“I see you're correcting your error on halocarbons.”

Try this analogy, Graham. A man in cement shoes stands on the bottom of a tank. The water is up to his ankles (naturally occurring halocarbons). Water is then added (man made halocarbons). The man drowns. What killed him? Some might consider what water drowned him. I would say that the cause was the addition of water. Halocarbons were subjected to a similar “scepticism” that AGW enjoys today. A link:

http://info-pollution.com/ozone.htm

“It's got hotter all over Australia (and in fact got hotter in northern Australia first)”

Glad that you acknowledge this, Graham. This fact tends to contradict Spencer's hypothesis. You might remember that the contracting vortex is also the result of global warming. The distinction was to show partial attribution of climatic change to an anthropogenic cause.

“Fester, a rule on this forum appears to be that the more abusive the poster the less they are likely to know, and you're demonstrating this law at the moment.”

“with the Hockey Stick graph being the new poster child of scientific fraud, more egregious than Piltdown Man.”

Graham, I learn from my participation on the forum. I learn from finding answers to your questions. Sadly, your interest seems to be the protection of your ignorance. And especially sad when you demonstrate such ignorance of some very basic science of a subject you have considered to be your hobby horse for some years. There is no shame in ignorance, but there is shame in denial.

“High pressure systems are formed from colder air, and low pressure systems from warmer air.”

Is this always true? Maybe it's time for you to grow.

What conclusions can we draw from this article and are we any further enlightened? I don't believe we are.

Why is Graham alluding to comparatively short-lived “natural” halocarbons when it is well known that these halocarbons are insignificant in comparison to the multitude of carcinogenic halogenated chemicals manufactured, a result of man’s “ingenuity?”

Atmospheric Lifetime - Manmade:

CFC-11...............................45 years
CFC-12............................100 years
CFC-113............................85 years
Halon-1211.........................16 years
Tetrachloroethene..................0.3 years
Chloroform............................0.5 years
Methyl Chloroform..................5 years
Carbon Tetrachloride...............26 years
HCFC-141b..............................9.2 years (Replacement CFC)
Halon-1301................................67 years
HCFC-22..................................10 - 12 years (Replacement CFC)

Atmospheric Lifetime - Natural:

Bromoform .................................100 days Oceanic algae
Methyl Bromide..................................0.7 years Biomass burn, macroalgae,fumigant
Methyl Chloride..............................1.1-1.5 years Biomass burning,macroalgae
Methyl Iodide.................................4 days Solvent, biomass burning

What can we deduce from the ambiguous statements by those cited in this article?:

“To the public, we all might seem like experts, but the vast majority of us work on only a small portion of the problem.

“Humanity's need for energy is so vast that, until a new energy technology is developed, fossil fuels will continue to dominate our energy mix.

The only way to substantially reduce the risk of catastrophic manmade warming in the near-term (the next 20-30 years) would be to bring the daily activities of mankind to a virtual standstill.” (Spencer)

"Catastrophic manmade warming" eh Mr Spencer? So is that a "Yes" or a "No?"

“The freedom to have children without regulation and control is one of the undisputable human rights.” (President Klaus)

What the....?? Please..... Mr Santa Klaus...seek help....shrinks are available!

Returning from an Easter interlude and I notice Roy Spencer has been resurrected like a modern day messiah … forgive me for connecting the irony in this observation.

Graham

“Q&A, what do you mean ‘Walker Circulation cells’? There's only one that I'm aware of.”

You misunderstand Graham, there is a ‘Walker Circulation’ but it comprises three distinct and dynamic cells (over equatorial Africa, Indonesia and South America). These are not to be confused with the Hadley cells.

“Can you explain in clear terms what it is you are trying to say and what bearing it has on Spencer's work?”

And Marohasy’s article? I will try.

Fester was half right, I am “alluding to the fact that evidence for AGW has come independently from a broad range of scientific disciplines.”

The science is complex and it is both aggravating and comical to see people like accountants ‘dumb-down’ science and the scientists … unless of course the science/scientists promote a hypothesis that is ‘favourable’ to their own ideological perspective.

I had difficulty finding Spencer’s paper in the Geophysical Research Letters of the American Geophysical Union website here:

http://www.agu.org/contents/journals/ViewJournalContents.do?journalCode=GL&days=7&viewBy=date&year=2007&month=all&sortBy=pubDate

When I first tried a ‘Google’ for Spencer and his paper, all I came up with was links to so called ‘denier’ web sites like:

Science & Public Policy Institute
Junkscience
Climate Audit
Heartland Institute
Institute of Public Affairs

Even your OLO got a wrap!

This was only demonstrating to me that disciples of Spencer (including Marohasy) were evangelising very well, on a mission poste the cabal in New York.

The point is, there are 1000’s of papers that add to our knowledge, and Spencer’s is but one … and from one journal. There is a preponderance of good research, from such places and journals as;

Journal of Climatology
Science
Nature
Proceedings of the Royal Society B
National Academies (various)
AGU
APS
ACS
Astronomy & Geophysics
Science abstracts
Etc.

