Chris O'Neill,

Do you hope to bolster your position by calling me an "idiot" and stating that your argument is "obviously too difficult for BBgun to understand"? Gratuitous snarking -- commonly used by Lambert and commenters at his blog -- actually undermines your argument.

I have repeatedly stated that the 0.07 figure might lack meaning when quoted out of context. Bolt is a layman, not a climate scientist. He picked up the old 0.07 figure, which is by the way correct (see John Hunter link above), and used it. This tells me that Bolt is not the source to go to for the most accurate and up to date data on sea level rise in the Pacific.

The 5 mm figure supplied by Lambert is useless because the measuring period was too short. The .9 mm long-term figure is in line with sea level rise over the period of the 20th century, showing no indication of acceleration due to global warming. If global warming has not caused sea level rise to accelerate it cannot be causing Tuvaluans to flee.

Further argument of this point is pointless: Lambert's failure to answer my simple "yes" or "no" question above proves I'm right.

Oh Perseus you brave mythological creature. On the 22.1 Perseus wrote:" But those stupid enough to use the number of reported
"political" refugees as evidence of the incidence of persecution would be just as dumb..."
You are dumb Perseus,you have outed yourself. A statement like that says it all.Your intolerence and ignorance is writ large.You have invited the informed and resonable individual to write you off.From henceforth you speak into a vacuum with a mouthful of marbles.
As a diplomat from 1972-1994 I served in a number of countries producing refugees including twice in Pakistan and Afghanistan and also Iran,Indonesia,South Africa and Sri Lanka.From 1995-2000 I served on the Refugee Review Tribunal.
I note you make the common mistake of the intolerant and ill informed of confusing refugees with immigrants.
I have had the task of deciding who was and was not a genuine refugee
and let me assure you Perseus with experience, commonsense and compassion it is not that difficult.It has however been difficult for this government and for many of the people who support it.I think that is because this government and some of its more mindless supporters lack those qualities.
Perseus, what a funny little smokescreen,or would you prefer pseudonym.Were you once an ABC Argonaut? Anyway Perseus was a limited
and mean little bugger.Anyway as you will know from your pretentious little dabling into Greek mythology the name Haigh derives from Heracles.Please try and do something useful for someone else.
Bruce Haigh

Response to Col Rouge:
To answer my question "Who are these profit-hungry scientists?", you respond there is a scientist who researches a crazy solar-energy absorbing vegan. This is invention.

On "Monday, 13 March 2006" (OLO thread 4212) you wrote: [A]cademics are employees of universities or CSIRO or other institutions. Employees don’t get to share the reward available to the true entrepreneur but of course they do not take the same risks." Fair point.

But above, 23 January 2007, you write about the same employees being rewarded with "get a patent or two out of the public funded research to retire on."
Your own words prove you wrong.

Response to Perseus:
Checking more articles will not save Peiser. It will only confirm the fraud. Thanks for sugesting we do so.
Sofar, in 1999 and 2003 Oreskes reported faithfully.

As Tim Lambert mentioned, Peiser counted just 13 explicit references to global warming due to human activity. How easy is it to see this is wrong. Let's look into a third year: 2000 (http://www.staff.livjm.ac.uk/spsbpeis/Oreskes2002.htm)
1. Brewer 'Gas hydrates and global warming': "possible destruction by mankind of one hydrate by mankind" (refering to seabed CH4 retention)
2. Caldeira/Duffy: "high fluxes of anthropogenic carbon dioxide"
3. Canadell et al: "humans have severely disrupted the carbon cycle in ways that will alter the climate system"
4. Dowlatabadi: "socioeconomic and earth systems reduce the probability of success in keeping climate change within a pre-defined tolerable range."
5. Hameed et all: "SO42 observed [in] chemistry and transport processes [require] control strategies as there are serious likely effects on human health [and] on global climate change through direct and indirect forcing."

continued...

/continued

6. Hammitt: "... that human activities will cause substantial changes to global climate"
7. Kotze/O'Connor: "continuing anthropogenic loss of wetlands in the study area and global climate change"
8. McMichael: "cities contribute to the large-scale pressures on the biosphere including climate change"
9. Pittock/Jones: "Adaptation in response to anthropogenic climate change... "
10. Reaser/Pomerance/Thomas: "anthropogenic global warming has contributed to the extensive coral blenching"
11. Rosenzweig: "the soil can [contribute to] the impacts of climate change ... land management has generally resulted in [release of] CO2, CH4 ..."
12. Seacrest/other: "Global climate change [has] relevancy and urgency as a public policy issue [... The] general public holds surprising misconceptions ... including failure to grasp the fundamental connection to CO2"
13. Uri/Bloodworth: "Global climate change and the effect of conservation practices in US agriculture
14. Zorita/Laine: "Relevant atmospheric circulation ... forced with increasing anthropogenic green house gas concentrations."

Pieser's methodology exploits the pre-existing consensus. Scientists don't need to state the obvious in an abstract. Is there is any doubt that global climate is anthropogenic for all papers even though it is not explicitly stated. They built upon previous efforts.

And the real fraud by Pieser is his treatment of cause-neutral abstracts, like those exploring the consequenses rather than the causes of global warming. Suggesting such papers imply a lack of consensus in the scientific community is fradulent.

I have outlined a case, where a particular Benny Pieser used word-trickery and misrepresentation of evidence to hide the consensus attained by the scientific community. This is an issue of grave importance and where human life is at substantial risk. This consensus is so established that convervative polticians have belatedly, but thankfully, have joined it and there is bi-partisan support to find solutions. (Please read my post as of 24 January 2007. Be aware of the tricks.)

I care that the people we entrust to objectively study our world, educate the next generation and provide the basis for prosperity, our scientists, are being maligned as partisan scaremongers.

I care that the truth is being smeared. Does anyone else?

I think it unfair to refer to Benny Peiser or any other climate change sceptic as a fraud. I think it fairer to think of them as Iknowbetterists, commonly known as knowitalls. A good example is the sufferer who chose to ignore a report calling for tsunami monitoring of the Indian Ocean several years prior to the Boxing Day tsunami. But despite this potential for terrible consequences, the highly addictive rushes of omnipotence ensures that sufferers will rarely beat the affliction. I can only imagine the rush that comes from thinking that a calculation done with a calculator on a piece of paper has more validity than the coordinated research of hundreds of scientists.

So what of all the money being spent? $500 million on CO2 geosequestration and $6 billion fixing up the Murray Darling infrastructure, all on the basis of climate change predictions. Is this expenditure a tragic waste? And here is an article about a biofuel entrepreneur claiming to be able to produce biodiesel for less than fifty dollars a barrel. Is research like this not a potential boon for everyone?

http://www.voanews.com/english/AmericanLife/2007-01-22-voa22.cfm

A dual (scientific and economic) critique of the Stern Review can be found in the current Journal of World Economics. It has many interesting things to say about the "peer-reviewed" literature of the "scientific community".