THE GREAT GLOBAL WARMING SWINDLE

http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/188993.php

"This is the very reason the IPCC does not change the science to suit the policy makers. "
I guess thats why they released the SPM before the scientific report.

"Bush and his cronies have big ties to the fossil fuel industry, so does Howard and his mates - they are the real zealots."
Ooooh yes shadows lurking behind every door....

"They clearly state that solar fluctuations amount to only…
“1/20 that for doubling CO2 (_Q~3.7 Wm-2).”"
Yes and they still produce 0.2C change in the global climate. So a longer term trend over the 20th century produces a larger and more sustained warming....too simple?

"These 17 warmest years could be the warmest years for the last several thousand years"
Only if you believe that broken and dodgy hockeystick study.

"If the solar 11 year cycle ONLY builds up 0.2 degrees and then sinks back down again, why are 13 of the last 17 the hottest on record? Why is there this multi-decade swing upwards when the solar cycle should return everything to “normal” about half the time?"
I think you've missed the point entirely, ie. there has been a large increase in solar activity over the 20th century. The 11 year cycle temperature change of 0.2C just demonstrates how sensitive the climate system is to solar changes.

Problem is Alzo, you were not arguing the longer term trends. You were just trying to make a study say something it did not. You stripped stuff out of context when the authors clearly believe in Global Warming.

I guess they simply remembered that “correlation does not prove causation”.

Yes, just looking at the overall historical graph (below) over 400 years there appears to our inexpert eyes a slight build up of solar activity over the last century but these are changes within tiny forcings. Maybe they need to flatten the graph right out to show the actual impact! (Just a smidge off zilch).

Problems:
A/ Overall activity trends drop just when you need it to rise over the last 13 record breaking hot years.

B/ The same discrepancy you try to pin on CO2 exists for your solar theory. Global temperatures dropped after WW2 through the 50’s! This right when solar activity was highest in the last 400 years!

Correlation is not that good anyway.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Sunspot_Numbers.png
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11639

C/ It doesn’t matter anyway

Wikipedia: “There are no direct measurements of the longer-term variation and interpretations of proxy measures of variations differ; recent results suggest about 0.1% variation over the last 2000 years.[4] The combination of solar variation and volcanic effects has very likely been the cause of some climate change, for example during the Maunder Minimum. A 2006 study and review of existing literature, published in Nature, determined that there has been no net increase in solar brightness since the mid 1970s, and that changes in solar output within the past 400 years are unlikely to have played a major part in global warming.”

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

D/ You’re being arrogant again.

928 studies by climatologists and climatological organizations ALL forgot to look at the sun the way you have. Only YOU have it right. (Insert your biggest, cheesiest wink possible).

Snowbird: You’ve just quoted a very vague and factually incorrect plea to watch “Swindle” and “make up your own mind”, the plea of a Conspiracy theorist to a gullible audience. Why?

"Problem is Alzo, you were not arguing the longer term trends. "
Err yes I was...was using the 11 year cycle sensitivity to demonstrate how much more sensitive the climate system is to solar effects than CO2. I haven't even tried to suggest a mechanism for the solar effect, although I think Svensmark is on the money.

"Yes, just looking at the overall historical graph (below) over 400 years there appears to our inexpert eyes a slight build up of solar activity over the last century but these are changes within tiny forcings."
Maybe this image shows it more clearly...
http://www.john-daly.com/foukal.gif

"A/ Overall activity trends drop just when you need it to rise over the last 13 record breaking hot years."
Again, global temperatures are not rising and haven't been since 2000.

"B/ Correlation is not that good anyway."
Seems better than the CO2 correlation.

"C/ It doesn’t matter anyway"
According to you

D/ You’re being arrogant again.
Questioning a scientific hypothesis is arrogant? Glad you're not a teacher/lecturer.

For all those who whinge about Australian policymakers sitting on their hands with respect to GW, maybe its not such a bad idea

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22213422-601,00.html

"THE head of the world's leading climate change organisation has backed the Howard Government's decision to defer setting a long-term target for reducing greenhouse emissions until the full facts are known.

