelming physical events that are detectable, observable, measurable and can not be explained with any other credible reasons.

The onus is on LL and co to provide a credible theory on why CO2 can not affect climate and also that CO2 increases are not related to human activity.

Peter King,

The physics does not demonstrate that GHG emissions are doing more harm than good. That is the key issues. There is no empirical evidence to calibrate the damage function. It;s not physics, its economics. People like you and the rest of the deniers of the relevant facts, are the real trolls. You and your ilk are the true deners.

If you can show evidence that GHG emissions are or will do more harm than good, you'd have some basis for your beliefs, But you cant. So, using the same silly arguments as religious zealots use.

Figure 3 here http://www.copenhagenconsensus.com/sites/default/files/climate_change.pdf shows that GW would be net beneficial to beyond 4 C GMST increase if you exclude the projected energy cost component. It should be excluded because there is no valid argument to say energy cost per until will increase. Real cost of energy has been decreasing sine man first began to be able to use and control energy (with short term reversals along the way.

IPCC and researches who have done most of the work on the damage function over 30 years and more all admit the evidence is sparse to not available to show that GHG emissions are harmful. (see my earlier comments on this thread.

Peter Lang, all that tells us is you *LIKE* the skeptical environmentalist and his friends, and do not *LIKE* the messages of Stern, or Garnaut. If you want to read what a real climatologist says about climate change... gee, I don't know... why not read one? Try "Storms of my Grandchildren" by Dr James Hansen instead of the work of an ECONOMIST (who's PAYCHEQUE depends on his ability to tell a positive story!)

Indeed, Hansen agrees with you on nuclear power. So why not read him? Oh, that's right, because you're so right wing you predicted the Australian economy would end if the Labor government introduced a carbon tax. Except... it didn't, and Australia weathered the GFC better than most countries. Seriously dude, you need to take a chill pill on your right-wing anti-science suspicion so people will be more likely to believe you when you talk about nuclear power. The economics of climate change are an enormously complex field, but it really is instructive that you quote Tol. Well done, you've found yourself a friend on this vast internet of ours. I hope you've bookmarked him, it would be a shame to lose one of the only models that tells you what you want in this story. ;-)

It's just a shame that the vast majority of peer-reviewed work in this field like Stern and Garnaut are not so rosy. But they're all part of the 'conspiracy' aren't they?

Peter King says:” The onus is on LL and co to provide a credible theory on why CO2 can not affect climate and also that CO2 increases are not related to human activity.”.
An incredibly ignorant assertion, Peter.
The fraud promoters made the assertion, and have the onus to provide the science upon which they rely. You obviously understand little or nothing about science, but to understand what I have said takes only a little bit of sense.
Obviously the party making the assertion bears the onus
If you had read my post above, I included an extract of the comments of an accomplished climate scientist, Robert Carter. Just to remind you:
” Rather, 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."...
One explanation is that the human contribution of 3.5%being trivial. It is not measurable, so is not scientifically noticed.
Carter dealt with the assertionthat human emissions affected climate:” Given the great natural variability exhibited by climate records, and the failure to date to compartmentalize or identify a human signal within them, the proper null hypothesis – because it is the simplest consistent with the known facts – is that global climate changes are presumed to be natural, unless and until specific evidence is forthcoming for human causation.
... IRichard Feynman is correct to advise us that therefore the hypothesis is invalid, and that many times over.
-hypothesis-and-anthropogenic-global-warming.php

LL says "...An incredibly ignorant assertion, Peter." and also " You obviously understand little or nothing about science, but to understand what I have said takes only a little bit of sense." Both ad hominem slurs but I am not on this forum for a job interview and in my late 60's am not about to provide a CV despite alifetime of work in the science technology sector.

You can not cite " comments of an accomplished climate scientist, Robert Carter." as a source of argument against CC. He never was a climate scientist, he was a palaeontologist, stratigrapher and marine geologist. None of his work was related to climate and as he is deceased, can not be held to account for his denialist incorrect statements. He was paid by the Heartland Institute; an organisiation with "skin in the game" and therefore not a dispassionate voice in a scientific debate.

To return to the original premise of my other post...science requires a theory and then peers work hard to disprove that theory...no scientist has advanced an explanation that disproves AGW is real so AGW is the best fit explanation of all of the measurable and observable global events

Peter King says of climate scientist Robert Carter:” He never was a climate scientist,
As expected of a fraud promoter, Peter, you characterise the truth as ad “hominem”, since you have no sensible comments in respect of my justified assertions of your ignorance.
Robert Carter has so successfully demolished the climate fraud, that all the fraud promoters can say is that he was not a climate scientist. This pathetic lie is all that they have, in the absence of any science to show any measurable human effect on climate.
The United States Senate received Bob Carter’s sworn testimony on climate change, and the UK Court which heard testimony from him on Gore’s video, “Nineteen baseless lies about climate, in twenty minutes” I wonder why they did not notice the climate liars bleating”he is not a climate scientist”
As Carter points out, the assertion on human emissions is a hypothesis, not a proven theory, and he shows where the hypothesis fails, multiple times. It is an unproven hypothesis, and not something to be acted upon.
You do not show any evidence of knowledge of science, Peter, quite the opposite, you are just a standard fraud promoter.

Exxon Mobil is at last doing something about the malicious actions and bad faith of Attorney General Schneiderman and his accomplices:
” A well known federal law doctrine generally forbids U.S. courts from interfering with state prosecutions and investigations. But an exception to the doctrine—one Kinkeade seems interested in vis-à-vis Exxon—allows federal courts to get involved in cases tainted by official “bad faith.”
In another part of its court filing, Exxon noted that Schneiderman has lately indicated he may also be investigating whether the company’s oil and gas reserves can actually be produced in the future because of regulatory efforts to address climate change. “It is now apparent that Attorney General Schneiderman is simply searching for a legal theory, however flimsy, that will allow him to pressure ExxonMobil on the policy debate over climate change,” the company said. This possible thrust of the New York investigation is “particularly egregious because it cannot be reconciled with binding regulations issued by the SEC, which apply strict guidelines to the estimation of proved reserves,” Exxon added.
In fact, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission separately is looking into Exxon’s reserves accounting. The company said in a statement Monday that it is “fully cooperating with an SEC request for information and is confident its financial reporting meets all legal and accounting requirements.”
This is from a Bloomberg article, but for some reason the link will not paste.