Spencer’s research is important, and IF shown to be robust, will contribute in the fine-tuning of GCMs … only time will tell. However, his work must be ‘weighed-up’ against all other research.

Cont’d

Cont’d

You understand the difference between a theory and a hypothesis, many don’t. AGW is a theory and we are living in a period that has been described as the Anthrocene, a geological era influenced by human activity.

We have a situation where the vast body of research ‘backs-up’ the theory of AGW, the theory becomes harder to refute. This is not to say it can’t be.

Understanding the mechanisms of natural climate variability is important for improving climate predictability and properly attributing ongoing climate changes to both human-induced and natural forcings. This is the importance of Spencer’s work.

Everybody

Jennifer says “We do need to relearn the lessons from the collapse of communism nearly 20 years ago. It is not just about climatology; it is also about freedom.”

http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/editorial/story.html?id=d489ec1a-36d4-41fb-b692-6c90faa0dcaa

Is this the type of freedom she alludes to?

Facetious, yes … but this type of behaviour from a democratic conservative government is worrying.

_____________________

Some posters may be interested in these links (others obviously won’t be)

http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2008/320/5

http://in.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idINIndia-32624720080322

http://journals.royalsociety.org/content/102023/

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/117922546/issue

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/106562719/toc

http://www.pages-igbp.org/

http://www.pages-igbp.org/products/newsletters/NL2005_3low_res.pdf

_____________________________

Humanity is confronted with disparities between and within nations (misguided comments by Col exemplify the issues).

We have a worsening of poverty, hunger, ill health and illiteracy, a projected 50% increase in population by mid-century and an increase and continuing deterioration of the ecosystems and resources on which we depend for our well-being.

Unless we change our ways, humanity would be complicit in the loss of up to 30 percent of the Earth’s species, the collapse of large areas of terrestrial and oceanographic food sources, and the creation of millions of ‘climate change refugees’ – all of which threaten national and international security. This is a consequence of AGW theory.

Please, try and disprove it.

At the same time, it is important we integrate environment and development concerns (including how we source and use our energy). If we can focus on overcoming our differences and pay greater attention to living in a more sustainable way, we can have improved living standards for all, better protected and managed ecosystems and a safer, more prosperous future.

Q&A nice to see you back,

Re “Jennifer says “We do need to relearn the lessons from the collapse of communism nearly 20 years ago. It is not just about climatology; it is also about freedom.”

I note the article you posted alluded to some government policy statement and failed to quote from it.

Hardly the rigorous quality of reporting we would expect to come from a serious newspaper.

I am afraid, lacking any textual references to the “policy” reduces it to what is commonly called a “Rant”.

Typically, you rely on it.

“misguided comments by Col exemplify the issues”

Maybe you could identify how any of my statements are supposedly “misguided”, so I can at least place myself back on the path to truth or possibly challenge your lowgrade sledge.

“Please, try and disprove it.”

Yet again Q&A, fresh from prostrating himself before the high alter of science, demonstrates he does not understand basic statistics, he must be too far off from the norm, precariously balanced somewhere which is multiple deviations from the mean.

It is like this Q&A, to disprove anything is the attempt impossible.

All we can rely on is what can be proved and that requires you to prove your contentions are valid,

So it is up to you to prove your assertions, not for me or anyone else to disprove them.

Your response to my post of Saturday, 22 March 2008 7:22:55 AM remain outstanding.

That is where I reviewed what others had said “I'd like to see your science qualifications. I bet they don't exist.”

And I said “In opposing my argument, you are supporting the lie.
In bullying to silence me, you display you true character.”

Dickie I see you seem to be avoiding the challenge I put to you

quote “where I have ever penned heroic support for any cartel of any shape or form.

It is your “intellectual ability” which is now on the line Dickie, “

Defend your statement or be proved a fool whose scientific activity is limited to cleaning the test-tubes in an STD clinic.

Q&A there's only one Walker circulation. Check Wikipedia first http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_circulation#Walker_circulation but there's lots of other Google links that show exactly the same thing. Why don't you just say "Whoops, I got it wrong" and move on? You don't have to be a science guru to be involved in these conversations, just to have an ability to interact with scientific information honestly.

"Honestly" doesn't include smearing a scientist because people and organisations that you don't like have picked up on his work. The alarmist sites are hardly going to pick-up on something which challenges their case, especially as so many of them like RealClimate have put so much time into championing mistakes like the Hockey Stick.

And science doesn't rest on weight of publication. One good theory trumps 100 bad ones. Spencer has access to data that others don't and he's published. I'm happy to wait and see what criticisms there are before jumping to conclusions, unfortunately the alarmists don't do the same thing.

Given the climate of public opinion that has been created it is inevitable that those who are not alarmists will be drawn into the antagonistic behaviour, and they may overstate their case too. You worry about the Canadian government wanting to see press releases before they are sent out by scientists, I worry about the scientists who are ostracised because they question aspects of the global warming theories.

I think that the IPCC is a more coercive organisation than the Conservatives in Canada.