Despite widespread criticism of the Government's decision last month to defer its decision on cutting emissions until next year, the chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said yesterday he agreed with the approach.

IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri, in Canberra to meet government officials, said it was critical that policies to address climate change be rolled out only after informed debate based on rational thinking and rigorous analysis of the impact of different options.

"Otherwise one might come up with a lot of emotional and political responses that may or may not be the best, and I think in a democracy it's important to see there is an informed debate in officialdom as well as in the public," Dr Pachauri told The Australian yesterday. "

People who distort information to bolster their own beliefs are propagandists, they are definitely not scientists. Alzo says “for all those who whinge about Australian policymakers sitting on their hands with respect to GW, maybe it’s not such a bad idea” and then points to the chair of the IPCC.

Rajendra Pachauri also said today,

“One of the most serious aspects of climate change is the equity dimensions of the problem. The largest responsibility for the increase in concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere lies with the developed countries, but the worst impacts and the highest vulnerability applies to several developing countries …

The world has provided hardly any resources for adaptation measures in the most vulnerable countries, such as the small island developing states where the very survival of human beings is at stake …

The popular approach in developing countries is to emphasise the stand that their governments cannot and will not accept any targets or commitments to limit emissions …

May I also say that the world and posterity demand that Australia also seize this opportunity for reassessing its position and act resolutely on the basis of the scientific evidence and actual observations to chart out a new path of development. Indeed, Australia can be a major example for other developed countries and particularly for its neighbours in Asia that are emerging rapidly at various stages of development towards economic prosperity …”

http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/lead-by-example-on-climate-change/2007/08/09/1186530529171.html

As for the IPCC, it has been summarised as,
“The bottom line is that the IPCC's SPMs are "consensus documents," meaning that all member governments need to agree to the science described in them. Countries that want to do nothing about climate change have incentives to water down the SPMs, while countries that want strong responses have incentives to highlight potential disasters.

And the scientists have an important veto: they can walk out and declare that one side or another is trying to subvert the science. All countries have incentives to be seen as credible on this issue, and so cannot afford to be designated as anti-science.”
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa003&articleID=7A69E4EE-E7F2-99DF-303CDE51F7DD6BBA

I am becoming more familiar with the dirty politics of climate change thanks to the information super highway. I came across this in “Readings Monthly”;

“Guy Pearse’s revelations about Australia’s ‘greenhouse mafia’ made headlines. In High & Dry, this Liberal Party insider shows why John Howard’s climate change policy is reckless, how it came about, and who is behind it. In this damning account, Liberal Party member, lobbyist and former Howard government advisor Guy Pearse takes us behind the rhetoric he once helped write. He reveals that the government has no plans whatsoever to reduce Australia’s emissions, and explains why this is bad for Australia’s economy. He exposes a prime minister wilfully blind to Australia’s real interests – a man who has allowed climate change policy to be dictated by a small group of Australia’s biggest polluters and the lobbyists they fund.”

Then I ‘googled’ Guy Pearse and came up with this article,

http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,22058376-5006348,00.html

And then this,
http://www.highanddry.com.au/extract.cfm

After reading this thread in full I am not surprised that it is the 'sceptic zealots' that are stifling scientific debate, contrary to Ian Plimer's assertions.

Davsab, you say “I found it very revealing that not one OLO global warming ‘sceptic’ had anything to say about Guy Pearse’s book High and Dry … our problem is not really about the science, but the power and control games of politicians and vested interest groups in maintaining the status quo, whose mantra is deny and delay at all costs.” YOU GOT THAT RIGHT! So, why do you think people like Alzo won’t comment on Guy Pearse’s revelations?

Maybe the answer lies in the fact that he links to John Daly who was a doyen of the Lavoisier Group, a well known global warming sceptic crank tank that holds sway with the Australian Govt.

Alzo, Dr Pachauri is very diplomatic and I think he would have to be to get all countries working to solve a world problem. Maybe this is why Howard and Bush are changing their attitude to global warming.

Eclipse Now, my commiserations, just hang in there.